| Literature DB >> 27631785 |
Edson Yukio Komiyama1, Laura Soares Souto Lepesqueur1, Cinthia Gomes Yassuda1, Lakshman P Samaranayake2, Nipuna B Parahitiyawa3, Ivan Balducci4, Cristiane Yumi Koga-Ito1,5.
Abstract
Enterococci are considered as transient constituent components of the oral microbiome that may cause a variety of oral and systemic infections. As there is sparse data on the oral enterococcal prevalence, we evaluated the Enterococcus spp. and their virulence attributes including antimicrobial resistance in a healthy Brazilian cohort. A total of 240 individuals in different age groups were studied (children 4-11 yrs, adolescents 12-17 yrs, young adults 18-29 yrs, adults 30-59 yrs, elderly over 60 yrs). Oral rinses were collected and isolates were identified by API 20 Strep and confirmed by 16S rDNA sequencing. E. faecalis isolates, in particular, were evaluated for virulence attributes such as their biofilm formation potential, and susceptibility to antimicrobials and an antiseptic, chlorhexidine gluconate. A total of 40 individuals (16.6%) and 10% children, 4% adolescents, 14% young adults, 30% adults, and 25% elderly carried oral enterococci. The oral enterococcal burden in adolescents was significantly lower than in the adults (p = 0.000) and elderly (p = 0.004). The proportion of carriers was higher among females (p = 0.001). E. faecalis was the most frequent isolate in all the age groups (p = 0.000), followed by E. durans and E. faecium. Whilst all the clinical isolates were able to form biofilms, only a proportion of them were able to produce lipase (92%), hemolysin (38%), and gelatinase (39%). Of all the isolates 53.8% were resistant to tetracycline, 12.3% to amoxicillin, 16.0% to ampicillin, 20.8% to chloramphenicol and 43.4% to erythromycin. None of the isolates were resistant to vancomycin. Our data suggest that in this Brazilian cohort the oral cavity may act as a significant reservoir of rather virulent and antibiotic resistant enterococci, with an increasing degree of carriage in the adults and elderly. Hence clinicians should be cognizant of this silent reservoir of virulent enterococci that may pose a particular threat of nosocomial infection.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27631785 PMCID: PMC5025163 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Oral carriage of enterococci in different age-related cohorts (expressed as colony-forming units per milliliter; cfu/mL).
| Groups | n | % of positive | mean | sd | median | min | max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children | 50 | 10 | 88 | 344.70 | 0 | 0 | 2050 |
| Adolescents | 50 | 4 | 1 | 4.95 | 0 | 0 | 25 |
| Young adults | 50 | 14 | 3.50 | 8.76 | 0 | 0 | 25 |
| Adults | 50 | 30 | 216 | 954 | 0 | 0 | 6425 |
| Elderly | 40 | 25 | 224 | 670 | 0 | 0 | 2875 |
n = number of patients, sd = standard deviation, min = minimum value, max = maximum value.
*p = 0.000,
♣p = 0.004;
§ percentage of individuals positive to Enterococcus spp. in the oral cavity
Distribution of Enterococcus species in each age group.
| Age group | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children | 16 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17 |
| Adolescents | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Young adults | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| Adults | 43 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 48 |
| Elderly | 31 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 38 |
| Total | 102 (88.7%) | 2(1.7%) | 9(7.9%) | 2(1.7%) | 115 |
Phenotypic (API 20 Strep method) and genotypic (16s rDNA) analytical data of 25 oral enterococcal isolates indicating the divergent nature of the results.
| Sequencing | n | Homology | API 20 Strep |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 98% | ||
| 7 | 99–100% | ||
| 4 | 100% | ||
| 3 | 99–100% | ||
| 2 | 100% | ||
| 1 | 99% | ||
| 6 | 99–100% | ||
| 1 | 99% |
*Percentage sequencing identity with reference sequences in GenBank.
Break point antimicrobial sensitivity profiles (values in μg/ml) of oral E. faecalis, E. faecium and E. durans spp.
| Antimicrobial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC90 | 32 | 4 | > 64 | 8 |
| MIC50 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Range | 1–64 | 1–64 | 1–64 | 1–8 |
| % Resistance | 12.3 | 16 | 6 | 100 |
| MIC90 | 16 | 4 | 16 | 8 |
| MIC50 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 2 |
| Range | 1–64 | 1–64 | 4–16 | 2–8 |
| % Resistance | 16.0 | 18 | 37 | 100 |
| MIC90 | 64 | >64 | > 64 | 64 |
| MIC50 | 16 | 16 | 4 | 4 |
| Range | 1–64 | 1–64 | 1–64 | 2–64 |
| % Resistance | 53.8 | 54 | 38 | 50 |
| MIC90 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 4 |
| MIC50 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Range | 1–8 | 1–4 | 1 | 1–8 |
| % Resistance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MIC90 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 64 |
| MIC50 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| Range | 1–64 | 1–64 | 2–64 | 2–64 |
| % Resistance | 20.8 | 20 | 10 | 33 |
| MIC90 | 64 | > 64 | > 64 | > 64 |
| MIC50 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 1 |
| Range | 1–64 | 1–64 | 1–64 | 1–64 |
| % Resistance | 43.4 | 46 | 56 | 17 |