Skip to main content
The Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases & Medical Microbiology = Journal Canadien des Maladies Infectieuses et de la Microbiologie Médicale logoLink to The Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases & Medical Microbiology = Journal Canadien des Maladies Infectieuses et de la Microbiologie Médicale
. 2019 Dec 24;2019:7127850. doi: 10.1155/2019/7127850

Virulence Factors of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile Linked to Recurrent Infections

Laura Tijerina-Rodríguez 1, Licet Villarreal-Treviño 1, Rayo Morfín-Otero 2, Adrián Camacho-Ortíz 3, E Garza-González 3,
PMCID: PMC6942709  PMID: 31933709

Abstract

From 20 to 30% of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI), patients might develop recurrence of the infection (RCDI) and, after the first recurrence, the risk of further episodes increases up to 60%. Several bacterial virulence factors have been associated with RCDI, including the elevated production of toxins A and B, the presence of a binary toxin CDT, and mutations in the negative regulator of toxin expression, tcdC. Additional factors have shown to regulate toxin production and virulence in C. difficile in RCDI, including the accessory-gene regulator agr, which acts as a positive switch for toxin transcription. Furthermore, adhesion and motility-associated factors, such as Cwp84, SlpA, and flagella, have shown to increase the adhesion efficiency to host epithelia, cell internalization, and the formation of biofilm. Finally, biofilm confers to C. difficile protection from antibiotics and acts as a reservoir for spores that allow the persistence of the infection in the host. In this review, we describe the key virulence factors of C. difficile that have been associated with recurrent infections.

1. Introduction

Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea worldwide. In 2011, increased CDI was reported in the United States by the Centers for Disease Control with an estimated 453 000 infections (83 000 had at least one recurrence) and 29 000 deaths [1].

CDI severity has increased in the last decade with outbreaks in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong, and some countries of Latin America. This increased severity has been coincident with the spread of the epidemic strain designated as North American Pulsed (NAP)-field type 01, restriction endonuclease analysis (REA) as group BI, (BI/RT-027/BI), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ribotype (RT) 027 (NAP1/BI/027) [28].

From 2008 to 2014, CDI cases declined considerably in the United Kingdom, from 55,498 to 13,361, as a result of a surveillance scheme implemented by the National Health Service, including antibiotic stewardship, improvement protocols for infection control in hospitals, and the creation of the C. difficile ribotyping network in aims to prevent CDI transmission and control epidemic strains [913].

However, CDI is not only of worldwide concern due to ribotype 027 but also due to the emergence of other virulent strains, including ribotypes 027, 078, 001, 176, 020, 002, and 106, in many populations [1, 1417].

2. Recurrence of CDI

Primary CDI is predominantly treated with standard antibiotic therapy, including metronidazole, vancomycin, and fidaxomicin, the more recently FDA-approved drug, depending on severity [18]. Nevertheless, 20–35% of patients may develop the recurrence of symptoms, which is defined as a recurrent infection (RCDI) [1923]. After the first recurrent episode, patients are more likely to have subsequent recurrences, and by the third episode, risk of recurrence can reach 60% [24, 25]. Several studies have evaluated administration of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin and metronidazole for RCDI patients, with lower recurrent episodes and fewer deaths for fidaxomicin [18, 26, 27].

3. Relapse and Reinfection

RCDI may occur due to relapse, defined as the persistence of the same strain causing the initial infection, or reinfection, defined as the acquisition of a genotypically distinct C. difficile strain from an exogenous source [28]. Furthermore, patients with ribotype 027 strains present a higher risk of relapse than those with other ribotypes [7].

4. Ribotypes Associated with Relapse or Reinfection

The glycosylating toxins, toxin A (TcdA) and toxin B (TcdB), are primarily responsible for the symptoms associated with CDI and are the key mediators of pathogenesis [29]. These toxins have been shown to bind to the cell surface and translocate to the cytosol of the host epithelial cells where they glycosylate and inactivate important GTPases (including Rho, Rac, and Cdc42), leading to actin cytoskeleton alternations, cell rounding, apoptosis, and cell death [30, 31].

Several studies have shown elevated sporulation rates in epidemic strains, including the hypervirulent NAP1/BI/027 strain [32]. Also, these strains have been found to contain increased levels of toxins, which are associated with deletions in the toxin negative regulator tcdC (18 bp and 39 bp deletions for the 027 and 078 strains, respectively) in in vitro models [33, 34]. However, in more complex models, the 027 strain has been shown to have a longer growth cycle, where toxin production starts slightly earlier than that of other strains, and toxins tend to accumulate [35, 36].

Hypervirulent C. difficile also produces a third toxin called binary C. difficile toxin (CDT). CDT is a transferase that can irreversibly ADP-ribosylate actin and promote disruption of the actin cytoskeleton [31]. The presence of CDT and mutations in tcdC increases the risk of RCDI (odds ratio (OR), 5.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.52–6.09) (Table 1) [2, 64].

Table 1.

Summary of presumptive virulence factors associated with recurrent C. difficile infections.

Factor Mechanism/function Risk/association Source
tcdC and binary toxin Production of elevated toxin A and B levels in hypervirulent strains Increased pathogenicity in vivo and in vitro [37]

agr1 locus (accessory-gene regulator) Positive regulation of toxin A and toxin B production, independent of tcdC Regulation of virulence, associated with increased colonization [3841]

Biofilm Survival niche of C. difficile with multispecies communities
Accumulation of toxins and biomass in variant strains regulated by quorum sensing
Long persistence/protection of C. difficile [36, 4246]
Accumulation of spores Reduced susceptibility to antibiotics [45, 47]

SlpA (S-layer protein A) Presence and low molecular weight subunits with sequence variability in hypervirulent strains Increased adhesion to gut mucosa [4852]

Cwp84 (cell wall protein 84) Cleavage of adhesins, such as SlpA, for the paracrystalline layer assembly Release and dissemination of C. difficile in the host [49, 52]
Degradation of several extracellular matrix proteins (fibronectin, laminin, vitronectin) Increase adhesion and colonization [48, 49, 53]
Production of thicker biofilm in strains with high proteolytic activity associated to Cwp84 Enhanced virulence and host-pathogen adherence; maintenance of CDI [54, 55]

Flagella Presence of posttranscriptional modifications in flagellin and flagellar cap proteins Increased biofilm, adherence, and cell internalization, associated with efficient colonization in vivo [42, 56, 57] [58]

Spores Development of structural morphotypes of outermost exosporium layers (thin or thick) Associated to host-spore interactions, dfferences in affinity to epithelial cells [12, 45, 59, 60]
Expression of the sporulating regulator spo0A is associated with high spore production and biofilm formation Transmission of CDI and maintenance of C. difficile in the host, despite the antibiotic treatment [42, 45, 59, 6163]

RCDI is more frequent in patients infected with the 027 strain than in those infected with non-027 strains (P < 0.001). Besides, the clinical cure rate has been reported to be lower in 027-infected patients than in those with non-027 infections when treated with fidaxomicin (P=0.007) or vancomycin (P=0.02) [3].

5. Antibody Response to Toxin A

In several studies, the immune response to toxins A and B has been described, with higher titers of immunoglobulins IgG antitoxin A in asymptomatic carriers than noncarriers, and higher titers of IgG and IgM against toxin A and toxin B, but regression analysis showed significance for recurrent infection and low antitoxin A for 027 and primarily for all types with patients with little antitoxin B (P=0.02) [65, 66].

Patients with a single episode of CDI had higher concentrations of serum IgM against toxin A on day 3 of initial CDI than those with RCDI (n = 22; P=0.004). On day 12, patients who had a single episode of diarrhea (n = 7) had higher serum IgG values against toxin A than those with RCDI (n = 9; p=0.009). IgG response to toxin A (12 days after onset of CDI) during an initial episode confers protection against recurrence (OR, 48.0; 95% CI, 3.5–663) [25]. Nevertheless, CDI patients who received neutralizing antibodies against toxin A showed no difference in the frequency of recurrence in comparison with CDI patients receiving placebo (17% and 18%, respectively, P = NS) [67].

6. Biofilm Production

Bacterial biofilms are associated with antimicrobial resistance, act as a survival niche, and protect bacteria, which can be in a dormant form with prolonged growth rates deep within the biofilm structure. Biofilms have been reported for several Clostridium species, including C. perfringens, C. thermocellum, and C. acetobutylicum [68, 69]. Similarly, C. difficile growth has shown well-organized communities on abiotic surfaces and well-structured biofilms in vitro and in vivo [42, 61, 70], with differences in the level of biofilm production between some strains in monoculture biofilms [42, 71]. In addition, a range of studies has characterized the supernatant and the polymeric composition and architecture of the biofilm matrix in in vivo and in vitro models, which is composed of extracellular DNA, polysaccharides, and proteins similar to B. subtilis biofilm [42, 54, 61, 72].

Notably, in a chemostat gut model, C. difficile (vegetative and spore forms) has been shown to participate in multispecies communities forming a robust biofilm that accumulates toxins. In addition, this biofilm is a potential reservoir for the reestablishment of C. difficile after primary antimicrobial therapy has finished, when gut levels of antimicrobials are at subminimal inhibitory concentration [36, 43, 44]. Furthermore, the biofilm matrix showed a preferential localization of spores that have a higher resistance to some antibiotics (metronidazole and vancomycin) (Table 1). Taken together, these observations may explain the long-term persistence of strains involved in primary and/or recurrent CDI [42, 45].

7. Regulation by Quorum Sensing

Quorum sensing (QS) is the regulation of gene expression of virulence factors (biofilm production, attachment, motility, toxin production, and sporulation) in response to environmental changes due to cell-to-cell communication. It is mediated by small diffuse molecules known as autoinducers produced by individual bacteria. The level of autoinducers is cell-density dependent: when the density is high, autoinducers are detected by other bacteria, enabling them to coordinate physiological activities [38, 73, 74].

Orthologues of the accessory-gene regulator (Agr) ACDB, the global regulatory locus that encodes AgrA, have been found within the genome of most C. difficile isolates, including the hypervirulent strain 027/BI/NAP1. AgrA has critical roles in controlling gene expression and enhancing the production of colonization factors and exoproteins essential for the pathogenic process [38, 39]. Furthermore, it is the transcriptional regulator of the best-understood QS system in Gram-positive bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus [39].

C. difficile production of toxins A and B are controlled by an Agr-quorum signaling system mediated through a small thiolactone that can be detected in stools of CDI patients [40]. Some strains encode two Agr loci in their genomes (ag1 and agr2), with the first being present in all strains and the second being present in a few strains. It has been shown that the agr1 mutant cannot produce both toxins and that toxin production can be restored with the wild type agr1. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the agr1 mutant can colonize but cannot cause disease in a murine CDI model (Table 1) [39, 75].

8. Sporulation and Germination

Another key virulence factor involved in C. difficile pathogenesis and colonization is spore production, with differences in germination rates being lower in spores from biofilm than those from a vegetative culture [45]. Spore production is mediated by the master regulator of the sporulation pathway (spo0A). In mice infected with sporulating and nonsporulating C. difficile strains (spo0A mutants), no recurrence of CDI was found after vancomycin treatment, and the spo0A mutant infection was not transmissible between hosts [59]. Spo0A mutants are associated with defective biofilm formation and low sporulation in biofilms (0.0001%), suggesting an essential link between Spo0A and biofilm production, such as that seen in Bacillus subtilis [42, 61, 62].

The production and accumulation of spores within C. difficile biofilms are likely to be significantly associated with RCDI, with further germination of vegetative toxin-producing cells after cessation of antibiotic therapy. Metabolically dormant spore forms can protect C. difficile from adverse conditions, such as nutrient starvation, antimicrobial agents, disinfectants, heat, and desiccation, and help the bacteria survive attacks of phagocytic cells [76]. Furthermore, antibiotic treatment triggers the excretion of higher sporulation of C. difficile in mice. Therefore, in most cases, when antibiotic therapy is stopped, a recovery occurs and the super-shedder state of C. difficile is suppressed [77].

A novel exosporial layer has been found in spores from biofilms, composed of fine fibers and darkly staining granules. This layer is surrounded by a thin layer and is acquired after mother cell lysis; it has been found in 027 strains associated with multiple recurrent episodes of CDI (Table 1) [45, 59, 60]. The specific role of these structural differences of the exosporium in spores is not clear. A previous study showed that the C. difficile R20291 strain (RT-027) showed higher affinity to the host cell membrane and microvilli of intestinal epithelial cells [78], suggesting that the differences in composition of the exosporium of C. difficile spores might regulate the adherence to intestinal cells of the host (Table 1) [7880]. Additional studies are needed to determine the role of the structural properties of the C. difficile layer and spore exosporium for the development of recurrent infection.

9. Adhesion Factors

Several nontoxin factors involved in the virulence and infection processes have been described, including surface proteins (cell wall and surface layer (S-layer) proteins), pili, flagellin, flagellar cap, and fibronectin-binding proteins [42, 53].

The S-layer protein A (SlpA) is the predominant outer surface and has shown to be the major contributor of C. difficile adherence to epithelial cells in vitro. SlpA is cleaved after translation in high and low molecular weight (HMW and LMW) subunits for the assembly of the paracrystalline layer. Interstrain sequence variability of LMW subunits has been associated with higher adhesion efficiency in hypervirulent strains [4851].

The cell wall protein 84 (Cwp84) is one of the primary proteases that is exported by the cell and cleave several adhesins such as SlpA for the assembly of the paracrystalline layer and the degradation of extracellular matrix proteins (fibronectin, laminin, and vitronectin). This degradation triggers the release and dissemination of C. difficile in the host, which are related to the recurrence of infection (Table 1) [49, 8183].

Cwp84 is present in all C. difficile strains, and those with the highest proteolytic activity are associated with stronger adhesion and production of thicker biofilm, planktonic growth defect, and virulence in vivo [49, 72]. In addition, a recent study found overexpression of cwp84 in a biofilm model from recurrence causing strains, this phenomenon was not observed in the biofilm produced by nonrecurrent strains [84], suggesting an association with recurrent infection.

SlpA cleavage could be accomplished by other proteases in the absence of cwp84, such as cwpV, cwp66, and cwp13 [49, 52]. These findings suggest an essential role of some surface proteins associated with increased host-pathogen adherence, which may be related to the maintenance of CDI.

In addition to propulsion, motility components provide bacteria with other advantages, such as adherence and cell internalization. C. difficile possesses peritrichous flagella, which induce the adhesion and establishment of the bacteria including the strains without complete and functional flagella as a result of mutations [56, 57, 8587]. The filament from C. difficile flagella is mostly composed of single flagellin subunits and flagellar cap proteins, both of which are modified posttranslationally. Therefore, as a consequence of a noncomplete functional flagella, these components do not confer motility but enhance binding of C. difficile to abiotic surfaces, as well as reduced biofilm formation, leading to the attenuation of colonization and relapse in vivo, suggesting a role of flagella in the process of adherence and biofilm formation independent to motility (Table 1) [42, 56, 57].

10. Concluding Remarks

RCDI development is associated with hypervirulent strains and may be attributed to a high rate of sporulation and the maintenance of spores encased in a C. difficile biofilm, which is resistant to antibiotic therapies. Besides, several adhesion-related proteins are involved in RCDI development and the establishment of the infection.

Antibiotics have been demonstrated to disrupt colonic microbiota, placing the patient at a high risk of further recurrent episodes. Further studies on RCDI development are needed to assess the correlation of these potential virulence traits and the persistence of C. difficile infection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  • 1.Lessa F. C., Mu Y., Bamberg W. M., et al. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372(9):825–834. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1408913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Stewart D. B., Berg A. S., Hegarty J. P. Single nucleotide polymorphisms of the tcdC gene and presence of the binary toxin gene predict recurrent episodes of Clostridium difficile infection. Annals of Surgery. 2014;260(2):299–304. doi: 10.1097/sla.0000000000000469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Petrella L. A., Sambol S. P., Cheknis A., et al. Decreased cure and increased recurrence rates for Clostridium difficile infection caused by the epidemic C. difficile BI strain. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2012;55(3):351–357. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Balassiano I. T., Yates E. A., Domingues R. M. C. P., Ferreira E. O. Clostridium difficile: a problem of concern in developed countries and still a mystery in Latin America. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2012;61(2):169–179. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.037077-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wiegand P. N., Nathwani D., Wilcox M. H., Stephens J., Shelbaya A., Haider S. Clinical and economic burden of Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a systematic review of healthcare-facility-acquired infection. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2012;81(1):1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2012.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Clements A. C., Magalhães R. J. S., Tatem A. J., Paterson D. L., Riley T. V. Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 027: assessing the risks of further worldwide spread. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2010;10(6):395–404. doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70080-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Morfin-Otero R., Garza-Gonzalez E., Aguirre-Diaz S. A., et al. Clostridium difficile outbreak caused by NAP1/BI/027 strain and non-027 strains in a Mexican hospital. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2016;20(1):8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2015.09.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Warny M., Pepin J., Fang A., et al. Toxin production by an emerging strain of Clostridium difficile associated with outbreaks of severe disease in North America and Europe. The Lancet. 2005;366(9491):1079–1084. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67420-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Brazier J. S., Raybould R., Patel B., et al. Distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes in English hospitals, 2007-08. Eurosurveillance. 2008;13(41) doi: 10.2807/ese.13.41.19000-en. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Duerden B. I. Contribution of a government target to controlling Clostridium difficile in the NHS in England. Anaerobe. 2011;17(4):175–179. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2010.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dingle K. E., Didelot X., Quan T. P., et al. Effects of control interventions on Clostridium difficile infection in England: an observational study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2017;17(4):411–421. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30514-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wilcox M. H., Shetty N., Fawley W. N., et al. Changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection following the introduction of a national ribotyping-based surveillance scheme in England. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2012;55(8):1056–1063. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Freeman J., Vernon J., Pilling S., et al. The ClosER study: results from a three-year pan-European longitudinal surveillance of antibiotic resistance among prevalent Clostridium difficile ribotypes, 2011–2014. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2018;24(7):724–731. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nyc O., Krutova M., Liskova A., Matejkova J., Drabek J., Kuijper E. J. The emergence of Clostridium difficile PCR-ribotype 001 in Slovakia. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2015;34(8):1701–1708. doi: 10.1007/s10096-015-2407-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cassir N., Fahsi N., Durand G., Lagier J.-C., Raoult D., Fournier P.-E. Emergence of Clostridium difficile tcdC variant 078 in Marseille, France. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2017;36(10):1971–1974. doi: 10.1007/s10096-017-3022-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rupnik M., Tambic Andrasevic A., Trajkovska Dokic E., et al. Distribution of Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes and high proportion of 027 and 176 in some hospitals in four South Eastern European countries. Anaerobe. 2016;42:142–144. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pituch H., Obuch-Woszczatynski P., Lachowicz D., et al. Hospital-based Clostridium difficile infection surveillance reveals high proportions of PCR ribotypes 027 and 176 in different areas of Poland, 2011 to 2013. Eurosurveillance. 2015;(38):p. 20. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2015.20.38.30025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.McDonald L. C., Gerding D. N., Johnson S., 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) Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2018;66(7):987–994. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Aslam S., Hamill R. J., Musher D. M. Treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated disease: old therapies and new strategies. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2005;5(9):549–557. doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(05)70215-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Eyre D. W., Walker A. S., Wyllie D., et al. Predictors of first recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection: implications for initial management. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2012;55(2):S77–S87. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lowy I., Molrine D. C., Leav B. A., et al. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies against Clostridium difficile toxins. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;362(3):197–205. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa0907635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Burnham C.-A. D., Carroll K. C. Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2013;26(3):604–630. doi: 10.1128/cmr.00016-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Beinortas T., Burr N. E., Wilcox M. H., Subramanian V. Comparative efficacy of treatments for Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2018;18(9):1035–1044. doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(18)30285-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.McFarland L. V., Elmer G. W., Surawicz C. M. Breaking the cycle: treatment strategies for 163 cases of recurrent Clostridium difficile disease. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2002;97(7):1769–1775. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05839.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kyne L., Warny M., Qamar A., Kelly C. P. Association between antibody response to toxin A and protection against recurrent Clostridium difficile diarrhoea. The Lancet. 2001;357(9251):189–193. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)03592-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Crook D. W., Walker A. S., Kean Y., et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection: meta-analysis of pivotal randomized controlled trials. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2012;55(2):S93–S103. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Louie T. J., Miller M. A., Mullane K. M., et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin forClostridium difficileInfection. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;364(5):422–431. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa0910812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mac Aogáin M., Moloney G., Kilkenny S., et al. Whole-genome sequencing improves discrimination of relapse from reinfection and identifies transmission events among patients with recurrent Clostridium difficile infections. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2015;90(2):108–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2015.01.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shen A. Clostridium difficile toxins: mediators of inflammation. Journal of Innate Immunity. 2012;4(2):149–158. doi: 10.1159/000332946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Awad M. M., Johanesen P. A., Carter G. P., Rose E., Lyras D. Clostridium difficile virulence factors: insights into an anaerobic spore-forming pathogen. Gut Microbes. 2014;5(5):579–593. doi: 10.4161/19490976.2014.969632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Aktories K., Schwan C., Jank T. Clostridium difficile toxin biology. Annual Review of Microbiology. 2017;71(1):281–307. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-090816-093458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Merrigan M., Venugopal A., Mallozzi M., et al. Human hypervirulent Clostridium difficile strains exhibit increased sporulation as well as robust toxin production. Journal of Bacteriology. 2010;192(19):4904–4911. doi: 10.1128/jb.00445-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Akerlund T., Persson I., Unemo M., et al. Increased sporulation rate of epidemic Clostridium difficile Type 027/NAP1. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2008;46(4):1530–1533. doi: 10.1128/jcm.01964-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Goorhuis A., Bakker D., Corver J., et al. Emergence of Clostridium difficile infection due to a new hypervirulent strain, polymerase chain reaction ribotype 078. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2008;47(9):1162–1170. doi: 10.1086/592257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Freeman J., Fawley W., Baines S., Wilcox M. Measurement of toxin production by Clostridium difficile. The Lancet. 2006;367(9515):982–983. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68417-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Freeman J., Baines S. D., Saxton K., Wilcox M. H. Effect of metronidazole on growth and toxin production by epidemic Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes 001 and 027 in a human gut model. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2007;60(1):83–91. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkm113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Stawicki S. P. A., Moffatt-Bruce S. D., Ahmed H. M., et al. Retained surgical items: a problem yet to be solved. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2013;216(1):15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.08.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Carter G. P., Purdy D., Williams P., et al. Quorum sensing in Clostridium difficile: analysis of a luxS-type signalling system. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2005;54(2):119–127. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.45817-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Martin M. J., Clare S., Goulding D., et al. The agr locus regulates virulence and colonization genes in Clostridium difficile 027. Journal of Bacteriology. 2013;195(16):3672–3681. doi: 10.1128/jb.00473-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Darkoh C., DuPont H. L., Norris S. J., et al. Toxin synthesis by Clostridium difficile is regulated through quorum signaling. MBio. 2015;6 doi: 10.1128/mbio.02569-14.e02569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zilberberg M. D., Reske K., Olsen M., Yan Y., Dubberke E. R. Development and validation of a recurrent Clostridium difficile risk-prediction model. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2014;9(7):418–423. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Thapa T., Leuzzi R., Ng Y. K., et al. Multiple factors modulate biofilm formation by the anaerobic pathogen Clostridium difficile. Journal of Bacteriology. 2013;195(3):545–555. doi: 10.1128/jb.01980-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Crowther G. S., Chilton C. H., Todhunter S. L., et al. Development and validation of a chemostat gut model to study both planktonic and biofilm modes of growth of Clostridium difficile and human microbiota. PLoS One. 2014;9 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088396.e88396 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Crowther G. S., Chilton C. H., Todhunter S. L., et al. Comparison of planktonic and biofilm-associated communities of Clostridium difficile and indigenous gut microbiota in a triple-stage chemostat gut model. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2014;69(8):2137–2147. doi: 10.1093/jac/dku116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Semenyuk E. G., Laning M. L., Foley J., et al. Spore formation and toxin production in Clostridium difficile biofilms. PLoS One. 2014;9(1) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087757.e87757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Yu C. C., Gao W. J., Yang J. S., et al. Can tranexamic acid reduce blood loss in cervical laminectomy with lateral mass screw fixation and bone grafting: a retrospective observational study. Medicine. 2017;96(5) doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000006043.e6043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zanella Terrier M. C., Simonet M. L., Bichard P., et al. Recurrent Clostridium difficile infections: the importance of the intestinal microbiota. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2014;20(23):7416–7423. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i23.7416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Spigaglia P., Barketi-Klai A., Collignon A., et al. Surface-layer (S-layer) of human and animal Clostridium difficile strains and their behaviour in adherence to epithelial cells and intestinal colonization. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2013;62(9):1386–1393. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.056556-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.de la Riva L., Willing S. E., Tate E. W., Fairweather N. F. Roles of cysteine proteases Cwp84 and Cwp13 in biogenesis of the cell wall of Clostridium difficile. Journal of Bacteriology. 2011;193(13):3276–3285. doi: 10.1128/jb.00248-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Merrigan M. M., Venugopal A., Roxas J. L., et al. Surface-layer protein A (SlpA) is a major contributor to host-cell adherence of Clostridium difficile. PLoS One. 2013;8(11) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078404.e78404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Péchiné S., Denève C., Le Monnier A., Hoys S., Janoir C., Collignon A. Immunization of hamsters against Clostridium difficile infection using the Cwp84 protease as an antigen. FEMS Immunology & Medical Microbiology. 2011;63(1):73–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695x.2011.00832.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Waligora A.-J., Hennequin C., Mullany P., Bourlioux P., Collignon A., Karjalainen T. Characterization of a cell surface protein of Clostridium difficile with adhesive properties. Infection and Immunity. 2001;69(4):2144–2153. doi: 10.1128/iai.69.4.2144-2153.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Denève C., Janoir C., Poilane I., Fantinato C., Collignon A. New trends in Clostridium difficile virulence and pathogenesis. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2009;33(1):S24–S28. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(09)70012-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Poquet I., Saujet L., Canette A., et al. Clostridium difficile biofilm: remodeling metabolism and cell surface to build a sparse and heterogeneously aggregated architecture. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018;9:p. 2084. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Woods J., Boegli L., Kirker K. R., et al. Development and application of a polymicrobial, in vitro, wound biofilm model. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2012;112(5):998–1006. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05264.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tasteyre A., Barc M.-C., Collignon A., Boureau H., Karjalainen T. Role of FliC and FliD flagellar proteins of Clostridium difficile in adherence and gut colonization. Infection and Immunity. 2001;69(12):7937–7940. doi: 10.1128/iai.69.12.7937-7940.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Faulds-Pain A., Twine S. M., Vinogradov E., et al. The post-translational modification of the Clostridium difficile flagellin affects motility, cell surface properties and virulence. Molecular Microbiology. 2014;94(2):272–289. doi: 10.1111/mmi.12755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Choi N. Y., Kang S. Y., Kim K. J. Artemisia princeps inhibits biofilm formation and virulence-factor expression of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. BioMed Research International. 2015;2015:7. doi: 10.1155/2015/239519.239519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Deakin L. J., Clare S., Fagan R. P., et al. The Clostridium difficile spo0A gene is a persistence and transmission factor. Infection and Immunity. 2012;80(8):2704–2711. doi: 10.1128/iai.00147-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Paredes-Sabja D., Shen A., Sorg J. A. Clostridium difficile spore biology: sporulation, germination, and spore structural proteins. Trends in Microbiology. 2014;22(7):406–416. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2014.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Dawson L. F., Valiente E., Faulds-Pain A., Donahue E. H., Wren B. W. Characterisation of Clostridium difficile biofilm formation, a role for Spo0A. PLoS One. 2012;7 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050527.e50527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hamon M. A., Lazazzera B. A. The sporulation transcription factor Spo0A is required for biofilm development in Bacillus subtilis. Molecular Microbiology. 2001;42(5):1199–1209. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2001.02709.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Zou Y., Woo J., Ahn J. Cellular and molecular responses of Salmonella Typhimurium to antimicrobial-induced stresses during the planktonic-to-biofilm transition. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2012;55(4):274–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765x.2012.03288.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Stewart D. B., Berg A., Hegarty J. Predicting recurrence of C. difficile colitis using bacterial virulence factors: binary toxin is the key. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2013;17(1):118–125. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-2056-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Viscidi R., Laughon B. E., Yolken R., et al. Serum antibody response to toxins A and B of Clostridium difficile. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1983;148(1):93–100. doi: 10.1093/infdis/148.1.93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kyne L., Warny M., Qamar A., Kelly C. P. Asymptomatic carriage of Clostridium difficile and serum levels of IgG antibody against toxin A. New England Journal of Medicine. 2000;342(6):390–397. doi: 10.1056/nejm200002103420604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Leav B. A., Blair B., Leney M., et al. Serum anti-toxin B antibody correlates with protection from recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) Vaccine. 2010;28(4):965–969. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.10.144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Napoli F., Olivieri G., Russo M. E., Marzocchella A., Salatino P. Butanol production by Clostridium acetobutylicum in a continuous packed bed reactor. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology. 2010;37(6):603–608. doi: 10.1007/s10295-010-0707-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Wang Z.-W., Lee S.-H., Elkins J. G., Morrell-Falvey J. L. fSpatial and temporal dynamics of cellulose degradation and biofilm formation by Caldicellulosiruptor obsidiansis and Clostridium thermocellum. AMB Express. 2011;1(1):p. 30. doi: 10.1186/2191-0855-1-30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Donelli G., Vuotto C., Cardines R., Mastrantonio P. Biofilm-growing intestinal anaerobic bacteria. FEMS Immunology & Medical Microbiology. 2012;65(2):318–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695x.2012.00962.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Pantaleon V., Monot M., Eckert C., et al. Clostridium difficile forms variable biofilms on abiotic surface. Anaerobe. 2018;53:34–37. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Pantaleon V., Soavelomandroso A. P., Bouttier S., et al. The Clostridium difficile protease Cwp84 modulates both biofilm formation and cell-surface properties. PLoS One. 2015;10 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124971.e0124971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Miller M. B., Bassler B. L. Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology. 2001;55(1):165–199. doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Thompson J. A., Oliveira R. A., Djukovic A., Ubeda C., Xavier K. B. Manipulation of the quorum sensing signal AI-2 affects the antibiotic-treated gut microbiota. Cell Reports. 2015;10(11):1861–1871. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.02.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Darkoh C., Odo C., DuPont H. L. Accessory gene regulator-1 locus is essential for virulence and pathogenesis of Clostridium difficile. MBio. 2016;7(4) doi: 10.1128/mbio.01237-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Paredes-Sabja D., Cofre-Araneda G., Brito-Silva C., et al. Clostridium difficile spore-macrophage interactions: spore survival. PLoS One. 2012;7 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043635.e43635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Lawley T. D., Clare S., Walker A. W., et al. Antibiotic treatment of Clostridium difficile carrier mice triggers a supershedder state, spore-mediated transmission, and severe disease in immunocompromised hosts. Infection and Immunity. 2009;77(9):3661–3669. doi: 10.1128/iai.00558-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Mora-Uribe P., Miranda-Cardenas C., Castro-Cordova P., et al. Characterization of the adherence of Clostridium difficile spores: the integrity of the outermost layer affects adherence properties of spores of the epidemic strain R20291 to components of the intestinal mucosa. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2016;6:p. 99. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2016.00099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Paredes-Sabja D., Sarker M. R. Adherence of Clostridium difficile spores to Caco-2 cells in culture. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2012;61(9):1208–1218. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.043687-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Barra-Carrasco J., Olguin-Araneda V., Plaza-Garrido A., et al. The Clostridium difficile exosporium cysteine (CdeC)-rich protein is required for exosporium morphogenesis and coat assembly. Journal of Bacteriology. 2013;195(17):3863–3875. doi: 10.1128/jb.00369-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Sarker M. R., Paredes-Sabja D. Molecular basis of early stages ofClostridium difficileinfection: germination and colonization. Future Microbiology. 2012;7(8):933–943. doi: 10.2217/fmb.12.64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Seddon S. V., Borriello S. P. Proteolytic activity of Clostridium difficile. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 1992;36(5):307–311. doi: 10.1099/00222615-36-5-307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Deneve C., Delomenie C., Barc M.-C., Collignon A., Janoir C. Antibiotics involved in Clostridium difficile-associated disease increase colonization factor gene expression. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2008;57(6):732–738. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.47676-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Tijerina-Rodriguez L., Villarreal-Trevino L., Baines S. D., et al. High sporulation and overexpression of virulence factors in biofilms and reduced susceptibility to vancomycin and linezolid in recurrent Clostridium [Clostridioides] difficile infection isolates. PLoS One. 2019;14(7) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220671.e0220671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Stevenson E., Minton N. P., Kuehne S. A. The role of flagella in Clostridium difficile pathogenicity. Trends in Microbiology. 2015;23(5):275–282. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2015.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Baban S. T., Kuehne S. A., Barketi-Klai A., et al. The role of flagella in Clostridium difficile pathogenesis: comparison between a non-epidemic and an epidemic strain. PLoS One. 2013;8(9) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073026.e73026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Dingle T. C., Mulvey G. L., Armstrong G. D. Mutagenic analysis of the Clostridium difficile flagellar proteins, FliC and FliD, and their contribution to virulence in hamsters. Infection and Immunity. 2011;79(10):4061–4067. doi: 10.1128/iai.05305-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases & Medical Microbiology = Journal Canadien des Maladies Infectieuses et de la Microbiologie Médicale are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES