1887

Access Microbiology open research platform logo

Volume 4, Issue 8

Genetic determinants of antimicrobial resistance in three multi-drug resistant strains of isolated from patients with acne: a predictive study Open Access

Abstract

Using available whole genome data, the objective of this study was to identify genetic mechanisms that could explain the antimicrobial resistance profile of three multi-drug resistant (MDR) strains (CA17, CA51, CA39) of the skin bacterium previously recovered from patients with acne. In particular, we were interested in detecting novel genetic determinants associated with resistance to fluoroquinolone and macrolide antibiotics that could then be confirmed experimentally.

A range of open source bioinformatics tools were used to ‘mine’ genetic determinants of antimicrobial resistance and plasmid borne contigs, and to characterise the phylogenetic diversity of the MDR strains.

As probable mechanisms of resistance to fluoroquinolones, we identified a previously described resistance associated allelic variant of the gene with a ‘deleterious' S101L mutation in type IA strains CA51 (ST1) and CA39 (ST1), as well as a novel E761R ‘deleterious’ mutation in the type II strain CA17 (ST153). A distinct genomic sequence of the efflux protein YfmO which is potentially associated with resistance to MLSB antibiotics was also present in CA17; homologues in CA51, CA39, and other strains of , were also found but differed in amino acid content. Strikingly, in CA17 we also identified a circular 2.7 kb non-conjugative plasmid (designated pCA17) that closely resembled a 4.8 kb plasmid (pYU39) from the MDR strain YU39.

This study has provided a detailed explanation of potential genetic determinants for MDR in the strains CA17, CA39 and CA51. Further laboratory investigations will be required to validate these results, especially in relation to pCA17.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): antimicrobial resistance , Cutibacterium acnes , gyrA , pYU39 and YfmO efflux
© 2022 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000404
2022-08-11
2024-04-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/4/8/acmi000404.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000404&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Dréno B. What is new in the pathophysiology of acne, an overview. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017; 31 Suppl 5:8–12 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Achermann Y, Goldstein EJC, Coenye T, Shirtliff ME. Propionibacterium acnes: from commensal to opportunistic biofilm-associated implant pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev 2014; 27:419–440 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnard E, Li H. Shaping of cutaneous function by encounters with commensals. J Physiol 2017; 595:437–450 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Kumar B, Pathak R, Mary PB, Jha D, Sardana K et al. New insights into acne pathogenesis: xploring the role of acne-associated microbial populations. Dermatologica Sinica 2016; 34:67–73 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Platsidaki E, Dessinioti C. Recent advances in understanding Propionibacterium acnes (Cutibacterium acnes) in acne. F1000Res 2014; 7:1953 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ramli R, Malik AS, Hani AFM, Jamil A. Acne analysis, grading and computational assessment methods: an overview. Skin Res Technol 2012; 18:1–14 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. McLaughlin J, Watterson S, Layton AM, Bjourson AJ, Barnard E et al. Propionibacterium acnes and Acne Vulgaris: new insights from the integration of population genetic, multi-omic, biochemical and host-microbe studies. Microorganisms 2019; 7:E128 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Rozas M, Hart de Ruijter A, Fabrega MJ, Zorgani A, Guell M et al. From dysbiosis to healthy skin: major contributions of Cutibacterium acnes to skin homeostasis. Microorganisms 2021; 9:628 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Xu H, Li H. Acne, the skin microbiome, and antibiotic treatment. Am J Clin Dermatol 2019; 20:335–344 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Nakase K, Yoshida A, Saita H, Hayashi N, Nishijima S et al. Relationship between quinolone use and resistance of Staphylococcus epidermidis in patients with acne vulgaris. J Dermatol 2019; 46:782–786 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Pécastaings S, Roques C, Nocera T, Peraud C, Mengeaud V et al. Characterisation of Cutibacterium acnes phylotypes in acne and in vivo exploratory evaluation of Myrtacine ®. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol 2018; 32:
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Ross JI, Eady EA, Cove JH, Cunliffe WJ. 16S rRNA mutation associated with tetracycline resistance in a gram-positive bacterium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42:1702–1705 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ishida N, Nakaminami H, Noguchi N, Kurokawa I, Nishijima S et al. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of Propionibacterium acnes isolated from patients with acne vulgaris. Microbiol Immunol 2008; 52:621–624 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Oprica C, Löfmark S, Lund B, Edlund C, Emtestam L et al. Genetic basis of resistance in Propionibacterium acnes strains isolated from diverse types of infection in different European countries. Anaerobe 2005; 11:137–143 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Karadag AS, Aslan Kayıran M, Wu C-Y, Chen W, Parish LC. Antibiotic resistance in acne: changes, consequences and concerns. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2021; 35:73–78 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Aoki S, Nakase K, Hayashi N, Noguchi N. Transconjugation of erm(X) conferring high-level resistance of clindamycin for Cutibacterium acnes. J Med Microbiol 2019; 68:26–30 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Aoki S, Nakase K, Nakaminami H, Wajima T, Hayashi N et al. Transferable multidrug-resistance plasmid carrying a novel macrolide-clindamycin resistance gene,erm (50), in Cutibacterium acnes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2020; 64:
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Boisrenoult P. Cutibacterium acnes prosthetic joint infection: diagnosis and treatment. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2018; 104:S19–S24 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Nakase K, Sakuma Y, Nakaminami H, Noguchi N. Emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Propionibacterium acnes caused by amino acid substitutions of DNA gyrase but not DNA topoisomerase IV. Anaerobe 2016; 42:166–171 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Takoudju E-M, Guillouzouic A, Kambarev S, Pecorari F, Corvec S. In vitro emergence of fluoroquinolone resistance in Cutibacterium (formerly Propionibacterium) acnes and molecular characterization of mutations in the gyrA gene. Anaerobe 2017; 47:194–200 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhang N, Lu Z, Ma Y. Draft genome sequences of three multidrug-resistant Cutibacterium (formerly Propionibacterium) acnes strains isolated from acne patients, China. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2017; 11:114–115 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. McDowell A, Barnard E, Nagy I, Gao A, Tomida S et al. An expanded multilocus sequence typing scheme for Propionibacterium acnes: investigation of “pathogenic”, “commensal” and antibiotic resistant strains. PLoS ONE 2012; 7:e41480 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Scholz CFP, Jensen A, Lomholt HB, Brüggemann H, Kilian M. A novel high-resolution single locus sequence typing scheme for mixed populations of Propionibacterium acnes in vivo. PLoS One 2014; 9:e104199 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32:1792–1797 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:1312–1313 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 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 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Page AJ, Cummins CA, Hunt M, Wong VK, Reuter S et al. Roary: rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics 2015; 31:3691–3693 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Galardini M. n.d https://github.com/sanger-pathogens/Roary/blob/master/contrib/roary_plots/roary_plots.py
  30. Alcock BP, Raphenya AR, Lau TTY, Tsang KK, Bouchard M et al. CARD 2020: antibiotic resistome surveillance with the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res 2020; 48:D517–D525 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods 2015; 12:59–60 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Madeira F, Park YM, Lee J, Buso N, Gur T et al. The EMBL-EBI search and sequence analysis tools APIs in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res 2019; 47:W636–W641 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Seemann T. SNIPPY:fast bacterial variant calling from NGS reads. n.d https://github.com/Tseemann/Snippy
  34. Bernhofer M, Dallago C, Karl T, Satagopam V, Heinzinger M et al. PredictProtein - predicting protein structure and function for 29 years. Nucleic Acids Res 2021; 49:W535–W540 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Choi Y, Sims GE, Murphy S, Miller JR, Chan AP. Predicting the functional effect of amino acid substitutions and indels. PLoS One 2012; 7:e46688 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Schwengers O, Barth P, Falgenhauer L, Hain T, Chakraborty T et al. Platon: identification and characterization of bacterial plasmid contigs in short-read draft assemblies exploiting protein sequence-based replicon distribution scores. Microb Genom 2020; 6: [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Grin I, Linke D. GCView: the genomic context viewer for protein homology searches. Nucleic Acids Res 2011; 39:W353–6 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Zimmermann L, Stephens A, Nam S-Z, Rau D, Kübler J et al. A completely reimplemented MPI bioinformatics toolkit with a new HHpred server at its core. J Mol Biol 2018; 430:2237–2243 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Nappier SP, Liguori K, Ichida AM, Stewart JR, Jones KR. Antibiotic resistance in recreational waters: state of the science. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17:E8034 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Insightful Science SnapGene software (from Insightful Science; availabe at 570 snapgene.com). n.d www.snapgene.com
  41. Bernhofer M, Kloppmann E, Reeb J, Rost B. TMSEG: novel prediction of transmembrane helices. Proteins 2016; 84:1706–1716 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Bernhofer M, Dallago C, Karl T, Satagopam V, Heinzinger M et al. Predictprotein - predicting protein structure and function for 29 years. Nucleic Acids Res 2021; 49:W535–W540 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Remmert M, Biegert A, Hauser A, Söding J. HHblits: lightning-fast iterative protein sequence searching by HMM-HMM alignment. Nat Methods 2011; 9:173–175 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C. CRISPRFinder: a web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35:W52–7 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Couvin D, Bernheim A, Toffano-Nioche C, Touchon M, Michalik J et al. CRISPRCasFinder, an update of CRISRFinder, includes a portable version, enhanced performance and integrates search for Cas proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 2018; 46:W246–W251 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhou Y, Tang Y, Fu P, Tian D, Yu L et al. The type I-E CRISPR-cas system influences the acquisition of bla KPc -Incf plasmid in Klebsiella pneumonia. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lomholt HB, Kilian M. Population genetic analysis of Propionibacterium acnes identifies a subpopulation and epidemic clones associated with acne. PLoS One 2010; 5:e12277 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Fitz-Gibbon S, Tomida S, Chiu B-H, Nguyen L, Du C et al. Propionibacterium acnes strain populations in the human skin microbiome associated with acne. J Invest Dermatol 2013; 133:2152–2160 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Dagnelie M-A, Corvec S, Saint-Jean M, Bourdès V, Nguyen J-M et al. Decrease in diversity of Propionibacterium acnes phylotypes in patients with severe acne on the back. Acta Derm Venereol 2018; 98:262–267 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lomholt HB, Kilian M. Clonality and anatomic distribution on the skin of antibiotic resistant and sensitive Propionibacterium acnes. Acta Derm Venereol 2014; 94:534–538 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. McDowell A, Patrick S, Eishi Y, Lambert P, Eady A. Propionibacterium acnes in human health and disease. Biomed Res Int 2013; 2013:1–3 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhang N, Yuan R, Xin KZ, Lu Z, Ma Y. Antimicrobial susceptibility, biotypes and hylotypes of clinical Cutibacterium (formerly Propionibacterium) acnes strains isolated from acne patients: an observational study. Dermatol Ther 2019; 9:735–746 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Jacoby GA. Mechanisms of resistance to quinolones. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:S120–S126 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Devasia R, Blackman A, Eden S, Li H, Maruri F et al. High proportion of fluoroquinolone-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates with novel gyrase polymorphisms and a gyrA region associated with fluoroquinolone susceptibility. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 50:1390–1396 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Maruri F, Sterling TR, Kaiga AW, Blackman A, van der Heijden YF et al. A systematic review of gyrase mutations associated with fluoroquinolone-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis and a proposed gyrase numbering system. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67:819–831 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Hassan KA, Fagerlund A, Elbourne LDH, Vörös A, Kroeger JK et al. The putative drug efflux systems of the Bacillus cereus group. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0176188 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Mata MT, Baquero F, Pérez-Díaz JC. A multidrug efflux transporter in Listeria monocytogenes. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2000; 187:185–188 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Tung QN, Busche T, Van Loi V, Kalinowski J, Antelmann H. The redox-sensing MarR-type repressor HypS controls hypochlorite and antimicrobial resistance in Mycobacterium smegmatis. Free Radic Biol Med 2020; 147:252–261 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Brüggemann H, Lomholt HB, Tettelin H, Kilian M. CRISPR/cas loci of type II Propionibacterium acnes confer immunity against acquisition of mobile elements present in type I P. acnes. PLoS One 2012; 7:e34171 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Wally N, Schneider M, Thannesberger J, Kastner MT, Bakonyi T et al. Plasmid DNA contaminant in molecular reagents. Sci Rep 2019; 9:1652 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Goig GA, Blanco S, Garcia-Basteiro AL, Comas I. Contaminant DNA in bacterial sequencing experiments is a major source of false genetic variability. BMC Biol 2020; 18:24 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Makarova KS, Haft DH, Barrangou R, Brouns SJJ, Charpentier E et al. Evolution and classification of the CRISPR-cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol 2011; 9:467–477 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Davidsson S, Carlsson J, Mölling P, Gashi N, Andrén O et al. Prevalence of Flp pili-encoding plasmids in Cutibacterium acnes isolates obtained from prostatic tissue. Front Microbiol 2017; 8:2241 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Michiels J, Xi C, Verhaert J, Vanderleyden J. The functions of Ca(2+) in bacteria: a role for EF-hand proteins?. Trends Microbiol 2002; 10:87–93 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000404
Loading
Genetic determinants of antimicrobial resistance in three multi-drug resistant strains of Cutibacterium acnes isolated from patients with acne: a predictive in silico study
Access Microbiology 4, 000404 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000404
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000404
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000404
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error