Skip to main content
Microbiology Resource Announcements logoLink to Microbiology Resource Announcements
. 2020 May 28;9(22):e00369-20. doi: 10.1128/MRA.00369-20

Draft Genome Assemblies of Two Staphylococcus pseudintermedius Strains Isolated from Canine Skin Biopsy Specimens

Wenqi Cao a, Karly Hicks b, Amelia White b, Terri Hathcock a, Robert Kennis b, Dawn Boothe c, Dapeng Zhang d, Xu Wang a,e,f,
Editor: Irene L G Newtong
PMCID: PMC7256261  PMID: 32467274

Staphylococcus pseudintermedius is a Gram-positive bacterial species highly relevant to animal and human health. In this study, we report the draft genome sequences of two clinical isolates of S. pseudintermedius from canine skin biopsy specimens at the Dermatology Service of the Auburn University Small Animal Teaching Hospital.

ABSTRACT

Staphylococcus pseudintermedius is a Gram-positive bacterial species highly relevant to animal and human health. In this study, we report the draft genome sequences of two clinical isolates of S. pseudintermedius from canine skin biopsy specimens at the Dermatology Service of the Auburn University Small Animal Teaching Hospital.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Staphylococcus pseudintermedius is a coagulase-positive coccus first identified in 2005 and distinguished from S. intermedius in several growth and biochemical features (1). It is the most commonly isolated pathogen in canine dermatological infections, such as pyoderma, wound infections, and otitis externa (2, 3). Although transmission of S. pseudintermedius between dogs and humans is uncommon, there are several cases indicating risk of zoonotic transmission by direct contact with the cutaneous lesion (4). Since the first case of methicillin-resistant S. pseudintermedius (MRSP) infection emerged in the mid-1980s, the incidence has increased dramatically and become a serious threat to canine health worldwide. MRSP shows resistance to several classes of antimicrobial drugs, and as a result, there are very limited options for clinical therapy (5, 6).

Two strains of S. pseudintermedius, M1S and M3S, were isolated from punch biopsy specimens of lesional skin from two adult dogs with dermatitis, a female American Staffordshire terrier and a female Shih Tzu, respectively. They were acquired in the course of routine clinical patient care and exempt from Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval. The isolates were identified as belonging to the Staphylococcus intermedius group using phenotypic tests, including catalase, coagulase, fermentation patterns, and hemolysis, by the Bacteriology and Mycology Laboratory at Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine. Conventionally, canine S. intermedius group isolates are referred to as S. pseudintermedius (7), and the species identity was confirmed by comparison with a previously published S. pseudintermedius genome (8). The antimicrobial susceptibility profiles were determined using broth microdilution (Vitek 2, bioMérieux, USA) and agar disk diffusion (Table 1). Both isolates displayed multidrug resistance when interpreted using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines (9).

TABLE 1.

MICs with interpretation for isolates M1S and M3S as determined using CLSI guidelines

Antibiotic Data for strain:
M1S
M3S
MIC (μg/ml) Interpretation MIC (μg/ml) Interpretation
Aminoglycosides
    Amikacin ≤2 Sa 4 S
    Gentamicin ≥16 Rb ≥16 R
Fluoroquinolones
    Enrofloxacin ≥4 R ≥4 R
    Marbofloxacin ≥4 R ≥4 R
    Pradofloxacin 1 Ic 1 I
Tetracyclines
    Doxycycline ≥16 R 8 R
    Minocycline 8 R 2 R
Macrolide
    Erythromycin ≥8 R ≥8 R
Lincosamide
    Clindamycin ≥4 R ≥4 R
Phenicol
    Chloramphenicol 8 S 8 S
Rifamycin
    Rifampind S S
Beta-lactam
    Oxacillind R R
Sulfonamide
    Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole ≥320 R ≥320 R
a

S, susceptible.

b

R, resistant.

c

I, intermediate.

d

Tested by agar disk diffusion.

Prior to sequencing, the isolates were recovered by plating onto 5% bovine blood agar and incubating at 37°C in 5% CO2 for 18 to 24 h. The isolates were twice subcultured to ensure viability and purity. DNA was extracted using an AllPrep PowerFecal DNA/RNA kit (Qiagen, MD) and quantified by Qubit fluorometer (Invitrogen). One microgram of genomic DNA was fragmented by an M220 focused ultrasonicator with a 500-bp targeted insert size (Covaris, MA). DNA libraries were constructed using a NEBNext Ultra II DNA library prep kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs, MA). The libraries were sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 machine.

In total, 27,210,622 and 30,500,546 150-bp paired-end reads were generated for M1S and M3S, respectively, and the quality was assessed by FastQC (10). Adapters and low-quality bases were removed using Trimmomatic v0.39 (11). De novo assembly of the bacterial genome was performed using MEGAHIT 1.2.9 (12), resulting in a 2,818,651-bp M1S assembly (37 contigs; N50, 176,632 bp; G+C content, 37.1%) and a 2,736,991-bp M3S assembly (43 contigs; N50, 136,323 bp; G+C content, 37.3%). The CheckM v1.1.2 (13) completeness is 99.43% for both genomes. Genome coverage was estimated to be 1,380.8× (M1S) and 1596.8× (M3S) using Seqkit v1.2-r94 (14). Shorter and lowly covered contigs (<5 kb; depth, <15×) were removed. Plasflow v1.1.0 was used to predict plasmid sequences in these genomes (15). Genome annotation was performed using the Prokka pipeline v1.14.6 (16) and the NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (17). In all, 2,760 gene models were predicted in the M1S genome and 2,660 in M3S. Default parameters were used except where otherwise noted.

Data availability.

The assemblies were deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession numbers JAAXMN000000000 and JAAXMO000000000. Raw sequencing data are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive under the accession numbers PRJNA623239 and PRJNA623240.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1018100, and a generous laboratory startup fund to X.W. from the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine. W.C. is supported by the Auburn University Presidential Graduate Research Fellowship and Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine Dean’s Fellowship.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Devriese LA, Vancanneyt M, Baele M, Vaneechoutte M, De Graef E, Snauwaert C, Cleenwerck I, Dawyndt P, Swings J, Decostere A, Haesebrouck F. 2005. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius sp. nov., a coagulase-positive species from animals. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 55:1569–1573. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.63413-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rubin JE, Chirino-Trejo M. 2011. Prevalence, sites of colonization, and antimicrobial resistance among Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolated from healthy dogs in Saskatoon, Canada. J Vet Diagn Invest 23:351–354. doi: 10.1177/104063871102300227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Weese JS, van Duijkeren E. 2010. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in veterinary medicine. Vet Microbiol 140:418–429. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.01.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Guardabassi L, Loeber M, Jacobson A. 2004. Transmission of multiple antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus intermedius between dogs affected by deep pyoderma and their owners. Vet Microbiol 98:23–27. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2003.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Loeffler A, Linek M, Moodley A, Guardabassi L, Sung JML, Winkler M, Weiss R, Lloyd DH. 2007. First report of multiresistant, mecA‐positive Staphylococcus intermedius in Europe: 12 cases from a veterinary dermatology referral clinic in Germany. Vet Dermatol 18:412–421. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2007.00635.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.van Duijkeren E, Catry B, Greko C, Moreno MA, Pomba MC, Pyörälä S, Ruzauskas M, Sanders P, Threlfall EJ, Torren-Edo J, Törneke K, Scientific Advisory Group on Antimicrobials (SAGAM) . 2011. Review on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. J Antimicrob Chemother 66:2705–2714. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkr367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Devriese LA, Hermans K, Baele M, Haesebrouck F. 2009. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius versus Staphylococcus intermedius. Vet Microbiol 133:206–207. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tse H, Tsoi HW, Leung SP, Urquhart IJ, Lau SKP, Woo PCY, Yuen KY. 2011. Complete genome sequence of the veterinary pathogen Staphylococcus pseudintermedius strain HKU10-03, isolated in a case of canine pyoderma. J Bacteriol 193:1783–1784. doi: 10.1128/JB.00023-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.CLSI. 2018. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals, 4th ed CLSI supplement VET08 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Andrews S. 2010. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Babraham Bioinformatics https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/.
  • 11.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Li D, Liu C-M, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam T-W. 2015. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31:1674–1676. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. 2015. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 25:1043–1055. doi: 10.1101/gr.186072.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shen W, Le S, Li Y, Hu F. 2016. SeqKit: a cross-platform and ultrafast toolkit for FASTA/Q file manipulation. PLoS One 11:e0163962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Krawczyk PS, Lipinski L, Dziembowski A. 2018. PlasFlow: predicting plasmid sequences in metagenomic data using genome signatures. Nucleic Acids Res 46:e35. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx1321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Seemann T. 2014. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30:2068–2069. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP, Zaslavsky L, Lomsadze A, Pruitt KD, Borodovsky M, Ostell J. 2016. NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res 44:6614–6624. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

The assemblies were deposited at DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession numbers JAAXMN000000000 and JAAXMO000000000. Raw sequencing data are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive under the accession numbers PRJNA623239 and PRJNA623240.


Articles from Microbiology Resource Announcements are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES