4.4 Article

Antibiotic Resistance of LACTOBACILLUS Strains

期刊

CURRENT MICROBIOLOGY
卷 76, 期 12, 页码 1407-1416

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00284-019-01769-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. program of competitive growth of Kazan Federal University, RFBR [18-34-00268, 17-00-00456]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study provides phenotypic and molecular analyses of the antibiotic resistance in 20 Lactobacillus strains including 11 strains newly isolated from fermented plant material. According to the results of disc diffusion method, 90% of tested lactobacilli demonstrated sensitivity to clindamycin and 95% of strains were susceptible to tetracycline, erythromycin, and rifampicin. Ampicillin and chloramphenicol were found to inhibit all bacteria used in this study. The vast majority of tested strains revealed phenotypic resistance to vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, and aminoglycosides. Most of Lactobacillus strains showed high minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and cefazolin and therefore were considered resistant to cephalosporins. All the strains exhibited multidrug resistance. The occurrence of resistance genes was associated with phenotypic resistance, with the exception of phenotypically susceptible strains that contained genes for tetracycline (tetK, tetL) and erythromycin (ermB, mefA) resistance. The vanX gene for vancomycin resistance was among the most frequently identified among the lactobacilli (75% of strains), but the occurrence of the parC gene for ciprofloxacin resistance was sporadic (20% of strains). Our results mainly evidence the intrinsic nature of the resistance to aminoglycosides in lactobacilli, though genes for enzymatic modification of streptomycin aadA and aadE were found in 20% of tested strains. The occurrence of extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL) was unknown in Lactobacillus, but our results revealed the blaTEM gene in 80% of strains, whereas blaSHV and blaOXA-1 genes were less frequent (20% and 15% of strains, respectively).

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

4.4
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