| Literature DB >> 31193653 |
Zhangqi Shen1, Yanyan Hu2, Qiaoling Sun2, Fupin Hu3, Hongwei Zhou2, Lingbin Shu2, Tengfei Ma1, Yingbo Shen1, Yang Wang1, Juan Li4, Timothy R Walsh5, Rong Zhang2, Shaolin Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carriage of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in humans may contribute to the dissemination of CRE and impact on communities and healthcare facilities. Carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli (CREC) is one of the major type of CRE in the human gut. Here, we describe a cross-sectional study to investigate the prevalence of CREC, and in particular the mcr-1 carrying CREC, in health volunteers in China.Entities:
Keywords: CREC; Carriage; Gut; Healthy people; MCR-1; NDM
Year: 2018 PMID: 31193653 PMCID: PMC6537561 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.11.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EClinicalMedicine ISSN: 2589-5370
Overview of sampling size and CREC in different provinces.
| Sampling provinces | NO. of samples | NO. of CREC | Positive rate of CREC (%; 95% CI) | NO. of NDM-5-producing CREC | NO. of NDM-1-producing CREC | NO. of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guizhou | 50 | 4 | 8.0 (3.15–18.84) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Heilongjiang | 50 | 3 | 6.0 (2.06–16.22) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Henan | 56 | 3 | 5.36 (1.84–14.61) | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Hunan | 54 | 2 | 3.7 (1.02–12.54) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Beijing | 418 | 13 | 3.11 (1.83–5.25) | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Shandong | 165 | 5 | 3.03 (1.30–6.90) | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Fujian | 100 | 3 | 3.0 (1.02–8.45) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Inner Mongoria | 135 | 4 | 2.96 (1.16–7.37) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tibet | 108 | 3 | 2.78 (0.95–7.85) | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Hainan | 237 | 6 | 2.53 (1.17–5.41) | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Shaanxi | 132 | 3 | 2.27 (0.78–6.47) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Zhejiang | 1551 | 35 | 2.26 (1.63–3.12) | 19 | 1 | 8 |
| Jilin | 100 | 2 | 2.0 (0.55–7.00) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Guangxi | 204 | 4 | 1.96 (0.77–4.93) | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Ningxia | 140 | 2 | 1.43 (0.39–5.06) | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Guangdong | 57 | 0 | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hubei | 52 | 0 | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jiangxi | 106 | 0 | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shanxi | 144 | 0 | 0.0 (0.0–0.0) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 3859 | 92 | 2.38 (1.95–2.91) | 40 | 3 | 14 |
Fig. 1Summary of geography information. A) Positive regions for NDM and/or MCR carrying E. coli in China. The green and red indicated the presence of NDM-1 and NDM-5 positive E. coli, while the star indicates the presence of MCR-1 positive E. coli. The numbers of isolates are indicated in the brackets. B) The age distribution of the total sample population and Carbapenemase Producing E. coli (CPE) positive case. C) The gender distribution of the total sample population and CPE positive.
Overview of sampling size and CREC in different cities in Zhejiang province.
| Sampling provinces | NO. of samples | NO. of CREC | Positive rate of CREC (%; 95% CI) | NO. of NDM-5-producing CREC | NO. of NDM-1-producing CREC | NO. of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lishui | 98 | 6 | 6.12 (2.84–12.72) | 5 | 0 | 4 |
| Ningbo | 144 | 5 | 3.47 (1.49–7.87) | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Wenzhou | 259 | 9 | 3.47 (1.84–6.47) | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Shaoxing | 83 | 2 | 2.41 (0.66–8.37) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Huzhou and Jiaxing | 218 | 4 | 1.83 (0.72–4.62) | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Taizhou | 205 | 2 | 0.98 (0.27–3.49) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Hangzhou | 377 | 7 | 1.86 (0.90–3.78) | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Quzhou | 66 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jinhua | 101 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| total | 1551 | 35 | 2.26 (1.63–3.12) | 19 | 1 | 8 |
Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of 43 clinical NDM-producing E. coli strains.
| Drug class | Antimicrobial agents | MIC50 | MIC90 | Range | %R | %I | %S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aminoglycoside | Gentamicin | 32 | > 32 | ≤ 2–>32 | 69.8 | 2.3 | 27.9 |
| Amikacin | ≤ 8 | > 128 | ≤ 8–>128 | 23.3 | 0.0 | 76.7 | |
| β-lactams and β-lactamase Inhibitor | Piperacillin-tazobactam | 256/4 | > 256/4 | ≤ 8/4–>256/4 | 67.4 | 27.9 | 4.7 |
| Ampicillin-sulbactam | > 64/32 | > 64/32 | ≤ 4/2–>64/32 | 97.7 | 0.0 | 2.3 | |
| Ticarcillin-clavulanate | 128/64 | 128/64 | ≤ 8/4–128/64 | 95.3 | 0.0 | 4.7 | |
| Cefoperazone-sulbactam (2:1) | > 128/64 | > 128/64 | 64/32–>128/64 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Carbapenem | Imipenem | > 16 | > 16 | 8–>16 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Meropenem | > 16 | > 16 | 8–>16 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Cephalosporin | Cefepime | > 32 | > 32 | 2–>32 | 90.7 | 7.0 | 2.3 |
| Ceftazidime | > 32 | > 32 | 32–>32 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Cefotaxime | > 32 | > 32 | 32–>32 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Cefazolin | > 32 | > 32 | 32–>32 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Cefuroxim | > 64 | > 64 | 64–>64 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Fluoroquinolone | Ciprofloxacin | 8 | > 8 | ≤ 0.25–>8 | 67.4 | 4.7 | 27.9 |
| Levofloxacin | 16 | > 16 | ≤ 0.5–>16 | 58.1 | 7.0 | 34.9 | |
| Sulfonamide and Trimethoprim Antibiotic Combinations | Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole | 8/152 | 8/152 | ≤ 1/19–8/152 | 95.3 | 0.0 | 4.7 |
| Fosfomycin | 16 | > 512 | ≤ 4–>512 | 39.5 | 2.3 | 58.1 | |
| Tetracycline | Minocycline | 8 | 16 | ≤ 2–16 | 46.5 | 20.9 | 32.6 |
| Tigecycline | 0.5 | 2 | ≤ 0.25–4 | 2.3 | 9.3 | 88.4 | |
| Others | Aztreonam | 4 | 64 | ≤ 2–64 | 41.9 | 4.7 | 53.5 |
| Chloramphenicol | 32 | 32 | ≤ 8–32 | 74.4 | 2.3 | 23.3 | |
| Colistin | ≤ 1 | 4 | ≤ 1–>16 | 27.9 | 0.0 | 72.1 | |
| Nitrofurantoin | ≤ 32 | 64 | ≤ 32–128 | 9.3 | 7.0 | 83.7 | |
| Piperacillin | > 256 | > 256 | ≤ 8–>256 | 97.7 | 0.0 | 2.3 |
S, susceptible; I, intermediate resistant; R, resistant; MIC90 and MIC50 values were defined as the lowest concentration of the antibiotic at which 90% and 50% of the isolates were inhibited, respectively.
MICs of 30 antimicrobial agents for 14 E. coli strains co-harboring mcr-1 and blaNDM-5.a
| NO. of samples | Province | MIC (μg/ml) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPN | MPN | FEP | CAZ | CTX | CZ | CXM | PIP | PIT | AMS | TCA | SCF(2:1) | CAC | CTC | ||
| E218-2 | Zhejiang | 8 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | 256 | 64/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | 128/64 |
| E628-1 | Zhejiang | 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | 128/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 |
| E1164 | Zhejiang | > 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | 256 | 32/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 |
| E1167 | Zhejiang | > 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | > 256/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | 128/64 | > 128/64 |
| E1189 | Zhejiang | 8 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | 32/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 |
| E1230 | Zhejiang | 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | 256 | 32/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | 128/64 | > 128/64 |
| E1462 | Zhejiang | 16 | 16 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 64 | 256 | 256/4 | 64/32 | 128/64 | 128/64 | 128/64 | 128/64 |
| E1463 | Zhejiang | 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | 256/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 |
| E774-1 | Tibet | > 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | 128/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 |
| E1908 | Henan | 16 | 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | 64/32 | |||
| E2244 | Beijing | 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | 64/4 | > 64/32 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 | |
| E2498 | Hainan | > 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | 128/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 |
| E2525-1-2 | Hainan | > 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | > 256/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 | > 128/64 |
| E3647-2 | Shandong | > 16 | > 16 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 32 | > 64 | > 256 | 256/4 | > 64/32 | 128/64 | > 128/64 | 128/64 | > 128/64 |
IPN, Imipenem; MPN, Meropenem; FEP, Cefepime; CAZ, Ceftazidime; CTX, Cefotaxime; CZ, Cefazolin; CXM, Cefuroxim; PIP, Piperacillin; PIT, Piperacillin-tazobactam; AMS, Ampicillin-sulbactam; TCA, Ticarcillin-clavulanate; SCF (2:1), Cefoperazone-sulbactam (2:1); CAC, Ceftazidime-clavulanate; CTC, Cefotaxime-clavulanate; GM, Gentamicin; AN, Amikacin; CIP, Ciprofloxacin; LVF, Levofloxacin; SXT, Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; MNO, Minocycline; AZT, Aztreonam; C, Chloramphenicol; FOS, Fosfomycin; FT, Nitrofurantoin; TGC, Tigecycline; PE, colistin.
The bold values indicated these strains were susceptible to the drugs according to EUCAST and CLSI standards.
Fig. 2PFGE analysis of carbapenem-resistant E. coli, XbaI was used for digestion of the genomic DNA.
Fig. 3BLAST ring comparison of NDM-5 and MCR-1 plasmids. A) The comparison of NDM-5 carrying plasmid sequences in CREC isolates. Each color represents a NDM-5 carrying plasmid. The internal ring is the reference sequence of NDM-5 carrying plasmid pNDM-ZJ628R, and the outside rings are other 23 plasmids from this study and 5 plasmids of animal origin, which are highly similar to pNDM-ZJ628R. B) The comparison of mcr-1 carrying plasmid sequences in mcr-1 positive CREC isolates. Each color represents a mcr-1 carrying plasmid. The internal ring is the reference sequence of mcr-1 carrying plasmid pHNSHP45-2, and the outside rings are other 14 plasmids from this study, which are similar to pNDM-ZJ628R.
Fig. 5S1-PFGE analysis of mcr-1 positive CREC. Bands M: H9812, 1:E218-2, 2:E628-1, 3:E774-1, 4:E1164, 5:E1167, 6:E1189, 7:E1230, 8:E1462, 9:E1463, 10:E1980, 11:E2244, 12:E2498, 13:E2525-1, 14:E3647-2, M:H9812.
Fig. 4The phylogenetic relationship of CREC and mcr-1 positive CREC, and their other antibiotic resistance genes. The left phylogenetic tree were constructed using the core SNPs with ST types. The color squares represent the antibiotic resistance genes sorted by the class of antibiotics.