Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Aug 7;15(8):e0237263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237263

Spectrum of antibiotic resistant bacteria and fungi isolated from chronically infected wounds in a rural district hospital in Ghana

Ralf Krumkamp 1,2,#, Kwabena Oppong 3,#, Benedikt Hogan 1, Ricardo Strauss 1, Hagen Frickmann 4, Charity Wiafe-Akenten 3, Kennedy G Boahen 3, Volker Rickerts 5, Ilka McCormick Smith 5, Uwe Groß 6, Marco Schulze 6, Anna Jaeger 1, Ulrike Loderstädt 1, Nimako Sarpong 3, Ellis Owusu-Dabo 3, Jürgen May 1, Denise Dekker 1,2,*
Editor: Baochuan Lin7
PMCID: PMC7413558  PMID: 32764812

Abstract

Background

Chronic infected wounds are generally difficult to manage and treatment can be particularly challenging in resource-limited settings where diagnostic testing is not readily available. In this study, the epidemiology of microbial pathogens in chronically infected wounds in rural Ghana was assessed to support therapeutic choices for physicians.

Methods

Culture-based bacterial diagnostics including antimicrobial resistance testing were performed on samples collected from patients with chronic wounds at a hospital in Asante Akim North Municipality, Ghana. Fungal detection was performed by broad-range fungal PCR and sequencing of amplicons.

Results

In total, 105 patients were enrolled in the study, from which 207 potential bacterial pathogens were isolated. Enterobacteriaceae (n = 84, 41%) constituted the most frequently isolated group of pathogens. On species level, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 50, 24%) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 28, 14%) were predominant. High resistance rates were documented, comprising 29% methicillin resistance in S. aureus as well as resistance to 3rd generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones in 33% and 58% of Enterobacteriaceae, respectively. One P. aeruginosa strain with carbapenem resistance was identified. The most frequently detected fungi were Candida tropicalis.

Conclusions

The pathogen distribution in chronic wounds in rural Ghana matched the internationally observed patterns with a predominance of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. Very high resistance rates discourage antibiotic therapy but suggest an urgent need for microbiological diagnostic approaches, including antimicrobial resistance testing to guide the management of patients with chronic wounds in Ghana.

Introduction

Chronic wound infections related to injuries from daily life activities, e.g. farming, are common medical problems in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [1]. Chronicity is often a result of an underlying medical condition such as diabetes, blood flow disorders or due to late presentation to the clinic. Long persisting infected wounds cause morbidity and suffering and are typically associated with large expenditures, e.g. on medication and affect economic productivity [2].

In resource-limited countries with inadequate diagnostic facilities, the spectrum of microorganisms causing such infections and their antibiotic resistance patterns are only superficially understood [36]. Pathogen-specific treatment for severe wounds is difficult if the disease-causing agent(s) remain(s) unknown. In addition, treatment success is under serious threat due to the rise of antimicrobial resistances [7]. Poor quality medicine and (over)- use of antibiotics without being able to consider the antimicrobial sensitivity patterns of causative pathogens does not only lead to treatment failures but also foster the development of antibiotic resistance further. These limitations hamper specific treatment, which especially applies to chronic wounds, for which standard treatment strategies are poorly defined and ineffective.

Besides bacteria, fungi are widespread in the environment or even part of the normal flora including Aspergillus fumigatus and Candida albicans among others. Such fungi may be part of polymicrobial communities on wounds. They may be associated with delayed healing especially in patient with underlying conditions including Diabetes mellitus. In addition, specific fungal pathogens may cause chronic skin infections, including mycetoma and chromoblastomycosis often manifesting as slow-healing wounds [8,9].

This study aims to investigate the microbial composition (both bacterial and fungal) of infected chronic wounds in adults presenting to the Agogo Presbyterian Hospital (APH) in rural Ghana. The study will provide information on bacterial strains and antibiotic resistance associated with chronic wounds. This information will help to improve patient care through providing evidence-based recommendations for treatment and management of chronic wounds.

Materials and methods

Study site and study participants

The study was conducted at the Outpatient Department of the APH, in the Asante Akim North Municipality of Ghana. Asante Akim North district is one of 21 in the Ashanti region. Injuries related to farm work and other outdoor activities and resulting chronic wound infections (due to delayed presentation) are frequent neglected medical problems in rural areas of Ghana.

Patients aged ≥15 years with an infected wound (at least one of the signs and symptoms of infection: purulent discharge from wound/pain or tenderness, localised swelling or redness/heat, loss of function (functio laesa)), which has failed to proceed through a reparative process over a period of one month, with or without antibiotic treatment, were eligible for enrolment. The diameter of the wound was measured using a single-use paper tape measure. Wounds were graded from one to six (grade 1 = ulcer of epidermis or dermis, grade 2 = ulcer involving subcutis, grade 3 = involvement of fascia, grade 4 = involvement of muscles, grade 5 = bones affected, grade 6 = visceral cavity affected). Excluded were patients with burn-, surgical- bite- or Buruli ulcer associated wounds in order to minimise associations of particular types of wounds with specific pathogens.

Ethical considerations

The Committee on Human Research, Publications and Ethics, School of Medical Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana, approved this study (approval number CHRPE/AP/078/16). Study participants were informed about the purpose of this study and the study procedures. Written informed consent was obtained before enrolment.

Sample collection

For sample collection two sterile swabs (ESwabTM, COPAN Diagnostics, Murrieta, USA), one with and one without transport medium, were used. Necrotic material was removed with a sterile cotton swab (CLASSIQSwabTM, COPAN Diagnostics). For sample collection, the wound was cleaned with sterile 0.9% saline. Following this, the active part of the wound below the necrotic tissue at the edge of the wound and the wound base was swabbed. For this purpose, the swab was rolled deep into the wound. When there was more than one wound at the same location, the largest wound was sampled.

Within six hours, the samples were transported in a cool box to the microbiology laboratory of the Kumasi Centre for Collaborative Research in Tropical Medicine, Ghana.

Bacterial detection and identification

The swab with transport medium was streaked on Columbia agar enriched with 5% sheep blood, Columbia CNA agar with 5% sheep blood and MacConkey III (Oxoid, Hampshire, United Kingdom). Aerobic blood agar was incubated in CO2. MacConkey and CNA agar were incubated in normal atmosphere at 35–37°C. All plates were incubated for 18–24 hours. CNA agar was incubated until positive or for a maximum period of five days. Bacterial strains were identified by colony morphology, Gram stain and standard biochemical methods and stored in microbanks at -80°C until transportation on dry ice to the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg, Germany for further analysis.

Environmental bacteria and bacteria belonging to the skin microbiota (e.g. coagulase-negative staphylococci, Micrococcus spp., coryneform bacteria or Bacillus spp. other than Bacillus anthracis) were classified as contaminants. At the Institute for Medical Microbiology in Göttingen, Germany, species identification was confirmed using the MALDI Biotyper 3.0 (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany).

MALDI-TOF-MS measurements were carried out according to the MALDI Biotyper standard method (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) using smear preparations. Species identification was confirmed in duplicate preparations from Columbia blood agar (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Étoile, France). During the analysis, 600 spectra in a mass range between 2 and 20 kDa were collected in 100-shot steps on an Autoflex III system and summarized. Identification score values ≥2.00 achieved with MALDI Biotyper (database version 2016) were considered correct.

Antibiotic susceptibility testing

Susceptibility to locally-available antibiotics was tested by the disk diffusion method and interpreted following the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) guidelines v.6.0 (http://www.eucast.org). Antibiotics of choice for bacterial isolates are illustrated in Table 2. Quality control of susceptibility testing was performed according to EUCAST (QC table v.5). At the University Medical Centre, Göttingen, Germany antibiotic susceptibility testing was confirmed using the automated VITEK 2 system (bio-Mérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France). Quality control was performed with the following reference strains: Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 and Escherichia coli 2 ATCC 5922.

Table 2. Antibiotic resistance [n/N (%)] for selected bacterial species in chronic wound infections, Ghana, 2016.

Isolate Enterococcus faecalis Escherichia coli Klebsiella pneumoniae Proteus mirabilis Staphylococcus aureus Streptococcus pyogenes
GEN - 2/12 (17) 6/21 (29) 1/20 (5) 1/28 (4) -
CIP - 7/12 (58) 3/21 (14) 1/20 (5) 0/28 (0) -
CAZ - 3/12 (25) 5/21 (24) 0/21 (0) - -
MER - 0/12 (0) 0/21 (0) 0/20 (0) - -
PEN 12/12 (100) - - - 28/28 (100) 0/5 (0)
ERY 12/12 (100) - - - 2/28 (7) 2/5 (40)
CLI 12/12 (100) - - - 1/28 (4) 0/5 (0)
SXT 12/12 (58) 11/12 (92) 10/21 (48) 9/21 (43) 11/28 (39) -
TET 12/12 (100) - - 1/1 (100) 16/28 (57) -
CHL 4/9 (44) 10/12 (83) 12/13 (92) 9/14 (64) 15/21 (71) 5/8 (63)
AMP 0/12 (0) 12/12 (100) 21/21 (100) 19/21 (90) - 5/5 (100)
SAM 0/12 (0) 12/12 (100) 21/21 (100) 19/21 (90) 8/28 (29) -
CXM - 12/12 (100) 21/21 (100) 21/21 (100) 8/28 (29) -
CRO - 3/11 (27) 4/21 (19) 0/19 (0) - -

GEN, gentamicin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CAZ, ceftazidime; MER, meropenem; PEN, penicillin; ERY, erythromycin; CLI, clindamycin; SXT, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; TET, tetracycline; CHL, chloramphenicol; AMP, ampicillin; SAM, ampicillin/sulbactam; CXM, cefuroxime; CRO, ceftriaxone.

Fungal detection and identification

DNA was extracted from the swab (without transport medium) within 12 hours according to manufacturer’s guidelines using the BIOstic Bacteremia DNA Isolation kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). DNA extracts were stored at -80°C until polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification for clinically important fungi. Fungal DNA was amplified using a broad-range fungal PCR targeting the 28S rRNA gene (primer 28S10f: GACATGGGTTAGTCGATCCTA; 28S12r: CCTTATCTACATTRTTCTATCAAC) using Eva Green with melt curve analysis in an ABI 7500 qPCR machine as described previously [10]. Samples were tested in duplicate. Positive fungal PCR was defined as amplification of DNA of identical melt curves in both duplicates with a threshold cycle below 45. Template controls (n = 8) were included in each run to document potential contamination with fungal DNA. Amplicons of PCR positive samples were sequenced by Sanger sequencing. Fungi were identified by BLAST search using Genbank. Identification of fungi required identity >98% over the amplicon length.

In addition, a qPCR assay targeting the human 18S rRNA was performed to document successful sampling and DNA extraction. Furthermore, potential inhibition of the PCR reaction was screened by an internal amplification control, amplifying an artificial plasmid.

Statistical analyses

Categorical variables were described using frequencies and their proportion and continuous variables using the median and the interquartile range (IQR). Prevalence ratios (PRs) along with their 95%-confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to show associations between dichotomous variables. Missing values were excluded from the analysis; hence, in some calculations the denominator differs. All analyses were conducted using Stata Statistical Software 14 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX).

Results

Study group

One hundred and five outpatients were enrolled between January 2016 and November 2016. Characteristics of study patients are summarised in Table 1. Study participants had a median age of 54 years (IQR: 36–69) and half of the patients (n = 49; 47%) were females. From 47 (45%) patients, underlying diseases were reported, with the most frequent being hypertension (n = 27; 26%) and diabetes mellitus (n = 22; 21%). The majority of wounds were located on the leg (n = 76; 72%) followed by the foot (n = 13; 12%). Most wounds were ≥7 months old (n = 48; 46%), followed by below 8 weeks (n = 33; 31%). Wounds had a median area size of 15 cm2 (IQR: 5–44). Patient’s wounds showed the following characteristics: pain (n = 97, 92%), indurated border (n = 56; 53%), presence of pus (n = 43; 41%), functio laesa (n = 34; 32%) and local swelling (n = 15; 14%). In 55 (53%) patients the grade of the wound was stage two or higher. Most common reported causes of the wound were cuts (e.g. by a piece of wood or sharp object from the environment) (n = 36; 34%) followed by abscesses/swollen tissues (n = 30; 29%), traumata/accidents (n = 12; 11%) and blisters (n = 11; 10%). In 70 (67%) of the patients the wound was previously treated with antibiotics and in 38 (36%) with traditional medicine. Patients using herbal treatment were less likely to take antibiotics (PR = 0.7; 95%-CI: 0.5–1.0). Patients who used herbal treatment were more likely to have wounds for 9 weeks to 6 months (PR = 1.8; 95%-CI = 1.2–2.6).

Table 1. Patient and wound characteristics for Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.

Characteristic All (N = 105) Gram-negative bacteria present (N = 85) Only Gram-positive bacteria (N = 20)
Female sex [n (%)] 49 (47) 6 (30) 43 (51)
Age (years) of patient [median (IQR)] 54 (36–69) 49 (24–59) 56 (38–69)
Previous antibiotic use [n (%)] 70 (67) 57 (67) 13 (65)
Area size (cm2) of wound [median (IQR)] 15 (5–44) 5 (5–15) 15 (5–44)
Duration of wound [n (%)]
<8 weeks 33 (31) 28 (33) 5 (25)
9 weeks–6 months 24 (23) 20 (24) 4 (20)
≥7 months 48 (46) 37 (44) 11 (55)
Location of wound [n (%)]
leg/ankle 76 (72) 63 (74) 13 (65)
foot 13 (12) 10 (12) 3 (15)
other 16 (15) 12 (14) 4 (20)
Aetiology of wound [n (%)]
cut 36 (34) 29 (34) 7 (35)
abscess/tissue swelling 30 (29) 25 (29) 5 (25)
trauma/accidents 12 (11) 10 (12) 2 (10)
other 27 (26) 21 (25) 6 (30)

Bacterial isolates from chronic wounds

In total, 207 potential bacterial pathogens were isolated from 105 wounds and polymicrobial infections were frequent. In 7 (7%) of the patients no bacterial pathogen was isolated. In 34 (32%) one, in 31 (30%) two, in 21 (20%) three and in 12 (11%) patients four, bacterial pathogens were isolated. Wounds ≥5 cm2 were more likely to carry multiple pathogens (PR = 1.5; 95%-CI: 1.0–2.3). The detected potential pathogens are listed in S1 Table. The majority of isolates were Gram-negative (n = 143; 69%) bacteria. Most were Enterobacteriaceae (n = 84; 41%) and P. aeruginosa (n = 50; 24%) followed by S. aureus (n = 28; 14%). In general, the bacterial composition was comparable between mono- and polymicrobial infections (Fig 1). The most frequently detected pathogen in mono- and polymicrobial infections was P. aeruginosa. In patients with one or two isolates detected, S. aureus was the second most common pathogen found. Patient and wound characteristics stratified by the presence or absence of Gram-negative bacteria are summarised in Table 1, indicating that characteristics were comparable between both groups. However, the size of wounds that contained Gram-positive bacteria were larger (median = 15 cm2; IQR: 5–44) compared to wounds from which only Gram-negative bacteria were isolated (median = 5 cm2; IQR: 5–15).

Fig 1. Pathogen distribution in mono- and polymicrobial bacterial wound infection.

Fig 1

The different plots represent frequencies from wounds where 1, 2, 3 or 4 pathogens were detected.

Antibiotic susceptibility testing

Antibiotic susceptibility results of the most common bacterial species using the VITEK 2 system are shown in Table 2 and Fig 2. Among all S. aureus, 29% (n/N = 8/28) were methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Inducible clindamycin resistance was found in 1/28 (4%) S. aureus isolate only. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae were 33% (n/N = 4/12) and 24% (n/N = 5/21), respectively. Fluoroquinolone resistance was seen in 58% (n/N = 7/12) E. coli, 14% (n/N = 3/21) K. pneumoniae and 9% (n/N = 4/47) P. aeruginosa. Two of K. pneumoniae isolates and one E. coli exhibited resistance to three antibiotic groups: penicillins, 3rd generation cephalosporin and fluoroquinolones. One P. aeruginosa strain exhibited resistance to the same groups of antibiotics in addition to resistance to carbapenems. Antibiotic resistance profiles of Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa are shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Proportion of Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa resistant to locally available antibiotics.

Fig 2

Amplification of fungal DNA from chronic wound swabs

In 23 (22%) out of 105 sampled wounds, fungal DNA was detected by broad-range PCR. Most frequent fungi were Candida tropicalis (n = 6; 6%) and Candida spp. (n = 5; 5%). A complete list of isolated fungi is presented in Table 3. Patients with multiple bacterial infections had a higher risk to be infected or colonized with a mycotic isolate (PR = 2.4; 95%-CI: 1.0–5.3). The broad-range PCR did not amplify DNA of typical fungal pathogens causing chronic skin infections including chromoblastomycosis and mycetoma.

Table 3. Fungal isolates detected in 105 patient samples tested by PCR.

Isolate Frequency (%)
Candida tropicalis 6 (6)
Candida spp. 5 (5)
Candida mixed sequence 4 (4)
Candida albicans 3 (3)
Cladophiolophora spp. 1 (1)
Fusarium solani 1 (1)
Geotrichium candidum 1 (1)
Purpureocillium/Acremonium 1 (1)
Zygosaccaromyces spp. 1 (1)

Discussion

In this study, we assessed the microbial composition of chronically infected wounds in rural Ghana. The bacterial spectrum seen was in line with findings from previous studies conducted in another region of Ghana, in Ethiopia and in Tanzania [1, 1115].

Altogether, Gram-negative bacteria dominated quantitatively. Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa and S. aureus were the most frequently isolated organisms. Previous assessments both from America and Europe as well as from Africa confirm S. aureus and P. aeruginosa as the leading pathogens isolated from chronic wounds. Both species express virulence factors and surface proteins negatively affecting wound healing [1,9,16,17]. Pathogenicity in chronic wounds is further increased by co-infections of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, which show synergistic interactions in in-vitro models [16,18].

Biofilms caused by P. aeruginosa play important roles by maintaining chronic wound infections thus preventing healing. Such biofilms are also known to show high adherence to biological surfaces, a phenomenon which limits the sensitivity of swabbing-based sampling with subsequent culture-based diagnostic approaches in comparison to molecular biological approaches [19]. Consequently, it is likely that the true prevalence of P. aeruginosa was even higher. In this study, histological assessment of biofilms on chronic wounds [19] was not performed. Accordingly, assumptions on the likely impact of biofilm formation remain speculative.

Although P. aeruginosa followed by S. aureus were the most common bacteria identified on species level, the most frequent isolates were Enterobacteriaceae. The estimation of their clinical relevance is much more difficult even though it is generally accepted that Enterobacteriaceae like E. coli and others might play a role in wound infections [17,20]. Inhabitants of tropical or subtropical climate zones were shown to have high colonization rates of skin and mucous membranes with Gram-negative rod-shaped bacteria [21]. High frequencies were also reported from patients, students, and health-care workers in Madagascar [22]. This makes the discrimination between wound colonization and wound infection challenging. From the less frequently isolated bacteria, beta-hemolytic streptococci including Streptococcus pyogenes are highly likely to be etiologically relevant for the assessed chronic wound infections [23], while enterococci are frequent colonizers of uncertain clinical relevance in wounds [24]. In mono- and polymicrobial infections, P. aeruginosa was the most common bacterial specie. Enterobacteriaceae and enterococci were rarely observed alone, so it is probable they are contamination flora or minor components of polymicrobial infection.

Overall antibiotic resistance was considerably high. This is particularly true for orally locally available drugs typically used for empiric treatment of infections. The recorded 29% MRSA is in discordance with a Ghanaian study on wound infections from 2014, where no MRSA were identified from infected wounds [14]. This suggests a considerable increase of MRSA within less than a decade; although it has to be considered that selection processes in chronic wounds after repeated antimicrobial therapy are likely. High frequencies of 2nd and 3rd generation cephalosporins but absence of carbapenem resistance in Enterobacteriaceae isolated from wounds has been described before in previous studies from Ghana [14]. Further fluoroquinolone resistance is on the increase in Ghana [25], significantly reducing the value of this group of antibiotics for treatment of severe infections. In addition, we found one carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa. Carbapenem-resistance is still comparatively rare in Ghana: 2.9% in Gram-negative rod-shaped bacteria, predominantly in P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii [26]. In summary, the observed resistance patterns make any rational antimicrobial therapy challenging, indicating a need for routine diagnostics including antibiotic susceptibility testing. However, antibiotic resistance seen in bacterial isolates from chronic wounds is likely to overestimate the true resistance rate in clinical isolates, because selection processes due to repeated attempts of antibiotic treatment have to be considered as likely.

In regards to fungi isolated from chronic wounds, information on the immune status of the patients was not assessed. Hence potential etiological relevance remains speculative. In general, fungal infections have been seen to cause skin infection including mycetoma that may manifest as chronic wounds after trauma [27]. Detection of causative fungal pathogens requires prolonged culture on fungus-specific media or demonstration of fungal elements in tissues. The performance of broad-range fungal PCR to amplify fungal DNA for the diagnosis of these infections has not been evaluated [28]. Our results suggest that the applied approach may be more likely to amplify DNA of yeasts that may be normal skin microbiota or microbial communities of chronic wounds. Specific PCR assays may be more sensitive for the amplification of specific fungal pathogens such as Madurella mycetomatis [27]. Limitations of this study include geographic restrictions of sampling, reducing the representativeness of the study for the whole of Ghana. In addition, swabbing of neighboring sites of intact skin to better differentiate infection from colonization [29] was not performed. Also, more sensitive molecular diagnostic methods were not applied, making it likely that several components of mixed infections will have been missed [19]. Also, despite their potential involvement in chronic wound infections, no anaerobic bacterial culture was performed. Lastly, sample transport time of up to six hours may have facilitated overgrowth of certain bacterial species, possibly masking the growth of less viable bacteria, even though cool boxes were used.

Conclusions

As in other studies elsewhere, P. aeruginosa and S. aureus were the most frequently detected isolates and thus the most important species to be considered by physicians for therapeutic decisions.

In addition, high rates of antibiotic resistance are to be expected for isolates from chronic wounds in Ghana. This stresses the need for routine bacterial diagnostics including antimicrobial resistance testing prior to targeted antimicrobial therapy if antibiotic treatment is required and locally disinfecting or surgical procedures are considered insufficient. If routine bacteriology is impossible for logistical or infrastructural reasons, the observed lack of carbapenem-resistance suggests that antibiotic substances, which are available for intravenous application only, may still have good chances of showing clinical effect. However, decision-makers should be aware that empiric treatment further increases antibiotic resistance and is thus a less sustainable approach.

Supporting information

S1 Table. 207 Potential pathogenic bacteria isolated from 105 patient wounds.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all patients, who participated in this study and to the personnel at the Agogo Presbyterian Hospital. Without their efforts, this research study would not have been possible.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Kumburu HH, Sonda T, Mmbaga BT, Alifrangis M, Lund O, Kibiki G, et al. Patterns of infections, aetiological agents and antimicrobial resistance at a tertiary care hospital in northern Tanzania. Trop Med Int Health 2017; 22: 454–64. 10.1111/tmi.12836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rahman GA, Adigun IA, Fadeyi A. Epidemiology, etiology, and treatment of chronic leg ulcer: experience with sixty patients. Ann Afr Med. 2010, 9(1):1–4. 10.4103/1596-3519.62615 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Han A, Zenilman JM, Melendez JH, Shirtliff ME, Agostinho A, James G, et al. The importance of a multifaceted approach to characterizing the microbial flora of chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen 2011; 19: 532–41. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2011.00720.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nunan R, Harding KG, Martin P. Clinical challenges of chronic wounds: searching for an optimal animal model to recapitulate their complexity. Dis Model Mech 2014; 7: 1205–13. 10.1242/dmm.016782 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Oli AN, Eze DE, Gugu TH, Ezeobi I, Maduagwu UN, Ihekwereme CP. Multi-antibiotic resistant extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing bacteria pose a challenge to the effective treatment of wound and skin infections. Pan Afr Med J 2017; 27: 66 10.11604/pamj.2017.27.66.10226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lai PS, Bebell LM, Meney C, Valeri L, White MC. Epidemiology of antibiotic-resistant wound infections from six countries in Africa. BMJ Glob Health 2018; 2(Suppl 4): e000475 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000475 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ntirenganya C, Manzi O, Muvunyi CM, Ogbuagu O. High prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among common bacterial isolates in a tertiary healthcare facility in Rwanda. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2015; 92: 865–70. 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kalan L, Loesche M, Hodkinson BP, Heilmann K, Ruthel G, Gardner SE, et al. Redefining the Chronic-Wound Microbiome: Fungal Communities Are Prevalent, Dynamic, and Associated with Delayed Healing. mBio. 2016; 7: 5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Queiroz-Telles F, Fahal AH, Falci DR, Caceres DH, Chiller T, Pasqualotto AC. Neglected endemic mycoses. Lancet Infect Dis 2017; 17: e367–77. 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30306-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rooms I, Mugisha P, Gambichler T, Hadaschik E, Esser S, Rath PM, et al. Disseminated Emergomycosis in a person with HIV Infection, Uganda. Emerging infectious Diseases 2019; 9: 1750–1751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mama M, Abdissa A, Sewunet T. Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of bacterial isolates from wound infection and their sensitivity to alternative topical agents at Jimma University Specialized Hospital, South-West Ethiopia. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2014; 13: 14 10.1186/1476-0711-13-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Moremi N, Mushi MF, Fidelis M, Chalya P, Mirambo M, Mshana SE. Predominance of multi-resistant gram-negative bacteria colonizing chronic lower limb ulcers (CLLUs) at Bugando Medical Center. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 211 10.1186/1756-0500-7-211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kassam NA, Damian DJ, Kajeguka D, Nyombi B, Kibiki GS. Spectrum and antibiogram of bacteria isolated from patients presenting with infected wounds in a Tertiary Hospital, northern Tanzania. BMC Res Notes 2017; 10: 757 10.1186/s13104-017-3092-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Janssen H, Janssen I, Cooper P, Kainyah C, Pellio T, Quintel M, et al. Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria in Infected Wounds, Ghana, 2014. Emerg Infect Dis 2018; 24: 916–9. 10.3201/eid2405.171506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kazimoto T, Abdulla S, Bategereza L, Juma O, Mhimbira F, Weisser M, et al. Causative agents and antimicrobial resistance patterns of human skin and soft tissue infections in Bagamoyo, Tanzania. Acta Trop 2018; 186: 102–6. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2018.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Serra R, Grande R, Butrico L, Rossi A, Settimio UF, Caroleo B, et al. Chronic wound infections: the role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2015; 13: 605–13. 10.1586/14787210.2015.1023291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bessa LJ, Fazii P, Di Giulio M, Cellini L. Bacterial isolates from infected wounds and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern: some remarks about wound infection. Int Wound J 2015; 12: 47–52. 10.1111/iwj.12049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.DeLeon S, Clinton A, Fowler H, Everett J, Horswill AR, Rumbaugh KP. Synergistic interactions of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro wound model. Infect Immun. 2014. November;82(11):4718–28.] 10.1128/IAI.02198-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kirketerp-Møller K, Jensen PØ, Fazli M, Madsen KG, Pedersen J, Moser C, et al. Distribution, organization, and ecology of bacteria in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46: 2717–22. 10.1128/JCM.00501-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Frickmann H, Künne C, Hagen RM, Podbielski A, Normann J, Poppert S, et al. Next-generation sequencing for hypothesis-free genomic detection of invasive tropical infections in poly-microbially contaminated, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples—a proof-of-principle assessment. BMC Microbiol 2019; 19: 75 10.1186/s12866-019-1448-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Frickmann H, Podbielski A, Kreikemeyer B. Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria and Diagnostic Point-of-Care Options for the Field Setting during Military Operations. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018: 9395420 10.1155/2018/9395420 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Micheel V, Hogan B, Rakotoarivelo RA, Rakotozandrindrainy R, Razafimanatsoa F, Razafindrabe T, et al. Identification of nasal colonization with β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in patients, health care workers and students in Madagascar. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp) 2015; 5: 116–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rantala S. Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. equisimilis bacteremia: an emerging infection. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 33: 1303–10. 10.1007/s10096-014-2092-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Frickmann H, Köller K, Veil I, Weise M, Ludyga A, Schwarz NG, et al. On the Role of Enterococci in the Bloodstream: Results of a Single-Center, Retrospective, Observational Study at a German University Hospital. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp) 2017; 7: 284–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Aldrich C, Hartman H, Feasey N, Chattaway MA, Dekker D, Al-Emran HM, et al. Emergence of phylogenetically diverse and fluoroquinolone resistant Salmonella Enteritidis as a cause of invasive nontyphoidal Salmonella disease in Ghana. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2019; 13: e0007485 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Codjoe FS, Donkor ES, Smith TJ, Miller K. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli Pathogens from Hospitals in Ghana. Microb Drug Resist 2019; 25: 1449–1457. 10.1089/mdr.2018.0278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zijlstra EE, van de Sande WWJ, Welsh O, Mahgoub ES, Goodfellow M, Fahal AH. Mycetoma: a unique neglected tropical disease. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16: 100–112. 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00359-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Frickmann H, Loderstaedt U, Racz P, Tenner-Racz K, Eggert P, Haeupler A, et al. Detection of tropical fungi in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue: still an indication for microscopy in times of sequence-based diagnosis? Biomed Res Int 2015a; 2015: 938721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yun HC, Murray CK, Roop SA, Hospenthal DR, Gourdine E, Dooley DP. Bacteria recovered from patients admitted to a deployed U.S. military hospital in Baghdad, Iraq. Mil Med 2006; 171: 821–5. 10.7205/milmed.171.9.821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Baochuan Lin

5 May 2020

PONE-D-20-08668

Spectrum of antibiotic resistant bacteria and fungi isolated from chronically infected wounds in a rural district hospital in Ghana

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr dekker,

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

I have received the reviews of your manuscript. While your paper addresses an important question, the reviewers stated several concerns about your study and did not recommend publication in its present form.  All reviewers voice a number of concerns regarding the rational of why Ghana rural localization was chosen for such observation and how data analysis were done.  These comments need to be addressed carefully. In addition there were numerous issues identified where additional experimentation and documentation is needed.  Please see reviewers’ insightful comments below. Personally, at a more detailed level, I find the manuscript could benefit from strengthening the rationale of the study (see specific comments below).

Specific comments:

  1. It is customary to abbreviate the name of the genus after the first time it is used, for examples, Staphylococcus aureus should be S. aureus after first mention in the paper (Ref:  International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria: Bacteriological Code, 1990 Revision).

  2. It may be valuable to have brief description of the different stages of wounds to give readers a general idea since this was mentioned in the results.

  3. Line 59 – 61:  Move this sentence down as third paragraph and expand to explain what other fungal pathogens could cause problem.

  4. Line 72 – 73:  The rationale of the study needs to be strengthen further here.

  5. Line 87 – 90:  Need approval number.

  6. Line 229 – 234:  This begs the question on how to access whether there are biofilm formation on the open wound.

  7. Line 253 – 255:  This sentence is awkward, please rephrase for clarity.

  8. Line 335 – 340:  Reference 9&10 need space in between for format consistency.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 19 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,

Baochuan Lin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Title: Spectrum of antibiotic resistant bacteria and fungi isolated from chronically infected

wounds in a rural district hospital in Ghana

The manuscript entitled “Spectrum of antibiotic resistant bacteria and fungi isolated from chronically infected wounds in a rural district hospital in Ghana “ described a pathogen distribution in chronic wounds in rural Ghana. It seems that information matched to the international patterns with a predominance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Moreover, very high resistance rates were also observed suggestion the use or not of certain antimicrobials. Data here reported are important but major revisions are necessary before manuscript acceptance. Furthermore, some suggestions were here providing in order to improve the manuscript quality.

Suggestions:

1. Its is not clear why Ghana rural localization was chosen for such observation. For me it is obvious, specially because I could observe some Ghanaian authors. However, at introduction authors are invited to better explain spot location, adding such information in a World context.

2. In line 99, authors described that take 6 hours to transport the sample. I assume that collection was in a not easy place. But is this not a limitation? Authors could at least describe the possible contaminations occurring at this time.

3. In line 113, authors are invited to better describe the MALDI biotyper analyses including the number of spectra used in each identification and the number of technical and biological replicates utilized.

4. Please provide the list of antibiotics used for susceptibility tests. This could be added as supplementary material.

5. Please provide the primers sequence used at fungal identification.

6. There is some problem in Figure 1. The same occurs in figure 2, inserted in main text. Nevertheless at the end of main text is everything ok.

7. Table 2. Its is amazing that all strains were 100% resistant to CXM. This is not impossible but unusual. Authors are invited to clearly discussed. Moreover, is also remarkable that Klebsiella show so high rates of resistance. This is also an important data.

8. Why did authors did not test the fungal susceptibility to antifungals? Such data could also be important in order to determine the difficult in the region.

Reviewer #2: The objective of the study is to determine the epidemiology of microbial pathogens in chroncially infected wounds to support therapeutic choices for physician.

The aetiology of the chronic wounds in Table 1 is not welly defined (does cut means surgical incision or trauma?). Suggest for author to classify the types of wound by diabetic, arterial, infectious, surgical, trauma, venous and pressure ulcers.

Authors have performed logistic regression for wound size, traditional medicine and multiple bacterial infections. The p-value for the regression analysis are not stated in the manuscript.

Suggest to look into

1. Association of antibiotic usage and antibiotic resistance.

2. Association of types of wound and antibiotic resistance.

In row 211, authors have mentioned that "In 23(22%) wound, fungal DNA was amplified by broad range PCR". Does it means only 23 wounds were amplified for fungal detection instead of 105 wounds? Please justify.

Reviewer #3: Dear Editor,

Thank you for having chosen me as Referee for this paper.

I was pleased to read this work related to chronic infected wound in Ghana.

The authors provide detailed information on the epidemiology of microbial pathogens in chronically infected wounds in rural Ghana with the aim to support therapeutic choices for physicians. For the study were enrolled 105 patients with 207 microbial isolates. Isolated strains were characterized by a high resistant rate also against carbapenem. They concluded that for a correct management of these infections it is important to perform microbiological diagnostic approach including susceptibility testing.

The work is well structured and the topic, the antibiotic resistance of pathogen microrganisms isolated from chronically infected wounds in undeveloped countries such as Ghana, is of significant importance and fits within the scope of Plos one.

The results justify the conclusion.

All sections are presented with adequate clarity.

I suggest to emphasize the poor situation in Africa and in rural Ghana in the Introduction section.

In my opinion, the overall content of the paper is significant and the manuscript could be recommended for publication in “Plos one” after minor revision.

I have suggested some corrections and formulated some suggestions that might help the Authors in improving the manuscript.

Minor revision

In all parts of the manuscript, I recommend pointing the name of the bacteria except for the first time

• Ethics Statement and Ethical considerations (lines 86-90): Please, include the approval number of Ethical Committee

• Please, change “flora” with “microbiota” in all parts of the MS

• Page 7, lines 122-123, please insert “ATCC” before the number of the strains

• Page 7, line 150. Please, change 47 with 49

• Page 7 lines 160-163, Were the antimicrobial patterns of strains isolated from patients previously treated with antibiotics different from those of strains isolated from patients that used herbal treatments? Please insert a comment in Discussion

• Page 7, line 160. Please, add the space (n=11;10%)

• Page 12, line 228. Could be useful insert a comment regarding the following reference:

Synergistic interactions of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro wound model. DeLeon S, Clinton A, Fowler H, Everett J, Horswill AR, Rumbaugh KP. Infect Immun. 2014 Nov;82(11):4718-28. doi: 10.1128/IAI.02198-14. Epub 2014 Aug 25

• Page 12, lines 235-237 Please the sentence is not clear, please rephrase it

• Page 12, line 238. Please, add uppercase letter

• Page 12, line 239 delete full stop and insert comma

• Page 13, lines 255-260. Please, rephrase the sentences

• Page 13, line 259 delete full stop and insert comma

• Page 16, line 305, change number 3 with 1

• Figure 1 it is not clear, please, re-write the legend or modify the figure

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Luigina Cellini, Dept of Pharmacy, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Chieti, Italy

Mara Di Giulio, Associate Professor, Dept of Pharmacy, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Chieti, Italy

Silvia Di Lodovico, PhD, "G. d'Annunzio" University, Chieti, Italy

[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 Aug 7;15(8):e0237263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237263.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Jul 2020

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for the valuable input and suggestions. Please find below our comments in italics. We have amended the manuscript accordingly and do hope that the changes are acceptable to you.

Kind regards,

Denise Dekker

Attachment

Submitted filename: answer to reviewer_wounds_final.docx

Decision Letter 1

Baochuan Lin

23 Jul 2020

Spectrum of antibiotic resistant bacteria and fungi isolated from chronically infected wounds in a rural district hospital in Ghana

PONE-D-20-08668R1

Dear Dr. dekker,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Baochuan Lin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: The manuscript was improved been acceptable in the present form. In that view I have no additional comments

Reviewer #3: This is a much improved version of the previously submitted manuscript.

The present revision is suitable for publication on Plos One

**********

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: Octavio Luiz Franco

Reviewer #3: Yes: Luigina Cellini

Acceptance letter

Baochuan Lin

28 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-08668R1

Spectrum of antibiotic resistant bacteria and fungi isolated from chronically infected wounds in a rural district hospital in Ghana

Dear Dr. Dekker:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Baochuan Lin

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. 207 Potential pathogenic bacteria isolated from 105 patient wounds.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: answer to reviewer_wounds_final.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES