Sebastian Guenther1, Torsten Semmler2, Annegret Stubbe3, Michael Stubbe3, Lothar H Wieler2, Katharina Schaufler1. 1. Centre for Infection Medicine, Institute of Microbiology and Epizootics, Freie Universität Berlin, Robert-von-Ostertag-Str. 7-13, 14163 Berlin, Germany. 2. Robert Koch-Institute, Nordufer 20, 13353 Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Zoology, Institute of Biology, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Hoher Weg 8, 06120 Halle, Germany.
Abstract
Objectives: ESBL genes in Escherichia coli are mainly plasmid encoded, although recent studies have also shown chromosomal integration, e.g. in clinical E. coli isolates of ST38. As ESBL-producing E. coli are also found in non-clinical settings, we were interested in determining whether chromosomally integrated ESBL genes occur in ST38 isolates from non-clinical habitats, e.g. wildlife. Methods: Four ESBL-producing E. coli isolates of ST38 originating from Mongolian birds of prey sampled in 2015 were subjected to a detailed analysis in terms of phenotypic resistance, plasmid profiling and WGS, followed by the determination of genotypic resistance factors including the chromosomal integration of ESBL and carbapenemase genes. Results: Results based on phenotypic and genotypic plasmid profiling, contiguous sequence (contig) sizes and PCR analysis of flanking insertion site regions showed that three of four ST38 isolates harboured chromosomally encoded bla CTX-M genes of three different types ( bla CTX-M-14 , bla CTX-M-15 and bla CTX-M-24 ) that were inserted into three different chromosomal locations. A comparison of WGS data with ST38 isolates from a clinical outbreak in the UK indicated only low numbers of core-genome SNPs detected among one Mongolian wild bird isolate and eight clinical isolates from the UK. Conclusions: The chromosomal integration of bla CTX-M genes in E. coli isolates of ST38 appears to be common and is likely independent of antimicrobial selective pressure in clinical environments. Our data corroborate the zoonotic potential of environmental isolates of ESBL-producing E. coli , which harbour stably integrated, chromosomally encoded resistance factors.
Objectives:ESBL genes in Escherichia coli are mainly plasmid encoded, although recent studies have also shown chromosomal integration, e.g. in clinical E. coli isolates of ST38. As ESBL-producing E. coli are also found in non-clinical settings, we were interested in determining whether chromosomally integrated ESBL genes occur in ST38 isolates from non-clinical habitats, e.g. wildlife. Methods: Four ESBL-producing E. coli isolates of ST38 originating from Mongolian birds of prey sampled in 2015 were subjected to a detailed analysis in terms of phenotypic resistance, plasmid profiling and WGS, followed by the determination of genotypic resistance factors including the chromosomal integration of ESBL and carbapenemase genes. Results: Results based on phenotypic and genotypic plasmid profiling, contiguous sequence (contig) sizes and PCR analysis of flanking insertion site regions showed that three of four ST38 isolates harboured chromosomally encoded bla CTX-M genes of three different types ( bla CTX-M-14 , bla CTX-M-15 and bla CTX-M-24 ) that were inserted into three different chromosomal locations. A comparison of WGS data with ST38 isolates from a clinical outbreak in the UK indicated only low numbers of core-genome SNPs detected among one Mongolian wild bird isolate and eight clinical isolates from the UK. Conclusions: The chromosomal integration of bla CTX-M genes in E. coli isolates of ST38 appears to be common and is likely independent of antimicrobial selective pressure in clinical environments. Our data corroborate the zoonotic potential of environmental isolates of ESBL-producing E. coli , which harbour stably integrated, chromosomally encoded resistance factors.
Authors: Christina A Ahlstrom; Andrew M Ramey; Hanna Woksepp; Jonas Bonnedahl Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Andrew Cameron; Rupinder Mangat; Heba H Mostafa; Samantha Taffner; Jun Wang; Ghinwa Dumyati; Richard A Stanton; Jonathan B Daniels; Davina Campbell; Joseph D Lutgring; Nicole D Pecora Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Clara Atterby; Stefan Börjesson; Sofia Ny; Josef D Järhult; Sara Byfors; Jonas Bonnedahl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Apostolos Liakopoulos; Gerrita van den Bunt; Yvon Geurts; Martin C J Bootsma; Mark Toleman; Daniela Ceccarelli; Wilfrid van Pelt; Dik J Mevius Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Olivia M Grünzweil; Lauren Palmer; Adriana Cabal; Michael P Szostak; Werner Ruppitsch; Christian Kornschober; Maciej Korus; Dusan Misic; Tanja Bernreiter-Hofer; Anna D J Korath; Andrea T Feßler; Franz Allerberger; Stefan Schwarz; Joachim Spergser; Elke Müller; Sascha D Braun; Stefan Monecke; Ralf Ehricht; Chris Walzer; Hrvoje Smodlaka; Igor Loncaric Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 5.923