3.eight ) and different wound culture isolates (49 isolates; 22.eight ). Throughout the similar period, only
three.eight ) and various wound culture isolates (49 isolates; 22.8 ). Throughout the similar period, only one particular other Serratia species, S. liquefaciens, was isolated from a human specimen at my facility (unpublished data). My hospital is in Pierce County, WA, and in 2009 S. YYA-021 marcescens was the eighth most frequently reported Gramnegative rod from Pierce County hospitals (unpublished data). A big, nationwide survey from Poland from November 2003 to January 2004 revealed that S. marcescens was 
the fifth most commonly recovered organism on the Enterobacteriaceae household, representing 4 of all Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates (22). A nationwide survey from Japan from January 2008 to June 2008 showed that S. marcescens caused 6.four of urinary tract infections; S. marcescens was the fifth most typical lead to of urinary tract infections in that study (94). Within the literature, there has been an extremely huge number of reported hospitalrelated S. marcescens outbreaks since the 950s ( 200). For the reason that you’ll find a lot of described hospitalassociated outbreaks, it truly is typically assumed that infections brought on by S. marcescens are mainly nosocomial in origin. Not too long ago, even so, Laupland and others carried out an substantial survey of Serratia infections in Canada and discovered that 65 of all infections PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17713818 triggered by Serratia species have been neighborhood primarily based. Within this report, S. marcescens was one of the most frequently isolated species, accounting for 92 of all isolated Serratia species (233). The literature, nonetheless, is dominated by outbreaks and opportunistic infections caused by S. marcescens. Moreover, S. marcescens is an ocular pathogen of note, and not often in hospitalized or immunocompromised individuals. Historical evaluation of infections brought on by S. marcescens (900 to 960). Because of the taxonomic confusion that has existed more than the years for members with the genus Serratia, and due to the fact S. marcescens just isn’t normally pigmented, reviewing early literature for references of S. marcescens infections in humans is somewhat difficult. Most of the papers that describe probable S. marcescens infections of humans in the first 60 years from the 20th century attribute the infections to Chromobacterium prodigiosum, and in some cases, the authors themselves have questioned the identity in the recovered redpigmentedorganism (72, 302). Part of this confusion is often attributed to early descriptions of the socalled “chromobacteria group.” The chromobacteria were classified as three diverse bacteria based on their ability to form pigment; hence, “Chromobacterium prodigiosum” produced pink or red colonies, Chromobacterium violaceum created a violet pigment, and “Chromobacterium aquatilis” created yellow or orange colonies (407). In addition, biochemical identification of bacteria in the time was not as sophisticated as modern day solutions, and molecular solutions to resolve discrepancies weren’t readily available. Hence, the identity with the causative agent in a few of the earlier references to S. marcescens human infections might be questioned. Even so, these early situations are informative when viewed collectively and show a framework of your pathogenic prospective of this organism, particularly with regard towards the capability to cause nosocomial infections or infections in immunocompromised sufferers. Table two summarizes reported, probable S. marcescens cases from 900 to 960. The initial probable case of reported incidence of human infection by S. marcescens was the isolation of a redpigmented organism, named Bacterium prodigiosum, from the sput.