4.0 Article

Polymorphism of mucA and fpvA genes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from cystic fibrosis patients: co-existence of genetically different variants

期刊

出版社

EDICIONES DOYMA S A
DOI: 10.1016/j.eimc.2010.05.006

关键词

Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Cystic fibrosis; mucA; fpvA; RFLP; Genotyping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Pseudomonas aeruginosa is able to colonize the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients (CF) in an adaptive process that results in the selection of a dominant strain through a process of genetic variation. Methods: One hundred and twenty tree isolates of P. aeruginosa were sequentially recovered from 6 CF patients during the routine follow-up or exacerbations over periods of 2 to 12 years in the Ramon y Cajal University Hospital (Madrid, Spain). Another 13 isolates were obtained from a single CF patient in a short-term study. They were analysed by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and sequencing of mucA and fpvA genes, which code for the alginate biosynthesis regulator and a pyoverdin receptor, respectively, and their antibiotic susceptibility was studied by microdilution. Results: A dominant colonising strain was found in each patient based on the RFLP profile. The polymorphisms of mucA and fpvA genes correlated well with these profiles, but suggested a relationship between strains isolated from two brothers, not inferred by RFLP. Stop codon mutations in mucA were unique to each dominant strain, indicating the adaptive process suffered. The alternate detection of the same mucA and/or fpvA genotypic variants suggested the coexistence of several subpopulations. This hypothesis was confirmed in a prospective study in which 6 variants were isolated in 7 days from the same patient. Conclusions: Genotypic variants of the P. aeruginosa dominant strains can coexist in the chronic colonization in CF patients. These variants can be undetected by RFLP and they might present variable antibiotic susceptibility. (C) 2010 Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.

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

4.0
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