Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Aug 28;15(8):e0237260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237260

Relationship between the composition of the intestinal microbiota and the tracheal and intestinal colonization by opportunistic pathogens in intensive care patients

Candice Fontaine 1, Laurence Armand-Lefèvre 1,2, Mélanie Magnan 1, Anissa Nazimoudine 2, Jean-François Timsit 1,3, Etienne Ruppé 1,2,*
Editor: Axel Cloeckaert4
PMCID: PMC7454957  PMID: 32857755

Abstract

Objective

Infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB) are a major issue in intensive care. The intestinal and oropharyngeal microbiota being the reservoir of MDR-GNB. Our main objective was to assess the link between the composition of the intestinal microbiota and the tracheal and intestinal colonization by MDR-GNB, and also by Enterococcus spp. and yeasts.

Methods

We performed a 2-month prospective, monocentric cohort study in the medical intensive care unit of our hospital. Patients ventilated >3 days and spontaneously passing feces were included. A fecal sample and an endotracheal aspiration (EA) were collected twice a week. MDR-GNB but also Enterococcus faecium and yeasts (as potential dysbiosis surrogate markers) were detected by culture methods. The composition of the intestinal microbiota was assessed by 16S profiling.

Results

We collected 62 couples of feces and EA from 31 patients, including 18 feces and 9 EA positive for MDR-GNB. Forty-eight fecal samples were considered for 16S profiling. We did not observe a link between the diversity and the richness of the intestinal microbiota and the MDR-GNB intestinal relative abundance (RA). Conversely, we observed a negative link between the intestinal diversity and richness and the RA of Enterococcus spp. (p<0.001).

Conclusion

The fecal MDR-GNB RA was not associated to the diversity nor the richness of the intestinal microbiota, but that of Enterococcus spp. was.

Introduction

The increased prevalence of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative Bacilli (MDR-GNB) in both community and healthcare-acquired infections is a major public health issue. Especially, resistance to third generation cephalosporins via the production of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL) and/or AmpC-type cephalosporinases in GNB have put carbapenems as the drugs of choice in the treatment of these MDR-GNB infections. The increase in their consumption has in turn led to the emergence and carbapenem-resistant GNB such as Enterobacterales (especially those producing carbapenemases), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa which are considered as the most serious threats to global health by the World Health Organization (WHO, www.who.int/drug). Hence, containment strategies to cope with MDR-GNB are urgently expected.

Humans are colonized by a number of microorganisms (mostly bacteria) approximatively equivalent to the number of our own cells [1], the largest part being located in our digestive tract. The intestinal microbiota indeed harbors an estimated several hundred different species among which anaerobic bacteria (mainly Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes) are dominant with 1012 to 1014 colony-forming units [CFU] per gram of feces [2]. It also consists of potentially pathogenic bacteria (referred to as opportunistic pathogens) that are subdominant, including Enterobacterales and enterococci (approximately 108 CFU per gram of feces) [3]. One of the main roles of the intestinal microbiota is to exert a barrier effect against pathogenic bacteria through a mechanism called resistance to colonization [4]. Indeed, some dominant anaerobic bacteria oppose to the sustained colonization by exogenous bacteria, including MDR-GNB.

The gastrointestinal tract is the primary reservoir for the bacterial pathogens that cause most nosocomial infections [5]. Indeed, antibiotics alter the intestinal microbiota by eliminating the susceptible bacteria (including those exerting the resistance to colonization) and promoting the overgrowth of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms [6]. The multiplication of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the microbiota leads to an increased risk that they could be involved in subsequent infections such as digestive translocation [7] and urinary-tract infections [8]. Besides the intestinal microbiota, the oropharyngeal MDR-GNB colonization is known to significantly increase the probability of finding these bacteria in the respiratory tract and therefore the risk of MDR-GNB ventilator associated pneumoniae (VAP) [9]. Intestinal and oropharyngeal colonization seem closely linked and a MDR-GNB primarily found in the gut can be later found in the oropharynx during prolonged hospitalization [10]. Moreover, the oropharyngeal carriage of one given bacterium significantly increases the probability of it being found in respiratory samples in case of infection [11]. The composition of the oropharyngeal microbiota could also play a role in the interplay between pathogen colonization and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Indeed at the time of intubation, the oropharyngeal microbiota of patients subsequently developing VAP was found to differ from that of patients not developing VAP [12].

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly vulnerable to infections. During their stay in the ICU, approximately 20% patients develop a hospital-acquired infection [13] which represents the leading cause of death [14]. Most of these infections are ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP), one third of which are caused by MDR-GNB [15]. In total, MDR-GNB are responsible of more than 40% of hospital-acquired infections in ICU and double the relative risk of death [16]. In 50 to 80% of cases, ICU patients receive a wide array of antibiotics aiming at being active on potentially resistant pathogens. Indeed, early adequate antibiotic therapy reduces the mortality by more than 10% together with a global reduction duration of the stay. Over the last few years, the intestinal microbiota of ICU patients has been a matter of interest. Early observations showed that it was indeed under major changes during the stay likely due to the various medication (including antibiotics) the patients received [17, 18]. In many cases, the richness (i.e. the number of unique bacteria) and the diversity (i.e. the balance of their distribution) of the intestinal microbiota significantly dropped and some bacterial species such as Enterococcus spp. or yeasts such as Candida spp. ended up being the dominant microorganisms in the gut [19, 20]. Furthermore, the extent of the alteration of the microbiota could be linked to mortality. At admission to the ICU, Freedberg et al. observed that patients who had an intestinal dominance (i.e. >30% of all reads) of Enterococcus spp. had a worse outcome than those who had not [21] Agudelo-Ochoa et al. found that a high abundance of Enterococci in the gut of septic ICU patients was associated to death [22]. Besides, the bacterial diversity of the respiratory tract was observed to be negatively correlated to the mortality [23]. Yet the link between the global composition of the microbiota and specific bacteria such as MDR-GNB, Enterococci and yeasts has not been assessed, which is what we aim to do in the present work.

Material and methods

This is a monocentric prospective cohort study performed in the 36-bed medical intensive care unit (ICU) of the 900-bed Bichat-Claude Bernard university teaching hospital in Paris, France.

Population

Adult patients were considered for the study if they were admitted to the medical ICU of our hospital between January 1 and March 1, 2018. All patients with mechanical ventilation at admission with a predicted duration of ventilation longer than three days and spontaneously passing feces were included in the study. The study was approved by the ethics review committee for biomedical research projects, Paris Nord (authorization number 2018–005). According to the French regulation, the patient was informed while the need for signed consent was waived.

Sample collection

For each patient, the first feces passed after admission was collected and then twice a week when possible (when a stool was passed) until discharge or death. At the time the feces were collected, an endotracheal aspiration (EA) was also performed. All fecal samples were spontaneously passed. EA were collected by the nurse or the investigator (CF) with an aspiration in the intubation probe. Samples were kept at +4°C in the ICU before being sent to the bacteriology laboratory of the Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital. Approximately 100 mg of the feces and 100 μl of the EA samples were frozen at -80 degrees (one 30% glycerol brain heart infusion (BHI) tube and one tube without preservative).

Sample culture

In this study, MDR-GNB referred to as (1) extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), carbapenemase and/or high-level AmpC producing Enterobacterales and, (2) ceftazidime-resistant P. aeruginosa and (3) Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. For culturing purposes, approximately 100 mg of feces were diluted in 10 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride while EA were used without dilution. MDR-GNB were searched by culturing 100 μL the feces dilution or the EA on selective media: ChromID® ESBL media (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France), 1 mg/L cefotaxime supplemented Drigalski agar plates (Bio-Rad, Marne-la-Coquette, France) and Cetrimide media on which was deposited a disc of ceftazidime in the 2nd quadrant (bioMérieux). Besides, we also searched for Enterococcus faecium by using a Columbia colistin nalidixic agar media (bioMérieux) on which was deposited a disc of imipenem in the 2nd quadrant. For yeast, we used the ChromID® Candida media (BioMérieux). All plates were incubated at 35°C under aerobic conditions for 24h. All colony-forming units (CFUs) that had grown on selective media were identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (Bruker, Bremen, Germany) and then tested for antibiotics susceptibility by the disc diffusion method, according to the EUCAST 2018 v1 recommendations that applied at the time of the study. No antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed for E. faecium and yeasts. For MDR-GNB positive samples, concentration of total aerobic GNB and of MDR-GNB were determined by plating serial dilutions (pure, 10−2, 10−4) of initial feces or EA sample onto Drigalski agar (Bio-Rad) with or without 1mg/L cefotaxime. After 24h of incubation at 35°C, CFU were counted in decimal logarithms at the dilution in which 10 to 100 CFU grew (CFU per gram of feces and CFU per millilitre). MDR-GNB relative abundance (MDR-GNB RA) was calculated as the ratio of MDR-GNB concentrations divided by the total number of aerobic GNB, expressed as a percentage or in log 10 [8]. For patients who carried more than one MDR-GNB bacteria in feces or EA, the MDR-GNB RA was the RA of the total MDR-GNB.

DNA extraction 16S RNA gene sequencing

All frozen fecal samples were thawed, and total DNA extraction was performed using the QiAamp DNA stool Mini Kit (Qiagen, Courtaboeuf, France) according to the local protocol used in our laboratory (see supplementary material. The DNA was measured before freezing at -20°C using the Qubit® instrument (ThermoFisher Scientific, Montigny-le-Bretonneux).

16S RNA gene sequencing

The V4 hypervariable region of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene was amplified and sequenced were sequenced for using the Illumina MiSeq platform. The protocol used followed the 16S metagenomic sequencing library protocol (15044223B) provided by Illumina. This protocol created a final amplicon of 428 base pairs spanning to the V4 region. All the amplicons from fecal samples with satisfactory acceptance criteria for sequencing (a quantitative DNA assay coding for the V4 region of 16S RNA was performed using the Qubit® instrument and the quality of the amplification was assessed by migrating the DNA from each fecal sample in an agarose gel) were finally considered for sequencing.

Bioinformatic analyses

The analysis of 16S rRNA sequences were performed using Shaman (Shiny Application for Metagenomic Analysis, http://shaman.pasteur.fr/). Reads processing and relative abundance counts were based on a negative binomial regression (deseq2 R package) [24]. Operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were clustered at 97% sequence similarity. Diversity assessed by the Shannon index and richness was calculated at the operational taxonomic unit (OTU) level.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using R v3.4.2 (package R, deseq2). Population characteristics were expressed as medians and percentages. The quantitative variables of absolute concentrations (CFU per gram of feces or CFU per millilitre) and relative abundance (in log 10 or percentage) were expressed as means and medians (minimum and maximum values). The statistical tests used were Student t test and Pearson tests. The significance level was set at a value of 0.05. Figures were designed using ggplot2 and colours were choose using colorbrewer2 (https://colorbrewer2.org).

Results

Population

We included 31 patients who were able to emit feces spontaneously the day of inclusion. Characteristics of patients are showed in the Table 1 and detailed in the S1 Table. They were predominantly male (65%), with a median age of 59 years [range 22; 75], with high severity scores at admission (SOFA 8 [range 1; 16] and SAPS II 52 [range 25; 106]) and 42% were immunocompromised. The median length of hospitalization of the 31 patients was 17 days. We collected a total of 124 samples (62 feces and 62 EA) from these 31 patients over 2 months (Fig 1). For each patient, we collected an average of 2 [range 1; 8] fecal and EA samples.

Table 1. Characteristics of the patients (n = 31) included in the study.

Clinical characteristics of patients at inclusion (n = 31) Values (%) or median (min-max)
Gender
Male 20 (64.5%)
Female 11 (35.5%)
Age (years) 59 (22–75)
Background information
Neoplasia 2 (6.5%)
Organ transplantation 5 (16.1%)
Autoimmune disease 3 (9.7%)
Asplenia 0 (0%)
HIV 2 (6.5%)
Immunosuppressive treatments
None 20 (64.5%)
Corticosteroids 6 (19.4%)
Immunosuppressants 7 (22.6%)
Immunoglobulins 2 (6.5%)
Antiretrovirals 2 (6.5%)
Chemotherapy 1 (3.2%)
Other treatments
Proton pump inhibitors 30 (96.8%)
Enteral nutrition 23 (74.2%)
Opioids 30 (96.8%)
Motive for admission
Acute respiratory distress syndrome 8 (25.8%)
Sepsis 6 (19.4%)
Coma 4 (12.9%)
Other 13 (41.9%)
Severity score at admission
SAPS II 52 (25–106)
SOFA 8 (1–16)
Antibiotics within 21 day before inclusion
No 17 (54.8%)
Yes 14 (45.2%)
 Amoxicillin + clavulanic acid 4 (12.9%)
 Amoxicillin 5 (16.1%)
 Third generation cephalosporin 7 (22.3%)
 Fourth generation cephalosporin 2 (6.5%)
 Piperacillin + tazobactam 1 (3.2%)
 Carbapenem 1 (3.2%)
 Fluoroquinolone 3 (9.7%)
 Amidazole 2 (6.5%)
 Aminoglycoside 8 (25.8%)
 Glycopeptide 3 (9.7%)
 Duration of antibiotic treatment (days) 4 (1–27)

Fig 1. Flow-chart of the study.

Fig 1

EA: endotracheal aspiration; MDR-GNB: Multi-Drug Resistant Gram-negative bacilli; Relative abundance: quantity of MDR-GNB / quantity of total GNB.

Culture results

Twenty-seven MDR-GNB positive samples were obtained from 13 patients. As for the feces, 29% (18/62) were positive for MDR-GNB: ESBL-producing E. coli (n = 9), ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 4), ESBL-producing Citrobacter freundii (n = 1), AmpC-overproducing Hafnia alvei (n = 1, AmpC-overproducing Morganella morganii (n = 1), AmpC-overproducing Enterobacter aerogenes (n = 1), AmpC-overproducing Enterobacter cloacae (n = 1) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (n = 1). The mean relative abundance was 57.0 percent and the mean absolute intestinal concentration of MDR-GNB was 8.2 CFU per gram of feces [4.5–10.5].

Fourteen percent of EA (9/62) were positive for MDR-GNB: S maltophilia (n = 4), ESBL-producing K pneumoniae (n = 2), ESBL-producing E coli (n = 1), ESBL-producing C freundii (n = 1) and AmpC-overproducing H alvei (n = 1). The mean relative abundance of MDR-GNB in EA was 90%, it was significantly higher than in the gut (Student test, p = 0.03, S1 Fig in S1 File). Five samples were positive for MDR-GNB in both feces and EA in 4 different patients. Twenty-two samples were positive for E. faecium including 13 fecal samples (21%) and 9 EA (15%). Forty-one samples were positive for at least one yeast, including 27 fecal samples (44%) and 14 EA (22%).

Sequencing results

Among the 62 fecal samples, 48 were submitted to 16S profiling (S2 Table). We considered all the samples positive for MDR-GNB (n = 18) and samples with E. faecium and/or a yeast as detected in culture while no MDR-GNB was cultured (n = 11). We also considered samples from patients with an infection caused by an MDR-GNB (despite EA and feces were negative for MDR-GNB, n = 1), 14 samples with negative cultures but obtained from patients who had other positive samples to MDR-GNB, E. faecium and/or yeast during the follow-up and 4 samples from a patient with no positive culture at any time. The average number of reads obtained after sequencing was 325,500 (median 237,700 [1,406; 1,175,604]). After quality filtering, the average length of the reads obtained on the forward strand was 246 bases. On the reverse strand, the average length of the reads after quality filtering was 238 bases. The average number of combined pairs obtained was 210,400 and the average mapping rate was 97%.

MDR-GNB intestinal colonization and composition of intestinal microbiota

We did not observe a difference between the diversity (Student test, p = 0.4) and richness (Student test, p = 0.84) of the intestinal microbiota according to the MDR-GNB intestinal colonization (Fig 2 panels A and B). Nor did we observe a link between the diversity (Pearson correlation test, p = 0.43) or richness (Pearson correlation test, p = 0.21) of the intestinal microbiota and the MDR-GNB intestinal relative abundance (Fig 2 panels 2C and 2D).

Fig 2. MDR-GNB intestinal colonization and relative abundance and composition of the intestinal microbiota.

Fig 2

MDR-GNB: Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. Panels A and B: boxplot superimposed by dot-plot of Shannon diversity index (A) and richness (B) according to the detection by culture of MDR-GNB (n = 48 samples). Panels C and D: Dot-plot of the MDR-GNB intestinal relative abundance (in Log10), Shannon diversity index (C) and richness (D) (n = 18 samples). The shaded grey area depicts the 95% confidence interval around the black line. NS = not significant (panels A and B: Student test; panels C and D: Pearson correlation test).

E. faecium and yeasts intestinal colonization and composition of intestinal microbiota

However, we observed a significant link between intestinal colonization with E. faecium and the composition of the intestinal microbiota: the diversity (Student test, p = 0.04) and richness (Student test, p<0.001) of the intestinal microbiota were significantly lower in patients with E. faecium intestinal carriage (Fig 3 panels A and B). There was also a significant decrease in the diversity (Pearson correlation test, p<0.001) and richness (Pearson correlation test, p<0.001) and of the intestinal microbiota when the relative intestinal abundance of reads assigned to the Enterococcus genus increased (Fig 3 panels C and D). When considering only one sample per patient (the first collected), a significant linked remained between the relative abundance of reads assigned to the Enterococcus genus and diversity (Pearson correlation test, p<0.001) but not with richness (Pearson correlation test, p = 0.1) (S2 Fig in S1 File). Conversely, there was no significant difference between intestinal colonization by yeasts and diversity (Student test p = 0.09) or richness (p = 0.2) of the intestinal microbiota (S3 Fig in S1 File).

Fig 3. Enterococcus spp. and Enterococcus faecium intestinal colonization according to the composition of the intestinal microbiota (16S profiling results from 11 samples containing E. faecium).

Fig 3

Panels A and B: boxplot superimposed by dot-plot of Shannon diversity index (A) and richness (B) according to the detection by culture of E. faecium. Panels C and D: Dot-plot of the relative abundance of reads assigned to Enterococcus spp. (in Log10), Shannon diversity index (C) and richness (D) (n = 48 samples). The shaded grey area depicts the 95% confidence interval around the black line. Panels A and B: Student test; panels C and D: Pearson correlation test.

Relationship between intestinal and endotracheal colonization with MDR-GNB

Fecal MDR-GNB colonization was high with an average intestinal concentration of 9.4 (per gram of feces expressed in log 10) (median 10.3 [7.2; 10.6]). In the trachea, the mean MDR-GNB concentration was 5.5 (median of 6.0 [4.6; 7.6]). Four patients (B, N, O, R) were found to be colonized at inclusion by the same MDR-GNB in the feces and the trachea. They had a higher intestinal relative abundance (Student test p = 0.02) of MDR GNB than those who did not, but not a higher concentration of MDR-GNB (Student test p = 0.08) (S4 Fig in S1 File).

Discussion

The main result of this study is that we did not observe a link between the MDR-GNB intestinal RA and the richness or diversity of the intestinal microbiota of ICU patients. However, we did observe this link with enterococci. Indeed, there was a significant decrease in the richness and diversity of the intestinal microbiota parallel to the presence of E. faecium in the intestinal microbiota by culture and a significant increase in Enterococcus sp. relative abundance after 16S RNA sequencing. Enterococci have been showed to become dominant in the intestinal microbiota of ICU patients [19, 20] In the study by Freedberg et al in 2018 [21] intestinal colonization by an E. faecium and domination of the microbiota by enterococci as assessed by 16S rDNA sequencing at admission in the ICU were independent risk factors for 30-day mortality and for occurrence of infections with all germs. The relative abundance of Enterococcus sp. was also found to be associated to death in the study of Agudelo-Ochoa [22]. In the study of Lankelma et al., it was suggested that a higher intestinal diversity was associated to survival, but the mortality at D90 did not differ according to the intestinal diversity [17]. Our results show that the loss of richness and diversity of the intestinal microbiota when it is dominated by enterococci (including E. faecium) makes it a potential surrogate marker for intestinal dysbiosis. We did not observe the same link with intestinal colonization by yeasts detected in culture, but we could not to test the abundance of yeasts by sequencing since they are not spanned by the 16S profiling method.

Our study has limitations, though. This was a pilot study designed for assessing the connection between quantitative cultures and the global composition of the microbiota and the number of samples analysed in this regard may not have been sufficient to find a connection between the quantities of MDR-GNB and the composition of the intestinal microbiota. In addition, some samples come from the same patient and can potentially be very similar and therefore not independent, despite the use of microbiota-perturbing drugs between samples. Still, the linked between the intestinal relative abundance of reads assigned to the Enterococcus genus and the diversity remained significant when only one sample per patient was considered. Besides, we studied the intestinal microbiota composition and the MDR-GNB intestinal RA on fresh fecal samples. Collecting fresh spontaneous stool from resuscitation patients who are most often in functional occlusion was proven challenging and may not apply for large-scale studies in ICU. This should be overcome by the use of rectal swabs that can be collected more easily and at chosen times, but then the determination of the intestinal concentrations of bacteria may be compromised by the high variability of the fecal material collected by the swab. Last, we did not identify the yeasts species so that we were unable to test for species-specific associations.

In conclusion, we found no link between the MDR-GNB intestinal relative abundance or the MDR-GNB intestinal colonization and composition of intestinal microbiota. However, this link was found with Enterococcus genus. Indeed, a significantly lower diversity and richness of the intestinal microbiota was observed in patients colonized with E. faecium as well as when Enterococcus RA increased. Enterococcus seems to be an intestinal dysbiosis marker to be further explored.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Characteristics of the patients included in this study.

SAPS: Simplified Acute. Physiological Score; S1-S8: dates of sampling; Antibiotic-21: antibiotic taken within 21 days before the inclusion. ATB: antibiotic.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Characteristics of the samples considered in this study.

ESBL: extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; hAmpC-Enterobacterales: high-level AmpC producing—Enterobacterales; CAZ-R: resistant to ceftazidime; MDR-GNB; multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli; CFU: colony-forming unit.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Taxonomy of the operational taxonomic units (OTU) found in the fecal samples.

NA: not available.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the paramedical team of the medical ICU of the Bichat-Claude Bernard hospital for their assistance in collecting the samples. We also thank Amine Ghozlane (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France) for his technical support on Shaman and Marie Petitjean (IAME Research Center, Paris, France) for bioinformatic assistance.

Data Availability

The reads have been deposited at the NCBI SRA (access number PRJNA641109).

Funding Statement

This work was partially supported by the “Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale” (Equipe FRM 2016, grant number DEQ20161136698).” The rest of the funding was internal to our UMR1137 IAME research unit (funding from INSERM and University of Paris).

References

  • 1.Sender R, Fuchs S, Milo R. Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body. PLoS Biol. 2016;14: e1002533 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pasolli E, Asnicar F, Manara S, Zolfo M, Karcher N, Armanini F, et al. Extensive Unexplored Human Microbiome Diversity Revealed by Over 150,000 Genomes from Metagenomes Spanning Age, Geography, and Lifestyle. Cell. 2019;176: 649–662.e20. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Qin J, Li R, Raes J, Arumugam M, Burgdorf KS, Manichanh C, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature. 2010;464: 59–65. 10.1038/nature08821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Buffie CG, Pamer EG. Microbiota-mediated colonization resistance against intestinal pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13: 790–801. 10.1038/nri3535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tamburini FB, Andermann TM, Tkachenko E, Senchyna F, Banaei N, Bhatt AS. Precision identification of diverse bloodstream pathogens in the gut microbiome. Nat Med. 2018;24: 1809–1814. 10.1038/s41591-018-0202-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Donskey CJ, Chowdhry TK, Hecker MT, Hoyen CK, Hanrahan JA, Hujer AM, et al. Effect of antibiotic therapy on the density of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the stool of colonized patients. N Engl J Med. 2000;343: 1925–1932. 10.1056/NEJM200012283432604 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Taur Y, Xavier JB, Lipuma L, Ubeda C, Goldberg J, Gobourne A, et al. Intestinal domination and the risk of bacteremia in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55: 905–914. 10.1093/cid/cis580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ruppé E, Lixandru B, Cojocaru R, Büke C, Paramythiotou E, Angebault C, et al. Relative fecal abundance of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli strains and their occurrence in urinary tract infections in women. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57: 4512–4517. 10.1128/AAC.00238-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Frencken JF, Wittekamp BHJ, Plantinga NL, Spitoni C, van de Groep K, Cremer OL, et al. Associations Between Enteral Colonization With Gram-Negative Bacteria and Intensive Care Unit–Acquired Infections and Colonization of the Respiratory Tract. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66: 497–503. 10.1093/cid/cix824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Razazi K, Derde LPG, Verachten M, Legrand P, Lesprit P, Brun-Buisson C. Clinical impact and risk factors for colonization with extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing bacteria in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38: 1769–1778. 10.1007/s00134-012-2675-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Andremont O, Armand-Lefevre L, Dupuis C, de Montmollin E, Ruckly S, Lucet J-C, et al. Semi-quantitative cultures of throat and rectal swabs are efficient tests to predict ESBL-Enterobacterales ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated ESBL carriers. Intensive Care Med. 2020. [cited 21 Apr 2020]. 10.1007/s00134-020-06029-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Emonet S, Schrenzel J, Martinez de Tejada B. Molecular-based screening for perinatal group B streptococcal infection: implications for prevention and therapy. Mol Diagn Ther. 2013;17: 355–361. 10.1007/s40291-013-0047-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tabah A, Koulenti D, Laupland K, Misset B, Valles J, Bruzzi de Carvalho F, et al. Characteristics and determinants of outcome of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in intensive care units: the EUROBACT International Cohort Study. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38: 1930–1945. 10.1007/s00134-012-2695-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Garrouste-Orgeas M, Timsit JF, Tafflet M, Misset B, Zahar J-R, Soufir L, et al. Excess Risk of Death from Intensive Care Unit—Acquired Nosocomial Bloodstream Infections: A Reappraisal. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42: 1118–1126. 10.1086/500318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Timsit J-F, Esaied W, Neuville M, Bouadma L, Mourvllier B. Update on ventilator-associated pneumonia. F1000Research. 2017;6: 2061 10.12688/f1000research.12222.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Garnacho-Montero J, Corcia-Palomo Y, Amaya-Villar R, Martin-Villen L. How to treat VAP due to MDR pathogens in ICU patients. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14 10.1186/1471-2334-14-135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lankelma JM, van Vught LA, Belzer C, Schultz MJ, van der Poll T, de Vos WM, et al. Critically ill patients demonstrate large interpersonal variation in intestinal microbiota dysregulation: a pilot study. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43: 59–68. 10.1007/s00134-016-4613-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ojima M, Motooka D, Shimizu K, Gotoh K, Shintani A, Yoshiya K, et al. Metagenomic Analysis Reveals Dynamic Changes of Whole Gut Microbiota in the Acute Phase of Intensive Care Unit Patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61: 1628–1634. 10.1007/s10620-015-4011-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ravi A, Halstead FD, Bamford A, Casey A, Thomson NM, van Schaik W, et al. Loss of microbial diversity and pathogen domination of the gut microbiota in critically ill patients. Microb Genomics. 2019;5 10.1099/mgen.0.000293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zaborin A, Smith D, Garfield K, Quensen J, Shakhsheer B, Kade M, et al. Membership and behavior of ultra-low-diversity pathogen communities present in the gut of humans during prolonged critical illness. mBio. 2014;5: e01361–01314. 10.1128/mBio.01361-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Freedberg DE, Zhou MJ, Cohen ME, Annavajhala MK, Khan S, Moscoso DI, et al. Pathogen colonization of the gastrointestinal microbiome at intensive care unit admission and risk for subsequent death or infection. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44: 1203–1211. 10.1007/s00134-018-5268-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Agudelo-Ochoa GM, Valdés-Duque BE, Giraldo-Giraldo NA, Jaillier-Ramírez AM, Giraldo-Villa A, Acevedo-Castaño I, et al. Gut microbiota profiles in critically ill patients, potential biomarkers and risk variables for sepsis. Gut Microbes. 2020;0: 1–16. 10.1080/19490976.2019.1707610 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lamarche D, Johnstone J, Zytaruk N, Clarke F, Hand L, Loukov D, et al. Microbial dysbiosis and mortality during mechanical ventilation: a prospective observational study. Respir Res. 2018;19: 245 10.1186/s12931-018-0950-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15: 550 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Axel Cloeckaert

16 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-14488

Relationship between the composition of the digestive microbiota and the concentrations of opportunistic pathogens in intensive care patients.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ruppé,

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.

Please consider the comments of the reviewers to improve the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 31 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Axel Cloeckaert

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Sources Section of your manuscript:

"This work was partially supported by the “Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale” (Equipe FRM 2016,

grant number DEQ20161136698)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

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

4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Section:

""This work was partially supported by the “Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale” (Equipe FRM 2016,

grant number DEQ20161136698).""

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

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 was a retrospective single-center cohort study which included 31 patients who were mechanically ventilated for 3 or more days using a convenience sampling approach in medical ICU patients. Patients were sampled (stool and endotracheal aspirates (EA)) multiple times so there were 62 samples for 31 patients. Bacteria were cultured and 16S sequencing was performed. The main study goals were (1) to assess for a relationship between the EA samples and the fecal samples in terms of MDR Gram-negative bacteria and (2) assess for a relationship between overall bacterial diversity based on sequencing in those with versus those without MDR colonization (in both stool and EA samples). They found that there was evidence of an association between MDR GN content in the stool and EA samples. When Enteroccci were present, but not based on MDR GN colonization, there was an association with lack of microbial diversity in the samples. Overall, this is a useful contribution to the sparse literature on the ICU microbiome.

Major:

1. The apparent lack of a standardized sampling protocol is a major limitation. Rectal swabs may be a good way to overcome this limitation in the future, and the advantages of rectal swabs in terms of ease of collection and ability to time collections almost certainly outweigh the issues related to sample heterogeneity that the authors mention. This limitation cannot be overcome but it should be more plainly recognized. Also, a table detailing which samples were collected and when would be helpful. Were EAs always collected at the same time as fecal samples? If not, why not?

2. For the EA-stool comparison, test results and data should be presented as within-individual tests rather than as aggregate data.

Minor:

Title: The title makes it appear that only the gut microbiota were sampled. But endotracheal aspirates were also performed.

Abstract: The abstract does not report the correlation between the EA samples and the stool samples, arguably the most important finding of the study.

Methods:

1. More detail is needed related to the sampling. If everyone was sampled twice weekly, why weren’t there more samples? Perhaps because the stool samples were “missed” – but then why weren’t EA samples collected? If the EA samples were collected at different times than the stool samples, this is a significant limitation and needs to be recognized.

2. Explain the methods by which the dominant MDR GN were classified.

Results:

1. The sequencing data needs to be made freely available upon publication.

2. Table 1: Include the reason for admission. Also, less than 50% of patients received antibiotics which is low for the medical ICU. Why?

3. A table is needed showing the RA of the MDR GN organisms by organism type, stratified by stool vs EA. Lumping the MDR GN bacteria together risks misclassifying individuals. Ideally we would be presented for the EA-stool correlations within each individual, by organism.

4. P8 – “We considered samples positive for MDR-GNB…from a patient with no positive culture.” I don’t understand this sentence, it needs to be rephrased.

5. Figure 2 – these panels seem to contain fewer than 62 datapoints. Is this because data with zero RA has been excluded? The same goes for other figures (e.g., Supp 1). If not all data is being used, it should be recognized in the figure legend.

6. P9 – Stool and EA: were these the same organisms?

General: “fecal bacteria” would be more accurate than “intestinal bacteria” throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript provides an inadequate review of the literature on the microbial ecology of ICU patients, claiming that few such investigations have been conducted and citing just two previous studies. To provide an appropriate context for their work, they should dicusss and cite relevant previous studies, e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25249279,30561131,25249279,31526447,26715502,28803549,30526610,31924126

In addition, the research narrative is confusing and inadequate, as the authors lay the groundwork in the introduction for a study on multi-drug resistant Gram-negative bacilli, but then unexpectedly include Enterococci and yeast-like fungi in their study without providing a justification for this. The description of the fungal isolates is inadequate, as is the failure to perform susceptibility tests on enterococci.

Additional points:

They mention MDR Acinetobacter in the Introduction, but not anywhere else. It is unclear whether their culture methods are capable of detecting this organism but it simply was absent from their set of patients or whether their methods would not have found it. It is an important MDR GMB.

Sequence data have not been submited to and/or released by the ENA at the time of this review.

Sequencing of V4 alone is unable to provide resolution down to species level. This should be acknowleged as a deficit of the study.

Results of bioinformatics analyses not presented (e.g. OTU tables). No tabulation of samples, patients and cultured isolates.

The Discussion section should cite and discuss all the other studies that have reported enterococcal blooms in critical ill patients.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 28;15(8):e0237260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237260.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-14488

Relationship between the composition of the digestive microbiota and the concentrations of opportunistic pathogens in intensive care patients.

Editor

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

The style of the references has been updated to the Plos One format.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

The signed informed consent was not required by the Ethics Committee as the study was considered to be out of the scope of research performed on Humans. We added a sentence L112-113.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Sources Section of your manuscript:

"This work was partially supported by the “Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale” (Equipe FRM 2016, grant number DEQ20161136698)." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

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

The funding statement was removed from the text, and we modified the statement during the online re-submission.

4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Section:

""This work was partially supported by the “Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale” (Equipe FRM 2016,grant number DEQ20161136698)."" Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

This was added in the cover letter.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

The reads have been deposited at the NCBI SRA (access number PRJNA641109).

6. 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.

The captions were added at the end of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1: This was a retrospective single-center cohort study which included 31 patients who were mechanically ventilated for 3 or more days using a convenience sampling approach in medical ICU patients. Patients were sampled (stool and endotracheal aspirates (EA)) multiple times so there were 62 samples for 31 patients. Bacteria were cultured and 16S sequencing was performed. The main study goals were (1) to assess for a relationship between the EA samples and the fecal samples in terms of MDR Gram-negative bacteria and (2) assess for a relationship between overall bacterial diversity based on sequencing in those with versus those without MDR colonization (in both stool and EA samples). They found that there was evidence of an association between MDR GN content in the stool and EA samples. When Enteroccci were present, but not based on MDR GN colonization, there was an association with lack of microbial diversity in the samples. Overall, this is a useful contribution to the sparse literature on the ICU microbiome.

Major:

1. The apparent lack of a standardized sampling protocol is a major limitation. Rectal swabs may be a good way to overcome this limitation in the future, and the advantages of rectal swabs in terms of ease of collection and ability to time collections almost certainly outweigh the issues related to sample heterogeneity that the authors mention. This limitation cannot be overcome but it should be more plainly recognized.

This study was a pilot study aiming at setting grounds for wider studies. One of the endpoints was the feasibility of working with feces. We anticipated issues in the sampling scheme and this proved indeed difficult to obtain fecal samples from ICU patients. We have now started on working with fecal swabs, but in many cases the bacterial biomass and DNA yield are too low to be further used with molecular or even culture methods. In this regard, we may agree that fecal swabs could more standardized than fecal plain samples in a way they could be obtained at given times. However, we assume that they lack reproducibility in terms of fecal material they can recover. The issue of the sample type was discussed and completed in the revised version (L271-275).

Also, a table detailing which samples were collected and when would be helpful.

We added a supplementary table for patients (Supplementary Table 1) and another one for samples (Supplementary Table 2).

Were EAs always collected at the same time as fecal samples? If not, why not?

Yes, they were. When a patient had passed a stool, an EA was systematically taken (we added a specification L116).

2. For the EA-stool comparison, test results and data should be presented as within-individual tests rather than as aggregate data.

We agree that ideally we should have compared the intestinal MDR-GNB concentrations and relative abundance between the first sample concomitant to the detection of MDR-GNB in EA to the previous one, but this would require that we would have several samples per patient. MDR-GNB were detected in 9 EA samples from 5 patients. In one (patient A), we found a S. maltophilia in EA but however not in the feces. In the other four patients (B, N, O and R) the MDR-GNB was found concomitantly in the EA and the feces from the first sample. Hence we could not compare the intestinal MDR-GNB concentrations and EA to another previous sample where the MDR-GNB would putatively not have been found yet in EA. Consequently, we performed a test on aggregate data.

Minor:

Title: The title makes it appear that only the gut microbiota were sampled. But endotracheal aspirates were also performed.

We agree and changed the title to:

“Relationship between the composition of the intestinal microbiota and the tracheal and intestinal colonization by opportunistic pathogens in intensive care patients”.

Abstract: The abstract does not report the correlation between the EA samples and the stool samples, arguably the most important finding of the study.

We emphasized the intestinal microbiota as our main objective was to assess the link between the composition of the intestinal microbiota (richness and diversity) and the carriage (quantitative and qualitative) of MDR-GNB (this was clarified at the end of the introduction (L99-101). We hypothesized we would obtain a correlation between richness/diversity and intestinal concentrations/relative abundance of MDR-GNB, which we eventually did not. The connection with EA was a secondary objective. We actually published a paper in which the main objective was to connect the concentrations/relative abundances of ESBL-E in EA and fecal swabs and the occurrence of infections caused by ESBL-E (Andremont O, Armand-Lefevre L, Dupuis C, de Montmollin E, Ruckly S, Lucet J-C, et al. Semi-quantitative cultures of throat and rectal swabs are efficient tests to predict ESBL-Enterobacterales ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated ESBL carriers. Intensive Care Med. 2020).

Methods:

1. More detail is needed related to the sampling. If everyone was sampled twice weekly, why weren’t there more samples? Perhaps because the stool samples were “missed” – but then why weren’t EA samples collected? If the EA samples were collected at different times than the stool samples, this is a significant limitation and needs to be recognized.

As previously mentioned, the EA were taken the same day the feces were obtained. The samples are now detailed in the Supplementary Tables 1 and 2. In many instances, the sampling schedule was stopped in case of extubation, discharge, death or the absence of feces. When no stool was passed, no EA was collected.

2. Explain the methods by which the dominant MDR GN were classified.

When a patient carried more than one MDR-GNB in feces or in EA, the MDR-GNB RA was the RA of the total MDR-GNB We were not able to provide as many RA as there was MDR-GNB. This was specified L145. However, the presence of two MDR-GNB in a sample only occurred twice (samples K_FEC_1 and AE_FEC_2).

Results:

1. The sequencing data needs to be made freely available upon publication.

The reads have now been deposited at the NCBI SRA (access number PRJNA641109).

2. Table 1: Include the reason for admission.

The mains reasons for admission was added in the table 1. Furthermore, we detailed the individual reasons for admission in the Supplementary Table 1.

Also, less than 50% of patients received antibiotics which is low for the medical ICU. Why?

This was a typo for which we apologize. In the table 1 this should read “antibiotics 21 days before the inclusion”. This was corrected. The details of antibiotic therapies are now detailed in the Supplementary Table 1.

3. A table is needed showing the RA of the MDR GN organisms by organism type, stratified by stool vs EA. Lumping the MDR GN bacteria together risks misclassifying individuals. Ideally we would be presented for the EA-stool correlations within each individual, by organism.

The detailed microbiological results are now included in the Supplementary Table 2.

4. P8 – “We considered samples positive for MDR-GNB…from a patient with no positive culture.” I don’t understand this sentence, it needs to be rephrased.

The sentence has been rephrased (L205-210). Furthermore, the motivation for sequencing was specified in the Supplementary Table 2.

5. Figure 2 – these panels seem to contain fewer than 62 datapoints. Is this because data with zero RA has been excluded? The same goes for other figures (e.g., Supp 1). If not all data is being used, it should be recognized in the figure legend.

The panels depicting the detection of MDR-GNB (A and B) contain 48 samples. Not all fecal samples were sent to 16S profiling, only 48 were (L205-210 and Supplementary Table 2). For clarification matters, we specified the number of samples depicted in the graphics in the legends.

6. P9 – Stool and EA: were these the same organisms?

Yes, the same species was found in the feces and the trachea. The paragraph was rephrased. (This was specified in the manuscript (L238 ).

General: “fecal bacteria” would be more accurate than “intestinal bacteria” throughout the manuscript.

Does the reviewer refer to intestinal microbiota? We could not find “intestinal bacteria” in the manuscript. We changed intestinal MDR-GNB for fecal MDR-GNB (L44 and L238).

Reviewer #2: This manuscript provides an inadequate review of the literature on the microbial ecology of ICU patients, claiming that few such investigations have been conducted and citing just two previous studies. To provide an appropriate context for their work, they should dicusss and cite relevant previous studies, e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25249279,30561131,25249279,31526447,26715502,28803549,30526610,31924126

In addition, the research narrative is confusing and inadequate, as the authors lay the groundwork in the introduction for a study on multi-drug resistant Gram-negative bacilli, but then unexpectedly include Enterococci and yeast-like fungi in their study without providing a justification for this.

We completed the introduction with the references provided by the Reviewer 2 (L88-101). The justification of studying the link between the composition of the microbiota and enterococci/yeasts is now better justified by the observations reporting that Enterococcus spp. and yeasts often become dominant in the gut of critically-ill patients, and that Enterococcus spp. may also be a marker of worse outcome.

The description of the fungal isolates is inadequate, as is the failure to perform susceptibility tests on enterococci.

At this stage, we did not hypothesize that yeasts would be differentially associated to the composition of the intestinal microbiota with respect to their species. Given the small number of patients, testing such association would not have been possible. This was added in the limitation section of the discussion.

Likewise, we did not consider the antibiotic susceptibility profiles of cultured E. faecium in this study as it was not assumed to play a role in the link between their detection and the composition of the intestinal microbiota.

Additional points:

They mention MDR Acinetobacter in the Introduction, but not anywhere else. It is unclear whether their culture methods are capable of detecting this organism but it simply was absent from their set of patients or whether their methods would not have found it. It is an important MDR GMB.

MDR A. baumannii was sought by culturing on the ChromID-ESBL medium, but none of the samples was positive. For clarification, we removed the reference to A. baumannii in the introduction.

Sequence data have not been submitted to and/or released by the ENA at the time of this review.

The reads have been deposited at the NCBI SRA (access number PRJNA641109).

Sequencing of V4 alone is unable to provide resolution down to species level. This should be acknowleged as a deficit of the study.

We agree that sequencing the V4 alone, and more generally, 16S profiling does not provide a deep taxonomic resolution. In this perspective, several studies are somewhat frustrating in that they report relevant OTUs that are not precisely identified. We did not aim at identifying specific taxa associated to the intestinal carriage or concentrations of MDR-GNB or Enterococcus and our sample schedule was not designed for this purpose. We did not report any result at the species level but only report overall OTU-level richness and diversity, and the relative abundance of Enterococcus spp. Hence, we assume that sequencing the V4 region was sufficient to cluster OTUs and estimate richness and diversity.

Results of bioinformatics analyses not presented (e.g. OTU tables). No tabulation of samples, patients and cultured isolates.

We added a table (Supplementary Table 3) with the OTU count and taxonomy. Besides, we added two tables with patients (Supplementary Table 1) and samples (Supplementary Table 2) details.

The Discussion section should cite and discuss all the other studies that have reported enterococcal blooms in critical ill patients.

We completed the discussion and included some of the references suggested by the Reviewer 2 (L250-251 and L254-255)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reply to Reviewers v2.docx

Decision Letter 1

Axel Cloeckaert

23 Jul 2020

Relationship between the composition of the intestinal microbiota and the tracheal and intestinal colonization by opportunistic pathogens in intensive care patients.

PONE-D-20-14488R1

Dear Dr. Ruppé,

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,

Axel Cloeckaert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Axel Cloeckaert

20 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-14488R1

Relationship between the composition of the intestinal microbiota and the tracheal and intestinal colonization by opportunistic pathogens in intensive care patients.

Dear Dr. Ruppé:

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. Axel Cloeckaert

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 File

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Characteristics of the patients included in this study.

    SAPS: Simplified Acute. Physiological Score; S1-S8: dates of sampling; Antibiotic-21: antibiotic taken within 21 days before the inclusion. ATB: antibiotic.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Characteristics of the samples considered in this study.

    ESBL: extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; hAmpC-Enterobacterales: high-level AmpC producing—Enterobacterales; CAZ-R: resistant to ceftazidime; MDR-GNB; multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli; CFU: colony-forming unit.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Taxonomy of the operational taxonomic units (OTU) found in the fecal samples.

    NA: not available.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reply to Reviewers v2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The reads have been deposited at the NCBI SRA (access number PRJNA641109).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES