3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Isolation of Staphylococcus schleiferi from dogs with pyoderma

期刊

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.2003.222.451

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To determine frequency with which Staphylococcus schleiferi could be isolated from dogs with pyoderma and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of isolates that were obtained. Design-Prospective study. Animals-54 dogs with a first (n = 14) or recurrent (40) episode of pyoderma. Procedure-Specimens were obtained and submitted for bacterial culture. Isolates were identified as S schleiferi on the basis of growth and biochemical characteristics. Two isolates were submitted for DNA sequencing to confirm identification. Methicillin susceptibility was determined by means of disk diffusion with oxacillin-impregnated disks. Results-3 of 14 dogs examined because of a first episode of pyoderma and 12 of 40 dogs examined because of a recurrent episode of pyoderma were receiving antimicrobials at the time of specimen collection. Staphylococcus schleiferi was not isolated from any dog with first-time pyoderma but was isolated from 5 dogs with recurrent pyoderma that were not receiving antimicrobials at the time of specimen collection and 10 dogs with recurrent pyoderma that were receiving antimicrobials. Nine isolates were identified as S schleiferi subsp schleiferi, and 6 were identified as S schleiferi subsp coagulans. All S schleiferi subsp schleiferi isolates were resistant to methicillin, but only 2 S schleiferi subsp coagulans isolates were. Two methicillin-resistant isolates were also resistant to fluoroquinolones, and 1 isolate had intermediate susceptibility to fluoroquinolones. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Besults suggest that S schleiferi subsp schleiferi and S schleiferi subsp coagulans may be isolated from dogs with recurrent pyoderma. Although isolates from dogs with pyoderma were frequently resistant to methicillin, multiple drug resistance was uncommon.

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

3.8
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