4.6 Article

Novel spa and Multi-Locus Sequence Types (MLST) of Staphylococcus Aureus Samples Isolated from Clinical Specimens in Korean

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics8040202

关键词

spa typing; spa; MLST; multidrug-resistance; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

资金

  1. National Research Foundation - Korean government (MSIT) [103120]
  2. Regional Innovation System grant - Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, Republic of Korea [R003942]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia is one of the most frequent and severe bacterial infections worldwide. The increased incidence of S. aureus infections with a diverse pattern of S. aureus protein A (spa) types across different geographic regions is a global challenge. This study investigated a novel spa type of methicillin-resistant S. aureus in a clinically isolated specimen. A total of 109 clinical S. aureus samples were subjected to 19 sets of antimicrobial susceptibility testing using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method. Molecular typing was performed with S. aureus protein A (spa) and multi-locus sequence types (MLST) via polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. The methicillin-resistant S. aureus samples in our study accounted for 55.05% (60/109) of the total. A novel spa type was detected in five (5/60) strains. This gh22 isolate was identified in antimicrobial susceptibility tests of 15 kinds of antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance genes included mecA,TEM, aac(6 ')-aph(2), ermA, and tetM. Eleven S. aureus samples were classified as t2460, t338, t324, t693, five unknown spa types (new spa types), and undefined MLST (novel MLST). We report a high prevalence rate of t2460 methicillin-resistant S. aureus samples in our country. Additionally, novel spagh22, MLST ST4613, and clonal compact CC5-type strains (T1:M1:B1:B1:M1:E1:K1, r26:r17:r34:r34:r17:r13:r16, mlst;1:4:1:4:559:495:10) showing multidrug resistance were identified among S. aureus samples.

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

4.6
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