Abstract
Analysis of PCR-amplified transfer DNA (tDNA) intergenic spacers was evaluated as a rapid method for identification to the species level of 18 species of Legionella known as human pathogens. Type strains (n = 19), reference strains (n = 16), environmental strains (n = 31), and clinical strains (n = 32) were tested. PCR products using outwardly directed tDNA consensus primers were separated on polyacrylamide gels and analyzed with automated laser fluorescence. Test results were obtained in 8 h starting with 72-h-old bacterial growth on solid medium. Species-specific patterns were obtained for all 18 Legionella species tested: Legionella anisa, L. bozemanii serogroups 1 and 2, L. cincinnatiensis, L. dumoffii, L. feeleii serogroups 1 and 2, L. gormanii, L. hackeliae serogroups 1 and 2, L. jordanis, L. lansingensis, L. longbeachae serogroups 1 and 2, L. lytica, L. maceachernii, L. micdadei, L. oakridgensis, L. parisiensis, L. pneumophila serogroups 1 to 14, L. sainthelensi serogroup 2, L. tucsonensis, and L. wadsworthii. Computer-assisted matching of tDNA-intergenic length polymorphism (ILP) patterns identified all 63 environmental and clinical strains to the species level and to serogroup for some strains. tDNA-ILP analysis is proposed as a routinely applicable method which allows rapid identification of environmental and clinical isolates of Legionella spp. associated with legionellosis.
The genus Legionella includes 42 species to date (5, 8, 16, 21, 30). Nineteen species have been recognized to be occasional human pathogens causing Legionnaires' disease and Pontiac fever. These species are Legionella anisa, L. bozemanii serogroups 1 and 2, L. cincinnatiensis, L. dumoffii, L. feeleii serogroups 1 and 2, L. gormanii, L. hackeliae serogroups 1 and 2, L. jordanis, L. lansingensis, L. longbeachae serogroups 1 and 2, L. lytica, L. maceachernii, L. micdadei, L. oakridgensis, L. parisiensis, L. pneumophila serogroups 1 to 14, L. sainthelensi serogroup 2, L. tucsonensis, and L. wadsworthii (2, 3, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30). L. pneumophila is the most frequent species isolated from patients with either community- or hospital-acquired legionellosis. Other species, mainly L. micdadei, account for approximately 15% of cases of Legionella pneumonia and are more often reported in cases of Pontiac fever. However, the importance of those non-pneumophila species in human disease may be underestimated. Phenotypic tests currently in use for the identification of Legionella species, like cell wall fatty acid and ubiquinone analyses by chromatographic techniques, are relatively cumbersome and time consuming and do not allow the identification of all species. Direct fluorescent antibody typing (DFA) often leads to cross-reactions. The DNA-DNA hybridization technique is too technically demanding for routine application, and its use is limited to taxonomic studies in reference centers (2, 30).
Several recently developed DNA analysis techniques offer alternative approaches for the identification of microorganisms for which determination of phenotypic characteristics is an unsatisfactory identification method. These techniques for the identification of Legionella strains include analysis of the intergenic 16S-23S ribosomal spacer region (ISR) (8, 9, 13, 21, 22), random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis (1, 15, 16), and sequence analysis of the amplified mip gene (20). These three methods discriminate among the majority of Legionella species examined to date. Similar performances were obtained with molecular phenotypic techniques based on numerical analysis of whole-cell protein sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) (27) or of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiles (5).
Analysis of transfer DNA-intergenic length polymorphism (tDNA-ILP), based on PCR amplification of spacers between tRNA genes, initially shown by Welsh and McClelland to distinguish species of pyogenic streptococci (28), was successfully applied to species identification of bacteria belonging to the genera Acinetobacter (6), Staphylococcus (17), Listeria (26), and Streptococcus (4). In this study, we evaluated a method of tDNA-ILP analysis using laser scanning of fluorescently labeled amplicons for identification of all clinically significant species of Legionella, except for L. lytica, a species which requires amoebal cocultivation techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Bacterial strains.
Type (n = 19) and reference (n = 16) strains were purchased from the National Collections of Type Cultures (NCTC), the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), and the Collection of Bacterial Strains of Institut Pasteur (CIP) (Table 1). Clinical (n = 31) and environmental (n = 32) strains from the Centre National de Référence des Legionella, Lyon, France, and the Centre de Référence des Legionella, Brussels, Belgium, were previously characterized by a variety of biochemical tests, including direct fluorescent antibody, cell wall composition, protein profile, RAPD, ISR, and DNA-DNA hybridization analyses as described in Table 1.
TABLE 1.
Legionella strains and genotypic identification
| Speciesa and strain no. | Strain type or source | % tDNA-ILP pattern similarity with type or reference strain (species)ab
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Best match | Second-best match | ||
| L. anisa | |||
| CIP 103870c | Type strain | ||
| Lyon 1A32d | Environmental strain | 96 (L. anisa) | 85 (L. dumoffii) |
| CH47-C1d | Unknown | 99 (L. anisa) | 91 (L. dumoffii) |
| L. bozemanii sg 1 | |||
| NCTC 11368e | Type strain | ||
| LY 86.88d | Clinical strain | 95 (L. bozemanii sg 1) | 90 (L. parisiensis) |
| L. bozemanii sg 2 | |||
| NCTC 11975e | Reference strain | ||
| LBA Pd | Clinical strain | 92 (L. bozemanii sg 2) | 85 (L. anisa) |
| 4R2f | Environmental strain | 94 (L. bozemanii sg 2) | 90 (L. anisa) |
| 8R4f | Environmental strain | 91 (L. bozemanii sg 2) | 84 (L. anisa) |
| L. cincinnatiensis | |||
| CIP 103875c | Type strain | ||
| L. dumoffii | |||
| NCTC 11370e | Type strain | ||
| 92101226d | Clinical strain | 95 (L. dumoffii) | 88 (L. anisa) |
| Toulon 23-6d | Environmental strain | 96 (L. dumoffii) | 88 (L. anisa) |
| Le. 2 F10d | Environmental strain | 93 (L. dumoffii) | 86 (L. anisa) |
| L. feeleii sg 1 | |||
| NCTC 12022e | Type strain | ||
| Ly 126.92Bd | Clinical strain | 91 (L. feeleii sg 1) | 60 (L. anisa) |
| Ly 166.96d | Clinical strain | 95 (L. feeleii sg 1) | 72 (L. parisiensis) |
| L. feeleii sg 2 | |||
| NCTC 11978e | Reference strain | ||
| L. gormanii | |||
| NCTC 11401e | Type strain | ||
| Gr9-C3d | Environmental strain | 98 (L. gormanii) | 92 (L. bozemanii sg 1) |
| L. hackeliae sg 1 | |||
| CIP 103844c | Type strain | ||
| L. hackeliae sg 2 | |||
| CIP 105112c | Reference strain | ||
| L. jordanis | |||
| NCTC 11533b | Type strain | ||
| L. lansingensis | |||
| CIP 103542c | Type strain | ||
| L. longbeachae sg 1 | |||
| NCTC 11477e | Type strain | ||
| LBA SV 2942f | Clinical strain | 96 (L. longbeachae sg 1) | 91 (L. sainthelensi sg 2) |
| 88010337d | Clinical strain | 94 (L. longbeachae sg 1) | 84 (L. parisiensis) |
| L. longbeachae sg 2 | |||
| NCTC 11530e | Reference strain | ||
| L. maceachernii | |||
| CIP 103846c | Type strain | ||
| L. micdadei | |||
| NCTC 11371e | Type strain | ||
| 93101936d | Clinical strain | 98 (L. micdadei) | 77 (L. sainthelensi sg 2) |
| Toulon 26-Vcd | Environmental strain | 96 (L. micdadei) | 81 (L. sainthelensi sg 2) |
| Ly 106.91d | Clinical strain | 94 (L. micdadei) | 83 (L. sainthelensi sg 2) |
| L. oakridgensis | |||
| NCTC 11531e | Type strain | ||
| Nantes IV-2d | Environmental strain | 96 (L. oakridgensis) | 63 (L. sainthelensi sg 2) |
| L. parisiensis | |||
| CIP 103847c | Type strain | ||
| 96010011d | Clinical strain | 94 (L. parisiensis) | 89 (L. sainthelensi sg 2) |
| L. pneumophila pneumophila sg 1 | |||
| ATCC 33152g | Type strain | ||
| LBA SV 2947f | Clinical strain | 94 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 8) |
| FP SV 2955f | Clinical strain | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 9) |
| LP SV 2966f | Clinical strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 9) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 1) |
| LBA SV 2970f | Clinical strain | 94 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 9) |
| LBA SV 2998f | Clinical strain | 94 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 8) |
| L. pneumophila sg 2 | |||
| CIP 103856c | Reference strain | ||
| Durd | Clinical strain | 95 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 94 (L. pneumophila sg 14) |
| Mald | Clinical strain | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 9) |
| Gerd | Clinical strain | 94 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 14) |
| L. pneumophila sg 3 | |||
| CIP 103857c | Reference strain | ||
| Cour 8R3f | Environmental strain | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 9) |
| Cour 10R3f | Environmental strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 3) | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 1) |
| Sen 20f | Environmental strain | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 9) |
| Boud | Clinical strain | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 14) |
| Rud | Clinical strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 9) |
| Rod | Clinical strain | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 8) | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 14) |
| 11Aixh | Environmental strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 3) | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 1) |
| 18NICLau | Clinical strain | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 1) |
| Cour 1R1f | Environmental strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 14) |
| L. pneumophila fraseri sg 4 | |||
| ATCC 33156g | Type strain | ||
| 20CHALyon | Clinical strain | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 8) |
| 14Angou | Environmental strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 87 (L. pneumophila sg 8) |
| S1di | Clinical strain | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 8) |
| S4di | Clinical strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 14) |
| S5di | Clinical strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 3) |
| 1Savj | Environmental strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 14) |
| 2Savj | Environmental strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 10) |
| 12Diepj | Environmental strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 1) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 3) |
| 19SERPaui | Clinical strain | 83 (L. pneumophila sg 4) | 82 (L. pneumophila sg 5) |
| L. pneumophila pascullei sg 5 | |||
| ATCC 33735g | Type strain | ||
| LBA SV 2969f | Clinical strain | 94 (L. pneumophila sg 9) | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 10) |
| L. pneumophila sg 6 | |||
| NCTC 11287e | Reference strain | ||
| Cour 2Rf | Environmental strain | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 10) |
| Cour 8R1f | Environmental strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 9) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 10) |
| Cour 10R3f | Environmental strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 9) |
| Exp SV 2998f | Clinical strain | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 14) |
| 3Neu | Environmental strain | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 14) |
| 4Neu | Environmental strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 1) |
| 5Neu | Environmental strain | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 3) |
| 6Neu | Environmental strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 1) |
| 7Neu | Environmental strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 1) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 3) |
| 10Poi | Environmental strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 87 (L. pneumophila sg 8) |
| Exp SV 2994f | Clinical strain | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 10) |
| L. pneumophila sg 7 | |||
| NCTC 11984e | Reference strain | ||
| L. pneumophila sg 8 | |||
| NCTC 11985e | Reference strain | ||
| 13Diep | Environmental strain | 90 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 9) |
| 8Hoek | Environmental strain | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 87 (L. pneumophila sg 10) |
| 9Hoek | Environmental strain | 91 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 87 (L. pneumophila sg 9) |
| L. pneumophila sg 9 | |||
| NCTC 11986e | Reference strain | ||
| 17Bala | Environmental strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 89 (L. pneumophila sg 3) |
| L. pneumophila sg 10 | |||
| NCTC 12000e | Reference strain | ||
| LBA SV 2984d | Clinical strain | 92 (L. pneumophila sg 10) | 81 (L. pneumophila sg 3) |
| 15Balal | Environmental strain | 93 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 97 (L. pneumophila sg 8) |
| 16Renl | Environmental strain | 94 (L. pneumophila sg 14) | 88 (L. pneumophila sg 10) |
| L. pneumophila sg 11 | |||
| NCTC 12179e | Reference strain | ||
| L. pneumophila sg 12 | |||
| NCTC 12180e | Reference strain | ||
| L. pneumophila sg 13 | |||
| NCTC 12181e | Reference strain | ||
| L. pneumophila sg 14 | |||
| NCTC 12174e | Reference strain | ||
| L. sainthelensi sg 2 | |||
| CIP 105115c | Reference strain | ||
| 97010302c | BALf | 78 (L. sainthelensi sg 2) | 73 (L. longbeachae sg 1) |
| L. tucsonensis | |||
| CIP 105113c | Type strain | ||
| L. wadsworthii | |||
| NCTC 11532e | Type strain | ||
sg, serogroup.
tDNA-ILP types are shown as in Fig. 1.
CIP, Collection of Bacterial Strains of Institut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Strains identified by biochemical tests, DFA, cell wall composition protein profile, RAPD, ISR, and DNA-DNA hybridization analysis.
NCTC, National Collection of Type Cultures, London, United Kingdom.
Strains identified by biochemical tests, DFA, and cell wall composition analysis.
ATCC, American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, Md.
Unidentified serogroup 3 or 6.
Unidentified serogroup 4, 8, or 10.
Unidentified serogroup 4 or 10.
Unidentified serogroup 8 or 10.
Unidentified serogroup 10 or 13.
tDNA-ILP PCR assay.
Bacteria were cultured on BCYE agar at 37°C for 3 days in sealed plastic bags. Genomic DNA was extracted from cells using, sequentially, lysozyme, guanidium thiocyanate, ammonium acetate, chloroform/isoamyl alcohol, isopropanol, and ethanol, as previously described (19). PCR was carried out with tDNA consensus primers T5A (5′-AGTCCGGTGCTCTAACCAACTGAG) and T3B (5′-AGGTCGCGGGTTCGAATCC) (28). Primer T5A was 5′-end-labeled with carbocyanine dye Cy5 (Pharmacia Biotech, Roosendaal, The Netherlands). Fifty microliters of PCR reaction solution contained 1.25 U of Taq polymerase (Cetus Corp., Emeryville, Calif.), 1× PCR buffer (50 mM KCl and 10 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.3]), 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.5 μM concentrations for each primer, 0.2 mM concentrations for four deoxynucleoside triphosphates and 5 μl of DNA extract. The reaction mixture was overlaid with one drop of mineral oil. Amplification conditions were as previously described (4).
Analysis of tDNA-ILP.
Amplification products were analyzed as previously described (4). Briefly, DNA fragments were separated by electrophoresis through acrylamide/bisacrylamide denaturing gels (ReadyMix Gel, A.L.F grade; Pharmacia) run for 4 h on an ALFexpress automated laser fluorescent DNA sequencer (Pharmacia). A fluorescein-labeled molecular marker (Cy5 Sizer 50-500; Pharmacia) was used as an external size marker. Samples including 1.25 μl of the PCR products, 5 μl of gel loading solution (Pharmacia), and 0.4 μl each of 50- and 1,000-bp internal reference standards were denatured at 100°C for 3 min in a water bath and loaded into the gel. Fluorescence densitograms were produced by using Fragment Manager software (Pharmacia), normalized by alignment first with external standards and then with internal standards and visually compared. Normalized densitogram data were exported to and analyzed with the GelCompar software (Version 4.1; Applied Maths, Kortrijk, Belgium). Matrices of Pearson product moment correlation coefficients between pairs of PCR patterns were used for construction of a dendrogram by using the unweighted-pair group method with averages (UPGMA).
Reproducibility.
Duplicate bacterial lysates of each type strain were coamplified in the same PCR experiment and in separate PCR experiments. These repeat samples were analyzed in the same gel for interrun and interextract pattern reproducibility. Intergel reproducibility was assessed by analyzing one amplicon (L. pneumophila subsp. pneumophila) in three different gels. The reproducibility of normalized tDNA-ILP patterns was evaluated visually and by Pearson product moment correlation coefficients.
Computer-assisted pattern identification.
The Identification module of GelCompar software was used to create a library of 35 units, each of which consisted of the tDNA-ILP pattern of a type or reference strain of Legionella. Patterns from each clinical or environmental Legionella strain were compared to all units in the library. The most probable identification proposed by using the software corresponded to the unit showing the highest similarity of Pearson coefficients with the unknown profile (best match), followed by the second and highest similarity coefficient with another unit (second best match).
RESULTS
Reproducibility.
