Next Article in Journal
Biological Characterization of Cleome felina L.f. Extracts for Phytochemical, Antimicrobial, and Hepatoprotective Activities in Wister Albino Rats
Previous Article in Journal
Empowering Low- and Middle-Income Countries to Combat AMR by Minimal Use of Antibiotics: A Way Forward
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/antibiotics12101505
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Within-Host Diversity of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Resistome from Healthy Pigs and Pig Farmers, with the Detection of cfr-Carrying Strains and MDR-S. borealis

by
Idris Nasir Abdullahi
1,
Carmen Lozano
1,
Carmen Simón
2,
Myriam Zarazaga
1 and
Carmen Torres
1,*
1
Area of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, OneHealth-UR Research Group, University of La Rioja, 26006 Logroño, Spain
2
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zaragoza, 50001 Zaragoza, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(10), 1505; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101505
Submission received: 8 September 2023 / Revised: 25 September 2023 / Accepted: 26 September 2023 / Published: 2 October 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The ecology and diversity of resistome in coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) from healthy pigs and pig farmers are rarely available as most studies focused on the livestock-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus. This study aims to characterize the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) mechanisms, intra-host species diversity (more than one species in a host), and intra-species AMR diversity (same species with more than one AMR profile) in CoNS recovered from the nasal cavities of healthy pigs and pig farmers. One-hundred-and-one CoNS strains previously recovered from 40 pigs and 10 pig farmers from four Spanish pig farms were tested to determine their AMR profiles. Non-repetitive strains were selected (n = 75) and their AMR genes, SCCmec types, and genetic lineages were analyzed by PCR/sequencing. Of the non-repetitive strains, 92% showed a multidrug resistance (MDR) phenotype, and 52% were mecA-positive, which were associated with SCCmec types V (46.2%), IVb (20.5%), and IVc (5.1%). A total of 28% of the pigs and pig farmers had intra-host species diversity, while 26% had intra-species AMR diversity. High repertoires of AMR genes were detected, including unusual ones such as tetO, ermT, erm43, and cfr. Most important was the detection of cfr (in S. saprophyticus and S. epidermidis-ST16) in pigs and pig farmers; whereas MDR-S. borealis strains were identified in pig farmers. Pig-to-pig transmission of CoNS with similar AMR genes and SCCmec types was detected in 42.5% of pigs. The high level of multidrug, within-host, and intra-species resistome diversity in the nasal CoNS highlights their ability to be AMR gene reservoirs in healthy pigs and pig farmers. The detection of MDR-S. borealis and linezolid-resistant strains underscore the need for comprehensive and continuous surveillance of MDR-CoNS at the pig farm level.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest global health threats of the late 21st century [1,2]. The global AMR crisis has persisted mainly due to the transfer of antibiotic-resistant bacteria between animals, humans, and the environment through their shared habitats [3]. The emergence and spread of antibiotic-resistant staphylococci are often blamed on the over-prescription of antibiotics for treatment in humans and animals and as growth enhancers in livestock production [4]. The use of antibiotics as growth enhancers is now banned in many countries, but this is still allowed in others.
Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) are primarily nasal commensals, although some strains can be opportunistic pathogens; they have been implicated in many infections in humans and animals such as catheter-associated, prosthetic joint, and laryngeal infections or sepsis, among others [5,6]. Recently, new CoNS species have been re-classified. In this regard, it is important to mention the reclassification of S. borealis nov. sp., which was previously considered as S. haemolyicus [7]. So far, S. borealis has been detected in human skin and blood samples [7]. Being a new species, there are no available data on its virulence potential and antimicrobial resistome. The methicillin-resistant trait of CoNS (MRCoNS) has mainly been represented by the emergence and spread of certain multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains with the potential to transfer AMR genes to “more perceived” pathogenic S. aureus strains through mobile genetic elements [8]. Some CoNS have been shown to carry the SCCmec genetic elements (for mecA and mecC genes) and plasmids (e.g., ermT gene) [8,9]. These mobilome-bound AMR genes could be acquired by certain other Staphylococcus species via horizontal transfer [8,9]. Moreover, some CoNS strains can contain critical and transferable linezolid resistance genes [10].
The identification of the source, reservoir hosts, and vectors of transmission of antibiotic-resistant staphylococci can be an arduous task. Food-producing animals may be one of the reservoirs of MRCoNS [11,12]. Although a study had previously revealed the emergence of multiresistance or linezolid resistance in CoNS from livestock and humans with occupational exposure [12], the potential transmission of multidrug-resistant CoNS from livestock to humans needs to be elucidated. Of particular concern is that the eco-epidemiological context of CoNS is different from S. aureus, and these features strongly vary among the different CoNS species, suggesting potential intra-species AMR diversity and dynamics.
Pig farming is one of the major agrobusinesses in the countries of Europe, America, and some of Southeast Asia. This has intensified concern about the re-emergence and spread of AMR which has implications for human, animal, and environmental health due to the excessive or previous use of antimicrobial agents in pig farms. These could have promoted the selection of AMR in CoNS and the dissemination of critical AMR genes across the pig farm setting. Hence, the present study characterized the mechanisms of AMR and the intra-host species and intra-species AMR diversity of a collection of CoNS previously recovered from the nasal cavities of healthy pigs and pig farmers [13]. Moreover, the frequency of pig-to-pig and pig-to-human (or human-to-pig) transmission levels was determined.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Collection

One-hundred-and-one CoNS strains were previously recovered from the nasal samples of 40 pigs from 4 Spanish pig farms (A–D, 10 pigs/farm) and of 10 farmers (2, 3, 2, and 3 individuals in farms A, B, C, and D, respectively) [13], and they were included in this study for further characterization. The pig herd size, and their age and weight as well as the description of nasal sample processing from the pigs and pig farmers are presented in our previous study [13]. Specifically, farm A had a total of 6000 piglets (average age: 9 weeks); farm B had 15,000 piglets (average age: 4–5 weeks); farm C had 600 piglets (average age: 4–5 weeks); and farm D had 400 piglets (average age: 6 weeks). All the pig farmers worked directly with the pigs.
From these 101 CoNS strains, 75 were considered non-repetitive after their AMR phenotypes and genotypes were determined; they corresponded to one strain of each species per sample or more than one if they presented different AMR phenotypes/genes (Table 1). This collection of 75 non-repetitive CoNS strains was further characterized and considered in this study. The research performed both in the previous and in the present study was reviewed and approved by the ethical research committee of the University of Zaragoza, Spain (ref PI58/21), and by the Ethical Committee of the University of La Rioja. All procedures were carried out following all applicable national, and/or international guidelines for human sample experiments (as described in the revised Helsinki Declaration). Concerning the ethical use of animals, this study adhered to specific directives: 2010/63/EU, Spanish laws 9/2003 and 32/2007, RD 178/2004 and RD 1201/2005.

