Background:AmpC type β-lactamases are commonly isolated from extended-spectrum Cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Also, resistance appeared in bacterial species not naturally producing AmpC enzymes. Therefore, a standard test for the detection of the plasmid-mediated AmpC enzyme and new breakpoints for extended spectrum Cephalosporins are urgently necessary.Objectives:To detect plasmid and chromosomal mediated AmpC-β-lactamases in Gram negative bacteria in community and hospital acquired infections.Materials and Methods:1073 Gram negative clinical isolates were identified by the conventional methods and were screened for AmpC production using Cefoxitin discs. Confirmatory phenotypic identifications were done for the Cefoxitin-resistant isolates using Boronic Acid for combined and double disc synergy tests, Cloxacillin based double disc synergy test, and induction tests. The genotypic identification of plasmid-mediated AmpC was done using multiplex PCR. ESBL production was also screened by discs of Ceftazidime and Cefotaxime with and without Clavulanic Acid (10 μg).Results:The AmpC-producing isolates among all identified Gram negative bacilli were 5.8% (62/1073) as detected by screening disc diffusion methods, where 72% were positive for AmpC by combined disc method (Cefotetan and Boronic Acid), 56.5% were positive by each of Boronic Acid and Cloxacillin double disc synergy tests, 35.5% were positive by the induction test, and 25.8% were plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamase producers by the multiplex PCR. Plasmid-mediated AmpC genes retrieved, belonged to the families (MOX, FOX, EBC and CIT). ESBL producers were found in 26 (41.9%) isolates, 15 (57%) of which also produced AmpC. Isolates caused hospital acquired infections were (53/62); of which (39/62) were AmpC producers. While only (8/62) of the isolates caused community-acquired infections, were AmpC producers, and (1.6%) (1/62) were non AmpC producer.Conclusions:The AmpC β-lactamases detection tests had to be included in the routine microbiology workup of Gram negative bacteria, namely Cefoxitin as a screening test, combined Boronic Acid disc test with Cefotetan, followed by synergy tests and finally by the induction test for phenotypic identifications. Multiplex PCR can successfully detect the plasmid AmpC genes.

Regarding rs3853839, there was a statistically significant difference in the distribution of the genotypes between SLE patients and the control group in our study (P = 0.009). A significant association was detected between TLR7 genotypes (rs385389) and lupus nephritis (p = 0.021). Regarding rs179019, there was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of the genotypes between SLE patients and the control group in our study (P = 0.271) CONCLUSION: This study revealed the plausible role of TLR7 rs3853839 SNP in SLE in Egyptian women.

Nucleic acid and antibody detection assays have been utilized in COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis. However, the use of viral antigenic proteins for diagnosis has not been successfully developed. Using viral antigen allows rapid direct viral detection earlier than production of antibodies. The present study was aimed at evaluating the performance of two COVID-19 rapid antigen detection tests, which are BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag (RapiGEN Inc., Korea) and Standard Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor, Korea), in comparison with RT-PCR. These tests were performed on 80 COVID-19 RT-PCR positive respiratory samples and 20 RT-PCR negative control samples. BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag and SD Biosensor RAD kits recorded total sensitivities of 52.5% and 68.7% and specificities of 46% and 96%, respectively. In high viral load samples, BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag and SD Biosensor RAD kits recorded higher sensitivities of 60% and 77%, compared to 45% and 60% in normal viral load samples, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the 2 antigen kits varied significantly with P values of <0.000001 and 0.0135, respectively. The evaluated RAD tests presented promising performance which was relatively better for SD-Biosensor than BIOCREDIT RAD tests, especially in high viral load samples. However, antigen tests are still considered substandard in comparison with RT-PCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2.