TABLE 2.
Identification correlation of Capnocytophaga strains identified by 16S rRNA PCR-RFLP versus 16S rRNA sequencinga
| Species identified by RFLP | No. of strains | No. (%) of strains with same identification result by RFLP vs sequencing and comparison to:
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| RDP | BLAST | ||
| C. gingivalis (typical) | 8 | 8 (100.0) | 8 (100.0) |
| C. gingivalis (variant) | 3 | 3 (100.0) | 3 (100.0) |
| C. ochracea (typical) | 46 | 44 (95.0) | 46 (100.0) |
| C. ochracea (variant) | 43 | 18 (41.8) | 43 (100.0) |
| C. sputigena | 7 | 7 (100.0) | 7 (100.0) |
| C. granulosa | 67 | 62 (93.9) | 67 (100.0) |
| C. haemolytica | 8 | 8 (100.0) | 8 (100.0) |
| C. canimorsus | 2 | 2 (100.0) | 2 (100.0) |
| C. cynodegmi | 3 | 2 (66.0) | 3 (100.0) |
a
Restriction endonuclease CfoI was used for 16S rRNA PCR-RFLP. After the 16S rRNA genes of clinical isolates were sequenced, the isolates were identified by comparison of their 16S rRNA sequences to those in the RDP-II and BLAST databases.