The aim of this work was to assess the prevalence of extended spectrum-β-lactamase (ESBL)- and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in fecal samples recovered from rural and urban healthy dogs in Northwest Spain (Galicia) to identify potential high-risk clones and to molecularly characterize positive isolates regarding the genes coding for ESBL/pAmpC resistance and virulence. Thirty-five (19.6%) out of 179 dogs were positive for cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, including Escherichiacoli and Klebsiella pneumoniae (39 and three isolates, respectively). All the isolates were multidrug resistant, with high rates of resistance to different drugs, including ciprofloxacin (71.4%). A wide diversity of ESBL/pAmpC enzymes, as well as E. coli phylogroups (A, B1, C, D, E, F and clade I) were found. The eight isolates (20.5%) found to conform to the ExPEC status, belonged to clones O1:H45-clade I-ST770 (CH11-552), O18:H11-A-ST93-CC168 (CH11-neg), O23:H16-B1-ST453-CC86 (CH6-31), and O83:H42-F-ST1485-CC648 (CH231-58), with the latter also complying the uropathogenic (UPEC) status. The three K. pneumoniae recovered produced CTX-M-15 and belonged to the ST307, a clone previously reported in human clinical isolates. Our study highlights the potential role of both rural and urban dogs as a reservoir of high-risk Enterobacteriaceae clones, such as the CC648 of E. coli and antimicrobial resistance traits. Within a One-Health approach, their surveillance should be a priority in the fight against antimicrobial resistance.

Purpose: Among the methods used to diagnose COVID-19, those based on genomic detection by q(RT)-PCR are the most sensitive. To perform these assays, a previous genome extraction of the sample is required. The dramatic increase in the number of SARS-CoV-2 detection assays has increased the demand for extraction reagents hindering the supply of commercial reagents. Homemade reagents and procedures could be an alternative. Methods: Nasopharyngeal samples were extracted by seven different methods as well as the automatic method MagNaPure96, to detect SARS-CoV-2. Results: All protocols show sensitivity higher than 87%, in comparison with reference method, for detecting SARS-CoV-2 as well as human β- globin. Conclusions: Our results support that these procedures, using common and cheap reagents, are effective to extract RNA (from SARS-CoV-2) or DNA (from human β-globin) genome from nasopharyngeal swabs. Furthermore, these procedures could be easily adopted by routine diagnostic laboratories to implement detection methods to help to fight against COVID-19 pandemic.

Patient: Male, 23 monthsFinal Diagnosis: Peripheral facial paralysis associated with Epstein-Barr virus infectionSymptoms: Facial paralysisMedication: —Clinical Procedure: Microbiology diagnosisSpecialty: Infectious DiseasesObjective:Rare diseaseBackground:Peripheral facial paralysis is a clinical presentation which, in most cases, is benign. It is relatively frequent, although less so in pediatric patients, where clinical diagnosis is more difficult. This clinical condition can be congenital, neurological, infectious, neoplastic, traumatic, or metabolic in origin.Case Report:This report describes the case of a male infant of 23 months of age with peripheral facial paralysis due to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) upper respiratory infection. A hemogram showed the presence of leukocytosis and lymphocytosis, and a peripheral blood smear indicated the presence of stimulated lymphocytes. Serological tests were compatible with recent EBV infection: IgM anti-VCA (capsid antigen) was positive, while IgG anti-VCA and anti-EBNA (nuclear antigen) were negative. EBV genome was detected in pharyngeal swab and in serum, where viral load was 5.08 log copies/1000 cells and 3.72 log copies/mL, respectively.Conclusions:Whilst the most common cause of facial paralysis is idiopathic paralysis, such problems of the facial nerve may have many origins, including an infectious nature such as infection with viral agents. Rapid determination of the etiology of the problem allows the most appropriate management of the condition and quick follow-up to be implemented, which is essential for the evaluation of treatment response and the avoidance of permanent consequences.

Among the methods used to diagnose COVID-19, those based on genomic detection by q(RT)-PCR are the most sensitive. To perform these assays, a previous genome extraction of the sample is required. The dramatic increase in the number of SARS-CoV-2 detection assays has increased the demand for extraction reagents hindering the supply of commercial reagents. Homemade reagents and procedures could be an alternative. Methods: Nasopharyngeal samples were extracted by seven different methods as well as the automatic method MagNaPure96, to detect SARS-CoV-2. Results: All protocols show sensitivity higher than 87%, in comparison with reference method, for detecting SARS-CoV-2 as well as human βglobin. Conclusions: Our results support that these procedures, using common and cheap reagents, are effective to extract RNA (from SARS-CoV-2) or DNA (from human βglobin) genome from nasopharyngeal swabs. Furthermore, these procedures could be easily adopted by routine diagnostic laboratories to implement detection methods to help to fight against COVID-19 pandemic.