Volume 7, Number 2—April 2001
THEME ISSUE
4th Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections
State of the Art
Molecular Epidemiology of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Bo Shopsin*† and Barry N. Kreiswirth*
Table 1
Comparison of typing methods used to discriminate Staphylococcus aureus strains
| Method | Total no. of types | No. classified | No. misclassified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phage typing | 18 | 25 | 4 |
| Antibiogram | 21 | 26 | 6 |
| Biotype | 23 | 17 | 2 |
| Plasmids | 20 | 23 | 0 |
| HindIII ribotyping | 16 | 27 | 7 |
| ClaI ribotyping | 9 | 29 | 7 |
| IS typing | 9 | 16 | 3 |
| RFLP typing | 17 | 28 | 3 |
| coa-PCR | 7 | 28 | 8 |
| PFGE | 25 | 28 | 7 |
| FIGEa | 25 | 27 | 3 |
| Immunoblotting | 23 | 28 | 6 |
| MLEE | 21 | 26 | 4 |
| Range | 7-25 | 16-28 | 0-8 |
| Average | 18 | 25 | 5 |
| spa-typing | 13 | 27 | 4 |
aFIGE = field-inversion gel electrophoresis.
Page created: April 17, 2012
Page updated: April 17, 2012
Page reviewed: April 17, 2012
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.