4.6 Article

Characterization of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates in a Chinese teaching hospital

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00910

关键词

Acinetobacter baumannii; carbapenem resistance; OXA-23; plasmid; CC92

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81373454, 31300659, 31470246, 31401099]
  2. Applied Basic Research Programs of Sichuan Province [2013jy0065]
  3. Scientific Research and Innovation Team of Sichuan Province [15TD0025]
  4. Preeminent Youth Fund of Sichuan Province [2015JQO019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) presents a serious therapeutic and infection control challenge. In this study, we investigated the epidemiological and molecular differences of CRAB and the threatening factors for contributing to increased CRAB infections at a hospital in western China. A total of 110 clinical isolates of A. baumannii, collected in a recent 2-year period, were tested for carbapenem antibiotic susceptibility, followed by a molecular analysis of carbapenemase genes. Genetic relatedness of the isolates was characterized by multilocus sequence typing. Sixty-seven of the 110 isolates (60.9%) were resistant to carbapenems, 80.60% (54/67) of which carried the b/a(OXA-23) gene. Most of these CRAB isolates (77.62%) were classified as clone complex 92 (CC92), and sequence type (ST) 92 was the most prevalent STs, followed by ST195, ST136, ST843, and ST75. One CRAB isolate of ST195 harbored plasmid pAB52 from a Chinese patient without travel history. This plasmid contains toxin antitoxin elements related to adaptation for growth, which might have emerged as a common vehicle indirectly mediating the spread of OXA-23 in CRAB. Thus, CC92 A. baumannii carrying OXA-23 is a major drug-resistant strain spreading in China. Our findings indicate that rational application of antibiotics is indispensable for minimizing widespread of drug resistance.

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

4.6
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