Interextract, interrun, and intergel comparisons of tDNA-ILP patterns showed complete reproducibility by visual analysis of fluorescence densitograms. The number and size of DNA fragments (densitogram peak positions) were highly reproducible. Small variations occurred only in amplified product concentration (peak heights). Normalized tDNA-ILP patterns showed a mean 94.8% similarity coefficient (range, 91 to 97.3%) for interextract and interrun comparisons of the 18 species. Intergel comparison of tDNA-ILP patterns showed a mean 94.4% similarity coefficient (range, 93 to 96.4%). Based on these data, the threshold of pattern identity was defined at ≥91% similarity (Fig. 1).
FIG. 1.
Dendrogram of tDNA-ILP pattern Pearson correlation product moment coefficient relatedness of type and reference strains of Legionella species constructed by UPGMA. The threshold of pattern identity level is indicated by a vertical dotted line. Discrepancies between visual comparison and computer analysis are indicated by an asterisk.
Visual comparison of tDNA-ILP patterns.
Type and reference strains (n = 35) of the 18 species of Legionella produced 15 distinct tDNA-ILP patterns (Fig. 2). These patterns consisted of 5 to 10 DNA fragments, which varied in size between 66 and 376 bp. Easily distinguishable specific patterns were produced by the type strains of the 14 following species: L. hackeliae, L. micdadei, L. maceachernii, L. wadsworthii, L. dumoffii, L. sainthelensi, L. cincinnatiensis, L. longbeachae, L. lansingensis, L. gormanii, L. jordanis, L. feeleii, L. oakridgensis, and L. pneumophila. However, L. anisa, L. bozemanii, L. tucsonensis, and L. parisiensis displayed very similar patterns (Fig. 2). Closer analysis of the fragment sizes allowed the distinction of L. tucsonensis based on the presence of a peak of 103 bp from L. parisiensis that produced a specific peak of 105 bp. L. anisa and L. bozemanii displayed visually identical patterns (Fig. 3). Strains of different serogroups could not be distinguished within a species. Subspecies of L. pneumophila displayed similar patterns (Fig. 1).
FIG. 2.
Fluorescence densitograms of Legionella type and reference strains.
FIG. 3.
Fluorescence densitograms of L. anisa, L. bozemanii, L. tucsonensis, and L. parisiensis type strains. Dotted lines indicate DNA fragment size.
Computer-assisted analysis of tDNA-ILP patterns.
At the 91% similarity cutoff level, 26 clusters were obtained with Pearson similarity coefficients of the normalized tDNA-ILP patterns of the 35 type and reference strains, which displayed between 21 and 98% similarity (Fig. 1). Non-pneumophila strains (16 type strains and 1 reference strain of L. sainthelensi serogroup 2) clustered separately in 15 clusters. L. anisa clustered in the same branch as L. bozemanii serogroup 1, as did L. cincinnatiensis and L. sainthelensi serogroup 2. Among the four non-pneumophila species, which included two serogroups, L. feeleii and L. longbeachae patterns were common to both serogroups, whereas L. hackeliae and L. bozemanii serogroups 1 and 2 could be distinguished separately, due to reproducible peak height variations between visually similar patterns.
Other discrepancies were noted between visual comparison and computer-assisted pattern clustering. First, L. cincinnatiensis and L. sainthelensi clustered together by UPGMA despite the visual distinction of their profiles based on an additional fragment seen in L. cincinnatiensis (Fig. 1; Fig. 2 [slanted arrow]). This fragment contributed only a low weight in the comparison by Pearson correlation coefficient. Second, visually indistinguishable tDNA-ILP patterns of various serogroups of L. pneumophila were separated by computer analysis due to peak height variations (Fig. 1). The 14 serogroups of L. pneumophila were grouped together at the 73% similarity level but very distantly (less than 20% similarity) with the non-pneumophila species.
Computer-assisted identification.
All 63 clinical and environmental strains were correctly identified to the species level by matching the tDNA-ILP patterns with those of the 35 reference units, including the 2 L. anisa and the 4 L. bozemanii strains (Table 1). There was a significant difference between the best and second match (mean difference, 12%; range, 4% to 33%) (Table 1). L. feeleii, L. bozemanii, and L. longbeachae strains were further correctly identified to the serogroup level, whereas L. pneumophila strains of various serogroups were correctly identified to the species level but not to the serogroup level.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we showed that tDNA-ILP analysis was a simple and rapid method which allowed the identification of diverse environmental and clinical strains of the 18 Legionella species described as human pathogens until today. This excellent performance was related to the method used for fragment analysis. Since tDNA spacers vary in size between species by only a few base pairs, we analyzed spacers amplified using fluorescently labeled primers and analyzed DNA fragments by PAGE on a DNA sequencer to improve both resolution and reproducibility, as previously reported (4, 6, 17). Indeed, analysis of the densitometric curves provided by the ALFexpress system was considerably easier than that of the patterns exhibited on agarose gels (17). Furthermore, the resolution of the electrophoretic profiles was occasionally affected by minor variations in the porosity of the agarose (17). Moreover, we used a sophisticated pattern analysis software to discriminate between Legionella species showing subtle variations. Computer-assisted analysis was more accurate for the identification of unknown strains by matching tDNA-ILP patterns with reference patterns, as previously discussed by Vaneechoutte et al. (26). Other molecular techniques for the identification of Legionella species also included computer analysis of results (1, 5, 15, 16, 20, 21, 27). These molecular genotypic and phenotypic methods are at least as discriminatory as tDNA-ILP analysis, including RAPD (1, 15, 16), ISR (21), sequence determination of the mip gene (20), SDS-PAGE of whole-cell proteins (27), and FAME (5) analyses. However, ISR analysis was shown to be less discriminatory in other studies which differed in the sequence of the primers used (8, 13).
Two species, L. anisa and L. bozemanii, could not easily be distinguished by tDNA-ILP analysis. These species belong to the bluish-white autofluorescent group which includes closely related species known to be difficult to distinguish (8, 10, 14). RAPD (1, 15, 16), mip sequence (20), and FAME (5) analyses easily identified these species whereas HinfI restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of the ISR DNA fragments (21) and numerical analysis of specific portions of the SDS-PAGE protein profiles (27) were required by those techniques to reach equivalent performance. However, clinical and environmental strains of L. anisa and L. bozemanii species were correctly identified using computer matching of tDNA-ILPs, despite the visually similar profiles and their theoretical overlap based on a conservative lowest-similarity threshold derived from stringent reproducibility tests. This suggests that this general threshold may in fact have been defined too conservatively for some species. In contradiction to DNA-DNA hybridization tests (3), RAPD (16), ISR (27), and SDS-PAGE analyses of whole-cell proteins, tDNA-ILPs could not differentiate two of the type strains of the three subspecies of L. pneumophila.
The topology of the phenogram of tDNA-ILP patterns above species level did not exhibit congruence with the phylogenetic trees that were derived from sequence homologies of the 16S rRNA gene (7, 14). This discrepancy can be explained by the small size of the genomic region examined for polymorphism by tDNA-ILP assay. We previously reported a similar discrepancy for tDNA-ILP patterns of viridans group streptococci (4).
Our results were obtained in 8 h, starting with 72-h-old bacterial growth on solid medium, a time interval as short as that described for the fastest genotypic assays. For example, 10 h was required to identify Legionella strains by using RAPD assays (1, 15, 16), not taking into account the additional step of restriction of 16S-23S rRNA amplified spacer fragments required for distinguishing the bluish-white autofluorescent species (20). Likewise, Fry and Harrison (8) reported a 17-h electrophoresis time to separate 16S-23S rRNA amplified spacer fragments. The expertise required for tDNA-ILP analysis was equivalent to that reported for other PCR-based identification assays. Our method appeared more convenient than alternative genotypic assays for the following reasons: no quantification of DNA was needed in contrast to other protocols (16, 21), and DNA profiles were captured numerically without the need to photograph the gels and to scan the picture as required elsewhere (1, 8, 16, 21, 27). Furthermore, the assay described here also offers the advantage of broad applicability to the routine clinical laboratory identification to the species level of other common bacterial pathogens, including staphylococci (17) and streptococci (4), by using the same PCR primers, amplification conditions, electrophoresis, and software for pattern recognition.
