| Literature DB >> 33303028 |
Ebtisam S Mohamed1, Rasha M M Khairy2, Soha S Abdelrahim1,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae are mainly treated with the β-lactam antibiotics, nevertheless, the emergence of species with plasmid-borne β-lactamases has decreased the efficacy of these antibiotics. Therefore, continuing studies on the resistance pattern of different regions is important for assessment of proper antimicrobial therapy protocols. The study aimed to characterize extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) and AmpC β -lactamase (AmpC) producing Enterobacteriaceae isolated from community-acquired UTIs in Egypt.Entities:
Keywords: AmpC β -lactamase; Enterobacteriaceae; Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBLs)
Year: 2020 PMID: 33303028 PMCID: PMC7727156 DOI: 10.1186/s13756-020-00856-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ISSN: 2047-2994 Impact factor: 4.887
PCR primers of the current study
| Gene name | Primer sequence | fragment Size (bp) | Annealing Temperature | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AAACGCTGGTGAAAGTA AGCGATCTGTCTAT | 822 | 58 | ||
ATGCGTTATATTCGCCTGTG TGCTTTGTTATTCGGGCCAA | 753 | 60 | ||
GGT TAA AAA ATC ACT GCG TC TTG GTG ACG ATT TTA GCC GC | 850 | 55 | [ | |
ATG GTG ACA AAG AGA GTG CA CCC TTC GGC GAT GAT TCT C | 850 | 55 | [ | |
F CGACGCTACCCCTGCTATT R CCAGCGTCAGATTTTTCAGG | 552 | 52 | [ | |
TCGCGTTAAGCGGATGATGC AACCCACGATGTGGGTAG | 666 | 52 | [ | |
CACACGTGGAATTTAGGGACT GCCGTCTAAGGCCATAAACA | 996 | 55 | [ | |
| MOX | GCTGCTCAAGGAGCACAGGAT CAC ATT GAC ATA GGT GTG GTG C | 520 | 64 | [ |
| FOX | AAC ATG GGG TAT CAG GGA GAT G CAA AGC GCG TAA CCG GAT TGG | 190 | ||
| DHA | AAC TTT CAC AGG TGT GCT GGG T CCG TAC GCA TAC TGG CTT TGC | 405 | ||
| CIT | TGG CCA GAA CTG ACA GGC AAA TTT CTC CTG AAC GTG GCT GGC | 462 | ||
F: TTGCGATGCTCTATGAGTGGCTA R: CTCGAATGCCTGGCGTGTTT | 482 | 55 | [ |
Fig. 1Antimicrobials resistance patterns of 440 Enterobacteriaceae isolates from UTIs. AMC; Amoxicillin Clavulanic acid, CRO, Ceftriaxone, CTZ; Ceftazidime, FOX; Cefoxitin, CN; Gentamicin, AK; Amikacin, IMP; Imipenem, CIP; Ciprofloxacin, F; Nitrofurantoin
Fig. 2Distribution of resistance genes among 311 ESBL producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates
Frequency and combinations of ESBL genes among phenotypically identified ESBL- producing Enterobacteriaceae
| Genes | Total ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | 38 (18%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 38 (12.2%) |
| | 31(14.7%) | 6 (11.3%) | 3 (7.5%) | 1 (14.3%) | 41 (13.2%) |
| | 32 (15.2%) | 35 (66%) | 30 (75%) | 2 (28.5%) | 99 (31.8%) |
| | 59 (27.9%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 59 (19%) |
| | 10 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (42.8%) | 13 (4.2%) |
| | 1 (.5%) | 1 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (0.6%) |
| | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (0.6%) |
| | 171 (81%) | 42 (79.2%) | 35 (87.5%) | 6 (85.7%) | 254 (81.7%) |
| | 15(7.1%) | 0(0%) | 1(2.5%) | 1(14.2%) | 17 (5.4%) |
| | 13(6.1%) | 3(5.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0(0%) | 16(5.1%) |
| | 10(4.7%) | 7(13.2%) | 4(10%) | 0(0%) | 21(6.7%) |
| | 55(26.1%) | 20(37.7%) | 7(17.5%) | 1(14.2%) | 83(26.7%) |
| | 102(48.3%) | 13(24.5%) | 21(52.5%) | 4(57.1%) | |
| | 1(.4%) | 5(9.4%) | 5(12.5%) | 1(14.2%) | |
| | 13(6.1%) | 4(7.5%) | 2(5%) | 0(0%) | 19 (6.1%) |
Co-carriage of ESBLs genes and aac(6′)- Ib-cr gene in Enterobacteriaceae isolates
| Species | ESBL genes | Numbers of isolates | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | |||
| 25 | |||
| 24 | |||
| 22 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 19 | |||
| 6 | |||
| 3 | |||
| 2 | |||
| Total | 125 (75.5%) | ||
Total | 21 | ||
| 15 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 40 (24.2%) | |||
| < 0.01 |
Resistance patterns in ESBL genes carrying isolates and non-ESBL genes carrying isolates
| Antibiotic | ESBL ( | non- ESBL ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 308 | 100% | 43 | 32.6% | < 0.001 | |
| 308 | 100% | 35 | 26.5% | < 0.001 | |
| 308 | 100% | 2 | 1.5% | < 0.0001 | |
| FOX | 30 | 9.7% | 5 | 3.7% | 0.06 |
| GEN | 225 | 73% | 13 | 9.8% | < 0.001 |
| 90 | 29.2% | 0 | 0% | 0.02 | |
| 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | – | |
| 90 | 29.2% | 0 | 0% | 0.02 | |
| 88 | 28.5% | 22 | 16.6% | 0.08 | |
| 88 | 28.5% | 2 | 1.5% | 0.04 | |
AMC amoxicillin clavulanic acid, CRO ceftriaxone, CAZ ceftazidime, FOX cefoxitin, CN gentamicin, AK amikacin, IPM imipenem, CIP ciprofloxacin, F nitrofurantoin
Frequency of AmpC genes among cefoxitin-resistant isolates and its combinations with ESBL genes
| AmpC genes | AmpC positive ( | Associated | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOX | 0(0%) | 1(8.3%) | 0(0%) | 1(2.8%) | |
| FOX | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | |
| DHA | 9 (50%) | 3(25%) | 0(0%) | 12(34.3%) | No ESBL genes (1) |
| CIT | 0(0%) | 1(8.3%) | 0(0%) | 1(2.8%) | |
| DHA+ CIT | 0(0%) | 1(8.3%) | 0(0%) | 1(2.8%) | |
| MOX + CIT | 0(0%) | 1(8.3%) | 0(0%) | 1(2.8%) | |
| MOX + CIT+ DHA | 0(0%) | 2(16.6%) | 0(0%) | 2(5.6%) | |
| 9(50%) | 9(75%) | 0(0%) | 18(51.4%) | (17/18, 94.4%) |