Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 28;19(3):e0300134. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300134

Characterization of a hemolytic and antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain S3 pathogenic to fish isolated from Mahananda River in India

Dipanwita Ghosh 1, Preeti Mangar 2, Abhinandan Choudhury 1, Anoop Kumar 1, Aniruddha Saha 2, Protip Basu 3, Dipanwita Saha 1,*
Editor: Seyed Mostafa Hosseini4
PMCID: PMC10977779  PMID: 38547304

Abstract

Virulent strain Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from Mahananda River exhibited the highest hemolytic activity and virulence factors and was pathogenic to fish as clinical signs of hemorrhagic spots, loss of scales, and fin erosions were found. S3 was cytotoxic to the human liver cell line (WRL-68) in the trypan blue dye exclusion assay. Genotype characterization using whole genome analysis showed that S3 was similar to P. aeruginosa PAO1. The draft genome sequence had an estimated length of 62,69,783 bp, a GC content of 66.3%, and contained 5916 coding sequences. Eight genes across the genome were predicted to be related to hemolysin action. Antibiotic resistance genes such as class C and class D beta-lactamases, fosA, APH, and catB were detected, along with the strong presence of multiple efflux system genes. This study shows that river water is contaminated by pathogenic P. aeruginosa harboring an array of virulence and antibiotic resistance genes which warrants periodic monitoring to prevent disease outbreaks.

Introduction

One of the most important natural resources is water which is essential in the life of all living organisms. However, excess runoff of sewage and fertilizers into freshwater bodies provides a favorable environment for the growth and reproduction of pathogenic microorganisms [1]. It is reported that river water is usually contaminated by diverse groups of pathogenic bacteria [2]. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a Gram-negative, rod-shaped and uniflagellated bacterium that can colonize a wide range of habitats including soil, water, animals, plants, and humans [3]. It is a well-known pathogen for opportunistic infections, which causes morbidness and even death in immunocompromised and cystic fibrosis-affected patients [4,5]. As a threatening fish pathogen, P. aeruginosa induces ulcerative syndrome and hemorrhagic septicemia leading to high mortality and significant economic losses [6]. Since water is the natural reservoir of this bacterium, the presence of P. aeruginosa is considered an indicator of contamination in water by some researchers [7,8]. This species is present in high concentrations in domestic wastewater and is a major contaminant in surface runoff. However, due to the low fecal abundance of this bacterium, agricultural leachates and barn effluents are also thought to be other important sources of P. aeuginosa [9]. P. aeruginosa displays a wide range of virulence systems which contributes to its ability to cause infection and colonization [10]. Mechanisms of virulence in these bacteria include both cell-associated factors such as lipopolysaccharides, flagella, pili, an array of extracellular secretions such as proteases, exotoxins, elastases, siderophores, extracellular polysaccharides [10,11]. Hemolysins are extracellular toxic proteins, produced by many Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria with lytic activities [12]. Also called cytolysins, they are responsible for forming pores in membranes of various host cells including red blood cells (RBCs), epithelial cells, and leukocytes leading to cell lysis and ultimately cell death [13,14]. The investigations on hemolysins of P. aeruginosa are mainly based on clinical isolates [1517] although the hemolytic trait is reported to occur in environmental isolates as much as in clinical isolates [18]. A study reported that hemolytic P. aeruginosa PAO1 causes plant damage when present in the rhizosphere and disruption of the hemolysin gene lowers virulence towards poplar and barley [19].

High incidences of multidrug resistance in Gram-negative pathogenic bacteria have made the treating of bacterial diseases extremely challenging. P. aeruginosa readily achieves resistance to various classes of antibiotics through intrinsic and adaptive mechanisms that include low permeability of the bacterial outer membrane, biofilm formation, and involvement of robust efflux pumps, which are naturally present in bacteria to combat toxic materials in the environment [20]. In addition, acquiring resistance through horizontal gene transfer and mutational resistance has led to it joining the ranks of superbugs [21].

The current study aimed to investigate the range of virulence and antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria present in river waters of North Bengal, India. Preliminary studies led to the isolation of a virulent strain Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3. The strain was further studied for its susceptibility to 21 common antibiotics belonging to various classes. Pathogenicity of S3 was tested in Anabus testudineus fishes and cytotoxicity was tested in the human liver cell line. In addition, whole genome sequencing of S3 provided information to predict genes related to virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance along with those involved in hemolytic activity.

Materials and methods

Isolation and screening of putative hemolytic strains based on hemolytic activity

The River Mahananda is a major river in North India and has a vital role in regulating the economy of the adjoining areas [22]. The river flows through the Himalayan mountains where it originates and descends into the plains in the sub-Himalayan region of Darjeeling district in West Bengal flowing through the Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary. Then it flows through the heart of Siliguri city and meanders along several places before merging with the River Ganga. Water samples were withdrawn in sterilized vials from different locations along the Mahananda River in Siliguri.

The vials with sampled river water were kept at 4°C and studied within 24 h of sample collection. To isolate hemolytic bacteria, serial ten-fold dilutions of the samples were made in sterile distilled water. Then, 0.1 mL of each dilution was spread plated on tryptone soya agar (TSA) medium (Himedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India) supplemented with 5% (v/v) sheep blood. The plates were incubated at 37°C for 24h following which they were observed against the light for halo formation around the bacterial colonies. Altogether 26 colonies were picked up based on positive halo formation from the plates and axenic cultures were maintained by streaking them on nutrient agar slants [23]. For long time preservation, the cultures were stored in glycerol stock (10% v/v glycerol) and kept at -20°C.

Hemolytic activity

The hemolytic activity of the bacterial isolates was determined as described previously [24] with minor modifications. Briefly, sheep red blood cells were prepared by washing thrice with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Culture supernatant of bacterial isolates was collected by centrifuging 24 h old culture of each bacterium in tryptone soya broth(TSB). For assaying hemolysis, 245μl of culture supernatant was mixed with 5μl of washed sheep RBC and 10mM CaCl2 and incubated for 1h at 37°C. Positive control contained 1% Triton X-100 in place of culture supernatant while sterile TSB was used for negative control. After incubation, samples were centrifuged and hemoglobin release was monitored by estimating the optical density at 540nm (OD540). For normalization, the negative control reading was subtracted from each sample reading. Percent hemolysis was calculated by setting the Triton X-100 control as 100% hemolysis. All the experiments were performed in triplicate and the data were represented as triplicate of mean ± SD. To find the significant differences (P<0.05) between the hemolytic isolates, hemolysin assay experiments were analyzed by one-way ANOVA in SPSS Software version 21.

Detection of phenotypic attributes of virulence

Production of protease was determined in skimmed milk supplemented (1.5%w/v) nutrient agar medium. This medium was inoculated by each isolate and incubated for 24h at 37°C. Bacteria that were able to degrade casein exhibited a zone of clearance around the growth of bacteria [25]. DNase production by the isolates was observed in DNase agar medium (HiMedia laboratories, Mumbai) where the media plates were inoculated with the strains and incubated for 24h at 37°C. Bacterial colonies surrounded by pale pink to white halos were identified as DNase positive [26]. For testing the production of lipase, the isolates were allowed to grow in Tween-80 medium at 37°C for 24 h. The clear zone surrounding the streaked bacterial cultures due to the crystal formation indicates lipase production [27]. Amylase production by the isolates was tested in starch agar plates according to the method of Barrow and Feltham. Production of siderophore was examined by the Chromazurol S (CAS) assay [28].

Biochemical characterization

The isolate showing high hemolytic activity, multiple virulence traits, and antibiotic resistance was subjected to further investigations. The selected strain S3 was characterized through biochemical tests which included Gram staining, catalase, oxidase, indole, methyl red, Voges Proskauer, oxidation-fermentation, nitrate reduction and citrate utilization [29]. Pigment production was tested in Pseudomonas agar medium (Himedia Laboratories, India).

Antimicrobial susceptibility tests

To determine the antimicrobial sensitivity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3, the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method was used as per the standards of CLSI and EUCAST [30]. Initially, S3 was grown in nutrient broth for 24 h at 37°C. Sterile Mueller–Hinton agar (MHA) plates were spread with S3 culture using a cotton swab and the inoculated plates were dried at room temperature. Subsequently, antimicrobial discs (Hi-media Laboratories, Mumbai, India) were placed on the inoculated plates and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. The antimicrobial substances used in this study were ampicillin (10 mcg), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (10 mcg), penicillin (10 mcg), cefoperazone (75mcg), ciprofloxacin (5mcg), gentamicin (10mcg), streptomycin (25 mcg), kanamycin (30 mcg), norfloxacin (10mcg), ofloxacin (5mcg), imipenem (10mcg), cefepime (30mcg), cefixime (5mcg), cefotaxime (30mcg), cefuroxime (30 mcg), chloramphenicol (30 mcg), co-trimoxazole (15 mcg), trimethoprim (5 mcg), tetracycline (30 mcg), oxytetracycline (30 mcg) and colistin (10 mcg). Colistin susceptibility was tested by the disk elution method following CLSI guidelines. For this, specific number of colistin disks were added to 10 ml sterile cation-activated Mueller–Hinton broth (0 disk = control, 1 disk = 1 μg/mL, 2 disks = 2 μg/mL and 4 disks = 4 μg/mL) and vortexed gently for 40 min for the elution of colistin into the medium. For inoculum preparation, 3 to 5 isolated pure colonies of S3 from overnight nutrient agar plates were suspended in normal saline and added to each test-tube to attain a final inoculum density of 7.5 ×105 cfu/mL. The inoculated tubes were again vortexed at low speed and incubated overnight at 35°C. Categorization of the strain S3 as sensitive (S) or resistant (R) towards each antimicrobial substance was done according to the suggestion mentioned in the CLSI and EUCAST interpretative guidelines for Pseudomonas. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853 was used as a reference strain for the antimicrobial sensitivity experiments.

Cell cytotoxicity assay

Human liver embryonic cell line WRL-68 was purchased from NCCS (National Centre for Cell Science) in Pune, Maharashtra, India, and used to check the cytotoxicity of the strain Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3. The strain S3 was inoculated in the Luria-Bertani (LB) broth and incubated for 24 h at 37°C with an agitation speed of 90 rpm. Cell-free supernatant (CFS) was collected by centrifuging the 24 h culture at 10,000g for 30 mins at 4˚C followed by filtering through a 0.45 μm membrane filter. Culture filtrate of Lactobacillus sp., a non-pathogenic strain, was also prepared following the same procedure and included as the positive control in the experiment. WRL-68 cells were allowed to grow in Dulbeco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) with 10% foetal calf serum in an atmosphere containing 5% CO2. For experimental purpose, cells were added to culture plates (60 mm) and incubated in CO2 incubator for 24 h at 37°C. Subsequently, the cell free supernatants (1.5 mL) were added to the cells in separate sets and incubated at 25°C for one hour. Sterile LB medium was added to the control set. Following incubation, the cells were observed under phase-contrast inverted microscope (Olympus CK40-SLP) at 200X magnification. The percentage of viable cells of treated and control sets was determined following the trypan blue dye exclusion assay described previously [31]. Percent viability was determined as: [total number of viable cells per ml of aliquot/ total number of cells per ml of aliquot] × 100. The experiment was repeated thrice and the mean was computed. Standard error was calculated using the statistical software OriginPro R version 9.9 freely available from https://www.originlab.com.

Pathogenicity testing in fishes

Healthy small-sized fishes (25–30 g) of A, testudineus were used for testing the pathogenicity of S3 in fish. In this current study, fishes were procured from local fisheries in the Darjeeling district and acclimatized for 15 days in glass aquaria (90X35X35 cm). Each aquarium contained 8 fish and the water temperature was maintained between 25–30°C. For pathogen injection, S3 was grown in TSB for 18 h at 37°C under an agitation speed of 90 rpm and subsequently centrifuged to collect the cells which were resuspended in 0.85% saline solution to obtain a cell density of 1×107cfu/mL [32]. Benzocaine at a concentration of 25 mg/L was used to anesthetize the fishes where the fishes were kept in the solution for 1–2 min. The S3 suspension was injected into each of the fish at a concentration of 0.4 mL/25 gm body weight and maintained in a separate aquarium [30]. The fishes injected with 0.85%w/v saline solution at a similar dose were marked as a control group. The pathological lesions and death of fish were monitored and recorded every 24 h post administration for one week. The approval (IAEC approval No. IAEC/NBU/2022/39) for conducting the above experiment was obtained from Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC), Department of Zoology, University of North Bengal under the guidelines of CPCSEA, New Delhi. The fishes were anesthetized by keeping in benzocaine solution (25mg/L) for 1-2min.

Whole-genome sequencing, assembly, annotation, and comparative genome analysis

The selected strain S3 was inoculated into TSB and grown for 24 h at an incubation temperature of 37°C. The chromosomal DNA of the bacterium was isolated using a bacterial gDNA isolation kit (Xploregen Discoveries, Bangalore, India) following the protocol obtained from the manufacturer. DNA concentration was determined using the Qubit double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) high-sensitivity (HS) assay kit (Invitrogen, USA) in a Qubit 3 Fluorometer. Total DNA was enzymatically digested to obtain the average fragment size ranging from 200–300 bp. and libraries were generated by following the NEBNext Ultra II protocol. Fragments were analyzed in Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer and sequencing was conducted with the Illumina HiSeq 4000 sequencer using the 2x150 paired end sequencing strategy to generate 15810782 reads. Read quality was assessed using FastQC and MultiQC and trimming was done using TrimGalore (version 0.6.4) to remove adapter sequences. Primary assembly of the filtered reads was done using Unicycler with default settings (version 0.4.8). MOB-suite (version 3.1.0) was used to predict plasmid sequences from the primary assemblies which showed negative results. The final finishing of the genome was done using Contiguator (https://contiguator.sourceforge.net/).

Annotation of the S3 genome was done using Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology (RAST) used at Pathosystems Resource Integration Center (PATRIC) and Prokka tools. The circular genome map and phylogenetic tree were created using PATRIC. Sequences for virulence factors were searched and analyzed through the Virulence Factor Database (VFDB) and Victors resource. The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistant Database (CARD) and the NCBI National Database of Antibiotic Resistance Organism (NDARO) were used to detect antimicrobial resistance genes. In addition, hemolysin genes were predicted using the PATRIC annotation service and analyzed through BLASTP. The genomes or contigs were aligned against each other using the tool MAUVE version 20150226 for comparison [33].

Phylogenetic analysis

Using the PubMLST server [34], the identification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3 was confirmed by rMLST (ribosomal multilocus sequence typing) [35]. The PATRIC Phylogenetic Tree Building Service [36] was used to create a phylogenetic tree using amino acid and nucleotide sequences from a selected number of the BV-BRC global Protein Families (PGFams) [37]. MUSCLE was used to align the protein sequences [38] whereas Biopython was used to align the coding gene nucleotide sequences [39]. The aligned protein and nucleotides were formatted into a PHYLIP file for ease of use, and a partition file was created specifically for RaxML analysis [40]. With the help of RaxML, 100 rounds of the ’’Rapid’’ bootstrapping option [41] support values were created. The phylogenetic tree was visualized by FigTree [42].

Acquisition of the accession numbers for the nucleotide sequence

The draft genomes of S3 were submitted in the NCBI database under the accession number JAESVH000000000. The BioProject ID in GenBank is PRJNA693431. The organism was identified as Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3.

Results

Hemolytic activity and virulence-related traits of isolated strains

Altogether 26 bacterial strains were observed to be hemolytic among 256 strains isolated from the Mahananda River during primary screening. A quantitative estimation showed that strain S3 possessed the highest hemolytic activity (Fig 1). Further studies on virulence-related phenotypes of the isolates showed that S3 possessed the maximum number of virulence traits. It showed protease, DNase, and lipase activity and produced a siderophore in the CAS medium (S1 Table in S1 File).

Fig 1. Hemolytic activity of the bacterial isolates.

Fig 1

Data are presented as triplicate of mean ± SD. One-way ANOVA suggests a significant difference (p<0.05) in hemolysis (%) by the isolates.

Biochemical characterization and antimicrobial resistance profile of S3

The strain S3 was observed to be Gram-negative and rod in shape which produced green fluorescent pigment on Pseudomonas agar medium. The strain showed positive results in catalase, oxidase, citrate utilization and nitrate reduction tests while it showed negative results for indole, methyl red, and Voges Proskauer tests. It was found to be oxidative in the oxidation-fermentation test. These results match the phenotype of P. aeruginosa described in Bergey’s manual [43].

The antibiotic resistance profile of P. aeruginosa S3 is listed in Table 1, which reveals that among the 21 antimicrobial substances tested, strain S3 was resistant to 19 of them. It showed resistance to all tested beta-lactam class of antibiotics including penicillins, all five cephalosporins, and carbapenem. S3 was also resistant to chloramphenicol, colistin, tetracyclines, and folate pathway inhibitors. It showed resistance to the aminoglycosides streptomycin and kanamycin but was susceptible to gentamycin. Similarly, it was found to be susceptible to fluoroquinolones, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin but was resistant to norfloxacin.

Table 1. Antimicrobial sensitivity testing of P. aeruginosa S3.

Class Antimicrobial substance Disk content (mcg) Interpretation
Aminoglycosides Gentamicin 10 S
Streptomycin 25 R
Kanamycin 30 R
β-lactam Penicillin
Ampicillin
Amoxycillin/Clavulanic acid
10
10
10
R
R
R
Carbapenems Imipenem 10 R
Fluoroquinolones Ciprofloxacin 5 S
Ofloxacin 5 S
Norfloxacin 10 R
Cephalosporin Cefepime 30 R
Cefixime 5 R
Cefotaxime 30 R
Cefoperazone 75 R
Cefuroxime 30 R
Phenicols Chloramphenicol 30 R
Folate pathway inhibitors Co-trimoxazole 15 R
Trimethoprim 5 R
Tetracyclines Tetracycline 30 R
Oxytetracycline 30 R
Polymyxins Colistin 10 R

Pathogenicity in fish

The pathogenicity of S3 was tested by injecting it into A. testudineus fishes intramuscularly. Almost 90% mortality was recorded within the first 24 h and by 36 h, all injected fishes were dead. The fishes developed clinical signs like hemorrhagic spots on the body surface especially on the head and ventral aspect of the abdomen, loss of scales, fin erosions, and exophthalmia (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Pathogenicity testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3 in Anabaena testudineus.

Fig 2

Cell cytotoxicity assay

The CFS of S3 showed cytotoxicity towards human liver cell line WRL-68. The trypan blue dye exclusion assay revealed a considerable decrease in cell viability when WRL-68 cells were exposed to the CFS of S3 compared to the controls (Fig 3). The viability of the S3-treated WRL-68 cell was observed to be 3.1% which was significantly lower compared to the cell treated with Lactobacillus (69%).

Fig 3. Cytotoxic effect of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3 cell-free culture supernatant fluid on human liver cell line (WRL-68).

Fig 3

Genetic features and phylogeny of S3

Genomic characteristics and annotated gene information of strain S3 are briefly presented in Table 2. The draft genome length of strain S3 was 62,13,354 bp with a GC composition of 66.32% and harbored 5916 protein-coding sequences. The circular viewer application of PATRIC was used to construct the circular whole genome map of S3 and shown in Fig 4. Prospective genes obtained from the draft genome of S3 were analyzed and annotated using the subsystem approach of the RAST server (Fig 5). Subsystem refers to an assemblage of functionally related protein families, collectively referring to a precise biological process or structural complexes [44]. It had been observed that in strain S3, membrane transport function was controlled by 166 genes, biotic and abiotic stress response was regulated by 104 genes, virulence, defense, and disease-related function was controlled by 62 genes, and whereas metabolism and acquirement of iron were taken care of by 52 genes. Careful analysis of the genome of S3 also revealed the involvement of four genes associated with prophages, transposable elements, and plasmids. Listeria Pathogenicity Island LIPI-1 extended was found to be present under this subsystem. The subsystem’s description obtained at the SEED viewer revealed the presence of prf A, plcA, plcB, mpl, and actA in LIPI-1 extended.

Table 2. Genomic characteristics and annotation information of the chromosome of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3 based on PATRIC.

Genome Features Chromosome
Genome length (bp) 62,69,783
Protein-coding genes 5916
GC content (%) 66.32298
The number of tRNA 55
The number of rRNA 3
Contigs 46
Contig L50 1
Contig N50 61,73,608
Coarse Consistency(%) 99.9
Fine Consistency(%) 99.7
CheckM Completeness 99
CheckM Contamination 0.6
Hypothetical proteins 1112
Proteins with functional assignments 4804
Proteins with Subsystem assignments 2073
Proteins with EC number assignments 1288
Proteins with GO assignments 1095
Proteins with Pathway assignments 971

Fig 4. The circular genome visualization of P. aeruginosa S3 was created using the PATRIC circular viewer with the layout starting from the outermost layer contigs and moving towards the center, with forward and reverse coding sequences, non-CDS features, AMR genes, VF Genes, transporters, and drug targets.

Fig 4

The two inner tracks are GC content and GC skew.

Fig 5. An annotated draft whole genome of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3 from the RAST server was analyzed to identify subsystem categories.

Fig 5

The pie chart revealed the number of genes related to individual subsystems. Subsystem coverage is presented in the bar graph in the left. The ratio of coding sequences annotated in the SEED subsystem (30%) and outside of the SEED subsystem (70%) is indicated.

A Phylogenetic tree using the core genes of the whole genome sequence of S3 was constructed using the PATRIC database and presented in Fig 6. The microbial taxonomy of S3 was confirmed as Pseudomonas aeruginosa at 100% identity based on the variation of 56 genes encoding ribosomal protein subunits. Pairwise alignment of S3 with whole genomes of P. aeruginosa PAO1 and P. balearica DSM 6083 was done using progressive MAUVE and S3 showed the highest similarity with P. aeruginosa PAO1 as shown in Fig 7. The sequence type was found as 549 using the MLST database which also matched with P. aeruginosa PAO1.

Fig 6. Phylogenetic analysis based on core genes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3 using PATRIC.

Fig 6

Fig 7. Genome comparison for Pseudomonas strains using Mauve.

Fig 7

Pairwise alignment of P. aeruginosa S3 with other whole genomes of P. aeruginosa PAO1 and P. balearica DSM 6083.

Prediction of genes encoding virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, and hemolysin action

Several genes were predicted as virulence factors in the draft genome of P. aeruginosa S3 according to the Victors (89 genes) (Table 3) and VFDB (239 genes) database (S2 Table in S1 File). CARD and NDARO databases were used to find genes responsible for antibiotic resistance of S3 as shown in Table 4. P. aeruginosa S3 was found to contain many multidrug efflux systems and also showed the presence of antibiotic resistance genes of fosfomycin, chloramphenicol, and beta-lactam antibiotics. Eight genes across the genome were predicted through the PATRIC database to be related to hemolysin action displayed by S3 (Table 5). A BLASTP-based study revealed that S3 carried two hemolysin genes PapA and ChoE which were annotated as Phospholipase/lecithinase/hemolysin. In addition, apart from the known plcH gene, a predicted homolog of the hemolysin III family protein and another putative hemolysin belonging to the GNAT family were present. Rest three genes encoded activation or secretion proteins of hemolysin.

Table 3. Prediction of genes related to virulence factors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3 according to Victors database.

Gene Product Source ID Source Organism
nuoD NADH-ubiquinone oxidoreductase chain C (EC 1.6.5.3) / NADH-ubiquinone oxidoreductase chain D (EC 1.6.5.3) 15597835 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA3001 NADP-dependent glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (EC 1.2.1.13) 15598197 P.aeruginosa PAO1
phzS FAD-dependent monooxygenase PhzS 15599413 P.aeruginosa
PA14_37260
Outer membrane low permeability porin, OprD family = > OccK3/OpdO pyroglutamate, cefotaxime uptake
116050053 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
exoT hypothetical protein 15595242 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA0151 Ferrichrome-iron receptor @ Iron siderophore receptor protein 15595349 P.aeruginosa PAO1
pyrF Orotidine 5’-phosphate decarboxylase (EC 4.1.1.23) 15598072 P.aeruginosa PAO1
algW Outer membrane stress sensor protease DegS 15599642 P.aeruginosa PAO1
prpL Lysyl endopeptidase (EC 3.4.21.50) 116052217 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
exoY Adenylate cyclase ExoY (EC 4.6.1.1) 15597387 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA5327 Oxidoreductase, FAD-binding 15600520 P.aeruginosa
exoS putative exoenzyme T 15599036 P.aeruginosa PAO1
fur Ferric uptake regulation protein FUR 15599958 P.aeruginosa PAO1
wspF Chemotaxis response regulator protein-glutamate methylesteraseCheB (EC 3.1.1.61) 116051700 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
htpG Chaperone protein HtpG 15596793 P.aeruginosa PAO1
plcH Phospholipase C (EC 3.1.4.3) = >hemolyticPlcH 116048767 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
dsbA Periplasmic thiol:disulfide interchange protein DsbA 116053639 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
PA1157 Two-component transcriptional response regulator, OmpR family 15596354 P.aeruginosa PAO1
estA Phospholipase/lecithinase/hemolysin 15600305 P.aeruginosa PAO1
thrC Threonine synthase (EC 4.2.3.1) 15598930 P.aeruginosa PAO1
pscJ Type III secretion bridge between inner and outermembrane lipoprotein (YscJ, HrcJ, EscJ, PscJ) 116049673 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
aprF Type I secretion outer membrane protein, TolC family @ ABC-type protease exporter, outer membrane component PrtF/AprF 15596445 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA3756 L,D-transpeptidase 15598951 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA14_03530 Transcriptional regulator 116053999 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
hfq RNA-binding protein Hfq 15600137 P.aeruginosa PAO1
purH IMP cyclohydrolase (EC 3.5.4.10) / Phosphoribosylaminoimidazolecarboxamideformyltransferase (EC 2.1.2.3) 15600047 P.aeruginosa PAO1
pgk Phosphoglycerate kinase (EC 2.7.2.3) 15595749 P.aeruginosa
PA0158 Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >TriC of TriABC-OpmH system 15595356 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA4489 UPF0192 protein YfaS 15599685 P.aeruginosa
relA Inactive (p)ppGpp 3’-pyrophosphohydrolase domain / GTP pyrophosphokinase (EC 2.7.6.5), (p)ppGpp synthetase I 15596131 P.aeruginosa PAO1
wbpX Mannosyltransferase 15600642 P.aeruginosa PAO1
nqrB Na(+)-translocating NADH-quinone reductase subunit B (EC 1.6.5.8) 15598194 P.aeruginosa PAO1
purL Phosphoribosylformylglycinamidine synthase, synthetase subunit (EC 6.3.5.3) / Phosphoribosylformylglycinamidine synthase, glutamine amidotransferase subunit (EC 6.3.5.3) 15598958 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA14_37650 hypothetical protein 116050024 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
lasR N-(3-oxododecanoyl)-L-homoserine lactone-binding transcriptional activator @ Acyl-homoserine lactone-binding transcriptional activator, LuxR family @ Transcriptional regulator LasR 116049375 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
katA Catalase KatE (EC 1.11.1.6) 116052272 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
narK2 Nitrate/nitrite transporter NarK/U 15599071 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA3826 FIG018175: Predicted transmembrane protein 15599021 P.aeruginosa
PA4115 Pyrimidine/purine nucleotide 5’-monophosphate nucleosidase PpnN (EC 3.2.2.4) (EC 3.2.2.10) 15599310 P.aeruginosa
modA Molybdenum ABC transporter, substrate-binding protein ModA 15597060 P.aeruginosa PAO1
clpV1 T6SS AAA+ chaperone ClpV (TssH) 15595288 P.aeruginosa PAO1
pvdS Sigma factor PvdS, controlingpyoverdin biosynthesis 15597622 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA3498 Flavodoxin reductases (ferredoxin-NADPH reductases) family 1; Vanillate O-demethylase oxidoreductase (EC 1.14.13.-) 15598694 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA0082 T6SS component TssA (ImpA) 15595280 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA4564 Conserved uncharacterized protein CreA 15599760 P.aeruginosa
purD Phosphoribosylamine—glycine ligase (EC 6.3.4.13) 15600048 P.aeruginosa PAO1
cca CCA tRNA nucleotidyltransferase (EC 2.7.7.72) 15595781 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mdoG Glucans biosynthesis protein G precursor 15600271 P.aeruginosa PAO1
fabF1 3-oxoacyl-[acyl-carrier-protein] synthase, KASII (EC 2.3.1.179) 116050967 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
flhB Flagellar biosynthesis protein FlhB 116049394 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
wzz hypothetical protein 15598356 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA4692 Protein-methionine-sulfoxide reductase catalytic subunit MsrP 15599886 P.aeruginosa
PA14_04850 hypothetical protein 116054099 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
galU UTP—glucose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase (EC 2.7.7.9) 15597219 P.aeruginosa PAO1
pilI type IV pili signal transduction protein PilI 116054141 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
fliC Flagellin protein FlaB 15596289 P.aeruginosa PAO1
phzM Phenazine-specific methyltransferase PhzM 15599404 P.aeruginosa
PA14_38610 Short-chain fatty acids transporter 116049953 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
PA2895 hypothetical protein 15598091 P.aeruginosa PAO1
pepA Cytosol aminopeptidase PepA (EC 3.4.11.1) 15599026 P.aeruginosa
pilF Type IV pilus biogenesis protein PilF 116051830 P.aeruginosa
PA0041 Putative large exoprotein involved in heme utilization or adhesion of ShlA/HecA/FhaA family 15595239 P.aeruginosa PAO1
pgm 2,3-bisphosphoglycerate-independent phosphoglycerate mutase (EC 5.4.2.12) 15600324 P.aeruginosa
mvfR Multiple virulence factor regulator MvfR/PqsR 116048931 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
PA4887 Uncharacterized MFS-type transporter 15600080 P.aeruginosa
PA1009 Glycine cleavage system transcriptional antiactivatorGcvR 15596206 P.aeruginosa PAO1
algU RNA polymerase sigma factor RpoE 15595959 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA2972 Maf-like protein YceF 15598168 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA5312 Aldehyde dehydrogenase (EC 1.2.1.3) 15600505 P.aeruginosa
PA14_03120 Transcriptional regulator, MarR family 116053966 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
pilD Leader peptidase (Prepilin peptidase) (EC 3.4.23.43) / N-methyltransferase (EC 2.1.1.-) 15599724 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA4491 Uncharacterized protein YfaA 15599687 P.aeruginosa
PA5441 hypothetical protein 15600634 P.aeruginosa
PA5437 Transcriptional regulator PA5437, LysR family 15600630 P.aeruginosa
PA0073 ABC transporter, ATP-binding protein 15595271 P.aeruginosa PAO1
rhlB RhlB, TDP-rhamnosyltransferase 1 (EC 2.4.1.-) 15598674 P.aeruginosa PAO1
metE 5-methyltetrahydropteroyltriglutamate—homocysteine methyltransferase (EC 2.1.1.14) 15597123 P.aeruginosa PAO1
gacA BarA-associated response regulator UvrY (= GacA = SirA) 116050573 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
pilY1 Type IV fimbrial biogenesis protein PilY1 15599750 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA3286 beta-ketodecanoyl-[acyl-carrier-protein] synthase (EC 2.3.1.207) 15598482 P.aeruginosa PAO1
toxA hypothetical protein 15596345 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA3173 Putative short-chain dehydrogenase 15598369 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mucC Sigma factor RpoE regulatory protein RseC 15595962 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA14_41070 FIG005121: SAM-dependent methyltransferase (EC 2.1.1.-) 116049764 P.aeruginosa UCBPP-PA14
algR Alginate biosynthesis two-component system response regulator AlgR 15600454 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PA4488 Uncharacterized protein YfaQ 15599684 P.aeruginosa
mucA Sigma factor RpoE negative regulatory protein RseA 15595960 P.aeruginosa PAO1

Table 4. Prediction of antimicrobial resistance genes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3 based on CARD, and NDARO database.

Gene Product Source ID Source Organism
oprN Multidrug efflux system, outer membrane factor lipoprotein = >OprN of MexEF-OprN system NP_251185.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
opmE Multidrug efflux system, outer membrane factor lipoprotein = >OpmE of MexPQ-OpmE system BAE06009.1 P.aeruginosa
mexL Transcriptional regulator, AcrR family NP_252368.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PmrB Sensory histidine kinase QseC AEX49906.1 P.aeruginosa
mexM RND efflux system, membrane fusion protein BAE06005.1 P.aeruginosa
oprD Outer membrane low permeability porin, OprD family = > OccD1/OprD basic amino acids, carbapenem uptake NP_249649.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
gyrA DNA pase subunit A (EC 5.99.1.3) NP_251858.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
amrB Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >MexY of MexXY/AxyXY NP_250708.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexE Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >MexE of MexEF-OprN system NP_251183.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexH Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >MexH of MexHI-OpmD system NP_252895.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexZ Transcriptional repressor of mexXY operon, MexZ NP_250710.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
parC DNA topoisomerase IV subunit A (EC 5.99.1.3) BAA37152.1 P.aeruginosa
oprM Multidrug efflux system, outer membrane factor lipoprotein = >OprM of MexAB-OprM NP_249118.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
TriC Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >TriC of TriABC-OpmH system NP_248848.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
oprJ Multidrug efflux system, outer membrane factor lipoprotein = >OprJ of MexCD-OprJ system AAB41958.1 P.aeruginosa
TriB Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >TriB of TriABC-OpmH system NP_248847.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
phoQ Sensor histidine kinase PhoQ (EC 2.7.13.3) NP_249871.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
nalC Transcriptional regulator, AcrR family NP_252410.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexD Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >MexD of MexCD-OprJ system NP_253288.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexA Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >MexA of MexAB-OprM NP_249116.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
OpmH Outer membrane channel TolC (OpmH) NP_253661.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexK Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >MexK of MexJK-OprM/OpmH system AAG07064.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
FosA Fosfomycin resistance protein FosA NP_249820.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexW Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >MexW of MexVW-OprM system AAG07763.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexF Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >MexF of MexEF-OprN system NP_251184.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PmrA Two-component system response regulator QseB NP_253464.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexN Multidrug efflux system MdtABC-TolC, inner-membrane proton/drug antiporter MdtB-like BAE06006.1 P.aeruginosa
TriA Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >TriA of TriABC-OpmH system NP_248846.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
PDC-1 Class C beta-lactamase (EC 3.5.2.6) = > PDC family ACQ82807.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexV Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >MexV of MexVW-OprM system AAG07762.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexC Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >MexC of MexCD-OprJ system AAB41956.1 P.aeruginosa
mexS Putative oxidoreductase ADT64081.1 P.aeruginosa PAK
mexI Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >MexI of MexHI-OpmD system NP_252896.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
arnA UDP-4-amino-4-deoxy-L-arabinose formyltransferase (EC 2.1.2.13) / UDP-glucuronic acid oxidase (UDP-4-keto-hexauronic acid decarboxylating) (EC 1.1.1.305) NP_252244 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexR Multidrug resistance operon repressor MexR, MarR family NP_249115.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
parE DNA topoisomerase IV subunit B (EC 5.99.1.3) NP_253654.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexP Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >MexP of MexPQ-OpmE system BAE06007.1 P.aeruginosa
mexB Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >MexB of MexAB-OprM AAA74437.1 P.aeruginosa
nfxB Transcriptional regulator NfxB NP_253290.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
amrA Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >MexX of ofMexXY/AxyXY NP_250709.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
catB7 Chloramphenicol O-acetyltransferase (EC 2.3.1.28) = >CatB family NP_249397.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
mexJ Multidrug efflux system, membrane fusion component = >MexJ of MexJK-OprM/OpmH system NP_252367.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
opmD Multidrug efflux system, outer membrane factor lipoprotein = >OpmD of MexHI-OpmD system NP_252897.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
nalD Transcriptional regulator, AcrR family NP_252264.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
APH(3’)-IIb Aminoglycoside 3’-phosphotransferase (EC 2.7.1.95) = > APH(3’)-II/APH(3’)-XV CAA62365.1 P.aeruginosa
mexG hypothetical protein NP_252894.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
OXA-50 Class D beta-lactamase (EC 3.5.2.6) = > OXA-50 family, oxacillin-hydrolyzing AAQ76277.1 P.aeruginosa
mexQ Multidrug efflux system, inner membrane proton/drug antiporter (RND type) = >MexQ of MexPQ-OpmE system BAE06008.1 P.aeruginosa
phoP Transcriptional regulatory protein PhoP NP_249870.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1
emrE small multidrug resistance family (SMR) protein NP_253677.1 P.aeruginosa PAO1

Table 5. Hemolysin genes prediction of Pseudomonas aeruginosa S3 based on PATRIC database.

Hemolysin-related gene annotations (PATRIC) Identity of the Gene (based on NCBI BLASTP) Percentage
identity(%)
Source organism
Hemolysin activation/secretion protein associated with VreARIsignalling system ShlB/FhaC/HecB 100 Pseudomonas sp.
Putative hemolysin GNAT family N(alpha)-acetyltransferase 100 Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Hemolysin activation/secretion protein ShlB/FhaC/HecB 100 Pseudomonas sp.
Hemolysin activation/secretion protein two-partner secretion system transporter CdrB 100 Pseudomonas sp.
FIG01964566: Predicted membrane protein, hemolysin III homolog Hemolysin III family protein 99.51 Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Phospholipase/lecithinase/hemolysin cholinesterase/ ChoE 100 Pseudomonas sp.
Phospholipase/lecithinase/hemolysin PapA 100 Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1
Phospholipase C, hemolytic PlcH phospholipase C, phosphocholine-specific 100 Pseudomonas sp.

Discussion

The presence of pathogens in river water causes the spread of several diseases, ultimately with serious consequences for human health [45]. In this present research, a pathogenic strain of P. aeruginosa S3 resistant to multiple antibiotics was isolated from the Mahananda river. Hemolytic activity, a key indicator of virulence in several bacteria in the aquatic environment [46] was utilized during the initial screening. Among 26 hemolytic isolates, S3 possessed the highest hemolytic activity and exhibited multiple virulence traits which led to its selection for further studies to genotypically and phenotypically characterize this strain to understand the threat it poses to aquatic organisms and human health.

Virulence factors of P. aeruginosa exhibit a wide range of mechanisms controlled by diverse signaling systems and multiple complex and interconnected regulatory circuits, giving this pathogen extraordinary versatility in disease manifestation [10]. Gene prediction in the RAST server showed the existence of Listeria Pathogenicity Island LIPI-1 extended in the S3 genome. All genes of the L. monocytogenes LIPI-1 were present in LIPI-1 extended of S3 except hly which encodes listeriolysin O [47]. LIPI-1 has been reported to occur in other genera such as in Bacillus sp. 87 isolated from food [48]. It was also found in P. aeruginosa MZ4A isolated from clinical waste [49]. The presence of LIPI-1 in P. aeruginosa S3 might increase its virulence but further studies are required to confirm this possibility.

P. aeruginosa is considered one of the significant recurrent emerging pathogens isolated from fishes such as Oreochromis niloticus, Clarias gariepinus [6,50], O. mossambicus [51] and Labeo bata [52]. S3 displayed high mortality in fish injection studies with clinical observations agreeing with some previous findings [6,50]. However, as reported by Haque et al. (2021) [52], deep necrotic skin ulcers were not found. In addition, S3 showed cytotoxic activity toward human liver cell lines WRL-68. Previous studies reported P. aeruginosa clinical isolates to exhibit cytotoxic properties in human liver cell lines [53] but such studies involving environmental isolates are rare.

Among the various virulence factors found in S3, the two-component system regulatory network comprising signal-sensing histidine kinases and response regulators that play a vital function in P. aeruginosa virulence and environmental adaptation [54] were found. P. aeruginosa S3 carried the PA1157 gene which is a two-component response regulator that regulates the response to changes in different environmental conditions. It is a part of the OmpR family which controls porin expression [55]. In addition, the transcriptional regulator gene algR, (alginate biosynthesis) which is considered essential for pathogenesis [56] was also detected along with algB (response regulator) and algZ (sensor histidine kinase). Moreover, the Chp/FimS/AlgR network involved in biofilm formation and virulence was found [57]. In addition, genes encoding the virulence regulator MvfR (PqsR) and the quorum sensing regulator LasR which controls the expression of many virulence factors [58] were detected. PA1157, algB, algR and algZ were found to match with P. aeruginosa PAO1 genes while MvfR and LasR genes matched with P. aeruginosa PA14. However, genes encoding RhlR, another major quorum-sensing regulator, was not found. Nevertheless, the presence of other virulence regulatory genes in P. aeruginosa S3 appears to be sufficient to express its pathogenic phenotype. Production of siderophores is reported to be essential in the pathogenesis of P. aeruginosa [59,60]. P aeruginosa S3, which exhibited siderophore production in the phenotype expression experiment was found to carry thirteen pvd cluster genes associated with pyoverdin synthesis and its regulation and secretion; and another nine genes involved in pyochelin synthesis and secretion. We found the presence of several other important virulence-associated genes similar to PAO1 that included Las A (protease precursor) and the pseudomonas elastase gene Las B (extracellular zinc protease) which render the ability to invade tissues and thus cause damage to host cells [61,62].

Several genes encoding multiple secretion systems that are associated with host colonization and virulence were detected, e.g., genes associated with the type III secretion system which are grouped in five operons comprising structural and regulatory genes viz. pscNOPQRSTU, popNpcr1234DR, pcrGVHpopBD, exsCEBA, and exsDpscBCDEFGHIJKL [63]. Besides, genes of several effectors associated with the type III secretion system such as exoS, exoY, and exoT were found. ExoS supports cell invasion and intracellular persistence through its ADP-ribosyltransferase activity [64]. However, exoU, considered the most virulent of the T3SS effectors and the main driver of the cytotoxic phenotype was not found in P. aeruginosa S3. Isolation of virulent P. aeruginosa strains lacking one or more such effectors is not unusual and PAO1, known to be hemolytic and cytotoxic [19], also lacks this gene. Moreover, the presence of exoS and exoU is almost exclusive [63]. In the context that some high-risk strains carry either exoU or exoS; authors have suggested that environmental strains are more likely to carry exoS which is more prevalent while strains of specific clinical origin mostly carry exoU [65]. Despite not carrying exoU, the cytotoxic phenotype showed by P. aeruginosa S3 nevertheless implies that it is a health risk that demands attention. Genes associated with the type IV secretion system which matched with P. aeruginosa PAO1 included pilA (the major abundant pilin subunit PilA), fimUpilVWXY1Y2E operon (several less abundant, fiber-associated pilin-like proteins and surface sensor), the pilMNOPQ operon (proteins necessary for assembly and twitching motility), and PilD, the prepilin leader peptidase needed for processing the major and minor pilins [57,66,67] were also found. This system is involved in host tissue adherence and colonization and promoting surface-associated twitching motility [67]. In addition, S3, like PAO1, carried the virulence locus HSI-1 of the type VI secretory system which structurally resembles the contractile tails of bacteriophages [68]. Hemolysin-coregulated protein (Hcp) and valine–glycine repeat protein G (VgrG) act as major structural components and effectors of this system which are associated with key functions in virulence, biofilm formation and competition with microorganisms in the environment [57,69]. The presence of these versatile secretary machinery might play a role in the pathogenicity of P. aeruginosa S3.

Antibiotic resistance machinery in bacteria develops through a spectrum of genomic changes [70]. Genomic studies revealed the presence of two crucial beta-lactamases, class C beta-lactamase PDC-1 and class D beta-lactamase OXA-50, which occur naturally in P. aeruginosa [71]. Therefore, P. aeruginosa is, in general, resistant to the beta-lactam class of antibiotics [72,73] but, higher susceptibility is often found towards cephalosporins and imipenem in both clinical [74] and environmental [75] isolates. Notably, our strain showed complete resistance towards all beta-lactam class of antibiotics. The expression of class C beta-lactamase PDC (Pseudomonas-derived cephalosporinase) is considered the main resistance mechanism in P. aeruginosa against the beta-lactam class of antibiotics [76]. On the other hand, the most common type of carbapenemases is the Class D β-lactamases, also known as oxacillinases (OXA) which hydrolyses imipenem [71]. The presence of both PDC-1 and OXA-50 in the draft genome of S3 might play a role in the resistance shown by S3 towards all beta-lactam type of antibiotics. However, other mechanisms might also be involved, including those of RND (resistance-nodulation-cell division) family efflux pumps. Apart from the intrinsic mechanisms, several efflux systems have been characterized in P. aeruginosa which contribute more actively to resistance by extrusion of antibiotics from the cell [77]. Genes encoding ten of these multidrug efflux systems belonging to the RND family which are mexAB-OprM, mexCD-OprJ, mexEF-OprN, mexGHI-OpmD, mexJK-OprM, mexMN-OprM, mexPQ-OmpE, mexVW-OprM, mexXY-OprM and TriABC-OmpH were found in S3. In addition, the gene encoding efflux pump of the SMR (small multidrug resistance) family, namely emrE was also detected [78]. All of these genes matched with PAO1. While the expression of most of these is tightly regulated, overexpression resulting from antibiotic exposure occurs due to mutations in regulatory proteins [77]. Resistance to tetracyclines, folate pathway inhibitors and norfloxacin in S3 observed in this study might be due to overexpression of some of the efflux systems or mutations in the topoisomerase genes gyrA/gyrB and parA/parB [79,80]. However, further studies are required to explain these resistant phenotypes. Antibacterial colistin (polymyxin E) has recently received increasing attention as a last-resort treatment option against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria [81]. Reported data suggests that adaptive resistance to polymyxins in Gram-negative bacteria occurs due to modifications of outer membrane lipopolysaccharide (LPS) mediated by pmrHFIJKLME operon which is under the regulation of the two two-component systems, PhoPQ and PmrAB [82]. Equally important is resistance mediated by the mexAB-oprM operon, which is involved in nonspecific antimicrobial efflux [83]. The pmrHFIJKLME operon was not detected in S3 but the mexAB-oprM operon and the genes coding for regulatory components PmrAB and PhoPQ were found. Colistin resistance in S3 may be due to other mechanisms preliminarily confirmed to occur in colistin-resistant P. aeruginosa [84,85]. Hence, further studies on molecular mechanisms involved in colistin resistance in S3 should be of interest. Aminoglycoside resistance in P. aeruginosa is mainly due to the structural modification by three types of enzymes, aminoglycoside phosphotransferase (APH), aminoglycoside acetyltransferase (AAC), and aminoglycoside nucleotidyl transferase (ANT). APH in P. aeruginosa transfers a phosphoryl group to the 3′-hydroxyl of aminoglycosides, making antibiotics such as streptomycin and kanamycin inactive [86]. The APH gene was found in S3 and matched with PAO1, but the other two genes were absent which is consistent with the finding that S3 displayed resistance to kanamycin and streptomycin but not to gentamycin. The chloramphenicol resistance gene catB7 encoding chloramphenicol O-acetyltransferase was detected which corroborates with chloramphenicol resistance observed in the disc diffusion test but identification of the exact mode of resistance, especially in the presence of the robust efflux system which can use chloramphenicol as substrate requires further investigations. Additionally, fosA encoding the fosfomycin resistance protein, widely distributed among several Gram-negative bacteria including PAO1 [87] was found.

Five genes were predicted as putative hemolysins in P. aeruginosa S3. It included the plcH gene that encodes hemolytic phospholipase C [4]. This gene, found to be upregulated in biofilm-forming cells compared to planktonic cells [88], was also reported to be present in hemolytic P. aeruginosa strains isolated from environmental sources [89]. The capability of P. aeruginosa to form biofilms is associated with its ability to induce long-lasting chronic lung infections and antibiotic resistance [90]. Phospholipase C contributes to the breakdown of lipids and lecithin and facilitates its establishment in the respiratory tract. Moreover, it helps in its survival within the tissue by suppressing the respiratory burst response of neutrophils [91]. Another gene predicted as hemolysin was cholinesterase (ChoE) which is reported to act together with PlcH and PchP (acid phosphatase) in P. aeruginosa to obtain choline and inorganic phosphate as nutrients for bacterial metabolism [92]. However, PchP was not detected in the draft genome of S3 thus suggesting the occurrence of multiple modes of action. It was observed that P. aeruginosa cholinesterase (PA4291 gene) hydrolyses acetylcholine and is regarded as a pathogenic factor that supports corneal infection [93]. Clinical changes in the fish eyes induced by S3 were also observed in the current study but understanding the extent of involvement of this gene here requires further studies. Another predicted gene was identified as the hemolysin III family protein. Well-characterized in B. cereus, hemolysin III family proteins are regarded as pore-forming toxins [94]. But, the role of this gene in pathogenicity in P. aeruginosa remains to be studied. The fourth putative hemolysin was a GNAT family protein known as a large group of enzymes that acylates various substrates using acyl-coenzyme A [95]. They execute a wide range of cellular functions, including the activation of pore-forming toxins by a distinct group of this family known as toxin-activating acyltransferase [96]. Shin and Choe [97] characterized the PA4534 protein from P. aeruginosa, a GNAT protein, and found it closely related to N-terminal acetyltransferase. The fifth gene predicted to encode a putative hemolysin in S3 was identified as the PapA gene which codes for type P pilin in E. coli and is involved in uropathogenicity [98]. All of these genes matched with several distinct strains of Pseudomonas, including PAO1. The participation of all or some of these proteins might be instrumental in the strong hemolytic activity observed in P. aeruginosa S3 and further research on understanding their contribution towards hemolysin action should be of interest.

Conclusion

This study reported the genotypic and phenotypic characterization of P. aeruginosa S3, a pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant strain isolated from the Mahananda River. The draft genome of S3 provided better insights into the virulent and antibiotic-resistant phenotype. The presence of eight genes related to hemolysin action was detected. In addition, several genes involved in antibiotic efflux mechanisms were found. To our knowledge, this is the first report characterizing pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant P. aeruginosa from this river though, additional research is required to comprehend how the virulent and antibiotic resistance genes function fully. P. aeruginosa is a common recurrent pathogen frequently isolated from clinical settings. However, the isolation of a virulent and antibiotic-resistant strain from river water raises public health concerns and gives a warning about the appropriate use of antibiotics. Therefore, periodic monitoring of P. aeruginosa in the river water is needed as it indicates poor water quality that could lead to disease outbreaks.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

pone.0300134.s001.docx (65.7KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Botany, University of North Bengal for helping in carrying out the entire research work.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Olusola-Makinde O, Bayode M, Somefun A. Upshot of virulence markers and effects of temperature and pH on haemolytic bacteria in South-West Nigeria. Microbes and Infectious Diseases.2022; 3(2):472–483. doi: 10.21608/mid.2021.64549 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jung AV, Le Cann P, Roig B, Thomas O, Baurès E, Thomas MF. Microbial contamination detection in water resources: interest of current optical methods, trends and needs in the context of climate change. Int. J. Environ. Res. and Public Health. 2014; 11(4): 4292–4310. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110404292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hardalo C, Edberg S. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: assessment of risk from drinking water. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 1997; 23(1): 45–75. 10.3109/10408419709115130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Okino N, Ito M. Ceramidase Enhances Phospholipase C-induced Hemolysis by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Biol. Chem. 2007; 282(9): 6021–6030. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M603088200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pang Z, Raudonis R, Glick BR, Lin TJ, Cheng Z. Antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: mechanisms and alternative therapeutic strategies. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018; 37(1):177–192. doi: org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Algammal AM, Mabrok M, Sivaramasamy E, Youseef FM, Atwa MH, El-Kholy AW, et al. Emerging MDR-Pseudomonas aeruginosa in fish commonly harbor oprL and toxA virulence genes and blaTEM, blaCTX-M, and tetA antibiotic-resistance genes. Sci. Rep. 2020; 10(1):15961. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72264-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Warburton DW, Bowen B, Konkle A. The survival and recovery of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and its effect upon salmonellae in water: methodology to test bottled water in Canada. Can. J. Microbiol. 1994; 40(12):987–992. 10.1139/m94-158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.De Victorica J, Galvan M. Pseudomonas aeruginosa as an Indicator of Health Risk in Water for Human Consumption. Water Sci. Technol. 2001; 43(12): 49–52. 10.2166/wst.2001.0710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mena KD, Gerba CP. Risk Assessment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Water. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2009; 201:71–115. 10.1007/978-1-4419-0032-6_3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jurado-Martin I, Sainz-Mejias M, McClean S. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: An Audacious Pathogen with an Adaptable Arsenal of Virulence Factors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021; 22(6):3128. doi: 10.3390/ijms22063128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Balasubramanian D, Schneper L, Kumari H, Mathee K. A dynamic and intricate regulatory network determines Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 41(1):1–20. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wiles TJ, Mulvey MA. The RTX pore-forming toxin α- hemolysin of uropathogenic Escherichia coli: progress and perspectives. Future Microbiol. 2013; 8 (1): 73–84. 10.2217/fmb.12.131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dhakal BK, Mulvey MA. The UPEC pore-forming toxin α- hemolysin triggers proteolysis of host proteins to disrupt cell adhesion, inflammatory and survival pathways. Cell Host & Microbe. 2012;11(1): 58–69. 10.1016/j.chom.2011.12.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ludwig A, Tengel C, Bauer S, Bubert A, Benz R, Mollenkopf HJ, et al. SlyA, a regulatory protein from Salmonella typhimurium induces a haemolytic and pore-forming protein in Escherichia coli. Mol. Genet. Genom. 1995; 249: 474–486. doi: 10.1007/BF00290573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Coleman K, Dougan G, Arbuthnott JP. Cloning, and expression in Escherichia coli K-12, of the chromosomal hemolysin (phospholipase C) determinant of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Bacteriol. 1983; 153(2): 909–915. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fujita K, Akino T, Yoshioka H. Characteristics of heat-stable extracellular hemolysin from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect. Immun. 1988; 56(5):1385–1387. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Allam A, Hamza E, Morad E, Shafei E, Etriby E. Biochemical and immunological characterization of haemolysin produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 isolated from burn wounds. African J. Clin. Exp. Microbiol.2020;21(2):132–139. doi: 10.4314/ajcem.v21i2.7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Alonso A, Rojo F, Martínez JL. Environmental and clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa show pathogenic and biodegradative properties irrespective of their origin. Environ. Microbiol. 1999; 1(5): 421–430. doi: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.1999.00052.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Attila C, Ueda A, Wood TK. PA2663 (PpyR) increases biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 through the psl operon and stimulates virulence and quorum-sensing phenotypes. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008; 78: 293–307. 10.1007/s00253-007-1308-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Botelho J, Grosso F, Peixe L. Antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa—Mechanisms, epidemiology and evolution. Drug Resist. Updat. 2009; 44:100640. doi: 10.1016/j.drup.2019.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Breidenstein EB, De la Fuente-Núñez C, Hancock RE. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: all roads lead to resistance. Trends Microbiol. 2011; 19(8): 419–426. 10.1016/j.tim.2011.04.005.10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kumar A, Kumar A, Jha SK. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals in major carp (Labeo rohita) of Mahananda river in Northern India. Emergent Life Sci. Res. 2020; 6: 34–49. doi: org/10.31783/elsr.2020.613449 [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chacon MR, Figueras M, Castro-Escarpulli G, Soler L, Guarro J. Distribution of virulence genes in clinical and environmental isolates of Aeromonas spp. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 2003; 84: 269–278. doi: 10.1023/A:1026042125243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gu H, Cai X, Zhang X, Luo J, Zhang X, Hu X, et al. A previously uncharacterized two-component signaling system in uropathogenic Escherichia coli coordinates protection against host-derived oxidative stress with activation of hemolysin-mediated host cell pyroptosis. PLoS Pathog. 2021; 17(10), e1010005. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Takahashi E, Ozaki H, Fujii Y, Kobayashi H, Arimoto S, Negishi T, et al. Properties of hemolysin and protease produced by Aeromonas trota. PLoS One. 2014; 9 (3): e91149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Barrow G I, Feltham RKA. Cowan and Steel’s manual for identification of medical bacteria. 1993; 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. 331 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gerhardt P, Wood WA, Krieg NR. Methods for General and Molecular Bacteriology. American Society of Microbiology. Washington D.C.1994. 10.1002/food.19960400226. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Schwyn B, Neilands JB. Universal chemical assay for the detection and determination of siderophores. Anal. Biochem. 1987; 160(1):47–56. doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(87)90612-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.MacFaddin JF. Biochemical Tests for Identification of Medical Bacteria. 1999; 3rd Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters. Version 7.1, 2017. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints (accessed on 12th March, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mangar P, Barman P, Kumar A, Saha A, Saha D. Detection of virulence-associated genes and in vitro gene transfer from Aeromonas sp. isolated from aquatic environments of sub-himalayan West Bengal. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022; 9: 887174. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.887174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Das A, Saha D, Pal J. Antimicrobial resistance and in vitro gene transfer in bacteria isolated from the ulcers of EUS-affected fish in India. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2009; 49(4): 497–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2009.02700.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Darling AC, Mau B, Blattner FR, Perna NT. Mauve: multiple alignment of conserved genomic sequence with rearrangements. Genome Res.2004; 14 (7):1394–1403. doi: 10.1101/gr.2289704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jolley KA, Bray JE, Maiden MCJ. Open-access bacterial population genomics: BIGSdb software, the PubMLST.org website and their applications. Wellcome Open Res. 2018, 3:124. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14826.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jolley KA, Bliss CM, Bennett JS, Bratcher HB, Brehony C, Colles FM, et al. Ribosomal multilocus sequence typing: Universal characterization of bacteria from domain to strain. Microbiology. 2012; 158: 1005–1015. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.055459-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Fiedler G, Herbstmann AD, Doll E, Wenning M, Brinks E, Kabisch J, et al. Taxonomic evaluation of the Heyndrickxia (Basonym Bacillus) sporothermodurans Group (H. sporothermodurans, H. vini, H. oleronia) based on whole genome sequences. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(2): 246. 10.3390/microorganisms9020246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Davis JJ, Gerdes S, Olsen GJ, Olson R, Pusch GD, Shukla M, et al. PATtyFams: Protein families for the microbial genomes in the PATRIC database. Front. Microbiol. 2016; 7: 118. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32(5): 1792–1797. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cock PJ, Antao T, Chang JT, Chapman BA, Cox CJ, Dalke A, et al. Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25(11):1422–1423. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014; 30(9):1312–1313. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Syst. Biol. 2008; 57(5):758–771. doi: 10.1080/10635150802429642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rambaut A. FigTree, a graphical viewer of phylogenetic trees. 2007. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/ [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Krieg N, Holt J. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. 1984; 1:141–164. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Overbeek R, Begley T, Butler RM, Choudhuri JV, Chuang HY, Cohoon M, et al. The Subsystems Approach to Genome Annotation and its Use in the Project to Annotate 1000 Genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005; 33(17): 5691–5702. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hamner S, Tripathi A, Mishra RK, Bouskill N, Broadaway SC, Pyle BH, et al. The role of water use patterns and sewage pollution in incidence of water-borne/enteric diseases along the Ganges River in Varanasi, India. Int. J. of Env. Health Research. 2006; 16(2): 113–132. doi: 10.1080/09603120500538226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Syahidah D. Characteristics of hemolysins from pathogenic bacteria in tropical aquaculture: an in-silico study. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environ. Sci. 2021; 890: 012017. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/890/1/012017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Unrath N, McCabe E, Macori G, Fanning S. Application of Whole Genome Sequencing to Aid in Deciphering the Persistence Potential of Listeria monocytogenes in Food Production Environments. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(9): 1856. 10.3390/microorganisms9091856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sornchuer P, Saninjuk K, Prathaphan P, Tiengtip R, Wattanaphansak S. Antimicrobial susceptibility profile and whole-genome analysis of a strong biofilm-forming Bacillus sp. B87 strain isolated from food. Microorganisms.2022; 10(2): 252. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10020252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nain Z, Karim MM. Whole-genome sequence, functional annotation, and comparative genomics of the high biofilm-producing multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa MZ4A isolated from clinical waste. Gene Rep. 2021; 22: 100999. 10.1016/j.genrep.2020.100999. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Magdy IH, El-Hady MA, Ahmed HA, Elmeadawy SA, Kenwy AM. A contribution on Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Research journal of pharmaceutical, biological and chemical sciences. 2014; 5(5): 575–588. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Thomas J, Thanigaivel S, Vijayakumar S, Acharya K, Shinge D, Seelan TS, et al. Pathogenicity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Oreochromis mossambicus and treatment using lime oil nanoemulsion. Colloids Surf. B. 2014; 116: 372–377. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Haque S, Bandyopadhyay PK, Mondal K. Studies on Growth, Behavior and Blood Profile in Anabas testudineus Infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc. Zool. Soc. 2021; 74: 19–27. 10.1007/s12595-020-00330-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Awan AB, Schiebel J, Bohm A, Nitschke J, Sarwar Y, Schierack P, et al. Association of biofilm formation and cytotoxic potential with multidrug resistance in clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. EXCLI J. 2019; 8:79–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Trouillon J, Ragno M, Simon V, Attree I, Elsen S. Transcription Inhibitors with XRE DNA-Binding and Cupin Signal-Sensing Domains Drive Metabolic Diversification in Pseudomonas. mSystems. 2021;6(1): e00753–20. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00753-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Cai SJ, Inouye M. EnvZ-OmpR interaction and osmoregulation in Escherichia coli. J. Biol. Chem. 2002; 277(27): 24155–24161. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110715200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Liszewski MK, Leung M, Cui W, Subramanian V, Parkinson J, Barlow PN, et al. Dissecting sites important for complement regulatory activity in membrane cofactor protein (MCP; CD46). J. Biol. Chem. 2000; 275(48): 37692–37701. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M004650200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Qin S, Xiao W, Zhou C, Pu Q, Deng X, Lan L, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: pathogenesis, virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, interaction with host, technology advances and emerging therapeutics. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022; 7 (1):199. doi: 10.1038/s41392-022-01056-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Maura D,. Ballok AE, Rahme LG. Considerations and caveats in anti-virulence drug development. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2016; 33: 41–46. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2016.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kirienko DR, Kang D, Kirienko NV. Novel pyoverdine inhibitors mitigate Pseudomonas aeruginosa pathogenesis. Front. Microbiol. 2019; 9:3317. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Diaz-Perez SP, Solis CS, Lopez-Bucio JS, Valdez Alarcon JJ, Villegas J, Reyes-De la Cruz H, et al. Pathogenesis in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 Biofilm-Associated Is Dependent on the Pyoverdine and Pyocyanin Siderophores by Quorum Sensing Modulation. Microb. Ecol. 2023; 86(1), 727–741. doi: 10.1007/s00248-022-02095-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Cowell BA, Twining SS, Hobden JA, Kwong MSF, Fleiszig SMJ. Mutation of lasA and lasB reduces Pseudomonas aeruginosa invasion of epithelial cells. Microbiology. 2003; 149(8): 2291–2299. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Cathcart GR, Quinn D, Greer B, Harriott P, Lynas JF, Gilmore BF, et al. Novel inhibitors of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence factor LasB: a potential therapeutic approach for the attenuation of virulence mechanisms in pseudomonal infection. Antimicrob. Agents and Chemother. 2011; 55(6): 2670–2678. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00776-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Horna G, Ruiz J. Type 3 secretion system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol Res. 2021; 246:126719. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Kroken AR, Gajenthra Kumar N, Yahr TL, Smith BE, Nieto V, Horneman H, et al. Exotoxin S secreted by internalized Pseudomonas aeruginosa delays lytic host cell death. PLoS Pathog. 2022; 18(2): e1010306. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ozer EA, Nnah E, Didelot X, Whitaker RJ, Hauser AR. The Population Structure of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Is Characterized by Genetic Isolation of exoU+ and exoS+ Lineages. Genome Biol. Evol. 2019; 11(7):1780–1796. 10.1093/gbe/evz119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Tammam S, Sampaleanu LM, Koo J, Manoharan K, Daubaras M, Burrows LL, et al. PilMNOPQ from the Pseudomonas aeruginosa type IV pilus system form a transenvelope protein interaction network that interacts with PilA. J. Bacteriol. 2013; 195(10): 2126–2135. doi: 10.1128/JB.00032-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Coggan KA, Higgs MG, Brutinel ED, Marden JN, Intile PJ, Winther-Larsen HC, et al. Global Regulatory Pathways Converge To Control Expression of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Type IV Pili. Genet. Mol. Biol.2022; 13(1): e0369621. doi: org/10.1128/mbio.03696-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Chen L, Zou Y, She P, Wu Y. Composition, function, and regulation of T6SS in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol. Res. 2015;172: 19–25. 10.1016/j.micres.2015.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Chen L, Zou Y, Kronfl AA, Wu Y. Type VI secretion system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa is associated with biofilm formation but not environmental adaptation. Microbiologyopen. 2020; 9(3): e991. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Yelin I, Kishony R. Antibiotic Resistance. Cell. 2018; 172(5): 1136–1136. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Girlich D, Naas T, Nordmann P. Biochemical characterization of the naturally occurring oxacillinase OXA-50 of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.2004; 48(6):2043–2048. 10.1128/aac.48.6.2043-2048.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Cheng K, Smyth RL, Govan JR, Doherty C, Winstanley C, Denning N et al. Spread of β-lactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a cystic fibrosis clinic. The Lancet.1996; 348(9028): 639–642. 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05169-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Farhan SM, Ibrahim RA, Mahran KM, Hetta HF, AEl-Baky RM. Antimicrobial resistance pattern and molecular genetic distribution of metallo-β-lactamases producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from hospitals in Minia, Egypt. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019; 12:2125–2133. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S198373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Yayan J, Ghebremedhin B, Rasche K. Antibiotic Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Pneumonia at a Single University Hospital Center in Germany over a 10-Year Period. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0139836. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Amsalu A, Sapula SA, De Barros Lopes M, Hart BJ, Nguyen AH, Drigo B. et al. Efflux Pump-Driven Antibiotic and Biocide Cross-Resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolated from Different Ecological Niches: A Case Study in the Development of Multidrug Resistance in Environmental Hotspots. Microorganisms. 2020; 8:1647. doi: org/10.3390/microorganisms8111647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Colque CA, Albarracín Orio AG, Tomatis PE, Dotta G, Moreno DM, Hedemann LG, et al. Longitudinal Evolution of the Pseudomonas-Derived Cephalosporinase (PDC) Structure and Activity in a Cystic Fibrosis Patient Treated with β-Lactams. MBio. 2022;13: 01663–22. doi: 10.1128/mbio.01663-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Schweizer HP. Efflux as a mechanism of resistance to antimicrobials in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and related bacteria: unanswered questions. Genet. Mol. Res. 2003;2: 48–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Lorusso AB, Carrara JA, Barroso CDN, Tuon F, Faoro H. Role of Efflux Pumps on Antimicrobial Resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Int. J. of Mol. Sci. 2022; 23. doi: 10.3390/ijms232415779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Fàbrega A, Madurga S, Giralt E, Vila J. Mechanism of action of and resistance to quinolones. Microb. Biotechnol. 2009; 2: 40–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2008.00063.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Horcajada JP, Montero M, Oliver A, Sorlí L, Luque S, Gómez-Zorrilla S, et al. Epidemiology and treatment of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections, Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2019; 32: e19–e31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Aghapour Z, Gholizadeh P, Ganbarov K, Bialvaei AZ, Mahmood SS, Tanomand A, et al. Molecular mechanisms related to colistin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae, Infect Drug Resist.2019; 12: 965–975 doi: 10.2147/IDR.S199844 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.McPhee JB, Bains M, Winsor G, Lewenza S, Kwasnicka A, Brazas MD et al. Contribution of the PhoP-PhoQ and PmrA-PmrB two-component regulatory systems to Mg2+-induced gene regulation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Bacteriol. 2006; 188:3995–4006. doi: 10.1128/JB.00053-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Pamp SJ, Gjermansen M, Johansen HK, Tolker-Nielsen T. Tolerance to the antimicrobial peptide colistin in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms is linked to metabolically active cells, and depends on the pmr and mexAB-oprM genes. Mol. Microbiol. 2008; 68:223–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06152.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Lee JY, Na IY, Park YK, Ko KS. Genomic variations between colistin-susceptible and -resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates and their effects on colistin resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014; 69:1248–1256. 10.1093/jac/dkt531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Chung ES, Lee JY, Rhee JY, Ko KS, Colistin resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa that is not linked to arnB, J. Med. Microbiol. 2017; 66: 833–41. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000456 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Poole K. Aminoglycoside resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005; 49: 479–487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Ito R, Mustapha MM, Tomich AD, Callaghan JD, McElheny CL, Mettus RT, et al. Widespread Fosfomycin Resistance in Gram-Negative Bacteria Attributable to the Chromosomal fosA Gene. MBio. 2017; 8:e00749–17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00749-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Zahreddine LT, Khairallah MT, Sabra AH, Baroud M, Hadi U, Matar GM. Expression Levels of virulence factors with up regulation of hemolytic phospholipase C in bioflim forming Pseudomonas aeruginosa at tertiary care centre. J. Appl. Res. 2012;12:87–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Chellaiah ER, Ravi P, Uthandakalaipandian R. Characterization of high fluoride resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa species isolated from water samples. Environ. Res. Tec. 2022; 5: 325–339. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Hoiby N, Ciofu O, Bjarnsholt T. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in cystic fibrosis. Future Microbiol. 2010; 5:1663–74 doi: 10.2217/fmb.10.125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Terada LS, Johansen KA, Nowbar S, Vasil AI, Vasil ML. Pseudomonas aeruginosa hemolytic phospholipase C suppresses neutrophil respiratory burst activity. Infect Immun. 1999; 67: 2371–2376. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Sánchez DG, Otero LH, Hernández CM, Serra AL, Encarnación S, Domenech CE. A Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 acetylcholinesterase is encoded by the PA4921 gene and belongs to the SGNH hydrolase family. Microbiol. Res. 2012; 167:317–25 doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2011.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Domenech CE, Garrido MN, Lisa TA. Pseudomonas aeruginosa cholinesterase and phosphorylcholine phosphatase: two enzymes contributing to corneal infection. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.1991; 66:131–5. doi: 10.1016/0378-1097(91)90321-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Baida GE, Kuzmin NP. Mechanism of action of hemolysin III from Bacillus cereus. Biochim. Biophys. Acta.1996; 1284:122–4. doi: 10.1016/s0005-2736(96)00168-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Vetting MW, de Carvalho LPS, Yu M, Hegde SS, Magnet S, Roderick SL, et al. Structure and functions of the GNAT superfamily of acetyltransferases. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2005; 433: 212–26. doi: 10.1016/j.abb.2004.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Greene NP, Crow A, Hughes C, Koronakis V. Structure of a bacterial toxin-activating acyltransferase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 2015; 112: E3058–66. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1503832112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Shin S, Choe J. Crystal structure of Pseudomonas aeruginosa N-acetyltransferase PA4534. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2017; 487:236–240. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.04.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Laverty G, Gorman SP, Gilmore BF. Biomolecular mechanisms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli biofilm formation. Pathogens. 2014; 3:596–632 doi: org/10.3390/pathogens3030596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Seyed Mostafa Hosseini

18 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-33885Characterization of a hemolytic and antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain S3 pathogenic to fish isolated from Mahananda River in IndiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saha,

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 Feb 01 2024 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,

Seyed Mostafa Hosseini

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. Please upload a new copy of Figure 4 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/"

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: 1- The text of the article should be revised in terms of grammar.

2- A number of words in the pdf file are stuck together, to be checked and corrected. Words that are stuck together should be separated.

3- The author claimed that the strain isolated from the river water is very similar to the standard PAO1 strain, can it be said that there is a similarity in terms of other characteristics such as the ability of hemolysis, antibiotic resistance, etc.? Explain and compare.

4- Explain the reasons for conducting cytotoxicity test for the identified strain?

5- What method was used to investigate the resistance of the isolated strain S3 to the colistin? Disc diffusion method?

Reviewer #2: I have no comments

Reviewer #3: 1. It is not interesting to write S3 at the beginning of the abstract, it is better to give the first set of bacteria names (Virulent strain Pseudomonas aeruginosa) .

2. In the abstract, the names of the genes should be written in italics

3. What was the reason for not using CLSI as a reference for the antibiogram?

4. "Some authors" in reference number 8 is not interesting, it is better to write "some researchers"

5. Afterincubation should be corrected in the materials and methods section (section Hemolytic activity).

6. It would have been better to determine the typing sequence of the strain using the MLST technique

**********

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. 2024 Mar 28;19(3):e0300134. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300134.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Feb 2024

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

Author Response- The suggested revision has been done.

.

2. Please upload a new copy of Figure 4 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/"

Author Response- A new copy of Figure 4 has been uploaded.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Author Response-The suggested revision has been done.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: 1- The text of the article should be revised in terms of grammar.

Author Response 1- The text has been revised for grammar

2- A number of words in the pdf file are stuck together, to be checked and corrected. Words that are stuck together should be separated.

Author Response 2- The stuck words were separated wherever found.

3- The author claimed that the strain isolated from the river water is very similar to the standard PAO1 strain, can it be said that there is a similarity in terms of other characteristics such as the ability of hemolysis, antibiotic resistance, etc.? Explain and compare.

Author Response 3- Following the suggestion, some comparisons are now included in the manuscript in the discussion section. These regions are highlighted in the manuscript.

4- Explain the reasons for conducting cytotoxicity test for the identified strain?

Author Response 4- Cytotoxicity test was done to comprehend the spectrum of virulence properties carried by S3.

5- What method was used to investigate the resistance of the isolated strain S3 to the colistin? Disc diffusion method?

Author Response 5- Yes disc diffusion method was used to investigate the resistance of the isolated strain S3 to colistin.

However, as rightly questioned by the reviewer, three tests are accepted for colistin sensitivity test in the CLSI guidelines which includes broth micro-dilution, disk elution and colistin agar method. Thus, the disk diffusion method is not acceptable. To overcome this shortfall, we performed the disk elution method and the result showed that S3 was resistant to colistin. This information is now included in the manuscript in materials methods section.

Reviewer #2: I have no comments

Reviewer #3: 1. It is not interesting to write S3 at the beginning of the abstract, it is better to give the first set of bacteria names (Virulent strain Pseudomonas aeruginosa).

Author Response 1-The suggested revision has been done.

2. In the abstract, the names of the genes should be written in italics

Author Response 2-The suggested revision has been done.

3. What was the reason for not using CLSI as a reference for the antibiogram?

Author Response 3-We have followed both the EUCAST and CLSI guidelines but inadvertently, CLSI was not mentioned in the manuscript. This is now included.

4. "Some authors" in reference number 8 is not interesting, it is better to write "some researchers"

Author Response 4-The suggested revision has been done.

5. Afterincubation should be corrected in the materials and methods section (section Hemolytic activity).

Author Response 5-The suggested revision has been done.

6. It would have been better to determine the typing sequence of the strain using the MLST technique

Author Response 6-The sequence type was found as 549 using the MLST database which also matched with P. aeruginosa PAO1. This information is already included in the manuscript; hence no changes were done.

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0300134.s002.docx (22.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Seyed Mostafa Hosseini

22 Feb 2024

Characterization of a hemolytic and antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain S3 pathogenic to fish isolated from Mahananda River in India

PONE-D-23-33885R1

Dear Dr. Dipanwita Saha

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,

Seyed Mostafa Hosseini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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 #3: Yes

**********

5. 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 #3: (No Response)

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. 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 #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Seyed Mostafa Hosseini

20 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-33885R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saha,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Seyed Mostafa Hosseini

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 File

    (DOCX)

    pone.0300134.s001.docx (65.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0300134.s002.docx (22.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES