4.7 Article

NDM-1-producing Enterobacteriaceae in a teaching hospital in Shanghai, China: IncX3-type plasmids may contribute to the dissemination of blaNDM-1

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2015.02.020

关键词

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Dissemination; NDM-1; Plasmid

资金

  1. Shanghai Science & Technology Specific Projects [124119a6100, 11ZR1422200]
  2. Natural Science Foundation [81100004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To provide the epidemiological dissemination and the genetic characteristics of bla(NDM-1) in a teaching hospital in Shanghai, China. Methods: Here, the carbapenemase genes of 114 CRE isolates were evaluated by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Clonal relatedness was assessed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Conjugation experiments and Southern blot hybridization were performed to determine the transferability of plasmids. Then plasmids were completely sequenced by the shotgun method. Results: Two Klebsiella pneumoniae strains (RJA1227 and RJF866) and one Raoultella planticola strain (RJA274) were identified as NDM-1 positive. The two K. pneumoniae isolates belonged to ST11 and exhibited highly similar PFGE patterns. Shotgun sequencing showed that plasmid pRJF866 (ca. 110 kb) contained genes associated with the IncFII-FIB group and was highly similar to plasmid pKOX_NDM1. RJA274 (ca. 50 kb) harbored bla(NDM-1) on an IncX3 plasmid, which was nearly identical to plasmid pNDM-HN380 except that part of the ISAba125 element is missing. Conclusion: This is the first report of NDM-1-positive Enterobacteriaceae from Shanghai, China. IncX3 plasmids, reported in various species in the United Arab Emirates and China, may contribute to the dissemination of bla(NDM-1-). More attention should be devoted to monitoring the dissemination of the NDM-1 gene due to its potential horizontal transfer via mobile genetic elements. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

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

4.7
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