4.7 Article

Characterization of imipenem resistance mechanisms in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from Turkey

期刊

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 18, 期 7, 页码 E262-E265

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03899.x

关键词

Imipenem; oprD; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Turkey

资金

  1. European Commission [MTKD-CT-2006-042062, O36314]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland [SFI 04/BR/B0597, 07/IN.1/B948, 08/RFP/GEN1295, 08/RFP/GEN1319, 09/RFP/BMT2350]
  3. Department of Agriculture and Food [DAF RSF 06 321, DAF RSF 06 377, FIRM 08/RDC/629]
  4. Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology [05/EDIV/FP107]
  5. Health Research Board [RP/2006/271, RP/2007/290, HRA/2009/146]
  6. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA2006-PhD-S-21, EPA2008-PhD-S-2]
  7. Marine Institute [C2CRA 2007/082]
  8. Higher Education Authority of Ireland [PRTLI3]
  9. Health Service Executive (HSE)
  10. EU [FP7-PEOPLE-2009-RG, 256596]
  11. IRCSET EMBARK [PD/2011/2414]
  12. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [07/IN.1/B948, 09/RFP/BMT2350, 08/RFP/GEN1295, 08/RFP/GEN1319] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18: E262E265 Abstract The emergence of carbapenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa threatens the efficacy of this important anti-pseudomonal antibiotic class. Between 2003 and 2006, an increase in the number of carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa isolates at the Zonguldak Karaelmas University Hospital was observed (Zonguldak, Turkey). To assess the imipenem resistance mechanisms emerging in these P. aeruginosa isolates, they were characterized by amplified fragment length polymorphism typing, which revealed diversity among imipenem-resistant isolates as well as two clonally related outbreak groups. The molecular mechanism of carbapenem resistance was characterized in a representative isolate from each clonal group. Mutational disruption of oprD was the most frequently encountered resistance mechanism (23/27 isolates).

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