Vitaliano Cama*†, Robert H. Gilman†‡, Aldo Vivar§, Eduardo Ticona¶, Ynes Ortega#, Caryn Bern*, and Lihua Xiao*
Author affiliations: *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; †Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; ‡Asociación Benéfica Proyectos en Informática, Salud, Medicina y Agricultura, Lima, Peru; §Hospital Arzobispo Loayza, Lima, Peru; ¶Hospital Dos de Mayo, Lima, Peru; #University of Georgia, Griffin, Georgia, USA
Figure. Multilocus polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) analysis of specimens previously identified as Cryptosporidium canis and C. felis. A) Agarose gel electrophoresis of PCR-amplified products of specimens previously identified as C. canis (lanes 1–3) and C. felis (lanes 4 and 5) with molecular tools based on the small subunit (SSU) rRNA, dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), and Cryptosporidium oocyst wall protein (COWP). Molecular markers in all photos are 100-bp ladders. B) RFLP analysis of DHFR-based PCR amplification products using BpuA I restriction enzyme; lanes 1, 4, and 5 are C. hominis; lane 2 is C. parvum; and lane 3 is C. meleagridis. C) RFLP analysis of COWP-based PCR amplification products using Rsa I restriction enzyme; lanes 1, 4, and 5 are C. hominis; lane 2 is C. parvum; and lane 3 is C. meleagridis. D) RFLP analysis of the SSU-based PCR products using restriction enzymes Ssp I (left) and Vsp I (right); the combined patterns for lanes 1 to 3 correspond to C. canis and lanes 4 and 5 to C. felis.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.