Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1993 Aug;111(1):71-9.
doi: 10.1017/s0950268800056697.

Comparison of multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MEE), ribotyping, restriction enzyme analysis (REA) and phage typing for typing of Listeria monocytogenes

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MEE), ribotyping, restriction enzyme analysis (REA) and phage typing for typing of Listeria monocytogenes

B Nørrung et al. Epidemiol Infect. 1993 Aug.

Abstract

The discriminatory power of four methods for typing of Listeria monocytogenes was compared. The four methods were multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MEE), ribotyping, restriction enzyme analysis (REA), and a newly developed Danish phage typing system. Ninety-nine human clinical, food and slaughterhouse isolates of Listeria monocytogenes were typed by each method. The most discriminatory single typing method was phage typing with an overall discriminatory index (DI) of 0.88 followed by REA, MEE and ribotyping with DI-values at 0.87, 0.83 and 0.79 respectively. Considering strains from each of the two predominant O-serotypes alone, serotype 1 was best discriminated by the molecular typing methods, in particular REA, which showed a DI of 0.92. The serotype 4 strains were best discriminated by phage typing (DI = 0.78). If two or more typing methods were combined, the combination of REA and MEE were found to be the most discriminatory combination. The DI values were 0.96, 0.74 and 0.90 for serotype 1, 4, and both combined, respectively. Phage typing is a rapid and inexpensive typing method but not as reproducible as the molecular typing methods. It is the most suitable method for mass screening. In situations where results are required to be highly reliable, i.e. when studying the relationships between only a few strains, a single or a combination of molecular typing methods should be used, preferable MEE and REA.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Int J Food Microbiol. 1992 Jan-Feb;15(1-2):51-9 - PubMed
    1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1986 May;51(5):873-84 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Nov;26(11):2465-6 - PubMed
    1. Microbiol Rev. 1991 Sep;55(3):476-511 - PubMed
    1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990 Jul;56(7):2133-41 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources