Table 2.
Identified clusters
| Cluster | No. of patients with strains identified by: |
Epidemiologyb | Coveragec | Genotype | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFLP + spoligotyping | MIRU + spoligotyping | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 2a | (2) | Haarlem | |
| 2 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 100 | Haarlem |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 (1) | 100 | Not defined |
| 4 | 15 | 20 | 6 (7) | 100 | Haarlem |
| 5 | 2 | 0 | M. bovis | ||
| 6 | 2 | 2 | Haarlem | ||
| 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 100 | Not defined |
| 8 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 100 | Not defined |
| 9 | 2 | 0 | Delhi | ||
| 10 | 2 | 2 | Not defined | ||
| 11 | 2 | 2 | Not defined | ||
| 12 | 2 | 2 | Not defined | ||
| 13 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 100 | Not defined |
| 14 | 2 | 2 | Turkmenistan | ||
| 15 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 100 | Delhi |
| 16 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 100 | Not defined |
| 17 | 2 | 2 | Not defined | ||
| 18 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 100 | Beijing |
| 19 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 100 | LAM |
| 20 | 2 | 3 | Beijing | ||
| 21 | 0 | 2 | Not defined | ||
| Unclustered | 211 | 202 | Various | ||
a
Both patients from cluster 1 were grouped into cluster 4 by MIRU-VNTR genotyping.
b
No. of proven epidemiological connections. Additional unproven, but likely, connections are in parentheses.
c
Percent confirmation by IS6110 RFLP and MIRU-VNTR typing of epidemiological connections revealed by contact tracing.