-
A total of 393 NTM isolates were identified at species level using multilocus sequence analysis. M. intracellulare (132, 33.6%) was the most abundant organism, followed by the M. abscessus group (100, 25.4%), M. kansasii (82, 20.9%), M. avium (41, 10.4%), M. gordonae (26, 6.6%), and M. fortuitum (12, 3.1%). In total, 173 MAC isolates were used for further study, including 132 M. intracellulare and 41 M. avium isolates.
-
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed on M. avium and M. intracellulare isolates. The range of MICs of each antimicrobial agent for M. avium and M. intracellulare is shown in Table 1. Clarithromycin and amikacin were the two most effective agents against both M. avium (97.6% and 97.6%, respectively) and M. intracellulare isolates (96.2% and 94.7%, respectively), with no significant difference between the species (P < 0.05). Compared with M. intracellulare isolates, lower rates of drug resistance to LZD, RIF, MEM, IMP, CFX, GAT, and SFX were observed in M. avium isolates (48.8% vs. 63.2%, P = 0.018 for LZD; 41.5% vs. 78.7%, P < 0.001 for RIF; 75.6% vs. 97.7%, P < 0.001 for MEM; 78.0% vs. 99.2%, P = 0.005 for IMP; 73.0% vs. 99.2%, P = 0.007 for CFX; 41.5% vs. 74.2%, P < 0.001 for GAT, and 48.8% vs. 87.1%, P < 0.001 for SFX), with a significant difference between these two species (P < 0.05). In addition, MOX (34.1% vs. 33.1%), AZM (70.7% vs. 60.6%), and RFB (36.6% vs. 26.5%) exhibited higher activity against M. intracellulare than against M. avium isolates, but there was no statistical difference between these two species (P > 0.05).
Table 1. In Vitro Antibiotic Susceptibility of 41 M. avium and 132 M. intracellulare Isolates by Broth Microdilution Method
Antimicrobial Agent M. avium (n = 41) M. intracellulare (n = 132) χ2 P MIC50a (μg/mL) MIC90a (μg/mL) %Resistant Strainsb MIC50a (μg/mL) MIC90a (μg/mL) %Resistant Strainsb CLA 2 16 2.4 1 16 3.8 0.096 0.756 AMK 16 32 2.4 16 32 5.3 0.673 0.412 MOX 2 4 34.1 2 4 33.1 1.186 0.276 LZD 16 64 48.8 32 64 63.2 5.570 0.018 RIF 4 64 41.5 8 64 78.7 29.360 0.000 EMB 4 64 36.6 4 16 45.6 1.668 0.196 CAP 4 32 39.0 4 64 50.0 1.511 0.219 TOB 4 16 36.6 4 32 41.7 0.655 0.418 MEM 64 256 75.6 256 256 97.7 15.111 0.000 IMP 256 256 78.0 256 256 99.2 7.800 0.005 CFX 256 256 73.0 256 256 99.2 7.352 0.007 AZM 32 64 70.7 32 64 60.6 1.376 0.241 LFX 16 32 82.9 16 32 90.9 1.182 0.277 GAT 2 8 41.5 4 8 74.2 12.623 0.000 MIN 8 16 73.1 16 32 82.6 1.808 0.179 TIG 64 64 97.6 64 64 99.2 0.774 0.379 SFX 32 256 48.8 128 256 87.1 26.829 0.000 SM 16 64 90.2 16 64 92.4 0.095 0.758 CFM 1 16 39.0 1 32 43.2 0.222 0.638 RFB 0.125 32 36.6 0.25 32 26.5 1.544 0.214 Note. aMIC50 represents the concentration required to inhibit the growth of 50% of the strains; MIC90 represents the concentration required to inhibit the growth of 90% of the strains. bThe breakpoints to establish susceptibility and resistance were followed as recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI-M24-A2). -
A total of 41 M. avium strains were genotyped by 13 M. avium tandem repeat (MATR) loci combinations recommended by Kenji, except MATR-9 and MATR-12, which cannot be amplified for most DNA extracts, even when different conditions were attempted, and these two loci were excluded for further analysis. Using this method, the 41 isolates were differentiated into six clusters (two isolates per cluster) and 29 unique genotypes. As shown in Figure 1, of the 13 MATR loci, six loci (MATR-2, -3, -4, -6, -7, and -8) had a high diversity index (h ≥ 0.5); five loci (MATR-1, -5, -11, -13, and -16) achieved a medium diversity index (0.5 > h ≥ 0.1); and MATR-14 and -15 had a low diversity index (h < 0.1). The cumulative cluster rate was 14.6%, and the HGDI value for the VNTR typing of M. avium isolates was 0.993 as shown in Table 2, indicating that the VNTR analysis was capable of high discriminatory power.
Table 2. Discriminatory Index and Clustering Rate of VNTR Applied to MAC Strains
Organism Total Isolates (n) Clustered Isolates (n) Isolates in Each Cluster (n) Clustering Rate/% HGDIa M. avium 41 12 2 14.6 0.993 M. intracellulare 132 48 2-5 22.0 0.995 Note. aHGDI = Hunter-Gaston Discriminatory Index. The 132 M. intracellulare isolates were classified into 88 genotypes by 16-locus MIRU-VNTR as recommended by Kenji, including 48 isolates from 19 clusters (2-5 isolates per cluster) and 84 isolates with unique patterns; the cumulative cluster rate was 22.0%, and the HGDI value was 0.995 as shown in Table 2. As shown in Figure 2, of the 16 VNTR loci, VNTR-7 and VNTR-11 were classified as lowly discriminating (h < 0.1), and the remaining 14 loci were defined as highly discriminating (h ≥ 0.5).
-
As shown in Table 3, of the 12 clustered and 29 unclustered isolates of M. avium, the proportion of isolates resistant to CAP (41.7% vs. 37.9%), AZM (75.0% vs. 69.0%), LFX (100.0% vs. 75.9%), SM (91.7% vs. 62.1%), MEM (83.3% vs. 72.4%), and CFX (75.0% vs. 72.4%) was higher than that of unclustered isolates, but there was no significant difference (P > 0.05). The resistance rate of other drugs in unclustered isolates was higher than that in clustered isolates, and the difference was not significant (P > 0.05).
Table 3. Drug Susceptibility Profiles of Clustered and Unclustered Strains of M. avium
Drug Clustered (12 isolates) Unclustered (29 isolates) χ2 P No.(%) of Sensitive Strains No.(%) of Resistant Strains No.(%) of Sensitive Strains No.(%) of Resistant Strains CLA 10 (83.3) 0 (0.0) 23 (79.3) 1 (3.4) 0.429 0.512 AMK 10 (83.3) 0 (0.0) 26 (89.7) 1 (3.4) 0.381 0.537 MOX 4 (33.3) 3 (25.0) 10 (34.5) 11 (37.9) 0.190 0.663 LZD 4 (33.3) 4 (33.3) 9 (31.0) 16 (55.2) 0.498 0.481 CAP 7 (58.3) 5 (41.7) 18 (62.1) 11 (37.9) 0.050 0.823 AZM 3 (25.0) 9 (75.0) 9 (31.0) 20 (69.0) 0.149 0.699 LFX 0 (0.0) 12 (100.0) 4 (33.3) 22 (75.9) 2.063 0.151 GAT 4 (33.3) 4 (33.3) 10 (34.5) 13 (44.8) 0.102 0.750 SM 1 (8.3) 11 (91.7) 11 (37.9) 18 (62.1) 3.592 0.058 CFM 9 (75.0) 3 (25.0) 16 (55.2) 13 (44.8) 1.402 0.236 TOB 6 (50.0) 4 (33.3) 10 (34.5) 11 (37.9) 0.416 0.519 MEM 0 (0.0) 10 (83.3) 4 (33.3) 21 (72.4) 1.806 0.179 IMP 1 (8.3) 6 (50.0) 1 (3.4) 26 (89.7) 1.124 0.289 CFX 3 (25.0) 9 (75.0) 8 (27.6) 21 (72.4) 0.029 0.865 MIN 0 (0.0) 8 (66.7) 2 (6.9) 22 (75.9) 0.711 0.399 RFB 8 (66.7) 4 (33.3) 18 (62.1) 11 (37.9) 0.077 0.781 SFX 9 (75.0) 3 (25.0) 12 (41.4) 17 (58.6) 3.840 0.050 RIF 8 (66.7) 4 (33.3) 16 (55.2) 13 (44.8) 0.462 0.497 EMB 8 (66.7) 4 (33.3) 18 (62.1) 11 (37.9) 0.077 0.781 As shown in Table 4, among the 48 clustered and 84 unclustered strains of M. intracellulare, CLA (4.2% vs. 3.6%), LZD (75.0% vs. 57.1%), GAT (77.1% vs. 72.6%), SM (95.8% vs. 90.5%), and CFM (50.0% vs. 39.3%) showed higher resistance rates in clustered isolates than that in unclustered isolates, with no significant difference (P > 0.05). Statistical analysis revealed that the percentage of LFX-resistant isolates was significantly higher in unclustered isolates than that in clustered isolates (P = 0.004).
Table 4. Drug Susceptibility Profiles of Clustered and Unclustered Strains of M. intracellulare
Drug Clustered (48 isolates) Unclustered (84 isolates) χ 2 P No.(%) of Sensitive Strains No.(%) of Resistant Strains No.(%) of Sensitive Strains No.(%) of Resistant Strains CLA 45 (93.8) 2 (4.2) 77 (91.7) 3 (3.6) 0.020 0.888 AMK 40 (83.3) 1 (2.1) 66 (78.6) 6 (7.1) 1.562 0.211 MOX 9 (18.8) 15 (31.3) 18 (21.4) 29 (34.5) 0.004 0.948 LZD 4 (8.3) 36 (75.0) 16 (19.0) 48 (57.1) 3.566 0.059 CAP 29 (60.4) 19 (39.6) 37 (44.0) 47 (56.0) 3.274 0.070 AZM 21 (43.8) 27 (56.3) 31 (36.9) 53 (63.1) 0.599 0.439 LFX 6 (12.5) 39 (81.3) 1 (1.2) 81 (96.4) 8.187 0.004 GAT 6 (12.5) 37 (77.1) 12 (14.3) 61 (72.6) 0.127 0.721 SM 2 (4.2) 46 (95.8) 8 (9.5) 76 (90.5) 1.252 0.263 CFM 24 (50.0) 24 (50.0) 51 (60.7) 33 (39.3) 1.429 0.232 TOB 15 (31.3) 20 (41.7) 27 (32.1) 35 (41.7) 0.004 0.947 CFX 0 (0.0) 48 (100.0) 1 (1.2) 83 (98.8) 0.576 0.448 MIN 0 (0.0) 42 (87.5) 2 (2.4) 67 (80.0) 1.240 0.266 RFB 35 (72.9) 13 (27.1) 62 (73.8) 22 (26.2) 0.012 0.911 SFX 6 (12.5) 42 (87.5) 11 (13.1) 73 (86.9) 0.010 0.922 RIF 14 (29.2) 34 (70.8) 13 (15.5) 71 (84.5) 3.519 0.061 EMB 28 (58.3) 20 (41.7) 42 (50.0) 42 (50.0) 0.852 0.356
doi: 10.3967/bes2017.068
Comparing the Genotype and Drug Susceptibilities between Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare in China
-
Abstract:
Objective Mycobacterium avium(M.avium) and Mycobacterium intracellulare(M.intracellulare) are the major causative agents of nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM)-related pulmonary infections.However, little is known about the differences in drug susceptibility profiles between these two species. Methods A total of 393 NTM isolates were collected from Shanghai Pulmonary Disease Hospital.Sequencing of partial genes was performed to identify the strains at species level.The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was used to evaluate the drug susceptibility against 20 antimicrobial agents.Variable number of tandem repeat (VNTR) typing was conducted to genotype these two species. Results A total of 173(44.0%)M.avium complex (MAC) isolates were identified, including 41(10.4%)M.avium isolates and 132(33.6%)M.intracellulare isolates.Clarithromycin and amikacin were the two most effective agents against MAC isolates.The Hunter-Gaston Discriminatory Index (HGDI) values for VNTR typing of M.avium and M.intracellulare isolates were 0.993 and 0.995, respectively.Levofloxacin resistance was more common among the unclustered strains than among the clustered strains of M.intracellulare. Conclusion M.intracellulare was the most common NTM species in China.Clarithromycin and amikacin had high antimicrobial activities against MAC.VNTR typing of MAC isolates revealed a high discriminatory power.Levofloxacin resistance was associated with unclustered strains of M.intracellulare. -
Key words:
- Nontuberculous mycobacterium /
- Phenotype /
- Genotype /
- Susceptibility /
- Resistance
-
Table 1. In Vitro Antibiotic Susceptibility of 41 M. avium and 132 M. intracellulare Isolates by Broth Microdilution Method
Antimicrobial Agent M. avium (n = 41) M. intracellulare (n = 132) χ2 P MIC50a (μg/mL) MIC90a (μg/mL) %Resistant Strainsb MIC50a (μg/mL) MIC90a (μg/mL) %Resistant Strainsb CLA 2 16 2.4 1 16 3.8 0.096 0.756 AMK 16 32 2.4 16 32 5.3 0.673 0.412 MOX 2 4 34.1 2 4 33.1 1.186 0.276 LZD 16 64 48.8 32 64 63.2 5.570 0.018 RIF 4 64 41.5 8 64 78.7 29.360 0.000 EMB 4 64 36.6 4 16 45.6 1.668 0.196 CAP 4 32 39.0 4 64 50.0 1.511 0.219 TOB 4 16 36.6 4 32 41.7 0.655 0.418 MEM 64 256 75.6 256 256 97.7 15.111 0.000 IMP 256 256 78.0 256 256 99.2 7.800 0.005 CFX 256 256 73.0 256 256 99.2 7.352 0.007 AZM 32 64 70.7 32 64 60.6 1.376 0.241 LFX 16 32 82.9 16 32 90.9 1.182 0.277 GAT 2 8 41.5 4 8 74.2 12.623 0.000 MIN 8 16 73.1 16 32 82.6 1.808 0.179 TIG 64 64 97.6 64 64 99.2 0.774 0.379 SFX 32 256 48.8 128 256 87.1 26.829 0.000 SM 16 64 90.2 16 64 92.4 0.095 0.758 CFM 1 16 39.0 1 32 43.2 0.222 0.638 RFB 0.125 32 36.6 0.25 32 26.5 1.544 0.214 Note. aMIC50 represents the concentration required to inhibit the growth of 50% of the strains; MIC90 represents the concentration required to inhibit the growth of 90% of the strains. bThe breakpoints to establish susceptibility and resistance were followed as recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI-M24-A2). Table 2. Discriminatory Index and Clustering Rate of VNTR Applied to MAC Strains
Organism Total Isolates (n) Clustered Isolates (n) Isolates in Each Cluster (n) Clustering Rate/% HGDIa M. avium 41 12 2 14.6 0.993 M. intracellulare 132 48 2-5 22.0 0.995 Note. aHGDI = Hunter-Gaston Discriminatory Index. Table 3. Drug Susceptibility Profiles of Clustered and Unclustered Strains of M. avium
Drug Clustered (12 isolates) Unclustered (29 isolates) χ2 P No.(%) of Sensitive Strains No.(%) of Resistant Strains No.(%) of Sensitive Strains No.(%) of Resistant Strains CLA 10 (83.3) 0 (0.0) 23 (79.3) 1 (3.4) 0.429 0.512 AMK 10 (83.3) 0 (0.0) 26 (89.7) 1 (3.4) 0.381 0.537 MOX 4 (33.3) 3 (25.0) 10 (34.5) 11 (37.9) 0.190 0.663 LZD 4 (33.3) 4 (33.3) 9 (31.0) 16 (55.2) 0.498 0.481 CAP 7 (58.3) 5 (41.7) 18 (62.1) 11 (37.9) 0.050 0.823 AZM 3 (25.0) 9 (75.0) 9 (31.0) 20 (69.0) 0.149 0.699 LFX 0 (0.0) 12 (100.0) 4 (33.3) 22 (75.9) 2.063 0.151 GAT 4 (33.3) 4 (33.3) 10 (34.5) 13 (44.8) 0.102 0.750 SM 1 (8.3) 11 (91.7) 11 (37.9) 18 (62.1) 3.592 0.058 CFM 9 (75.0) 3 (25.0) 16 (55.2) 13 (44.8) 1.402 0.236 TOB 6 (50.0) 4 (33.3) 10 (34.5) 11 (37.9) 0.416 0.519 MEM 0 (0.0) 10 (83.3) 4 (33.3) 21 (72.4) 1.806 0.179 IMP 1 (8.3) 6 (50.0) 1 (3.4) 26 (89.7) 1.124 0.289 CFX 3 (25.0) 9 (75.0) 8 (27.6) 21 (72.4) 0.029 0.865 MIN 0 (0.0) 8 (66.7) 2 (6.9) 22 (75.9) 0.711 0.399 RFB 8 (66.7) 4 (33.3) 18 (62.1) 11 (37.9) 0.077 0.781 SFX 9 (75.0) 3 (25.0) 12 (41.4) 17 (58.6) 3.840 0.050 RIF 8 (66.7) 4 (33.3) 16 (55.2) 13 (44.8) 0.462 0.497 EMB 8 (66.7) 4 (33.3) 18 (62.1) 11 (37.9) 0.077 0.781 Table 4. Drug Susceptibility Profiles of Clustered and Unclustered Strains of M. intracellulare
Drug Clustered (48 isolates) Unclustered (84 isolates) χ 2 P No.(%) of Sensitive Strains No.(%) of Resistant Strains No.(%) of Sensitive Strains No.(%) of Resistant Strains CLA 45 (93.8) 2 (4.2) 77 (91.7) 3 (3.6) 0.020 0.888 AMK 40 (83.3) 1 (2.1) 66 (78.6) 6 (7.1) 1.562 0.211 MOX 9 (18.8) 15 (31.3) 18 (21.4) 29 (34.5) 0.004 0.948 LZD 4 (8.3) 36 (75.0) 16 (19.0) 48 (57.1) 3.566 0.059 CAP 29 (60.4) 19 (39.6) 37 (44.0) 47 (56.0) 3.274 0.070 AZM 21 (43.8) 27 (56.3) 31 (36.9) 53 (63.1) 0.599 0.439 LFX 6 (12.5) 39 (81.3) 1 (1.2) 81 (96.4) 8.187 0.004 GAT 6 (12.5) 37 (77.1) 12 (14.3) 61 (72.6) 0.127 0.721 SM 2 (4.2) 46 (95.8) 8 (9.5) 76 (90.5) 1.252 0.263 CFM 24 (50.0) 24 (50.0) 51 (60.7) 33 (39.3) 1.429 0.232 TOB 15 (31.3) 20 (41.7) 27 (32.1) 35 (41.7) 0.004 0.947 CFX 0 (0.0) 48 (100.0) 1 (1.2) 83 (98.8) 0.576 0.448 MIN 0 (0.0) 42 (87.5) 2 (2.4) 67 (80.0) 1.240 0.266 RFB 35 (72.9) 13 (27.1) 62 (73.8) 22 (26.2) 0.012 0.911 SFX 6 (12.5) 42 (87.5) 11 (13.1) 73 (86.9) 0.010 0.922 RIF 14 (29.2) 34 (70.8) 13 (15.5) 71 (84.5) 3.519 0.061 EMB 28 (58.3) 20 (41.7) 42 (50.0) 42 (50.0) 0.852 0.356 -
[1] Bauer J, Andersen AB, Askgaard D, et al. Typing of clinical Mycobacterium avium complex strains cultured during a 2-year period in Denmark by using IS1245. J Clin Microbiol, 1999; 37, 600-5. http://jcm.asm.org/content/37/3/600.short?related-urls=yes&legid=jcm;37/3/600&cited-by=yes&legid=jcm;37/3/600 [2] Dvorska L, Bartos M, Ostadal O, et al. IS1311 and IS1245 restriction fragment length polymorphism analyses, serotypes, and drug susceptibilities of Mycobacterium avium complex isolates obtained from a human immunodeficiency virus-negative patient. J Clin Microbiol, 2002; 40, 3712-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.10.3712-3719.2002 [3] De Groote MA, Pace NR, Fulton K, et al. Relationships between Mycobacterium isolates from patients with pulmonary mycobacterial infection and potting soils. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2006; 72, 7602-6. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00930-06 [4] Daley CL, Griffith DE. Pulmonary non-tuberculous mycobacterial infections. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 2010; 14, 665-71. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20487602 [5] Simons S, van Ingen J, Hsueh PR, et al. Nontuberculous mycobacteria in respiratory tract infections, eastern Asia. Emerg Infect Dis, 2011; 17, 343-9. doi: 10.3201/eid170310060 [6] Kim SY, Lee ST, Jeong BH, et al. Genotyping of Mycobacterium intracellulare isolates and clinical characteristics of lung disease. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 2013; 17, 669-75. doi: 10.5588/ijtld.12.0575 [7] Xu HB, Jiang RH, Li L. Treatment outcomes for Mycobacterium avium complex: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2014; 33, 347-58. doi: 10.1007/s10096-013-1962-1 [8] Wang L, Zhang H, Ruan Y, et al. Tuberculosis prevalence in China, 1990-2010; a longitudinal analysis of national survey data. Lancet, 2014; 383, 2057-64. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62639-2 [9] Maekura R, Okuda Y, Hirotani A, et al. Clinical and prognostic importance of serotyping Mycobacterium avium-Mycobacterium intracellulare complex isolates in human immunodeficiency virus-negative patients. J Clin Microbiol, 2005; 43, 3150-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.7.3150-3158.2005 [10] Marras TK, Daley CL. Epidemiology of human pulmonary infection with nontuberculous mycobacteria. Clin Chest Med, 2002; 23, 553-67. doi: 10.1016/S0272-5231(02)00019-9 [11] Han XY, Tarrand JJ, Infante R, et al. Clinical significance and epidemiologic analyses of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare among patients without AIDS. J Clin Microbiol, 2005; 43, 4407-12. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.9.4407-4412.2005 [12] Koh WJ, Jeong BH, Jeon K, et al. Clinical significance of the differentiation between Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare in M avium complex lung disease. Chest, 2012; 142, 1482-8. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-0494 [13] Glassroth J. Pulmonary disease due to nontuberculous mycobacteria. Chest, 2008; 133, 243-51. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-0358 [14] Wei G, Huang M, Wang G, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and genotyping of Mycobacterium avium isolates of two tertiary tuberculosis designated hospital, China. Infect Genet Evol, 2015; 36, 141-6. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2015.09.015 [15] Ichikawa K, Yagi T, Inagaki T, et al. Molecular typing of Mycobacterium intracellulare using multilocus variable-number of tandem-repeat analysis: identification of loci and analysis of clinical isolates. Microbiology, 2010; 156, 496-504. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.030684-0 [16] Inagaki T, Nishimori K, Yagi T, et al. Comparison of a variable-number tandem-repeat (VNTR) method for typing Mycobacterium avium with mycobacterial interspersed repetitive-unit-VNTR and IS1245 restriction fragment length polymorphism typing. J Clin Microbiol, 2009; 47, 2156-64. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02373-08 [17] Pang Y, Zhou Y, Zhao B, et al. Spoligotyping and drug resistance analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains from national survey in China. PLoS One, 2012; 7, e32976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032976 [18] Adekambi T, Drancourt M. Dissection of phylogenetic relationships among 19 rapidly growing Mycobacterium species by 16S rRNA, hsp65, sodA, recA and rpoB gene sequencing. Int J Syst Evo Micr, 2004; 54, 2095-105. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.63094-0 [19] Park H, Jang H, Kim C, et al. Detection and identification of mycobacteria by amplification of the internal transcribed spacer regions with genus-and species-specific PCR primers. J Clin Microbiol, 2000; 38, 4080-5. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20013105463 [20] Rakoff-Nahoum S, Kuebler PJ, Heymann JJ, et al. Detection of T lymphocytes specific for human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) in patients with seminoma. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses, 2006; 22, 52-6. doi: 10.1089/aid.2006.22.52 [21] Kobashi Y, Yoshida K, Miyashita N, et al. Relationship between clinical efficacy of treatment of pulmonary Mycobacterium avium complex disease and drug-sensitivity testing of Mycobacterium avium complex isolates. J Infect Chemother, 2006; 12, 195-202. doi: 10.1007/s10156-006-0457-8 [22] Brown-Elliott BA, Iakhiaeva E, Griffith DE, et al. In vitro activity of amikacin against isolates of Mycobacterium avium complex with proposed MIC breakpoints and finding of a 16S rRNA gene mutation in treated isolates. J Clin Microbiol, 2013; 51, 3389-94. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01612-13 [23] Heifets L. MIC as a quantitative measurement of the susceptibility of Mycobacterium avium strains to seven antituberculosis drugs. Antimicrob Agents Ch, 1988; 32, 1131-6. doi: 10.1128/AAC.32.8.1131 [24] Zhang Z. Drug susceptibility testing and molecular mechanism of resistance to clarithromycin in Mycobacterium abscessus complex. Medical school of Chinese People's Liberation Army, 2015. (In Chinese) [25] Selander RK, Caugant DA, Ochman H, et al. Methods of multilocus enzyme electrophoresis for bacterial population genetics and systematics. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1986; 51, 873-84. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.327.4297 [26] Hunter PR, Gaston MA. Numerical index of the discriminatory ability of typing systems: an application of Simpson's index of diversity. J Clin Microbiol, 1988; 26, 2465-6. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Hunter/publication/239530556_Numerical_IndexoftheDiscriminatory_Ability_ofTypingSystems_an_Application_ofSimpson's_IndexofDiversity/links/0f31752f5684a5f83c000000.pdf?disableCoverPage=true [27] Dailloux M, Abalain ML, Laurain C, et al. Respiratory infections associated with nontuberculous mycobacteria in non-HIV patients. Eur Respir J, 2006; 28, 1211-5. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00063806 [28] Alvarez-Uria G. Lung disease caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria. Curr Opin Pulm Med, 2010; 16, 251-6. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerardo_Alvarez-Uria/publication/41429018_Lung_disease_caused_by_nontuberculous_mycobacteria/links/0deec527b284a11924000000.pdf?disableCoverPage=true [29] Satta G, McHugh TD, Mountford J, et al. Managing pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacterial infection. time for a patient-centered approach. Ann Am Thorac Soc, 2014; 11, 117-21. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201308-278OT [30] Xu K, Bi S, Ji Z, et al. Distinguishing nontuberculous mycobacteria from multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis, China. Emerg Infect Dis, 2014; 20, 1060-2. doi: 10.3201/eid2006.130700 [31] Wu J, Zhang Y, Li J, et al. Increase in nontuberculous mycobacteria isolated in Shanghai, China: results from a population-based study. PLoS One, 2014; 9, e109736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109736 [32] Zheng C, Fanta CH. Non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary infection in the immunocompetent host. QJM, 2013; 106, 307-15. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hct022 [33] Brown-Elliott BA, Nash KA, Wallace RJ Jr. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing, drug resistance mechanisms, and therapy of infections with nontuberculous mycobacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2012; 25, 545-82. doi: 10.1128/CMR.05030-11 [34] Griffith DE, Brown BA, Cegielski P, et al. Early results (at 6 months) with intermittent clarithromycin-including regimens for lung disease due to Mycobacterium avium complex. Clin Infect Dis, 2000; 30, 288-92. doi: 10.1086/313644 [35] Kohno Y, Ohno H, Miyazaki Y, et al. In vitro and in vivo activities of novel fluoroquinolones alone and in combination with clarithromycin against clinically isolated Mycobacterium avium complex strains in Japan. Antimicrob Agents Ch, 2007; 51, 4071-6. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00410-07 [36] Heifets L, Lindholm-Levy P. Comparison of bactericidal activities of streptomycin, amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin against Mycobacterium avium and M. tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Ch, 1989; 33, 1298-301. doi: 10.1128/AAC.33.8.1298 [37] McGrath EE, Anderson PB. The therapeutic approach to non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection of the lung. Pulm Pharmacol Ther, 2010; 23, 389-96. doi: 10.1016/j.pupt.2010.06.002 [38] Zhang Z, Pang Y, Wang Y, et al. Differences in risk factors and drug susceptibility between Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare lung diseases in China. Int J Antimicrob Agents, 2015; 45, 491-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.01.012 [39] Guthertz LS, Damsker B, Bottone EJ, et al. Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare infections in patients with and without AIDS. J Infect Dis, 1989; 160, 1037-41. doi: 10.1093/infdis/160.6.1037 [40] van Ingen J, Boeree MJ, Dekhuijzen PN, et al. Environmental sources of rapid growing nontuberculous mycobacteria causing disease in humans. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2009; 15, 888-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.03013.x