4.7 Article

Molecular characterization of linezolid-resistant CoNS isolates in Japan

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 70, 期 3, 页码 658-663

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dku443

关键词

S. capitis; ribosomal mutations; rlmN

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan [H24-Shinkou-Ippan-010]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25253029, 25670208, 26670210] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Linezolid has been reported to remain active against 98% of staphylococci with resistance identified in 0.05% of Staphylococcus aureus and 1.4% of CoNS. The objective of this study was to characterize the linezolid-resistance mechanisms in the linezolid-resistant CoNS strains isolated in Japan. Methods: Staphylococcus capitis strains exhibiting linezolid MICs >8 mg/L isolated from inpatients between 2012 and 2014 were screened for cfr and mutations in 23S rRNA, L3 and L4 by PCR/sequencing. Isolates were also examined for mutations in the rlmN gene. Results: S. capitis had six 23S rRNA alleles. Five S. capitis isolates displayed linezolid MICs of 8, 16 and 32 mg/L. G2576U mutations were detected in three, four or five copies of 23S rRNA in all isolates. In two isolates exhibiting the highest linezolid MIC (32 mg/L) there was a large deletion in a single copy of 23S rRNA. Repeated 10 bp sequences were found in both 16S and 23S rRNAs, suggesting deletion by recombination between the repeats. One isolate had the mutation Ala-142 -> Thr in the ribosomal protein L3. All linezolid-resistant isolates also demonstrated mutations in the gene encoding RlmN methyltransferase, leading to Thr-62 -> Met and Gly-148 -> Ser. Conclusions: Multiple mechanisms appeared to be responsible for the elevated linezolid resistance in S. capitis isolates: a G2576U mutation in different numbers of copies of 23S rRNA, loss of a single copy of 23S rRNA and a mutation in the ribosomal protein L3, suggesting the accumulation of independent mutational events.

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

4.7
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