4.4 Article

Characterization and Transfer of Antibiotic Resistance in Lactic Acid Bacteria from Fermented Food Products

期刊

CURRENT MICROBIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 1081-1089

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00284-010-9856-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. higher education commission (HEC) of Pakistan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study provides phenotypic and molecular analyses of the antibiotic resistance in lactic acid bacteria (LAB) from fermented foods in Xi'an, China. LAB strains (n = 84) belonging to 16 species of Lactobacillus (n = 73), and Streptococcus thermophilus (n = 11) were isolated and identified by sequencing their 16S rRNA gene. All strains were susceptible to ampicillin, bacitracin, and cefsulodin, and intrinsically resistant to nalidixic acid, kanamycin, and vancomycin (except L. bulgaricus, L. acidophilus, and S. thermophilus, which were susceptible to vancomycin). Some strains had acquired resistance for penicillin (n = 2), erythromycin (n = 9), clindamycin (n = 5), and tetracycline (n = 14), while resistance to gentamycin, ciprofloxacin, streptomycin, and chloramphenicol was species dependant. Minimum inhibitory concentrations presented in this study will help to review microbiological breakpoints for some of the species of Lactobacillus. The erm(B) gene was detected from two strains of each of L. fermentum and L. vaginalis, and one strain of each of L. plantarum, L. salivarius, L. acidophilus, L. animalis, and S. thermophilus. The tet genes were identified from 12 strains of lactobacilli from traditional foods. This is the first time, the authors identified tet(S) gene from L. brevis and L. kefiri. The erm(B) gene from L. fermentum NWL24 and L. salivarius NWL33, and tet(M) gene from L. plantarum NWL22 and L. brevis NWL59 were successfully transferred to Enterococcus faecalis 181 by filter mating. It was concluded that acquired antibiotic resistance is well dispersed in fermented food products in Xi'an, China and its transferability to other genera should be monitored closely.

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

4.4
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