4.5 Article

Anthropogenic and environmental factors associated with high incidence of mcr-1 carriage in humans across China

期刊

NATURE MICROBIOLOGY
卷 3, 期 9, 页码 1054-1062

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41564-018-0205-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFD0500300]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81661138002, 81772250]
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/P007295/1]
  4. BBSRC [BB/R012776/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. MRC [MR/N028317/1, MR/P007295/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MCR-1-positve Escherichia coli (MCRPEC) have been reported in humans worldwide; however, thus far, their prevalence is low and potential sources for human mcr-1 carriage have not yet been identified. Here, we analyse a nationwide epidemiological dataset on MCRPEC in humans throughout China and assess the factors associated with MCRPEC carriage using natural and national anthropogenic data. We identified 774 non-duplicate MCRPEC isolates from 774 stool samples collected from 5,159 healthy individuals in 30 provinces and municipalities in 2016, with a prevalence of MCRPEC ranging from 3.7 to 32.7% (average: 15.0%)-substantially higher than previously reported. MCRPEC carriage was associated with provincial regions, the production of sheep and freshwater aquaculture, annual consumption of total meat, pork and mutton, and daily intake of aquaculture products. MCRPEC was significantly more prevalent in provinces with higher aquaculture industries. Whole-genome sequencing analysis revealed that the MCRPEC isolates were clustered into four distinct lineages, two of which were dominant and harboured most of the MCRPEC isolates. The high prevalence of MCRPEC in the community poses a substantial risk for colistin usage in clinical practice and suggests the need for intestinal screening of mcr-1 carriers in intensive care units in Chinese hospitals. Furthermore, our data suggest that aquaculture is a significant reservoir of mcr-1.

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