Bacterial Identification: Fatty Acid, 16S or Biolog?

Jayakumar, R via methods%40net.bio.net (by R.Jayakumar from roswellpark.org)
Tue Jul 24 12:54:32 EST 2007


I would go for the fatty acid analysis, if the 16SrRNA analysis did not
provide with sufficient information. Again the 16SrRNA analysis is
limited to the available sequences in the database.  There are
professional services from different companies which will do yout he
Fatty acid profile for a fee.
Jay
 

-----Original Message-----
From: methods-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu
[mailto:methods-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:55 PM
To: methods from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Subject: Bacterial Identification: Fatty Acid, 16S or Biolog?

First, this group has provided me a wealth of info over the last 10
years or so... so now I post a question.

In terms of getting the most accurate identification of a bacterium at
species level (medical, plant associated, environmental, etc.... in
general) which system provides the best resolution:  Fatty acid
analysis, 16S rDNA sequence analysis (assume full seq.), or Biolog?  I
want your opinions... let's remove cost of analysis from the equation.
I have my own opinion... but is it a bias??

Thank you for your contributions!

Stirring the fire --Brian

_______________________________________________
Methods mailing list
Methods from net.bio.net
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/methods


This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your computer. Thank you.



More information about the Methods mailing list