Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 May 5;16(5):e0243681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243681

Genomic surveillance of antimicrobial resistance shows cattle and poultry are a moderate source of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico

Enrique Jesús Delgado-Suárez 1, Tania Palós-Guitérrez 1, Francisco Alejandro Ruíz-López 1, Cindy Fabiola Hernández Pérez 2, Nayarit Emérita Ballesteros-Nova 1, Orbelín Soberanis-Ramos 1, Rubén Danilo Méndez-Medina 1, Marc W Allard 3, María Salud Rubio-Lozano 1,*
Editor: Iddya Karunasagar4
PMCID: PMC8099073  PMID: 33951039

Abstract

Multi-drug resistant (MDR) non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) is a public health concern globally. This study reports the phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles of NTS isolates from bovine lymph nodes (n = 48) and ground beef (n = 29). Furthermore, we compared genotypic AMR data of our isolates with those of publicly available NTS genomes from Mexico (n = 2400). The probability of finding MDR isolates was higher in ground beef than in lymph nodes:χ2 = 12.0, P = 0.0005. The most common resistant phenotypes involved tetracycline (40.3%), carbenicillin (26.0%), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (20.8%), chloramphenicol (19.5%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (16.9%), while more than 55% of the isolates showed decreased susceptibility to ciprofloxacin and 26% were MDR. Conversely, resistance to cephalosporins and carbapenems was infrequent (0–9%). MDR phenotypes were strongly associated with NTS serovar (χ2 = 24.5, P<0.0001), with Typhimurium accounting for 40% of MDR strains. Most of these (9/10), carried Salmonella genomic island 1, which harbors a class-1 integron with multiple AMR genes (aadA2, blaCARB-2, floR, sul1, tetG) that confer a penta-resistant phenotype. MDR phenotypes were also associated with mutations in the ramR gene (χ2 = 17.7, P<0.0001). Among public NTS isolates from Mexico, those from cattle and poultry had the highest proportion of MDR genotypes. Our results suggest that attaining significant improvements in AMR meat safety requires the identification and removal (or treatment) of product harboring MDR NTS, instead of screening for Salmonella spp. or for isolates showing resistance to individual antibiotics. In that sense, massive integration of whole genome sequencing (WGS) technologies in AMR surveillance provides the shortest path to accomplish these goals.

Introduction

For decades, experimental data have supported concerns that antimicrobial use (AMU) in animal production is a key factor contributing to the ever-growing crisis of bacterial AMR. However, there is limited evidence linking food consumption with AMR emergence in humans [1, 2]. Moreover, an increasing number of studies in developed countries have found that AMU in food animals has a limited impact on the AMR profile of foodborne pathogens [36]. However, this situation is probably different in low and middle-income countries (LMIC), where controls of AMU in veterinary practice and human health are less rigorous. Therefore, in the context of an intense trade of foods between countries differing in AMR food safety, it is vital to identify relevant sources of AMR pathogens along the food chain. This measure would help prevent their dissemination, as well as human exposure to MDR bacteria, which is a global public health issue.

In Mexico, source attribution of foodborne illnesses is at an early stage. Nonetheless, there are reports of high rates of infections commonly transmitted through foods. That of non-typhoidal salmonellosis has been above 60 cases per 100 thousand inhabitants in the last 5 years [7]. In addition, recent studies conducted in Mexico show NTS contamination is unusually high (15 to nearly 100% positive samples) in bovine lymph nodes, beef carcasses and ground beef, with isolates exhibiting rates of resistance that vary from 30 to nearly 98%, across several important antimicrobial classes (i. e. penicillins, aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, quinolones) [8, 9]. This evidence suggests that beef is likely to play a role as a relevant reservoir of foodborne MDR salmonellosis in Mexico. Especially, if considering it is often involved in salmonellosis outbreaks in countries with lower NTS contamination rates [10, 11].

The increasing availability of whole genome sequencing (WGS) technologies has helped improve genomic surveillance as it provides a high-resolution method for the characterization of an organism features. Regarding AMR in NTS, however, most research from LMIC deals with phenotypes [1216]. Although these studies raise concerns, they do not provide insights into the genetic basis of AMR, its evolution or dissemination within bacterial populations. Such information is crucial to devise new strategies to contain the dissemination of AMR pathogens. However, it can best be obtained by addressing phenotypic and genomic profiling of AMR simultaneously, an area with a limited number of studies in Mexico and other countries [17].

In this investigation, we conducted antibiotic susceptibility testing and WGS of 77 NTS isolates collected during a previous research project involving bovine lymph nodes (n = 800) and ground beef (n = 745) across a two-year sampling period [18]. Assembled genomes were used to predict the AMR genomic profiling of NTS isolates, and these data were further compared to their corresponding AMR phenotypes. We also conducted comparative genomics of AMR genotypes of publicly available NTS strains isolated in Mexico from human, bovine, avian, vegetables and produce, water, seafood, and other sources. Consequently, we managed to thoroughly characterize the role of cattle as a reservoir of NTS harboring AMR genes of human clinical significance. Moreover, we identified the dominant genetic determinants that sustain resistance to specific antibiotic classes, as well as MDR phenotypes.

Materials and methods

Animal Care and Use Committee approval was not obtained for this study since live animals were not directly involved in the experiment.

Salmonella isolates

Isolates used in this research (n = 77) originated from a previous study conducted by our research group [18]. In that work, isolates were subjected to WGS, in silico serovar prediction and multi-locus sequence typing (MLST). To describe important aspects of these isolates, we are going to provide some details of the above referred publication [18].

The isolates were obtained from bovine lymph nodes (LN, n = 800) and ground beef (GB, n = 745), collected from carcasses at a wholesale store in Mexico City across a two-year period (April 2017 through December 2018). The carcasses sold in this store come from a vertically integrated company (feedlot and slaughter operations) located in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. The slaughter population is composed of crossbred Bos indicus young bulls (24–36 months of age). Peripheral LN (superficial cervical and subiliac), deep LN (axillary and celiac), lean meat and fat trimmings were collected from each carcass and subjected to Salmonella spp. detection and isolation procedures. A full description of Salmonella analyses is available from protocols.io (dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bpybmpsn). Each isolate was obtained from a different sample across the two-year sampling period.

Pure Salmonella isolates were subjected to WGS. Briefly, we extracted genomic DNA (gDNA) from fresh colonies grown overnight at 37° C in tryptic soy broth. For that purpose, we used the Roche PCR High Purity Template Preparation Kit (Roche México, Mexico City, Mexico), according to manufacturer’s instructions. Subsequently, gDNA was quantified using a Qubit 3.0 Fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific México, Mexico City, Mexico). Next, sequencing libraries were prepared from 1 ng gDNA using the Nextera XT Library Preparation Kit v.3 (Illumina) and sequenced on the Illumina NextSeq system (paired end 2 x 150 bp insert size). Raw sequences are publicly available at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The accession numbers and metadata are listed in S1 File.

The obtained raw reads were then used for in silico serovar prediction (SeqSero software, version 1.2) [19] and multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) [20]. Both analyses were conducted at the Center for Genomic Epidemiology website (http://www.genomicepidemiology.org). We identified eight Salmonella serovars: Anatum (n = 23), Reading (n = 23), Fresno (n = 4), Typhimurium (n = 11), London (n = 9), Kentucky (n = 6), and Muenster and Give (one each). Moreover, MLST showed isolates of the same serovar corresponded to the same sequence type (ST), except Typhimurium. Among the identified STs, those of serovar Kentucky (ST-198) and Typhimurium (ST-19 and ST-34) are epidemiologically relevant and often exhibit MDR phenotypes [2123].

During the present research, after assembling genomes, we discarded one serovar Reading isolate that had a poor assembly quality and yielded inconsistent results with Salmonella species (genome size >8 Mb and GC content of 46.5%). Consequently, this isolate was not uploaded to NCBI. We also repeated serovar prediction with assembled genomes using SeqSero2 [24] and SISTR [25]. Results were mostly the same, except for one serovar Typhimurium isolate that was actually a monophasic variant (1,4,[5],12:i:-). Hence, this study reports the correct serovar for this isolate (NCBI biosample accession SAMN12857424). Notice this isolate may still be recorded as serovar Typhimurium at NCBI, as it was submitted before we made the correction. However, we expect this record to be updated soon at the NCBI pathogen detection website.

Overall, we managed to set up a panel of strains collected from epidemiologically related bovine matrices (lymph nodes and ground beef), across two years and representing different Salmonella serovars and STs. Thus, providing the basis for a thorough characterization of the AMR profiles of non-clinical isolates circulating in beef cattle.

Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing (AST)

The phenotypic AMR profile of NTS isolates was determined by a panel of 14 antibiotics included in the World Health Organization (WHO) list of critically important and highly important antimicrobials [26]. Following WHO’s prioritization criteria, we selected antibiotics that are considered critically important (i. e. aminoglycosides, quinolones, penicillins, third and fourth generation cephalosporins, carbapenems) or highly important (i. e. phenicols, folate pathway inhibitors, tetracyclines). Moreover, we prioritized antimicrobials that are currently approved in Mexico for use in both human and veterinary medicine. Although azithromycin is frequently used to treat Salmonella infections, we excluded macrolides in the AST panel. This decision was made for three reasons:

  1. macrolide resistance usually involves typhoidal strains [27],

  2. macrolides are not approved for use in food-producing animals in Mexico [28], and

  3. azithromycin-resistant Salmonella has not been isolated from foods (including meats) in Mexico in the last two decades [9].

Hence, macrolides were considered only for comparative genomics of AMR profiles. For the AST analysis, we used the disk diffusion method [29] with the Bencton Dickinson disks and concentrations reported in Table 1. Isolates were classified as susceptible, intermediate or resistant, according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines [30]. Strains of Escherichia coli ATCC 8739, Enterococcus fecalis ATCC 29212, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027 were used as quality control organisms. Isolates with intermediate and resistance phenotypes were considered as non-susceptible in this study. Likewise, isolates showing resistance to ≥3 antimicrobial classes were classified as MDR [31]. The detailed AST protocol is available at protocols.io (dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bpypmpvn).

Table 1. Antimicrobial agents tested, their concentrations and clinical break points of the zone diameter used in the AST.

Antimicrobials C, μg2 Zone diameter breakpoint1, mm
R I
Aminoglycosides
 Amikacin (AMK) 30 ≤14 15–16
 Gentamicin (GEN) 10 ≤12 13–14
Penicillins
 Carbenicillin (CB) 100 ≤19 20–22
 Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (AMC) 20/10 ≤13 14–17
Third generation cephalosporins (3GC)
 Cefotaxime (CTX) 30 ≤22 23–25
 Ceftriaxone (CRO) 30 ≤19 20–22
Fourth generation cephalosporins (4GC)
 Cefepime (FEP) 30 ≤18 19–24
Carbapenems
 Imipenem (IPM) 10 ≤19 20–22
 Ertapenem (ETP) 10 ≤18 19–21
 Meropenem (MEM) 15 ≤19 20–22
Chloramphenicol (CHL) 30 ≤12 13–17
Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT) 1.25/23.75 ≤10 11–15
Ciprofloxacin (CIP) 5 ≤20 21–30
Tetracycline (TET) 30 ≤11 12–14

1Criteria to consider isolates as clinically resistant (R) or intermediate (I) [30]. For meropenem, we also considered epidemiological cutoff (ECOFF) values set by the European Committee on Antimicobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) to classify strains as wild-type (>27 mm) or non-wild-type (≤27 mm) [32].

2Antimicrobial’s disk concentration.

Genome assembly

The quality of raw reads was first assessed with FastQC [33] and we used Trimmomatic [34] to filter poor-quality reads and Illumina adaptors. Trimmed sequences were analyzed again with FastQC to ensure that only high-quality reads (i. e. Q≥30) were used for de novo genome assembly. Finally, we used the Pathogen Resource and Integration Center (PATRIC) web server [35] to assemble genomes with SPAdes version 3.13.1 [36]. The quality of genome assembly was assessed within PATRIC with the aid of the QUAST program, version 5.02. Data on genome assembly quality are provided in S1 File.

Genotypic AMR profiling and comparative genomics

AMR genes and point mutations associated with AMR were predicted with the aid of AMRFinderPlus program version 3.8.4 using assembled genomes [37]. The study also compared the genetic AMR profile of our isolates in the context of NTS population circulating in the country. For that purpose, we identified all Salmonella isolates from Mexico that were publicly available at NCBI as of September 21, 2020 (n = 2400). For that purpose, we worked at the NCBI Pathogen Detection website (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pathogens) and used “organism” (Salmonella enterica) and “location” (Mexico) as the filtering criteria. After removing typhoidal strains, we conformed groups of isolates sharing a common isolation source: human (n = 32), bovine (n = 179, including 77 from this study), avian (n = 193), seafood (n = 131), papaya (n = 279), pepper (n = 216), other vegetables (n = 568), surface water (rivers, ponds, lakes, dams, n = 307), and other water sources (n = 246). An additional category named “other sources” (n = 249) included isolates from sources with few records (i. e. animal feed, pet food, dietary supplements, goat, etc.), as well as those with ambiguous (i. e. product, sponge, swab, meat, animal feces, etc.) or unreported isolation source. The full list of accessions and metadata of these isolates is provided in the S2 File. AMR genotypes of these isolates were collected from the NCBI Pathogen Detection website, which are generated with the AMRFinderPlus database and program. Some of these data were obtained with different versions of AMRFinderPlus (i. e. 3.2.3, 3.6.7, 3.8.4, and 3.8.28). Hence, we repeated the analysis for these records with version 3.8.4, to make sure there was no impact on the AMR genotype prediction.

Most serovar Typhimurium isolates (8/10) exhibited a penta-resistant phenotype similar to that reported for the Typhimurium DT104 strain, which is sustained by Salmonella genomic island 1 (SGI1) [23]. Hence, we conducted a Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) atlas analysis to determine whether the MDR profile of these isolates was associated with this genomic feature. For that purpose, we used the assembled genomes at the GView web server [38], configured as follows: expect e-value cutoff = 0.001, genetic code = bacterial and plant plastid, alignment length cutoff = 50, percent identity cutoff = 70 and tblastx as the BLAST program. The SGI1 reference sequence (AF261825.2) was collected from the Pathogenicity Island Database [39]. Furthermore, considering the epidemiological importance of this serovar, we also analyzed the whole set of Typhimurium isolates from Mexico deposited at NCBI. For that purpose, we used organism (Salmonella enterica), serovar (Typhimurium), and location (Mexico) as filtering criteria. In this way, we identified 40 Typhimurium isolates in the database (refer to S3 File for their accession numbers and AMR genotypes). This analysis was performed to estimate how common MDR profiles are in strains of this serovar circulating in Mexico.

Plasmid profiling

Plasmids are known as strong contributors to AMR dissemination. Since draft genomes contain both chromosomal and plasmid DNA, we decided to conduct plasmid profiling of our isolates. To achieve this goal, we used an in silico approach that has been previously described [40, 41]. First, we used PlasmidFinder 2.1 [42] to predict the isolates plasmid profile using assembled genomes and a threshold identity of 95%. In case of positive hits, we downloaded the plasmid reference sequence from NCBI and aligned it to the draft genomes. If most of the plasmid sequence was represented in a genome and the genomic context of genes matched that of the plasmid, these isolates were proposed to carry the predicted plasmid. Finally, if contigs did not tile well against reference plasmids, we also looked at the average depth of coverage to infer the presence of plasmids in that genome. Usually, the read depth of plasmid-associated contigs is similar between them and different from that of chromosomal contigs.

Data analysis

We used Chi-square tests and odds ratio (OR) calculations to determine whether there was an association between AMR profiles of isolates and NTS serovar or isolation source. In experimental isolates, these analyses involved AMR phenotypes and genotypes. We also calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient between the number of phenotypic non-susceptible isolates and the number of genotypic non-susceptible isolates for each tested antibiotic. In public isolates, only AMR genotypes were considered, and we analyzed these data with the aid of a heatmap. For that purpose, we first determined the number of isolates from each source harboring specific AMR genes and having MDR genotypes. Using these figures, we calculated the proportion of isolates from each source having the feature and used these data to generate a heatmap with the Heatmapper software [43].

Results

Phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial resistance profiles

Approximately three-quarters of the isolates were non-susceptible to at least one antibiotic class, while 26% were susceptible to all the tested antibiotics (Fig 1). The most common resistant phenotypes included tetracycline (40.3%), carbenicillin (26.0%), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (20.8%), chloramphenicol (19.5%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (16.9%). Resistance to cephalosporins and aminoglycosides was less frequent (1.3–7.8% across these antibiotic classes), while for carbapenems only intermediate resistance was observed at a frequency of 1.3 and 9.1% for ertapenem and imipenem, respectively. Although only one isolate resisted ciprofloxacin, 54.5% of the strains showed intermediate resistance to this drug.

Fig 1. AMR profile of 77 Salmonella isolates from bovine Lymph Nodes (LN) and Ground Beef (GB).

Fig 1

Within each antibiotic class, AMR phenotypes are first indicated, followed by AMR genes. Non-susceptible phenotypes are indicated with “R” (resistance) and “I” (intermediate resistance), while blank cells correspond to susceptible isolates. For AMR genotypes, cells filled with the corresponding antibiotic class color indicate the gene is present. AMR genes in gray are not associated with any antibiotic class included in the AST panel. Point mutations and MDR phenotypes are presented on the rightmost columns. Isolates with black cells have mutations/MDR phenotypes and those with blank cells lack these features. Antibiotic abbreviations are as follows: amikacin (AMK), gentamycin (GEN), carbenicillin (CB), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (AMC), cefotaxime (CTX), ceftriaxone (CRO), cefepime (FEP), meropenem (MEM), ertapenem (ETP), imipenem (IMP), chloramphenicol (CHL), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT), ciprofloxacin (CIP), tetracycline (TET).

The rate of MDR strains was 26%, with the most common MDR profiles involving penicillins, chloramphenicol, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin and tetracycline. Strikingly, one serovar Typhimurium isolate resisted all antibiotic classes but carbapenems. In fact, the probability of isolates with MDR profiles was significantly higher in strains of serovar Typhimurium compared to other serovars (OR = 45.8, 95% confidence interval [95CI] 5.3–399.2, P<0.0001). Likewise, there was a higher probability of finding MDR strains in ground beef compared to lymph nodes (OR = 6.5, 95CI 2.1–20.1, P = 0.0005). Furthermore, isolates collected in 2018 were more likely to have MDR phenotypes compared to those from 2017 (OR = 3.4, 95CI 1.2–10.0, P = 0.02). Similarly, isolates collected in autumn were more likely to have MDR phenotypes compared to those from other seasons (OR = 5.8, 95CI 1.8–19.1, P = 0.0054). Overall, the WGS-based in-silico prediction of non-susceptible phenotypes was good, as shown by the strong association between AMR genotypes and phenotypes (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Schematic representation of the overall correlation between predicted AMR genotypes and observed AMR phenotypes of 77 Salmonella isolates.

Fig 2

The figure shows the number of genotypically and phenotypically non-susceptible isolates to each tested antibiotic. Antibiotic abbreviations: ciprofloxacin (CIP), tetracycline (TET), carbenicillin (CB), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (AMC), chloramphenicol (CHL), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT), imipenem (IMP), ceftriaxone (CRO), cefotaxime (CTX), gentamycin (GEN), amikacin (AMK), cefepime (FEP), meropenem (MEM), ertapenem (ETP).

Genomic AMR profiling also identified the presence of several additional resistance genes that are not associated with any specific antimicrobial included in the AST panel. Particularly, those encoding resistance to fosfomycin (fosA7.7), as well as components of the multidrug and metal resistance-nodulation-division (RND) efflux complex (mdsAB). However, experimental isolates did not carry any known macrolide resistance gene (i. e. mphAB, lnuF, ereA, etc.).

Assembled genomes were also analyzed for point mutations associated with resistance. However, the occurrence of mutations was inconsistent with the observed phenotypes (Fig 1). For instance, all isolates carried multiple mutations in the quinolone resistance-determining region (QRDR), gyrAB and parE genes, regardless of whether they were susceptible or not to ciprofloxacin. Likewise, 100% isolates had mutations in soxRS genes, which confer MDR profiles [44]. Still, only 26% of isolates were classified as MDR. Conversely, mutations in ramR were strongly associated with the occurrence of MDR strains (χ2 = 17.7, P<0.0001).

Genomic analysis also revealed additional widespread mutations. Those of pmrAB genes, which are associated with colistin resistance, were present in all isolates. Likewise, mutations in the acrB gene, which have been reported to confer resistance to azithromycin in typhoidal Salmonella strains [45], were detected in most of our isolates (68/77). Below, a detailed description of the relationship between AMR phenotypes and genotypes will be presented for each tested antibiotic class, as well as for MDR strains.

Aminoglycoside resistance

Aminoglycoside-resistant isolates carried genes encoding enzymatic inactivation mechanisms, such as phosphorylation (several aph alleles) and adenylation (aadA2 gene). Comparative analysis with public Salmonella genomes revealed a strong association between aminoglycoside resistance and the isolation source (χ2 = 242.7, P<0.0001). Human, avian and bovine strains were more likely to carry aminoglycoside resistance genes (OR = 4.6, 95CI 3.5–6.0, P = 0.0001) compared to other sources. However, the resistance profile was similar across sources, with a predominance of aadA and aph genes over the acc alleles (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Heatmap showing the AMR profile of public NTS isolated from major sources in Mexico.

Fig 3

AMR genes and the antibiotic class affected by them are indicated on the bottom. Refer to S2 File for accessions and metadata of isolates included in this analysis.

Beta-lactam resistance

Experimental isolates harbored only the Ambler’s class A beta-lactamase-encoding genes blaCARB-2 and blaTEM-1. These enzymes confer resistance to all penicillins, as well as first-, second- and third-generation cephalosporins [46]. The blaCARB-2 gene was the most abundant among isolates showing resistance to penicillins, especially in those of serovar Typhimurium (9/10). One isolate of serovar Anatum and one of monophasic Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:-) also carried blaTEM-1, which encode another extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) that hydrolyzes penicillins and first-generation cephalosporins [46]. A total of 11 non-susceptible isolates lacked any known ESBL-encoding gene. Strikingly, however, 10 of these isolates had ramR mutations, which are associated with resistance to several antibiotic classes, including penicillins.

Eight isolates were non-susceptible to 3GC and one to both 3GC and 4GC. However, none carried ESBL-encoding genes associated with these phenotypes. As observed with penicillins, mutations in ramR were associated with non-susceptibility to cephalosporins as 100% of non-susceptible isolates to 3GC/4GC had these mutations.

Non-susceptibility to carbapenems was the least frequent among the tested antibiotic classes. No isolate resisted meropenem, while only one showed intermediate resistance to ertapenem and seven to imipenem. Again, no carbapenemase-encoding genes were found in the genome of any non-susceptible isolate. Interestingly, however, when using the ECOFF value of the inhibition zone (27 mm) set for meropenem in the European Union [32], 17 isolates (22%) were classified as non-wild type, which indicates some mechanisms of carbapenem resistance could be emerging in the population being studied.

Interestingly, isolates showing intermediate resistance to carbapenems carried a gene that has 99% sequence identity to the STM3737 gene of Salmonella Typhimurium (Uniprot accession Q8ZL44). This gene encodes a protein from the metallo-hydrolase-like-MBL-fold super family. A conserved domain search with the amino acid sequence of this gene at NCBI confirmed these findings (accession cl23716). We also found a positive hit (63% identity, E-value = 2.7x10-115) with a Serratia proteamaculans beta-lactamase (genome GenBank accession CP000826.1) by running a BLAST analysis against the betalactamase database [47]. Whether this gene may confer reduced susceptibility to carbapenems remains unclear since it was present in the genome of all experimental isolates.

In relation to other public Salmonella genomes from Mexico, those from human, avian, and bovine species were the main source of beta-lactam-resistant Salmonella: χ2 = 199.0, P<0.0001, OR = 8.6, 95CI 5.8–12.7 (Fig 3). Overall, class-A ESBL-encoding genes (i. e. blaCARB, blaTEM) were the most abundant, while blaCTX-M was predominant among avian isolates (17/193). Genes encoding class-C ESBLs (i. e. blaCMY) were also present in a small proportion of isolates from human (3/32), pepper (3/216), surface water (11/307), avian (1/193), and other sources (1/249). Only three human isolates carried a blaOXA gene, which encodes a class-D ESBL. Fortunately, class-B ESBL-encoding genes were not detected in the genome of the public isolates under study.

Fluoroquinolone resistance

The main resistance mechanism we detected was that encoded by plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance (PMQR) genes, such as qnrB19 and qnrA1, involved in quinolone target protection (DNA gyrase). This genomic feature, which confers low-level quinolone resistance, was strongly associated with the intermediate resistance to ciprofloxacin observed in our study (χ2 = 36.8, P<0.0001). As mentioned before, we did not find a statistical association between point-mutations in the QRDR and the observed phenotypes.

Among public Salmonella genomes, those from avian and bovine origin were the major source of PMQR genes (χ2 = 428.0, P<0.0001, OR = 11.6, 95CI 8.6–15.6). Over 30% of these isolates harbored qnr alleles, while oqx ones were rarely found. Conversely, the proportion of PMQR-positive isolates was 18.8% in human isolates, with oqx alleles predominating over qnr ones. The frequency of PMQR genes in other sources was low (<5%), with slightly higher values in surface water (13.7%) and papaya (7.5%). Again, qnr alleles were the most abundant.

Chloramphenicol resistance

Resistance to chloramphenicol in experimental isolates was mainly associated with efflux mechanisms (floR gene). This gene was present in most isolates of serovar Typhimurium (8/10), accounting for over 50% of chloramphenicol non-susceptible phenotypes. We detected a second resistance mechanism (antibiotic inactivation), encoded by a chloramphenicol acetyltransferase gene (catA2). However, this gene was present in just one isolate of serovar Give. Moreover, six non-susceptible isolates were predicted as genotypically susceptible. Again, ramR mutations were strongly associated with chloramphenicol resistance (χ2 = 8.1, P = 0.0045), OR = 21.1 95CI 1.2–368.4.

Among public NTS isolates, the proportion of phenicol-resistant genotypes was associated with the isolation source (χ2 = 252.4, P<0.0001). Once more, human, avian and bovine strains were more likely to carry phenicol resistance genes than isolates from any other source: OR = 9.4, 95CI 6.6–13.2. Still, the genomic AMR profile was similar across sources (Fig 3). Efflux factors (i. e. floR) predominated over enzymatic inactivation mechanisms (i. e. cat and cml alleles).

Folate pathway inhibitors resistance

Regarding folate pathway inhibitors, the most abundant resistance mechanism among experimental isolates was that encoded by sul alleles (i. e. sul1 and sul2), which were present in 11 isolates. Conversely, just one isolate carried the dfrA12 gene along with the sul1 gene. Overall, there was a discrete proportion of experimental isolates that resisted trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (16.9%).

The resistance profile of public genomes again revealed isolates collected from human, avian and bovine species were more likely to carry resistance genes against folate pathway inhibitors, as compared to those from other sources (χ2 = 272.9, P<0.0001), OR = 8.6 95CI 6.3–11.7 (Fig 3). The most common AMR allele was sul, which predominated over dfrA.

Tetracycline resistance

Among experimental isolates, tetracycline resistance was mainly associated with the presence of genes encoding efflux mechanisms (i. e. tetABCG). Seven non-susceptible isolates did not carry any known tetracycline resistance gene. However, all these isolates carried ramR mutations, which are associated with MDR profiles involving tetracyclines and other antibiotic classes [48].

Public Salmonella genomes from human, avian and bovine species had the highest proportion (31.3, 35.8, and 34.6%, respectively) of tetracycline-resistance genotypes (χ2 = 327.9, P<0.0001), OR = 8.6 95CI 6.3–11.7 (Fig 3). Conversely, the frequency of tet alleles in isolates from other sources was discrete (3.2–13.7%). Regarding the genomic AMR profile, isolates from all sources carried at least one variant of the same efflux-mediated resistance determinant (tetABCDGM).

MDR profiles

Among experimental isolates, MDR profiles were associated with the presence of a resistance island and, to a lesser extent, the occurrence of mutations in their genomes. For instance, most serovar Typhimurium isolates (9/10) carried SGI1. This genomic island harbors a class-1 integron containing multiple gene cassettes (i. e. aadA2, blaCARB-2, floR, sul1, tetG), which explains the observed MDR phenotypes of these isolates (Fig 4). This feature seems common in S. enterica ser. Typhimurium circulating in Mexico. The analysis of the whole set of Typhimurium isolates from Mexico deposited at NCBI (n = 40) showed 52.5% of them have MDR genotypes. Among these, nearly 80% harbor multiple AMR genes associated with the ACSSuT phenotype. Refer to S3 File for accession numbers and AMR genotypes of this group of isolates.

Fig 4. BLAST atlas analysis of SGI1 of 10 serovar Typhimurium isolates and one monophasic Typhimurium.

Fig 4

The black slot corresponds to the backbone and the brown inner ring to the reference sequence. The most inner ring shows gene annotation, with AMR genes highlighted in bold text. The outer rings correspond to the serovars and isolate names indicated. Regions with shared synteny between genomes and reference sequence are filled with intense color while blank spaces indicate a lack of synteny. Refer to S1 File for accession numbers and metadata of isolates.

As mentioned before, mutations in the ramR gene (Fig 1) were strongly associated with MDR phenotypes as well. In fact, the probability of finding MDR strains was 50.5 times higher (95CI 2.9–881.3) in isolates carrying ramR mutations than in those lacking them.

Interestingly, plasmids had a rather discrete contribution to AMR phenotypes in general (Table 2). Only one-third of the isolates being studied (n = 26) were predicted to carry seven plasmids. Of these, three were small plasmids harboring few replication-related genes. The most abundant plasmid was the Salmonella virulence plasmid (pSLT), which was detected in all serovar Typhimurium isolates. The pSLT is a hybrid plasmid that carries a class-1 integron with several AMR gene cassettes against beta-lactams (blaTEM), chloramphenicol (catA), aminoglycosides (aadA1, strAB), and folate pathway inhibitors (sul1, sul2, dfrA1). However, the integron carried by our serovar Typhimurium isolates had a genomic context matching that of SGI1 instead of pSLT (see Fig 4 and S1 Fig).

Table 2. General features of the plasmids predicted per Salmonella serovar.

Plasmid (NCBI accession) Size, bp Incompatibility group Plasmid AMR genes1 Serovar (n)2
pSLT (FN432031) 117,047 IncFIB(S) aadA1, blaTEM, catA1, dfrA1, strAB, sul1, sul2 Typhimurium (10)
pK245 (DQ449578) 98,264 IncR aacC2, blaSHV2A, catA2, dfrA14, strAB, sul2, tetD, tetR Give (1)
R64 (AP005147) 120,826 IncI1 tetACD, strAB Fresno (4)
Anatum (1)
pOLA52 (EU370913.1) 51,602 IncX1 blaTEM, oqxAB 1,4,[5],12:i:- (1)
RSF1010 (M28829.1) 8,684 IncQ1 1,4,[5],12:i:- (1)
pBS512_2 (NC_010656.1) 2,089 Anatum (2)
London (4)
Reading (1)
pVCM01 (JX133088) 1,981 Anatum (2)

1Only AMR genes in bold were present in both the plasmid and genome.

2Number of isolates of the same serovar carrying replicons of the plasmid.

Among the plasmids detected, the pK245 has the strongest resistance profile. It carries a class-1 integron with a sole resistance cassette (dfrA14), as well as another seven AMR genes (tetAR, sul2, strAB, catA2, blaSHV-2) distributed across the plasmid sequence. However, it is unlikely that pK245 plasmid was present in that isolate. Only 30% of this plasmid aligned to the genome of the single isolate (a serovar Give strain) carrying its replicons. Moreover, this isolate carried a chromosomal class-1 integron with seven resistance cassettes in a genomic context different from that of pK245 (see S2 Fig).

Replicons of the resistance plasmid R64 were also found in the genomes of serovar Fresno isolates (n = 4), as well as one serovar Anatum isolate. This plasmid carries AMR genes against tetracyclines (tetADR) and aminoglycosides (strAB). Although more than 70% of R64 aligned to the assembled genomes, none of its AMR genes were found in the genomes of isolates carrying its replicons, except tetA, which was detected in the serovar Anatum isolate (see S3 Fig).

Finally, the monophasic Typhimurium isolate carried replicons of the pOLA52 plasmid. This hybrid plasmid harbors genes encoding a type IV secretion system, as well as AMR genes against quinolones (oqxAB) and beta-lactams (blaTEM). Although more than 70% of this plasmid aligned to the referred genome, only the blaTEM gene was also present in the isolate, while oqxAB genes were missing (see S4 Fig).

The analysis of public genomes showed human, avian and bovine isolates are the most important sources, among those studied, of MDR NTS genotypes (χ2 = 321.0, P<0.0001), OR = 9.7 95CI 7.2–13.1 (Fig 3). In the other matrices, the proportion of MDR genotypes was 5.6% or less, except for surface waters (11.7%).

Among the antimicrobials that were excluded from the AST panel, we observed only a relative abundance of fosfomycin resistance alleles (fosA). These were more frequently found among bovine (32.4%) and avian (20.7%) isolates (χ2 = 141.6, P<0.0001), OR = 3.7 95CI 2.9–5.0. In the other sources, the proportion of fosA-positive isolates was 13.3% or lower. Macrolide (mph and lnuF), and colistin (mcr-9.1) resistance genes were seldom found (0–2.6% across sources), while human isolates were the most significant source of bleomycin resistance alleles (bleO), as compared to other sources: χ2 = 94.0, P<0.0001, OR = 15.4 95CI 5.6–43.1.

Discussion

Our results confirmed previous observations of widespread resistance to older antibiotics (i. e. tetracyclines, penicillins) among NTS from different sources. For instance, in Mexico, previous studies consistently report these phenotypes at high frequencies (up to 90% or higher) in beef isolates [12, 15, 17, 4951]. Likewise, these AMR phenotypes are also common in NTS isolated in developed countries, a phenomenon that is considered driven by the use of these antimicrobials in food-producing animals [27].

Regarding tetracyclines, selective pressure has likely resulted in extensive acquisition of efflux mechanisms (tetABCDGM alleles), which are usually carried either in plasmids or in the chromosome of NTS [52]. This study also supports mutations could sustain this phenotype in isolates lacking tet alleles, providing evidence of convergent evolution. As observed here, 100% of isolates that did not carry tet alleles had ramR mutations. The ramR gene encodes a protein that represses the expression of ramA by binding to its promoter region. Certain mutations in ramR, such as those detected here (i. e. Y59H, M84I, E160D), affect the DNA binding affinity of RamR and reduce the repression of the ramA gene. This disruption leads to overexpression of ramA, which activates the major efflux-mediated AMR mechanism in Gram-negative bacteria: the acrAB-tolC RND multidrug efflux pump [53, 54]. This feature is a broad-spectrum efflux system that confers resistance to unrelated antibiotic classes such as tetracyclines, quinolones, phenicols and beta-lactams [55].

Strikingly, results showed that bovine and avian species seemed to be the most relevant source of tetracycline resistance NTS, as compared to other food-related sources. Tetracyclines are highly important antimicrobials [26] since they are among the few alternatives to treat human infections caused by Brucella spp., a pathogen that is associated with cattle. Hence, these findings are relevant from a public health perspective.

The rate of resistance to penicillins observed here was not as high as that reported recently in NTS isolated from beef in Mexico [14, 15, 17, 56]. However, this variation is likely associated with the region where isolates originated. Hence, the importance of cattle as a relevant source of penicillin-resistant NTS should not be discarded, as shown by the genomic comparison with other public isolates from Mexico conducted here.

In beta-lactam resistance, class-C and class-B ESBLs are leading concerns. Class-C ESBLs confer resistance to most beta-lactams (except carbapenems) and resist clavulanic acid, while class-B metallo-beta-lactamases confer the strongest resistance phenotype, involving all known beta-lactams and clavulanic acid [46]. Fortunately, resistance to 3GC, 4GC and carbapenems was rare among experimental isolates, which is in agreement with recent studies [9]. Apparently, food isolates in Mexico, as well as in the US and Europe [27], are not a significant source of NTS resistant to 3GC/4GC and carbapenems. Still, we observed some strains (1–9%) showed non-susceptibility to 3GC, 4GC and carbapenems, despite lacking ESBL-encoding genes. In this regard, the most plausible explanation is the presence of ramR mutations, given their strong association with beta-lactam resistance observed here.

The widespread distribution of ramR mutations in the isolates being studied may be the result of selective pressure. In Mexico, 3GC used in human medicine (i. e. cefotaxime, ceftriaxone) are also approved, besides ceftiofur, to treat several bovine diseases [28]. Ceftiofur is associated with the emergence of ceftriaxone resistance among livestock and poultry NTS in the United States [27]. Hence, it is important to revise the approval of both ceftiofur and other 3GC for veterinary use in Mexico. It has been reported that restrictions (voluntary or law-enforced) in 3GC use in the United States and Canada have helped reduce 3GC resistance among NTS associated with animals [27].

The moderate proportion of isolates that exceeded the EUCAST’s ECOFF value for meropenem (22%), which is a last-resort antibiotic, also highlights the importance of continuous surveillance of NTS from foods. We did not observe an association between any predicted genetic determinant and reduced susceptibility to meropenem. Hence, further research and continued surveillance are needed in this area.

We also observed intermediate resistance to ciprofloxacin among experimental isolates, a phenomenon associated with the presence of PMQR genes. Particularly, the qnrB19 allele, which was present in over 50% of our experimental isolates, has also been reported as the predominant among NTS strains from the United States [25]. Recent studies from Mexico have also documented high rates (36–44%) of decreased susceptibility to ciprofloxacin in beef NTS isolates [12], although these authors did not determine AMR genotypes. Moreover, a previous study by our research group documented qnr and oqx alleles were widely distributed among NTS isolated from cattle feces, carcasses and ground beef [17]. Furthermore, genomic AMR profiling of public NTS isolates showed qnr alleles are widely disseminated among bovine and avian isolates. Conversely, they are less frequently found in isolates from other sources, including those of human origin.

In the context of Mexico’s animal production, acquisition and conservation of PMQR genes in NTS is likely the result of selective pressure associated with the use of quinolones (i. e. enrofloxacin). These are approved to treat several diseases in cattle and poultry [28] and the fact that PMQR genes are carried in plasmids increases the risk of their dissemination under positive selective pressure.

Many studies report quinolone resistance is rare in NTS isolated from cattle [3, 57]. Hence, it has been suggested that the use of these drugs in cattle could not be linked to the emergence of quinolone resistance among cattle NTS isolates [1]. However, PMQR genes confer low-level quinolone resistance, which goes undetected when using CLSI breakpoints [58]. Therefore, we believe that the role of PMQR genes as a contributing factor to quinolone resistance in NTS from cattle should not be minimized. Especially, considering PMQR genes have been associated with increasing resistance to quinolones in NTS isolated from foods [59, 60]. In summary, cattle and poultry are relevant reservoirs of low-level quinolone-resistant NTS. However, to what extent PMQR genes could lead to the emergence of clinical fluoroquinolone resistance is yet to be determined.

Regarding aminoglycoside resistance, although the number of non-susceptible isolates in the experiment was low, the CLSI guidelines emphasize these antimicrobials may appear active in vitro but are not effective clinically against Salmonella and, thus, susceptible isolates should not be reported as such [30]. This situation may explain why isolates carrying aadA and aph alleles exhibited susceptible phenotypes, a phenomenon observed in previous experiments [17]. However, comparative genomics of public NTS isolated in Mexico showed poultry and cattle are as important as humans as a source of aminoglycoside resistant genes.

Resistance to chloramphenicol and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was frequently observed among experimental isolates (approximately 17 and 20%, respectively). Strains showing these phenotypes carried AMR genes (i. e. cat, flo, sul, and dfrA alleles) against both antibiotics. In the case of chloramphenicol, ramR mutations, which confer phenicol resistance [48], seemed to play a role as well.

The selective pressure exerted by the use of these drugs in food-producing animals may explain these findings. For instance, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is approved as a wide spectrum antibiotic to treat all sorts of bacterial infections in livestock and poultry in Mexico [28]. Likewise, although chloramphenicol is no longer approved for these purposes, there are other phenicols (i. e. florfenicol) registered. This situation is likely the reason why phenicol resistance is consistently reported in NTS from animal foods in Mexico, in proportions that vary from moderate (16–23%) [12, 15, 51] to high (>90%) [14, 56]. Our comparative genomics further supported this analysis since floR, which confers resistance to both phenicols [61], was the dominant resistance factor harbored by NTS from food-related sources and humans in Mexico.

Regarding MDR profiles, it is interesting to note the higher frequency of MDR isolates in ground beef compared to lymph nodes. Especially, considering lymph nodes are known to be major contributors to NTS contamination in ground beef [62]. These findings support previous Mexican studies documenting a high rate of MDR phenotypes (~30–70%) in NTS from ground beef [12, 13, 15, 17], as well as a low proportion of MDR isolates (~8–13%) from lymph nodes [8, 63]. Perhaps, the fact that isolates collected from lymph nodes survive within host cells [64] and thus, are not exposed to antibiotics, results in a weaker antimicrobial selective pressure. Conversely, ground beef isolates originating from sources other than lymph nodes are more likely exposed to antibiotics, such as those of fecal origin. Hence, they exhibit stronger AMR profiles. Our study further supports this hypothesis since ground beef and lymph nodes from the same carcass were analyzed separately here. Apparently, lymph nodes are not the source of a relevant proportion of strains circulating in ground beef. At least, not in the context of the Mexican beef industry, where carcass fecal contamination seems also relevant. In that sense, there are reports showing higher carcass NTS contamination rates in Mexico (6–18%) [51, 65, 66] compared to developed countries (<1%) [67, 68]. Likewise, recent studies report NTS prevalence in ground beef of 15 to over 70% in Mexico [13, 15, 65], while that observed in Ireland, Belgium and the USA is below 5% [67, 69, 70]. Moreover, phylogenomic analysis has documented the fecal origin of some NTS isolates found in beef carcasses, cuts and ground beef in Mexico [41].

Given these facts, it is reasonable to think carcass fecal contamination is a more significant source of MDR Salmonella in ground beef compared to lymph nodes. This analysis is consistent with conditions prevailing in the beef industry of LMIC. In these nations, there are limited controls on the use of antimicrobials in animal production, as well as poor carcass fecal contamination control at slaughter. Still, NTS also travels from the intestine to lymph nodes. Hence, further research is needed to better understand the possible influence of differing ecological conditions across bovine isolation sources on NTS AMR profile.

Certain Salmonella STs are associated with MDR phenotypes. Among our isolates, those of serovar Typhimurium (ST-19), monophasic Typhimurium (ST-34) and Kentucky (ST-198) are the most relevant in this respect [2123]. With few exceptions, most of these strains exhibited MDR phenotypes and genotypes, confirming the acquisition of AMR determinants is a hallmark of epidemiologically relevant NTS strains.

Among serovar Typhimurium isolates, SGI1 was the dominant genomic feature associated with MDR phenotypes. The SGI1 contains a class-1 integron and multiple AMR gene cassettes (aadA2, floR, tetG, blaCARB-2, sul1) conferring resistance to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, sulfonamide, and tetracycline (known as the ACSSuT phenotype) [71]. This penta-resistance profile is typical of MDR S. enterica ser. Typhimurium DT104 carrying SGI1 [23] and was similar to that observed here. Although SGI1 is not self-mobilizable, donor cells harboring conjugative plasmids may transfer it to other hosts [72]. In fact, SGI1 has been recognized as a key factor for the rapid dissemination of strains [73].

Unfortunately, although serovar Typhimurium is the most frequently found in NTS circulating in foods and clinical cases in Mexico, it has been poorly characterized in terms of its genomic AMR profile [9]. According to that review, the SGI1 associated ACSSuT phenotype has been reported in a modest proportion of MDR isolates (9.5%) collected from clinical cases, chicken, pork, and beef between 2006 and 2013 [9]. Analysis of public serovar Typhimurium isolates from Mexico deposited at NCBI (n = 40) showed 52.5% of them carry AMR genes supporting DT104-like or even stronger phenotypes. Nonetheless, further research is needed to establish if the high rate of DT104-like isolates observed here is a local dissemination phenomenon. Especially, considering all of our MDR Typhimurium isolates originated from the same batch of carcasses and were collected on the same date. In this respect, serovar and ST seem more relevant, in terms of AMR profiles, than season or date of collection. As observed here, serovar Typhimurium isolates represented 40% of MDR phenotypes and they were all isolated in the autumn of 2018. Undoubtedly, it resulted in a strong association between the season/year of collection and the rate of MDR phenotypes among NTS isolates.

Interestingly, other MDR isolates lacked acquired AMR genes or genomic features (i. e. resistance islands, integrons) sustaining these phenotypes. However, all MDR isolates had ramR mutations, which have been observed to correlate well with MDR phenotypes [48, 74]. Still, the molecular mechanisms associated with ramR mutations and AMR in Salmonella are complex and have not been fully deciphered. Recent studies have documented the differential impact of mutations in the ramRA regulatory region on ramA transcription and AMR profiles of NTS [74]. This phenomenon could be the reason why some isolates with the same ramR mutations were pansusceptible, mono- or bi-resistant, granting the need for further research in this area.

Mutations in the soxRS regulon, which were present in 100% of our experimental isolates, also confer MDR phenotypes in Gram-negative bacteria [75]. However, soxRS genes are activated only by the host’s immune attack and inflammation [44]. This evidence is consistent with the lack of association between MDR phenotypes and the widespread soxRS mutations observed here. Nonetheless, these strains might exhibit stronger AMR profiles in clinical settings, which highlights the importance of preventing NTS dissemination along the food chain.

Despite plasmids play a major role in the acquisition and dissemination of bacterial AMR [76], they had a limited contribution to the MDR phenotypes observed in this study. A rational explanation for these findings is the presence of other genomic features, such as SGI1 and mutations, fulfilling the same function. In this context, plasmid-borne AMR genes likely provide no fitness advantages, leading to their eventual excision. For instance, the class-1 integron present in the most abundant plasmid (pSLT), carried by serovar Typhimurium isolates (n = 10), lacked most of its AMR gene cassettes. However, most of these isolates carried SGI1, which harbors a similar integron. In integrons, AMR gene cassettes are integrated by the integron integrase and expressed via the integron promoter, and thus immediately subjected to natural selection [77]. However, this process is reversible as AMR gene cassettes may also be excised if they do not confer fitness advantages.

Macrolide resistance genes were not detected in experimental isolates and were infrequent (<1% overall) among NTS public isolates. These findings support previous studies documenting macrolide resistance phenotypes are rare among NTS isolated from foods in Mexico [9]. Nevertheless, nearly 90% of experimental isolates carried mutations in the acrB gene. These mutations have been associated with macrolide resistance in typhoidal strains [45]. Since we excluded macrolides in the AST, it was not possible to determine whether the acrB mutations were associated with macrolide resistance. To avoid this limitation, future studies should include macrolide antibiotics in the AST panel.

Bovine and avian isolates were also the most relevant source of AMR genes against fosfomycin. This antibiotic is considered critically important and is frequently used to treat urinary tract infections in humans [30]. Nevertheless, it is also approved in Mexico to treat cattle, pigs and poultry [28], which seems to be the reason for the relative abundance of fosA alleles among bovine and avian isolates observed here.

Overall, genomic AMR profiling of public isolates showed that there is some obvious dissemination of AMR genes in the environment. Although at lower frequencies, there are AMR alleles against most antimicrobial classes in isolates from ecological niches where exposure to antibiotics is not intense (i. e. vegetables, water). Nonetheless, this hypothesis needs to be confirmed with further studies.

Taken together, our results illustrate the diversity of factors influencing the AMR profile of NTS across ecological niches. Particularly, the acquisition of resistance islands, plasmids, or mutations may confer advantageous phenotypes under antimicrobial selective pressure. This situation may lead to the rapid emergence and spread of MDR strains, as previously documented for Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 and Kentucky ST-198 [22, 23]. Likewise, our comparative analysis showed NTS strains isolated from cattle and poultry have strong AMR genotypes, which are similar to that of human clinical isolates. These findings suggest that food production practices are likely contributing to selection of AMR bacterial pathogens. Hence, it is vital to improve NTS control in apparently healthy animals to prevent its dissemination along the food chain and, consequently, human exposure to MDR strains. Moreover, we believe that attaining significant improvements in AMR meat safety may require the identification and removal (or treatment) of product harboring MDR NTS, instead of screening for isolates showing resistance to individual antimicrobial classes. Such measures do not seem realistic, in the context of the meat industry of many countries, where testing practices are limited to Salmonella spp. isolation and confirmation. However, most nations have embraced the WHO global action plan on AMR. Thus, they should eventually set up existing technologies, such as WGS, which provide the shortest path to accomplish these goals.

Supporting information

S1 File. Metadata of experimental isolates.

(XLSX)

S2 File. Metadata of public Salmonella isolates included in this study.

(XLSX)

S3 File. Metadata of public Typhimurium isolates included in this study.

(XLSX)

S1 Fig. BLAST atlas of plasmid pSLT.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. BLAST atlas of plasmid pK245.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. BLAST atlas of plasmid R64.

(PDF)

S4 Fig. BLAST atlas of plasmid pOLA52.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the technical assistance and training on whole genome sequencing provided by the staff of the National Reference Center for Pesticides and Contaminants belonging to the General Directorate of Agri-Food, Aquaculture and Fisheries Safety of the national Service for Agri-food Health, Safety and Quality. We are also grateful for the support of laboratory technicians, as well as graduate and social service students from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico, in field sampling and laboratory analyses.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. Raw sequences are publicly available at NCBI and the accession numbers and metadata are available in supplementary S1 File. We have also included the doi number for the two laboratory procedures that are citable and have been uploaded at protocols.io.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the National Autonomous University of Mexico (www.unam.mx), grant number PAPIIT IN212817, awarded to MSRL and OSR. Whole genome sequencing of isolates was conducted free of charge by the Mexican Department of Agriculture (Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Centro Nacional de Referencia de Plaguicidas y Contaminantes, Dirección General de Inocuidad Agroalimentaria, Acuícola y Pesquera, Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria) (https://www.gob.mx/senasica/acciones-y-programas/centro-nacional-de-referencia-de-plaguicidas-ycontaminantes- cnrpyc). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Schmidt JW. SMART: antimicrobial resistance goals to drive meat safety improvement. Meat and Muscle Biology. 2020;4(2). 10.22175/mmb.11218 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wall BA, Mateus A, Marshall L, Pfeiffer DU, Lubroth J, Ormel HJ, et al. Drivers, dynamics and epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in animal production. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2016. [cited 2020 September 1]. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/es/c/d5f6d40d-ef08-4fcc-866b-5e5a92a12dbf. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vikram A, Rovira P, Agga GE, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, Wheeler TL, et al. Impact of "raised without antibiotics" beef cattle production practices on occurrences of antimicrobial resistance. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017;83(22). 10.1128/AEM.01682-17 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Levent G, Schlochtermeier SE, Ives KN, Norman SD, Lawhon GH, Loneragan GH, et al. Population dynamics of Salmonella enterica within beef cattle cohorts followed from single-dose metaphylactic antibiotic treatment until slaughter. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85(23):e01386–19. 10.1128/AEM.01386-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ohta N, Norby B, Loneragan GH, Vinasco J, den Bakker HC, Lawhon SD, et al. Quantitative dynamics of Salmonella and E. coli in feces of feedlot cattle treated with ceftiofur and chlortetracycline. PLoS One. 2019;14(12):e0225697. 10.1371/journal.pone.0225697 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rovira P, McAllister T, Lakin SM, Cook SR, Doster E, Noyes NR, et al. Characterization of the microbial resistome in conventional and "raised without antibiotics" beef and dairy production systems. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1980. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01980 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.SSA. Anuarios de morbilidad 1984–2019: Secretaría de Salud, México; 2019 [cited 2020 September 20]. https://www.gob.mx/salud/acciones-y-programas/anuarios-de-morbilidad-1984-2019.
  • 8.Gragg SE, Loneragan GH, Nightingale KK, Brichta-Harhay DM, Ruiz H, Elder JR, et al. Substantial within-animal diversity of Salmonella isolates from lymph nodes, feces, and hides of cattle at slaughter. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79(15):4744–50. 10.1128/AEM.01020-13 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Godinez-Oviedo A, Tamplin ML, Bowman JP, Hernandez-Iturriaga M. Salmonella enterica in Mexico 2000–2017: epidemiology, antimicrobial resistance, and prevalence in food. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2020;17(2):98–118. 10.1089/fpd.2019.2627 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Laufer AS, Grass J, Holt K, Whichard JM, Griffin PM, Gould LH. Outbreaks of Salmonella infections attributed to beef -United States, 1973–2011. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143(9):2003–13. 10.1017/S0950268814003112 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.CDC. Outbreak of Salmonella infections linked to ground beef: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2018 [cited 2020 September 1]. https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/newport-10-18/index.html.
  • 12.Realpe-Quintero M, Barba-Leon J, Perez-Montano JA, Pacheco-Gallardo C, Gonzalez-Aguilar D, Dominguez-Arias RM, et al. Genetic diversity and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella serotypes recovered throughout the beef production chain and from patients with salmonellosis. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5482. 10.7717/peerj.5482 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cabrera-Diaz E, Barbosa-Cardenas CM, Perez-Montano JA, Gonzalez-Aguilar D, Pacheco-Gallardo C, Barba J. Occurrence, serotype diversity, and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella in ground beef at retail stores in Jalisco state, Mexico. J Food Prot. 2013;76(12):2004–10. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-109 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Aguilar-Montes de Oca S, Talavera-Rojas M, Soriano-Vargas E, Barba-Leon J, Vazquez-Navarrete J, Acosta-Dibarrat J, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic profile of clinical and animal multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica isolates from Mexico. J Appl Microbiol. 2018;124(1):67–74. 10.1111/jam.13615 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ballesteros-Nova N, Rubio-Lozano MS, Delgado-Suárez EJ, Méndez-Medina RD, Braña-Varela D, Rodas Suárez O. Perfil de resistencia a antibióticos de serotipos Salmonella spp. aislados de carne de res molida en la Ciudad de México. Salud Pública México. 2016;58(3):1–7. 10.21149/spm.v58i3.7897 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Quesada A, Reginatto GA, Ruiz Español A, Colantonio LD, Burrone MS. Resistencia antimicrobiana de Salmonella spp. aislada de alimentos de origen animal para consumo humano. Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública. 2016;33(1):32. 10.17843/rpmesp.2016.331.1899 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Delgado Suárez EJ, Ortíz López R, Gebreyes WA, Allard MW, Barona-Gomez F, Salud Rubio MS. Genomic surveillance links livestock production with the emergence and spread of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico. J Microbiol. 2019;57(4). 10.1007/s12275-019-8421-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Palós Gutiérrez T, Rubio Lozano MS, Delgado Suárez EJ, Rosi Guzmán N, Soberanis Ramos O, Hernández Pérez CF, et al. Lymph nodes and ground beef as public health importance reservoirs of Salmonella spp. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias. 2020;11(3):795–810. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhang S, Yin Y, Jones MB, Zhang Z, Deatherage Kaiser BL, Dinsmore BA, et al. Salmonella serotype determination utilizing high-throughput genome sequencing data. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(5):1685–92. 10.1128/JCM.00323-15 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Larsen MV, Cosentino S, Rasmussen S, Friis C, Hasman H, Marvig RL, et al. Multilocus sequence typing of total genome sequenced bacteria. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(4):1355–61. 10.1128/JCM.06094-11 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sun H, Wan Y, Du P, Bai L. The epidemiology of monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium. Foodborne Path Dis. 2020;17(2):87–97. 10.1089/fpd.2019.2676 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hawkey J, Le Hello S, Doublet B, Granier SA, Hendriksen RS, Fricke WF, et al. Global phylogenomics of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Kentucky ST198. Microb Genom. 2019;5(7). 10.1099/mgen.0.000269 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Leekitcharoenphon P, Hendriksen RS, Le Hello S, Weill FX, Baggesen DL, Jun SR, et al. Global genomic epidemiology of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82(8):2516–26. 10.1128/AEM.03821-15 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhang S, den Bakker HC, Shaoting L, Chen J, Dinsmore BA, Lane C, et al. SeqSero2: rapid and improved Salmonella serotype determination using whole genome sequencing data. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:e01746–19. 10.1128/AEM.01746-19 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yoshida CE, Kruczkiewicz P, Laing CR, Lingohr EJ, Gannon VPJ, Nash JHE, et al. The Salmonella in silico typing resource (SISTR): an open web-accessible tool for rapidly typing and subtyping draft Salmonella genome assemblies. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0147101. 10.1371/journal.pone.0147101 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.WHO. Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine. 6th Revision 2018: World Health Organization; 2019. [cited 2020 September 1]. https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/antimicrobials-sixth/en.
  • 27.McDermott PF, Zhao S, Tate H. Antimicrobial resistance in nontyphoidal Salmonella. Microbiol Spectr. 2018;6(4). 10.1128/microbiolspec.ARBA-0014-2017 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.SADER. Productos químico-farmacéuticos vigentes: Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Gobierno de México; 2020 [cited 2020 September 20]. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/512374/PRODUCTOS_VIGENTES_QF_2019.pdf.
  • 29.Bauer AW, Kirby WM, Sherris JC, Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966;45(4):493–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 30th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. [cited 2020 September 1]. http://em100.edaptivedocs.net/dashboard.aspx.
  • 31.Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(3):268–81. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.EUCAST. MIC and zone diameter distributions and ECOFFs: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. [cited 2020 September 20]. https://www.eucast.org/mic_distributions_and_ecoffs.
  • 33.Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. [cited 2020 September 1]. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc.
  • 34.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014(15): 2114–2120. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wattam AR, Abraham D, Dalay O, Disz TL, Driscoll T, Gabbard JL, et al. PATRIC, the bacterial bioinformatics database and analysis resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(D1):D581–D91. 10.1093/nar/gkt1099 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19(5):455–77. 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Feldgarden M, Brover V, Haft DH, Prasad AB, Slotta DJ, Tolstoy I, et al. Validating the AMRFinder tool and resistance gene database by using antimicrobial resistance genotype-phenotype correlations in a collection of isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(11). 10.1128/AAC.00483-19 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Petkau A, Stuart-Edwards M, Stothard P, Van Domselaar G. Interactive microbial genome visualization with GView. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(24):3125–6. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq588 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yoon SH, Park YK, Kim JF. PAIDB v2.0: exploration and analysis of pathogenicity and resistance islands. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D624–30. 10.1093/nar/gku985 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dhanani AS, Block G, Dewar K, Forgetta V, Topp E, Beiko RG, et al. Genomic comparison of non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica serovars Typhimurium, Enteritidis, Heidelberg, Hadar and Kentucky isolates from broiler chickens. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0128773. 10.1371/journal.pone.0128773 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Delgado-Suárez EJ, Selem-Mojica N, Ortiz-López R, Gebreyes WA, Allard MW, Barona-Gómez F, et al. Whole genome sequencing reveals widespread distribution of typhoidal toxin genes and VirB/D4 plasmids in bovine-associated nontyphoidal Salmonella. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):9864. 10.1038/s41598-018-28169-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Carattoli A, Zankari E, García-Fernández A, Larsen MV, Lund O, Villa L, et al. In silico detection and typing of plasmids using PlasmidFinder and plasmid multilocus sequence typing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(7):3895–903. 10.1128/AAC.02412-14 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Babicki S, Arndt D, Marcu A, Liang Y, Grant JR, Maciejewski A, et al. Heatmapper: web-enabled heat mapping for all. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(W1):W147–53. 10.1093/nar/gkw419 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Koutsolioutsou A, Martins E, White DG, Levy SB, Demple B. A soxRS-constitutive mutation contributing to antibiotic resistance in a clinical isolate of Salmonella enterica (serovar Typhimurium). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(1):38–43. 10.1128/AAC.45.1.38-43.2001 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hooda Y, Sajib MSI, Rahman H, Luby SP, Bondy-Denomy J, Santosham M, et al. Molecular mechanism of azithromycin resistance among typhoidal Salmonella strains in Bangladesh identified through passive pediatric surveillance. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(11):e0007868. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007868 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lee JH, Takahashi M, Jeon JH, Kang LW, Seki M, Park KS, et al. Dual activity of PNGM-1 pinpoints the evolutionary origin of subclass B3 metallo-beta-lactamases: a molecular and evolutionary study. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2019;8(1):1688–700. 10.1080/22221751.2019.1692638 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Naas T, Oueslati S, Bonnin RA, Dabos ML, Zavala A, Dortet L, et al. Beta-lactamase database (BLDB)—structure and function. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem. 2017;32(1):917–9. 10.1080/14756366.2017.1344235 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Abouzeed YM, Baucheron S, Cloeckaert A. ramR mutations involved in efflux-mediated multidrug resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(7):2428–34. 10.1128/AAC.00084-08 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zaidi MB, McDermott P, Fedorka-Cray P, Leon V, Canche C, Hubert S, et al. Nontyphoidal Salmonella from human clinical cases, asymptomatic children and raw retail meats in Yucatan, Mexico. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:21–8. 10.1086/498508 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Miranda JM, Mondragón AC, Martínez B, Guarddon M, Rodríguez JA. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns of Salmonella from different raw foods in Mexico. J Food Prot. 2009;72(5):966–71. 10.4315/0362-028x-72.5.966 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Perez-Montaño JA, González-Aguilar D, Barba J, Pacheco-Gallardo C, Campos-Bravo CA, García S, et al. Frequency and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella serotypes on beef carcasses at small abattoirs in Jalisco State, Mexico. J Food Prot. 2012;75(5):867–73. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-423 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Nguyen F, Starosta AL, Arenz S, Sohmen D, Donhofer A, Wilson DN. Tetracycline antibiotics and resistance mechanisms. Biol Chem. 2014;395(5):559–75. 10.1515/hsz-2013-0292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Fernando DM, Kumar A. Resistance-nodulation-division multidrug efflux pumps in Gram-negative bacteria: role in virulence. Antibiotics (Basel). 2013;2(1):163–81. 10.3390/antibiotics2010163 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Liu YY, Chen CC. Computational analysis of the molecular mechanism of ramR mutations contributing to antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):13418. 10.1038/s41598-017-14008-5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Nishino K, Latifi T, Groisman EA. Virulence and drug resistance roles of multidrug efflux systems of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Mol Microbiol. 2006;59(1):126–41. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.04940.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Villalpando-Guzman S, Vázquez-Quiñones CR, Natividad-Bonifacio I, Curiel-Quesada E, Quiñones-Ramírez EI, Vázquez-Salinas C. Frecuencia, susceptibilidad antimicrobiana y patrón de adherencia de Salmonella enterica aislada de carne de pollo, res y cerdo de la Ciudad de México. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2017;34(5):458–66. 10.4067/S0716-10182017000500458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Smith AB, Renter DG, Cernicchiaro N, Shi X, Nagaraja TG. Prevalence and quinolone susceptibilities of Salmonella isolated from the feces of preharvest cattle within feedlots that used a fluoroquinolone to treat bovine respiratory disease. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2016;13(6):303–8. 10.1089/fpd.2015.2081 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Strahilevitz J, Jacoby GA, Hooper DC, Robicsek A. Plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance: a multifaceted threat. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22(4):664–89. 10.1128/CMR.00016-09 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Pribul BR, Festivo ML, Rodrigues MS, Costa RG, Rodrigues EC, de Souza MM, et al. Characteristics of quinolone resistance in Salmonella spp. isolates from the food chain in Brazil. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:299. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00299 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Karp BE, Campbell D, Chen JC, Folster JP, Friedman CR. Plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance in human non-typhoidal Salmonella infections: an emerging public health problem in the United States. Zoonoses Public Health. 2018;65(7):838–49. 10.1111/zph.12507 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Arcangioli MA, Leroy-Sétrin S, Martel JL, Chaslus-Dancla E. A new chloramphenicol and florfenicol resistance gene flanked by two integron structures in Salmonella Typhimurium DT104. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1999;74:327–32. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1999.tb13586.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Li M, Malladi S, Hurd HS, Goldsmith TJ, Brichta-Harhay DM, Loneragan GH. Salmonella spp. in lymph nodes of fed and cull cattle: relative assessment of risk to ground beef. Food Control. 2015;50:423–34. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.09.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Gragg SE, Loneragan GH, Brashears MM, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, Kalchayanand N, et al. Cross-sectional study examining Salmonella enterica carriage in subiliac lymph nodes of cull and feedlot cattle at harvest. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2013;10(4):368–74. 10.1089/fpd.2012.1275 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ohl ME, Miller SI. Salmonella: a model for bacterial pathogenesis. Annu Rev Med. 2001;52:259–74. 10.1146/annurev.med.52.1.259 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Martinez-Chavez L, Cabrera-Diaz E, Perez-Montano JA, Garay-Martinez LE, Varela-Hernandez JJ, Castillo A, et al. Quantitative distribution of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli on beef carcasses and raw beef at retail establishments. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015;210:149–55. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.06.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Narvaez-Bravo C, Miller MF, Jackson T, Jackson S, Rodas-Gonzalez A, Pond K, et al. Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7 prevalence in cattle and on carcasses in a vertically integrated feedlot and harvest plant in Mexico. J Food Prot. 2013;76(5):786–95. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-079 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Khen BK, Lynch OA, Carroll J, McDowell DA, Duffy G. Prevalence and characteristics of Salmonella in the beef chain in the Republic of Ireland. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014;61(8):534–6. 10.1111/zph.12099 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Bohaychuk VM, Gensler GE, Romero Barrios P. Microbiological baseline study of beef and pork carcasses from provincially inspected abattoirs in Alberta, Canada. Can Vet J. 2011;52:1095–100. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Koohmaraie M, Scanga JA, De La Zerda MJ, Koohmaraie B, Tapay L, Beskhlebnaya V, et al. Tracking the sources of Salmonella in ground beef produced from nonfed cattle. J Food Prot. 2012;75(8):1464–8. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-540 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Ghafir Y, China B, Korsak N, Dierick K, Collard JM, Godard C, et al. Belgian surveillance plans to assess changes in Salmonella prevalence in meat at different production stages. J Food Prot. 2005;68(11):2269–77. 10.4315/0362-028x-68.11.2269 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mulvey MR, Boyd DA, Olson AB, Doublet B, Cloeckaert A. The genetics of Salmonella genomic island 1. Microbes Infect. 2006;8(7):1915–22. 10.1016/j.micinf.2005.12.028 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Hall R. Salmonella genomic islands and antibiotic resistance in Salmonella enterica. Future Microbiology. 2010;5(10):1525–38. 10.2217/fmb.10.122 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Levings RS, Lightfoot D, Partridge SR, Hall RM, Djordjevic SP. The genomic island SGI1, containing the multiple antibiotic resistance region of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 or variants of it, is widely distributed in other S. enterica serovars. J Bacteriol. 2005;187(13):4401–9. 10.1128/JB.187.13.4401-4409.2005 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Fabrega A, Balleste-Delpierre C, Vila J. Differential impact of ramRA mutations on both ramA transcription and decreased antimicrobial susceptibility in Salmonella Typhimurium. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(3):617–24. 10.1093/jac/dkv410 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Koutsolioutsou A, Pena-Llopis S, Demple B. Constitutive soxR mutations contribute to multiple-antibiotic resistance in clinical Escherichia coli isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(7):2746–52. 10.1128/AAC.49.7.2746-2752.2005 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Chang HH, Cohen T, Grad YH, Hanage WP, O’Brien TF, Lipsitch M. Origin and proliferation of multiple-drug resistance in bacterial pathogens. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2015;79(1):101–16. 10.1128/MMBR.00039-14 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Gillings MR. Integrons: past, present, and future. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2014;78(2):257–77. 10.1128/MMBR.00056-13 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Iddya Karunasagar

23 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-36934

Genomic surveillance of antimicrobial resistance shows cattle are a moderate source of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Delgado-Suárez,

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.

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

A number of clarifications and explanations are needed including in illustrations.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 06 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

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. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers have pointed out number of gaps in the manuscript. Clarifications and explanations are needed in all sections including methodology, results, discussion and data presentations in Tables and Figures. Please revise the manuscript considering all reviewer comments point by point.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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: In this manuscript, the authors presented their phenotypic and genotypic AMR findings in NTS isolates derived from bovine lymph nodes and ground beef products in Mexico. They further compare their genotypic AMR findings with publicly available NTS genomes originated from Mexico. Overall, it is an interesting and valuable study that demonstrates the genomic similarities regarding the AMR profile between humans and bovine origin isolates in Mexico. However, I would suggest a major revision before publication. Please find more detailed comments below.

Overall: First of all, authors were able to find 2400 publicly available Salmonella isolates at NCBI which 1,714 were from a known source, thus included in the study. Authors should include other sources that have the major number of isolates clustered within (for example avian source represented with BioProject PRJNA480281) to avoid selection bias while measuring “ source-related association with AMR Salmonella”. Please also help me to understand the “unknown source” criteria that yield exclusion of the isolates from this study. Please kindly provide your search criteria for the isolates. In addition, there are several major sources (e.g., papaya, pepper, river, canal) that were classified under vegetables or the aquatic environment in this study. Authors should count for any major source separately in the analyses to increase resolution. Please also consider adding the “unknown” source related data as “other sources”

Authors should be able to report MLSTs of their isolates since they have already had WGS data. I believe this is highly important since AMR profiles and sub-serotypes are highly associated.

Another important aspect is the specific source of the 77 isolates should be provided along with the date of collection. These features need to be considered while driving any conclusion related to AMR profile and “source”. As a reviewer, I would like to see if the major group of Typhimurium isolates collected on 9/18/18 that show highly similar genotypic and phenotypic AMR profiles were all from the same batch of samples, city, or producer. Please clarify also in the manuscript and provide data.

Abstract: Authors did not talk about 3GC in the abstract. Please mention the function/importance of ramR gene for MDR. The authors did not discuss their findings for high levels of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid-resistant isolates in the absence of AMR genes related to this phenotype in the manuscript.

Lines 100-102 Authors should explain why they choose these individual lists of antibiotics while there are many other antibiotics/classes listed in WHO. AMR in Salmonella is especially important when resistance emerges for the antibiotics that are used to treat Salmonella infections in humans. Macrolides (e.g., azithromycin) are one of the important antibiotics to treat Salmonella infections and this antibiotic was not included in this study. How would the authors explain their selection of antibiotics is unclear in the manuscript. Please also provide the class information of selected antibiotics either in the manuscript or table/figures.

Line 133- Please describe which parameter was used to detect the “poor quality reads used for trimming criteria

Line 136- Please provide the version of the Spade tool. Did the authors conduct a quality check for their assemblies?

Line 147- Please refer to the human isolates as “human clinical cases” in related figures, tables, or manuscript as referred to in the line.

Line-149- Please provide the search term used to find these isolates and the criteria used. So, the readers can reach the same data analyzed in this study.

Line 151- Please provide if the AMRFinderPlus database and program that was mentioned is the same one that is used in this analysis. Please provide the information of the data analyzed for this study that was scanned using the same database and version of the AMRFinderPlus. Since these results are prone to change as the AMR database and software are updated, authors must confirm that they compare the outcomes of WGS data using the same tools for all isolates included in the manuscript.

Line 152- Please provide the methodology for serotyping

Line 166- Please explain how the AMR profiles of each plasmid were determined.

Line 171- Why the authors select the %70 thresholds?

Line 175-180 These lines are misleading. There is no phenotype data included in the analysis of publicly available data. Please modify it accordingly.

Line 181- Even though the statistical language is sometimes used loosely in this regard, the authors performed analyses of association - not correlation - between phenotype and genotype and they will probably wish to change the wording to reflect that important difference.

Line 512-513 I would suggest authors review their statement related to WGS is being a better tool to monitor aminoglycoside resistance as compared to AST. The area of aminoglycoside resistance is difficult and evolving and interpretations are difficult and changing. Nonetheless, there is apparent cryptic genes aac(6’) and other factors such as breakpoints set for resistance for which phenotype and genotype seem disconnected. This disagreement does not infer that WGS is better, assuming that in at least some cases the naming conventions for the genes themselves might be based on flawed original experimentation, or else based originally in another genus or species.

Line 520 Please provide how many isolates had ramR mutations and did not harbor AMR genes but were found phenotypically resistant to chloramphenicol to support this statement.

Line 538-577 Authors may revise their justification related to the MDR presence in lymph node and ground beef as fecal origin Salmonella may travel from intestine to LN via payer’s patches, and transmission of environmental Salmonella may most likely occur via fly bites in the feedlots. Most importantly, lymph nodes are the most likely source of Salmonella found in ground beef products and contamination can occur via the fat trimming process.

Table 1 – Please explain “C”

Table 2- is confusing. Please consider reporting the point mutations and observed phenotype observed in 77 isolates that were not related to a defined AMR gene.

Table 3- how did the author screen the plasmidal content? Please include in the methodology

Figure 1- This table is hard to read. Authors may consider placing the class of phenotypic and genotypic resistance data next to each other for each class. I believe the qacEDelta1 is irrelevant with this research and is not shown on the AMRFinderPlus outcome of the isolates based on my research for given SAM IDs. Please help me to understand how this gene was found and why it was related to this study. Please also add ramR column here since the relationship between the mutation and phenotype has been analyzed and discussed.

Figure 2- Please provide the number of isolate information for each antibiotic. Even though the statistical language is sometimes used loosely in this regard, the authors performed analyses of association - not correlation - between phenotype and genotype and they will probably wish to change the wording to reflect that important difference.

Please consider using singular for sources. I would suggest revising the presentation of the source of isolates such as (e.g. human, bovine). Are these isolates have all genes listed in the conferring header (e.g., tetABCDGM) or at least one of them? Please clarify and add a footnote as needed.

S1 Table- please revise the number of sample size in the tab. I would suggest removing the collection date from Table 1 since it was not discussed in the manuscript. Please also provide the date of isolation and if possible the information about the source of isolates (if they were collected from the same city/abattoir etc.) of your isolates in S1. I would also suggest providing the phenotypic data in S1 along with the ramR mutation. There are duplicated gene names (.e.g., sul1), please correct. Please include the AMR related genes and mutations and isolate names as shown in Table 1 as they are not matching with supplemental material (the last column in Table 1 is missing. I would also suggest using the same isolate names consistent in the manuscript and related data. Many cells in the spreadsheet are missing, please revise. There are grammatical issues that need to be corrected. Authors need to revise AMR gene names and make sure they are presented correctly and consistently in both the body manuscript and related data.

S2 Table- Please correct the name on the tab. There are “environment or environmental sample” related isolates classified as the aquatic environment. Please revise to verify these isolates are actually from an aquatic source.

S3 Table- Please revise the AMR genotype column as there are duplicates, and information not relevant to AMR genes

Reference: Overall- References are not standardized, please correct the inconsistency observed with the lower- and upper-case use. Please revise all the links provided (e;g., URL of Ref 44 is not working) and provide accession dates for each URL. Please also italicize the spp names as needed.

**********

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

[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 May 5;16(5):e0243681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243681.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Feb 2021

The authors thank the reviewer and the academic editor for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped improve our manuscript. Below we list each comment raised during the reviewing process, followed by the authors’ responses.

Academic Editor Comments (AEC)

AEC1. 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

Authors’ Response (AR)1. We carefully reviewed the style requirements to make sure the manuscript meets them. Please, refer to the revised manuscript.

AEC2. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing

AR2. The manuscript complies with this requirement. Please, refer to L121-131 (methods section) of the original manuscript. We declared raw sequences are publicly available at NCBI and provided the accession numbers and metadata in supplementary S1 Table. We also included the doi number for the two laboratory procedures that are citable and were uploaded at protocols.io.

AEC3. The reviewers have pointed out number of gaps in the manuscript. Clarifications and explanations are needed in all sections including methodology, results, discussion and data presentations in Tables and Figures. Please revise the manuscript considering all reviewer comments point by point.

AR3. The authors appreciate the time invested by the reviewers to make a very detailed and thorough revision of our manuscript. Comments will be taken into consideration to improve the paper and will be responded point by point.

Reviewer Comments (RC)

RC1. In this manuscript, the authors presented their phenotypic and genotypic AMR findings in NTS isolates derived from bovine lymph nodes and ground beef products in Mexico. They further compare their genotypic AMR findings with publicly available NTS genomes originated from Mexico. Overall, it is an interesting and valuable study that demonstrates the genomic similarities regarding the AMR profile between humans and bovine origin isolates in Mexico. However, I would suggest a major revision before publication. Please find more detailed comments below.

AR1. We appreciate these comments and will address every observation to improve our manuscript.

RC2. Overall: First of all, authors were able to find 2400 publicly available Salmonella isolates at NCBI which 1,714 were from a known source, thus included in the study. Authors should include other sources that have the major number of isolates clustered within (for example avian source represented with BioProject PRJNA480281) to avoid selection bias while measuring “ source-related association with AMR Salmonella”. Please also help me to understand the “unknown source” criteria that yield exclusion of the isolates from this study. Please kindly provide your search criteria for the isolates. In addition, there are several major sources (e.g., papaya, pepper, river, canal) that were classified under vegetables or the aquatic environment in this study. Authors should count for any major source separately in the analyses to increase resolution. Please also consider adding the “unknown” source related data as “other sources”.

AR2. We only used two selection criteria: location (isolates from Mexico), and isolation source (the record should have a declared, unambiguous isolation source). Isolates of “unknown source” are those for which the isolation source was missing or ambiguous (i. e. sponge, swab, meat, product, etc.) in the record. We were interested in analyzing the AMR genomic profile of bovine isolates in the context of the bigger Salmonella population circulating in other sources. Our aim was to avoid making reports that are too general in nature. Instead, we attempted to be as specific as possible, to be able to answer specific relevant questions, such as the following:

Are cattle a relevant source of AMR-Salmonella? Are they as relevant as other food-related sources and clinical cases?

What are the dominant genetic determinants associated with resistance to the studied antimicrobial classes?

How disseminated are these AMR genes within and across sources? How the situation compares with that in other countries/regions?

What factors are likely favoring AMR spread? What measures could be implemented to contain it?

The authors recognize committing several mistakes while conforming groups of isolates with the Excel file downloaded from NCBI. We overlooked the lack of uniformity in the records and relied on the “Filter” option of Excel to identify relevant groups. During this process, we missed all avian isolates, as well as some isolates from mostly every other source. We thank you for the detailed revision of the manuscript. In the updated version, we double checked the whole database to make sure there are no mistakes. Moreover, we agree to include all isolates from Mexico and thus, we created a new category named “Other sources, n=249”. This group includes isolates from sources with very few records, as well as those with ambiguous or unreported isolation source. Overall, the whole database includes 2,405 records now.

Regarding the comment on the need to break down categories into some major sources (i. e. papaya, pepper, river, etc.), we did the analysis separately before submitting the manuscript. While doing so, we observed there were minor differences within the vegetable and aquatic environment groups. So, we decided to analyze these categories as a whole for we did not see there was room for any resolution improvement. However, we decided to accept this comment and make the following adjustments:

The number of categories increased from 5 to 10:

1. Human, n=37

2. Bovine, n=179

3. Seafood, n=131. This category was not split since there was no variation in the AMR profile of isolates, regardless of the isolation source (fish, shrimp, others).

In the “vegetables” category, isolates from “papaya” were the only ones that differed from those from other vegetable sources in their AMR profile, although it happened only for aminoglycoside, quinolone and fosfomycin resistance genes. However, considering the number of “pepper” isolates was big, we split this category into three groups:

4. Papaya, n=279

5. Pepper, n=216

6. Other vegetables, n=568

The “aquatic environments” category was split into two groups, based on differences between surface waters and water from irrigation canals and other sources:

7. Surface water (rivers, ponds, lakes, dams), n=307

8. Other water sources (irrigation canals and other sources), n=246

Finally, two new categories were added:

9. Avian, n=193

10. Other sources, n=249

The methods section was updated to reflect these changes.

RC3. Authors should be able to report MLSTs of their isolates since they have already had WGS data. I believe this is highly important since AMR profiles and sub-serotypes are highly associated.

AR3. Information on MLSTs is published in a previous paper on the epidemiology of Salmonella associated with bovine lymph nodes and ground beef [1]. This paper is cited in the introduction (L78-80). However, we agree to provide information on the STs of our experimental isolates in the subsection “Salmonella isolates” of the methodology, as well as to include STs in the discussion.

RC4.Another important aspect is the specific source of the 77 isolates should be provided along with the date of collection. These features need to be considered while driving any conclusion related to AMR profile and “source”. As a reviewer, I would like to see if the major group of Typhimurium isolates collected on 9/18/18 that show highly similar genotypic and phenotypic AMR profiles were all from the same batch of samples, city, or producer. Please clarify also in the manuscript and provide data.

AR4. In connection with the previous comment, we included detailed information on the origin of isolates. Isolates from this project originated from the same company that integrates feedlot and slaughterhouse operations in the state of Veracruz. They sell carcasses in a wholesale store in Mexico City. All the samples originated from crossbred Bos indicus young bulls 24-36 months old. All the animals were harvested in the same slaughterhouse, while samples were collected at the store. Thus, all isolates originated from the same place, not only those of Typhimurium serovar. But they were collected across a 2-year period and all the isolates originated from a different sample. We agreed to include this information in the methods and discussion sections, for the sake of clarity. Please, refer to the updated manuscript to see the changes.

RC5. Abstract: Authors did not talk about 3GC in the abstract. Please mention the function/importance of ramR gene for MDR. The authors did not discuss their findings for high levels of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid-resistant isolates in the absence of AMR genes related to this phenotype in the manuscript.

AR5. Since resistance to 3GC and carbapenem was low, we did not mention them in the abstract in order to meet the maximum allowed length, while including the most relevant information. For the same reason, we did not expand on the role of ramR gene in MDR phenotypes, as well as other findings. Nevertheless, the abstract was updated to include 3GC and carbapenems results.

Regarding the role of ramR gene mutations on MDR phenotypes, we did mention it in the manuscript (L444-446) and cited the paper that has a thorough explanation of the topic. However, we agree to broaden the discussion on ramR mutations, including their role in resistance to betalactams in isolates lacking ESBLs, as pointed out by the reviewer

RC6. Lines 100-102 Authors should explain why they choose these individual lists of antibiotics while there are many other antibiotics/classes listed in WHO. AMR in Salmonella is especially important when resistance emerges for the antibiotics that are used to treat Salmonella infections in humans. Macrolides (e.g., azithromycin) are one of the important antibiotics to treat Salmonella infections and this antibiotic was not included in this study. How would the authors explain their selection of antibiotics is unclear in the manuscript? Please also provide the class information of selected antibiotics either in the manuscript or table/figures.

AR6. We included antibiotics that are in the WHO list of critically important and highly important antibiotics, according to WHO’s prioritization criteria [2]:

P1) High absolute number of people affected by diseases for which the antimicrobial is the sole or one of few therapies available.

P2) High frequency of use in human medicine.

P3) Evidence of transmission of resistant bacteria or AMR genes from non-human sources.

Thus, we picked some antimicrobials that are considered highest priority (i. e. aminoglycosides, carbapenems, quinolones), as well as those that are approved in Mexico for the treatment of both humans and food-producing animals (i. e. quinolones, 3GC, folate pathway inhibitors, etc.). Concerning azithromycin, it is only approved to treat cats and dogs in Mexico [3]. Moreover, according to a recent review covering the 2000-2017 period, azithromycin-resistant Salmonella has not been isolated from foods (including meats) in Mexico [4]. So, we decided to leave macrolides out of the AST panel. However, we know azithromycin resistant Salmonella is considered a public health risk in some countries, although it involves mainly typhoidal strains [5]. Hence, we limited macrolide analysis to comparative genomics, which confirmed there is a very low rate (<1%) of azithromycin resistant genotypes (mphAB and lnuF genes) among the public Salmonella isolates from Mexico studied here (n=2,405). This information was included in methods and results, while the discussion was broadened to include analysis of results on macrolide resistant genotypes. We also acknowledged this is a limitation of our study, considering the widespread distribution of acrB mutations, which have been reported to confer macrolide resistance in typhoidal strains [6] (refer to the “Discussion” section of the updated manuscript). Finally, the antibiotic class is not missing. We did provide that information in Fig. 1 label (L199-202 of the original manuscript). However, this figure was updated. We included all the details required for a proper interpretation of results, without having to consult the text.

RC7. Line 133- Please describe which parameter was used to detect the “poor quality reads used for trimming criteria

AR7. We used the FastQC program, as declared in L132. This program analyzes raw read files and reports the quality score (Q score) across all bases, among other attributes. The Q scores report the probability of error in base calling (P=10^((-Q)⁄10)). So, reads that are going to be used for genome assembly should have a Q score of 30, ideally. In that way, we have a 99.999% confidence that the base called in that position is right. Below we provide an example of this report:

As you see, there is drop in the quality of base calling by the end of the insert (around position 155 and onwards). This is typical of raw reads obtained with Illumina technology, which uses the “sequencing by synthesis” approach. This requires adding adaptors to DNA fragments. So, that they can attach to the flow cell for DNA amplification and cluster formation. So, the adapters shall be removed before genome assembly. At the beginning, the quality of base calling is very good, as there is plenty of reagents and thus, every cluster flashes simultaneously when a new base is added. However, as reagents are consumed, some DNA fragments in the same cluster flash before others (pre-phasing) and/or some others flash later (phasing). This causes a fall in the quality of base calling, since the equipment cannot easily identify to which base the flash corresponds. Hence, researchers should make sure low-quality reads are removed before conducting genome assembly.

We also want to clarify that the minimum quality criterium was mentioned in the manuscript (L134, Q≥30). We did not provide a thorough explanation since this is a standardized procedure that it is not normally explained in papers. Please, refer to a recent publication in Plos One where the authors do not even mention quality assessment of raw reads [7]. Instead, they just refer the use of Trimmomatic to remove low quality reads. So, we do not believe expanding on this topic is necessary.

RC8. Line 136- Please provide the version of the Spade tool. Did the authors conduct a quality check for their assemblies?

AR8. We included the Spades version in the methods section of the revised manuscript. The genome assembly service of PATRIC includes a QUAST quality report. This was also included in the methodology. We used to report that information in our papers, but it does not seem to be required by journals since anyone can download raw reads and reproduce the analysis. The Plos One paper we cited before [7] does not include this information either. However, we do have the relevant quality attributes of genome assembly (# of contigs, assembly length, GC, N50, L50) which were included in supplementary S1 file.

RC9. Line 147- Please refer to the human isolates as “human clinical cases” in related figures, tables, or manuscript as referred to in the line.

AR9. After adjusting the groups of isolates, we decided to name this group just as “human isolates”. This new name is easier to refer in the text and similar to other sources (i. e. avian, bovine, etc.).

RC10. Line-149- Please provide the search term used to find these isolates and the criteria used. So, the readers can reach the same data analyzed in this study.

AR10. Accepted.

RC11. Line 151- Please provide if the AMRFinderPlus database and program that was mentioned is the same one that is used in this analysis. Please provide the information of the data analyzed for this study that was scanned using the same database and version of the AMRFinderPlus. Since these results are prone to change as the AMR database and software are updated, authors must confirm that they compare the outcomes of WGS data using the same tools for all isolates included in the manuscript.

AR11. Noted. The NCBI Pathogen Detection site is connected to the National Database of Antibiotic Resistant Organisms (NDARO) and to the FDA’s Global Resistome Data-Resistome Tracker Tool (https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/national-antimicrobial-resistance-monitoring-system/global-resistome-data). Hence, the results they publish on AMR genotypes are kept and updated by the NCBI team, as required. In spite of this, we checked to make sure changes to AMRFinderPlus program and databases did not impact results for AMR genes. The program has been improved to include prediction of point mutations, as well as biocide, stress, heavy metal resistance and virulence genes. Please, refer to the github AMRFinderPlus releases page (https://github.com/ncbi/amr/releases) for a thorough report of the changes made across versions. In addition, we tested whether results would change across versions. For instance, we got the same results for our 77 isolates by running AMRFinderPlus locally (version 3.8.4) as compared to those reported by NCBI for the same isolates (they used version 3.6.7). Likewise, we got the same results reported by NCBI for 32 isolates (analyzed with the earliest version 3.2.3 among isolates from Mexico) while running these genomes with version 3.8.4 locally. Taking this into consideration, we decided to add a brief explanation on AMR genotypes published by NCBI and the analysis we conducted to make sure AMR gene profiling is not affected by the program version or database, among this group of isolates.

RC12. Line 152- Please provide the methodology for serotyping

AR12. This information was already published in our previous research that we cited on the methods section [1]. We performed in silico analysis to predict serovar by running raw reads on the SeqSero software, version 1.2 [8]. However, for the sake of clarity, we added information on how serotyping was conducted in the methods section. Please, refer to the section “Salmonella isolates”.

RC13. Line 166- Please explain how the AMR profiles of each plasmid were determined.

AR13. Plasmid profiling is different from AMR profiling. As mentioned in the original manuscript (L167-169), we used PlasmidFinder program, version 2.1, to predict the plasmid profile of each isolate. If the program detected plasmid replicons in a genome, then we collected the reference sequence of each predicted plasmid from NCBI, which contains all the coding sequences of the plasmid, including those related to AMR. So, there is no need to determine the plasmid’s AMR profiles. Just by looking at their reference sequences we can determine if they harbor AMR genes. The objective of plasmid profiling is to check if the isolates are likely carrying plasmids.

RC14. Line 171- Why the authors select the %70 thresholds?

AR14. The 70% cutoff is arbitrary. It aims to establish that the majority of a reference plasmid sequence must be present in a draft genome to propose that the genome actually carries that plasmid. WGS data includes both chromosomal and plasmid DNA (if the strain carries a plasmid). Although cumbersome, it is possible to predict the presence of plasmids in a draft genome by combining different lines of evidence:

1) Detection of plasmid replicons in the genomes

2) Tiling contigs against reference plasmids. If we identified consecutive genes that were in the same genomic context in contigs and plasmids, and the majority of the reference plasmid is covered in the genome, these were proposed to be plasmids in that genome.

3) Average depth of coverage. Normally, plasmid-associated contigs have the same or very similar read depths between them, and different from that of chromosomal contigs. There are few exceptions, such as multi-copy ribosomal genes, as well as big plasmids, which may have similar read depths as compared to chromosomal DNA. However, in general, this approach works fairy well and checking read depth is only required when contigs do not tile well against reference plasmids. We started to use this method based on a paper published before in Plos One [9]. It has been accepted in papers published by our research group in Scientific Reports [10] and Journal of Microbiology [11]. The manuscript provides accessions of both our draft genomes and plasmids. So, that anyone can reproduce the analysis. For the sake of clarity, we described the methodology in full and cited previous papers using the same approach.

RC15. Line 175-180 These lines are misleading. There is no phenotype data included in the analysis of publicly available data. Please modify it accordingly.

AR15. Accepted. The text was modified to make clear which analyses were conducted with our isolates and which ones with public isolates.

RC16. Line 181- Even though the statistical language is sometimes used loosely in this regard, the authors performed analyses of association - not correlation - between phenotype and genotype and they will probably wish to change the wording to reflect that important difference.

AR16. We calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient between the % of phenotypically non-susceptible isolates and the % of genotypically non-susceptible isolates for each of the tested antibiotics (Fig. 2). Based on the previous comment, we modified the wording of this whole section for the sake of clarity.

RC17. Line 512-513 I would suggest authors review their statement related to WGS is being a better tool to monitor aminoglycoside resistance as compared to AST. The area of aminoglycoside resistance is difficult and evolving and interpretations are difficult and changing. Nonetheless, there is apparent cryptic genes aac(6’) and other factors such as breakpoints set for resistance for which phenotype and genotype seem disconnected. This disagreement does not infer that WGS is better, assuming that in at least some cases the naming conventions for the genes themselves might be based on flawed original experimentation, or else based originally in another genus or species.

AR17. Accepted. That statement was removed from the text.

RC18. Line 520 Please provide how many isolates had ramR mutations and did not harbor AMR genes but were found phenotypically resistant to chloramphenicol to support this statement.

AR18. This statement is based on the strong association between chloramphenicol resistance and ramR mutations that we reported in the “Results” section of the original manuscript (L333-335). However, we agreed to provide detailed information on the predicted mutations for each isolate, as recommended by the reviewer (see the updated Fig 1).

RC19. Line 538-577 Authors may revise their justification related to the MDR presence in lymph node and ground beef as fecal origin Salmonella may travel from intestine to LN via payer’s patches, and transmission of environmental Salmonella may most likely occur via fly bites in the feedlots. Most importantly, lymph nodes are the most likely source of Salmonella found in ground beef products and contamination can occur via the fat trimming process.

AR19. We agree lymph nodes (LN) contribution to Salmonella contamination in ground beef is well documented. This is not questioned in the manuscript. However, we did find a strong association between source of isolates and the proportion of MDR strains (L215-217), with a higher probability of finding MDR isolates in ground beef. Moreover, LN are not the sole source of Salmonella in ground beef, especially in developing countries, where the rate of carcass contamination (which is mainly of fecal origin) is higher as compared to that observed in industrialized nations. For instance, there are Mexican studies reporting a Salmonella prevalence of 6-18% in beef carcasses [12-14], while in ground beef the rates may go above 60-70% [4, 13, 15]. Thus, fecal contamination is likely contributing to Salmonella contamination in ground beef in countries with a similar situation. This is further supported by our previous findings [1], showing some Salmonella serovars (i. e. Typhimurium) were only detected in ground beef samples but not in LN from the same carcass, while some others were exclusively present in LN (i. e. Kentucky, Fresno, Muenster, Give) and not in ground beef obtained from the same carcass. Nonetheless, we revised the wording of this section to temper the statements and make sure they are just used to put the research into context without implying a challenge to the well-known contribution of LN to ground beef Salmonella contamination.

RC20. Table 1 – Please explain “C”

AR20. There is a superscript in the footnote of Table 1 indicating it refers to the antimicrobial’s disk concentration.

RC21. Table 2- is confusing. Please consider reporting the point mutations and observed phenotype observed in 77 isolates that were not related to a defined AMR gene.

AR21. Accepted. This table was removed, and its data were incorporated in Fig 1, as suggested by the reviewer in other comments.

RC22. Table 3- how did the author screen the plasmidal content? Please include in the methodology.

AR22. This information was included in the methodology (L166-173 of the original manuscript). We used PlasmidFinder program, version 2.1. Considering this comment, as well as RC14 above, we decided to expand the description of these methods in the updated manuscript.

RC23. Figure 1- This table is hard to read. Authors may consider placing the class of phenotypic and genotypic resistance data next to each other for each class. I believe the qacEDelta1 is irrelevant with this research and is not shown on the AMRFinderPlus outcome of the isolates based on my research for given SAM IDs. Please help me to understand how this gene was found and why it was related to this study. Please also add ramR column here since the relationship between the mutation and phenotype has been analyzed and discussed.

AR23. The table was updated considering this reviewer suggestions and we also included information on point mutations, as well as MDR phenotypes. Regarding the qacEDelta1 gene, it can be predicted from assembled genomes, together with other biocide, stress, and heavy metal resistance genes, if the analysis is run with the --plus option. Please, refer to the github AMRFinderPlus repository for usage options (https://github.com/ncbi/amr/wiki/Running-AMRFinderPlus#usage). In a previous study [11], we observed there was association between the presence of qacEDelta1 gene and MDR phenotypes. The stress induced by many factors, including biocides, is known to trigger AMR resistance in bacteria [16]. Moreover, some of these genes are frequently found in isolates carrying class-1 integrons, which are known to play a key role in bacterial AMR [37]. Thus, we aimed to assess if biocide resistance genes were disseminated among experimental isolates showing MDR phenotypes. So, we decided to run AMRFinderPlus with the --plus option, to check if there was association between the presence of this gene and the observed phenotypes. Nevertheless, considering this gene was present in just a few experimental and public isolates, we agree to remove it from the table.

RC24. Figure 2- Please provide the number of isolate information for each antibiotic. Even though the statistical language is sometimes used loosely in this regard, the authors performed analyses of association - not correlation - between phenotype and genotype and they will probably wish to change the wording to reflect that important difference.

Please consider using singular for sources. I would suggest revising the presentation of the source of isolates such as (e.g. human, bovine). Are these isolates have all genes listed in the conferring header (e.g., tetABCDGM) or at least one of them? Please clarify and add a footnote as needed.

AR24. The label of Figure 2 mentions the total number of isolates (n=77, L222 of the original manuscript) and the figure reports the % of isolates with phenotypic and genotypic resistance to each tested antibiotic. So, the number of isolates can be calculated. Moreover, we are reporting the results of a Pearson correlation analysis, as mention before. This was clarified in the methods section. To facilitate the interpretation of these results, however, we modified Figure 2 and it is now reporting the number of non-susceptible isolates in each antibiotic, instead of the proportion. Moreover, we included the Pearson correlation coefficient and the corresponding P-value in the graph.

We understand the second part of this comment refers to Fig 3. Authors agreed to name sources in singular. Moreover, the source of every isolate was double checked to make sure the information is in accordance with the recorded isolation source at NCBI. For the heatmap, we grouped AMR alleles according to the resistance mechanism they encode. Regarding tetracycline resistance, we only detected AMR genes encoding efflux mechanisms (tetABCDGM). Thus, isolates were considered genotypically resistant if they carry at least one of these genes. We agree this needed clarification and thus, this figure was modified considering previous comments, as well as those stated here.

RC25. S1 Table- please revise the number of sample size in the tab. I would suggest removing the collection date from Table 1 since it was not discussed in the manuscript. Please also provide the date of isolation and if possible, the information about the source of isolates (if they were collected from the same city/abattoir etc.) of your isolates in S1.

AR25. The sample size in the tab is an editing mistake. Furthermore, in NCBI metadata, isolation date and collection date are the same. In fact, there is no “isolation date” field at the NCBI Pathogen Detection website. In connection with previous comments, the methods and discussion sections were modified to include information about the source of isolates. The influence of collection dates is discussed in our previous paper [1]. But it only refers to a seasonality in Salmonella prevalence, which is higher in warm climate as compared to winter. Therefore, we are now reporting the association between AMR profiles and season or year of collection. This information was not mentioned in the original manuscript. So, it was now incorporated in the results and discussion sections.

RC26. I would also suggest providing the phenotypic data in S1 along with the ramR mutation.

AR26. We do not accept this suggestion. Data on AMR phenotypes and mutations were incorporated in the main body of the manuscript. So, there is no need to duplicate that information. Thus, we decided to remove the AMR genotypes from S1 Table instead.

RC27. There are duplicated gene names (.e.g., sul1), please correct.

AR27. We would like to clarify that the duplicated sul1 gene in some isolates is not a mistake. This only happened in isolates of serovar Typhimurium carrying the resistance island SGI1. Please, refer to Figure 4 where you can check that this gene is actually duplicated in SGI1. This can also be checked by accessing the SGI1 reference sequence (AF261825.2), which is provided in Figure 4 as well.

However, AMR genotypes were removed from S1 Table to avoid duplications with figures from the main body of the manuscript.

RC28. Please include the AMR related genes and mutations and isolate names as shown in Table 1 as they are not matching with supplemental material (the last column in Table 1 is missing.

AR28. We understand the reviewer refers to Figure 1 when citing Table 1. As mentioned before, AMR genotypes were removed from S1 Table to avoid duplicating information with the main body of the manuscript. The purpose of S1 Table is to comply with data availability requirements. All tables and figures were revised to make sure isolate names are used uniformly across the manuscript.

RC29. I would also suggest using the same isolate names consistent in the manuscript and related data.

AR29. Accepted. The tables were updated according to this comment.

RC30. Many cells in the spreadsheet are missing, please revise.

AR30. This table was prepared by downloading our own isolates from the NCBI Pathogen Detection website. While submitting raw reads to NCBI, some laboratories fail to indicate the serovar. In other cases, NCBI do not assemble some isolates. This is the reason why there are blank cells, corresponding to records with no serovar recorded in the metadata, as well as empty Assembly and WGS accessions, for those isolates that have not been assembled by NCBI so far. Again, since the purpose of S1 Table is to comply with data availability, we decided to provide the information as it appears at the public repository. However, we updated this table and left only relevant information that allows readers to reach the data.

RC31. There are grammatical issues that need to be corrected. Authors need to revise AMR gene names and make sure they are presented correctly and consistently in both the body manuscript and related data.

AR31. The manuscript was carefully revised to correct grammatical mistakes. We used gene names as reported by AMRFinderPlus and published at the NCBI pathogen detection website. Both the manuscript and supplementary files were checked to make sure they are correctly and consistently used.

RC32. S2 Table- Please correct the name on the tab. There are “environment or environmental sample” related isolates classified as the aquatic environment. Please revise to verify these isolates are actually from an aquatic source.

AR32. Noted. The name on the tab was left by mistake. It was removed. There are indeed some isolates recorded as “environment or environmental sample” that were collected from water samples, as indicated in their Biosample records. Nevertheless, according to previous comments on this issue, all source categories were revised, and corrections were made in the updated version of S2 Table.

RC33. S3 Table- Please revise the AMR genotype column as there are duplicates, and information not relevant to AMR genes

AR33. This table is reporting information as it appears at the NCBI Pathogen Detection website. When there are duplicated genes, this should be related to the presence of integrons containing duplicated AMR gene cassettes in that isolate. As occurs in the SGI1 integron commented before (see AR27), this is not a mistake.

RC34. Reference: Overall- References are not standardized, please correct the inconsistency observed with the lower- and upper-case use. Please revise all the links provided (e;g., URL of Ref 44 is not working) and provide accession dates for each URL. Please also italicize the spp names as needed.

AR34. References were generated automatically by using the last version of Plos reference style in EndNote X9.3.3, as recommended by Plos One. We also checked recent papers published at Plos One (i.e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244057) and they also lack uniformity in the lower- and upper-case use. Probably, this inconsistency is caused by the way EndNote or similar programs capture the title of each publication. We thought this was acceptable considering there are published papers with these inconsistencies and some others. For instance, in the above referred paper, journal names are not abbreviated, which is supposed to be a Plos One requirement. Instead, they use a “Sentence case” style, with only the first word of the journal name capitalized and the text is italicized. In any case, we carefully reviewed this section to remove any mistake or inconsistency pointed by the reviewer. The URL of Ref 44 was recently updated by the government. We checked again every URL provided to make sure they all work and added the accession dates.

1. Palós Gutiérrez T, Rubio Lozano MS, Delgado Suárez EJ, Rosi Guzmán N, Soberanis Ramos O, Hernández Pérez CF, et al. Lymph nodes and ground beef as public health importance reservoirs of Salmonella spp. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias. 2020;11(3):795-810. doi: 10.22319/rmcp.v11i3.5516.

2. WHO. Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine. 6th Revision 2018: World Health Organization; 2019. Available from: https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/antimicrobials-sixth/en/.

3. SADER. Productos químico-farmacéuticos vigentes: Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Gobierno de México; 2020 [cited 2020 September 20, 2020]. Available from: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/512374/PRODUCTOS_VIGENTES_QF_2019.pdf.

4. Godinez-Oviedo A, Tamplin ML, Bowman JP, Hernandez-Iturriaga M. Salmonella enterica in Mexico 2000-2017: Epidemiology, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Prevalence in Food. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2020;17(2):98-118. Epub 2019/10/28. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2019.2627. PubMed PMID: 31647328.

5. McDermott PF, Zhao S, Tate H. Antimicrobial Resistance in Nontyphoidal Salmonella. Microbiol Spectr. 2018;6(4). Epub 2018/07/22. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.ARBA-0014-2017. PubMed PMID: 30027887.

6. Hooda Y, Sajib MSI, Rahman H, Luby SP, Bondy-Denomy J, Santosham M, et al. Molecular mechanism of azithromycin resistance among typhoidal Salmonella strains in Bangladesh identified through passive pediatric surveillance. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(11):e0007868. Epub 2019/11/16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007868. PubMed PMID: 31730615; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6881056.

7. van den Berg RR, Dissel S, Rapallini MLBA, van der Weijden CC, Wit B, Heymans R. Characterization and whole genome sequencing of closely related multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg isolates from imported poultry meat in the Netherlands. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0219795. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219795.

8. Zhang S, Yin Y, Jones MB, Zhang Z, Deatherage Kaiser BL, Dinsmore BA, et al. Salmonella serotype determination utilizing high-throughput genome sequencing data. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(5):1685-92. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00323-15. PubMed PMID: 25762776; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4400759.

9. Dhanani AS, Block G, Dewar K, Forgetta V, Topp E, Beiko RG, et al. Genomic Comparison of Non-Typhoidal Salmonella enterica Serovars Typhimurium, Enteritidis, Heidelberg, Hadar and Kentucky Isolates from Broiler Chickens. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0128773. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128773. PubMed PMID: 26083489; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4470630.

10. Delgado-Suárez EJ, Selem-Mojica N, Ortiz-López R, Gebreyes WA, Allard MW, Barona-Gómez F, et al. Whole genome sequencing reveals widespread distribution of typhoidal toxin genes and VirB/D4 plasmids in bovine-associated nontyphoidal Salmonella. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):9864. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28169-4.

11. Delgado Suárez EJ, Ortíz López R, Gebreyes WA, Allard MW, Barona-Gomez F, Salud Rubio MS. Genomic surveillance links livestock production with the emergence and spread of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico. J Microbiol. 2019;57(4). doi: DOI 10.1007/s12275-019-8421-3.

12. Narvaez-Bravo C, Miller MF, Jackson T, Jackson S, Rodas-Gonzalez A, Pond K, et al. Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7 Prevalence in Cattle and on Carcasses in a Vertically Integrated Feedlot and Harvest Plant in Mexico. J Food Prot. 2013;76(5):786-95.

13. Martinez-Chavez L, Cabrera-Diaz E, Perez-Montano JA, Garay-Martinez LE, Varela-Hernandez JJ, Castillo A, et al. Quantitative distribution of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli on beef carcasses and raw beef at retail establishments. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015;210:149-55. Epub 2015/07/01. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.06.016. PubMed PMID: 26125489.

14. Perez-Montaño JA, González-Aguilar D, Barba J, Pacheco-Gallardo C, Campos-Bravo CA, García S, et al. Frequency and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella Serotypes on Beef Carcasses at Small Abattoirs in Jalisco State, Mexico. J Food Prot. 2012;75(5):867-73. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-423.

15. Cabrera-Diaz E, Barbosa-Cardenas CM, Perez-Montano JA, Gonzalez-Aguilar D, Pacheco-Gallardo C, Barba J. Occurrence, serotype diversity, and antimicrobial resistance of salmonella in ground beef at retail stores in Jalisco state, Mexico. J Food Prot. 2013;76(12):2004-10. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-109. PubMed PMID: 24290673.

16. Poole K. Bacterial stress responses as determinants of antimicrobial resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(9):2069-89. doi: 10.1093/jac/dks196. PubMed PMID: 22618862.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R1.docx

Decision Letter 1

Iddya Karunasagar

19 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-36934R1

Genomic surveillance of antimicrobial resistance shows cattle are a moderate source of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Delgado-Suárez,

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.

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

There are still some mismatches between data and statements in the manuscript. Also there are missing points in the supplementary Table. Please address all points raised by the reviewers.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 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

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The reviewers have pointed out some mismatches between the statements and data including those in supplementary Table. Please correct these discrepancies and other points raised by the reviewers.

[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: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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: Fig 1. Some of the phenotypic resistance (e.g., STX) related cells were highlighted (filled), please be consistent. This is not matching with author’s statement for Fig 1. “ For AMR genotypes, cells filled with the corresponding antibiotic class color indicate the gene is present.” Authors may also consider rearranging the order of the isolates by serotype followed by day and sample type. So, the readers can associate the time of collection and sample type data along with the resistance profiles observed.

Please correct “metadata” in “S3 File. NCBI accesions, metada and antimicrobial resistance genotypes of fully sequenced public Salmonella enterica ser. Typhimurium isolates from Mexico included in this study”. Also, please check other instances.

There are few S. Typhi included in the supplemental data, since the manuscript is about NTS, please revise accordingly.

S2 file. There are about 112 isolates that have missing AMR data, please either remove or justify adding these strains in the metadata.

In the s2 file, there are 46 Typhimurium isolates from Mexico, authors include 38 of them in the S3 file. Did I miss anything? I am asking this question based on their statement: “Furthermore, considering the epidemiological importance of this serovar, we also analyzed the whole set of Typhimurium isolates from Mexico deposited at NCBI (n=38, refer to S3 Table for accession numbers and AMR genotypes of this group of isolates).”

I am also having difficulty matching the selected genomes (n=77) from the previous study (ref #18), with the current study. Authors state: “In the present investigation, we conducted antibiotic susceptibility testing and WGS of 77 NTS isolates collected in the course of a previous research project involving bovine lymph nodes (n=800) and ground beef (n=745) across a two-year sampling period [18]” and also states “ We identified nine Salmonella serovars: Anatum (n=23), Reading (n=22), Fresno (n=4), Typhimurium (n=10), London (n=9), Kentucky (n=6), and Muenster, Give and monophasic Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- (one each)”. However, the previous paper referred by authors states “78 isolates obtained from the 1,545 samples analyzed in the two years” and in the same paper, there are Reading(n=23), Anatum (n= 23), Typhimurium (n= 11), London (n= 9), Muenster (n= 2), Kentucky (n= 5), Give (n=1), and Fresno (n=4) serotypes. There was also no monophasic serovar identified in the previous manuscript. In this current version – if authors claim they include isolates from previous study – they should clarify why there is a mismatch exist with the isolates corresponding. I see in the S1 file, the strain UNAM2018123_Sa_AN13 was marked as monophasic, however, in the S2 file, this strain was recorded as Typhimurium. And finally, at the S3 file, while all Typhimurium isolates were included from “Mexico” based on the metadata (S2 file), this was excluded. I am really confused. If this strain was later identified (or corrected) as monophasic, how the authors make sure the Typhimurium strains in the S3 file are all monophasic? Please clarify this for me if there is a misunderstanding or if I am missing anything, otherwise, please provide your selection criteria and your confirmation method used for strains reported in the S3 file.

Once again, please fill the blank cells in the metadata as either “not reported” or provide a footnote for those cells in all S-related files. It is important for readers to understand why the cells were left blank.

Authors stated “ For instance, most serovar Typhimurium isolates (9/10) carried SGI1”. However, in Fig 4, all 10/10 isolates were showing SGI1. Please clarify this.

Please consider to include the SGI1, AMR and phenotype info along with the ramR mutations in S1 file, it is very hard for the readers to match individual IDs and serotypes with corresponding data in the S1.

S1.File genome size cells need correction.

Please also revise the abbreviations used and use the original names at the first instances.

**********

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

[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 May 5;16(5):e0243681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243681.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-36934R1

Genomic surveillance of antimicrobial resistance shows cattle are a moderate source of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico

PLOS ONE

The authors thank the academic editor and the reviewer for their detailed review. Below we list each comment raised during the reviewing process, followed by the authors’ responses.

Academic Editor Comments (AEC)

AEC1. Journal Requirements

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Authors’ Response (AR)1. As far as we know, we did not cite retracted papers. However, we carefully reviewed each cited reference again and none have been retracted. We found five papers that have been corrected but just for editing mistakes that do not affect the citation made in our manuscript. We also reviewed the reference list to make sure it is complete and correct. Please, refer to the revised manuscript. Finally, we added two new references (#24 and 25 in the revised version):

24. Zhang S, den Bakker HC, Shaoting L, Chen J, Dinsmore BA, Lane C, et al. SeqSero2: rapid and improved Salmonella serotype determination using whole genome sequencing data. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:e01746-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01746-19. PMID: 31540993

25. Yoshida CE, Kruczkiewicz P, Laing CR, Lingohr EJ, Gannon VPJ, Nash JHE, et al. The Salmonella in silico typing resource (SISTR): an open web-accessible tool for rapidly typing and subtyping draft Salmonella genome assemblies. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0147101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147101. PMID: 26800248

These references were added in connection with RC6 and AR6.

AEC2. The reviewers have pointed out some mismatches between the statements and data including those in supplementary Table. Please correct these discrepancies and other points raised by the reviewers.

AR2. The authors appreciate the time invested by the reviewers to make a thorough revision of our manuscript. Comments will be taken into consideration to improve the paper and will be responded point by point.

Reviewer Comments (RC)

RC1. Fig 1. Some of the phenotypic resistance (e.g., STX) related cells were highlighted (filled), please be consistent. This is not matching with author’s statement for Fig 1. “ For AMR genotypes, cells filled with the corresponding antibiotic class color indicate the gene is present.” Authors may also consider rearranging the order of the isolates by serotype followed by day and sample type. So, the readers can associate the time of collection and sample type data along with the resistance profiles observed.

AR1. Accepted. These editing mistakes were corrected in the revised version. Regarding the rearrangement of isolates, they were already ordered by serovar and collection date. It is not possible to include sample type as another ordering criterium (for the whole set) without changing the previous order by collection date. Hence, the rearrangement was conducted within each serovar and now the collection date is ordered within sample type.

RC2. Please correct “metadata” in “S3 File. NCBI accesions, metada and antimicrobial resistance genotypes of fully sequenced public Salmonella enterica ser. Typhimurium isolates from Mexico included in this study”. Also, please check other instances.

AR2. Accepted. We corrected this editing mistake in S3 File and also reviewed all the supplementary files to make sure there were no overseen editing mistakes left.

RC3. There are few S. Typhi included in the supplemental data, since the manuscript is about NTS, please revise accordingly.

AR3. We acknowledge typhoidal strains, as human-restricted pathogens, are not commonly transmitted through food. However, in developing countries (such as Mexico), there is a high number of street vendors with poor hygienic practices and practically no health control. Hence, it is not possible to discard that some typhoidal strains involved in clinical cases may be foodborne. Especially, considering the Mexican surveillance system does not have attribution data. This is the reason why we included typhoidal strains in the analysis. However, removing these strains from the analysis will not change results, while improving the clarity of the manuscript in regard to its scope. Hence, we accepted to remove typhoidal strains from the analysis and Fig 3 was updated accordingly.

RC4. S2 file. There are about 112 isolates that have missing AMR data, please either remove or justify adding these strains in the metadata.

AR4. This is not a mistake. These isolates were not predicted to carry any AMR genes. That is why their AMR genotype cells were empty. As mentioned in the previous review round, this report matches the structure of metadata reported at the NCBI pathogen detection site. For the sake of clarity, we added the following note at the heading of this file: “Metadata is reported as recorded at the NCBI pathogen detection website. Blank cells in any column indicate this information is not available at NCBI. Isolates with blank cells under the AMR genotypes column were not predicted to carry any AMR gene”.

RC5. In the S2 file, there are 46 Typhimurium isolates from Mexico, authors include 38 of them in the S3 file. Did I miss anything? I am asking this question based on their statement: “Furthermore, considering the epidemiological importance of this serovar, we also analyzed the whole set of Typhimurium isolates from Mexico deposited at NCBI (n=38, refer to S3 Table for accession numbers and AMR genotypes of this group of isolates).”

AR5. While recovering Typhimurium isolates from Mexico at the NCBI pathogen detection site, we used the plain serovar name “Typhimurium”. We did not include any variant, such as var. Copenhagen (there are four isolates of this variant in S2 File) or the monophasic 1,4,[5],12:i:-. One of our isolates is monophasic but is recorded as Typhimurium at NCBI. At the moment this isolate was submitted to NCBI by the Mexican Department of Agriculture, it was predicted as Typhimurium, based on in silico analysis of raw reads. As we will explain later in this document (see AR6), after assembling genomes and running serovar prediction analyses with SeqSero2 and SISTR programs, the serovar of this isolate was corrected to monophasic 1,4,[5],12:i:-. Hence, there are five isolates in S2 file that are Typhimurium variants and thus, they were not included in the Typhimurium set.

Following this comment, we carefully checked S2 File and there are 45 records (not 46) that contain Typhimurium in the serovar field. After removing the variants, there are 40 Typhimurium instead of 38. During the previous review round, we updated the whole dataset. As a result, the number of isolates identified increased in almost all categories. Particularly, there were two additional Typhimurium isolates of human origin that were added and we forgot to update S3 File accordingly. This is the reason why we have the mismatching. We thank you for the detailed revision. The methods section was updated to indicate we identified 40 Typhimurium isolates (instead of 38). Likewise, the results section and S3 file were adjusted to reflect these changes and eliminate the mismatching.

RC6. I am also having difficulty matching the selected genomes (n=77) from the previous study (ref #18), with the current study. Authors state: “In the present investigation, we conducted antibiotic susceptibility testing and WGS of 77 NTS isolates collected in the course of a previous research project involving bovine lymph nodes (n=800) and ground beef (n=745) across a two-year sampling period [18]” and also states “ We identified nine Salmonella serovars: Anatum (n=23), Reading (n=22), Fresno (n=4), Typhimurium (n=10), London (n=9), Kentucky (n=6), and Muenster, Give and monophasic Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- (one each)”. However, the previous paper referred by authors states “78 isolates obtained from the 1,545 samples analyzed in the two years” and in the same paper, there are Reading(n=23), Anatum (n= 23), Typhimurium (n= 11), London (n= 9), Muenster (n= 2), Kentucky (n= 5), Give (n=1), and Fresno (n=4) serotypes. There was also no monophasic serovar identified in the previous manuscript. In this current version – if authors claim they include isolates from previous study – they should clarify why there is a mismatch exist with the isolates corresponding.

AR6. Our previous study (ref #18) was written and published when we only had the raw reads available. While using raw reads in SeqSero for serovar prediction, the monophasic Typhimurium isolate was predicted as Typhimurium. After assembling genomes, we repeated the analysis for all isolates both with SeqSero2 and SISTR programs (two references #24 and 25 were included to cite the source of both. programs). By doing so, we confirmed serovar prediction results, which were mostly consistent with results reported in ref#18, except for the monophasic Typhimurium and one isolate predicted as serovar Reading that we had to discard for having poor assembly quality and inconsistent results with Salmonella species (genome size >8 Mb and GC content of 46.5%). Due to the COVID-19 pandemia, this isolate has not been re-sequenced yet. We are currently waiting for re-sequencing results before filing an amendment request to the publisher of ref#18. In the meantime, however, we decided to exclude this isolate from the present manuscript. This clarification was included in the methods section.

RC7. I see in the S1 file, the strain UNAM2018123_Sa_AN13 was marked as monophasic, however, in the S2 file, this strain was recorded as Typhimurium. And finally, at the S3 file, while all Typhimurium isolates were included from “Mexico” based on the metadata (S2 file), this was excluded. I am really confused. If this strain was later identified (or corrected) as monophasic, how the authors make sure the Typhimurium strains in the S3 file are all monophasic? Please clarify this for me if there is a misunderstanding or if I am missing anything, otherwise, please provide your selection criteria and your confirmation method used for strains reported in the S3 file.

AR7. We are sorry to have caused such a confusion. S2 file contains information as recorded at the NCBI pathogen detection site. When isolates included in this manuscript were uploaded to NCBI, the submitter (the Mexican Department of Agriculture) included the serovar results we had at that moment. Therefore, isolate UNAM2018123-Sa-AN13 was recorded as Typhimurium. However, while preparing the current manuscript, and redoing serovar prediction analyses with assembled genomes in two different programs, we confirmed this isolate is indeed monophasic Typhimurium. That is why S1 File reports the correct serovar for this isolate. S3 File only reports Typhimurium isolates (not variants) available at NCBI. We did not change this record in S2 file for it would not match the actual record at NCBI. However, we already asked the Mexican Department of Agriculture to file an amendment request to NCBI, so that this record is corrected. Therefore, we decided to correct this record in S2 File as well, to avoid confusing the readers. In the updated version of the manuscript, including supplementary information, isolate UNAM2018123-Sa-AN13 is reported as monophasic Typhimurium. Moreover, we added the following note at the heading of the bovine isolates section of S2 File: “Isolate with Biosample accession SAMN12857424 (strain UNAM2018123_Sa_AN13) was recorded at NCBI as serovar Typhimurium at the moment its raw reads were submitted. However, further analyses with the assembled genome showed it is a monophasic Typhimurium variant (1,4,[5],12:i:-). This record should be corrected soon at the NCBI pathogen detection site.”

RC8. Once again, please fill the blank cells in the metadata as either “not reported” or provide a footnote for those cells in all S-related files. It is important for readers to understand why the cells were left blank.

AR8. As mentioned in AR4, we included a note below the heading of S2 file. We have also included a similar note below the heading of S3 files: “Metadata is reported as recorded at the NCBI pathogen detection website. Blank cells in any column indicate this information is not available at NCBI”. S1 file does not have any blank spaces.

RC9. Authors stated “ For instance, most serovar Typhimurium isolates (9/10) carried SGI1”. However, in Fig 4, all 10/10 isolates were showing SGI1. Please clarify this.

AR9. According to Fig 4, only 9 isolates carried SGI1. Please, re-check. Fig 4

includes the 10 Typhimurium isolates as well as the monophasic variant. We included the variant in this analysis since it resisted several antimicrobials and we wanted to assess if it also carried SGI1. Please, notice there is one Typhimurium isolate (AK68) and the monophasic variant (AN13) lacking SGI1 (first two rings after the backbone). After these two, there are only 9 rings, corresponding to the remaining Typhimurium isolates.

RC10. Please consider to include the SGI1, AMR and phenotype info along with the ramR mutations in S1 file, it is very hard for the readers to match individual IDs and serotypes with corresponding data in the S1.

AR10. We do not see the need to duplicate the information in the main body of the manuscript and supporting files. In the main body, Fig 1 reports AMR phenotypes and mutations, as suggested by the reviewer previously. Likewise, Fig 4 reports the isolates carrying SGI1. Both figures report isolate names and serovars, which are also included in S1 File. Hence, we do not see why it would be difficult for readers to match individual IDs and serovars with information reported in S1 file. As mentioned in the previous review round, S1 File is meant to comply with data availability and facilitate reproducibility.

RC11. S1.File genome size cells need correction.

AR11. Our Excel program uses Spanish as the default number format (apostrophes to separate millions and commas to separate thousands). We corrected the file to comply with US format.

RC12. Please also revise the abbreviations used and use the original names at the first instances.

AR12. Accepted. We carefully reviewed the manuscript to make sure original names are provided at the first instances. In some cases, such as in figures and tables headings, original names and abbreviations are repeated to facilitate the interpretation of figures and tables without having to consult the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Iddya Karunasagar

9 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-36934R2

Genomic surveillance of antimicrobial resistance shows cattle are a moderate source of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Delgado-Suárez,

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

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

Please modify title by adding "poultry" 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 24 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Iddya Karunasagar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please modify title to include poultry as recommended by the reviewer.

[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: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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

[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 May 5;16(5):e0243681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243681.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


12 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-36934R2

Genomic surveillance of antimicrobial resistance shows cattle and poultry are a moderate source of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico

PLOS ONE

The authors thank the academic editor and the reviewer for their detailed review. Below we list each comment raised during the reviewing process, followed by the authors’ responses.

Reviewer Comments (RC)

RC1. I believe the title of the manuscript needs a small revision (beside cattle, addressing the poultry as well as one of the sources based on their edits on data and results). At the discussion, the authors also acknowledge this by stating: " Likewise, our comparative analysis showed NTS strains isolated from cattle and poultry have strong AMR genotypes, which are similar to that of human clinical isolates.". I think the manuscript is almost ready for publication..

AR1. Accepted. The title was modified to include poultry. Please, refer to the revised version of the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R3.docx

Decision Letter 3

Iddya Karunasagar

15 Apr 2021

Genomic surveillance of antimicrobial resistance shows cattle and poultry are a moderate source of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico

PONE-D-20-36934R3

Dear Dr. Delgado-Suárez,

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

21 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-36934R3

Genomic surveillance of antimicrobial resistance shows cattle and poultry are a moderate source of multi-drug resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella in Mexico

Dear Dr. Delgado-Suárez:

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 File. Metadata of experimental isolates.

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. Metadata of public Salmonella isolates included in this study.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. Metadata of public Typhimurium isolates included in this study.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Fig. BLAST atlas of plasmid pSLT.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. BLAST atlas of plasmid pK245.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. BLAST atlas of plasmid R64.

    (PDF)

    S4 Fig. BLAST atlas of plasmid pOLA52.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R2.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers R3.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. Raw sequences are publicly available at NCBI and the accession numbers and metadata are available in supplementary S1 File. We have also included the doi number for the two laboratory procedures that are citable and have been uploaded at protocols.io.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES