Table 2.
The consistency between the resistance phenotype and genotype among studied S. canis strains (n = 44).
Strain | Resistance Phenotype 1 | Resistance Genes Detected |
---|---|---|
12/16 | TE | n.d. 2 |
22/18 | n.d. | |
27/18 | tet(O) 3 | |
35/20 | n.d. | |
44/21 | tet(O) 3 | |
1/16 | tet(M) linked with Tn916-like transposon | |
3/16 | tet(M) linked with Tn916-like transposon | |
52/21 | tet(T) | |
31/20 | E-CLI | erm(B) |
14/16 | TE-E-CLI | tet(O), erm(B), erm(TR) |
15/16 | tet(O), erm(B), erm(TR) | |
18/16 | tet(M) 3, erm(B) | |
23/18 | erm(B) | |
24/18 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
32/20 | tet(O) 3, erm(B) | |
48/21 | tet(O) 3 | |
51/21 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
58/21 | erm(B) | |
60/21 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
2/16 | TE-E-CLI | tet(O), erm(B) |
4/16 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
5/16 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
6/16 | tet(O), erm(TR) | |
7/16 | tet(O), erm(B), erm(TR) | |
10/16 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
17/16 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
19/16 | n.d. | |
20/17 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
25/18 | tet(O) 3, erm(B) | |
39/21 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
47/21 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
49/21 | n.d. | |
50/21 | tet(M) linked with Tn916-like transposon | |
55/21 | n.d. | |
56/21 | erm(TR) | |
57/21 | erm(B) | |
61/21 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
62/21 | tet(O) 3, erm(B) | |
63/21 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
65/22 | tet(M) linked with Tn916-like transposon, tet(O), erm(B) | |
59/21 | TE-E-CLI-P | tet(O), erm(B) |
64/21 | n.d. | |
41/21 | tet(O), erm(B) | |
53/21 | TE-E-CLI-CEF | tet(M) linked with Tn916-like transposon, erm(B) |
1 TE—tetracycline, E—erythromycin, CLI—clindamycin, P—penicillin G, CEF—cephalothin; 2 n.d.—tested resistance genes were not detected; 3 PCR assay for the presence of genes encoding ribosomal protection proteins with universal primer set (DI_F and DII_R) were negative.