| Literature DB >> 25105126 |
Agnieszka Daca1, Tomasz Jarzembowski2, Jacek M Witkowski3, Ewa Bryl1, Bolesław Rutkowski4, Alicja Dębska-Ślizień4.
Abstract
Infections caused by commensal bacteria may be fatal for the patients under immunosuppressive therapy. This results also from difficulty in identification of high risk strains. Enterococcal infections are increasingly frequent but despite many studies on virulence traits, the difference between commensal and pathogenic strains remains unclear. Prophages are newly described as important elements in competition between strains during colonization, as well as pathogenicity of the strains. Here we evaluate a difference in presence of pp4, pp1, and pp7 prophages and ASA (aggregation substance) gene expression in enterococcal isolates from renal transplant recipients (RTx) with different etiology of the end-stage renal failure. Prophages sequence was screened by PCR in strains of Enterococcus faecalis isolated from urine and feces of 19 RTx hospitalized at Medical University of Gdansk and 18 healthy volunteers. FLOW-FISH method with use of linear locked nucleic acid (LNA) probe was used to assess the ASA gene expression. Additionally, ability of biofilm formation was screened by crystal violet staining method. Presence of prophages was more frequent in fecal isolates from immunocompromised patients than in isolates from healthy volunteers. Additionally, both composition of prophages and ASA gene expression were related to the etiology of renal disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25105126 PMCID: PMC4106134 DOI: 10.1155/2014/514689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1ANOVA comparison of ASA gene expression in enterococcal strains isolated from patients with different renal dysfunctions: ADPKD (autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease), GN (glomerulonephritis), other (other nephropathies), and none (healthy volunteers). (a) planktonic cultures and (b) biofilm.
Primers used for PCR.
| pp1F | GCAGTACAGATTATAAAA |
| pp1R | GATCGGCAACAAGTAATGTC |
| pp7F | ACAGCACCAGACCCGACAG |
| pp7R | ACGACGAGGTTCCATGTGATG |
| pp4F | CAGTTCGAGTCCTGTATGG |
| pp4R | AGAACGGCTTTTCAGAGAAG |
The frequency of occurring prophages sequences in bacteria from different materials (feces versus urine) isolated from various groups of people (with ADPKD, glomerulonephritis (GN), other nephropathies, and healthy volunteers).
| Prophages | pp4 | pp1 | pp7 | pp(−) | pp(+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Material from healthy volunteers | |||||
| Urine |
|
|
| 70,00% |
|
| Feces | 22,22% | 22,22% | 66,67% | 22,22% | 77,78% |
| Material from patients with immunosuppression | |||||
| Urine |
|
|
| 3,57% |
|
| Feces |
|
|
| 4,17% |
|
| Causes of end-stage renal disease | |||||
| ADPKD | 38,46% | 7,69% | 92,31% | 7,69% | 92,31% |
| GN | 52,38% | 52,38% | 76,19% | 0,00% | 100,00% |
| Others | 38,89% | 50,00% | 61,11% | 5,56% | 94,44% |
Figure 2Composition of the prophages in isolates. The significance of difference between all groups was confirmed by ANOVA analysis on P = 0.0006.
Characteristic of patients.
| Number of patients | Years after transplantation | Comorbidity | Number of UTI | Cause of renal failure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | 1.08 ± 1.03 | 4.42 ± 1.74 | 0–7 (0: 12p.∗, 1: 3p., 2: 0p., 3: 0p., 4: 1p., 5: 1p., 6: 1p., 7: 1p.) | ADPKD∗∗: 4 patients; |
∗p: patients.
∗∗ADPKD: autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.
∗∗∗others: diabetic and hypertensive nephropathy and tubulointerstitial and lupus nephritis, mean ± SD.