| Literature DB >> 35215097 |
Eelco F J Meijer1, Anne van Renssen2, Ianthe Maat1, Linda van der Graaf-van Bloois3, Birgitta Duim3, Els M Broens3.
Abstract
Staphylococcus argenteus has been reported worldwide in humans, while reported non-human cases are sparse. Its complete epidemiology, alongside its infectivity and pathogenicity in humans and non-humans, remain to be clarified. Here, we describe the first reported canine Staphylococcus argenteus, causing a deep wound infection in a Labrador retriever after orthopedic surgery. The closed genome is reported, with phylogenic and genetic analyses, as well as extensive phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing for human and veterinary antibiotics. No genetic explanation could be found for its interaction with a canine host, underscoring the intrinsic multispecies pathogenicity and potential (anthropo-)zoonotic spread of Staphylococcus argenteus.Entities:
Keywords: ST2250; Staphylococcus argenteus; canine; genome sequencing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35215097 PMCID: PMC8876332 DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11020153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pathogens ISSN: 2076-0817
Figure 1Colony morphology of found Staphylococcus argenteus (left), showing creamy white colonies with a β-hemolytic zone on sheep blood agar. Staphylococcus aureus (right) for comparison.
Figure 2Phylogenetic tree of the core genome SNPs diversity of Staphylococcus argenteus, Staphylococcus schweitzeri and Staphylococcus aureus. The identified S. argenteus ST2250 isolate 20S00001-1 is indicated in red. Branch lengths in the tree were adjusted to sites per core genome and square root transformed to enhance resolution. All publicly available S. argenteus and S. schweitzeri isolates were included. Available S. aureus reference isolates of the most common S. aureus clonal complexes were used for rooting.
Phenotypic detection of resistance. A combination of agar diffusion with automated antibiogram (BD Phoenix system; Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and microdilution (custom-made microdilution plates; MERLIN Diagnostika GmbH, Bornheim, Germany) were used. Fosfomycin MIC was verified by Etest (BioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France). § EUCAST clinical breakpoints were applied, http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 25 January 2022) [18]. ‡ CLSI breakpoints were applied for bacteria isolated from animals, https://clsi.org (accessed on 25 January 2022) [19].
| Antibiotic | MIC or Disk Zone | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Cefoxitin | 29 | Susceptible § |
| Clindamycin | 28 | Susceptible § |
| Rifampicin | 32 | Susceptible § |
| Trimethoprim | 26 | Susceptible § |
|
| ||
| Ceftaroline | 0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Chloramphenicol | 8 | Susceptible § |
| Ciprofloxacin | ≤0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Daptomycin | 0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Erythromycin | ≤0.2 | Susceptible § |
| Fusidic acid | ≤0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Gentamycin | ≤1 | Susceptible § |
| Levofloxacin | ≤0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Linezolid | 2 | Susceptible § |
| Moxifloxacin | ≤0.25 | Susceptible § |
| Mupirocin | ≤0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Penicillin | 0.125 | Susceptible § |
| Quinupristine/Dalfopristine | ≤0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Teicoplanin | ≤0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Tetracycline | ≤0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Tigecycline | ≤0.125 | Susceptible § |
| Tobramycin | ≤1 | Susceptible § |
| Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole | ≤0.5 | Susceptible § |
| Vancomycin | 1 | Susceptible § |
|
| ||
| Enrofloxacin | ≤0.25 | Susceptible ‡ |
| Kanamycin | ≤16 | Susceptible ‡ |
| Neomycin | ≤8 | Susceptible ‡ |
|
| ||
| Fosfomycin | 64 | Resistant § |