Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

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 access
Malachowa, Natalia, Sabat, Artur, Gniadkowski, Marek, Krzyszton-Russjan, Jolanta, Empel, Joanna, Miedzobrodzki, Jacek, Kosowska-Shick, Klaudia, Appelbaum, Peter C., Hryniewicz, Waleria·2005·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.43.7.3095-3100.2005

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.

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

Cited by

See all 162

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
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.