In the present study, the isolates were identified by multiplex PCR with species-specific primers for
E. faecalis and
E. faecium. Out of 187 isolates, 30 (25.2%) and 10 (14.7%) were identified to be
E. faecalis in urine and stool samples, respectively, whereas eight (6.7%) isolates from stool samples and 32 (47%) isolates from urine samples were identified as
E. faecium. In a study, out of 280 enterococcal isolates, 175 isolates were identified as
E. faecalis, 67 as
E. faecium, and 38 as
Enterococcus spp. (
23). In another study, the prevalence of
E. faecalis and
E. faecium isolates were reported 76% and 55.5%, respectively (
24).
Manero and Blanch (
25) applied 94 different biochemical tests with referenced
Enterococcus cultures and 82 clinical isolates, and 76 of these tests could be used to identify
Enterococcus species and 12 of them (D-raffinose, L-arabinose, sorbose, ribose, methyl-α-D-glucopyranoside, mannitol, arginine, sucrose, pyrrolidinyl aminopeptidase, α-galactose, yellow pigment production, and alkaline phosphate) could be used safely for the identification of
Enterococcus strains based on species.
Facklam and Collins (
26) stated that three different biotypes were identified according to biochemical features of 206 cultures identified as
Enterococcus spp. previously; besides, nine different biotype profiles identified by API-20 kits were reported in their study. Pelicioli Riboldi et al. (
27) also identified eight different biotypes in 55
Enterococcus strains. In the current study, 3 biotype profiles were identified in
E. faecalis strains and 4 biotype profiles were identified in
E. faecium strains according to biochemical characteristics of isolates. Out of 40
E. faecalis strains, 72.5% of them were identified as biotype I, 12.5% as biotype II and 15% as biotype III, while 10% of
E. faecium strains identified as biotype I, 12.5% biotype II, 27.5% were biotype III and 50% were biotype IV. It was observed that the findings of the study are different from the other studies that unlike one another.
The development of multiple antimicrobial resistance worldwide has begun to cause serious problems, especially by nosocomial
Enterococcus strains (
28-
31). The development of resistance to antibiotics occurs by the acquisition of plasmids or transposons containing resistance genes or by mutations. Despite many studies conducted on antibiotic resistance of
Enterococcus species, studies on pathogenicity mechanisms and virulence factors have been inadequate (
32).
The antibiotic resistance mechanisms in enterococci can be explained in two ways. Intrinsic resistance is inherently encoded in chromosomes in most or all types of enterococci. The observed structural resistance mechanisms for some antibiotics are typically specific to some types of
Enterococcus species. Acquired resistance is more variable than intrinsic resistance. Enterococci are able to develop resistance to many antibiotics by means of plasmids or transposons, by this way, tetracyclines have become resistant to macrolides, lincosamides, and chloramphenicol. They show a high level of aminoglycoside resistance with a large number of different aminoglycosides by modifying enzymes. In addition to all these, the resulting plasmid- based beta-lactam resistance is another problem (
1,
5,
28,
33).
In the studies investigating the resistance of
E. faecalis strains to antimicrobial agents isolated from various clinical samples, Berzeg et al. (
34) found that
E. faecalis strains were resistant to imipenem while they were resistant to penicillin at 4%, ciprofloxacin at 8%, rifampicin at 40%, and gentamicin at 8%. Aktepe et al. (
35) reported that
E. faecalis strains were resistant to imipenem at 51.9%. Aral et al. (
36) stated that 27% of
E. faecalis strains were resistant to ciprofloxacin, 16% to gentamicin, 56% to erythromycin, and all were resistant to clindamycin and SXT while they were sensitive to imipenem. Iraz et al. (
37) reported that
E. faecalis strains were resistant to vancomycin at 4%, ciprofloxacin at 47%, and gentamicin at 42%. Altun et al. (
38) observed that 16% of
E. faecalis strains were resistant to penicillin and 44% to gentamicin, while all were susceptible to vancomycin. Güçkan et al. (
39) detected that
E. faecalis strains were resistant to ciprofloxacin at 50%, gentamycin at 44%, tetracycline at 68%, clindamycin at 95%, and SXT at 100%. Barisic and Punda Polic (
40) found aminoglycoside resistance in 37% of
E. faecalis isolates from hospitalized patients. In another study involving 27 European countries, gentamicin resistance was 20%, vancomycin at 0.03%, erythromycin at 47%, imipenem at 1%, and ciprofloxacin resistance was found to be present in 6% of
E. faecalis strains (
41).
In this study, all the examined
E. faecalis isolates were found to be susceptible to penicillin, rifampicin, imipenem, and vancomycin, while 42.5% were resistant to erythromycin, 32.5% to gentamicin, 77.5% to tetracycline, 17.5% to ciprofloxacin, 95% to clindamycin, and 77.5% to SXT. In studies conducted on
E. faecium, Berzeg et al. (
34) reported that the examined
E. faecium types isolated from clinical samples were resistant to penicillin at 68%, imipenem at 27%, and ciprofloxacin, rifampicin, and gentamicin at 68%. Aktepe et al. (
35) found that 70% of the strains were resistant to imipenem. Aral et al. (
36) stated that 94% of the isolates were resistant to imipenem, 69% to ciprofloxacin, 60% to gentamicin, 99% to clindamycin, and all were resistant to erythromycin and SXT. Iraz et al. (
37) reported that 23% of the isolates were resistant to vancomycin, 84% to ciprofloxacin, and 69% to gentamicin. Altun et al. (
38) expressed that the resistance rates of the studied cultures were 83% to penicillin, 16.1% to vancomycin, and 71% to gentamicin. Güçkan et al. (
39) determined resistance to ciprofloxacin at 44%, gentamicin at 40%, tetracycline at 60%, clindamycin at 89%, and SXT at 98%. In another study involving 27 European countries, gentamicin resistance was 22,5%, vancomycin at 2,9%, erythromycin at 74%, imipenem at 41%, and ciprofloxacin resistance was found to be present in 33% of
E. faecium strains (
41).
In this study, 32.5% of the examined E. faecium strains were resistant to penicillin, 27.5% to erythromycin, 15% to gentamicin, 17.5% to tetracycline, 7.5% to rifampicin, 27.5% to imipenem, 5% to vancomycin, 20% to ciprofloxacin, 37.5% to clindamycin, and 17.5% to SXT. As observed in the studies, enterococci have gradually increased resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics as a result of unconscious and long-term irregular use. Besides, E. faecium strains were found to have a low resistance to tetracycline, while E. faecalis strains were found to be highly resistant. On the other hand, the rates of resistance to imipenem, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, clindamycin, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole were lower than the rates in isolates from other regions. The high efficacy of these agents shows that it is still possible to use them in this region.
5.1. Conclusions
Based on this study, the isolation rates of E. faecalis and E. faecium strains were found to be lower in Van located in eastern Turkey than in other regions. Due to the phenotypic changes in Enterococcus species, the identification reliability of epidemiological studies by PCR-based techniques was found to be relatively high. The biochemical identification of enterococci did not give reliable results, and the rate of false negativity was significant. Because of the diversity of field strains, knowing the biotype profiles could contribute significantly to the reduction of the false identification rate. Resistance rates of E. faecium and E. faecalis to antimicrobial agents were updated in the region.