4.7 Article

Association of virulence genotype with phylogenetic background in comparison to different seropathotypes of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 12, Pages 6098-6107

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.43.12.6098-6107.2005

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The distribution of virulent factors (VFs) in 287 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) strains that were classified according to Karmali et al. into five seropathotypes (M. A. Karmali, M. Mascarenhas, S. Shen, K. Ziebell, S. Johnson, R. Reid-Smith,J. Isaac-Renton, C. Clark, K. Rahn, and J. B. Kaper, J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:4930-4940, 2003) was investigated. The associations of VFs with phylogenetic background were assessed among the strains in comparison with the different seropathotypes. The phylogenetic analysis showed that STEC strains segregated mainly in phylogenetic group B1 (70%) and revealed the substantial prevalence (19%) of STEC belonging to phylogenetic group A (designated STEC-A). The presence of virulent clonal groups in seropathotypes that are associated with disease and their absence from seropathotypes that are not associated with disease support the concept of seropathotype classification. Although certain VFs (eae, Stx(2-EDL933), stx(2-vha), and stx(2-vhb)) were concentrated in seropathotypes associated with disease, others (astA, HPI, stx(1c), and stx(2-NV206)) were concentrated in seropathotypes that are not associated with disease. Taken together with the observation that the STEC-A group was exclusively composed of strains lacking eae recovered from seropathotypes that are not associated with disease, the atypical virulence pattern suggests that STEC-A strains comprise a distinct category of STEC strains. A practical benefit of our phylogenetic analysis of STEC strains is that phylogenetic group A status appears to be highly predictive of nonvirulent seropathotypes.

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