Gram Negative Carbapenemase Detection Genome sequencing and assembly
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJNA292904 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Dataset's files
| Action | DRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | ||||
| SAMN04014889.tsv_SAMN04014889 | Tabular | |||
| SAMN04014896.tsv_SAMN04014896 | Tabular | |||
| SAMN04014899.tsv_SAMN04014899 | Tabular | |||
| SAMN04014902.tsv_SAMN04014902 | Tabular |
Items per page: 5 1 - 5 of 339 |
Similar Datasets
Project description:Characterization of carbapenemase-producing Gram negative Bacilli Assembly
| PRJNA391501 | ENA
Project description:Carbapenemase-Producing gram-negative bacteria in Djibouti city, Djibouti
| PRJEB58617 | ENA
Project description:The spread of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) is emerging as a significant clinical concern in tertiary hospitals and in particular, long-term care facilities with deficiencies in infection control. This study aims to evaluate an advanced matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (A-MALDI) method for the identification of carbapenemases and further discrimination of their subtypes in clinical isolates. The A-MALDI method was employed to detect CPE target proteins. Enhancements were made to improve detectability and mass accuracy through the optimization of MALDI-TOF settings and internal mass calibration. A total of 581 clinical isolates were analyzed, including 469 CPE isolates (388 KPC, 51 NDM, 40 OXA, and 2 GES) and 112 carbapenemase-negative isolates. Clinical evaluation of the A-MALDI demonstrated 100% accuracy and precision in identifying all the collected CPE isolates. Additionally, A-MALDI successfully discriminated individual carbapenemase subtypes (KPC-2 or KPC-3/4; OXA-48 or OXA-181 or OXA-232; GES-5 or GES-24) and also differentiated co-producing carbapenemase strains (KPC & NDM; KPC & OXA; KPC & GES; NDM & OXA), attributed to its high mass accuracy and simultaneous detection capability. A-MALDI is considered a valuable diagnostic tool for accurately identifying CPE and carbapenemase’s subtypes in clinical isolates. It may also aid in selecting appropriate antibiotics for each carbapenemase subtype. Ultimately, we expect that the A-MALDI method will contribute to preventing the spread of antibiotic resistance and improving human public health.
2024-11-26 | PXD058284 | Pride
Project description:The spread of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) is emerging as a significant clinical concern in tertiary hospitals and in particular, long-term care facilities with deficiencies in infection control. This study aims to evaluate an advanced matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (A-MALDI) method for the identification of carbapenemases and further discrimination of their subtypes in clinical isolates. The A-MALDI method was employed to detect CPE target proteins. Enhancements were made to improve detectability and mass accuracy through the optimization of MALDI-TOF settings and internal mass calibration. A total of 581 clinical isolates were analyzed, including 469 CPE isolates (388 KPC, 51 NDM, 40 OXA, and 2 GES) and 112 carbapenemase-negative isolates. Clinical evaluation of the A-MALDI demonstrated 100% accuracy and precision in identifying all the collected CPE isolates. Additionally, A-MALDI successfully discriminated individual carbapenemase subtypes (KPC-2 or KPC-3/4; OXA-48 or OXA-181 or OXA-232; GES-5 or GES-24) and also differentiated co-producing carbapenemase strains (KPC & NDM; KPC & OXA; KPC & GES; NDM & OXA), attributed to its high mass accuracy and simultaneous detection capability. A-MALDI is considered a valuable diagnostic tool for accurately identifying CPE and carbapenemase’s subtypes in clinical isolates. It may also aid in selecting appropriate antibiotics for each carbapenemase subtype. Ultimately, we expect that the A-MALDI method will contribute to preventing the spread of antibiotic resistance and improving human public health.
2024-11-25 | PXD046179 | Pride
Project description:Gram negative bacteria Genome sequencing
| PRJNA594823 | ENA
Project description:Gram negative bacilli Genome sequencing
| PRJNA353060 | ENA
Project description:Non-carbapenemase-producing Gram negative bacteria, including ESBLs, AmpCs and non-beta-lactamase beta-lactams resistance mechanisms in clinical isolates from MDU Public Health Lab, Victoria, Australia Genome sequencing and assembly
| PRJNA842191 | ENA
Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. Keywords: disease state analysis, gram-positive sepsis, gram-negative sepsis
2007-12-01 | GSE6535 | GEO
Project description:Gram-negative bacteria Genome sequencing and assembly
| PRJNA1076895 | ENA
Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.
2010-05-25 | E-GEOD-6535 | biostudies-arrayexpress