Figure 1Phylogrouping of EPEC strains on 2% agarose gel. arpA (400bp), chuA (288bp), yjaA (211bp) and TspE4.C2 (152bp). Lane 1, negative control; lane 2, molecular weight marker (50bp, Fermentas); lanes 3&4, group B1 (+ − − +); lanes 5&8, group E (+ + − +); lane 6&7, unknown (+ + + +); lanes 9&11, group E (+ + + −) and lanes 10&12, group C (+ − + −).
Table 1Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns.
Antibiotic |
All atypical EPEC isolates (n = 65) |
Resistant |
Intermediate |
Sensitive |
Cefotaxime |
23 (35.4) |
1 (1.53) |
41 (63.1) |
Ceftazidime |
11 (16.9) |
4 (6.15) |
50 (76.9) |
Piperacillin-tazo |
2 (3.1) |
1 (1.53) |
62 (95.4) |
Ertapenem |
- |
- |
65 (100) |
Imipenem |
- |
- |
65 (100) |
Ciprofloxacin |
5 (7.7) |
8 (12.3) |
52 (80) |
Tetracyclines |
30 (46.2) |
3 (4.61) |
32 (49.2) |
Amikacin |
- |
3 (4.61) |
62 (95.4) |
Levofloxacin |
5 (7.7) |
- |
60 (92.3) |
Ampicillin |
46 (70.8) |
4 (6.15) |
15 (23.1) |
Trimethoprim-sulfa |
37 (56.9) |
2 (3.07) |
26 (40) |
Table 2Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns.
Antibiotic |
ESBL− isolates (n = 43) |
ESBL+ isolates (n = 22) |
p
|
|
|
Resistant |
Intermediate |
Sensitive |
Resistant |
Intermediate |
Sensitive |
Cefotaxime |
2 (4.6) |
- |
41 (95.3) |
21 (95.5) |
1 (4.5) |
- |
< 0.001 |
|
Ceftazidime |
2 (4.6) |
- |
41 (95.3) |
9 (40.9) |
4 (18.2) |
9 (40.9) |
< 0.001 |
|
Piperacillin-tazo |
1 (2.3) |
1 (2.3) |
41 (95.3) |
1 (4.5) |
- |
21 (95.5) |
NS |
|
Ertapenem |
- |
- |
43 (100) |
- |
- |
22 (100) |
- |
|
Imipenem |
- |
- |
43 (100) |
- |
- |
22 (100) |
- |
|
Ciprofloxacin |
1 (2.3) |
3 (7.0) |
|
4 (18.2) |
5 (22.7) |
|
0.009 |
|
Tetracyclines |
21 (48.8) |
1 (2.3) |
|
9 (40.9) |
2 (9.1) |
|
NS |
|
Amikacin |
- |
3 (7.0) |
|
- |
- |
|
NS |
|
Levofloxacin |
1 (2.3) |
- |
|
4 (18.2) |
- |
|
0.023 |
|
Ampicillin |
24 (55.8) |
4 (9.3) |
|
22 (100) |
- |
|
0.001 |
|
Trimethoprim-sulfa |
19 (44.2) |
1 (2.3) |
|
18 (81.8) |
1 (4.5) |
|
0.008 |
Table 3Genotypic pattern of 22 ESBL positive strains.
Resistance pattern |
n (%) |
CTX-M9/SHV/OXA/TEM |
2 (9.1) |
CTX-M9/SHV/OXA |
1 (4.5) |
CTX-M9/SHV/TEM |
2 (9.1) |
CTX-M9/OXA/TEM |
3 (13.6) |
CTX-M9/SHV |
3 (13.6) |
CTX-M9/OXA |
1 (4.5) |
CTX-M9/TEM |
2 (9.1) |
SHV/TEM |
2 (9.1) |
CTX-M9 |
1 (4.5) |
OXA |
2 (9.1) |
TEM |
1 (4.5) |
None |
2 (9.1) |
Table 4Phylogenetic grouping.
Phylogenetic group |
All atypical EPEC isolates (n = 65) |
ESBL− isolates (n = 43) |
ESBL+ isolates (n = 22) |
|
|
|
n (%) |
n (%) |
n (%) |
A |
2 (3.07) |
1 (2.3) |
1 (4.5) |
|
B1 |
13 (20) |
13 (30.2) |
- |
|
B2 |
9 (13.84) |
6 (13.95) |
3 (13.6) |
|
C |
8 (12.3) |
5 (11.6) |
3 (13.6) |
|
D |
2 (3.07) |
- |
2 (9.1) |
|
E |
17 (26.15) |
6 (13.95) |
11 (50) |
|
F |
- |
- |
- |
|
Clade I |
2 (3.07) |
2 (4.65) |
- |
|
Unknown |
12 (18.5) |
10 (23.25) |
2 (9.1) |
Table 5Antibiotic resistance patterns in atypical EPEC phylogenetic groups.
Phylogenetic group |
CTX |
CAZ |
TZP |
ETP |
IPM |
CIP |
Te |
AN |
LVX |
AM |
SXT |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
A (n = 2) |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
B1 (n = 13) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
0 |
1 |
9 |
7 |
B2 (n = 9) |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4 |
C (n = 8) |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
4 |
D (n = 2) |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
E (n = 17) |
10 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
7 |
0 |
3 |
14 |
13 |
Clade I (n = 2) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Unknown (n = 12) |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
6 |