Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28135327›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Characterization of Multidrug Resistant E. faecalis Strains from Pigs of Local Origin by ADSRRS-Fingerprinting and MALDI -TOF MS; Evaluation of the Compatibility of Methods Employed for Multidrug Resistance Analysis.

Aneta Nowakiewicz, Grażyna Ziółkowska, Przemysław Zięba, Sebastian Gnat, Aleksandra Trościańczyk, Łukasz Adaszek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Antimicrobial Resistance inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  2. Analysis of Antibiotic-Resistant and Virulence Genes ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Resistance ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Aneta NowakiewiczSub-Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Institute of Biological Bases of Animal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland.
Grażyna ZiółkowskaSub-Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Institute of Biological Bases of Animal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland.
Przemysław ZiębaState Veterinary Laboratory, Lublin, Poland.
Sebastian GnatSub-Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Institute of Biological Bases of Animal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland.
Aleksandra TrościańczykSub-Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Institute of Biological Bases of Animal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland.
Łukasz AdaszekDepartment of Epizootiology and Clinic of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to characterize multidrug resistant E. faecalis strains from pigs of local origin and to analyse the relationship between resistance and genotypic and proteomic profiles by amplification of DNA fragments surrounding rare restriction sites (ADSRRS-fingerprinting) and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI -TOF MS). From the total pool of Enterococcus spp. isolated from 90 pigs, we selected 36 multidrug resistant E. faecalis strains, which represented three different phenotypic resistance profiles. Phenotypic resistance to tetracycline, macrolides, phenicols, and lincomycin and high-level resistance to aminoglycosides were confirmed by the occurrence of at least one corresponding resistance gene in each strain. Based on the analysis of the genotypic and phenotypic resistance of the strains tested, five distinct resistance profiles were generated. As a complement of this analysis, profiles of virulence genes were determined and these profiles corresponded to the phenotypic resistance profiles. The demonstration of resistance to a wide panel of antimicrobials by the strains tested in this study indicates the need of typing to determine the spread of resistance also at the local level. It seems that in the case of E. faecalis, type and scope of resistance strongly determines the genotypic pattern obtained with the ADSRRS-fingerprinting method. The ADSRRS-fingerprinting analysis showed consistency of the genetic profiles with the resistance profiles, while analysis of data with the use of the MALDI- TOF MS method did not demonstrate direct reproduction of the clustering pattern obtained with this method. Our observations were confirmed by statistical analysis (Simpson's index of diversity, Rand and Wallace coefficients). Even though the MALDI -TOF MS method showed slightly higher discrimination power than ADSRRS-fingerprinting, only the latter method allowed reproduction of the clustering pattern of isolates based on phenotypic resistance and analysis of resistance and virulence genes (Wallace coefficient 1.0). This feature seems to be the most useful for epidemiological purposes and short-term analysis.

Indexed as

Restriction MappingAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDNA FingerprintingDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEnterococcus faecalisGenes, BacterialMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhenotypePhylogenySpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationSus scrofaVirulenceAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID28135327
PMCPMC5279778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.