4.7 Article

Surveillance and Molecular Epidemiology of Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates That Produce Carbapenemases: First Report of OXA-48-Like Enzymes in North America

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 130-136

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01686-12

关键词

-

资金

  1. Calgary Laboratory Services [73-6350]
  2. Merck
  3. Pfizer
  4. Astra Zeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study was designed to characterize nonrepeat isolates of carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae obtained from the SMART worldwide surveillance program during 2008 and 2009. Characterization was done by PCR and sequencing for bla(VIM), bla(IMP), bla(NDM), bla(OXA), bla(KPC), and plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance and virulence factors (VFs). Genetic relatedness was determined with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) using XbaI and multilocus sequence typing. A total of 110 isolates were included; 47 possess genes that encode K. pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs), 26 NDMs, 19 VIMs, 13 OXA-48-like, and 5 imipenems (IMPs). We identified 3 different major sequence types (STs) among 65% of the isolates (i.e., ST11 [n = 11], ST147 [n = 23], and ST258 [n = 38]). ST11 and ST147, producing OXA-48-like and NDMs, were found in Argentina, Turkey, Greece, Italy, and India; ST258, producing KPCs, was present in the United States, Israel, Greece, and Puerto Rico. The major STs consisted of up to 4 different pulsotypes, and each pulsotype had a specific geographical distribution. A new ST, named ST903, with bla(IMP-26), was identified in the Philippines, while two bla(OXA-48)-positive isolates were detected in the United States. There were no significant differences in the distribution of the VFs between the isolates; all were positive for fimH, mrkD, wabG, and ureA. This is the first report of OXA-48-like enzymes in North America. Our study highlights the importance of surveillance programs using molecular techniques as powerful tools to identify the importance of international sequence types.

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