Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 1;16(7):e0254081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254081

Identification and safety assessment of Enterococcus thailandicus TC1 isolated from healthy pigs

Xiaoying Wu 1,#, Bei Wu 2,#, Yue Li 2, Xiue Jin 3, Xiliang Wang 2,*
Editor: Rosa del Campo4
PMCID: PMC8248690  PMID: 34197541

Abstract

Enterococci have the dual characteristics of being opportunistic pathogens and promising probiotics. The isolation from patients of CDC PNS-E2, a newly described Enterococcus species Enterococcus sanguinicola, may pose potential hazards. Enterococcus thailandicus from fermented sausage is a senior subjective synonym of E. sanguinicola. In this study, Enterococcus thailandicus TC1 was first isolated in healthy pigs in Tongcheng, China and identified by phenotypic analysis and 16S rRNA-based techniques. To evaluate the strain safety, an approach including virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, and animal experiments was adopted. The results show that cylA, gelE, esp, agg, ace, efaAfm, efaAfs, ptsD genes were undetected, and that the strain was sensitive or poorly resistant to some clinically relevant antibiotics. However, the isolated strain demonstrated β-hemolytic activity in rabbit blood agar plates. Analysis of animal experiments revealed that the isolated strain had no adverse effect on translocation and the internal organ indices, though significant differences in histology (villi height, crypts height) of ileum were observed. The data acquired suggest that E. thailandicus TC1 may be associated with a potential health risk.

Introduction

The enterococci are gram-positive catalase-negative cocci that have gone through sizable changes in systematics in the past few years. This genus has grown from the 19 species described in 2002 [1] to the 51 species described currently (http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/e/enterococcus.html). Since the Enterococcus was identified as separate genus [2], several new species have been isolated from clinical samples. Those isolated new species have helped to improve the identification process and have created a greater number of probiotics or opportunistic pathogens [3, 4].

Enterococci that are normal inhabitants of the gastrointestinal tracts of both humans and animals often are added to fermented foods [5, 6] or used as probiotics, which can relax or prevent several disorders such as acute gastroenteritis, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, lactose intolerance, and inflammatory bowel syndrome [7]. However, in recent years, enterococci infections in animals have been increasingly reported as causes of animal diarrhea, septicemia, and endocarditis [810], which seriously influence the development of aquaculture. The infection by Enterococcus can not only cause swine disease and death, but may also pose a threat to human health and, inevitably, can lead to the decrease of meat quality and increase the incidence of resistant enterococci. Therefore, safety evaluation of new enterococcal strains in probiotic preparations and food products is vital [4].

Enterococcus strain (CDC PNS-E1, CDC PNS-E2, and CDC PNS-E3) isolation from human clinical specimens has been reported, which indicated the association of these strains with invasive infections in humans [2, 11]. Based on the results of a multiphase taxonomic investigation, Carvalho and colleagues concluded that the unknown cocci represent new species within the genus Enterococcus. New Species of Enterococcus sp nov CDC PNS-E1, CDC PNS-E2, and CDC PNS-E3 were named by the United States (US) Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in light of the recommendation in minute 10 of the July 2002 meeting of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes Subcommittee on the taxonomy of staphylococci and streptococci, which referred to the description of a new species upon a single isolate [12]. The enterococcus species CDC PNS were also designated as Enterococcus sanguinicola sp. nov., and E. thailandicus from fermented sausage is a senior subjective synonym of E. sanguinicola [13, 14]. Although these newly discovered species have enriched the culture collection, related safety information is limited. At present, the safety of this strain has not been reported, therefore, this study aims to investigate the safety of E. sanguinicola TC1 isolated from healthy pigs to provide a theoretical basis for the development and application of this strain.

Materials and methods

Strain and vector

Staphylococcus aureus subsp. aureus Rosenbach (ATCC® 25923™) and Enterococcus faecium HDRsEF1 were stored in the Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology Laboratory of Huazhong Agricultural University (Wuhan, China). DH5α™ competent cells were obtained from TransGen Biotech (Beijing, China) and Pmd18-T Vector was purchased from Takara (Dalian, China).

Reagents

Mueller Hinton (M-H) broth and de Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS) broth were purchased from Becton Dickenson (United States). Biochemical reagents (i.e. arabinose, pyruvate, tellurite, arginine, glucose, inulin, lactose, mannitol, maltose, melibiose, raffinose, ribose, sucrose, sorbitol, sorbose, trehalose, and xylose) and antimicrobial agents (i.e. ampicillin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, gentamicin, nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, tetracycline and vancomycin) were obtained from Hangzhou Microbe Reagent Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou, China). Primers were synthesized by the Tsingke Biotechnology Limited Company (Wuhan, China). Taq DNA Polymerase and deoxynucleotide triphosphates (dNTPs) were purchased from Takara (China). Defibrinated rabbit blood was purchased from Zhengzhou Kowloon Biological Products Co., Ltd. (Zhengzhou, China). DNA isolation kits and gel DNA purification kits were purchased from Tiangen Biotech (Beijing, China).

