4.7 Article

An outbreak sustained by ST15 Klebsiella pneumoniae carrying 16S rRNA methyltransferases and blaNDM : evaluation of the global dissemination of these resistance determinants

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106615

关键词

Antimicrobial resistance; Metallo-beta lactamase; Aminoglycosides; rmtC; armA; Neoglycosides

资金

  1. Sapienza University of Rome [RM12117A70BE8124, RM11916B6A8B5F8D]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spread of extremely-drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, mediated by high-risk clones, poses a major health threat worldwide. This study analyzed an outbreak of NDM-1 metallo-beta-lactamase-producing K. pneumoniae and studied the global spread of NDM variants and their association with 16RMTases. The findings suggest that aminoglycosides may have a limited future as a second-line treatment against NDM-producing K. pneumoniae.
The spread of extremely-drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae has become a major health threat worldwide. This is largely mediated by certain lineages, recognized as high-risk clones dispersed throughout the world. Analysis of an outbreak of nine ST15, NDM-1 metallo-beta-lactamase-producing K. pneumoniae was performed. An IncC plasmid carrying the bla(NDM-1) gene also carried the rare rmtC gene, encoding for 16S rRNA methyltransferases (16RMTases), conferring resistance to all aminoglycosides. The global spread of New Delhi metallo (NDM) variants and their association with the 16RMTases among K. pneumoniae complete genomes available in GenBank was studied, and a complete overview of the association of 16RMTases and NDM in K. pneumoniae genomics was produced. NDM is often associated with 16RMTases, and both are spreading in K. pneumoniae, conferring resistance to all beta-lactams and aminoglycosides. This analysis suggests that aminoglycosides have a limited future as a second-line treatment against NDM-producing K. pneumoniae. (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd and International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

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