Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 7, Number 3—June 2001
Research

Molecular Epidemiology of Serogroup A Meningitis in Moscow, 1969 to 1997

Mark Achtman*Comments to Author , Arie van der Ende†, Peixuan Zhu*, Irina S. Koroleva‡, Barica Kusecek*, Giovanna Morelli*, Ilse G.A. Schuurman†, Norbert Brieske*, Kerstin Zurth*, Natalya N. Kostyukova§, and Alexander E. Platonov‡
Author affiliations: *Max-Planck Institut für Molekulare Genetik, Berlin, Germany; †Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; ‡Central Research Institute of Epidemiology, Moscow, Russia; §N.F. Gamaleya Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, Moscow, Russia

Main Article

Figure 3

Midpoint rooted neighbor-joining (NJ) tree of the proportion of seven housekeeping gene fragments that differed between individual sequence types (STs) among 152 serogroup A isolates. The ST designations are indicated at the right of each twig, and the subgroup designations are shown in bold print in the tree. A scale bar showing the distance of 0.1 is at the lower left. STs 1 and 57, containing six subgroup II strains, are widely separated in this tree although they differ only at the pdhC locu

Figure 3. . Midpoint rooted neighbor-joining (NJ) tree of the proportion of seven housekeeping gene fragments that differed between individual sequence types (STs) among 152 serogroup A isolates. The ST designations are indicated at the right of each twig, and the subgroup designations are shown in bold print in the tree. A scale bar showing the distance of 0.1 is at the lower left. STs 1 and 57, containing six subgroup II strains, are widely separated in this tree although they differ only at the pdhC locus (Table 1). These two STs were on adjacent twigs in a UPGMA tree (data not shown), but that tree separated STs 3 and 59 (subgroup V), that differ only at two of the seven loci (Table 1) and are on neighboring twigs in the NJ tree. Given the low number of allelic differences between STs 1 and 57 and STs 3 and 59, their aberrant relative positions in one or the other tree were ignored and their former subgroup assignments have been retained.

Main Article

Page created: April 26, 2012
Page updated: April 26, 2012
Page reviewed: April 26, 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.
file_external