4.6 Article

Analysis of virulence phenotypes and antibiotic resistance in clinical strains of Acinetobacter baumannii isolated in Nashville, Tennessee

期刊

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12866-020-02082-1

关键词

Biofilm; Motility; Acinetobacter baumannii; Antimicrobial resistance; Antibiotics

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HD090061]
  2. National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) [MD007586, MD007593, 2T32HL007411-39, 2T32AI112541-06, K08AI151100, T32GM135131]
  3. National Science Foundation [NSF 1547757, NSF 1400969, NSF CHE-1847804]
  4. Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research program
  5. National Center for Research Resources [UL1 RR024975-01]
  6. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [2 UL1 TR000445-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed 17 clinical isolates of A. baumannii from diverse anatomical sites and found that variations in biofilm and motility were associated with the anatomical site of isolation. Production of biofilm and hemolysis had an inverse correlation with motility, while motility and hemolysis were negatively correlated with resistance to multiple antibiotics.
BackgroundAcinetobacter baumannii is a gram-negative bacterium which causes opportunistic infections in immunocompromised hosts. Genome plasticity has given rise to a wide range of strain variation with respect to antimicrobial resistance profiles and expression of virulence factors which lead to altered phenotypes associated with pathogenesis. The purpose of this study was to analyze clinical strains of A. baumannii for phenotypic variation that might correlate with virulence phenotypes, antimicrobial resistance patterns, or strain isolation source. We hypothesized that individual strain virulence phenotypes might be associated with anatomical site of isolation or alterations in susceptibility to antimicrobial interventions.MethodologyA cohort of 17 clinical isolates of A. baumannii isolated from diverse anatomical sites were evaluated to ascertain phenotypic patterns including biofilm formation, hemolysis, motility, and antimicrobial resistance. Antibiotic susceptibility/resistance to ampicillin-sulbactam, amikacin, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin, cefepime, gentamicin, levofloxacin, meropenem, piperacillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, ticarcillin- K clavulanate, tetracyclin, and tobramycin was determined.ResultsAntibiotic resistance was prevalent in many strains including resistance to ampicillin-sulbactam, amikacin, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin, cefepime, gentamicin, levofloxacin, meropenem, piperacillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, ticarcillin- K clavulanate, tetracyclin, and tobramycin. All strains tested induced hemolysis on agar plate detection assays. Wound-isolated strains of A. baumannii exhibited higher motility than strains isolated from blood, urine or Foley catheter, or sputum/bronchial wash. A. baumannii strains isolated from patient blood samples formed significantly more biofilm than isolates from wounds, sputum or bronchial wash samples. An inverse relationship between motility and biofilm formation was observed in the cohort of 17 clinical isolates of A. baumannii tested in this study. Motility was also inversely correlated with induction of hemolysis. An inverse correlation was observed between hemolysis and resistance to ticarcillin-k clavulanate, meropenem, and piperacillin. An inverse correlation was also observed between motility and resistance to ampicillin-sulbactam, ceftriaxone, ceftoxamine, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, or levofloxacin.ConclusionsStrain dependent variations in biofilm and motility are associated with anatomical site of isolation. Biofilm and hemolysis production both have an inverse association with motility in the cohort of strains utilized in this study, and motility and hemolysis were inversely correlated with resistance to numerous antibiotics.

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

4.6
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