Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The draft genomes of Elizabethkingia anophelis of equine origin are genetically similar to three isolates from human clinical specimens

  • William L. Johnson,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Akhilesh Ramachandran ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft

    rakhile@okstate.edu (AR); john.gustafson@okstate.edu (JEG)

    Affiliation Oklahoma Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Nathanial J. Torres,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Ainsley C. Nicholson,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Special Bacteriology Reference Laboratory, Bacterial Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Anne M. Whitney,

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Special Bacteriology Reference Laboratory, Bacterial Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Melissa Bell,

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Special Bacteriology Reference Laboratory, Bacterial Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Aaron Villarma,

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Special Bacteriology Reference Laboratory, Bacterial Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Ben W. Humrighouse,

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Special Bacteriology Reference Laboratory, Bacterial Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Mili Sheth,

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Scientific Resources, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Scot E. Dowd,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Molecular Research DNA Laboratory, Shallowater, Texas, United States of America

    ⨯
  • John R. McQuiston,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Special Bacteriology Reference Laboratory, Bacterial Special Pathogens Branch, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

    ⨯
  • John E. Gustafson

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft

    rakhile@okstate.edu (AR); john.gustafson@okstate.edu (JEG)

    Affiliation Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, United States of America

    ⨯

Abstract

We report the isolation and characterization of two Elizabethkingia anophelis strains (OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2) isolated from sources associated with horses in Oklahoma. Both strains appeared susceptible to fluoroquinolones and demonstrated high MICs to all cell wall active antimicrobials including vancomycin, along with aminoglycosides, fusidic acid, chloramphenicol, and tetracycline. Typical of the Elizabethkingia, both draft genomes contained multiple copies of β-lactamase genes as well as genes predicted to function in antimicrobial efflux. Phylogenetic analysis of the draft genomes revealed that OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 differ by only 6 SNPs and are in a clade with 3 strains of Elizabethkingia anophelis that were responsible for human infections. These findings therefore raise the possibility that Elizabethkingia might have the potential to move between humans and animals in a manner similar to known zoonotic pathogens.

Citation: Johnson WL, Ramachandran A, Torres NJ, Nicholson AC, Whitney AM, Bell M, et al. (2018) The draft genomes of Elizabethkingia anophelis of equine origin are genetically similar to three isolates from human clinical specimens. PLoS ONE 13(7): e0200731. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200731

Editor: Massimiliano Galdiero, Seconda Universita degli Studi di Napoli, ITALY

Received: April 16, 2018; Accepted: May 28, 2018; Published: July 19, 2018

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: The draft genome sequences can be found under bioproject PRJNA397081. OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 are represented by biosamples SAMN08100548 and SAMN08100549 and nucleotide accession numbers PJMA00000000 and PJLZ00000000, respectively. The accession numbers of the human-associated genomes are NWMM00000000, NWMI00000000, and NWMH00000000. The sequence read archives can be found at SRS3504205, SRR7474359, SRX4343966, and SRX4343968.

Funding: WLJ, NJT and JEG acknowledge support from the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station (http://oaes.okstate.edu/). CDC research was supported by the Advanced Molecular Detection (AMD) initiative (https://www.cdc.gov/amd/index.html). The funders played no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Organisms from the Elizabethkingia genus are ubiquitous and have been isolated from arthropods [1–5], lizards [6], fish [7], frogs [8], corn [9], hospital sinks and water spigots [10, 11], and the Mir space station [12]. Some Elizabethkingia spp. are considered opportunistic pathogens that can cause serious infections such as meningitis and bacteremia, primarily in neonates or immunocompromised individuals. In general, Elizabethkingia infections are associated with high mortality rates [13, 14], likely due in part to the intrinsic antibiotic resistance phenotype expressed by these organisms, with the majority of isolates showing resistance to broad spectrum β-lactams, tetracyclines, and aminoglycosides, both in vivo and in vitro, while more variability is found in resistance to vancomycin and ciprofloxacin [8, 15–42]. This variability in vancomycin susceptibility is of interest as there appear to be discrepancies between laboratory reports for a variety of Elizabethkingia strains which were not susceptible to vancomycin in vitro based on CLSI standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods [19, 39], and clinical reports suggesting that vancomycin exhibits in vivo therapeutic efficacy [19, 20, 22, 26, 32, 35, 37, 43–45]. Recently, an unprecedented Elizabethkingia anophelis outbreak occurred in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois, with 65 confirmed cases and 20 deaths reported [46, 47]. This outbreak is particularly notable because in addition to the high case count, this outbreak was primarily community-associated rather than healthcare-associated, and to date, no reservoir for this outbreak has been identified. E. anophelis is also the etiologic agent of disease in healthcare associated outbreaks that have occurred in Illinois [48], the Central African Republic [49], Hong Kong [14], Taiwan [25], Singapore [36], and other isolated cases [23, 28, 33, 40, 50, 51].

It has been well documented that both food and companion animals may serve as reservoirs for antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens [52–60]. The findings of Elizabethkingia meningoseptica isolated from a dog suffering from bacteremia [60] and contagious Elizabethkingia miricola among farmed frogs [8] suggest that farm and/or companion animals may also act as reservoirs for Elizabethkingia with the potential to cause human disease.

We report here the draft genomes and antibiotic susceptibility profiles of two E. anophelis strains isolated from horses. Whole genome sequence analysis suggests that these two strains are clonal and closely related to certain human clinical E. anophelis isolates.

Materials and methods

Strains and growth conditions

Strains OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 were isolated in 2016 from diagnostic specimens associated with horses in Oklahoma that were submitted to the Oklahoma Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory. OSUVM-1 was cultured from a swab taken from an endoscope used at an equine hospital; and OSUVM-2 was isolated from a guttural pouch aspirate obtained from a 9-year-old intact female quarter horse that presented to Boren Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital (BVMTH) with a previous history of strangles. In addition to OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Chryseobacterium spp. like bacteria were isolated from both specimens. All bacterial isolates were identified using MALDI-TOF MS. Working stocks of the Elizabethkingia isolates OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 were prepared from pure cultures grown on heart infusion agar (Remel, San Diego, CA, USA) supplemented with 5% defibrinated rabbit blood (Hemostat Laboratories, Dixon, CA, USA) that were incubated overnight at 37°C and subsequently stored at 4°C. Working cultures of each strain were prepared by inoculating a single colony into 3 ml of heart infusion (HIB) or Mueller Hinton broth (MHB) (Becton Dickinson and Company, Cockeysville, MD, USA) and incubated overnight (37°C, 200 rpm).

Isolate identification using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry

For bacterial identification, fresh colonies grown on tryptic soy agar containing 5% sheep blood (Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA) were applied to a spot on the MALDI-TOF MS target plate and overlaid with freshly made matrix solution (Bruker Daltonics, Billerica, MA USA) containing 70% formic acid (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) and α-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Bacterial identification was carried out using a Microflex LT MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics) using default settings. Bacterial peptide spectra were collected using FlexControl software (version 3.4, Bruker Daltonics) in positive linear mode with a mass range from 2 to 20 kDa and a laser frequency of 60 Hz (IS1–20 kV; IS2–18 kV; lens—6 kV; extraction delay time of 100 ns) in automatic mode by accumulating a maximum of 240 profiles (40 laser shots from six different positions of the target spot). Microbial peptide mass spectra were then analyzed using the Biotyper RTC software version 3.1 using the default settings and database version 4.0.0.1 (Bruker Daltonics). Both OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 were identified by MALDI-TOF MS as E. meningoseptica. This is consistent with the known insufficiency of MALDI-TOF MS default databases to correctly identify certain Flavobacteriacae, including species belonging to the Chryseobacterium and Elizabethkingia genera [61–63].

Genome sequencing, assembly, annotation, and phylogenetic analysis

Genomic DNA was isolated from 3 ml overnight cultures of OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 grown in HIB as described above using Qiagen Genomic-tip 100/g columns (Qiagen, Germantown, MD, USA) following the manufacturer’s protocol. The resulting DNA samples were sent to Molecular Research LP (Shallowater, TX, USA) where library preparation was performed using the Nextera DNA sample preparation kit (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Genomic DNA was then sequenced using PacBio SMRT sequencing and Illumina MiSeq systems and assembled using SeqMan NGen® version 12.0 (DNASTAR, Madison, WI, USA) with paired end sequencing parameters on the default settings. The resulting assemblies were annotated using the Rapid Annotations Using Subsystems Technology (RAST) server [64–66] and the Prokaryote Genome Annotation Pipeline [67]. Both genomes were further analyzed using the nucleotide and protein Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) [68, 69]. The draft genome sequences can be found under bioproject PRJNA397081. OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 are represented by biosamples SAMN08100548 and SAMN08100549 and nucleotide accession numbers PJMA00000000 and PJLZ00000000, respectively.

The OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 genomes were shared with the Special Bacteriology Reference Laboratory (SBRL) at CDC, where they were compared to the genomes of E. anophelis isolates derived from human clinical specimens which were obtained after the 2016 Wisconsin Elizabethkingia outbreak [30] in response to a general request from CDC to the various state public health departments for all Elizabethkingia isolates, which have been sequenced as a part of a larger project. Three isolates were found to be closely related to OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2. These genomes had been sequenced from cultures grown at 35°C on heart infusion agar (Difco) supplemented with 5% rabbit blood (Hemostat Laboratories). DNA was extracted using the Zymo ZR Fungal/Bacterial DNA Microprep kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA; strain 16–293), or the MasterPure™ Complete DNA and RNA Purification Kit (Epicentre, Madison, WI; strains 16–487 and 17–001), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Libraries were prepared using the NEBNext Ultra DNA library prep kit (New England Biolabs, Inc., Ipswich, MA, USA), then sequencing was done with an Illumina MiSeq instrument using a 2x250 paired-end protocol as described previously [70]. The de Bruijn graph de novo assembler in CLC Genomics Workbench version 9.0. (CLCbio, Aarhus, Denmark) was used on reads trimmed with a quality limit of 0.02 to produce draft genomes. Ambiguous nucleotides (N’s) in the resulting contigs were resolved using read alignments, and contigs were split wherever N’s could not be resolved. The accession numbers of these strains are NWMM00000000, NWMI00000000, and NWMH00000000. Genomes were aligned and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) trees produced using HarvestTools [71], and exported Newick files were edited using MEGA v6 [72].

Antibiotic susceptibility testing

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of antibiotics were determined using either standard CLSI protocols [73] for clindamycin, vancomycin, and fusidic acid, or the Sensititre automated system (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) following the manufacturer’s protocol for equine samples.

Results and discussion

Sequencing and mass spectrometry analysis

The assembly of OSUVM-1 sequence data produced 7 contigs and a genome of 4,153,767 bp (%GC = 35.5). OSUVM-1 contained 3,850 putative coding sequences (CDS), of which 3,777 were protein CDS. RAST annotation assigned function to 2,421 (64%) predicted protein CDS and identified 75 rRNA and tRNA CDS.

OSUVM-2 sequences were assembled into 10 contigs to produce a genome of 4,109,384 bp (%GC = 35.5). OSUVM-2 contained 3814 CDS, of which 3,750 were protein CDS. RAST annotation assigned function to 2,404 (64%) predicted protein CDS and identified 64 rRNA and tRNA CDS.

Bacterial identification using MALDI-TOF indicated that both OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 were members of the Elizabethkingia genus. The Elizabethkingia are nonmotile [42] and RAST analysis of the draft genomes of OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 revealed no features supporting motility and chemotaxis (S1 Table). The subsystem feature count in both strains were identical for 16 of 25 subsystems identified in the draft genomes (S1 Table). The two draft genomes differed in the feature count of the following subsystems: cell wall and capsule; virulence, disease, and defense; miscellaneous; membrane transport; iron acquisition and metabolism; protein metabolism; stress response; metabolism of aromatic compounds; and phages, prophages, and transposable elements (S1 Table). This last finding is consistent with our expectation that the loci carried by mobile genetic elements will be better represented in a complete genome than a draft genome, since a draft genome will contain a single copy of a transposon sequence (with coverage levels scaled to the number of copies of the transposon in the genome) while a complete genome will allow each gene in multiple copies to be identified.

Core genome and phylogenetic analysis

Nucleotide BLAST and phylogenetic analysis of the core genome of both isolates revealed that both strains were E. anophelis It is of interest to note that OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 are part of a clade of strains resembling E. anophelis strain JM-87 [9, 74] (which was isolated from Zea mays stem tissue and initially described as the type strain of “Elizabethkingia endophytica” before whole genome sequence analysis revealed it to belonged to the E. anophelis species) rather than the clade containing E. anophelis type strain DSM_23781, which was isolated from the midgut of a mosquito (Fig 1) [9, 75].

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Core genome single nucleotide polymorphism tree showing the position of OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 compared to the Elizabethkingia anophelis strains reported by Nicholson et al.

Type strains are denoted by a superscript T, and the location of the isolates from this study is denoted by a bracket.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200731.g001

Using the HarvestTools v1.1.2 module ParSNP, we determined that both OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 are closely related to E. anophelis isolates derived from human clinical specimens in Minnesota, Illinois, and Tennessee (Fig 1). A second analysis limited to OSUVM-1, OSUVM-2, and the three human clinical isolates, detected an 87% core genome among the five strains. Once ambiguous nucleotides were excluded only 198 SNP positions were located, scattered throughout the core genome of the five strains, and OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 differed by only 6 SNPs.

These results indicate that these five strains are highly related and that the two OSUVM isolates share commonalities with strains isolated from humans manifesting with disease caused by Elizabethkingia. Interestingly, Hu et al. [8] reported that an Elizabethkingia miricola strain responsible for a contagious disease resulting in black-spotted frog losses at farms in China was comparable to a human E. miricola isolate. Collectively these findings suggest that Elizabethkingia are not host-specific, which raises the possibility that Elizabethkingia might have the potential to move between humans and animals in a similar manner to known zoonotic pathogens.

Subsystem analysis

Beta-lactamases.

Genomic analysis of Elizabethkingia spp. consistently identifies multiple β-lactamases, including three characterized β-lactamases [41, 76, 77], along with a varying number of putative β-lactamases [1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 25, 29, 30, 70, 78]. The 19 putative β-lactamase CDS in both OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 included the previously characterized class A serine β-lactamase (SBL) blaCME-1 [76], and metallo-β-lactamases (MBL) class B1 blaB14 [41] and class B3 blaGOB18 [77]. Of the remaining 16 putative β-lactamases, one is similar to the previously characterized class A SBL blaCIA-1 from Chryseobacterium indologenes (67% amino acid identity) [79], 11 are similar to class C SBLs, and the remaining 7 are classified as putative MBLs.

Multidrug efflux pumps.

Efflux pumps are a key component of the intrinsic antibiotic-resistance mechanism of many bacteria and function by transporting antibiotics from within the cell to the outside [80–82]. Efflux pumps are characterized as belonging to five families: ATP-binding cassette (ABC) [83], major facilitator superfamily (MFS) [84, 85], multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (MATE) [86], resistance-nodulation-cell division (RND) [87], and small multidrug resistance (SMR) [88]. Genomic annotation of all Elizabethkingia spp. reveals the presence of several drug efflux pumps, yet none of these transporters has been phenotypically characterized [1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 25, 29, 30, 70, 78]. RAST annotation revealed 32 CDS related to antibiotic efflux in both OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2: 18 of the 32 CDS (56%) were identified by RAST analysis as components of RND efflux operons, 12 CDS (38%) as components of MFS operons, while the remaining 2 CDS (6%) were identified as MATE efflux pumps.

We are interested in the RND pumps in the draft genomes of OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 since RND efflux pumps can be a major factor contributing to clinically-relevant resistance to certain antibiotics in Gram-negative organisms [80]. Tripartite RND efflux pumps consist of an inner membrane pump attached to an outer membrane porin by way of a periplasmic adaptor protein [82, 87, 89, 90]. Although the arrangement of the genes that encode RND components varies among organisms, they can be found in a single operon in organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa (e.g. mexAB-oprM) and Campylobacter jejuni (e.g. cmeABC) [87, 91]. When genes encoding the MexAB-OprM efflux pump in P. aeruginosa and the CmeABC efflux operon in C. jejuni are inactivated, a significant decrease in the MICs for various β-lactams, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, nalidixic acid, and tetracycline is observed [90, 92–94].

The 18 CDS identified by RAST analysis as components of tripartite RND efflux pumps were all identical in OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 at the nucleotide level. These genes presented as six, three-gene operons, organized in the same manner as the mexAB-oprM and cmeABC operons. The OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 RND inner membrane pumps demonstrated 28–42% amino acid identity to MexB and CmeB, the periplasmic adaptor proteins demonstrated 24–27% amino acid identity to MexA and CmeA, while the outer membrane porins demonstrated 25–29% amino acid identity to OprM and CmeC. These homologies only suggest a relationship between these operons and characterized RND efflux systems. It should be noted that when Schindler et al. [95] cloned and expressed 21 genes putatively identified as encoding efflux proteins in Staphylococcus aureus, none resulted in increased MICs for any of the substrates tested, calling into question the function of these genes in drug efflux. As a result, it is important that the putative efflux genes from Elizabethkingia isolates be confirmed as drug resistance efflux pumps through biochemical analysis.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Both OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 demonstrated high MICs for cefazolin, ceftazidime, ceftiofur, ampicillin, penicillin, ticarcillin, ticarcillin + clavulanic acid, imipenem, amikacin, gentamicin, chloramphenicol, fusidic acid, and tetracycline (S2 Table). While the confirmed active β-lactamases in Elizabethkingia are known to contribute to resistance to a wide array of antibiotics that target penicillin-binding proteins [45–47], other mechanisms such as multidrug efflux, outer membrane alterations and penicillin-binding proteins that demonstrate reduced affinity for β-lactams can also contribute to β-lactam resistance, although these mechanisms remain untested in Elizabethkingia [81, 92, 93].

Interestingly OSUVM-1 demonstrated an oxacillin MIC of 0.25 mg/l, while OSUVM-2 showed a higher oxacillin MIC (≥ 4 mg/l), and overall OSUVM-2 displayed higher MICs for 11 of the antibiotics tested (S2 Table). Since the genes associated with resistances are identical in both strains, these MIC differences may be attributed to unidentified SNPs or specific gene content differences outside the core genome.

