| Literature DB >> 31835720 |
Madangchanok Imchen1, Ravali Krishna Vennapu1, Preetam Ghosh2, Ranjith Kumavath1.
Abstract
Antibiotic resistance is a global issue which is magnified by interspecies horizontal gene transfer. Understanding antibiotic resistance in bacteria in a natural setting is crucial to check whether they are multidrug resistant (MDR) and possibly avoid outbreaks. In this study, we have isolated several antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) (n = 128) from the mangroves in Kerala, India. ARBs were distributed based on antibiotics (p = 1.6 × 10-5). The 16S rRNA gene characterization revealed dominance by Bacillaceae (45%), Planococcaceae (22.5%), and Enterobacteriaceae (17.5%). A high proportion of the isolates were MDR (75%) with maximum resistance to methicillin (70%). Four isolates affiliated to plant-growth promoters, probiotics, food, and human pathogens were resistant to all antibiotics indicating the seriousness and prevalence of MDR. A significant correlation (R = 0.66; p = 2.5 × 10-6) was observed between MDR and biofilm formation. Antagonist activity was observed in 62.5% isolates. Gram-positive isolates were more susceptible to antagonism (75.86%) than gram-negative (36.36%) isolates. Antagonism interactions against gram-negative isolates were lower (9.42%) when compared to gram-positive isolates (89.85%). Such strong antagonist activity can be harnessed for inspection of novel antimicrobial mechanisms and drugs. Our study shows that MDR with strong biofilm formation is prevalent in natural habitat and if acquired by deadly pathogens may create havoc in public health.Entities:
Keywords: antagonism; antibiotic-resistant genes; biofilm; mangrove; multidrug resistance
Year: 2019 PMID: 31835720 PMCID: PMC6956087 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms7120678
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Sampling locations spanning the north and central Kerala (India) were surveyed according to our previous studies [10,11] and mangrove sediments were collected in triplicate from the upper 5–10 cm in sterile sampling bags. The sampling locations and their codes are provided in first and second column, respectively.
| Location | Co-Ordinates (Latitude, Longitude) | Sample ID |
|---|---|---|
| Payannur | 12.1050687, 75.2058 | PYN |
| Bangramanjeshwar | 12.708333, 74.900754 | BNH |
| Kumbla | 12.594195, 74.946623 | KMA |
| Kavvayi | 12.088286, 75.176029 | KVY |
| Valapattanam | 9.996566, 76.247189 | VPM |
| Panangod | 9.8959941, 76.326094 | PGD |
| Madakal | 9.9091896, 76.30629 | MAL |
| Vallarpadam | 9.9994138, 76.253705 | VPDM |
The antibiotics used for screening are provided in the first column and their respective concentrations in the second column were used as the final concentration for screening of antibiotic-resistant microbes.
| Antibiotics | Working Concentration (µg/mL) |
|---|---|
| Ampicillin | 100 |
| Gentamicin | 10 |
| Chloramphenicol | 25 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 10 |
| Tetracycline | 10 |
| Vancomycin | 50 |
| Methicillin | 1 |
Figure 1Number of antibiotic-resistant isolates according to (A) location and (B) antibiotics. (C) Clustered heat map of unique isolates based on Euclidean distance. (D) Bar chart of antibiotic-resistant isolates against the number of antibiotics shows high prevalence of resistance to up to three antibiotics followed by drastic reduction on more antibiotics. (E) Prevalence of antibiotic resistance based on antibiotics.
Figure 2Phylogenetic tree was constructed using Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) and maximum-likelihood method. The red circles represent the antibiotic-resistant isolates and the grey square represents the nearest representative strain. The colored pie and enlarged text against each pie represent the respective family.
Figure 3Bar chart representation of the number of isolated antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) on the y-axis and the x-axis representing the (A) families and (B) genera of ARB. (C) Biofilm forming (OD (optical density) 550 nm) potential of the isolates grouped according to the number of multidrug resistance/antibiotic(s) count shows a direct correlation between biofilm and multidrug resistance (MDR). (D) Biofilm formation (OD 550 nm) of each isolate sorted according to the number of multidrug resistance/antibiotic(s) count.
