4.7 Article

Streptomycin Resistance and Lineage-Specific Polymorphisms in Mycobacterium tuberculosis gidB Gene

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 2625-2630

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00168-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNPq
  2. Centro de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico, Fundacao Estadual de Producao e Pesquisa em Saude

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations related to streptomycin resistance in the rpsL and rrs genes are well known and can explain about 70% of this phenotypic resistance. Recently, the gidB gene was found to be associated with low-level streptomycin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Mutations in gidB have been reported with high frequency, and this gene appears to be very polymorphic, with frameshift and point mutations occurring in streptomycin-susceptible and streptomycin-resistant strains. In this study, mutations in gidB appeared in 27% of streptomycin-resistant strains that contained no mutations in the rpsL or rrs genes, and they were associated with low-level streptomycin resistance. However, the association of certain mutations in gidB with streptomycin resistance needs to be further investigated, as we also found mutations in gidB in streptomycin-susceptible strains. This occurred only when the strain was resistant to rifampin and isoniazid. Two specific mutations appeared very frequently in this and other studies of streptomycin-susceptible and -resistant strains; these mutations were not considered related to streptomycin resistance, but as a polymorphism. We stratified the strains according to the different phylogenetic lineages and showed that the gidB(16) polymorphism (16G allele) was exclusively present in the Latin American-Mediterranean (LAM) genotype, while the gidB(92) polymorphism (92C allele) was associated with the Beijing lineage in another population. In the sample studied, the two characterized single-nucleotide polymorphisms could distinguish LAM and Beijing lineages from the other lineages.

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