Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 30;18(6):e0286594. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286594

Antimicrobial susceptibility of western Canadian Brachyspira isolates: Development and standardization of an agar dilution susceptibility test method

D G R S Kulathunga 1, John C S Harding 2, Joseph E Rubin 1,*
Editor: Marwa Ibrahim Abd El-Hamid3
PMCID: PMC10313021  PMID: 37390052

Abstract

The re-emergence of Brachyspira-associated disease in pigs since the late 2000s has illuminated some of the diagnostic challenges associated with this genus; notably, the lack of standardized antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) methods and interpretive criteria. Consequently, laboratories have relied heavily on highly variable in-house developed methods. There are currently no published investigations describing the antimicrobial susceptibility of Brachyspira isolates collected from pigs in Canada. The first objective of this study was therefore to develop a standardized protocol for conducting agar dilution susceptibility testing of Brachyspira spp., including determining the optimal standardized inoculum density, a key test variable that impacts test performance. The second objective was to determine the susceptibility of a collection of western Canadian Brachyspira isolates using the standardized methodology. After assessing multiple media, an agar dilution test was standardized in terms of starting inoculum (1–2 × 108 CFU/ml), incubation temperature and time, and assessed for repeatability. The antimicrobial susceptibility of a collection of clinical porcine Brachyspira isolates (n = 87) collected between 2009–2016 was then determined. This method was highly reproducible; repeat susceptibility testing yielded identical results 92% of the time. Although most of the isolates had very low MICs to the commonly used antimicrobials to treat Brachyspira-associated infections, several isolates with elevated MICs (>32 μg/ml) for tiamulin, valnemulin, tylosin, tylvalosin, and lincomycin were identified. Overall, this study underscores the importance of establishing CLSI approved clinical breakpoints for Brachyspira to facilitate the interpretation of test results and support the evidence-based selection of antimicrobials in swine industry.

Introduction

Brachyspira is a genus of Gram-negative, aerotolerant-anaerobic spirochetes that grow at high incubation temperatures (39–42⁰C). These organisms are difficult to work with because they often do not produce surface growth on agar plates, and when they do discrete colonies are typically not present. On solid media, growth is recognized as hemolytic zones on blood agar plates. Swine dysentery, which is characterized by muco-hemorrhagic diarrhea, was first described in 1921 in the United States, although it was not until the early 1970s that B. hyodysenteriae was isolated [1, 2]. Recently, this disease has also been identified in association with the emerging species B. hampsonii and B. suanatina [3]. Swine dysentery affects grow-finisher pigs and is one of the most economically damaging diseases associated with Brachyspira species [4]. In contrast, B. pilosicoli has a broader host spectrum including pigs, other domestic animals, wildlife, and humans and can cause porcine intestinal spirochetosis in pigs within 7 to 14 days post-weaning [5, 6].

Anecdotally, the occruence of swine dysentery has re-emerged in the late 2000s following a period of quiescence in since the mid-1990’s; in 2009 B. hampsonii was detected for the first time in Western Canada [7]. The return of swine dysentery was concurrently identified in the mid-western United States; reports from Iowa and Minnesota also identified B. hampsonii which has been phylogenetically divided into three clusters (I, II and III) [810].

The re-emergence of Brachyspira-associated disease has illuminated the diagnostic challenges of this genus, particularly for antimicrobial susceptibility testing which has not been standardized for the conditions under which Brachyspira spp. grow [11]. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) prescribes a standardized set of test conditions for both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria including: media composition (pH, ionic composition and presence or absence of blood), incubation time, temperature, atmosphere, starting inoculum size and test endpoints [1214]. The effects of modifying these parameters on the results of susceptibility tests are well recognized and were perhaps best described in a 1971 report which formed the basis for an international effort to develop test standards [15]. Particularly germane for Brachyspira are the effects of inoculum size on MIC; because these organisms don’t form colonies and enumeration of live cells/ml (CFU/ml) is difficult, determining culture density is challenging. Furthermore, Brachyspira spp. are recognized to grow irregularly in liquid media [11]. When conducting a broth micro-dilution test it can be difficult to differentiate whether a culture didn’t grow because it was inhibited by the antimicrobial or because of insufficient organism density to grow.

Determining the antimicrobial susceptibility of Brachyspira relies heavily on in-house developed methods each of which may yield different results, making comparisons between labs impossible. This was exemplified by a 2005 study where eight European laboratories participated in a ring test of Brachyspira diagnostics and the results between labs were inconsistent as a standardized methodology was not used [11, 16]. A follow up ring trial reported overall agreement of 90% between labs, and depending on the drug, 79%-97% of MICs determined were within the pre-determined ranges [17]. This study reported differences in assay repeatability between species, ≥ 80% of MICs within the expected range for B. pilosicoli, however, for B. hyodysenteriae inter-laboratory results were less consistent [17]. While this investigation represents an advancement in the field, the authors did not provide a method for quantitatively measuring the starting inoculum. This follow-up study also included the strain B78T as a quality control, allowing the observed MICs for this strain to be compared to previously observed reference values [17]. However, as this investigation did not include B. hampsonii, further study is required to validate this method for this newly emerged pathogen [17]. Standardized antimicrobial susceptibility test guidelines are published by EUCAST and the CLSI; these prescribe parameters including test media including cation concentration and pH, incubation temperature, time and atmosphere, size of bacterial inoculum tested and in the case of disc diffusion, the antimicrobial content of each disc [13, 14, 18]. The lack of standardized interpretive criteria is another important limitation; although interpretive criteria for Brachyspira spp. have been suggested, no standard resistance breakpoints have been approved by either the Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) or European Committee on Antimicrobial Testing [12, 1820]. The lack of test methods and interpretive criteria are critical barriers to the evidence-based use of antimicrobials [11].

In pigs, Brachyspira-associated disease is treated with pleuromutilins, macrolides and lincosamides [21]. Although inter-laboratory comparisons of Brachyspira MICs are speculative, there is compelling within lab evidence suggesting that resistance is emerging to these drugs in pathogenic species of Brachyspira [2224]. The antimicrobial susceptibility of Canadian Brachyspira isolates including novel species B. hampsonii has not been described. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and standardize an agar dilution test for determining the antimicrobial MICs of Brachyspira spp. and to describe the antimicrobial susceptibility of an archived collection of western Canadian isolates.

Materials and methods

Standardized antimicrobial susceptibility test development

Development of a standard curve relating organism concentration to an optical density

An equation to relate a Brachyspira culture density to the measured optical density (OD600nm) was developed using 3 type strains representing the species of greatest clinical importance: B. pilosicoli (ATCC 51139), B. hyodysenteriae (JXNI00000000) and B. hampsonii genomovar II (IDAC No 161111–01, ALNZ00000000) [25, 26]. Briefly, frozen isolates were sub-cultured on BJ agar, a commonly used selective media for working with Brachyspira which contains spectinomycin, spiramycin, colistin, vancomycin and rifampin [27]. Agar cultures were then transferred into brain heart infusion broth supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (BHIS). Broth cultures were incubated for 24–48 hours at 39°C in an anaerobic jar (Anerogen TM 2.5 L, Thermo Scientific Oxide Sachet) on a magnetic stirrer to obtain fresh bacterial cultures. A series of dilutions (1:1.1, 1:1.2, 1:1.3 and 1:2–1:512) were prepared from fresh cultures to define an OD curve over a wide range of concentrations. In parallel, serial 1:10 dilutions were prepared from each initial dilution. One hundred μl of each broth culture were taken from all of the final dilutions and plated on blood agar then incubated for 42 hours at 42°C and inspected for hemolytic zones. Microsoft Excel was used to generate scatter plots relating OD600nm to CFU/ml, and to determine an equation describing this relationship. The relationship between OD600nm, CFU/ml and genome equivalents/ml as measured by qRT PCR was determined and found to be consistent (S1 Table).

Determination of the minimum inoculum required to start a culture

Brachyspira pilosicoli, B. hyodysenteriae, and B. hampsonii were grown anaerobically at 42°C for 48 hrs on BJ agar [27]. Isolates were then sub-cultured into BHIS and incubated at 39°C in an anaerobic jar as described above for 24–48 hrs (usually B. pilosicoli and B. hyodysenteriae isolates grew within 24 hrs whereas B. hampsonii required 48 hrs of incubation). Following incubation, a drop of each culture was examined under a phase-contrast microscope at 400 magnification to confirm the presence of live, motile spirochetes. The optical density (at 600 nm) of cultures was then measured to determine the bacterial concentration (CFU/ml).

A 1:10 dilution series (10−1 to 10−9) was made of each culture and 2 μl was inoculated onto agar. Each dilution was also sub-cultured, in triplicate, into fresh broth (1 ml into 9 ml fresh BHIS) (Fig 1). Cultures were incubated anaerobically at 39°C for 24 hrs (broths) or at 42°C for 48 hrs (agar). Following incubation, the media were inspected for growth. In the case of broth, visible turbidity compared to an uninoculated control was considered positive (growth), all turbid broths were examined microscopically to confirm the presence of motile spirochetes. In the case of solid media the presence of hemolytic zone was considered positive (growth) on agar. The concentration of organisms in the most diluted starting inoculum which resulted in visible growth was then calculated using the equation derived to determine the minimum inoculum required to obtain a positive culture.

Fig 1. Preparation of different starting inoculum sizes.

Fig 1

To determine the effect of starting inoculum size on the growth of different Brachyspira spp. in both agar and liquid media, serial dilutions (10−1 to 10−9) of starting inoculum sizes were prepared. Then broth cultures with different inoculum sizes were inoculated by adding 100 μl of starting inoculum to brain heart infusion (BHIS) vial and by adding 2 μl to the agar media.

Determining the effect of inoculum size on antimicrobial MIC

Trypticase soy agar (TSA) + 5% sheep’s blood containing antimicrobials representing four drug classes (pleuromutilin-tiamulin, macrolide-tylosin, β-lactam-ampicillin and quinolone-nalidixic acid) were prepared. For each antimicrobial, plates containing a series of dilutions from 0.25–128 μg/ml were made and MICs were determined for B. pilosicoli, B. hyodysenteriae and B. hampsonii. The organism concentration of each BHIS broth culture was determined by measuring (Thermo Scientific ND-2000 UV-Vis Spectrophotometer) the OD600nm. A 1:5 dilution series (undiluted broth culture, 1:5, 1:25, 1:625, 1:3125) was made of each broth culture, and 2 μl was spotted onto the antimicrobial-containing plates in triplicate. Plates were incubated anaerobically for 2 days at 42°C and the lowest concentrations at which no hemolysis was observed were recorded.

By comparing our results (how MIC changes in different species with different inoculum concentrations and the repeatability of observations between replicates for each inoculum density) and conventions of the discipline (CLSI standards), an optimal starting inoculum concentration was selected.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Isolate selection and species identification

A total of 93 samples including 87 clinical porcine isolates collected between 2009 and 2016, four ATCC strains (B. pilosicoli ATCC 51139, B. innocens ATCC 29796, B. murdochii ATCC 51284, B. hyodysenteriae ATCC 27164) and two in-house reference strains (B. hampsonii 30446 and B. hampsonii 30599) were included in the study.

Porcine clinical isolates originated from fecal or colonic samples submitted to the Brachyspira diagnostic laboratory at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan. Briefly, upon receiving the samples, they were plated on BJ agar [27] and anaerobically incubated as described above. When hemolysis was observed, an approximately 1 cm2 of agar was scraped from an isolated zone of hemolysis using a sterile bacteriological loop, macerating and then streaking it out on a sterile BJ plate. These plates were then similarly incubated at 42°C for 48 hours and visually inspected. For each sample where Brachyspira grew, a total of 2–3 sub-cultures were performed to ensure that a pure culture was obtained. Thereafter, an approximately 2 cm cube of agar was sliced from an isolated β-hemolytic zone and transferred into a vial containing 10 ml of BHIS + 1% glucose (10% v:v) and incubated anaerobically at 39°C for 24 hrs with stirring. Broth cultures were then pelleted by centrifugation, the supernatant was removed, and the pellet resuspended in 1ml of BHI + 10% glycerol for storage at -80°C.

The clinical isolates originated from 39 different swine farms belonging to eight epidemiologically distinct production systems located in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba. A production system was defined as an umbrella company comprised of one or more swine farms which are independent of other companies [24]. The pigs’ genotype, environmental conditions, and other natural resources (feed, manipulative materials) used in one production system may be different from other production systems [28]. The farms within a production system follow similar management practices and have pigs from a common source. The number of isolates from each production system are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. The number of isolates from each production system.
Production system Total number of isolates Number of each species
BH BHM BP BM BI NC
A 3 2 1
B 39 15 8 3 4 6 3
C 16 2 8 6
D 5 2 1
E 13 1 6 3 3
F 5 4 1
G 4 1 2 1
H 2 2

BH = B. hyodysenteriae (n = 17), BHM = B. hampsonii (n = 14), BP = B. pilosicoli (n = 16), BM = B. murdochii (n = 18), BI = B. innocens (n = 7), NC = non-clustering (n = 13).

The species of each isolate was identified based on partial NADH oxidase (nox) phylogeny as previously described [29, 30]. Briefly, DNA was purified from cell pellets of isolates grown in BHIS using a DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (QIAGEN) and nox sequences were amplified with genus-specific primers. PCR amplicons were purified using a commercial kit (BS664-250 REP, EZ-10 Spin Column PCR purification Kit, Bio Basic Canada Inc., Ontario, Canada) and were sequenced using the amplification primers. Sequences were assembled and edited using the pregap4 and gap4, and sequence alignments were performed in CLC Sequence Viewer (Version 7.7) using the ClustalW algorithm. A maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree was constructed from the aligned sequences using maximum likelihood method in MEGA (version 7.0.26) using the nucleotide substitution method with 50 bootstrap replicates [31]. Isolates were categorized as: B. hyodysenteriae, B. hampsonii, B. pilosicoli, B. murdochii, B. innocens based on clustering with sequences from the type strains of each species within the phylogenetic tree. Those isolates which were less than 97% similar to reference strains and fell between species clusters were categorized as non-clustering in this study.

Agar dilution

Ten antimicrobials, tiamulin, valnemulin, tylosin, lincomycin, tylvalosin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol, nalidixic acid, ampicillin, and amoxicillin + clavulanic acid (2:1), were selected to represent both the breadth of products used to treat swine bacterial diseases and multiple mechanisms of action. For each antimicrobial, concentrations from 0.25–128 μg/ml were prepared as per the CLSI guidelines and incorporated into TSA with 5% sheep blood which were used within 3 days [13].

Prior to susceptibility testing, isolates were cultured from freezer stocks in BHIS and incubated at anaerobically at 39° C for 2–3 days until turbidity was observed. Concurrently, a drop of each culture was inoculated on an antibiotic free TSA agar plate and incubated at 42° C anaerobically for 48 hours to ensure purity of the culture. When turbidity was observed, ODs were measured, and bacterial density was adjusted to a standard 1–2 × 108 CFU/ml. Gram-stains were prepared from each broth to confirm the presence of Gram-negative spirochetes and the absence of contaminating organisms. A 2 μl aliquot (2–4 × 105 CFU) of each isolate was spotted onto the antibiotic-containing (n = 300 = [(10 antimicrobials) (10 concentrations) (3 replicates)] and antimicrobial free/positive control plates (n = 3). Plates were incubated in anaerobic jars at 42°C for 48 hours, replicates were always incubated in separate jars. Hemolysis at the inoculum site was used as the indicator of growth, and a lightbox was used to aid in the visualization of hemolysis. For antimicrobial free/positive control plates growth was always observed. The MIC was defined as the lowest antimicrobial concentration where hemolysis was not observed. In cases where MICs differed between replicates, and the difference between the highest and lowest observation was no more than a single doubling dilution, the modal value was defined as the MIC. If greater than single dilution variability in MICs was observed between replicates the isolate was retested. Because the effect of the protein synthesis inhibitors on the production of hemolysin in Brachyspira is unknown we were interested to know whether production of hemolysins is inhibited at a lower antimicrobial concentration than is required to inhibit the growth. To test this, in each isolate inoculation sites of both MIC and MIC + one doubling dilution were sub-cultured. Both MICs and growth (Yes/No) on sub-cultured plates were recorded. Finally, thirty-five isolates were selected, using a random number generator, for subsequent re-testing to assess the reproducibility of the assay.

Reproducibility of the standardized agar dilution method

Thirty-five randomly selected isolates were retested to assess the reproducibility of the assay. Observations were categorized as: complete agreement (identical between repeats), one doubling dilution difference or > one doubling dilution difference. The precision of MIC determination was defined as plus or minus 1 two-fold concentration [13], therefore, complete agreement and one doubling dilution different were considered “agreement” for the calculation of reproducibility. For isolates which were inhibited by the lowest concentration tested (MIC of ≤ 0.25 μg/ml), the test was considered to be reproducible if both observed MICs were ≤ 0.25 μg/ml. Reproducibility of the assay was statistically evaluated between first observation of MIC and the second observation of MIC using a parameter of correlation (Kendall’s tau-b) and a measurement of agreement (Kappa).

Results

Development of an equation relating organism concentration to an optical density

The linear relationship of bacterial concentration and absorbance is observed with OD between 0–1 [32, 33]. Linear relationships were obtained for all three species, B. pilosicoli, B. hampsonii and B. hyodysenteriae (Fig 2A–2C). The calculated CFUs in all three species for each observed OD measurement were averaged to draw the equation for average (Fig 2D). According to this finding, bacterial concentration can be calculated by the following equation (equation: CFU/ml = [(6.33×108)* (OD)]-8.33×106, where OD = optical density of a broth culture measured at 600nm (Fig 3).

Fig 2. The effect of optical density on determination of bacterial density (CFU/ml) in a broth culture of Brachyspira spp.

Fig 2

Relationship between optical density and colony forming unit of: (A) B. pilosicoli (OD), (B) B. hampsonii, (C) B. hyodysenteriae. (D) Plotted equations for all three species determined from experimental data and averaged (red line) into have an equation which can predict the bacterial density (CFU/ml) in a broth culture.

Fig 3. The growth of B. pilosicoli in brain heart infusion (BHI) broth with different starting inoculum sizes.

Fig 3

Visible growth (turbidity = (+) growth, no turbidity = (-) growth) in brain heart infusion broth (supplemented with 1% defibrinated serum) with decreasing starting inoculum size (from left to right: uninoculated control (blank), (A) 8.7×108 growth, (B) 8.7×107 growth, (C) 8.7×106 growth, (D) 8.7×105 no-growth, (E) 8.7×104 no-growth, (F) 8.7×103 no-growth, (G) 8.7×102 no-growth, (H) 8.7×101 no-growth, (I) ~8.7 CFU/ml) no-growth.

Determination of minimum inoculum size to grow Brachyspira on solid and liquid media

The cut-off concentration was defined as a starting inoculum sufficient to achieve visible growth on both solid and liquid media (Figs 3 and 4). For solid media, growth was observed following inoculation with as few as 1–11 CFU per spot while a substantially higher concentration (8.7×105–5.4×107 CFU/ml) was required for liquid cultures (Table 1).

Fig 4. Visible growth of B. hampsonii on trypticase soy agar (TSA) with different starting inoculum sizes.

Fig 4

Three replicates were included for each inoculum and a total volume of 2 μl were spotted onto each plate. (1a-1c) 8,000 CFU/spot, (2a-2c) 800 CFU/spot, (3a-3c) 80 CFU/spot, (4a-4c) 8 CFU/spot, (5a-5c) >1 CFU/spot, (6a) >1 CFU/spot. Haemolysis was used as an indicator of visible growth.

Table 1. Minimum inoculum of three Brachyspira species required for growth on liquid and solid media.

Species Minimum inoculum size (CFU) yielding visible growth in liquid media Minimum inoculum size (CFU) yielding haemolysis on agar
B. pilosicoli 8.7 × 105 1
B. hyodysenteriae 5.4 × 107 11
B. hampsonii 4.1 × 106 8

Effect of inoculum size on observed minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)

For all three species, consistent MICs were observed with concentrations higher than or equal to 4.4×107 CFU/ml for B. hyodysenteriae, 7.2×107 for B. hampsonii and 3.6×107 CFU/ml for B. pilosicoli. Inoculum concentrations less than this yielded inconsistent MICs between replicates (Table 2). For all species, observed MIC increased with increasing inoculum size (Table 2). Based on these results, a concentration of 1–2×108 CFU/ml (final inoculum of 2–4 × 105 CFU per spot on agar) was chosen to optimize assay repeatability. Furthermore, as this inoculum is the same as is prescribed by the CLSI guidelines for susceptibility testing, it will be relatively easy to integrate into current standard diagnostic procedures [13].

Table 2. Effect of inoculum size on observed minimum inhibitory concentration.

Inoculum dilutions Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) (μg/ml)
Tiamulin Tylosin Ampicillin Nalidixic acid
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-1 R-2 R-3
B. hyodysenteriae (G44)
0:0, 1.1×109 8 8 8 16 16 16 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128
1:5, 2.2×108 8 8 8 8 8 8 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128
1:25, 4.4×107 8 8 8 8 8 8 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128
1:125, 8.8×106 8 8 4 8 8 4 4 32 64 4 4 64
1:625, 1.8×106 4 4 8 2 4 8 1 1 4 0.5 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
1:3125, 3.5×105 1 1 2 1 4 4 1 1 0.5 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
B. hampsonii (30446)
0:0, 3.6×108 1 1 1 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128 >128
1:5, 7.2×107 0.5 0.5 0.5 64 64 64 8 8 8 16 16 16
1:25, 1.4×107 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 0.5 8 8 4 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 0.5 2 2 4
1:125, 2.4×106 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 2 2 1 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 0.5 2 2 1
1:625, 5.7×105 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 1 1 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 0.5
1:3125, 1.1×105 NGCa NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC
B. pilosicoli
0:0, 9×108 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 8 8 8 2 2 2 32 32 32
1:5, 1.8×108 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 4 4 4 2 2 2 8 8 8
1:25, 3.6×107 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4
1:125, 7.2×106 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 4 2
1:625, 1.2×106 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 0.5 0.5 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 ≤0.25 2
1:3125, 2.5×105 NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC NGC

For each antimicrobial and starting inoculum size, three replicates were tested. Cells above the thick horizontal line indicate inoculum concentrations where consistent MICs were observed for all three replicates. NGC = no growth in control plates, R-1, R-2, R-3 = replicates 1 to 3.

Reproducibility of the standard agar dilution method

Overall, the reproducibility of this test was found to be ≥80% for all ten antimicrobials tested. The lowest reproducibility (80%) was observed for tylosin and lincomycin, while repeated valnemulin MICs were identical. Kendall’s tau-b (correlation) and Kappa (agreement) were used to compare the two observations of MICs for each antimicrobial (Table 3). The lowest correlations (<0.793) were observed in tylosin, lincomycin and nalidixic acid. Based on the Kappa values, all test agreement varied from fair (K = 0.21-.40) to substantial (K = 0.61–0.80) with the highest values observed for tiamulin, tylvalosin, chloramphenicol and ampicillin.

Table 3. Reproducibility of the standard agar dilution method developed.

Drug Observations with 100% agreement %, (n) One doubling dilution difference observation (± 1) %, (n) Reproducible %, (n) Number of observations with MIC≤0.25 μg/ml %, (n) More than one doubling dilution difference observations %, (n) Correlation (Kendall’s tau-b) The measure of agreement (Kappa)
TIA 91, (n = 32) 6, (n = 2) 97, (n = 34) 74, (n = 26) 3 (n = 1) 0.921 0.795 (p = 0.000)
VAL 80, (n = 28) 20, (n = 7) 100, (n = 35) 77, (n = 27) 0 (n = 0) 0.793 0.443 (p = 0.000)
TYL 63, (n = 22) 17, (n = 6) 80, (n = 28) 3, (n = 1) 20 (n = 7) 0.722 0.517 (p = 0.000)
TYV 69, (n = 24) 20, (n = 7) 89, (n = 31) 26, (n = 9) 11 (n = 4) 0.888 0.631 (p = 0.000)
LIN 63, (n = 22) 17, (n = 6) 80, (n = 28) 6, (n = 2) 20 (n = 7) 0.722 0.517 (p = 0.000)
TET 71, (n = 25) 23, (n = 8) 94, (n = 33) 49, (n = 17) 6 (n = 2) 0.835 0.575 (p = 0.000)
CHO 80, (n = 28) 17, (n = 6) 97, (n = 34) 0, (n = 0) 3 (n = 1) 0.816 0.694 (p = 0.000)
NAL 48, (n = 17) 46, (n = 16) 94, (n = 33) 0, (n = 0) 6 (n = 2) 0.549 0.297 (p = 0.010)
AMP 80, (n = 28) 14, (n = 5) 94, (n = 33) 26, (n = 9) 6 (n = 2) 0.913 0.774 (p = 0.000)
AUG 69, (n = 24) 23, (n = 8) 92, (n = 32) 29, (n = 10) 8 (n = 3) 0.880 0.606 (p = 0.000)

Test results were considered to be reproducible if MICs between replicates were identical or differed by no more than a single doubling dilution. Total number of isolates = 35. The fifth column indicates the number of isolates inhibited beyond the lowest concentration tested; MIC ≤ 0.25 μg/ml. The first and second observations of MICs from each antimicrobial were statistically compared, and correlation and agreement measurements were listed in the last two columns respectively. TIA = tiamulin, VAL = valnemulin, TYL = tylosin, TYV = tylvalosin, LIN = lincomycin, CHO = chloramphenicol, TET = tetracycline, NAL = nalidixic acid, AMP = ampicillin, AUG = amoxicillin + clavulanic acid.

Species identification

Based on nox phylogeny (over 765 base pairs) (BankIt2688837 accession numbers OQ728818-OQ728904) clinical isolates were identified as: B. hampsonii (n = 14), B. hyodysenteriae (n = 17), B. pilosicoli (n = 16), B. murdochii (n = 18), B. innocens (n = 9) and non-clustering (n = 13) (Fig 5 and Table 4). Those isolates described as non-clustering were dissimilar to type strains and could therefore not be classified into a recognized species.

Fig 5. Phylogenetic tree of Brachyspira spp. tested.

Fig 5

Phylogenetic tree of partial nox sequences of diagnostic isolates and types strains of B. hyodysenteriae, B. pilosicoli, B. innocens and B. murdochii based on a 765 base pair alignment. Sequences associated with B. hamponii genomevar I (B. hampsonii_30599; AOMM00000000), and B. hampsonii genomevar II (B. hampsonii_30446; IDAC No 161111–01, ALNZ00000000) are also included.

Antimicrobial susceptibility test results

A wide range of susceptibility was observed among the Brachyspira spp. isolates (Table 5).

Table 5. Antimicrobial minimum inhibitory concentration distribution.

Antimicrobial Speciesa ≤0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 >128 MIC50 MIC90
Tiamulin BHM 12 2 ≤0.25 1
BH 16 1 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
BP 5 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 64
BM 15 1 2 ≤0.25 8
BI 9 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
NC 13 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
Valnemulin BHM 14 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
BH 17 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
BP 9 1 2 1 2 1 ≤0.25 32
BM 16 1 1 ≤0.25 0.5
BI 9 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
NC 13 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
Tylosin BHM 3 2 1 2 4 2 4 >128
BH 2 1 1 4 3 3 1 2 8 >128
BP 5 1 1 9 >128 >128
BM 3 6 4 1 4 4 >128
BI 1 3 2 1 2 4 >128
NC 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 4 >128
Tylvalosin BHM 8 1 2 1 1 1 ≤0.25 16
BH 7 2 4 2 1 1 0.5 4
BP 1 4 1 4 2 1 3 2 >128
BM 4 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 64
BI 6 1 1 1 ≤0.25 >128
NC 8 1 2 1 1 ≤0.25 4
Lincomycin BHM 6 1 3 1 1 2 0.5 >128
BH 6 4 4 1 1 1 0.5 4
BP 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 32 128
BM 5 1 2 6 2 1 1 2 64
BI 4 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 128
NC 1 1 6 2 3 1 64
Chloramphenicol BHM 1 4 7 1 1 2 4
BH 2 2 7 3 3 2 8
BP 1 6 5 2 2 4 16
BM 2 2 1 3 2 4
BI 1 1 6 1 2 4
NC 1 4 7 1 2 2
Tetracycline BHM 8 1 3 1 1 ≤0.25 8
BH 9 4 2 1 1 ≤0.25 2
BP 7 3 3 1 1 1 0.5 4
BM 13 2 1 2 ≤0.25 2
BI 6 1 2 ≤0.25 2
NC 10 1 2 ≤0.25 2
Nalidixic acid BHM 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 128 >128
BH 3 4 5 5 128 >128
BP 3 9 4 128 >128
BM 1 7 4 6 64 128
BI 1 7 1 128 >128
NC 1 1 6 5 64 128
Ampicillin BHM 3 1 2 1 4 32 >128
BH 3 4 2 1 7 16 >128
BP 2 5 1 1 7 8 >128
BM 15 2 1 ≤0.25 0.5
BI 4 4 1 ≤0.25 0.5
NC 11 2 ≤0.25 0.5
Amoxicillin + clavulanic acid BHM 3 1 2 1 7 32 >128
BH 1 4 1 1 2 1 7 32 >128
BP 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 8 >128
BM 17 1 ≤0.25 ≤0.25
BI 8 1 ≤0.25 >128
NC 13 ≤0.25 ≤0.25

aBHM = B. hampsonii, BH = B. hyodysenteriae, BP = B. pilosicoli, BM = B. murdochii, BI = B. innocens, NC = non-clustering. In columns 3–13, the number of isolates were inhibited at each concentration. The MIC50 and MIC90, the concentrations at which 50% and 90% of the isolates are inhibited respectively, are in the final which were calculated based on the MICs distributions.

Apart from B. pilosicoli, the majority of isolates were inhibited by low concentrations of the pleuromutilins; tiamulin inhibited the growth of 94% of the B. hyodysenteriae and 86% of the B. hampsonii isolates at the lowest drug concentration (≤0.25 μg/ml). For valnemulin, all isolates of B. hampsonii and B. hyodysenteriae were inhibited at ≤0.25 μg/ml (Table 5). MIC90 for tiamulin and valnemulin were 64 μg/ml and 32 μg/ml for B. pilosicoli, 8 μg/ml and 0.5 μg/ml for B. murdochii and 1 μg/ml and ≤0.25 μg/ml for B. hampsonii.

Heterogeneous MIC distributions were observed for B. hampsonii, B. hyodysenteriae, B. murdochii, and non-clustering group for tylosin while a bi-modal MIC distribution was observed for B. pilosicoli. For all spp. the MIC90 for tylosin was > 128 μg/ml. A heterogeneous MIC distribution was observed in B. hampsonii, B. murdochii, B. pilosicoli, and B. innocens for tylvalosin. For tylvalosin, MIC90 was observed to be lower in B. hyodysenteriae and non-clustering isolates (4 μg/ml) than for B. pilosicoli and B. innocens (≥128 μg/ml). In our collection there were six isolates with very high MICs (≥128 μg/ml) for tylvalosin, including a single B. hampsonii isolate. There were 8 isolates, including representatives from each recognized species with lincomycin MICs of ≥128 μg/ml.

Except for B. pilosicoli, all isolates displayed low chloramphenicol MICs (≤ 16 μg/ml) with an MIC50 of 2 μg/ml. Similarly, tetracycline MICs were low with an MIC50 of ≤ 0.25 μg/ml for all species except B. pilosicoli where an MIC50 of 0.5 μg/ml. The MICs of nalidixic acid were nearly uniformly high; over the entire collection an MIC50 of ≥ 64 μg/ml and MIC90 ≥ 128 μg/ml were found. Finally, a wide distribution of ampicillin and amoxicillin and clavulanic acid MICs were observed among B. hampsonii, B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli, with an overall MIC90 of >128 μg/ml. with MICs across the range of concentrations tested were identified. Conversely, B. murdochii, B. innocens were found to have ampicillin and amoxicillin + clavulanic acid MICs at the low end of the MIC range with an MIC50 of ≤ 0.25 μg/ml.

Discussion

The current lack of standardized antimicrobial susceptibility tests for Brachyspira species is an important diagnostic constraint which limits evidence-based application therapeutic guidance, and the detection of emerging resistance. The development of a standardized susceptibility test method is therefore crucial for the control of Brachyspira-associated disease. Previous studies have failed to describe a standard protocol for conducting antimicrobial susceptibility testing for Brachyspira, including a standardized starting inoculum [11, 17, 34]. The use of inocula varying by up to two orders of magnitude in previous investigations (from 1 × 105–5 × 105 CFU/ml for broth dilution and 1 × 104–1 × 106 CFU/spot for agar dilution) likely affects the MICs observed in those studies [11, 35]. This inconsistency makes it impossible to reliably compare data between laboratories. In this study we determined that there is minimum inoculum size require to obtain a visible growth, and that observed MIC is also affected by the starting bacterial concentration. Although the impact of inoculum density on MIC is well-recognized in other bacterial taxa, it has not been systematically investigated in Brachyspira spp. [3539]. The development of a standard curve defining the relationship between colony count (hemolysis forming unit) and the optical density for B. hampsonii, B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli was a critical first step in our study. Optical density is a rapid method of determining the density of a bacterial culture which allows test inoculum to be standardized in susceptibility testing.

The results of this investigation confirmed that the starting inoculum was a limiting factor for the growth of Brachyspira spp. particularly in liquid media. B. pilosicoli required the lowest and B. hyodysenteriae the highest starting bacterial concentration to obtain growth on both media types. These results also demonstrate that viable broth cultures require a higher starting inoculum compared to cultures on agar. These observations highlight the recommendation to use the agar dilution method, which is suggested when testing other fastidious anerobic bacteria [40].

For agar dilution a concentration of 2–4 × 105 CFU/spot was chosen in this investigation. Standardizing our method using this concentration has the advantage of being consistent with CLSI guidelines and therefore being familiar to clinical diagnosticians, which should facilitate the incorporation of this assay methodology into diagnostic workflows. By using this method, this study demonstrated consistent results, both between replicates and on following repeated testing. This is in contrast to the poor reproducibility which has been reported for the broth micro-dilution test; uninterpretable results due to “skipped wells” (the well without growth, despite the occurrence of growth in wells with higher concentrations) are recognized when testing lincosamides and macrolides [17, 41]. Interestingly, a recent study aiming to validate the a broth microdilution test also reported an inadequately described means of standardizing the starting inoculum [17]. Although we report a high degree of test reproducibility in the current study, there were a number of bacterial isolates that were inhibited by the lowest concentration of drug tested 0.25 μg/ml. It is therefore possible that for isolates with very low MICs there was variability in test performance below the limit of detection of our assay.

Agar dilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing is not widely performed in clinical diagnostic laboratories. Because it is laborious to perform and requires the preparation of plates containing many different concentrations of antibiotics, it’s use is limited to research studies and reference laboratories. However, for laboratories using culture-based methods for Brachyspira diagnostics it would be practical to implement a targeted susceptibility testing service for a smaller panel of key drugs using the method described here.

The MIC distribution of bacterial populations can be classified as homogenous, bi-modal, or multi-modal [42]. This classification may provide clues to the mechanism of resistance acquisition. When bacteria acquire a resistance gene for example, there may be a distinct change in resistance leading to a bi-modal MIC distribution separating wildtype and resistant organisms into distinct populations. Conversely, step-wise MIC increases may be seen with the acquisition of successive resistance conferring mutations, as is observed with fluoroquinolone MICs following successive topoisomerase gene mutations [42]. Although the isolates tested in this study were conveniently collected from diagnostic submissions, they came from eight epidemiologically distinct productions; this diverse strain origin makes the observed MIC distributions more informative than if the isolates were epidemiologically linked.

Anecdotally, tiamulin is the most used drug to treat Brachyspira-associated diseases in western Canada. In the Czech Republic, one study found that the MICs to tiamulin and valnemulin increased significantly between the periods 1997–98 and 1999–2001 among a collection of B. hyodysenteriae isolates [43]. Similar findings were reported in a Japanese study among B. hyodysenteriae isolates between 1985 and 2009 [44]. Although the lack of a standardized methodology prevents comparing MIC results between labs, these longitudinal studies were conducted within single laboratories (where a consistent methodology would have been employed), suggesting that pleuromutilin MICs are increasing [44]. In contrast, isolates originating from the United States were observed to have lower pleuromutilin MICs [24]. Perhaps not surprisingly, our results suggest that the situation in western Canada is more similar to the United States where B. hyodysenteriae and B. hampsonii isolates have very low MICs (≤ 1 μg/ml) to pleuromutilin drugs. One study from the United States categorized isolates with MICs >8 μg/ml as having "decreased susceptibility" or "resistance" to tiamulin [24]. In our study, 44% B. pilosicoli isolates had high pleuromutilin MICs (>8 μg/ml), possibly indicating resistance. Consistent with our observations, previous studies have demonstrated the tendency of B. pilosicoli to develop resistance to macrolides, lincosamides and pleuromutilins more rapidly than other species [24, 45]. Furthermore, cross-resistance between valnemulin and tiamulin in B. pilosicoli is a likely explanation for the similar MIC distributions we observed for both tiamulin and valnemulin in B. pilosicoli [46].

A recent study from the United States described high MICs to lincomycin (MIC50 = 8 μg/ml, MIC90 = 32 μg/ml) and tylosin (MIC50>128 μg/ml, MIC90>128 μg/ml) among Brachyspira isolates [23]. Interestingly, in our study the MIC distributions observed were heterogeneous, with MICs across the spectrum tested for both antimicrobials. Previous studies have identified single nucleotide polymorphisms in the 23S ribosomal RNA gene and the ribosomal protein (L3), as well as the acquisition of the lnuC and tvaA that are associated with resistance to protein synthesis inhibitors [4750]. Those studies observed bimodal distribution of MICs to tylosin in both B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli, with isolates possessing 23S rRNA single nucleotide polymorphisms having higher MICs than those isolates without SNPs [51, 52]. In the current investigation, B. pilosicoli was observed to have had a bimodal MIC distribution for tylosin and the highest MIC50 (>128 μg/ml) compared to other species. Similar to the pleuromutilins, It has been suggested that the recombinant population structure and the substantial amount of genomic variation in B. pilosicoli may contribute to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance [24, 53].

Interestingly, MICs for tylvalosin tended to be elevated in isolates with high tylosin and lincomycin MICs (Table 5). All 6 isolates which were uninhibited by tylvalosin (>128 μg/ml) had tylosin MICs > 128 μg/ml, and lincomycin MICs ≥ 32 μg/ml. Macrolides, lincosamides, and pleuromutilins bind to the peptidyl transferase center (PTC) of 23S rRNA of the 50S ribosome and prevent the peptide bond formation and thereby prevent the protein synthesis of bacteria [51]. Nucleotide mutations or methylations which occur in the highly conserved main loop of domain V in PTC have been shown to lead to resistance to macrolides, lincosamides, streptogramins and pleuromutilins [47]. These mutations have been previously studied among Brachyspira spp. and their relationship with observed MIC has been documented [22, 54]. The common target of lincomycin, tylosin and tylvalosin (the 23S rRNA) may be responsible for the cross resistance observed in our study.

Although chloramphenicol is banned in food animals in Canada, it is commonly included in antimicrobial resistance surveillance programs [55, 56]. In the current study, all isolates were inhibited by 16 μg/ml. The fluoroquinolones, used in both veterinary and human medicine, are also frequently included in resistance surveillance programs. Resistance to these drugs can occur by target modifications, decreased permeability, efflux and target protection [54, 57]. There is evidence of intrinsic quinolone resistance among Gram-negative anaerobes, although it has not been determined if this is the case for Brachyspira spp. [58]. Most of the isolates tested in this study among all species had very high nalidixic acid MICs (>16 μg/ml), possibly indicating intrinsic resistance.

High MICs to ampicillin and amoxicillin + clavulanic acid was observed in B. hyodysenteriae, B. hampsonii and B. pilosicoli. While β-lactams are not used to treat Brachyspira-associated infections, the use of penicillin for treating other infections in pigs may have contributed to the selection of resistance to these drugs in Brachyspira [5961]. Previous studies found that B. pilosicoli with high β-lactam drugs MICs possessed the OXA-63 gene, a class D β-lactamase [59].

Conclusions

In this study we developed a standard agar dilution method with high reproducibility in our laboratory. This method reduces the variability of the susceptibility test results and will allow results to be compared between laboratories. It was encouraging to find low pleuromutilin MICs for the most important pathogens B. hampsonii and B. hyodysenteriae while signals of emerging resistance were detected among B. pilosicoli. The results of this study emphasize the importance of diagnostic testing for the identification of Brachyspira species and for therapeutic selection. Continued monitoring and of the susceptibility of isolates is warranted to detect emerging resistance. Finally, this study highlights the persistent challenge of a lack of standardized set of interpretive criteria to categorize Brachyspira isolates as susceptible or resistant. This is a topic that rbabequires additional investigation for the development of evidence-based, clinically predictive criteria.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Optical density and culture density measurements used in development of standard curve.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Michelle Sniatynski, Champika Fernando and Drs. Janet Hill, Sarah Parker and Sheryl Gow for assistance with this study. Finally, we thank Eco Animal Health, United Kingdom for their gift of tylvalosin powder used in testing.

Data Availability

This manuscript has been written and compiled in such a way that all data is presented within. The data used for constructing our standard curve is included as S1 Table, Table 2 includes all data used to determine the effect of concentration on MIC, Table 5 contains all MIC data and finally all sequence data is now uploaded to GenBank and the accession numbers (BankIt2688837 accession numbers OQ728818-OQ728904) are listed within the text.

Funding Statement

JER - Swine Innovation Porc project #1344 The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Whiting R, Doyle L, Spray R. Swine dysentery. Bulletin. 1921; 3–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Harris DL, Kinyon JM, Mullin MT, Glock RD. Isolation and propagation of spirochetes from the colon of swine dysentery affected pigs. Can J Comp Med. 1972;36: 74–76. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Burrough ER. Swine Dysentery. Vet Pathol. 2017;54: 22–31. doi: 10.1177/0300985816653795 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Martínez-Lobo FJ, Arguello H, Carvajal A, Rubio P. Swine dysentery: aetiology, pathogenicity, determinants of transmission and the fight against the disease. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10: 1927–1947. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10051927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Trivett-Moore NL, Gilbert GL, Law CL, Trott DJ, Hampson DJ. Isolation of Serpulina pilosicoli from rectal biopsy specimens showing evidence of intestinal spirochetosis. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36: 261–265. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.1.261-265.1998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hampson DJ, Burrough ER. Swine Dysentery and Brachyspiral Colitis. Diseases of Swine. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019. pp. 951–970. doi: 10.1002/9781119350927.ch62 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Harding JCS, Chirino-Trejo M, Fernando C, Jacobson M, Forster Z, Hill JE. Detection of a novel Brachyspira species associated with haemorrhagic and necrotizing colitis. Vancouver, Canada; July 18–21. p. 740. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schwartz K. Brachyspira: what’s happening in Iowa and why. Saskatoon, Canada; 2011. p. 53. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chander Y, Primus A, Oliveira S, Gebhart CJ. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of a novel strongly hemolytic Brachyspira species, provisionally designated “Brachyspira hampsonii.” J Vet Diagn Invest. 2012;24: 903–910. doi: 10.1177/1040638712456975 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mirajkar NS, Phillips ND, La T, Hampson DJ, Gebhart CJ. Characterization and Recognition of Brachyspira hampsonii sp. nov., a Novel Intestinal Spirochete That Is Pathogenic to Pigs. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54: 2942–2949. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01717-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kulathunga DGRS Rubin JE. A review of the current state of antimicrobial susceptibility test methods for Brachyspira. Can J Microbiol. 2017;63: 465–474. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2016-0756 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.M11 Methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria, 9th edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2018. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.M07-A9 Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing for bacteria that grow anaerobically; approved standard, 9th edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.M23 Development of in vitro susceptibility testing criteria and quality control parameters, 5th Edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ericsson HM, Sherris JC. Antibiotic sensitivity testing. Report of an international collaborative study. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand B Microbiol Immunol. 1971;217: Suppl 217:1+. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Råsbäck T, Fellström C, Bergsjø B, Cizek A, Collin K, Gunnarsson A, et al. Assessment of diagnostics and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Brachyspira species using a ring test. Vet Microbiol. 2005;109: 229–243. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.05.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stubberfield E, Pringle M, Landén A, Veldman KT, Geurts Y, Jouy E, et al. Validation of an antimicrobial susceptibility testing protocol for Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and Brachyspira pilosicoli in an international ring trial. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020;244: 108645. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.eucast: Clinical breakpoints and dosing of antibiotics. [cited 6 Apr 2023]. Available: https://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/
  • 19.M100-S27 Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Aarestrup FM, Oliver Duran C, Burch DGS. Antimicrobial resistance in swine production. Anim Health Res Rev. 2008;9: 135–148. doi: 10.1017/S1466252308001503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Karriker LA, Coetzee JF, Friendship RM, Apley MD. Drug Pharmacology, Therapy, and Prophylaxis. Diseases of Swine. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019. pp. 158–170. doi: 10.1002/9781119350927.ch10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hidalgo Á, Carvajal A, Vester B, Pringle M, Naharro G, Rubio P. Trends towards lower antimicrobial susceptibility and characterization of acquired resistance among clinical isolates of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in Spain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55: 3330–3337. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01749-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cogliani C, Goossens H, Greko C. Restricting antimicrobial use in food animals: lessons from Europe. Microbe Magazine. 6 Nov 2016: 274–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mirajkar NS, Davies PR, Gebhart CJ. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns of Brachyspira Species Isolated from Swine Herds in the United States. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54: 2109–2119. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00834-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rubin JE, Harms NJ, Fernando C, Soos C, Detmer SE, Harding JCS, et al. Isolation and Characterization of Brachyspira spp. Including “Brachyspira hampsonii” from Lesser Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens) in the Canadian Arctic. Microb Ecol. 2013;66: 813–822. doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0273-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Black M, Moolhuijzen P, Barrero R, La T, Phillips N, Hampson D, et al. Analysis of Multiple Brachyspira hyodysenteriae Genomes Confirms That the Species Is Relatively Conserved but Has Potentially Important Strain Variation. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0131050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kunkle RA, Kinyon JM. Improved selective medium for the isolation of Treponema hyodysenteriae. J Clin Microbiol. 1988;26: 2357–2360. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.11.2357-2360.1988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Luković Z, Škorput D, Karoly D. Pig welfare at different production systems. Belgrade, Serbia; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Atyeo RF, Stanton TB, Jensen NS, Suriyaarachichi DS, Hampson DJ. Differentiation of Serpulina species by NADH oxidase gene (nox) sequence comparisons and nox-based polymerase chain reaction tests. Vet Microbiol. 1999;67: 47–60. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(99)00030-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rohde J, Habighorst-Blome K. An up-date on the differentiation of Brachyspira species from pigs with nox-PCR-based restriction fragment length polymorphism. Vet Microbiol. 2012;158: 211–215. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.02.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hall BG. Building phylogenetic trees from molecular data with MEGA. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30: 1229–1235. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lawrence JV, Maier S. Correction for the inherent error in optical density readings. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1977;33: 482–484. doi: 10.1128/aem.33.2.482-484.1977 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sutton S. Measurement of microbial cells by optical density. Journal of Validation Technology. 2011;17: 46–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Karlsson M, Oxberry SL, Hampson DJ. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Australian isolates of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae using a new broth dilution method. Vet Microbiol. 2002;84: 123–133. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(01)00444-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Egervärn M, Lindmark H, Roos S, Huys G, Lindgren S. Effects of inoculum size and incubation time on broth microdilution susceptibility testing of lactic acid bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51: 394–396. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00637-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Eley A, Greenwood D. In vitro activity of ceftizoxime against Bacteroides fragilis: comparison with benzylpenicillin, cephalothin, and cefoxitin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981;20: 332–335. doi: 10.1128/AAC.20.3.332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Borobio MV, Pascual A, Dominguez MC, Perea EJ. Effect of medium, pH, and inoculum size on activity of ceftizoxime and Sch-34343 against anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986;30: 626–627. doi: 10.1128/AAC.30.4.626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Brown WJ. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards agar dilution susceptibility testing of anaerobic gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32: 385–390. doi: 10.1128/AAC.32.3.385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bidlas E, Du T, Lambert RJW. An explanation for the effect of inoculum size on MIC and the growth/no growth interface. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008;126: 140–152. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.M45 Methods for antimicrobial dilution and disc susceptibility testing of infrequently isolated or fastidious bacteria. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2016. Report No.: M45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mirajkar NS, Gebhart CJ. Comparison of agar dilution and antibiotic gradient strip test with broth microdilution for susceptibility testing of swine Brachyspira species. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2016;28: 133–143. doi: 10.1177/1040638716629154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Boerlin P, White DG. Antimicrobial resistance and its epidemiology. 5th ed. Antimicrobial therapy in veterinary medicine. 5th ed. Ames, Iowa: Wiley; 2013. pp. 21–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lobová D, Smola J, Cizek A. Decreased susceptibility to tiamulin and valnemulin among Czech isolates of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae. J Med Microbiol. 2004;53: 287–291. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.05407-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ohya T, Sueyoshi M. In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae strains isolated in Japan from 1985 to 2009. J Vet Med Sci. 2010;72: 1651–1653. doi: 10.1292/jvms.10-0271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mirajkar NS, Bekele AZ, Chander YY, Gebhart CJ. Molecular Epidemiology of Novel Pathogen “Brachyspira hampsonii” Reveals Relationships between Diverse Genetic Groups, Regions, Host Species, and Other Pathogenic and Commensal Brachyspira Species. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53: 2908–2918. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01236-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Karlsson M, Gunnarsson A, Franklin A. Susceptibility to pleuromutilins in Brachyspira (Serpulina) hyodysenteriae. Anim Health Res Rev. 2001;2: 59–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Karlsson M, Fellström C, Heldtander MU, Johansson KE, Franklin A. Genetic basis of macrolide and lincosamide resistance in Brachyspira (Serpulina) hyodysenteriae. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1999;172: 255–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1999.tb13476.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Pringle M, Poehlsgaard J, Vester B, Long KS. Mutations in ribosomal protein L3 and 23S ribosomal RNA at the peptidyl transferase centre are associated with reduced susceptibility to tiamulin in Brachyspira spp. isolates. Mol Microbiol. 2004;54: 1295–1306. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04373.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.De Luca S, Nicholson P, Magistrali CF, García-Martín AB, Rychener L, Zeeh F, et al. Transposon-associated lincosamide resistance lnu(C) gene identified in Brachyspira hyodysenteriae ST83. Vet Microbiol. 2018;214: 51–55. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Card RM, Stubberfield E, Rogers J, Nunez-Garcia J, Ellis RJ, AbuOun M, et al. Identification of a New Antimicrobial Resistance Gene Provides Fresh Insights Into Pleuromutilin Resistance in Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, Aetiological Agent of Swine Dysentery. Front Microbiol. 2018;9: 1183. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Karlsson M, Fellström C, Johansson K-E, Franklin A. Antimicrobial resistance in Brachyspira pilosicoli with special reference to point mutations in the 23S rRNA gene associated with macrolide and lincosamide resistance. Microb Drug Resist. 2004;10: 204–208. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2004.10.204 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Giguere S. Macrolides, azalides and ketolides. 5th Edition. Antimicrobial therapy in veterinary medicine. 5th Edition. Ames, Iowa: Wiley; 2013. pp. 211–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Neo E, La T, Phillips ND, Alikani MY, Hampson DJ. The pathogenic intestinal spirochaete Brachyspira pilosicoli forms a diverse recombinant species demonstrating some local clustering of related strains and potential for zoonotic spread. Gut Pathog. 2013;5: 24. doi: 10.1186/1757-4749-5-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jacoby GA. Mechanisms of resistance to quinolones. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41 Suppl 2: S120–126. doi: 10.1086/428052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Masterton R. The importance and future of antimicrobial surveillance studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47 Suppl 1: S21–31. doi: 10.1086/590063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Burch DGS. Antimicrobial drug use in swine. 5th Edition. Antimicrobial therapy in veterinary medicine. 5th Edition. Ames, Iowa: Wiley; 2013. pp. 553–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Conrads G, Citron DM, Goldstein EJC. Genetic determinant of intrinsic quinolone resistance in Fusobacterium canifelinum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49: 434–437. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.1.434-437.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Giguere S, Dowling PM. Fluoroquinolones. 5th ed. Antimicrobial therapy in veterinary medicine. 5th ed. Ames, Iowa: Wiley; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Mortimer-Jones SM, Phillips ND, La T, Naresh R, Hampson DJ. Penicillin resistance in the intestinal spirochaete Brachyspira pilosicoli associated with OXA-136 and OXA-137, two new variants of the class D beta-lactamase OXA-63. J Med Microbiol. 2008;57: 1122–1128. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.2008/001552-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Prescott JF. Beta-lactam antibiotics: penem penicillins. 5th Edition. Antimicrobial therapy in veterinary medicine. 5th Edition. Ames, Iowa: Wiley; 2013. pp. 295–314. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.La T, Neo E, Phillips ND, Hampson DJ. Genes encoding ten newly designated OXA-63 group class D β-lactamases identified in strains of the pathogenic intestinal spirochaete Brachyspira pilosicoli. J Med Microbiol. 2015;64: 1425–1435. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marwa Ibrahim Abd El-Hamid

15 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-35189Antimicrobial susceptibility of Western Canadian Brachyspira isolates: Development and standardization of an agar dilution susceptibility test methodPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rubin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 01 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marwa Ibrahim Abd El-Hamid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript by Rubin et al. describes a well-designed study for a species where standardized methods are lacking. The results are clearly presented, and my major comments are on the data analysis.

Line 94: A proper EUCAST reference for this would be the EUCAST Breakpoint Tables (in which breakpoints for Brachyspira spp. are lacking).

Line 110: Please explain “BJ agar” when first mentioned.

Lines 246-247: Since several MICs were below the lowest concentration of the dilution series, I suggest adding information on the positive control. Was there always haemolysis in the positive control for MICs read as ≤ the lowest value? Also, were MIC endpoints difficult to define according to the established criteria? If so, were MIC endpoints read by more than one technician?

Lines 260-263, 435-441 and Table 3: The authors explain that MICs were regarded to be in complete agreement when MICs were identical or within one dilution. In Table 3, there is a column showing how many results that were below the lowest concentration of the dilution series, but I lack a comment on how this affected the calculations of reproducibility. Also, its should me mentioned as a limitation of the study that many MICs were below the lowest concentration, which makes it difficult to assess the reproducibility.

Discussion: The authors show good reproducibility of a new standardized methodology for agar dilution of Brachyspira spp., but it is not discussed how/if this method can be implemented in other laboratories. Please add some text on if you consider that this is a method for a reference laboratory or if it is something that can be implemented/used in routine laboratories working with Brachyspira spp.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

I recommend “Major revision” on this article

I would like to congratulate you for the great amount of work you performed; but unfortunately the report you gave here is very confusing, too long then I forgot very fast what was the goal of the study. Maybe you should split the paper in at least 2 : 1/ with the new methodology you offer to standardize 2/ the clinical results that you could compare with the use, clinical output, etc..

for the rest of my review, I will focus on the idea that you write a paper for the methodology of susceptibility testing of Brachyspira.

1/ what does standardization mean for you ? is a method standardized if you perform (even with hundreds of repetitions) in only one center ? I guess not

Please explore documents for EUCAST or CLSI to determine what your definition of a standardized method is. I especially recommend to study document M23 5th ED 2018 from CLSI which is free.

2/there are plenty of interesting documents for the purpose of your study at CLSI but unfortunately I think you did not pick the right one. M23 is the most important with M11. You cite plenty of documents but not always the right one at the right time. Did you notice that reference 34= reference 19, it is the same document. Line 234 : I am very surprised that CLSI recommend TSA agar plate : I thought it was always a Muller hinton (MH) base ? you cite reference 12, document M100 as reference but to my knowledge M100 is supposed to provide interpretation criteria for bacteria of human clinical importance that grow aerobically… I am lost… By the way, make sure you use up-to-date documents, the M100 you cite is 5 editions late and then totally expired if you do not justify why you use this old document

3/it is very complicated to cultivate Brachyspira, so why do you wish to perform antibiogram sensu lato ? I am not sure I understood the clue of such a complicated method. Is there issues on the pig health side? therapeutic failure? Is it just for research and epidemiological purposes ? Is it an issue for human health? it is not clear to me why such a method should be implemented. It seems silly but it is not. If you define what kind of output for public you are looking for you can decide which kind of breakpoint you want to set. See CLSI document M23 chapiter 5. By reading you, I did not understand which type of breakpoint you want to set here and for which purposes. Again is this antibiogram helping vets to decide how they shall treat the sick pigs ?

Is there a justification to split you results at species level. I noticed that most of the other studies you cite is collapsing results at gender level ?

4/figures and tables are sometimes useless and confusing

What am I supposed to see on Figure5 ? Table 4 why do I need to know the origin of the strains? is it important for your conclusion ? is it finally clinical results ?

5/ your interpretations / conclusions are sometimes questionable

Line652-653: is it finally comparable or not. I am lost

Line668-669: I disagree with your “step-wise” hypothesis. It is also conceivable that you are facing a multitude of different mechanism.

My best advice: restrict your goal and explain it. Don’t forget to define the term you use (at least for you), your readers would follow your point. As it is it is too complicated to memorize your take home message ( which I haven’t been able to understand)

Reviewer #3: The present study ”Antimicrobial susceptibility of Western Canadian Brachyspira isolates: Development and standardization of an agar dilution susceptibility test method” by Kulathunga et al developed a standardized protocol for conducting agar dilution susceptibility testing of Brachyspira spp. and determine the susceptibility of 32 isolates from Western Canadian Brachyspira using the standardized methodology. Following are the specific comment regarding this manuscript.

1. Page 5, Any pericular reason behind selecting the “B. pilosicoli (ATCC 51139), B. hyodysenteriae (JXNI00000000) and B. hampsonii genomovar II (IDAC No 161111-01, ALNZ00000000” for Development of a standard curve over the other ATCC strain mentioned on Page 9 line 193 to 196?

2. As the test is being standardized for antimicrobial susceptibility testing did the author’s used any known resistance strain with known mutations? If No, why?

3. Please provide the data (may be supplementary) on serial dilutions of the bacterial culture’s vs OD at 600nm.

4. Page 6; Line 126-129: “Following incubation, a drop of each culture was examined under a phase-contrast microscope at 400 magnification to confirm the presence of live, motile spirochetes. The optical density (at 600 nm) of cultures was then measured to determine the bacterial concentration” Here the bacterial concentration means CFU per ml? If yes, please mention.

5. Page 6, line 119 – 121: “The relationship between OD600nm, CFU/ml and genome equivalents/ml as measured by qRT PCR was previously determined and found to be consistent” Please provide the reference.

6. Why broth culture was incubated at 39 oC and agar plates are at 42 oC.

7. Page 7, line 133 - In the case of broth, visible turbidity compared to an uninoculated control was considered positive (growth….”. Did the authors examined the absence or absence of bacterial growth under a phase-contrast microscope to confirm the bacterial growth?

8. Why different dilution series were used for Development of a standard curve (1:1.1, 1:1.2, 1:1.3 and 1:2-1:512) and Determination of the minimum inoculum required to start a culture (1:10 dilution series (10-1 to 10-9)?

9. Why two different agar plates (BJ agar and Trypticase soy agar (TSA) + 5% sheep’s blood) were used during the experiments.

10. Page 10 - 11. Porcine clinical isolates identification: Please provide the details on how the phylogenetic tree was constructed (nucleotide substitution mode and bootstrap replicates)?

11. Figure 5: Please include the sequence from B. hyodysenteriae (JXNI00000000), B. hampsonii genomovar II (IDAC No 161111-01, ALNZ00000000) and also available sequence from different species (B. hyodysenteriae, B. hampsonii, B. pilosicoli, B. murdochii, B. innocens,) from Western Canadian region for phylogenetic analysis.

12. How did the authors confirms that the non-clustering (n=13) are from Brachyspira species?

13. Page 11 – 12: “When turbidity was observed, ODs were measured and bacterial density was adjusted to 1-2 X108 CFU/ml….” Please explain why?

14. Page 13: Development of an equation relating organism concentration to an optical density: As each Brachyspira species showed different CFU in liquid media and on agar media. Why the Avg equation were considered to calculate the CFU/mL and not the Brachyspira species specific equation.

15. Fig 2: Why the data were collected up to OD value 1 for B. pilosicoli and B.hampsonii,

16. Fig. 2. Why data were collected for OD values 0.1 to 0.4 for hyodysenteriae.

17. The information on the growth kinetics data on three Brachyspira species will provide the information on growth cycle. Did the authors study the growth kinetic for the three isolates? If yes, please provide the data (may be as supplementary).

18. Did the authors examined the culture microscopically for degree of clumping/aggregation and presence of dead bacteria before taking the OD values?

19. Did the authors confirmed the presence of known antibiotic resistance mutations for the isolates to confirm the resistance to antibiotics? If No, please explain why?

20. Did the authors submit the “nox gene” sequence data generated to GenBank? If no, please submit and provide GenBank accession number.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 30;18(6):e0286594. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286594.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Apr 2023

General comments:

Change in authors listed: In the initial submission, we had mistakenly included Dr. S.P. Gow in the manuscript file. Dr. Gow was not included as an author within the PLoS submission system and should not have been listed on the manuscript file. I apologize for this oversight.

The references have also been corrected as per the reviewer's suggestions.

Reviewer 1

Line 94 - A reference to the EUCAST breakpoint tables has been added as suggested.

Line 110 - Thank you for this comment, a description of this media has been added as suggested.

Lines 246-247 - Some modifications and additional information were added to this section of the paper to clarify. Antimicrobial free (positive control) plates were included with each batch of plates; growth was always observed on these plates. Had growth not been observed, the experiment would have been repeated. Regarding test endpoints, we defined the MIC as the lowest concentration where no hemolysis was observed; in this study we used hemolysis as an indicator of growth as opposed to a colony or turbidity which would be done for the majority of organisms encountered by the clinical diagnostic laboratory. Using hemolysis as an indicator of growth is an established method when working with Brachyspira. Finally, endpoints were only read by DGRS Kulathunga who performed these experiments during her PhD. Although, this isn't something that I can report in the paper, these observations were only made following a period of extensive training so the researcher was not a novice in the field when these experiments were conducted.

Lines 260-263, 435-441 and Table 3 - Thank you for this comment. We struggled with how best to present this data; to be fully transparent with our date we included a column describing the number of observations with MIC ≤ 0.25 µg/ml. A sentence was added just after line 260 to explain that repeated observations ≤ 0.25 µg/ml were considered reproducible. In the discussion section lines 649-652 a sentence was added to address the limitation in interpreting reproducibility for isolates with MICs ≤ 0.25 µg/ml.

Discussion - Thank you for raising this point. We have added a recommendation for how we might see this method implemented into a clinical diagnostic laboratory on lines 653-658.

Reviewer 2:

Thank you for the comment recognizing the volume of work reflected in this manuscript. We agree that there is a lot of data here and that this manuscript includes 2 large bodies of work (1. method development and 2. testing isolate collection). We had lengthy discussions on whether to lump these data together and struggled with what would be the best approach, in the end we felt that for the benefit of the Brachyspira literature it would be better to present this data as a single body of work. We felt that this manuscript was much stronger if both parts were combined; the length of the paper and the number of figures we wanted to include factored into our decision to submit to PLoS One.

Point 1 - We have added a description of what test factors are standardized according to the CLSI and EUCAST on lines 95-98.

Point 2 - Thank you for these detailed comments.

• We have reviewed which CLSI documents are cited throughout the manuscript and made changed which documents are cited where necessary.

• Regarding line 234 - you are correct, the CLSI does not recommend TSA. This sentence has been modified to emphasize that the media was prepared according to the CLSI guidelines (procedure for measuring antimicrobial powders etc.) but that the antimicrobials were then incorporated into TSA vs. Mueller-Hinton agar.

• We have also modified the CLSI reference at line 234 - this should not in fact be M100 but the M07 document which described the procedure for agar dilution testing.

Point 3 - We absolutely appreciate that the method described here is somewhat complicated, and as an agar dilution protocol it is certainly more laborious than other methods such as disc diffusion or commercially prepared broth microdilution. However, we believe that we have demonstrated that the current method, unlike others previously reported, is sufficiently reliable to be considered as a tool in clinical diagnostic laboratories. We fully accept your criticism of 'what to do with the data', we are not yet at a point where we have validated clinical breakpoints as we do with other veterinary pathogens, so caution will be required when interpreting this data. This study is a necessary first step, before interpretive criteria can be developed, reliable and standardized test methodologies need to be developed. Ultimately, high quality antimicrobial susceptibility data is a cornerstone of diagnostic bacteriology; it is required to guide therapeutic selection, promote antimicrobial stewardship to reduce the selection pressure for resistance and finally to detect the emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

With respect to stratifying data by species group, this was done for two primary reasons. First, we wanted to ensure that the most granular data possible was presented to allow researchers to re-interpret our data in the future. Second, because differences in intrinsic resistance between species are well recognized (see EUCAST Expected Resistant Phenotypes v1.2 January 2023 table for examples), we wanted to ensure that any such phenomenon was not masked by aggregating data within a single group.

Point 4

• Figure 5 - A figure legend has been added to explain this figure.

• Table 4 - A sentence has been added (lines 677-680). The main reason that it is important to document that the isolates in this study were from epidemiologically distinct production systems is to be transparent about how biased (homogeneous) our isolate collection is. If all isolates originated from the same farm it would not have been reasonable to discuss MIC distributions because the isolates would have been subjected to the same antimicrobial selection pressures.

Point 5

• Line 652-653 - A clarification has been added here. We want to highlight the fact that while methodological differences preclude comparisons between labs, results generated over time from within a single lab may be compared with less uncertainty.

• Line 668-669 - We have decided to delete this sentence in accordance with your suggestion.

Reviewer 3:

Point 1

• These three isolates were selected because they represent the three most commonly identified Brachyspira species causing infections in pigs in our region. Clarification was added to explain that these isolates were selected for this reason.

Point 2

• In this study we did not include isolates posessing particular resistance genes or resistance conferring mutations. Because the isolate collection we tested was a set of diagnostic isolates from our institution, this information was not available. Before doing this study we were in the difficult position of having neither genotypic resistance data nor phenotypic susceptibility results for our collection which is why we performed our assays in triplicate and took other measures as described to be confident with our results. However, now that these isolates have been characterized, screening for genetic mutations is an obvious next step, although we believe that this is beyond the scope of this investigation.

Point 3

• The data relating OD to CFU/ml is now included as "S1 Table".

Point 4

• Thank you for this suggestion, this has been clarified in the manuscript.

Point 5

• This is work which was previously done in our lab, this data is now provided as supplementary materials as suggested in point 3.

Point 6

• When working with Brachyspira it is widely reported that broth cultures are incubated at a lower temperature than agar cultures, I do not have an explanation for why this is required/is common practice. I would speculate that incubating plates at 42C serves to make primary cultures more selective (inhibiting organisms which don't grow at 42C), once a pure culture is obtained then lower temperatures (39C or some in the field also use 37C) can be used for broth cultures.

Point 7

• The sentence has been clarified, we did inspect broth under the microscope for the presence of motile spirochetes.

Point 8

• These dilution ranges were selected to ensure that we assessed the optical density of a wide range of concentrations. In our experience, Brachyspira species sometimes do not grow to a sufficiently high density and so we wanted to ensure that we were able to capture dilutions less than 1:2. It was critical to have multiple data points which fell within the linear portion of the curve relating OD to concentration in order to define the equation describing this relationship.

• With respect to the minimum inoculum, we anticipated that the minimum inoculum required to start a culture would be much less than would be required for detection in a spectrophotometer. Indeed, on agar we were able to observe growth with very low CFU counts.

Point 9

• The two media which were used in this study were utilized for different phases of the investigation.

• BJ agar is a selective, antimicrobial containing media (colistin, vancomycin, spectinomycin, spiramycin and rifampin) which is used for primary isolation from clinical samples. We also use this media routinely when working with cultures of Brachyspira. A description of

• TSA agar was used as a base for susceptibility testing, it was important to use a media which did not contain antibiotics for this application.

• A description of the antibiotics contained within BJ agar has been added as per the recommendation of Reviewer 1.

Point 10

• We have added a description of the way the phylogenetic tree was constructed where you suggested.

Point 11

• For this phylogenetic tree we would like to suggest that we keep the data for the same isolates which were initially presented. The ATCC strains of B. hyodysenteriae, B. pilosicoli, B. innocens and B. murdochii were included because these are the type strains of each species; because the purpose of this comparison was to help identify the species of our study isolates we only wanted to compare to the reference strains for each. With respect to B. hampsonii 30599 and B. hampsonii 30446 - these reflect the two B. hampsonii genomevars, the figure legend has been updated to clarify the identity of these isolates.

Point 12

• Clarifying language has been added to the end of the section describing sequencing of the nox gene.

Point 13

• In susceptibility testing it is critical to ensure that a consistent, standardized inoculum is tested. Adjusting all broths to a the density reported was therefore critical to the development of the standardized method we report.

Point 14

• Thank you for this comment. The decision to use a single equation was a matter of practicality; in developing a test that we hope can be applied in a diagnostic laboratory setting it would be infeasible to have separate criteria for each species. While this does introduce a level of variability into the protocol, this is accounted for by the target range of CFU/ml (1-2 × 108 CFU/ml). This range of acceptable concentrations is recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and allows for a single density of organisms (MacFarland 0.5) to be used in susceptibility testing across diverse clinical isolates (Gram-positives, negatives and anaerobes).

Points 15 and 16

• The differences in maximum OD reported for each species reflect the linear portion of the standard curve over which the equation to relate OD:CFU/ml was derived. At an OD >1 there was not a linear relationship between OD/CFU/ml.

Point 17

• In this investigation we did not study the growth kinetics of Brachyspira, all of the measurements of culture density which were recorded were endpoints and collected for the purpose of calculating CFU/ml.

Point 18

• Prior to performing any work with broth cultures they were assessed microscopically. While we did not specifically look for clumping/aggregation, this not a phenomenon that we have previously recognized. When cultures were examined prior to measuring OD they were always fresh cultures which were motile.

Point 19

• No, as per our response to point 2 we did not assess this culture collection for the presence of resistance genes or resistance conferring mutations. While this is an obvious next step, it was beyond the scope of this study.

Point 20

• Thank you very much for raising this point. This was an oversight on our part, the sequences have been submitted to GenBank and BankIt accession numbers incorporated into the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

Decision Letter 1

Marwa Ibrahim Abd El-Hamid

19 May 2023

Antimicrobial susceptibility of Western Canadian Brachyspira isolates: Development and standardization of an agar dilution susceptibility test method

PONE-D-22-35189R1

Dear Dr. Rubin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Marwa Ibrahim Abd El-Hamid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Marwa Ibrahim Abd El-Hamid

22 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-35189R1

Antimicrobial susceptibility of Western Canadian Brachyspira isolates: Development and standardization of an agar dilution susceptibility test method.

Dear Dr. Rubin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marwa Ibrahim Abd El-Hamid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Optical density and culture density measurements used in development of standard curve.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

    Data Availability Statement

    This manuscript has been written and compiled in such a way that all data is presented within. The data used for constructing our standard curve is included as S1 Table, Table 2 includes all data used to determine the effect of concentration on MIC, Table 5 contains all MIC data and finally all sequence data is now uploaded to GenBank and the accession numbers (BankIt2688837 accession numbers OQ728818-OQ728904) are listed within the text.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES