4.6 Article

Antibiotic resistance and molecular characterization of bacteremia Escherichia coli isolates from newborns in the United States

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219352

关键词

-

资金

  1. Oklahoma INBRE program [8P20GM103447]
  2. NIH/NIGMS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Escherichia coli is a major cause of neonatal sepsis. Contemporary antibiotic resistance data and molecular characterization of neonatal E. coli bacteremia isolates in the US are limited. Methods E. coli blood isolates, antibiotic susceptibility data, and clinical characteristics were obtained from prospectively identified newborns from 2006 to 2016. The E. coli isolates were classified using an updated phylogrouping method and multi-locus sequence typing. The presence of several virulence traits was also determined. Results Forty-three newborns with E. coli bacteremia were identified. Mean gestational age was 32.3 (SD +/- 5.4) weeks. Median age was 7 days (interquartile range 0-10). Mortality (28%) occurred exclusively in preterm newborns. Resistance to ampicillin was 67%, to gentamicin was 14%, and to ceftriaxone was 2%; one isolate produced extended-spectrum beta lacta-mases. Phylogroup B2 predominated. Sequence type (ST) 95 and ST131 prevailed; ST1193 emerged recently. All isolates carried fimH, nlpI, and ompA, and 46% carried the K1 capsule. E. coli from newborns with bacteremia diagnosed at <72 hours old had more virulence genes compared to E. coli from newborns. 72 hours old. The hek/hra gene was more frequent in isolates from newborns who died than in isolates from survivors. Conclusion Antibiotic resistance in E. coli was prevalent in this large collection of bacteremia isolates from US newborns. Most strains belonged to distinctive extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coil phylogroups and STs. Further characterization of virulence genes in neonatal E. coli bacteremia strains is needed in larger numbers and in more geographically diverse areas.

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