TABLE 3.
Comparison of the typing of clinical isolates of V. parahaemolyticus by RAPD and PFGE
| Major RAPD pattern | PFGE (no. of isolates)a
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Pattern | Type | |
| A1 | F1 (7), F2 (1), C2 (1) | F (8), C (1) |
| A2 | J2 (11) | J (11) |
| B1 | A1 (4), A2 (2), A3 (1), E1 (1), M1 (1) | A (7), E (1), M (1) |
| B2 | A1 (1), B6 (1) | A (1), B (1) |
| C2 | K (1) | K (1) |
| C3 | C2 (1), C6 (12), D1 (2), E1 (2), H1 (1), I1 (1), I2 (1) | C (13), D (2), E (2), H (1), I (2) |
| C4 | C6 (1) | C (1) |
| C5 | C2 (4), C3 (1), C4 (1), C5 (7), C6 (7), D1 (3), D2 (2), G2 (2), L1 (1), L2 (1) | C (20), D (5), G (2), L (2) |
| C7 | H1 (1) | H (1) |
| D2 | B1 (2), B2 (3), B3 (3), B5 (2) | B (10) |
| E1 | A1 (1), C2 (1), C4 (1), F2 (1), G2 (1), G3 (1), G4 (6), M1 (2), M2 (1), M3 (2), N (2) | A (1), C (2), F (1), G (8), M (5), N (2) |
| E3 | J1 (1) | J (1) |
a
One hundred and thirteen of the clinical isolates were typed by both RAPD and PFGE (10). The major RAPD patterns and their corresponding PFGE typing results were compared.