4.3 Article

Virulence potential and genetic diversity of Aeromonas caviae, Aeromonas veronii and Aeromonas hydrophila clinical isolates from Mexico and Spain:: a comparative study

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 7, Pages 877-887

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/W07-051

Keywords

Aeromonas; virulence; genetic diversity; ERIC-PCR; toxins; flagella

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comparative study of 109 Aeromonas clinical isolates belonging to the 3 species most frequently isolated from patients with diarrhea in Mexico and Spain was performed to investigate the distribution of 3 prominent toxin genes and the gene encoding flagellin of lateral flagella; 4 well-established virulence factors in the genus Aeromonas. The aerolysin-hemolysin toxin genes were the most prevalent, being present in 89% of the total isolates. The ast toxin gene was conspicuously absent from the Aeromonas caviae and Aeromonas veronii groups but was present in 91% of the Aeromonas hydrophila isolates. Both the alt toxin gene and the 1afA flagellin gene also had a low incidence in A. caviae and A. veronii. Differences in the prevalence of alt and 1afA were observed between isolates from Mexico and Spain, confirming genus heterogeneity according to geographic location. Carriage of multiple toxin genes was primarily restricted to A. hydrophila isolates, suggesting that A. caviae and A. veronii isolates circulating in Mexico and Spain possess a limited array of virulence genes. Enterobacterial repetitive intergenetic consensus - polymerase chain reaction showed that the Aeromonas populations sampled lack dominant clones and were genetically heterogeneous, with A. caviae being the most diverse species. Further surveys of virulence determinants in genetically heterogeneous populations of Aeromonas isolates circulating worldwide are required to enhance the understanding of their capacity to cause disease.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available