3.8 Article

Investigation of Various Virulence Factors and SCCmec Types in the Healthcare-associated and Community-associated Methicillin Resistance Staphylococcus aureus Strains

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THERAPEUTICS
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 113-118

Publisher

AVES
DOI: 10.5152/EurJTher.2019.19062

Keywords

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; PCR typing; SCCmec; virulence factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate some virulence genes and SCCmec types of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates and to determine their relationship with virulence factors. Methods: A total of 100 MRSA strains, 64 from healthcare-associated and 36 from community-associated infections, were included in the study. The presence of mecA gene was investigated by PCR. SCCmec types and efb, clfB, agrA gene were detected by multiplex PCR and their relationship with virulence factors has been analyzed. Results: All of the isolates contain the mecA gene. At the same time, in 66 strains (66%) agrA gene, in 58 strains (58%) clfB gene, and in 47 strains (47%) efb gene were positive. In terms of SCCmec types, the distribution of these types among the 64 HA-SA strains was 53% similar-to-type-III, 16% type IV, 2% type I and 30% unclassified. The distribution of the types among the 36 CA-SA strains was 19% similar-to-type-III, 25% type IV, 8% type I and 47% unclassified, respectively. When SCCmec types were evaluated according to clinical sample type, similar-to-type-III isolates were found to be dominant in wound samples. Efb (78%), clfB (85%), agrA (88%) were the dominant genes in similar-to-type-III strains, whereas clfB (74%), agrA (100%) were the main genes detected in the type IV strains. Conclusions: It is of clinical and epidemiological importance to know the origin of MRSA strains because this affects the empirical treatment choice.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available