4.5 Article

Comprehensive expression analysis of pathogenicity genes in uropathogenic Escherichia coli strains

期刊

MICROBIAL PATHOGENESIS
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 1-7

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2016.12.008

关键词

In vitro infection; Uropathogenic E. coli; Virulence genes

资金

  1. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico [UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT IN218614, PAPIME PE203714]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we investigated distinct expression patterns of genes encoding iron-acquisition systems, adhesins, protectins, and toxins in human uroepithelial cells infected with 194 uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) strains in vitro. We assessed the association of these genes with antibiotic resistance genes in this group of UPEC strains, previously characterised by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Strains were isolated from patients with urinary tract infections (UTIs) from Unidad Medica Familiar de Salud Publica, located in Estado de Mexico, Mexico. Antibiotic resistance genes were identified by PCR, and the expression of virulence genes was detected by reverse-transcriptase-PCR after in vitro infection of cultured A431 human keratinocytes derived from a vulvar epidermoid carcinoma. The most frequently expressed virulence genotypes among the investigated UPEC strains included usp (68%), iha (64.9%), kpsMT (61.3%), fim (58.2%), irp2 (48.4), papC (33.5%), set (31.4%) and astA (30.9%), whereas the most frequently detected antibiotic resistance genes were tet(A) (34%), suil (31.4%) and TEM (26.3%). Furthermore, the most abundant pattern of gene expression (irp2/fim/ihaikpsMT/usp), associated with 8 different combinations of antibiotic resistance genotypes, was exhibited by 28 strains (14.4%). Taken together, these results indicate collective participation of distinct virulence UPEC genotypes during in vitro infection of cultured human epithelial cells, suggesting their potential involvement in UTI pathogenesis. (C) 2016 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

4.5
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