4.6 Article

Comparative Proteomics-Based Identification of Genes Associated with Glycopeptide Resistance in Clinically Derived Heterogeneous Vancomycin-Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus Strains

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066880

关键词

-

资金

  1. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [7102130]
  2. Programme for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-10-0205]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30971571]
  4. Key Projects in the National Science & Technology Pillar Program [2012EP001002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (hVISA) is associated with clinical treatment failure. However, the resistance mechanism of hVISA has not been fully clarified. In the present study, comparative proteomics analysis of two pairs of isogenic vancomycin-susceptible S. aureus (VSSA) and hVISA strains isolated from two patients identified five differentially expressed proteins, IsaA, MsrA2, Asp23, GpmA, and AhpC, present in both isolate pairs. All the proteins were up-regulated in the hVISA strains. These proteins were analyzed in six pairs of isogenic VSSA and hVISA strains, and unrelated VSSA (n = 30) and hVISA (n = 24) by real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase-PCR (qRT-PCR). Of the six pairs of isogenic strains, isaA, msrA2 and ahpC were up-regulated in all six hVISA strains; whereas asp23 and gpmA were up-regulated in five hVISA strains compared with the VSSA parental strains. In the unrelated strains, statistical analyses showed that only isaA was significantly up-regulated in the hVISA strains. Analysis of the five differentially expressed proteins in 15 pairs of persistent VSSA strains by qRT-PCR showed no differences in the expression of the five genes among the persistent strains, suggesting that these genes are not associated with persistence infection. Our results indicate that increased expression of isaA may be related to hVISA resistance.

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

4.6
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