| Literature DB >> 25821977 |
Mathias Bäumlisberger1, Loubna Youssar1, Markus B Schilhabel2, Daniel Jonas1.
Abstract
The global widespread use of antimicrobials and accompanying increase in resistant bacterial strains is of major public health concern. Wastewater systems and wastewater treatment plants are considered a niche for antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), with diverse microbial communities facilitating ARG transfer via mobile genetic element (MGE). In contrast to hospital sewage, wastewater from other health care facilities is still poorly investigated. At the instance of a nursing home located in south-west Germany, in the present study, shotgun metagenomics was used to investigate the impact on wastewater of samples collected up- and down-stream in different seasons. Microbial composition, ARGs and MGEs were analyzed using different annotation approaches with various databases, including Antibiotic Resistance Ontologies (ARO), integrons and plasmids. Our analysis identified seasonal differences in microbial communities and abundance of ARG and MGE between samples from different seasons. However, no obvious differences were detected between up- and downstream samples. The results suggest that, in contrast to hospitals, sewage from the nursing home does not have a major impact on ARG or MGE in wastewater, presumably due to much less intense antimicrobial usage. Possible limitations of metagenomic studies using high-throughput sequencing for detection of genes that seemingly confer antibiotic resistance are discussed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25821977 PMCID: PMC4379178 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122635
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Alphabetically ordered functional gene categories in the wastewater samples (MG-RAST SEED Level 1 Distribution).
| Functional gene category | Percentage of assigned sequences | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1754 | C1756 | C1755 | C1757 | |
|
| 8.35% | 8.14% | 8.94% | 8.87% |
|
| 11.74% | 12.21% | 10.01% | 10.37% |
|
| 1.73% | 1.78% | 1.51% | 1.55% |
|
| 3.54% | 3.54% | 3.43% | 3.51% |
|
| 15.81% | 16.19% | 14.66% | 14.88% |
|
| 5.90% | 5.82% | 6.70% | 6.49% |
|
| 5.26% | 5.37% | 4.68% | 4.79% |
|
| 0.46% | 0.43% | 0.23% | 0.28% |
|
| 2.42% | 2.39% | 3.08% | 2.92% |
|
| 0.66% | 0.60% | 0.65% | 0.66% |
|
| 3.09% | 3.25% | 3.36% | 3.35% |
|
| 0.97% | 0.89% | 1.95% | 1.76% |
|
| 7.78% | 8.11% | 7.86% | 7.82% |
|
| 0.64% | 0.59% | 1.04% | 0.94% |
|
| 1.22% | 1.14% | 1.85% | 1.73% |
|
| 3.44% | 3.59% | 3.05% | 3.16% |
|
| 2.29% | 1.86% | 1.79% | 1.73% |
|
| 0.72% | 0.76% | 0.78% | 0.79% |
|
| 0.05% | 0.04% | 0.08% | 0.08% |
|
| 0.34% | 0.33% | 0.41% | 0.41% |
|
| 9.04% | 8.99% | 7.93% | 8.22% |
|
| 1.30% | 1.32% | 1.52% | 1.51% |
|
| 2.36% | 2.12% | 3.04% | 2.89% |
|
| 4.59% | 4.46% | 4.14% | 4.24% |
|
| 0.32% | 0.36% | 0.31% | 0.32% |
|
| 2.10% | 2.03% | 2.62% | 2.55% |
|
| 1.14% | 1.13% | 1.00% | 0.99% |
|
| 2.73% | 2.56% | 3.38% | 3.20% |
Fig 1Phylogenetic compositions of the bacteria domain in the samples.
Relative abundance of VDD and RATC genes (≥1%) in the samples.
| Subsystems | C1754 | C1756 | C1755 | C1757 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.73 | 2.56 | 3.38 | 3.20 |
|
| 68.22 | 64.98 | 71.29 | 70.33 |
|
| ||||
|
| 22.61 | 24.78 | 13.48 | 14.97 |
|
| 14.67 | 12.00 | 13.18 | 13.70 |
|
| 14.24 | 14.14 | 18.11 | 16.90 |
|
| 12.00 | 12.81 | 12.26 | 11.67 |
|
| 10.07 | 7.85 | 18.29 | 16.51 |
|
| 5.71 | 6.55 | 3.68 | 4.04 |
|
| 3.56 | 3.29 | 2.89 | 3.17 |
|
| 2.78 | 1.93 | 4.67 | 4.89 |
|
| 1.95 | 1.96 | 0.19 | 0.41 |
|
| 1.81 | 2.05 | 1.14 | 1.14 |
|
| 1.77 | 1.72 | 2.06 | 2.10 |
|
| 1.46 | 1.76 | 1.91 | 1.98 |
|
| 1.39 | 1.42 | 0.52 | 0.74 |
|
| 1.32 | 1.77 | 0.43 | 0.58 |
|
| 1.07 | 0.88 | 2.47 | 2.46 |
|
| 0.82 | 1.42 | 0.19 | 0.20 |
|
| 0.97 | 1.27 | 1.89 | 1.73 |
|
| 0.78 | 1.13 | 1.40 | 1.30 |
a)Legend: (RATC ≥1%).
Fig 2Abundance and diversity of annotated reads.
Abundance (left) and diversity (right) of reads annotated against CARD are depicted. The hits were normalized against the total number of reads in each sample after QC-filtering.
Distribution of RRG-groups in the samples.
| RRG groups | C1754 [ppm] | C1756 [ppm] | C1755 [ppm] | C1757 [ppm] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 203.2 | 155.9 | 243.4 | 245.1 |
|
| 70.3 | 86.1 | 87.0 | 136.3 |
|
| 58.8 | 45.6 | 102.5 | 102.7 |
|
| 94.2 | 123.5 | 37.4 | 58 |
|
| 43.7 | 42.6 | 64.8 | 56.7 |
|
| 27.7 | 25.3 | 50.6 | 45.1 |
|
| 11.6 | 14.4 | 24.7 | 29.4 |
|
| 7.6 | 8.7 | 17.6 | 19.3 |
|
| 1.5 | 3.3 | 2.1 | 6.8 |
|
| 2.0 | 1.3 | 4.2 | 4.1 |
|
| 5.7 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 2.7 |
|
| 0.6 | 0.7 | 4.2 | 3.8 |
The number of hits against the CARD in each RRG-group is presented as hits per million reads (ppm).
Fig 3Abundance of the 12 most frequent ARGs types with the highest blast hits number (Relative abundance in any sample ≥10 ppm).
Fig 4Relative abundance of integronase genes (A) and plasmids (B).