Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 17;15(12):e0244063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244063

A prospective survey of Streptococcus pyogenes infections in French Brittany from 2009 to 2017: Comprehensive dynamic of new emergent emm genotypes

Sarrah Boukthir 1,2,3,#, Séverine Moullec 2,3,#, Marie-Estelle Cariou 4, Alexandra Meygret 1,3,¤, Jeff Morcet 1,2, Ahmad Faili 2,5, Samer Kayal 1,2,3,*
Editor: Jose Melo-Cristino6
PMCID: PMC7746304  PMID: 33332468

Abstract

Streptococcus pyogenes or group A Streptococcus (GAS) causes diseases ranging from uncomplicated pharyngitis to life-threatening infections. It has complex epidemiology driven by the diversity, the temporal and geographical fluctuations of the circulating strains. Despite the global burden of GAS diseases, there is currently no available vaccination strategy against GAS infections. This study, based on a longitudinal population survey, aimed to understand the dynamic of GAS emm types and to give leads to better recognition of underlying mechanisms for the emergence of successful clones. From 2009 to 2017, we conducted a systematic culture-based diagnosis of GAS infections in a French Brittany population with a prospective recovery of clinical data. The epidemiological analysis was performed using emm typing combined with the structural and functional cluster-typing system for all the recovered strains. Risk factors for the invasiveness, identified by univariate analysis, were computed in a multiple logistic regression analysis, and the only independent risk factor remaining in the model was the age (OR for the entire range [CI95%] = 6.35 [3.63, 11.10]; p<0.0001). Among the 61 different emm types identified, the most prevalent were emm28 (16%), emm89 (15%), emm1 (14%), and emm4 (8%), which accounted for more than 50% of circulating strains. During the study period, five genotypes identified as emm44, 66, 75, 83, 87 emerged successively and belonged to clusters D4, E2, E3, and E6 that were different from those gathering “Prevalent” emm types (clusters A-C3 to 5, E1 and E4). We previously reported significant genetic modifications for emm44, 66, 83 and 75 types resulting possibly from a short adaptive evolution. Herein we additionally observed that the emergence of a new genotype could occur in a susceptible population having specific risk factors or probably lacking a naturally-acquired cluster-specific immune cross-protection. Among emergent emm types, emm75 and emm87 tend to become prevalent with a stable annual incidence and the risk of a clonal expansion have to be considered.

Introduction

Streptococcus pyogenes or Group A Streptococcus (GAS) are Gram-positive cocci that usually colonize the human skin and throat and cause a wide variety of diseases ranging in severity from uncomplicated pharyngitis to severe and life-threatening infections [1]. On a global scale, GAS ranked as the fourth deadliest bacterium in the world, with more than 500,000 deaths per year [2].

Lancefield’s pioneering work demonstrated that GAS infections elicit a robust immune response by producing opsonizing antibodies against the cell surface M protein encoded by the emm gene [3]. For GAS, M protein is a major immunological and virulence determinant able to bind several host factors (fibrinogen, plasminogen, immunoglobulins) [1]. For an epidemiological survey of GAS infections, emm genotyping based on the sequence of the 5’ hypervariable end of the emm gene, is a worldwide-accepted marker [4]. More than 250 different genotypes have been identified and referenced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta. The M-protein-based vaccine appears to be the most promising strategy. Although many trials are in progress (CANVAS Group: Coalition to Accelerate New Vaccines Against Streptococcus) [5], there is currently no available vaccination against GAS infections. Its unavailability is mainly explained by the epidemiological complexity of circulating strains stressed by their geographical diversity and temporal variability [610].

The epidemiological studies performed on the different continents revealed remarkable differences between the industrialized and the low-income countries [7, 8, 1113]. In a thorough review of studies focussing on the distribution of emm types between global regions, Steer et al. reported that in high- and middle-income countries (Americas, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East), there is essentially a high prevalence of few genotypes (emm1, 12, 28, 3, 4, and 89). In contrast, in Africa and the Pacific Islands, the distribution of emm types is more diverse and does not show dominant emm types [9].

In addition to emm genotyping, and based on their tissue tropism, GAS emm types can also be grouped into patterns where the patterns A to C strains have a preferential pharyngeal tropism, the pattern D has a cutaneous tropism, and the pattern E which is said to be "generalist" having no specific pharyngeal or cutaneous tropism [14]. In tropical countries, the most frequently isolated emm types of GAS belong to emm-pattern D (skin tropism) or E (no specific tropism), as opposed to temperate regions where there are more strains of emm-pattern A–C (pharyngeal tropism) [15]. The reasons for this contrasting molecular epidemiology are not understood. However, to support the notion that skin emm types dominate the epidemiology in many tropical countries, it has been suggested that strains belonging to the pattern E elicit a weaker immune response than throat specialist strains (pattern A-C) [16]. Despite these significant differences in the distribution of emm genotypes, regional and temporal differences within industrialized countries remain poorly explained.

Consistent with emm typing and emm patterns, similar sequences of N terminal part of M proteins, predictable to share functional properties and elicit cross-protective antibodies, has recently been assigned to a specific emm-cluster [17]. Therefore, cluster-typing system proposes a new working hypothesis to analyse epidemiological data with a functional and immunological view. From a public health perspective, it could offer the opportunity to understand better the population’s immune susceptibility and explain the emergence of new clones, or yet to anticipate a possible vaccination strategy.

Over nine years of the prospective survey, we first aimed to describe clinical and molecular epidemiology of GAS infections in a population of French Brittany. Secondly, hypothesizing that population immunity has to be considered as a risk for clonal emergence or emm type switching, we analysed the dynamic of “Prevalent” and “Emergent” emm types by combining emm genotyping and emm-cluster system.

Materials and methods

Study design and case definition

We conducted a prospective study based on the culture-diagnosis of GAS infections from January 1st 2009 to December 31st 2017, at the University Hospital Centre (UHC) of Rennes–France. A case was defined as a patient in whom one or several GAS isolates were collected. For each case, clinical data were collected prospectively by a detailed questionnaire and comprised demographic data (age, sex, residence area…), anatomical site of isolates, clinical presentation (asymptomatic, local signs, fever and/or general signs, hemodynamic shock), clinical diagnosis (as reported in the final medical report for each case), the portal of entry (cutaneous, pharyngeal, anogenital or unknown), risk factors and underlying disease (concomitant surgery, pregnancy, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung and heart failure, intravenous drug abuse, homeless, daily alcohol intake, cirrhosis, steroids medication, solid or haematological malignancy…), and primary treatment management strategy (medical, surgical, requiring or not intensive care). Combined data were validated weekly to identify any inconsistencies and to recover missing data when possible. Cases were classified into three categories:

  1. Carriage: when clinical symptoms were unrelated to GAS infection.

  2. Non-invasive disease: when GAS was isolated from non-sterile sites in association with superficial mucosal or cutaneous infections.

  3. Invasive disease, which is subcategorized in a) Probable invasive disease: when GAS was isolated from non-sterile sites but caused an acute illness that required surgery or hospital care, and b) Definite invasive disease, when at least one GAS isolate was obtained from a sterile site (e.g., blood, pleural, peritoneal…), or when associated with tissue necrosis or hemodynamic shock, either requiring fluid resuscitation or vasopressor drugs.

The results of the study were reported following the STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies [18].

Gas isolates collection

All GAS isolates were collected in the hospital from clinical samples. Most of the isolates have been collected in the University Hospital Centre (UHC) of Rennes (87% of total), where they have been saved exhaustively for nine years, and regardless of infection site or invasiveness. When several isolates were recovered from the same infection case, only the first isolate was then considered to avoid redundancies. The collection was further enriched with GAS isolates sent from other hospital microbiological laboratories of French Brittany: Lorient, Pontivy, and Vannes (11,5% of total recovered isolates), Saint-Brieuc, and Dinan (1,5%). All GAS isolates were identified by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionisation–Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS, Bruker Daltonics GmbH, Germany). Each isolate was then stored at -80°C, and sub-cultured at 37°C with 5% CO2 on Columbia blood agar plates containing 5% sheep blood (Biorad, France) before performing any experimental procedure.

Molecular emm typing and emm-cluster typing system

Emm typing was performed by sequencing the 5’ portion of the emm gene according to the CDC guidelines, and emm type was determined by submitting the sequence to CDC emm type database (https://www.cdc.gov/streplab/groupa-strep/index.html; last accessed on 23th November 2020). The designation of each emm-cluster was then deduced as recently described [17].

Epidemiological definition

Depending on the strain occurrence observed during the survey period, each emm type was classified according to three different dynamic profiles assigned as “Prevalent”, “Emergent”, and “Sporadic” and defined as follows:

  1. Prevalent” emm types: the strains corresponding to genotypes that were isolated continuously, and apart from some fluctuations, their annual rates appeared relatively constant during the study period;

  2. Emergent” emm types: the strains corresponding to genotypes that exhibited a sudden change in their incidence, whether this occurred during a specific lag-time or continued over time;

  3. “Sporadic” emm types: did not correspond to the precedent definitions, and each emm type was rarely observed with a prevalence <1% of total isolates.

Data analysis and statistics

The incidence of invasive infections was estimated using the population statistics of French Brittany regions collected from the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE, https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2386251; last accessed on 23th November 2020).

Continuous data were expressed as means and standard deviations (SDs), and categorical data as absolute numbers and frequencies. Categorical data were compared by the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. The diversity of isolates was expressed by the Simpson’s diversity index (SDI) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI95%) calculated using online tools (http://www.comparingpartitions.info/; last accessed on 23th November 2020). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore the associations of individual risk factors variables (age, sex, comorbidities, or lifestyle risk factors…) with invasiveness (“Invasive” versus “Non-invasive”) and emm dynamic profiles (“Prevalent” versus “Sporadic” and “Prevalent” versus “Emergent”). Variables with a significance level of p ≤ 0.20 in univariate analyses were included in a multivariate logistic regression model. The values of Odds ratios (OR) and CI95% were adjusted to sex and age. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using JMP.V13 and SAS®V9.4 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA).

Ethical statement

Ethical approval, or patients’ consent, was not required since the study included only microbiological samples and did not involve human subjects or material. Once validated, the database was completely anonymized.

Results

GAS infections and clinical characteristics of the studied population

Between 1st January 2009 and 31st December 2017, GAS isolates were recovered from specimens collected from the skin (38%), oropharyngeal (20%), anogenital (16%), blood (12%), synovial fluid and bone (6%), pleuro-pulmonary (4%) or other (4%) locations. Several isolates could be collected for a single case, but only the first isolate was attached to each of the 942 recorded cases. The diagnosis of GAS infections was mainly performed within the UHC of Rennes, and explain that, over the 21 regions of French Brittany, the majority of GAS isolates was recovered from patients residing in Rennes and the neighbouring areas (S1 Fig). In the UHC of Rennes, the collection was exhaustive since all the isolated GAS were saved. During the surveillance period, and as previously described, we also observed seasonal variation of the rate of infections (invasive and non-invasive), peaking in autumn/winter (S2 Fig) [19].

Among the 942 identified cases, 49 (5%) were classified as carriage, 889 (94%) as clinical GAS-infection, and only 4 (<1%) were unclassified because of missing clinical data. GAS infections were categorized as non-invasive (350/942, 37%), and invasive infections (539/942; 57%) that were also subcategorized in probable invasive (171/942; 18%), and definite invasive infections (368/942; 39%) (see “Materials and methods” for definitions). Demographic characteristics, clinical features, including main general symptoms, the portal of entry, and positive blood culture rates were reported in Table 1. The median age of the overall population was 31.7 years (ranging from 0 to 102). Age-specific distribution of cases showed three peaks in the [0–5), [30–40), and >70 age-groups (S3 Fig). Focusing on the overall 889 infection cases, the sex ratio (M/F) was 1.16 (54% males); however, the rate of females was over-represented in the [30–40) age-group (64% of females) while the percentage of males was higher in the [40–50) age-group (68% of males) (S3 Fig). While the microbiology laboratory of the UHC of Rennes is the primary laboratory of the area, the exhaustive collection of GAS infections allowed the incidence of invasive infections (probable and definite) to be estimated more accurately for people living in Rennes. Thus, the estimated average of the annual incidence was 5.4 ± 1.3 / 100,000 inhabitant/year with a median of 5.3 and interval of [3.5; 7.3].

Table 1. Population demography, infection characteristics, and risk factors for invasiveness.

Overall Carriage Non-Invasive Invasive p-value
(n = 942)* (n = 49) (n = 350) Probable Definite Invasive vs
(n = 171) (n = 368) Non-invasive
Age
Mean ± SD 34.3 ± 26.7 34.1 ± 28.3 27.0 ± 24.1 28.4 ± 22.6 43.9 ± 27.7 <0.0001
Median 31.7 28.5 23.8 25.3 40.4
[Range] [0–102] [0.1–91] [0–102] [0.6–92] [0–97]
Sex
(% Males) (52.7) (33.3) (50.9) (59.7) (53.5) 0.1911
Portal of entry; n (% total) <0.0001
Cutaneous 499 (53) 5 (10) 190 (54) 110 (65) 191 (52)
ENT-Respiratory 247 (26) 24 (49) 64 (18) 47 (27) 112 (31)
Anogenital 164 (17) 20 (41) 96 (27) 14 (8) 34 (9)
Not Known 31 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 31 (8)
Missing data 1 - - - -
General symptoms related to GAS infection; n (% total) <0.0001
None 49 (5) 49 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Local signs without fever 213 (23) 0 (0) 176 (50) 22 (13) 15 (4)
Fever and/or sepsis 538 (57) 0 (0) 148 (42) 137 (80) 253 (69)
Hemodynamic shock 88 (9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 88 (24)
Missing data 54 (6) 0 (0) 26 (7) 12 (7) 12 (3)
Blood culture; n (% total column)
Performed 462/942 (49) 13/49(27) 87/350 (25) 69/172 (40) 293/367 (80) <0.0001
Positive 173/462 (38) 0/13 (0) 0/87(0) 0/69 (0) 173/293 (59) -
Risk Factors and associated comorbidities; n (% of total)
No risk factor 613 (65) 27 (55) 252 (72) 121 (71) 215 (58) 0.0025
At least 1 risk factor 325 (35) 22 (45) 98 (28) 50 (29) 153 (42) 0.0025
Skin Lesion 477 (51) 8 (16) 206 (59) 95 (56) 166 (45) 0.0026
Cardiac Failure 34 (4) 1 (2) 3 (1) 4 (2) 26 (7) <0.0001
Surgery <7 days 45 (5) 2 (4) 9 (3) 9 (5) 25 (8) 0.0105
Diabetes 67 (7) 2 (4) 17 (5) 9 (5) 39 (11) 0.0197
Solid cancer 47 (5) 5 (10) 10 (3) 4 (2) 28 (8) 0.0282
COPD 14 (1) 4 (8) 1 (0.3) 1 (1) 8 (2) 0.0353
Homeless 44 (5) 2 (4) 21 (6) 16 (9) 4 (1) 0.1183
Steroids 53 (6) 7 (14) 14 (4) 5(3) 27 (7) 0.1923
IVDU 34 (4) 0 (0) 11 (3) 15 (9) 8 (2) 0.3829
Alcohol Abuser 59 (6) 1 (2) 22 (6) 16 (9) 20 (5) 0.8076
Blood cancer 10 (1) 0 (0) 4 (1) 0 (0) 6 (2) 0.9708
Other Comorbidities 132 (14) 13 (27) 45 (13) 20 (12) 53 (14) 0.4180

The main demographic and clinical data of the studied population were reported according to the given case definitions for “Carriage”, “Non-invasive”, and “Invasive” (probable and definite invasive) infections. Categorical comparisons between “Invasive” and “Non-invasive” infections were performed with Fisher’s exact tests, and p-values were indicated in the right column. Abbreviations: COPD = Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; ENT-Respiratory = Ear-Nose-Throat and respiratory; IVDU = Intravenous drug users.

* Of the 942 recorded cases, 4 had not a clinical diagnosis and several missing clinical data and were not subsequently categorized according to case definition.

As indicated in the final medical report, clinical diagnoses were available for almost all the recorded cases except four and were reported in Fig 1. Proportionally, skin and soft tissue infections were the most frequent (45%), followed by ENT-respiratory (23%), anogenital (15%), and bone and joint infections (10%). Isolated bacteraemia represented 2% of the whole population or 6% of all infections defined as invasive. Notably, in our studied population based on hospital diagnosis, ENT-Respiratory infections were more frequently invasive [non-invasive = 65/350 (19%) vs invasive = 154 / 539 (29%)] and were mainly related to the high proportion of pharyngeal infections that required hospital care or surgical treatment.

Fig 1. Clinical diagnosis of GAS infections.

Fig 1

Infection diagnoses were organised according to their main location. For each diagnosis, invasiveness categories (“Carriage”, “Non-invasive”, “Probable invasive”, and “Definite invasive”) were indicated by colours (see the legend at the bottom right). *Cases reported as erysipelas were considered as definite invasive infections when blood cultures were positive. The clinical presentations identified as “Other cutaneous” included chronic eschars (n = 3) and cutaneous fistula (n = 1); “Other ENT” included periorbital cellulitis (n = 4), ethmoiditis (n = 2), ocular non-invasive infections (n = 2), pharyngitis with diffuse sinusitis (n = 1), abscess of the nasal septum (n = 1) and peri-tracheal deep infection (n = 1); The group “Other” included peritonitis (n = 4), meningitis/cerebral abscess (n = 3), urinary infection (n = 3), mediastinitis (n = 2), cervical adenitis (n = 1), pacemaker infection (n = 1), pericarditis (n = 1), chorioamnionitis (n = 1) and post-infectious glomerulonephritis (n = 1). For the four patients with unavailable clinical diagnosis, the isolates were collected from a cutaneous specimen. Abbreviations: Cut. abscess = cutaneous abscess; ENT = Ear Nose and Throat; Superf. Cut. Inf = superficial cutaneous infection.

The portal of entry was identified for all infection cases except for 31 patients in whom it remained unknown (Table 1) and for whom the final diagnosis was septic arthritis (n = 14), isolated bacteraemia (n = 12), central nervous system infections (n = 2), primary peritonitis (n = 2), and pericarditis (n = 1). Overall the studied population, blood cultures were performed for 462 cases (49%). By focusing on the invasive infections, blood cultures had been performed for 69/172 (40%) of the probable invasive and 293/367 (80%) of definite invasive infections, suggesting that the rate of bacteraemia could be underestimated (Table 1).

Risk factors and comorbidities that could be associated with invasiveness were collected prospectively and reported in Table 1. Remarkably, among all the 889 infection cases, no risk factor or associated comorbidities has been identified for 588 patients (66% of infection cases). By performing univariate analysis of risk factors associated with invasiveness in our studied population, we identified statistically significant associations for age, skin lesion, cardiac failure, surgery <7 days of infection, diabetes, solid cancer and COPD (Table 1). When computed in multivariate logistic regression and adjusted to sex and age, the only independent risk factor remaining in the model and associated with the invasiveness was the age (OR the entire range [CI95%] = 6.35 [3.63, 11.10]; and by unit (year) [CI95%] = 1.018 [1.01, 1.02]; p<0.0001).

Emm-typing

Molecular emm-typing was performed for all the isolates recovered from the 942 recovered cases. We assigned 61 different emm types with a Simpson’s diversity index (SDI [CI95%]) value = 0.851 [0.779–0.922] (Fig 2 and S1 Table). Emm types diversity of GAS isolates collected from cases living “In-Rennes” (SDI [CI95%] = 0.831 [0.777–0.892]), where the collection was almost exhaustive, compared with those collected from other areas grouped in the category “Out-Rennes” (SDI [CI95%] = 0.803 [0.732–0.874]) were not significantly different since their confidence intervals overlapped (S1 Table). Then, all the GAS isolates were grouped and considered as representative for a French Brittany population.

Fig 2. GAS emm types distribution and dynamic profiles.

Fig 2

The distribution of each emm type was shown in the main histogram. Cumulative percentages of all the GAS isolated were reported at the top of the figure. Cumulative counts from 2009 to 2017 for “Prevalent” and “Emergent” emm types were presented independently. “Prevalent” emm types included 9 genotypes (emm1, 12, 3, 6, 4 28, 89, 77 and 2), and “Emergent” emm types includes 5 different genotypes that emerged successively in the following order: emm44 (already present in 2009 and sudden decrease of its occurrence in 2010, quarter (Q)4); emm83 (2011; Q2), emm75 (2013; Q1), emm66 (2013; Q2), and emm87 (2013; Q3).

The distribution of emm types showed that only four genotypes accounted for more than 50% of all isolated strains namely: emm28 (16%), emm89 (15%), emm1 (14%), and emm4 (8%) (Fig 2 and S1 Table). Emm types isolated with the highest rate from invasive infections were emm3 (89%), emm1 (74%), and emm87 (74%).

Depending on their occurrence during the survey, each of the 61 identified emm types was assigned to one of the three dynamic profiles: “Prevalent”, “Sporadic”, or “Emergent” (see Materials and methods section for definition). Emm types categorized as “Prevalent” encompasses the majority of isolates (n = 686; 72,8%) and corresponded to 9 different emm types (emm 28, 89, 1, 4, 12, 3, 6, 77, and 2). They were isolated from the beginning of the survey with almost a constant occurrence despite little variations around an individual slope (Fig 2). In contrast, the majority of emm types (47/61 emm types) were categorized as “Sporadic”, but the isolates represented only 12.4% of all the GAS isolated during the survey, and each of the “Sporadic” emm types was rarely isolated (< 1% of all the isolates) (S1 Table). “Emergent” emm types were marked by a sudden shift in their occurrence during the survey period and corresponded to 5 different genotypes: emm44 (n = 32; 3.4% of all the isolates), emm66 (n = 14; 1.3%), emm75 (n = 48; 4.9%), emm83 (n = 20; 2.1%), and emm87 (n = 26, 2.7%) (Fig 2).

Depending on the emm type identified, each case was assigned to one of the three groups of emm type dynamic profiles (“Prevalent”, “Sporadic”, and “Emergent”) that were subsequently analyzed according to the demographic and clinical data, aiming to find specific risk factors that could be associated. As shown in Table 2, the age, the sex, general symptoms related to the infection, the invasiveness of the infection, and the rate of positive blood culture were similar for each of the emm type dynamic profiles. The rate of the cutaneous portal of entry was higher for patients infected with “Sporadic” and “Emergent” emm types, while ENT-respiratory and anogenital portal of entries were higher when infection occurred with “Prevalent” emm types. By performing univariate analysis, risk factors identified to be significantly associated with the group of patients infected with “Emergent” emm types were those related to people living in poor hygienic conditions (homeless, alcohol abuse, of IV drug user) (Table 2). By computing the data in a logistic regression model and considering the “Prevalent” emm types as a reference category, homeless and alcohol abuse remained both in the model as independent risk factors for the category of patients infected with “Emergent” emm types (Table 3). Furthermore, by analyzing risk factors independently for each of the five “Emergent” emm types we found that infections with emm44 (invasive infections = 16/32; 50%), emm66 (7/13; 54%), and emm83 (10/20; 50%) were significantly linked to patients living in poor hygienic conditions (p<0.001) and associating with one or several risk factors such as homeless, alcoholism or IV drug user. In contrast, we did not find any explanatory clinical risk factors for patients infected with the emergent emm75 (invasive infection = 27/48; 56%) and emm87 (17/26; 65%) genotypes.

Table 2. Clinical characteristics, and risk factors for GAS infections with “Emergent” emm type: Univariate analyses.

Prevalent Sporadic Emergent Univariate
Total (n = 686) (n = 116) (n = 140) p-value
Age
Mean ± SD 34.1 ± 27.9 36.5 ± 21.9 33.3 ± 24.5 0.3313
Median 31.2 32.6 33.6
[Range] [0–97] [0.4–91] [0.1–102]
Sex
(% Males) (50.6) (60.3) (56.4) 0.1024
Portal of entry; n (% total column) <0.0001
Cutaneous 323 (47) 80 (69) 96 (68)
ENT-Respiratory 203 (29) 19 (16) 25 (18)
Anogenital 135 (20) 14 (12) 15 (11)
Not Known 24 (4) 3 (3) 4 (3)
Missing data 1 0 0
General symptoms related to GAS infection; n (% total column) 0.0244
None (Carriage) 43/648 (6) 1/113 (1) 5/127 (4)
Local signs without fever 150/648 (22) 35/113 (30) 28/127 (20)
Fever and/or sepsis 385/648 (56) 70/113 (62) 83/127 (59)
Hemodynamic shock 70/648 (10) 7/113 (6) 11/127 (8)
Missing data 38/686 (6) 3/116 (3) 13/140 (9)
Blood culture; n (% total column)
Performed 339/686 (49) 51/116(44) 71/140 (51) 0.7489
Positive 133/339 (39) 15/51 (29) 25/71 (35) 0.6432
Invasiveness; n (% total column) 0.0395
Carriage 43 (6) 1 (1) 5 (3)
Non-Invasive 242 (35) 51 (44) 57 (41)
Probable invasive 121 (18) 24 (21) 26 (19)
Definite invasive 278 (41) 39 (34) 51 (37)
Risk Factors and associated comorbidities; n (% total cases)
No-Risk Factor 461 (67) 126 (70) 75 (53) 0.0057
At least 1 risk factor 225 (33) 35 (30) 65 (47) 0.0057
Skin Lesion 321 (47) 70 (60) 86(61) 0.0005
Homeless 10 (1) 8 (7) 26 (19) <0.0001
Alcohol Abuse 23 (3) 6 (5) 30 (22) <0.0001
IVDU 10 (1) 6 (5) 18 (13) <0.0001
Surgery <7 days 33 (5) 2 (2) 5 (6) 0.1733
Diabetes 54 (8) 7 (6) 6 (4) 0.2467
Solid cancer 37 (5) 3 (3) 7 (6) 0.3803
Cardiac Failure 27 (4) 2 (2) 5 (4) 0.4347
COPD 12 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0.5029
Steroids 41 (6) 5 (4) 7 (6) 0.7143
Blood cancer 8 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0.8616
Other Comorbidities 103 (15) 15 (13) 14 (10) 0.2563

Main clinical data of the studied population were reported according to the given definitions of emm dynamic profiles. Univariate categorical comparisons were performed with Fisher’s exact tests and the p-values were indicated in the right column. Abbreviations: COPD = Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; ENT-Respiratory = Ear-Nose-Throat and respiratory; IVDU = Intravenous drug users.* Of the 942 recorded cases, 4 had not a clinical diagnosis and several missing clinical data and were not subsequently categorised according to the case definition.

Table 3. Risk factors for GAS infections with “Emergent” emm type: Multinomial logistic regression analyses.

Prevalent Sporadic p-value Emergent p-value
Reference OR [CI95%] (Wald) OR [CI95%] (Wald)
Age (Year) 1 1.00 [0.99–1.01] 0.4462 1.00 [0.99–1.01] 0.9776
Sex (for males) 1 1.32 [0.87–1.99] 0.1929 0.97 [0.66–1.43] 0.8925
Cutaneous Lesion 1 1.63 [1.08–2.46] 0.0212 1.60 [1.09–2.34] 0.0170
IV Drug User 1 1.67 [0.45–6.19] 0.4443 1.49 [0.54–4.11] 0.4429
Alcohol Abuse 1 0.28 [0.07–1.12] 0.0727 2.96 [1.47–5.97] 0.0024
Homeless 1 7.24 [1.78–29.5] 0.0058 5.58 [2.31–13.5] 0.0001

“Prevalent” emm type served as a reference category for logistic regression. Odds ratios (OR) and CI95% for risk factors associated with “Sporadic" and “Emergent” emm types were estimated by performing two independent logistic regressions adjusted by age and sex.

Dynamic of emm types and emm-clusters analysis

Protein M is the most immunogenic protein and can confer emm-specific immunity against GAS infections. Emm types and their distribution were organised according to the recently described cluster classification proposed by Sanderson-Smith [21], that, in addition to the structure and function of the M protein, also consider its capacity to induce an immune cross-protection against the other M proteins belonging to the same cluster. Hypothesizing that most frequent or prevalent emm types that circulate in a population may confer a collective immune cross-protection against the other emm types from the same cluster, we analysed the relationship of "Emergent" emm types to their cluster classification. As represented in Fig 3, the 942 emm-typed GAS isolates were assigned to 16 of the 48 described emm-clusters and ordered according to their dynamic profile shown by their densities during the survey period (Fig 3A).

Fig 3. Dynamic profiles of GAS emm types and emm cluster-typing classification from 2009 to 2017.

Fig 3

A) The densities of each of the 61 emm types were represented and were classified according to their dynamic profile observed during the study period. B) For each emm type, the number of isolates from 2009 to 2017 was reported by quarter. They were organised according to their dynamic profile (column) and their corresponding cluster (row, indicated at the right side). Emm types were indicated in the corresponding box. Emm types 6, 5, 29 and 105 were grouped within a single row named “Single protein (clade Y)”, and corresponded to four individual clusters, M6, M5, M29 and M105 respectively. “Prevalent” emm types (emm1, 12, 3, 6, 4 28, 89, 77 and 2) belonged to the clusters A-C3 to 5, M6, E1, and E4. “Emergent” emm types (emm44, 66, 82, 75, and 87) belonged to clusters D4, E2 and E3 that were different from those of the “Prevalent” emm types.

“Prevalent” emm types (n = 686 GAS isolates; 73%) were classified in emm-clusters A-C3 (emm1), A-C4 (emm12), A-C5 (emm3), M6 (emm6), E1 (emm4), and E4 (emm28, emm89, emm77 and emm2).

Almost all the “Sporadic” emm types (n = 116 GAS isolates; 12%) belonged to clusters different from those of the “Prevalent” emm types except within the cluster E4 (Fig 3B). Remarkably, the emm-cluster E4 was the most prevalent and diverse of the other emm-clusters and encompassed 11 emm types, among which 4 with “Prevalent” (emm28, 89, 77, 2) and 7 with “Sporadic” dynamic profiles (emm73, 88, 102, 22, 169, 8, 112) (Fig 3B). Notably, the unique emm60 identified and categorized as a “Sporadic” emm type in the E1 cluster corresponded to a patient with a superficial skin infection that occurred during recent touristic travel in Africa (Senegal).

In our study population, “Emergent” emm types (n = 140 GAS isolates; 15%) belonged exclusively to clusters D or E, and within which “Sporadic” emm types could also be classified. We thus observed sequentially the emergence of the genotypes emm44 (before 2009; cluster E3), emm83 (2011; cluster D4), emm75 (2013; cluster E6), emm66 (2013; cluster E2), and emm87 (2013; cluster E3). Consistently, after nine years of comprehensive and prospective surveillance in French Brittany, we did not observe any clonal emergence of a new emm type within the clusters A-C3, A-C4, A-C5, E1 and E4 that gather “Prevalent” genotypes. Therefore, our observation suggested a complementary hypothesis that “Prevalent” emm types would provide a certain degree of immune cross-protection for the population, reducing the probability of allowing the emergence of a new emm type within the same cluster. Of note, despite a high diversity of emm genotypes found within the cluster E4 (4 “Prevalent” and 7 “Sporadic” emm-genotypes), we did not observe the emergence of a new genotype during the study period in this cluster. Finally, emm types clustered as a single protein, and for which it has been proposed that their M protein could have different immunological, structural, and functional characteristics were grouped in the same row and encompassed “Prevalent” (emm6) and “Sporadic” (emm5, emm29, and emm105) emm types (Fig 3).

Discussion

We presented a comprehensive dynamic of GAS emm types over 9-years of prospective culture-based diagnosis in French Brittany. Among the 942 isolates that were clinically documented, 61 different emm types were identified. The most “Prevalent” emm types were emm28, 89, 1, 4, 12, 3, 6, and 77, in agreement with those reported from other studies performed in developed countries [6, 7]. Deciphering the temporal dynamics of the emm genotypes in our studied population, we observed that the five "Emergent" emm types never belonged to clusters within which "Prevalent" genotypes have been identified.

Clinical characteristics of the studied population

We initially analysed our population’s clinical characteristics, aiming to compare our data with those of other surveys carried out in industrialized countries. Age distribution of GAS infections is generally described with a higher rate in the elderly, followed by infants under 10 years old. This bimodal distribution suggests possible protection by a natural-immunity acquired through multiple episodes of colonization or infection in early life, and that declines in the elderly [20, 21]. As reported by Lamagni et al [22], we have also observed increased infection rate between 20 and 40 years. Regarding the UK population, it has been proposed that this reshaping of age distribution results from a high rate of intravenous drug users [22]. In the same way of evidence, we noticed for this age group category an excess of patients having one or several risk factors such as homeless, alcoholism, or intravenous drug use. Besides, we have also observed a high genital tract sepsis rate in women of childbearing age (between 30 and 40 years old). The primary diagnoses were endometritis and postpartum puerperal sepsis that accounted for about 20% of all the invasive infections for this age category. It has been suggested that altered immune status during pregnancy and specific characteristics of the infecting GAS strain contribute to the risk for GAS infection and mortality in postpartum women [23].

For the overall population, risk factors for invasiveness identified by univariate analysis (age, diabetes, cardiac failure, and malignancy) are consistent with other studies performed in industrialized countries [6, 7, 19, 24]. However, the rate of risk factors identified above increased with ageing, and when analysed with a multivariate logistic regression model, the age remained the unique independent risk factor in our studied population. Gender as a risk factor varies between studies, and this is possibly dependent on the age group distribution of each studied population [7, 13, 22, 2528].

Skin and soft tissue infections were the most frequent clinical presentations, and the severity of the infections required hospitalization for the majority of them. Among cases diagnosed as erysipelas, although frequently described as restricted to the superficial skin and considered as a non-invasive infection, 48% of them have a positive blood culture and subsequently categorised as invasive infections. This may indicate that clinical differentiation of erysipelas is not precise enough, and streptococcal cellulitis could be underdiagnosed.

Perianal streptococcal dermatitis or anitis is the most common non-invasive disease seen in children of 3–5 years old [29]. The four most frequent types found for this infection were emm28 (56%), emm77 (9%), emm4 (13%), and emm12 (6%). Of note emm28 an emm77 express the protein R28, which has an LPxTG motif ([30, 31] and personal data) and believed to promote adhesion to human cervical cells.

Dynamic of emm types

For several decades, it has been known that the most potent protective immunity against GAS infection is M specific [3], which produces opsonizing antibodies directed against the N terminus of the M protein. Molecular types sharing structural and functional homologies were inferred to a unique emm-cluster and could elicit cross-protective immunity of almost all emm types within a specific emm-cluster [32]. As in all the surveys performed in industrialized countries, the throat specialist genotypes emm1 (belonging to cluster A-C3), emm12 (A-C4), and emm3 (A-C5) are “Prevalent” [12, 33, 34], and they are characterized by their ability to have fibrinogen binding properties accounting for a high rate of invasive manifestations. Throughout the nine years of our surveillance, the genotypes emm1, 3 and 12, were dominant emm types without any other emm type competitors identified within their specific emm-cluster. Their epidemiological dominance and persistence are not well understood and could be explained by the absence of other circulating emm types belonging to their specific emm-clusters. An alternative explanation could be a complex antigenic structure or a specific dynamic for genetic evolution affecting immunogenic epitopes of many A–C emm types with throat tropism [35], preventing a stable and highly-specific long-lasting immunity.

The high prevalence and diversity of emm types encountered for the cluster E4 corroborate other studies [8, 33], and may indicate a variable or insufficient cluster-specific natural immune cross-protection. Recent work investigating the cross-protection capabilities against the 17 emm types of the cluster E4 identified the potential requirement of five M peptides (emm2, 8, 22, 89, and 112) to induce a bactericidal cross activity against 15/17 E4 GAS, excepting emm77 and emm114 [32]. Notably, we never recorded any “Emergent” emm type for this cluster, but seven “Sporadic” emm-genotypes were identified.

“Emergent” emm types occurred as an epidemiological shift within the clusters D4, E2, E3 and E6 that were free of any “Prevalent” emm types during all the study period. Mechanisms that can contribute to the emergence of one or more genotypes in a population are not well understood. However, risk factors and genetic modifications of the strain, including the acquisition of new virulence factors, may play variable roles depending on the emm type. Although more challenging to assess, another complementary factor is the lack of protective immunity of the population against GAS, which can thus facilitate the emergence of a specific emm type. Most of emm44, 83 and 66 strains were isolated from patients with specific risk factors such as living in poor conditions and big cities. As we reported previously, the whole genome analysis of some of emergent strains in French Brittany identified a genetic acquisition of new transposons for emm44, and emm83, and mutations resulting in a null allele of a stand-alone RopB regulator for emm66 [3639]. The role of these genetic modifications as an explanatory mechanism for clonal emergence remained unknown, and the increase in infection incidence was recorded for only 2 to 3 years. These observations are consistent with studies reporting that short adaptive evolution driven by habitat adaptation (skin or generalist rather than throat specialist strains) underwent horizontal gene transfer events that could offer selective advantages in a susceptible population, either lacking immune protection or having a specific risk factor [35] as we observed in our population.

The European survey published in 2009 indicated that infections with emm75 strains were found only in few countries (Finland, Greece, Germany, and Romania), but remained marginal among the “Prevalent” emm types [6]. As we previously reported [40], the sharp increase of emm75 infection rate observed in 2013 was most likely related to the emergence of a new clone that acquired two new prophages encoding virulence factors (SpeC and SpeK superantigens). Herein, we failed to identify any specific risk factor (clinical or behavioural) that could explain the emergence of the genotype emm75 in a susceptible population. However, the genotype emm75 tended to become prevalent in the French Brittany population where it represents 4 to 6% of strains isolated annually. We do not know if the sustained rise of the emm75 genotype will continue, or if we will observe upsurges or epidemic waves in French Brittany as in other geographic regions. In our opinion, the emergence of genotype emm75 needs careful consideration. First, an emm75 strain isolated from blood culture in 2015 in the UK and recently sequenced (Strain: NCTC13751, GeneBank accession: LS483437) exhibits the same genetic modifications that we have observed in strains isolated in French Brittany. Second, it has recently been reported in Portugal an increasing trend of invasive infections due to the genotype emm75 that also shares the superantigens genes speC and speK [41]. All these strains deserve to be analyzed more in-depth to decipher if this emergence corresponded to the same clonal spread. Our observation can be paralleled with the nationwide increase in invasive disease due to the genotype emm89. This genotype upsurges last decades and has recently been associated with the emergence of a new successful clade variant that has undergone several genetic modifications affecting known virulence factors [42].

Finally, the emergence of the emm87 genotype observed in 2013 is remarkable because it predominates in England while seldom isolated in the rest of Europe [6]. The spreading of the genotype emm87 may have occurred in French Brittany, given the geographical proximity and frequent exchanges between the two countries.

The monocentric design is the main limitation of our study, and other population-based investigations are required to confirm our findings. However, many strengths have to be considered, including the prospective and longitudinal collection of strains from invasive and non-invasive infections with their attached clinical data. Also, the geographic delimitation to a population-based recovery of GAS strain enabled us to observe a comprehensive dynamic of circulating emm types.

After nine years of GAS infection surveillance, we described a high diversity of circulating GAS emm types and characterized accurately epidemiological shifts and dynamic profiles of five successive “Emergent” emm types (emm44, 66, 75, 83 and 87). They occurred within emm-clusters different from those gathering “Prevalent” emm types that could suggest a population susceptibility potentially due to a weak natural immune cluster-specific cross-protection. The emergence of the genotype emm75 occurred in 2013 is now marked by a sustained prevalence suggesting a potential expansion of a successful clone. Dynamic monitoring of GAS infections by combining at least molecular emm typing and cluster classification remains the keystone strategy for epidemiological surveillance.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Geographical distribution of collected cases in French Brittany according to the residence of patients.

The reported numbers corresponded to the 21 areas of French Brittany: 1) Auray; 2) Brest; 3) Broceliande; 4) Centre Bretagne; 5) COB; 6) Cornouaille; 7) Dinan; 8) Fougères; 9) Guingamp; 10) Lorient; 11) Morlaix; 12) Ploermel; 13) Pontivy; 14) Redon; 15) Rennes; 16) Saint-Malo; 17) Saint Brieuc; 18) Tregor-Goelo; 19) Vallons-Vilaine; 20) Vannes; 21) Vitré. Regional hospitals (*) and University Hospital Centres () were indicated on the map. For each area, the average number of cases collected/100,000 inhabitants/year were reported according to the colour legend.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Seasonal variation of infection rates.

All infections (green), non-invasive (blue), and invasive infections (red) were broken down by year, and rates of infections were given for each quarter. 1: January to March; 2: April to June; 3: July to September; 4: October to December.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Age group distribution of GAS infections.

The rates for males, invasive infections and the portal of entry were indicated for each age group. ENT-Resp = Ear Nose and Throat and Respiratory. *n = 889 infections/942 collected cases (49 carriage and 4 cases with missing values were not included).

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Emm types diversity “In Rennes” area and “Out Rennes” grouped areas.

For each identified emm types, the total number of GAS isolates (n) and percentage of the total (%) were indicated in the corresponding column. For the most frequent genotypes (n > 10 isolates) we performed a categorical analysis (Fisher’s exact test) to compare the rate of their occurrence “In Rennes” vs “Out Rennes” groups. Simpson’s Indexes of Diversity (SDI) and their comparison were given at the bottom of the table. * Among the 942 emm-typed GAS isolates, 1 missed value for the residential area.

(DOCX)

S1 File

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr Pascal Vincent (microbiologist in the UHC of Rennes and currently retired) and Dr Jean-Francois Ygout (microbiologist in the general Hospital of Lorient and currently retired) for their contribution to this work by managing the database and sending GAS isolates, respectively, the microbiologists of the hospital of Dinan, Lorient, Pontivy, Saint-Brieuc, and Vannes for sending GAS isolates, all the members of the Department of Bacteriology—UHC of Rennes for their technical support and assistance in this study.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the University Rennes-1 Medical School, and by University Hospital Center of Rennes-France and did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  • 1.Walker MJ, Barnett TC, McArthur JD, Cole JN, Gillen CM, Henningham A, et al. Disease manifestations and pathogenic mechanisms of group A Streptococcus Clinical microbiology reviews. 2014;27(2):264–301. 10.1128/CMR.00101-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Carapetis JR, Steer AC, Mulholland EK, Weber M. The global burden of group A streptococcal diseases. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2005;5(11):685–94. 10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70267-X . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lancefield RC. Persistence of type-specific antibodies in man following infection with group A streptococci. J Exp Med. 1959;110(2):271–92. Epub 1959/08/01. 10.1084/jem.110.2.271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Beall B, Facklam R, Thompson T. Sequencing emm-specific PCR products for routine and accurate typing of group A streptococci. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34(4):953–8. 10.1128/JCM.34.4.953-958.1996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sheel M, Moreland NJ, Fraser JD, Carapetis J. Development of Group A streptococcal vaccines: an unmet global health need. Expert review of vaccines. 2016;15(2):227–38. 10.1586/14760584.2016.1116946 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Luca-Harari B, Darenberg J, Neal S, Siljander T, Strakova L, Tanna A, et al. Clinical and microbiological characteristics of severe Streptococcus pyogenes disease in Europe. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47(4):1155–65. 10.1128/JCM.02155-08 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.O’Loughlin RE, Roberson A, Cieslak PR, Lynfield R, Gershman K, Craig A, et al. The epidemiology of invasive group A streptococcal infection and potential vaccine implications: United States, 2000–2004. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(7):853–62. 10.1086/521264 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shulman ST, Tanz RR, Dale JB, Beall B, Kabat W, Kabat K, et al. Seven-year surveillance of north american pediatric group A streptococcal pharyngitis isolates. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(1):78–84. 10.1086/599344 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Steer AC, Law I, Matatolu L, Beall BW, Carapetis JR. Global emm type distribution of group A streptococci: systematic review and implications for vaccine development. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2009;9(10):611–6. Epub 2009/09/26. 10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70178-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Smeesters PR, Mardulyn P, Vergison A, Leplae R, Van Melderen L. Genetic diversity of Group A Streptococcus M protein: implications for typing and vaccine development. Vaccine. 2008;26(46):5835–42. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.08.037 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Baroux N, D’Ortenzio E, Amedeo N, Baker C, Ali Alsuwayyid B, Dupont-Rouzeyrol M, et al. The emm-cluster typing system for Group A Streptococcus identifies epidemiologic similarities across the pacific region. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(7):e84–92. 10.1093/cid/ciu490 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Koutouzi F, Tsakris A, Chatzichristou P, Koutouzis E, Daikos GL, Kirikou E, et al. Streptococcus pyogenes emm Types and Clusters during a 7-Year Period (2007 to 2013) in Pharyngeal and Nonpharyngeal Pediatric Isolates. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(7):2015–21. 10.1128/JCM.00301-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Luca-Harari B, Ekelund K, van der Linden M, Staum-Kaltoft M, Hammerum AM, Jasir A. Clinical and epidemiological aspects of invasive Streptococcus pyogenes infections in Denmark during 2003 and 2004. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(1):79–86. 10.1128/JCM.01626-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bessen DE, Lizano S. Tissue tropisms in group A streptococcal infections. Future Microbiol. 2010;5(4):623–38. 10.2217/fmb.10.28 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bessen DE, Carapetis JR, Beall B, Katz R, Hibble M, Currie BJ, et al. Contrasting molecular epidemiology of group A streptococci causing tropical and nontropical infections of the skin and throat. J Infect Dis. 2000;182(4):1109–16. Epub 2000/09/09. 10.1086/315842 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bessen DE, McGregor KF, Whatmore AM. Relationships between emm and multilocus sequence types within a global collection of Streptococcus pyogenes. BMC Microbiol. 2008;8:59 10.1186/1471-2180-8-59 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sanderson-Smith M, De Oliveira DM, Guglielmini J, McMillan DJ, Vu T, Holien JK, et al. A systematic and functional classification of Streptococcus pyogenes that serves as a new tool for molecular typing and vaccine development. J Infect Dis. 2014;210(8):1325–38. 10.1093/infdis/jiu260 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gallo V, Egger M, McCormack V, Farmer PB, Ioannidis JP, Kirsch-Volders M, et al. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology—Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement. Eur J Clin Invest. 2012;42(1):1–16. 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2011.02561.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lamagni TL, Darenberg J, Luca-Harari B, Siljander T, Efstratiou A, Henriques-Normark B, et al. Epidemiology of severe Streptococcus pyogenes disease in Europe. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(7):2359–67. 10.1128/JCM.00422-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Frost HR, Laho D, Sanderson-Smith ML, Licciardi P, Donath S, Curtis N, et al. Immune Cross-Opsonization Within emm Clusters Following Group A Streptococcus Skin Infection: Broadening the Scope of Type-Specific Immunity. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(9):1523–31. 10.1093/cid/cix599 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Beachey EH, Seyer JM, Dale JB, Simpson WA, Kang AH. Type-specific protective immunity evoked by synthetic peptide of Streptococcus pyogenes M protein. Nature. 1981;292(5822):457–9. 10.1038/292457a0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lamagni TL, Efstratiou A, Vuopio-Varkila J, Jasir A, Schalen C. The epidemiology of severe Streptococcus pyogenes associated disease in Europe. Euro Surveill. 2005;10(9):179–84. 10.2807/esm.10.09.00563-en . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mason KL, Aronoff DM. Postpartum group A Streptococcus sepsis and maternal immunology. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2012;67(2):91–100. Epub 2011/10/26. 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2011.01083.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Davies HD, McGeer A, Schwartz B, Green K, Cann D, Simor AE, et al. Invasive group A streptococcal infections in Ontario, Canada. Ontario Group A Streptococcal Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(8):547–54. 10.1056/NEJM199608223350803 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Smit PW, Lindholm L, Lyytikainen O, Jalava J, Patari-Sampo A, Vuopio J. Epidemiology and emm types of invasive group A streptococcal infections in Finland, 2008–2013. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;34(10):2131–6. 10.1007/s10096-015-2462-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Plainvert C, Loubinoux J, Bidet P, Doloy A, Touak G, Dmytruk N, et al. [Epidemiology of Streptococcus pyogenes invasive diseases in France (2007–2011)]. Arch Pediatr. 2014;21 Suppl 2:S62–8. 10.1016/S0929-693X(14)72262-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Meisal R, Andreasson IK, Hoiby EA, Aaberge IS, Michaelsen TE, Caugant DA. Streptococcus pyogenes Isolates Causing Severe Infections in Norway in 2006 to 2007: emm Types, Multilocus Sequence Types, and Superantigen Profiles. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48(3):842–51. Epub 2010/01/01. 10.1128/JCM.01312-09 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Darenberg J, Luca-Harari B, Jasir A, Sandgren A, Pettersson H, Schalen C, et al. Molecular and clinical characteristics of invasive group A streptococcal infection in Sweden. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(4):450–8. 10.1086/519936 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cohen R, Levy C, Bonacorsi S, Wollner A, Koskas M, Jung C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical symptoms and rapid diagnostic test in group A streptococcal perianal infections in children. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(2):267–70. 10.1093/cid/ciu794 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Green NM, Zhang S, Porcella SF, Nagiec MJ, Barbian KD, Beres SB, et al. Genome sequence of a serotype M28 strain of group A Streptococcus: potential new insights into puerperal sepsis and bacterial disease specificity. J Infect Dis. 2005;192(5):760–70. 10.1086/430618 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sitkiewicz I, Green NM, Guo N, Mereghetti L, Musser JM. Lateral gene transfer of streptococcal ICE element RD2 (region of difference 2) encoding secreted proteins. BMC Microbiol. 2011;11:65 Epub 2011/04/05. 10.1186/1471-2180-11-65 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dale JB, Smeesters PR, Courtney HS, Penfound TA, Hohn CM, Smith JC, et al. Structure-based design of broadly protective group A streptococcal M protein-based vaccines. Vaccine. 2017;35(1):19–26. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.11.065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shulman ST, Tanz RR, Dale JB, Steer AC, Smeesters PR. Added value of the emm-cluster typing system to analyze group A Streptococcus epidemiology in high-income settings. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(11):1651–2. 10.1093/cid/ciu649 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rattanavong S, Dance DA, Davong V, Baker C, Frost H, Phetsouvanh R, et al. Group A streptococcal strains isolated in Lao People’s Democratic Republic from 2004 to 2013. Epidemiology and infection. 2016;144(8):1770–3. 10.1017/S0950268815002927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bessen DE, McShan WM, Nguyen SV, Shetty A, Agrawal S, Tettelin H. Molecular epidemiology and genomics of group A Streptococcus Infect Genet Evol. 2015;33:393–418. 10.1016/j.meegid.2014.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Soriano N, Vincent P, Piau C, Moullec S, Gautier P, Lagente V, et al. Complete Genome Sequence of Streptococcus pyogenes M/emm44 Strain STAB901, Isolated in a Clonal Outbreak in French Brittany. Genome Announc. 2014;2(6). 10.1128/genomeA.01174-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cady A, Plainvert C, Donnio PY, Loury P, Huguenet D, Briand A, et al. Clonal spread of Streptococcus pyogenes emm44 among homeless persons, Rennes, France. Emerging infectious diseases. 2011;17(2):315–7. Epub 2011/02/05. 10.3201/eid1702.101022 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Soriano N, Vincent P, Auger G, Cariou ME, Moullec S, Lagente V, et al. Full-Length Genome Sequence of Type M/emm83 Group A Streptococcus pyogenes Strain STAB1101, Isolated from Clustered Cases in Brittany. Genome Announc. 2015;3(1). 10.1128/genomeA.01459-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Meygret A, Vincent P, Moullec S, Nacazume J, Adnani Y, Lavenier D, et al. Genome Sequence of the Uncommon Streptococcus pyogenes M/emm66 Strain STAB13021, Isolated from Clonal Clustered Cases in French Brittany. Genome Announc. 2016;4(4). 10.1128/genomeA.00689-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rochefort A, Boukthir S, Moullec S, Meygret A, Adnani Y, Lavenier D, et al. Full Sequencing and Genomic Analysis of Three emm75 Group A Streptococcus Strains Recovered in the Course of an Epidemiological Shift in French Brittany. Genome Announc. 2017;5(39). 10.1128/genomeA.00957-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Friaes A, Pato C, Melo-Cristino J, Ramirez M. Consequences of the variability of the CovRS and RopB regulators among Streptococcus pyogenes causing human infections. Sci Rep. 2015;5:12057 10.1038/srep12057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Turner CE, Abbott J, Lamagni T, Holden MT, David S, Jones MD, et al. Emergence of a New Highly Successful Acapsular Group A Streptococcus Clade of Genotype emm89 in the United Kingdom. MBio. 2015;6(4):e00622 10.1128/mBio.00622-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jose Melo-Cristino

17 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-31664

A prospective survey of Streptococcus pyogenes infections in French Brittany from 2009 to 2017: Comprehensive dynamic of new emergent emm genotypes.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kayal,

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

The manuscript has been assessed by two reviewers. Their comments are available below. The reviewers have raised a number of concerns about the the data, they recommend revisions to provide a fuller outline of the methodology and main results. Please carefully revise the manuscript to address all the points raised by the two reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 01 2021 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,

Jose Melo-Cristino, M.D., 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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Overall this is an interesting study describing the clinical and genotying features of GAS infections in French Brittany between 2009 and 2017. The authors highlight the emergence of new emm-types and their association with clusters that differ from the prevalent emm types.

Comments

Abstract Line 22 – think there needs to be an additional word here such as ‘complex epidemiology driven by the diversity’

Abstract line 26 – I don’t think this study has the power to decipher the underlying mechanism for the emergence of successful clones given that only emm typing was performed.

Introduction

Line 61 – delete the word species

Methods

Line 130 – I am not quite clear on what is meant by collected exhaustively. Are all isolates routinely saved regardless of infection site? Is there likely to be an over-representation of invasive or severe GAS isolates? How much non-invasive or carriage would be collected?

Results

Line 177 – is the number of cases that same as the number of isolates or were several isolates obtained from the same patient?

Line 192 (and other places) – two open square brackets are used rather than an open and close.

Line 195 – what is meant here? That non-invasive infections would not be recorded or isolates not saved? Or is this something to do with management – ie no clinical outcomes or information recorded. I think a bit of clarity here (or in the Methods) would be good to try and get an idea of what sort of isolates would be included – it is not clear what sort of number of non-invasive infections would be recorded/collected. Also relates to Line 218-220 – is this related to the types on non-invasive isolates obtained here and only serious ones potentially related to invasive disease would be collected?

Lines 243-245 – this section is a bit confusing. Is it 51% of invasive cases? Then 49% would not and this can’t be ‘most’. In the sentence starting ‘Its proportion’ what does the ‘it’ refer to?

Line 255 – delete the word ‘finally’

Line 262 – ‘showed’ rather than ‘show’

Line 281 – ‘in their occurrence’ rather than ‘of their occurrence’

Line 301 – ‘associated with’ rather than ‘associating one’

Lines 321-325 should be in the Discussion

Line 332 – hypothesising

Line 363 – I do not really understand this sentence. Do you mean that no emergent emm types belonged to A-C, which was the most common of the prevalent genotypes?

Line 378 – an extra bracket here. Also change ‘agree closely’ to ‘similar to’ or ‘in agreement with’

Line 380 – suggest changing to ‘that belonged to emm-clusters that “Sporadic” but not “Prevalent” genotypes were members of’ to improve clarity.

Line 388 – delete the ‘the’ after observed

Line 398 – delete the ‘the’ before invasiveness

Line 400- what is meant here? The number of risk factors increase with age?

Line 402 – delete the ‘The’ before gender

Line 413 – emm28 and ee77 have R28 but not 4 and 12.

Discussion

Line 416 – ‘it has been known’ rather than ‘admitted’

Line 424 – ‘were dominant’ rather than ‘behaved lie’

Line 433 – delete ‘A’ before recent

Line 439 – not sure what is meant here? No prevalent emm types were recorded during this time or that no prevalent emm types were of clusters D and E?

Line 400 – ‘Were’ rather than ‘Have’ and ‘patients with’ rather than ‘patients having’

Line 455 – ‘was’ rather than ‘has been recorded’

Line 457 – should it be ‘where it represents’ rather than ‘while it represents’?

Line 458 – do you mean if emm75 will become a “Prevalent” emm type?

Line 472 – ‘may’ rather than ‘probably’

Line 483 – ‘potentially’ rather than ‘presumably’

Tables – it is not standard practice to have legends for Tables. A brief title is included and then any parts that need clarification should be footnotes. I don’t think there should be a part A and B to table 2 – this should be Table 2 and Table 3.

Throughout the Methods and some of the Results the term ‘Strain’ is used when it should be ‘Isolate’

Reviewer #2: Boukthir et al report on a prospective survey of Streptococcus pyogenes infections in French Brittany from 2009 to 2017. It is an excellent study with good data. I can fully recommend the publication and have only a few minor comments. A small restriction from my side: I cannot judge the statistics sufficiently well.

minor remarks

lines 192-195 (and S3 Fig)

To me the arrangement of the brackets for the representation of the age intervals seems to take some getting used to.

lines 194-195

The percentages of 65% and 63% do not correspond to those given in S3 Figure. Furthermore, table 1 does not differentiate the different age intervals at all.

table 1

Portal of Entry, Overall: 499, 247, 164 and 31 sum up (only) to 941 (not 942)?

lines 246-247

Where does the number of 588 cases come from? I cannot find it anywhere else in the manuscript.

Furthermore: 588/889 = 0.661417322… (=> 66%, not 67% as indicated)

line 262

shows (not shown)

line 263

The distribution can be seen better in table S1 than in figure 2.

line 300

7/13 = 0.538461538 => (=> 54%, not 53% as indicated)

lines 329-331

Please rephrase.

lines 334-335

figure 3 (Fig 3) => Please remove the duplication.

lines 339-347

I am not sure if I understand the description correctly, especially the front part. Probably this is fine, but if necessary it could be made a bit clearer.

lines 377-378

The order of the emm types mentioned is different from that shown in figure 2 and table S1. Is this intentional?

line 442

transposons => please correct

line 455

…a specific… factors… => please rephrase

line 516

Ygout (?)

figure 2

It would be nice if the percent sign could also be included at 0-53 and 54-76 (top left).

figure 3

It would be nice if in the middle column with the sporadic infections in figure 3a some more emm types could be marked in the figure.

S3 figure

To me the arrangement of the brackets for the representation of the age intervals seems to take some getting used to (see also lines 192-195).

The percentages of 65% and 63% given in lines 194-195 do not correspond to those given in S3 Figure.

For the age group of [30-40[, there should be a ‘-‘ instead of a ‘;’.

**********

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 Dec 17;15(12):e0244063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244063.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Nov 2020

Response to reviewers

______________________________________

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

We wish to indicate that all the statistics have been carried out and reviewed by Jeff Morcet, who is a statistician and signatory of the article.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

_________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer #1: Overall this is an interesting study describing the clinical and genotying features of GAS infections in French Brittany between 2009 and 2017. The authors highlight the emergence of new emm-types and their association with clusters that differ from the prevalent emm types.

Comments

Abstract Line 22 – think there needs to be an additional word here such as ‘complex epidemiology driven by the diversity’

As suggested we added the word driven as follows:

”…complex epidemiology driven by the diversity, …”

Abstract line 26 – I don’t think this study has the power to decipher the underlying mechanism for the emergence of successful clones given that only emm typing was performed.

The sentence has been modified by the follows:

“This study, based on a longitudinal population survey, aimed to understand the dynamic of GAS emm types and to give leads to better appreciate underlying mechanisms for the emergence of successful clones. »

Introduction

Line 61 – delete the word species

The word species has been deleted.

Methods

Line 130 – I am not quite clear on what is meant by collected exhaustively. Are all isolates routinely saved regardless of infection site? Is there likely to be an over-representation of invasive or severe GAS isolates? How much non-invasive or carriage would be collected?

All the strains isolated routinely in the hospital laboratory were collected and the clinal data were saved regardless of infection site or invasiveness, and when several strains were isolated for a patient only the first strain was then considered. In the revised version, this has been stated as follows:

“All GAS isolates were collected in the hospital from clinical samples. Most of the isolates have been collected in the University Hospital Centre (UHC) of Rennes (87% of total), where they have been saved exhaustively for nine years, and regardless of infection site or invasiveness. When several isolates were recovered from the same infection case, only the first isolate was then considered to avoid redundancies.”

Results

Line 177 – is the number of cases that same as the number of isolates or were several isolates obtained from the same patient?

The sentence has been modified as follows:

“Between 1st January 2009 and 31st December 2017, GAS isolates were recovered from specimens collected from the skin (38%), oropharyngeal (20%), anogenital (16%), blood (12%), synovial fluid and bone (6%), pleuro-pulmonary (4%) or other (4%) locations. Several isolates could be collected for a single case, but only the first isolate was attached to each of the 942 recorded cases.”

Line 192 (and other places) – two open square brackets are used rather than an open and close.

We have used open brackets to indicate intervals. We corrected all the second open brackets by the following notation [a,b) to indicate an interval from “a” to “b” that is inclusive of “a” but exclusive of “b”. The corrections have been made in the manuscript and supporting figures S1 and S3.

Line 195 – what is meant here? That non-invasive infections would not be recorded or isolates not saved? Or is this something to do with management – ie no clinical outcomes or information recorded. I think a bit of clarity here (or in the Methods) would be good to try and get an idea of what sort of isolates would be included – it is not clear what sort of number of non-invasive infections would be recorded/collected. Also relates to Line 218-220 – is this related to the types on non-invasive isolates obtained here and only serious ones potentially related to invasive disease would be collected?

We systematically saved all the GAS isolated routinely in our laboratory and recorded and analysed all the corresponding infection cases regardless of their invasiveness. However, in order to estimate the incidence of GAS infections, we felt that it was necessary to indicate that in our studied population (based on hospital diagnosis) the incidence of non-invasive infections could not be estimated accurately since most of the patients with a non-invasive infection do not require any hospital care. Thus, we were only able to estimate the incidence of invasive infections, and more accurately for the cases living in Rennes where we believe that almost all the patients with an invasive infection came to the hospital.

For more clarity, the sentence starting on Line 195-197(first version) has been deleted since it does not add any meaningful information to the estimation of the incidence of invasive infections.

Line 218-220. Insofar, as the diagnoses are exclusively performed in the hospital, we believe that pharyngitis, which is the most frequent of GAS infections, is managed of by out-of-hospital medicine, mostly without a bacteriological diagnosis, and therefore not collected during our survey. We have clarified this aspect by modifying the sentence as follows.:

“Notably, in our studied population based on hospital diagnosis, ENT-Respiratory infections were more frequently invasive [non-invasive = 65/350 (19%) vs invasive = 154 / 539 (29%)] and were mainly related to the high proportion of pharyngeal infections that required hospital care or surgical treatment.”

Lines 243-245 – this section is a bit confusing. Is it 51% of invasive cases? Then 49% would not and this can’t be ‘most’. In the sentence starting ‘Its proportion’ what does the ‘it’ refer to?

We agree with the reviewer that this section could be a bit confusing, and it seemed suitable to us to delete these two phrases (from Line 242 to line 246 in the first version) to allow a more comfortable reading of this paragraph that focused on the analysis of risk factors for invasive infections.

Line 255 – delete the word ‘finally’

The word “finally” has been deleted.

Line 262 – ‘showed’ rather than ‘show’

The modification has been made.

Line 281 – ‘in their occurrence’ rather than ‘of their occurrence’

The modification has been made.

Line 301 – ‘associated with’ rather than ‘associating one’

The modification has been made.

Lines 321-325 should be in the Discussion

As suggested, this paragraph has been moved to the discussion section.

Line 332 – hypothesizing

The correction has been made.

Line 363 – I do not really understand this sentence. Do you mean that no emergent emm types belonged to A-C, which was the most common of the prevalent genotypes?

We have changed the sentence as follows

“Consistently, after nine years of comprehensive and prospective surveillance in French Brittany, we did not observe any clonal emergence of a new emm type within the clusters A-C3, A-C4, A-C5, E1 and E4 that gather “Prevalent” genotypes.

Line 378 – an extra bracket here. Also change ‘agree closely’ to ‘similar to’ or ‘in agreement with’

Correction and suggested modification have been made.

Line 380 – suggest changing to ‘that belonged to emm-clusters that “Sporadic” but not “Prevalent” genotypes were members of’ to improve clarity.

We changed the sentence as suggested.

Line 388 – delete the ‘the’ after observed

This has been deleted.

Line 398 – delete the ‘the’ before invasiveness

This has been deleted.

Line 400- what is meant here? The number of risk factors increase with age?

The sentence has been changed as follows:

“However, the rate of risk factors identified above increased with ageing and when analysed with a multivariate logistic regression model….”

Line 402 – delete the ‘The’ before gender

This has been deleted

Line 413 – emm28 and ee77 have R28 but not 4 and 12.

In the new version of the manuscript this has been specified as follows:

“The four most frequent types found for this infection were emm28 (56%), emm77 (9%), emm4 (13%), and emm12 (6%). Of note emm28 and emm77 express the protein R28, which has an LPxTG motif ([34, 35] and personal data) and believed to promote adhesion to human cervical cells.”

Discussion

Line 416 – ‘it has been known’ rather than ‘admitted’

The modification has been made.

Line 424 – ‘were dominant’ rather than ‘behaved lie’

The modification has been made.

Line 433 – delete ‘A’ before recent

The modification has been made.

Line 439 – not sure what is meant here? No prevalent emm types were recorded during this time or that no prevalent emm types were of clusters D and E?

To be more understandable we have better specified the clusters concerned by the emergent emm types:

““Emergent” emm types occurred as an epidemiological shift within the clusters D4, E2, E3 and E6, that were free of any “Prevalent” emm types during all the study period.”

Line 400 – ‘Were’ rather than ‘Have’ and ‘patients with’ rather than ‘patients having’

Modifications have been made (line 440).

Line 455 – ‘was’ rather than ‘has been recorded’

The modification has been made (line 445).

Line 457 – should it be ‘where it represents’ rather than ‘while it represents’?

The modification has been made.

Line 458 – do you mean if emm75 will become a “Prevalent” emm type?

Actually, we cannot assert that the incidence of the emergent emm75 will continue to remain constant as we observed for the dynamic “Prevalent” emm types. Then to avoid misinterpretation, we have modified the sentence as follows

“We do not know if the sustained rise of the emm75 genotype will continue or if we will observe upsurges or epidemic waves in French Brittany as in other geographic regions.”

Line 472 – ‘may’ rather than ‘probably’

The modification of the sentence has been done as follows:

“The spreading of the genotype emm87 may have occurred in French Brittany, given the geographical proximity and frequent exchanges between the two countries”

Line 483 – ‘potentially’ rather than ‘presumably’

The modification has been made.

Tables – it is not standard practice to have legends for Tables. A brief title is included and then any parts that need clarification should be footnotes. I don’t think there should be a part A and B to table 2 – this should be Table 2 and Table 3.

We have followed all the suggestions and split the table 2 (A and B) in two different tables; Table 2 and Table 3. The reference for table 2 and 3 has also been modified accordingly in the text.

Throughout the Methods and some of the Results the term ‘Strain’ is used when it should be ‘Isolate’

Throughout the text we have changed “strain” to “isolate” when necessary. All the modifications have been highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript.

______________________________________-

Reviewer #2: Boukthir et al report on a prospective survey of Streptococcus pyogenes infections in French Brittany from 2009 to 2017. It is an excellent study with good data. I can fully recommend the publication and have only a few minor comments. A small restriction from my side: I cannot judge the statistics sufficiently well.

minor remarks

lines 192-195 (and S3 Fig)

To me the arrangement of the brackets for the representation of the age intervals seems to take some getting used to.

We have used open brackets to indicate intervals. We corrected all the second open brackets by the following notation [a,b) to indicate an interval from “a” to “b” that is inclusive of a but exclusive of “b”. The corrections have been made in the manuscript and supporting figures S1 and S3.

lines 194-195

The percentages of 65% and 63% do not correspond to those given in S3 Figure. Furthermore, table 1 does not differentiate the different age intervals at all.

The sentence has been modified. See bellow the comment concerning S3 Figure.

table 1

Portal of Entry, Overall: 499, 247, 164 and 31 sum up (only) to 941 (not 942)?

Among the 4 patients for whom several clinical information were missing as indicated at the top of the column “Overall (942)*”, the portal of entry is still missing for one of them. Then we have added a line to the table 1 and table 2 to indicate this missing data in the corresponding column.

lines 246-247

Where does the number of 588 cases come from? I cannot find it anywhere else in the manuscript.

Furthermore: 588/889 = 0.661417322… (=> 66%, not 67% as indicated)

For more clarity, the sentence “Remarkably, most of the infection cases (588/889, 67%) had no identified risk factors or associated comorbidities.” has been modified as follows:

“Remarkably, among all the 889 infection cases, no risk factor or associated comorbidities has been identified for 588 patients (66% of infection cases).”

line 262

shows (not shown)

The modification has been made according to the suggestion of the reviewer #1

line 263

The distribution can be seen better in table S1 than in figure 2.

As suggested the reference to table S1 was also added as follows:

“… and emm4 (8%) (Fig 2 and Table S1).”

line 300

7/13 = 0.538461538 => (=> 54%, not 53% as indicated)

The correction has been made.

lines 329-331

Please rephrase.

We have rephrased the entire sentence as follows:

“Emm types and their distribution were organised according to the recently described cluster classification proposed by Sanderson-Smith [21], that, in addition to the structure and function of the M protein, also consider its capacity to induce an immune cross-protection against the other M proteins belonging to the same cluster.”

lines 334-335

figure 3 (Fig 3) => Please remove the duplication.

The duplication has been removed.

lines 339-347

I am not sure if I understand the description correctly, especially the front part. Probably this is fine, but if necessary it could be made a bit clearer.

The description has been slightly modified as follows:

“Fig 3. Dynamic profiles of GAS emm types and emm cluster-typing classification from 2009 to 2017. A) The densities of each of the 61 emm types were represented and were classified according to their dynamic profile observed during the study period. B) For each emm type, the number of isolates from 2009 to 2017 was reported by quarter. They were organised according to their dynamic profile (column) and their corresponding cluster (row, indicated at the right side). Emm types were indicated in the corresponding box. Emm types 6, 5, 29 and 105 were grouped within a single row named “Single protein (clade Y)”, and corresponded to four individual clusters, M6, M5, M29 and M105 respectively. “Prevalent” emm types (emm1, 12, 3, 6, 4 28, 89, 77 and 2) belonged to the clusters A-C3 to 5, M6, E1, and E4. “Emergent” emm types (emm44, 66, 82, 75, and 87) belonged to clusters D4, E2 and E3 that were different from those of the “Prevalent” emm types.”

There were also errors in the number of isolates indicated in the upper part of the figure, and for each of the dynamic profiles. They have been corrected.

lines 377-378

The order of the emm types mentioned is different from that shown in figure 2 and table S1. Is this intentional?

Emm types indicated in the text have been reordered according to the figure2 and Table S1 (emm28, 89, 1, 4, 12, 3, 6, and 77), The sentence has been changed as follows:

“The most “Prevalent” emm types were emm28, 89, 1, 4, 12, 3, 6, and 77, in agreement with those reported from other studies performed in developed countries.”

line 442

transposons => please correct

The correction has been made.

line 455

…a specific… factors… => please rephrase

The sentence has been rephrased as follows:

“Herein, we failed to identify any specific risk factor (clinical or behavioural) that could explain the emergence of the genotype emm75 in a susceptible population.”

line 516

Ygout (?)

The capital letters for the name of the microbiologist have been changed.

figure 2

It would be nice if the percent sign could also be included at 0-53 and 54-76 (top left).

As suggested the percent sign has been included to 0-53 and 54-76 of the figure 2.

figure 3

It would be nice if in the middle column with the sporadic infections in figure 3a some more emm types could be marked in the figure.

As suggested in figure 3a we have indicated all sporadic emm types that have been isolated at least 3 times.

S3 figure

-To me the arrangement of the brackets for the representation of the age intervals seems to take some getting used to (see also lines 192-195).

All the open brackets have been modified (S3 figure and line 192-195) as indicated above.

-The percentages of 65% and 63% given in lines 194-195 do not correspond to those given in S3 Figure.

To more clarity we have corrected the percentages and rephrased the sentence by the following :

“ Focusing on the overall 889 infection cases, the sex ratio (M/F) was 1.16 (54 % males); however, the rate of females was over-represented in the [30-40[ age-group (64% of females) while the percentage of males was higher in the [40-50[ age-group (68% of males) (S3 Fig).”

-For the age group of [30-40[, there should be a ‘-‘ instead of a ‘;’.

The correction has been made.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_Boukthir et al..docx

Decision Letter 1

Jose Melo-Cristino

30 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-31664R1

A prospective survey of Streptococcus pyogenes infections in French Brittany from 2009 to 2017: Comprehensive dynamic of new emergent emm genotypes.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kayal,

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 some minor issues for the authors’ consideration:

References in abstract (line 37). Please delete.

Lines 73-75, “In contrast, in Africa and the Pacific region, the distribution of emm types exhibits a higher diversity explained by the non-observed dominant emm types [13].” Use of English.

Lines 79-80, “In tropical countries, the most circulating emm types of GAS are of emm pattern D (skin tropism) or E (both skin and pharyngeal tropism) (…)”. Use of English.

Lines 169-170, “Once validated, the dataset basis was completely anonymized.” The authors probably mean that the database was completely anonymized.

Lines 177-179, “Out of the 21 areas of French Brittany, and as expected, GAS isolates were predominantly recovered from patients living in Rennes and surrounding areas and then decreased gradually (S1 Fig)”. Ambiguous meaning.

Lines 180-182, “During the surveillance period, and as previously described, we also observed seasonal variation of the rate of infections (invasive and non-invasive), culminating in autumn/winter (S2 Fig)[23].” Perhaps “peaking”?

Lines 231-232, “(…) the final diagnosis was septic arthritis (n=14), isolated bacteraemia (12), central nervous system infections (2), primary peritonitis (2), and pericarditis (1).” Here and elsewhere if number of cases is meant then these should be indicated by n=.

Lines 358-361, “Finally, emm types clustered as a single protein, and for which it has been proposed that their M protein could have different immunological, structural, and functional characteristics were grouped in the same raw and encompassed “Prevalent” (emm6) and “Sporadic” (emm5, emm29, and emm105) emm types (Fig 3).” Replace raw with row?

Lines 368-369, “Deciphering the temporal dynamic of emm genotypes, we observed five “Emergent” emm types that belonged to emm-clusters that “Sporadic” but not “Prevalent” genotypes were members of.” Use of English.

Lines 436-437, “(…)(skin or generalist rather throat specialist  strains)(…)” missing “than”.

Lines 456-457, “This genotype upsurges last decades and has been linked recently to the emergence(…)”. Use of English.

I invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses these points.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 14 2021 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,

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

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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

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 Dec 17;15(12):e0244063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244063.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Dec 2020

Response and modifications to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s)

Issues for the authors’ consideration:

References in abstract (line 37). Please delete.

The references have been deleted. Then all the references have been reordered accordingly.

Lines 73-75, “In contrast, in Africa and the Pacific region, the distribution of emm types exhibits a higher diversity explained by the non-observed dominant emm types [13].” Use of English.

The sentence has been changed by the following:

“In contrast, in Africa and the Pacific Islands, the distribution of emm-types is more diverse and does not show dominant emm-types.”

Lines 79-80, “In tropical countries, the most circulating emm types of GAS are of emm pattern D (skin tropism) or E (both skin and pharyngeal tropism) (…)”. Use of English.

The sentence has been changed by the following:

“In tropical countries, the most frequently isolated emm types of GAS belong to emm pattern D (skin tropism) or E (no specific tropism), as opposed to temperate regions where there are more strains of emm pattern A–C (pharyngeal tropism).”

Lines 169-170, “Once validated, the dataset basis was completely anonymized.” The authors probably mean that the database was completely anonymized.

“dataset basis” has been changed to “database”

Lines 177-179, “Out of the 21 areas of French Brittany, and as expected, GAS isolates were predominantly recovered from patients living in Rennes and surrounding areas and then decreased gradually (S1 Fig)”. Ambiguous meaning.

The sentence has been changed by the following:

“ The diagnosis of GAS infections was mainly performed within the UHC of Rennes, and explain that, over the 21 regions of French Brittany, the majority of GAS isolates was recovered from patients residing in Rennes and the neighbouring areas (Fig S1).

Lines 180-182, “During the surveillance period, and as previously described, we also observed seasonal variation of the rate of infections (invasive and non-invasive), culminating in autumn/winter (S2 Fig)[23].” Perhaps “peaking”?

“culminating” has been changed to “peaking”

Lines 231-232, “(…) the final diagnosis was septic arthritis (n=14), isolated bacteraemia (12), central nervous system infections (2), primary peritonitis (2), and pericarditis (1).” Here and elsewhere if number of cases is meant then these should be indicated by n=.

For all parentheses indicating the number of cases, an "n =" has been added

Lines 358-361, “Finally, emm types clustered as a single protein, and for which it has been proposed that their M protein could have different immunological, structural, and functional characteristics were grouped in the same raw and encompassed “Prevalent” (emm6) and “Sporadic” (emm5, emm29, and emm105) emm types (Fig 3).” Replace raw with row?

“raw” has been replaced with “row”

Lines 368-369, “Deciphering the temporal dynamic of emm genotypes, we observed five “Emergent” emm types that belonged to emm-clusters that “Sporadic” but not “Prevalent” genotypes were members of.” Use of English.

The sentence has been changed by the following:

“Deciphering the temporal dynamics of the emm genotypes in our studied population, we observed that the five "Emergent" emm types never belonged to clusters within which "Prevalent" genotypes have been identified.”

Lines 436-437, “(…)(skin or generalist rather throat specialist strains)(…)” missing “than”.

“than” has been added

Lines 456-457, “This genotype upsurges last decades and has been linked recently to the emergence(…)”. Use of English.

The sentence has been changed as follows:

” This genotype upsurges last decades and has recently been associated with the emergence of a new successful clade variant that has undergone several genetic modifications affecting known virulence factors.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to the editor.docx

Decision Letter 2

Jose Melo-Cristino

3 Dec 2020

A prospective survey of Streptococcus pyogenes infections in French Brittany from 2009 to 2017: Comprehensive dynamic of new emergent emm genotypes.

PONE-D-20-31664R2

Dear Dr. Kayal,

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,

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

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Jose Melo-Cristino

7 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-31664R2

A prospective survey of Streptococcus pyogenes infections in French Brittany from 2009 to 2017: Comprehensive dynamic of new emergent emm genotypes.

Dear Dr. Kayal:

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

Prof. Jose Melo-Cristino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Geographical distribution of collected cases in French Brittany according to the residence of patients.

    The reported numbers corresponded to the 21 areas of French Brittany: 1) Auray; 2) Brest; 3) Broceliande; 4) Centre Bretagne; 5) COB; 6) Cornouaille; 7) Dinan; 8) Fougères; 9) Guingamp; 10) Lorient; 11) Morlaix; 12) Ploermel; 13) Pontivy; 14) Redon; 15) Rennes; 16) Saint-Malo; 17) Saint Brieuc; 18) Tregor-Goelo; 19) Vallons-Vilaine; 20) Vannes; 21) Vitré. Regional hospitals (*) and University Hospital Centres () were indicated on the map. For each area, the average number of cases collected/100,000 inhabitants/year were reported according to the colour legend.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Seasonal variation of infection rates.

    All infections (green), non-invasive (blue), and invasive infections (red) were broken down by year, and rates of infections were given for each quarter. 1: January to March; 2: April to June; 3: July to September; 4: October to December.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Age group distribution of GAS infections.

    The rates for males, invasive infections and the portal of entry were indicated for each age group. ENT-Resp = Ear Nose and Throat and Respiratory. *n = 889 infections/942 collected cases (49 carriage and 4 cases with missing values were not included).

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Emm types diversity “In Rennes” area and “Out Rennes” grouped areas.

    For each identified emm types, the total number of GAS isolates (n) and percentage of the total (%) were indicated in the corresponding column. For the most frequent genotypes (n > 10 isolates) we performed a categorical analysis (Fisher’s exact test) to compare the rate of their occurrence “In Rennes” vs “Out Rennes” groups. Simpson’s Indexes of Diversity (SDI) and their comparison were given at the bottom of the table. * Among the 942 emm-typed GAS isolates, 1 missed value for the residential area.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_Boukthir et al..docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to the editor.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES