Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247418. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247418

Molecular characterization and antibiotic resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii in cerebrospinal fluid and blood

Xiaohong Shi 1,#, Hong Wang 1,#, Xin Wang 2, Huaiqi Jing 2, Ran Duan 2, Shuai Qin 2, Dongyue Lv 2, Yufeng Fan 2, Zhenzhou Huang 2, Kyle Stirling 3,4, Lei Zhang 3,5, Jiazheng Wang 1,*
Editor: Iddya Karunasagar6
PMCID: PMC7899338  PMID: 33617547

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) caused nosocomial infections generate significant comorbidity and can cause death among patients. Current treatment options are limited. These infections pose great difficulties for infection control and clinical treatment. To identify the antimicrobial resistance, carbapenemases and genetic relatedness of Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood, a total of 50 nonrepetitive CSF isolates and 44 blood isolates were collected. The resistance phenotypes were determined, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to examine the mechanisms of carbapenem resistance. Finally, multilocus sequence typing (MLST) was conducted to determine the genetic relatedness of these isolates. It was observed that 88 of the 94 collected isolates were resistant to imipenem or meropenem. Among them, the blaOXA-23 gene was the most prevalent carbapenemase gene, with an observed detection rate of 91.5% (86/94), followed by the blaOXA-24 gene with a 2.1% detection rate (2/94). Among all carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) observations, isolates with the blaOXA-23 gene were resistant to both imipenem and meropenem. Interestingly, isolates positive for the blaOXA-24 gene but negative for the blaOXA-23 gene showed an imipenem-sensitive but meropenem-resistant phenotype. The MLST analysis identified 21 different sequence types (STs), with ST195, ST540 and ST208 most frequently detected (25.5%, 12.8% and 11.7%, respectively). 80 of the 94 isolates (85.1%) were clustered into CC92 which showed a carbapenem resistance phenotype (except AB13). Five novel STs were detected, and most of them belong to CRAB. In conclusion, these findings provide additional observations and epidemiological data of CSF and blood A. baumannii strains, which may improve future infection-control measures and aid in potential clinical treatments in hospitals and other clinical settings.

Introduction

Acinetobacter baumannii is a non-fermentative, Gram-negative opportunistic pathogen that often causes disease among immunocompromised patients [1]. In recent years, A. baumannii has become an important bacterium to identify when treating and controlling infectious diseases because of its remarkable ability to evolve and develop extensive drug resistance to many antibiotics [2]. A. baumannii is often found in hospitals and causes a variety of nosocomial infections and iatrogenic diseases, including bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections, meningitis and wound infections [3]. Among them, microbiological results identifying bacteria in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood [4, 5] are referred to as critical values because these laboratory values may indicate a possibly urgent and life-threatening situation for patients in which treatment protocols indicate a need for immediate therapy. Therefore, the presence of A. baumannii strains in CSF and blood is an essential critical value to identify for practitioners, because this can pose great difficulties for clinical treatment options.

Carbapenems are considered to be the most effective antibiotics against many multidrug-resistant bacteria [6]. However, the increase in the number of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) isolates has recently become a global concern. CHINET surveillance data have shown that from 2005 to 2018, the resistance of A. baumannii to imipenem and meropenem has increased by approximately two-fold [7, 8]. The production of carbapenemase is one of the most common and important mechanisms for A. baumannii resistance to carbapenems. OXA-type carbapenemase (mainly OXA-23, OXA-24, OXA-48, OXA-51 and OXA-58) are most frequently found. Among them, OXA-23, OXA-24, OXA-48 and OXA-58 are acquired carbapenemases, whereas OXA-51 is intrinsic to A. baumannii strains [911]. In addition, because the related coding genes are located in transferable genetic elements and can spread among A. baumannii and even into other bacteria [12, 13], New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (NDM) and Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) producers have also shown significant importance for worldwide prevalence [14, 15].

Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) has been widely used to determine genetic relatedness and for molecular epidemiological studies of A. baumannii [16, 17]. Previous molecular epidemiological studies have shown that CC92 is highly prevalent throughout China, and it is the clonal complex (CC) with the widest global distribution [18, 19].

In the present study, the antimicrobial resistance, carbapenemases, and genetic relatedness of 94 A. baumannii isolates obtained from CSF and blood at the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong, China) was investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial resistance, carbapenemases, and genetic relatedness of the A. baumannii isolates obtained from CSF and blood in a hospital in Shandong, China.

Materials and methods

Ethical statement

This study focused only on bacteria and did not include any human materials or patient information. The Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University exempted this study from review and the Review Board also waived the requirement for informed consent.

Bacterial isolates

A total of 94 nonrepetitive A. baumannii isolates were obtained from CSF (n = 50) or blood (n = 44) samples of patients at the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong, China). The samples used in this study were obtained from 2014 to 2019. Among the CSF isolates, one isolate was collected in 2014, four in 2015, 17 in 2016, 15 in 2017, five in 2018, and eight in 2019. Forty-one of these isolates were obtained from neurosurgery, six isolates from the ICU, and three from other wards. Regarding the A. baumannii isolates samples obtained from blood, 12 were collected in 2016, 13 in 2017, 11 in 2018, and eight in 2019. Twenty-eight blood isolates were obtained from the ICU, six blood isolates from neurosurgery, four from hematopathology, and six from other hospital wards. The CSF or blood specimens were collected from patients with suspected bacterial meningitis or blood stream infections (BSIs) according to CDC criteria [20]. All isolates were identified using MALDI-TOF MS (Bruker, Germany) and further verified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products of 16S rDNA sequencing [21]. PCR products were sequenced by Tsingke BioTech Co., Ltd., followed by sequence alignment via the NCBI database.

Antimicrobial susceptibility tests

All A. baumannii strains were tested for susceptibilities to 14 antibiotics, including ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime, cefoperazone/sulbactam, cefepime, imipenem, meropenem, tobramycin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, minocycline, tigecycline, colistin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, using a Vitek-2 compact system (bioMérieux, Marcy, France) with AST-N-335 cards. The results were evaluated according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria, except for tigecycline, in which case the results were evaluated from the adapted United States Food and Drug Administration breakpoints.

PCR experiments

PCR assays were conducted using conventional PCR amplification. The target genes included the blaOXA-51, blaOXA-23, blaOXA-24, blaOXA-58, blaOXA-48, blaNDM-1, and blaKPC genes. Table 1 shows the sequences used for primer design and the annealing temperatures. Positive amplicons were randomly selected for sequencing to verify the amplicons sequences.

Table 1. Primers used with their respective annealing temperatures.

Primer Sequence Amplicon length Annealing temp Ref
blaOXA-51-F 5’-ATGAACATTAAAGCACTC-3’ 353 bp 46°C [22]
blaOXA-51-R 5’-CTATAAAATACCTAATTGTTC-3’
blaOXA-23-F 5’-GATCGGATTGGAGAACCAGA-3’ 501 bp 53°C [22]
blaOXA-23-R 5’-ATTTCTGACCGCATTTCCAT-3’
blaOXA-24-F 5’-GGTTAGTTGGCCCCCTTAAA-3’ 246 bp 53°C [22]
blaOXA-24-R 5’-AGTTGAGCGAAAAGGGGATT-3’
blaOXA-58-F 5’-AAGTATTGGGGCTTGTGCTG-3’ 599 bp 53°C [22]
blaOXA-58-R 5’-CCCCTCTGCGCTCTACATAC-3’
blaKPC-F 5’-GCTCAGGCGCAACTGTAAGT-3’ 823 bp 55°C [23]
blaKPC-R 5’-GTCCAGACGGAACGTGGTAT-3’
blaNDM-1-F 5’-TCTCGACATGCCGGGTTTCGG-3’ 475 bp 55°C [24]
blaNDM-1-R 5’-ACCGAGATTGCCGAGCGACTT-3’
blaOXA-48-F 5’-GCGTGGTTAAGGATGAACAC-3’ 438 bp 52°C [25]
blaOXA-48-R 5’-CATCAAGTTCAACCCAACCG-3’

Multilocus Sequence Typing (MLST)

MLST analyses were performed using the Oxford scheme [16]. Amplification reactions were carried out as described previously [19, 26]. The sequence types (STs) and allelic profiles were analyzed using MLST database (https://pubmlst.org/abaumannii/info/primers_Oxford.shtml). The newly identified STs were submitted to the MLST database curator for approval, and an ST number was assigned. A minimum-spanning tree using the allelic difference between isolates of the seven housekeeping genes was constructed using BioNumerics (Applied Math).

Statistical analysis

SPSS 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for data analysis. The chi-square tests were performed to compare the differences of resistance rates and the distributions of carbapenem-resistance genes between CSF isolates and blood isolates. A two-sided p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Antibiotic susceptibilities

The antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of 94 A. baumannii strains are shown in Table 2, Fig 1, and the S1 Table. In general, more than 90% of the A. baumannii isolates were resistant to ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime, and ciprofloxacin. Furthermore, 88 of 94 A. baumannii isolates were CRAB isolates. Among them, 86 isolates were resistant to both imipenem and meropenem. Two isolates showed a meropenem-resistant but imipenem-sensitive phenotype. The changes in resistance rates of imipenem were observed to decrease from 89.7% in 2016 to 89.3% in 2017, and then increased to 93.8% in 2018 and 2019. For meropenem, the resistance rates were observed to increase from 89.7% in 2016 to 96.4% in 2017, and then decreased to 93.8% in 2018 and 2019. Most isolates (over 89%) were found to be resistant to these six antibiotics each year from 2016 to 2019 (Fig 1). Because only one strain was isolated in 2014 and only four strains in 2015, we omitted these results from our analysis. A total of 77.7% of the isolates were resistant to tobramycin, 75.5% were resistant to levofloxacin, 59.6% were resistant to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, 52.1% were resistant to cefepime and 45.7% were resistant to cefoperazone/sulbactam. However, the resistance rates for levofloxacin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and cefoperazone/sulbactam were observed to increase year by year from 2017 to 2019. In contrast, the resistance rates for minocycline and tigecycline were only 19.1% and 7.4%, respectively, which decreased year by year from 2017 to 2019. All isolates were sensitive to colistin. No statistically significant differences were observed between CSF and blood isolates among all antibiotics tested in this study.

Table 2. Resistance rates of A.

baumannii isolates obtained from CSF and blood.

Antimicrobial Resistance rate (%) P-value
Overall CSF Blood
(n = 94) (n = 50) (n = 44)
Ticarcillin/clavulanic acid 87(92.6) 47(94.0) 40(90.9) 0.860
Piperacillin/tazobactam 87(92.6) 47(94.0) 40(90.9) 0.860
Ceftazidime 87(92.6) 47(94.0) 40(90.9) 0.860
Cefoperazone/sulbactam 43(45.7) 19(38.0) 24(54.5) 0.108
Cefepime 49(52.1) 28(56.0) 21(47.7) 0.432
Imipenem 86(91.5) 46(92.0) 40(90.9) 1.000
Meropenem 88(93.6) 47(94.0) 41(93.2) 1.000
Tobramycin 73(77.7) 41(82.0) 32(72.7) 0.281
Ciprofloxacin 87(92.6) 47(94.0) 40(90.9) 0.860
Levofloxacin 71(75.5) 38(76.0) 33(75.0) 0.910
Minocycline 18(19.1) 6(12.0) 12(27.3) 0.060
Tigecycline 7(7.4) 3(6.0) 4(9.1) 0.860
Colistin 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) -
Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 56(59.6) 34(68.0) 22(50.0) 0.076

Fig 1. Antibiotic resistance rates from 2016 to 2019.

Fig 1

T/C: ticarcillin/clavulanic acid; P/T: piperacillin/tazobactam; CAZ: ceftazidime; CSL: cefoperazone/sulbactam; FEP: cefepime; IPM: imipenem; MEM: meropenem; TOB: tobramycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; LEV: levofloxacin; MNO: minocycline; TGC: tigecycline; COL: colistin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim.

Distribution of carbapenem-resistance genes

All isolates were screened for the presence of carbapenem-resistance genes (Table 3). In the 94 A. baumannii isolates, all of them harbored the intrinsic blaOXA-51 gene. In contrast, none of them had blaOXA-48, blaOXA-58, blaNDM-1, or blaKPC genes. The blaOXA-23 gene was the most prevalent carbapenemase gene, with a 91.5% (86/94) detection rate, followed by the blaOXA-24 gene in only two (2.1%) isolates. No statistically significant differences were observed between CSF and blood isolates for all detected carbapenem-resistance genes.

Table 3. Prevalence of carbapenem-resistance genes.

Gene No. of positive No. distributing in P-value
isolates (% of 94) CSF (n = 50) Blood (n = 44)
n (%) n (%)
blaOXA-23 86(91.5) 46 (92.0) 40 (90.9) 1.000
blaOXA-24 2(2.1) 1 (2.0) 1 (2.3) 1.000
blaOXA-48 0 0 (0) 0 (0) -
blaOXA-51 94(100) 50 (100) 44 (100) -
blaOXA-58 0 0 (0) 0 (0) -
blaNDM-1 0 0 (0) 0 (0) -
blaKPC 0 0 (0) 0 (0) -

In this study, all of the isolates with blaOXA-23 or blaOXA-24 genes were carbapenem- resistant. Among them, isolates with the blaOXA-23 gene were resistant to both imipenem and meropenem. However, isolates positive for the blaOXA-24 gene but negative for the blaOXA-23 gene showed an imipenem-sensitive but meropenem-resistant phenotype.

MLST profiles

MLST analysis revealed a total of 21 different STs, including 16 existing STs and five novel STs. The novel STs were submitted for ST assignment and included ST1967, ST1968, ST1969, ST1970 and ST1971. The profiles of the newly identified ST types are listed in Table 4. Among them, 89.4% (84/94) were represented by 11 main STs (having ≥2 isolates), and the prevalent STs were ST195, ST540, and ST208, accounting for 25.5% (24/94), 12.8% (12/94), and 11.7% (11/94), respectively (Fig 2 and the S2 Table).

Table 4. Allelic profiles of the novel STs found in this study.

STs gltA gyrB gdhB recA cpn60 gpi rpoD
1967 1 34 3 2 2 178 3
1968 1 3 3 2 2 113 3
1969 1 17 135 12 23 98 6
1970 1 3 3 2 2 160 4
1971 36 34 59 28 4 279 3

Fig 2. Minimum-spanning tree of 94 Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from CSF and blood based on MLST.

Fig 2

Each ST is represented by a circle sized in proportion to the number of isolates represented by that ST, isolates within the pink shaded area are the CC92 isolates, and the number of allelic differences between STs is indicated on the branches. The detailed MLST profiles can be seen in the S2 Table.

ST195 was also the dominant ST in samples obtained from years 2016, 2017 and 2019. However, in 2018, this ST did not appear, and the dominant ST was changed to ST540 and ST191. ST540 and ST208 isolates were found in every year from 2016 to 2019, but the ratio changed year by year (Fig 3). Although the ST191 strain was not found in CSF or blood from 2014 to 2016, it emerged in 2017 and even rose to 25% in 2018. For other minor ST types, the distributions were varied across different years. For instance, the ratio of ST369 isolates increased from 3.4% in 2016 to 10.7% in 2017. In 2018, this type of strain was not observed but the ratio rose to 12.5% in 2019. Because only one strain was isolated in 2014 and four strains in 2015, we omitted these results from our analysis.

Fig 3. MLST population analysis over the different years.

Fig 3

(A) ST in all 94 isolates. (B) ST distribution in 2016. (C) ST distribution in 2017. (D) ST distribution in 2018. (E) ST distribution in 2019.

Twelve STs representing 85.1% (80/94) of the isolates were clustered into CC92, with up to 18 different allelic profiles and 56 different isolates being represented. In addition, 9 individual STs accounted for 14 isolates. The detailed MLST profiles are presented in the S2 Table.

Molecular epidemiological characteristics

All of the isolates grouped into CC92 were carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii isolates, except for one isolate (AB13). These isolates were also not sensitive to ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, ceftazidime, cefepime, ciprofloxacin,or levofloxacin but had variable susceptibilities to cefoperazone/sulbactam, tobramycin, minocycline, tigecycline and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. In contrast, all of the carbapenem-sensitive Acinetobacter baumannii (CSAB) isolates belonged to individual STs, except for one isolate (AB13). These isolates were also sensitive to the other 12 antibiotics tested in this study.

Five novel STs were identified in this study. All four ST1967 isolates were obtained from CSF and were non-sensitive to any β-lactam antibiotics or quinolones. For ST 1968 isolates, five were non-sensitive to 13 antibiotics (except colistin) tested in this study, but the other isolate (AB13) was sensitive to tobramycin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and colistin. The ST1970 isolate was non-sensitive to 12 antibiotics (except tigecycline and colistin) tested in this study, whereas the ST1971 isolate was sensitive to all antibiotics. ST1969 contained two isolates (AB29 and AB70). Both of these isolates possessed the blaOXA-24 gene and were resistant to meropenem but sensitive to imipenem.

The blaOXA-23 gene was more prevalent than the blaOXA-24 gene, but the detection rates were altered among different STs. All isolates in CC92 (containing 12 STs) carried the blaOXA-23 gene (except one isolate in ST208). In contrast, the blaOXA-23 gene was detected in only 50% (7/14) of isolates of individual STs. None of the isolates in ST373, ST377, ST712, ST1969, or ST1971 possessed this gene.

Discussion

CSF and blood infection of A. baumannii (especially for CRAB) may be life-threatening and present great obstacles for effective clinical treatments [4, 5]. Our present study offers insights into the molecular characterization and antibiotic resistance of A. baumannii from CSF and blood.

CHINET surveillance data have shown that, in China, from 2005 to 2018, the resistance rate of A. baumannii for imipenem and meropenem increased from 32.9% to 71.7% and from 41.3% to 78.1%, respectively [7, 8]. Compared to those of the surveillance data, the resistance rates of A. baumannii for imipenem and meropenem in our present study were 91.5% and 93.6%, respectively, which were more than twofold higher than the surveillance data in 2005 and more than 10% higher than those in 2018. For CSF and blood infections, the recommended doses of antibiotics are usually higher and require longer courses of treatment than for superficial infections. This may have contributed to the higher drug-resistance rates in our study than those reported in CHINET surveillance data, which also include superficial infections. In addition, the CHINET surveillance data [7, 8, 27, 28] have demonstrated that the resistance rate of A. baumannii to meropenem is slightly higher than that to imipenem. This is similar to our present observations and results. In fact, our results also support the view that imipenem is more bactericidal [29] and has a higher Time>MIC value [30] than that of meropenem against A. baumannii. In contrast, the resistance rate to tigecycline was only 7.4%, and all isolates showed a colistin-sensitive phenotype. The resistance rates of these two drugs were far below those of carbapenem and the other antibiotics tested in the present study. In this hospital, the frequencies of the usages of tigecycline and colistin were 10 times and 492 times lower than those of carbapenems. This may have contributed to the low resistance rates of these two antibiotics. Additionally, because of these low resistance rates, tigecycline may serve as a preferred therapeutic agent to control CRAB infections in this hospital (S3 Table). Although colistin also had a low resistance rate in our present study, fewer patients were treated by this antibiotic, as its side effects of nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity [31].

To investigate the mechanism of carbapenem resistance, carbapenemase-encoding genes were assessed in the present study. Our results showed that the blaOXA-23 gene was present in most CRAB isolates but was absent in all CSAB isolates, which suggests that blaOXA-23 represents the primary mechanism underlying carbapenem resistance of CRAB isolated from CSF and blood. The blaOXA-23 gene was also found to be the most important mechanism underlying carbapenem resistance in CRAB in China [19, 26] and some other countries [3234]. In addition, in our present study, the blaOXA-24 gene was found to be another mechanism behind carbapenem resistance, as blaOXA-24-positive but blaOXA-23-negative isolates in this study showed meropenem-resistance but imipenem-sensitive characteristics. BlaOXA-24-positive A. baumannii strains have been reported in many countries [11, 35, 36], especially in Spain, where blaOXA-24 has been shown to be the most prevalent gene [11]. Interestingly, even though most blaOXA-24-positive isolates have been reported to be resistant to both imipenem and meropenem, in our experiment, blaOXA-24-positive strains showed an imipenem-sensitive but meropenem-resistant phenotype. Some molecular biological mechanisms have been reported in many Gram-negative bacteria to explain this imipenem-sensitive but meropenem-resistant phenomenon. For example, the transmission of blaIMP-6 and blaCTX-M-2 plasmids [37], as well as the absence of OmpK35 and the frame shift mutation in OmpK36 [38], has been shown to be important mechanisms for imipenem-sensitive but meropenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (ISMRKP) strains. In Pseudomonas aeruginosa, however, substrate specificities of efflux pumps lead to different drug resistance characteristics. As a specific substrate, meropenem can be extruded by many efflux pumps, but imipenem is not affected by these efflux systems [39]. As a result, some imipenem-sensitive but meropenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains were detected. However, few studies have examined this mechanism against A. baumannii. Both of these strains were found to belong to a novel ST (ST1969) in our present study. Hence, this molecular mechanism for A. baumannii strains requires further investigation.

ST540, ST195, and ST208 were three major STs for A. baumannii isolated from CSF and blood in our present study. Among them, ST195 and ST208 are two dominant STs currently found in China [4042]. In the present study, ST 195 was also the dominant ST in 2016, 2017, and 2019. However, no ST195 isolates were found in 2018. Although ST540 is not the main ST observed in China, our data shown that ST540 was not only one of the three common STs but also the predicted founder of the CC for A. baumannii isolated from blood and CSF. ST208 isolates were detected every year from 2016 to 2019, but the ratio changed year by year. High detection rates of CC92 A. baumannii isolates in CSF and blood, as well as a high correlation between CC92 and carbapenem-resistance characteristics, were found in the present study. This is consistent with some other studies that have suggested that CC92 is the largest and most geographically diverse CC, which is widespread in many countries [40], including China [26]. As CC92 is a widespread variant that has advantages in acquiring resistance determinants and surviving in the nosocomial environment [19], this may have contributed to the high correlation between CC92 and carbapenem resistance characteristics in our present study.

We also observed a total of five novel STs. Among them, two novel STs were classified into CC92 and others were individual STs. As 13 of the 14 isolates in the five novel STs were identified as CRAB, close attention should be paid toward these novel STs to identify and further limit both transmission and outbreaks.

Conclusions

In summary, we examined and described the molecular characterization and antibiotic resistance of A. baumannii from CSF and blood in a hospital in Shandong, China. A high level of carbapenem resistance was detected. The majority of the isolates were carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), which carried the blaOXA-23 carbapenemase gene and belonged to MLST CC92. Five novel STs were detected, and most of them were CRAB, some of which belonged to CC92. Collectively, our findings offer new epidemiological data of CSF and blood A. baumannii strains, which may help to improve infection control measures and clinical treatments in hospitals.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) of the tested antimicrobial agents.

T/C: ticarcillin/clavulanic acid; P/T: piperacillin/tazobactam; CAZ: ceftazidime; CSL: cefoperazone/sulbactam; FEP: cefepime; IPM: imipenem; MEM: meropenem; TOB: tobramycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; LEV: levofloxacin; MNO: minocycline; TGC: tigecycline; COL: colistin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Allelic profiles of the A. baumannii strains used in this study.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Antibiotics used for the CRAB treatments.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Duochun Wang and Tao Xiao for some helpful comments on our manuscript.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Sci-Tech Key Project (2018ZX10713-003-002, 2018ZX10713-001-002). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hu Y, He L, Tao X, Meng F, Zhang J. Biofilm may not be Necessary for the Epidemic Spread of Acinetobacter baumannii. Scientific reports. 2016;6:32066 Epub 2016/08/26. 10.1038/srep32066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fournier PE, Vallenet D, Barbe V, Audic S, Ogata H, Poirel L, et al. Comparative genomics of multidrug resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii. PLoS genetics. 2006;2(1):e7 Epub 2006/01/18. 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Peleg AY, Seifert H, Paterson DL. Acinetobacter baumannii: emergence of a successful pathogen. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2008;21(3):538–82. Epub 2008/07/16. 10.1128/CMR.00058-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chapman CN, Otis CN. From critical values to critical diagnoses: a review with an emphasis on cytopathology. Cancer cytopathology. 2011;119(3):148–57. Epub 2011/04/22. 10.1002/cncy.20158 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Howanitz PJ, Steindel SJ, Heard NV. Laboratory critical values policies and procedures: a college of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study in 623 institutions. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2002;126(6):663–9. Epub 2002/05/30. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Biglari S, Alfizah H, Ramliza R, Rahman MM. Molecular characterization of carbapenemase and cephalosporinase genes among clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii in a tertiary medical centre in Malaysia. Journal of medical microbiology. 2015;64(Pt 1):53–8. Epub 2014/11/09. 10.1099/jmm.0.082263-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hu FP, Guo Y, Zhu DM, Wang F, Jiang XF, Xu YC, et al. Resistance trends among clinical isolates in China reported from CHINET surveillance of bacterial resistance, 2005–2014. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2016;22 Suppl 1:S9–14. Epub 2016/03/24. 10.1016/j.cmi.2016.01.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hu F, Guo Y, Yang Y, Zheng Y, Wu S, Jiang X, et al. Resistance reported from China antimicrobial surveillance network (CHINET) in 2018. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases: official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology. 2019;38(12):2275–81. Epub 2019/09/04. 10.1007/s10096-019-03673-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Evans BA, Amyes SG. OXA β-lactamases. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2014;27(2):241–63. Epub 2014/04/04. 10.1128/CMR.00117-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nowak P, Paluchowska P. Acinetobacter baumannii: biology and drug resistance—role of carbapenemases. Folia histochemica et cytobiologica. 2016;54(2):61–74. Epub 2016/06/09. 10.5603/FHC.a2016.0009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dahdouh E, Gómez-Gil R, Pacho S, Mingorance J, Daoud Z, Suárez M. Clonality, virulence determinants, and profiles of resistance of clinical Acinetobacter baumannii isolates obtained from a Spanish hospital. PloS one. 2017;12(4):e0176824 Epub 2017/04/28. 10.1371/journal.pone.0176824 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pagano M, Martins AF, Barth AL. Mobile genetic elements related to carbapenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii. Brazilian journal of microbiology: [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]. 2016;47(4):785–92. Epub 2016/08/16. 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.06.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Partridge SR, Kwong SM, Firth N, Jensen SO. Mobile Genetic Elements Associated with Antimicrobial Resistance. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2018;31(4). Epub 2018/08/03. 10.1128/CMR.00088-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen Y, Zhou Z, Jiang Y, Yu Y. Emergence of NDM-1-producing Acinetobacter baumannii in China. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2011;66(6):1255–9. Epub 2011/03/15. 10.1093/jac/dkr082 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Azimi L, Talebi M, Pourshafie MR, Owlia P, Rastegar Lari A. Characterization of Carbapenemases in Extensively Drug Resistance Acinetobacter baumannii in a Burn Care Center in Iran. International journal of molecular and cellular medicine. 2015;4(1):46–53. Epub 2015/03/31. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bartual SG, Seifert H, Hippler C, Luzon MA, Wisplinghoff H, Rodríguez-Valera F. Development of a multilocus sequence typing scheme for characterization of clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2005;43(9):4382–90. Epub 2005/09/08. 10.1128/JCM.43.9.4382-4390.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Diancourt L, Passet V, Nemec A, Dijkshoorn L, Brisse S. The population structure of Acinetobacter baumannii: expanding multiresistant clones from an ancestral susceptible genetic pool. PloS one. 2010;5(4):e10034 Epub 2010/04/13. 10.1371/journal.pone.0010034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Runnegar N, Sidjabat H, Goh HM, Nimmo GR, Schembri MA, Paterson DL. Molecular epidemiology of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in a single institution over a 10-year period. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2010;48(11):4051–6. Epub 2010/08/27. 10.1128/JCM.01208-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ruan Z, Chen Y, Jiang Y, Zhou H, Zhou Z, Fu Y, et al. Wide distribution of CC92 carbapenem-resistant and OXA-23-producing Acinetobacter baumannii in multiple provinces of China. International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2013;42(4):322–8. Epub 2013/08/31. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.06.019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. American journal of infection control. 1988;16(3):128–40. Epub 1988/06/01. 10.1016/0196-6553(88)90053-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hao H, Liang J, Duan R, Chen Y, Liu C, Xiao Y, et al. Yersinia spp. Identification Using Copy Diversity in the Chromosomal 16S rRNA Gene Sequence. PloS one. 2016;11(1):e0147639 Epub 2016/01/26. 10.1371/journal.pone.0147639 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Woodford N, Ellington MJ, Coelho JM, Turton JF, Ward ME, Brown S, et al. Multiplex PCR for genes encoding prevalent OXA carbapenemases in Acinetobacter spp. International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2006;27(4):351–3. Epub 2006/03/28. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2006.01.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Li Y, Guo Q, Wang P, Zhu D, Ye X, Wu S, et al. Clonal dissemination of extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii producing an OXA-23 β-lactamase at a teaching hospital in Shanghai, China. Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi. 2015;48(1):101–8. Epub 2014/05/28. 10.1016/j.jmii.2014.04.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chang Y, Luan G, Xu Y, Wang Y, Shen M, Zhang C, et al. Characterization of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates in a Chinese teaching hospital. Frontiers in microbiology. 2015;6:910 Epub 2015/09/22. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00910 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Poirel L, Walsh TR, Cuvillier V, Nordmann P. Multiplex PCR for detection of acquired carbapenemase genes. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease. 2011;70(1):119–23. Epub 2011/03/15. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.12.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fu Y, Zhou J, Zhou H, Yang Q, Wei Z, Yu Y, et al. Wide dissemination of OXA-23-producing carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii clonal complex 22 in multiple cities of China. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2010;65(4):644–50. Epub 2010/02/16. 10.1093/jac/dkq027 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Xiao YH, Giske CG, Wei ZQ, Shen P, Heddini A, Li LJ. Epidemiology and characteristics of antimicrobial resistance in China. Drug resistance updates: reviews and commentaries in antimicrobial and anticancer chemotherapy. 2011;14(4–5):236–50. Epub 2011/08/03. 10.1016/j.drup.2011.07.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hu F, Zhu D, Wang F, Wang M. Current Status and Trends of Antibacterial Resistance in China. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2018;67(suppl_2):S128–S34. Epub 2018/11/14. 10.1093/cid/ciy657 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Novelli A, Adembri C, Livi P, Fallani S, Mazzei T, De Gaudio AR. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of meropenem and imipenem in critically ill patients with sepsis. Clinical pharmacokinetics. 2005;44(5):539–49. Epub 2005/05/06. 10.2165/00003088-200544050-00007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kuti JL, Florea NR, Nightingale CH, Nicolau DP. Pharmacodynamics of meropenem and imipenem against Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24(1):8–15. Epub 2004/01/27. 10.1592/phco.24.1.8.34804 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Loho T, Dharmayanti A. Colistin: an antibiotic and its role in multiresistant Gram-negative infections. Acta medica Indonesiana. 2015;47(2):157–68. Epub 2015/08/12. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Merino M, Poza M, Roca I, Barba MJ, Sousa MD, Vila J, et al. Nosocomial outbreak of a multiresistant Acinetobacter baumannii expressing OXA-23 carbapenemase in Spain. Microbial drug resistance (Larchmont, NY). 2014;20(4):259–63. Epub 2013/12/18. 10.1089/mdr.2013.0127 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zowawi HM, Sartor AL, Sidjabat HE, Balkhy HH, Walsh TR, Al Johani SM, et al. Molecular epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii isolates in the Gulf Cooperation Council States: dominance of OXA-23-type producers. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2015;53(3):896–903. Epub 2015/01/09. 10.1128/JCM.02784-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.El Bannah AMS, Nawar NN, Hassan RMM, Salem STB. Molecular Epidemiology of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Egypt: Clonal Spread of blaOXA-23. Microbial drug resistance (Larchmont, NY). 2018;24(3):269–77. Epub 2017/08/08. 10.1089/mdr.2017.0057 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Castanheira M, Wanger A, Kruzel M, Deshpande LM, Jones RN. Emergence and clonal dissemination of OXA-24- and OXA-58-producing Acinetobacter baumannii strains in Houston, Texas: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2008;46(9):3179–80. Epub 2008/09/05. 10.1128/JCM.00988-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Todorova B, Velinov T, Ivanov I, Dobreva E, Kantardjiev T. First detection of OXA-24 carbapenemase-producing Acinetobacter baumannii isolates in Bulgaria. World journal of microbiology & biotechnology. 2014;30(4):1427–30. Epub 2013/11/30. 10.1007/s11274-013-1562-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kayama S, Shigemoto N, Kuwahara R, Ishino T, Imon K, Onodera M, et al. The first case of septicemia caused by imipenem-susceptible, meropenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Annals of laboratory medicine. 2013;33(5):383–5. Epub 2013/09/05. 10.3343/alm.2013.33.5.383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kayama S, Koba Y, Shigemoto N, Kuwahara R, Kakuhama T, Kimura K, et al. Imipenem-susceptible, meropenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae producing OXA-181 in Japan. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2015;59(2):1379–80. Epub 2014/12/17. 10.1128/AAC.04330-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Masuda N, Sakagawa E, Ohya S, Gotoh N, Tsujimoto H, Nishino T. Substrate specificities of MexAB-OprM, MexCD-OprJ, and MexXY-oprM efflux pumps in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 2000;44(12):3322–7. Epub 2000/11/18. 10.1128/aac.44.12.3322-3327.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Karah N, Sundsfjord A, Towner K, Samuelsen Ø. Insights into the global molecular epidemiology of carbapenem non-susceptible clones of Acinetobacter baumannii. Drug resistance updates: reviews and commentaries in antimicrobial and anticancer chemotherapy. 2012;15(4):237–47. Epub 2012/07/31. 10.1016/j.drup.2012.06.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Huang G, Yin S, Gong Y, Zhao X, Zou L, Jiang B, et al. Multilocus Sequence Typing Analysis of Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in a Chinese Burns Institute. Frontiers in microbiology. 2016;7:1717 Epub 2016/11/25. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Qu J, Du Y, Yu R, Lü X. The First Outbreak Caused by Acinetobacter baumannii ST208 and ST195 in China. BioMed research international. 2016;2016:9254907 Epub 2016/05/05. 10.1155/2016/9254907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Iddya Karunasagar

13 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-30754

Molecular characterization and antibiotic resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii in cerebrospinal fluid and blood

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 requires substantial revision from both language and scientific content perspective. Please see the comments made directly on the manuscript and additional referee comments below.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 28 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Two reviewers have commented on the manuscript and raised very pertinent points. Some comments have been made directly on the manuscript. Please address these comments point by point.

Journal Requirements:

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

1) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

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

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

2) Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [There are no financial conflicts of interest to disclose].

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[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: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

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: The study by Wang et al analysed A. baumannii isolates obtained from human CSF and blood samples. The methods used included PCR to detect bla-oxa carbapenemase genes, MLST and AST.

The MS needs major language revision, and the figures, especially fig. 3 need to be modified, i.e. the same colour scheme should be applied to the same ST.

The MS would benefit enormously if it were shortened to a letter or note or something alike. The methods and analyses used are not new and do not have to be elaborated. Moreover, the results are also not unexpected, i.e. presence of IC II (CC92) in China, presence of highly resistant A.b strains, further clonal expansion.

Reviewer #2: This study gives an insight into epidemiology and antibiotic resistance pattern and mechanism of carbapenem of A. baumannii strains isolated from CSF and Blood. The study includes 50 isolates from CSF - are all these isolates were true pathogens the contamination has been ruled out to be clarified.

Comments are included in the manuscript which can be clarified. Reasons for high resistance level to Carbapenems and low rate of resistance to Tigicycline and levofloxacin to be discussed

The manuscript needs correction for English as suggested in the comments in the manuscript.

Wheather the treatment and outcome of the patient has been looked into if so which are the drugs used for the treatment of these infections can be mentioned.

**********

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-30754_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247418. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247418.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Dec 2020

We appreciate the interest that the editors and reviewers have expressed in our manuscript and the constructive comments they have given. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the insightful comments and provided point-by-point responses; including how and where the text was modified. Please see the file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'and the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Iddya Karunasagar

5 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-30754R1

Molecular Characterization and Antibiotic Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii in Cerebrospinal Fluid and Blood

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 language needs significant improvement

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 19 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,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors have addressed technical comments but the language still requires significant improvement.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors have done a thorough investigation on clinical A. baumannii isolates obtained from CSF and blood at the Shandong Hospital and the results are certainly important in the Chinese and global setting. However, the MS still needs a rigorous language revision to improve readability before it can be considered for publication in PLOS one or other journals.

Reviewer #2: All the reviewer comments are addressed and the manuscript is revised accordingly. The manuscript and the data presented will add therapeutic applicability in the treatment of blood and CSF infections caused by Acinetobacter spp

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247418. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247418.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Feb 2021

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

We appreciate the interest that the editors and reviewers have expressed in our manuscript and the constructive comments they have given. We have re-scrutinized to improve the English by a language editing service, “LetPub” to edit the manuscript. We also added the information of the antibiotics used for the treatment in S3 table. We believe the manuscript has been greatly improved. Please see the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1: Comments to the Author

The authors have done a thorough investigation on clinical A. baumannii isolates obtained from CSF and blood at the Shandong Hospital and the results are certainly important in the Chinese and global setting. However, the MS still needs a rigorous language revision to improve readability before it can be considered for publication in PLOS one or other journals.

Answer: Thanks for your comments and suggestion. We have re-scrutinized to improve the English by a language editing service, “LetPub” to edit the manuscript. We believe the manuscript has been greatly improved. Please see the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Comments to the Author

All the reviewer comments are addressed and the manuscript is revised accordingly. The manuscript and the data presented will add therapeutic applicability in the treatment of blood and CSF infections caused by Acinetobacter spp

Answer: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and suggestion. We added the information of the antibiotics used for the treatment in S3 table and made language revision by using language editing service of “LetPub”. We believe the manuscript has been greatly improved. Please see the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Iddya Karunasagar

8 Feb 2021

Molecular Characterization and Antibiotic Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii in Cerebrospinal Fluid and Blood

PONE-D-20-30754R2

Dear Dr. Wang,

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,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All reviewer comments have been addressed.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Iddya Karunasagar

12 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-30754R2

Molecular Characterization and Antibiotic Resistance of Acinetobacter baumannii in Cerebrospinal Fluid and Blood

Dear Dr. Wang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) of the tested antimicrobial agents.

    T/C: ticarcillin/clavulanic acid; P/T: piperacillin/tazobactam; CAZ: ceftazidime; CSL: cefoperazone/sulbactam; FEP: cefepime; IPM: imipenem; MEM: meropenem; TOB: tobramycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; LEV: levofloxacin; MNO: minocycline; TGC: tigecycline; COL: colistin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Allelic profiles of the A. baumannii strains used in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Antibiotics used for the CRAB treatments.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-30754_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.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