ABSTRACT
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are important food-borne pathogens associated with cases of diarrhea, hemorrhagic colitis and hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). E. coli O157:H7 is the dominant serotype in Argentina and also in Neuquén Province, in which HUS incidence is above the national average, with a maximum of 28.6 cases per 100,000 children less than 5 years old reported in 1998. The aim of this study was to characterize a collection of 70 STEC O157 strains isolated from patients with diarrhea and HUS treated in the province of Neuquén, Argentina, between 1998 and 2011. All strains harbored eae, ehxA, rfbO157, and fliCH7 genes, and stx2a/stx2c (78.7%) was the predominant genotype. A total of 64 (91.4%) STEC O157 strains belonged to the hypervirulent clade 8 tested using both 4 and 32 SNP typing schemes. The strains showed the highest values reported in the literature for 6 of the 7 virulence determinants described in the TW14359 O157 strain associated with the raw spinach outbreak in the U.S. in 2006. Clade 8 strains were strongly associated with two of them: ECSP_3286, factor encoding an outer membrane protein that facilitates the transport of the heme complex (P=0.001), and in particular extracellular factor ECSP_2870/2872, coding proteins related to adaptation to plant hosts (P=0.000004). The q933 allele, which has been related to high toxin production, was present in 97.1% of the strains studied for the anti-terminator Q gene. In summary, this study describes, for the first time in Argentina, the almost exclusive circulation of strains belonging to the hypervirulent clade 8, and also the presence of putative virulence factors in higher frequencies than those reported worldwide. These data may help to understand the causes of the particular epidemiological situation related to HUS in Neuquén Province.
Subject(s)
Diarrhea/microbiology , Escherichia coli Infections/microbiology , Escherichia coli O157/classification , Foodborne Diseases/microbiology , Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome/microbiology , Argentina/epidemiology , Cluster Analysis , Diarrhea/epidemiology , Escherichia coli Infections/epidemiology , Escherichia coli O157/genetics , Escherichia coli O157/isolation & purification , Escherichia coli Proteins/genetics , Foodborne Diseases/epidemiology , Genotype , Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome/epidemiology , Humans , Molecular Epidemiology , Molecular Typing , Virulence Factors/geneticsABSTRACT
By 25 April 2009, less than one month after the first human with Influenza A(H1N1) virus was detected in Mexico, the disease had already spread to more than 40 countries, with over 10,000 cases reported. Due to its unpredictability, this type of virus requires appropriate, reliable, and safe diagnostic methods that are also accessible to clinical laboratories. Through the analysis of 291 samples taken from patients with suspected Influenza A(H1N1) virus infection in Neuquén, Argentina, this study compares the two diagnostic methods used simultaneously: direct immunofluorescence assay (DFA) and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). DFA had a sensitivity of 44.4%, a specificity of 99.6%, a positive predictive value of 95.2%, and a negative predictive value of 90.7%. Positive results obtained with this method can be considered true positives. A negative result does not rule out the presence of the virus. In this case, the sample should be examined by RT-PCR. Out of a total of 291 samples, there were 45 positive results with RT-PCR and 21 positive results with DFA.
Subject(s)
Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Direct , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/isolation & purification , Influenza, Human/virology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Antigens, Viral/immunology , Argentina/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Computer Systems , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza, Human/blood , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Predictive Value of Tests , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young AdultABSTRACT
El 25 de abril de 2009, a menos de un mes de la detección en México del primer humano con virus Influenza A(H1N1), la enfermedad ya se había propagado a más de 40 países superando los 10 000 casos notificados. Dada su naturaleza impredecible, este tipo de virus requiere métodos diagnósticos apropiados, confiables y seguros, pero que también estén al alcance de los laboratorios clínicos. Mediante el estudio de 291 muestras de pacientes con sospecha de infección por virus Influenza A(H1N1) en Neuquén, Argentina, el presente trabajo compara los dos métodos de diagnóstico utilizados simultáneamente: la prueba de inmunofluorescencia directa (DFA) y la de reacción en cadena de la polimerasa en tiempo real (RT-PCR). La DFA dio una sensibilidad de 44,4 por ciento, especificidad de 99,6 por ciento, valor predictivo positivo de 95,2 por ciento y valor predictivo negativo de 90,7 por ciento. Los resultados positivos de la metodología pueden considerarse verdaderos positivos. Un resultado negativo no excluye la presencia del virus y la muestra debe examinarse mediante RT-PCR. Del total de 291 muestras, 45 resultaron positivas por RT-PCR y 21 por DFA.
By 25 April 2009, less than one month after the first human with Influenza A(H1N1) virus was detected in Mexico, the disease had already spread to more than 40 countries, with over 10 000 cases reported. Due to its unpredictability, this type of virus requires appropriate, reliable, and safe diagnostic methods that are also accessible to clinical laboratories. Through the analysis of 291 samples taken from patients with suspected Influenza A(H1N1) virus infection in Neuquén, Argentina, this study compares the two diagnostic methods used simultaneously: direct immunofluorescence assay (DFA) and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). DFA had a sensitivity of 44.4 percent, a specificity of 99.6 percent, a positive predictive value of 95.2 percent, and a negative predictive value of 90.7 percent. Positive results obtained with this method can be considered true positives. A negative result does not rule out the presence of the virus. In this case, the sample should be examined by RT-PCR. Out of a total of 291 samples, there were 45 positive results with RT-PCR and 21 positive results with DFA.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Infant, Newborn , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , Adolescent , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Young Adult , Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Direct , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/isolation & purification , Influenza, Human/virology , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Antigens, Viral/immunology , Argentina/epidemiology , Computer Systems , Disease Outbreaks , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza, Human/blood , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/immunology , Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Predictive Value of Tests , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young AdultABSTRACT
El 25 de abril de 2009, a menos de un mes de la detección en México del primer humano con virus InfluenzaA(H1N1), la enfermedad ya se había propagado a más de 40 países superando los 10 000 casos notificados. Dada su naturaleza impredecible, este tipo de virus requiere métodos diagnósticos apropiados, confiables y seguros, pero que también estén al alcance de los laboratorios clínicos.
