4.8 Article

Spatiotemporal persistence of multiple, diverse clades and toxins of Corynebacterium diphtheriae

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21870-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council under the University of Cambridge Medical Research Council Doctoral Training Programme
  2. AMR Research Capital Funding Scheme [NIHR200640]
  3. Horizon 2020-MSCA-IF-2018 [843405-DIFTERIA]
  4. NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
  5. MRC [2122836] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors analyze the genomes of 502 Corynebacterium diphtheriae isolates across 16 countries and territories over 122 years, describing an increase in antimicrobial resistance genes and identifying toxin variants.
Diphtheria is a respiratory disease caused by the bacterium Corynebacterium diphtheriae. Although the development of a toxin-based vaccine in the 1930s has allowed a high level of control over the disease, cases have increased in recent years. Here, we describe the genomic variation of 502C. diphtheriae isolates across 16 countries and territories over 122 years. We generate a core gene phylogeny and determine the presence of antimicrobial resistance genes and variation within the tox gene of 291 tox(+) isolates. Numerous, highly diverse clusters of C. diphtheriae are observed across the phylogeny, each containing isolates from multiple countries, regions and time of isolation. The number of antimicrobial resistance genes, as well as the breadth of antibiotic resistance, is substantially greater in the last decade than ever before. We identified and analysed 18 tox gene variants, with mutations estimated to be of medium to high structural impact. Cases of diphtheria have increased in recent years. Here, the authors analyse the genomes of 502 Corynebacterium diphtheriae isolates across 16 countries and territories over 122 years, describing an increase in antimicrobial resistance genes and identifying toxin variants.

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

4.8
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