Skip to main content
Pathogens logoLink to Pathogens
. 2022 Sep 7;11(9):1022. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11091022

Colistin Resistance Mechanism in Enterobacter hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii Isolated from Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in France

Younes Laidoudi 1,2, Edgarthe Priscilla Ngaiganam 1,2, Jean-Lou Marié 3, Isabelle Pagnier 1,2, Jean-Marc Rolain 1,2, Seydina Mouhamadou Diene 1,2, Bernard Davoust 1,2,3,*
Editor: Marcello Otake Sato
PMCID: PMC9504195  PMID: 36145454

Abstract

Wild animals may act as efficient antimicrobial-resistance reservoirs and epidemiological links between humans, livestock, and natural environments. By using phenotypic and genotypic characterization, the present study highlighted the occurrence of an antimicrobial-resistant (i.e., amoxicillin, amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, cephalothin, and colistin) Enterobacter hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii strain in wild boar (Sus scrofa) from France. The molecular analysis conducted showed non-synonymous mutations in the pmrA/pmrB and phoQ/phoP operons and the phoP/Q regulator mgrB gene, leading to colistin resistance. The present data highlight the need for continuous monitoring of multidrug-resistant bacteria in wild animals to limit the spread of these threatening pathogens.

Keywords: gene inactivation, phoP/Q, pmrA/B, mgrB regulator, colistin resistance, wild boar, France

1. Introduction

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens, such as carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (i.e., Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Salmonella enterica, and Enterobacter cloacae complex bacterium), constitute a worldwide health threat [1]. Increased occurrence of infections caused by Gram-negative MDR bacteria, and a lack of new antibiotic drugs has led to the reevaluation of old antibiotics. As a result, colistin has become the last-line drug against serious bacterial infections, since it is effective against the majority of all multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria [2]. However, a gradual increase in the prevalence of colistin resistance has been observed in various genera, including Escherichia, Klebsiella, Salmonella, Shigella, and Enterobacter, leading to a serious health threat [3].

Nowadays, two colistin resistance mechanisms are known in Gram-negative bacteria. One involves structural modifications of bacterial lipopolysaccharide, including the addition of 4-amino-4-deoxy-l-arabinose or phosphoethanolamine, following chromosomal mutations in genes encoding the two-component systems (phoP/Q and pmrA/B, or in the mgrB, a negative regulator of the PhoPQ system [4]). The other mechanism involves the phosphoethanolamine transferase mcr genes, a recently identified horizontally transferable plasmid-mediated colistin-resistance gene [5].

Enterobacter cloacae complex (ECC) is a member of the ‘ESKAPE’ group (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.) [1]. These pathogens are described as the leading cause of resistant nosocomial infections [1,6,7,8]. Among the Enterobacter genus, Enterobacter cloacae complex (ECC), including E. cloacae, E. asburiae, E. hormaechei, E. kobei, E. ludwigii, E. mori, E. nimipressuralis, E. roggenkampii, and E. bugandensis, are the most important clinically encountered pathogens with natural and/or acquired resistance to many antibiotics [2].

Previous studies demonstrated the presence of antimicrobial-resistance (AMR) genes in bacteria from a large variety of wildlife [9,10,11] and domestic [12,13] animals throughout Europe, including resistance to third generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, carbapenems, and even colistin [9,10]. Due to intensive contact between humans and domestic and wild animals, the transmission of antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative bacteria and/or interbacterial exchanges of AMR genes between bacteria from different niches is frequent [12,13]. In addition, some studies have highlighted the role of wild animals as bioindicators or sentinels for the propagation of resistant bacteria in the environment [14,15,16]. Consequently, the implementation of a “One Health” approach is timely for studying all underlying economic, social, political, environmental, and biological factors involved in the biology of bacteria carrying AMR genes, in order to identify key priorities for combating AMR pathogens [17,18,19]. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the origin of colistin resistance in Enterobacter hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii isolated from fecal samples of French wild boar.

2. Results

2.1. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

One bacterium from the E. cloacae complex (ECC) was isolated. The antimicrobial susceptibility test revealed that the isolated strain was susceptible to cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftriaxone, ertapenem, imipenem, trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazol, ciprofloxacin, and gentamycin, while the strain was resistant to two antimicrobial classes represented by the β-lactams (i.e., amoxicillin, amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, and cephalothin) and polymyxins (i.e., colistin). The minimum inhibitory concentration of colistin was determined by broth microdilution, with an MIC = 4 mg/L.

2.2. Molecular Analysis

All PCR reactions yielded the amplification of the chromosomal genes of interest (i.e., phoQ/phoP, pmrA/pmrB, and mgrB) and housekeeping genes (i.e., dnaA, fusA, gyrB, leuS, pyrG, rplB, and rpoB). However, despite several attempts, none of the plasmid-mediated mobile colistin-resistance genes (mcr) were amplified.

The maximum likelihood phylogeny based on the chromosomal housekeeping genes (Figure 1) showed evidence that the isolated strain from wild boar is an integral part of Enterobacter cloacae complex bacteria and it clustered with the reference E. hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii strain (GenBank accession number: CP017179, ST906). The MLST analysis performed on PubMLST server (https://pubmlst.org/ecloacae/, accessed on 15 July 2022) yielded the identification of this isolate as a new strain submitted under the accession ST1042.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Molecular characterization of the E. hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii strain ST1042 isolated from wild boar in the present study. Maximum likelihood (ML) phylogeny showing the position of ST1042 strain among the member of the ECC strains. The tree corresponds to the IQTREE inferred from the 41 concatenated (3509 bps) sequences (i.e., dnaA, fusA, gyrB, leuS, pyrG, rplB, and rpoB) with 17.6% of informative sites. Branches are color coded according to the bootstrap values. The tree was rooted at the midpoint using iTOL v5 software [20]. Accession numbers, species names, and ST accessions are indicated at the tip of each branch. The bold blue label indicates the sequence obtained in this study. Bold black labels indicate reference strains. Size-dependent stars indicate the number of mutations identified in the two-component system genes (phoP/Q, pmrA/B, and mgrB) comparatively to the reference colistin-sensitive strain E. asburiae (CP011863). Black-filled circles indicate the colistin profile according to the MIC expressed in mg/L. The presence of mcr gene is indicated by the filled black right pointing (mcr-9 variants) and the left pointing (mcr-10 variants) triangles. The heatmap shows the profile of each strain according to the identified mutation in the two-component system genes (phoP/Q, pmrA/B, and mgrB). Green areas represent tolerated mutation, while red areas represent intolerant mutations according to the result of sorting intolerant from tolerant (SIFT) calculated on (https://sift.bii.a-star.edu.sg, accessed on 15 July 2022). The horizontal dendrogram corresponds to the parsimony tree generated by the PARS and CONSENSE applications within the PHYLIP program [21]. Red-colored labels and the color-coded background indicate intolerant mutation names and their origine (i.e., phoP/Q, pmrA/B, and mgrB), respectively.

By analogy to the colistin-sensitive-type strain of E. asburiae (E. asburiae, ATCC35953, GenBank accession number: CP011863), 5 non-synonymous mutations, in total, in the phoP, 17 in phoQ, 12 in pmrA, 24 in pmrB, and 2 in mgrB genes were recorded. Of those, two mutations (phoP: V5R and pmrA: D177E) were strain-specific and were considered as mutations affecting protein function according to the result of sorting intolerant from tolerant (SIFT), calculated on (https://sift.bii.a-star.edu.sg, accessed on 15 July 2022) (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Location of the non-synonymous mutations throughout the predicted domains of the two-component systems (phoP/Q and pmrA/B and the phoP/Q regulator mgrB gene). Black and red texts indicate, respectively, tolerated mutations and mutations affecting protein function according to the result of sorting intolerant from tolerant (SIFT) calculated on (https://sift.bii.a-star.edu.sg, accessed on 15 July 2022). The CLUSTALW alignment represents the informative sites of protein sequences of the phoP/phoQ and pmrA/pmrB and the PhoPQ regulator mgrB genes of ECC strains.

The parsimony tree performed on the mutation’s matrix showed that colistin resistance in ECC strains is related to the presence of intolerant mutations in the two-component systems (phoP/Q and pmrA/B and the mgrB genes), while the resistance profile (low, medium, high) is cluster dependent according to the MLST phylogeny (Figure 1).

3. Discussion

The emergence of new infectious pathogens of zoonotic concern in wildlife has increased general interest in wild animals [22]. However, studies on antimicrobial-resistant bacteria from wild fauna are scant as access to their biological samples is difficult. Here, we report, for the first time, a colistin-resistant strain of E. hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii isolated from wild boar (Sus scrofa). Phenotypic and genotypic characterizations conducted in the current study emphasize the role of the inactivation in the two-component systems (phoP/Q and pmrA/B and the phoP/Q regulator mgrB gene) in the colistin-resistance mechanism from the E. hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii strain.

Despite the large sample panel tested herein, only one antimicrobial-resistant ECC strain was isolated in wild boar from Southwest France. The low prevalence of resistant bacterial strains from wild boar was also reported in Germany [23], Spain, and Portugal [24], which may reflect both a low level of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in these areas and the low exposure of these animals to antimicrobial drugs [25]. Nowadays, several studies using genomics have reported the occurrence of some phoP/phoQ and pmrA/pmrB profiles in ECC strains isolated from both humans and animals in several parts of the world (i.e., Japan, Netherlands, and USA), suggesting an anthropogenic origin for these pathogens. Moreover, wild animals are not treated directly with antimicrobial drugs, while the environmental exposure to antimicrobials could contribute to the selection of resistant bacteria in these animals, as reported in wild boar in Europe [5]. In addition, the expansion of urbanization to the detriment of forests has been reported to be another cause of contamination of wild fauna with antimicrobial-resistant bacteria through food, water, or direct contact with garbage and sewage [26], which may explain the carriage of a colistin-resistant ECC strain by wild boar in the present study.

Available studies have shown that the prevalence of bacteria and the results of the antimicrobial sensitivity analysis vary among wild species and their geographical locations [25]. Further analyses with respect to regional distribution and genetic traits as well as representative animal fauna need to be carried out to examine potential hosts and regional hot spots of AMR in wildlife in France.

Phenotypically, the E. hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii herein isolated was β-lactams resistant (i.e., amoxicillin, amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, cephalothin). Β-lactam resistance is not new in E. hormaechei strains and has been proven to be linked to chromosomally encoded AmpC β-lactamases [27]. Genotypically, the chromosomal phoP/phoQ and pmrA/pmrB and mgrB genes revealed several non-synonymous mutations, particularly the V5R mutation in the phoP and D177E mutation in pmrA genes. Interestingly, these two mutations were strain specific and were involved in the alteration in protein function. Moreover, the absence of mcr genes from the isolated strain suggests that two-component systems (phoP/Q and pmrA/B and mgrB) are responsible for the observed colistin resistance.

Despite the important number of studies describing colistin-resistance mechanisms in ECC bacteria, there is limited information on the patterns mediating these mechanisms in ECC bacteria [3,12]. Mushtaq and colleagues investigated relationships to species, genome, carbon source utilization, and LPS structure on 1749 ECC strains [3]. Authors reported that colistin resistance is associated with particular genomic and metabolic clusters inducing changes in LPS architectures, which is directly linked to the chromosomal mutations in genes encoding the two-component systems (phoP/Q and pmrA/B or in the phoP/Q regulator mgrB gene) [4]. However, genomic data from this study were not available [3]. On the other hand, and despite the carriage of different mcr variants by the ECC bacteria, only the mcr-10 variants were statistically linked to colistin resistance or reduced susceptibility to colistin [28,29], without a clear confirmation of this statement [30]. The present study highlighted that the colistin-resistance profile in ECC strains is dependent on phylogenetic clusters and to mutations affecting protein function of the two two-component systems (phoP/Q and pmrA/B or in the phoP/Q regulator mgrB gene) as previously reported by using genome-based phylogeny [3]. However, the colistin-resistance mechanism remains unexplained genomically in some species. For example, the S/R-colistin strain (GenBank accession: CP010512) showed a completely independent colistin response regarding the genomic context [31,32,33].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sample Processing and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

In 2016, 358 fecal samples of wild boar (Sus scrofa) were collected in the military camp of Canjuers (43°42′17.99′′ N 6°18′18.00′′ E) in the Var (Southeast France). The selective Lucie Bardet-Jean-Marc Rolain (LBJMR) medium (S177) was used for the isolation and culture of ECC isolates as described elsewhere [34]. Broth microdilution for antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed according to the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility testing breakpoints.

4.2. DNA Extraction and Sequencing

The isolated bacterium was subjected to DNA extraction using the Biorobot EZ1 System with the EZ1 DNA tissue kit (Qiagen, Courtaboeuf, France) following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Genomic DNA was subjected to PCR amplification and sequencing targeting three group of genes: (i) housekeeping genes (i.e., dnaA, fusA, gyrB, leuS, pyrG, rplB, and rpoB) for multiloci sequence typing; (ii) the chromosomal phoP/phoQ and pmrA/pmrB and mgrB genes; and (iii) a group of known plasmid-mediated colistin-resistance (mcr) genes. PCR amplification was confirmed in a 2% agarose gel with ethidium bromide. The PCR products of all positive reactions were purified by filtration using NucleoFast 96 PCR DNA purification plate prior to the BigDye reaction using the Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). The BigDye products were purified on the Sephadex G-50 Superfine gel filtration resin prior to sequencing on the ABI Prism 3130XL.

4.3. Molecular Analysis

4.3.1. Data Preparation

To characterize the isolated bacterium, a dataset of 31 ECC strains was selected on the basis of the availability of information on MIC of colistin and genomic and plasmidic sequences. Of those, 12 bacterial genomes representing 5 ECC species (i.e., E. hormaechei, E. roggenkampii, E. cloacae, E. kobei, and E. asburiae) were available only in paired reads from GenBank Databse (Project accession: PRJDB13693) [3]. Genome assemblies were generated using a pipeline grouping different software (i.e., Velvet [35], Soap Denovo [36], and Spades [37]) as described elsewhere [38]. To strengthen the molecular phylogeny, 10 types of ECC strains were also involved in the study (Table 1). Briefly, the housekeeping genes of interest (i.e., dnaA, fusA, gyrB, leuS, pyrG, rplB, and rpoB) were researched and retrieved from the selected genomes and were then blasted on PubMLST server (https://pubmlst.org/ecloacae/, accessed on 15 July 2022) to confirm and/or identify the sequence type, while protein-coding genes in the two-component systems (pmrA/B and phoQ/P and the phoP/Q regulator mgrB gene) were also searched and retrieved from the selected strains.

Table 1.

Description of the ECC strains used in the molecular analysis.

Strain Identification Acc. No. Strain ST. Acc. dnaA fusA gyrB leuS pyrG rplB rpoB Source MIC (mg/L) Mcr Genes References
E. h. subsp. steigerwaltii ST1042 B-107 1042 4 6 4 77 11 36 39 wild boar 4 No This study
E. h. subsp. steigerwaltii  a CP017179 DSM 16691 906 58 174 4 6 42 4 25 [46]
E. h. subsp. steigerwaltii CP083849 14269 125 63 3 66 68 3 16 3 8 mcr-9.2 [30]
E. h. subsp. hoffmannii  a CP017186 DSM 14563 816 59 9 80 172 35 6 6 [46]
E. h. subsp. oharae  a CP017180 DSM 16687 108 68 8 75 63 65 34 35
E. hormachei DRX366480 En42 1579 4 4 4 6 72 4 6 Dog >128 No [47]
E. roggenkampii CP083853 12795 523 36 39 192 206 49 12 20 >128 mcr-9.2 [30]
E. roggenkampii CP083819 13840 702 36 25 49 30 49 21 143 16 mcr-10.1
E. roggenkampii DRX366478 En37 1576 72 278 71 383 160 46 172 Dog >128 mcr-10 [47]
E. roggenkampii DRX366479 En50 606 37 27 49 57 200 21 20 Cat >128 No
E. oligotrophica  a AP019007 CCA6 Novel 401 b 266 423 496 b 342 b 4 273 leaf soil [46]
E. roggenkampii a CP017184 DSM 16690 Novel 270 39 91 92 312 12 26
E. xiangfangenisc  a CP017183 LMG 27195 544 10 21 9 44 45 4 33
E. c. subsp. cloacae a CP0011918 ATCC 13047 873 85 63 101 103 96 6 53 Human 8 No
E. c. subsp. cloacae CP083821 12961 84 60 1 61 1 36 22 1 >128 mcr-10.1 [30]
E. cloacae DRX366481 En46 765 156 92 169 218 105 22 99 Dog >128 No [47]
E. cloacae CP010512 colR/S 252 22 15 102 104 101 11 10 Human 1/500 No [31]
E. cloacae CP032291 /0073 73 8 33 6 9 12 6 8 Human >8 No [48]
E. cloacae CP021749 163 163 71 3 87 89 13 16 3 Human >8 No
E. cloacae CP014280 MBRL1077 Novel 467 b 202 484 b 582 b 377 219 266 Human > 4 No [49]
E. kobei  a CP017181 ATCC BAA-260 806 71 3 87 312 254 16 167 [46]
E. kobei CP083828 11778 280 3 3 58 37 3 16 17 >128 mcr-10.2 [30]
E. kobei DRX366470 En3 591 3 3 110 232 19 16 17 Dog >128 No [47]
E. kobei DRX366471 En4 591 3 3 110 232 19 16 17 Dog >128 No
E. kobei DRX366472 En5 591 3 3 110 232 19 16 17 Dog >128 No
E. kobei DRX366473 En14 591 3 3 110 232 19 16 17 Cat >128 No
E. kobei DRX366474 En49 1577 316 277 110 518 3 16 210 Dog >128 No
E. kobei CP083862 11743 56 42 3 52 37 23 16 3 >128 mcr9.1/2 copies [30]
E. kobei CP083857 12379 57 43 3 51 36 18 16 19 >128 mcr-9.2
E. asburiae  a CP011863 ATCC 35953 807 255 166 280 313 255 11 166 Human 1 No [3]
E. asburiae DRX366475 En6 1578 229 14 235 519 98 11 16 Dog >128 No [47]
E. asburiae DRX366476 En19 562 22 15 102 104 101 11 71 Cat >128 No
E. asburiae DRX366477 En30 1578 229 14 235 519 98 11 16 Cat >128 mcr-9
E. asburiae CP083842 16773 41 37 25 49 30 49 21 20 >128 mcr-9.1 [30]
E. asburiae CP083834 AR0468 27 26 16 25 53 22 9 15 >128 mcr-9.1
E. asburiae CP083830 AR2284 252 22 15 102 104 101 11 10 >128 mcr-9.1 + mcr-9.2
E.asburiae AP022628 A2563 484 26 14 143 191 61 11 89 Human 0.125 mcr-9 [50]
E. asburiae CP083815 161373 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 mcr-10.1 [30]
E. ludwigii a CP017279 EN-119 714 13 2 105 133 51 2 14 [46]
E. ludwigii CP083824 11894 Novel 280 b 15 318 b 361 b 293 106 156 128 mcr-10.4 [30]

ST: sequence type; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; a: indicates type ECC strains; b: indicates the most closest allele found in PubMLST database.

4.3.2. Molecular Characterization

Sequence alignment was performed using MAFFT [39]. The Bioedit software was used to manually refine the multisequence alignments [40] prior to sequence concatenation using SEAVIEW [41]. The multisequence alignment was then subjected to maximum-likelihood-based phylogeny using iqtree2 software [42]. The best-fit model was selected using model finder [43] to compute the tree under 1000 bootstrap replications. Sequence of Klebsiella aerogenes, strain KCTC2190 (GenBank accession: CP002824) was used as outgroup to root the tree.

In addition, the parsimony tree was performed on the mutation matrix of the two-component systems (pmrA/B and phoQ/P and the phoP/Q regulator mgrB genes). Briefly, protein sequences were retrieved from all genomes of bacterial strains for which the results of colistin testing were available (n = 31) and were compared to sequences from the colistin-sensitive reference E. asburiae (GenBank accession: CP011863) using ClusterW and PROVEAN [44]. Identified mutations were then subjected to sorting intolerant from tolerant (SIFT) calculated on (https://sift.bii.a-star.edu.sg, accessed on 15 July 2022). The SIFT score and mutation matrix were then subjected to parsimony tree using PARS and CONSENSE applications within PHYLIP program [21]. The resulting heatmap as well as the information on colistin sensitivity of each strain (i.e., number of mutations per gene in the two-component systems (pmrA/B and phoQ/P and the phoP/Q regulator mgrB), MIC for colistin, and the presence of mcr genes) were used to annotate the tree using iTOL software [20].

Finally, the SMART server [45] was used to predict protein domains in the two-component systems (pmrA/B and phoQ/P and the phoP/Q regulator mgrB) using Escherichia coli K-12 sub-strain MG1655 as type strain.

5. Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that wild boar could be colonized by colistin-resistant E. hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii, highlighting their potential role as reservoirs of AMR bacteria. Because of the consumption of wild boar as game animal as well as their proximity to domestic animals and farms, these common animals could be a zoonotic source for transmission of colistin-resistant bacteria to humans.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the Canjuers Military Hunting Society, in particular, to Martial Grioche. The authors thank also the Association pour la Recherche en Infectiologie for its support.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: B.D., S.M.D. and J.-M.R.; methodology: B.D., J.-L.M., S.M.D., E.P.N. and Y.L.; validation: S.M.D., J.-M.R. and B.D.; formal analysis, Y.L. and E.P.N.; investigation, Y.L. and E.P.N.; writing—original draft preparation: Y.L., E.P.N. and S.M.D.; writing—review and editing: Y.L., E.P.N., B.D., I.P., J.-L.M. and S.M.D.; supervision: B.D., S.M.D. and J.-M.R.; funding acquisition: S.M.D. and J.-M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The housekeeping (i.e., dnaA fusA, gyrB, leuS, pyrG, rplB, and rpoB) genes amplified in the present study are available from PubMLST database under the accession number: ST1042. Descriptive pipeline and dataset used in the present study are available as a GitHub repository: https://github.com/YLdz-SM/CLT-E.h.steigerwaltii.git (accessed on 15 July 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the French Army Health Service, the OpenHealth Company, the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection, the National Research Agency under the program “Investissements d’avenir”, reference ANR-10-IAHU-03, the Region Sud and the European funding FEDER PRIMI.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Mancuso G., Midiri A., Gerace E., Biondo C. Bacterial antibiotic resistance: The most critical pathogens. Pathogens. 2021;10:1310. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10101310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Annavajhala M.K., Gomez-Simmonds A., Uhlemann A.C. Multidrug-resistant Enterobacter cloacae Complex emerging as a global, diversifying Threat. Front. Microbiol. 2019;10:44. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mushtaq S., Reynolds R., Gilmore M.C., Esho O., Adkin R., García-Romero I., Chaudhry A., Horner C., Bartholomew T.L., Valvano M.A. Inherent colistin resistance in genogroups of the Enterobacter cloacae Complex: Epidemiological, genetic and biochemical analysis from the BSAC Resistance Surveillance Programme. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020;75:2452–2461. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkaa201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hong Y.K., Ko K.S. PmrAB and PhoPQ variants in colistin-resistant Enterobacter spp. isolates in Korea. Curr. Microbiol. 2019;76:644–649. doi: 10.1007/s00284-019-01672-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kim J.S., Yu J.K., Jeon S.J., Park S.H., Han S., Park S.H., Kang M., Jang J.I., Shin E.K., Kim J., et al. Distribution of mcr genes among aarbapenem-resistant enterobacterales clinical isolates: High prevalence of mcr-positive Enterobacter cloacae complex in Seoul, Republic of Korea. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2021;58:106418. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Eugene Sanders W.E., Sanders C.C. Enterobacter spp.: Pathogens poised to flourish at the turn of the century. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1997;10:220–241. doi: 10.1128/CMR.10.2.220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rice L.B. Federal funding for the study of antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial pathogens: No ESKAPE. J. Infect. Dis. 2008;197:1079–1081. doi: 10.1086/533452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wisplinghoff H., Bischoff T., Tallent S.M., Seifert H., Wenzel R.P., Edmond M.B. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: Analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2004;39:309–317. doi: 10.1086/421946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sousa M., Gonçalves A., Silva N., Serra R., Alcaide E., Zorrilla I., Torres C., Caniça M., Igrejas G., Poeta P. Acquired antibiotic resistance among wild animals: The case of Iberian Lynx (Lynx Pardinus) Vet. Q. 2014;34:105–112. doi: 10.1080/01652176.2014.949391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lillehaug A., Bergsjø B., Schau J., Bruheim T., Vikøren T., Handeland K. Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., verocytotoxic Escherichia coli, and antibiotic resistance in indicator organisms in wild cervids. Acta Vet. Scand. 2005;46:23. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-46-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Torres R.T., Cunha M.V., Caetano T., Mendo S., Serrano E., Fonseca C. Ecology, Conservation and Management of Wild Pigs and Peccaries. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2017. Antimicrobial resistance in wild boar in europe: Present knowledge and future challenges. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hamame A., Davoust B., Cherak Z., Rolain J.-M., Diene S.M. Mobile colistin resistance (mcr) genes in cats and dogs and their zoonotic transmission risks. Pathogens. 2022;11:698. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11060698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hamame A., Davoust B., Rolain J.M., Diene S.M. Screening of colistin-resistant bacteria in domestic pets from France. Animals. 2022;12:633. doi: 10.3390/ani12050633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Furness L.E., Campbell A., Zhang L., Gaze W.H., McDonald R.A. Wild small mammals as sentinels for the environmental transmission of antimicrobial resistance. Environ. Res. 2017;154:28–34. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Smith S., Wang J., Fanning S., McMahon B.J. Antimicrobial resistant bacteria in wild mammals and birds: A coincidence or cause for concern? Ir. Vet. J. 2014;67:8. doi: 10.1186/2046-0481-67-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Radhouani H., Poeta P., Gonçalves A., Pacheco R., Sargo R., Igrejas G. Wild birds as biological indicators of environmental pollution: Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Escherichia coli and enterococci isolated from common buzzards (Buteo Buteo) J. Med. Microbiol. 2012;61:837–843. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.038364-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Andersson D.I., Hughes D. Microbiological effects of sublethal levels of antibiotics. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2014;12:465–478. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.White A., Hughes J.M. Critical importance of a one health approach to antimicrobial resistance. Ecohealth. 2019;16:404–409. doi: 10.1007/s10393-019-01415-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lammie S.L., Hughes J.M. Antimicrobial resistance, food safety, and one health: The need for convergence. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2016;7:287–312. doi: 10.1146/annurev-food-041715-033251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Letunic I., Bork P. Interactive tree of life (itol) v5: An online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:W293–W296. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Felsenstein J. PHYLIP—Phylogeny Inference Package, version 3.69. University of Washington; Seattle, WA, USA: 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hassell J.M., Begon M., Ward M.J., Fèvre E.M. Urbanization and disease emergence: Dynamics at the wildlife–livestock–human interface. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2017;32:55–67. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Plaza-Rodríguez C., Alt K., Grobbel M., Hammerl J.A., Irrgang A., Szabo I., Stingl K., Schuh E., Wiehle L., Pfefferkorn B., et al. wildlife as sentinels of antimicrobial resistance in Germany? Front. Vet. Sci. 2021;7:627821. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.627821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Torres R.T., Fernandes J., Carvalho J., Cunha M.V., Caetano T., Mendo S., Serrano E., Fonseca C. Wild boar as a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;717:135001. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vittecoq M., Godreuil S., Prugnolle F., Durand P., Brazier L., Renaud N., Arnal A., Aberkane S., Jean-Pierre H., Gauthier-Clerc M., et al. Review: Antimicrobial resistance in wildlife. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016;53:519–529. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12596. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Radhouani H., Silva N., Poeta P., Torres C., Correia S., Igrejas G. Potential impact of antimicrobial resistance in wildlife, environment, and human health. Front. Microbiol. 2014;5:23. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yeh T.-K., Lin H.-J., Liu P.-Y., Wang J.-H., Hsueh P.-R. Antibiotic resistance in Enterobacter hormaechei. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2022;4:106650. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Macesic N., Blakeway L.V., Stewart J.D., Hawkey J., Wyres K.L., Judd L.M., Wick R.R., Jenney A.W., Holt K.E., Peleg A.Y. Silent spread of mobile colistin resistance gene mcr-9.1 on inchi2 ‘superplasmids’ in clinical carbapenem-resistant enterobacterales. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021;27 doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.04.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Xu T., Zhang C., Ji Y., Song J., Liu Y., Guo Y., Zhou K. Identification of mcr-10 carried by self-transmissible plasmids and chromosome in Enterobacter roggenkampii strains isolated from hospital sewage water. Environ. Pollut. 2021;268:115706. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liao W., Cui Y., Quan J., Zhao D., Han X., Shi Q., Wang Q., Jiang Y., Du X., Li X., et al. High prevalence of colistin resistance and mcr-9/10 genes in Enterobacter spp. in a Tertiary hospital over a decade. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2022;59:106573. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Band V.I., Crispell E.K., Napier B.A., Herrera C.M., Tharp G.K., Vavikolanu K., Pohl J., Read T.D., Bosinger S.E., Trent M.S., et al. Antibiotic failure mediated by a resistant subpopulation in Enterobacter cloacae. Nat. Microbiol. 2016;1:16053. doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Baron S., Hadjadj L., Rolain J.M., Olaitan A.O. Molecular mechanisms of polymyxin resistance: Knowns and unknowns. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2016;48:583–591. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.06.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hamel M., Rolain J.M., Baron S.A. The history of colistin resistance mechanisms in bacteria: Progress and challenges. Microorganisms. 2021;9:442. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9020442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bardet L., le Page S., Leangapichart T., Rolain J.M. LBJMR Medium: A new polyvalent culture medium for isolating and selecting vancomycin and colistin-resistant bacteria. BMC Microbiol. 2017;17:220. doi: 10.1186/s12866-017-1128-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zerbino D.R., Birney E. Velvet: Algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de bruijn graphs. Genome Res. 2008;18:821–829. doi: 10.1101/gr.074492.107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Luo R., Liu B., Xie Y., Li Z., Huang W., Yuan J., He G., Chen Y., Pan Q., Liu Y., et al. SOAPdenovo2: An empirically improved memory-efficient short-read de novo assembler. Gigascience. 2012;1:2047-217X. doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-1-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bankevich A., Nurk S., Antipov D., Gurevich A.A., Dvorkin M., Kulikov A.S., Lesin V.M., Nikolenko S.I., Pham S., Prjibelski A.D., et al. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 2012;19:455–477. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yacouba A., Sissoko S., Tchoupou Saha O.L.F., Haddad G., Dubourg G., Gouriet F., Tidjani Alou M., Alibar S., Million M., Lagier J.-C. Description of Acinetobacter ihumii sp. nov., Microbacterium ihumii sp. nov., and Gulosibacter massiliensis sp. nov., three new bacteria isolated from human blood. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2022;369:fnac038. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnac038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Katoh K., Rozewicki J., Yamada K.D. MAFFT Online service: Multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief. Bioinform. 2018;20:1160–1166. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hall T., Biosciences I., Carlsbad C. BioEdit: An important software for molecular biology. GERF Bull. Biosci. 2011;2:60–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gouy M., Guindon S., Gascuel O. Sea View Version 4: A multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2010;27:221–224. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msp259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Nguyen L.T., Schmidt H.A., von Haeseler A., Minh B.Q. IQ-TREE: A fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2015;32:268–274. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msu300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kalyaanamoorthy S., Minh B.Q., Wong T.K.F., von Haeseler A., Jermiin L.S. ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Methods. 2017;14:587–589. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Choi Y., Sims G.E., Murphy S., Miller J.R., Chan A.P. Predicting the functional effect of amino acid substitutions and indels. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e46688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Letunic I., Khedkar S., Bork P. SMART: Recent updates, new developments and status in 2020. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:D458–D460. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa937. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wu W., Feng Y., Zong Z. precise species identification for Enterobacter: A genome sequence-based study with reporting of two novel species, Enterobacter quasiroggenkampii sp. nov. and Enterobacter quasimori sp. nov. mSystems. 2020;5:e00527-20. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00527-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sato T., Harada K., Usui M., Yokota S., Horiuchi M. Colistin susceptibility in companion animal-derived Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., and Enterobacter spp. in Japan: Frequent isolation of colistin-resistant Enterobacter cloacae complex. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022;12:899. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.946841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lutgring J.D., Machado M.J., Benahmed F.H., Conville P., Shawar R.M., Patel J., Brown A.C. Fda-Cdc Antimicrobial resistance isolate bank: A publicly available resource to support research, development, and regulatory requirements. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018;56:e01415-17. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01415-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Norgan A.P., Freese J.M., Tuin P.M., Cunningham S.A., Jeraldo P.R., Patel R. Carbapenem- and colistin-resistant Enterobacter cloacae from Delta, Colorado, in 2015. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016;60:3141–3144. doi: 10.1128/AAC.03055-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kananizadeh P., Oshiro S., Watanabe S., Iwata S., Kuwahara-Arai K., Shimojima M., Ogawa M., Tada T., Kirikae T. Emergence of carbapenem-resistant and colistin-susceptible Enterobacter cloacae complex co-harboring blaIMP-1 and mcr-9 in Japan. BMC Infect. Dis. 2020;20:282. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05021-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

The housekeeping (i.e., dnaA fusA, gyrB, leuS, pyrG, rplB, and rpoB) genes amplified in the present study are available from PubMLST database under the accession number: ST1042. Descriptive pipeline and dataset used in the present study are available as a GitHub repository: https://github.com/YLdz-SM/CLT-E.h.steigerwaltii.git (accessed on 15 July 2022).


Articles from Pathogens are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES