“…However, Opa typing has the same disadvantages as RFLP methods, including labor-intensiveness, subjectiveness, and a need for pronounced standardization for interlaboratory comparisons. Opa typing has been used to define gonococcal populations within a geographic area, for the identification of clusters of strains (8,9,19,20,26,49,65,71,74,93,96,104,118,121,127,174,182,186,189), for tracing strain transmission between sexual contacts (9,19,74,186), for resolving suspicions of reinfection (102), for substantiation of treatment failure (77,102), and for detection of mixed infection (102). Opa typing has been used to increase the discriminatory power of other typing methods, including full-or extended-length porB sequencing or NG-MAST in specific situations, especially those involving extreme microepidemiological analysis (19,65,96,104,174,186) (Table 1).…”