4.7 Article

Comparative Genome Analysis and Global Phylogeny of the Toxin Variant Clostridium difficile PCR Ribotype 017 Reveals the Evolution of Two Independent Sublineages

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 865-876

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01296-16

关键词

Clostridium difficile; sequencing; SNPs; ribotype 017; evolution; phylogenetics; antibiotic resistance; phylogeny

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/K000551/1]
  4. NIHR
  5. National Institute for Health Research
  6. CSO
  7. Medical Research Council [G1000214, MR/K000551/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. MRC [MR/K000551/1, G1000214] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diarrheal pathogen Clostridium difficile consists of at least six distinct evolutionary lineages. The RT017 lineage is anomalous, as strains only express toxin B, compared to strains from other lineages that produce toxins A and B and, occasionally, binary toxin. Historically, RT017 initially was reported in Asia but now has been reported worldwide. We used whole-genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis to investigate the patterns of global spread and population structure of 277 RT017 isolates from animal and human origins from six continents, isolated between 1990 and 2013. We reveal two distinct evenly split sublineages (SL1 and SL2) of C. difficile RT017 that contain multiple independent clonal expansions. All 24 animal isolates were contained within SL1 along with human isolates, suggesting potential transmission between animals and humans. Genetic analyses revealed an overrepresentation of antibiotic resistance genes. Phylogeographic analyses show a North American origin for RT017, as has been found for the recently emerged epidemic RT027 lineage. Despite having only one toxin, RT017 strains have evolved in parallel from at least two independent sources and can readily transmit between continents.

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

4.7
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