It would be nice if identification of Legionella performed with this assay could be obtained directly from clinical samples. However, this approach was not evaluated for the following reason: tDNA-ILP PCR using consensus primers performed on specimens collected from the respiratory tract would produce mixed profiles corresponding to the amplification of DNA from commensal bacteria in the oropharynx.
In conclusion, tDNA-ILP analysis of Legionella strains is a useful technique which compares well in terms of efficiency with recently described molecular methods for identification of environmental and clinical strains of Legionella species described as potential human pathogens.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by a fellowship of the Fondation Erasme to Y.D. and a GlaxoWellcome Belgium grant.
We thank A. Deplano, F. Brancart, and N. Maes for technical advice and critical comments.
REFERENCES
- 1.Bansal N S, McDonell F. Identification and DNA fingerprinting of Legionella strains by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35:2310–2314. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.9.2310-2314.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bornstein N, Fleurette J. Legionella. In: Freney J, editor. Manuel de bactériologie clinique-1994. 2nd ed. Paris, France: Editions Scientifiques Elsevier; 1994. pp. 1327–1354. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Brenner D J, Steigerwalt A G, Gorman G W, Weaver R E, Feeley J C, Cordes L G, Wilkinson H W, Patton C, Thomason B M, Lewallen Sasseville K R. Legionella bozemanii sp. nov. and Legionella dumoffii sp. nov.: classification of two additional species of Legionella associated with human pneumonia. Curr Microbiol. 1980;4:111–116. [Google Scholar]
- 4.De Gheldre Y, Vandamme P, Goossens H, Struelens M J. Identification of clinically relevant viridans streptococci by analysis of transfer DNA intergenic spacer length polymorphism. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1999;49:1591–1598. doi: 10.1099/00207713-49-4-1591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Diogo A, Verissiomo A, Nobre M F, da Costa M S. Usefulness of fatty acid composition for differentiation of Legionella species. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:2248–2254. doi: 10.1128/jcm.37.7.2248-2254.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ehrenstein B, Bernards A T, Dijkshoorn L, Gerner-Schmidt P, Towner K J, Bouvet P J M, Daschner F D, Grundmann H. Acinetobacter species identification by using tRNA spacer fingerprinting. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34:2414–2420. doi: 10.1128/jcm.34.10.2414-2420.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Fry N K, Warwick S, Saunders N A, Embley T M. The use of 16S ribosomal RNA analyses to investigate the phylogeny of the family Legionellaceae. J Gen Microbiol. 1991;137:1215–1222. doi: 10.1099/00221287-137-5-1215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fry N K, Harrison T G. An evaluation of intergenic rRNA gene sequence length polymorphism analysis for the identification of Legionella species. J Med Microbiol. 1998;47:667–678. doi: 10.1099/00222615-47-8-667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Grimont F, Lefèvre M, Ageron E, Grimont P A D. rRNA gene restriction patterns of Legionella species: a molecular identification system. Res Microbiol. 1989;140:615–626. doi: 10.1016/0923-2508(89)90193-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Harrison T G, Saunders N A. Taxonomy and typing of legionellae. Rev Med Microbiol. 1994;5:79–90. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Herbert G A, Steigerwalt A G, Brenner D J. Legionella micdadei species nova: classification of a third species of Legionella associated with human pneumonia. Curr Microbiol. 1980;3:255–257. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Herwaldt L A, Gorman G W, McGrath T, Toma S, Brake B, Hightower A W, Jones J, Reingold A L, Boxer P A, Tang P W, Moss C W, Wilkinson H, Brenner D J, Steigerwalt A G, Broom C V. A new Legionella species, Legionella feeleii nova, causes Pontiac fever in an automobile plant. Ann Intern Med. 1984;100:333–338. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-100-3-333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hookey J V, Birtles R J, Saunders N A. Intergenic 16S rRNA gene (rDNA)-23S rDNA sequence length polymorphisms in members of the family Legionellaceae. J Clin Microbiol. 1995;33:2377–2381. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.9.2377-2381.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hookey J V, Saunders N A, Fry N K, Birtles R J, Harrison T G. Phylogeny of Legionellaceae based on small-subunit ribosomal DNA sequences and proposal of Legionella lytica comb. nov. for Legionella-like amoebal pathogens. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1996;46:526–531. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lo Presti F, Riffard S, Vandenesch F, Reyrolle M, Ronco E, Ichai P, Etienne J. The first clinical isolate of Legionella parisiensis, from a liver transplant patient with pneumonia. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35:1706–1709. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.7.1706-1709.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lo Presti F, Riffard S, Vandenesch F, Etienne J. Identification of Legionella species by random amplified polymorphic DNA profiles. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:3193–3197. doi: 10.1128/jcm.36.11.3193-3197.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Maes N, De Gheldre Y, De Ryck R, Vaneechoute M, Meunier H, Etienne J, Struelens M J. Rapid and accurate identification of Staphylococcus species by using tRNA intergenic spacer length polymorphism analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35:2477–2481. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.10.2477-2481.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.McKinney R M, Porscen R K, Edelstein P H, Bisset M L, Harris P P, Bondell S P, Steigerwalt A G, Weaver R E, Ein M E, Lindquist D S, Kops R S, Brenner D J. Legionella longbeachae species nova, another etiological agent of human pneumonia. Ann Intern Med. 1981;94:739–743. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-94-6-739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Pitcher D G, Saunders N A, Owen R J. Rapid extraction of bacterial genomic DNA with guanidium thiocyanate. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1989;8:151–156. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ratcliff R M, Lanser J A, Manning P A, Heuzenroeder M W. Sequence-based classification scheme for the genus Legionella targeting the mip gene. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:1560–1567. doi: 10.1128/jcm.36.6.1560-1567.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Riffard S, Lo Presti F, Normand P, Forey F, Reyrolle M, Etienne J, Vandenesch F. Species identification of Legionella via intergenic 16S–23S ribosomal spacer PCR analysis. Int J Syst Microbiol. 1998;48:723–730. doi: 10.1099/00207713-48-3-723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Saunders N A, Harrison T G, Kachwalla N, Taylor A G. Identification of species of the genus Legionella using a cloned rRNA gene from Legionella pneumophila. J Gen Microbiol. 1988;134:2363–2374. doi: 10.1099/00221287-134-8-2363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Thacker W L, Benson F, Staneck J L, Vincent S R, Mayberry S R, Brenner D J, Wilkinson H W. Legionella cincinnatiensis sp. nov. isolated from a patient with pneumonia. J Clin Microbiol. 1988;26:418–420. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.3.418-420.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Thacker W L, Benson F, Schifman B, Pugh E, Steigerwalt A G, Mayberry W R, Brenner D J, Wilkinson H W. Legionella tucsonensis sp. nov. isolated from a renal transplant recipient. J Clin Microbiol. 1989;27:1831–1834. doi: 10.1128/jcm.27.8.1831-1834.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Thacker W L, Dycke W, Benson R F, Havlichek D H, Jr, Robinson-Dunn B, Stiefel H, Schneider W, Moss C W, Mayberry W R, Brenner D J. Legionella lansingensis sp. nov. isolated from a patient with pneumonia and underlying chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30:2398–2401. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.9.2398-2401.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Vaneechoutte M, Boerlin P, Tichy H V, Bannerman E, Jăger B, Bille J. Comparison of PCR-based DNA fingerprinting techniques for the identification of Listeria species and their use for atypical Listeria isolates. Int J Syst Microbiol. 1998;48:127–139. doi: 10.1099/00207713-48-1-127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Verissimo A, Morais P V, Diogo A, Gomes C, da-Costa M S. Characterization of Legionella species by numerical analysis of whole cell protein electrophoresis. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1996;46:41–49. doi: 10.1099/00207713-46-1-41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Welsh J, McClelland M. Genomic fingerprints produced by PCR with consensus tRNA gene primers. Nucleic Acids Res. 1991;19:861–866. doi: 10.1093/nar/19.4.861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wilkinson I J, Sangster N, Ratcliff R M, Mugg P A, Davos D E, Lanser J A. Problems associated with identification of Legionella species from the environment and isolation of six possible new species. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990;56:796–802. doi: 10.1128/aem.56.3.796-802.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Winn W C. Legionella. In: Murray P R, editor. Manual of clinical microbiology. 7th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Microbiology; 1999. pp. 572–581. [Google Scholar]