4.3 Article

Clinical cases, drug resistance, and virulence genes profiling in Uropathogenic Escherichia coli

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED GENETICS
卷 61, 期 2, 页码 265-273

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13353-020-00542-y

关键词

Urinary tract infection; Uropathogenic Escherichia coli; Virulence factors; Gene profiling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) as the most important bacterial agent of urinary tract infections (UTIs) encompasses a wide treasure of virulence genes and factors. In due to this default, the aim of this research was to detect and identify some important virulence genes including cnf1, upaH, hlyA, ibeA, and cdtB in isolated UPEC pathotypes. In this research, clinical samples of urine were collected in Shahr-e-Qods, Tehran, Iran. The UPEC pathotypes were confirmed by standard biochemical tests. The DNAs of isolated bacteria were extracted. The genes of cnf1, upaH, hlyA, ibeA, and cdtB were run for multiplex PCR and gel electrophoresis. Furthermore, the antibiogram was done for the isolated UPEC strains by 11 common antibiotics. In accordance with the results, the virulence genes of cnf1, upaH, hlyA, ibeA, and cdtB were respectively recognized in 100%, 51.2%, 38.4%, 9.3%, and 0% of isolated UPEC pathotypes. In consequence, the final virulence gene profiling of the isolated UPEC strains was patterned as cnf1, cnf1-upaH, cnf1-upaH-hlyA, and cnf1-upaH-hlyA-ibeA. The chi-square tests showed no significant correlations between virulence gene profile and UTIs, between virulence gene profile and antibiotic resistance, and between virulence genes and different types of UTIs. The cnf1 virulence gene contributes in the occurrence of all types of UTIs. In contrast to cnf1, the cdtB gene was absent in the isolated UPEC strains in this investigation. The most ineffective antibiotics were recognized as Penicillin, Tetracycline, and Nalidixic acid, respectively, while Streptomycin, Chloramphenicol, and Ciprofloxacin are the best options for UTIs treatment.

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