Identification of the isolates based on EzBioCloud’s 16S identify service works on similarity-based searches in quality-controlled 16S rRNA databases sequences. The top-hit of each isolate with valid prokaryotic names having the nearest match is listed in the table.
| Isolate Sample ID | Species | Strain | Similarity (%) | Phylum | Family | Genus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V6 |
| KCTC 2190 | 100 | Proteobacteria | Enterobacteriaceae |
|
| V4 |
| EB–247(T) | 100 | Proteobacteria | Enterobacteriaceae |
|
| V1 |
| KCTC 2190 | 100 | Proteobacteria | Enterobacteriaceae |
|
| V17 |
| JCM 21037 | 100 | Proteobacteria | Shewanellaceae |
|
| T8 |
| ATCC 4513(T) | 99.15 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| T7 |
| ATCC 14579(T) | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| T5 |
| DSM 54(T) | 100 | Firmicutes | Planococcaceae |
|
| T4 |
| JCM 5962 | 100 | Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadaceae |
|
| T10 |
| DSM 54(T) | 100 | Firmicutes | Planococcaceae |
|
| M6 |
| NBRC 15717(T) | 99.88 | Firmicutes | Planococcaceae |
|
| M4 |
| NCTC 11047(T) | 99.88 | Firmicutes | Staphylococcaceae |
|
| M13 |
| NBRC 15717(T) | 99.84 | Firmicutes | Planococcaceae |
|
| M12 |
| DSM 16467 | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| I7 |
| Y1 | 99.75 | Firmicutes | Planococcaceae |
|
| I6 |
| Y1 | 99.72 | Firmicutes | Planococcaceae |
|
| I5 |
| Y1 | 99.75 | Firmicutes | Planococcaceae |
|
| I2 |
| Y1 | 99.75 | Firmicutes | Planococcaceae |
|
| I1 |
| Y1 | 99.74 | Firmicutes | Planococcaceae |
|
| G5 |
| ATCC 4513(T) | 99.66 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| G3 |
| HB09003 | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| G2 |
| NRRL B–14911 | 99.73 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| G1 |
| MTCC 3383 | 100 | Firmicutes | Staphylococcaceae |
|
| C1 |
| JCM 5962 | 100 | Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadaceae |
|
| C19 |
| NRRL B–14911 | 99.75 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| C16 |
| NRRL B–14911 | 99.74 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| C15 |
| NBRC 15306 | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| C13 |
| H2(T) | 99.3 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| C10 |
| SGD–1123(T) | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| A8 |
| ATCC 14579 | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| A3 |
| ATCC 29903 | 100 | Proteobacteria | Enterobacteriaceae |
|
| A39 |
| JCM 5962 | 100 | Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadaceae |
|
| A37 |
| ATCC 29903(T) | 100 | Proteobacteria | Enterobacteriaceae |
|
| A27 |
| BCT–7112 | 99.85 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| A23 |
| ATCC 14579(T) | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| A21 |
| ATCC 14579(T) | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| A20 |
| ATCC 14579(T) | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| A1 |
| ATCC 29903(T) | 100 | Proteobacteria | Enterobacteriaceae |
|
| A14 |
| ATCC 14579(T) | 100 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| A11 |
| ATCC 14579(T) | 99.88 | Firmicutes | Bacillaceae |
|
| A10 |
| ATCC 29903(T) | 100 | Proteobacteria | Enterobacteriaceae |
|
Figure 4Network plot of the antagonist interaction between antibiotic-resistant isolates was constructed using Cytoscape. Nodes are represented by circles. Edges are represented by the lines connecting the nodes. The color of the nodes and edges represents the respective antibiotics (as shown in graphical legend) that were used for screening the respective isolate. The interaction is undirected, the source of the interaction (antagonist) is denoted by green diamond shapes and the target nodes (antagonized) are denoted by red arrows.
Antagonism on the basis of biofilm and cell wall (Gram nature) was evaluated. Antagonism was further categorized based on isolates and interactions. In this study, antagonist interactions take all interaction from all isolates into consideration; however, calculation of antagonist isolates considered whether the insolate exhibited antagonism to at least one other isolate irrespective of the number of interactions. Isolates and interactions are expressed in percentage based on biofilm and gram nature. Higher number of biofilm forming isolates and interactions exhibited higher resistance but exhibited lower antagonism activity. Similarly, gram-negative isolates had higher resistance.
| Antagonized (%) | Antagonist (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Isolates | Non-Biofilm | 68.75 | 68.75 |
| Biofilm | 62.5 | 50 | |
| Interactions | Non-Biofilm | 53.28 | 57.66 |
| Biofilm | 46.71 | 42.33 | |
| Isolates | Gram negative | 36.36 | 54.54 |
| Gram positive | 75.86 | 58.62 | |
| Interactions | Gram negative | 9.42 | 52.17 |
| Gram positive | 89.85 | 47.10 |
Antagonist interactions were sorted based on all possible combinations of gram nature. Antagonism against gram-positive isolates was 90.51% while antagonism against gram-negative ones was only 9.49%.
| Interactions | Antagonist (%) |
|---|---|
| Gram negative vs. gram positive | 47.45 |
| Gram negative vs. gram negative | 5.11 |
| Gram positive vs. gram negative | 4.38 |
| Gram positive vs. gram positive | 43.07 |