Bacterial isolation

Sterile cotton swabs were used to acquire rectal content samples from 100-day-old (N = 13) and 21-day-old healthy Tongcheng pigs (N = 6) at the Tongcheng Reservation Farm and from 40-day-old healthy large white pigs (N = 11) at the Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd. Hubei Three Lake (Hubei, China). Bacterial samples were obtained from totally 30 pigs. After collection, the samples were streaked on KF-Streptococcus agar obtained from Hangzhou Microbe Reagent Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou, China) and incubated at 37°C for 24–48 h. Suspected colonies, characterized by smooth red bumps surrounding apparent smooth microcolonies were selected for culture purification. Pure colonies were screened preliminarily by morphological observation, Gram staining, and peroxidase activity. Those colonies that occurred as short chains, in pairs, or singly as catalase-negative, gram-positive cocci were selected.

Enterococcal identification

Presumptive identification at genus level was obtained by assessment of ability to grow at 45°C and 60°C for 30 min in broth at pH 9.6 in the presence of 6.5% (w/v) sodium chloride (NaCl) and 40% (w/v) bile, with the reaction on bile esculin agar [15].

Phenotypic methods

Species-level strain identification was done by physiological and biochemical tests as described previously [11]. The tests performed included the following: acid production from arabinose, pyruvate utilization, gas production in MRS broth, hydrolysis of esculin in the presence of bile, tolerance to tellurite, motility, and determination of nutrient concentrations (i.e. arginine, glucose, inulin, lactose, mannitol, maltose, melibiose, raffinose, ribose, sucrose, sorbitol, sorbose, trehalose, and xylose). Each test was performed in triplicate.

Genotypic methods

Total genomic DNA was extracted from pure cultures by a bacterial genomic DNA extraction kit according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Total DNA was used as a template for 16S rRNA amplification using synthesized forward and reverse primers (Table 1). Amplified fragments of the 16S rRNA gene were obtained, purified with a DNA clean-up kit, and sequenced by Tsingke Biotechnology Industry Co., Ltd, (Wuhan, China). Homologous sequences were queried in the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool-Nucleotide (BLASTN) database (National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, Maryland, USA).

Table 1. PCR primers and conditions used in amplifications for the detection of virulence in E. thailandicus TC1.

Gene Primer sequence (5’-3’) Size (bp) Annealing temperature (°C)
cylA F: TGGATGATAGTGATAGGAAGT 517 57
R: TCTACAGTAAATCTTTCGTCA
gelE F: ACCCCGTATCATTGGTTT 419 52
R: ACGCATTGCTTTTCCATC
esp F: TTGCTAATGCTAGTCCACGACC 933 63
R: CGTCAACACTTGCATTGCCGAA
agg F: AAGAAAAAGAAGTAGACCAAC 1553 52
R: AAACGGCAAGACAAGTAAATA
ace F: AAAGTAGAATTAGATCCACAC 320 56
R: TCTATCACATTCGGTTGCG
efaAfs F: GACAGACCCTCACGAATA 705 52
R: AGTTCATCATGCTGTAGTA
efaAfm F: AACAGATCCGCATGAATA 735 52
R: CATTTCATCATCTGATAGTA
ptsD F: TATCAACGCGATCAAAACGA 241 52
R: CGTTCGCATACAGCTTTTCA
16S rRNA F:CGTGCCTAATACATGCAAGTCGAAC 1475 52
R:ACGACTTCACCCCAATCATCTATCC

Detection of virulence genes and hemolytic phenotype assays

Enterococci virulence genes for gelatinase (gelE), enterococcal surface protein (esp), cytolysin (cylA), adhesion to collagen (ace), cell-wall adhesion (efaA), cell adhesion (agg) and ptsD were investigated by PCR amplification using total genomic DNA as a template. The primers used are listed in Table 1. The amplification conditions were as follows: an initial denaturation step of 94°C for 5 min, 30 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 1 min, annealing for 1 min as shown in Table 1, extension at 72°C for 1 min, and a single elongation step at 72°C for 10 min, followed by storage at 4°C. Hemolytic phenotype was determined by streaking enterococcal cultures on layered 5% defibrinated rabbit blood agar plates. Staphylococcus ATCC 25923 was used as reference strain (positive control) and E. faecium HDRsEF1 was used as negative control. Plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 h [4]. When observed, the presence or absence of zones of clearing around the colonies were interpreted as β-hemolysis (positive) or γ-hemolysis (negative) activity, respectively.

Detection of antibiotic resistance

Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested by the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method in M-H agar, as described by the manufacturer, and by broth microdilution according to EUCAST (www.eucast.org; version 5.0, January 2015) and results were interpreted by EUCAST or by CLSI [16]. Staphylococcus ATCC 25923 was used as a reference strain. The following 11 antibiotics (concentrations given in Table 3) were applied in the present study: ampicillin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, gentamicin, nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, penicillin, tetracycline and vancomycin.

Table 3. Antibiotic resistance of E. thailandicus TC1.

Antibiotics Susceptibility tablet dose Criteria Inhibitory zone diameter (mm)
S I R
Ampicillin 10 μg ≥17 - ≤16 23.34
Chloramphenicol 30 μg ≥18 13–17 ≤12 20.23
Ciprofloxacin 5 μg ≥21 16–20 ≤15 19.53
Clarithromycin 15 μg ≥18 14–17 ≤13 18.55
Erythromycin 15 μg ≥23 14–22 ≤13 15.00
Gentamicin 120 μg ≥10 7–9 ≤6 19.42
Nitrofurantoin 300 μg ≥17 15–16 ≤14 13.55
Norfloxacin 10 μg ≥17 13–16 ≤12 18.20
Penicillin 10 U ≥15 - ≤14 17.39
Tetracycline 30 μg ≥19 15–18 ≤14 25.83
Vancomycin 30 μg ≥17 15–16 ≤14 21.25

R: resistant; I: intermediary; S: susceptible.

Animal experiments

Twelve specific pathogen-free male Kunming mice, 6 to 8 weeks old (average weight: 29.82 ± 0.25 g; mean ± SD) were housed in a temperature-controlled environment (22 ± 2°C, humidity of 56% ± 5%) with a cycle of 12 h of light and 12 h of dark throughout the experiment. All of the animals were fed ad libitum with a conventional balanced diet. After an acclimatization period of 7 days, the mice were randomly divided into control and test groups. The control group (n = 6) was administered 0.2 mL 10% skim milk orally, and the test group (n = 6) was administered 0.2 mL cell suspensions (1010 cfu/mL in skim milk) of the isolated strain TC1 twice daily for 7 days. During the experiment, the animals’ activity, behavior, feces, temperature, and degree of hair luster were observed twice daily, and treatment-related illness or death was recorded for both the experimental group and the control group. All the animal treatments were carried out in accordance with the guidelines in the care and use of animals and with the approval of the Research Ethics Committee of Huazhong Agricultural University, Hubei,China.

Bacterial translocation and internal organ indices

Following the observation period of 7 days, the animals were euthanized by cervical dislocation. The spleen, heart, spleen, kidney, and a sample of liver tissues were excised under strict aseptic conditions to avoid any cross-contamination. All samples were individually homogenized with a tissue grinder. The tissue suspensions were plated separately on MRS agar plates and subsequently incubated at 37°C for 24 h under aerobic conditions [17].

Acquired internal organs including liver, heart, kidney, and spleen were weighed immediately. The organ index was expressed as the actual weight of the internal organ of each mouse divided by the last measure of live body weight [17].

Histological assay

Small samples (0.5 cm) of the ileum (2 cm away from caecum), the caecum (middle portion), and the colon (2 cm away from caecum) were excised [18], rinsed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) for histological studies, and fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin for 2 days. Tissue sections were cut at 6 μm intervals and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). The morphological parameters were measured using a micrometer under a light microscope. Each sample was measured in 10 fields for every parameter and the mean of these measurements was used for statistical analysis. Villus height was measured from the crypt-villus junction to the tip of the villus; crypt depth was measured from the base of the crypt to the crypt-villus junction [2].

Statistical analysis

Results were expressed as means ± standard deviations (SD). Data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test procedure included in the SPSS version 13.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Probability levels of less than .05 were considered significant.

Results

Isolation and identification of the strain

A total of 6 (TC1-6) strains were isolated, from red colonies situated around the medium color from purple to yellow on KF-Streptococcus agar. All of the selected colonies occurred as short chains, in pairs, or singly as catalase-negative gram-positive cocci. Growth occurred at 45°C and 60°C for 30 min in broth at pH 9.6 in the presence of 6.5% (w/v) sodium chloride (NaCl) and 40% (w/v) bile, with the reaction on bile esculin agar. The results of physiological and biochemical tests are shown in Table 2. Of the isolated strains, TC4, TC5, and TC6 were similar to E. faecalis; TC2 and TC3 were similar to E. faecium; and TC1 was an unknown species of Enterococcus. The physiological and biochemical characteristics for the unknown Enterococcus TC1 were similar to those of the previously described Enterococcus species CDC PNS-E2, belong to E. thailandicus [2, 11, 13]. Homology analysis by PCR amplification of a 1475-bp fragment of 16S rRNA from the isolated strain TC1 showed consistency with the positive control strip. These results confirmed the assignment of Enterococcus species CDC PNS-E2 with a 99% identity (EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database Accession No: CCUG 47861).

Table 2. Physiological characteristics of Enterococcus strains isolated from the intestinal microbiota of healthy pigs.

Test/characteristic Strain code
TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6
Acid production from arabinose - + + - - -
Arginine + + + + + +
Gas production in MRS broth - - - - - -
Glucose + + + + + +
Hydrolysis BE + + + + + +
Inulin - + + + + +
Lactose + + + + + +
Mannitol + + + + + +
Maltose + + + + + +
Melibiose - + + - - -
Motility - - - - - -
Pyruvate utilization - - - + + +
Raffinose - - - - - -
Ribose + - - - - -
Sucrose + + + + + +
Sorbitol - - - + + +
Sorbose - - - - - -
Trehalose + + + + + +
Tolerance to tellurite - - - + + +
Xylose - - - - - -

TC, TongCheng, Hubei; MRS, de Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe; BE, hydrolysis of esculin in the presence of bile; +, positive; -, negative.

