Rave A F G, Kuss A V, Peil G H S, Ladeira S R, Villarreal J P V, Nascente P S
Programa de Pós-graduação em Bioquímica e Bioprospecção, Laboratório de Microbiologia Ambiental, Departamento de Microbiologia e Parasitologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas - UFPel, Av. Eliseu Maciel, IB Prédio 18, Sala 13, CEP 96160-000, Capão do Leão, RS, Brasil.
Laboratório de Microbiologia Ambiental, Departamento de Microbiologia e Parasitologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas - UFPel, Av. Eliseu Maciel, IB Prédio 18, Sala 13, CEP 96160-000, Capão do Leão, RS, Brasil.
Braz J Biol. 2019 Oct-Dec;79(4):555-565. doi: 10.1590/1519-6984.05616. Epub 2018 Nov 23.
Different methodologies have been developed throughout the years to identify environmental microorganisms to improve bioremediation techniques, determine susceptibility profiles of bacteria in contaminated environments, and reduce the impact of microorganisms in ecosystems. Two methods of bacterial biochemical identification are compared and the susceptibility profile of bacteria, isolated from residential and industrial wastewater, is determined. Twenty-four bacteria were retrieved from the bacteria bank of the Environmental Microbiology Laboratory at the Institute of Biology (IB) of the Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. Bacteria were identified by conventional biochemical tests and by the VITEK ®2 automated system. Further, the susceptibility profile to antibiotics was also determined by the automated system. Six species of bacteria (Raoutella planticola, K. pneumoniae ssp. pneumoniae , Serratia marcescens, Raoutella sp., E. cloacae and Klebsiella oxytoca) were identified by conventional biochemical tests, while three species of bacteria (K. pneumoniae ssp. pneumoniae, S. marcescens and K. oxytoca ) were identified by VITEK®2 automated system. VITEK ®2 indicated agreement in 19 (79.17%) isolates and difference in five (20.83%) isolates when compared to results from conventional biochemical tests. Further, antibiotic susceptibility profile results showed that all isolates (100%) were resistant to at least one out of the 18 antibiotics tested by VITEK®2. Thus, no multi-resistant bacteria that may be used in effluent treatment systems or in bioremediation processes have been reported. Results indicate VITEK ® 2 automated system as a potential methodology in the determination of susceptibility profile and identification of environmental bacteria.
多年来，人们开发了不同的方法来识别环境微生物，以改进生物修复技术，确定受污染环境中细菌的药敏谱，并减少微生物对生态系统的影响。本文比较了两种细菌生化鉴定方法，并确定了从生活污水和工业废水中分离出的细菌的药敏谱。从巴西佩洛塔斯联邦大学（UFPEL）生物学研究所（IB）环境微生物实验室的菌种库中提取了24株细菌。通过传统生化试验和VITEK®2自动系统对细菌进行鉴定。此外，还通过该自动系统确定了细菌对抗生素的药敏谱。通过传统生化试验鉴定出6种细菌（植生拉乌尔菌、肺炎克雷伯菌肺炎亚种、粘质沙雷氏菌、拉乌尔菌属、阴沟肠杆菌和产酸克雷伯菌），而通过VITEK®自动系统鉴定出3种细菌（肺炎克雷伯菌肺炎亚种、粘质沙雷氏菌和产酸克雷伯菌）。与传统生化试验结果相比，VITEK®2显示19株（79.17%）分离株结果一致，5株（20.83%）分离株结果不同。此外，抗生素药敏谱结果显示，所有分离株（100%）对VITEK®2检测的18种抗生素中的至少一种耐药。因此，尚未报道可用于污水处理系统或生物修复过程的多重耐药细菌。结果表明，VITEK®2自动系统是一种用于确定环境细菌药敏谱和鉴定环境细菌的潜在方法。
