Etiology of childhood diarrhea in the northeast of Brazil: significant emergent diarrheal pathogens

In a study conducted in Joao Pessoa, northeast of Brazil, 2344 Escherichia coli isolated from 290 infants with diarrhea and 290 healthy matched controls were analyzed for virulence traits. Enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC) was the most prevalent pathogen associated to acute diarrhea. Based on the results of colony blot hybridization, serotyping, and HEp-2 cell adherence assays, strains were separated in categories as typical enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) (1.7%), atypical EPEC (a-EPEC) (9.3%), EAEC (25%), enterotoxigenic E. coli (10%), and enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC) (1.4%). No enterohemorrhagic E. coli strains were isolated. Other enteropathogens were found, including Salmonella (7.9%), Shigella spp. (4.1%), thermophilic Campylobacter spp. (2.4%), Giardia lamblia (9.3%), and Entamoeba histolytica (5.8%). All enteropathogens were associated with diarrhea (P < 0.01). However, the association was lower for EPEC and EIEC (P < 0.03). Different pathogens associated with diarrhea may have been changing in Brazil where EAEC and a-EPEC seem to be the most prevalent pathogens among them. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Virulence features of atypical enteropathogenic Escherichia coli identified by the eae(+) EAF-negative stx(-) genetic profile

This study characterized 76 atypical enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (aEPEC) strains, previously classified by the eae(+) EAF-negative stx(-) genotype, isolated from children with diarrhea in Brazil. Presence of bfpA and bfpA/perA was detected in 2 and 6 strains, respectively. The expression of bundle-forming pilus (BFP), however, was observed by immunofluorescence in 1 bfpA and 3 bfpA/perA strains, classifying them as typical EPEC (tEPEC). The remaining 72 aEPEC strains were characterized by serotyping, intimin typing, adherence patterns to HEp-2 cells, capacity to induce actin aggregation (fluorescent actin staining test), and antimicrobial resistance. Our results show that aEPEC comprise a very heterogeneous group that does not present any prevalence or association regarding the studied characteristics. It also suggest that tEPEC and aEPEC must not be classified only by the reactivity with the EAF probe, and that the search of other markers present in pEAF, as well as the BFP expression, must be considered for this matter. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.