4.2 Article

High-Level Resistance to Aminoglycosides due to 16S rRNA Methylation in Enterobacteriaceae Isolates

Journal

MICROBIAL DRUG RESISTANCE
Volume 25, Issue 9, Pages 1261-1265

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/mdr.2018.0171

Keywords

aminoglycosides; Enterobacteriaceae; 16S rRNA methylase

Funding

  1. Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences [93-08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: High-level aminoglycoside resistance due to methylase genes has been reported in several countries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diversity of the genes encoding 16S rRNA methylase and their association with resistance phenotype in Enterobacteriacae isolates. Materials and Methods: Based on sampling size formula, from February to August 2014, a total of 307 clinical Enterobacteriaceae isolates were collected from five hospitals in northwest Iran. The disk diffusion method for amikacin, gentamicin, tobramycin, kanamycin, and streptomycin, as well as the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for aminoglycosides (except streptomycin), was used. Six 16S rRNA methylase genes (armA, npmA, and rmtA-D) were screened by PCR and sequencing assays. Results: In this study, 220 (71.7%) of 307 isolates were aminoglycoside resistant and 40 isolates (18.2%, 40/220) were positive for methylase genes. The frequency of armA, rmtC, npmA, rmtB, and rmtA genes was 9.5%, 4.5%, 3.6%, 2.3%, and 1%, respectively. The rmtD gene was not detected in the tested bacteria. Sixty percent of positive methylase gene isolates displayed high-level resistance (MIC >= 512 mu g/mL to amikacin and kanamycin; and MIC >= 128 mu g/mL to gentamicin and tobramycin). Conclusions: The prevalence of resistance to aminoglycoside in Iran is high. Furthermore, there is a statistically significant association between amikacin and kanamycin resistance with the presence of rmtC and rmtB genes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available