ArticleScientific reports2026
Molecular insights into efflux pump genes in ciprofloxacin- and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis clinical isolates from Iraq.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efflux pumps play a critical role in developing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in S.aureus and S.epidermidis. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the frequency and distribution of efflux pump resistance genes (norA, mepA, and mdeA), and potentially assess their association with antibiotic susceptibility profiles in ciprofloxacin- and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (CipR-MRSA) and S. epidermidis (CipR-MRSE) using both phenotypic methods and molecular detection. Among 250 clinical samples collected randomly from hospitalized Iraqi patients, 56% were Gram-positive, with 42.1% identified as S.epidermidis and 29.3% as S.aureus. A total of 53 isolates were determined to be ciprofloxacin-resistant (CipR). The majority of CipR-MRSA and CipR-MRSE isolates had mdeA and norA genes. However, the mepA gene was detected only in 13 CipR-MRSA. Additionally, mdeA gene sequence analysis showed that all tested isolates had a novel silent mutation (H388H). However, two isolates,14 and 31, had missense mutations G332V and I338F, located in the transmembrane segment 11 (TMS11) of the MdeA. In silico tools predicted that these mutations might increase the structural stability of the mutated MdeA. Docking analysis revealed that the binding energy of the MdeA wild-type protein with ciprofloxacin was - 5.0 kcal/mol, while for the MdeA mutant (G332V and I338F), it was - 5.8 kcal/mol. Similarly, docking of the MdeA protein with ethidium bromide showed a binding energy of - 5.6 kcal/mol for the wild-type and - 6.7 kcal/mol for the mutant (G332V and I338F). This study found a high frequency of efflux pump genes in CipR-MRSA and CipR-MRSE strains isolated from Iraqi patients. To our knowledge, the mdeA gene was reported, for the first time, in CipR-MRSE. Additionally, identifying sequence-identical MdeA orthologs in both ciprofloxacin-resistant MRSA and MRSE suggests a common evolutionary origin. Furthermore, missense mutations in TMS11 of MdeA may enhance its stability and binding affinity for ciprofloxacin and ethidium bromide, contributing to the understanding of resistance mechanisms in Staphylococcus species.
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.