4.6 Article

Population Structure of Listeria monocytogenes Serotype 4b Isolates from Sporadic Human Listeriosis Cases in the United States from 2003 to 2008

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 80, 期 12, 页码 3632-3644

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00454-14

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA [2006-35201-17377]
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Listeria monocytogenes can cause severe food-borne disease (listeriosis). Numerous outbreaks have involved three serotype 4b epidemic clones (ECs): ECI, ECII, and ECIa. However, little is known about the population structure of L. monocytogenes serotype 4b from sporadic listeriosis in the United States, even though most cases of human listeriosis are in fact sporadic. Here we analyzed 136 serotype 4b isolates from sporadic cases in the United States, 2003 to 2008, utilizing multiple tools including multilocus genotyping, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and sequence analysis of the inlAB locus. ECI, ECII, and ECIa were frequently encountered (32, 17, and 7%, respectively). However, annually 30 to 68% of isolates were outside these ECs, and several novel clonal groups were identified. An estimated 33 and 17% of the isolates, mostly among the ECs, were resistant to cadmium and arsenic, respectively, but resistance to benzalkonium chloride was uncommon (3%) among the sporadic isolates. The frequency of clonal groups fluctuated within the 6-year study period, without consistent trends. However, on several occasions, temporal clusters of isolates with indistinguishable genotypes were detected, suggesting the possibility of hidden multistate outbreaks. Our analysis suggests a complex population structure of serotype 4b L. monocytogenes from sporadic disease, with important contributions by ECs and several novel clonal groups. Continuous monitoring will be needed to assess long-term trends in clonality patterns and population structure of L. monocytogenes from sporadic listeriosis.

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