4.4 Article

Multidrug Resistance Related to Biofilm Formation in Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae Clinical Strains from Different Pulsotypes

期刊

CURRENT MICROBIOLOGY
卷 72, 期 5, 页码 617-627

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00284-016-0996-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. FAPEMIG (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergence of Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae strains in the hospital environment has been associated with the presence of multiple genetic elements, virulence factors and the ability to form biofilms. This study evaluated the biofilm formation ability of clinical and environmental A. baumannii and K. pneumoniae strains, isolated from various sources and presenting different molecular characteristics, resistance profiles and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns. Fifty-three isolates were recovered from 2009 to 2014 in a Brazilian university hospital. Investigation of biofilm formation was performed for 10 strains of each species assessed by an initial adhesion assay, biofilm cell concentration and biofilm biomass, evaluated by quantitative assays in replicates, in three independent experiments. All strains of A. baumannii were able to attach to polystyrene plates, although two strains adhered to a lesser degree than the control. K. pneumoniae strains showed opposite behaviour, where only three strains adhered significantly when compared to the control. Quantitative evaluation revealed that in five A. baumannii and four K. pneumoniae isolates the biomass production could be characterised as moderate. None of the isolates were strong biofilm producers. Our results demonstrate: (1) biofilm formation is a heterogeneous property amongst A. baumannii and K. pneumoniae clinical strains and it was not associated with certain clonal types; (2) no relationship between multidrug resistance and biofilm production was observed; (3) more virulent K. pneumoniae strains tended to present higher production of biofilm.

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