Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Oct 6.
Published in final edited form as: J Infect. 2026 Jun 18;93(2):106800. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2026.106800

Multi-strain Clostridioides difficile infection: Increased detection and clinical implications

Mônica J Rodrigues-Jesus a, Maria LGS Morais a, Jae Hyun Shin b, Guruprasad V Konduru c, Katia Sol-Church d, Pankaj Kumar c, Deiziane VS Costa a, Cirle A Warren a,*
PMCID: PMC13637717  NIHMSID: NIHMS2204832  PMID: 42314992

Abstract

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is an antibiotic-associated diarrheal disease. Mixed infection has been previously reported. However, its clinical implications are not well defined. In this study, we evaluated the presence of multi-strain (MS) isolates in fecal specimens from patients diagnosed with CDI at a tertiary hospital in Virginia. C. difficile colonies (three per sample) were obtained from fecal specimen cultures (N=174) from patients diagnosed with CDI from April 2021 to February 2022. The toxin gene profile of each isolate was determined by PCR using specific primers for triose phosphate isomerase (tpi), toxin A (tcdA), toxin B (tcdB), binary toxin A (cdtA), and binary toxin B (cdtB). A subset of fecal specimens (n=62) with Ct values 25 for tcdB underwent total bacterial isolation in TCCFA and were processed for whole-genome shotgun sequencing. Based on the toxin gene profile of each isolate, MS infection was identified in 32.8% (57/174) of patients. Among all the isolates (N=522), tcdA+tcdB+cdtA−cdtB− (32.38%), tcdA+tcdB+cdtA+cdtB+ (32.18%), and tcdA+tcdB+cdtA+cdtB− (28.5%) were the most common toxin gene profiles identified. An analysis of clinical data of 160 patients showed that age, gender, recurrence, severity of disease, mortality, and being infected by a strain expressing the binary toxin gene did not distinguish between being infected by MS or SS (single strain). Among the MS cases (N=52), the presence of non-toxigenic strains decreased the risk of severe CDI (p=0.0098). Whole-genome shotgun sequencing analysis confirmed mixed infection in our cohort and identified that the C. difficile strains S-0352 (clade 1, ST2) and W0023a (clade 1, ST42) are the most common sequence types in MS and SS cases, respectively. Overall, our findings indicated a high prevalence of MS infection among C. difficile-infected patients, and a non-toxigenic C. difficile strain association with less severe disease in MS cases. These results suggest that specific strains may differentially predominate in MS or SS infection and that the presence of non-toxigenic C. difficile strains in MS infection influences disease severity. The impact of MS infection on the outcomes of anti-C. difficile treatments warrant further investigation.

Keywords: Multi-strains, Clostridioides difficile infection, Non-toxigenic strains, Severity of disease

Introduction

Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) is a gram-positive, anaerobic, spore-forming bacterium and the causative agent of C. difficile infection (CDI). C. difficile is the leading cause of hospital-associated diarrhea worldwide.1,2 Moreover, cases of community-acquired CDI have been increasing.3 In 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a higher incidence of community-acquired CDI cases (62.1 cases per 100,000 individuals) compared with healthcare-associated cases (54.0 cases per 100,000 individuals). In the United States of America (USA), CDI was responsible for a total of 216, 083 deaths between 1999 and 2023.4 In Europe, the incidence of CDI ranges from 1.49 to 4.1 per 10,000 patients/day,5,6 while in Asia, it is estimated that 5.3 episodes of CDI occur per 10,000 patients/ day.7 Patients experiencing a first episode of CDI can have a severe or non-severe disease.8 Moreover, 13.7–25% of patients who experience an initial episode of CDI develop recurrent disease,9–12 which is characterized by a new diarrhea episode with detection of the bacteria, within 2 to 8 weeks of completing treatment.13 Among those with recurrent disease, up to 45–65% will suffer from further multiple recurrences.9 The direct medical costs attributable to recurrent CDI range from $67,837 to $82,268 per patient/year.14

Different types of C. difficile strains can infect patients, each belonging to distinct clades with unique characteristics, virulence profiles, antimicrobial resistance, and toxin expression. The classification of C. difficile strains is often conducted using genomic sequencing typing, which divides isolates into five clades, clades 1 to 5, and PCR-based ribotyping.15 Geographically, ribotype distribution varies.15–17 In the USA, the most prevalent ribotypes of C. difficile are 027, 014/020, 106, 001, and 056, according to a multicenter observational surveillance study conducted in hospitals across the USA between 2011 and 2017.16 In Europe, a multicenter study revealed a diversity of C. difficile ribotypes, with predominance of 078, 126, 014, 181, and 027.15 In Asia, RT 017, followed by RTs 002, 018, and 014, are the most common circulating strains, according to a recent multicenter study of CDI conducted across countries in the Asia-Pacific region.17 These ribotypes may coexist in an individual host. Emerging evidence suggests that mixed infections with multiple strains of C. difficile may be more common than previously recognized and contribute to relapse.18 Some studies reported that around 16–78% of CDI second episodes are not caused by the primary strain.18–21 A longitudinal study performed with hospitalized patients in the USA found that mixed infections, which were characterized by the detection of more than one ribotype in fecal specimens, were higher in patients who later developed recurrence (11/14, 78.6%) in comparison to nonrecurrent patients (7/19, 36.8%).18

Multi-strain (MS) infections, also known as mixed infection, in patients with CDI are not well established. The clinical relevance and a better methodology to detect this multi-strain infection are still needed. Molecular strain characterization and antibiotic susceptibility studies have traditionally focused on a single isolated colony from clinical samples, with few investigations addressing the prevalence of mixed infections in patients with CDI disease and their impact on clinical outcomes. Here, we aimed to identify the occurrence of MS infections in fecal samples collected from adult patients using toxin gene profiling and to verify whether biological variables, clinical disease variables (severity and recurrence), and the presence of the binary toxin gene could influence their occurrence. In a subset of samples, we confirmed the presence of MS infections by whole-genome shotgun sequencing.

Material and Methods

Human fecal samples and clinical data collection

All fecal samples and experimental procedures involving human specimens were conducted after the University of Virginia (UVA) Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (IRB# 20813). For this study, a total of 174 fecal specimens from CDI-positive patients, obtained from the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory at the UVA Medical Center between April 2021 and February 2022 and stored at −20 °C, were analyzed. Samples were classified as positive based on the detection of C. difficile toxins (TcdA and TcdB) by ELISA and tcdB gene by PCR, which were performed by the UVA Clinical Microbiology Laboratory. Upon receipt, each fecal sample was divided into five 1 mL aliquots and stored at −20 °C for subsequent analyses. An initial screening to confirm the positivity of each sample was performed to detect the tcdB and cdtB genes using quantitative PCR (qPCR) on DNA extracted directly from 500 μL of stool. Samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values ≤32 were classified as positive. Melt curve analysis confirmed amplification specificity, with peak values matching those of the positive control (UK1, ribotype 027) for tcdB (75.00 °C ± 2) and cdtB (76.00 °C). Based on these criteria, all 174 samples (100%) tested positive for the tcdB gene, while 12 samples (6.9%) were positive for the cdtB gene.

From each fecal sample, three C. difficile colonies were randomly selected (one single colony from each quadrant) and subjected to two successive subcultures on taurocholate cycloserine-cefoxitin fructose agar (TCCFA) plates under anaerobic conditions (Fig. 1A). A random selection of colonies involves examining the entire culture plate to identify C. difficile colonies and collecting a single colony from three distinct quadrants. In TCCFA plates, C. difficile colonies appear flat, with an irregular shape, and gray or white color.22 This procedure yielded three clinical isolates per sample, resulting in a total of 522 isolates. C. difficile strains can differ at the genetic, toxigenic, phenotypic, and epidemiological levels. Among these, differences in toxin production represent a clinically relevant determinant, directly influencing virulence and disease severity.23,24 Bacterial DNA was extracted from each isolate, and qPCR was performed to detect five target genes: tpi (triose phosphate isomerase), tcdA, tcdB (toxins A and B), and cdtA/cdtB (genes codifying the binary toxin). For toxin gene profiles determination, isolates with a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤30 and a melt peak within ± 2 °C of the positive control were considered positive. Samples were classified as MS if more than one C. difficile toxin gene profile was identified among the three isolates. Samples were designated CDT+ (binary toxin genes positive) if at least one isolate carried both cdtA and cdtB.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Evaluation of multi-strain C. difficile in human stool samples through sequential isolation on TCCFA plates and qPCR analysis. (A) Isolation workflow for C. difficile. Fecal specimen aliquots were individually treated with alcohol, and pellets were plated on TCCFA plates (Isolation 0). From each plate, three colonies were randomly selected and subjected to two successive subcultures on TCCFA plates (Isolation 1 and Isolation 2). Following the final isolation, a single colony was cultured in BHIS broth. Aliquots from this culture were used for: (1) DNA extraction, (2) glycerol stock preparation, and (3) chopped meat broth (MB) stock preparation. (B) PCR screening for C. difficile toxin genes in isolates from stool specimens from 174 CDI-positive patients. Screening targeted tcdA and tcdB (toxins A and B) and binary toxin genes cdtA and cdtB (CDT+). Samples were considered positive for tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, or cdtB if at least one of the three isolates from the same specimen had a Ct value ≤30 and a melt curve peak within ± 2 °C of the positive control (C. difficile UK1, ribotype 027): tpi = 75.50 °C, tcdA = 76.50 °C, tcdB = 75.00 °C, cdtA = 75.50 °C, cdtB = 76.00 °C. MS: multi-strain; SS: single-strain.

Biological (age and gender) and clinical variables (severity, recurrence, and mortality in the last 6 months) from each patient were collected using the electronic medical record. Recurrence and severity were determined as previously described.10,13 Recurrent CDI case included patients diagnosed with a new episode of diarrhea (three or more loose or watery bowel movements within 24 h) with a positive toxin gene or antigen stool assay following an initial improvement of symptoms after treatment of a first episode of CDI (typically occurring 2–8 weeks later).25 Severe cases included patients with a white blood cell (WBC) count of > 15, 000 cells/mm3 or serum creatinine of 1.5 mg/dL.

Isolation of C. difficile from fecal samples

For C. difficile isolation, 500 μL aliquots of each fecal specimen were mixed with 500 μL of ethanol (alcohol shock) to reduce vegetative bacterial cells and enrich spores. The mixtures were incubated at room temperature for 1 h, centrifuged at 4,500 g for 10 min at 4 °C (Eppendorf 5810 R), and the supernatant was discarded. Pellets were resuspended in 500 μL of 1× PBS and stored at −20 °C for subsequent isolation procedures. Isolation of C. difficile was performed on TCCFA (taurocholate-cefoxitin-cycloserine-fructose agar) plates incubated at 37 °C under anaerobic conditions (85% N₂, 5% H₂, 10% CO₂; COY Vinyl Double, Coy Laboratory). Then, 100 μL of each homogenate was plated onto fresh TCCFA plates (Plate 0). After 48 h of incubation, three C. difficile colonies from each sample were randomly selected (one single colony for each quadrant) and streaked onto fresh TCCFA plates (Plate 1). This subculturing step was repeated once more (Plate 2). Following the final plating, a single isolated colony was inoculated into 5 mL of BHIS (Brain Heart Infusion) supplemented with l-cysteine (1 g/L) and vitamin K (1 mg/L), and incubated anaerobically at 37 °C for 24 h. Isolates were stored in 50% glycerol at −80 °C and in chopped meat broth (Anaerobe systems, AS-811) at room temperature. Additionally, a 1 mL aliquot of each culture was collected for DNA extraction and PCR analysis of the genes of interest.

DNA extraction from fecal samples

DNA extraction from fecal samples was performed using the QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (QIAGEN) and the automated QIAcube system following the manufacturer’s instructions (QIAGEN).

DNA extraction from C. difficile isolates

C. difficile genomic DNA from each isolate (1 mL aliquot of C. difficile clinical isolates grown in BHIS) was obtained as previously described.10

PCR detection of C. difficile toxin genes

Detection of tpi, tcdA, tcdB, cdtA (C. difficile binary toxin A), and cdtB (C. difficile binary toxin B), in DNA extracted from C. difficile clinical isolates or fecal samples was performed by PCR. Primer sequences are listed in Table S1. Each reaction was prepared in a final volume of 20 μL containing 2 μL of primer mix (5 μM each primer), 4 μL of nuclease-free water (Invitrogen), 10 μL of iTaq Universal SYBR® Green Supermix (Bio-Rad), and 4 μL of DNA template. PCR amplification was carried out on a CFX96 Real-Time System or CFX Connect Real-Time System (Bio-Rad) using the following conditions: initial denaturation at 95 °C for 5 min; 39 cycles of 95 °C for 5 s and 55 °C for 30 s; followed by a melt curve analysis from 55 °C for 5 s to 95 °C with 0.5 °C increments for 5 s. Samples were considered positive if the Ct value was ≤30 and the melt curve peak matched that of the positive control (UK1, ribotype 027) within ± 2 °C: tpi = 75.50 °C, tcdA = 76.50 °C, tcdB = 75.00 °C, cdtA = 75.50 °C, and cdtB = 76.00 °C.

Whole-genome shotgun sequencing of clinical isolates and analysis

Of the 174 fecal specimens used in our initial study, 62 fecal specimens were selected for bacterial whole-genome shotgun sequencing. Low Ct values (≤25) for the tcdB gene, which represent the most relevant CDI cases in terms of disease outcome,26,27 in fecal specimens was used as a criterion to select the samples. Strain UK1 (ribotype 027) served as the positive control, while a CDI-negative fecal sample was used as the negative control. To perform the sequencing of all the C. difficile strains present in each fecal specimen, 100 μL fecal samples submitted to alcohol shock (500 μL aliquots of each fecal specimen were mixed with 500 μL of ethanol, incubated at room temperature for 1 h, centrifuged at 4,500 g for 10 min at 4 °C, and the supernatant was discarded) were resuspended in 500 μL of PBS, plated on TCCFA and incubated anaerobically at 37 °C for 4 days. All resulting colonies were harvested by adding 1 mL of PBS, transferred to 1.5 mL microtubes, and centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 5 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was discarded, and pellets were stored at −20 °C. Genomic DNA was extracted using the QIAamp PowerFecal® Pro DNA Kit (QIAGEN) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Extracted genomic DNA was quantified and stored at −20 °C. Aliquots of 100 μL containing 10 ng/μL of DNA were prepared in TE buffer (Invitrogen, 12090–015) and submitted for sequencing at the Genome Analysis and Technology Core. Prior to library preparation, the purity and quality of DNA samples were checked using the Agilent TapeStation platform (D5000 HS). Illumina sequencing libraries were prepared using P3 XLEAP-SBS reagent kit (200 cycles) and sequenced on an Illumina NextSeq 500 machine with 150-base paired-end reads.

Methodology for strain level identification of C. difficile

We had an average 20 million reads per sample (range 10–40 million). The quality of raw sequence reads was examined using FastQC, and quality control (QC) reports were summarized using MultiQC. After reviewing the FastQC report, adapter contamination was identified, and the same was trimmed out using Cutadapt.28

For bacteria species characterization, we performed multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) analysis on metagenomic data using the program metaMLST (https://github.com/SegataLab/metamlst.git) by mapping reads against publicly available MLST housekeeping gene sequences of C. difficile (adk, atpA, dxr, glyA, recA, sodA, and tpi; 8,42 sequences), along with their ST information, which was retrieved from PubMLST (https://pubmlst.org). We created a metaMLST database by concatenating all seven-housekeeping gene FASTA files, adding ST information to the database, and generating a Bowtie2 index following the metaMLST protocol. Mapping was performed using Bowtie2 in local alignment mode.29 MetaMLST was then run on BAM files, followed by metaMLST-merge to assign sequence types (STs) based on housekeeping gene alleles identified in the samples.30

For strain-level identification of C. difficile, we used StrainGE, which identifies strains based on k-mer comparisons between reference genomes and sample data.31 A total of 177 C. difficile whole-genome sequences were retrieved from NCBI using the ncbi-genome-download tool, and a StrainGE database was constructed using the built-in database construction pipeline. The function “straingst kmerize” was used to generate k-mers for the reference genomes, followed by “straingst kmersim” to compute all-versus-all genome similarity using the Jaccard index. Genomes sharing ≥99% of k-mers with a Jaccard similarity ≥0.99 were grouped using “straingst cluster”, resulting in 94 representative genomes selected for building a pangenome database for the given genus and species using “straingst created”. The clustering step combines highly similar genomes into clusters and selects an optimal representative genome for each cluster, thereby minimizing redundancy in the resulting pangenome database.

Similarly, k-mers were generated for samples using “straingst kmerize”, and sample k-mers were compared against k-mers in the pangenome database to estimate strain-level relative abundance using “straingst run” in each sample. Sample-wise strain abundance profiles were then combined with sequence type (ST) information obtained from metaMLST analysis to annotate each sample with strain-level and ST assignments.

Statistical analysis

GraphPad Prism software 10.1.1 was used to perform all the statistical analyzes. The chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to assess associations between variables. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered to indicate significance.

Results

Characterization of the C. difficile isolates

Toxin gene profile analysis of the 174 specimens (three isolates from each sample) revealed a high prevalence of binary toxin positive (CDT+) samples: 71 (40.8%) were positive for both cdtA and cdtB. 57 (32.8%) of the specimens were MS, i.e., containing more than one infective strain (Fig. 1B). Notably, CDT+ prevalence was higher among MS samples (47.4%, 27 of 57) compared to single-strain (SS) samples (37.6%, 44 of 117) (Fig. 1B).

Nine distinct toxin gene profiles were identified among 522 C. difficile isolates from 174 fecal specimens (Fig. S1). The most prevalent profiles were tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA− cdtB− (32.38%, 169 isolates), tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA+ cdtB+ (32.18%, 168 isolates) and tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA+ cdtB− (28.50%, 149 isolates). Less frequent profiles included, tcdA− tcdB+ cdtA− cdtB− (3.26%, 17 isolates), tcdA− tcdB− cdtA− cdtB− (1.53%, 8 isolates), tcdA+ tcdB− cdtA− cdtB− (1.34%, 7 isolates), tcdA− tcdB+ cdtA+ cdtB− (0.38%, 2 isolates), tcdA− tcdB+ cdtA+ cdtB+ (0.19%, 1 isolate), and tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA− cdtB+ (0.19%, 1 isolate) (Fig. S1). Analysis of the three clinical isolates from each specimen revealed toxin gene profile diversity within samples, with MS detected in 57 specimens (32.8%). As shown in Fig. 2A, the most common toxin gene profile in MS samples were tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA+ cdtB− (41 specimens), tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA− cdtB− (30 specimens), and tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA+ cdtB+ (27 specimens). Notably, seven specimens from MS samples (P04, P17, P37, P97, P115, P157, P182) displayed the tcdA− tcdB− cdtA− cdtB− profile but were positive for the tpi gene, indicating that they were non-toxigenic C. difficile strains (Fig. 2A). The remaining 117 SS samples (Fig. 2B-C) exhibited five distinct toxin gene profiles. The most frequent were tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA+ cdtB+ (44 specimens), tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA− cdtB− (41 specimens), and tcdA+ tcdB+ cdtA+ cdtB− (28 specimens). The two less common profiles tcdA− tcdB+ cdtA− cdtB− and tcdA+ tcdB− cdtA− cdtB− were each found in two specimens (Fig. 2B-C).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Toxin gene profiles distribution of C. difficile clinical isolates. A total of 522 C. difficile isolates from 174 CDI-positive patients were analyzed in this study to identify the toxin genes carried by isolates from single-strain (SS) and multi-strain (MS) infections. Each isolate was subjected to qPCR using specific primers to the genes of interest (tpi, tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, and cdtB). Distribution of toxin gene profiles across the analyzed specimens. (A) Isolates from MS infections. (B-C) Isolates from SS infections. (A-C) The colors represent the number of strains identified in each fecal specimen (Black: 3 isolates; Dark green: 2 isolates; Light green: 1 isolate; White: no isolates).

Clinical correlations in C. difficile-infected patients with multi-strain infections

Next, we investigated associations between MS infections and biological (age and gender) or clinical variables (recurrence, disease severity, gender, and mortality) in patients with CDI. Among 174 fecal specimens collected, complete clinical data were available for only 160 patients. Among these patients, 52 (32.5%) exhibited MS, while 108 (67.5%) had SS infections. Interestingly, patients under 65 years of age showed a higher frequency of mixed infections (66.4%, 34/52, Table 1), although this difference was not significant.

Table 1.

Clinical data analysis among multi-strain (MS) and single-strain (SS) samples.

CDI positive patient characteristics from UVA Hospital (N= 160)

Summary characteristics Multi-strain (MS)a
n=52
% Single-strain (SS)b
n=108
(%) P=values
Age
≥ 65 18/52 34.6 46/108 42.6
< 65 34/52 66.4 62/108 57.4 P=0.3347
Recurrence
Recurrent 11/52 21.2 20/108 18.5
Nonrecurrent 41/52 78.8 88/108 81.5 P=0.6928
Severity
Severe 26/52 50.0 45/108 41.7
Non-severe 26/52 50.0 63/108 58.3 P=0.3204
Gender
Male 23/52 44.2 48/108 44.4
Female 29/52 55.8 60/108 55.6 P=0.9797
Death
Yes 7/52 13.5 16/108 14.9
No 45/52 86.5 92/108 85.1 P=0.8192
Binary+ (cdtA+/cdtB+)
Positive 23/52 44.2 40/108 37.0
Negative 29/52 55.8 68/108 63.0 P=0.3830
Non-toxigenic strains
(tcdA-/tcdB-/ cdtA-/cdtB-)
Yes 7/52 13.5 0/108 0.0 ***
No 45/52 86.5 108/108 100.0 P=0.0003
(a)

Specimens MS showed the presence of more than one toxin gene profile among 3 isolates.

(b)

Specimens SS showed only one toxin gene profile among the isolates. Chi-square test was used for all the analyses (exception: analysis on non-toxigenic strains, for which Fisher’s exact test was applied).

Non-toxigenic C. difficile strains were identified in 7 of 52 (13.5%) patients infected with MS strains (Table 1). Among the 7 unique cases of MS infections with at least one non-toxigenic C. difficile strain, the majority were patients who were more than 65 years old (5/7, 71.4%), female (4/7, 57%), first CDI cases (5/7, 71.4%), non-severe (7/7, 100%) and post-infection survivors (5/7, 71.4%). Comparing the presence of non-toxigenic C. difficile strains versus their absence in MS infections, we found that being infected with at least one non-toxigenic strain was more associated with less severe disease (P=0.0098) but did not distinguish recurrent cases or mortality outcome (Table 2).

Table 2.

Clinical impact of the presence of non-toxigenic strains in C. difficile-infected patients with MS infections.

CDI positive patients with Multi-strain (MS) infections (N= 52)

Summary characteristics Presence of non-toxigenic strains
n=7
% Absence of Non-toxigenic strains
n=45
(%) P=values
Recurrence
 Recurrent 2/7 28.6 9/45 20.0
 Nonrecurrent 5/7 71.4 36/45 80.0 P=0.6303
Severity
 Severe 0/7 0 26/45 57.8 **
 Non-severe 7/7 100.0 19/45 42.2 P=0.0098
Death
 Yes 2/7 28.6 5/45 11.1
 No 5/7 71.4 40/45 88.9 P=0.2346

Fisher’s exact test was applied.

No statistically significant differences were found between MS and SS groups for recurrence, disease severity, mortality, gender, or binary toxin presence (Table 1). However, some of these characteristics (recurrence, severe disease, female gender and presence of binary toxin genes) tended to be more frequent in MS cases: recurrent CDI was observed in 21.2% (11/52) of MS patients compared to 18.5% (20/108) of SS patients, severe CDI was identified in 50% (26/52) of MS versus 41.7% (45/108) of SS patients, females represented 55.8% (29/52) of MS cases versus 55.6% (60/108) in SS, and binary toxin positivity was detected in 44.2% (23/52) of MS versus 37.0% (40/108) of SS patients (Table 1).

DNA sequencing by whole-genome shotgun sequencing in enriched culture from 62 human fecal samples

Given that the analysis of only three independent clinical isolates cultured from fecal samples of CDI-positive patients may be insufficient in detecting MS in all fecal samples, we performed whole-genome shotgun sequencing in an enriched isolation culture system to validate our findings (Fig. 3A). Based on this technique, we evaluated 62 specimens exhibiting a Ct value ≤ 25 for tcdB, which represent the most clinically relevant cases.26,27 Sequencing analysis showed that 75.8% of the specimens (47/62) contained a single infecting strain (SS), whereas 24.2% (15/62) harbored MS. Similar to earlier data, a high prevalence of binary toxin genes (cdtA+/cdtB+) was observed in MS infection: 53.3% of MS (8/15) and 27.3% of SS samples (12/44) tested positive.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Bacterial DNA extraction and whole-genome shotgun sequencing for the detection of multiple C. difficile strains. The presence of SS (single-strain) or MS (multi-strain) in 62 human fecal samples with CDI diagnostic and low Ct value for tcdB gene (≤25), which represent the most clinically relevant samples, was assessed by whole-genome shotgun sequencing bacterial DNA extracted from fecal aliquots cultured anaerobically for 4 days on selective medium. (A) Workflow for bacterial DNA extraction from cultured fecal samples. (B) Identification of multi-strain (MS) and single-strain (SS) infections in fecal specimens based on whole-genome shotgun sequencing analysis (using StrainGE analysis for classification). *The percentage of SS infections containing a binary-positive strain was calculated using a total of 44 specimens, for which the identification of binary-positive or binary-negative status was well established.

Our whole-genome sequencing analysis revealed 27 distinct strains across the 62 fecal specimens evaluated, suggesting a high level of genetic heterogeneity. Among MS samples, the most frequent strain detected was Clos_difficile_S0352 (RT014, ST2 and clade 1) 32 and Clos_difficile_Cd10 (ribotype and clade not defined) found in 33.3% (5/15) and 20% (3/15) of MS specimens, respectively (Fig. 4A). In SS samples, Clos_difficile_W0023a (ST42, clade 1) 33 and Clos_difficile_S0253 (RT002, ST8, clade 1)32 were the predominant strains detected, corresponding to 21.3% (10/47) and 10.6% (5/47), respectively (Fig. 4B).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Frequency of C. difficile strains identified in human fecal samples. Whole-genome shotgun sequencing was used to identify C. difficile strains in the fecal samples (N=62) from patients with MS infections (n= 15) and SS infections (n=47). (A) Strain frequency in samples containing more than one C. difficile strain (MS infections). (B) Strain frequency in samples containing a single C. difficile strain (SS infection).

Among these 62 specimens, a complete clinical dataset was available for 58 patients. Among these 58 patients, 22.4% (13/58) had MS infection and 77.5% (45/58) had SS infection. In this cohort, being infected with a C. difficile strain expressing binary toxin genes trended to be higher in MS (53.8%, 7/13) infection than SS (27.9%, 12/43) infection (p= 0.0835, Table 3). Of note, all MS infections carrying a C. difficile strain positive for binary toxin gene were followed by a binary negative C. difficile strain. Despite no differences between mixed infection and SS infection, mortality was not reported on those patients with MS infection. Whereas 13.3% of patients with SS infections died post-CDI (Table 3).

Table 3.

Clinical data analysis among sequenced multi-strain (MS) and single-strain (SS) samples.

Patients with complete clinical dataset (N= 58)

Summary characteristics Multi-strain (MS)a
n=13
% Singlestrain (ss)b
n=45
(%) P=values
Age c
≥ 65 6/13 46.2 19/45 42.2
< 65 7/13 53.8 26/45 57.8 P=0.8009
Recurrence d
Recurrent 3/13 23.1 11/45 24.4
Nonrecurrent 10/13 76.9 34/45 75.6 P=0.9999
Severity d
Severe 4/13 30.8 15/45 33.3
Non-severe 9/13 69.2 30/45 66.7 P=0.9999
Gender d
Male 4/13 30.8 23/45 51.1
Female 9/13 69.2 22/45 48.9 P=0.2248
Death d
Yes 0/13 0.0 6/45 13.3
No 13/13 100.0 39/45 86.7 P=0.3205
Binary+ (cdtA+/cdtB+) c
Positive 7/13 53.8 12/43* 27.9
Negative 6/13 46.2 31/43* 72.1 P=0.0835
(a)

Specimens MS showed the presence of more than one C. difficile strain by using StrainGE.

(b)

Specimens SS showed only one C. difficile strain by using StrainGE.

(c)

Chi-square test or

(d)

Fisher’s exact test was applied.

*

Binary toxin gene classification is available only for 43 strains present in this study.

Overall, our whole-genome shotgun sequencing data validated the presence of MS infection and identified which strains are potentially causing disease in our small cohort.

Discussion

In our cohort, we found that 32.8% of patients with CDI exhibit MS infection, as determined by toxin gene profiles using qPCR from single C. difficile isolates (three isolates per specimen). In fecal specimens with low Ct values for the tcdB gene, which indicate a higher infection burden, we identified 24.2% of MS infections using StrainGE classification in our whole-genome shotgun sequencing dataset of all recovered C. difficile colonies from each fecal specimen. Although MS CDI did not impact recurrence, disease severity and mortality, in the mixed infections cohort, colonization by a non-toxigenic C. difficile strain was more commonly associated with non-severe cases. In addition, whole-genome shotgun sequencing allowed us to identify distinct sequence types among patients infected with SS versus MS, with strains W0023a (ST42, clade 1) and S-0352 (ST2, clade 1) being the most prevalent in each group, respectively.

While we found a 32.8% prevalence of mixed infection in CDI patients, a higher prevalence of MS infection (59%) has been previously reported in C. difficile-infected patients receiving care in a hospital setting in Michigan/USA.18 Seekatz et al. 18 isolated 40 colonies from each fecal specimen and used PCR-ribotyping to determine mixed infections. Despite using a large number of isolates (ranging from 6 to 93) from each stool sample and PCR-ribotyping and/or MLST typing to identify C. difficile strains and determine mixed infections in the cohort, other studies have reported a low prevalence of 8% to 17%.20,34 Although these previous studies have used the same PCR-ribotyping method to confirm the presence of MS, variability in how colonies were selected may have contributed to the reported prevalence. Although most studies reporting the possibility of MS infection in CDI were published more recently, the presence of MS was first described in 1983 by Borriello and Honour,35 who reported the coexistence of cytotoxigenic and non-cytotoxigenic C. difficile strains in the same stool samples from six patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhea and one with non-antibiotic-related diarrhea.35

In our study, recurrence was not significantly higher in mixed infections (21.2%) than in SS infections (18.5%). The study performed in Michigan/USA found a considerably high rate of mixed infections (71%) among patients who developed recurrence compared to nonrecurrent cases (46.2%).18 A smaller cohort study including 23 patients identified MS infection in 4 patients, of whom half relapsed.36 Overall, mixed infection appeared to be associated with recurrence, which is a major concern in patients recovering from CDI. The underlying mechanisms of recurrences in MS infections may likely be multifactorial, including potential presence of strains with propensity to hyper-sporulation,37 variable susceptibility to antibiotics used for treatment,38 inadequate antibody response to certain strains,39 delays in host microbial or metabolic recovery and others that are yet to be proven in infection models and human studies. Interestingly, we found that the presence of a non-toxigenic strain appears to be protective against recurrence, consistent with the known beneficial effect of specific non-toxigenic strain in CDI.40 Given that this association is currently limited to C. difficile-infected patients in the USA, the worldwide significance of mixed infection remains unclear.

Here, we did not find any association between mixed infection and biological variables (age and gender), disease severity, or mortality. Similarly, a previous study performed in a hospital in China did not find an association between MS infections and gender or variables that can impact disease severity (blood leukocyte count, serum creatinine, and albumin levels).34 However, Zhang et al.34 found that age up to 60 years and the presence of ulcerative colitis were risk factors for mixed CDI. In our study, age, which is a major risk factor for CDI severity, was not pointed out as a driver for MS infections. It is possible that certain underlying host conditions or the intestinal milieu are more prone to colonization by multiple C. difficile strains. However, more longitudinal prospective studies are needed to better define risk factors and avoid misinterpretations due to differences in populations and timelines.

Interestingly, we detected non-toxigenic strains in mixed infections but not in SS infections. In addition, the presence of a non-toxigenic strain in patients with MS infections was associated with better outcomes, including non-severe disease and fewer recurrent cases. In accordance with our findings, a previous study conducted in China showed that hospitalized patients colonized with non-toxigenic C. difficile strains were more likely to present a non-severe disease and decreased the risk of CDI development within 90 days.41 It is possible that the presence of non-toxigenic C. difficile strains in MS infections is linked to less severe disease through a strain-competition mechanism resulting to prevention of colonization and/or expression of virulence by a toxigenic strain. Indeed, colonization with a non-toxigenic strain, NTCD-M3, prevented recurrent CDI in a phase 2 randomized controlled trial.42

Our whole-genome shotgun sequencing dataset confirmed the presence of MS infections in our cohort. Further, we identified that S-0352, a ST2 type strain belonging to ribotype 014 and clade 1 32, was the most prevalent strain in mixed infection cases. The ST2/RT014 strain is one of the more common strains found in many Asian countries, Australia,17 and the United States 43, occurring in both community-acquired cases and hospital settings. RT014 has been associated with interspecies transmission and is characterized by a large open pan-genome, numerous prophages, and clinically important antimicrobial resistance elements.44 In SS infections, we identified W0023a, a ST42 type strain belonging to ribotype 106 and clade 1,33 as the most frequent strain. Clinically, infections by RT014 are more likely to be associated with less severe disease than infections by RT106 strains.45 It is yet unclear if SS infections tend to be of more virulent strains that may have outcompeted others.

Additionally, within this small group of CDI cases with higher pathogen loads in fecal samples, we observed higher rates of binary-positive strains in MS infections than in SS infections. CDI cases associated with strains producing binary toxins may result in poorer outcomes due to the heightened virulence of these strains.46,47 Nonetheless, in this cohort, all patients with MS infections survived after CDI. Since every MS infection with binary-positive strains was followed by a binary-negative strain, it is possible that competition between strains reduces the virulence of binary-positive strains, a hypothesis that warrants further research.

Our study is limited by the use of toxin gene profiles to distinguish strains that share identical or highly similar characteristics, potentially leading to missed cases of MS infections. However, we have shown that even with selection of only three distinct isolates in the culture plate (something that can be performed by clinical laboratories), MS infection has already been detected and confirmed by sequencing all colonies in a subset of specimens. Toxin gene profiling of all colonies that grow on a culture plate will be labor-intensive in the current state of clinical laboratories. Future potential alternative methods are high-throughput culture-based and direct DNA sequencing techniques applied to clinical specimens, methods that remain costly and inaccessible for most clinical laboratories as these would require specialized equipment or sending out to research or commercial laboratories with these capabilities. Another important limitation of our study is the lack of granular data on comorbidities, diet, antibiotic exposure, medications, prior healthcare exposure, other medical/surgical interventions, functional abilities, and numerous other clinical factors, as well as intestinal microbiota or metabolic profiles that may influence infection outcomes. A large, longitudinal, prospective study potentially aided by machine learning would be needed to identify all variables of interest in MS infection and SS infection. Future investigations are also needed to determine the impact of MS infection across multiple recurrences, the transmission of genes related to antimicrobial resistance, and the response to therapies such as antimicrobial agents and live biotherapeutic product transplantation.

In conclusion, our findings indicate that MS infection is highly prevalent among patients with CDI. Toxin gene profiles of three different isolates from each fecal specimen, as well as whole-genome shotgun sequencing, are powerful tools to detect mixed infection. There may be specific strains with propensity to be in MS versus SS infections. MS infections containing a non-toxigenic C. difficile strain appear to be more likely to result in better clinical outcomes.

Supplementary Material

1
2

Acknowledgments

We want to thank the Biorepository and Tissue Research Facility, which is supported by the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Research Resource Identifiers (RRID): SCR_022971, for helping with DNA extraction of samples submitted to sequencing. In addition, we would like to thank the Genome Analysis and Technology Core, which is supported by the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Research Resource Identifiers (RRID): SCR_018883, for performing the library preparation and whole-genome shotgun sequencing. Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and graphical abstract were created by using BioRender.

Funding

CAW is partially supported by NIH AI145322.

Appendix A. Supporting information

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2026.106800.

Footnotes

CRediT authorship contribution statement

M.J.R-J.-collected samples, helped in conceiving and designing the experiments, performed all the experiments, analyzed the data, interpreted the results, and wrote the manuscript. M.L.G.S.M.-draft the introduction and discussion. J.H.S.-helped acquire clinical data. K.S.C. -contributed to the conception and planning of the specimen processing. G. V. K. and P. K.-analyzed the whole-genome shotgun sequencing dataset. D.V.S.C.-collected samples, helped in some experiments, and edited the manuscript. C.A.W. conceived and designed the experiments, supervised the study, obtained funding, interpreted the results, and edited the manuscript.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

All data and details are provided in the manuscript and supplementary materials. For additional questions regarding data, analytical methods and study materials, please reach out to the corresponding author.

References

  • 1.Turner NA, Krishnan J, Nelson A, Polage CR, Sinkowitz-Cochran RL, Fike L, et al. CDC’s hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile prevention framework in a regional hospital network. JAMA Netw Open 2024;7:243846. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3846 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Xia J, Liu T, Wan R, Zhang J, Fu Q. Global burden and trends of the Clostridioides difficile infection-associated diseases from 1990 to 2021: an observational trend study. Ann Med 2025;57:2451762. 10.1080/07853890.2025.2451762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Guh AY, Mu Y, Winston LG, Johnston H, Olson D, Farley MM, et al. Trends in U.S. burden of Clostridioides difficile Infection and outcomes. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1320–30. 10.1056/NEJMoa1910215 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mohib K, Hussain F, Ali B, Munir SU, Ahmed H, Mehmood AT, et al. Demographic and regional trends in Clostridioides difficile-related mortality among adults in the United States from 1999 to 2023. Am J Infect Control 2026;54:260–6. 10.1016/j.ajic.2025.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jazmati N, Mischnik A, Kern WV, Behnke M, Chakraborty T, Dinkelacker A, et al. Occurrence and trends of Clostridioides difficile infections in hospitalized patients: a prospective multi-centre cohort study in six German university hospitals, 2016–2020. J Hosp Infect 2024;151:161–72. 10.1016/j.jhin.2024.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Viprey VF, Granata G, Vendrik K, Davis GL, Petrosillo N, Kuijper EJ, et al. European survey on the current surveillance practices, management guidelines, treatment pathways and heterogeneity of testing of Clostridioides difficile, 2018–2019: results from The Combatting Bacterial Resistance in Europe CDI (COMBACTE-CDI). J Hosp Infect 2023;131:213–20. 10.1016/j.jhin.2022.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Borren NZ, Ghadermarzi S, Hutfless S, Ananthakrishnan AN. The emergence of Clostridium difficile infection in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence and impact. PLoS One 2017;12:0176797. 10.1371/journal.pone.0176797 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bishop EJ, Tiruvoipati R. Management of Clostridioides difficile infection in adults and challenges in clinical practice: review and comparison of current IDSA/SHEA, ESCMID and ASID guidelines. J Antimicrob Chemother 2022;78:21–30. 10.1093/jac/dkac404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Guh AY, Li R, Korhonen L, Winston LG, Parker E, Czaja CA, et al. Characteristics of patients with initial Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI) that are associated with increased risk of multiple CDI recurrences. Open Forum Infect Dis 2024;11(127):ofae127. 10.1093/ofid/ofae127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Costa D, Pham N, Hays RA, Bolick DT, Goldbeck SM, Poulter MD, et al. Influence of binary toxin gene detection and decreased susceptibility to antibiotics among Clostridioides difficile strains on disease severity: a single-center study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2022;66(0048922):e0048922. 10.1128/aac.00489-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yokoyama Y, Shiota A, Asai N, Koizumi Y, Yamagishi Y, Sakanashi D, et al. Risk factors of first recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection. Anaerobe 2022;75(102556):102556. 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2022.102556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Alrahmany D, Ereshefsky BJ, El Nekidy WS, Harb G, Pontiggia L, Ghazi IM. Risk factors for recurrence of Clostridioides difficile in hospitalized patients. J Infect Public Health 2021;14:1642–9. 10.1016/j.jiph.2021.09.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Johnson S, Lavergne V, Skinner AM, Gonzales-Luna AJ, Garey KW, Kelly CP, et al. Clinical practice guideline by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA): 2021 focused update guidelines on management of Clostridioides difficile infection in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2021;73:755–7. 10.1093/cid/ciab718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Reveles KR, Yang M, Garcia-Horton V, Edwards ML, Guo A, Lodise T, et al. Economic impact of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection in the USA: a systematic literature review and cost synthesis. Adv Ther 2023;40:3104–34. 10.1007/s12325-023-02498-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Maja R, Viprey V, Janezic S, Tkalec V, Davis G, Sente B, et al. Distribution of Clostridioides difficile ribotypes and sequence types across humans, animals and food in thirteen European countries. Emerg Microbes Infect 2024;13:2427804. 10.1080/22221751.2024.2427804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tickler IA, Obradovich AE, Goering RV, Fang FC, Tenover FC, HAI C. Changes in molecular epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile strains in the United States between 2011 and 2017. Anaerobe 2019;60(102050):102050. 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2019.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Collins DA, Sohn KM, Wu Y, Ouchi K, Ishii Y, Elliott B, et al. Clostridioides difficile infection in the Asia-Pacific region. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020;9:42–52. 10.1080/22221751.2019.1702480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Seekatz AM, Wolfrum E, DeWald CM, Putler R, Vendrov KC, Rao K, et al. Presence of multiple Clostridium difficile strains at primary infection is associated with development of recurrent disease. Anaerobe 2018;53:74–81. 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.05.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Oka K, Osaki T, Hanawa T, Kurata S, Okazaki M, Manzoku T, et al. Molecular and microbiological characterization of Clostridium difficile isolates from single, relapse, and reinfection cases. J Clin Microbiol 2012;50:915–21. 10.1128/JCM.05588-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Behroozian AA, Chludzinski JP, Lo ES, Ewing SA, Waslawski S, Newton DW, et al. Detection of mixed populations of Clostridium difficile from symptomatic patients using capillary-based polymerase chain reaction ribotyping. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:961–6. 10.1086/671728 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Barbut F, Richard A, Hamadi K, Chomette V, Burghoffer B, Petit JC. Epidemiology of recurrences or reinfections of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:2386–8. 10.1128/JCM.38.6.2386-2388.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Edwards AN, Suarez JM, McBride SM. Culturing and maintaining Clostridium difficile in an anaerobic environment. J Vis Exp 2013;79:50787. 10.3791/50787. e50787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kordus SL, Thomas AK, Lacy DB. Clostridioides difficile toxins: mechanisms of action and antitoxin therapeutics. Nat Rev Microbiol 2022;20:285–98. 10.1038/s41579-021-00660-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martinez-Melendez A, Cruz-Lopez F, Morfin-Otero R, Maldonado-Garza HJ, Garza-Gonzalez E. An Update on Clostridioides difficile Binary Toxin. Toxins 2022;14:305–17. 10.3390/toxins14050305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.McDonald LC, Gerding DN, Johnson S, Bakken JS, Carroll KC, Coffin SE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis 2018;66:987–94. 10.1093/cid/ciy149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Madden GR, Rigo I, Boone R, Abhyankar MM, Young MK, Basener W, et al. Novel biomarkers, including tcdB PCR cycle threshold, for predicting recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection. Infect Immun 2023;91(0009223):e0009223. 10.1128/iai.00092-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ugur M, Cetin S. The clinical significance of real-time PCR Cycle Threshold (Ct) values in Clostridioides difficile infection. Anaerobe 2026;98:103049. 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2026.103049. 103049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Martin M Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnetjournal 2011;17:10–2. 10.14806/ej.17.1.200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Langdon WB. Performance of genetic programming optimised Bowtie2 on genome comparison and analytic testing (GCAT) benchmarks. BioData Min 2015;8(1):1. 10.1186/s13040-014-0034-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zolfo M, Tett A, Jousson O, Donati C, Segata N. MetaMLST: multi-locus strain-level bacterial typing from metagenomic samples. Nucleic Acids Res 2017;45:7. 10.1093/nar/gkw837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.van Dijk LR, Walker BJ, Straub TJ, Worby CJ, Grote A, Schreiber HL, et al. StrainGE: a toolkit to track and characterize low-abundance strains in complex microbial communities. Genome Biol 2022;23:74. 10.1186/s13059-022-02630-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.O’Grady K, Riley TV, Knight DR. Complete genome assemblies of three highly prevalent, toxigenic Clostridioides difficile strains causing health care-associated infections in Australia. Microbiol Resour Announc 2021;10(0059921):e0059921. 10.1128/MRA.00599-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yin C, Chen DS, Zhuge J, McKenna D, Sagurton J, Wang G, et al. Complete genome sequences of four toxigenic Clostridium difficile clinical isolates from patients of the lower Hudson Valley, New York, USA. Genome Announc 2018;6:1–2. 10.1128/genomeA.01537-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhang Y, Yang J, Wei H, Wang J, Qin P, Li Q, et al. The analysis of the epidemic status and risk factors associated with different genotypes Clostridioides difficile mixed infection. BMC Microbiol 2025;25:453. 10.1186/s12866-025-04182-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Borriello SP, Honour P. Concomitance of cytotoxigenic and non-cytotoxigenic Clostridium difficile in stool specimens. J Clin Microbiol 1983;18:1006–7. 10.1128/jcm.18.4.1006-1007.1983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.van den Berg RJ, Ameen HA, Furusawa T, Claas EC, van der Vorm ER, Kuijper EJ. Coexistence of multiple PCR-ribotype strains of Clostridium difficile in faecal samples limits epidemiological studies. J Med Microbiol 2005;54:173–9. 10.1099/jmm.0.45825-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kempher ML, Morris SC, Shadid TM, Menon SK, Ballard JD, West AH. Response regulator CD1688 is a negative modulator of sporulation in Clostridioides difficile. J Bacteriol 2022;204(0013022):e0013022. 10.1128/jb.00130-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wieczorkiewicz JT, Skinner AM, Cheknis A, Petrella LA, Stevens VW, Wright LM, et al. Epidemiology of Clostridioides difficile infection at one hospital 10 years after an outbreak of the epidemic C. difficile strain BI/027: changing strain prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibilities, and patient antibiotic exposures. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2024;68(0069824):e0069824. 10.1128/aac.00698-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Abt MC, McKenney PT, Pamer EG. Clostridium difficile colitis: pathogenesis and host defence. Nat Rev Microbiol 2016;14:609–20. 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gerding DN, Sambol SP, Johnson S. Non-toxigenic Clostridioides (Formerly Clostridium) difficile for Prevention of C. difficile Infection: from bench to bedside back to bench and back to bedside. Front Microbiol 2018;9:1700. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jeon CH, Kim SH, Wi YM. Prevalence of non-toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in diarrhoea patients and their clinical characteristics. Antibiotics 2023;12:1360–70. 10.3390/antibiotics12091360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gerding DN, Meyer T, Lee C, Cohen SH, Murthy UK, Poirier A, et al. Administration of spores of nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile strain M3 for prevention of recurrent C. difficile infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015;313:1719–27. 10.1001/jama.2015.3725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Miles-Jay A, Snitkin ES, Lin MY, Shimasaki T, Schoeny M, Fukuda C, et al. Longitudinal genomic surveillance of carriage and transmission of Clostridioides difficile in an intensive care unit. Nat Med 2023;29:2526–34. 10.1038/s41591-023-02549-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Knight DR, Squire MM, Collins DA, Riley TV. Genome analysis of Clostridium difficile PCR Ribotype 014 Lineage in Australian pigs and humans reveals a diverse genetic repertoire and signatures of long-range interspecies transmission. Front Microbiol 2016;7(2138):2138. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.02138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Almutairi MS, Gonzales-Luna AJ, Alnezary FS, Fallatah SB, Alam MJ, Begum K, et al. Comparative clinical outcomes evaluation of hospitalized patients infected with Clostridioides difficile ribotype 106 vs. other toxigenic strains. Anaerobe 2021;72(102440):102440. 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2021.102440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Carlson TJ, Endres BT, Le Pham J, Gonzales-Luna AJ, Alnezary FS, Nebo K, et al. Eosinopenia and binary toxin increase mortality in hospitalized patients with Clostridioides difficile Infection. Open Forum Infect Dis 2020;7:ofz552. 10.1093/ofid/ofz552 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.López-Cárdenas S, Torres-Martos E, Mora-Delgado J, Sánchez-Calvo JM, Santos-Peña M, Zapata López Á, et al. The prognostic value of toxin B and binary toxin in Clostridioides difficile infection. Gut Microbes 2021;13(1884516):1884516. 10.1080/19490976.2021.1884516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

1
2

Data Availability Statement

All data and details are provided in the manuscript and supplementary materials. For additional questions regarding data, analytical methods and study materials, please reach out to the corresponding author.

RESOURCES