4.6 Article

Single or in Combination Antimicrobial Resistance Mechanisms of Klebsiella pneumoniae Contribute to Varied Susceptibility to Different Carbapenems

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 8, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079640

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Council [NSC 101-2314-B-016-022-MY3]
  2. Tri-Service General Hospital
  3. National Defense Medical Center [TSGH-C101-117, MAB101-1, C03-02]
  4. Centers for Disease Control [DOH100-DC-1025, DOH101-DC-1204]
  5. National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Resistance to carbapenems has been documented by the production of carbapenemase or the loss of porins combined with extended-spectrum beta-lactamases or AmpC beta-lactamases. However, no complete comparisons have been made regarding the contributions of each resistance mechanism towards carbapenem resistance. In this study, we genetically engineered mutants of Klebsiella pneumoniae with individual and combined resistance mechanisms, and then compared each resistance mechanism in response to ertapenem, imipenem, meropenem, doripenem and other antibiotics. Among the four studied carbapenems, ertapenem was the least active against the loss of porins, cephalosporinases and carbapenemases. In addition to the production of KPC-2 or NDM-1 alone, resistance to all four carbapenems could also be conferred by the loss of two major porins, OmpK35 and OmpK36, combined with CTX-M-15 or DHA-1 with its regulator AmpR. Because the loss of OmpK35/36 alone or the loss of a single porin combined with bla(CTX-M-15) or bla(DHA-1)-ampR expression was only sufficient for ertapenem resistance, our results suggest that carbapenems other than ertapenem should still be effective against these strains and laboratory testing for non-susceptibility to other carbapenems should improve the accurate identification of these isolates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available