Skip to main content
. 2003 Jul;47(7):2161–2168. doi: 10.1128/AAC.47.7.2161-2168.2003

TABLE 3.

Prevalence of virulence markers according to Nal phenotype and ExPEC status among 52 poultry-derived E. coli isolates

Bacterial traitb Prevalence of trait, no. (%)
P valuec
Nal phenotypea
ExPEC status
Susceptible (n = 24) Resistant (n = 38) Not ExPEC (n = 29) ExPEC (n = 23)
papA 2 (8) 1 (4) 1 (3) 2 (9)
papCb 6 (25) 9 (32) 2 (7) 13 (57) <.001
sfa/foc 1 (4) 0 0 1 (4)
sfaS 1 (4) 0 0 1 (4)
gafD 3 (13) 3 (11) 0 6 (26) .005
bmaE 3 (13) 3 (11) 0 6 (26) .005
iha 1 (4) 0 1 (3) 0
fimH 24 (100) 28 (100) 29 (100) 23 (100)
fyuA 7 (29) 11 (39) 4 (14) 14 (61) .001
iutA 16 (67) 20 (71) 13 (45) 23 (100) <.001
iroN 14 (58) 20 (71) 16 (55) 18 (78)
ireA 8 (33) 6 (21) 3 (10) 11 (49) .004
kpsMT II 6 (25) 8 (29) 0 14 (61) <.001
    K1 1 (4) 5 (18) 0 6 (26) .005
kpsMT III 0 2 (7) 2 (7) 0
H7fliC 0 3 (11) 3 (10) 0
ompT 15 (63) 16 (57) 12 (41) 19 (83) .004
ibeA 2 (8) 4 (14) 0 6 (26) .004
cvaC 9 (38) 7 (25) 6 (21) 10 (43)
traT 15 (63) 22 (79) 29 (66) 18 (78)
iss 14 (58) 20 (71) 16 (55) 18 (78)
malX 2 (8) 4 (14) 0 6 (26) .005
a

P > 0.10 for all comparisons, nalidixic acid susceptible versus resistant.

b

Results for papEG, papG, and papG allele II approximated those for papC. Not detected were afa/dra, focG, hlyD, cnf1, cdtB, and the K2 kpsMT II variant.

c

P values (by Fisher's exact test) for comparisons of non-ExPEC versus ExPEC shown only where values are <0.05.