J Med Microbiol Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Seward, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Towner, K. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Seward, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Towner, K. J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Seward, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Towner, K. J.

The Journal of Medical Microbiology, Vol 46, Issue 4 314-320, Copyright © 1997 by Society for General Microbiology

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Direct comparison of two commercially available computer programs for analysing DNA fingerprinting gels

R. J. Seward, B. Ehrenstein, H. J. Grundmann and K. J. Towner
Department of Microbiology, University Hospital, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.

Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) fingerprints were generated with M13 and DAF4 primers for 25 isolates of Acinetobacter spp. obtained from 16 different hospitals situated in 12 countries. The overall robustness of the algorithms and the reproducibility of the cluster analysis results generated by two commercially available computer programs (GelCompar and DENDRON) for analysing DNA fingerprinting gels were tested by examining the same set of fingerprinting data independently in two laboratories with the different software packages. Both programs were efficient at recognising and grouping strains with closely similar RAPD fingerprints, i.e., strains which might be expected to have a close epidemiological or evolutionary relationship. However, the relationships suggested for less closely related strains showed considerable variation in terms of the overall similarity or percentage correlation values suggested by the programs. It was concluded that both programs were useful tools for indicating close genotypic relationships between individual strains, but that epidemiological conclusions based on the similarity or correlation values (or the dendrograms derived from them) obtained for less closely related strains should be treated with considerable caution.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
B. A. Lasker, G. Butler, and T. J. Lott
Molecular Genotyping of Candida parapsilosis Group I Clinical Isolates by Analysis of Polymorphic Microsatellite Markers.
J. Clin. Microbiol., March 1, 2006; 44(3): 750 - 759.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Microbiol. Rev.Home page
D. R. Soll
The Ins and Outs of DNA Fingerprinting the Infectious Fungi
Clin. Microbiol. Rev., April 1, 2000; 13(2): 332 - 370.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL J MED MICROBIOL MICROBIOLOGY J GEN VIROL ALL SGM JOURNALS
Copyright © 1997 Society for General Microbiology.