<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Ryck, R. de</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/6999/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Assessment of resolution and intercenter reproducibility of results of genotyping Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of SmaI macrorestriction fragments: a multicenter study (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/8836/</link>
      <pubDate>1998-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Twenty well-characterized isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
          aureus were used to study the optimal resolution and interlaboratory
          reproducibility of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) of DNA
          macrorestriction fragments. Five identical isolates (one PFGE type), 5
          isolates that produced related PFGE subtypes, and 10 isolates with unique
          PFGE patterns were analyzed blindly in 12 different laboratories by
          in-house protocols. In several laboratories a standardized PFGE protocol
          with a commercial kit was applied successfully as well. Eight of the
          centers correctly identified the genetic homogeneity of the identical
          isolates by both the in-house and standard protocols. Four of 12
          laboratories failed to produce interpretable data by the standardized
          protocol, due to technical problems (primarily plug preparation). With the
          five related isolates, five of eight participants identified the same
          subtype interrelationships with both in-house and standard protocols.
          However, two participants identified multiple strain types in this group
          or classified some of the isolates as unrelated isolates rather than as
          subtypes. The remaining laboratory failed to distinguish differences
          between some of the related isolates by utilizing both the in-house and
          standardized protocols. There were large differences in the relative
          genome lengths of the isolates as calculated on the basis of the gel
          pictures. By visual inspection, the numbers of restriction fragments and
          overall banding pattern similarity in the three groups of isolates showed
          interlaboratory concordance, but centralized computer analysis of data
          from four laboratories yielded percent similarity values of only 85% for
          the group of identical isolates. The differences between the data sets
          obtained with in-house and standardized protocols could be the
          experimental parameters which differed with respect to the brand of
          equipment used, imaging software, running time (20 to 48 h), and pulsing
          conditions. In conclusion, it appears that the standardization of PFGE
          depends on controlling a variety of experimental intricacies, as is the
          case with other bacterial typing procedures.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>