4.7 Article

Relative Prevalence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Clinical Isolates of Elizabethkingia Species Based on 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages 274-280

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01637-16

Keywords

Elizabethkingia meningoseptica; Elizabethkingia miricola; Elizabethkingia anophelis; antimicrobial susceptibility; 16S rRNA gene sequencing

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Some of the previously reported clinical isolates of Elizabethkingia meningoseptica may be later named species of Elizabethkingia. We determined the accuracy of species identification (with two matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry [MALDI-TOF MS] systems and the Vitek 2 GN card), relative prevalence of three Elizabethkingia spp. in clinical specimens, and antimicrobial susceptibility of the species identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Specimens for culture were collected from patients in a university hospital in Seoul, South Korea, between 2009 and 2015. All 3 Elizabethkingia spp. were detected in patients; among the 86 isolates identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing, 17 (19.8%) were E. meningoseptica, 18 (20.9%) were Elizabethkingia miricola, and 51 (59.3%) were Elizabethkingia anophelis. Only the MALDI-TOF Vitek MS system with an amended database correctly identified all of the isolates. The majority (76.7%) of the isolates were from the lower respiratory tract, and 8 (9.3%) were from blood. Over 90% of E. meningoseptica and E. anophelis isolates were susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam and rifampin. In contrast, all E. miricola isolates were susceptible to fluoroquinolones except ciprofloxacin. Further studies are urgently needed to determine the optimal antimicrobial agents for the treatment of infections due to each individual Elizabethkingia species.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available