TABLE 2.
Molecular description of clusters observed for 57 M. tuberculosis clinical isolates from 39 patients suspected to be epidemiologically linked by spoligotyping, followed by DRE-PCRa
| Cluster | Spoligotype | No. of major DRE-PCR bands (size [bp]) | No. of IS6110-RFLP bands | No. of DR-RFLP bands (size [bp]) | No. of strainsb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | ▪□▪□□□□□□□□□▪▪▪▪▪□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪ | 1 (180) | 4–5 | 2 (4,800; 3,000) | 3 |
| B | ▪▪▪▪▪□□□□□□□□□□□□▪▪□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□▪▪▪▪▪ | 1 (625) | 13 | 1 (5,100) | 1 |
| D | ▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□□□□▪▪▪□□□□ | 1 (1,400) | 8 | 2 (4,300; 3,600) | 2 |
| E | ▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪ | 2 (3,700; 2,600) | 9 | 3 (4,300; 3,500; 1,900) | 2 |
| F | ▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪ | 3 (3,700; 2,600; 1,100) | 7–8 | 3 (4,300; 3,500; 1,900) | 3 |
| H | ▪▪▪▪▪▪□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□▪▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪ | 1 (440) | 11 | 2 (4,750; 3,400) | 2 |
| J | □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□▪□□□□□□▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪ | 2 (2,700; 1,100) | 5–6 | 1 (4,300) | 8 |
| K | ▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪ | 1 (950) | 5 | 2 (4,800; 3,600) | 2 |
| M | ▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪ | 2 (600; 180) | 5–6c | NDd | 3 |
| N | ▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪□□□□▪▪▪▪▪▪▪ | 3 (1,500; 700; 300) | 10 | ND | 2 |
a
Clustering results were later confirmed by IS6110-RFLP and DR-RFLP analyses.
b
The number of clustered isolates was based on spoligotyping followed by DRE-PCR and remained unaltered upon IS6110-RFLP and DR-RFLP analyses.
c
M was not identical to J, based on the positions of bands upon IS6110-RFLP analysis.
d
ND, not done.