Premium
An Evaluation of Molecular Diagnostic Tools for the Detection and Differentiation of Human‐Pathogenic Cryptosporidium spp.
Author(s) -
Jiang Jianlin,
Xiao Lihua
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of eukaryotic microbiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.067
H-Index - 77
eISSN - 1550-7408
pISSN - 1066-5234
DOI - 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2003.tb00623.x
Subject(s) - biology , cryptosporidium , computational biology , evolutionary biology , zoology , microbiology and biotechnology , feces
The performance of 10 commonly used genotyping tools in the detection and differentiation of 7 human‐pathogenic Cryptosporidium spp. ( C. hominis, C. parvum, C. meleagridis, C. felis, C. canis, C. muris and Cryptosporidium pig genotype I) was evaluated. All 3 SU rRNA gene‐based tools could amplify the DNA of 7 Cryptosporidium spp. efficiently. However, the tools based on the antigens TRAP‐C1, TRAP‐C2 and COWP genes, the housekeeping genes HSP70 and DHFR, or a genomic sequence, failed to detect the DNA of C. felis, C. canis, Cryptosporidium pig genotype I, and C. metris. With the exception of 1 tool based on the TRAP‐C2 gene, the PCR‐RFLP or the PCR sequencing tools evaluated in this study could differentiate C. hominis, C. parvum and C. meleagridis from each other, and 2 SSU rRNA genebased tools could differentiate all 7 Cryptosporidium spp. Thus, a thorough understanding of the strength and weakness of each technique is needed when using molecular diagnostic tool in epidemiological investigations of human cryptosporidiosis.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom