4.5 Article

Genotypic diversity of Streptococcus suis strains isolated from humans in Thailand

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-018-3208-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [KAKENHI 21406027]
  2. Japan Initiative for a Global Research Network on Infectious Diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to characterize Streptococcus suis isolates recovered from human infections regarding serotype distribution, genotypic profile, clinical manifestations, and epidemiology. A total of 668 S. suis isolates recovered from human infections in Thailand were characterized based on serotyping by multiplex PCR and co-agglutination, genotypic profiles by multilocus sequence typing, and PCR for virulence-associated genes, as well as review of medical records. Serotype 2 (94.6%) was predominant, followed by serotype 14 (4.5%), 24 (0.45%), 5 (0.3%), and 4 (0.15%). Multilocus sequence typing analyses revealed seven clonal complexes (CC): CC1 (56.43%), CC104 (31.74%), CC233/379 (5.4%), CC25 (4.5%), CC28 (0.9%), CC221/234 (0.6%), CC94 (0.15%), and two singletons. The CC1 group contained serotype 2 and 14 isolates, while CC25, 28, 104, and 233/379 consisted of serotype 2 isolates only. CC221/234 contained serotype 5 and 24 isolates, whereas the single serotype 4 isolate belonged to CC94. Two singletons contained serotype 5 (ST235) and 2 (ST236) isolates. Our data showed that ST1 isolates were more associated with meningitis than those of other STs (p < 0.001). The major route of infection was shown to be close contact with infected pigs or contaminated raw pork-derived products, including occupational exposure and recent consumption of raw pork products. This study revealed a relatively large number of CCs of S. suis causing human infection in Thailand. Among them, CC1 followed by CC104, with serotype 2 isolates, are predominant. Food safety campaigns and public health interventions would be important for controlling the S. suis infection in humans.

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