Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jan 14;15(1):e0227604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227604

Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and non-ESBL-producing Escherichia coli isolates causing bacteremia in the Netherlands (2014 – 2016) differ in clonal distribution, antimicrobial resistance gene and virulence gene content

Denise van Hout 1,*, Tess D Verschuuren 1, Patricia C J Bruijning-Verhagen 1,2, Thijs Bosch 2, Anita C Schürch 3, Rob J L Willems 3, Marc J M Bonten 1,2,3, Jan A J W Kluytmans 1,4
Editor: Jose Melo-Cristino5
PMCID: PMC6959556  PMID: 31935253

Abstract

Background

Knowledge on the molecular epidemiology of Escherichia coli causing E. coli bacteremia (ECB) in the Netherlands is mostly based on extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing E. coli (ESBL-Ec). We determined differences in clonality and resistance and virulence gene (VG) content between non-ESBL-producing E. coli (non-ESBL-Ec) and ESBL-Ec isolates from ECB episodes with different epidemiological characteristics.

Methods

A random selection of non-ESBL-Ec isolates as well as all available ESBL-Ec blood isolates was obtained from two Dutch hospitals between 2014 and 2016. Whole genome sequencing was performed to infer sequence types (STs), serotypes, acquired antibiotic resistance genes and VG scores, based on presence of 49 predefined putative pathogenic VG.

Results

ST73 was most prevalent among the 212 non-ESBL-Ec (N = 26, 12.3%) and ST131 among the 69 ESBL-Ec (N = 30, 43.5%). Prevalence of ST131 among non-ESBL-Ec was 10.4% (N = 22, P value < .001 compared to ESBL-Ec). O25:H4 was the most common serotype in both non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec. Median acquired resistance gene counts were 1 (IQR 1–6) and 7 (IQR 4–9) for non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec, respectively (P value < .001). Among non-ESBL-Ec, acquired resistance gene count was highest among blood isolates from a primary gastro-intestinal focus (median 4, IQR 1–8). Median VG scores were 13 (IQR 9–20) and 12 (IQR 8–14) for non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec, respectively (P value = .002). VG scores among non-ESBL-Ec from a primary urinary focus (median 15, IQR 11–21) were higher compared to non-ESBL-Ec from a primary gastro-intestinal (median 10, IQR 5–13) or hepatic-biliary focus (median 11, IQR 5–18) (P values = .007 and .04, respectively). VG content varied between different E. coli STs.

Conclusions

Non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec blood isolates from two Dutch hospitals differed in clonal distribution, resistance gene and VG content. Also, resistance gene and VG content differed between non-ESBL-Ec from different primary foci of ECB.

Introduction

Escherichia coli is the leading causative pathogen in Gram-negative bacteremia and is associated with 30-day mortality up to 18% [1–4]. Antibiotic treatment options of E. coli bacteremia (ECB) are getting compromised by the pandemic presence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs); conferring resistance to antibiotics commonly used for ECB treatment such as third-generation cephalosporins. Worryingly, the incidence of ECB is increasing and in some European countries, the incidence of ECB with antibiotic-resistant strains seems to increase faster than ECB caused by susceptible strains [3–6]. Even though the individual patient and financial burden is increased for resistant ECB episodes, ECB due to susceptible strains is far more common and therefore determines the major part of the ECB disease burden. The majority of ECBs is of community onset and is preceded by an infection in the urinary tract, but other sources, such as the hepatic-biliary tract, also comprise important primary foci [3,7]. These clinical characteristics of ECB episodes are important because they indicate different target populations for prevention. Thorough insight in the molecular epidemiology of both ESBL-negative and ESBL-positive ECB episodes with different clinical characteristics is key in identifying targets for the development of future preventive strategies, such as E. coli vaccines that are currently being developed [8]. Up to now, the molecular epidemiology of ECB in the Netherlands was mainly described in single-center studies [9] or among antimicrobial resistant isolates only [10].

In this study, we aimed to analyze the current population structure of ECB in the Netherlands, with special attention to differences in antimicrobial resistance and virulence gene (VG) content and clonal and serotype distribution between isolates with different clinical epidemiological characteristics and between non-ESBL-producing E. coli (non-ESBL-Ec) and ESBL-producing E. coli (ESBL-Ec) blood isolates.

Methods

Study design

Details of the study design is fully described elsewhere [11]. In short, unique patients with ECB were retrospectively identified in the University Medical Center Utrecht, a 1,042-bed tertiary care center and the Amphia Hospital in Breda, an 837-bed teaching hospital. In each hospital, a random sample of 40 isolates per year for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 was selected, comprising ~24% of all first bacteremic E. coli isolates in a year. In addition, all ESBL-Ec blood isolates from 2014 to 2016 were selected. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed by The Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) using the Illumina HiSeq 2500 (BaseClear, Leiden, the Netherlands). All generated raw reads were submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) of the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) under the study accession number PRJEB35000. De novo assembly was performed using SPAdes genome assembler v.3.6.2 and quality of assembles was assessed using QUAST [12]. ESBL-production was defined as confirmed phenotypic ESBL-positivity, unless described otherwise [11]. Baseline characteristics were compared between non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec ECB episodes by the Fisher’s Exact or Pearson χ2 test for categorical variables and by Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables when applicable. A two-tailed P value < .05 was considered statistically significant.

This study does not fall under the scope of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the UMCU has therefore waived the need for official approval by the Ethics Committee (IRB number 18/056). Individual informed consent was not obtained and all study data were analyzed and stored in a pseudonymized form. All statistical analyses were performed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences V.25.0 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois, USA) and R Version 3.4.1.

Multi-locus sequence types (MLST)

Multi-locus sequence types (STs) were based on the allelic profile of seven housekeeping genes and were determined using mlst2.0 (https://github.com/tseemann/mlst), by scanning contig files against the E. coli PubMLST typing scheme (updated May 12th, 2018). Clonal (i.e. ST) distribution was presented stratified for non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec isolates and by epidemiological subgroups. Genotype (ST) diversity was analysed by Simpson’s diversity index [13].

Serotyping

Serotypes were assigned by using the web-tool SerotypeFinder 2.0 from the Center for Genomic Epidemiology at the Danish Technical University, Lyngby, Denmark (https://cge.cbs.dtu.dk/services/SerotypeFinder) [14]. Simpson’s index for serotype diversity was calculated for non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec isolates. Serotype distribution among non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec was compared to two current E. coli vaccine candidates [8,15], excluding those isolates in which no definitive serotype could be defined.

Antimicrobial resistance genes and virulence genes

Abricate (https://github.com/tseemann/abricate) v0.8.13 was used for (i) mass screening of contigs for (acquired) antimicrobial resistance genes using ResFinder 3.1.0 (download 24 January 2019), and (ii) to determine presence of VG by BLAST against the VFDB database (http://www.mgc.ac.cn/VFs) (download 8 February 2019)[16,17]. We searched for 49 putative VG that were previously described as extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC)-associated VG [18–22]. If any of the predefined VG were not included in VFDB, BLAST against the ecoli_VF_collection database was performed (date 8 February 2019)[23]. Coverage length and sequence identity thresholds were 80% and 95%. Resistance gene count was defined as the total number of unique identified acquired resistance genes per isolate. Resistance gene counts were compared between non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test (for this comparison only, resistance gene count of ESBL-Ec was corrected for presence of the ESBL gene). The VG score was defined as the total number of pre specified VG within an isolate, adjusted for multiple detection of the afa/dra (Afa/Dr adhesins), pap (P fimbrial adhesins), sfa/foc (S and F1C fimbrial adhesins) and kpsM (group 2 and III capsule) operons, as described previously [20]. If a VG was detected multiple times within a single isolate (i.e. different quality measures), it was only counted once. The kpsM, afa/dra and sfa/foc operons were considered present if any of the corresponding genes or allelic variants were identified.

Resistance gene counts and VG scores were further analysed for non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec separately and were compared between isolates with different epidemiological characteristics and different STs using Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA. In case of an overall ANOVA P value < .05, post-hoc pairwise comparisons were made with the non-parametric Wilcoxon-rank sum test and the Holm-Bonferroni P value correction was applied to account for multiple testing.

Results

Patient characteristics

The isolate collection consisted of 212 phenotypic non-ESBL-Ec and 69 ESBL-Ec blood isolates (Fig 1). Distribution of age, sex, onset of infection and primary foci were comparable between non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec bacteremia episodes (Table 1). As compared to non-ESBL-Ec, ECB episodes with ESBL-Ec were less often of community onset (63.8% versus 81.1%, P value = .003). Crude 30-day and 1-year mortality were higher in ECB episodes caused by ESBL-Ec (27.5% and 50.7%, respectively) compared to ECB episodes caused by non-ESBL-Ec (11.3% and 29.2%, respectively) (both P values = .001).

Fig 1. Flowchart of selection of E. coli blood isolates.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Table 1. Baseline epidemiological characteristics of E. coli bacteremia episodes.

Non-ESBL-Eca
N = 212		 ESBL-Eca
N = 69		 P valueb
Median age, years (IQR) 69 (59–77) 69 (56–76) .80
Female sex (%) 102 (48.1) 32 (46.4) .80
Community onset (%) 172 (81.1) 44 (63.8) .003
Primary focus of ECB (%)
 Urinary tract
 Hepatic-biliary
 Gastro-intestinal
 Other
 Unknown		 103
46
23
10
30		 (48.6)
(21.7)
(10.8)
(4.7)
(14.2)		 30
14
7
5
13		 (43.5) (20.3) (10.1)
(7.2)
(18.8)		 .79
Urinary catheter (%) 69 (32.5) 28 (40.6) .22
Ward (%)
 Non-ICU
 ICU		 182
30		 (85.8)
(14.2)		 58
11		 (84.1) (15.9) .71
Mortality (%)
 30-day
 1-year		 24
62		 (11.3)
(29.2)		 19
35		 (27.5) (50.7) .001
.001
Open in a new tab

ECB, E. coli bacteremia; ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; ESBL-Ec, ESBL-producing E. coli; ICU, intensive care unit; IQR, interquartile range; non-ESBL-Ec, non-ESBL-producing E. coli.

aESBL-positivity based on phenotype.

bP value of comparison between non-ESBL-Ec versus ESBL-Ec, calculated with Pearson’s χ2, Fisher’s exact, or Mann-Whitney U test when applicable. P values in italic represent P values < .05.

Clonal distribution

Among non-ESBL-Ec, ST73 was the most frequently observed ST (N = 26, 12.3%), followed by ST131 (N = 22, 10.4%). Isolates of ST73, 95, 127, 141, 80 and 1193 were solely identified among non-ESBL-Ec (Fig 2). ST131 was dominant among ESBL-Ec (N = 30, 43.5%) and prevalence was higher than among non-ESBL-Ec (P value < .001). Simpson’s index for clonal diversity was 95.6% (95% CI 94.4% – 96.8%) and 80.6% (95% CI 70.9% – 90.4%) for non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec, respectively. The occurrence of different STs did not differ between nosocomial and community onset ECB (S1 Appendix). ST131 was the dominant ST among ESBL-positive ECB episodes with a primary urinary (63%) and gastro-intestinal focus (57%), which was higher as compared to other primary foci of ESBL-positive ECB (i.e. 21% among primary hepatic-biliary focus, S1 Appendix).

Fig 2. ST distribution among non-ESBL-Ec versus ESBL-Eca in order of frequencyb.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; ESBL-Ec, ESBL-producing E. coli; non-ESBL-Ec, non-ESBL-producing E. coli; ST, sequence type. aESBL-positivity based on phenotypic ESBL production. bMissing STs and STs that occurred ≤3 times are grouped in “Other”. STs that only occurred once are grouped in “Singletons”. The height of each individual bars represents the proportion of the ST within the group of non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec, respectively. The numbers represent the absolute numbers of occurrence.

Serotypes

The most common serotype O25:H4 was identified in 19 (9.0%) non-ESBL-Ec and 24 (34.8%) ESBL-Ec isolates, which largely reflected the prevalence of ST131 in each group (Table 2). Multiple serotypes only occurred among non-ESBL-Ec, such as O6:H1 and O6:H31. ST73 was most often of serotype O6:H1 (16/26, 61.5%). Simpson’s index for serotype diversity was 96.7% (95% CI 95.8% – 97.6%) and 83.8% (95% CI 76.9% – 90.6%) for non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec, respectively. Non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec isolates from ECB episodes with a primary focus in the urinary tract were most often of O-serotype O6 (15/103, 14.6%) and O25 (17/30, 56.7%), respectively (S2 Appendix). For ECB episodes with a primary focus in the hepatic-biliary tract, O25 was the most prevalent O-serotype among non-ESBL-Ec (7/46, 15.2%) and O8 (4/14, 28.6%) among ESBL-Ec isolates (S2 Appendix).

Table 2. Serotype distribution among E. coli blood isolates, stratified for ESBL-positivity.

Non-ESBL-Ec
N = 212 (%)		 ESBL-Eca
N = 69 (%)
O25:H4 19 (9.0) 24 (34.8)
O6:H1 16 (7.5) -
O2/O50:H6 10 (4.7) -
O6:H31 9 (4.2) -
O15:H18 7 (3.3) 2 (2.9)
O17/O44/O77:H18 8 (3.8) -
O4:H5 7 (3.3) 1 (1.4)
O75:H5 8 (3.8) -
O8:H9 5 (2.4) 2 (2.9)
O16:H5 3 (1.4) 3 (4.3)
O86:H18 1 (0.5) 4 (5.8)
O4:H1 5 (2.4) -
O1:H7 4 (1.9) -
O117:H4 4 (1.9) -
O2/O50:H1 4 (1.9) -
O23:H16 2 (0.9) 2 (2.9)
O25:H1 4 (1.9) -
O18/O18ac:H7 3 (1.4) -
O2/O50:H7 3 (1.4) -
O45:H7 3 (1.4) -
O75:H7 3 (1.4) -
O8:H17 3 (1.4) -
O9:H17 - 2 (2.9)
O9/O104:H9 - 2 (2.9)
O13/O135:H4 2 (0.9) -
O18:H1 2 (0.9) -
O18:H5 2 (0.9) -
O22:H1 2 (0.9) -
O24:H4 2 (0.9) -
O8:H10 2 (0.9) -
O8:H25 2 (0.9) -
O8:H30 2 (0.9) -
Singletons 45 (21.2) 13 (18.8)
Unknown 20 (9.4) 14 (20.3)
Open in a new tab

ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; ESBL-Ec, ESBL-producing E. coli, non-ESBL-Ec, non-ESBL-producing E. coli.

aESBL-positivity based on phenotypic ESBL production.

53 (25.0%) non-ESBL-Ec and 25 (36.2%) ESBL-Ec isolates belonged to either O1, O2, O6 or O25, the serotypes of the 4-valent E. coli vaccine that has reached phase 2 development stage [8,24], whereas the majority of non-ESBL-Ec (N = 113; 53.3%) and ESBL-Ec isolates (N = 35; 50.7%) belonged to one of the O-serotypes of the new 10-valent conjugant E. coli vaccine (ExPEC-10V) that is currently in development [15].

Antimicrobial resistance genes

In total, 69 unique acquired resistance genes were identified (S3 Appendix). ESBL-genes were detected in 65 (94.2%) of 69 E. coli blood isolates with phenotypic ESBL production. blaCTX-M-15 was most prevalent (N = 28, 43.1%), followed by blaCTX-M-9 (N = 14, 21.5%) and blaCTX-M-27 (N = 9, 13.8%). The median acquired resistance gene count for non-ESBL-Ec versus ESBL-Ec was 1 (IQR 1–6) versus 7 (IQR 4–9) (P value < .001).

Among non-ESBL-Ec, acquired resistance gene count was highest among blood isolates from a primary gastro-intestinal focus (median 4, IQR 1–8). There were significant differences in resistance gene count for different primary foci of non-ESBL ECB, but absolute differences were small (S3 Appendix). Among ESBL-Ec isolates, there were no statistical significant differences in acquired resistance gene counts between epidemiological subgroups (S3 Appendix). We observed no significant differences among non-ESBL-Ec or ESBL-Ec isolates of different clonal backgrounds (Fig 3 and S3 Appendix).

Fig 3. Acquired resistance gene count per ST, stratified for ESBL-positivitya.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; ESBL-Ec, ESBL-producing E. coli; non-ESBL-Ec, non-ESBL-producing E. coli; ST, sequence type. aESBL-positivity based on phenotypic ESBL production. Boxplots display median resistance gene count and inter quartile range (IQR); every dot represents a single isolate. Only STs that occurred >5% within non-ESBL-Ec or ESBL-Ec were grouped into main groups, the rest was categorized as “Other”. Results of the pairwise comparisons between STs can be found in S3 Appendix.

Virulence genes

Of the 49 predefined ExPEC-associated VG, 44 (89.8%) were detected in at least one E. coli blood isolate and VG scores ranged from zero (N = 1 non-ESBL-Ec) to 25 (N = 2 ESBL-Ec) (S4 Appendix). The median VG score was 13 (IQR 9–20) in non-ESBL-Ec and 12 (IQR 8–14) in ESBL-Ec blood isolates (P value = .002). There were no significant differences in VG scores of epidemiological subgroups, except that the average VG score of non-ESBL-Ec isolates with a primary urinary focus (median 15, IQR 11–21) were higher compared to non-ESBL-Ec isolates with a primary focus in the gastro-intestinal (median 10, IQR 5–13) or hepatic-biliary tract (median 11, IQR 5–18) (P values = .007 and .04, respectively) (S4 Appendix).

There was heterogeneity in VG scores between non-ESBL-Ec of different STs, this was less pronounced for ESBL-Ec isolates (Fig 4 and S4 Appendix). ESBL-negative ST38 had the lowest average VG score (median 7, IQR 6–7) and ESBL-positive ST12 had the highest VG score (median 23, IQR 23–23). Median VG score of both ESBL-negative and ESBL-positive ST131 isolates was 13 (IQR 12–15).

Fig 4. ExPEC-associated VG score in different STs, stratified for ESBL-positivitya.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; ESBL-Ec, ESBL-producing E. coli; ExPEC, extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli; non-ESBL-Ec, non-ESBL-producing E. coli; ST, sequence type; VG, virulence gene. aESBL-positivity based on phenotypic ESBL production. Boxplots display median VG score and inter quartile range (IQR); every dot represents a single isolate. Only STs that occurred >5% within non-ESBL-Ec or ESBL-Ec were grouped into main groups, the rest was categorized as “Other”. Results of pairwise comparisons between STs can be found in S4 Appendix.

Discussion

In this study, we found that ESBL-producing E. coli blood isolates were different from non-ESBL-producing E. coli causing bacteraemia in terms of clonal distribution, serotype distribution, antimicrobial resistance gene count and VG scores.

In line with previous research, the clonal distribution among ESBL-Ec blood isolates was less diverse compared to non-ESBL-Ec [25–27]. This was mainly caused by the predominance of ST131 within ESBL-Ec, as has been described before [28,29]. In contrast, ST73, a ST that so far is known for its susceptibility to antibiotics [28], was only identified among non-ESBL-Ec blood isolates. Previous studies have shown very different phylogeny of ST73 and ST131, with the first being characterised by a higher level of diversification in to divergent clades [28,30]. The association between ESBL phenotype and STs in E. coli, which is repeatedly found, implies that the genetic make-up of strains contributes to the ability to acquire and subsequently maintain plasmids carrying ESBL genes. Indeed, a recent large-scale study that compared the pan-genomes of invasive E. coli isolates, including ST131 and ST73, suggested that due to ongoing adaptation to long term human intestinal colonisation and consequent evolutionary gene selection, ST131 might have become able to reduce the fitness costs of long term plasmid maintenance [31,32]. It has been hypothesized that this is also true for other E. coli lineages that are associated with multidrug resistance (MDR). Reducing the fitness costs of replicating plasmids encoding MDR will result in having competitive advantage over other intestinal strains [33].

We hypothesized that the clonal distribution and resistance gene and VG content would differ between ECB episodes of community and hospital onset and between different primary foci, as a result of adaptive evolution of intestinal E. coli. We observed some statistical significant differences in resistance gene count and VG scores among non-ESBL-Ec from different primary foci of ECB, such as higher VG scores of blood isolates from a primary urinary focus as compared to isolates from a primary focus in the gastro-intestinal or hepatic-biliary tract. However, absolute differences in gene counts were small and the clinical significance remains unclear. In the current study, we found that differences in molecular content mostly depended on phenotypic ESBL-production and STs. This confirms the findings from a recent study that was performed in Scotland [34]. In that study, there were combinations of VGs as well as a particular accessory gene composition that differentiated between STs rather than between epidemiological factors. The association between ST69 and community onset ECB, as found in the Scottish study, was not identified in the current study. Other differences were the large proportion of E. coli isolates from ECB episodes that were deemed hospital-acquired (62%) as compared to our study (18.4% for ESBL-negative and 36.2% for ESBL-positive ECB) and in that study, analyses were not stratified for ESBL-positivity.

Interestingly, in our study, isolates that belonged to ST73 had low resistance gene content but relatively high VG scores as compared to other STs. Furthermore, the average VG score among non-ESBL-Ec was slightly higher than among ESBL-Ec blood isolates, which supports findings of other studies that described an inverse association between antimicrobial resistance and VG content in ExPEC E. coli [35–40]. This historical negative association has been challenged, considering the current predominance of ST131, with its relatively broad VG profile despite being associated with MDR [41–43]. Also in our study, ESBL-positive and ESBL-negative ST131 isolates had equal average VG scores.

We identified serotype O25:H4 as the most prevalent serotype causing ESBL-negative as well as ESBL-positive ECB in the Netherlands, followed by O6:H1. The serotype distribution among non-ESBL-Ec was more heterogeneous compared to ESBL-Ec, similar to the differences in clonal diversity [44]. A large recent European surveillance study that included 1,110 E. coli blood isolates from adults between 2011 and 2017 showed that there is heterogeneity in serotype distribution among different countries, which highlights the need for country specific data, such as provided in the current study [15]. We showed that the coverage of the new potential 10-valent vaccine was higher compared to the 4-valent vaccine and was actually doubled for non-ESBL-Ec bacteraemia. Findings of the current study may help further evaluation and implementation of E. coli vaccines.

Strengths of the current study are the multicenter design and combination of epidemiological characteristics with highly discriminatory genetic data. There are also important limitations. Firstly, E. coli is a heterogeneous species, of which the seven MLST genes only constitute a small proportion of the entire gene content. Because we also only investigated a small fraction of the genes that are commonly part of the accessory genome, such as VGs and acquired resistance genes, we may have missed genomic differences that could have importantly contributed to ecological specialization in the different clinically relevant primary foci. Secondly, we selected E. coli isolates from a tertiary care center and teaching hospital from two different regions, which we considered to be representative of the Netherlands. The description of strains that were identified here might not be entirely generalizable to other countries since there could be differences between circulating E. coli strains, dependent on local population characteristics and resistance levels. Thirdly, many pairwise comparisons between subgroups were performed, which increases the risk of false-positive findings (i.e. type I errors). Even though we applied a strict P value correction for multiple testing, this naturally does not eliminate the risk of false-positive findings. The analyses on resistance gene and VG content should therefore be viewed as hypothesis generating.

In conclusion, associations between clinical characteristics of ECB episodes and molecular content of E. coli isolates were limited. However, we did identify important differences in clonality, serotypes, antimicrobial resistance genes and VG scores between non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec blood isolates that reached beyond their phenotypic ESBL-positivity. Future studies that aim to describe the molecular epidemiology of ECB should therefore preferably focus on E. coli without preselection on ESBL-positivity, to limit the risk of inferring characteristics of resistant E. coli to the E. coli population as a whole.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. ST distribution in epidemiological subgroups.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (549.2KB, pdf)
S2 Appendix. Serotype distribution in epidemiological subgroups.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (171.4KB, pdf)
S3 Appendix. Supplementary data on acquired resistance gene content.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (229.1KB, pdf)
S4 Appendix. Supplementary data on virulence gene content.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (246KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We would sincerely like to thank Kim van der Zwaluw, Carlo Verhulst and Judith Vlooswijk for their contributions in the laboratory execution of the study. Preliminary results of this paper were presented at the 29th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 13–16 April 2019 (P1450).

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Abernethy JK, Johnson AP, Guy R, Hinton N, Sheridan EA, Hope RJ. Thirty day all-cause mortality in patients with Escherichia coli bacteraemia in England. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21: 251.e1–8. 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fitzpatrick JM, Biswas JS, Edgeworth JD, Islam J, Jenkins N, Judge R, et al. Gram-negative bacteraemia; a multi-centre prospective evaluation of empiric antibiotic therapy and outcome in English acute hospitals. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22: 244–251. 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.10.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vihta K-D, Stoesser N, Llewelyn MJ, Quan TP, Davies T, Fawcett NJ, et al. Trends over time in Escherichia coli bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, and antibiotic susceptibilities in Oxfordshire, UK, 1998–2016: a study of electronic health records. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18: 1138–1149. 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30353-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.de Kraker MEA, Jarlier V, Monen JCM, Heuer OE, van de Sande N, Grundmann H. The changing epidemiology of bacteraemias in Europe: trends from the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;19: 860–868. 10.1111/1469-0691.12028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Van Der Steen M, Leenstra T, Kluytmans JAJW, Van Der Bij AK. Trends in expanded-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae among Dutch clinical isolates, from 2008 to 2012. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0138088 10.1371/journal.pone.0138088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Schlackow I, Stoesser N, Walker AS, Crook DW, Peto TEA, Wyllie DH. Increasing incidence of Escherichia coli bacteraemia is driven by an increase in antibiotic-resistant isolates: electronic database study in Oxfordshire 1999–2011. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67: 1514–1524. 10.1093/jac/dks082 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Abernethy J, Guy R, Sheridan EA, Hopkins S, Kiernan M, Wilcox MH, et al. Epidemiology of Escherichia coli bacteraemia in England: results of an enhanced sentinel surveillance programme. J Hosp Infect. 2017;95: 365–375. 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Huttner A, Hatz C, van den Dobbelsteen G, Abbanat D, Hornacek A, Frolich R, et al. Safety, immunogenicity, and preliminary clinical efficacy of a vaccine against extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli in women with a history of recurrent urinary tract infection: a randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17: 528–537. 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30108-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Overdevest ITMA, Bergmans AMC, Verweij JJ, Vissers J, Bax N, Snelders E, et al. Prevalence of phylogroups and O25/ST131 in susceptible and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli isolates, the Netherlands. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21: 570.e1-e4. 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.02.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Van Der Bij AK, Peirano G, Goessens WHF, Van Der Vorm ER, Van Westreenen M, Pitout JDD. Clinical and molecular characteristics of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli causing bacteremia in the Rotterdam Area, Netherlands. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55: 3576–3578. 10.1128/AAC.00074-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.van Hout D, Verschuuren TD., Bruijning-Verhagen PCJ., Bosch T., Reuland EA., Fluit AC., et al. Design of the EPIGENEC Study: Assessing the EPIdemiology and GENetics of Escherichia coli in the Netherlands. Preprints. 2019; 2019020066. 10.20944/preprints201902.0066.v1 [DOI]
  • 12.Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29: 1072–1075. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Simpson EH. Measurement of diversity. Nature. 1949;163. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Joensen KG, Tetzschner AMM, Iguchi A, Aarestrup FM, Scheutz F. Rapid and Easy In Silico Serotyping of Escherichia coli Isolates by Use of Whole-Genome Sequencing Data. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53: 2410–2426. 10.1128/JCM.00008-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Geurtsen J, Weerdenburg E, Davies T, Go O, Spiessens B, Geet G Van, et al. Extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli surveillance study to determine O-serotype prevalence and antibiotic resistance in blood isolates collected in Europe, 2011–2017. ECCMID Conf #P1451.
  • 16.Zankari E, Hasman H, Cosentino S, Vestergaard M, Rasmussen S, Lund O, et al. Identification of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67: 2640–2644. 10.1093/jac/dks261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Liu B, Zheng D, Jin Q, Chen L, Yang J. VFDB 2019: a comparative pathogenomic platform with an interactive web interface. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47: D687–D692. 10.1093/nar/gky1080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Johnson JR, Stell AL. Extended Virulence Genotypes of Escherichia coli Strains from Patients with Urosepsis in Relation to Phylogeny and Host Compromise. J Infect Dis. 2000;181: 261–72. 10.1086/315217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Johnson JR, Johnston BD, Porter S, Thuras P, Aziz M, Price LB. Accessory Traits and Phylogenetic Background Predict Escherichia coli Extraintestinal Virulence Better Than Does Ecological Source. J Infect Dis. 2019;219: 121–132. 10.1093/infdis/jiy459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Johnson JR, Porter S, Johnston B, Kuskowski MA, Spurbeck RR, Mobley HLT, et al. Host Characteristics and Bacterial Traits Predict Experimental Virulence for Escherichia coli Bloodstream Isolates From Patients With Urosepsis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2015;2: ofv083 10.1093/ofid/ofv083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dale AP, Woodford N. Extra-intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC): Disease, carriage and clones. J Infect. 2015;71: 615–626. 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dale AP, Pandey AK, Hesp RJ, Belogiannis K, Laver JR, Shone CC, et al. Genomes of Escherichia coli bacteraemia isolates originating from urinary tract foci contain more virulence-associated genes than those from non-urinary foci and neutropaenic hosts. J Infect. 2018;77: 534–543. 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Leimbach A. ecoli_VF_collection: V.0.1. Zenodo. 2016. Available: 10.5281/zenodo.56686 [DOI]
  • 24.Frenck RW, Ervin J, Chu L, Abbanat D, Spiessens B, Go O, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a vaccine for extra-intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ESTELLA): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19: 631–640. 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30803-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mathers AJ, Peirano G, Pitout JDD. The role of epidemic resistance plasmids and international high-risk clones in the spread of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28: 565–591. 10.1128/CMR.00116-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hertz FB, Nielsen JB, Schonning K, Littauer P, Knudsen JD, Lobner-Olesen A, et al. “Population structure of drug-susceptible,-resistant and ESBL-producing Escherichia coli from community-acquired urinary tract”. BMC Microbiol. 2016;16: 63 10.1186/s12866-016-0681-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Manges AR, Geum HM, Guo A, Edens TJ, Fibke CD, Pitout JDD. Global Extraintestinal Pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC) Lineages. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019;32 10.1128/CMR.00135-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kallonen T, Brodrick HJ, Harris SR, Corander J, Brown NM, Martin V, et al. Systematic longitudinal survey of invasive Escherichia coli in England demonstrates a stable population structure only transiently disturbed by the emergence of ST131. Genome Res. 2017;27: 1437–1449. 10.1101/gr.216606.116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nicolas-Chanoine M-H, Bertrand X, Madec J-Y. Escherichia coli ST131, an intriguing clonal group. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014;27: 543–574. 10.1128/CMR.00125-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alhashash F, Wang X, Paszkiewicz K, Diggle M, Zong Z, McNally A. Increase in bacteraemia cases in the East Midlands region of the UK due to MDR Escherichia coli ST73: high levels of genomic and plasmid diversity in causative isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;71: 339–343. 10.1093/jac/dkv365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.McNally A, Oren Y, Kelly D, Pascoe B, Dunn S, Sreecharan T, et al. Combined Analysis of Variation in Core, Accessory and Regulatory Genome Regions Provides a Super-Resolution View into the Evolution of Bacterial Populations. PLoS Genet. 2016;12: e1006280 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.McNally A, Kallonen T, Connor C, Abudahab K, Aanensen DM, Horner C, et al. Diversification of Colonization Factors in a Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli Lineage Evolving under Negative Frequency-Dependent Selection. MBio. 2019;10: e00644–19. 10.1128/mBio.00644-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dunn SJ, Connor C, McNally A. The evolution and transmission of multi-drug resistant Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae: the complexity of clones and plasmids. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2019;51: 51–56. 10.1016/j.mib.2019.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Goswami C, Fox S, Holden M, Connor M, Leanord A, Evans TJ. Genetic analysis of invasive Escherichia coli in Scotland reveals determinants of healthcare-associated versus community-acquired infections. Microb genomics. 2018;4 10.1099/mgen.0.000190 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Velasco M, Horcajada JP, Mensa J, Moreno-Martinez A, Vila J, Martinez JA, et al. Decreased invasive capacity of quinolone-resistant Escherichia coli in patients with urinary tract infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33: 1682–1686. 10.1086/323810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vila J, Simon K, Ruiz J, Horcajada JP, Velasco M, Barranco M, et al. Are quinolone-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli less virulent? J Infect Dis. 2002;186: 1039–1042. 10.1086/342955 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Johnson JR, van der Schee C, Kuskowski MA, Goessens W, van Belkum A. Phylogenetic background and virulence profiles of fluoroquinolone-resistant clinical Escherichia coli isolates from the Netherlands. J Infect Dis. 2002;186: 1852–1856. 10.1086/345767 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Johnson JR, Kuskowski MA, Owens K, Gajewski A, Winokur PL. Phylogenetic origin and virulence genotype in relation to resistance to fluoroquinolones and/or extended-spectrum cephalosporins and cephamycins among Escherichia coli isolates from animals and humans. J Infect Dis. 2003;188: 759–768. 10.1086/377455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Horcajada JP, Soto S, Gajewski A, Smithson A, Jiménez de Anta MT, Mensa J, et al. Quinolone-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli strains from phylogenetic group B2 have fewer virulence factors than their susceptible counterparts. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43: 2962–2964. 10.1128/JCM.43.6.2962-2964.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Moreno E, Prats G, Sabaté M, Pérez T, Johnson JR, Andreu A. Quinolone, fluoroquinolone and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole resistance in relation to virulence determinants and phylogenetic background among uropathogenic Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57: 204–211. 10.1093/jac/dki468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Johnson JR, Porter S, Thuras P, Castanheira M. Epidemic Emergence in the United States of Escherichia coli Sequence Type 131-H30 (ST131-H30), 2000 to 2009. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61: e00732–17. 10.1128/AAC.00732-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Johnson JR, Porter S, Thuras P, Castanheira M. The Pandemic H30 Subclone of Sequence Type 131 (ST131) as the Leading Cause of Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli Infections in the United States (2011–2012). Open forum Infect Dis. 2017;4: ofx089–ofx089. 10.1093/ofid/ofx089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Johnson JR, Russo TA. Molecular Epidemiology of Extraintestinal Pathogenic Escherichia coli. EcoSal Plus. 2018;8: 10.1128/ecosalplus.ESP-0004-2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ciesielczuk H, Jenkins C, Chattaway M, Doumith M, Hope R, Woodford N, et al. Trends in ExPEC serogroups in the UK and their significance. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;35: 1661–1666. 10.1007/s10096-016-2707-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jose Melo-Cristino

13 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-29528

Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and non-ESBL-producing Escherichia coli isolates causing bacteremia in the Netherlands (2014 – 2016) differ in clonal distribution, antimicrobial resistance gene and virulence gene content

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs. van Hout,

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

I am sorry for the delay with the revision process but it was not easy to find available expert reviewers. The manuscript is very good but please submit a revised version that addresses all the points raised by the two reviewers.  Furthermore, I agree that the manuscript is long. Please be more concise and provide clear explanations.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Melo-Cristino, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1.

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

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This is a well-designed, and overall well performed study. Lots of data that have been obtained here, and Tables and Figures and well thought in order to make the whole set easy to understand and analyse. I would suggest to include S1, S2 and S3 in the main manuscript rather than as Supplements, but this is a detail somehow.

What is missing on my opinion to provide the reader all the tools to analyse those data in term of population structure distribution are some words about the links between ST. Indeed it is essential to figure out whether a so-called ST73 for instance is phylogenetically close or by contrast very different from an ST131. This would mean completely different things as you may guess.

The part dealing with virulence factors might be very much reduced on my opinion.

In fact, the entire manuscript would benefit from signifiant shortening, and to condense it would surely make it more attractive to the reader.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describes a molecular and serologic epidemiological study of E. coli isolates from bacteremia ESBL and non- ESBL producers. The manuscript is well written, and despite not showing results completelly new, is interesting to a scientific reader and add more data on the epidemiology of E. coli recovered from blood samples.

The molecular study is very complete and WGS was used for analysing the genome of the isolates.

I just have a few remarks:

Line 276: some VG scores were similar, not completelly different (lines 250-59)

Line 309: It is well known that usually in E. coli there is an inversion in resistance genes versus virulence genes, mostly in UPEC (see Johnson et al papers). The exception is ST131, the most well studied ST right now. So, this is not a novelty.

Minor comment: Introduction, authors repeat consecutively references (1-4) from lines 62 until 69. Not necessary.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 14;15(1):e0227604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227604.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

16 Dec 2019

Dear Dr. José Melo-Cristino,

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable time to evaluate this manuscript. The paper has been modified in response to the comments and suggestions. All changes are highlighted in the revised document in yellow. Furthermore, the manuscript was shortened by 651 words (20%). In the following we address all comments point by point. The response letter has also been submitted as a seperate PDF document.

Yours sincerely,

Denise van Hout

Response to Reviewer #1:

This is a well-designed, and overall well performed study. Lots of data that have been obtained here, and Tables and Figures and well thought in order to make the whole set easy to understand and analyse.

Response: We would sincerely like to thank the reviewer for the time taken to critically appraise this manuscript and the input to further improve the manuscript. In the following we will address the comments point by point.

I would suggest to include S1, S2 and S3 in the main manuscript rather than as Supplements, but this is a detail somehow.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have indeed considered to move some of the figures from the Supplement in to the main manuscript, given they provide additional illustrative information. However, given the manuscript is very data-dense, including 4 figures and 2 tables already, we are afraid addition of more figures might be a bit too much. We would therefore like to request the reviewer to keep the figures in the supplementary material.

What is missing on my opinion to provide the reader all the tools to analyse those data in term of population structure distribution are some words about the links between ST. Indeed it is essential to figure out whether a so-called ST73 for instance is phylogenetically close or by contrast very different from an ST131. This would mean completely different things as you may guess.

Reply: Thank you for this comment. We indeed agree with the reviewer that the manuscript indeed lacked guidance on how to interpret the results of the different ST distributions. We have therefore added a comment to the Methods section that includes a short explanation of the MLST scheme (lines 101-102 of the revised manuscript) and have added a short comment to the Discussion section about the known phylogenetic relationship between ST73 and ST131, see lines 238-239 of the revised manuscript.

The part dealing with virulence factors might be very much reduced on my opinion.

In fact, the entire manuscript would benefit from signifiant shortening, and to condense it would surely make it more attractive to the reader.

Reply: We agree with the reviewer that the part on virulence genes was too elaborate and have therefore shortened this paragraph by almost half (lines 209-216 of the revised manuscript). Furthermore, the rest of the manuscript was also shortened (by 20%), as suggested by the reviewer and the academic editor (mainly in the introduction, methods and in the description of results on resistance gene and VG content).

Response to Reviewer #2:

The manuscript describes a molecular and serologic epidemiological study of E. coli isolates from bacteremia ESBL and non- ESBL producers. The manuscript is well written, and despite not showing results completelly new, is interesting to a scientific reader and add more data on the epidemiology of E. coli recovered from blood samples.

The molecular study is very complete and WGS was used for analysing the genome of the isolates.

Reply: We would like to thank the reviewer for the time and we sincerely appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript. In the following we respond to the comments point by point.

I just have a few remarks:

Line 276: some VG scores were similar, not completelly different (lines 250-59)

Reply: Thank you for this comment. The reviewer is right to point out that when assessing epidemiological subgroups, most of the VG scores were not significantly different between groups. These analyses were stratified on ESBL-positivity, thus were performed for non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec separately. We would like to point out that the statement made in line 276 however (line 233 of the revised manuscript), does not refer to the epidemiological subgroups, but refers to the overall significant difference in VG score that was found between non-ESBL-Ec and ESBL-Ec isolates, as provided in lines 211-212 of the revised manuscript. The paragraph on VG scores has been shortened and hopefully is now more clear to the reader.

Line 309: It is well known that usually in E. coli there is an inversion in resistance genes versus virulence genes, mostly in UPEC (see Johnson et al papers). The exception is ST131, the most well studied ST right now. So, this is not a novelty.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment; we agree that the paragraph did not appropriately reflect current literature and have revised it accordingly. This also included referencing of additional papers, among which important papers performed by Johnson et al., Vila et al. and Velasco et al. (lines 267-273 of the revised manuscript).

Minor comment: Introduction, authors repeat consecutively references (1-4) from lines 62 until 69. Not necessary.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion, the changed were made as suggested by the reviewer.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file. (171.1KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Jose Melo-Cristino

20 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-29528R1

Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and non-ESBL-producing Escherichia coli isolates causing bacteremia in the Netherlands (2014 – 2016) differ in clonal distribution, antimicrobial resistance gene and virulence gene content

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs. van Hout,

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

In Table 2, after some serotypes, you have indicated (%), as it is indicated after the value of N in the top of both vertical rows. Can you clarify the mention of (%) in some serotypes?

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 03 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Melo-Cristino, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 14;15(1):e0227604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227604.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

20 Dec 2019

Table 2 was edited in reply to the comments of the editor.

Decision Letter 2

Jose Melo-Cristino

26 Dec 2019

Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and non-ESBL-producing Escherichia coli isolates causing bacteremia in the Netherlands (2014 – 2016) differ in clonal distribution, antimicrobial resistance gene and virulence gene content

PONE-D-19-29528R2

Dear Dr. van Hout,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

With kind regards,

Jose Melo-Cristino, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Jose Melo-Cristino

31 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-29528R2

Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and non-ESBL-producing Escherichia coli isolates causing bacteremia in the Netherlands (2014 – 2016) differ in clonal distribution, antimicrobial resistance gene and virulence gene content

Dear Dr. van Hout:

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

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

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Jose Melo-Cristino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. ST distribution in epidemiological subgroups.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (549.2KB, pdf)
    S2 Appendix. Serotype distribution in epidemiological subgroups.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (171.4KB, pdf)
    S3 Appendix. Supplementary data on acquired resistance gene content.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (229.1KB, pdf)
    S4 Appendix. Supplementary data on virulence gene content.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (246KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

    Click here for additional data file. (171.1KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

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

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES