Virulence Characteristics, Antibiotic Resistance Patterns and Molecular Typing of Enteropathogenic Producing Escherichia coli (EPEC) Isolates in Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia: 2013–2014

Figures & data

Table 1 Primers Used in This Study

Target Gene	Primer Sequence (5’-3’)	Amplicon Size (bp)	Reference
eae	Forward: TCAATGCAGTTCCGTTATCAGTT Reverse: GTAAAGTCCGTTACCCCAACCTG	482	[20]
bfp	Forward: GGAAGTCAAATTCATGGG GGTAT Reverse: GGAATCAGACGCAGACTGGTAGT	300	[20]
stx1	Forward: CAGTTAATG TGGCGAAGG Reverse: CACCAGACAATGTAACCGCTG	348	[20]
stx2	Forward: ATCCTATTCCCG GGA GTTTACG Reverse: GCGTCATCGTATACACAG GAGC	584	[20]
EAST1	Forward: TGCCATCAACACAGTATATCCG Reverse: ACGGCTTTGTAGTCCTTCCAT	102	[21]

Table 2 Distribution of Virulence Genes in EPEC Isolates

Virulence Gene Profile	No. (%) of EPEC
eae^+bfpA^− (atypical EPEC)	44 (73.3)
eae^+ and bfpA+ (typical EPEC)	12 (20%)
eae^−bfpA^−	4 (6.7)
Stx1, Stx2	0
EAST1	60 (100%)

Table 3 Antibiotic Susceptibility of Typical, Atypical EPEC and Non-EPEC Isolated from Patients with Diarrhea

Antibiotic Agent	Isolates No. (%) for
	Resistance			p-value	Intermediate			p-value	Sensitive			p-value
	tEPEC	aEPEC	non-EPEC		tEPEC	aEPEC	non-EPEC		tEPEC	aEPEC	nonEPEC
AM	7 (11.7)	30 (50)	1 (1.7)	Kruskall-Wallis, H (corrected)=26.84 p= 0.001 Post-hoc: tPEC vs aEPEC: p=0.00027 tPEC vs non-EPEC: p=0.1441 aPEC vs non-EPEC: p= 0.001	0	0	0	Kruskall-Wallis, H (corrected)=10.18 p=0.00616 Post-hoc: tPEC vs a-EPEC: p=0.008591 tPEC vs non-EPEC: p= 1 aPEC vs non-EPEC: p=0.01768	5 (8.3)	14 (23.3)	3 (5)	Kruskall-Wallis, H (corrected)=39.48 p=0.001 Post-hoc: tPEC vs aEPEC: p=0.0001 tPEC vs non-EPEC: p=0.001 aPEC vs non-EPEC: p= 0.001
ATM	0	7 (11.7)	0		0	3 (5)	0		12 (20)	34 (56.7)	4 (6.7)
AUG	1 (1.7)	2 (3.3)	0		0	1 (1.7)	0		11 (18.3)	41 (68.3)	4 (6.7)
CTX	0	11 (18.3)	0		0	0	0		12 (20)	33 (55)	4 (6.7)
C	0	11 (18.3)	0		1	2 (3.3)	1 (1.7)		11 (18.3)	31 (51.7)	3 (5)
KF	1 (1.7)	11 (18.3)	0		2	1 (1.7)	0		9 (15)	32 (53.3)	4 (6.7)
CIP	4 (6.7)	16 (26.7)	1 (1.7)		0	1 (1.7)	0		8 (13.3)	27 (45)	3 (5)
FEP	0	1 (1.7)	1 (1.7)		0	2 (3.3)	0		12 (20)	41 (68.3)	3 (5)
GM	0	6 (10)	0		0	0	0		12 (20)	38 (63.3)	4 (6.7)
NA	6 (10)	26 (43.3)	1 (1.7)		0	0	0		6 (10)	18 (30)	3 (5)
NOR	4 (6.7)	18 (30)	0		0	1 (1.7)	0		8 (13.3)	25 (41.7)	4 (6.7)
PRL	1 (1.7)	14 (23.3)	0		0	1 (1.7)	0		11 (18.3)	29 (48.3)	4 (6.7)
S	4 (6.7)	13 (21.7)	1 (1.7)		0	0	0		8 (13.3)	31 (51.7)	3 (5)
SXT	5 (8.3)	22 (36.7)	2 (3.3)		0	0	0		7 (11.7)	22 (36.7)	2 (3.3)
TE	6 (10)	29 (48.3)	1 (1.7)		0	0	0		6 (10)	15 (25)	3 (3.3)

Figure 1 Representative gel electrophoresis of ERIC-PCR using ERIC2 primer. Lane 1: molecular mass ladder and lanes 2 to 20: isolates of typical and atypical EPEC from humans in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

Figure 2 UPGMA dendrogram of the genetic relationships among 60 isolates of EPEC isolated from humans between 2013 and 2014 in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The arrow above percentage similarity scale indicates the cutoff value of 90% for cluster analysis.

Vidal M, Kruger E, Durán C, et al. Single multiplex PCR assay to identify simultaneously the six categories of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli associated with enteric infections. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43(10):5362–5365. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.10.5362-5365.2005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Müller D, Greune L, Heusipp G, et al. Identification of unconventional intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli isolates expressing intermediate virulence factor profiles by using a novel single-step multiplex PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(10):3380–3390. doi:10.1128/AEM.02855-06

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar