| Literature DB >> 35591987 |
Shuying Yuan1, Yanwen Chen1, Kaicheng Lin2, Lin Zou3, Xinrong Lu3, Na He2, Ruijie Liu1, Shaoxing Zhang1, Danfeng Shen3, Zhenju Song4, Chaoyang Tong4, Yizhi Song2, Wenhong Zhang5, Li Chen3, Guiqin Sun1.
Abstract
Nosocomial infection by multi-drug resistance Elizabethkingia spp. is an emerging concern with severe clinical consequences, particularly in immunocompromised individuals and infants. Efficient control of this infection requires quick and reliable methods to determine the appropriate drugs for treatment. In this study, a total of 31 Elizabethkingia spp., including two standard strains (ATCC 13253 and FMS-007) and 29 clinical isolates obtained from hospitals in China were subjected to single cell Raman spectroscopy analysis coupled with deuterium probing (single cell Raman-DIP). The results demonstrated that single cell Raman-DIP could determine antimicrobial susceptibility of Elizabethkingia spp. in 4 h, only one third of the time required by standard broth microdilution method. The method could be integrated into current clinical protocol for sepsis and halve the report time. The study also confirmed that minocycline and levofloxacin are the first-line antimicrobials for Elizabethkingia spp. infection.Entities:
Keywords: Elizabethkingia spp.; antimicrobial susceptibility test; carbon-deuterium ratio; minimum inhibitory concentration; single cell Raman spectroscopy deuterium isotope probing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591987 PMCID: PMC9113537 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.876925
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
The antimicrobial susceptibility of 31 Elizabethkingia spp. strains.
| Antimicrobial | S (%) | I (%) | R (%) |
| ATM | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (100.00) |
| AMP | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (100.00) |
| CFZ | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (100.00) |
| FOX | 5 (16.13) | 0 (0.00) | 26 (83.87) |
| CRO | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (100.00) |
| IPM | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (100.00) |
| AMC | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (100.00) |
| AMK | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (100.00) |
| GEN | 0 (0.00) | 3 (9.68) | 28 (90.32) |
| TOB | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (100.00) |
| TIM | 6 (19.35) | 22 (70.97) | 3 (9.68) |
| CIP | 24 (77.42) | 2 (6.45) | 5 (16.13) |
| LVX | 26 (83.87) | 1 (3.23) | 4 (12.90) |
| NIT | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 31 (100.00) |
S, susceptible; I, intermediate; R, resistant; ATM, aztreonam; AMP, ampicillin; CFZ, cefazolin; FOX, cefoxitin; CRO, ceftriaxone; IPM, imipenem; AMC, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid; AMK, amikacin; GEN, gentamicin; TOB, tobramycin; TIM, tigecycline; CIP, ciprofloxacin; LVX, levofloxacin; and NIT, nitrofurantoin.
FIGURE 1Raman spectra of cells treated with imipenem (A) C-D and C-H band in FMS-007; (B) the C-D ratio of spectra in (A); (C) C-D and C-H band in TZ-3; (D) the C-D ratio of spectra in (C); and neg: without D2O and imipenem. Data were shown as mean ± SEM of neg and the other four group. ***P < 0.001; ns, no significance.
FIGURE 2The relative metabolic rate of the five Elizabethkingia spp. strains determined by Raman-DIP. The antimicrobial concentrations of group SD, ID, and RD were obtained from the M100 guidelines (CLSI, 2019). SD, susceptible breakpoint corresponds to antimicrobial concentration; ID, intermediate breakpoint corresponds to antimicrobial concentration; RD, resistant breakpoint corresponds to antimicrobial concentration; ATM, aztreonam; FEP, cefepime; IPM, imipenem; TIM, ticarcillin/clavulanic acid; AMK, amikacin; TOB, tobramycin; MIN, minocycline; and LVX, levofloxacin. TIM was composed of two intermediate breakpoints (the data of lower concentration of intermediate breakpoints was shown).
The AST of five Elizabethkingia spp. strains.
| ATCC13253 | FMS-007 | HS-2 | NB-46 | TZ-3 | |||||||
| Antimicrobial | BMD | Ram | BMD | Ram | BMD | Ram | BMD | Ram | BMD | Ram | BMD/Ram |
| ATM | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R/R |
| FEP | I | R | S | R | I | R | I | R | S | R | S/R, I/R |
| IPM | R | R | R | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R/R, I/I |
| TIM | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R/R |
| AMK | R | R | R | R | R | R | I | R | R | R | R/R |
| TOB | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R/R |
| MIN | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S/S |
| LVX | R | R | S | S | R | R | I | R | S | S | S/S, R/R |
AST, antimicrobial susceptibility testing; BMD, broth microdilution method; Ram, single cell Raman-DIP; S, susceptible; I, intermediate; R, resistant; ATM, aztreonam; FEP, cefepime; IPM, imipenem; TIM, ticarcillin/clavulanic acid; AMK, amikacin; TOB, tobramycin; MIN, minocycline; and LVX, levofloxacin.
FIGURE 3The relative metabolic rate of 26 Elizabethkingia spp. strains determined by Raman-DIP. The antimicrobial concentrations of group SD, ID, and RD were obtained from the M100 guidelines (CLSI, 2019). SD, susceptible breakpoint corresponds to antimicrobial concentration; ID, intermediate breakpoint corresponds to antimicrobial concentration; RD, resistant breakpoint corresponds to antimicrobial concentration; MIN, minocycline; and LVX, levofloxacin. The relative metabolic rates of each concentration were shown in each grid.
The AST of LVX and MIN of Elizabethkingia spp. strains.
| Strain | LVX | MIN | ||
| AST by Ram | AST by BMD | AST by Ram | AST by BMD | |
| LHL-1 | S | S | S | S |
| LHL-2 | S | S | S | S |
| LHL-3 | I | S | S | S |
| LHL-4 | I | S | S | S |
| LHL-5 | S | S | S | S |
| LHL-6 | S | S | S | S |
| LHL-7 | R | R | S | S |
| TZ-1 | I | S | S | S |
| TZ-2 | S | S | S | S |
| TZ-4 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-1 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-3 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-4 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-5 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-6 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-7 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-8 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-9 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-10 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-11 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-12 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-13 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-14 | I | S | S | S |
| HS-15 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-16 | S | S | S | S |
| HS-17 | R | R | S | S |
AST by BMD, the results of antimicrobial susceptibility tested by broth microdilution method; AST by Ram, the results of antimicrobial susceptibility tested by single cell Raman-DIP; MIN, minocycline; and LVX, levofloxacin.
FIGURE 4The different procedures of AST for clinical blood samples. (A) the procedure of current clinical routine method; (B) the procedure of current clinical routine method combined with single cell Raman-DIP; and (C) the procedure of this study.
FIGURE 5The antimicrobial susceptibility of levofloxacin and minocycline of FMS-007. (A) the blood sample containing 106 CFU/mL treated with levofloxacin; (B) the blood sample containing 107 CFU/mL treated with levofloxacin; (C) the blood sample containing 106 CFU/mL treated with minocycline; and (D) the blood sample containing 107 CFU/mL treated with minocycline. The dotted lines indicated the cutoff value at 0.7 of the relative metabolic rates.