4.7 Article

Detection of multidrug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 179-192

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00750-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We developed a DNA sequencing-based method to detect mutations in the genome of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Drug resistance in M. tuberculosis is caused by mutations in restricted regions of the genome. Eight genome regions associated with drug resistance, including rpoB for rifampin (RIF), katG and the mabA (fabGl)-inhA promoter for isoniazid (INH), embB for ethambutol (EMB), pncA for pyrazinamide (PZA), rpsL and rrs for streptomycin (STR), and gyrA for levofloxacin, were amplified simultaneously by PCR, and the DNA sequences were determined. It took 6.5 h to complete all procedures. Among the 138 clinical isolates tested, 55 were resistant to at least one drug. Thirty-four of 38 INH-resistant isolates (89.5%), 28 of 28 RIF-resistant isolates (100%), 15 of 18 EMB-resistant isolates (83.3%), 18 of 30 STR-resistant isolates (60%), and 17 of 17 PZA-resistant isolates (100%) had mutations related to specific drug resistance. Eighteen of these mutations had not been reported previously. These novel mutations include one in rpoB, eight in katG, one in the mabA-inh,4 regulatory region, two in embB, five in pncA, and one in rrs. Escherichia coli isolates expressing individually five of the eight katG mutations showed loss of catalase and INH oxidation activities, and isolates carrying any of the five pncA mutations showed no pyrazinamidase activity, indicating that these mutations are associated with INH and PZA resistance, respectively. Our sequencing-based method was also useful for testing sputa from tuberculosis patients and for screening of mutations in Mycobacterium bovis. In conclusion, our new method is useful for rapid detection of multipie-drug-resistant M. tuberculosis and for identifying novel mutations in drug-resistant M. tuberculosis.

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