| Literature DB >> 32197635 |
Alexander Kiruthiga1,2, Kesavaram Padmavathy3, Praveen Shabana4, Venkatesan Naveenkumar5, Sumathi Gnanadesikan6, Jeevan Malaiyan6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Virulence factors (VFs) among the clinical strains of enterococci play a vital role in pathogenesis. This study was aimed to screen for cylA, asa1, gelE, esp and hyl among Enterococcus faecalis (n = 89) and E. faecium (n = 51) by multiplex PCR. The previously reported multiplex PCR was modified to 2 duplex (asa1 and gelE, cylA and esp) PCRs and 1 simplex (hyl) PCR. The idea of the modification of the multiplex PCR proposed here emerged in the course of the research study when majority of the isolates which phenotypically exhibited virulence traits were found to be negative for the respective gene.Entities:
Keywords: E. faecalis; E. faecium; Modified PCR reactions; Virulence
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32197635 PMCID: PMC7085142 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-020-05018-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Correlation between virulence phenotype and genotype
| Virulence factors (encoding gene) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P+ G+ | P− G+ | P+ G− | P− G− | P+ G+ | P− G+ | P+ G− | P− G− | |
| Cytolysin ( | 48 | 5 | 5 | 31 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 45 |
| Gelatinase ( | 33 | 43 | 0 | 13 | 14 | 17 | 8 | 12 |
| Slime | ||||||||
| | 73 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 44 | 2 |
| | 45 | 3 | 37 | 4 | 22 | 1 | 26 | 2 |
P+ phenotypically expressed
P− phenotypically not expressed
G+ Gene detected
G− Gene not detected
Correlation of the virulence score of the enterococci with clinical source
| Virulence factor score | Urine | Pus | Blood | Fluid | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VF score 5 (n = 0) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
VF score 4 (n = 32) | (n = 31) | 23 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
(n = 1) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
VF score 3 (n = 28) | (n = 24) | 20 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
(n = 4) | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
VF score 2 (n = 38) | (n = 25) | 21 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
(n = 13) | 8 | 4 | 0 | 1 | |
VF score 1 (n = 29) | (n = 8) | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
(n = 21) | 16 | 3 | 0 | 2 | |
VF score 0 (n = 13) | (n = 1) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(n = 12) | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Comparison of VF scores between E. faecalis vs E. faecium
| Virulence score | OR | 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VF score 5 (n = 0) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1* | – | – |
VF score 4 (n = 32) | 31 (34.83%) | 1 (1.96%) | < 0.0001* | 26.7241 | 3.5205–202.8634 |
VF score 3 (n = 28) | 24 (26.96%) | 4 (7.84%) | 0.0124* | 4.3385 | 1.4112–13.3377 |
VF score 2 (n = 38) | 25 (28.08%) | 13 (25.49%) | 0.888* | 1.1418 | 0.5228–2.4939 |
VF score 1 (n = 29) | 8 (8.98%) | 21 (41.18%) | < 0.0001* | 0.1411 | 0.0565–0.3525 |
VF score 0 (n = 13) | 1 (1.12%) | 12 (23.53%) | 0.000* | 0.0369 | 0.0046–0.294 |
VF score* Mean ± SD | 2.854 ± 1.040 | 1.235 ± 0.971 | < 0.0001** | – | – |
* Mann–Whitney U test: comparison of VF scores between E. faecalis vs. E. faecium
** Student’s t test: comparison of 2 means