1887

Abstract

and are the newest members of the complex. The number of clinical reports attributed to these new complex members is limited. In a retrospective clinical laboratory study conducted over a 4-month period investigating the prevalence of and , a total of 43 isolates were selected. Phylogeny based on core-gene multilocus sequence typing (MLST) analysis confirmed that 37 were but a genetically distinct clade of six isolates was identified. Digital DNA–DNA hybridization (dDDH) and average nucleotide identity (ANI) analyses further supported the classification of these six isolates as a separate species. When compared to complex reference genomes, the ANI values were ≤94 % and the dDDH values were <53 %. Based on the seven-gene MLST scheme, the six isolates belong to five novel allelic profiles (ST6105, ST6106, ST6107, ST6108 and ST109). Their clinical infection features were similar to . Skin and soft tissue infections presented in four out of the six cases. Routine clinical diagnostic identification using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry and biochemical profiling does not differentiate these new members from the rest of the complex. Genotypic analysis suggests that the six isolates belong to a novel species, sp. nov. with isolate SS21 (=DSM 111408=NCTC14419) designated as the type strain.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005067
2021-10-26
2024-05-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Madhaiyan M, Wirth JS, Saravanan VS. Phylogenomic analyses of the Staphylococcaceae family suggest the reclassification of five species within the genus Staphylococcus as heterotypic synonyms, the promotion of five subspecies to novel species, the taxonomic reassignment of five Staphylococcus species to Mammaliicoccus gen. nov., and the formal assignment of Nosocomiicoccus to the family Staphylococcaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Tong SYC, Davis JS, Eichenberger E. Staphylococcus aureus infections: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev 2015; 28:603–661 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Tong SYC, Schaumburg F, Ellington MJ. Novel staphylococcal species that form part of a Staphylococcus aureus -related complex: the non- pigmented Staphylococcus argenteus sp. nov. and the non-human primate-associated Staphylococcus schweitzeri sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:15–22 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Indrawattana N, Pumipuntu N, Suriyakhun N. Staphylococcus argenteus from rabbits in Thailand. MicrobiologyOpen 2019; 8:e00665 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Rossi BF, Bonsaglia ÉCR, Castilho IG, Dantas STA, Langoni H et al. First investigation of Staphylococcus argenteus in a Brazilian collections of S. aureus isolated from bovine mastitis. BMC Vet Res 2020; 16:252 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Suzuki H, Lefébure T, Bitar PP, Stanhope MJ. Comparative genomic analysis of the genus Staphylococcus including Staphylococcus aureus and its newly described sister species Staphylococcus simiae. BMC genomics 2012; 13:38
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Wakabayashi Y, Umeda K, Yonogi S. Staphylococcal food poisoning caused by Staphylococcus argenteus harboring staphylococcal enterotoxin genes. Int J Food Microbiol 2018; 265:23–29S0168-1605(17)30464-6 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Akobi B, Aboderin O, Sasaki T. Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from faecal samples of the straw-coloured fruit bat (Eidolon helvum) in Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Nigeria. BMC Microbiol 2012; 12:279 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Becker K, Schaumburg F, Kearns A. Implications of identifying the recently defined members of the Staphylococcus aureus complex S. argenteus and S. schweitzeri: a position paper of members of the ESCMID Study Group for Staphylococci and Staphylococcal Diseases (ESGS). Clin Microbiol Infect 2019; 25:1064–1070 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Held J, Gmeiner M, Mordmüller B. Bats are rare reservoirs of Staphylococcus aureus complex in Gabon. Infect Genet Evol 2017; 47:118–120S1567-1348(16)30510-X [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Pantůček R, Sedláček I, Petráš P. Staphylococcus simiae sp. nov., isolated from South American squirrel monkeys. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:1953–1958 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2114–2120 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol 2012; 19:455–477 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Seemann T. Prokka: Rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Liu B, Zheng D, Jin Q, Chen L, Yang J. VFDB 2019: a comparative pathogenomic platform with an interactive web interface. Nucleic Acids Res 2019; 47:D687–92
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Arndt D, Grant JR, Marcu A, Sajed T, Pon A et al. PHASTER: a better, faster version of the PHAST phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res 2016
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jolley KA, Bray JE, Maiden MCJ. Open-access bacterial population genomics: BIGSdb software, the PubMLST.org website and their applications. Wellcome Open Res 2018; 3:124 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Francisco AP, Bugalho M, Ramirez M. Global optimal eBURST analysis of multilocus typing data using a graphic matroid approach. BMC Bioinformatics 2009; 10:152 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35:1547–1549 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Richter M, Rossello-Mora R, Oliver Glockner F. JSpeciesWS: a web server for prokaryotic species circumscription based on pairwise genome comparison. Bioinformatics 2016; 32:929–931 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk H-P. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14:60 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dalgaard P, Ross T, Kamperman L. Estimation of bacterial growth rates from turbidimetric and viable count data. Int J Food Microbiol 1994; 23:391–404 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Yang E, Fan L, Yan J, Jiang Y, Doucette C et al. Influence of culture media, pH and temperature on growth and bacteriocin production of bacteriocinogenic lactic acid bacteria. AMB Express 2018; 8:10
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Richter M, Rossello-Mora R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106:19126–19131 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Watkins RR, David MZ, Salata RA. Current concepts on the virulence mechanisms of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Med Microbiol 2012; 61:1179–1193 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Malachowa N, DeLeo FR. Mobile genetic elements of Staphylococcus aureus. Cell Mol Life Sci 2010; 67:3057–3071 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kurtz S, Phillippy A, Delcher AL. Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol 2004; 5: R12 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005067
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005067
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

EXCEL
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