1887

Microbial Genomics logo

Volume 8, Issue 11

Genomic insights into antibiotic-resistance and virulence genes of strains from the gut of Open Access

Abstract

is a lactic acid bacterium that confers beneficial health effects in humans. However, lately, a number of strains have been linked to the spread of nosocomial infections in the hospital environment. Therefore, any potential commercial usage of isolates should be preceded by an assessment of infection risk. In the current study, the genomes of two novel strains Am1 (larval isolate) and Bee9 (adult bee isolate) isolated from the gut of L. (honeybee) were sequenced to allow evaluation of their safety. In particular, their genomes were screened for antibiotic-resistance and virulence genes. In addition, their potential to spread resistance in the environment was evaluated. The analysis revealed that Am1 and Bee9 possess 2832 and 2844 protein-encoding genes, respectively. In each case, the genome size was 2.7 Mb with a G+C content of 37.9 mol%. Comparative analysis with probiotic, non-pathogenic and pathogenic enterococci revealed that there are variations between the two bee isolates and pathogenic genomes. They were, however, closely linked to the probiotic comparison strains. Phenotypically, the Am1 and Bee9 strains were susceptible to most antibiotics tested, but showed intermediate sensitivity towards erythromycin, linezolid and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Notably, no genes associated with antibiotic resistance in clinical isolates (e.g. vancomycin resistance: , , , and ) were present. In addition, the insertion sequences (IS, IS and IS), acting as molecular pathogenicity markers in clinically relevant strains, were also absent. Moreover, the analysis revealed the absence of three key pathogenicity-associated genes (, , ) in the Am1 and Bee9 strains that are found in the prominent clinical isolates DO, V1836, Aus0004 and Aus0085. Overall, the findings of this investigation suggest that the isolates from the bee gut have not suffered any recent clinically relevant antibiotic exposure. It also suggests that Am1 and Bee9 are safe potential probiotic strains, because they lack the phenotypic and genetic features associated with strains eliciting nosocomial infections.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): antibiotic resistance , Apis mellifera , comparative genomics , Enterococcus faecium , lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and virulence
© 2022 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000896
2022-11-14
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/8/11/mgen000896.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000896&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Krawczyk B, Wityk P, Gałęcka M, Michalik M. The many faces of Enterococcus spp. – commensal, probiotic and opportunistic pathogen. Microorganisms 2021; 9:1900 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arias CA, Murray BE. The rise of the Enterococcus: beyond vancomycin resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol 2012; 10:266–278 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Almeida-Santos AC, Novais C, Peixe L, Freitas AR. Enterococcus spp. as a producer and target of bacteriocins: a double-edged sword in the antimicrobial resistance crisis context. Antibiotics 2021; 10:1215 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Dimov SG, Guyrova A, Vladimirova A, Dimitrov M, Peykov S et al. WGS-based characterization of the potentially beneficial Enterococcus faecium EFD from a beehive. Mol Biol Rep 2020; 47:6445–6449 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Rogers LA, Strong K, Cork SC, McAllister TA, Liljebjelke K et al. The role of whole genome sequencing in the surveillance of antimicrobial resistant Enterococcus spp.: a scoping review. Front Public Health 2021; 9:599285 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson KE, Sheehan TH, Mott BM, Maes P, Snyder L et al. Microbial ecology of the hive and pollination landscape: bacterial associates from floral nectar, the alimentary tract and stored food of honey bees (Apis mellifera). PLoS One 2013; 8:e83125 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Carina Audisio M, Torres MJ, Sabaté DC, Ibarguren C, Apella MC. Properties of different lactic acid bacteria isolated from Apis mellifera L. bee-gut. Microbiol Res 2011; 166:1–13 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Eaton TJ, Gasson MJ. Molecular screening of Enterococcus virulence determinants and potential for genetic exchange between food and medical isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001; 67:1628–1635 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2114–2120 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M et al. 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]
  11. Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2013; 29:1072–1075 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Wattam AR, Abraham D, Dalay O, Disz TL, Driscoll T et al. PATRIC, the bacterial bioinformatics database and analysis resource. Nucleic Acids Res 2014; 42:D581–D591 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP et al. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:6614–6624 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Delcher AL, Phillippy A, Carlton J, Salzberg SL. Fast algorithms for large-scale genome alignment and comparison. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30:2478–2483 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brettin T, Davis JJ, Disz T et al. RASTtk: a modular and extensible implementation of the RAST algorithm for building custom annotation pipelines and annotating batches of genomes. Sci Rep 2015; 5:8365 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dereeper A, Guignon V, Blanc G, Audic S, Buffet S et al. Phylogeny.fr: robust phylogenetic analysis for the non-specialist. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36:W465–W469 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Petkau A, Stuart-Edwards M, Stothard P, Van Domselaar G. Interactive microbial genome visualization with GView. Bioinformatics 2010; 26:3125–3126 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Wattam AR, Davis JJ, Assaf R, Boisvert S, Brettin T et al. Improvements to PATRIC, the all-bacterial bioinformatics database and analysis resource center. Nucleic Acids Res 2017; 45:D535–D542 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. CLSI Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, supplement M100, 27th edn Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2017
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Shaw TD, Fairley DJ, Schneiders T, Pathiraja M, Hill RLR et al. The use of high-throughput sequencing to investigate an outbreak of glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus faecium with a novel quinupristin-dalfopristin resistance mechanism. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2018; 37:959–967 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Sanderson H, Ortega-Polo R, Zaheer R, Goji N, Amoako KK et al. Comparative genomics of multidrug-resistant Enterococcus spp. isolated from wastewater treatment plants. BMC Microbiol 2020; 20:20 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Creti R, Imperi M, Bertuccini L, Fabretti F, Orefici G et al. Survey for virulence determinants among Enterococcus faecalis isolated from different sources. J Med Microbiol 2004; 53:13–20 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Bertelli C, Laird MR, Williams KP. Simon Fraser University Research Computing Group Lau BY et al. IslandViewer 4: expanded prediction of genomic islands for larger-scale datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 2017; 45:W30–W35 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhang Z, Schwartz S, Wagner L, Miller W. A greedy algorithm for aligning DNA sequences. J Comput Biol 2000; 7:203–214 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu M, Li X, Xie Y, Bi D, Sun J et al. ICEberg 2.0: an updated database of bacterial integrative and conjugative elements. Nucleic Acids Res 2019; 47:D660–D665 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Carattoli A, Zankari E, García-Fernández A, Voldby Larsen M, Lund O et al. In silico detection and typing of plasmids using PlasmidFinder and plasmid multilocus sequence typing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:3895–3903 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Grissa I, Vergnaud G, Pourcel C. CRISPRFinder: a web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35:W52–W57 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 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; 44:W16–W21 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. van Heel AJ, de Jong A, Song C, Viel JH, Kok J et al. BAGEL4: a user-friendly web server to thoroughly mine RiPPs and bacteriocins. Nucleic Acids Res 2018; 46:W278–W281 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Maragkoudakis PA, Zoumpopoulou G, Miaris C, Kalantzopoulos G, Pot B et al. Probiotic potential of Lactobacillus strains isolated from dairy products. Int Dairy J 2006; 16:189–199 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Zommiti M, Cambronel M, Maillot O, Barreau M, Sebei K et al. Evaluation of probiotic properties and safety of Enterococcus faecium isolated from artisanal Tunisian meat “Dried Ossban.”. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:1685 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Rokana N, Singh BP, Thakur N, Sharma C, Gulhane RD et al. Screening of cell surface properties of potential probiotic lactobacilli isolated from human milk. J Dairy Res 2018; 85:347–354 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. López M, Sáenz Y, Alvarez-Martínez MJ, Marco F, Robredo B et al. Tn1546 structures and multilocus sequence typing of vanA-containing enterococci of animal, human and food origin. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65:1570–1575 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mikalsen T, Pedersen T, Willems R, Coque TM, Werner G. Investigating the mobilome in clinically important lineages of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis [published correction appears in BMC Genomics 2015;16:689]. BMC Genomics 2015; 16:282 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Ghattargi VC, Gaikwad MA, Meti BS, Nimonkar YS, Dixit K et al. Comparative genome analysis reveals key genetic factors associated with probiotic property in Enterococcus faecium strains. BMC Genomics 2018; 19:652 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Bondi M, Laukova A, de Niederhausern S, Messi P, Papadopoulou C et al. Controversial aspects displayed by enterococci: probiotics or pathogens?. Biomed Res Int 2020; 2020:9816185 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Vu J, Carvalho J. Enterococcus: review of its physiology, pathogenesis, diseases and the challenges it poses for clinical microbiology. Front Biol 2011; 6:357–366 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Biswas PP, Dey S, Adhikari L, Sen A. Virulence markers of vancomycin resistant enterococci isolated from infected and colonized patients. J Glob Infect Dis 2014; 6:157–163 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Strateva T, Atanasova D, Savov E, Petrova G, Mitov I. Incidence of virulence determinants in clinical Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium isolates collected in Bulgaria. Braz J Infect Dis 2016; 20:127–133 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hendrickx APA, van Wamel WJB, Posthuma G, Bonten MJM, Willems RJL. Five genes encoding surface-exposed LPXTG proteins are enriched in hospital-adapted Enterococcus faecium clonal complex 17 isolates. J Bacteriol 2007; 189:8321–8332 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Hanchi H, Mottawea W, Sebei K, Hammami R. The genus Enterococcus: between probiotic potential and safety concerns – an update. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:1791 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Klein G. Taxonomy, ecology and antibiotic resistance of enterococci from food and the gastro-intestinal tract. Int J Food Microbiol 2003; 88:123–131 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Egan SA, Kavanagh NL, Shore AC, Mollerup S, Samaniego Castruita JA et al. Genomic analysis of 600 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium reveals a high prevalence of ST80 and spread of similar vanA regions via IS1216E and plasmid transfer in diverse genetic lineages in Ireland. J Antimicrob Chemother 2022; 77:320–330 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hashimoto Y, Kita I, Suzuki M, Hirakawa H, Ohtaki H et al. First report of the local spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci ascribed to the interspecies transmission of a vanA gene cluster-carrying linear plasmid. mSphere 2020; 5:e00102-20 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Morroni G, Brenciani A, Litta-Mulondo A, Vignaroli C, Mangiaterra G et al. Characterization of a new transferable MDR plasmid carrying the pbp5 gene from a clade B commensal Enterococcus faecium. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019; 74:843–850 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Siguier P, Gourbeyre E, Chandler M. Bacterial insertion sequences: their genomic impact and diversity. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2014; 38:865–891 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kopit LM, Kim EB, Siezen RJ, Harris LJ, Marco ML. Safety of the surrogate microorganism Enterococcus faecium NRRL B-2354 for use in thermal process validation. Appl Environ Microbiol 2014; 80:1899–1909 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Johnson CM, Grossman AD. Integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs): what they do and how they work. Annu Rev Genet 2015; 49:577–601 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Arthur M, Courvalin P. Genetics and mechanisms of glycopeptide resistance in enterococci. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37:1563–1571 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Launay A, Ballard SA, Johnson PDR, Grayson ML, Lambert T. Transfer of vancomycin resistance transposon Tn1549 from Clostridium symbiosum to Enterococcus spp. in the gut of gnotobiotic mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:1054–1062 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. López M, Hormazábal JC, Maldonado A, Saavedra G, Baquero F et al. Clonal dissemination of Enterococcus faecalis ST201 and Enterococcus faecium CC17-ST64 containing Tn5382-vanB2 among 16 hospitals in Chile. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009; 15:586–588 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Westra ER, Levin BR. It is unclear how important CRISPR-Cas systems are for protecting natural populations of bacteria against infections by mobile genetic elements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2020; 117:27777–27785 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Manero A, Blanch AR. Identification of Enterococcus spp. with a biochemical key. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999; 65:4425–4430 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Pillai SK, Sakoulas G, Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC, Murray BE et al. Effects of glucose on fsr-mediated biofilm formation in Enterococcus faecalis. J Infect Dis 2004; 190:967–970 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Nishiyama K, Sugiyama M, Mukai T. Adhesion properties of lactic acid bacteria on intestinal mucin. Microorganisms 2016; 4:E34 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. APHA-AWWA-WEF Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation; 2005
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Herranz C, Chen Y, Chung HJ, Cintas LM, Hernández PE et al. Enterocin P selectively dissipates the membrane potential of Enterococcus faecium T136. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001; 67:1689–1692 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Nilsen T, Nes IF, Holo H. Enterolysin A, a cell wall-degrading bacteriocin from Enterococcus faecalis LMG 2333. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003; 69:2975–2984 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Baccouri O, Boukerb AM, Farhat LB, Zébré A, Zimmermann K et al. Probiotic potential and safety evaluation of Enterococcus faecalis OB14 and OB15, isolated from traditional Tunisian testouri cheese and rigouta, using physiological and genomic analysis. Front Microbiol 2019; 10:881 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Natarajan P, Parani M. First complete genome sequence of a probiotic Enterococcus faecium strain T-110 and its comparative genome analysis with pathogenic and non-pathogenic Enterococcus faecium genomes. J Genet Genomics 2015; 42:43–46 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Buzikov RM, Piligrimova EG, Shadrin AM. Complete genome sequence of Enterococcus faecium FS86, used for propagation of bacteriophages with therapeutic potential. Microbiol Resour Announc 2020; 9:e00776-20 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Qin X, Galloway-Peña JR, Sillanpaa J, Roh JH, Nallapareddy SR et al. Complete genome sequence of Enterococcus faecium strain TX16 and comparative genomic analysis of Enterococcus faecium genomes. BMC Microbiol 2012; 12:135 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Rubin IMC, Pedersen MS, Mollerup S, Kaya H, Petersen AM et al. Association between vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium colonization and subsequent infection: a retrospective WGS study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2020; 75:1712–1715 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Lam MMC, Seemann T, Bulach DM, Gladman SL, Chen H et al. Comparative analysis of the first complete Enterococcus faecium genome. J Bacteriol 2012; 194:2334–2341 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000896
Loading
Genomic insights into antibiotic-resistance and virulence genes of Enterococcus faecium strains from the gut of Apis mellifera
M Gen 8, 000896 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.000896
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000896
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000896
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