4.6 Article

Ceftazidime/Avibactam-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae Isolates in a Tertiary Italian Hospital: Identification of a New Mutation of the Carbapenemase Type 3 (KPC-3) Gene Conferring Ceftazidime/Avibactam Resistance

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9112356

关键词

ceftazidime/avibactam; avibactam; multi-drug resistance; antibiotic resistance; beta-lactamase inhibitors resistance; Q168L substitution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study described four clinical isolates of CAZ-AVI resistant KPC-3 Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae, which exhibited multiple KPC gene mutations, including a novel variant. These isolates escaped common tests used for prompt detection of KPC-positive strains.
Several Klebsiella pneumoniae carpabenemase (KPC) gene mutations are associated with ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) resistance. Here, we describe four Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae CAZ-AVI-resistant clinical isolates, collected at the University Hospital of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, from July 2019 to February 2020. These resistant strains were characterized as KPC-3, having the transition from cytosine to thymine (CAC-TAC) at nucleotide position 814, with histidine that replaces tyrosine (H272Y). In addition, two different types of KPC gene mutations were detected. The first one, common to three strains, was the D179Y (G532T), associated with CAZ-AVI resistance. The second mutation, found only in one strain, is a new mutation of the KPC-3 gene: a transversion from thymine to adenine (CTG-CAG) at nucleotide position 553. This mutation causes a KPC variant in which glutamine replaces leucine (Q168L). None of the isolates were detected by a rapid immunochromatographic assay for detection of carbapenemase (NG Biotech, Guipry, France) and were unable to grow on a selective chromogenic medium Carba SMART (bioMerieux, Firenze, Italy). Thus, they escaped common tests used for the prompt detection of Klebsiella pneumoniae KPC-producing.

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