| Literature DB >> 27393769 |
Adrián Martínez-Meléndez1, Rayo Morfín-Otero2, Licet Villarreal-Treviño1, Adrián Camacho-Ortíz3, Gloria González-González4, Jorge Llaca-Díaz5, Eduardo Rodríguez-Noriega6, Elvira Garza-González7.
Abstract
The mechanisms contributing to persistence of coagulase-negative staphylococci are diverse; to better understanding of their dynamics, the characterization of nosocomial isolates is needed. Our aim was to characterize phenotypic and molecular characteristics of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus haemolyticus human blood isolates from two tertiary care hospitals in Mexico, the Hospital Universitario in Monterrey and the Hospital Civil in Guadalajara. Antimicrobial susceptibility was determined. Biofilm formation was assessed by crystal violet staining. Detection of the ica operon and Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome mec typing were performed by PCR. Clonal relatedness was determined by Pulsed-fiel gel electrophoresis and Multi locus sequence typing. Methicillin-resistance was 85.5% and 93.2% for S. epidermidis and S. haemolyticus, respectively. Both species showed resistance >70% to norfloxacin, clindamycin, levofloxacin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and erythromycin. Three S. epidermidis and two S. haemolyticus isolates were linezolid-resistant (one isolate of each species was cfr+). Most isolates of both species were strong biofilm producers (92.8% of S. epidermidis and 72.9% of S. haemolyticus). The ica operon was amplified in 36 (43.4%) S. epidermidis isolates. SCCmec type IV was found in 47.2% of the S. epidermidis isolates and SCCmec type V in 14.5% of S. haemolyticus isolates. No clonal relatedness was found in either species. Resistance to clindamycin, levofloxacin, erythromycin, oxacillin, and cefoxitin was associated with biofilm production for both species (p<0.05). A G2576T mutation in 23S rRNA gene was detected in an S. haemolyticus linezolid-resistant isolate. All linezolid-resistant S. epidermidis isolates belonged to ST23; isolate with SCCmec type IV belonged to ST7, and isolate with SCCmec type III belonged to ST2. This is the first report of ST7 in Mexico. There was a high genetic diversity in both species, though both species shared characteristics that may contibute to virulence.Entities:
Keywords: Coagulase-negative staphylococci; Linezolid resistance; Multilocus Sequence Typing; Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome mec
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27393769 PMCID: PMC9425499 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2016.05.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Infect Dis ISSN: 1413-8670 Impact factor: 3.257
Antimicrobial susceptibility of S. epidermidis and S. haemolyticus isolates.
| Antimicrobial | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC50 | MIC90 | Resistant | Susceptible | MIC50 | MIC90 | Resistant | Susceptible | |
| Oxacillin | >0.5 | >0.5 | 72 (86.7) | 11 (13.3) | >0.5 | >0.5 | 55 (93.2) | 4 (6.8) |
| Vancomycin | 2 | 4 | 0 (0) | 83 (100) | 2 | 2 | 0 (0) | 59 (100) |
| Erythromycin | >4 | >4 | 66 (79.5) | 16 (19.3) | >4 | >4 | 53 (89.8) | 6 (10.2) |
| Tetracycline | ≤2 | >8 | 10 (12) | 71 (85.6) | ≤2 | >8 | 13 (22.0) | 44 (74.6) |
| Levofloxacin | >2 | >2 | 62 (74.7) | 18 (21.7) | >2 | >2 | 54 (91.5) | 4 (6.8) |
| Norfloxacin | >8 | >8 | 64 (77.1) | 18 (21.7) | >8 | >8 | 53 (89.8) | 6 (10.2) |
| Clindamycin | >2 | >2 | 68 (81.9) | 12 (14.5) | >2 | >2 | 53 (89.8) | 5 (8.5) |
| Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole | >2/38 | >2/38 | 60 (72.3) | 23 (27.7) | >2/38 | >2/38 | 45 (76.3) | 14 (23.7) |
| Linezolid | ≤2 | 4 | 3 (3.6) | 80 (96.4) | ≤2 | ≤2 | 2 (3.4) | 57 (96.6) |
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ranges, MIC50 and MIC90 were determined using the broth microdilution method. Panels from Sensititre (TEK Diagnostic Systems Inc.) were used according to the manufacturer's instructions.
MIC50, minimal inhibitory concentration for 50% of the isolates.
MIC90, minimum inhibitory concentration for 90% of the isolates.
SCCmec typing, susceptibility profile and biofilm production of linezolid-resistant isolates.
| Isolate | Species | SCC | Susceptibility profile | Linezolid resistance | Biofilm production | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FOX | OX | TET | MIC (μg/mL) | Glucose | NaCl | |||||||
| 14583 | + | A | 3 + 5 | R | R | S | 8 | Negative | Strong | Strong | Negative | |
| 14565 | + | A | 3 + 5 | R | R | I | >32 | Positive | Strong | Strong | Positive | |
| 12701 | + | A | 3 | R | R | S | 8 | Negative | Strong | Strong | Positive | |
| 9976 | − | NA | NA | S | S | S | 8 | Positive | NP | NP | Negative | |
| 2975 | + | NT | NT | R | R | R | 32 | Negative | Strong | NP | Negative | |
NA, not applicable; NT, not typable; FOX, cefoxitin; OX, oxacillin; TET, tetracycline; MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration; NP, non-producer.
Methicillin-resistance was evaluated using the cefoxitin disk test, minimum inhibitory concentration was determined using the broth microdilution method. Biofilm formation was assessed by crystal violet staining. Amplification of the ica operon, mecA and SCCmec typing were performed by multiplex PCR.
All isolates were resistant to norfloxacin, clindamycin, levofloxacin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and erythromycin. All isolates were susceptible to vancomycin.
Mutation G2576T was found in isolate 2975.
SCCmec typing, resistance profile, and biofilm production of S. epidermidis isolates.
| No. of isolates | SCC | Resistance profile | Biofilm production | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCC | NOR | CLI | TET | LEV | LZD | SXT | ERY | Glucose | NaCl | |||
| 34 | B | 2 | IV | 30 (88) | 30 (88) | 3 (8.8) | 30 (88) | 0 (0) | 25 (74) | 30 (88) | 33 (97) | 30 (88) |
| 5 | A | 3 | III | 5 (100) | 4 (80) | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 1 (20) | 4 (80) | 4 (80) | 5 (100) | 4 (80) |
| 3 | A | 1 | New | 3 (100) | 3 (100) | 2 (67) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 (67) | 3 (100) | 3 (100) | 2 (67) |
| 1 | A | 5 | New | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) |
| 1 | A | 1 + 2 | Variant | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) |
| 5 | B | 1 + 2 | Variant | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 1 (20) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 4 (80) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 4 (80) |
| 1 | A | 2 + 3 | Variant | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) |
| 7 | A | 3 + 5 | Variant | 7 (100) | 7 (100) | 1 (14) | 7 (100) | 2 (29) | 7 (100) | 7 (100) | 7 (100) | 7 (100) |
| 5 | B | 2 + 5 | Variant | 3 (60) | 5 (100) | 1 (20) | 2 (40) | 0 (0) | 3 (60) | 4 (80) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) |
| 2 | A | 2 + 4 | Variant | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) |
| 1 | A | 3 + 4 | Variant | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) |
| 1 | B | 2 + 4 | Variant | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) |
| 2 | A | 1 + 4 + 5 | Variant | 0 (0) | 2 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 1 (50) |
| 1 | NT | 2 + 5 | NT | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) |
| 1 | NT | 2 | NT | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) |
| 2 | A | NT | NT | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 1 (50) | 1 (50) | 0 (0) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) |
NT, not typeable; CLI, clindamycin; TET, tetracycline; LEV, levofloxacin; LZD, linezolid; SXT, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; ERY, erythromycin.
Methicillin-resistance was evaluated using the cefoxitin disk test, minimum inhibitory concentration was determined using the broth microdilution method. Biofilm formation was assessed by crystal violet staining. Amplification of the ica operon and SCCmec typing were performed by multiplex PCR.
All isolates were resistant to cefoxitin and oxacillin. All isolates were susceptible to vancomycin.
Strong producers.
SCCmec typing, resistance profile, and biofilm production of S. haemolyticus isolates.
| No. of isolates | SCC | Resistance profile | Biofilm production | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCC | CLI | TET | LZD | ERY | Glucose | NaCl | |||
| 8 | C2 | 5 | V | 7 (88) | 3 (38) | 0 (0) | 7 (88) | 7 (88) | 4 (50) |
| 1 | C2 | 1 + 2 + 5 | Variant | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) |
| 3 | C2 | 1 + 4 + 5 | Variant | 3 (100) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 3 (100) | 3 (100) | 2 (67) |
| 12 | NT | 4 | NT | 10 (83) | 3 (25) | 0 (0) | 11 (92) | 8 (67) | 5 (42) |
| 1 | NT | 5 | NT | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) |
| 30 | NT | NT | NT | 30 (100) | 3 (10) | 1 (3) | 30 (100) | 23 (77) | 18 (60) |
NT, not typeable; CLI, clindamycin; TET, tetracycline; LZD, linezolid; ERY, erythromycin.
Methicillin-resistance was evaluated using the cefoxitin disk test, minimum inhibitory concentration was determined using the broth microdilution method. Biofilm formation was evaluated by crystal violet staining. Amplification of the ica operon and SCCmec typing were performed by multiplex PCR.
All isolates were resistant to cefoxitin, oxacillin, norfloxacin, levofloxacin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. All isolates were susceptible to vancomycin.
Strong producers.
Fig. 1Dendrogram of S. epidermidis isolates.
Fig. 2Dendrogram of S. haemolyticus isolates.