TABLE 1.

Origin and secondary typing of 25 interstate clusters identified by image analysis of IS6110-3′ RFLP patterns

Cluster no.	IS6110 copy no.	Origin (no. of isolates)	No. of isolates analyzedb	Matched by fingerprinting methoda
				IS6110-3′	IS6110-5′	PGRS	Spoligotyping
1	6	Arkansas (2), Michigan (1)	2	Y	Y	N	Y
2	8	Arkansas (1), Michigan (2)	2	N	N	N	N
3	9	Arkansas (1), California (2)	2	Y	Y	Y	Y
4	9	Arkansas (1), Massachusetts (2)	2	Y	N	N	NAc
5	10	Arkansas (1), Michigan (1)	2	Y	N	N	N
6	10	Arkansas (1), Texas (1)	2	N	N	N	Y
7	10	Arkansas (4), Massachusetts (1), Texas (11)	3	Y	Y	Y	Y
8	10	Arkansas (1), Michigan (2), Maryland (1)	3	Y	Y (2), N (1)	Y (2), N (1)	Y
9	11	Arkansas (1), Maryland (1)	2	N	N	N	N
10	11	Arkansas (1), Maryland (1)	2	Y	Y	Y	N
11	11	Arkansas (1), Michigan (1)	2	Y	N	N	Y
12	11	Arkansas (1), Michigan (1), California (1)	3	Y (2), N (1)	N	Y	Y
13	11	Arkansas (3), New Jersey (1)	2	Y	Y	Y	Y
14	12	Arkansas (2), Texas (1)	2	Y	N	Y	Y
15	12	Arkansas (2), Massachusetts (1), New York (5), California (2)	4	Y	Y (3), N (1)	N	Y (3), N (1)
16	12	Arkansas (7), Texas (3)	2	Y	Y	Y	Y
17	12	Arkansas (2), Michigan (1), California (4)	3	Y	Y	Y	Y
18	12	Arkansas (1), Maryland (1), Massachusetts (1)	3	Y (2), N (1)	Y (2), N (1)	Y (2), N (1)	Y
19	12	Arkansas (1), Texas (2)	2	Y	Y	Y	Y
20	13	Arkansas (1), Michigan (1)	2	N	N	N	Y
21	13	Arkansas (3), Texas (4), California (1)	3	Y	Y	Y	Y
22	13	Arkansas (2), California (1)	2	N	N	N	Y
23	13	Arkansas (1), California (6)	2	Y	Y	N	Y
24	16	Arkansas (1), Texas (7)	2	N	N	Y	Y
25	21	Arkansas (5), Texas (30), Maryland (1)	3	Y	Y	Y	Y

^aY, yes; N, no. Numbers in parentheses represent numbers of isolates. 

^bOne isolate from each state was analyzed. 

^cNA, DNA from this cluster was not available for spoligotyping.