Annals of Thoracic Medicine Official publication of the Saudi Thoracic Society, affiliated to King Saud University
 
Search Ahead of print Current Issue Archives Instructions Subscribe e-Alerts Login 
Home Email this article link Print this article Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 287-293
Molecular detection of plasmid-derived AmpC β-lactamase among clinical strains of Enterobacteriaceae in Bahrain


1 Departments of Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain
2 Department of Pathology, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Ministry of Health, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain
3 Department of Community Medicine, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain

Date of Submission26-Aug-2020
Date of Acceptance10-Oct-2020
Date of Web Publication19-Feb-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ronni Mol Joji
Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama
Kingdom of Bahrain
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/atm.ATM_523_20

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 


BACKGROUND: Enterobacteriaceae with AmpC β-lactamase are multidrug-resistant organisms and represent a significant challenge to patient care. This study aims to determine the prevalence of plasmid-derived AmpC β-lactamase among extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae strains in Bahrain.
METHODS: It was a cross-sectional study. A total of 185 ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates were recovered from clinically significant specimens from January 2018 to December 2019. The samples underwent initial screen for cefoxitin resistance by disc diffusion test and subsequent phenotypic confirmation of AmpC production with phenyl boronic acid assays as well as genotypic analysis by multiplex polymerase chain reactions for AmpC subtypes. Drug-resistant features of these clinical isolates were also examined.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates were cefoxitin resistant. Phenotypic and genotypic analyses confirmed that 8 and 12 cefoxitin-resistant isolates are AmpC positive, respectively. These AmpC producers are multidrug resistant, and Escherichia coli is the dominant strain among them.
CONCLUSIONS: Plasmid-mediated spread of AmpC is present in clinically relevant Enterobacteriaceae species in Bahrain. Rational antimicrobial therapy against these multidrug-resistant organisms and continued surveillance of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms among the clinical isolates are recommended for optimal patient care.


Keywords: AmpC genotypes, antimicrobial resistance, cefoxitin resistance, Enterobacteriaceae, multiplex polymerase chain reaction


How to cite this article:
Joji RM, Al-Mahameed AE, Jishi TA, Fatani DI, Saeed NK, Jaradat A, Ezzat H, Bindayna KM. Molecular detection of plasmid-derived AmpC β-lactamase among clinical strains of Enterobacteriaceae in Bahrain. Ann Thorac Med 2021;16:287-93

How to cite this URL:
Joji RM, Al-Mahameed AE, Jishi TA, Fatani DI, Saeed NK, Jaradat A, Ezzat H, Bindayna KM. Molecular detection of plasmid-derived AmpC β-lactamase among clinical strains of Enterobacteriaceae in Bahrain. Ann Thorac Med [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 24];16:287-93. Available from: https://www.thoracicmedicine.org/text.asp?2021/16/3/287/309732




Enterobacteriaceae represents a large family of Gram-negative bacteria that are rod-shaped facultative anaerobes, with 51 genera and 238 species. These microbes could be distinguished from other rod-shaped Gram-negative bacteria based on morphological and functional features as well as the presence of Enterobacterial common antigen.[1] Nevertheless, genetic analyses have replaced these types of phenotypic characterization as the standard identification method for Enterobacteriaceae strains.[1] These bacteria are ubiquitous in nature and are able to take on a variety of ecological environments, ranging from terrestrial and aquatic niches to animals and insects. While Enterobacteriaceae could be considered as biocontrol agents in agriculture, health care, and environmental management, many species, such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Proteus mirabilis, are known as opportunistic pathogens, causing many types of infections in humans.[1],[2]

Traditional approaches to treating Enterobacteriaceae infections involve a single class of antibiotics, such as aminoglycoside, fluoroquinolone, cephalosporin, or carbapenem. However, repeated exposure to these antibiotics leads to drug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. In recent years, members of this family have become increasingly resistant to antimicrobial therapies, creating a therapeutic conundrum in hospital and community settings.[2] In this regard, β-lactam resistance is commonly observed among the Enterobacteriaceae strains. Some Enterobacteriaceae are capable of producing enzymes called β-lactamases, which inactivates β-lactam antibiotics by cleaving its central ring structure that is responsible for the antimicrobial activity of these agents.[3]

β-lactamases that have been encountered in Enterobacteriaceae species include carbapenemases, oxacillinases, metallo-β-lactamases (MBL), extended spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL), and AmpC β-lactamases.[3],[4],[5] In clinical settings, the most commonly detected β-lactamases are AmpC and ESBLs.[2] Notably, AmpC β-lactamases confer resistance to β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations, narrow as well as broad-spectrum cephalosporins, and aztreonam.[6] There are two main types of AmpC in Enterobacteriaceae species: chromosomal and plasmid derived.[7],[8] The former is often generated by chromosomal deregulation, whereas the latter comes from gene transfer from plasmids. Subtypes of plasmid-derived β-lactamases have been named according to their resistance to cefoxitin (FOX), cephamycins (CMY), and moxalactam (MOX) or latamoxef (LAT). In addition, these β-lactamases could be classified by the species origin such as CIT (Citrobacter freundii) and EBC (Enterobacter cloacae); their genetic features such as Ambler class C (ACC) and AmpC type (ACT); their discovery sites such as the Dhahran Hospital in Saudi Arabia (DHA) and Miriam Hospital in Providence (MIR-1); or the name of the subject in which the species was discovered (BIL-1, patient Bilal).[7],[9] Among these, ACC, FOX, MOX, DHA, CMY, CIT, and EBC genotypes are most commonly reported.[8]

In Europe and the United States, the prevalence of AmpC genes and antibiotic resistance due to AmpC enzymes have been reported.[10],[11] Similarly, the AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates have also been documented in Saudi Arabia.[12],[13] Furthermore, many studies have reported an alarming rise of ESBL and AmpC co-producer strains, causing significant challenges for the management of infections as these Enterobacteriaceae bacteria are multidrug-resistant organism.[14],[15] Furthermore, the low level of AmpC expression in E. coli and absence of chromosomal AmpC in K. pneumoniae highlight the importance of plasmid-mediated AmpC transfer in these bacteria.[15]

Accurate detection of AmpC is not only critical for proper health management of patients suffering from Enterobacteriaceae infections but also useful for epidemiological analyses of the geographical distribution of AmpC genes. To date, no clinical studies on the prevalence of AmpC β-lactamases have been conducted in Bahrain. There are also currently no Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (CLSI) for AmpC detection in Gram-negative clinical isolates, which often results in diagnostic errors in phenotypic tests.[16] Furthermore, chromosomal and plasmid-derived AmpC genes cannot be differentiated by phenotypic tests, prompting the urgent need for a gold standard genotypic detection of pAmpC types.[14] Therefore, the goal of this study is to report a methodological standard for plasmid-derived AmpC detection as well as to examine the frequency of these plasmid-derived-AmpC positive organisms among ESBL-producing clinical strains of Enterobacteriaceae in the Kingdom of Bahrain.


   Methods Top


Bacterial isolate collection and identification

This was a cross-sectional study. The prospective analysis was based on clinical laboratory surveillance from January 2018 to December 2019 at the Salmanyia Medical Complex in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The dataset includes 185 ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae strains (123 E. coli samples, 56 K. pneumoniae samples, and 6 P. mirabilis samples). All the bacterial isolates were identified using Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry , Bruker, Bremen, Germany. (MALDI-TOF) (Bruker) in the clinical microbiology lab at the Salmanyia Medical Complex. The study received institutional review board approval (number E014-PI-11/16) from the ethics committee of the university.

AmpC β-lactamase screening

ESBL-producing isolates were analyzed for AmpC production by the Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method with 30 μg cefoxitin as previously described.[17] Bacterial isolates that yielded a zone diameter of <18 mm were considered as positive for ESBL production. Furthermore, an inhibitor-based method using boronic acid was employed as the phenotypic confirmatory assay [Figure 1]a.[18] Briefly, the test discs were prepared with 30 μg cefoxitin and 20 μL of the stock boronic acid solution, which was prepared by dissolving 120 mg boronic acid in 3 mL dimethyl sulfoxide and subsequently diluting this solution with 3 mL of sterile distilled water. A set of two test discs with and without 400 μg phenyl boronic acid were placed at a distance of 30 mm on Mueller–Hinton agar plate and inoculated with bacterial isolates at 37°C overnight. An increase in zone diameter of >5 mm in the presence of cefoxitin and phenyl boronic acid in comparison with cefoxitin alone was considered to be positive for AmpC β-lactamase production.
Figure 1: Phenotypic and molecular analyses of bacterial isolates. (a) Representative result of the boronic-acid based assay to identify AmpC-producing isolates with FOX (cefoxitin alone) and FOX + BA (cefoxitin + boronic acid) test discs. (b) Representative gel electrophoresis result of polymerase chain reaction products derived from bacterial isolates with the presence of 405 base-pair (bp) products (DHA gene) in lanes 1–3. Lane N represents water negative control and lane L contains the molecular ladder

Click here to view


Molecular characterization of AmpC resistance

Samples for genotypic confirmation were obtained from blood; urine; pus; pleural fluid; and suprapubic, wound, rectal, and perianal swabs. Multiplex polymerase chain reactions (PCR) was used to detect the most common plasmid-mediated AmpC genes as shown in [Table 1].[19] For PCR assays, 2-μL cDNA was added to 23-μL master mixture of PCR reagents. The reaction was programmed with initial denaturation step at 94°C for 3 min, followed by 25 cycles of DNA denaturation at 94°C for 30 s primer annealing at 64°C for 30 s, primer extension at 72°C for 1 min, and a final extension step at 72°C for 7 min. 15-μL of PCR products was analyzed by gel electrophoresis with 2% agarose and visualized by ultraviolet transillumination [Figure 1]b. A 100 base-pair DNA ladder was used as the size reference and PCR mix with distilled water was used as the negative control.
Table 1: Primers used for the characterization of AmpC β-lactamases

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used to obtain descriptive data. The significance was measured by Chi-square test.


   Results Top


Escherichia coli represents the dominant AmpC-β-lactamase-positive bacterial strain in extended spectrum β-lactamases-producing clinical isolates

Among 185 ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates, cefoxitin resistance was documented in 15.3% (n = 29) of the samples by the disc diffusion test. AmpC β-lactamase production was phenotypically confirmed by inhibitor-based method in 4.3% (n = 8) and genotypically confirmed by PCR analysis in 6.4% (n = 12) of all clinical isolates. Genotypic AmpC-β-lactamase producers were obtained from urine (n = 9), wound (n = 2), and perianal (n = 1) swabs, which could be due to patients' previous antimicrobial exposure or health care-related acquisition. They could further be assigned to CIT (n = 9) and DHA subtype (n = 3) [Table 2]. Notably, 73% of cefoxitin-resistant isolates contain E. coli strain (n = 21), whereas the remaining samples consist of K. pneumoniae (n = 5) and P. mirabilis strains (n = 3) [Figure 2]a. E. coli strain also represent 87% and 91% of phenotypic (n = 7) and genotypic (n = 11) AmpC β-lactamase producers, respectively [Figure 2]b and [Figure 2]c.
Figure 2: Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of extended spectrum β-lactamases-producing isolates. Frequencies of different bacterial strains among extended spectrum β-lactamases-producing isolates that were identified as cefoxitin resistance (a), phenotypic AmpC-β-lactamase producers (b) and genotypic AmpC-β-lactamase producers (c)

Click here to view
Table 2: Distribution of AmpC-related genes among AmpC-producing isolates

Click here to view


Multi-drug resistance is a cardinal feature of cefoxitin-resistant and genotypically AmpC-positive isolates

Drug resistance analysis was carried out for several types of antibiotics, including cefuroxime, ciprofloxacin, nitrofurantoin, meropenem, gentamicin, fosfomycin, and tigecycline, as detailed in [Table 3] and [Table 4]. All the clinical isolates are resistant to cefuroxime. Interestingly, the frequencies of cefoxitin-resistant and genotypically AmpC-positive isolates that are resistant to ciprofloxacin, and fosfomycin, were notably higher than that of AmpC-negative isolates [Table 3] and [Table 4]. Furthermore, while multiple drug resistance was observed in both genotypically AmpC-positive isolates and AmpC-negative isolates, the frequency of genotypically AmpC-positive isolates (25%) that are resistant to more than four antibiotics was higher than that of AmpC-negative isolates (19%) [Figure 3]. Collectively, these findings were consistent with the notion that the development of multidrug resistance is associated with AmpC β-lactamase synthesis in ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae.
Figure 3: Prevalence of multi-drug-resistant extended spectrum β-lactamases-producing isolates (a). Frequencies of clinical isolates that (b) are resistant to more than four antibiotics in genotypic AmpC β-lactamase producers (AmpC positive) and nonproducers (AmpC negative)

Click here to view
Table 3: Antibiotic resistance pattern of cefoxitin-resistant and AmpC-negative strains

Click here to view
Table 4: Antibiotic resistance pattern of AmpC-producing and AmpC-negative strains

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Resistance to β-lactam antibiotics in ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolated from clinical samples, notably E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. mirabilis, and Enterobacter aerogenes, has been increasing worldwide. Notably, ESBL phenotypes are complex due to the co-production of AmpC.[20] Even though there are currently no CLSI guidelines for AmpC detection, reduced cefoxitin susceptibility has been used as an indicator for AmpC producers in ESBL-producing clinical isolates. In the present study, 15.3% of all ESBL producers are cefoxitin resistant. The low frequency of cefoxitin-resistant ESBLs in Bahrain is in stark contrast with those identified in other countries. For instance, studies in Iran revealed that the prevalence of cefoxitin-resistant strains is 40%–68.4% of all ESBL strains.[15],[21] A high prevalence of cefoxitin-resistant ESBLs has also been documented in Portugal.[22] This reduced susceptibility to cefoxitin among ESBL producers serves as an important alarm for the spread of plasmid-derived AmpC genes in Bahrain.

Similarly, the prevalence of ESBL and AmpC co-producers has been reported with great heterogeneity in the world. While this study revealed that 6.4% of ESBL-producing strains are genotypically AmpC positive, a study from Turkey reported the prevalence of these strains to be 38% of all clinical isolates.[23] In India, Handa et al. reported that these strains exist at a markedly higher frequency of 84.62%.[24] However, other reports in India showed a range of prevalence from 8.39 to 33%.[20],[25],[26],[27] This study also showed that 8.9% of E. coli and 16.6% of P. mirabilis isolates exhibited co-production of ESBL and AmpC, whereas none of the K. pneumoniae samples harbored AmpC gene. In contrast, Kaur et al. reported the presence of ESBL and AmpC co-producers in 12.1% of E. coli, 13.8% of K. pneumoniae, and 1% of P. mirabilis samples.[20] In addition, Manoharan et al. reported frequencies of AmpC in E. coli and K. pneumoniae at 43.7% and 16.6%, respectively.[16] These diverse prevalence rates might result from geographical differences in antimicrobial susceptibility as well as differences in phenotypic or genotypic detection methods. More importantly, the frequency of clinical isolates that are resistant to more than four antibiotics is higher in the co-producers of ESBL and AmpC than nonproducers in this study. Therefore, along with the differences in previous studies about the diversity of drug resistant ESBL and AmpC co-producers, these findings are of particular epidemiological concern about the potential of antibiotic misuse in different region of the world in aiding the emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant pathogenic bacteria.

With regard to diagnosis, the knowledge about the molecular subtypes and the prevalence of plasmid-derived AmpC in different geographical areas is critically important for proper consideration of antimicrobial therapy and efficient infection control. The present study revealed that the prevalence of ESBL and AmpC co-producers is 4.3% by disc diffusion method and 6.4% by PCR analysis. Discrepancy between prevalence results yielded by genotypic and phenotypic confirmation assays for AmpC has also been reported by Zorgani et al.[28] The lack of specificity of phenotypic method of detection of AmpC might be accountable for this observation. Therefore, while phenotypic tests are commonly applied in the clinical laboratories, molecular methods should be considered the gold standard for β-lactamase detection, identification, and for epidemiological knowledge.[22],[29] Furthermore, these results suggest that while ESBL producers might be more prevalent and spread much more easily than AmpC, careful monitoring of the latter needs to be emphasized due to the aforementioned issues in AmpC confirmation assays.

In the present study, 10.3% and 31% of cefoxitin-resistant isolates harbored the DHA and CIT gene, respectively. Studies in different areas of the world have revealed geographical diversity in the molecular subtypes of AmpC genes. In this regard, CIT subtype of AmpC has been widely detected in the United States and Canada in recent years.[30] Woodford et al. also described the predominance of CIT-positive, AmpC-producing E. coli, in the UK and Ireland.[31] In contrast to these studies, Wassef et al. reported MOX and FOX families as the most prevalent AmpC subtypes in Egypt, followed by EBC and CIT subtypes.[32] Adding to the geographical complexity of AmpC strains, studies in North Africa and Australia have reported CMY, DHA, and EBC as the most frequent subtypes of AmpC producers.[28],[33] In India, Manoharan et al. reported that CIT-FOX-like and EBC-like enzymes were common in E. coli (43.7%) and K. pneumoniae (16.6%), while Govindaswamy et al. showed that FOX gene was the predominant AmpC subtype (21.9%).[16],[34] Lastly, in the Gulf states, minimal data exist with regard to AmpC subtypes with the documented presence of CMY-4/CMY-6 in the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait and DHA1/CMY-2 in Saudi Arabia.[12] Collectively, these discrepancies are of particular scientific interest about the evolution of AmpC subtypes worldwide.

In congruence with previous reports in India, Pakistan, Korea, and Spain, the majority of the strains with AmpC genotype are generally multidrug resistant.[35],[36],[37] The present study also observed that all ESBL producers, regardless of their AmpC status, are resistant to cefuroxime, of which resistance in strains with AmpC genotype has been reported at a high rate (>94%).[13],[38] These findings are also consistent with resistance mechanisms against cerufoxime, which involves hydrolysis by ESBL and AmpC enzymes. Other antibiotics that AmpC-positive strains in this study are resistant to include gentamicin (42.1%), nitrofurantoin (39.8%), ciprofloxacin (25.4%), tigecycline (15.6%), and meropenem (5.2%). Notably, least resistance is observed with meropenem, which belongs to the antibiotic class of carbapenems – the first-line choice for treating ESBL and AmpC β-lactamase-associated infections.[13] While these results are similar to those presented in a study by Bindayna and Murtadha,[39] increasing rate of resistance to meropenem (28.6%) has also been noted by studies by Ibrahim et al. and Marie et al.[13],[40] Mechanistically, overuse of carbapenems can stimulate the selection of β-lactamases that are capable of hydrolyzing carbapenems and outer membrane protein mutations. Therefore, in order to avoid the emergence of carbapenem-resistant strains, efforts should be made to limit the use of this class of antibiotics if an equally effectual alternate drug exists.[41] The limitation in our study was that we did not perform molecular techniques to detect the various ESBL genes in our isolates. The other limitation is that we did not look for the other possible resistance mechanisms such as MBL and efflux pump.


   Conclusions Top


Our findings are the first to document the spread of plasmid-derived AmpC genes in the Kingdom of Bahrain. They also highlight the predominant existence of ESBL and AmpC co-producers in multidrug-resistant E. coli. These findings suggest that rational antimicrobial therapy and continued meticulous surveillance are critical to effectively curb the dissemination of these clinical strains.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank all the staff in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases for their continuous support throughout the project.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was financially supported by Arabian Gulf University, Kingdom of Bahrain.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E. The Prokaryotes: Proteobacteria: Gamma Subclass. 3ed ed., Vol. 6. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Gupta G, Tak V, Mathur P. Detection of AmpC β Lactamases in Gram-negative Bacteria. J Lab Physicians 2014;6:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
3.
Marsik FJ, Nambiar S. Review of carbapenemases and AmpC-beta lactamases. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011;30:1094-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Paterson DL. Resistance in gram-negative bacteria: Enterobacteriaceae. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:S20-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Tzouvelekis LS, Markogiannakis A, Psichogiou M, Tassios PT, Daikos GL. Carbapenemases in Klebsiella pneumoniae and other Enterobacteriaceae: an evolving crisis of global dimensions. Clin Microbiol Rev 2012;25:682-707.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Drawz SM, Bonomo RA. Three decades of beta-lactamase inhibitors. Clin Microbiol Rev 2010;23:160-201.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Philippon A, Arlet G, Jacoby GA. Plasmid-determined AmpC-type beta-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:1-1.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Hanson ND. AmpC beta-lactamases: what do we need to know for the future? J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;52:2-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Shanthi M, Sekar U, Arunagiri K, Sekar B. Detection of Amp C genes encoding for beta-lactamases in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Indian J Med Microbiol 2012;30:290-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
  [Full text]  
10.
Mylvaganam H, Kolstad H, Breistein RI, Lind G, Skutlaberg DH. Extended spectrum cephalosporin resistance among clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae in West Norway during 2006-2013; a prospective surveillance study. APMIS 2017;125:52-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Tamma PD, Sharara SL, Pana ZD, Amoah J, Fisher SL, Tekle T, et al. Molecular epidemiology of ceftriaxone non-susceptible enterobacterales isolates in an Academic Medical Center in the United States. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6:ofz353.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Abdalhamid B, Albunayan S, Shaikh A, Elhadi N, Aljindan R. Prevalence study of plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae lacking inducible ampC from Saudi hospitals. J Med Microbiol 2017;66:1286-90.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Ibrahim ME, Abbas M, Al-Shahrai AM, Elamin BK. Phenotypic characterization and antibiotic resistance patterns of extended-spectrum β-lactamase- and AmpC β-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria in a referral Hospital, Saudi Arabia. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2019;2019:6054694. PMID: 31346353.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Mohamudha PR, Harish BN, Parija SC. Molecular description of plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamases among nosocomial isolates of Escherichia coli & Klebsiella pneumoniae from six different hospitals in India. Indian J Med Res 2012;135:114-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
15.
Rizi KS, Mosavat A, Youssefi M, Jamehdar SA, Ghazvini K, Safdari H, et al. High prevalence of blaCMY AmpC beta-lactamase in ESBL co-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. clinical isolates in the northeast of Iran. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2020;22:477-82.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Manoharan A, Sugumar M, Kumar A, Jose H, Mathai D, Khilnani GC, et al. Phenotypic & molecular characterization of AmpC β-lactamases among Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp. & Enterobacter spp. from five Indian Medical Centers. Indian J Med Res 2012;135:359-64.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Ratna AK, Menon I, Kapur I, Kulkarni R. Occurrence & detection of AmpC beta-lactamases at a referral hospital in Karnataka. Indian J Med Res 2003;118:29-32.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Pitout JD, Le PG, Moore KL, Church DL, Gregson DB. Detection of AmpC beta-lactamases in Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Salmonella spp. and Proteus mirabilis in a regional clinical microbiology laboratory. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010;16:165-70.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Dashti AA, Jadaon MM, Abdulsamad AM, Dashti HM. Heat treatment of bacteria: A simple method of DNA extraction for molecular techniques. Kuwait Med J 2009;41:117-22.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Kaur J, Mahajan G, Chand K, Sheevani , Chopra S. Enhancing phenotypic detection of ESBL in AmpC co-producers by using cefepime and tazobactam. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:DC05-8.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Maleki A, Khosravi A, Ghafourian S, Pakzad I, Hosseini S, Ramazanzadeh R, et al. High prevalence of AmpC β-lactamases in clinical isolates of Escherichia coli in Ilam, Iran. Osong Public Health Res Perspect 2015;6:201-4.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Fernandes R, Gestoso A, Freitas JM, Santos P, Prudêncio C. High resistance to fourth-generation cephalosporins among clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases isolated in Portugal. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009;33:184-5.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Yilmaz NO, Agus N, Bozcal E, Oner O, Uzel A. Detection of plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamase in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Indian J Med Microbiol 2013;31:53-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
24.
Handa D, Pandey A, Asthana AK, Rawat A, Handa S, Thakuria B. Evaluation of phenotypic tests for the detection of AmpC beta-lactamase in clinical isolates of Escherichia coli. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2013;56:135-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
25.
Mirza S, Jadhav S, Misra RN, Das NK. Coexistence of β-lactamases in community-acquired infections in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India. Int J Microbiol 2019;2019:7019578. PMID: 31885596.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Grover N, Sahni AK, Bhattacharya S. Therapeutic challenges of ESBLS and AmpC beta-lactamase producers in a tertiary care center. Med J Armed Forces India 2013;69:4-10.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Doddaiah V, Anjaneya D. Prevalence of ESBL, AmpC and carbapenemase among Gram-negative bacilli isolated from clinical specimens. Am J Life Sci 2014;2:76-81.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Zorgani A, Daw H, Sufya N, Bashein A, Elahmer O, Chouchani C. Co-Occurrence of plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamase activity among Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. Open Microbiol J 2017;11:195-202.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Reuland EA, Halaby T, Hays JP, de Jongh DM, Snetselaar HD, van Keulen M, et al. Plasmid-mediated AmpC: prevalence in community-acquired isolates in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and risk factors for carriage. PLoS One 2015;10:e0113033.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Oliveira C, Amador P, Prudêncio C, Tomaz CT, Tavares-Ratado P, Fernandes R. ESBL and AmpC β-lactamases in clinical strains of Escherichia coli from Serra da Estrela, Portugal. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019;55:272. PMID: 31212867.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Woodford N, Reddy S, Fagan EJ, Hill RL, Hopkins KL, Kaufmann ME, et al. Wide geographic spread of diverse acquired AmpC beta-lactamases among Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. in the UK and Ireland. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007;59:102-5.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Wassef M, Behiry I, Younan M, El Guindy N, Mostafa S, Abada E. Genotypic Identification of AmpC β-lactamases production in Gram-negative Bacilli Isolates. Jundishapur J Microbiol 2014;7:e8556.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Ingram PR, Inglis TJJ, Vanzetti TR, Henderson BA, Harnett GB, Murray RJ. Comparison of methods for AmpC β-lactamase detection in Enterobacteriaceae. J Med Microbiol 2011;60:715-21.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Govindaswamy A, Bajpai V, Khurana S, Batra P, Mathur P, Malhotra R. Prevalence and characterization of carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli from a Tertiary Care Hospital in India. J Glob Infect Dis 2019;11:123-4.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Jameel NU, Ejaz H, Zafar A, Amin H. Multidrug resistant AmpC β-lactamase producing Escherichia coli isolated from a paediatric hospital. Pak J Med Sci 2014;30:181-4.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Park SD, Uh Y, Lee G, Lim K, Kim JB, Jeong SH. Prevalence and resistance patterns of extended-spectrum and AmpC β-lactamase in Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, and Salmonella serovar Stanley in a Korean tertiary hospital. APMIS 2010;118:801-8.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Martínez-Martínez L, Conejo MC, Pascual A, Hernández-Allés S, Ballesta S, Ramírez De Arellano-Ramos E, et al. Activities of imipenem and cephalosporins against clonally related strains of Escherichia coli hyperproducing chromosomal beta-lactamase and showing altered porin profiles. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:2534-6.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Oli AN, Eze DE, Gugu TH, Ezeobi I, Maduagwu UN, Ihekwereme CP. Multi-antibiotic resistant extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing bacteria pose a challenge to the effective treatment of wound and skin infections. Pan Afr Med J 2017;27:66.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Bindayna KM, Murtadha M. High prevalence of blaCTX-M in Enterobacteriaceae isolates from the Kingdom of Bahrain. Asian Pac J Trop Med 2011;4:937-40.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Marie MA, John J, Krishnappa LG, Gopalkrishnan S. Molecular characterization of the β-lactamases in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae from a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Microbiol Immunol 2013;57:805-10.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Tamma PD, Rodriguez-Bano J. The use of noncarbapenem β-lactams for the treatment of extended-spectrum β-lactamase infections. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:972-80.  Back to cited text no. 41
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (1,021 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
     Methods
     Results
     Discussion
     Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed502    
    Printed74    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded75    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal