| Literature DB >> 33810387 |
Elisa Massella1, Federica Giacometti1, Paolo Bonilauri2, Cameron J Reid3, Steven P Djordjevic3, Giuseppe Merialdi4, Cristina Bacci5, Laura Fiorentini6, Paola Massi6, Lia Bardasi4, Silva Rubini7, Federica Savini1, Andrea Serraino1, Silvia Piva1.
Abstract
We recently described the genetic antimicrobial resistance and virulence profile of a collection of 279 commensal E. coli of food-producing animal (FPA), pet, wildlife and human origin. Phenotypic antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and the role of commensal E. coli as reservoir of extra-intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC) virulence-associated genes (VAGs) or as potential ExPEC pathogens were evaluated. The most common phenotypic resistance was to tetracycline (76/279, 27.24%), sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (73/279, 26.16%), streptomycin and sulfisoxazole (71/279, 25.45% both) among the overall collection. Poultry and rabbit were the sources mostly associated to AMR, with a significant resistance rate (p > 0.01) to quinolones, streptomycin, sulphonamides, tetracycline and, only for poultry, to ampicillin and chloramphenicol. Finally, rabbit was the source mostly associated to colistin resistance. Different pandemic (ST69/69*, ST95, ST131) and emerging (ST10/ST10*, ST23, ST58, ST117, ST405, ST648) ExPEC sequence types (STs) were identified among the collection, especially in poultry source. Both ST groups carried high number of ExPEC VAGs (pandemic ExPEC STs, mean = 8.92; emerging ExPEC STs, mean = 6.43) and showed phenotypic resistance to different antimicrobials (pandemic ExPEC STs, mean = 2.23; emerging ExPEC STs, mean = 2.43), suggesting their role as potential ExPEC pathogens. Variable phenotypic resistance and ExPEC VAG distribution was also observed in uncommon ExPEC lineages, suggesting commensal flora as a potential reservoir of virulence (mean = 3.80) and antimicrobial resistance (mean = 1.69) determinants.Entities:
Keywords: ExPEC virulence potential; antimicrobial resistance; commensal Escherichia coli; food safety; indicator organism; quinolone resistance; resistance trends
Year: 2021 PMID: 33810387 PMCID: PMC8067153 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10040351
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Number of processed samples and number of isolated strains in the different sources considered in the study.
| Source | Number of Samples | Number of Isolated | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beef | 33 | 21 | 63.64 |
| Wild Boar | 31 | 22 | 70.97 |
| Vegetable | 164 | 24 | 14.63 |
| Fishery | 94 | 24 | 25.53 |
| Companion Animal | 12 | 12 | 100.00 |
| Swine | 6 | 6 | 100.00 |
| Poultry | 33 | 25 | 75.76 |
| Rabbit | 14 | 10 | 71.43 |
| Human | 27 | 25 | 92.59 |
AMR resistance rate to the molecules tested and ESBL profile among the sources investigated.
| HP-CIA | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources | n | R ≥ 1 | MDR | CN | S | C | ST | SXT | TE | NA | ENR | EFT | CAZ | COL | ESBL |
| Dairy | 25 | 6 (24%) | 6 (24%) | 1 (4%) | 6 (24%) | 3 (12%) | 6 (24%) | 6 (24%) | 6 (24%) | 3 (12%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (8%) | 2 (8%) | 1 (4%) | 2 (8%) |
| Beef | 24 | 7 (29.17%) | 4 (16.66%) | 2 (8.33%) | 5 (20.83%) | 2 (8.33%) | 4 (16.67%) | 4 (16.67%) | 3 (12.5%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (4.17%) | 2 (8.33%) | 2 (8.33%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Wild boar | 22 | 1 (4.55%) | 1 (4.55%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.55%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.55%) | 1 (4.55%) | 1 (4.55%) | 1 (4.55%) | 1 (4.55%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Vegetable | 24 | 2 (8.33%) | 2 (8.33%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (4.55%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Fishery | 24 | 5 (20.83%) | 3 (12.5%) | 1 (4.17%) | 3 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 3 (12.5%) | 3 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Companion animal | 12 | 4 (33.33%) | 3 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (8.33%) | 1 (8.33%) | 3 (25%) | 3 (25%) | 4 (33.33%) | 1 (8.33%) | 1 (8.33%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Swine | 25 | 16 (64%) | 6 (24%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (32%) | 2 (8%) | 5 (20%) | 5 (20%) | 10 (40%) | 3 (12%) | 3 (12%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8%) | 0 (0%) |
| Poultry | 25 | 23 (92%) | 16 (64%) | 1 (4%) | 13 (52%) | 8 (32%) | 14 (56%) | 15 (60%) | 13 (52%) | 13 (52%) | 11 (44%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Rabbit | 23 | 23 (100%) | 22 (95.65%) | 6 (26.09%) | 22 (95.65%) | 3 (13.04%) | 22 (95.65%) | 22 (95.65%) | 22 (95.65%) | 15 (65.22%) | 13 (56.52%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (13.04%) | 0 (0%) |
| Mollusc | 25 | 4 (16%) | 3 (12%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4%) | 1 (4%) | 2 (8%) | 1 (4%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Human | 25 | 9 (36%) | 7 (28%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (20%) | 3 (12%) | 6 (24%) | 6 (24%) | 6 (24%) | 6 (24%) | 6 (24%) | 1 (4%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4%) |
| Wild animal | 25 | 7 (28%) | 6 (24%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (12%) | 1 (4%) | 6 (24%) | 6 (24%) | 5 (20%) | 4 (16%) | 1 (4%) | 1 (4%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4%) |
| Total | 279 | 107 (38.35%) | 79 (28.32%) | 11 (3.94%) | 71 (25.45%) | 23 (8.24%) | 71 (25.45) | 73 (26.16%) | 76 (27.24%) | 48 (17.20%) | 44 (15.77%) | 6 (2.15%) | 6 (2.15%) | 6 (2.15%) | 4 (1.43%) |
R ≥ 1: resistant to at least one antimicrobial; MDR: multiresistant isolate; CN: gentamicin; S: streptomycin; C: chloramphenicol; ST: sulfisoxazole; SXT: trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; TE: tetracycline; NA: nalidixic acid; ENR: enrofloxacin; EFT: ceftiofur; CAZ: ceftazidime; COL: colistin; ESBL: extended spectrum beta lactamase profile; HP-CIA: highest priority critically important antimicrobial.
Figure 1Heat map depicting phenotypic AMR and carriage of typical ExPEC VAGs in the strain collection. The dendogram on the left represents clustering of E. coli isolates according to their phenotypic AMR profile. Presence of phenotypic AMR and carriage of typical ExPEC VAGs are shown in red, with a green (for phenotypic AMR) or blue (for ExPEC VAGs) square indicating their absence. Additional strain information is provided in column 1- 3 and includes: source (column beside the dendogram), ST (first column after the heatmap) and phylogroup (second column after the heatmap). Sources, STs and phylogroups are colour-coded as described in the legend.
Concordance between phenotypic and genetic AMR profile identified among the collection.
| Phenotypic Resistance | n | Genetic Determinants |
|---|---|---|
| Beta-lactams | ||
| amipicillin | 60 | |
| ampicillin, ceftiofur, ceftazidime | 6 | |
| Chloramphenicol | 23 | |
| Aminoglycosides | ||
| gentamicin | 1 | |
| streptomycin | 61 | |
| gentamicin, streptomycin | 10 | |
| Sulphonamides | ||
| sulfisoxazole, sulfametoxazole/trimethoprim | 71 | |
| Sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim | 2 | |
| Tetracycline | 76 | |
| Colistin | 4 | |
| 1 * | ||
| ESBL profile | 4 | |
| (Fluoro)quinolones | ||
| nalidixic acid | 4 | |
| nalidixic acid, enrofloxacin | 45 | |
| 4 * | ||
#: chromosomal mutation; *: presence of genetic virulence determinant not associated to the expected phenotypic resistance.
Representation of phylogroup distribution, Shannon Index (H′) and Simposon index (D) among the sources investigated.
| Source | n | A | B1 | B2 | C | D | E | F | unknown | H′ | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dairy | 25 | 8 (32%) | 9 (36%) | 2 (8%) | 4 (16%) | 1 (4%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.485 | 0.763 |
| Beef | 24 | 0 (0%) | 22 (91.67%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (4.17%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.345 | 0.163 |
| Wild boar | 22 | 0(0%) | 3 (13.64%) | 6 (27.27%) | 0(0%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (50%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9.09%) | 0.973 | 0.68 |
| Vegetable | 24 | 1(4.17%) | 14 (58.33%) | 1 (4.17%) | 6 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1.191 | 0.616 |
| Fishery | 24 | 10 (41.67%) | 4 (16.67%) | 2 (8.33%) | 5 (20.83%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (12.50%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.457 | 0.764 |
| Companion animal | 12 | 0 (0%) | 6 (50%) | 2 (16.67%) | 2 (16.67%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (16.67%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.089 | 0.644 |
| Swine | 25 | 8 (32%) | 8 (32%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (32%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.223 | 0.720 |
| Poultry | 25 | 2 (8%) | 6 (24%) | 1 (4%) | 8 (32%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8%) | 5 (20%) | 1 (4%) | 1.691 | 0.817 |
| Rabbit | 23 | 0 (0%) | 20 (86.96%) | 1 (4.35%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.70%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.470 | 0.245 |
| Mollusc | 25 | 2 (8%) | 15 (60%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (16%) | 3 (12%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1.185 | 0.617 |
| Human | 25 | 6 (24%) | 2 (8%) | 2 (8%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (8%) | 3 (12%) | 7 (28%) | 0 (0%) | 1.814 | 0.850 |
| Wild animal | 25 | 1 (4%) | 18 (72%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (8%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 0.951 | 0.477 |
| Total | 279 | 38 (13.62%) | 127 (45.52%) | 20 (7.17%) | 43 (15.41%) | 9 (3.23%) | 25 (8.96%) | 13 (4.66%) | 4 (1.43%) |
Figure 2A mid-point rooted, maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree of 279 commensal E. coli included in the study. The phylogenetic tree is rearranged from the original one, whose comprehensive description is available in the previous publication [33]. Branches are coloured by clade and subclade (red= clade 1, subclade 1; orange= clade 1, subclade 2; black= clade2, subclade 1; blue= clade 2, subclade 2; sea green= clade 2, subclade 3; light green= clade 2, subclade 4). Source (inner ring), phylogroup according to Clermont quadruplex PCR (ring 2), phylogroup according to in silico method (ring 3), emergent/pandemic/uncommon ST (ring 4), VAG number (ring 5), MDR profile (ring 6), HP-CIA resistance profile (outer ring) are annotated according to the legend. A comprehensive description of the phylogenetic tree is available in the previous publication [33].
Association between pandemic (ST69/69*, ST95, ST131), emerging (ST10/ST10*, ST23, ST58, ST117, ST405, ST648), uncommon (the remaining ones) ExPEC lineages and functional category profile identified among the collection.
| Lineages | n | Functional Category Profile |
|---|---|---|
| Pandemic ExPEC | 13 | adhesin, iron acquisiton system (2) |
| adhesin, iron acquisiton system, protectin (8) | ||
| adhesin, toxin, iron acquisition system, protectin, invasin (3) | ||
| Emerging ExPEC | 37 | adhesin (2) |
| iron acquisition system (1) | ||
| adhesin, protectin (11) | ||
| adhesin, iron acquisition system, protectin (18) | ||
| adhesin, iron acquisition system, toxin, protectin (5) | ||
| Uncommon ExPEC | 229 | adhesin (68) |
| protectin (4) | ||
| adhesin, invasin (1) | ||
| adhesin, toxin (3) | ||
| adhesin, protectin (68) | ||
| adhesin, iron acquisition system (9) | ||
| protectin, iron acquisition system (1) | ||
| adhesin, toxin, protectin (2) | ||
| adhesin, iron acquisition system, protectin (50) | ||
| adhesin, invasin, iron acquisition system, toxin (1) | ||
| adhesin, invasin, iron acquisition system, protectin (2) | ||
| adhesin, toxin, iron acquisition, system, protectin (12) | ||
| adhesin, toxin, iron acquisition system, protectin, invasin (8) | ||
Representation of virulence genes identified in the collection and related virulence factors/functional categories. Each VAG is associated to specific ExPEC pathovars, where they have been commonly identified according to Kaper et al., (2004) [1], Sarowska et al., (2019) [124], Kudinha et al., (2012) [160] (bmaE), Tóth et al., (2009) [161] (cdtB), Ostblom et al., (2011) [162] (malX) and Schierack et al., (2008) [125] (gimB).
| Functional Category | Virulence Factor | Gene | Pathotype |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adhesin | M-agglutinin subunit |
| UPEC |
| type 1 fimbrial adhesin |
| UPEC, NMEC, SEPEC, APEC | |
| iron-regulated-gene-homologue adhesin |
| UPEC | |
| pilus associated with pyelonephritis |
| UPEC, SEPEC, APEC | |
| pilus associated with pyelonephritis |
| UPEC, SEPEC, APEC | |
| S fimbrial adhesin |
| UPEC, NMEC | |
| bifunctional enterobactin receptor/adhesin |
| UPEC, NMEC | |
| temperature sensitive hemagglutinin |
| UPEC, NMEC, SEPEC, APEC | |
| Inasin | invasion of brain endothelium |
| NMEC, SEPEC, APEC |
| genetic island associated with newborn meningitis |
| NMEC | |
| Iron acquisiton system | iron-responsive element |
| UPEC |
| catecholate siderophore receptor |
| UPEC, NMEC, SEPEC APEC | |
| ferric yersinia uptake |
| UPEC, NMEC | |
| iron repressible protein |
| NMEC | |
| l-lysine 6 monooxigenase |
| UPEC, APEC | |
| ferric aerobactin receptor precursor |
| UPEC, NMEC | |
| periplasmic iron binding protein |
| UPEC, APEC | |
| Toxin | cytolethal distending toxin B |
| UPEC, NMEC, SEPEC APEC |
| cytotoxic necrotising factor |
| UPEC, MNEC, SEPEC | |
| haemolysin E |
| UPEC | |
| serine protease autotransporters |
| UPEC | |
| serine protease autotransporters |
| UPEC | |
| uropathogenic specific protein |
| UPEC | |
| vacuolating autotransporter toxin |
| UPEC, APEC | |
| Protectin | increased serum survival |
| NMEC, SEPEC, APEC |
| structural component of colicin V operon |
| NMEC, SEPEC, APEC | |
| group II capsule antigens |
| NMEC, SEPEC | |
| outer membrane protein |
| UPEC, NMEC | |
| transfer protein |
| NMEC, SEPEC | |
| K1 capsular polysaccharide |
| NMEC, UPEC | |
| Other | pathogenicity-associated island marker |
| UPEC, NMEC, SEPEC, APEC |