Volume 5, Number 3—June 1999
Tuberculosis in the Caribbean: Using Spacer Oligonucleotide Typing to Understand Strain Origin and Transmission
|Spoligotype no. meth. 1||No. of strains harboring this type||No. of strains typed by
||Summary of results obtained by molecular typing methodsb||Clinical and epidemiologic data, origin, observations|
|IS6110 RFLP meth.2||DR RFLP meth.3||DRE PCR meth.4|
|1||2||2||2||2||Different by meth. 2, Beijing IS6110 pattern||Found in Surinam and Guadeloupe|
|2||9||9||2||8||No subcluster by PGRS-RFLP: all strains identical by meth. 2 and 4 IS-type J and by PGRS-RFLP||2 patients from hospital A and 2 from B + 2 patients with same surnames|
|3||3||3||1||3||2/3 strains identical by meth. 2, 3, and 4, IS-type P||Found in Surinam and Guadeloupe, 2 patients from hospital A|
|5||2||1||1||2||2/2 strains identical by meth. 2 and 4, IS type not yet defined||Found in Martinique and Guadeloupe, no evident epidemiologic link|
|12||2||2||2||1||One spacer difference with type 14, identical by meth. 2 and 3, IS-type A||Very common pattern, represent both active transmission and reactivation|
|13||2||2||2||ND||One spacer difference with type 14, identical by meth. 2 and 3, IS-type A||Suspicion of cross-contamination (sampling in the same hospital in 3 days)|
|14||15||15||13||8||Identical by meth. 2 and 3, identical by method 4 (one band), IS-type A||Very common pattern, represent both active transmission and reactivation|
|15||2||2||2||2||2/2 strains identical by meth. 2, 3, and 4, IS-type C||Imported cluster (Surinam or Dominican Republic)|
|17||6||6||1||5||Subclustered by PGRS-RFLP: 17B, 2 strains identical by meth. 2, 3 and 4, IS-type N||17B found in 2 Guadeloupean patients hospitalized in same hospital B|
|29||5||5||4||5||5/5 strains identical by meth. 2, 3, and 4, IS-type B||3 of 5 Guadeloupean patients hospitalized in same hospital B|
|30||2||2||2||2||2/2 strains identical by meth. 2, 3, and 4||2 patients from the same part of Guadeloupe|
|31||2||2||1||1||2/2 strains different by meth.||2 Found in French Guiana and in Guadeloupe, no epidemiologic link|
|33||2||ND||ND||2||2/2 strains different by meth. 4||Found in French Guiana, no epidemiologic link|
|34||2||2||1||2||2/2 strains identical by meth. 4, method 2: inconclusive, under investigation||Patients from French Guiana, suspected to be epidemiologically linked|
|42||3||3||1||3||3/3 strains different by meth. 2 and 4||Found in Guadeloupe (one patient) and French Guiana (2 patients), no link|
|44||2||2||ND||2||2/2 strains identical by meth. 2 and 4||2 patients from St. Maarten (couple)|
|45||6||1||ND||4||4/6 strains identical by meth. 4. (2: pending)||5 patients from Martinique, one from Guadeloupe, under investigation|
|46||3||1||ND||3||2/3 strains identical by meth. 4||Found in a Martinique and a Guadeloupe patient, under investigation|
|50c||29||16||8||20||Subclustered by meth. 2, 4 and PGRS-RFLP, IS-type E (3 pat.) and F (2 pat)||Imported clusters (Haïti), other links under investigation|
|51||4||3||2||3||2/4 strains identical by meth. 2 and 4 (2: pending)||Imported cluster (Haïti) for 2 patients, other links under investigation|
|53c||29||10||8||20||Subclustered by meth. 2, 4 and PGRS, IS-type K (2 pat.) and T (3 pat.)||Patients from cluster T come from the same ward of hospital A, 1996|
|61||2||2||1||1||2/2 strains identical by PGRS-RFLP, IS results: under investigation||Found in French Guiana in Guadeloupe, under investigation|
|63||2||2||1||2||2/2 strains identical by meth. 2 and 4, IS-type R||2 patients from hospital A in Guadeloupe, under investigation|
|64||1||1||ND||1||***||2 isolates from one single patient|
|65||2||ND||ND||ND||(Results pending)||Found in French Guiana, under investigation|
|66||2||2||ND||2||2/2 strains identical by meth. 2 and 4||Found in French Guiana, same surname|
|67||2||1||ND||2||2/2 strains identical by meth. 2 and PGRS-RFLP||Found in French Guiana, under investigation|
|68||2||1||ND||ND||(Results pending)||Found in one Martinique patient and in Barbados, under investigation|
aOf 218 isolates typed, 145 isolates were grouped in 27 distinct spoligo-defined clusters, which were further analyzed by one or more typing methods—IS6110-RFLP (meth. 2), DR-RFLP (meth. 3), and DRE-PCR (meth.4), and sometimes PGRS-RFLP when DRE-PCR or IS6110-RFLP results were inconclusive or unavailable.
bIsolates with matching spoligotypes and matching IS6110 patterns (meth. 1 and 2) or with matching spoligotypes and matching DRE-PCR patterns (meth. 1 and 4) were considered to make up a cluster of epidemiologically associated strains.
c Noninformative spoligotype patterns that lack any discriminating power.
*** Two clinical isolates from a single patient.
RFLP, restriction fragment length polymorphism; DR, direct repeat; DRE, double-repetitive element; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; PGRS, polymorphic GC-rich probe; ND, not done.
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position 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.
- Page created: December 10, 2010
- Page last updated: December 10, 2010
- Page last reviewed: December 10, 2010
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID)
Office of the Director (OD)