| Literature DB >> 35875581 |
Xiaoyun Qu1, Jie Zhou1,2, Haoqi Huang1,2, Wen Wang2, Yingping Xiao2, Biao Tang2, Hanlin Liu1, Chenggang Xu1, Xingning Xiao2.
Abstract
Proteus mirabilis is a common opportunistic zoonotic pathogen, and its ongoing acquisition of antimicrobial resistance genes poses challenges to clinical treatments. Human-sourced whole genomic sequencing of human P. mirabilis isolates has been reported, but pig-sourced isolates have not been thoroughly investigated even though these animals can serve as reservoirs for human infections. In the current study, we report a molecular epidemiological investigation to unravel the antimicrobial and virulence gene risk factors for P. mirabilis contamination in 9 pig farms in 3 different cities in Zhejiang Province, China. We collected 541 swab samples from healthy pigs and 30 were confirmed as P. mirabilis. All 30 isolates were resistant to tetracyclines, macrolides, sulfonamides, β-lactams and chloramphenicol, and all were multiple drug-resistant and 27 were strong biofilm formers. Phylogenetic analyses indicated these 30 isolates clustered together in 2 major groups. Whole genome sequencing demonstrated that the isolates possessed 91 different antimicrobial resistance genes belonging to 30 antimicrobial classes including rmtB, sul1, qnrS1, AAC(6') - Ib - cr, blaCTX - M - 65 and blaOXA - 1. All isolates contained mobile genetic elements including integrative conjugative elements (ICEs) and integrative and mobilizable elements (IMEs). Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing indicated direct correlates between cognate genes and antimicrobial resistance. We also identified 95 virulence factors, almost all isolates contained 20 fimbrial and flagellar operons, and this represents the greatest number of these operon types found in a single species among all sequenced bacterial genomes. These genes regulate biofilm formation and represent a confounding variable for treating P. mirabilis infections. Our P. mirabilis isolates were present in healthy animals, and multiple drug resistance in these isolates may serve as a reservoir for other intestinal and environmental Enterobacteriaceae members. This prompts us to more strictly regulate veterinary antibiotic use.Entities:
Keywords: Proteus mirabilis; antimicrobial resistance; biofilm information; virulence factor; whole genome sequencing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35875581 PMCID: PMC9300985 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.952982
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Sampling design and prevalence of Proteus mirabilis from different sources.
| Sources | No. of samples | Group | No. of positive | Percentage of isolates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| City | Farm | ||||
| Jinhua | 1 | 31 | PM1 | 2 (6.45%) | 8.91% |
| 2 | 33 | 4 (12.12%) | |||
| 3 | 38 | 3 (7.89%) | |||
| Hangzhou | 4 | 78 | PM2 | 6 (7.69%) | 4.58% |
| 5 | 80 | 3 (3.75%) | |||
| 6 | 82 | 2 (2.44%) | |||
| Quzhou | 7 | 63 | PM3 | 5 (7.94%) | 5.00% |
| 8 | 74 | 3 (4.05%) | |||
| 9 | 63 | 2 (3.17%) | |||
| Total | 541 | 30 | 5.55% | ||
Antimicrobial susceptibility tests for P. mirabilis strains used in this study (n = 30).
| Antimicrobial drug | Abbreviation | Breakpoint (μg/ml) | Results (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Name |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||||
| Tetracycline | TET | ≤4 | 8 | ≥16 | 0% (0/30) | 0% (0/30) | 100.00% (30/30) | |
| Minocycline | MIN | ≤4 | 8 | ≥16 | 0% (0/30) | 0% (0/30) | 100.00% (30/30) | |
|
| ||||||||
| Ofloxacin | OFX | ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | 30.00% (9/30) | 26.67% (8/30) | 43.33% (13/30) | |
| Naphthaleneic acid | NAL | ≤16 | – | ≥32 | 26.67% (8/30) | 0% (0/30) | 73.33% (22/30) | |
| Ciprofloxacin | CIP | ≤0.25 | 0.5 | ≥1 | 23.33% (7/30) | 0% (0/30) | 76.67% (23/30) | |
|
| ||||||||
| Azithromycin | AZ | ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | 0% (0/30) | 0% (0/30) | 100.00% (30/30) | |
| Erythromycin | EM | ≤0.5 | 1 | ≥8 | 0% (0/30) | 0% (0/30) | 100.00% (30/30) | |
|
| ||||||||
| Ampicillin | AMP | ≤8 | – | ≥16 | 10.00% (3/30) | 0% (0/30) | 90.00% (27/30) | |
| Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid | AMC | ≤8/4 | – | ≥16/8 | 10.00% (3/30) | 0% (0/30) | 90.00% (27/30) | |
| Ceftiofur | CEF | ≤2 | 4 | ≥8 | 16.67% (5/30) | 6.67% (2/30) | 76.67% (23/30) | |
| Meropenem | MEM | ≤1 | 2 | ≥4 | 40.00% (12/30) | 60.00% (18/30) | 0% (0/30) | |
|
| ||||||||
| Amikacin | AMK | ≤16 | 32 | ≥64 | 70.00% (21/30) | 10.00% (3/30) | 20.00% (6/30) | |
| Gentamicin | GEN | ≤4 | 8 | ≥16 | 30.00% (9/30) | 13.33% (4/30) | 56.67% (17/30) | |
|
| ||||||||
| Chloramphenicol | CHL | ≤8 | 16 | ≥32 | 0% (0/30) | 0% (0/30) | 100.00% (30/30) | |
|
| ||||||||
| Rifamycin | RIF | ≤1 | 2 | ≥4 | 26.67% (8/30) | 33.33% (10/30) | 40.00% (12/30) | |
Figure 1Phylogenetic tree of 31 P. mirabilis isolates in this study. (A) 16S rDNA tree. (B) SNP tree. (C) PCA analysis.
Figure 2Biofilm formation. Yellow, PM1; pink, PM2; blue, PM3. The cut-off value (ODc) was defined as 3 SD above the mean OD595 of the negative control: ODc = average OD595 of negative control + (3 × SD of negative control). OD595 ≤ ODc = absence of biofilm; ODc ≤ OD595 ≤ 2 × ODc = weak biofilm producer; 2 × ODc ≤ OD595 ≤ 4 × ODc = moderate biofilm producer; 4 × ODc ≤ OD595 = strong biofilm producer.
Figure 4Heatmap of antimicrobial resistance of P. mirabilis isolates according to (A) phenotype and (B) genotype.
Figure 3MDR tests of P. mirabilis isolates.
Figure 5ARGs present in P. mirabilis genomes of study isolates. (A) Phenotype; PM 1–5, PM 2–12 were resistant to all the tested drugs. (B) Genotype, excepting ARGs that all strains contained. (C) Fluoroquinolone, macrolide, phenicol, and sulfonamide prevalence. Red, positive; green, negative.
Phenotypic and genotypic analyses of antimicrobial resistance of P. mirabilis isolates.
| Antimicrobial drugs | Coherent results | Incoherent results | Percentage of coherence | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Name | Both susceptible | Both resistant | Phenotype resistance and genotype susceptible | Phenotype susceptible and genotype resistance | |
|
| ||||||
| Tetracycline | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% (30/30) | |
| Minocycline | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% (30/30) | |
|
| ||||||
| Ofloxacin | 0 | 21 | 0 | 9 | 70.00% (21/30) | |
| Naphthaleneic acid | 0 | 22 | 0 | 8 | 73.33% (22/30) | |
| Ciprofloxacin | 0 | 23 | 0 | 7 | 76.67% (23/30) | |
|
| ||||||
| Azithromycin | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% (30/30) | |
| Erythromycin | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% (30/30) | |
|
| ||||||
| Ampicillin | 3 | 17 | 9 | 0 | 70.00% (21/30) | |
| Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid | 3 | 17 | 9 | 0 | 70.00% (21/30) | |
| Ceftiofur | 3 | 20 | 5 | 2 | 76.67% (23/30) | |
| Meropenem | 4 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 60.00% (18/30) | |
|
| ||||||
| Amikacin | 10 | 9 | 0 | 11 | 63.33% (19/30) | |
| Gentamicin | 6 | 17 | 4 | 3 | 76.67% (23/30) | |
|
| ||||||
| Chloramphenicol | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% (30/30) | |
|
| ||||||
| Rifamycin | 0 | 19 | 3 | 8 | 63.33% (19/30) | |
MGE prediction for the 30 isolates examined in this study.
| Group | Isolates | MGE numbers | Number positive | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICE | IME | ICE | IME | ||
| PM1 ( | PM1-7 | 1 | 0 | 33.33% (3/9) | 0.00 (0/9) |
| PM1-8 | 2 | 0 | |||
| PM1-9 | 1 | 0 | |||
| PM2 ( | PM2-3 | 0 | 1 | 18.18% (2/11) | 36.36% (4/11) |
| PM2-5 | 0 | 1 | |||
| PM2-6 | 1 | 2 | |||
| PM2-10 | 1 | 1 | |||
| PM3 ( | PM3-1 | 2 | 0 | 80.00% (8/10) | 20.00% (2/10) |
| PM3-2 | 1 | 0 | |||
| PM3-3 | 1 | 0 | |||
| PM3-4 | 1 | 0 | |||
| PM3-5 | 1 | 1 | |||
| PM3-6 | 1 | 0 | |||
| PM3-8 | 0 | 1 | |||
| PM3-9 | 1 | 0 | |||
| PM3-10 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Total | 53.33% (16/30) | 15 | 7 | 43.33% (13/30) | 20.00% (6/30) |
Details of 15 predicted ICEs and 7 IMEs.
| Isolate | Location (nt) | GC content (%) | Length (bp) | Direct repeats | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM1-7 | 1809473..1902135 | 44.85 | 92,663 | Putative ICE with T4SS | |
| PM1-8 | 2873874..2966537 | 44.85 | 92,664 | † | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| 3727325..4093850 | 41.37 | 366,526 | attL: 3727325..3727339 (agaggtcattgtgca) | Putative ICE with T4SS | |
| PM1-9 | 1810225..1902887 | 44.85 | 92,663 | ≠ | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM2-6 | 1741700..1935382 | 41.39 | 193,683 | attL: 1741700..1741714 (ttttgaatgacataa) | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM2-10 | 3589109..3824596 | 40.54 | 235,488 | attL: 3589109..3589124 (taattgccattatatt) | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM3-1 | 3795192..3926392 | 44.63 | 131,201 | attL: 3795192..3795206 (agatacattttgttt) | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| 1308600..1414471 | 43.22 | 105,872 | attL: 1308600..1308614 (tattgccgctttaat) | Putative ICE with T4SS | |
| PM3-2 | 1678276..1746776 | 43.40 | 68,501 | attL: 1678276..1678290 (taaaagcaacagcat) | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM3-3 | 3696382..3796909 | 41.98 | 100,528 | attL: 3696382..3696396 (taatgctattttttt) | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM3-4 | 1678055..1746555 | 43.40 | 68,501 | attL: 1678055..1678069 (taaaagcaacagcat) | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM3-5 | 3524314..3652232 | 42.17 | 127,919 | attL: 3524314..3524328 (ataaaatacttttta) | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM3-6 | 3603558..3866601 | 40.46 | 263,044 | attL: 3603558..3603573 (tctgtgcagtaaaaaa) | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM3-9 | 3601557..3864543 | 40.45 | 262,987 | attL: 3601557..3601572 (tctgtgcagtaaaaaa) | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM3-10 | 3716853..3757384 | 44.69 | 40,532 | – | Putative ICE with T4SS |
| PM2-3 | 3790440..3819943 | 44.38 | 29,504 | attL: 3790440..3790454 (caaaaccataaaacc) | Putative IME |
| PM2-5 | 3363919..3384240 | 40.87 | 20,322 | attL: 3363919..3363933 (ccaaaaaatgcatta) | Putative IME |
| PM2-6 | 3316029..3385857 | 36.68 | 69,829 | attL: 3316029..3316044 (aaaatattagtgagta) | Putative IME |
| 3853151..3907640 | 45.54 | 54,490 | †† | Putative IME | |
| PM2-10 | 3847018..3872472 | 42.51 | 25,455 | attL: 3847018..3847032 (cgctgatgcagtaac) | Putative IME |
| PM3-5 | 1510679..1556480 | 40.12 | 45,802 | attL: 1510679..1510694 (cagcaatggatattta) | Putative IME |
| PM3-8 | 3864568..3889007 | 42.45 | 24,440 | attL: 3864568..3864582 (cgctgatgcagtaac) | Putative IME |
.
.
.
Figure 6Virulence factors. (A) Virulence factor categories and the number represented in each category. (B) Virulence factors that were variably present among isolates. Red, positive; green, negative.