4.3 Article

Proteomic analysis of Escherichia coli with experimentally induced resistance to piperacillin/tazobactam

期刊

RESEARCH IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 161, 期 4, 页码 268-275

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resmic.2010.03.006

关键词

2-D DIGE; Comparative proteome; Escherichia coli; Piperacillin/tazobactam; Resistance

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The worldwide emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria poses a serious threat to human health. In addition to the difficulties in controlling infectious diseases, the phenotype of resistance can generate metabolic changes which, in turn, can interfere with host pathogen interactions. The aim of the present study was to identify changes in the subproteome of a laboratory-derived piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant strain of Escherichia coli (minimal inhibitory concentration [MIC] = 128 mg/L) as compared with its susceptible wild-type strain E. coli ATCC 25922 (MIC = 2 mg/L) using 2-D fluorescence difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) followed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight/time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF/TOF MS). In the resistant strain, a total of 12 protein species were increased in abundance relative to the wild-type strain, including those related to bacterial virulence, antibiotic resistance and DNA protection during stress. Fourteen proteins were increased in abundance in the wild-type strain compared to the resistant strain, including those involved in glycolysis, protein biosynthesis, pentose-phosphate shunt, amino acid transport, cell division and oxidative stress response. In conclusion, our data show overall changes in the subproteome of the piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant strain, reporting for the first time the potential role of a multidrug efflux pump system in E. coli resistance to piperacillin/tazobactam. (C) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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