The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Multiple-Locus Variable-Number Tandem-Repeat Analysis with Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis, spa Typing, and Multilocus Sequence Typing for Clonal Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus Isolates
Open accessAbstract
Multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA), a new PCR-based method of typing Staphylococcus aureus , was compared to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), spa typing, and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) on a group of 59 S. aureus (mostly methicillin-resistant) clinical isolates. The aim of the study was to establish possible criteria of clustering MLVA patterns and to check concordance levels between the results produced by MLVA and the three other typing methods. As in our earlier study, MLVA turned out to have discriminatory power similar to that of PFGE. Comparison of data obtained by the two approaches allowed us to propose a 70% or ca. 80% cutoff value of the similarity between two MLVA patterns, depending on a cutoff level applied to interpret the PFGE results, 75% or ca. 90%, respectively. The cutoff values corresponded to the difference of up to six or four bands, respectively, among maximum 14 bands in total produced by two isolates in the analysis. The MLVA clusters matched well those obtained by PFGE, and they were also consistent in general with clusters generated by spa typing and MLST, these latter methods characterized lower resolution. Our results suggest that MLVA may be reliable in shorter-term S. aureus epidemiological studies, including analyses of outbreaks and hospital-to-hospital strain transmission events. Well-known advantages of typing methods based on PCR (low cost, short time, and easiness of performance) make MLVA a method that may be useful in a variety of laboratories, including those performing routine microbiological analyses within medical centers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Molecular Characterization, Evolution, and Epidemiology
Lakhundi, S., & Zhang, K. (2018) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00020-18 · Cited by 1,637
The evolution of Staphylococcus aureus
Deurenberg, R. H., & Stobberingh, E. E. (2008) · Infection, Genetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2008.07.007 · Cited by 721
The molecular evolution of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Deurenberg, R. H., Vink, C., Kalenic, S., Friedrich, A. W., Bruggeman, C. A., & Stobberingh, E. E. (2007) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2006.01573.x · Cited by 597
Strommenger, B., Kettlitz, C., Weniger, T., Harmsen, D., Friedrich, A. W., & Witte, W. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.00420-06 · Cited by 288
Tracing isolates of bacterial species by multilocus variable number of tandem repeat analysis (MLVA)
Van Belkum, A. (2007) · FEMS Immunology & Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1574-695x.2006.00173.x · Cited by 203
Metadata
- Authors
- Malachowa, N., Sabat, A., Gniadkowski, M., Krzyszton-Russjan, J., Empel, J., Miedzobrodzki, J., Kosowska-Shick, K., Appelbaum, P. C., & Hryniewicz, W.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2005-07
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 3095-3100
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W1975585714
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.00
- 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 Multiple-Locus Variable-Number Tandem-Repeat Analysis with Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis, spa Typing, and Multilocus Sequence Typing for Clonal Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus Isolates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.43.7.3095-3100.2005
- The paper
- Malachowa, N., Sabat, A., Gniadkowski, M., Krzyszton-Russjan, J., Empel, J., Miedzobrodzki, J., Kosowska-Shick, K., Appelbaum, P. C., & Hryniewicz, W. (2005). Comparison of Multiple-Locus Variable-Number Tandem-Repeat Analysis with Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis, spa Typing, and Multilocus Sequence Typing for Clonal Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus Isolates. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.43.7.3095-3100.2005
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.