4.6 Article

Genetic variation among Staphylococcus aureus strains from Norwegian bulk milk

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 71, 期 12, 页码 8352-8361

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8352-8361.2005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strains of Staphylococcus aureus obtained from bovine (n = 117) and caprine (n = 114) bulk milk were characterized and compared with S. aureus strains from raw-milk products (n = 27), bovine mastitis specimens (n = 9), and human blood cultures (n = 39). All isolates were typed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). In addition, subsets of isolates were characterized using multilocus sequence typing (MLST), multiplex PCR (m-PCR) for genes encoding nine of the staphylococcal enterotoxins (SE), and the cloverleaf method for penicillin resistance. A variety of genotypes were observed, and greater genetic diversity was found among bovine than caprine bulk milk isolates. Certain genotypes, with a wide geographic distribution, were common to bovine and caprine bulk milk and may represent ruminant-specialized S. aureus. Isolates with genotypes indistinguishable from those of strains from ruminant mastitis were frequently found in bulk milk, and strains with genotypes indistinguishable from those from bulk milk were observed in raw-milk products. This indicates that S. aureus from infected udders may contaminate bulk milk and, subsequently, raw-milk products. Human blood culture isolates were diverse and differed from isolates from other sources. Genotyping by PFGE, MLST, and m-PCR for SE genes largely corresponded. In general, isolates with indistinguishable PFGE banding patterns had the same SE gene profile and isolates with identical SE gene profiles were placed together in PFGE clusters. Phylogenetic analyses agreed with the division of MLST sequence types into clonal complexes, and isolates within the same clonal complex had the same SE gene profile. Furthermore, isolates within PFGE clusters generally belonged to the same clonal complex.

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