Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jan 17;15(1):e0227833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227833

Antimicrobial resistance patterns and molecular resistance markers of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from human diarrheal cases

Mohamed Elhadidy 1,2,*, Mohamed Medhat Ali 1,3, Ayman El-Shibiny 1,4, William G Miller 5, Walid F Elkhatib 6,7, Nadine Botteldoorn 8, Katelijne Dierick 9
Editor: Iddya Karunasagar10
PMCID: PMC6968864  PMID: 31951631

Abstract

The aim of this study is to characterize the antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni recovered from diarrheal patients in Belgium, focusing on the genetic diversity of resistant strains and underlying molecular mechanisms of resistance among Campylobacter jejuni resistant strains isolated from diarrheal patients in Belgium. Susceptibility profile of 199 clinical C. jejuni isolates was determined by minimum inhibitory concentrations against six commonly-used antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, tetracycline, streptomycin, gentamicin, and erythromycin). High rates of resistance were observed against nalidixic acid (56.3%), ciprofloxacin (55.8%) and tetracycline (49.7%); these rates were similar to those obtained from different national reports in broilers intended for human consumption. Alternatively, lower resistance rates to streptomycin (4.5%) and erythromycin (2%), and absolute sensitivity to gentamicin were observed. C. jejuni isolates resistant to tetracycline or quinolones (ciprofloxacin and/or nalidixic acid) were screened for the presence of the tetO gene and the C257T mutation in the quinolone resistance determining region (QRDR) of the gyrase gene gyrA, respectively. Interestingly, some of the isolates that displayed phenotypic resistance to these antimicrobials lacked the corresponding genetic determinants. Among erythromycin-resistant isolates, a diverse array of potential molecular resistance mechanisms was investigated, including the presence of ermB and mutations in the 23S rRNA gene, the rplD and rplV ribosomal genes, and the regulatory region of the cmeABC operon. Two of the four erythromycin-resistant isolates harboured the A2075G transition mutation in the 23S rRNA gene; one of these isolates exhibited further mutations in rplD, rplV and in the cmeABC regulatory region. This study expands the current understanding of how different genetic determinants and particular clones shape the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in C. jejuni in Belgium. It also reveals many questions in need of further investigation, such as the role of other undetermined molecular mechanisms that may potentially contribute to the antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter.

Introduction

The genus Campylobacter currently contains 31 species, 11 subspecies and 3 biovars, several of which are relevant to human and animal health [1,2]. Among these taxa, the enteric pathogens Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli account for about 90% of human Campylobacter infections. An estimate of 80–90% of poultry flocks are colonized mainly with C. jejuni; the rest are colonized with C. coli or, infrequently, with Campylobacter lari [3–5]. Although consumption of undercooked Campylobacter-contaminated poultry or mishandling of raw poultry products was documented by different studies as the most important infection sources worldwide[6,7], a different recent observational studies identified other potential sources as ruminants (cattle and sheep), dogs, cats, pigs, and the environment [6,8,9].

Campylobacter pathogenesis is a complex process in which bacterial adherence and invasion of host cells are likely to be essential early steps [10], and a low infective dose, about 500 bacteria, is enough to induce clinical symptoms [11]. Human campylobacteriosis is considered to be one of the most crucial food-borne diseases that might challenge the future global health [1]. Over the past decade, the incidence and the prevalence of the disease exhibited a dramatic increase worldwide including North America, Europe, and Australia. Furthermore, the epidemiological data from different parts of Africa, Asia and middle east supports the epidemic profile of the disease in these areas [1].

The main symptom for Campylobacter infection remains acute diarrhea. However, acute inflammatory enteritis usually extends down the intestine to affect the colon and rectum [12]. In some severe cases, neurological complications such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and Miller Fisher syndrome may develop [13].

Generally, Campylobacter infections do not require treatment with antibiotics, as they are often of short duration, clinically mild, and self-limiting, and will usually resolve within one week after the onset of symptoms [14]. However, populations at risk (e.g., the very young, the elderly or those with underlying conditions like HIV infection) will require antibiotic treatment, which has proven to be beneficial [14]. When administered, the macrolides (such as azithromycin and erythromycin) is the drug of choice for chemotherapy in the clinical treatment of C. jejuni enteritis [15]. Tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin) have been suggested as alternative drugs in the treatment of clinical campylobacteriosis, and intravenous aminoglycoside (gentamicin) injection may be required in more severe systemic cases of campylobacteriosis [16–21].

Recently, an increase in the resistance of Campylobacter spp. to antibiotics has been reported worldwide [22]. Contributing factors to this increase could be the veterinary usage of antibiotics as prophylaxis or for treatment of animal diseases [23]. The appearance of these resistant strains in food of animal origin is a significant public health threat [24]. In addition, recent studies have also revealed that patients infected with antimicrobial-resistant Campylobacter species suffer a longer duration of diarrhea, when compared with those who are infected with antimicrobial-susceptible strains [25]. Consequently, investigations of the mechanisms used by Campylobacter in the development of antimicrobial resistance are warranted.

In Campylobacter, as in most other bacterial taxa, increased antimicrobial resistance is due to spontaneous point mutations in the genome and/or the acquisition of antibiotic resistance genes or loci. In the latter scenario, most antibiotic resistance genes are plasmid-borne and acquired by Campylobacter via conjugation. However, the ability of Campylobacter spp. to acquire and incorporate DNA by natural transformation is another potential mechanism for the addition of putative antimicrobial resistance genes into the chromosome. Furthermore, some plasmids carrying drug resistance genes can integrate into the chromosome as genomic islands, thus increasing the stability of antimicrobial resistance in these strains, as reversion back to a susceptible state due to plasmid curing would be reduced. Quinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter is usually a result of discrete and well-characterized point mutations. A single point mutation in gyrA (C257T) is mainly responsible for the development of resistance to quinolones and fluoroquinolones [26], while point mutations in the peptidyl encoding region of the 23S rRNA gene as well as amino acid changes in L4/L22 ribosomal proteins result in resistance to macrolides [27,28]. In Campylobacter, resistance to other antimicrobials, e.g. tetracycline, are due to the acquisition of resistance genes. The gene encoding the ribosomal protection protein Tet(O), which confers resistance to tetracyclines by dislodging tetracycline from its primary binding site on the ribosome [29], is generally carried on plasmids [30], although it has been identified on the chromosome [31]. Macrolide resistance in Campylobacter has also been shown to be due to the acquisition of the 23S rRNA methyltransferase gene ermB [32]. Additionally, synergistic action of the active efflux pump, CmeABC with the previously-mentioned point mutations in these genes have been reported as a well-defined resistance mechanism against different antimicrobials, including macrolides, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines, beta-lactams, and ketolides [33].

Multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) is widely applied for studying the epidemiology of campylobacteriosis. MLST can also be used to track the dissemination of antimicrobial-resistant C. jejuni strains [34,35]. Different recent studies supported the clonal expansion of antimicrobial-resistant C. jejuni strains by revealing an association between different sequence types (STs) and antimicrobial resistance [35–40].

The aim of this study is to determine the antimicrobial resistance phenotypes in a subset of non-duplicate 199 C. jejuni isolates recovered from diarrheal patients in Belgium between 2006 and 2015, and to investigate the molecular mechanisms of resistance and the clonal population structure of both susceptible and resistant isolates using MLST.

Materials and methods

Campylobacter strain collection

The C. jejuni isolates used in in this study represent a random selection of 199 non-duplicate strains from a collection of isolates previously recovered from the stool specimens of patients suffering from different symptoms of acute gastroenteritis, including diarrhea, All isolates were obtained from the National reference center for Campylobacter, Saint Pierre University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium during the period between 2006 to 2015. To exclude the selection of potential clonal or epidemiological-related isolates, a stratified random-sampling scheme was performed based on year of isolation, patient location, disease severity and bacterial MLST profile.

Media and growth conditions

Isolation of C. jejuni was performed as previously described [41]. Following initial isolation on Butzler selective agar (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Belgium), isolates were kept in frozen stocks at -80°C. Frozen stocks were subcultured onto Columbia agar (Oxoid, United Kingdom) supplemented with 5% horse blood (Sigma-Aldrich, United Kingdom) and incubated at 42°C for 48 h under microaerobic conditions (5% O2, 10% CO2, 85% N2) provided by the Anoxomat system (Mark II System, The Netherlands).

Genomic DNA preparation

Extraction of genomic DNA was performed using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Eluted DNA was stored at -20°C for further MLST screening and for molecular analysis of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) determinants.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Phenotypic screening of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) to erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, gentamicin, streptomycin and tetracycline was performed as previously described using a commercial microdilution tool (Sensititre® plates; Sensititre Campylobacter plate–EUCAMP2, Trek Diagnostic Systems, UK) and following the manufacturer’s instructions. The MIC interpretive resistance standards defined by the Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI), 2016 were employed to define isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin, erythromycin or tetracycline. Interpretation of gentamicin, streptomycin, and nalidixic acid resistance was performed using the clinical breakpoints previously outlined [42]. C. jejuni strain ATCC 33560 was used as a quality control. Multidrug resistance was defined as resistance to at least three unrelated classes of antimicrobials [43].

Molecular characterization of antimicrobial resistance

Among the resistant isolates, different potential molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter were examined, including those associated with resistance to quinolones and fluoroquinolones (nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin, respectively), macrolides (erythromycin), and tetracycline. Presence of the C257T mutation in the quinolone resistance determining region (QRDR) of gyrA, that potentially confers resistance to nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin, was determined in all resistant isolates using the mismatch amplification mutation assay (MAMA-PCR) [44]. The tetracycline resistance gene tet(O) was detected using a previously-published PCR protocol [30]. To investigate potential mechanisms of erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni, isolates were screened for different genes and mutations potentially conferring resistance, including: the ermB gene; and mutations in the 23S rRNA gene, the rplD and rplV 50S ribosomal subunit genes, and the intergenic region between cmeR and cmeABC. PCR amplification was used to assay of the presence/absence of the ermB gene among resistant strains [45]. The screening of isolates for the A2074C and A2075G point mutations in the peptidyl encoding region of the 23S rRNA gene, previously reported to be highly associated with high-level erythromycin resistance, was performed using a mismatch amplification mutation protocol [46]. Sequencing of the rplD and rplV genes was performed as previously reported [17] to determine substitutions in the L4 and L22 ribosomal proteins. PCR amplification and sequencing of the intergenic region between the cmeR and cmeA genes was used to screen isolates for different polymorphisms in the regulatory region of cmeABC. Analysis of cmeR alleles and the cme RAIVS (cmeR-cmeA intervening sequence) region was performed using the cmeRABC locus of the erythromycin-sensitive C. jejuni strain NCTC 11168 as a ‘wild-type’ reference strain.

DNA sequence analysis

Genes targeted for sequencing were amplified by PCR using different primer sequences and PCR amplification conditions described by the referenced authors listed above. Amplicons were purified using the QIAquick PCR Purification kit (Qiagen, Germany), following the manufacturer's instructions. Cycle sequencing reactions were performed using purified PCR products and the ABI PRISM BigDye terminator cycle sequencing kit (ver. 3.1; Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) with standard protocols; sequencing products were purified using BigDye XTerminator (Life Technologies). DNA sequencing was performed on an ABI PRISM 3730 DNA Analyzer (Life Technologies), using POP-7 polymer and the ABI PRISM Genetic Analyzer Data Collection and ABI PRISM Genetic Analyzer Sequencing Analysis software. Sequences were trimmed manually and compared to those in the current databases using the BLAST suite of programs. Sequence alignments and SNP identification were performed using the Lasergene analysis package (v. 8.0.2; DNASTAR, Madison, WI).

Clonal population structure of antimicrobial resistance

The clonal population structure of both susceptible and resistant isolates was analysed using multilocus sequence typing (MLST) as previously described [47]. Determination of allele numbers and corresponding sequence types (STs) and clonal complexes (CCs) was performed by submitting the DNA sequences to the Campylobacter PubMLST database website (https://pubmlst.org/campylobacter/) at the University of Oxford.

Data analyses

Allele sequences for each sequence type were concatenated in the order aspA-atpA-glnA-gltA-glyA-pgm-tkt and aligned using CLUSTALX (ver. 2.1; http://www.clustal.org/). Dendrograms were constructed using the neighbor-joining method with the Kimura 2-parameter distance estimation method [48]. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using MEGA ver. 6.06 [49] to identify evolutionary relationships between C. jejuni isolates. Statistical significance of the association of clonal complexes with specific antibiotic resistance was tested using a two-tailed Pearson’s Chi-square test. Resistance patterns to different antibiotic classes among C. jejuni clonal complexes were analyzed by a two-tailed Mann–Whitney nonparametric test. Potential associations between the T86I GyrA substitution versus different clonal complexes versus ciprofloxacin resistance were evaluated by a two-tailed Pearson’s Chi-square test. Correlation tests, including Kendall’s tau-b, Spearman’s rank correlation, and Pearson’s R, were used to assess the correlations between phenotypic and genotypic patterns of clonal complexes’ resistance to nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin, and tetracycline. Data output of analyses with p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses and descriptive statistics in the current study were performed using SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Armonk, NY, USA).

Ethical approval

The study represents a retrospective study that involve genotyping of historical strains collection and no patient data collection was involved in this study. Ethical approval was obtained from the respective Ethical Committee of CHU Saint Pierre.

Results

Antimicrobial resistance profiles

The antimicrobial resistance profiles of the assayed C. jejuni isolates against six different antimicrobials representing four different classes are presented in “Table 1”. The highest frequency of resistance was observed for nalidixic acid (56.3%), ciprofloxacin (55.8%), and tetracycline (49.7%). A low frequency of resistance was observed for streptomycin (4.5%) and erythromycin (2%). All isolates were susceptible to gentamicin “Table 1“. MIC tests yielded 12 different antimicrobial resistance patterns “Table 2“. Sixty-four (32.2%) isolates were pan-susceptible to all antimicrobials tested. The most frequent antimicrobial resistance pattern observed was the combined resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and tetracycline (n = 71; 35.7%). Multidrug resistance was observed in 9 of 199 C. jejuni isolates (4.5%). Among the resistant isolates, most (n = 121; 91.0%) possessed one of three resistance profiles: TET (n = 19; 14.3%) or CIP-NAL plus (n = 71; 53.4%) or minus (n = 31; 23.3%) TET.

Table 1. Antimicrobial resistance rates of clinical C. jejuni.

Class Antimicrobial C. jejuni ATCC 33560T (mg/L) MIC interpretive resistant criteria
(mg/L)a 		No. of resistant isolates (%)
Aminoglycosides Gentamicin 1 R ≥ 8 0 (0%)
Streptomycin 8 R ≥ 4 9 (4.5%)
Macrolides Erythromycin 2 R ≥ 8 4 (2%)
Quinolones and fluoroquinolones Ciprofloxacin ≤ 0.5 R ≥ 4 111 (55.8%)
Nalidixic acid 8 R ≥ 32 112 (56.3%)
Tetracyclines Tetracycline 1 R ≥ 16 99 (49.7%)
Open in a new tab

a: R: resistant

Table 2. Antimicrobial resistance patterns and MLST sequence types among clinical C. jejuni.

Antimicrobial resistance profilea No. of isolates
n (%)		 Sequence types
Pan susceptible 64 (32.2%) ST-19 (3), ST-21 (10), ST-22 (2), ST-42 (4), ST-45 (5), ST-46 (2), ST-48 (9), ST-50 (2), ST-53 (4), ST-58 (1), ST-122 (1), ST-206 (1), ST-257 (3), ST-262 (1), ST-267 (1), ST-290 (1), ST-334 (1), ST-436 (1), ST-572 (1), ST-969 (1), ST-1044 (2), ST-2187 (1), ST-2288 (1) ST-2496 (1), ST-5018, (1), ST-5222 (1), ST-5396 (1), ST-8615 (1), ST-8633 (1)
TET 19 (9.5%) ST-44 (2), ST-45 (1), ST-48 (2), ST-50 (2), ST-257 (2), ST-356 (1), ST-464 (2), ST-879 (1), ST-977 (1), ST-1707 (1), ST-5018 (1), ST-5970 (1), ST-7947 (1), ST-8634 (1)
CIP 2 (1%) ST-19 (1), ST-775 (1)
CIP NAL 31 (15.6%) ST-19 (2), ST-21 (3), ST-42 (3), ST-45 (1), ST-46 (1), ST-48 (4), ST-50 (3), ST-122 (2), ST-257 (3), ST-775 (1), ST-1044 (1), ST-1073 (1), ST-2844 (1), ST-2993 (1), ST-5018 (2), ST-7946 (1), ST-8635 (1)
CIP TET 1 (0.5%) ST-990 (1)
NAL STR 1 (0.5%) ST-572 (1)
STR TET 1 (0.5%) ST-3863 (1)
CIP NAL TET 71 (35.7%) ST-19 (1), ST-21 (3), ST-44 (5), ST-45 (2), ST-46 (2), ST-48 (7), ST-50 (4), ST-52 (1), ST-53 (1), ST-122 (2), ST-257 (1), ST-354 (2), ST-356 (1), ST-443 (1), ST-464 (8), ST-523 (2), ST-572 (4), ST-879 (1), ST-883 (2), ST-990 (2), ST-1728 (1), ST-2135 (2), ST-2254 (2), ST-2274 (6), ST-3015 (1), ST-3155 (1), ST-3546 (2), ST-3720 (2), ST-3769 (1), ST-5224 (1)
CIP NAL ERY TET 2 (1%) ST-18 (1), ST-3155 (1)
CIP NAL STR TET 5 (2.5%) ST-572 (5)
CIP NAL ERY STR 1 (0.5%) ST-5221 (1)
ERY NAL STR TET 1 (0.5%) ST-21 (1)
Open in a new tab

a: MDR strains are in bold and underlined.

Analysis of the molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance

The tet(O) gene, that potentially confers tetracycline resistance, was detected in 83 of 99 Tetr isolates tested (83.8%). The C257T transition in gyrA, which results in a T86I substitution, was observed in a total of 104 of 113 (92%) isolates that were resistant to Cip and/or Nal. Correlation tests revealed statistically-significant (p < 0.001), high correlation coefficients (> 0.90) between the C257T point mutation and resistance to ciprofloxacin as well as nalidixic acid “Table 3“. Similarly, such tests showed significant (p < 0.001) high correlation coefficients (> 0.85) between tetracycline resistance and the presence of tet(O) “Table 3“. The C257T gyrA mutation was absent in six isolates expressing simultaneous resistance to both ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid and one isolate expressing resistance to nalidixic acid only. MICs in the range of 4–8 mg/L for CIP and 64 mg/L for Nal were observed in these isolates.

Table 3. Correlation tests between phenotypic and genotypic patterns of clonal complexes’ resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, and tetracycline.

Phenotypic versus
genotypic resistance		 Correlation test Correlation coefficient value Standard error Significance*
(p-value)
Ciprofloxacin resistance
versus C257T gyrA mutation		 Kendall's tau-b 0.942 0.035 p < 0.001
Spearman Correlation 0.973 0.019 p < 0.001
Pearson's R 0.996 0.003 p < 0.001
Nalidixic acid resistance
versus C257T gyrA mutation		 Kendall's tau-b 0.962 0.025 p < 0.001
Spearman Correlation 0.978 0.019 p < 0.001
Pearson's R 0.997 0.003 p < 0.001
Tetracycline resistance
versus presence of tet(O) 		Kendall's tau-b 0.868 0.051 p < 0.001
Spearman Correlation 0.922 0.044 p < 0.001
Pearson's R 0.950 0.039 p < 0.001
Open in a new tab

* p-value < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant correlation

The four erythromycin-resistant isolates varied in their level of resistance, with three possessing an MIC of 32 mg/L and one possessing an MIC of 128 mg/L “Table 4“. These isolates were screened for different resistance mechanisms including: point mutations/substitutions in the 23S rRNA, rplD (50S ribosomal protein L4), rplV (50S ribosomal protein L22) and cmeRABC loci; and the presence of ermB. The A2074G mutation was absent in all Ermr isolates; however, two of the Ermr isolates (CJ.12/007 and CJ.H127) harbored the A2075G mutation in the 23S rRNA gene “Table 4“. In the strain demonstrating the highest level of erythromycin resistance (CJ.H127; 128 mg/L), further investigation revealed putative substitutions in the 50S ribosomal subunit proteins L4 (V121A, T177S) and L22 (G74A, A105M, T109A). Moreover, in this strain, a putative substitution within CmeR (Q118R) and a one bp deletion within the cme RAIVS (cmeR-cmeA intervening sequence) region were identified “Table 4“. No additional mutations were identified in strain CJ.12/007 and no mutations previously associated with Ermr were identified in strains CJ.11/152 or CJ.13/164 “Table 4“. Additionally, the absence of the ermB gene from all erythromycin-resistant isolates was demonstrated using PCR.

Table 4. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), 23S rRNA gene mutations, ribosomal protein substitutions and cmeRABC locus alleles in four erythromycin-resistant C. jejuni isolates.

Strain Ery MIC (mg/L) Mutation in 23S rRNA gene Ribosomal protein polymorphisms cmeR RAIVS
L4 (RplD) mutation L22 (RplV) mutation
CJ.H127 128 A2075G V121A, T177S G74A, A105M, T109A Q118R One bp deletion
CJ.11/152 32 WT WT WT WT WT
CJ.12/007 32 A2075G WT WT WT WT
CJ.13/164 32 WT WT WT WT WT
Open in a new tab

WT: wild type (with respect to C. jejuni strain NCTC 11168); RAIVS: cmeRA intervening sequence.

Association of MLST sequence types (STs) with antimicrobial resistance

A total of 53 different STs were represented among the 199 C. jejuni isolates recovered in this study “Table 2“. These STs were assigned to 25 CCs and the most prevalent STs were ST-48 (n = 22; 11.0%), ST-21 (n = 17; 8.5%), ST-50 (n = 11; 5.5%), ST-572 (n = 11; 5.5%), ST-464 (n = 10; 5%), and ST-257 (n = 9; 4.5%). Twenty-six of the STs were comprised of only one isolate. All isolates from seventeen STs (ST-22, ST-58, ST-122, ST-206, ST-262, ST-267, ST-290, ST-334, ST-436, ST-969, ST-2187, ST-2288, ST-2496, ST-5222, ST-5396, ST-8615, and ST-8633) were susceptible to all antimicrobials tested “Table 2“. Concerning MDR C. jejuni strains, only five sequence types (ST-572, ST-18, ST-21, ST-828, and ST-5221) revealed MDR patterns and more than half (5/9) of MDR prevalence was allocated into ST-572 as shown in Table “2“.

To identify the evolutionary relationships between C. jejuni isolates, a neighbor-joining dendrogram was constructed. For each profile identified in this study, the component allele sequences were concatenated; these concatenated sequences were aligned using CLUSTALX and a phylogenetic tree was generated using MEGA ver. 6. The relatedness of different C. jejuni sequence types (STs) and their associations with clonal complexes (CCs) and antimicrobial resistance patterns is depicted in Fig 1. Strains representing the three main resistance profiles (CIP-NAL, CIP-NAL-TET, and TET) are scattered throughout the dendrogram. No clustering associated with either pan-susceptibility or a particular resistance profile was observed.

Fig 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram of the different C. jejuni sequence types (ST) and clonal complexes (CC) identified in this study.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Antimicrobial resistant strains within each ST are color-coded by profile, with the numbers of strains within each profile indicated within each circle; pan-susceptible strains within each ST are represented by a number in a white square. CIP, ciprofloxacin; ERM, erythromycin; NAL, nalidixic acid; STR, streptomycin; TET, tetracycline. UA = clonal complex unassigned.

Discussion

In the few past decades, emergence of bacterial resistance to antibiotics has been a growing threat of global concern. Available antibiotics are becoming less effective and the resistance rates exceed 98% in some cases, which is not only an obstacle facing prevention and treating the disease, but also acutely increases the cost of healthcare [50]. The dramatic increase in the emergence of antimicrobial resistance observed worldwide among C. jejuni strains, especially to ciprofloxacin and tetracycline, has prompted investigation of the prevalence and molecular determinants of resistance. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a snapshot of the resistance phenotypes and molecular epidemiology of resistance among a collection of 199 clinical isolates obtained in Belgium over a decade (2006–2015). According to the World Health Organization, all of the antimicrobials screened in this study (with the exception of tetracycline) are considered to be critically important antimicrobials for human medicine [51].

Phenotypic screening of antimicrobial resistance frequencies among the clinical C. jejuni isolates tested in this study revealed high resistance rates to nalidixic acid (55.8%), ciprofloxacin (56.3%), and tetracycline (49.7%). In Belgium, similarly high resistance rates to these antimicrobials in broiler carcasses were reported in different recent epidemiological studies [35,52]. Therefore, the continued overuse of antibiotics in the case of poultry, which is the main reservoir of Campylobacter spp., is proposed to be responsible, at least in part, to the alarming elevated rate of AMR in Belgium. Although in the European Union, the use of antimicrobials as growth promotors in food-producing animals is banned and veterinary prescriptions to use antimicrobials in food animals is now required [53], some exceptions was granted to in specific cases [54]. Administration of antimicrobials via medicated feed or drinking water on a herd- or flock-wide basis and at lower doses and longer duration is a procedure usually employed during disease prophylaxis and growth promotion and is reported to increase selective pressure for antimicrobial resistance [23,55]. Moreover, the fact that poultry generally receives a higher amount of antimicrobials than other animal livestock might support the role of poultry in dissemination of antimicrobial resistance [56]. The high level of resistance observed here against tetracycline further supports the role of poultry in the dissemination of AMR to humans, since tetracycline is not commonly used in clinical medicine in Belgium, but is more routinely used for veterinary purposes as a therapeutic and preventive agent in poultry [57]. The role of poultry consumption in the antimicrobial resistance of clinical Campylobacter strains is further supported by different observational studies in other European countries, such as the Netherlands and Spain, and in the United States and Canada that linked the rise of fluoroquinolone-resistant C. jejuni infections in humans with the introduction of fluoroquinolones in poultry therapy [23,58]. A similar observation was noted in the with the emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter following the approval of fluoroquinolones as growth promoters in veterinary practices [59]. These observational studies were corroborated by an experimental study that demonstrated the emergence of ciprofloxacin-resistant C. jejuni strains in broiler flocks following enrofloxacin therapy [60].

In this study, low resistance rates to streptomycin (4.5%) and erythromycin (2%) were reported, reflecting the infrequent use of these antimicrobials in clinical settings. Moreover, these results promote the use of these antimicrobials in Belgium as efficacious therapeutic agents in health care settings in lieu of other antimicrobials against which C. jejuni has demonstrated increased resistance, including quinolones and fluoroquinolones [61].

Multiple-drug resistance among Campylobacter represents an emerging trend in many developed countries that leads to drastic limitations in the selection of antimicrobial therapeutic choices [62]. In this study, 114 (57.3%) of the 199 isolates were resistant to two or more of the antimicrobials screened with nine (4.5%) exhibiting multi-drug resistance (i.e., resistance to three or more classes of antimicrobial agents). This is a higher rate than what has been reported in the European Union summary report, analyzed by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) across 19 EU member states and two non-member states, where multiple drug resistance from human cases of campylobacteriosis was low (0.9%) [63]. In general, the cross-resistance to different antibiotics could arise through changes in the function of the efflux pump, such as cmeB that affect the susceptibility of C. jejuni to ampicillin, erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, and tetracycline [64] or through the acquisition of plasmids or MDR genomic island (MDRGI) [65].

In this study, the underlying molecular mechanisms of the observed resistance phenotypes were investigated. These data will provide initial and crucial information that may ultimately aid in controlling the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance. We observed a significant association between the tet(O) gene and tetracycline resistance and between the C257T transition in the quinolone resistance determining region (QRDR) of the Campylobacter gyrA gene and resistance to quinolones and fluoroquinolones. The latter mutation was absent in six C. jejuni isolates demonstrating simultaneous resistance to both ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid and one isolate exhibiting resistance to nalidixic acid only. Further research should be undertaken to explore how other modifications of the gyrA-encoding subunit (e.g., the Asp-203-Ser substitution), as well as mutations in the gyrB gene or in the efflux pumps, are potentially triggering resistance to quinolones and fluoroquinolones.

Erythromycin-resistant isolates were screened for an array of different molecular resistance mechanisms including mutations/substitutions in the 23S rRNA, rplD, rplV and cmeRABC loci and the presence of ermB. Different recent reports highlighted the crucial role of mutations at positions 2074 and 2075 in the peptidyl transferase region in domain V of the 23S rRNA target gene in the development of erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter [17,66,67]. Surprisingly, the A2074G mutation was not found in any of the four Ermr isolates. However, the A2075G mutation was found in two Ermr isolates, including one isolate that displayed a high minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC >128 mg/L). The presence of this mutation in a C. jejuni isolate with an MIC range of 32 mg/L contrasts previous reports that suggested an association between these mutations with high-level erythromycin resistance [41,46].

Further screening of amino acid changes in the L4/L22 ribosomal proteins was performed to explore additional potential mechanisms associated with erythromycin resistance among C. jejuni. Both proteins form portions of the polypeptide exit tunnel within the bacterial 70S ribosomal subunit, and several reports have linked substitutions in these proteins with erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni. Potential modifications of these proteins were only observed in one of the Ermr isolates (CJ.H127), that also possessed the A2075G 23S rRNA mutation. This observation might reveal an association between these modifications (perhaps also in conjunction with the A2075G mutation) and a higher level of erythromycin resistance, as the other three isolates lacking these modifications displayed lower MICs (32 mg/L). The L4 and L22 modifications identified here (V121A, T177S in the L4 protein and G74A, A105M, T109A in the L22 protein) are not located on the inside of the loop regions of these proteins (residues 55 to 77 for L4 protein and 78 to 98 for L22); however, they were previously reported to be associated with macrolide resistance in different Campylobacter strains [36,64] The CmeR repressor plays a crucial role in the transcriptional regulation of the efflux pump operon cmeABC. CmeR binds to an inverted repeat (IR) in the intervening sequence located between cmeR and cmeA [68]. It was previously elucidated that a mutation in the IR spacer reduced CmeR binding, resulting in a significant rise in phenotypic resistance to multiple antimicrobials [69]. Sequencing of the cmeRABC efflux pump locus identified a single amino acid substitution (Q118R) in the CmeR repressor of one erythromycin-resistant isolate (Cj.H127). Furthermore, this erythromycin-resistant isolate possessed a one bp deletion in the cme RAIVS (cmeR-cmeA intervening sequence) region. Further investigation on the role of different mutations in the cme RAIVS and their potential interactions with CmeR that lead to an overall elevation in antimicrobial resistance is needed.

The overall results of the molecular basis of macrolide resistance in C. jejuni highlighted the role other unreported resistance mechanisms conferring erythromycin resistance in C. jejuni. Future research will implement whole genome sequencing and comparative genomics studies to unravel the role of additional genetic determinants of resistance and to further analyse the interactions of CmeR at the cmeABC promoter region that lead to altered levels of macrolide resistance.

MLST was applied to study the genetic diversity and clonal origins of isolates tested for antimicrobial resistance. Most (80%) of the isolates assigned to ST-464 had the same resistance profile (CIP NAL TET) with all ST-464 isolates resistant to tetracycline. Association of this ST with quinolone/fluoroquinolone and tetracycline co-resistance has been previously described, supported by the observation that this ST has been reported as a fluoroquinolone-resistant lineage that has recently spread clonally in Europe [36,70]. Indeed, clonal dissemination of AMR clones might explain, at least partially, the increasing trend of fluoroquinolone resistance observed in Europe and worldwide [37,71,72]. Fifty-three different STs were recovered from the screened isolates, thus reflecting the diversity of the AMR genotypes. Most of these sequence types including those belonging to ST 21 complex (ST 1728, ST 19, ST 19, ST 21, ST 2135, ST 262, ST 3769, ST 44, ST 50, ST 5018, 5222, ST 53, ST7974, ST883), ST 45 complex (ST 45, ST 334), ST 48 complex (ST48), ST 206 complex (ST 46, ST572, ST290, ST122, ST206) are considered as host generalists with broad host range and were previously isolated from both chickens and human clinical samples [73], supporting the hypothesis of the significant contribution of poultry to the burden of elevated antimicrobial resistance among human campylobacteriosis.

In conclusion, this study represents the molecular epidemiological investigation of resistance of clinical C. jejuni resistance to six different antimicrobials and the results demonstrated a current gap in the knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of resistance. Therefore, future research should attempt to both study the molecular mechanisms potentially affecting Campylobacter antibiotic resistance and to unravel the role of poultry meat as a potential carrier of AMR among clinical C. jejuni isolates. Applying a comparative genomics approach using whole-genome analysis will provide promising information regarding the molecular epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in C. jejuni.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Epidemiological information, antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial resistance mechanisms for reported tested strains.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (48.8KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the BELSPO (Belgian Federal Science Policy Office) for supporting the research fellowship of Dr. Mohamed Elhadidy at Sciensano, Brussels. The authors are grateful to Delphine Martiny, Marie Hallin, and Olivier Vandenberg at National Reference Center for Campylobacter, Saint Pierre University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium for providing our group with the tested strains.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

BELSPO (Belgian Federal Science Policy Office) supported the research fellowship of Dr. Mohamed Elhadidy at Sciensano, Brussels.

References

  • 1.Kaakoush NO, Castaño-Rodríguez N, Mitchell HM, Man SM. Global epidemiology of Campylobacter infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(3):687–720. 10.1128/CMR.00006-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bacterio.net [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bacterio.net/campylobacter.html
  • 3.Newell DG, Fearnley C. Sources of Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69(8):4343–51. 10.1128/AEM.69.8.4343-4351.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gillespie IA, O’Brien SJ, Frost JA, Adak GK, Horby P, Swan A V., et al. A case-case comparison of Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni infection: A tool for generating hypotheses. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(9):937–42. 10.3201/eid0809.10.3201/eid0809.010187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tam CC, O’Brien SJ, Adak GK, Meakins SM, Frost JA. Campylobacter coli—An important foodborne pathogen. J Infect. 2003;47(1):28–32. 10.1016/s0163-4453(03)00042-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Domingues AR, Pires SM, Halasa T, Hald T. Source attribution of human campylobacteriosis using a meta-analysis of case-control studies of sporadic infections. Epidemiology and Infection. 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Friesema IHM, Havelaar AH, Westra PP, Wagenaar JA, van Pelt W. Poultry culling and campylobacteriosis reduction among humans, The Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cody AJ, Maiden MC, Strachan NJ, McCarthy ND. A systematic review of source attribution of human campylobacteriosis using multilocus sequence typing. Euro Surveill. 2019; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rukambile E, Sintchenko V, Muscatello G, Kock R, Alders R. Infection, colonization and shedding of Campylobacter and Salmonella in animals and their contribution to human disease: A review. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Adhesion to and invasion of HEp-2 cells by Campylobacter spp. Infect Immun. 1989;57(10):2984–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Black RE, Levine MM, Clements M Lou, Hughes TP, Blaser MJ, Black RE. Experimental Campylobacter jejuni infection in humans. J Infect Dis. 1988;157(3):472–9. 10.1093/infdis/157.3.472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Skirrow MB, Blaser MJ. Clinical aspects of Campylobacter In: Nachamkin I. and Blaser MJ, editor. Campylobacter. 2nd ed ASM press; 2000. p. 69–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Humphrey T, O’Brien S, Madsen M. Campylobacters as zoonotic pathogens: A food production perspective. Vol. 117, International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2007. p. 237–57. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Blaser MJ, Engberg J. Clinical Aspects of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli Infections. In: Campylobacter, Third Edition. 2014. p. 99–121. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wieczorek K, Osek J. Antimicrobial resistance mechanisms among Campylobacter. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Alfredson DA, Korolik V. Antibiotic resistance and resistance mechanisms in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Corcoran D, Quinn T, Cotter L, Fanning S. An investigation of the molecular mechanisms contributing to high-level erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006;27(1):40–5. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2005.08.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kurinčič M, Botteldoorn N, Herman L, Smole Možina S. Mechanisms of erythromycin resistance of Campylobacter spp. isolated from food, animals and humans. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007;120(1–2):186–90. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lin J, Yan M, Sahin O, Pereira S, Chang YJ, Zhang Q. Effect of macrolide usage on emergence of erythromycin-resistant Campylobacter isolates in chickens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(5):1678–86. 10.1128/AAC.01411-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Moore JE, Barton MD, Blair IS, Corcoran D, Dooley JSG, Fanning S, et al. The epidemiology of antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter. Vol. 8, Microbes and Infection. 2006. p. 1955–66. 10.1016/j.micinf.2005.12.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Payot S, Bolla JM, Corcoran D, Fanning S, Mégraud F, Zhang Q. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter spp. Vol. 8, Microbes and Infection. 2006. p. 1967–71. 10.1016/j.micinf.2005.12.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Skirrow MB. Diseases due to Campylobacter, Helicobacter and related bacteria. Vol. 111, Journal of Comparative Pathology. 1994. p. 113–49. 10.1016/s0021-9975(05)80046-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Marshall BM, Levy SB. Food animals and antimicrobials: Impacts on human health. Vol. 24, Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2011. p. 718–33. 10.1128/CMR.00002-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Engberg J, Aarestrup FM, Taylor DE, Gerner-Smidt P, Nachamkin I. Quinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli: Resistance mechanisms and trends in human isolates. Vol. 7, Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2001. p. 24–34. 10.3201/eid0701.010104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nelson JM, Smith KE, Vugia DJ, Rabatsky‐Ehr T, Segler SD, Kassenborg HD, et al. Prolonged Diarrhea Due to Ciprofloxacin‐Resistant Campylobacter Infection. J Infect Dis. 2004;190(6):1150–7. 10.1086/423282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Iovine NM. Resistance mechanisms in Campylobacter jejuni. Vol. 4, Virulence. 2013. p. 230–40. 10.4161/viru.23753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vacher S, Menard A, Bernard E, Santos A, Megraud F. Detection of Mutations Associated with Macrolide Resistance in Thermophilic Campylobacter spp. by Real-Time PCR. Microb Drug Resist. 2005;11(1):40–7. 10.1089/mdr.2005.11.40 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pérez-Boto D, López-Portolés JA, Simón C, Valdezate S, Echeita MA. Study of the molecular mechanisms involved in high-level macrolide resistance of Spanish Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli strains. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(10):2083–8. 10.1093/jac/dkq268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Connell SR, Trieber CA, Dinos GP, Einfeldt E, Taylor DE, Nierhaus KH. Mechanism of Tet(O)-mediated tetracycline resistance. EMBO J. 2003;22(4):945–53. 10.1093/emboj/cdg093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gibreel A, Tracz DM, Nonaka L, Ngo TM, Connell SR, Taylor DE. Incidence of antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter jejuni isolated in Alberta, Canada, from 1999 to 2002, with special reference to tet(O)-mediated tetracycline resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(9):3442–50. 10.1128/AAC.48.9.3442-3450.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wu Z, Sippy R, Sahin O, Plummer P, Vidal A, Newell D, et al. Genetic diversity and antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter jejuni isolates associated with sheep abortion in the United States and Great Britain. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(6):1853–61. 10.1128/JCM.00355-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Qin S, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Zhang M, Deng F, Shen Z, et al. Report of ribosomal RNA methylase gene erm(B) in multidrug-resistant Campylobacter coli. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(4):964–8. 10.1093/jac/dkt492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Akiba M, Lin J, Barton YW, Zhang Q. Interaction of CmeABC and CmeDEF in conferring antimicrobial resistance and maintaining cell viability in Campylobacter jejuni. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57(1):52–60. 10.1093/jac/dki419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Stone D, Davis M, Baker K, Besser T, Roopnarine R, Sharma R. MLST genotypes and antibiotic resistance of Campylobacter spp. isolated from poultry in Grenada. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Elhadidy M, Miller WG, Arguello H, álvarez-Ordóñez A, Duarte A, Dierick K, et al. Genetic basis and clonal population structure of antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter jejuni isolated from broiler carcasses in Belgium. Front Microbiol. 2018;9(MAY). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kittl S, Heckel G, Korczak BM, Kuhnert P. Source attribution of human Campylobacter isolates by MLST and Fla-typing and association of genotypes with quinolone resistance. PLoS One. 2013;8(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kovač J, Čadež N, Lušicky M, Nielsen EM, Ocepek M, Raspor P, et al. The evidence for clonal spreading of quinolone resistance with a particular clonal complex of Campylobacter jejuni. Epidemiol Infect. 2014;142(12):2595–603. 10.1017/S0950268813003245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kovač J, Čadež N, Stessl B, Stingl K, Gruntar I, Ocepek M, et al. High genetic similarity of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter jejuni in central Europe. Front Microbiol. 2015;6(OCT). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Klein-Jöbstl D, Sofka D, Iwersen M, Drillich M, Hilbert F. Multilocus sequence typing and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from dairy calves in Austria. Front Microbiol. 2016;7(FEB). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Helwigh B;, Porsbo LJ;, Boysen L;, Bager F. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food‐borne outbreaks in 2014. EFSA J [Internet]. 2015;13(12). Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4329 [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Elhadidy M, Arguello H, Álvarez-Ordóñez A, Miller WG, Duarte A, Martiny D, et al. Orthogonal typing methods identify genetic diversity among Belgian Campylobacter jejuni strains isolated over a decade from poultry and cases of sporadic human illness. Int J Food Microbiol. 2018;275:66–75. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Shin E, Hong H, Oh Y, Lee Y. First report and molecular characterization of a Campylobacter jejuni isolate with extensive drug resistance from a travel-associated human case. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(10):6670–2. 10.1128/AAC.01395-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zirnstein G, Li Y, Swaminathan B, Angulo F. Ciprofloxacin resistance in Campylobacter jejuni isolates: Detection of gyrA resistance mutations by mismatch amplification mutation assay PCR and DNA sequence analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37(10):3276–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zhou J, Zhang M, Yang W, Fang Y, Wang G, Hou F. A seventeen-year observation of the antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical Campylobacter jejuni and the molecular mechanisms of erythromycin-resistant isolates in Beijing, China. Int J Infect Dis. 2016;42:28–33. 10.1016/j.ijid.2015.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Alonso R, Mateo E, Churruca E, Martinez I, Girbau C, Fernández-Astorga A. MAMA-PCR assay for the detection of point mutations associated with high-level erythromycin resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli strains. J Microbiol Methods. 2005;63(1):99–103. 10.1016/j.mimet.2005.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Miller WG, On SLW, Wang G, Fontanoz S, Lastovica AJ, Mandrell RE, et al. Extended Multilocus Sequence Typing System for Campylobacter coli. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43(5):2315–29. 10.1128/JCM.43.5.2315-2329.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 1980;16(2):111–20. 10.1007/bf01731581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–9. 10.1093/molbev/mst197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Akinkunmi EO, Adesunkanmi AR, Lamikanra A. Pattern of pathogens from surgical wound infections in a Nigerian hospital and their antimicrobial susceptibility profiles. Afr Health Sci. 2014;14(4):802–9. 10.4314/ahs.v14i4.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.WHO-AGISAR Advisory Group on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance. Summary for Policymakers [Internet]. Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis. 2017. 1–30 p. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9781107415324A009/type/book_part [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Habib I, Miller WG, Uyttendaele M, Houf K, De Zutter L. Clonal population structure and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni in chicken meat from Belgium. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(13):4264–72. 10.1128/AEM.00168-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Castanon JIR. History of the use of antibiotic as growth promoters in European poultry feeds. Poultry Science. 2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Maron DF, Smith TJS, Nachman KE. Restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal production: An international regulatory and economic survey. Global Health. 2013; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Levy SB, Bonnie M. Antibacterial resistance worldwide: Causes, challenges and responses. Nature Medicine. 2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.van den Bogaard AE. Antibiotic resistance of faecal Escherichia coli in poultry, poultry farmers and poultry slaughterers. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;47(6):763–71. 10.1093/jac/47.6.763 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Walton JR. Antimicrobial therapy in veterinary medicine Vol. 145, British Veterinary Journal. Blackwell publishing; 2012. 199 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Agunos A, Léger D, Avery BP, Parmley EJ, Deckert A, Carson CA, et al. Ciprofloxacin-resistant campylobacter sppin retail chicken, Western Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sam WIC, Lyons MM, Waghorn DJ. Increasing rates of ciprofloxacin resistant Campylobacter. Vol. 52, Journal of Clinical Pathology. 1999. p. 709 10.1136/jcp.52.9.709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Jacobs‐Reitsma WF, Kan CA, Bolder NM. The induction of quinolone resistance in Campylobacter bacteria in broilers by quinolone treatment. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1994;19(4):228–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Vandenberg O, Houf K, Douat N, Vlaes L, Retore P, Butzler JP, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical isolates of non-jejuni/coli campylobacters and arcobacters from Belgium. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57(5):908–13. 10.1093/jac/dkl080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Van Looveren M. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of Campylobacter strains isolated from food animals in Belgium. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;48(2):235–40. 10.1093/jac/48.2.235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.The European union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017. EFSA J. 2019;17(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Petersen L, Nielsen EM, On SLW. Serotype and genotype diversity and hatchery transmission of Campylobacter jejuni in commercial poultry flocks. Vet Microbiol. 2001;82(2):141–54. 10.1016/s0378-1135(01)00382-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Tang Y, Fang L, Xu C, Zhang Q. Antibiotic resistance trends and mechanisms in the foodborne pathogen, Campylobacter. Vol. 18, Animal Health Research Reviews. 2017. p. 87–98. 10.1017/S1466252317000135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Niwa H, Chuma T, Okamoto K, Itoh K. Rapid detection of mutations associated with resistance to erythromycin in Campylobacter jejuni/coli by PCR and line probe assay. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001;18(4):359–64. 10.1016/s0924-8579(01)00425-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Caldwell DB, Wang Y, Lin J. Development, stability, and molecular mechanisms of macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(11):3947–54. 10.1128/AAC.00450-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Lin J, Akiba M, Sahin O, Zhang Q. CmeR functions as a transcriptional repressor for the multidrug efflux pump CmeABC in Campylobacter jejuni. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(3):1067–75. 10.1128/AAC.49.3.1067-1075.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Lin J, Cagliero C, Guo B, Barton YW, Maurel MC, Payot S, et al. Bile salts modulate expression of the CmeABC multidrug efflux pump in Campylobacter jejuni. J Bacteriol. 2005;187(21):7417–24. 10.1128/JB.187.21.7417-7424.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Cha W, Mosci R, Wengert SL, Singh P, Newton DW, Salimnia H, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of human Campylobacter jejuni isolates and association with phylogenetic lineages. Front Microbiol. 2016;7(APR). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Cody AJ, McCarthy NM, Wimalarathna HL, Colles FM, Clark L, Bowler ICJW, et al. A longitudinal 6-year study of the molecular epidemiology of clinical Campylobacter isolates in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(10):3193–201. 10.1128/JCM.01086-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Wimalarathna HM, Richardson JF, Lawson AJ, Elson R, Meldrum R, Little CL, et al. Widespread acquisition of antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter isolates from UK retail poultry and evidence for clonal expansion of resistant lineages. BMC Microbiol. 2013;13(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Sheppard SK, Cheng L, Méric G, De Haan CPA, Llarena AK, Marttinen P, et al. Cryptic ecology among host generalist Campylobacter jejuni in domestic animals. Mol Ecol. 2014;23(10):2442–51. 10.1111/mec.12742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Iddya Karunasagar

29 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-26323

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns and Molecular Resistance Markers of Campylobacter jejuni Isolates from Human Diarrheal Cases

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Elhadidy,

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.

==============================

The reviewer has pointed out number of areas, where clarifications and additional references are needed. These can be addressed through revision responding to each comment.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 13 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,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. We ask that you please include in your methods section or as supporting information: a) The name and location of the collection from which you obtained samples for this study, such that other researchers could obtain the same strains. b) A list of the names and collection numbers of the strains used in this study.

2. Thank you for including your competing interests statement; "none"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The reviewer has pointed out number of areas, where clarifications and additional references are needed. These can be addressed through revision responding to each comment.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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 research paper evaluated the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in human Campylobacter isolates and assessed their genetic determinants. The article is well written and will provide valuable information to policy makers and researchers and will aid them to design control and prevention methods with a goal to reduce human infections with antimicrobial resistant Campylobacter.

Please find my suggestions and comments bellow.

1) Lines 55-56 – “An estimate of 80-90% of poultry flocks are colonized mainly with C. jejuni; the rest are colonized with C. coli or, infrequently, with Campylobacter lari”

I would suggest expanding this sentence and discussing in detail the source attribution of human Campylobacter infections. It is a common knowledge that consumption of poultry products is the main cause of human infections in high income countries. You should mention this fact, because it is not enough to state that poultry flocks are colonized with Campylobacter, you should link this fact with the risk they pose to human health. Moreover, you should mention other animal-origin infection sources such as ruminants (cattle or sheep). In addition, consumption of contaminated animal-origin products is not the only infection source. You should mention that human Campylobacter infections could be also caused by direct contact with food animals (i.e. cattle) or pets (dog or cat), their contaminated environment, contaminated water, or drinking raw (unpasteurized) milk.

As references you could consider these articles

“Cody AJ, Maiden MC, Strachan NJ, McCarthy ND. A systematic review of source attribution of human campylobacteriosis using multilocus sequence typing. Euro Surveill. 2019 Oct;24(43). doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.43.1800696.”

Rukambile E, Sintchenko V, Muscatello G, Kock R, Alders R. Infection, colonization and shedding of Campylobacter and Salmonella in animals and their contribution to human disease: A review. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019 Sep;66(6):562-578. doi: 10.1111/zph.12611. Epub 2019 Jun 9. Review.”

2) Line 59

As this journal has a global audience you should present the incidence of Campylobacter infections worldwide (i.e. North America, Australia etc.).

3) Line 153 – Definition of multidrug resistance requires a reference.

You should consider the following reference:

“Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, Harbarth S, Hindler JF, Kahlmeter G, Olsson-Liljequist B, Paterson DL, RiceLB, Stelling J, Struelens MJ, Vatopoulos A, Weber JT, Monnet DL. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012; 18:268–81.”

4. Line 127.

Please define the random sampling procedure. What was the total number of samples from which you choose 199 isolates? Why did you choose 199 isolates? Did you perform stratified random sampling considering differences in cases’ age, location (i.e. Hospital)?

5. You should mention that this study obtained the Campylobacter isolates from clinical cases, which might over estimate the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance, because these patients might have already received antimicrobial treatment.

6. Lines 302-304.

I only agree with this statement partially. I know that poultry flocks are receiving large amounts of antibacterials, however, other food animal are receiving also (i.e. swine). Moreover, you should mention that the mode of antimicrobial use has an impact on the development of resistance, and it has been shown that in-feed or in-water use of antibacterials at the whole flock / herd level has a larger impact than using individual medications. You should also mention the current antimicrobial use legislation in the EU and North America that ban the use of antibacterials as growth promoters and requires veterinary prescription for antibacterials used in food animals.

7. Line 313.

You should also consider the following reference when discussing fluoroquinolone-resistant C. jejuni infections in humans and the role of consumption of contaminated poultry products with resistant Campylobater.

“Agunos A, Léger D, Avery BP, Parmley EJ, Deckert A, Carson CA, Dutil L. Ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter spp. in retail chicken, western Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;19(7):1121-4. doi: 10.3201/eid1907.111417.”

8. Line 404-408.

I think that this statement is a little bit over-reaching. This study did not present any human Campylobacter source attribution data. No information on case’s illness were provided, we do not know if these cases were consuming poultry meat or not. Moreover, poultry meat origin Campylobacter isolates were not tested in this study what makes comparison to human isolates impossible. Please revise or delete this sentence.

Thank you fro considering my suggestions.

Regards,

Csaba Varga DVM MSC PhD

Guelph, ON, Canada

**********

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: Yes: Csaba Varga

[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 17;15(1):e0227833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227833.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

16 Dec 2019

The authors would like to appreciate the reviewing process and they confirm that they revised the manuscript according to all comments raised and highlighted all changes made in red.

Editorial suggestions

Can you please upload an additional copy of your revised manuscript that does not contain any tracked changes or highlighting as your main article file.

Authors response: Revised

We ask that you please include in your methods section or as supporting information: a) The name and location of the collection from which you obtained samples for this study, such that other researchers could obtain the same strains. b) A list of the names and collection numbers of the strains used in this study.

Authors response: Revised in the material and methods and supporting information file has been added.

Reviewers suggestions:

1) Lines 55-56 – “An estimate of 80-90% of poultry flocks are colonized mainly with C. jejuni; the rest are colonized with C. coli or, infrequently, with Campylobacter lari”

I would suggest expanding this sentence and discussing in detail the source attribution of human Campylobacter infections. It is a common knowledge that consumption of poultry products is the main cause of human infections in high income countries. You should mention this fact, because it is not enough to state that poultry flocks are colonized with Campylobacter, you should link this fact with the risk they pose to human health. Moreover, you should mention other animal-origin infection sources such as ruminants (cattle or sheep). In addition, consumption of contaminated animal-origin products is not the only infection source. You should mention that human Campylobacter infections could be also caused by direct contact with food animals (i.e. cattle) or pets (dog or cat), their contaminated environment, contaminated water, or drinking raw (unpasteurized) milk.

As references you could consider these articles

“Cody AJ, Maiden MC, Strachan NJ, McCarthy ND. A systematic review of source attribution of human campylobacteriosis using multilocus sequence typing. Euro Surveill. 2019 Oct;24(43). doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.43.1800696.”

Rukambile E, Sintchenko V, Muscatello G, Kock R, Alders R. Infection, colonization and shedding of Campylobacter and Salmonella in animals and their contribution to human disease: A review. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019 Sep;66(6):562-578. doi: 10.1111/zph.12611. Epub 2019 Jun 9. Review.”

Authors responses: The authors added revised the introduction accordingly and updates the refences as suggested.

2) Line 59

As this journal has a global audience you should present the incidence of Campylobacter infections worldwide (i.e. North America, Australia etc.).

Authors responses: The authors added revised the introduction accordingly (Lines 63-68) and updates the refences as suggested.

3) Line 153 – Definition of multidrug resistance requires a reference.

You should consider the following reference:

“Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, Harbarth S, Hindler JF, Kahlmeter G, Olsson-Liljequist B, Paterson DL, RiceLB, Stelling J, Struelens MJ, Vatopoulos A, Weber JT, Monnet DL. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012; 18:268–81.”

Authors responses: Suggested reference have been added (number 43)

4. Line 127.

Please define the random sampling procedure. What was the total number of samples from which you choose 199 isolates? Why did you choose 199 isolates? Did you perform stratified random sampling considering differences in cases’ age, location (i.e. Hospital)?

Authors responses: Revised accordingly

5. You should mention that this study obtained the Campylobacter isolates from clinical cases, which might over estimate the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance, because these patients might have already received antimicrobial treatment.

Authors responses: Revised accordingly

6. Lines 302-304.

I only agree with this statement partially. I know that poultry flocks are receiving large amounts of antibacterials, however, other food animal are receiving also (i.e. swine). Moreover, you should mention that the mode of antimicrobial use has an impact on the development of resistance, and it has been shown that in-feed or in-water use of antibacterials at the whole flock / herd level has a larger impact than using individual medications. You should also mention the current antimicrobial use legislation in the EU and North America that ban the use of antibacterials as growth promoters and requires veterinary prescription for antibacterials used in food animals.

Authors responses: Revised accordingly (lines 299-307)

7. Line 313.

You should also consider the following reference when discussing fluoroquinolone-resistant C. jejuni infections in humans and the role of consumption of contaminated poultry products with resistant Campylobater.

“Agunos A, Léger D, Avery BP, Parmley EJ, Deckert A, Carson CA, Dutil L. Ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter spp. in retail chicken, western Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;19(7):1121-4. doi: 10.3201/eid1907.111417.”

Authors responses: Suggested reference have been added (number 58)

8. Line 404-408.

I think that this statement is a little bit over-reaching. This study did not present any human Campylobacter source attribution data. No information on case’s illness were provided, we do not know if these cases were consuming poultry meat or not. Moreover, poultry meat origin Campylobacter isolates were not tested in this study what makes comparison to human isolates impossible. Please revise or delete this sentence.

Authors responses: The sentence has been deleted

Attachment

Submitted filename: reviewers replies.docx

Click here for additional data file. (16.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Iddya Karunasagar

31 Dec 2019

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns and Molecular Resistance Markers of Campylobacter jejuni Isolates from Human Diarrheal Cases

PONE-D-19-26323R1

Dear Dr. Elhadidy,

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,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All referee comments have been addressed satisfactorily.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Csaba Varga

Acceptance letter

Iddya Karunasagar

9 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-26323R1

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns and Molecular Resistance Markers of Campylobacter jejuni Isolates from Human Diarrheal Cases    

Dear Dr. Elhadidy:

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

Dr. Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Epidemiological information, antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial resistance mechanisms for reported tested strains.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (48.8KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reviewers replies.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (16.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES