Analysis of Probabilistic Limits of Trait Identity in Inter-Strain Comparison of Genomic Fingerprints of Bacteria

균주간 유전체 지문 비교분석에서 유전형질 일치성의 확률적 한계 분석

  • 조영근 (경성대학교 생물학과 및 기초과학연구소)
  • Received : 2011.06.20
  • Accepted : 2011.07.18
  • Published : 2011.09.30

Abstract

Genomic fingerprinting methods are useful in determining relatedness among bacterial strains. However, random coincidences in sizes of two DNA fragments in two different fingerprints may occur, resulting in erroneous interpretation of relatedness between two bacterial genomes. In this study, I estimated the probability of occurrence of DNA bands of identical size in fingerprints of two unrelated genomes, so that the significance of fingerprint-based estimation of genome relatedness could be analyzed. The probability could be estimated as outputs of a function formulated with the three parameters: the numbers of observed fragments, all possible sizes of fragments and observed fragments common in a given pair of fingerprints. The parameter most instrumental to significance of relatedness estimation was the number of all possible sizes of fragments. To keep the number of coincidentally-common size of fragments below 10, about 200 fragments should be distinguishable in the fingerprints.

Keywords

gel resolution;genomic fingerprinting;genome relatedness;probability of coincidence;uniform distribution

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 경성대학교

References

  1. Chokesajjawatee, N., Y.G. Zo, and R.R. Colwell. 2008. Determination of clonality and relatedness of Vibrio cholerae isolates by genomic fingerprinting, using long-range repetitive element sequence-based PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74, 5392-5401. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00151-08
  2. Foley, S.L., A.M. Lynne, and R. Nayak. 2009. Molecular typing methodologies for microbial source tracking and epidemiological investigations of Gram-negative bacterial foodborne pathogens. Infect. Genet. Evol. 9, 430-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2009.03.004
  3. Gerner-Smidt, P., K. Hise, J. Kincaid, S. Hunter, S. Rolando, E. Hyytia-Trees, E.M. Ribot, and B. Swaminathan. 2006. PulseNet USA: A Five-Year Update. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 3, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2006.3.9
  4. Hahm, B.K., Y. Maldonado, E. Schreiber, A.K. Bhunia, and C.H. Nakatsu. 2003. Subtyping of foodborne and environmental isolates of Escherichia coli by multiplex-PCR, rep-PCR, PFGE, ribotyping and AFLP. J. Microbiol. Methods 53, 387-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7012(02)00259-2
  5. Jonas, D., B. Spitzmüller, K. Weist, H. Rüden, and F.D. Daschner. 2003. Comparison of PCR-based methods for typing Escherichia coli. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 9, 823-831. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0691.2003.00661.x
  6. Li, W., D. Raoult, and P.E. Fournier. 2009. Bacterial strain typing in the genomic era. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 33, 892-916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2009.00182.x
  7. Loy, A. and L. Bodrossy. 2006. Highly parallel microbial diagnostics using oligonucleotide microarrays. Clin. Chim. Acta. 363, 106-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cccn.2005.05.041
  8. Sapsford, R. and V. Jupp. 2006. Data collection and analysis, p. Pages. SAGE, London.
  9. Terletski, V., G.B. Michael, and S. Schwarz. 2004. Subtracted restriction fingerprinting-a new typing technique using magnetic capture of tagged restriction fragments. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 41, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsim.2004.01.009
  10. Zo, Y.G., I.N. Rivera, E. Russek-Cohen, M.S. Islam, A.K. Siddique, M. Yunus, R.B. Sack, A. Huq, and R.R. Colwell. 2002. Genomic profiles of clinical and environmental isolates of Vibrio cholerae O1 in cholera-endemic areas of Bangladesh. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 12409-12414. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.192426499