Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 579

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Methods Based on Different Molecular Epidemiological Markers for Typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex Strains: Interlaboratory Study of Discriminatory Power and Reproducibility

Open access
Kremer, K., van Soolingen, D., Frothingham, R., Haas, W. H., Hermans, P. W. M., Martín, C., Palittapongarnpim, P., Plikaytis, B. B., Riley, L. W., Yakrus, M. A., Musser, J. M., van Embden, J. D. A.·1999·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

In this study, the currently known typing methods for Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates were evaluated with regard to reproducibility, discrimination, and specificity. Therefore, 90 M. tuberculosis complex strains, originating from 38 countries, were tested in five restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) typing methods and in seven PCR-based assays. In all methods, one or more repetitive DNA elements were targeted. The strain typing and the DNA fingerprint analysis were performed in the laboratory most experienced in the respective method. To examine intralaboratory reproducibility, blinded duplicate samples were included. The specificities of the various methods were tested by inclusion of 10 non- M. tuberculosis complex strains. All five RFLP typing methods were highly reproducible. The reliability of the PCR-based methods was highest for the mixed-linker PCR, followed by variable numbers of tandem repeat (VNTR) typing and spoligotyping. In contrast, the double repetitive element PCR (DRE-PCR), IS 6110 inverse PCR, IS 6110 ampliprinting, and arbitrarily primed PCR (APPCR) typing were found to be poorly reproducible. The 90 strains were best discriminated by IS 6110 RFLP typing, yielding 84 different banding patterns, followed by mixed-linker PCR (81 patterns), APPCR (71 patterns), RFLP using the polymorphic GC-rich sequence as a probe (70 patterns), DRE-PCR (63 patterns), spoligotyping (61 patterns), and VNTR typing (56 patterns). We conclude that for epidemiological investigations, strain differentiation by IS 6110 RFLP or mixed-linker PCR are the methods of choice. A strong association was found between the results of different genetic markers, indicating a clonal population structure of M. tuberculosis strains. Several separate genotype families within the M. tuberculosis complex could be recognized on the basis of the genetic markers used.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.37.8.2607-2618.1999

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 579

Metadata

Authors
Kremer, K., van Soolingen, D., Frothingham, R., Haas, W. H., Hermans, P. W. M., Martín, C., Palittapongarnpim, P., Plikaytis, B. B., Riley, L. W., Yakrus, M. A., Musser, J. M., & van Embden, J. D. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1999-08
Volume
37
Issue
8
Pages
2607-2618
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2135717170
Cited by
579
References
3
FWCI
25.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Methods Based on Different Molecular Epidemiological Markers for Typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex Strains: Interlaboratory Study of Discriminatory Power and Reproducibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.37.8.2607-2618.1999
The paper
Kremer, K., van Soolingen, D., Frothingham, R., Haas, W. H., Hermans, P. W. M., Martín, C., Palittapongarnpim, P., Plikaytis, B. B., Riley, L. W., Yakrus, M. A., Musser, J. M., & van Embden, J. D. A. (1999). Comparison of Methods Based on Different Molecular Epidemiological Markers for Typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex Strains: Interlaboratory Study of Discriminatory Power and Reproducibility. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.37.8.2607-2618.1999

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.