4.6 Review

Human mecC-Carrying MRSA: Clinical Implications and Risk Factors

Journal

MICROORGANISMS
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8101615

Keywords

Staphylococcus aureus; methicillin resistance; human infection; CC130

Categories

Funding

  1. Agencia Estatal de Investigacion (AEI) [SAF2016-76571-R]
  2. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) of EU
  3. Universidad de La Rioja
  4. [FPU18/05438]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A new methicillin resistance gene, named mecC, was first described in 2011 in both humans and animals. Since then, this gene has been detected in different production and free-living animals and as an agent causing infections in some humans. The possible impact that these isolates can have in clinical settings remains unknown. The current available information about mecC-carrying methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates obtained from human samples was analyzed in order to establish its possible clinical implications as well as to determine the infection types associated with this resistance mechanism, the characteristics of these mecC-carrying isolates, their possible relation with animals and the presence of other risk factors. Until now, most human mecC-MRSA infections have been reported in Europe and mecC-MRSA isolates have been identified belonging to a small number of clonal complexes. Although the prevalence of mecC-MRSA human infections is very low and isolates usually contain few resistance (except for beta-lactams) and virulence genes, first isolates harboring important virulence genes or that are resistant to non-beta lactams have already been described. Moreover, severe and even fatal human infection cases have been detected. mecC-carrying MRSA should be taken into consideration in hospital, veterinary and food safety laboratories and in prevention strategies in order to avoid possible emerging health problems.

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