Daniel C Lee1, Anchasa Kananurak2, Michelle Tn Tran2, Patricia A Connolly3, Christopher R Polage3, Tadayuki Iwase4, Charles L Bevins2, Mark A Underwood1. 1. From the Division of neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California. 2. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, California. 3. Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California. 4. Department of Bacteriology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In adults, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus compete for colonization of the nasal mucosa and S. epidermidis strains that produce the Esp serine protease eradicate S. aureus nasal colonization. Whether similar phenomena are seen in newborn infants is unknown. METHODS: Nasal swabs were obtained on admission and discharge from newborn infants (n = 90 and 83, respectively) in the neonatal intensive care unit at UC Davis Children's Hospital. Swabs were cultured for S. aureus and S. epidermidis. S. epidermidis isolates were tested for Esp expression, overall secreted protease activity and biofilm inhibition. RESULTS: No infant had S. aureus on admission. S. epidermidis colonization was rare on admission in inborn infants (2.5%), but common in infants transferred from referring hospitals (50%). At discharge, most infants (96%) were colonized by staphylococci. S. aureus colonization was less common in infants with S. epidermidis colonization (9%) and more common in infants without S. epidermidis (77%) (relative risk of S. aureus colonization in infants colonized with S. epidermidis 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.089-0.34, P < 0.0001). Compared with S. epidermidis strains from infants without S. aureus, S. epidermidis from infants co-colonized with S. aureus had lower total proteolytic enzyme activity and decreased biofilm inhibition capacity, but did not have lower frequency of Esp positivity. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized neonates, S. epidermidis colonization has a protective effect against S. aureus colonization. Secretion of proteases by S. epidermidis is a possible mechanism of inhibition of S. aureus colonization; however, in this cohort of neonates, the source of major protease activity is likely other than Esp.
BACKGROUND: In adults, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus compete for colonization of the nasal mucosa and S. epidermidis strains that produce the Espserine protease eradicate S. aureus nasal colonization. Whether similar phenomena are seen in newborn infants is unknown. METHODS: Nasal swabs were obtained on admission and discharge from newborn infants (n = 90 and 83, respectively) in the neonatal intensive care unit at UC Davis Children's Hospital. Swabs were cultured for S. aureus and S. epidermidis. S. epidermidis isolates were tested for Esp expression, overall secreted protease activity and biofilm inhibition. RESULTS: No infant had S. aureus on admission. S. epidermidis colonization was rare on admission in inborninfants (2.5%), but common in infants transferred from referring hospitals (50%). At discharge, most infants (96%) were colonized by staphylococci. S. aureus colonization was less common in infants with S. epidermidis colonization (9%) and more common in infants without S. epidermidis (77%) (relative risk of S. aureus colonization in infants colonized with S. epidermidis 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.089-0.34, P < 0.0001). Compared with S. epidermidis strains from infants without S. aureus, S. epidermidis from infants co-colonized with S. aureus had lower total proteolytic enzyme activity and decreased biofilm inhibition capacity, but did not have lower frequency of Esp positivity. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized neonates, S. epidermidis colonization has a protective effect against S. aureus colonization. Secretion of proteases by S. epidermidis is a possible mechanism of inhibition of S. aureus colonization; however, in this cohort of neonates, the source of major protease activity is likely other than Esp.
Authors: François Barbier; Etienne Ruppé; David Hernandez; David Lebeaux; Patrice Francois; Benjamin Felix; Adeline Desprez; Aminata Maiga; Paul-Louis Woerther; Kevin Gaillard; Cécile Jeanrot; Michel Wolff; Jacques Schrenzel; Antoine Andremont; Raymond Ruimy Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Miling Yan; Sünje J Pamp; Julia Fukuyama; Peter H Hwang; Do-Yeon Cho; Susan Holmes; David A Relman Journal: Cell Host Microbe Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 21.023
Authors: Delores M Gries; Tamatha F Zemzars; Katy A Gibson; Elisa O'Hern; Meera Iyer; Mary Myers; Michael J Pultz; Yuejin Li; Curtis J Donskey Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2009-03-27 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Michael E Olson; Daniel A Todd; Carolyn R Schaeffer; Alexandra E Paharik; Michael J Van Dyke; Henning Büttner; Paul M Dunman; Holger Rohde; Nadja B Cech; Paul D Fey; Alexander R Horswill Journal: J Bacteriol Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 3.490
Authors: Kay Fountain; Tiffany Blackett; Helen Butler; Catherine Carchedi; Anna-Katarina Schilling; Anna Meredith; Marjorie J Gibbon; David H Lloyd; Anette Loeffler; Edward J Feil Journal: Microb Genom Date: 2021-05