ArticleBMC microbiology2020
Prevalence and molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with mupirocin, fusidic acid and/or retapamulin resistance.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Whole-genome sequencing to explore genomic profile, pathogenicity, virulence motifs, and pangenome of clinical MRSA isolates.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Molecular Characterization of Clinical Isolates of Methicillin-ResistantPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cannabinoids as Antibacterial Agents: A Systematic and Critical Review of In Vitro Efficacy AgainstAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Different evolution ofHeliyon · 2024Article
- Mupirocin for Skin Infection: Clinical Experience from China.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Review
- Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles andClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024Article
- Phylogenetic analysis and virulence characteristics of methicillin-resistantEmerging microbes & infections · 2023Article
- Dissemination of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Sequence Type 764 Isolates with Mupirocin Resistance in China.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Antibiotic susceptibility and clonal distribution ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus genotype ST764-SCCmec type II in Thailand.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Comparison of Molecular Characteristics Between Methicillin-Resistant and -SusceptibleInfection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Antibiotic-resistant profile and the factors affecting the intravenous antibiotic treatment course of generalized Staphylococcal Scalded Skin Syndrome: a retrospective study.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- In Vitro and In Vivo Activity of 14-Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Synthesis of Fusidic Acid Derivatives Yields a Potent Antibiotic with an Improved Resistance Profile.ACS infectious diseases · 2021Article
- The Prevalence and Determinants of Fusidic Acid Resistance Among Methicillin-ResistantFrontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe data on the prevalence of resistance to mupirocin (MUP), fusidic acid (FA) and retapamulin (RET) in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from China are still limited. This study aimed to examine these three antibiotics resistance in 1206 MRSA clinical isolates from Eastern China. Phenotypic MUP, FA and RET resistance was determined by minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), and genotypic by PCR and DNA sequencing of the mupA/B, fusB-D, cfr, vgaA/Av/A
resultsOverall MRSA MUP, FA and RET resistance was low (5.1, 1.0 and 0.3%, respectively). MupA was the mechanism of high-level MUP resistance. All low-level MUP resistance isolates possessed an equivocal mutation N213D in IleS; of these, 2 reported an additional V588F mutation with an impact on the Rossman fold. FusA mutations, such as L461K, H457Q, H457Y and V90I were the primary FA mechanisms among high-level resistance isolates, most of which also contained fusC; however, all low-level resistance strains carried fusB. Except lsaE gene detected in one isolate, no other resistance mechanisms tested were found among RET-resistant isolates. Additionally, sixteen PFGE types (A-P) were observed, among which type B was the most common (49/76, 64.5%), followed by types E and G (4/76, 5.3% each) and types C and M (3/76, 3.9% each). All resistant strains were divided into 15 ST types by MLST. ST764 (24/76, 31.6%), ST630 (11/76, 14.5%), ST239 (9/76, 11.8%) and ST5 (7/76, 9.2%) were the major types. PFGE type B isolates with the aforementioned STs were mainly found in mupirocin resistant isolates.
conclusionsMUP, FA and RET exhibited highly activity against the MRSA isolates. Acquired genes and chromosome-borne genes mutations were responsible for MUP and FA resistance; however, the mechanism for some RET-resistant isolates remains to be further elucidated. Also, the surveillance to MUP in MRSA should be strengthened to prevent elevated resistance due to the expansion of clones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.