Fluorescence amplified fragment length polymorphism compared to pulsed field gel electrophoresis for Listeria monocytogenes subtyping

  • Sophie Roussel1Email author,

    Affiliated with

    • Benjamin Félix1,

      Affiliated with

      • Kathie Grant2,

        Affiliated with

        • Trinh Tam Dao1,

          Affiliated with

          • Anne Brisabois1 and

            Affiliated with

            • Corinne Amar2

              Affiliated with

              BMC Microbiology201313:14

              DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-13-14

              Received: 8 June 2012

              Accepted: 20 November 2012

              Published: 24 January 2013

              Abstract

              Background

              Listeriosis is a severe infection which mainly affects pregnant women, neonates and immuno-compromised adults. ANSES’s Laboratory for Food safety has been the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL) for L. monocytogenes in the food chain since 2006. Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) is routinely used in the EURL for the surveillance of L. monocytogenes isolated from foods, animals and the environment. One of the main EURL activities is to evaluate alternative molecular subtyping methods to PFGE, and integrate their use within the National Reference Laboratories (NRL) network. Since 2008, the United Kingdom (UK)-NRL for L. monocytogenes at the Health Protection Agency (HPA), London, has used fluorescent Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (fAFLP) for the routine surveillance of L. monocytogenes isolated from human clinical cases, food and food processing environments in the UK. This study compares fAFLP with PFGE for subtyping L. monocytogenes.

              Results

              A panel of 109 L. monocytogenes isolates from either human cases of listeriosis, foods, food processing environments and animals were used for the comparative evaluation. Among these, 2 strains were tested from duplicate culture by both methods. The panel also included field isolates, isolates associated with outbreaks or sporadic cases and reference strains. The two strains tested in duplicate displayed the same fAFLP and PFGE types. Strains known to be epidemiologically associated with one another were found to have unique PFGE and fAFLP types. FAFLP and PFGE divided the strains into 76 and 82 distinct profiles, or types, respectively. The discriminatory index calculated was 0.993 and 0.996 for fAFLP and PFGE, respectively.

              Conclusions

              The discriminatory ability of fAFLP was similar to that of PFGE for the subtyping of L. monocytogenes isolates. As a less labour intensive technique fAFLP may be a better method to use than PFGE in investigating outbreaks of human listeriosis and tracking the source of contamination in food processing facilities in real time.

              Keywords

              fAFLP PFGE Molecular subtyping Listeria monocytogenes Discriminatory power

              Background

              Listeriosis is a food borne disease caused by the bacterium L. monocytogenes. In otherwise healthy individuals, listeriosis is usually asymptomatic or may results in mild flu-like symptoms or gastrointestinal illness. However, infection with L. monocytogenes in pregnant women, neonates and immuno-compromised adults can result in a severe and life threatening invasive form of listeriosis. In Europe, after a decline in the number of cases during the 1990s, the incidence of listeriosis increased and has remained relatively high for the past ten years. This has led to listeriosis being considered one of the resurgent foodborne diseases in Europe [1, 2]. This disease is rare but associated with a high fatality rate (20-30%) and currently remains an important public health concern.

              Based on its genetic content, L. monocytogenes can be separated into 3 lineages I, II and III. Although 13 serotypes have been described, 98% of strains causing human infections and isolated from foods are of serotypes 4b, 1/2b (Lineage I), 1/2a, and 1/2c (lineages II) [3]. Molecular methods have been developed to assist in the characterization of L. monocytogenes. Doumith et al. (2004) [4] have described a multiplex PCR assay which cluster L. monocytogenes of lineages I and II into four serogroups: IVb (4b, 4d, 4e); IIa (1/2a, 3a), IIb (1/2b, 3b, 7) and IIc (1/2c, 3c).

              Of several molecular methods currently available, macrorestriction analysis by PFGE is one of the most used methods for the subtyping of L. monocytogenes[5, 6]. The combination of restriction endonucleases AscI and ApaI, as advised by PulseNet USA, has shown excellent discrimination for L. monocytogenes[5] and the technique is shown to be reproducible. PFGE, using these two enzymes, is considered to be the international standard for subtyping [7].

              AFLP is a method which combines the digestion of the entire bacterial genome by one or more restriction enzymes, with PCR being used to amplify and detect the digested fragments. Fluorescent AFLP is a variant using fluorescent PCR primers, enabling the amplified digested fragments to be detected and sized accurately by capillary electrophoresis. Various fAFLP assays have previously been developed for subtyping L. monocytogenes and other Listeria spp isolated from food, animals, food processing environment [8] and human cases [9, 10]. These assays have been described as reproducible and high resolution genotyping techniques that require less time to perform and to analyze than PFGE. Recently, fAFLP with the enzyme pair HindIII/HhaI was applied to L. monocytogenes isolates from foods and the environment [11], using adaptors and primers previously designed [12] for typing Campylobacter isolates. This enzyme pair was found to be more suitable for L. monocytogenes than the BamH1/EcoRI pairs [13]. To our knowledge, these authors have compared, for the first time, fAFLP with PFGE combined with the two enzymes ApaI/AscI and demonstrated that the discrimination index (DI) of fAFLP was at least equal to PFGE. However, the strain panel only included field strains isolated from food and food processing environments and not human clinical isolates.

              ANSES’s Laboratory for Food safety has been the EURL for L. monocytogenes in the food chain since 2006. ApaI/AscI-PFGE is routinely used at the EURL for the surveillance of food, animals and environmental isolates at the national and European level [14, 15]. One of the main EURL activities is to develop or/and evaluate and keep up to date with new molecular subtyping methods and deploy them through the European NRL network. PFGE is widely acknowledged to be a time-consuming and labor-intensive method: the analyses are completed in 30 hours to three days from receipt of pure culture. It also requires highly skilled operators and does not offer commercially available standardized reagents. To consider a subtyping technique for L. monocytogenes as an alternative to PFGE, one of the first step is to test a panel of strains isolated not only from food and environment samples but also from human cases and to include outbreaks and reference strains [16].

              Since 2008 the UK-NRL for Listeriahas used fAFLP, with the enzyme pairs HindIII/HhaI, as the subtyping method for the routine surveillance of L. monocytogenes isolated from human clinical cases, food and food processing environments in the UK.

              The objective of this study was to compare results obtained using fAFLP and PFGE, on a panel of L. monocytogenes isolates from human clinical cases, foods, food processing environments and animals. The panel included isolates known to be associated with outbreaks and sporadic cases of listeriosis, as well as reference strains, 3 of which were fully sequenced. The value of fAFLP for the routine subtyping of L. monocytogenes, in terms of its discriminatory ability and usefulness in detecting and investigating clusters of listeriosis cases for the NRLs, will be discussed.

              Methods

              Strains

              This study included 109 isolates of L. monocytogenes: 47 from human cases of listeriosis, 56 from different food products and food processing environments, and 6 from animals. Strains in this study were selected to include those associated with listeriosis outbreaks as well as sporadic cases and were representative of the serogroups most often associated with human disease.

              Forty nine isolates came from the UK-NRL: 35 were from UK clinical cases of listeriosis and 14 from foods and food processing environments isolated by UK-HPA Food Water and Microbiology Laboratories either as part of routine food sampling or in response to listeriosis investigations. One of the UK isolates from a clinical case of listeriosis was included in the study as duplicate culture (Table 1).
              Table 1

              PFGE and fAFLP discriminatory ability using Listeria monocytogenes isolates of duplicate strains, associated with outbreaks or with sporadic cases

              Isolate

              Test Study (TS) group number[17]

              Responsible for sporadic (S) or outbreak (OB). Duplicate culture (D)

              Origin of isolate

              Country of origin

              Molecular serogroup1

              PFGE 2 ApaI/AscI type

              fAFLP 2 HhaI/HindIII type

              10CEB565LM

              n/a

              OB 1

              Human

              England

              IVb

              326/136

              IV4.3

              10CEB567LM

              n/a

              OB 1

              Food

              England

              IVb

              326/136

              IV4.3

              10CEB550LM

              n/a

              OB 2

              Human

              England

              IVb

              178/6

              I.8

              10CEB552LM

              n/a

              OB 2

              Food

              England

              IVb

              178/6

              I.8

              10CEB553LM

              n/a

              OB 3

              Human

              England

              IIa

              149/109

              III.10

              10CEB554LM

              n/a

              OB 3

              Food

              England

              IIa

              149/109

              III.10

              10CEB559LM

              n/a

              OB 4

              Human

              England

              IVb

              309/142

              UD4.1

              10CEB560LM

              n/a

              OB 4

              Food

              England

              IVb

              309/142

              UD4.1

              10CEB542LM = 10CEB543LM3

              n/a

              D

              Human

              England

              IIc

              70/377

              VIIc.8

              TS32

              02

              S

              Food

              USA

              IVb

              180/50

              I.67

              TS72

              02

              S

              Food

              USA

              IVb

              180/50

              I.67

              TS56 = TS773

              03

              S4 and D

              Human

              USA

              IIa

              120/191

              VIIa.27

              TS39

              03

              S

              Food

              USA

              IIa

              120/191

              VIIa.27a

              TS67

              03

              S4

              Human

              USA

              IIa

              120/191

              VIIa.27a

              TS17

              05

              S

              Human

              USA

              IIb

              93/140

              IVb.21

              TS61

              05

              S

              Food

              USA

              IIb

              93/140

              IVb.21

              TS31

              15

              OB 5

              Human

              France

              IVb

              24-Dec

              V.21

              TS69

              15

              OB 5

              Human

              France

              IVb

              24-Dec

              V.21

              TS21

              16

              OB 6

              Food

              Switzerland

              IVb

              19/15

              V.3

              TS55

              16

              OB 6

              Human

              Switzerland

              IVb

              19/15

              V.3

              TS02

              22

              S25

              Human

              England

              IIc

              70/25

              VIIc.1

              TS08

              22

              S25

              Human

              England

              IIc

              70/25

              VIIc.1

              1 Serogrouping performed by multiplex PCR [4]: results are from both the European Reference Laboratory (EURL) for L. monocytogenes and the UK National Reference laboratory (UK-NRL) for Listeria.

              2 PFGE was performed by the EURL and fAFLP by UK-NRL.

              3 Serogrouping and typing results were the same for each of the duplicate culture.

              4 The 2 patients of TS group number 3 were 2 separate sporadic cases and not epidemiologically linked [18].

              5 These 2 isolates are from the same patient who had 2 recurrent episodes of listeriosis [19].

              n/a: not applicable.

              Sixty one isolates came from the EURL: 35 were from foods and food processing environments collected from French food analysis laboratories in the context of monitoring, surveillance sampling or research projects and one was from an animal. Thirteen isolates labeled TS (“Test study”), 8 from human cases and 5 from foods, were from the WHO international multicenter L. monocytogenes subtyping study [17, 20]. One TS strain from a human case of listeriosis was included in this study as duplicate culture (Table 1). Eleven isolates were reference strains including 8 CLIP strains and 3 fully sequenced strains (Table 2).
              Table 2

              Origins and serogroups of 11 L. monocytogenes reference strains used in this study

              Reference strains

              EURL Strain number

              Origin

              Molecular serogroup2

              CLIP1 74902

              00EB248LM

              Animal

              IIa

              CLIP 74903

              00EB249LM

              Animal

              IIb

              CLIP 74904

              00EB250LM

              Human

              IIc

              CLIP 74905

              00EB251LM

              Human

              IIa

              CLIP 74906

              00EB252LM

              Human

              IIb

              CLIP 74907

              00EB253LM

              Animal

              IIb

              CLIP 74910

              00EB256LM

              Environment

              IVb

              CLIP 74912

              00EB258LM

              Animal

              IVb

              EGDe

              EGDe

              Animal

              IIa

              (Accession number: AL591824)

               

              [21]

                 

              F2365

              F2365

              Food

              IVb

              (Accession number: AE017262)

               

              [22]

                 

              CLIP80459 [23]

              CLIP80459

              Human

              IVb

              1 CLIP: Pasteur Institute collection.

              2 Serogrouping performed by multiplex PCR [4]: results are from both the European Reference Laboratory (EURL) for L. monocytogenes and the UK National Reference laboratory (UK-NRL) for Listeria.

              Molecular serogrouping

              All the isolates were serogrouped by both laboratories using the multiplex PCR assay described by Doumith et al. (2004) [4] which clusters L. monocytogenes lineages I and II into four serogroups by amplification of four specific marker genes: lmo0737; ORF2110; lmo1118 and ORF2819.

              Fluorescent AFLP

              FAFLP was performed by the UK-NRL using a modified version of the protocol previously described by Desai and colleagues for Campylobacter[12]. Briefly, Listeria genomic DNA (15–50 ng) was digested with 5U each of two restriction enzymes, HindIII and HhaI (New England Biolabs) in the presence of RNase A and bovine serum albumin. Digests were ligated to two sets of double-stranded adapters. These adapters served as targets for an FAM-labeled Hind-A and a non-labeled Hha-A selective primer (Eurogentec, Seraing) for fragment amplification by PCR. The modified protocol consisted of a single digestion/ligation rather than 3 individual steps as previously described [12]. Fluorescent PCR products (amplified digested fragments) were separated on an ABI 3730XL 96 capillary DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems) alongside a GeneScan™- 600 LIZ® Size standard. Chromatographs showing FAM-fluorescing fragments were saved as fsa files, and were exported, visualized and analyzed using PEAK SCANNER™ v1.0 (Applied Biosystems). PEAK SCANNER™ also recorded the fragment data in a binary format in Excel files which were exported into BioNumerics v6.1, visualized as virtual electrophoresis gels and analyzed. The patterns determining the fAFLP types were identified using in-house BioNumerics and PEAK SCANNER™ libraries. Two profiles were considered to be different fAFLP types if they had at least one peak difference.

              PFGE

              All strains were characterized using the EURL protocol [14, 15] using the two restriction enzymes ApaI and AscI. The laboratory has been accredited by the French Accreditation Committee, COFRAC for this PFGE method as an internal method (Accreditation No. 1–2246, Section Laboratories, http://​www.​cofrac.​fr). Fragments obtained from the digestion by each of the enzymes were separated by gel electrophoresis. Gels were stained with ethidium bromide and banding patterns visualized under UV light, using the Gel Doc Eq system and Quantity One software (Bio-Rad). DNA patterns generated were analyzed with BioNumerics software (V 6.1, Applied Maths, Kortrijk, Belgium). Algorithms available within the program were used to compare patterns. For each enzyme, dendrograms were produced, using the Dice coefficient and UPGMA, with a 1% tolerance limit and 1% optimization. The dendrogam settings were chosen according to the PulseNet Europe recommendation [24]. Profiles were analyzed according to the standard operating procedure (SOP) developed at the EURL [15]. PFGE profiles were classified as different if there was at least one band different between them. Each PFGE profile was arbitrarily assigned a number.

              Reproducibility of the subtyping methods

              Two strains were included blindly as duplicates cultures (Table 1).

              Discriminatory power of the subtyping methods

              The ability of the two subtyping methods to discriminate L. monocytogenes strains was assessed in two ways:
              1. (1)

                Determining the ability of the typing methods to recognize strains that are epidemiologically linked (Table 1).

                 
              2. (2)

                Determining the ability of the typing methods to discriminate unrelated strains by calculating the Simpson’s index of diversity (ID) [25]. The ID was calculated from PFGE and FAFP results of 97 isolates comprising field strains (75 isolates), references strains (11 isolates), sporadic cases and one representative isolate from each of the outbreaks shown in Table 1 (11 isolates).

                 

              Results

              Molecular serogrouping

              Molecular serogrouping results from the 109 isolates were concordant between the two testing laboratories and were as follows: 46 IIa strains; 12 IIb strains; 10 IIc strains; 40 IVb strains. One isolate did amplify in the multiplex PCR assay and was subsequently serotyped by conventional sero-agglutination by EURL as 4a strain. The 11 reference strains (8 CLIP and 3 fully sequenced strains) were found to belong to the expected serogroup (Table 2).

              In both laboratories, the same four serogroup IVb strains, displayed an unusual multiplex PCR profile to that usually observed with IVb strains, with an additional band due to the amplification of the lmo0737 gene fragment as previously described [26].

              Subtyping data

              Each fAFLP and PFGE type contained isolates belonging to only one of the 4 molecular serogroups, or serotype 4a, except for one PFGE type (81/194) which contained isolates from serogroups IIa and IIc (Figure 1).
              http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-13-14/MediaObjects/12866_2012_1871_Fig1_HTML.jpg
              Figure 1

              Dendogram of similarity for 86 L. monocytogenes isolates based on fAFLP type using the Dice coefficient and UPGMA.

              Reproducibility and discriminatory power of the subtyping methods

              Table 1 shows the subtyping results of isolates used to evaluate the reproducibility, the discriminatory power and the ability to recognize same-type groups of isolates using PFGE and fAFLP. Isolates included in the study as duplicates gave indistinguishable fAFLP types and PFGE types (Table 1). Table 1 also shows that distinct PFGE types and fAFLP types were observed in each groups of isolates associated with outbreak or sporadic cases, except for TS isolates group 03: PFGE type 120/191 was detected in L. monocytogenes TS67, TS56 (duplicate of TS77) and TS 39, but displayed two different fAFLP types i.e. VII.27 and VII.27a. These 2 fAFLP types were indistinguishable except for a small additional ‘shoulder’ after a double peak of 206 base pairs, as seen on the PeakScanner scan, present in strains TS39 and TS67 (type VIIa.27a) but not in isolate TS56 (type VIIa.27). To rule out any fluorescent artefacts, the 3 isolates were processed in triplicate on separate occasions and the fAFLP profile obtained by each replicate was always the same, including the ‘shoulder’ at 206 bp with strains TS39 and TS67.

              Both subtyping methods separated the isolates into three distinct groups correlating with L. monocytogenes genetic lineages I, II and III (Figure 1; Figure 2; Figure 3). The 11 reference strains, including the 8 CLIP and the 3 fully sequenced strains, were classified by both fAFLP and PFGE, into the expected genetic lineages (Figure 1; Figure 2; Figure 3). The discriminatory power of fAFLP and PFGE was evaluated using 97 isolates including field strains, references strains, sporadic cases and representative isolates from each outbreak. The ID calculated from the typing results of fAFLP and PFGE is shown in Table 3. The ID calculated from fAFLP typing was 0.993 and from PFGE typing 0.996. Both typing techniques were found to be more discriminatory for L. monocytogenes Lineage II than for those of lineage I.
              http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-13-14/MediaObjects/12866_2012_1871_Fig2_HTML.jpg
              Figure 2

              Dendogram of similarity for 86 L. monocytogenes isolates based on Apa I-PFGE type using the Dice coefficient and UPGMA.

              http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-13-14/MediaObjects/12866_2012_1871_Fig3_HTML.jpg
              Figure 3

              Dendogram of similarity for 86 L. monocytogenes isolates based on Asc I-PFGE type using the Dice coefficient and UPGMA. H: human, F: food ; E: environment ; A: animal.

              Table 3

              PFGE and fAFLP typing results from a panel of 97 L. monocytogenes isolates with index of discrimination (ID)

              L. monocytogeneslineages

              Serogroups1or serotype2

              Number of isolates

              Number of PFGE3types

              PFGE ID4

              Number of fAFLP3types

              fAFLP ID4

              I

              IVb

              35

              36

              0.988

              33

              0.981

              IIb

              11

              II

              IIa

              45

              45

              0.995

              43

              0.989

              IIc

              5

              III

              4a

              1

              1

              n/a

              1

              n/a

              Total:

              97

              82

              0.996

              76

              0.993

              1 Serogrouping performed by multiplex PCR [4]: results are from both the European Reference Laboratory (EURL) for L. monocytogenes and the UK National Reference laboratory (UK-NRL) for Listeria.

              2 Based on sero-agglutination performed by EURL.

              3 ApaI/AscI-PFGE was performed by the EURL and HindIII/HhaI-fAFLP by UK-NRL.

              4 Index of discrimination calculated according to the Simpson’s index of diversity (ID) [25]. n/a: not applicable.

              Discussion

              The objective of this study was to compare fAFLP with PFGE for the subtyping of L. monocytogenes. The EURL for L. monocytogenes is the leader laboratory for improving or evaluate new typing methods and deploy them through the European NRL network. As well as comparing two subtyping methods, this study was also an opportunity to evaluate the inter-laboratory reproducibility of the multiplex PCR developed by Doumith et al. (2004) [4], to serogroup L. monocytogenes. The molecular serogrouping results of 109 isolates tested in this study were concordant between the two laboratories. The variant profile of serogroup IVb, characterized by the amplification of a supplementary gene fragment and previously described [26, 27], was identified in the same four isolates by both laboratories, demonstrating the reproducibility of the method.

              PFGE is widely acknowledged to be a time-consuming and labor-intensive method: the analyses are completed in 30 hours to three days from receipt of pure culture. It also requires highly skilled operators and does not offer commercially available standardized reagents. FAFLP has some advantages over PFGE: results can be achieved within 48 hours; the method is easy to perform and is less-labor intensive. It enables a high sample throughput and is readily automatable and standardization can be facilitated by the use of commercially available reagents. The cost per isolate for both techniques was calculated by the EURL and UK-NRL and was found similar: PFGE €6.02 and fAFLP £3.26. One inconvenience of fAFLP is the use of a capillary electrophoresis system such as a DNA sequencer to enable amplified fragments to be sized rapidly and accurately. However, the method could easily be used by laboratories currently performing PFGE, even those without a capillary electrophoresis equipment as many commercial companies now provide fragment analysis as a standalone service. As well as PFGE results, FAFLP data are suitable for electronic transmission between laboratories. FAFLP profiles could be prone to subjective interpretation in a similar manner to PFGE profiles with the generation of large, double and uncertain peaks. This was found to be the case when fAFLP was used for subtyping Salmonella enterica[28]. Therefore the choice of restriction enzymes is important. For L. monocytogenes, the fAFLP protocol used here was based on the digestion of bacterial genome by the restriction enzymes HindIII and HhaI. This combination of enzymes generated profiles typically composed of between 50–80 fragments within a range of 60–600 bp, which were easily recognisable as fluorescent peaks on PEAK SCANNER™ chromatographs. The level of fluorescence sometimes varied between different batches of samples, but the number of peaks obtained by replicate samples in different batches was 100% reproducible. Therefore, the percentage of similarity between each fAFLP types selected was higher (100%) than chosen in previous works (>95%) [11, 13].

              The 109 isolates were divided by fAFLP and PFGE into three clearly distinguishable lineages. A similar division had previously been detected by fAFLP analyses with enzyme combinations other than those used in this study [9, 10]. This division correlates with the flagellar (H) antigen type which confirms the phylogenetic divergence between strains of serogroups IVb and IIb and those of serogroups IIa and IIc.

              The subtyping results obtained in this study on a panel of L. monocytogenes field strains from human clinical cases, foods, food processing environments and animal cases, reference strains and isolates associated with outbreaks or sporadic cases showed equal discriminatory ability between fAFLP (ID 0.993) and ApaI/ AscI-PFGE (ID 0.996). Lomonaco et al. (2011) [13] also obtained similar discriminatory power between these 2 subtyping methods, but only on a panel of L. monocytogenes isolates from environmental and food sources. With other bacteria such as Salmonella and E.coli 0157, the discriminatory power of fAFLP was also found to be similar to PFGE [28].

              In this study, isolates TS39 and TS67, produced a fAFLP profile indistinguishable from that produced by TS56 (duplicate of TS77), except for a small ‘shoulder’ after a specific double peak. The shoulder was not an artefact and appeared consistently, as shown by replicate testing. Because this difference was estimated as being ‘less than a peak’, all 4 isolates were assigned the same fAFLP type (VII.27) but for stringency purposes, the appendix ‘a’ was added to express the presence of the shoulder. These TS isolates were reported as a single type group (group 03) [17, 20] according to the same Multilocus Enzyme Electrophoresis type by Pinner et al. (1992) [18]. However, in a separate study, PFGE profiles performed with adifferent combination of enzymes (ApaI/ SmaI) than those used by the EURL, showed the 2 isolates TS39 and TS67 to be closely related but different from TS56 [5]. Since PFGE and fAFLP rely on the recognition of restriction sites and therefore detect genetic variations on sections of the whole bacterial genome, whole genome sequencing would be a method of choice to reveal the difference between these isolates.

              Conclusions

              In conclusion the UK-NRL fAFLP protocol has been shown to be highly discriminatory, equal to that of the EURL PFGE protocol. FAFLP can be used for investigating outbreaks of human listeriosis and tracking the source of contamination in foods and food processing facilities. This study demonstrated that the fAFLP protocol used by UK-NRL is an ideal alternative to PFGE to subtype L. monocytogenes. However, before deploying fAFLP through the European NRL network, this method needs to be fully standardized and its reproducibility assessed by proficiency test trials. This would enable efficient comparison and interpretation of fAFLP data and an agreed assignment of fAFLP types in the future.

              Declarations

              Acknowledgements

              This work was conducted as part of the activities of the European Union Reference Laboratory for Listeria monocytogenes and was supported by a grant from the Directorate-General for Heath and Consumers (DG Sanco) of the European Commission.

              Authors’ Affiliations

              (1)
              ANSES, Maisons-Alfort Laboratory for Food Safety, Bacterial Characterization and Epidemiology Unit
              (2)
              Health Protection Agency, Gastrointestinal Bacteria Reference Unit

              References

              1. Goulet V, Hedberg C, Le Monnier A, de Valk H: Increasing incidence of listeriosis in France and other European countries. Emerg Infect Dis 2008,14(5):734–740.PubMedView Article
              2. EFSA-ECDC: The community summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in the European Union in 2008. EFSA J 2010 2010,8(1):1496. 137–165
              3. Orsi RH, Bakker HC, Wiedmann M: Listeria monocytogenes lineages: genomics, evolution, ecology, and phenotypic characteristics. Int J Med Microbiol 2011,301(2):79–96.PubMedView Article
              4. Doumith M, Buchrieser C, Glaser P, Jacquet C, Martin P: Differentiation of the major Listeria monocytogenes serovars by multiplex PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2004,42(8):3819–3822.PubMedView Article
              5. Brosch R, Brett M, Catimel B, Luchansky JB, Ojeniyi B, Rocourt J: Genomic fingerprinting of 80 strains from the WHO multicenter international typing study of Listeria monocytogenes via pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Int J Food Microbiol 1996,32(3):343–355.PubMedView Article
              6. Kerouanton A, Brisabois A, Denoyer E, Dilasser F, Grout J, Salvat G, Picard B: Comparison of five typing methods for the epidemiological study of Listeria monocytogenes. Int J Food Microbiol 1998,43(1–2):61–71.PubMedView Article
              7. Graves LM, Swaminathan B: PulseNet standardized protocol for subtyping Listeria monocytogenes by macrorestriction and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Int J Food Microbiol 2001,65(1–2):55–62.PubMedView Article
              8. Aarts HJ, Hakemulder LE, Van Hoef AM: Genomic typing of Listeria monocytogenes strains by automated laser fluorescence analysis of amplified fragment length polymorphism fingerprint patterns. Int J Food Microbiol 1999,49(1–2):95–102.PubMedView Article
              9. Keto-Timonen RO, Autio TJ, Korkeala HJ: An improved amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) protocol for discrimination of Listeria isolates. Syst Appl Microbiol 2003,26(2):236–244.PubMedView Article
              10. Fonnesbech Vogel B, Fussing V, Ojeniyi B, Gram L, Ahrens P: High-resolution genotyping of Listeria monocytogenes by fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis compared to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis, ribotyping, and PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis. J Food Prot 2004,67(8):1656–1665.PubMed
              11. Parisi A, Latorre L, Normanno G, Miccolupo A, Fraccalvieri R, Lorusso V, Santagada G: Amplified fragment length polymorphism and multi-locus sequence typing for high-resolution genotyping of Listeria monocytogenes from foods and the environment. Food Microbiol 2010,27(1):101–108.PubMedView Article
              12. Desai M, Logan JM, Frost JA, Stanley J: Genome sequence-based fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphism of Campylobacter jejuni, its relationship to serotyping, and its implications for epidemiological analysis. J Clin Microbiol 2001,39(11):3823–3829.PubMedView Article
              13. Lomonaco S, Nucera D, Parisi A, Normanno G, Bottero MT: Comparison of two AFLP methods and PFGE using strains of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from environmental and food samples obtained from Piedmont, Italy. Int J Food Microbiol 2011,149(2):177–182.PubMedView Article
              14. Félix B, Dao TT, Grout J, Lombard B, Assere A, Brisabois A, Roussel S: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, conventional, and molecular serotyping of listeria monocytogenes from food proficiency testing trials toward an harmonization of subtyping at European level. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2012,9(8):719–726.PubMedView Article
              15. Félix B, Brisabois A, Dao TT, Lombard B, Asséré A, Roussel S: The use of Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis in Listeria monocytogenes sub-typing: harmonization at the European Union level. In Gel Electrophoresis: Principles and Basics. Edited by: Sameh M. Japan: Niigata University; 2012:241–254.
              16. van Belkum A, Tassios PT, Dijkshoorn L, Haeggman S, Cookson B, Fry NK, Fussing V, Green J, Feil E, Gerner-Smidt P, et al.: Guidelines for the validation and application of typing methods for use in bacterial epidemiology. Clin Microbiol Infect 2007,13(Suppl 3):1–46.PubMedView Article
              17. Bille J, Rocourt J: WHO International multicenter listeria monocytogenes subtyping study– rationale and set-up of the study. Int J Food Microbiol 1996,32(3):251–262.PubMedView Article
              18. Pinner RW, Schuchat A, Swaminathan B, Hayes PS, Deaver KA, Weaver RE, Plikaytis BD, Reeves M, Broome CV, Wenger JD, Listeria study group: Role of foods in sporadic listeriosis. JAMA 1992,267(15):2046–2050.PubMedView Article
              19. McLauchlin J, Audrier A, Taylor AG: Aspects of epidemiology of human Listeria monocytogenes in Britain 1967–1984; The use of serotyping and phage-typing. J Med Microbiol 1986, 22:367–377.PubMedView Article
              20. Schonberg A, Bannerman E, Courtieu AL, Kiss R, McLauchlin J, Shah S, Wilhelms D: Serotyping of 80 strains from the WHO multicentre international typing study of Listeria monocytogenes. Int J Food Microbiol 1996,32(3):279–287.PubMedView Article
              21. Glaser P, Frangeul L, Buchrieser C, Rusniok C, Amend A, Baquero F, Berche P, Bloecker H, Brandt P, Chakraborty T, et al.: Comparative genomics of Listeria species. Science 2001,294(5543):849–852.PubMed
              22. Nelson KE, Fouts DE, Mongodin EF, Ravel J, DeBoy RT, Kolonay JF, Rasko DA, Angiuoli SV, Gill SR, Paulsen IT, et al.: Whole genome comparisons of serotype 4b and 1/2a strains of the food-borne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes reveal new insights into the core genome components of this species. Nucleic Acids Res 2004,32(8):2386–2395.PubMedView Article
              23. Hain T, Ghai R, Billion A, Kuenne CT, Steinweg C, Izar B, Mohamed W, Mraheil MA, Domann E, Schaffrath S, et al.: Comparative genomics and transcriptomics of lineages I, II, and III strains of Listeria monocytogenes. BMC Genomics 2012, 13:144.PubMedView Article
              24. Martin P, Jacquet C, Goulet V, Vaillant V, De Valk H: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of Listeria monocytogenes strains: the pulsenet Europe feasibility study. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2006,3(3):303–308.PubMedView Article
              25. Hunter PR, Gaston MA: Numerical index of the discriminatory ability of typing systems: an application of Simpson’s index of diversity. J Clin Microbiol 1988,26(11):2465–2466.PubMed
              26. Huang B, Fang N, Dimovski K, Wang X, Hogg G, Bates J: Observation of a new pattern in serogroup-related PCR typing of Listeria monocytogenes 4b isolates. J Clin Microbiol 2011,49(1):426–429.PubMedView Article
              27. Graves LM, Broeker R, Garette N: Comparison of a multiplex PCR assay and conventional serotyping for sero-classification of Listeria monocytogenes isolates in the USA 2005–2006.. [ISOPOL XVI, March 20–23 Proceeding of conference, Poster communication P02 2007]
              28. Torpdahl M, Skov MN, Sandvang D, Baggesen DL: Genotypic characterization of Salmonella by multilocus sequence typing, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and amplified fragment length polymorphism. J Microbiol Methods 2005,63(2):173–184.PubMedView Article

              Copyright

              © Roussel et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

              This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

              Advertisement