4.7 Article

Emergence of high-level tigecycline resistance due to the amplification of a tet(A) gene variant in clinical carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae

期刊

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 29, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.07.030

关键词

Ampli fication; Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella; pneumoniae; tet(A) variant; Tigecycline resistance; Translocatable units

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the prevalence of a tet(A) gene variant and its role in developing high-level tigecycline resistance among carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) clinical isolates.Methods: The mechanism of high-level tigecycline resistance in CRKP mediated by a tet(A) variant was explored by induction experiments, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, whole-genome sequencing and bioinformatics analysis. The amplification and overexpression of the tet(A) variant were measured by the determination of sequencing depth, gene copy numbers, and qRT-PCR.Results: A high rate (62.1%, 998/1607) of tet(A) variant carriage was observed among 1607 CRKP clinical isolates from Henan Province, China. High-level tigecycline resistance could rapidly develop by the amplification of the tet(A) variant in these isolates. The analysis of the raw sequencing data and the plasmid mapping depth revealed that the DtnpA homologous sequence of Tn1721 supports the amplification of the region that harbours the tet(A) variant by forming a large number of repeat arrays through translocatable units (TUs). Moreover, the epidemiological analysis of tet(A) variant-carrying structures among 1607 clinical CRKPs showed that the TU structure is widely present.Conclusion: The presence of a tigecycline resistance-mediating tet(A) variant in CRKP clinical isolates represents a greater health concern than initially thought and should be monitored consistently.(c) 2023 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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