4.6 Article

Genotypic and Phenotypic Markers of Livestock-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC9 in Humans

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 82, 期 13, 页码 3892-3899

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00091-16

关键词

-

资金

  1. Guangdong Pharmaceutical University [2014KQNCX138]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Use of antimicrobials in industrial food animal production is associated with the presence of multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among animals and humans. The livestock-associated (LA) methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) clonal complex 9 (CC9) is associated with animals and related workers in Asia. This study aimed to explore the genotypic and phenotypic markers of LA-MRSA CC9 in humans. We conducted a cross-sectional study of livestock workers and controls in Guangdong, China. The study participants responded to a questionnaire and provided a nasal swab for S. aureus analysis. The resulting isolates were assessed for antibiotic susceptibility, multilocus sequence type, and immune evasion cluster (IEC) genes. Livestock workers had significantly higher rates of S. aureus CC9 (odds ratio [OR] = 30.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.06 to 236.39) and tetracycline-resistant S. aureus (OR = 3.26; 95% CI, 2.12 to 5.00) carriage than controls. All 19 S. aureus CC9 isolates from livestock workers were MRSA isolates and also exhibited the characteristics of resistance to several classes of antibiotics and absence of the IEC genes. Notably, the interaction analyses indicated phenotype-phenotype (OR = 525.7; 95% CI, 60.0 to 4,602.1) and gene-environment (OR = 232.3; 95% CI, 28.7 to 1,876.7) interactions associated with increased risk for livestock-associated S. aureus CC9 carriage. These findings suggest that livestock-associated S. aureus and MRSA (CC9, IEC negative, and tetracycline resistant) in humans are associated with occupational livestock contact, raising questions about the potential for occupational exposure to opportunistic S. aureus.

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