Virulence factors and antibiotic resistance

The genes agg, cylA, efaAfs, efaAfm, gelE, esp, ace and ptsD were not detected. However, hemolytic activity was positive (S1 Fig). Analysis of antibiotic susceptibility according to EUCAST (www.eucast.org; version 5.0, January 2015) and results interpreted by EUCAST or by CLSI [16] (Table 3) revealed that that the unknown Enterococcus species was susceptible to clinically relevant antibiotics, including ampicillin, chloramphenicol, clarithromycin, gentamicin, norfloxacin, penicillin, tetracycline, and vancomycin. However, it was highly resistant to nitrofurantoin and resistant to moderate levels of ciprofloxacin, and erythromycin.

Animal experiments

Observation of general health status revealed no noticeable behavioral or activity changes in the mice, and no treatment-related illness or death occurred. No differences in hair luster and feces were found between the experimental and control groups throughout the experiment. No viable bacteria from the livers, spleens, hearts, or kidneys of any mouse were successfully cultured on MRS agar plates from either the experimental or the control group. In addition, no significant differences were found for the internal organ indices between the experimental group and the control group (Table 4).

Table 4. Effects on internal organ indices of mice orally inoculated with E. thailandicus TC1 and the control diet.

Group organ indices
Liver Heart Kidney Spleen
Treatment 0.043 ± 0.003 0.004 ± 0.000 0.012 ± 0.001 0.002 ± 0.000
Control 0.044 ± 0.004 0.004 ± 0.001 0.013 ± 0.002 0.003 ± 0.001
p-value 0.18 0.83 0.42 0.06

Values are presented as means ± SD. No significant differences were found between the organ indices from the treated group fed with the isolated strain TC1 and the control group (P>0.05).

From clinical observation, no evident distinctions were found in the shape and size of any of the organs, including the liver, spleen, heart, kidney, ileum, caecum, and colon. Also, no hemorrhage, hyperemia, swelling, or necrosis was evident in any of the organs in the experimental and control groups. However, treatment with the isolated strain TC1 caused damage leading to shortened ileum villi as well as decreased ileum crypt height by various degrees in different animals as viewed under microscopic examination. Histological assays (Table 5) showed that ingestion of the isolated strain TC1 (1 × 1010 cfu/mL) had no effect on villus:crypt ratio, while the villi heights and crypt heights of the ileum were significantly different when compared to those of the control group (P = 0.025 and P = 0.047).

Table 5. Ileum mucosal architecture measurements of mice fed with E. thailandicus TC1 and the control diet.

Group Villi height (μm) Crypt height (μm) Villus/crypt ratio
Treatment 160.42 ± 34.09* 62.62 ± 11.95* 2.56 ± 0.29
Control 232.48 ± 17.24 80.68 ± 4.00 2.88 ± 0.13
p-value 0.025 0.047 0.25

Data are expressed as mean ± SD.

*P < 0.05.

Discussion

Enterococcus species found as commensals in the gastrointestinal tract have a long history of safety and demonstrable beneficial properties [19]. These species are most commonly used as probiotics in animal feed or added to fermented foods [20, 21]. However, some enterococcal species were a major cause of nosocomial infections related to infections in the urinary tract, blood, intraabdominal cavity, and pelvis [3]. Recent studies showed that some Enterococcus species have emerged as important pathogens in animal infections with increased mortality [810], which presents a serious detriment to the farming industry. Enterococcus CDC PNS-E2 isolation from human clinical specimens was associated with invasive infections in humans, which may pose potential hazards [11]. In 2008, the authors proposed the denomination E. sanguinicola to designate the specie CDC PNS-E2. However, another group of investigators named a new species as E. thailandicus [14]. E. sanguinicola (CDC PNS-E2) and E. thailandicus were subsequently recognized as being the same species and the name E. thailandicus had priority to be the valid denomination [13]. In the present study, E. thailandicus TC1 was obtained from healthy pigs. Our intent was to investigate the security of the isolated strain TC1 to confirm its beneficial properties for development as a new probiotic.

Safety assessment with respect to virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, and animal experimentation was an important phase in the choice of enterococci as potential probiotics [19, 22]. Hemolysin was one of the most studied virulence traits in the Enterococcus genus [23, 24]. Cytolysin, which carries the bactericidal and hemolytic activity, is the major pathogenic factor of enterococci and is responsible for the main characteristic of enterococcal pathogenicity in clinical tests [24]. In this study, the lack of cytolysin phenotypic and genotypic congruence may be explained by the genome’s function as a template: the hemolysin gene was located on the plasmid that was easily lost [25]. Further, the E. thailandicus may possess genes orthologous to the cylA gene that share hemolytic function.

Antibiotic resistance genes in Enterococcus organisms are often plasmid or transposon related, which presents a risk of horizontal gene transfer [19] between humans and animals. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of enterococci is a major concern in the medical setting and for animal breeding [26]. Our results show that E. thailandicus TC1 is susceptible to some clinically relevant antibiotics and, more importantly, is the most sensitive to vancomycin. However, this strain was found to be resistant to nitrofurantoin, cefazolin, and cefalotin. Cefazolin and cefalotin-resistant traits were also found in most of the enterococcal strains isolated from human and pig feces.

