Dortet Laurent, Legrand Patrick, Soussy Claude-James, Cattoir Vincent
Laboratoire de Bactériologie-Virologie-Hygiène, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Henri Mondor, 94010 Créteil Cedex, France.
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Dec;44(12):4471-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01535-06. Epub 2006 Oct 18.
The species belonging to the Acinetobacter genus are currently reported as opportunistic pathogens in hospitalized patients with underlying predispositions. However, except for the Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-Acinetobacter baumannii complex, the identification of other species is frequently unreliable, especially for Acinetobacter ursingii and Acinetobacter schindleri, newly described in 2001. Thus, the clinical significance, phenotypic features, and antimicrobial susceptibilities of these two misidentified species remain unclear. Of 456 Acinetobacter sp. clinical strains isolated from 2002 to 2005 in Henri Mondor Hospital, 15 isolates (10 A. ursingii and 5 A. schindleri isolates) were studied. They were characterized using a phenotypic approach (API 20 NE and VITEK 2 systems), 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and susceptibility to antimicrobial agents with evaluation of impact in clinical relevance. The two corresponding type strains were also included for comparison. All isolates were identified to the species level using molecular tools, whereas the phenotypic methods remained unreliable due to the absence of these two species in the manufacturers' databases. However, the API 20 NE system appeared to be a reasonably reliable phenotypic alternative for the identification of A. ursingii when the numerical code 0000071 was found. Conversely, no discriminative phenotypic alternative existed for A. schindleri isolates. Concerning antimicrobial susceptibility, A. ursingii strains appeared to be more resistant to antibiotics than A. schindleri strains, which could imply therapeutic consequences. Finally, the prevalence of infections caused by A. ursingii and A. schindleri (representing 9.7% and 4.8% of non-A. calcoaceticus-A. baumannii complex strains, respectively) seems to be underestimated.
不动杆菌属的菌种目前被报道为有潜在易感性的住院患者中的机会致病菌。然而,除了醋酸钙不动杆菌-鲍曼不动杆菌复合体外,其他菌种的鉴定往往不可靠,特别是对于2001年新描述的乌尔辛不动杆菌和辛德勒不动杆菌。因此,这两种被误认菌种的临床意义、表型特征和抗菌药敏性仍不明确。在亨利·蒙多医院2002年至2005年分离出的456株不动杆菌临床菌株中,研究了15株分离株(10株乌尔辛不动杆菌和5株辛德勒不动杆菌分离株)。使用表型方法(API 20 NE和VITEK 2系统)、16S rRNA基因测序以及对抗菌药物的敏感性并评估其临床相关性影响对它们进行了鉴定。还纳入了两种相应的模式菌株进行比较。所有分离株都使用分子工具鉴定到种水平,而由于制造商数据库中没有这两个菌种,表型方法仍然不可靠。然而,当发现数字编码0000071时,API 20 NE系统似乎是鉴定乌尔辛不动杆菌的一种相当可靠的表型替代方法。相反,对于辛德勒不动杆菌分离株不存在有鉴别力的表型替代方法。关于抗菌药敏性,乌尔辛不动杆菌菌株似乎比辛德勒不动杆菌菌株对抗生素更具耐药性,这可能意味着有治疗方面的影响。最后,由乌尔辛不动杆菌和辛德勒不动杆菌引起的感染患病率(分别占非醋酸钙不动杆菌-鲍曼不动杆菌复合菌株的9.7%和4.8%)似乎被低估了。