4.5 Article

Molecular Distinctions Exist Between Community-associated Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization and Disease-associated Isolates in Children

期刊

PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 418-421

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0b013e31820d7fd5

关键词

CA-MRSA; MRSA; molecular epidemiology; colonization; aureus; S. aureus

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [N01-AI-25462]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To define the molecular epidemiology of colonization and disease-associated isolates of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA). Design: Laboratory-based comparative study of clinical staphylococcal isolates. Methods: We analyzed 255 pediatric CA-MRSA isolates for molecular characteristics associated with colonization and disease. We used polymerase chain reaction to determine the presence of Panton-Valentine Leukocidin and the lantibiotic element, bsaB, and to characterize the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec type and accessory gene regulator locus. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was used to determine genetic relatedness between strains. Results: A total of 150 isolates were obtained from patients with clinical disease (37 invasive infections, 113 noninvasive infections) and 105 from subjects with nasal colonization alone. Of 150 disease-associated isolates, 123 (82%) belonged to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis group USA300, whereas only 19 (18%) of 105 colonization isolates were of the USA300 lineage. Colonization isolates were less likely to possess staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec type IV, Panton-Valentine Leukocidin, or agr type 1 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Colonization strains of CA-MRSA in children differ significantly from those strains recovered from patients with staphylococcal infections. This suggests that only colonization with specific strain types, rather than methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in general, increases the risk for CA-MRSA disease.

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

4.5
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