4.4 Article

PFGE, Lior serotype, and antimicrobial resistance patterns among Campylobacter jejuni isolated from travelers and US military personnel with acute diarrhea in Thailand, 1998-2003

期刊

GUT PATHOGENS
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1757-4749-2-15

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command in Fort Detrick, MD, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Campylobacter jejuni is a major cause of gastroenteritis worldwide. In Thailand, several strains of C. jejuni have been isolated and identified as major diarrheal pathogens among adult travelers. To study the epidemiology of C. jejuni in adult travelers and U. S. military personnel with acute diarrhea in Thailand from 1998-2003, strains of C. jejuni were isolated and phenotypically identified, serotyped, tested for antimicrobial susceptibility, and characterized using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Results: A total of 312 C. jejuni isolates were obtained from travelers (n = 46) and U. S. military personnel (n = 266) in Thailand who were experiencing acute diarrhea. Nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin resistance was observed in 94.9% and 93.0% of the isolates, respectively. From 2001-2003, resistance to tetracycline (81.9%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (57.9%), ampicillin (28.9%), kanamycin (5.9%), sulfisoxazole (3.9%), neomycin (2.0%), and streptomycin (0.7%) was observed. Combined PFGE analysis showed considerable genetic diversity among the C. jejuni isolates; however, four PFGE clusters included isolates from the major Lior serotypes (HL: 36, HL: 11, HL: 5, and HL: 28). The PFGE analysis linked individual C. jejuni clones that were obtained at U. S. military exercises with specific antimicrobial resistance patterns. Conclusions: In summary, most human C. jejuni isolates from Thailand were multi-resistant to quinolones and tetracycline. PFGE detected spatial and temporal C. jejuni clonality responsible for the common sources of Campylobacter gastroenteritis.

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

4.4
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