Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
editorial
. 1999 Oct;37(10):3428–3429. doi: 10.1128/jcm.37.10.3428-3429.1999

Considerations in Evaluation of the Applicability of DNA Fingerprinting Techniques for Species Differentiation

Mario Vaneechoutte 1,2,3,4, Luc Vauterin 1,2,3,4, Barbara van Harsselaar 1,2,3,4, Lenie Dijkshoorn 1,2,3,4, Paul De Vos 1,2,3,4
PMCID: PMC85597  PMID: 10515737

Recently, Koeleman et al. (6) reported that amplified ribosomal-DNA (rDNA) restriction analysis (ARDRA), i.e., PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of parts of the rRNA cistron, is not suited for (i) strain differentiation within Acinetobacter baumannii and (ii) species differentiation within the genus Acinetobacter, while random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis and selective restriction fragment amplification (AFLP kit, Keygene, Wageningen, The Netherlands) perform well for both purposes.

On the basis of our experience in strain differentiation (1, 3, 5, 11) and species differentiation (2, 5, 7, 10) of strains of the genus Acinetobacter by different techniques, including those compared by Koeleman et al. (6), we are puzzled by some of the results reported.

First, a study of the capacity of methods to differentiate at or below species level requires the inclusion of several strains per species. Since only 1 strain for each described genomic species was investigated (6), together with 13 clinical isolates, conclusions on the applicability of the techniques for species differentiation are impossible.

Second, the conclusions with regard to the strain differentiation capacities of RAPD analysis and ARDRA are not surprising. RAPD analysis is generally applied for typing, including within the genus Acinetobacter (3, 8, 11), while ARDRA is aimed at species but not strain differentiation (2, 7, 9, 10) as it relies on the conserved nature of rDNA. ARDRA aims at overlooking intraspecific differences, which facilitates the recognition of species-specific patterns. Thus, the fact that ARDRA is not suited for typing is well established.

Contrary to the conclusion of Koeleman et al. (6), data from the literature suggest that RAPD analysis is not suited for species differentiation, exactly due to the large degree of intraspecific variability of RAPD fingerprints. Applications of RAPD analysis therefore deal with strain differentiation, including for Acinetobacter (e.g., see references 3, 8, and 11).

With respect to the species differentiation capacity of ARDRA, the conclusions of Koeleman et al. (6) are in apparent contradiction with reports which show that ARDRA allows for rapid and unambiguous species differentiation within the genus Acinetobacter (2, 7, 10) and other genera (9). We showed that all 202 strains belonging to 18 genomic Acinetobacter species can be distinguished, leaving only A. haemolyticus and DNA group 13BJ/14TU unseparated (2). ARDRA differentiates easily between the four species of the A. calcoaceticus-A. baumannii complex (2, 10), three of which are of clinical significance and which are difficult to distinguish phenotypically.

Two explanations for the disagreement between the ARDRA results of Koeleman et al. (6) and those of others are possible. Although no original photographs of the gels are presented, visual interpretation of the digitized gel pictures shows that the densitometric patterns are similar to those described previously (2, 10). However, several additional weak peaks are present and the authors state that up to 10 restriction fragments per enzyme were obtained, which is significantly more than in other studies (2, 7, 10).

This suggests that some bands either are due to incomplete digestion or are artifacts of the digitization procedure. The latter occurs when the software interprets background staining or spots as genuine fragments, and this requires careful comparison of the number of bands on the original gels with that on the digitized pictures.

Furthermore, the calculation of similarity between densitometric curves by means of Pearson product-moment correlation, as done by Koeleman et al. (6), is not appropriate for ARDRA patterns (4), which consist of discrete bands—most often of comparable intensity—and which favor the application of band-matching coefficients such as the Dice coefficient (4). Heyndrickx et al. (4) also used combined restriction patterns for numerical interpretation with GelCompar software (Applied Maths, Kortrijk, Belgium) and showed this approach to be useful, on the conditions that the digital pictures are checked for artifacts and that the Dice coefficient is used.

In conclusion, there are sufficient arguments to support the applicability of ARDRA (2, 7, 10) for species differentiation, whether or not computer analysis is used. In addition, the conclusion of Koeleman et al. (6) that RAPD analysis is applicable for species differentiation is also in contradiction with most literature and cannot be justified, since not enough strains were included. Finally, the typing and identification possibilities of AFLP have been established previously for Acinetobacter by using a large number of strains (5), but one should be cautious when comparing the capacities of a laborious, expensive, and commercialized technique (AFLP) with those of rapid and simple approaches such as ARDRA and RAPD analysis.

We would regret it if the interpretation of Koeleman et al. (6) discouraged researchers from using ARDRA, since this method has been shown to be of great help in the elucidation of the ecology and taxonomy of species of Acinetobacter and many other genera.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Dijkshoorn L, Aucken H, Gerner-Smidt P, Janssen P, Kaufmann M E, Garaizar J, Ursing J, Pitt T L. Comparison of outbreak and nonoutbreak Acinetobacter baumannistrains by genotypic and phenotypic methods. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34:1519–1525. doi: 10.1128/jcm.34.6.1519-1525.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dijkshoorn L, van Harsselaar B, Tjernberg I, Bouvet P J M, Vaneechoutte M. Evaluation of amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis for identification of Acinetobactergenomic species. Syst Appl Microbiol. 1998;21:33–39. doi: 10.1016/S0723-2020(98)80006-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Grundmann H J, Towner K J, Dijkshoorn L, Gerner-Amidt P, Maher M, Seifert H, Vaneechoutte M. Multicenter study using standardized protocols and reagents for evaluation of reproducibility of PCR-based fingerprinting of Acinetobactersupp. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35:3071–3077. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.12.3071-3077.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Heyndrickx M, Vauterin L, Vandamme P, Kersters K, De Vos P. Applicability of combined amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis (ARDRA) patterns in bacterial phylogeny and taxonomy. J Microbiol Methods. 1996;26:247–259. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Janssen P, Maquelin K, Coopman R, Tjernberg I, Bouvet P, Kersters K, Dijkshoorn L. Discrimination of Acinetobactergenomic species by AFLP fingerprinting. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1997;47:1179–1187. doi: 10.1099/00207713-47-4-1179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Koeleman J G M, Stoof J, Biesmans D J, Savelkoul P H M, Vandenbroucke-Grauls C M J E. Comparison of amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis, random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis, and amplified fragment length polymorphism fingerprinting for identification of Acinetobacter genomic species and typing of Acinetobacter baumannii. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:2522–2529. doi: 10.1128/jcm.36.9.2522-2529.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Seifert H, Dijkshoorn L, Gerner-Smidt P, Pelzer N, Tjernberg I, Vaneechoutte M. Distribution of Acinetobacterspecies on human skin: comparison of phenotypic and genotypic identification methods. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35:2819–2825. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.11.2819-2825.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Struelens M J, Carlier E, Maes N, Serruys E, Quint W G V, van Belkum A. Nosocomial colonization and infection with multiresistant Acinetobacter baumannii: outbreak delineation using DNA macrorestriction analysis and PCR-fingerprinting. J Hosp Infect. 1993;25:15–32. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(93)90005-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vaneechoutte M. DNA fingerprinting techniques for microorganisms. A proposal for classification and nomenclature. Mol Biotechnol. 1996;6:115–142. doi: 10.1007/BF02740768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vaneechoutte M, Dijkshoorn L, Tjernberg I, Elaichouni A, De Vos P, Claeys G, Verschraegen G. Identification of Acinetobactergenomic species by amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 1995;33:11–15. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.1.11-15.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vaneechoutte M, Elaichouni A, Maquelin K, Claeys G, Van Liedekerke A, Louagie H, Verschraegen G, Dijkshoorn L. Comparison of arbitrarily primed polymerase chain reaction and cell envelope protein electrophoresis for analysis of Acinetobacter baumannii and A. juniioutbreaks. Res Microbiol. 1995;146:457–465. doi: 10.1016/0923-2508(96)80291-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Oct;37(10):3428–3429.

AUTHORS’ REPLY

Johannes G M Koeleman 1, Jeroen Stoof 1, Dennis J Biesmans 1, Paul H M Savelkoul 1, Christina M J E Vandenbroucke-Grauls 1

We appreciate the comments of Dr. Vaneechoutte and colleagues on the results reported in our article. These comments are focused mainly on the methodology used. In our study, 31 strains of Acinetobacter, including type strains of the 18 genomic species and 13 clinical isolates, were evaluated by ARDRA, RAPD, and AFLP fingerprinting. These PCR-based methods were compared to each other by using the same criteria with respect to identification of members of the genus Acinetobacter at the genomic species level and of A. baumannii at the strain level. In order to avoid subjective comparison of the different fingerprints, the criteria were applied to objective computer-based images.

Briefly, five ARDRA restriction fragment patterns, six primer RAPD patterns, and a radioactive AFLP pattern were separated by gel electrophoresis. Photographs were digitized to TIFF files and subsequently combined in one overall pattern for each strain. Fluorescent AFLP patterns resulted directly in TIFF files. All TIFF files were subjected to the same cluster analysis.

Vaneechoutte et al. state that applicability of techniques for species differentiation requires inclusion of several strains per species, a statement with which we agree from a taxonomic point of view. However, our results indicate that inclusion of only one of each of the genomic strains already shows a lack of differentiation capacity of ARDRA analysis (and not of RAPD or AFLP) which will not improve upon investigation of more strains per species.

We are aware of the fact that ARDRA is applicable at the genus, species, and subspecies levels (1-3). However, we performed the three typing techniques in parallel and used the same procedures and all three of them. Therefore, all strains were subjected to the three techniques. The advantage of this approach is that it made possible the evaluation of whether differences at the strain level were more or less pronounced than differences between species.

We disagree with Vaneechoutte et al. that RAPD analysis is not suited for species identification. The taxonomic range of RAPD is identical to that of AFLP, from species and subspecies level to strain level (1-3).

The disagreement between our ARDRA results and those of others is not as large as stated by Vaneechoutte et al. In fact, all ARDRA patterns obtained in our study are comparable to the patterns showed by Vaneechoutte et al. (1-4). Although we used the same method, additional bands were found which were reproducible and also hardly recognizable on the agarose gel. We concluded that these differences could be due to mutations in some of the 16S rDNA genes (1-2), as shown for E. coli K-12 (1-1), and to the higher sensitivity of the digitization procedure and computer analysis, rather than artefacts. The possibility of incomplete digestion was excluded by an overnight incubation.

The fact that Dice correlation is better than Pearson correlation for ARDRA and RAPD is obvious. We did, however, use the Pearson product-moment correlation to exclude any subjective interpretation and to use identical procedures for all typing methods.

Vaneechoutte et al. state that we used a commercial AFLP technique, but this is not correct. We used a commercial RAPD kit, and we showed that the AFLP with “in-house” chemicals resulted in reliable patterns. We have now optimized the AFLP procedure and can perform this within 24 h.

We do not hope that researchers will refrain from using ARDRA on the basis of our article. However, we hope that most researchers are as critical as Vaneechoutte and colleagues and that this will lead to fruitful scientific discussions.

REFERENCES

  • 1-1.Blattner F R, Plunkett III G, Bloch C A, Perna N T, Burland V, Riley M, Collado-Vides J, Glasner J D, et al. The complete genome sequence of Escherichia coliK-12. Science. 1997;277:1453–1474. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5331.1453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 1-2.Cilia V, Lafay B, Christen R. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:451–461. 1996. Sequence heterogeneities among 16S ribosomal RNA sequences, and their effect on phylogenetic analyses at the species level. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 1-3.Rademaker J W L, de Bruijn F J. Characterization and classification of microbes by rep-PCR genomic fingerprinting and computer assisted pattern analysis. In: Caetano-Anollés G, Gresshoff P M, editors. DNA markers: protocols, applications and overviews. J. New York, N.Y: Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1997. pp. 151–171. [Google Scholar]
  • 1-4.Vaneechoutte M, Dijkshoorn L, Tjernberg I, Elaichouni A, de Vos P, Claeys G, Verschraegen G. Identification of Acinetobacter genomic species by amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 1995;33:11–15. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.1.11-15.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES