01991nas a2200421   4500000000100000008004100001260001300042653001000055653000900065653001200074653003200086653001600118653001900134653001100153653001100164653001200175653000900187653000900196653001600205653002600221653002700247653002500274653002600299653003600325100001200361700001300373700001500386700000900401700001000410700001500420700001100435245008800446856007300534300001100607490000700618520093000625022001401555       2008                            d  c2008 Jul10aAdult10aAged10aAlleles10aBacterial Typing Techniques10aDNA Primers10aDNA, Bacterial10aFemale10aHumans10aleprosy10aMale10aMali10aMiddle Aged10aMinisatellite Repeats10aMolecular Epidemiology10aMycobacterium leprae10aPolymorphism, Genetic10aPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide1 aMonot M1 aHonore N1 aBalière C1 aJi B1 aSow S1 aBrennan PJ1 aCole S00aAre variable-number tandem repeats appropriate for genotyping Mycobacterium leprae?  uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2446919/pdf/0239-08.pdf  a2291-70 v463 a<p>Comparative genomics analysis of the Tamil Nadu strain of Mycobacterium leprae has uncovered several polymorphic sites with potential as epidemiological tools. In this study we compared the stability of two different markers of genomic biodiversity of M. leprae in several biopsy samples isolated from the same leprosy patient. The first type comprises five different variable-number tandem repeats (VNTR), while the second is composed of three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Contrasting results were obtained, since no variation was seen in the SNP profiles of M. leprae from 42 patients from 7 different locations in Mali whereas the VNTR profiles varied considerably. Furthermore, since variation in the VNTR pattern was seen not only between different isolates of M. leprae but also between biopsy samples from the same patient, these VNTR may be too dynamic for use as epidemiological markers for leprosy.</p>  a1098-660X