4.0 Article

Molecular screening of virulence genes in high-level gentamicin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium isolated from clinical specimens in Northwest Iran

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 175-181

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.4103/0255-0857.96687

关键词

Enterococci; gentamicin resistance; Multiplex PCR; virulence genes

资金

  1. Research Center of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran [89/5]
  2. Research Centre of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The present study screened clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium to determine the prevalence of high-level gentamicin-resistant enterococci and the potential virulence genes among them. Materials and Methods: Clinical enterococcal isolates were obtained from three university teaching hospitals in Northwest Iran. Isolated enterococci were identified phenotypically followed by antibiotic susceptibility testing. Multiplex PCR was performed for the detection of genus, species-specific targets, gentamicin resistance, and potential virulence genes. Results: Of 220 enterococcal isolates, 133 (60.45%) isolates were identified as high-level gentamicin-resistant. Of these isolates, 79 (59.4%) and 54 (40.6%) were E. faecalis and E. faecium, respectively. All high-level gentamicin-resistant strains carried aac(6') Ie-aph(2 '')Ia. Of 220 isolates, 65.9% were positive for gelE, and 55%, 53.6%, 51.8%, and 49.5% of isolates were positive for cpd, asa1, ace, and esp, respectively. Phenotypically detected beta-haemolytic strains (19.54%) were found to possess cylL(ls)MAB. Conclusion: The study revealed that high-level gentamicin-resistance was related to the presence of aac(6')Ie-aph(2 '')Ia. Isolated enterococci harboured potential virulence determinants, which were more common among E. faecalis than among E. faecium strains.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据