icaB基因对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌N315株生物被膜及耐药性的影响

doi:10.16431/j.cnki.1671-7236.2026.01.039

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的探讨icaB基因对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌（methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus，MRSA）生物被膜形成能力及耐药性的影响。方法本研究以MRSA N315标准株为研究对象，利用同源重组技术构建icaB基因敲除株N315ΔicaB，比对分析N315ΔicaB株与野生株（N315 WT）在生长趋势、菌落形态和颜色、细胞壁厚度、生物被膜形成能力及耐药性方面的差异。结果生长曲线和菌落形态观察发现，N315ΔicaB株生长趋势、菌落形态和颜色与N315 WT株相比无差异。细胞壁厚度测定结果显示，与N315 WT株相比，N315ΔicaB株细胞壁厚度无显著变化（P>0.05）。生物被膜形成能力检测结果显示，N315ΔicaB株生物被膜形成能力与N315 WT相比无显著差异（P>0.05）。药物敏感性检测结果显示，青霉素、苯唑西林、庆大霉素、环丙沙星和呋喃妥因对N315ΔicaB株的最小抑菌浓度均低于N315 WT株。结论敲除icaB基因不影响MRSA的生长状态及生物被膜形成能力，但能提高其对部分抗菌药的敏感性。本研究成功构建了icaB基因敲除株N315ΔicaB，为挖掘icaB基因新功能提供了理想的细胞模型，为从基因水平深入研究生物被膜调控网奠定了基础，也为以icaB基因为靶点提升抗菌药物对MRSA的疗效提供了科学依据。

关键词: 耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌; 基因敲除; 生物被膜; 最小抑菌浓度

Abstract:

Objective This study aimed to explore the effect of icaB gene on biofilm-formation ability and antimicrobial resistance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus （MRSA）. Method MRSA N315 standard strain was selected to construct icaB gene knockout strain N315ΔicaB by homologous recombination technology， and the differences between strain N315ΔicaB and wild strain N315 WT in terms of growth tendency， colony morphology， cell wall thickness， biofilm-formation ability and antimicrobial resistance were comparatively analysed. Result There was no difference in the growth trend， colony shape and color in N315ΔicaB compared to strain N315 WT. The results of cell wall thickness measurement showed that there was no significant difference in cell wall thickness in strain N315ΔicaB compared to strain N315 WT （P>0.05）. The results of biofilm-formation ability showed that there was no significant difference in biofilm-formation ability between strains N315ΔicaB and N315 WT （P>0.05）. The antimicrobial resistance results showed that the minimum inhibitory concentrations of penicillin， oxacillin， gentamicin， ciprofloxacin and nitrofurantoin against strain N315ΔicaB were lower than those in strain N315 WT. Conclusion The knockout of icaB gene did not affect the growth status and biofilm-formation ability of MRSA. However， it increased its susceptibility to several antimicrobials. This study successfully constructed icaB gene knockout strain N315ΔicaB， which provided an ideal cell model to explore the new functions of icaB gene， and laid a foundation for in-depth study of biofilm regulatory networks at the genetic level. Meanwhile， it also provided a scientific basis for enhancing the efficacy of antibacterial drugs against MRSA by targeting the icaB gene.

Key words: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; gene knockout; biofilm; minimum inhibitory concentration

中图分类号:

S852.61

金炳甜, 杜鹏程, 杨馨郁, 吉尔叁也, 杨峰, 董鹏程. icaB基因对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌N315株生物被膜及耐药性的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2026, 53(1): 439-447.

JIN Bingtian, DU Pengcheng, YANG Xinyu, JIER Sanye, YANG Feng, DONG Pengcheng. Effect of icaB Gene on Biofilm and Drug Resistance of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Strain N315[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2026, 53(1): 439-447.

图/表 8

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

表1

参考文献 31

[1]	何兴丽，王昭元，周佩瑶，等. 奶牛乳房炎金黄色葡萄球菌免疫逃避机制研究进展［J］. 中国畜牧兽医， 2024， 51（2）： 748-758.
	HE X L， WANG Z Y， ZHOU P Y， et al.Research progress on immune escape mechanisn of Staphylococcus aure in dairy cow mastitis［J］. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine， 2024， 51（2）： 748-758. （in Chinese）
[2]	NIKOLIC P， MUDGIL P. The cell wall， cell membrane and virulence factors of Staphylococcus aureus and their role in antibiotic resistance［J］. Microorganisms， 2023， 11（2）： 259.
[3]	ALGHARIB S A， DAWOOD A， XIE S. Nanoparticles for treatment of bovine Staphylococcus aureus mastitis［J］. Drug Delivery， 2020， 27（1）： 292-308.
[4]	KALE P， DHAWAN B. The changing face of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphyloco-ccus aureus ［J］. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology， 2016， 34（3）： 275-285.
[5]	GUO Y， SONG G， SUN M， et al. Prevalence and therapies of antibiotic-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus ［J］. Frontiers in Celularl and Infection Microbiology， 2020， 10： 107.
[6]	ZGURSKAYA H I. An old problem in a new light： Antibiotic permeation barriers［J］. ACS Infectious Diseases， 2020， 6（12）： 3090-3091.
[7]	张小妹，林建涵，阮士龙，等. 控制细菌生物膜感染的可替代策略——噬菌体疗法［J］. 食品安全质量检测学报， 2023， 14（21）： 55-62.
	ZHANG X M， LIN J H， RUAN S L， et al. An alternative strategy to control bacterial biofilm infections—Phage therapy［J］ Journal of Food Safety and Quality， 2023， 14（21）： 55-62. （in Chinese）
[8]	BHATTACHARYA M， WOZNIAK D J， STOODLEY P， et al. Prevention and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms［J］. Expert Review of Anti Infective Therapy， 2015， 13（12）： 1499-1516.
[9]	NGUYEN H T T， NGUYEN T H， OTTO M. The staphylococcal exopolysaccharide PIA-biosynthesis and role in biofilm formation， colonization， and infection［J］. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal， 2020， 18： 3324-3334.
[10]	YANG F， LIU L H， WANG L，et al. Penicillin-resistant characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis in Gansu， China［J］. Journal of Integrative Agriculture， 2017， 16（8）： 1874-1878.
[11]	CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 35th ed. CLSI supplement M100 ［S］. Wayne， PA： Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute，2025.
[12]	XING A， NG H M， JIAO H， et al. The prevalence， epidemiological， and molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus （MRSA） in Macau （2017-2022）［J］. Microorganisms， 2024， 12（1）： 148.
[13]	HOU Z， LIU L， WEI J， et al. Progress in the prevalence， classification and drug resistance mechanisms of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ［J］. Infection and Drug Resistance， 2023， 16： 3271-3292.
[14]	SHARMA D， MISBA L， KHAN A U. Antibiotics versus biofilm： An emerging battleground in microbial communities［J］. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control， 2019， 8： 76.
[15]	DSOUZA F P， DINESH S， SHARMA S. Understanding the intricacies of microbial biofilm formation and its endurance in chronic infections： A key to advancing biofilm-targeted therapeutic strategies［J］. Archives of Microbiology， 2024， 206（2）： 85.
[16]	EGAN A J， CLEVERLEY R M， PETERS K， et al. Regulation of bacterial cell wall growth［J］. FEBS Journal， 2017， 284（6）： 851-867.
[17]	VUONG C， KOCIANOVA S， VOYICH J M， et al. A crucial role for exopolysaccharide modification in bacterial biofilm formation， immune evasion， and virulence［J］. Journal of Biological Chemistry， 2004， 279（52）： 54881-54886.
[18]	ATWOOD D N， LOUGHRAN A J， COURTNEY A P， et al. Comparative impact of diverse regulatory loci on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation［J］. Microbiologyopen， 2015， 4（3）： 436-451.
[19]	LE K Y， DASTGHEYB S， HO T V， et al. Molecular determinants of Staphylococcal biofilm dispersal and structuring［J］. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology， 2014， 4： 167.
[20]	WANG X， LIU M， YU C， et al. Biofilm formation： Mechanistic insights and therapeutic targets［J］. Molecular Biomedicine， 2023， 4（1）： 49.
[21]	MALIK N， BISHT D， AGGARWAL J， et al. Distribution of IcaA and IcaB genes in biofilm-producing methicillin-resistance Staphylococcus aureus ［J］. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Health Care， 2022， 14： 21-24.
[22]	CERCA N， JEFFERSON K K， MAIRA-LITRÁN T， et al. Molecular basis for preferential protective efficacy of antibodies directed to the poorly acetylated form of staphylococcal poly-N-acetyl-β-（1-6）-glucosamine［J］. Infection and Immunity， 2007， 75（7）： 3406-3413.
[23]	YU L， HISATSUNE J， KUTSUNO S， et al. New molecular mechanism of superbiofilm elaboration in a Staphylococcus aureus clinical strain［J］. Microbiology Spectrum， 2023， 11（2）： e0442522.
[24]	CUE D， LEI M G， LEE C Y. Genetic regulation of the intercellular adhesion locus in staphylococci［J］. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology， 2012， 2： 38.
[25]	MITTAL S， SHARMA M， CHAUDHARY U. Biofilm and multidrug resistance in uropathogenic Escherichia coli ［J］. Pathogens and Global Health， 2015， 109（1）： 26-29.
[26]	GOUDARZTALEJERDI A， MOHAMMADZADEH A， NIAZI K， et al. High prevalence of multidrug resistance and biofilm-formation ability among avian Escherichia coli isolated from broilers in Iran［J］. Microbial Drug Resistance， 2022， 28（2）： 244-254.
[27]	SINGH R， RAY P， DAS A， et al. Penetration of antibiotics through Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms［J］. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy， 2010， 65（9）： 1955-1958.
[28]	REYGAERT W C. An overview of the antimicrobial resistance mechanisms of bacteria［J］. American Institute of Mathematical Sciences Microbiology， 2018， 4（3）： 482-501.
[29]	MLYNARCZYK-BONIKOWSKA B， KOWALEWSKI C， KROLAK-ULINSKA A， et al. Molecular mechanisms of drug resistance in Staphylococcus aureus ［J］. International Journal of Molecular Sciences， 2022， 23（15）： 8088.
[30]	张行，杨峰，李新圃，等. 牛源耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌耐药性与外排泵相关基因的检测及相关性研究［J］. 畜牧兽医学报， 2019， 50（11）： 2326-2332.
	ZHANG X， YANG F， LI X P， et al. Study on relationship between antimicrobial resistance and efflux pump related genes of methicillin-resistance Staphylococcus aureus in dairy cow［J］ Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica， 2019， 50（11）： 2326-2332. （in Chinese）
[31]	HASSANZADEH S， GANJLOO S， POURMAND M R， et al. Epidemiology of efflux pumps genes mediating resistance among Staphylococcus aureus； A systematic review［J］. Microbial Pathogenesis， 2020， 139： 103850.

抗菌药物 Antimicrobials	MIC判读标准 MIC interpretive criteria			MIC
抗菌药物 Antimicrobials	S	I	R	N315 WT	N315ΔicaB
青霉素 PEN	≤0.12	－	≥0.25	12	8
苯唑西林 OXA	≤2	－	≥4	128	96
头孢西丁 FOX	≤4	－	≥8	64	64
庆大霉 GEN	≤4	8	≥16	1	0.5
氯霉素 CHL	≤8	16	≥32	40	40
四环素 TET	≤4	8	≥16	0.5	0.5
环丙沙星 CIP	≤1	2	≥4	0.75	0.5
万古霉素 VAN	≤2	4~8	≥16	0.38	0.38
利奈唑胺 LZD	≤4	－	≥8	6	6
呋喃妥因 NIT	≤32	64	≥128	24	16
甲氨苄啶-磺胺甲噁唑 COT	≤2/38	－	≥4/76	0.094	0.094
红霉素 ERM	≤0.5	1~4	≥8	>256	>256