4.2 Article

Severity of drug resistance and co-existence of Enterococcus faecalis in diabetic foot ulcer infections

期刊

FOLIA MICROBIOLOGICA
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 115-122

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12223-017-0547-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. TIFAC-CORE in Pharmacogenomics
  2. Indo-Australia Biotechnology Fund
  3. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India
  4. Indo-German Science and Technology Centre
  5. Manipal University, Manipal, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genes encoding aminoglycoside resistance in Enterococcus faecalis may promote collateral aminoglycoside resistance in polymicrobial wounds. We studied a total of 100 diabetic foot ulcer samples for infection and found 60 samples to be polymicrobial, 5 to be monomicrobial, and 35 samples to be culture negative. A total of 65 E. faecalis isolates were screened for six genes coding for aminoglycoside resistance, antibiotic resistance patterns, and biofilm production. Infectious Diseases Society of America/International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot system was used to classify the wound ulcers. Majority of the subjects with culture-positive wound were recommended conservative management, while 14 subjects underwent amputation. Enterococcal isolates showed higher resistance for erythromycin, tetracycline, and ciprofloxacin. Isolates from grade 3 ulcer showed higher frequency of aac(6')-Ie-aph(2aEuro(3))-Ia, while all the isolates were negative for aph(2aEuro(3))-Ib, aph(2aEuro(3))-Ic, and aph(2aEuro(3))-Id. The isolates from grade 3 ulcers showed higher resistance to aminoglycosides as well as teicoplanin and chloramphenicol. All the 39 biofilm producers were obtained from polymicrobial wound and showed higher resistance when compared to biofilm non-producers. Higher frequency of isolates carrying aac(6')-Ie-aph(2aEuro(3))-Ia in polymicrobial community showing resistance to key antibiotics suggests widespread distribution of aminoglycoside-resistant E. faecalis and their role in worsening diabetic foot ulcers.

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

4.2
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