4.3 Article

The characteristics of genetically related Pseudomonas aeruginosa from diverse sources and their interaction with human cell lines

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 233-240

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjm-2015-0536

关键词

Pseudomonas aeruginosa; adhesion; virulence; antibiotic resistance

资金

  1. University of the Sunshine Coast

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated a collection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains from hospitalised patients (n = 20) and various environmental sources (n = 214) for their genetic relatedness; virulence properties; antibiotic resistance; and interaction with intestinal (Caco-2), renal (A-498), and lung (Calu-3) cell lines. Using RAPD-PCR, we found high diversity among the strains irrespective of their sources, with only 6 common (C) types containing strains from both a clinical and environmental source. Environmental strains belonging to these C-types showed greater adhesion to A-498 cells than did clinical strains (17 +/- 13 bacteria/cell versus 13 +/- 11 bacteria/ cell; p < 0.001), whereas clinical strains showed significantly greater adhesion to Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells than did environmental strains (p < 0.001 for both). The virulence genes and antibiotic resistance profiles of the strains were similar; however, the prevalence of environmental strains carrying both exoS and exoU was significantly (p < 0.0368) higher than clinical strains. While all strains were resistant to ticarcillin and ticarcillin-clavulanic acid, resistance against aztreonam, gentamicin, amikacin, piperacillin, and ceftazidime varied among environmental and clinical strains. These results suggest that environmental strains of P. aeruginosa carry virulence properties similar to clinical strains, including adhesion to various human cell lines, with some strains showing a higher adhesion to specific cell lines, indicating they may have a better ability to cause infection in those sites under predisposing conditions of the host.

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