| Literature DB >> 35962141 |
Ayza S J Teng1, Patrick E Habermehl1, Robin van Houdt2, Menno D de Jong1, Rosa van Mansfeld2, Sébastien P F Matamoros1, Ingrid J B Spijkerman1, Maurits P A van Meer3, Caroline E Visser4.
Abstract
Early detection of bacterial transmission and outbreaks in hospitals is important because nosocomial infections can result in health complications and longer hospitalization. Current practice to detect outbreaks uses genotyping methods amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), which are not suitable methods for real-time transmission screening of both susceptible and resistant bacteria. The aim was to assess the typing technique Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy as real-time screening method to discriminate large amounts of susceptible and resistant bacteria at strain level when there is no evident outbreak in comparison with the WGS reference. Isolates of past hospital outbreak strains of Acinetobacter baumannii/calcoaceticus complex (n = 25), Escherichia coli (n = 31), Enterococcus faecium (n = 22), Staphylococcus aureus (n = 37) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 30) were used for validation of FTIR. Subsequently, Enterococcus faecalis (n = 106) and Enterococcus faecium (n = 104) isolates from weekly routine screening samples when no potential outbreak was present were analysed. FTIR showed reproducibility and congruence of cluster composition with WGS for A. baumannii/calcoaceticus complex and E. faecium outbreak isolates. The FTIR results of E. faecalis and E. faecium isolates from routine samples showed reproducibility, but the congruence of cluster composition with WGS was low. For A. baumannii/calcoaceticus complex and E. faecium outbreak isolates, FTIR appears to be a discriminatory typing tool. However, our study shows the discriminatory power is too low to screen real-time for transmission of E. faecium and E. faecalis at patient wards based on isolates acquired in routine surveillance cultures when there is no clear suspicion of an ongoing outbreak.Entities:
Keywords: Bacteria; Bacterial typing; Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; Whole genome sequencing
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35962141 PMCID: PMC9482911 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-022-04270-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem ISSN: 1618-2642 Impact factor: 4.478
The AFLP cluster results of the multiple-strain past-outbreak collection of common nosocomial species
| Species/cluster number | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 | Cluster 6 | Cluster 7 | Cluster 8 | Non-clustering isolates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. baumannii | 16 isolates | 4 isolates | 2 isolates | 2 isolates | 1 isolate | ||||
| E. coli | 3 isolates | 2 isolates | 3 isolates | 2 isolates | 2 isolates | 2 isolates | 2 isolates | 7 isolates | 7 isolates |
| E. faecium | 11 isolates | 7 isolates | 2 isolates | 2 isolates | |||||
| S. aureus | 11 isolates | 5 isolates | 3 isolates | 3 isolates | 15 isolates | ||||
| P. aeruginosa | 9 isolates | 4 isolates | 2 isolates | 2 isolates | 2 isolates | 10 isolates |
Amount of technical errors, removed measurements, typeability and isolates in same cluster in repeated runs of FTIRS-typing
| Species | Number of measurements with technical error messages | Removed measurements from further analysis | Typeability of isolates | Typable isolate measurement in the same cluster compared to Run 1 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run 1 | Run 2 | Run 3 | Run 1 | Run 2 | Run 3 | Run 1 | Run 2 | Run 3 | Run 2 | Run 3 | |
| 3/100 (3.0%) | 6/100 (6.0%) | 2/100 (2.0%) | 4/100 (4.0%) | 11/100 (11.0%) | 5/100 (5.0%) | 24/25 (96.0%) | 23/25 (92.0%) | 24/25 (96.0%) | 21/22 (95.5%) | 21/23 (91.3%) | |
| 3/124 (2.4%) | 3/124 (2.4%) | 1/124 (0.8%) | 4/124 (3.2%) | 3/124 (2.4%) | 1/124 (0.8%) | 30/31 (96.8%) | 30/31 (96.8%) | 31/31 (100%) | 30/30 (100%) | 28/30 (93.3%) | |
| 1/88 (1.1%) | 3/88 (3.4%) | 3/88 (3.4%) | 0/88 (0.0%) | 4/88 (4.5%) | 5/88 (5.7%) | 22/22 (100%) | 21/22 (95.5%) | 22/22 (100%) | 20/21 (95.2%) | 20/22 (90.9%) | |
| 44/120 (36.7%) | 31/120 (25.8%) | 43/120 (35.8%) | 51/120 (42.5%) | 40/120 (33.3%) | 45/120 (37.5%) | 19/30 (63.3%) | 21/30 (70.0%) | 19/30 (63.3%) | 16/16 (100%) | 9/13 (69.2%) | |
| 7/148 (4.7%) | 8/148 (5.4%) | 13/148 (8.8%) | 3/148 (2.0%) | 8/148 (5.4%) | 9/148 (6.1%) | 37/37 (100%) | 36/37 (97.3%) | 37/37 (100%) | 23/36 (63.9%) | 27/37 (73.0%) | |
Adjusted Rand index (ARI) comparing the FTIRS repeated runs
| Species | Run 1 and 2 | Run 1 and 3 | Run 2 and 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.854 | 0.864 | 0.743 | |
| 0.796 | 0.974 | 0.788 | |
| 0.883 | 0.785 | 0.869 | |
| 0.571 | 0.615 | 0.446 |
Adjusted Wallace Index (AWI) of FTIRS- and WGS-typinga
| Species | WGS → FTIRS | (95% CI) | FTIRS → WGS | (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.000 | (1.000–1.000) | 0.986 | (0.973–1.000) | |
| 0.880 | (0.811–0.949) | 0.710 | (0.436–0.985) | |
| 0.967 | (0.934–1.000) | 0.608 | (0.292–0.924) |
aThe adjusted Wallace index is based on the raw data of 12 replicates per isolate
Total amount of technical errors and removed measurements of FTIRS typing of ICU isolates
| Species | Number of measurements with technical error messages | Removed measurements from further analysis |
|---|---|---|
| 52/1272 (4.1%) | 47/1272 (3.7%) | |
| 3/1248 (0,2%) | 3/1248 (0,2%) |
Adjusted Rand index (ARI) comparing the FTIRS repeated runs of ICU isolates
| Species | Run 1 and 2 | Run 1 and 3 | Run 2 and 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.987 | 0.978 | 0.972 | |
| 0.970 | 0.970 | 1.000 |
Fig. 1Clustering of FTIRS of 106 unrelated E. faecalis. The FTIRS clusters are displayed as shaded boxes. The corresponding WGS cluster of the isolate selected for analysis is displayed in the final column. Incongruently clustered isolates are marked with arrows
Fig. 2Clustering of FTIRS of 104 E. faecium collected without the presence of an evident outbreak and 15 vancomycin-resistant E. faecium (VRE) isolates of an outbreak. The VRE is indicated by a red circle. The FTIRS clusters are displayed as shaded boxes. The corresponding WGS cluster of the isolate selected for analysis is displayed in the final column