Open Access
ARTICLE
Relationship of multidrug-resistant gene and extended-spectrum carbapenem-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus
Yuan LI1, Yonghyun LEE2, Yielhea SEO3, Youjin HWANG1, 2, *
1 Department of Life Science, College of Bio-nano Technology, Gachon University, Incheon, 21936, Korea
2 Department of Health Sciences and Technology, GAIHST, Gachon University, Incheon, 21999, Korea
3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Gil Hospital, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
* Address correspondence to: YouJin Hwang,
BIOCELL 2019, 43(4), 263-269. https://doi.org/10.32604/biocell.2019.07664
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility
patterns and extended-spectrum, carbapenem-resistance genes. A total of 109 clinical
Staphilococcus aureus strains were
subjected to 19 antimicrobial susceptibility tests. Resistance to methicillin (mecA), penicillin (blaTEM), and tetracycline
(tetM) was detected. We compared the presence of the blaTEM genes with extended-spectrum, carbapenem-related
genes and identified the types of SCCmec genes. Of 109 clinical
S. aureus strains, 62 (56.88%) had methicillin resistance
and 60 strains carried mecA. The prevalence of blaTEM and tetM genes was 81.65% and 37.61%, respectively. The most
predominant SCCmec type was SCCmec type II 28/60 (46.67%), in 60 mecA-positive methicillin-resistant S. aureus
(MRSA) isolates. The SCCmec prevalence rates were type IVA 30.00% (18/60), type IVb 8.33% (5/60), type IVd 6.67%
(4/60), and non-typable 8.33% (5/60). Sixty of the 109 (55.05%) MRSA isolates were positive for extended-spectrum
carbapenems (31/60) (51.67%), cephalosporins 40/60 (66.67%) and carbapenems 31/60 (51.67%). The predominant
SCCmec type II demonstrated more carbapenem-resistance than the IVA, IVb and IVd types.
Keywords
Cite This Article
LI, Y., LEE, Y., SEO, Y., HWANG, Y. (2019). Relationship of multidrug-resistant gene and extended-spectrum carbapenem-resistance in
Staphylococcus aureus.
BIOCELL, 43(4), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.32604/biocell.2019.07664
Citations