| Literature DB >> 28591163 |
Ran An1, Sahar Alshalchi1, Peter Breimhurst2, Jeannette Munoz-Aguayo3, Christian Flores-Figueroa3, Sinisa Vidovic1.
Abstract
The problem of emergence and dissemination of multidrug resistance, especially among Gram-negative bacteria, has reached alarming levels. This increases the need to develop surveillance methods that more effectively and accurately provide information about the emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant organisms. In this study, using a well-defined population of non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) isolates associated with avian, bovine and porcine hosts, we found that the livestock environments had a specific (P < 0.005) and profound (P < 0.005) effect on the evolution of multidrug-resistant phenotypes among population of NTS isolates. The MDR pattern containing penicillins, tetracyclines and macrolides and the evolving counterparts (i.e., penicillins, tetracyclines and macrolides + other antibiotic classes) were significantly (P < 0.005) associated with NTS isolates of porcine origin. Similarly, MDR patterns containing folate pathway inhibitors, macrolides and aminocyclitol or containing penicillins, cephalosporins, tetracyclines, phenicols and macrolides were significantly associated with avian (P < 0.005) and bovine (P < 0.005) NTS isolates, respectively. Furthermore, STRUCTURE, an evolutionary analysis, clearly showed that the host origin (i.e., livestock environment), and not the genetic background of different NTS serovars, was the most determinative factor for acquisition and spread of MDR phenotypes. In addition, we described a novel non-synonymous mutation, located outside of the QRDR at position 864 of GyrA, that was likely associated with fluoroquinolone resistance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28591163 PMCID: PMC5462443 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Antibiogram of the non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) isolates obtained from different host origin.
| Antimicrobial groups | Non-typhoidal | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avian | Bovine | Porcine | ||||||||
| Resistant | Intermediate | Susceptible | Resistant | Intermediate | Susceptible | Resistant | Intermediate | Susceptible | ||
| 22 (27.5%) | 58 (72.5%) | 45 (56.2%) | 35 (43.7%) | 66 (82.5%) | 14 (17.5%) | 2.2 e-11 | ||||
| 12 (15%) | 4 (5%) | 64 (80%) | 42 (52.5%) | 2 (2.5%) | 36 (45%) | 8 (10%) | 1 (1.25%) | 71 (88.7%) | 1.6 e-10 | |
| 9 (11.2%) | 71 (88.7%) | 51 (63.7%) | 29 (36.2%) | 80 (100%) | 1.9 e-28 | |||||
| 80 (100%) | 8 (10%) | 72 (90%) | 11 (13.7%) | 11 (13.7%) | 58 (72.5%) | 9.8 e-06 | ||||
| 4 (5%) | 3 (3.7%) | 73 (91.2%) | 47 (58.7%) | 9 (11.2%) | 24 (30%) | 28 (35%) | 4 (5%) | 48 (60%) | 3.8 e-12 | |
| 62 (77.5%) | 18 (22.5%) | 13 (16.2%) | 67 (83.7%) | 20 (25%) | 60 (75%) | 1.1 e-16 | ||||
| 80 (100%) | 80 (100%) | 80 (100%) | 1.00 | |||||||
| 37 (46.2%) | 6 (7.5%) | 37 (46.2%) | 22 (27.5%) | 58 (72.5%) | 37 (46.2%) | 19 (23.7%) | 24 (30%) | 2.4 e-12 | ||
| 35.3% | 2% | 62.7% | 43.5% | 6.4% | 50.1% | 51.5% | 5.5% | 43% | ||
Distribution of MDR within the collection of NTS isolates obtained from avian, bovine and porcine hosts.
| Multidrug resistance pattern | No. (%) of isolates positive for MDR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avian ( | Bovine ( | Porcine ( | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, cephalosporin | 2 (3.9) | 3 (6.2) | 2 (2.6) | 0.86 |
| 26 (33.3) | 0.00000 | |||
| Penicillins tetracycline, macrolide, phenicol, FP inhibitors | 5 (6.4) | 0.0067 | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, FP inhibitors, aminocyclitol | 5 (6.4) | 0.0067 | ||
| Penicillins tetracycline, macrolide, phenicol, aminocyclitol | 8 (10.2) | 0.00033 | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, phenicol | 2 (4.2) | 6 (7.7) | 0.030 | |
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, phenicol, FP inhibitors | 1 (2) | 1 (1.3) | NA | |
| Tetracycline, macrolide, aminocyclitol, phenicol, FP inhibitors | 1 (1.9) | 2 (2.6) | NA | |
| Tetracycline, macrolide, aminocyclitol, phenicol | 1 (1.3) | NA | ||
| Penicillins tetracycline, macrolide, FP inhibitors | 1 (1.3) | NA | ||
| Penicillins tetracycline, macrolide, aminocyclitol | 2 (2.6) | NA | ||
| Tetracycline, macrolide, aminocyclitol | 7 (9) | 0.00091 | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, cephalosporin, FP inhibitors, aminocyclitol | 1 (1.9) | 1 (1.3) | NA | |
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, cephalosporin, FP inhibitors, aminocyclitol, phenicol | 2 (2.6) | NA | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, cephalosporin, FQ | 1 (1.3) | NA | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, cephalosporin, FP inhibitors, phenicol, aminocyclitol | 1 (1.3) | NA | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, phenicol, FQ | 1 (1.3) | NA | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, FQ, phenicol, aminocyclitol | 1 (1.3) | NA | ||
| Tetracycline, macrolide, FQ | 2 (2.6) | NA | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, FQ | 1 (1.3) | NA | ||
| Penicillins, tetracycline, macrolide, FQ, FP inhibitors | 2 (2.6) | NA | ||
| 1 (1.9) | 26 (54.1) | 0.00000 | ||
| Penicillins, cephalosporin, tetracycline, phenicol, macrolide, FP inhibitors | 1 (1.9) | 11 (22.9) | 0.000096 | |
| Tetracycline, macrolide, phenicol | 1 (1.9) | 4 (8.3) | 0.074 | |
| Tetracycline, macrolide, phenicol, FP inhibitors | 1 (2) | NA | ||
| 27 (52.9) | 0.00000 | |||
| FP inhibitors, macrolides, aminocyclitol, penicillins, cephalosporin | 1 (1.9) | NA | ||
| FP inhibitors, macrolides, aminocyclitol, penicillins | 5 (9.8) | 0.0067 | ||
| FP inhibitors, macrolides, penicillins, cephalosporin | 4 (7.8) | 0.018 | ||
| ,Penicillins, cephalosporin, macrolide | 2 (3.9) | NA | ||
| FP inhibitors, macrolides, aminocyclitol, tetracycline | 2 (3.9) | NA | ||
| FP inhibitors, macrolides, penicillins | 3 (5.9) | 0.049 | ||
a Folate pathway inhibitors (trimethoprim / sulfamethoxazo).
b Fluoroquinolones.
c The most common MDR pattern associated with the porcine strains.
d The most common MDR pattern associated with the bovine strains.
e The most common MDR pattern associated with the avian strains.
Fig 1Dendrogram of 240 non-typhoidal Salmonella isolates depicting multidrug-resistant phenotype distribution across S. enterica pulsotypes.
Each isolate was presented by the corresponding antibiogram. The shaded rectangles mark three major MDR patterns with the evolved counterparts as green (i.e., penicillins, tetracyclines, and macrolides with fifteen other MDR-associated patterns, see legend), light red (i.e., FP inhibitors, macrolides, and aminocyclitol with three other MDR-associated patterns) and light blue (i.e., penicillins, cephalosporins, tetracyclines, phenicols, and macrolides with one more MDR-associated pattern). Vertical bars on the far right identify the host origin of Salmonella enterica spp. isolates.
Fig 2Population structure based on antimicrobial phenotypes of 240 non-typhoidal Salmonella isolates obtained from avian, bovine and porcine hosts.
A) The entire collection of Salmonella isolates consisted of three clusters (K 3). The three clusters are color-coded: cluster A is red, cluster B is blue, and cluster C is green. The values along the “y” axis represent the membership probabilities for the three clusters. Each isolate is represented by a single vertical line partitioned into three segments, representing the antimicrobial phenotype admixture that reflects the overall membership in each of these three clusters. B) Triangle plot of a Bayesian cluster analysis showing the distribution of avian (green), porcine (blue) and bovine (red) isolates within the examined collection of NTS.