4.7 Article

Identification of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli in simian immunodeficiency virus-infected infant and adult rhesus macaques

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 971-976

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.3.971-976.2001

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR0700, P51 RR000168, K26 RR000168, RR00168] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01AI41889] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) was recognized as a common opportunistic pathogen of simian immunodeficiency virus-infected rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) with AIDS. Retrospective analysis revealed that 27 of 96 (28.1%) animals with AIDS had features of EPEC infection, and EPEC was the most frequent pathogen of the gastrointestinal tract identified morphologically, In 7.3% of animals dying with AIDS, EPEC represented the sole opportunistic agent of the gastrointestinal tract at death. In 20.8% of cases, it was seen in combination with one or more gastrointestinal pathogens, including Cryptosporidium parvum, Enterocytozoon bieneusi, Mycobacterium avium, Entamoeba histolytica, Balantidium coli, Strongyloides stercoralis, cytomegalovirus, and adenovirus, Clinically, infection was associated with persistent diarrhea and wasting and was more frequent in animals that died at under 1 year of age (P < 0.001, Fisher exact test). The organism was associated with the characteristic attaching and effacing lesion in colonic tissue sections and produced a focal adherence pattern on a HEp-2 assay but was negative for Shiga toxin production as assessed by PCR and a HeLa cell cytotoxicity assay, A 2.6-kb fragment encompassing the intimin gene was amplified and sequenced and revealed 99.2% identity to sequences obtained from human isolates (GenBank AF116899) corresponding to the epsilon intimin subtype. Further investigations with rhesus macaques may offer opportunities to study the impact of EPEC on AIDS pathogenesis and gastrointestinal dysfunction.

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