4.7 Article

IMP-4, a novel metallo-β-lactamase from nosocomial Acinetobacter spp. collected in Hong Kong between 1994 and 1998

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 710-714

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.45.3.710-714.2001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Between 1994 and 1998, 97 imipenem-resistant Acinetobacter isolates were identified at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China, A bla(IMP) PCR product was obtained from 23 of 35 viable cultures; 12 isolates belonged to genomic DNA group 3, 8 belonged to group 2 (Acinetobacter baumannii), 2 belonged to group 13TU, and 1 belonged to group 1, The bla(IMP) homologues were sequenced from two isolates from genomic DNA group 2 and one isolate each from groups 3 and 13TU, The four sequences included an identical 738-bp open reading frame, predicted to encode a polypeptide of 246 amino acids, with 95.6% homology to IMP-1 and 89.3% homology to IMP-2, The new enzyme, designated IMP-4, was partially purified. It had a pI of 8.0 and was strongly active against imipenem and meropenem, with V-max values 53 and 8% of that for penicillin G, respectively. Strong activity was also seen against oxyimino-aminothiazolyl cephalosporins but not against aztreonam, Hydrolytic activity was inhibited by EDTA but not by clavulanate or tazobactam, Carbapenem MICs for most bla(IMP)-pnsitive isolates were 4 to 32 mug/ml, but one isolate with the intact gene was susceptible, with imipenem and meropenem MICs of 0.25 and 0.5 mug/ml, respectively. The latter isolate did not produce the band with a pI of 8.0, and gene expression was inferred to have been lost, None of the isolates studied in detail contained extrachromosomal DNA, and carbapenem resistance was not transmissible to Escherichia coli. Nevertheless, the presence of bla(IMP-4) in different genomic DNA groups implies horizontal transfer, and sequences resembling a GTTRRRY integrase-dependent recombination motif were identified in the flanking regions of bla(IMP-4).

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