Comparing Typing Methods for Enterococcus faecium
Author Information
Author(s): Werner Guido, Klare Ingo, Witte Wolfgang
Primary Institution: Robert Koch Institute, Wernigerode Branch, Wernigerode, Germany
Hypothesis
Is the MLVA typing scheme suitable for differentiating Enterococcus faecium isolates compared to MLST and PFGE?
Conclusion
MLVA is less effective than MLST and PFGE for distinguishing between epidemic-virulent E. faecium isolates.
Supporting Evidence
- MLVA was the least discriminatory method with a Simpson's diversity index of 0.847.
- PFGE showed the highest discriminatory power with a Simpson's diversity index of 0.976.
- MLST provided a median discriminatory index of 0.911.
- MLVA types MT-1 and MT-159 combined isolates of several MLST types.
Takeaway
Scientists looked at different ways to tell apart germs called Enterococcus faecium. They found that one method, called MLVA, wasn't as good as the others.
Methodology
The study used MLVA, MLST, and PFGE to type 58 E. faecium isolates from 31 hospitals in Germany.
Potential Biases
The study's sample collection was biased as it only included hospital E. faecium isolates.
Limitations
MLVA was found to be the least discriminatory method, which may lead to false-positive results in outbreak investigations.
Participant Demographics
Isolates were from patients in 31 German hospitals, with a focus on outbreaks and clusters of infections.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website