Table 1.

Comparison of the key attributes of some Salmonella typing methods

MethodSerovar identification capacitySubserovar identification capacityRobustness/reproducibilityExpensive instrumentation requiredAnalysis time (days)Manual work/reagent costReference(s) or source
Serotyping by slide agglutination++c2–3+/+31
Serotyping by microarray-bound antibodies+a++1−/+19
Phage typing+b+c1–2+/−3, 37, 87
PFGEPartial++c+2–3+/−www.cdc.gov/pulsenet
Molecular serotyping based on genes coding for O and H antigens (multiplex PCR)+a+1−/−36
Molecular serotyping based on genes coding for O and H antigens (bead arrays)+a++1−/+57
PremiTest+aPartial+1−/+4, 88
Molecular serotyping based on genomic markers (16-plex PCR assay)+aPartial++1−/+45, 47
Molecular serotyping based on genomic markers (PCR on a chip)+aPartial++1−/+58
CRISPR typing+aPartial++1−/+90
ORFeome microarray+a+++1–2+/+67
ORFeome subset real-time PCR+a+++1–2−/+9
MLSTPartial+++2–3+/+http://mlst.ucc.ie/mlst/dbs/Senterica
15-SNP MPE assayPartial++1–2−/+11
MLVA+b++1–2−/+12, 13, 16, 49, 51, 53, 59, 61
Composite microarrays++++1–2−/+40, 76
  • a In its actual development stage, the method has been validated only on a subset of all existing serovars.

  • b Individual schemes are available only for a few or just one serovar.

  • c Standardization, quality assurance, and highly skilled personnel required.