4.7 Article

Chromosomally encoded ESBL genes in Escherichia coli of ST38 from Mongolian wild birds

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 72, 期 5, 页码 1310-1313

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkx006

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [GU 1283/3-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: ESBL genes in Escherichia coli are mainly plasmid encoded, although recent studies have also shown chromosomal integration, e.g. in clinical E. coli isolates of ST38. As ESBL-producing E. coli are also found in nonclinical settings, we were interested in determining whether chromosomally integrated ESBL genes occur in ST38 isolates from non-clinical habitats, e.g. wildlife. Methods: Four ESBL-producing E. coli isolates of ST38 originating from Mongolian birds of prey sampled in 2015 were subjected to a detailed analysis in terms of phenotypic resistance, plasmid profiling and WGS, followed by the determination of genotypic resistance factors including the chromosomal integration of ESBL and carbapenemase genes. Results: Results based on phenotypic and genotypic plasmid profiling, contiguous sequence (contig) sizes and PCR analysis of flanking insertion site regions showed that three of four ST38 isolates harboured chromosomally encoded bla(CTX-M) genes of three different types (bla(CTX-M-14), bla(CTX-M-15) and bla(CTX-M-24)) that were inserted into three different chromosomal locations. A comparison of WGS data with ST38 isolates from a clinical outbreak in the UK indicated only low numbers of core-genome SNPs detected among one Mongolian wild bird isolate and eight clinical isolates from the UK. Conclusions: The chromosomal integration of bla(CTX-M) genes in E. coli isolates of ST38 appears to be common and is likely independent of antimicrobial selective pressure in clinical environments. Our data corroborate the zoonotic potential of environmental isolates of ESBL-producing E. coli, which harbour stably integrated, chromosomally encoded resistance factors.

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