4.5 Article

Population Structure of Multidrug-Resistant Klebsiella oxytoca within Hospitals across the United Kingdom and Ireland Identifies Sharing of Virulence and Resistance Genes with K-pneumoniae

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 574-584

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evx019

关键词

microbial genomics; antimicrobial resistance; population genomics; genomic epidemiology

资金

  1. UK Department of Health [HICF-T5-342, WT098600]
  2. Wellcome Trust [HICF-T5-342, WT098600]
  3. [098051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Klebsiella oxytoca, a member of the Enterobacteriaceae, is a gram-negative pathogenic bacterium of environmental origin, which can cause infection in healthcare settings. Outbreaks of multidrug-resistant K. oxytoca infection have been increasingly reported in hospitalized patients. Despite the growing importance of this pathogen, there is limited knowledge about the population structure and epidemiology of antimicrobial resistant K. oxytoca. We investigated the population structure and genomic basis of antimicrobial resistance of 41 multidrug resistant K. oxytoca isolates recovered from bloodstream infections across the UK and Ireland. Our results show that K. oxytoca has a highly diverse population, which is composed of several distinct clades, and we identified one recent expansion of a clone within our dataset. Although the K. oxytoca genomes are clearly distinct from the genomes of a global collection of Klebsiella pneumoniae complex, pre-dominantly composed of K. pneumoniae, we found evidence for sharing of core genes through recombination, as well as the exchange of accessory antimicrobial resistance and virulence factor genes between the species. Our findings also suggest that the different K. oxytoca clades have acquired antimicrobial resistance and virulence factor genes independently. This highlights the clinical and therapeutic importance of genetic flexibility in K. oxytoca and the relevance of this in its role as an opportunistic pathogen.

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

4.5
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