4.4 Article

ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae: The most prevalent clinical isolates obtained between 2005 and 2012 in Mexico

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 243-246

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2017.06.008

关键词

Enterobacteriaceae; Allelic frequency; ESBL; Multicenter study; Phylogenetic group

资金

  1. CONACyT (Mexican Council for Science and Technology) [136339, 256927, 130224]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To identify the prevalence of ESBL genes in the principal group of Enterobacteriaceae causing nosocomial infections and to identify the phylogenetic group in Escherichia coli isolates. Methods: There were collected 1084 ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates during 2005-2012 from adult patients from 14 hospitals and corresponding to eight states and five regions (SE, S, N, W and NW) in Mexico. The CTX-M-(CTX-M-1 group), SHV-, TLA- and GES-type ESBLs genes were screened. The respective alleles were determined in the most of ESBLs genes. In E. coli isolates selected were used to identify the phylogenetic group. Results: The ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae corresponded the most prevalent clinical isolates. CTX-M-type ESBLs genes were the most common, followed by SHV-type, GES-type and the ESBLs TLA-1 gene. The allelic frequency showed to CTX-M-15 ESBL the most prevalent, followed by the SHV-12, SHV-5 and GES-1, GES-19 in the GES family. Among ESBL-producing E. coli isolates the phylogenetic groups A and D were the most common ones. Conclusions: The present study showed an epidemiological change in terms of bacterial species, placing E. coli as the most frequently isolated bacteria among ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in Mexico, followed by K. pneumoniae. This frequency is accompanied by a high frequency of ESBL CTX-M-15. (C) 2017 International Society for Chemotherapy of Infection and Cancer. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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