2.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and Characterization of Resistance Genes

Antibiotic susceptibility tests for thirteen agents were performed by agar disk diffusion method on all the CoNS strains following the recommendations and breakpoints of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing [14]. The antimicrobial agents tested were as follows (µg/disk): penicillin (10), cefoxitin (30), erythromycin (15), clindamycin (2), gentamicin (10), tobramycin (10), tetracycline (30), ciprofloxacin (5), chloramphenicol (30), linezolid (10), mupirocin (200), and trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (1.25 + 23.75). The minimum inhibition concentration (MIC) of all strains carrying linezolid resistance genes was tested using bioMérieux Linezolid Etest® strips (Marcy l’Étoile, France), and the results were interpreted following the EUCAST 2022 breakpoints. The CoNS strains that presented resistance to ≥3 classes of the antimicrobial agents tested were considered multidrug-resistant (MDR) [15]. In the case of S. sciuri, due to the intrinsic carriage in this species of the salA gene (associated with clindamycin resistance), this antibiotic was not considered for MDR categorization.
The presence of the following resistance genes was tested by PCR, and they were selected according to the antimicrobial resistance phenotype: beta-lactams (blaZ, mecA, and mecC), erythromycin and/or clindamycin (ermA, ermB, ermC, ermT, erm43, lnuA, lnuB, vgaA, msrA, mphC and salA), tetracycline (tetK, tetL, tetM, and tetO), aminoglycosides (aac6′-aph2″ and ant4′), chloramphenicol (fexA, fexB, catA, catPC194, catPC221, and catPC223), linezolid (cfr, cfrD, optrA and poxtA), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (dfrA, dfrD, dfrG, and dfrK), and mupirocin (mupA).

2.3. Molecular Typing of S. epidermidis and MRCoNS Strains

The sequence types of all the S. epidermidis strains were determined via MultiLocus Sequence Typing (MLST). The seven housekeeping genes of S. epidermidis (acrC, aroE, gtr, pyrR, mutS, tpi, and yqiL) were amplified, and the sequence type (ST) was assigned according to the MLST database (https://pubmlst.org/, accessed on 20 March 2023). Moreover, the SCCmec typing of all the MRCoNS was performed by multiplex PCRs as previously described [16].

2.4. Tests for Virulence Genes

The presence of tst, lukS-PV/lukF-PV, eta, and etb genes (encoding the toxin of toxic shock syndrome, Panton–Valentine leucocidin, and exfoliative toxins A and B, respectively) were investigated by PCR on every strain.
Primers and conditions of PCRs for AMR genes, MLST, and virulence factors are included in Supplementary Table S1. Positive controls from the collection of the Universidad de La Rioja were included in all the PCR assays in this study.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

AMR data were presented in tables, and a chart on the frequencies of resistance to each type of antimicrobial agent was plotted. The association between the frequencies of resistance to each antibiotic, MDR phenotype, and the individual farms was determined using the Chi-square test, and outcomes with a probability <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

From our previous study [13], a total of 101 CoNS of nine species were recovered and identified from 72.5% and 60% of pigs and pig farmers tested, respectively (Table 1). From these 101 CoNS, 75 non-repetitive strains were selected after determining their phenotypes/genotypes of AMR. Of the 75 non-repetitive strains (62 from pigs and 13 from pig farmers), 92% showed a multidrug resistance (MDR) phenotype (Table 1 and Figure 1); specifically, 83.6% and 100% of the non-repetitive CoNS from pigs and pig farmers presented an MDR phenotype, respectively (Table 1). All strains were lukS-PV/lukF-PV-, tst-, eta-, and etb-negative.

3.1. Antimicrobial Resistance Phenotypes and Genotypes of Non-Repetitive CoNS

All S. sciuri strains carried the intrinsic salA gene. The following AMR phenotypes were detected among the non-repetitive CoNS (percentage of strains/genes detected): tetracycline (94.7/tetK, tetL, tetM, and tetO), penicillin (77.3/blaZ), erythromycin–clindamycin-constitutive (77.3/ermA, ermC, ermT, and erm43), sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim (66.7/dfrA, dfrD, dfrG, and dfrK), ciprofloxacin (52), tobramycin (50.7/ant4′), chloramphenicol (21.3/fexA and catPC221), clindamycin (16/lnuA, lnuB, and salA), gentamicin–tobramycin (12/aac6′-aph2″), linezolid (2.7/cfr), mupirocin (2.7/mupA), and erythromycin (1.3/msrA) (Figure 1, Table 2 and Table 3). About 52% of CoNS were mecA-positive (i.e., MRCoNS), and they were associated with SCCmec types V (46.2%), IVb (20.5%), and IVc (5.1%). However, 23% of MRCoNS were SCCmec non-typeable (Figure 2).

3.2. Comparison of AMR Phenotype Frequencies in the Pig Farms

To compare the AMR frequencies of non-repetitive CoNS strains from pigs and pig farmers of the four pig farms (A–D), individual chi-squared tests against every antimicrobial agent were computed. Erythromycin–clindamycin resistance (in all cases of constitutive character) was significantly higher among CoNS strains from pigs and pig farmers in farm A than strains from the other farms (p = 0.018) (Table 2). CoNS strains from pigs and pig farmers in Farm B had significantly higher tobramycin and ciprofloxacin resistances than strains from other farms (p < 0.05); whereas CoNS strains from pigs and pig farmers in Farm C had the highest resistance to sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim (p = 0.009). For the other antibiotics’ resistances and the MDR phenotype, no significant associations between the farms were detected (p > 0.05) (Table 2).

3.3. Unusual Antimicrobial Resistance Genes

Interestingly, the linezolid resistance gene cfr was detected in two chloramphenicol-resistant CoNS strains from a pig and a pig farmer (Table 3). One of these strains expressed phenotypic resistance to linezolid (S. saprophyticus, MIC: 12 μg/mL), but the other was susceptible to linezolid (S. epidermidis-ST16, MIC: 1.5 μg/mL) (Table 3). The ermT gene was detected in 14 strains of five CoNS species (S. chromogenes, S. epidermidis, S. borealis, S. sciuri, and S. hyicus) (Table 3 and Table 4). Moreover, the erm43 gene was detected in eight CoNS of four different species (S. epidermidis, S. chromogenes, S. haemolyticus, and S. borealis), while mupA gene was detected in two strains of the species S. epidermidis and S. sciuri (Table 3 and Table 4).

3.4. Antimicrobial Resistome Diversity across Pigs and Pig Farmers

A total of 28% of the pigs and pig farmers had intra-host species diversity (>1 CoNS species in a host), while 26% had intra-species AMR diversity (same species with >1 AMR profile) (Figure 3 and Table 3). Pig-to-pig nasal transmission of CoNS with similar MDR genes and SCCmec types was detected in 35% of pigs (Figure 3 and Table 3). In farm A, S. sciuri strains carrying the same resistome and SCCmec type were found in pigs 2, 3, and 9; S. borealis in pigs 2, 7, 8, and 9; S. chromogenes in pigs 3, 7, 8, and 10; S. epidermidis-ST25 in pigs 2 and 7; S. hyicus in pigs 1 and 6; and S. pasteuri in pigs 8 and 10 (Table 3). In farm B, similar S. hycius strains were found in pigs 2 and 3; and S. borealis was found in pigs 4 and 5 (Table 3); whereas in farm C, similar S. sciuri strains were found in pigs 3, 7, 8, and 10; and S. xylosus in pigs 9 and 10 (Table 3 and Table 4). No similar strains were detected in farm D.

4. Discussion

There is a worry about the potential of AMR to assume pandemic status. Consequently, studies have been intensified to understand the molecular ecology and transmission of the resistomes in bacteria that have the potential for zoonoses, such as Staphylococcus. Some previous studies have reported the detection and AMR phenotypes of nasal CoNS from healthy pigs and pig farmers [11,12,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. However, we are not aware of any that investigated the diversity level of AMR in CoNS across pigs, pigs-to-pig farmers, and pig farmers-to-pigs, especially in Spain. The AMR profiles detected in our study greatly varied, with high levels of resistance to tetracycline, chloramphenicol, and erythromycin. The high level of tetracycline resistance mostly mediated by tetM and tetL genes, could be associated with the high use of this agent in animal husbandry [17]. Florfenicol is also frequently used in livestock, which could contribute to the persistence of chloramphenicol resistance and the emergence of linezolid cross-resistance [26]. In this sense, is of concern the detection of linezolid resistance genes in two strains. Linezolid has never been licensed for use in livestock [27]. However, other classes of antibiotics (i.e., phenicols, lincosamides, pleuromutilins, and streptogramin A) could have contributed to the increased risks for cross-resistance to linezolid through the cfr gene [28,29].
Aside from the cfr-carrying S. saprophyicus and S. epidermidis, several MDR-S. borealis strains carrying SCCmec type-V were detected among pigs from three of the four farms studied. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the molecular characterization of AMR genes of MDR-S. borealis strains from healthy pigs in the literature. The S. borealis was first described by whole genome sequencing and ascribed to a distinct species due to the significant phylogenetic distance from S. haemolyticus [7]. Despite being a relatively new species previously detected in strains from human skin and blood samples, it needs to be monitored and fully characterized to determine its potential to spread MDR and critical AMR genes in other ecological niches. The presence of cfr gene did not translate to phenotypic LZD resistance on both the disc diffusion test and E-test in the S. epidermidis strain. These results confirm the silent emergence of LZD resistance at the molecular level in S. epidermidis from a pig. It appears that the pig farm environment favours the persistence of linezolid resistance and MDR genes [27,30].
Many of the identified AMR genes in the CoNS strains are commonly found within mobile genetic elements, such as mecA. In this sense, the MRSA strains have long been considered to have originated from the acquisition of SCCmec from MRCoNS. However, whether the same SCCmec types are present in MRSA and MRCoNS that reside in the same nasal niche needs to be elucidated. Even though the high-level AMR genes detected were from CoNS strains (often considered harmless), they can exchange mobile genetic elements with pathogenic species [31]. Unfortunately, the molecular surveillance of these multiresistant CoNS is underrated [31]. It is important to acknowledge the frequent detection of S. epidermidis ST59, a clone that has very high community transmission potential [32] and which may facilitate the transmission and persistence of AMR genes in various ecological niches. One of the cfr-carrying strains is an S. epidermidis-ST16: this genetic lineage has previously been reported to cause bloodstream infection, but in their study, the strain case did not carry the cfr gene [33], as detected in the present study.
The results obtained with the statistical analysis performed indicate that different factors in pig farming could be involved in some AMR rates detected among CoNS, as in the case of the significantly high rates of ciprofloxacin and chloramphenicol in farm A compared to others. This difference could be due to the hygienic status of the farm, the population of herds [34], and other potential factors that need to be thoroughly investigated.
Some strains identified in this study had phenotypic resistance (especially to penicillin) but did not harbour the corresponding genes tested. Perhaps, this could be due to certain amino acid changes or polymorphisms in the blaZ gene, or perhaps the mecA gene in the bacteria mediated the penicillin resistance without expression of blaZ gene [35].
It is worth mentioning the detection of the ermT gene in some species of CoNS causes erythromycin–clindamycin constitutive resistance, which is an unusual mechanism in CoNS. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report the presence of this gene in CoNS strains of pigs and pig farmers in Spain. Although the gene has previously been reported in an S. haemolyticus strain [27] in an environmental sample from a pig farm, there is a paucity of data on the description of the ermT gene in CoNS species. This pattern of phenotypic resistance expressed by the ermT gene in our CoNS strains is quite different to the typical erythromycin–clindamycin-inducible resistance phenotype it confers in the methicillin susceptible-S. aureus of the CC398 lineage [36]. Perhaps there is a silent evolution of this gene in non-aureus staphylococci, which deserves to be studied in detail.
Another point to mention is the detection of similar species of CoNS with different AMR profiles and genes in the same host. This underscores the enormous challenge these strains could pose in the control of AMR at the farm level. More specifically, as some of the CoNS strains carrying similar AMR profiles were identified in ≥3 pigs on the same farm, this is a strong indicator of transmission events of similar CoNS across the pig herds.
This study is not without limitations. Using whole genome sequencing could be useful to detect the single nucleotide polymorphism difference between strains with similar AMR profiles and lend better credence to confirming the transmission of the CoNS strains between pigs and even across pigs and pig farmers. Moreover, analyses of repeat samples from the hosts with similar AMR profiles, SCCmec type, and genetic lineages could be of value to confirm transmission events.

5. Conclusions

The high level of MDR, intra-host species, and intra-species AMR diversity in the nasal CoNS strains from healthy pigs highlights their ability to be long-term AMR reservoirs and vectors of transmission to pig farmers. As the incidence of MLSb, tobramycin, ciprofloxacin, and sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim resistances significantly vary by farms, specific control measures should be taken, as is the control in antibiotic use in the farms. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that various CoNS species from healthy pigs and pig farmers carried AMR genes conferring resistance to clinically relevant antibiotics. In addition, the detection of MDR-S. borealis and cfr-carrying strains require comprehensive and continuous surveillance of CoNS at pig farm levels. The selective inclusion of chloramphenicol resistance as a marker for linezolid resistance could facilitate its early detection.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/12/10/1505/s1:, Table S1. Gene and primer sequences utilized for all PCRs in this study. References [37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60] are only cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: I.N.A. and C.T.; methodology: I.N.A. and C.T.; Laboratory experiments: I.N.A., software analysis: I.N.A., validation: C.T., I.N.A., C.S., M.Z. and C.L.; formal analysis: I.N.A., C.T., C.S., M.Z. and C.L.; data curation: C.T., I.N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, I.N.A. and C.T.; writing—review and editing: C.T., I.N.A., C.S., M.Z. and C.L.; supervision: C.T. and C.L.; project administration: C.T.; funding acquisition: C.T., M.Z. and I.N.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financed by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 of Spain (project PID2019–106158RB-I00). Moreover, it received funding from the European Union’s H2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 801586.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the ethical research committee of the University of Zaragoza and the University of La Rioja (Spain).

Informed Consent Statement

All the pig farmers freely gave informed consent to participate in the study prior to their enrolment.

Data Availability Statement

The data generated from this study has been fully presented in the manuscript. However, further requests can be made through the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Parts of this study were presented as posters at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (2023) and the International Conference on One Health Antimicrobial Resistance (2023) in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with a minor correction to the Funding statement. This change does not affect the scientific content of the article.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Antimicrobial Resistance. Fact Sheets. 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance (accessed on 15 February 2023).
  2. Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. Lancet 2022, 399, 629–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Serwecinska, L. Antimicrobials and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria: A Risk to the Environment and to Public Health. Water 2020, 12, 3313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abdullahi, I.N.; Lozano, C.; Saidenberg, A.B.S.; Latorre-Fernández, J.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Comparative review of the nasal carriage and genetic characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus in healthy livestock: Insight into zoonotic and anthroponotic clones. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2023, 109, 105408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Michalik, M.; Samet, A.; Podbielska-Kubera, A.; Savini, V.; Międzobrodzki, J.; Kosecka-Strojek, M. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) as a significant etiological factor of laryngological infections: A review. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2020, 19, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Michels, R.; Last, K.; Becker, S.L.; Papan, C. Update on Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci-What the Clinician Should Know. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pain, M.; Wolden, R.; Jaén-Luchoro, D.; Salvà-Serra, F.; Iglesias, B.P.; Karlsson, R.; Klingenberg, C.; Cavanagh, J.P. Staphylococcus borealis sp. nov., isolated from human skin and blood. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 6067–6078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tong, S.Y.; Davis, J.S.; Eichenberger, E.; Holland, T.L.; Fowler, V.G., Jr. Staphylococcus aureus infections: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 28, 603–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Smith, J.T.; Andam, C.P. Extensive Horizontal Gene Transfer within and between Species of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococcus. Genome Biol. Evol. 2021, 13, evab206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gostev, V.; Leyn, S.; Kruglov, A.; Likholetova, D.; Kalinogorskaya, O.; Baykina, M.; Dmitrieva, N.; Grigorievskaya, Z.; Priputnevich, T.; Lyubasovskaya, L.; et al. Global Expansion of Linezolid-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 661798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bonvegna, M.; Grego, E.; Sona, B.; Stella, M.C.; Nebbia, P.; Mannelli, A.; Tomassone, L. Occurrence of Methicillin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci (MRCoNS) and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from Pigs and Farm Environment in Northwestern Italy. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cuny, C.; Arnold, P.; Hermes, J.; Eckmanns, T.; Mehraj, J.; Schoenfelder, S.; Ziebuhr, W.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, Y.; Feßler, A.T.; et al. Occurrence of cfr-mediated multiresistance in staphylococci from veal calves and pigs, from humans at the corresponding farms, and from veterinarians and their family members. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 200, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Abdullahi, I.N.; Lozano, C.; Simon, C.; Latorre, F.; Zaragaza, M.; Torres, C. Nasal staphylococci community of healthy pigs and pig farmers in Aragon (Spain). Predominance and within-host resistome diversity in MRSA-CC398 and MSSA-CC9 lineages. One Health 2023, 126, 100505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters; Version 11.0. 2021. Available online: http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 2 April 2023).
  15. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zhang, K.; McClure, J.A.; Elsayed, S.; Louie, T.; Conly, J.M. Novel multiplex PCR assay for characterization and concomitant subtyping of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec types I to V in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 5026–5033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Soundararajan, M.; Marincola, G.; Liong, O.; Marciniak, T.; Wencker, F.D.R.; Hofmann, F.; Schollenbruch, H.; Kobusch, I.; Linnemann, S.; Wolf, S.A.; et al. Farming Practice Influences Antimicrobial Resistance Burden of Non-aureus Staphylococci in Pig Husbandries. Microorganisms 2022, 11, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mamfe, L.M.; Akwuobu, C.A.; Ngbede, E.O. Phenotypic detection, antimicrobial susceptibility and virulence profile of staphylococci in the pig production setting, Makurdi, Nigeria. Access Microbiol. 2021, 3, 000293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lawal, O.U.; Adekanmbi, A.O.; Adelowo, O.O. Occurrence of methicillin-resistant staphylococci in the pig-production chain in Ibadan, Nigeria. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2021, 88, e1–e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schlattmann, A.; von Lützau, K.; Kaspar, U.; Becker, K. The Porcine Nasal Microbiota with Particular Attention to Livestock-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Germany-A Culturomic Approach. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, L.; Chen, Z.; Guo, D.; Li, S.; Huang, J.; Wang, X.; Yao, Z.; Chen, S.; Ye, X. Nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci in healthy humans is associated with occupational pig contact in a dose-response manner. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 208, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Momoh, A.H.; Kwaga, J.K.P.; Bello, M.; Sackey, A.K.B. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance pattern of coagulase negative staphylococci isolated from pigs and in-contact humans in Jos Metropolis, Nigeria. Niger. Vet. J. 2016, 37, 140–147. Available online: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/nvj/article/view/147364 (accessed on 15 February 2023).
  23. Tulinski, P.; Fluit, A.C.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Mevius, D.; van de Vijver, L.; Duim, B. Methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci on pig farms as a reservoir of heterogeneous staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec elements. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ugwu, C.C.; Gomez-Sanz, E.; Agbo, I.C.; Torres, C.; Chah, K.F. Characterization of mannitol-fermenting methicillin-resistant staphylococci isolated from pigs in Nigeria. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2015, 46, 885–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rattanamuang, M.; Butr-indr, B.; Anukool, U. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci in pig in Lamphun Province, Thailand, carrying Type-IX SCCmec element. Bull. Chiang Mai Assoc. Med. Sci. 2013, 46, 250–259. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yang, X.; Zhang, T.; Lei, C.W.; Wang, Q.; Huang, Z.; Chen, X.; Wang, H.N. Florfenicol and oxazolidone resistance status in livestock farms revealed by short- and long-read metagenomic sequencing. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1018901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ruiz-Ripa, L.; Feßler, A.T.; Hanke, D.; Sanz, S.; Olarte, C.; Mama, O.M.; Eichhorn, I.; Schwarz, S.; Torres, C. Coagulase-negative staphylococci carrying cfr and PVL genes, and MRSA/MSSA-CC398 in the swine farm environment. Vet. Microbiol. 2020, 243, 108631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pholwat, S.; Pongpan, T.; Chinli, R.; Rogawski McQuade, E.T.; Thaipisuttikul, I.; Ratanakorn, P.; Liu, J.; Taniuchi, M.; Houpt, E.R.; Foongladda, S. Antimicrobial Resistance in Swine Fecal Specimens Across Different Farm Management Systems. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brenciani, A.; Morroni, G.; Schwarz, S.; Giovanetti, E. Oxazolidinones: Mechanisms of resistance and mobile genetic elements involved. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2022, 77, 2596–2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Martins-Silva, P.; Dias, C.P.; Vilar, L.C.; de Queiroz Silva, S.; Rossi, C.C.; Giambiagi-deMarval, M. Dispersion and persistence of antimicrobial resistance genes among Staphylococcus spp. and Mammaliicoccus spp. isolated along a swine manure treatment plant. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2023, 30, 34709–34719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rossi, C.C.; Pereira, M.F.; Giambiagi-deMarval, M. Underrated Staphylococcus species and their role in antimicrobial resistance spreading. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2020, 43, e20190065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, C.J.; Unger, C.; Hoffmann, W.; Lindsay, J.A.; Huang, Y.C.; Götz, F. Characterization and comparison of 2 distinct epidemic community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clones of ST59 lineage. PLoS One 2013, 8, e63210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shelburne, S.A.; Dib, R.W.; Endres, B.T.; Reitzel, R.; Li, X.; Kalia, A.; Sahasrabhojane, P.; Chaftari, A.M.; Hachem, R.; Vargas-Cruz, N.S.; et al. Whole-genome sequencing of Staphylococcus epidermidis bloodstream isolates from a prospective clinical trial reveals that complicated bacteraemia is caused by a limited number of closely related sequence types. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 646.e1–646.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Reynaga, E.; Navarro, M.; Vilamala, A.; Roure, P.; Quintana, M.; Garcia-Nuñez, M.; Figueras, R.; Torres, C.; Lucchetti, G.; Sabrià, M. Prevalence of colonization by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in pigs and pig farm workers in an area of Catalonia, Spain. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Miragaia, M. Factors Contributing to the Evolution of mecA-Mediated β-lactam Resistance in Staphylococci: Update and New Insights From Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS). Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mama, O.M.; Aspiroz, C.; Ruiz-Ripa, L.; Ceballos, S.; Iñiguez-Barrio, M.; Cercenado, E.; Azcona, J.M.; López-Cerero, L.; Seral, C.; López-Calleja, A.I.; et al. Prevalence and Genetic Characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus CC398 Isolates from Invasive Infections in Spanish Hospitals, Focusing on the Livestock-Independent CC398-MSSA Clade. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 623108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Schnellmann, C.; Gerber, V.; Rossano, A.; Jaquier, V.; Panchaud, Y.; Doherr, M.G.; Thomann, A.; Straub, R.; Perreten, V. Presence of new mecA and mph(C) variants conferring antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus spp. isolated from the skin of horses before and after clinic admission. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 4444–4454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Poulsen, A.B.; Skov, R.; Pallesen, L.V. Detection of methicillin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci and in staphylococci directly from simulated blood cultures using the EVIGENE MRSA Detection Kit. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2003, 51, 419–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Cuny, C.; Layer, F.; Strommenger, B.; Witte, W. Rare occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC130 with a novel mecA homologue in humans in Germany. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sutcliffe, J.; Grebe, T.; Tait-Kamradt, A.; Wondrack, L. Detection of erythromycin-resistant determinants by PCR. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1996, 40, 2562–2566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gómez-Sanz, E.; Torres, C.; Lozano, C.; Fernández-Pérez, R.; Aspiroz, C.; Ruiz-Larrea, F.; Zarazaga, M. Detection, molecular characterization, and clonal diversity of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC398 and CC97 in Spanish slaughter pigs of different age groups. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2010, 7, 1269–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schwendener, S.; Perreten, V. New MLSB resistance gene erm(43) in Staphylococcus lentus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012, 56, 4746–4752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wondrack, L.; Massa, M.; Yang, B.V.; Sutcliffe, J. Clinical strain of Staphylococcus aureus inactivates and causes efflux of macrolides. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1996, 40, 992–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lina, G.; Quaglia, A.; Reverdy, M.E.; Leclercq, R.; Vandenesch, F.; Etienne, J. Distribution of genes encoding resistance to macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins among staphylococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1999, 43, 1062–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Bozdogan, B.; Berrezouga, L.; Kuo, M.S.; Yurek, D.A.; Farley, K.A.; Stockman, B.J.; Leclercq, R. A new resistance gene, linB, conferring resistance to lincosamides by nucleotidylation in Enterococcus faecium HM1025. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1999, 43, 925–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hot, C.; Berthet, N.; Chesneau, O. Characterization of sal(A), a novel gene responsible for lincosamide and streptogramin A resistance in Staphylococcus sciuri. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 3335–3341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lozano, C.; Aspiroz, C.; Rezust, A.; Gómez-Sanz, E.; Simon, C.; Gómez, P.; Ortega, C.; Revillo, M.J.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Identification of novel vga(A)-carrying plasmids and a Tn5406-like transposon in meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis of human and animal origin. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2012, 40, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Van de Klundert, J.; Vliegenthart, J. PCR detection of genes coding for aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes. Diagn. Mol. Microbiol. 1993, 547–552. [Google Scholar]
  49. Aarestrup, F.M.; Agerso, Y.; Gerner-Smidt, P.; Madsen, M.; Jensen, L.B. Comparison of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes and resistance genes in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium from humans in the community, broilers, and pigs in Denmark. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2000, 37, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kehrenberg, C.; Schwarz, S. Florfenicol-chloramphenicol exporter gene fexA is part of the novel transposon Tn558. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 813–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, H.; Wang, Y.; Wu, C.; Schwarz, S.; Shen, Z.; Jeon, B.; Ding, S.; Zhang, Q.; Shen, J. A novel phenicol exporter gene, fexB, found in enterococci of animal origin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2012, 67, 322–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kehrenberg, C.; Schwarz, S. Distribution of florfenicol resistance genes fexA and cfr among chloramphenicol-resistant Staphylococcus isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 1156–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lee, S.M.; Huh, H.J.; Song, D.J.; Shim, H.J.; Park, K.S.; Kang, C.I.; Ki, C.S.; Lee, N.Y. Resistance mechanisms of linezolid-nonsusceptible enterococci in Korea: Low rate of 23S rRNA mutations in Enterococcus faecium. J. Med. Microbiol. 2017, 66, 1730–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ruiz-Ripa, L.; Feßler, A.T.; Hanke, D.; Eichhorn, I.; Azcona-Gutiérrez, J.M.; Pérez-Moreno, M.O.; Seral, C.; Aspiroz, C.; Alonso, C.A.; Torres, L.; et al. Mechanisms of Linezolid Resistance Among Enterococci of Clinical Origin in Spain-Detection of optrA- and cfr(D)-Carrying E. faecalis. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wang, Y.; Lv, Y.; Cai, J.; Schwarz, S.; Cui, L.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, R.; Li, J.; Zhao, Q.; He, T.; et al. A novel gene, optrA, that confers transferable resistance to oxazolidinones and phenicols and its presence in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium of human and animal origin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2015, 70, 2182–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Udo, E.E.; Al-Sweih, N.; Noronha, B.C. A chromosomal location of the mupA gene in Staphylococcus aureus expressing high-level mupirocin resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2003, 51, 1283–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Thomas, J.C.; Vargas, M.R.; Miragaia, M.; Peacock, S.J.; Archer, G.L.; Enright, M.C. Improved multilocus sequence typing scheme for Staphylococcus epidermidis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 616–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Jarraud, S.; Mougel, C.; Thioulouse, J.; Lina, G.; Meugnier, H.; Forey, F.; Nesme, X.; Etienne, J.; Vandenesch, F. Relationships between Staphylococcus aureus genetic background, virulence factors, agr groups (alleles), and human disease. Infect. Immun. 2002, 70, 631–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yamaguchi, T.; Nishifuji, K.; Sasaki, M.; Fudaba, Y.; Aepfelbacher, M.; Takata, T.; Ohara, M.; Komatsuzawa, H.; Amagai, M.; Sugai, M. Identification of the Staphylococcus aureus etd pathogenicity island which encodes a novel exfoliative toxin, ETD, and EDIN-B. Infect. Immun. 2002, 70, 5835–5845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lina, G.; Piémont, Y.; Godail-Gamot, F.; Bes, M.; Peter, M.O.; Gauduchon, V.; Vandenesch, F.; Etienne, J. Involvement of Panton-Valentine leukocidin-producing Staphylococcus aureus in primary skin infections and pneumonia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1999, 29, 1128–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antibiotics 12 01505 g001
Figure 1. Frequency of antimicrobial resistance in the CoNS strains recovered from nasal cavities of healthy pigs and pig farmers. Abbreviations CHL: chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; MDR: multidrug resistance; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline; TOB: tobramycin.
Figure 1. Frequency of antimicrobial resistance in the CoNS strains recovered from nasal cavities of healthy pigs and pig farmers. Abbreviations CHL: chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; MDR: multidrug resistance; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline; TOB: tobramycin.
Antibiotics 12 01505 g001
Antibiotics 12 01505 g002
Figure 2. Frequency of the types of SCCmec mobile elements identified in the MRCoNS nasal carriers.
Figure 2. Frequency of the types of SCCmec mobile elements identified in the MRCoNS nasal carriers.
Antibiotics 12 01505 g002
Antibiotics 12 01505 g003
Figure 3. Frequency of intra-species AMR and intra-host species diversities of CoNS among healthy pigs and pig farmers. Note: The number of individuals included 10 pigs from each farm (a total of 40 pigs) and 10 workers from the four pig farms.
Figure 3. Frequency of intra-species AMR and intra-host species diversities of CoNS among healthy pigs and pig farmers. Note: The number of individuals included 10 pigs from each farm (a total of 40 pigs) and 10 workers from the four pig farms.
Antibiotics 12 01505 g003
Table 1. Coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy pigs and pig farmers and those with MDR phenotype from the four farms (A–D).
Table 1. Coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy pigs and pig farmers and those with MDR phenotype from the four farms (A–D).
CoNS SpeciesTotal StrainsNon-Repetitive Strains a
Strains with MDR Phenotype bStrains with MDR Phenotype in PigsStrains with MDR Phenotype in Pig Farmers
PigsPig FarmersPigs and Pig farmersAll
Farms		Farm AFarm BFarm CFarm DAll
Farms		Farm AFarm BFarm CFarm D
S. sciuri2917017174013000000
S. haemolyticus53143030010001
S. borealis121001010540100000
S. chromogenes1511297510120002
S. epidermidis1355105410052210
S. hyicus118198332010100
S. saprophyticus73143210010100
S. simulans41341100030012
S. xylosus32000000000000
S. pasteuri22022200000000
Total (%)101621369 (92)56 (83.6)261315213 (100)2425
a Non-repetitive strains: one of each species per sample, or more than one if they presented a different AMR phenotype. b MDR: resistance to at least 3 families of antibiotics. In S. sciuri, clindamycin resistance was not considered for MDR analyses (this species has an intrinsic mechanism of lincomycin resistance).
Table 2. Comparison of the frequencies of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes among CoNS strains from healthy pigs and pig farmers in farms A to D.
Table 2. Comparison of the frequencies of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes among CoNS strains from healthy pigs and pig farmers in farms A to D.
Antimicrobial Resistance PhenotypeFarm A (%)Farm B (%)Farm C (%)Farm D (%)χ2p Value
PEN23 (76.7)15 (88.2)17 (80.9)3 (42.9)5.0780.166
FOX16 (53.3)10 (58.8)10 (47.6)3 (42.9)0.7340.865
ERY-CLI constitutive28 (93.3)12 (40)12 (57.1)6 (85.7)9.9870.018 *
CLI04 (13.3)7 (33.3)1 (14.3)11.1410.011 *
ERY1 (3.3)0001.5200.677
TET30 (100)15 (88.2)20 (95.2)6 (85.7)4.2080.239
TOB17 (56.7)14 (82.3)5 (23.8)2 (28.6)14.6880.002*
TOB-GEN2 (6.7)2 (11.7)3 (14.3)2 (28.6)2.7330.434
SXT24 (80)12 (70.6)8 (38.1)6 (85.7)11.3750.009 *
CIP12 (40)15 (88.2)9 (42.9)3 (42.9)11.6110.008 *
CHL9 (30)4 (23.5)2 (9.5)1 (14.3)3.3440.341
LZD1 (3.3)1 (5.9)001.4960.683
MUP002 (9.5)05.2840.152
MDR28 (93.3)17 (100)17 (80.9)7 (100)5.6420.130
The number of CoNS strains from the farms were as follows: Farm A = 30, Farm B = 17, Farm C = 21, and Farm D = 7; * Significant association determined via two-tailed chi-squared test at 95% confidence interval (CI). Abbreviations: CHL: chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; MDR: multidrug resistance; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline; TOB: tobramycin.
Table 3. Intra-host species and intra-species AMR diversity of coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy pigs and pig farmers.
Table 3. Intra-host species and intra-species AMR diversity of coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy pigs and pig farmers.
Host/FarmStaphylococcal SpeciesAMR PhenotypeAMR Genes DetectedLZD ResistanceSTSCCmec Type
GenesMIC a
Pig 1/AS. epidermidisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOBblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermB, dfrD, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′--ST25IVc
S. hyicusPEN-TET-ERY- CLIblaZ, tetL, ermC----
S. simulansTET-ERY-CLI-SXT-GENtetK, ermA, dfrG, aac6′-aph6″----
Pig 2/AS. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CHL-CN-TOB-CIPmecA, tetL, tetM, ermA, ermB, ermC, lnuA, salA, dfrD, fexA, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′ND--IVb
S. epidermidisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOBblaZ, mecA, tetM, erm43, ermC, dfrG, dfrK, ant4′--ST25V
S. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CHL-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, ermT, lnuB, dfrK, catPC221, fexA, ant4′ND--V
Pig 3/AS. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CHL-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, ermT, lnuB, dfrK, catPC221, fexA, ant4′ND--IVb
S. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CHL-TOB-CIPmecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, msrA, dfrK, catPC221, ant4′ND--IVb
S. chromogenesPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-TOB-SXTblaZ, tetL, erm43, ermT, dfrA, dfrG, dfrK, ant4′----
Pig 4/AS. chromogenesTET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOBtetL, tetM, ermA, dfrA, ant4′----
S. chromogenesPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXTblaZ, mecA, tetL, erm43, ermA, ermT, dfrA, dfrG, dfrK---NT
Pig 7/AS. chromogenesPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOBblaZ, tetL, erm43, ermT, dfrA, dfrG, dfrK, ant4′----
S. epidermidisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOBblaZ, mecA, tetM, ermC, dfrK, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′--ST25IVc
S. saprophyticusPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXTblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, ermA, dfrK---III
S. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CHL-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, ermT, lnuB, catPC221, fexA, dfrK, ant4′ND- V
Pig 8/AS. chromogenesTET-ERY-CLI-TOBtetL, tetM, ermC, ant4′----
S. chromogenesTET-ERY-CLItetL, ermC----
S. epidermidisTET-ERY-CLI-SXTblaZ, tetO, tetL, tetM, ermC, dfrK--ST977-
S. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, erm43, dfrA, dfrG, dfrK, ant4′---V
S. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CHL-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, ermT, lnuB, dfrK, fexA, ant4′ND--V
S. pastueriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT- TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetK, tetL tetM, ermC, dfrK, ant4′---V
Pig 9/AS. sciuriPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CHL-TOBmecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, lnuA, fexA, dfrK, ant4′, aac6′-aph2″ND--IVb
S. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CHL-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, ermT, lnuB, catPC221, fexA, dfrK, ant4′ND--V
Pig 10/AS. chromogenesTET-ERY-CLItetL, ermC----
S. saprophyticusFOX-TET-ERY-CHL-CLI-TOB-SXTmecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, dfrK, fexA, ant4′cfr12-V
S. pasteuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, dfrG, dfrK, ant4′---V
Farmer 1/AS. epidermidisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY- SXT-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetO, msrA, dfrA, dfrG--ST59V
S. epidermidisPEN-FOX-TET- SXT-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, dfrA, dfrG--ST59V
Pig 1/BS. haemolyticusPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-GEN-TOBblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, erm43, ermC, dfrA, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′---V
S. haemolyticusPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-GEN-TOB-CIPmecA, tetL, ermA, ermT, dfrA, dfrG, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′---V
S. epidermidisPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-TOBblaZ, tetL, tetM, tetK, ermC, ant4′--ST100-
S. hyicusPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-TOB-GEN-CIPblaZ, tetL, ermT, aac6′-aph2″----
Pig 4/BS. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOB-CIPmecA, tetK, tetL, ermA, ermC, dfrK, ant4′---V
S. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-CHL-SXT-GEN-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermT, fexA, dfrK, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′ND--V
S. haemolyticusPEN-TET-CLI-GEN-TOB-CIPtetL ermC, lnuA, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′----
Pig 5/BS. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-CHL-SXT-GEN-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermA, ermT, catPC221, fexA, dfrK, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′ND--V
S. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOB-CIPmecA, tetK, tetL, ermA, ermC, dfrK, ant4′---V
Farmer 1/BS. epidermidisPEN-FOX-TET-CLI-CHL-SXT-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetK, fexA, dfrK, ant4′cfr1.5ST16V
S. hyicusPEN-FOX-TET-CIP-SXTblaZ, mecA, tetK, tetO, dfrA, dfrG---NT
S. saprophyticusPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOB-GEN-SXT-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetK, tetM, ermC, dfrG, ant4′, aac6′-aph2″---V
Pig 1/CS. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CIPmecA, tetL, tetM, ermB, erm43, dfrK---NT
S. chromogenesTET-ERY-CLItetM, ermC, lnuB----
S. hyicusPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CIPblaZ, tetL, ermT, dfrK----
Pig 4/CS. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-TOBmecA, tetL, tetM, ermB, dfrK, ant4′---NT
S. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-CIP-TOB-GENmecA, tetL, ermC, aac6′-aph2″---V
Pig 6/CS. sciuriPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CIPmecA, tetL, tetM, ermT, dfrG, dfrK---NT
S. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-CLI-TOBmecA, tetL, tetM, lnuA, ant4′---IVb
Pig 8/CS. sciuriTET-CLI-PEN-TOBtetL, lnuA, ant4′----
S. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLImecA, tetM, ermB---IVb
S. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXTmecA, tetL, tetM, ermB, dfrK----
Pig 9/CS. hyicusPEN- FOX-TET-CLI-SXT-TOB-GEN-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetM, lnuA, lnuB, dfrD, aac6′-aph2″---V
S. xylosusPEN-TETblaZ, tetK----
Pig 10/CS. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CIPmecA, tetL, tetM, ermB, dfrK---NT
S. sciuriTET-ERY-CLI-CHL-SXT-CIPtetL, tetM, ermA, lnuA, catPC221, dfrKND---
S. xylosusPEN-TETblaZ, tetK----
Farmer 1/CS. epidermidisPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-TOB-MUPblaZ, tetK, tetL, tetM, erm43, dfrA, dfrK, ant4′, mupA--ST100-
S. simulansTET-CLI-CHLtetK, lnuA, fexAND---
Farmer 2/DS. simulansPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-TOB-GENblaZ, mecA, tetL, ermA, aac6′-aph2″---NT
S. simulansTET-ERY-CLI-SXTtetM, ermC, dfrG----
S. haemolyticusPEN-FOX-TET-CLI-SXT-TOB-GEN-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetK, lnuA, dfrG, aac6′-aph2″---II
Farmer 3/DS. chromogenesTET-ERY-CLI-SXTtetL ermT, dfrA, dfrG----
S. chromogenesERY-CLI-CHL-SXTmecA, tetL, tetM, ermC, dfrK, fexAND--IVb
Abbreviations: CHL: chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline; TOB: tobramycin. ST: Sequence type; NT: Non-typeable; -: Not tested; ND: Not detected. Note: All strains were lukS-PV/lukF-PV-, tst-, eta-, and etb-negative; a Linezolid MIC (μg/mL) was tested in the strains that carried linezolid resistance genes.
Table 4. CoNS with single antimicrobial resistance profile from healthy pigs and pig farmers.
Table 4. CoNS with single antimicrobial resistance profile from healthy pigs and pig farmers.
Host/FarmStaphylococcal SpeciesAMR PhenotypeAMR Genes DetectedSTSCCmec Type
Pig 5/AS. hyicusPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-SXTblaZ, tetM, ermC, dfrA, dfrG--
Pig 6/AS. hyicusPEN-TET-ERY-CLIblaZ, tetL, ermC--
Pig 2/BS. hyciusCLI-SXT-GEN-TOB-CIPlnuA, lnuB, dfrK, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′--
Pig 3/BS. hyicusCLI-SXT-GEN-TOB-CIPlnuA, lnuB, dfrK, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′--
Pig 6/BS. saprophyticusPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOB-GEN- SXT-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetM, ermC, dfrA, dfrG, ant4′, aac6′-aph2″-V
Pig 9/BS. chromogenesPEN-TET-ERY-CLI-GEN-TOB-CIPblaZ, tetL, ermT, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′--
Farmer 2/BS. epidermidisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-CHL-SXT-TOB- GEN-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, tetM, ermT, lnuB, catPC221, fexA, dfrA, dfrK, aac6′-aph2″, ant4′ST59V
Pig 2/CS. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-CLI-CIP-TOB-GEN-MUPmecA, tetL, tetM, lnuA, ant4′, mupA-IVb
Pig 3/CS. sciuriPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-CIPmecA, tetL, tetM, ermB, dfrK-NT
Pig 5/CS. chromogenesCLIlnuB--
Pig 7/CS. sciuriTET-CLI-PEN-TOBtetL, lnuA, ant4′--
Pig 1/DS. chromogenesTET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOB-CIPtetL, tetM, tetK, ermC, dfrK, ant4′--
Pig 5/DS. borealisPEN-FOX-TET-ERY-CLI-SXT-TOB-CIPblaZ, mecA, tetL, ermT, dfrA, dfrK, ant4′, aac6′-aph2″-NT
CLO: chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline; TOB: tobramycin; ST: Sequence type; NT: Non-typeable; -: Not tested. Note: All strains were lukS-PV/lukF-PV-, tst-, eta-, and etb-negative.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abdullahi, I.N.; Lozano, C.; Simón, C.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Within-Host Diversity of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Resistome from Healthy Pigs and Pig Farmers, with the Detection of cfr-Carrying Strains and MDR-S. borealis. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1505. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101505

AMA Style

Abdullahi IN, Lozano C, Simón C, Zarazaga M, Torres C. Within-Host Diversity of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Resistome from Healthy Pigs and Pig Farmers, with the Detection of cfr-Carrying Strains and MDR-S. borealis. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(10):1505. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101505

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abdullahi, Idris Nasir, Carmen Lozano, Carmen Simón, Myriam Zarazaga, and Carmen Torres. 2023. "Within-Host Diversity of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Resistome from Healthy Pigs and Pig Farmers, with the Detection of cfr-Carrying Strains and MDR-S. borealis" Antibiotics 12, no. 10: 1505. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101505

APA Style

Abdullahi, I. N., Lozano, C., Simón, C., Zarazaga, M., & Torres, C. (2023). Within-Host Diversity of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Resistome from Healthy Pigs and Pig Farmers, with the Detection of cfr-Carrying Strains and MDR-S. borealis. Antibiotics, 12(10), 1505. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101505

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop