4.6 Article

Longitudinal survey of Clostridium difficile presence and gut microbiota composition in a Belgian nursing home

期刊

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12866-016-0848-7

关键词

C. difficile; Elderly care home residents; 16S rRNA gene analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Increasing age, several co-morbidities, environmental contamination, antibiotic exposure and other intestinal perturbations appear to be the greatest risk factors for C. difficile infection (CDI). Therefore, elderly care home residents are considered particularly vulnerable to the infection. The main objective of this study was to evaluate and follow the prevalence of C. difficile in 23 elderly care home residents weekly during a 4-month period. A C. difficile microbiological detection scheme was performed along with an overall microbial biodiversity study of the faeces content by 16S rRNA gene analysis. Results: Seven out of 23 (30.4 %) residents were (at least one week) positive for C. difficile. C. difficile was detected in 14 out of 30 diarrhoeal samples (43.7 %). The most common PCR-ribotype identified was 027. MLVA showed that there was a clonal dissemination of C. difficile strains within the nursing home residents. 16S-profiling analyses revealed that each resident has his own bacterial imprint, which was stable during the entire study. Significant changes were observed in C. difficile positive individuals in the relative abundance of a few bacterial populations, including Lachnospiraceae and Verrucomicrobiaceae. A decrease of Akkermansia in positive subjects to the bacterium was repeatedly found. Conclusions: A high C. difficile colonisation in nursing home residents was found, with a predominance of the hypervirulent PCR-ribotype 027. Positive C. difficile status is not associated with microbiota richness or biodiversity reduction in this study. The link between Akkermansia, gut inflammation and C. difficile colonisation merits further investigations.

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