E. thailandicus TC1 was first obtained in this study from healthy pigs, whose appearance was normal. No differences were observed between the two groups of pigs, and no abnormal reactions in appearance were observed in the mice during the course of the study. Healthy mucosa plays a very important role in intestinal function, to prevent potential pathogens and toxigenic substances from invading systemic tissues or disseminating to extraintestinal organs and tissues [17]. However, effects on the gut mucosa were caused by oral ingestion of the isolated strain E. thailandicus TC1: a loss of intestinal tract, shortened length of ileum villi, and decreased height of ileum crypts. From these observations, E. thailandicus may present a potential health risk.

In summary, this strain first isolated from the healthy pigs was identified as the E. thailandicus TC1. None of the 7 genes of interest was detected, and E. thailandicus TC1, except for an inherent resistance to antibiotics, is performance-sensitive to most antibiotics. Moreover, oral ingestion of E. thailandicus TC1 had no effect on the general health of mice, bacterial translocation, the internal organ indices, nor histology in animal experiments. However, positive hemolytic activity was observed and the administered strain caused macrophage infiltration in the liver and damage to ileum villi, which led to villi shortening, and decreased ileum crypt height by various degrees in different animals as viewed under microscopic examination. E. thailandicus TC1 is likely to harbor potential pathogenicity for animals; however, the specific mechanism is not obvious and must be further investigated.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Haemolytic activity of the isolated strain E. thailandicus TC1.

1: Positive control; 2: The isolated strain; 3: Negative control.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFD0501000) and the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities (2662019PY061).

References

  • 1.Giraffa G. Enterococci from foods. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2002; 26: 163–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2002.tb00608.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Carvalho Mda G, Steigerwalt AG, Morey RE, Shewmaker PL, Falsen E, et al. Designation of the provisional new enterococcus species CDC PNS-E2 as Enterococcus sanguinicola sp. nov., isolated from human blood, and identification of a strain previously named Enterococcus CDC PNS-E1 as Enterococcus italicus Fortina, Ricci, Mora, and Manachini 2004. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46: 3473–3476. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00603-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cebrian R, Banos A, Valdivia E, Perez-Pulido R, Martinez-Bueno M, et al. Characterization of functional, safety, and probiotic properties of Enterococcus faecalis UGRA10, a new AS-48-producer strain. Food Microbiol 2012; 30: 59–67. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2011.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Fortina MG, Ricci G, Borgo F, Manachini PL, Arends K, et al. A survey on biotechnological potential and safety of the novel Enterococcus species of dairy origin, E. italicus. Int J Food Microbiol 2008; 123: 204–211. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lisiecki P. [Antibiotic resistance and siderophore production in enterococci]. Med Dosw Mikrobiol 2014; 66: 1–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yamanaka H, Takagi T, Ohsawa M, Yamamoto N, Kubo N, et al. Identification and characterization of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus species frequently isolated from laboratory mice. Exp Anim 2014; 63: 297–304. doi: 10.1538/expanim.63.297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Owaga EE, Chen MJ, Chen WY, Chen CW, Hsieh RH. Oral toxicity evaluation of kefir-isolated Lactobacillus kefiranofaciens M1 in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol 2014; 70: 157–162. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2014.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lu HZ, Weng XH, Li H, Yin YK, Pang MY, et al. Enterococcus faecium-related outbreak with molecular evidence of transmission from pigs to humans. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40: 913–917. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.3.913-917.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Beshiru A, Igbinosa IH, Omeje FI, Ogofure AG, Eyong MM, et al. Multi-antibiotic resistant and putative virulence gene signatures in Enterococcus species isolated from pig farms environment. Microb Pathog 2017; 104: 90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.01.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lebreton F, van Schaik W, McGuire AM, Godfrey P, Griggs A, et al. Emergence of epidemic multidrug-resistant Enterococcus faecium from animal and commensal strains. mBio 2013; 4. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00534-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Carvalho Mda G, Steigerwalt AG, Morey RE, Shewmaker PL, Teixeira LM, et al. Characterization of three new enterococcal species, Enterococcus sp. nov. CDC PNS-E1, Enterococcus sp. nov. CDC PNS-E2, and Enterococcus sp. nov. CDC PNS-E3, isolated from human clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 1192–1198. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.3.1192-1198.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mascini EM, Bonten MJ. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci: consequences for therapy and infection control. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005; 11 Suppl 4: 43–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2005.01164.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shewmaker PL, Steigerwalt AG, Nicholson AC, Carvalho Mda G, Facklam RR, et al. Reevaluation of the taxonomic status of recently described species of Enterococcus: evidence that E. thailandicus is a senior subjective synonym of "E. sanguinicola" and confirmation of E. caccae as a species distinct from E. silesiacus.J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(7):2676–2679. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00399-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tanasupawat S, Sukontasing S, Lee JS. Enterococcus thailandicus sp. nov., isolated from fermented sausage (’mum’) in Thailand. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58 (Pt7): 1630–1634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Semedo-Lemsaddek T, Nobrega CS, Ribeiro T, Pedroso NM, Sales-Luis T, et al. Virulence traits and antibiotic resistance among enterococci isolated from Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra). Veterinary Microbiology 2013; 163: 378–382. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.12.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing—Twenty-Sixth Edition: M100. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kabeir BM, Yazid AM, Stephenie W, Hakim MN, Anas OM, et al. Safety evaluation of Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum G4 as assessed in BALB/c mice. Lett Appl Microbiol 2008; 46: 32–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2007.02255.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zhou JS, Shu Q, Rutherfurd KJ, Prasad J, Gopal PK, et al. Acute oral toxicity and bacterial translocation studies on potentially probiotic strains of lactic acid bacteria. Food Chem Toxicol 2000; 38: 153–161. doi: 10.1016/s0278-6915(99)00154-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Anadon A, Martinez-Larranaga MR, Aranzazu Martinez M. Probiotics for animal nutrition in the European Union. Regulation and safety assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2006; 45: 91–95. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Franz CMAP, Huch M, Abriouel H, Holzapfel W, Galvez A. Enterococci as probiotics and their implications in food safety. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2011; 151: 125–140. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.08.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Holzapfel W, Arini A, Aeschbacher M, Coppolecchia R, Pot B. Enterococcus faecium SF68 as a model for efficacy and safety evaluation of pharmaceutical probiotics. Beneficial Microbes 2018; 9: 375–388. doi: 10.3920/BM2017.0148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nueno-Palop C, Narbad A. Probiotic assessment of Enterococcus faecalis CP58 isolated from human gut. Int J Food Microbiol 2011; 145: 390–394. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.12.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mundy LM, Sahm DF, Gilmore M. Relationships between enterococcal virulence and antimicrobial resistance. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 2000; 13: 513–+. doi: 10.1128/CMR.13.4.513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Franz CMAP, Muscholl-Silberhorn AB, Yousif NMK, Vancanneyt M, Swings J, et al. Incidence of virulence factors and antibiotic resistance among enterococci isolated from food. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2001; 67: 4385–4389. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.9.4385-4389.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Semedo T, Santos MA, Martins P, Lopes MFS, Marques JJF, et al. Comparative study using type strains and clinical and food isolates to examine hemolytic activity and occurrence of the cyl operon in enterococci. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2003; 41: 2569–2576. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.6.2569-2576.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hasman H, Villadsen AG, Aarestrup FM. Diversity and stability of plasmids from glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus faecium (GRE) isolated from pigs in Denmark. Microb Drug Resist 2005; 11: 178–184. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2005.11.178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rosa del Campo

12 May 2021

PONE-D-21-10442

Identification and safety assessment of Enterococcus species CDC PNS-E2 isolated from a healthy pig

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. wang,

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

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

I suggest a thorough revision of the article, especially for the names of bacteria and genes, which must be in italic and perfectly write, and also including the reference section. Figure 1 does not contribute and should be removed in the next version.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 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,

Rosa del Campo

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding the animals used in your study and ensure you have described the source. For more information regarding PLOS' policy on materials sharing and reporting, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-materials.

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

4. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The article is interesting an well written. The characterization of new species of Enterococcus is important due to their potencial pathogenicity and also their posible importance as probiotics.

The article is sound. I would suggest that the authors look at other virulence factors as those studied are mostly present in E. faecalis. Other facters present in E. faecium could be present. Please take a look at PMID: 29149293.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describes the characterization of a strain belonging to an uncommon species of Enterococcus isolated from the intestinal microbiota of a healthy pig. Characteristics potentially associated with health risks were investigated. The results suggest that the isolate may be associated with potential health risk and therefore should not be used as a probiotic, at least until further studies are performed.

The work brings a contribution by adding information on the potential health risk represented by the isolate of a rarely found enterococcal species.

However, the manuscript needs an overall revision to adjust some language issues and to clarify some methodological aspects. A few examples are as follows:

1.The title should be changed to accommodate the comments given below.

2. Abstract:

Line 24: It is recommendable to change the statement “Enterococcus has the dual characteristics of…..” for “ Enterococci have the dual characteristics of being …..”

Line 25, 26 and 35, as well as in many other parts of the text. CDC PNS-E2 was described in 2004 (reference 11 of this manuscript), so it is no longer a newly described species. Furthermore, the use of the denomination CDC PNS-E2 is no longer recommended. In 2008, the authors proposed the denomination Enterococcus sanguinicola (reference 2 of this manuscript) to designate the species. However, in another publication released about a few weeks before, another group of investigators named a new species as Enterococcus thailandicus (Reference: Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 58:1630-4. 2008). E. sanguinicola (CDC PNS-E2) and E. thailandicus were subsequently recognized as being the same species and the name E. thailandicus had priority to be the valid denomination

So the information given in different parts of the present manuscript should be adjusted to this taxonomic issue.

3. Introduction

Line 40: The term “enterococci” should not be in italics and this should be corrected in many other occasions along the text. The same applies to “staphylococci” and “streptococci” (line 65)

Line 43: the statement “Since the enterococci was identified as a separate genus….” Should be changed for “Since the Enterococcus was identified as separate genus”.

Lines 57-66: the contents of this paragraph should also be revised at the light of updated taxonomic information, since CDC PNS-E2 and CDC PNS-E3 have also received valid species denominations.

4.Material and Methods

Lines 81-82. Sentence starting as “ Trace biochemical ……..” is quite confusing. What exactly that means?

Line 88: replaced “Isolation” by “Bacterial isolation”

Line 135: the reference (14) given is related to the evaluation of enterococci with low- and medium-level VanB-type vancomycin resistance. A broader spectrum reference for susceptibility testing, such as EUCAST or CLSI should be provided. In the results section, line 198, the authors mention the CLSI for interpretation, but they do not mention which CLSI document and year they have used. The same document or reference used to interpret is supposed to be used for performing the tests.

Lines 137-139: The list of antibiotics should be in alphabetic order (and the same applies to when they are listed in Table 3). Again, it is important to specify the reference used, because there are different recommendations. For example, 3 cephalosporins were tested in the present study, but the CLSI does not recommend to test chephalosporins against enterococci and therefore does not propose any interpretation. Plase, clarify. Additionaly, CLSI recommends to use gentamicin disks containing 120 ug instead of the 10ug disks used in the present work ….

5. Other sections

Figures 1 and 2 are Ok, but not really necessary

The title of Table 2 should be revised to indicate that it contains the “Physiological characteristics of Enterococcus strains isolated from the intestinal microbiota of healthy pigs”

Additionaly, the identity of TC1-6 should be stated as a footnote for this table

**********

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: Yes: Ana P. Tedim

Reviewer #2: No

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 1;16(7):e0254081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254081.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Jun 2021

Dear Editor Rosa del Campo,

Thank you very much for your decision letter and advice on our manuscript (Manuscript # PONE-D-21-10442) entitled “Identification and safety assessment of Enterococcus species CDC PNS-E2 isolated from a healthy pig”. We also thank the reviewers for the constructive comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and all amendments are indicated by red font in the revised manuscript. In addition, our point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below this letter.

This revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by Medjaden Inc.

We hope that our revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication in your journal and look forward to hearing from you soon.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Xiliang Wang

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their constructive and positive comments.

Replies to Editor

1. I suggest a thorough revision of the article, especially for the names of bacteria and genes, which must be in italic and perfectly write, and also including the reference section.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The article was carefully revised. The names of bacteria and genes were modified in revised manuscript as marked in red color. The reference section was revised as required by PloS One journal’s guideline.

2. Figure 1 does not contribute and should be removed in the next version.

Response: Figure 1 was removed as you suggested.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding the animals used in your study and ensure you have described the source.

Response: The animal details were added in the “Bacterial isolation” section of the Materials and Methods part as follows: Sterile cotton swabs were used to acquire rectal content samples from 100-day-old (N = 13) and 21-day-old healthy Tongcheng pigs (N = 6) at the Tongcheng Reservation Farm and from 40-day-old healthy large white pigs (N = 11) at the Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd. Hubei Three Lake (Hubei, China). Bacterial samples were obtained from totally 30 pigs.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information

Response: The corresponding author’s ORCID iD information was updated as required.

5. In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information.

Response: The figures were deleted from the manuscript and was submitted as Supporting data.

Replies to Reviewer 1

Specific Comments

1. The article is sound. I would suggest that the authors look at other virulence factors as those studied are mostly present in E. faecalis. Other facters present in E. faecium could be present. Please take a look at PMID: 29149293.

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. The virulence gene esp was examined in this research as well as in the reference as you mentioned. Furthermore, Enterococci virulence genes for gelatinase (gelE), cytolysin (cylA), adhesion to collagen (ace), cell-wall adhesion (efaA), and cell adhesion (agg) were also investigated in this study. The examination of virulence gene ptsD was added in the revised manuscript.

Replies to Reviewer 2

Specific Comments

1. The title should be changed to accommodate the comments given below.

Response: The title was changed to ‘Identification and safety assessment of Enterococcus thailandicus TC1 isolated from healthy pigs’ in revised manuscript.

2. Line 24: It is recommendable to change the statement “Enterococcus has the dual characteristics of…..” for “ Enterococci have the dual characteristics of being …..”

Response: We have changed this sentence in Abstract to ‘Enterococci have the dual characteristics of being opportunistic pathogens and promising probiotics.’

3. Line 25, 26 and 35, as well as in many other parts of the text. CDC PNS-E2 was described in 2004 (reference 11 of this manuscript), so it is no longer a newly described species. Furthermore, the use of the denomination CDC PNS-E2 is no longer recommended. In 2008, the authors proposed the denomination Enterococcus sanguinicola (reference 2 of this manuscript) to designate the species. However, in another publication released about a few weeks before, another group of investigators named a new species as Enterococcus thailandicus (Reference: Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 58:1630-4. 2008). E. sanguinicola (CDC PNS-E2) and E. thailandicus were subsequently recognized as being the same species and the name E. thailandicus had priority to be the valid denomination. So the information given in different parts of the present manuscript should be adjusted to this taxonomic issue.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice. We used E. thailandicus instead of CDC PNS-E2 in this manuscript.

4. Line 40: The term “enterococci” should not be in italics and this should be corrected in many other occasions along the text. The same applies to “staphylococci” and “streptococci” (line 65)

Response: We have corrected the typefaces of enterococci, staphylococci and streptococci in revised manuscript.

5. Line 43: the statement “Since the enterococci was identified as a separate genus….” Should be changed for “Since the Enterococcus was identified as separate genus”.

Response: The sentence was modified in revised manuscript as mentioned.

6. Lines 57-66: the contents of this paragraph should also be revised at the light of updated taxonomic information, since CDC PNS-E2 and CDC PNS-E3 have also received valid species denominations.

Response: We used E. thailandicus instead of CDC PNS-E2 or CDC PNS-E3 in this manuscript.

7. Lines 81-82. Sentence starting as “Trace biochemical …….” is quite confusing. What exactly that means?

Line 88: replaced “Isolation” by “Bacterial isolation”

Response: The description of biochemical reagents and antimicrobial agents were updated in revised manuscript as follows:

Biochemical reagents (i.e. arabinose, pyruvate, MRS broth, tellurite, arginine, glucose, inulin, lactose, mannitol, maltose, melibiose, raffinose, ribose, sucrose, sorbitol, sorbose, trehalose, and xylose) and antimicrobial agents Trace biochemical reaction tubes(i.e. vancomycin, tetracycline, ampicillin, chloramphenicol, gentamicin, penicillin, erythromycin, nitrofurantoin, cefazolin, cefoperazone, cefalotin, clarithromycin, norfloxacin, and ciprofloxacin) and susceptibility pieces were obtained from Hangzhou Microbe Reagent Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou, China).

In addition, we used “Bacterial isolation” instead of “Isolation” in this manuscript.

8. Line 135: the reference (14) given is related to the evaluation of enterococci with low- and medium-level VanB-type vancomycin resistance. A broader spectrum reference for susceptibility testing, such as EUCAST or CLSI should be provided. In the results section, line 198, the authors mention the CLSI for interpretation, but they do not mention which CLSI document and year they have used. The same document or reference used to interpret is supposed to be used for performing the tests.

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. The detailed information for detection of antibiotic resistance was added in revised manuscript as follows:

Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested by the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method in M-H agar, as described by the manufacturer, and by broth microdilution according to EUCAST (www.eucast.org; version 5.0, January 2015) and results were interpreted by EUCAST or by CLSI [16]. Staphylococcus ATCC 25923 was used as a reference strain. The following antibiotics (concentrations given in Table 3) were applied in the present study: ampicillin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, gentamicin, nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, penicillin, tetracycline and vancomycin.

9. Lines 137-139: The list of antibiotics should be in alphabetic order (and the same applies to when they are listed in Table 3). Again, it is important to specify the reference used, because there are different recommendations. For example, 3 cephalosporins were tested in the present study, but the CLSI does not recommend to test chephalosporins against enterococci and therefore does not propose any interpretation. Plase, clarify. Additionaly, CLSI recommends to use instead of the 10ug disks used in the present work ….

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. According to CLSI and your suggestion, we deleted the data related to cefazolin, cefoperazone and cefalotin, and added the antibiotic resistance results of 120 ug gentamicin disks. And the antibiotics in Table 3 were listed in alphabetic order in revised manuscript.

10. Figures 1 and 2 are Ok, but not really necessary

Response: Figure 1 was removed and figure 2 was submitted as supporting data.

11. The title of Table 2 should be revised to indicate that it contains the “Physiological characteristics of Enterococcus strains isolated from the intestinal microbiota of healthy pigs”. Additionaly, the identity of TC1-6 should be stated as a footnote for this table

Response: The title of Table 2 was revised to “Physiological characteristics of Enterococcus strains isolated from the intestinal microbiota of healthy pigs”. The Enterococcus strains from TongCheng, Hubei were abbreviated as TC, which was marked as a footnote in Table 2.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Rosa del Campo

15 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-10442R1

Identification and safety assessment of Enterococcus thailandicus TC1 isolated from healthy pigs

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. wang,

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

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

Writing the names of the bacteria is as important as being rigorous in the experiments. After the reviewers and myself have pointed out the errors, major mistakes still remain. The first time a microorganism is named, the name should be in full: Enterococcus thailandicus, but from this point on it should be contracted to E. thailandicus, of course in italics.

Other errors are in the word "pstD" in line 31 which is in another style of letter, a space before the bracket in line 62, line 79 aureus should be in italics, and the final points of the statements of the tables.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 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,

Rosa del Campo

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.

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

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 1;16(7):e0254081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254081.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Jun 2021

Replies to Editor

1. Writing the names of the bacteria is as important as being rigorous in the experiments. After the reviewers and myself have pointed out the errors, major mistakes still remain. The first time a microorganism is named, the name should be in full: Enterococcus thailandicus, but from this point on it should be contracted to E. thailandicus, of course in italics.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The mistakes were modified in revised manuscript as marked in red color.

2. Other errors are in the word "pstD" in line 31 which is in another style of letter, a space before the bracket in line 62, line 79 aureus should be in italics, and the final points of the statements of the tables.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The mistakes were modified in revised manuscript as marked in red color.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Rosa del Campo

21 Jun 2021

Identification and safety assessment of Enterococcus thailandicus TC1 isolated from healthy pigs

PONE-D-21-10442R2

Dear Dr. wang,

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

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

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rosa del Campo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Rosa del Campo

24 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-10442R2

Identification and safety assessment of Enterococcus thailandicus TC1 isolated from healthy pigs

Dear Dr. Wang:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rosa del Campo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Haemolytic activity of the isolated strain E. thailandicus TC1.

    1: Positive control; 2: The isolated strain; 3: Negative control.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES