4.6 Article

Microarray analysis of erythromycin resistance determinants

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 787-798

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02046.x

关键词

antibiotics; erythromycin; microarray; oligonucleotides; S. aureus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To develop a DNA microarray for analysis of genes encoding resistance determinants to erythromycin and the related macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin B (MLS) compounds. Methods and Results: We developed an oligonucleotide microarray containing seven oligonucleotide probes (oligoprobes) for each of the six genes ( ermA, ermB, ermC, ereA, ereB and msrA/B) that account for more than 98% of MLS resistance in Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates. The microarray was used to test reference and clinical S. aureus and Streptococcus pyrogenes strains. Target genes from clinical strains were amplified and fluorescently labelled using multiplex PCR target amplification. The microarray assay correctly identified the MLS resistance genes in the reference strains and clinical isolates of S. aureus, and the results were confirmed by direct DNA sequence analysis. Of 18 S. aureus clinical strains tested, 11 isolates carry MLS determinants. One gene ( ermC) was found in all 11 clinical isolates tested, and two others, ermA and msrA/B, were found in five or more isolates. Indeed, eight (72%) of 11 clinical isolate strains contained two or three MLS resistance genes, in one of the three combinations ( ermA with ermC, ermC with msrA/B, ermA with ermC and msrA/B). Conclusions: Oligonucleotide microarray can detect and identify the six MLS resistance determinants analysed in this study. Significance and Impact of the Study: Our results suggest that microarray-based detection of microbial antibiotic resistance genes might be a useful tool for identifying antibiotic resistance determinants in a wide range of bacterial strains, given the high homology among microbial MLS resistance genes.

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

4.6
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