4.7 Article

Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assay for Detection and Classification of Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase Gene (blaKPC) Variants

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 579-585

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01588-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. New York Community Trust
  2. Merck Co., Inc.
  3. Veterans Affairs Merit Review Program
  4. Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center
  5. National Institutes of Health [R01 A1063517-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbapenem resistance mediated by plasmid-borne Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPC) is an emerging problem of significant clinical importance in Gram-negative bacteria. Multiple KPC gene variants (bla(KPC)) have been reported, with KPC-2 (bla(KPC-2)) and KPC-3 (bla(KPC-3)) associated with epidemic outbreaks in New York City and various international settings. Here, we describe the development of a multiplex real-time PCR assay using molecular beacons (MB-PCR) for rapid and accurate identification of bla(KPC) variants. The assay consists of six molecular beacons and two oligonucleotide primer pairs, allowing for detection and classification of all currently described bla(KPC) variants (bla(KPC-2) to bla(KPC-11)). The MB-PCR detection limit was 5 to 40 DNA copies per reaction and 4 CFU per reaction using laboratory-prepared samples. The MB-PCR probes were highly specific for each bla(KPC) variant, and cross-reactivity was not observed using DNA isolated from several bacterial species. A total of 457 clinical Gram-negative isolates were successfully characterized by our MB-PCR assay, with bla(KPC-3) and bla(KPC-2) identified as the most common types in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan region. The MB-PCR assay described herein is rapid, sensitive, and specific and should be useful for understanding the ongoing evolution of carbapenem resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. As novel bla(KPC) variants continue to emerge, the MB-PCR assay can be modified in response to epidemiologic developments.

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

4.7
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