Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Molecular epidemiology of C. diphtheriaestrains during different phases of the diphtheria epidemic in Belarus

  • Valentina Kolodkina1Email author,
  • Leonid Titov1,
  • Tatyana Sharapa1,
  • Francine Grimont2,
  • Patrick AD Grimont2 and
  • Androulla Efstratiou3
BMC Infectious Diseases20066:129

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-6-129

Received: 31 January 2006

Accepted: 15 August 2006

Published: 15 August 2006

Abstract

Background

The reemergence of epidemic diphtheria in Belarus in 1990s has provided us with important information on the biology of the disease and the diversity of the causative agent Corynebacterium diphtheriae. Molecular investigations were conducted with the aim to analyze the genetic variability of C diphtheriae during the post-epidemic period.

Methods

The biotype and toxigenicity status of 3513 C. diphtheriae strains isolated from all areas in Belarus during a declining period of diphtheria morbidity (1996–2005) was undertaken. Of these, 384 strains were isolated from diphtheria cases, 1968 from tonsillitis patients, 426 from contacts and 735 from healthy carriers. Four hundred and thirty two selected strains were ribotyped.

Results

The C diphtheriae gravis biotype, which was prevalent during 1996–2000, was "replaced" by the mitis biotype during 2001–2005. The distribution of toxigenic C. diphtheriae strains also decreased from 47.1% (1996) to 5.8% (2005). Changes in the distribution of the epidemic ribotypes Sankt-Peterburg and Rossija were also observed. During 2001–2005 the proportion of the Sankt-Peterburg ribotype decreased from 24.3% to 2.3%, in contrast to the Rossija ribotype, that increased from 25.1% to 49.1%. The circulation of other toxigenic ribotypes (Otchakov, Lyon, Bangladesh), which were prevalent during the period of high diphtheria incidence, also decreased. But at the same time, the proportion of non-toxigenic strains with the Cluj and Rossija ribotypes dramatically increased and accounted for 49.3% and 30.1%, respectively.

Conclusion

The decrease in morbidity correlated with the dramatic decrease in the isolation of the gravis biotype and Sankt Peterburg ribotype, and the prevalence of the Rossija ribotype along with other rare ribotypes associated with non-toxigenic strains (Cluj and Rossija, in particular).

Background

The diphtheria epidemic, which emerged in the 1990's in the newly independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union, was also reported from Belarus. In Belarus, 794 diphtheria cases were identified during 1990–1995, of which 25 were fatal. As a consequence of mass immunization the morbidity stabilized in 1996. In 2005 the morbidity decreased to 0.11 per 100 000 population with a morbidity index of 0.1/100 000 population in advance of the WHO target for 2010. However, the diphtheria incidence in Belarus remained higher than in previous decades. Prediction of the epidemic process and elimination of diphtheria relies mainly on pathogen circulation analysis. Microbiological monitoring currently includes modern molecular biologic and genetic approaches for the investigatation of C. diphtheriae isolates. A variety of molecular methods including multilocus enzyme electrophoresis, ribotyping, pulsed – field gel electrophoresis, and RAPD have been described. All these showed not only broad circulation of different genotypes but also revealed long-term persistence in regions where manifest severe forms of infections have not been registered [1, 2]. The genetic population of C. diphtheriae was not constant throughout the epidemic process as confirmed by molecular-epidemiologic methods. The prevalence of epidemic strains that belonged to a specific biotype and ribotype was characteristic for each epidemic cycle [3, 4]. Epidemic C. diphtheriae strains, which were prevalent during the diphtheria epidemic in Belarus, belonged to the gravis biotype and were represented by two ribotypes – Sankt-Peterburg and Rossija [5]. The diphtheria epidemics in Russia and the other NIS countries were also associated with these ribotypes [611]. Strains of the Rossija ribotype were known to have circulated in some Russian regions five years before the emergence of the epidemic [12]. The data, obtained from molecular-biologic methods, has provided much deeper understanding of the diphtheria epidemic process. However, precise mechanisms of epidemic C. diphtheriae strains' appearance and their elimination remain unclear. The aim of this study was to unveil changes in the C. diphtheriae population during the decrease of diphtheria morbidity in Belarus.

Methods

Bacterial strains

As a result of the implementation of microbiologic screening, a collection of C. diphtheriae strains circulating in Belarus was made at the Institute for Epidemiology and Microbiology in Minsk during 1996–2005. The permission for conducting the study was obtained from the Ethical Committee of the Ministry of Health of Belarus. A total of 3513 C. diphtheriae strains isolated from all areas in Belarus during the period of morbidity decrease were analyzed. Of these, 384 strains were isolated from diphtheria cases, 1968 – from tonsillitis patients, 426 – from contacts, and 735 – from healthy carriers.

Biotyping and toxigenicity testing

Biotyping was performed according to the World Health Organization manual for the laboratory diagnosis of diphtheria [13]. Toxigenicity was determined by the Elek immunoprecipitation method [13]. The strains also were tested for the presence of the diphtheria toxin gene by PCR amplification (with diphtheria toxin gene-specific primers) as described in manual [13].

Ribotyping

Total of 432 C. diphtheriae strains was used for ribotyping. The data for 102 strains was taken from previous study [5]. DNA was extracted by phenol/chloroform method and ribotyping of the strains was performed as previously described [5, 14].

To date, 86 distinct ribotypes with the endonuclease BstEII were chosen for the ribotyping database [15], and each ribotype pattern is represented by a reference strain possessing a unique geographical name, producing a stable and reproducible ribotype pattern. These reference strains also had common ribotype patterns generated by both endonucleases BstEII and PvuII.

Pheno- and genotyping characteristics of C. diphtheriae strains circulated from 1996 till 2000 correlated well with those from the 2001–2005 period.

Results

C. diphtheriaephenotypic characteristics

Analysis of 2000 C. diphtheriae strains, isolated in 1996–2000, showed that 60.8% belonged to the gravis biotype, 36.7% – to the mitis biotype and 2.5% – to the belfanti biotype (Table 1). Amongst 1513 strains isolated from 2001 to 2005, 54.4%, 39.5% and 6.1% belong to the mitis, gravis and belfanti biotypes respectively. Thus, the diphtheria morbidity decrease was accompanied by changes of the main C. diphtheriae biotypes. During, 1996–2000 the gravis biotype predominated (60.8%) and in 2001–2005 the biotype mitis predominated (54.4%).
Table 1

The circulation of C. diphtheriae biotypes in Belarus (1996–2005)

Year

Total strains

C. diphtheriae biotype

  

gravis

mitis

belfanti

  

no.

%

no.

%

no.

%

1996

486

316

65.0

168

34.6

2

0.4

1997

410

231

56.3

170

41.5

9

2.2

1998

362

209

57.7

129

35.7

24

6.6

1999

339

220

64.9

115

33.9

4

1.2

2000

403

241

59.8

152

37.7

10

2.5

1996–2000

2000

1217

60.8

734

36.7

49

2.5

2001

408

187

45.8

192

47.1

29

7.1

2002

310

130

41.9

160

51.6

20

6.5

2003

213

66

31.0

131

61.5

16

7.5

2004

290

100

34.5

169

58.3

21

7.2

2005

292

114

39.0

171

58.6

7

2.4

2001–2005

1513

597

39.5

823

54.4

93

6.1

C. diphtheriaetoxigenicity

Analysis of the toxigenicity of C. diphtheriae by the Elek test showed that during the period of decreased diphtheria morbidity there was a decline in the circulation of toxigenic C. diphtheriae. In 1996, toxigenic strains comprised 47.1% of 486 strains analyzed, in 2005 only 6.8% from 292 examined strains were toxigenic (P < 0.001) (Table 2). A decrease in the proportion of toxigenic strains of the two biotypes was observed: amongst gravis – from 65.8% to 17.5%, amongst mitis – from 12.5% to 0% (Table 2). In 1996–2005, 142 belfanti strains of a total of 3513 were non toxigenic. However, isolates of toxigenic gravis biotype were prevalent among toxigenic strains during the whole period. The proportion ranged from 71.4% – 100.0%.
Table 2

The circulation of toxigenic C. diphtheriae in Belarus (1996–2005)

Year

C. diphtheriae

Total strains

 

gravis

mitis

belfanti

   
 

total strains

tox +

total strains

tox +

total strains

tox +

no.

tox +

  

no.

%

 

no.

%

 

no.

%

 

no.

%

1996

316

208

65.8

168

21

12.5

2

0

0

486

229

47.1

1997

231

137

59.3

170

12

7.0

9

0

0

410

149

36.3

1998

209

71

34.0

129

0

0

24

0

0

362

71

19.6

1999

220

99

45.0

115

5

4.3

4

0

0

339

104

30.7

2000

241

115

47.7

152

5

3.3

10

0

0

403

120

29.8

1996–2000

1217

630

51.8

734

43

5.9

49

0

0

2000

673

33.7

2001

187

54

28.9

192

1

0.5

29

0

0

408

55

13.5

2002

130

25

19.2

160

0

0

20

0

0

310

25

8.1

2003

66

12

18.2

131

4

3.1

16

0

0

213

16

7.5

2004

100

40

40.0

169

16

9.5

21

0

0

290

56

19.3

2005

114

20

17.5

171

0

0

7

0

0

292

20

6.8

2001–2005

597

148

24.8

823

21

2.6

93

0

0

1513

169

11.2

C. diphtheriaestrains genetic characteristics

Genotypic characteristics of the C. diphtheriae population was based upon ribotype analysis of 432 strains, including 269 toxigenic and 163 non-toxigenic strains. Amongst these, 220 were from diphtheria cases, 116 – from tonsillitis patients, 45 – from contacts, 51 – from healthy carriers. Twenty ribotypes were identified amongst 259 strains, isolated during 1996–2000 (Table 3). Approximately 49.4% were attributed to the two ribotypes: Sankt-Peterburg (24.3%) and Rossija (25.1%). The remainder (50.6%) were represented by 18 ribotypes, which occurred with a frequency range of 0.4 to 16.9. During 2001–2005, the numbers of circulating C. diphtheriae ribotypes decreased to 12, with the Rossija (49.1%) and Cluj ribotypes (20.8%) being prevalent. Ten ribotypes represented the remaining 30.1% strains, which occurred within a frequency range of 0.6 to 11.0%. Evidence from our investigations showed that eight ribotypes, which were prevalent in earlier years, were not identified in the country during 2001–2005. At the same time the circulation level of the Sankt-Peterburg ribotype, which was the predominant epidemic genotype, decreased from 24.3% to 2.3%. This resulted in a comparative increase of the Rossija epidemic ribotype from 25.1% to 49.1%, (P < 0,001) amongst the C. diphtheriae population.
Table 3

C. diphtheriae ribotype prevalence in Belarus (1996–2005)

International designation

Former designation (London)

1996–2000 period

2001–2005 period

  

Total strains

%

Total strains

%

Sankt-Peterburg

D1

63

24.3

4

2.3

Rossija

D4

65

25.1

85

49.1

Rossija derivation

 

-

-

8

4.6

Otchakov

D7

18

6.9

19

11.0

Lyon

D6

11

4.2

3

1.7

Bangladesh

D36

2

0.8

1

0.6

Erlabrunn

D15

2

0.8

-

-

Schwarzenberg

D13

2

0.8

1

0.6

Moskva

 

44

16.9

8

4.6

Cluj

D10

34

13.1

36

20.8

Minsk

D30

1

0.4

-

-

Gomel

 

1

0.4

-

-

Ras-el-Ma

 

2

0.8

-

-

Thailand

D19

1

0.4

-

-

Prahova

D17

1

0.4

-

-

Dagestan

D9

1

0.4

-

-

Gatchina

D5

1

0.4

-

-

Buzau

 

1

0.4

-

-

Close to Nan

D63

2

0.8

-

-

Close to Pakistan

D12/D31

-

-

2

1.2

Close to Versailles

D44/54/55

1

0.4

-

-

Neamt

D22

-

-

1

0.6

New 1–11

 

6

2.3

5

2.9

Total

 

259

100.0

173

100.0

Analysis of the toxigenicity characteristics amongst the various C. diphtheriae ribotypes demonstrated that despite a dramatic decrease in the circulation of toxigenic strains during the period of declining morbidity, the C. diphtheriae ribotypes that predominated were still toxigenic. During 2001–2005, all strains belonging to the Sankt-Peterburg (4 strains), Otchakov (19 strains), Lyon (3 strain), Bangladesh (1 strain) exhibited toxigenic activity (Table 4). A decrease in the proportion of toxigenic strains belonging to the Rossija ribotype (from 93.8% to 74.1%) as well as that of a new ribotype, which was not prevalent in previous years, was reported. We therefore, conclude that in 2001–2005 not only "toxigenic" ribotypes which rarely occurred in the epidemic years were eliminated, but also the proportion of "toxigenic" ribotypes that were prevalent during the high incidence peak decreased from 55.6% to 27.0%. However, the strains of these ribotypes that continued to circulate remained toxigenic.
Table 4

Toxigenic strains amongst C. diphtheriae ribotypes (Belarus, 1996–2005)

Ribotype/BstEII

1996–2000 period

2001–2005 period

International designation

Former designation (London)

Total strains

Toxigenic strains

Total strains

Toxigenic strains

   

no.

%

 

no.

%

Sankt-Peterburg

D1

63

62

98.4

4

4

100.0

Rossija

D4

65

61

93.8

85

63

74.1

Rossija derivation

 

-

-

-

8

8

100.0

Otchakov

D7

18

18

100.0

19

19

100.0

Lyon

D6

11

11

100.0

3

3

100.0

Bangladesh

D36

2

2

100.0

1

1

100.0

Erlabrunn

D15

2

1

50.0

-

-

-

Schwarzenberg

D13

2

2

100.0

1

-

-

Moskva

 

44

-

-

8

-

-

Cluj

D10

34

1

2.9

36

-

-

Minsk

D30

1

1

100.0

-

-

-

Gomel

 

1

1

100.0

-

-

-

Ras-el-Ma

 

2

-

-

-

-

-

Thailand

D19

1

-

-

-

-

-

Prahova

D17

1

-

-

-

-

-

Dagestan

D9

1

-

-

-

-

-

Gatchina

D5

1

-

-

-

-

-

Buzau

 

1

1

100.0

-

-

-

Close to Nan

D63

2

2

100.0

-

-

-

Close to Pakistan

D12/D31

-

-

-

2

-

-

Close to Versailles

D44/54/55

1

-

-

-

-

-

Neamt

D22

-

-

-

1

-

-

New 1–11

 

6

6

100.0

5

2

40.0

Total

 

259

169

65.3

173

100

57.8

Distinct features amongst various C. diphtheriae ribotypes were also observed amongst non-toxigenic strains. In 1996–2000 the proportion of non-toxigenic strains from 259 analyzed, accounted for 34.7%, and increased to 42.2% amongst 173 strains examined during 2001–2005. Non-toxigenic C. diphtheriae strains isolated in 1996–2000 were attributed to 11 ribotypes (Table 5). The Moskva (48.9%) and Cluj (36.7%) ribotypes were prevalent within this group. The remainder of non-toxigenic strains (14.4%) was represented by nine ribotypes and occurred at a frequency of 4.5 % – 1.1%. In 2001–2005 the numbers of circulating non-toxigenic C. diphtheriae ribotypes decreased to seven with the Cluj (49.3%) and Rossija (30.1%) ribotypes predominating. Thus, in 2001–2005, the rare ribotypes (Ras-el-Ma, Thailand, Prahova, Dagestan, and Gatchina) were eliminated and other more rarely encountered ribotypes (Close to Pakistan, Neamt) emerged. Strains of the Cluj ribotype continued to prevail within the C. diphtheriae population whilst the proportion of the Moskva ribotype decreased to 11.0%. A relative increase of non-toxigenic strains was observed amongst the Rossija ribotype and as a result were second to the Cluj ribotype.
Table 5

Ribotypes of non-toxigenic C. diphtheriae (Belarus, 1996–2005)

Ribotype/BstE II

 

1996–2000 period

2001–2005 period

International designation

Former designation (London)

total strains

%

total strains

%

Sankt-Peterburg

D1

1

1.1

-

-

Rossija

D4

4

4.5

22

30.1

Moskva

 

44

48.9

8

11.0

Cluj

D10

33

36.7

36

49.3

Erlabrunn

D15

1

1.1

-

-

Schwarzenberg

D13

-

-

1

1.4

Ras-el-Ma

 

2

2.2

-

-

Thailand

D19

1

1.1

-

-

Prahova

D17

1

1.1

-

-

Dagestan

D9

1

1.1

-

-

Gatchina

D5

1

1.1

-

-

Close to Pakistan

D12/D31

-

-

2

2.7

Close to Versailles

D44/54/55

1

1.1

-

-

Neamt

D22

-

-

1

1.4

New 9–11

 

-

-

3

4.1

Total

 

90

100.0

73

100.0

Discussion

The morbidity of diphtheria in Belarus decreased as a consequence of mass immunization and was accompanied in 1996 by changes in the circulating population of C. diphtheriae. The gravis biotype which prevailed in 1996–2000 was 'replaced' with the mitis biotype in 2001–2005. This phenomenon of biotype replacement was may be due to colonization resistance by the human population to a single biotype whilst remaining susceptible to the others [16].

Simultaneously, we observed a decrease in the proportion of toxigenic C. diphtheriae strains from 47.1% (1996) to 6.8% (2005). Toxigenic C. diphtheriae strains offer some selective advantages as compared to non-toxigenic variants in the non-immune human population. The diphtheria toxin induces local tissue changes promoting the colonization and maximum reproduction of bacteria from a clonal group thus contributing to better transmission. These toxigenic strains advantages are not found in immunized individuals [1]. This appears to be a possible explanation for the decrease in the circulation of toxigenic C. diphtheriae strains in a highly immune population.

Ribotyping analysis revealed the elimination of rare ribotypes (toxigenic as well as non-toxigenic) during the period of decreased morbidity. Thus, several ribotypes present 0.8–0.4% during 1996–2000 were completely eliminated. These include Minsk, Gomel, Ras-el-Ma, Thailand, Prahova, Dagestan, Gatchina, Close to Nan, Close to Versailles ribotypes. As regards gravis biotype strains, in 2001–2005 only the Sankt-Peterburg ribotype population dramatically decreased from 24.3% to 2.3%, in contrast, the proportion of the Rossija biotype increased from 25.1% to 49.1%. It is generally believed that surface structures of C. diphtheriae – which are putative colonization factors – display intraspecies differences [16]. Presumably, this could explain the complete disappearance of Sankt-Peterburg ribotype strains whilst preserving another epidemic ribotype – Rossjia. There was a significant increase in the proportion of non-toxigenic strains amongst the total circulating C. diphtheriae with the prevalent ribotypes being Cluj and Rossija (49.1% and 20.8%, respectively) and correlated with the long-term circulation of non-toxigenic strains of the ribotypes Rossija and Cluj. On the other hand, the Rossija ribotype demonstrated a high level of toxigenic strains during 2000–2005 (36.4% of total analysed, 63.0% of total toxigenic strains). Interestingly, a high level of toxigenic strains (100%) was also registered for the Otchakov, Lyon and Bangladesh ribotypes, although their occurrence during 2001–2005 decreased markedly.

In recent years in Belarus, population immunity has increased (92.4% of protected individuals), but the continued circulation of toxigenic C. diphtheriae does not exclude the emergence of sporadic cases of disease, in certain risk groups. A WHO meeting in 1993 concluded that to achieve the elimination of diphtheria, a minimum immunization coverage rate of 90% in children and 75% in adult is required. [17]. From the data available to date it is still unclear whether highly virulent and toxigenic strains will be eliminated from C. diphtheriae population. Rappuoli et al. [18] suggested that epidemic strains had some selective advantage, such as increased virulence or enhanced ability to colonize and spread. Unfortunately, microbial factors that distinguish epidemic from endemic strains have not been identified [19, 20]. Intense investigation of advantage-giving virulence factors is necessary for epidemic strains – this will allow us to identify conditions necessary for their elimination. Further monitoring of C. diphtheriae circulation in Belarus with molecular-genetic methods as well as determination of molecular-genetic properties in the pathogen population will be the focus of future investigations.

Conclusion

Diphtheria morbidity decreased in Belarus, which was accompanied by significant population changes in the genetic structure of C. diphtheriae. Certain correlations between the genetic evolution of C. diphtheriae and toxin-production have been established.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge a grant support of the project "Study of role of non-toxigenic Corynebacterium diphtheriae in the epidemiology of diphtheria" by INTAS (01-2289), 2004.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Belarusian Research Institute for Epidemiology and Microbiology
(2)
Centre National de Reference pour Corynebacterium diphtheriae, Unite de Biodiversite des Bacteries Pathogenes Emergentes INSERM U 389, Institute Pasteur
(3)
HPA/WHO Streptococcus and Diphtheria Reference Unit, Respiratory and Systemic Infection Laboratory, Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections

References

  1. Eskola J, Lumio J, Vuopio-Varkila J: Resurgent diphtheria – are we safe?. British Medical Bulletin. 1998, 54: 635-645.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Popovic T, Kim C, Reiss J, Reeves M, Nakao H, Golaz A: Use of molecular subtyping to document long-term persistence of Corynebacterium diphtheriae in South Dakota. J Clin Microbiol. 1999, 37: 1092-1099.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Kombarova S, Kim C, Melnikov V, Reeves M, Borisova O, Mazurova I, Popovic T: Rapid identification of Corynebacterium diphtheriae clonal group associated with diphtheria epidemic, Russian Federation. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001, 7: 133-136.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Kombarova S, Mazurova IK, Melnikov VG, Kostyukova NN, Volkovoi KI, Borisova OYu, Platonova TV, Efstratiou A: Genetic structure of Corynebacterium diphtheriae strains isolated in Russia during diphtheria epidemic process of different intensity. Zn Mikrobiol. 2001, 3: 3-8.Google Scholar
  5. Titov L, Kolodkina V, Dronina A, Grimont F, Grimont PA, Lejay-Collin M, De Zoysa A, Andronescu C, Diaconescu A, Marin B, Efstratiou A: Genotypic and phenotypic characteristics of Corynebacterium diphtheriae strains isolated from patients in Belarus during an epidemic period. J Clin Microbiol. 2003, 41: 1285-1288. 10.1128/JCM.41.3.1285-1288.2003.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. De Zoysa A, Efstratiou A, George RC, Jahkola M, Vuopio-Varkila J, Deshevoi S, Tseneva G, Rikushin Y: Molecular epidemiology of Corynebacterium diphtheriae from Northwestern Russia and surrounding countries studied by using ribotyping and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. J Clin Microbiol. 1995, 33: 1080-1083.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Popovic T, Kombarova SY, Reeves MW, Nakao H, Mazurova IK, Wharton M, Wachsmuth IK, Wenger JD: Molecular epidemiology of diphtheria in Russia, 1985–1994. J Infect Dis. 1996, 174: 1064-1072.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Popovic T, Mazurova IK, Efstratiou A, Vuopio-Varkila J, Reeves MW, De Zoysa A, Glushkevich T, Grimont P: Molecular epidemiologyof diphtheria. J Inf Dis. 2000, 168-177. 10.1086/315556. Suppl 1
  9. Sulakvelidze A, Kekelidze M, Gomelauri T, Deng Y, Khetsuriani N, Kobaidze K, De Zoysa A, Efstratiou A, J Morris JG, Imnadze P: Diphtheria in the Republic of Georgia: use of molecular typing techniques for characterization of Corynebacterium diphtheriae strains. J Clin Microbiol. 1999, 37: 3265-3270.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Efstratiou A: Corynebacterium diphtheriae: molecular epidemiology and characterisation studies on epidemic and sporadic isolates. Microbiology and Therapy. 1995, 25: 63-71.Google Scholar
  11. Efstratiou A, George RC: Microbiology and epidemiology of diphtheria. Reviews in Medical Nicrobiology. 1996, 7: 31-42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Skogen V, Cherkasova VV, Maksimova N, Marston CK, Sjursen H, Reeves MW, Olsvik Ø, Popovic T: Molecular characterization of Corynebacterium diphtheriae isolates, Russia, 1957–1987. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002, 8: 516-518.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Efstratiou A, Maple C: WHO manual for the laboratory diagnosis of diphtheria. Reference no. ICP/EPI 038 (C). Who Regional Office for Europe Copenhagen Denmark. 1994Google Scholar
  14. Regnault B, Grimont F, Grimont PA: Universal ribotyping method using a chemically labelled oligonucleotide probe mixture. Res Microbiol. 1997, 146: 649-659. 10.1016/S0923-2508(99)80064-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Grimont PAD, Grimont F, Efstratiou A, De Zoysa A, Mazurova I, Ruckly C, Lejay-Collin M, Martin-Delautre S, Regnault B, European Laboratory Working Group on Diphtheria: International nomenclature for Corynebacterium diphtheriae ribotypes. Res Microbiol. 2004, 155: 162-166. 10.1016/j.resmic.2003.12.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kostyukova NN: Lessons of diphtheria. Zn Mikrobiol. 1999, 2: 92-96.Google Scholar
  17. World Health Organization: Diphtheria epidemic in Europe: emergency and response. Report on a WHO Meeting. St Petersburg, Russia. 5–7 July 1993. 1994, EUR/ICP/EPI 038.Google Scholar
  18. Rappouli R, Perugini M, Falsen E: Molecular epidemiology of the 1984–1986 outbreak of diphtheria in Sweden. N Engl J Med. 1988, 318: 12-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Vitek CR, Wharton M: Diphtheria in the former soviet union: reemergence of a pandemic disease. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 1998, 4: 539-550.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Mattos-Guaraldi AL, Moreira LO, Damasco PV, Hirata Júnior R: Diphtheria remains a threat to health in the developing world – an overview. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2003, 98: 987-989.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/6/129/prepub

Copyright

© Kolodkina et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006

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