Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Apr 17;21(4):e0347345. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0347345

Identification and detection of genetic markers associated with antimicrobial susceptibility and evaluation of efflux pump mechanisms in Mycoplasma iowae

Dominika Buni 1, Áron Botond Kovács 1,2, Enikő Wehmann 1, Dénes Grózner 1,3,4, Krisztián Bányai 1,5, Eszter Zsófia Nagy 1,3, Janet Bradbury 6, Marco Bottinelli 7, Elisabetta Stefani 7, Salvatore Catania 7, Inna Lysnyansky 8, László Kovács 5,9, Miklós Gyuranecz 1,3,4,5,10, Zsuzsa Kreizinger 1,3,4,10,*
Editor: Chih-Horng Kuo11
PMCID: PMC13089696  PMID: 41996362

Abstract

Mycoplasma iowae is an economically significant pathogen that causes reduced hatchability, late embryo mortality and leg deformities, chondrodystrophy and skeletal lesions in poults. While prevention is essential in the control of infection, the appropriate administration of antibiotics may reduce economic losses during outbreaks. As a first step in the exploration of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms in M. iowae, target modification and efflux pump activity were examined in the present study. Point mutations were analyzed in previously described antibiotic binding sites in the whole genome sequences of 99 M. iowae strains. Mismatch amplification mutation assays (MAMAs) were designed and validated for the differentiation of mutations corresponding to elevated minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values for fluoroquinolones. Broth microdilution assays were performed to evaluate the effect of efflux pump inhibitors. In the presence of orthovanadate (OV), MIC values were significantly lower than in the absence of OV for spiramycin, tilmicosin, tylosin and oxytetracycline, which may indicate the presence of an active efflux system in M. iowae. Putative promoter regions of efflux-related genes were predicted and characterized. Genetic mutations, previously described in other bacteria, were described to be associated with elevated fluoroquinolone, macrolide and lincomycin MICs in M. iowae, although certain resistant phenotypes remained unexplained, promoting future examinations for deeper insights. The developed MAMAs may support rapid identification of M. iowae strains with elevated MIC values for fluoroquinolones. The better understanding of the efflux pump mechanisms enables the development of alternative methods for the support of therapy against this pathogen.

Introduction

Mycoplasma iowae is an economically significant pathogen that causes reduced hatchability, late embryonic mortality and leg deformities, chondrodysplasia and skeletal lesions. It mainly affects turkeys but it has been described in chickens, geese, game and exotic birds [1–5]. The absence of a vaccine against this pathogen and the fact that M. iowae is generally more resistant to antimicrobials than other avian pathogenic mycoplasmas [6,7] make the control of the disease complicated. The determination of the antibiotic susceptibility of mycoplasmas is a time-consuming process. Furthermore, there is a lack of standard quality control strains and defined breakpoints for the interpretation of antibiotic susceptibility in avian pathogen mycoplasmas [8,9]. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with high minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values represent appropriate genetic markers for the development of new molecular techniques capable of the rapid detection of antibiotic susceptibility, hence supporting targeted antimicrobial therapy. Previous studies have described SNPs affecting macrolide and lincosamide resistance in the 23S rRNA and L22 protein genes, while for fluoroquinolones resistance markers have been found in the gyrA, gyrB, parC and parE genes in Mycoplasma agalactiae, M. bovis, M. gallisepticum, M. hyopneumoniae and M. synoviae [10,11]. Numerous mismatch amplification mutation assays (MAMAs) targeting these SNPs have been developed in other mycoplasmas, including M. anserisalpingitidis, M. bovis, M. gallisepticum, M. hyopneumoniae, M. hyorhinis and M. synoviae [12–16].

Efflux pumps have a key role in multidrug resistance, facilitating the elimination of a diverse range of antibiotics and chemicals from the cell. The efflux pump activity is also considered to be important in the beginning of resistance development, reducing the antibiotic concentrations in the bacterial cells until genetic mutations occur [17]. The antibiotic efflux mechanism was first identified in 1980. Since then, it has been demonstrated that the vast majority of antibiotics are prone to efflux-mediated resistance and the antibiotic efflux can be facilitated by multiple pumps within a single organism [18]. Efflux pumps are proteins located on the bacterial cell membrane. They facilitate the transport of harmful substances from within the bacterial cell to the surrounding environment. Efflux pumps have been identified in almost all bacterial species, and the genes encoding them can either be found within the bacterial genome or on plasmids [19]. The bacterial multidrug efflux transporters can be classified in two major families according to bioenergetic and structural features: primary and secondary transporters. ATP binding cassette (ABC) is a primary transporter, hydrolyzing ATP as a source of energy. Secondary transporters use proton or sodium gradient as energy source. Small multidrug resistance (SMR), major facilitator superfamily (MFS), resistance nodulation cell division (RND) and multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (MATE) pumps belong to the latter class [20,21]. The activity of efflux pumps can be inhibited at various levels, including disruption of their assembly and expression [22]. Efflux pump inhibitors (EPIs) are molecules that inhibit efflux pumps, resulting in the inactivation of drug transport. In previous studies, three EPIs have been shown to be effective in mycoplasmas: the proton motive force (PMF) disrupter carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazine (CCCP); an inhibitor of MFS, RND and ATP-dependent efflux pumps, reserpine (RSP); and the ATP-dependent efflux pump inhibitor sodium orthovanadate (OV) [23–25]. As a proton ionophore, CCCP can disable energy-dependent efflux systems through alteration of the proton concentration gradient, which restores drug susceptibility by promoting drug accumulation in the cell [26–28]. RSP is a plant alkaloid that reduces the excretion of drugs in bacteria and reestablishes drug sensitivity by decreasing the hydrolysis-driven energy supply [26]. OV is a phosphate analogue, inhibiting ATPase activity [29,30]. Given the importance of efflux in the development of antibiotic resistance, EPIs can be used as adjuncts to antibiotics to enhance their activity against bacteria expressing efflux pumps, making them possible therapeutic agents [26]. The role of mutations in the promoters and upstream regions of several efflux pump genes has been described in relation to antibiotic resistance [31,32] and may contain different types of genetic events (e.g., insertions, deletions, SNPs), which can affect gene expression [32].

Previously, a total of 99 M. iowae strains were submitted to MIC testing with ten different antibiotics [33]. The present study aimed to identify genetic markers associated with strains exhibiting elevated MICs and to develop rapid, cost-effective molecular assays for their differentiation. In addition, the role of efflux pumps in the adaptive response to antibiotic pressure and their genetic background in M. iowae strains with elevated MICs was investigated. The reported findings and new molecular assays advance veterinary practice and our understanding of resistance mechanisms in this species, including the described and hypothesized characteristics.

Materials and methods

Samples

A total of 99 M. iowae clinical isolates and strains were selected for the analyses, including the type strain (NCTC 10185, strain Iowa 695) and reference strains of serotypes I (strain Iowa 695), R (D2497), N (PHN-D13), J (693), Q (L3-10) and K (1805). The NCTC 10185 type strain (Iowa 695) and the serotype I strain (Iowa 695) were obtained from different laboratories. The origin and collection date of the isolates were described previously [33] and are presented in S1 Table. The culturing of the isolates and the MIC testing have been described elsewhere [33]. One modification was applied in the current study: the isolates were cultured in MolliScience General Mycoplasma Liquid Media (MolliScience, Biatorbágy, Hungary). To examine the activity of efflux pumps, six strains each were selected which showed slightly, moderately or highly elevated MIC values previously in case of enrofloxacin, lincomycin, oxytetracycline, spiramycin, tylosin or tilmicosin (S2 Table).

Identification of SNPs

The previously determined whole genome sequences [34] of a total of 99 M. iowae clinical isolates and strains (BioProject ID: PRJNA975348) were analyzed in Geneious Prime software (version 2022.2.2) [35]. Raw reads gained from Illumina NextSeq 500 platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) were mapped to the M. iowae type strain NCTC 10185 (GenBank: LR215023.1) as reference, and examined regions were extracted from the alignments. Based on the literature, SNPs correlating with elevated MIC values were searched in the gyrA, gyrB, parC, parE genes for fluoroquinolones, and in the coding regions of the 23S rRNA, and 50S ribosomal proteins L4 and L22 for macrolides and lincosamides, [11]. The strength of association among MIC values and the identified SNPs was examined by logistic regression and Fisher’s exact test with the help of online tools (Statistics Kingdom [36] and www.socscistatistics.com, respectively). For the logistic regression analyses MIC values equal or lower than the lowest examined concentrations were adjusted to be the lowest examined concentrations, while MIC values higher than the highest examined concentrations were adjusted to be two-fold higher than the highest examined concentrations. Furthermore, in order to normalize data distribution (gain linear intervals) for the regression analysis the adjusted MIC values from the two-fold dilution series of antimicrobial concentrations were transformed to log2MIC values and were used as the predictor parameter [37,38]. The examined nucleotide positions were assigned as wild-type (0) or mutant genotypes (1) as outcome parameter (S3 Table). Contingency tables for the Fisher’s exact test were assembled from the number of isolates with low or high MIC values showing the wild-type or mutant genotypes (S3 Table). MIC categories were determined as follows: “low” for strains with MIC values of ≤0.5 μg/ml for enrofloxacin, ≤ 1 μg/ml for erythromycin, ≤ 2 μg/ml for spiramycin, ≤ 8 μg/ml for tilmicosin, ≤ 1 μg/ml for tylosin, ≤ 1 μg/ml for lincomycin; “high” for strains with MIC values of >0.5 μg/ml for enrofloxacin, > 1 μg/ml for erythromycin, > 2 μg/ml for spiramycin, > 8 μg/ml for tilmicosin, > 1 μg/ml for tylosin, > 1 μg/ml for lincomycin. The positions of the resistance associated nucleotides are numbered according to the Escherichia coli strain K-12 substrain MG1655 (GenBank accession number: NC_000913) and M. iowae type strain NCTC 10185 (GenBank: LR215023.1) as recommended by the MyMIC Consortium [39].

Development of MAMAs

MAMAs were developed to detect SNPs associated with elevated fluoroquinolone MIC values. Briefly, MAMA is a molecular tool for SNP discrimination in bacteria. The assay is based on competing allele-specific primers. These primers are SNP-specific at the 3′ end and contain a single destabilizing mismatch at the antepenultimate position of the 3′ end to increase the discriminatory power. One of the allele-specific primers is labelled with an additional 15–20 bp GC clamp. This increases the melting temperature and also the size of the amplicon. In the presence of an intercalating fluorescent DNA dye, the temperature shift can be detected on a real-time PCR platform [14,40]. All MAMA primers were designed and tested with the M. iowae type strain (NCTC 10185) and the 98 isolates. The melting temperature of the primers (Tm) and general suitability were calculated using NetPrimer software (Premier Biosoft International, Palo Alto, CA) and the specificity of the primers was checked with BLASTN (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi). The PCR mix consisted of 4 μl 2x PCRBIO HS Taq Mix (PCR Biosystem Ltd., London, UK), 0.5 μl EvaGreen (20x, Biotium Inc., Hayward, CA, USA), 1.2 μl gyrA248-L primer, 0.4 μl gyrA248-H primer and 0.4 μl gyrA248-C primer (10 pmol/μl each) for gyrA, 0.4 μl parC239-L primer, 0.8 μl parC239-H primer and 0.4 μl parC239-C primer (10 pmol/μl each) for parC, 2 μl DNA template and nuclease-free water to a final volume of 12 μl. The melt MAMA assay was optimized for the Bio-Rad CFX96 real-time PCR system using Bio-Rad CFX Maestro software version 1.1 (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA). Thermocycling parameters were 95 °C for 1 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 15 sec and 62 °C (for gyrA) or 60 °C (for parC) for 15 sec. PCR products were subjected to melt analysis using a dissociation protocol consisting of the following steps: 60 °C for 5 sec, followed by a temperature gradient that increases by 0.5 °C up to 95 °C.

Validation of MAMAs

To evaluate the sensitivity of the assays, 10-fold dilution series were prepared using two of the strains – one inhibited by elevated enrofloxacin MIC and one by low enrofloxacin MIC – in the range of 106 to 100 template copies/μl. The system was also tested on the DNA mixture of high and low MIC strains. This involved combining serotype R (low MIC) and IZSVE/365-2D (high MIC) strains in equal concentrations at the limit of detection, and also with one genotype mixed at the concentration of limit of detection (103 template copies per reaction) and the other genotype with increasing concentrations (103–105 template copies per reaction), and vice versa. The copy number of the template was calculated using the online tool (Thermo Scientific Web Tools – DNA Copy Number Calculator) based on the DNA concentration extracted from the pure M. iowae culture, which was measured using a Nanodrop 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The specificity of the assays was evaluated using a diverse range of Mycoplasma and non-Mycoplasma species isolated from poultry. The following Mycoplasma species were subjected to testing: M. anatis, M. anseris, M. anserisalpingitidis, M. cloacale, M. columbinasale, M. columborale, M. gallinaceum, M. gallinarum, M. gallisepticum, M. gallopavonis, M. iners, M. meleagridis, and M. synoviae. The following bacterial species were subjected to cross-reaction testing: Avibacterium paragallinarum, Bordetella avium, Campylobacter sp., Clostridium sp., Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Escherichia coli, Gallibacterium anatis, Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, Pasteurella multocida, Salmonella sp., Staphylococcus sp. and Streptococcus sp..

Determination of the optimal concentrations of efflux pump inhibitors

A broth microdilution assay was employed to ascertain the lethal dose of CCCP, OV and RSP (Merck, Rahway, NJ, USA) for the selected 32 M. iowae strains showing elevated MIC values to the examined antibiotics (S2 Table). Two-fold dilutions of the freshly prepared EPIs were used in the range of 0.191–97.92 µg/ml for CCCP, 0.0006–0.31 mM for OV, and 0.005–2.56 mg/ml for RSP. CCCP was diluted in 80% ethanol, RSP was diluted in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (SERVA Electrophoresis GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) [23]. The preparation of OV was conducted in distilled water, with the pH adjusted to 10.0 using 1N NaOH or 1N HCl. At this point in the process, the solution exhibited a distinctive yellow color. The solution was then heated and boiled until it became colorless (approximately 10 minutes), and all crystals had fully dissolved. All prepared EPIs were stored at −20°C. Standard inocula at 104 color-changing units/ ml (CCU) of M. iowae cultures were used in MolliScience General Mycoplasma Liquid Media (MolliScience, Biatorbágy, Hungary). The test was performed on 96-well plates, each strain was examined in duplicates. The plates were incubated at 37°C and checked daily until no further color changes were observed (red to yellow shift). The lowest concentration of the EPI at which no color change was observed was considered to be the lethal dose of the EPI. The optimal concentrations of EPIs required for MIC testing were determined to be at least four-fold below their respective lethal concentrations [24,41].

Testing MIC with the efflux pump inhibitors

The MIC values of the selected strains were measured for each antibiotic in the presence and absence of EPIs in MolliScience General Mycoplasma Liquid Media (MolliScience). The applied concentrations of the EPIs in the MIC tests were 1.53 µg/ml for CCCP and 0.01 mM for OV. The concentrations of enrofloxacin, tylosin and spiramycin were adjusted within the range of 0.03125–16 µg/ml, while oxytetracycline, tilmicosin and lincomycin were diluted within the range of 0.125–64 µg/ml. Efflux pump inhibitors were freshly prepared before each experiment, and each assay was performed in a 96-well plate. M. iowae cultures were diluted at a titer of 104 CCU/ml. Plates were incubated at 37°C and checked daily until no further color change was observed for two days. Each strain was examined in duplicate. Initial MIC values were measured when the growth control (wells containing only the bacterial cultures, without any antibiotics or EPIs) changed color.

The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to determine whether the MICs were significantly different in the presence or absence of the EPIs using an online tool [36]. For the analyses MIC values equal or lower than the lowest examined concentrations were adjusted to be the lowest examined concentrations, while MIC values higher than the highest examined concentrations were adjusted to be the highest examined concentrations. Furthermore, in order to normalize data distribution (gain linear intervals) the adjusted MIC values from the two-fold dilution series of antimicrobial concentrations were transformed to log2MIC values [37,38] (S4 Table).

Identifying putative regulatory regions and possible antibiotic resistance-associated markers of efflux pump coding genes

Putative regulatory sequences were identified in two publicly available whole genome sequences of the M. iowae type strain (GenBank accession numbers: LR215023 and CP033512.2.1) using Promotech software version 1.0 [42]. The two sequences exhibited notable differences; thus, the hypothetical putative regulatory sequences occurring in both genomes were used for further analyses. The extracted promoter sequences were mapped to the type strain and the genes associated with efflux pumps were selected. To avoid false positive results, the score threshold was set to be equal or above 0.8 [23]. Therefore, when a sequence was upstream of a gene that codes an efflux pump and scored 0.8 or higher, it was considered a potential regulatory region. The Pribnow boxes and ribosome-binding sites (RBS) of the regulatory sequences were determined manually using the literature [43,44]. The transcription start sites (TSSs) were calculated from the position of the Pribnow boxes. The most common spacer between the TSS and −10 box is 6 nucleotides long, although 5- and 7-nucleotide spacers also exist [43]. The identified sequences were aligned to the whole genome sequences of the 32 M. iowae strains (BioProject ID: PRJNA975348) employed for the efflux pump investigation. As in the search for resistance-associated genes, Illumina raw reads of the 32 M. iowae strains were first mapped to the M. iowae type strain NCTC 10185 (GenBank: LR215023.1) as reference to assemble their whole genome sequences. The SNPs in the efflux pump related regions were identified in the assembled genome sequences in Geneious Prime 2019.2.1 software [35]. The SNPs were subjected to manual review and categorization based on their potential to cause synonymous or non-synonymous SNPs (nsSNPs).

Results

Identification of antibiotic resistance-associated genetic markers and development of MAMAs

SNPs were associated with elevated MIC values in ≥80% of the strains in the gyrA, parC and 23S rRNA genes. In the 23S rRNA gene, only one macrolide and lincomycin resistance-associated mutation was identified at nucleotide position A2059G [E. coli]/ A2052T/G/C [M. iowae] out of the detected six SNPs (S1 Table). The logistic regression model was statistically significant (chi-square ranged between 46.83–63.53, p < 0.001), and showed strong association between the phenotypes and genotypes (odds ratios ranged between 1.72–3.18, p < 0.001) (S5 Table). The Fisher’s exact test also showed strong association between the MIC categories (low or high) and genotypes (wild-type or mutant; p < 0.001, odds ratios ranged between 110.08–182.56) (S5 Table).

A total of two nsSNPs were found in the gyrA gene (S1 Table), of which only one SNP showed moderate correlation with MIC values, at nucleotide position C248T [E. coli]/ C278T/A [M. iowae], resulting in the substitution of serine with phenylalanine or tyrosine. The logistic regression model was statistically significant (chi-square was 44.56, p < 0.001), and MIC values were regarded positive predictors for the mutant genotype (odds ratio 4.51, p < 0.001), however, the baseline odds ratio was very high (35.07) (S5 Table) – although the mutation was present in 92% of the strains with elevated MICs, 60.8% of the strains with low MICs also showed the mutant genotype (Table 1). Association was defined with the Fisher’s exact test between the MIC categories (low or high) and genotypes (wild-type or mutant; p = 0.003, odds ratio of 6.09) as well (S5 Table).

Table 1. Potentially resistance-related mutations identified in M. iowae strains.

Antibiotics Genes Position of mutationa Strains possessing the mutation and showing lower MIC values relative to all strains with low MICsb Strains possessing the mutation and showing higher MIC values relative to all strains with high MICsc
No. % No. %
Enrofloxacin gyrA C248T/A 45/74 60.8 23/25 92.0
parC G239T 7/74 9.5 20/25 80.0
gyrA & parC both C248T/A & G239T 6/74 8.1 19/25 76.0
Erythromycin 23S rRNA A2059G/T/C 1/16 6.3 79/83 95.2
Spiramycin 1/15 6.7 79/84 94.1
Tilmicosin 1/16 6.3 79/83 95.2
Tylosin 1/14 7.1 79/85 92.9
Lincomycin 23S rRNA A2059G/T/C 1/15 6.7 79/84 94.1

Abbreviations: No.= number of strains, % = percentage of strains

aaccording to E. coli numbering

bin case of fluoroquinolones: strains with MIC values of ≤0.5 μg/ml for enrofloxacin (n = 74); in case of macrolides: strains with MIC values of ≤1 μg/ml for erythromycin (n = 16), ≤ 2 μg/ml for spiramycin (n = 15), ≤ 8 μg/ml for tilmicosin (n = 16), ≤ 1 μg/ml for tylosin (n = 14); in case of lincomycin: strains with MIC values of ≤1 μg/ml (n = 15).

cin case of fluoroquinolones: strains with MIC values of >0.5 μg/ml for enrofloxacin (n = 25); in case of macrolides: strains with MIC values of >1 μg/ml for erythromycin (n = 83), > 2 μg/ml for spiramycin (n = 84), > 8 μg/ml for tilmicosin (n = 83), > 1 μg/ml for tylosin (n = 85); in case of lincomycin: strains with MIC values of >1 μg/ml (n = 84)

Two nsSNPs were identified in the parC gene (S1 Table), of which the transversion G239T [E. coli]/ G257T [M. iowae] leading to the replacement of serine with isoleucine correlated with MIC values (Table 1). The logistic regression model was statistically significant (chi-square of 54.78, p < 0.001), and showed strong association between elevated enrofloxacin MIC values and genotypes (odds ratio of 4.03, p < 0.001). The Fisher’s exact test also showed strong association (p < 0.001, odds ratio of 33.55) (S5 Table).

No correlations were found among elevated MIC values and nucleotide variants at positions previously described to be associated with antimicrobial resistance in the other examined regions of the M. iowae strains (gyrB, parE genes, 50S ribosomal proteins L4 and L22).

The mutation associated with antibiotic resistance in the 23S rRNA gene proved to be unsuitable for MAMA design, as the transition (A/T) and transversions (A/G and A/C) were all detected at this position (2059 [E. coli]/ 2052 [M. iowae]). The most frequently observed mutation was A/G transversion, presented in 63.3% (n = 50/79) of the strains showing mutation at this position and elevated MICs to macrolides and lincomycin. For fluoroquinolones, the developed MAMAs clearly differentiated the M. iowae strains’ genotypes associated with low (L) or high (H) MICs of enrofloxacin. In the gyrA gene the transversion C/T (n = 21/23) was more frequently detected than the C/A mutation (n = 2/23). The MAMA targeting the mutation C248T [E. coli]/ C278T [M. iowae] resulted genotype L for strains showing cytosine or genotype H for strains showing thymine or adenine. The primer specific for genotype H has adenine at the SNP specific position at the 3’ end, thus it showed lower sensitivity for strains with C/A transversion (ct values of the 103 dilutions of the two strains – which possessed the C/A mutation – were compared in the gyrA and parC specific MAMAs: B2/90 ct 34 and 32, respectively; B67/01 ct 32 and 30, respectively). The MAMA targeting the mutation G239T [E. coli]/ G257T [M. iowae] in the parC gene resulted genotype L for guanine or genotype H for thymine (Table 2). In the gyrA system, the average melting temperatures (Tm) for samples with genotype H were 81.79 °C ± 0.62 and 77 °C ± 0.63 with samples of genotype L. In the parC system the average Tm values were 79.7 ± 0.52 and 76.6 ± 0.63 (Fig 1) for genotypes H and L, respectively.

Table 2. Primer sequences and parameters of the designed MAMAs.

Targeted gene and SNP Primer name* Primer sequence
(5’-3’)**
Genotype* Amplicon size (bp) Average melting temperature of the amplicons (°C)
gyrA gene C248T gyrA248-L CCATTCTAACCATAGTTTCATAAACTGTAG L 83 77
gyrA248-H ggggcggggcggggcCCATTCTAACCATAGTTTCATAAACTGGAA H 101 81.8
gyrA248-C GTCAGCTAGACTTGTTGGGGAAG
parC gene G239T parC239-L GTAAATATCACCCACATGGTGAGAG L 118 76.6
parC239-H ggggcggggcggggcTAAATATCACCCACATGGTGACAT H 136 79.6
parC239-C CCATCAAGAGAACCTTTGTTACCT

*Abbreviations: L = genotype corresponding to low MIC values, H = genotype corresponding to high MIC values, C = consensus

**Genotype specific and destabilizer nucleotides are in bold; GC-clamp is in lowercase

Fig 1. Mismatch amplification mutation assays targeting the SNPs in the parC and gyrA genes.

Fig 1

A – Melting curves of M. iowae reference strain serotype R (blue, genotype L), strain IZSVE/365-2D (green, genotype H) and negative control (orange) in parC system. B – Melting curves of M. iowae reference strain serotype R (blue, genotype L), strain IZSVE/365-2D (green, genotype H) and negative control (orange) in gyrA system.

Validation of MAMAs

The sensitivity of the assay was 103 template copies/reaction in both the gyrA and parC specific systems, for both genotypes, and no cross-reactions were detected in any examined cases. Samples of mixed genotypes showed either a single melt peak (dominant genotype) or two distinct peaks corresponding to both genotypes, depending on the relative copy number (Table 3).

Table 3. Melting temperatures (°C) of mixed genotypes in the MAMAs targeting SNPs in the parC and gyrA genes.

Targeted gene and SNP Genotype L Genotype H Ratio of genotype L and genotype H
105:103 104:103 103:103 103:104 103:105
parC gene G239T 76.6 79.6 76 76 76 79 79
gyrA gene C248T 77 81.8 77 & 81.8 77 & 81.8 77 & 81.8 77 & 81.8 80

Determination of the optimal concentrations of efflux pump inhibitors

The growth of the strains was not affected by RSP, color change was detected at the same time as the growth control even at the highest tested concentration (2.56 mg/ml); therefore, this EPI was excluded from further examinations. For CCCP, the lethal dose was determined to be 6.12 µg/ml. The lethal dose was 6.12 µg/ml for 47% (n = 15) of the strains, while 12.24 µg/ml for another 47% (n = 15), and 24.48 µg/ml for the remaining 6% (n = 2) of the strains. The optimal dose (four-fold below the minimal lethal concentration) was determined to be 1.53 µg/ml, and examinations were performed at a double concentration (3.06 µg/ml) of CCCP also. For OV the minimal lethal dose was 0.03875 mM and the optimal concentration used for the MIC testing was 0.00969 mM. The majority of the strains (88%, n = 28) exhibited a lethal dose of 0.03875 mM, while a smaller proportion demonstrated a lethal dose of 0.0775 mM (9%, n = 3), and a minority (3%, n = 1) exhibited a lethal dose of 0.155 mM.

Testing MICs with the efflux pump inhibitors

Six strains with slightly, moderately or highly elevated MICs were selected for the examination of efflux activity for each of the six antibiotics based on their previously published MIC values determined in Oxoid Mycoplasma broth medium (pH 7.8) (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Oxoid Inc.) supplemented with 0.5% (w/v) sodium pyruvate, 0.5% (w/v) glucose, 0.15% (w/v) L-arginine hydrochloride and 0.005% (w/v) phenol red [33]. Two-fold differences in MICs can occur due to measurement inconsistencies; thus, these were not considered as changes in the MICs. Higher than one dilution step (two-fold concentration) differences were observed between MIC values obtained in Oxoid medium and in MolliScience General Mycoplasma Liquid Media used in the current study for enrofloxacin (n = 5/6 strains), oxytetracycline (n = 3/6 strains), tilmicosin (n = 1/6 strain) and tylosin (n = 1/6 strain). In this study, the comparisons of enrofloxacin and lincomycin MIC values in MolliScience General Mycoplasma Liquid Media in the presence or absence of OV revealed at least four-fold lower MIC values due to OV for two strains in each case. Regarding oxytetracycline, tilmicosin and tylosin, the MIC values for five strains were at least four-fold lower in the presence of OV and in case of spiramycin, the addition of OV showed at least six-fold decrease in MIC values for half of the examined strains (S2 Table, Fig 2). A statistically significant difference was identified between all the MICs in the presence and absence of OV (p < 0.001, S6 Table). The MIC values in MolliScience General Mycoplasma Liquid Media in the presence and absence of CCCP (both at 1.53 µg/ml and 3.06 µg/ml concentrations) were the same, thus the comparison revealed no effect of this EPI on the examined M. iowae strains.

Fig 2. The effect of sodium orthovanadate on MIC values in Mycoplasma iowae strains.

Fig 2

The MIC values of enrofloxacin, lincomycin, oxytetracycline, spiramycin, tilmicosin and tylosin against six M. iowae strains are shown in Oxoid Mycoplasma broth medium (grey columns, “Oxoid media”), in MolliScience General Mycoplasma Liquid medium (black columns, “MolliScience media”), and in MolliScience General Mycoplasma Liquid medium supplemented with sodium orthovanadate (white columns, “MolliScience+OV”). The y axis is split on all diagrams to better visualize MIC values of great difference.

Identifying putative regulatory regions and possible antibiotic resistance-associated markers in efflux pump genes

A total of 12 efflux pump-related genes were examined, and promoter regions were identified in five of them (S2 Table). These included the cobalt transporter ATP-binding subunit, the ABC transporter ATP-binding protein, the uncharacterized ABC transporter permease MG468 homologue, the ABC-type multidrug/ protein/ lipid transport system ATPase component, and the MATE efflux family protein genes. The most conserved elements were identified as the Pribnow boxes (-10 boxes) and the initiator nucleotide (A or G). The Pribnow boxes and the RBSs were identified in all five promoters, and the transcription start sites (TSSs) were also calculated (Table 4). There were no pronounced −35 boxes in the promoter region.

Table 4. Putative regulatory sequences of the efflux pump-related genes. The potential Pribnow boxes (lowercase), ribosome-binding sites (underlined), transcription start site (black bold) and the start codon (italics) are highlighted.

Gene name Promoter sequence with the motifs (5’-3’)
MATE efflux family protein CDS TGTTATtataatAACATCACAGATTTATTTAATGCCAGGTCTTCCTAAAGTACCTAAAGCAAAGAGTTAATTATG
ABC-type multidrug/ protein/lipid transport system ATPase component-mldB1 TTTTAAATTAAATATTGTATtataatTCATGTGAATGTTTTTTAATAATCAGTTACGAAAGCGGGTTATAATATAATG
cobalt transporter ATP-binding subunit-cbiO4 AATTTCATTCTTTTTTATTTtataatTTAtataatTTTAAGAATTGGGATTTATTTATG
ABC transporter ATP-binding protein- lolD2 CTATTTTTCTTtataatTtataatTAATAAGAAATAAACCAGGTAAGATTATG
Uncharacterized ABC transporter permease MG468 homolog TTACTTATAAAGTTTTTTTATAAtataatAAATAATTAAAAAAACACAACAAAAAAATAAAGGTAATTATG

Non-synonymous SNPs were identified in the following efflux pump-related genes: ABC transporter ATP-binding protein, ATP-binding cassette domain-containing protein, energy-coupling factor transporter transmembrane protein and MATE family efflux transporter CDS (S2 Table). No correlation was identified between the nsSNPs in the strains and the effect of OV. On the other hand, strains from the previously determined MLST clusters A and B [34] contained the same nsSNPs in the ABC transporter ATP-binding protein genes, and a similar pattern was observed in the energy-coupling factor transporter transmembrane protein and ATP-binding cassette domain-containing protein genes. Likewise, MLST cluster D strain specific nsSNPs were identified in the ABC transporter ATP-binding protein- lolD2, and nsSNPs specific for strains from the MLST cluster C were detected in the uncharacterized ABC transporter permease MG468 homolog (S2 Table).

Discussion

M. iowae infection is economically significant in the turkey industry, and it has been regarded as the most resistant avian pathogen Mycoplasma species to antibiotics in previous publications [1,7,45]. The higher mutation frequency in M. iowae compared to other mycoplasmas may enable the strains to rapidly and efficiently develop resistance to antibiotics [7]. Furthermore, its unique ecological niche (adaptation to the intestinal environment) and its relative neglect by pathologists and practitioners may constitute key predisposing factors in the notable resistance to antimicrobial compounds. M. iowae may persist in the turkey’s intestinal tract for the entire commercial lifespan [46], being exposed to a wider spectrum of antimicrobials substantially different from the ones administered against the respiratory pathogen mycoplasmas. The emergence of resistance in avian mycoplasmas demands a rigorous and prudent approach to antibiotic use [11]. To our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate various resistance mechanisms in M. iowae with the aim to support targeted antibiotic treatment by providing basic information about efflux pump activity in this species and by identifying antibiotic resistance related mutations and developing molecular tools for their rapid detection.

Genetic markers associated with elevated MIC values in fluoroquinolones, macrolides and lincosamides were evaluated based on the antibiotic susceptibility profiles and whole genome sequences of a diverse selection of 99 M. iowae strains. Macrolides inhibit bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 50S subunit of the 23S rRNA, which overlaps with the binding site of lincosamides; thus, resistance of these agents is linked [47]. A SNP correlating with elevated MICs for macrolides and lincosamides was identified in the 23S rRNA gene at 2059 [E. coli]/ 2052 [M. iowae] position in the examined M. iowae strains in this study. While the A2059G substitution has most commonly been demonstrated to be associated with reduced susceptibility in other studies [11], all four nucleotides were observed at nucleotide position 2059 [E. coli]/ 2052 [M. iowae] in M. iowae – a phenomenon which has also been described in other mycoplasmas [9,48]. Unfortunately, the high nucleotide variability impeded the development of a MAMA for their differentiation in M. iowae. Furthermore, four strains which showed decreased susceptibility to macrolides and lincomycin (strains B15/90, IZSVE/3336-1F, IZSVE/365-2D and IZSVE/2285-35F) revealed the wild-type genotype, while one strain showing high susceptibility to these antimicrobials possessed the mutant genotype (strain IZSVE/6456-2F, isolated from a duck) (S1 Table). These unexplained resistant/susceptible phenotypes indicate the significant contribution of other mechanisms in the development of macrolide and lincomycin resistance of M. iowae.

Fluoroquinolones are synthetic antibacterial drugs that act on both DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV [49]. Mutations in the quinolone resistance determining region (QRDR) of the pathogen result in the inhibition of fluoroquinolone binding to both DNA and enzyme complexes, which is the primary cause of fluoroquinolone resistance [49]. Resistance to fluoroquinolones in mycoplasmas is frequently the result of target gene mutations within the gyrA and parC genes [10,50]. In M. bovis it has been described that a single change in gyrA alone is sufficient to achieve moderate resistance to fluoroquinolones, but a simultaneous modification in parC is necessary to achieve high MICs [16,51,52]. In the present study, moderate association was defined between resistant phenotypes and the C248T [E. coli]/ C278T/A [M. iowae] mutation in gyrA gene, with slight elevation in MIC values when the identified mutation was present alone (36 strains showed MICs between 0.25–0.5 µg/ml from the 43 strains possessing the SNP in the gyrA gene only, S1 Table). It is noteworthy, that this substitution was presented in more than half of the examined M. iowae strains (68.7%, n = 68/99). The presence of the G239T [E. coli]/ G257T [M. iowae] substitution in the parC gene alone was observed only in two strains from the examined 99 M. iowae strains (with MICs 0.5 and 4 µg/ml), while the detection rate of this mutation was as low as 27.3% (n = 27/99) in all the examined strains. The presence of mutations in both gyrA and parC genes was associated with an increase in MIC values above 0.5 µg/ml (19 strains showed MIC > 0.5 µg/ml from the 25 strains possessing both resistance-associated SNPs, Table 1), consistent with previous findings [16,51,52]. Nevertheless, 74.1% (n = 20/27) of the strains possessing the G239T [E. coli]/ G257T [M. iowae] substitution in the parC gene, and 33.8% (n = 23/68) of the strains with the C248T [E. coli]/ C278T/A [M. iowae] substitution in the gyrA gene were inhibited only by elevated MICs of enrofloxacin (>0.5 µg/ml). The described association between elevated MIC values and the mutant parC genotype indicates that the identified SNP is a reliable target for molecular assays, while the additional differentiation of the SNP C248T [E. coli]/ C278T [M. iowae] in the gyrA gene may support the preliminary detection of resistant phenotypes. Therefore, the developed MAMAs, targeting these two resistance markers, offer a time-efficient and cost-effective detection system that can also be used on clinical samples to predict M. iowae strains with elevated MIC values for fluoroquinolones, which may facilitate quick decision making for targeted antibiotic therapy during outbreaks. It should be considered though, that the application of molecular assays for the detection of antimicrobial resistance has several limitations (e.g., only known mutations are targeted, resistance clones may vary by geographical regions, inconsistency of assay validations and sensitivity) [39]. Moreover, as for the conventional, isolate-based microdilution tests, clinical samples with strains of mixed genotypes represent another challenge in molecular diagnostics as well. For instance, the developed MAMA targeting the mutation in the parC gene would identify only the wild-type when the ratio of the wild-type and mutant strains is equal in the sample. Also, given the detected low number of SNPs correlating with elevated MIC values in M. iowae, the significance of other antibiotic resistance methods is suggested to be higher in this pathogen and warrants future examinations.

Efficient efflux pump mechanisms have been previously identified in other mycoplasmas, with strains exhibiting slightly elevated MIC values [17,23]. In the current study, the selection of M. iowae strains (inhibited by slightly or moderately elevated MIC values) for the examinations was made based on the evidence that efflux pumps have an impact at the early stage of the resistance development [17]. Due to the rapidly developing resistance in M. iowae the number of selectable strains was restricted in the current dataset; therefore, in certain cases (especially for macrolides), multiple strains with originally relatively high MIC values (upper values of the examined concentration range) were involved in the tests. The initial MIC values for enrofloxacin and oxytetracycline were notably different from those obtained in our previous study [33], although M. iowae strains reached comparable CCU/ml in the two media (the strains reached 107–109 CCU/ml in both media used in the two studies), which is – in the absence of standardizations – the only criterion for media in MIC testing of veterinary mycoplasmas [8,39,53]. Out of the three inhibitors tested, the use of CCCP did not result in any difference in the MICs, while reserpine did not even affect the growth of the strains and examinations were discontinued. However, as reserpine did not change viability of Mycoplasma pneumoniae cells earlier either, but its effect on azithromycin MIC values was detectable when applied at 20 μg/ml concentration (four-fold changes in two cases, and two-fold changes in 25 cases out of the 30 examined resistant isolates) [54], it cannot be excluded that if applied in the appropriate concentration reserpine would have modulated efflux pump activity in the examined M. iowae isolates. In the presence of OV, the MIC values against the M. iowae isolates were significantly lower than in the absence of this EPI in the tests with four antibiotics (oxytetracycline, spiramycin, tilmicosin and tylosin; Fig 2). Interestingly, the greatest effect of OV was observed for macrolides with strains showing originally relatively high MIC values, suggesting more advanced resistance mechanisms. By coincidence, two isolates (IZSVE/365-2D and IZSVE/2285-35F) with highly decreased susceptibility to macrolides and lacking the mutation at the position 2059 [E. coli]/ 2052 [M. iowae] in the 23S coding region were also included in the OV tests. In these cases, significant decrease of tilmicosin MIC values was detected when OV was applied. For lincomycin and enrofloxacin, although less than half of the strains exhibited decrease in the MICs in the presence of OV, those differences were at least four-fold concentrations. The findings indicate that OV influences the antimicrobial susceptibility of M. iowae, but the involvement of efflux pump mechanisms in the resistance development is yet to be confirmed by further transcriptional assays or validations at protein-level.

The number of strains involved in the examination of efflux pump associated gene sequences did not permit in-depth analyses regarding correlation between SNPs and the reduced MICs observed in the presence of OV (S2 Table). The computational prediction of promoters also represents a significant challenge in the field of characterization of bacterial transcriptional units. The majority of promoter-finding algorithms rely on the sequence motifs recognized by sigma factors, which guide the RNA polymerase complex to TSSs [55]. In many bacteria, the housekeeping transcription factor sigma 70 binds to two regions upstream of the TSS. The first of these is located 10 bp upstream of the TSS (Pribnow box) and bears the consensus motif TANAAT (N can be any base) [56]. The second is around 35 bp upstream of the TSS and bears the motif TTGACA (–35 box). The spacer between these two boxes may extend from 15 to 21 bases in length [55,57]. The Pribnow boxes with (TATAAT), RBSs (GGK), and TSSs were identified in the efflux gene promoters described in the present study. However, no −35 boxes were found, presumably due to the less conserved nature of this sequence in mycoplasmas. In AT-rich organisms, such as mycoplasmas, it is suggested that the AT-rich regions serve as regulatory up elements, potentially decreasing the necessity of −35 boxes [58]. Several nsSNPs were identified in promoter-associated genes (S2 Table), although an exact correlation between these and the observed reduction in MIC values in the presence of the EPI could not be established. Nevertheless, these SNPs may influence the function of the efflux pumps, as in the case of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. In this example, an insertion in the promoter region of the genes encoding the AcrEF pump has been shown to enhance the transcription of the corresponding operon, which leads to an increase in resistance to fluoroquinolones. However, it is notable that the majority of mutations affecting antibiotic export by efflux systems occur in genes encoding proteins that perform regulatory functions [59]. The current study presents the first inhibitor-based investigation of the involvement of efflux pump mechanism in antimicrobial resistance and its underlying genetic background in M. iowae. The identification of promoter sequences in the present study represents an important step forward to a deeper insight into the mechanisms of gene regulation. Yet, there is a clear need for further research to better understand the regulation in transcriptional initiation in Mycoplasma.

The study identified known nucleotide positions for target modification, and described the effect of an EPI on MIC against M. iowae suggesting the possibility of efflux pump activity in the development of antimicrobial resistance, but the strains which revealed no changes from these aspects may indicate the presence of alternative targets or mechanisms. Biofilm formation of a limited number of M. iowae strains was examined in a previous experiment [60], which could not confirm this capability of the pathogen either. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the efflux pump mechanisms may facilitate the advancement of supplementary techniques to antibiotic therapy and a more comprehensive understanding of the molecular basis of resistance mechanisms in M. iowae helps the development of new methods for the detection of antibiotic susceptibility. Furthermore, the potential acquisition of resistance determinants characteristic of enteric bacteria should be taken into account in future examinations. Identification of novel resistance markers and mechanisms will enable the early prediction of antibiotic efficacy and the mitigation of public health concerns related to bacterial resistance.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Details of the 99 Mycoplasma iowae strains and the nsSPNPs in the gyrA, parC and 23S rRNA genes.

(XLSX)

pone.0347345.s001.xlsx (31.5KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. nsSNPs in potential efflux pump related genes and the initial MIC values of the six antibiotics, in the absence and presence of sodium orthovanadate.

(XLSX)

pone.0347345.s002.xlsx (29.7KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Data used for logistic regression and Fisher’s exact test to analyze associations among MIC values and genotypes in Mycoplasma iowae.

(XLSX)

pone.0347345.s003.xlsx (25.8KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. Data used for Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test to analyze the effect of sodium orthovanadate on MIC values against Mycoplasma iowae strains.

(XLSX)

pone.0347345.s004.xlsx (13.5KB, xlsx)
S5 Table. Results of the logistic regression analysis and Fisher’s exact test regarding associations among MIC values and genotypes in Mycoplasma iowae.

(XLSX)

pone.0347345.s005.xlsx (15.8KB, xlsx)
S6 Table. Results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test regarding the effect of sodium orthovanadate on MIC values against Mycoplasma iowae strains.

(XLSX)

pone.0347345.s006.xlsx (10.6KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All whole-genome sequence data are available from GenBank (BioProject ID: PRJNA975348, GenBank accession numbers: LR215023 and CP033512.2.1). All other relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the FK21 (137809) grant of ZK from the National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; the SA-27/2021 grant of MG from the Eötvös Loránd Research Network; the Projects no. RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00001 and RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006 of MG which have been implemented with the support provided by the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), financed under the National Recovery Fund budget estimate,RRF-2.3.1-21 funding scheme; and the support of MG provided by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary (legal successor: Ministry of Culture and Innovation of Hungary) from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed under the TKP2021-EGA-01 funding scheme of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office.

References

  • 1.Al-Ankari AR, Bradbury JM. Mycoplasma iowae: a review. Avian Pathol. 1996;25(2):205–29. doi: 10.1080/03079459608419137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bozeman LH, Kleven SH, Davis RB. Mycoplasma challenge studies in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) and chickens. Avian Dis. 1984;28(2):426–34. doi: 10.2307/1590349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bradbury JM, McCarthy JD. Mycoplasma iowae infection in chicks. Avian Pathol. 1984;13(3):529–43. doi: 10.1080/03079458408418553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Catania S, Gobbo F, Bilato D, Fincato A, Battanolli G, Iob L. Isolation of Mycoplasma iowae in commercial turkey flocks. Vet Rec. 2012;170(4):107–8. doi: 10.1136/vr.e645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Catania S, Gobbo F, Rodio S, Qualtieri K, Santone C, Nicholas RAJ. First isolation of Mycoplasma iowae in grey partridge flocks. Avian Dis. 2014;58(2):323–5. doi: 10.1637/10661-091113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wood BJ, Wilson SJ. Mycoplasma iowae in turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). World’s Poultry Science Journal. 2013;69(4):909–16. doi: 10.1017/S0043933913000913 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gautier-Bouchardon AV, Reinhardt AK, Kobisch M, Kempf I. In vitro development of resistance to enrofloxacin, erythromycin, tylosin, tiamulin and oxytetracycline in Mycoplasma gallisepticum, Mycoplasma iowae and Mycoplasma synoviae. Vet Microbiol. 2002;88(1):47–58. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(02)00087-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hannan PCT. Guidelines and recommendations for antimicrobial minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) testing against veterinary mycoplasma species. Vet Res. 2000;31(4):373–95. doi: 10.1051/vetres:2000100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lysnyansky I, Ayling RD. Mycoplasma bovis: mechanisms of resistance and trends in antimicrobial susceptibility. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:595. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sulyok KM, Kreizinger Z, Wehmann E, Lysnyansky I, Bányai K, Marton S, et al. Mutations associated with decreased susceptibility to seven antimicrobial families in field and laboratory-derived mycoplasma bovis strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(2):e01983-16. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01983-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gautier-Bouchardon AV. Antimicrobial resistance in Mycoplasma spp. Microbiol Spectr. 2018;6(4):425–46. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.ARBA-0030-2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bekő K, Kreizinger Z, Yvon C, Saller O, Catania S, Feberwee A, et al. Development of molecular assays for the rapid and cost-effective determination of fluoroquinolone, macrolide and lincosamide susceptibility of Mycoplasma synoviae isolates. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0241647. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Felde O, Kreizinger Z, Sulyok KM, Wehmann E, Gyuranecz M. Development of molecular biological tools for the rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibility of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae isolates. Vet Microbiol. 2020;245:108697. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108697 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Földi D, Kreizinger Z, Bekő K, Belecz N, Bányai K, Kiss K, et al. Development of a molecular biological assay for the detection of markers related to decreased susceptibility to macrolides and lincomycin in Mycoplasma hyorhinis. Acta Vet Hung. 2021;69(2):110–5. doi: 10.1556/004.2021.00026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grózner D, Bekö K, Kovács ÁB, Mitter A, Hrivnák V, Sawicka A, et al. Identification and detection of mutations potentially associated with decreased susceptibility to macrolides and lincomycin in Mycoplasma anserisalpingitidis isolates. Vet Microbiol. 2022;266:109362. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2022.109362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sulyok KM, Bekő K, Kreizinger Z, Wehmann E, Jerzsele Á, Rónai Z, et al. Development of molecular methods for the rapid detection of antibiotic susceptibility of Mycoplasma bovis. Vet Microbiol. 2018;213:47–57. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.11.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schmalstieg AM, Srivastava S, Belkaya S, Deshpande D, Meek C, Leff R, et al. The antibiotic resistance arrow of time: efflux pump induction is a general first step in the evolution of mycobacterial drug resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(9):4806–15. doi: 10.1128/AAC.05546-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lomovskaya O, Bostian KA. Practical applications and feasibility of efflux pump inhibitors in the clinic--a vision for applied use. Biochem Pharmacol. 2006;71(7):910–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2005.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Webber MA, Piddock LJV. The importance of efflux pumps in bacterial antibiotic resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51(1):9–11. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkg050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Askoura M, Mottawea W, Abujamel T, Taher I. Efflux pump inhibitors (EPIs) as new antimicrobial agents against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Libyan J Med. 2011;6:10.3402/ljm.v6i0.5870. doi: 10.3402/ljm.v6i0.5870 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Marquez B. Bacterial efflux systems and efflux pumps inhibitors. Biochimie. 2005;87(12):1137–47. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2005.04.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.AlMatar M, Albarri O, Makky EA, Köksal F. Efflux pump inhibitors: new updates. Pharmacol Rep. 2021;73(1):1–16. doi: 10.1007/s43440-020-00160-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nagy EZ, Kovács ÁB, Wehmann E, Bekő K, Földi D, Bányai K, et al. Phenotypic and genetic insights into efflux pump mechanism in Mycoplasma anserisalpingitidis. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1216893. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1216893 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Raherison S, Gonzalez P, Renaudin H, Charron A, Bébéar C, Bébéar CM. Evidence of active efflux in resistance to ciprofloxacin and to ethidium bromide by Mycoplasma hominis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46(3):672–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.46.3.672-679.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shaheen A, Afridi WA, Mahboob S, Sana M, Zeeshan N, Ismat F, et al. Reserpine Is the new addition into the repertoire of AcrB efflux pump inhibitors. Mol Biol (Mosk). 2019;53(4):674–84. doi: 10.1134/S0026898419040128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sharma A, Gupta VK, Pathania R. Efflux pump inhibitors for bacterial pathogens: From bench to bedside. Indian J Med Res. 2019;149(2):129–45. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_2079_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lin L, Ling B-D, Li X-Z. Distribution of the multidrug efflux pump genes, adeABC, adeDE and adeIJK, and class 1 integron genes in multiple-antimicrobial-resistant clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii-Acinetobacter calcoaceticus complex. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009;33(1):27–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.06.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sanchez-Carbonel A, Mondragón B, López-Chegne N, Peña-Tuesta I, Huayan-Dávila G, Blitchtein D, et al. The effect of the efflux pump inhibitor Carbonyl Cyanide m-Chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP) on the susceptibility to imipenem and cefepime in clinical strains of Acinetobacter baumannii. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0259915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jiang W, Li G, Li W, Wang P, Xiu P, Jiang X, et al. Sodium orthovanadate overcomes sorafenib resistance of hepatocellular carcinoma cells by inhibiting Na+/K+-ATPase activity and hypoxia-inducible pathways. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):9706. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28010-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pezza RJ, Villarreal MA, Montich GG, Argaraña CE. Vanadate inhibits the ATPase activity and DNA binding capability of bacterial MutS. A structural model for the vanadate-MutS interaction at the Walker A motif. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30(21):4700–8. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkf606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kaatz GW, Seo SM, Foster TJ. Introduction of a norA promoter region mutation into the chromosome of a fluoroquinolone-susceptible strain of Staphylococcus aureus using plasmid integration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(9):2222–4. doi: 10.1128/AAC.43.9.2222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.López-Siles M, McConnell MJ, Martín-Galiano AJ. Identification of promoter region markers associated with altered expression of resistance-nodulation-division antibiotic efflux pumps in Acinetobacter baumannii. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:869208. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.869208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Buni D, Udvari L, Földi D, Belecz N, Yvon C, Bradbury J, et al. In vitro susceptibility of Mycoplasma iowae isolates to antimicrobial agents. Avian Pathol. 2022;51(4):374–80. doi: 10.1080/03079457.2022.2072271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Buni D, Kovács ÁB, Földi D, Bányai K, Bali K, Domán M, et al. Development of molecular assays for the analysis of genetic relationships of Mycoplasma iowae. Vet Microbiol. 2023;287:109909. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2023.109909 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, et al. Geneious basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(12):1647–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Statistics Kingdom. Statistics calculator. 2017. Accessed 2026 February 26. http://www.statskingdom.com
  • 37.Lipworth S, Chau K, Oakley S, Barrett L, Crook D, Peto T, et al. Estimating the association of antimicrobial resistance genes with minimum inhibitory concentration in Escherichia coli: an observational study. Lancet Microbe. 2025;6(11):101183. doi: 10.1016/j.lanmic.2025.101183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Michael A, Kelman T, Pitesky M. Overview of quantitative methodologies to understand antimicrobial resistance via minimum inhibitory concentration. Animals (Basel). 2020;10(8):1405. doi: 10.3390/ani10081405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sulyok KM, Kreizinger Z, Földi D, Kovács ÁB, Grózner D, Manso-Silván L, et al. Molecular detection of antimicrobial resistance in livestock mycoplasmas: current status and future prospects. Front Vet Sci. 2025;12:1699077. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1699077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Birdsell DN, Pearson T, Price EP, Hornstra HM, Nera RD, Stone N, et al. Melt analysis of mismatch amplification mutation assays (Melt-MAMA): a functional study of a cost-effective SNP genotyping assay in bacterial models. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Li Y, Yin Q, Wang B, Shen T, Luo W, Liu T. Preclinical reserpine models recapitulating motor and non-motor features of Parkinson’s disease: Roles of epigenetic upregulation of alpha-synuclein and autophagy impairment. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:944376. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.944376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Chevez-Guardado R, Peña-Castillo L. Promotech: a general tool for bacterial promoter recognition. Genome Biol. 2021;22(1):318. doi: 10.1186/s13059-021-02514-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fisunov GY, Evsyutina DV, Garanina IA, Arzamasov AA, Butenko IO, Altukhov IA, et al. Ribosome profiling reveals an adaptation strategy of reduced bacterium to acute stress. Biochimie. 2017;132:66–74. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2016.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Montero-Blay A, Miravet-Verde S, Lluch-Senar M, Piñero-Lambea C, Serrano L. SynMyco transposon: engineering transposon vectors for efficient transformation of minimal genomes. DNA Res. 2019;26(4):327–39. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsz012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Stipkovits L, Kempf I. Mycoplasmoses in poultry. Rev Sci Tech. 1996;15(4):1495–525. doi: 10.20506/rst.15.4.986 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bottinelli M, Stefani E, Matucci A, Dal Prà M, Capello K, Zotti A, et al. Isolation of Mycoplasma iowae in turkey flocks with skeletal abnormalities: a retrospective study. Avian Pathol. 2021;:1–8. doi: 10.1080/03079457.2021.1914816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pyörälä S, Baptiste KE, Catry B, van Duijkeren E, Greko C, Moreno MA, et al. Macrolides and lincosamides in cattle and pigs: use and development of antimicrobial resistance. Vet J. 2014;200(2):230–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Pereyre S, Goret J, Bébéar C. Mycoplasma pneumoniae: current knowledge on macrolide resistance and treatment. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:974. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Deekshit VK, Jazeela K, Chakraborty G, Rohit A, Chakraborty A, Karunasagar I. Mismatch amplification mutation assay-polymerase chain reaction: A method of detecting fluoroquinolone resistance mechanism in bacterial pathogens. Indian J Med Res. 2019;149(2):146–50. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_2091_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bebear CM, Renaudin J, Charron A, Renaudin H, de Barbeyrac B, Schaeverbeke T, et al. Mutations in the gyrA, parC, and parE genes associated with fluoroquinolone resistance in clinical isolates of Mycoplasma hominis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(4):954–6. doi: 10.1128/AAC.43.4.954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sato T, Okubo T, Usui M, Higuchi H, Tamura Y. Amino acid substitutions in GyrA and ParC are associated with fluoroquinolone resistance in Mycoplasma bovis isolates from Japanese dairy calves. J Vet Med Sci. 2013;75(8):1063–5. doi: 10.1292/jvms.12-0508 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lysnyansky I, Mikula I, Gerchman I, Levisohn S. Rapid detection of a point mutation in the parC gene associated with decreased susceptibility to fluoroquinolones in Mycoplasma bovis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(11):4911–4. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00703-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gautier-Bouchardon AV, Jaÿ M, Klose SM, Heuvelink A, Lysnyansky I, Gyuranecz M. MyMIC: a network for standardization of diagnostics, antimicrobial susceptibility testing and clinical interpretation in animal mycoplasmas. In: 24th Biennial congress of the international organization for mycoplasmology. Osaka, Japan, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Xie P, Zhang Y, Qin Y, Fang Y, Yang N, Bai Y, et al. Macrolide resistance in Mycoplasma pneumoniae in adult patients. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2025;15:1496521. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1496521 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lloréns-Rico V, Lluch-Senar M, Serrano L. Distinguishing between productive and abortive promoters using a random forest classifier in Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(7):3442–53. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Pribnow D. Nucleotide sequence of an RNA polymerase binding site at an early T7 promoter. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975;72(3):784–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.3.784 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Stefano JE, Gralla JD. Spacer mutations in the lac ps promoter. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982;79(4):1069–72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.79.4.1069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Weber S de S, Sant’Anna FH, Schrank IS. Unveiling Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae promoters: sequence definition and genomic distribution. DNA Res. 2012;19(2):103–15. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsr045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Fernández L, Hancock REW. Adaptive and mutational resistance: role of porins and efflux pumps in drug resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25(4):661–81. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00043-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Catania S, Bottinelli M, Fincato A, Tondo A, Matucci A, Nai G, et al. Pathogenic avian mycoplasmas show phenotypic differences in their biofilm forming ability compared to non-pathogenic species in vitro. Biofilm. 2024;7:100190. doi: 10.1016/j.bioflm.2024.100190 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Chih-Horng Kuo

2 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Kreizinger,

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 16 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

  • A 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Chih-Horng Kuo, Ph.D.

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 note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

This work was supported by the FK21 (137809) grant of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; the SA-27/2021 grant of the Eötvös Loránd Research Network; the Projects no. RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00001 and RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006 which have been implemented with the support provided by the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), financed under the National Recovery Fund budget estimate, RRF-2.3.1-21 funding scheme; and the support provided by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary (legal successor: Ministry of Culture and Innovation of Hungary) from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed under the TKP2021-EGA-01 funding scheme of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

This work was supported by the FK21 (137809) grant of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; the SA-27/2021 grant of the Eötvös Loránd Research Network; the Projects no. RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00001 and RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006 which have been implemented with the support provided by the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), financed under the National Recovery Fund budget estimate, RRF-2.3.1-21 funding scheme; and the support provided by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary (legal successor: Ministry of Culture and Innovation of Hungary) from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed under the TKP2021-EGA-01 funding scheme of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

This work was supported by the FK21 (137809) grant of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary; the SA-27/2021 grant of the Eötvös Loránd Research Network; the Projects no. RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00001 and RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006 which have been implemented with the support provided by the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), financed under the National Recovery Fund budget estimate, RRF-2.3.1-21 funding scheme; and the support provided by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary (legal successor: Ministry of Culture and Innovation of Hungary) from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed under the TKP2021-EGA-01 funding scheme of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Based on the expert reviewer’s detailed evaluation and my editorial assessment, I invite you to submit a major revision of this manuscript. The reviewer raised substantive concerns regarding the completeness and interpretation of resistance mechanisms, the lack of statistical support for genotype–phenotype associations, and the strength of conclusions drawn about efflux pump activity. As the handling editor with expertise in Mycoplasma genomics, I agree with these concerns and consider them important to address before further consideration.

Due to the timing of the review process, I am proceeding with a decision based on the review comments received to date. Additional expert input may be sought after revision, depending on the extent of the changes.

In particular, please ensure that the revised manuscript:

- Clarifies which resistance mechanisms were examined and explicitly discusses unexplained resistant phenotypes as limitations;

- Provides appropriate statistical support for SNP–MIC associations or clearly frames these analyses as descriptive;

- Moderates and qualifies conclusions regarding efflux pump involvement, taking into account the limitations of inhibitor-based assays;

- Aligns claims of novelty and diagnostic applicability with the scope and strength of the data.

The reviewer’s additional technical and minor comments should also be addressed in your revision.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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.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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This manuscript investigated mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Mycoplasma iowae using genomic and phenotypic approaches and developed molecular diagnostic tools for resistance detection. The authors analyzed genome sequences of 99 strains to identify SNPs associated with elevated MICs to fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines and macrolides; developed mismatch amplification mutation assays (MAMAs) for rapid detection of fluoroquinolone resistance markers; and evaluated the role of efflux pumps using efflux inhibitor assay, as well as explored potential regulatory regions of efflux pump genes using in silico analysis. This work provides molecular tools for fluoroquinolone resistance detection in M. iowae and demonstrates the involvement of active efflux pump in antimicrobial susceptibility in M. iowae, which fills an important knowledge gap.

Below are my comments/suggestions:

Major Concerns:

1. Incomplete results of resistance mechanisms

The genetic mechanisms associated with elevated MICs to tetracyclines are not shown, although searching for SNPs in 16S rRNA gene was mentioned in Materials and Methods. It would also be interesting to check other tetracycline resistance mechanisms, such as mobile genetic elements carrying tetracycline resistance genes (e.g. tetM, tetO) and mutations in ribosomal proteins in the 99 isolates. For macrolide resistance, only SNPs in 23S rRNA are presented while no results for ribosomal proteins L22 and L23 (should be L4?). There are 4 isolates with high MICs for macrolides/ lincomycin without alteration in position 2059 in 23S rRNA. This needs to be investigated.

2. Lack of statistical support of genotype–phenotype associations

The manuscript lacks statistical analysis (e.g., Fisher’s exact test or logistic regression) comparing MIC distributions between wild-type and mutant genotypes for gyrA, parC, and 23S rRNA.

3. Limited efflux pump functional validation

Efflux pump activity validation is based on the MIC reductions by inhibitors, particularly with orthovanadate. Reserpine was excluded from the evaluation due to no effects on growth with high dose. However, experiences from other organisms, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae, even with a very high lethal dose, low level of reserpine still could reduce the MICs of certain drugs like macrolides. It would be a good completion to have this done in M. iowae. Another concern is that there is no transcriptional (e.g., RT-qPCR or RNA-seq) or protein-level validation.

Minor Comments:

1. Abstract is long. Consider reducing the length and clarifying that MAMAs were developed only for fluoroquinolone resistance-associated SNPs.

2. Line 245: “and were aligned” should be deleted.

3. Clarify that the MAMA primers are allelic specific. The text contents in line 279-280 do not match the gyrA primers in Table 2: primer gyrA248-L is for genotype L (wild type, cytosine at 248, not adenine) and gyrA248-H is only for mutant strain carrying a thymine at 248 (not cytosine or adenine). There is no allelic specific primer for 248A.

4. According to Table 3, parC genotype L and H in a 1:1 mixed ratio (103:103) would be interpreted as L genotype. This will lead to false negative results for H genotype in application. This limitation should be discussed.

5. In Figure 2, include all six antimicrobials to make a whole view.

6. In Table S2, the 12 efflux pump gene names should be shown with their positions.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Apr 17;21(4):e0347345. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0347345.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


27 Feb 2026

Zsuzsa Kreizinger

HUN-REN Veterinary Medical Research Institute

Hungária krt. 21.

H-1143 Budapest, Hungary

Phone: +36 1 467 4060 Fax: +36 1 467 4076

E-mail: kreizinger.zsuzsa@vmri.hun-ren.hu

Chih-Horng Kuo

Academic Editor

PLOS One

27th February, 2026

Dear Chih-Horng Kuo,

We thank You and the Reviewer for Your e-mail on 3rd of January, 2026 and for Your careful evaluation of our manuscript” Identification and detection of genetic markers associated with antimicrobial susceptibility and evaluation of efflux pump mechanisms in Mycoplasma iowae” and for the constructive comments provided. The suggestions have significantly improved the clarity, and overall quality of the manuscript.

I. Response to Journal Requirements

1. Compliance with style requirements and file naming

We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript to ensure full compliance with the journal’s style and formatting requirements, including correct file naming conventions. Hopefully, all structural, formatting, and stylistic requirements have now been met.

2. Code sharing requirements

We fully agree with the journal’s policy regarding code transparency and reproducibility. In the revised version of the manuscript programs (Geneious, Promotech) were used according to the best practice that their developers recommend for sequence analyses, and online tools (Statistics Kingdom, https://www.socscistatistics.com/) were applied to perform the statistical analyses (logistic regression, Fisher’s exact test, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test), hence the codes are available at the corresponding references. Mutations were further subjected to manual review and categorization, without the use of any codes. The text has been modified (Lines 140-157, 240-245, 276-281, 284-291, 294-297, 386), and data used for the statistical analyses and the corresponding results are now available in Tables S3-S6.

3. Funding statement clarification

Thank you for this important clarification. We have now explicitly included the following statement in our Funding statement and cover letter:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

4. Funding information placement

We acknowledge the requirement that funding information must appear exclusively in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Accordingly, all funding-related text has been removed from the Acknowledgments. The amended Funding Statement has been included in the cover letter as requested. We respectfully request that the online submission form be updated accordingly.

5. “Data not shown” statement

We acknowledge that the phrase “data not shown” does not meet data sharing standards. All relevant data previously referred to as “data not shown” have now been included in the manuscript (Lines 357-358, 386-389, 508-509).

6. Citation of reviewer-recommended publications

We have carefully evaluated all suggested references. Relevant publications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript where appropriate (statistical analysis: citations No. 36-38; effect of reserpine in Mycoplasma pneumoniae: No. 54). In order to clarify nucleotide positions, the numbering has been given not only according to Escherichia coli, but according to the type strain of Mycoplasma iowae too, as recommended in the review of molecular assays for AMR detection by the MyMIC Consortium (citation No. 39; Lines 135-137, 159-160; Tables S1).

II. Additional Editor Comments

1. Clarification of resistance mechanisms and discussion of unexplained phenotypes

We have clarified in the Materials and Methods and Results sections which resistance mechanisms were examined, including SNP analyses and gene screening. Additionally, we have expanded the Discussion section to explicitly address resistant phenotypes that remain unexplained and have framed these as study limitations. We hope, that the need for further investigation of alternative mechanisms is now clearly acknowledged.

2. Statistical support for SNP–MIC associations

We agree that statistical support strengthens genotype–phenotype interpretation, even if the study first evaluated the nucleotide positions based on literature data about their previous association to resistance. The recommended statistical analyses (including Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression) have now been performed to evaluate SNP–MIC associations. The Results and Materials and Methods sections have been updated accordingly.

3. Moderation of conclusions regarding efflux pump involvement

The conclusions regarding efflux pump involvement have been carefully moderated. We now clearly state the limitations of inhibitor-based assays and avoid overinterpretation of efflux activity based solely on MIC reduction. The Discussion section has been revised to reflect a more cautious and evidence-based interpretation.

4. Alignment of novelty and diagnostic applicability claims

We have carefully revised statements regarding novelty and diagnostic applicability to ensure that they accurately reflect the scope and strength of the data. Claims have been moderated and better aligned with the evidence presented.

III. Reviewer’s Concerns

Major Concerns

1: Incomplete results of resistance mechanisms

We agree that a broader investigation of resistance mechanisms would strengthen the manuscript. However, as - to our knowledge – a first comprehensive investigation in this specific field, our intentions were to assess the presence of known mutations for target modification and develop diagnostic assays for their differentiation. However, Mycoplasma iowae proved to have very unique characteristics among the avian pathogen mycoplasmas, and in the absence of official standards in MIC testing in mycoplasmas, and the detected difference in MIC values in the different media, the description of new associations was beyond the scope of our aims. Thus, we completed our study with the inhibitor-based assay to assess the possibility of involvement of an efflux pump activity in the development of resistance.

Thank You for pointing out the search for tetracycline resistance-associated mutations without reported results. Since the examined strains showed only slightly elevated MIC values - equal or below 4 µg/ml in Oxoid media (the MIC values which were used for the association study) - they were all considered susceptible to oxytetracycline, therefore genetic markers were not searched in the corresponding regions, and accordingly the sentence has been deleted from the Materials and Methods (Lines 128-129, 139-140). For macrolide resistance, results of the analysis of ribosomal proteins (L4 and L22, corrected as appropriate) have now been included (Lines 298-300).

We agree that the findings of four isolates with elevated MICs lacking 23S rRNA position 2059 alterations warrant further investigations, which we now highlight in the discussion (Lines 454-458). As two of these strains were involved in the inhibitor-based assays in case of tilmicosin, we also discuss their phenotype changes caused by orthovanadate in Lines 522-526.

2: Lack of statistical support for genotype–phenotype associations

Following the Reviewer’s recommendations, statistical analyses (Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression) comparing MIC distributions between wild-type and mutant genotypes for gyrA, parC, and 23S rRNA have now been conducted. Statistical methods and results are described in the Materials and Methods and Results sections (Lines 140-157, 276-281, 284-291, 294-297), and data used for the statistical analyses and the corresponding results in details are now available in Tables S3-S6.

3: Limited efflux pump functional validation

We appreciate the valuable suggestions regarding the functional validation of efflux pump activity. Although we are not in the position to perform further experiments, such as the continuation of the studies with reserpine, and transcriptional or protein-level validation was beyond the scope of the current study, we now clearly acknowledge these limitations in the Discussion, and indicate them as important directions for future research. We have also explicitly discussed the limitations of inhibitor-based validation. (Lines 512-518, 528-530)

Minor Comments

Ad 1.

The Abstract has been shortened and streamlined (Lines 35-55). It now clearly states that MAMAs were developed specifically for fluoroquinolone resistance-associated SNPs (Lines 42-44, 53-54).

Ad 2.

The phrase “and were aligned” has been deleted as suggested (Line 262).

Ad 3.

In accordance with the Reviewer’s correction, the discrepancy between the text and Table 2 has been arranged. Primer specificities (including clarification that no allele-specific primer was designed for 248A) are now accurately described and results for the non-specific alleles are presented (Lines 320-329).

Ad 4.

We agree that the interpretation of mixed genotypes is an important practical limitation. The potential for false-negative detection of parC H genotype in mixed populations has now been explicitly discussed in the Discussion section (Lines 488-495).

Ad 5.

Figure 2 has been revised to include all six antimicrobials to provide a comprehensive overview. The figure now shows the log2 transformed MIC values of the antibiotics in Oxoid media, MolliScience, and MolliScience supplemented with sodium orthovanadate. The log2 transformed MIC values of the two-fold dilution series of antimicrobial concentrations are shown to normalize data distribution.

Ad 6.

Table S2 has been updated to include the genomic positions of the efflux pump genes according to the type strain of Mycoplasma iowae, and the text has been completed regarding how regions were analyzed and positions were identified (Lines 263-265). In addition, in order to clarify nucleotide positions in the whole manuscript, the numbering has been given not only according to Escherichia coli, but according to the type strain of Mycoplasma iowae too, as recommended in the review of molecular assays for AMR detection by the MyMIC Consortium (citation No. 39; Lines 135-137, 159-160, Tables S1).

We sincerely thank the Editor and Reviewer for their constructive and thoughtful evaluation. We believe that the revisions have significantly strengthened the scientific accuracy, clarity, and transparency of the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Zsuzsa Kreizinger

On behalf of all co-authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

pone.0347345.s008.docx (25.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Chih-Horng Kuo

16 Mar 2026

Dear Dr. Kreizinger,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

  • A 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Chih-Horng Kuo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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.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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The revised version has been significantly improved. There are only a few minor comments to be addressed:

1. Figure 2. Showing the MIC value bars in the negative direction for those less than 1 is somewhat strange. Maybe try to use a broken/split axis bar chart instead of using the log2 transformation.

2. One strain with A2059G mutation in 23S rRNA is susceptible to erythromycin. If this is not due to variant calling error, it would be interesting to provide an explanation.

3. The MAMA primer gyrA248-H specificity has been clarified to be only for C248T. The C248A information in M. iowae reference should be excluded also (lines 322, 468, 480, and table 3).

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Apr 17;21(4):e0347345. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0347345.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


30 Mar 2026

Zsuzsa Kreizinger

HUN-REN Veterinary Medical Research Institute

Hungária krt. 21.

H-1143 Budapest, Hungary

Phone: +36 1 467 4060 Fax: +36 1 467 4076

E-mail: kreizinger.zsuzsa@vmri.hun-ren.hu

Chih-Horng Kuo

Academic Editor

PLOS One

30th March, 2026

Dear Chih-Horng Kuo,

We thank You and the Reviewer for Your e-mail on 17th of March, 2026 and for Your careful evaluation of our manuscript” Identification and detection of genetic markers associated with antimicrobial susceptibility and evaluation of efflux pump mechanisms in Mycoplasma iowae” and for the constructive comments provided.

I. Response to Journal Requirements

Citations

We have carefully evaluated all suggested references during the previous revision, no new recommendations were added. Relevant publications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript where appropriate (statistical analysis: citations No. 36-38; effect of reserpine in Mycoplasma pneumoniae: No. 54). In order to clarify nucleotide positions, the numbering has been given not only according to Escherichia coli, but according to the type strain of Mycoplasma iowae too, as recommended in the review of molecular assays for AMR detection by the MyMIC Consortium (citation No. 39).

All statistical analyses were repeated or performed according to the first revision of the manuscript using the cited tools, therefore the previously cited software (R 4.3.3) has been eliminated from the citation list.

A full audit with publisher-level verification was conducted using ChatGPT to assess the reference list for retractions. This included checking direct sources (PubMed and official publisher pages) for retraction status, reviewing PubMed retraction flags, examining publisher platforms (Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Springer, Frontiers, PLoS), and performing Retraction Watch–type searches using title and author combinations. No retracted publications or linked retraction notices were identified in our reference list.

II. Reviewer’s Comments

Ad 1.

Figure 2 has been adjusted and now split axis is used instead of log2MIC bars to better visualize MIC values, the description of the figure has been corrected accordingly (Fig2, Lines 392, 396-397).

Ad 2.

In accordance with the Reviewer’s comment, we completed our discussion about unexplained resistant phenotypes as limitations with the unexplained susceptible phenotype in case of macrolides and lincomycin (Lines 455-457).

Ad 3.

According to the clarified MAMA specificity, the text has been corrected when the MAMA-targeted mutation was mentioned (Lines 322, Table 3). The discussion details examinations on the sequences and MIC values, not on the MAMA results, therefore in these cases, the “C248T/A” form was considered appropriate (Lines 469, 481). Nevertheless, the specificity of the gyrA-MAMA has been addressed in the discussion also (Lines 484-485).

We thank the Editor and Reviewer for their evaluation. We consider that the revisions have improved the scientific accuracy, clarity, and transparency of the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Zsuzsa Kreizinger

On behalf of all co-authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0347345.s009.docx (19.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Chih-Horng Kuo

31 Mar 2026

Identification and detection of genetic markers associated with antimicrobial susceptibility and evaluation of efflux pump mechanisms in Mycoplasma iowae

PONE-D-25-63087R2

Dear Dr. Kreizinger,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

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,

Chih-Horng Kuo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Chih-Horng Kuo

PONE-D-25-63087R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Kreizinger,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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. Chih-Horng Kuo

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Details of the 99 Mycoplasma iowae strains and the nsSPNPs in the gyrA, parC and 23S rRNA genes.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0347345.s001.xlsx (31.5KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. nsSNPs in potential efflux pump related genes and the initial MIC values of the six antibiotics, in the absence and presence of sodium orthovanadate.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0347345.s002.xlsx (29.7KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Data used for logistic regression and Fisher’s exact test to analyze associations among MIC values and genotypes in Mycoplasma iowae.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0347345.s003.xlsx (25.8KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. Data used for Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test to analyze the effect of sodium orthovanadate on MIC values against Mycoplasma iowae strains.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0347345.s004.xlsx (13.5KB, xlsx)
    S5 Table. Results of the logistic regression analysis and Fisher’s exact test regarding associations among MIC values and genotypes in Mycoplasma iowae.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0347345.s005.xlsx (15.8KB, xlsx)
    S6 Table. Results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test regarding the effect of sodium orthovanadate on MIC values against Mycoplasma iowae strains.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0347345.s006.xlsx (10.6KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    pone.0347345.s008.docx (25.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0347345.s009.docx (19.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All whole-genome sequence data are available from GenBank (BioProject ID: PRJNA975348, GenBank accession numbers: LR215023 and CP033512.2.1). All other relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES