| Literature DB >> 35625149 |
Reinhard Sting1,2, Ingo Schwabe1, Melissa Kieferle1, Maren Münch1, Jörg Rau1.
Abstract
Rhodococcus (R.) equi is a pathogen primarily known for infections in equine foals, but is also present in numerous livestock species including New World camelids. Moreover, R. equi is considered an emerging zoonotic pathogen. In this report, we describe in detail a fatal rhodococcal infection in an alpaca (Vicugna pacos), to our best knowledge, for the first time. The alpaca died due to a septicemic course of an R. equi infection resulting in emaciation and severe lesions including pyogranulomas in the lungs and pericardial effusion. The onset of the infection was presumably caused by aspiration pneumonia. R. equi could be isolated from the pyogranulomas in the lung and unequivocally identified by MALDI-TOF MS analysis and partial sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, the 16S-23S internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region and the rpoB gene. The isolate proved to possess the vapA gene in accordance with tested isolates originating from the lungs of infected horses. The R. equi isolates revealed low minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC values) for doxycycline, erythromycin, gentamycin, neomycin, rifampicin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline and vancomycin in antibiotic susceptibility testing. Investigations on the cause of bacterial, especially fatal, septicemic infections in alpacas are essential for adequately addressing the requirements for health and welfare issues of this New World camelid species. Furthermore, the zoonotic potential of R. equi has to be considered with regard to the One Health approach.Entities:
Keywords: DNA sequencing; MALDI-TOF MS; Rhodococcus equi; alpaca; antibiotic susceptibility; pyogranulomatous pneumonia; vapA gene
Year: 2022 PMID: 35625149 PMCID: PMC9137691 DOI: 10.3390/ani12101303
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 3.231
Figure 1Histological section of a focal pyogranuloma in the lung of the alpaca with central cell debris as well as peripheral neutrophil granulocytes and alveolar macrophages (A), and plant material (B). Numerous bacteria, both extra- and intracellular in neutrophils and macrophages are also pictured (magnification 100×).
Figure 2MSP Dendrogram created by cluster analysis of reference main spectra (MSP) obtained by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (MALDI Biotyper, Version 3.1, Bruker Daltonik) of a Rhodococcus (R.) equi isolate from an alpaca (underlined) in comparison to a selection of available MSPs of strains of the genus Rhodococcus from the commercial Bruker Biotyper database and external reference entries, documented in the MALDI-UP catalogue on https://maldi-up.ua-bw.de (accessed on 14 March 2022) [39]. Type strains (T) and external reference spectra (*) are indicated. In context of this study, the following self-created MSPs were used for comparison: R. equi reference strain ATCC 33701 (horse lung) and the four R. equi German field isolates, CVUAS 2998 and CVUAS 952 (each from horse lungs), CVUAS 4057 (pig placenta), and CVUAS 5384.2 (cattle lymph nodes).
Determination of minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values (mg/L) for R. equi isolates using the micro-dilution method. Assessment of the MIC values was carried out using the MCN6 software (Merlin, Germany). R = resistance, I = intermediary susceptibility, S = susceptibility. n.d.p. = no data provided.
| Antibiotic | CVUAS 2755.3 | CVUAS 246 | CVUAS 2998 | CVUAS 952 | CVUAS 4057 | CVUAS 5384-2 | MIC50 1 | MIC90 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ampicillin | =8 (R) | =8 (R) | =8 (R) | =8 (R) | =8 (R) | =8 (R) | 4 | 8 |
| Cefquinom | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | =4 (I) | =4 (I) | =4 (I) | >4 (R) | 2 | 4 |
| Ceftiofur | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | 8 | 16 |
| Cefazolin | >8 (R) | >8 (R) | >8 (R) | >8 (R) | >8 (R) | >8 (R) | n.d.p. | n.d.p. |
| Clindamycin | >2 (R) | >2 (R) | >2 (R) | >2 (R) | >2 (R) | >2 (R) | 4 | 8 |
| Cefoxitin | >4 (R) | =4 (S) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | n.d.p. | n.d.p. |
| Doxycyclin | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | 1 | 1 |
| Enrofloxacin | =1 (I) | =0.5 (I) | =0.5 (I) | =0.5 (I) | =0.5 (I) | =0.5 (I) | 1 | 1 |
| Erythromycin | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Florfenicol | =8 (R) | >8 (R) | >8 (R) | >8 (R) | =8 (R) | >8 (R) | 16 | 16 |
| Gentamicin | ≤1 (S) | ≤1 (S) | ≤1 (S) | ≤1 (S) | ≤1 (S) | ≤1 (S) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Neomycin | ≤8 (S) | ≤8 (S) | ≤8 (S) | ≤8 (S) | ≤8 (S) | ≤8 (S) | n.d.p. | n.d.p.. |
| Nitrofurantoin | =64 (I) | =64 (I) | =64 (I) | =64 (I) | =64 (I) | =64 (I) | n.d.p. | n.d.p.. |
| Oxacillin | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | >4 (R) | n.d.p. | n.d.p. |
| Penicillin G | >8 (R) | >8 (R) | >8 (R) | =8 (R) | =8 (R) | =8 (R) | 4 | 4 |
| Rifampicin | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.25 (S) | =0.5 (S) | =0.25 (S) | 0.06 | 0.12 |
| Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole 2 | =1 (S) | =1 (S) | =1 (S) | =2 (S) | =1 (S) | =1 (S) | 0.25 | 0.5 |
| Tetracycline | =2 (S) | =4 (S) | =2 (S) | =2 (S) | =2 (S) | =2 (S) | 4 | 8 |
| Vancomycin | ≤0.5 (S) | ≤0.5 (S) | ≤0.5 (S) | ≤0.5 (S) | ≤0.5 (S) | ≤0.5 (S) | 0.5 | 0.5 |
1 MIC50 and MIC90 values adapted from Riesenberg et al. (2014) [60]. 2 The MIC values of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (1:19) are expressed as the MIC values of trimethoprim.