Both OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 demonstrated low MICs to ciprofloxacin and enrofloxacin, suggesting they are susceptible to these fluoroquinolones (S2 Table). Ciprofloxacin resistance in Gram-negative bacteria is driven primarily by mutations in the gene encoding the DNA gyrase A subunit (gyrA), and resistance is enhanced in both cases by mutations in gyrB, parC, and parE [96–101]. The E. anophelis gyrA encodes a predicted protein of 858 amino acids, and Perrin et al. [30] identified a Ser83Ile mutation in the gyrA of an E. anophelis strain isolated during the 2016 Wisconsin outbreak that displayed an increased ciprofloxacin MIC. Lin et al. [25] subsequently identified the same mutation in another E. anophelis strain which also demonstrated an elevated ciprofloxacin MIC. Thus, it is probable that the gyrA mutation Ser83Ile imparts ciprofloxacin resistance in E. anophelis, as it does for E. coli [102–107]. Both OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 contain the wild-type serine at position 83, along with two mutations, Val841Ala and Ala842Ile. Positions 841 and 842 lie outside of the region of gyrA thought to be responsible for fluoroquinolone resistance [96, 97, 102, 104] and the low fluoroquinolone MICs demonstrated by both strains are consistent with the expectation that these mutations would not convey fluoroquinolone resistance.

Vancomycin is used extensively for treating Gram-positive infections, in particular infections caused by methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and Clostridum difficile [108, 109]. Gram-negative organisms are normally intrinsically refractory to the action of vancomycin and exhibit MICs > 64 mg/l [21], except Elizabethkingia, which have been reported to exhibit vancomycin MICs as low as 1 mg/l [16–19, 78, 110]. Vancomycin has been used singly or in combination therapies to treat Elizabethkingia infections with mixed success (reviewed in [110]). Furthermore, Hazuka et al. [24] reported that when an isolate of E. meningoseptica was exposed to vancomycin for 6 days, the MIC increased from 8 mg/l to 64 mg/l. Vancomycin dosing recommendations suggest that a serum trough concentration of between 15 to 20 mg/l should be reached and maintained to kill susceptible organisms, but this guidance requires that the target organism has a vancomycin MIC < 1 mg/l [108, 109, 111]. Using this standard, OSUVM-1 and OSUVM-2 (vancomycin MICs = 8 and 32 mg/l, respectively) would be resistant to vancomycin.

Conclusion

Here we report the first two draft genomes from Elizabethkingia associated with horses, and that these two isolates are closely related to isolates derived from human infections, although to date no direct evidence for transmission of Elizabethkingia between humans and animals has been observed. We further demonstrated that both isolates display low MICs for ciprofloxacin and that both isolates display an elevated MIC for vancomycin. Clinical reports have shown potential efficacy for vancomycin in treating Elizabethkingia infections despite in vitro susceptibility results that would suggest otherwise [20, 22, 26, 32, 35, 37, 43–45], although treatment failure with vancomycin has also been reported [24, 27, 38]. We hope that this report of vancomycin-resistant E. anophelis isolates will stimulate discussion and further research to determine the efficacy (or lack thereof) of vancomycin in treating Elizabethkingia infections.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Distribution in coding sequence function as identified by RAST.

Subsystems with differences in the number of coding sequences in the two strains are highlighted in bold.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200731.s001

(PDF)

S2 Table. Minimum inhibitory concentrations for select antibiotics determined by the Sensititre system or broth microdilution method.

Antibiotics displaying different MICs are highlighted in bold.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200731.s002

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

  1. 1. Kukutla P, Lindberg BG, Pei D, Rayl M, Yu W, Steritz M, et al. Draft Genome Sequences of Elizabethkingia anophelis Strains R26T and Ag1 from the Midgut of the Malaria Mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Genome Announc. 2013;1(6). Epub 2013/12/07. pmid:24309745; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3853068.
  2. 2. Lee D, Kim YK, Kim YS, Kim TJ. Complete Genome Sequence of Elizabethkingia sp. BM10, a Symbiotic Bacterium of the Wood-Feeding Termite Reticulitermes speratus KMT1. Genome Announc. 2015;3(5). Epub 2015/10/10. pmid:26450743; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4599102.
  3. 3. Mee PT, Lynch SE, Walker PJ, Melville L, Duchemin JB. Detection of Elizabethkingia spp. in Culicoides Biting Midges, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(8):1409–10. Epub 2017/07/21. pmid:28726605; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5547790.
  4. 4. Pei D, Nicholson AC, Jiang J, Chen H, Whitney AM, Villarma A, et al. Complete Circularized Genome Sequences of Four Strains of Elizabethkingia anophelis, Including Two Novel Strains Isolated from Wild-Caught Anopheles sinensis. Genome Announc. 2017;5(47). Epub 2017/11/24. pmid:29167265.
  5. 5. Raygoza Garay JA, Hughes GL, Koundal V, Rasgon JL, Mwangi MM. Genome Sequence of Elizabethkingia anophelis Strain EaAs1, Isolated from the Asian Malaria Mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Genome Announc. 2016;4(2). Epub 2016/03/12. pmid:26966196; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4786652.
  6. 6. Jiang HY, Ma JE, Li J, Zhang XJ, Li LM, He N, et al. Diets Alter the Gut Microbiome of Crocodile Lizards. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2073. Epub 2017/11/10. pmid:29118742; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5660983.
  7. 7. Jacobs A, Chenia HY. Biofilm formation and adherence characteristics of an Elizabethkingia meningoseptica isolate from Oreochromis mossambicus. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2011;10:16. Epub 2011/05/07. pmid:21545730; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3112384.
  8. 8. Hu R, Yuan J, Meng Y, Wang Z, Gu Z. Pathogenic Elizabethkingia miricola Infection in Cultured Black-Spotted Frogs, China, 2016. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(12):2055–9. Epub 2017/11/18. pmid:29148374.
  9. 9. Kampfer P, Busse HJ, McInroy JA, Glaeser SP. Elizabethkingia endophytica sp. nov., isolated from Zea mays and emended description of Elizabethkingia anophelis Kampfer et al. 2011. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015;65(7):2187–93. Epub 2015/04/11. pmid:25858248.
  10. 10. Moore LS, Owens DS, Jepson A, Turton JF, Ashworth S, Donaldson H, et al. Waterborne Elizabethkingia meningoseptica in Adult Critical Care. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(1):9–17. Epub 2015/12/23. pmid:26690562; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4696684.
  11. 11. Teo J, Tan SY, Liu Y, Tay M, Ding Y, Li Y, et al. Comparative genomic analysis of malaria mosquito vector-associated novel pathogen Elizabethkingia anophelis. Genome Biol Evol. 2014;6(5):1158–65. Epub 2014/05/08. pmid:24803570; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4041001.
  12. 12. Kim KK, Kim MK, Lim JH, Park HY, Lee ST. Transfer of Chryseobacterium meningosepticum and Chryseobacterium miricola to Elizabethkingia gen. nov. as Elizabethkingia meningoseptica comb. nov. and Elizabethkingia miricola comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2005;55(Pt 3):1287–93. Epub 2005/05/10. pmid:15879269.
  13. 13. Jean SS, Lee WS, Chen FL, Ou TY, Hsueh PR. Elizabethkingia meningoseptica: an important emerging pathogen causing healthcare-associated infections. J Hosp Infect. 2014;86(4):244–9. Epub 2014/04/01. pmid:24680187.
  14. 14. Lau SK, Chow WN, Foo CH, Curreem SO, Lo GC, Teng JL, et al. Elizabethkingia anophelis bacteremia is associated with clinically significant infections and high mortality. Sci Rep. 2016;6:26045. Epub 2016/05/18. pmid:27185741; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4868968.
  15. 15. Aber RC, Wennersten C, Moellering RC Jr. Antimicrobial susceptibility of flavobacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978;14(3):483–7. Epub 1978/09/01. pmid:708026; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC352486.
  16. 16. Altmann G, Bogokovsky B. In-vitro sensitivity of Flavobacterium meningosepticum to antimicrobial agents. J Med Microbiol. 1971;4(2):296–9. Epub 1971/05/01. pmid:4105616.
  17. 17. Ceyhan M, Yildirim I, Tekeli A, Yurdakok M, Us E, Altun B, et al. A Chryseobacterium meningosepticum outbreak observed in 3 clusters involving both neonatal and non-neonatal pediatric patients. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(6):453–7. Epub 2008/08/05. pmid:18675153.
  18. 18. Chang JC, Hsueh PR, Wu JJ, Ho SW, Hsieh WC, Luh KT. Antimicrobial susceptibility of flavobacteria as determined by agar dilution and disk diffusion methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(6):1301–6. Epub 1997/06/01. pmid:9174188; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC163904.
  19. 19. Di Pentima MC, Mason EO Jr., Kaplan SL. In vitro antibiotic synergy against Flavobacterium meningosepticum: implications for therapeutic options. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26(5):1169–76. Epub 1998/05/23. pmid:9597247.
  20. 20. Dias M, Prashant K, Pai R, Scaria B. Chryseobacterium meningosepticum bacteremia in diabetic nephropathy patient on hemodialysis. Indian J Nephrol. 2010;20(4):203–4. Epub 2011/01/06. pmid:21206682; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3008949.
  21. 21. Fass RJ, Barnishan J. In vitro susceptibilities of nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli other than Pseudomonas aeruginosa to 32 antimicrobial agents. Rev Infect Dis. 1980;2(6):841–53. Epub 1980/11/01. pmid:7012987.
  22. 22. Gungor S, Ozen M, Akinci A, Durmaz R. A Chryseobacterium meningosepticum outbreak in a neonatal ward. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(8):613–7. Epub 2003/08/28. pmid:12940584.
  23. 23. Gupta P, Zaman K, Mohan B, Taneja N. Elizabethkingia miricola: A rare non-fermenter causing urinary tract infection. World J Clin Cases. 2017;5(5):187–90. pmid:28560237; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5434319.
  24. 24. Hazuka BT, Dajani AS, Talbot K, Keen BM. Two outbreaks of Flavobacterium meningosepticum type E in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Microbiol. 1977;6(5):450–55. Epub 1977/11/01. pmid:925147; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC274796.
  25. 25. Lin JN, Lai CH, Yang CH, Huang YH, Lin HH. Genomic features, phylogenetic relationships, and comparative genomics of Elizabethkingia anophelis strain EM361-97 isolated in Taiwan. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):14317. Epub 2017/11/01. pmid:29085032; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5662595.
  26. 26. Lin PY, Chu C, Su LH, Huang CT, Chang WY, Chiu CH. Clinical and microbiological analysis of bloodstream infections caused by Chryseobacterium meningosepticum in nonneonatal patients. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(7):3353–5. Epub 2004/07/10. pmid:15243115; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC446307.
  27. 27. Lothuvachai T, Likittanasombat K, Milindankura S, Sakulsaengprapha A, Kitiyakara C. Chryseobacterium meningosepticum infection and cardiac tamponade in a long-term hemodialysis patient. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;48(4):e49–53. Epub 2006/09/26. pmid:16997045.
  28. 28. Montrucchio G, Corcione S, Vaj M, Zaccaria T, Costa C, Brazzi L, et al. First case of E. meningoseptica in Italy in a patient with necrotic hemorrhagic pancreatitis. Infection. 2017. Epub 2017/08/05. pmid:28776164.
  29. 29. Opota O, Diene SM, Bertelli C, Prod'hom G, Eckert P, Greub G. Genome of the carbapenemase-producing clinical isolate Elizabethkingia miricola EM_CHUV and comparative genomics with Elizabethkingia meningoseptica and Elizabethkingia anophelis: evidence for intrinsic multidrug resistance trait of emerging pathogens. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017;49(1):93–7. pmid:27913093.
  30. 30. Perrin A, Larsonneur E, Nicholson AC, Edwards DJ, Gundlach KM, Whitney AM, et al. Evolutionary dynamics and genomic features of the Elizabethkingia anophelis 2015 to 2016 Wisconsin outbreak strain. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15483. Epub 2017/05/26. pmid:28537263; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5458099.
  31. 31. Plotkin SA, McKitrick JC. Nosocomial meningitis of the newborn caused by a flavobacterium. JAMA. 1966;198(6):662–4. Epub 1966/11/07. pmid:5953444.
  32. 32. Sader HS, Jones RN, Pfaller MA. Relapse of catheter-related Flavobacterium meningosepticum bacteremia demonstrated by DNA macrorestriction analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;21(4):997–1000. Epub 1995/10/01. pmid:8645856.
  33. 33. Sebastiampillai BS, Luke NV, Silva S, De Silva ST, Premaratna R. Septicaemia caused by Elizabethkingia-sp in a 'healthy' Sri Lankan man. Trop Doct. 2017:49475517717135. Epub 2017/06/24. pmid:28641481.
  34. 34. Tai IC, Liu TP, Chen YJ, Lien RI, Lee CY, Huang YC. Outbreak of Elizabethkingia meningoseptica sepsis with meningitis in a well-baby nursery. J Hosp Infect. 2017;96(2):168–71. Epub 2017/01/13. pmid:28077242.
  35. 35. Tekerekoglu MS, Durmaz R, Ayan M, Cizmeci Z, Akinci A. Analysis of an outbreak due to Chryseobacterium meningosepticum in a neonatal intensive care unit. New Microbiol. 2003;26(1):57–63. Epub 2003/02/13. pmid:12578312.
  36. 36. Teo J, Tan SY, Tay M, Ding Y, Kjelleberg S, Givskov M, et al. First case of E anophelis outbreak in an intensive-care unit. Lancet. 2013;382(9895):855–6. Epub 2013/09/10. pmid:24012265.
  37. 37. Tizer KB, Cervia JS, Dunn AM, Stavola JJ, Noel GJ. Successful combination vancomycin and rifampin therapy in a newborn with community-acquired Flavobacterium meningosepticum neonatal meningitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1995;14(10):916–7. Epub 1995/10/01. pmid:8584328.
  38. 38. Tseng MH, Diang LK, Su YC, Lin SH. Catheter-related Chryseobacterium meningosepticum bacteraemia in a haemodialysis patient. NDT Plus. 2009;2(5):433–4. Epub 2009/10/01. pmid:25949372; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4421377.
  39. 39. Fraser SL, Jorgensen JH. Reappraisal of the antimicrobial susceptibilities of Chryseobacterium and Flavobacterium species and methods for reliable susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(12):2738–41. Epub 1998/01/07. pmid:9420049; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC164199.
  40. 40. Dziuban EJ, Franks J, So M, Peacock G, Blaney DD. Elizabethkingia in Children: A Comprehensive Review of Symptomatic Cases Reported from 1944–2017. Clin Infect Dis. 2017. Epub 2017/12/07. pmid:29211821.
  41. 41. Gonzalez LJ, Vila AJ. Carbapenem resistance in Elizabethkingia meningoseptica is mediated by metallo-beta-lactamase BlaB. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(4):1686–92. Epub 2012/02/01. pmid:22290979; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3318372.
  42. 42. King EO. Studies on a group of previously unclassified bacteria associated with meningitis in infants. Am J Clin Pathol. 1959;31(3):241–7. Epub 1959/03/01. pmid:13637033.
  43. 43. Gump DW. Vancomycin for treatment of bacterial meningitis. Rev Infect Dis. 1981;3 suppl:S289–92. Epub 1981/11/01. pmid:6896243.
  44. 44. Soman R, Agrawal U, Suthar M, Desai K, Shetty A. Successful Management of Elizabethkingia meningoseptica Meningitis with Intraventricular Vancomycin. J Assoc Physicians India. 2016;64(10):98–9. Epub 2016/10/22. pmid:27766817.
  45. 45. Neuner EA, Ahrens CL, Groszek JJ, Isada C, Vogelbaum MA, Fissell WH, et al. Use of therapeutic drug monitoring to treat Elizabethkingia meningoseptica meningitis and bacteraemia in an adult. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(6):1558–60. Epub 2012/02/24. pmid:22357803; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3350328.
  46. 46. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recent Outbreaks [Web Page]. 2016 [updated 6/16/2016; cited 2017 4/16]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/elizabethkingia/outbreaks/.
    • 47. Wisconsin Department of Public Health Services. Elizabethkingia [Web Page]. 2015 [updated 5/2017; cited 2017 4/16]. Available from: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/disease/elizabethkingia.htm.
      • 48. Navon L, Clegg WJ, Morgan J, Austin C, McQuiston JR, Blaney DD, et al. Notes from the Field: Investigation of Elizabethkingia anophelis Cluster—Illinois, 2014–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(48):1380–1. Epub 2016/12/10. pmid:27932784.
      • 49. Frank T, Gody JC, Nguyen LB, Berthet N, Le Fleche-Mateos A, Bata P, et al. First case of Elizabethkingia anophelis meningitis in the Central African Republic. Lancet. 2013;381(9880):1876. Epub 2013/05/28. pmid:23706804.
      • 50. Kenna DTD, Fuller A, Martin K, Perry C, Pike R, Burns PJ, et al. rpoB gene sequencing highlights the prevalence of an E. miricola cluster over other Elizabethkingia species among UK cystic fibrosis patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017. Epub 2017/11/28. pmid:29174734.
      • 51. Agarwal S, Kakati B, Khanduri S, Gupta S. Emergence of Carbapenem Resistant Non-Fermenting Gram-Negative Bacilli Isolated in an ICU of a Tertiary Care Hospital. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(1):DC04–DC7. Epub 2017/03/10. pmid:28273965; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5324410.
      • 52. Matyi SA, Dupre JM, Johnson WL, Hoyt PR, White DG, Brody T, et al. Isolation and characterization of Staphylococcus aureus strains from a Paso del Norte dairy. J Dairy Sci. 2013;96(6):3535–42. Epub 2013/04/24. pmid:23608491; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5226338.
      • 53. Voss A, Loeffen F, Bakker J, Klaassen C, Wulf M. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farming. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(12):1965–6. Epub 2006/02/21. pmid:16485492; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3367632.
      • 54. Lozano C, Aspiroz C, Ara M, Gomez-Sanz E, Zarazaga M, Torres C. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ST398 in a farmer with skin lesions and in pigs of his farm: clonal relationship and detection of lnu(A) gene. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17(6):923–7. Epub 2011/06/21. pmid:21682806.
      • 55. Bates J, Jordens JZ, Griffiths DT. Farm animals as a putative reservoir for vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infection in man. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1994;34(4):507–14. Epub 1994/10/01. pmid:7868403.
      • 56. Guardabassi L, Loeber ME, Jacobson A. Transmission of multiple antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus intermedius between dogs affected by deep pyoderma and their owners. Vet Microbiol. 2004;98(1):23–7. Epub 2004/01/24. pmid:14738778.
      • 57. Guardabassi L, Schwarz S, Lloyd DH. Pet animals as reservoirs of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;54(2):321–32. Epub 2004/07/16. pmid:15254022.
      • 58. van den Bogaard AE, Stobberingh EE. Epidemiology of resistance to antibiotics. Links between animals and humans. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000;14(4):327–35. Epub 2000/05/05. pmid:10794955.
      • 59. Damborg P, Olsen KE, Moller Nielsen E, Guardabassi L. Occurrence of Campylobacter jejuni in pets living with human patients infected with C. jejuni. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(3):1363–4. Epub 2004/03/09. pmid:15004120; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC356901.
      • 60. Bordelo J, Viegas C, Coelho C, Poeta P. First report of bacteremia caused by Elizabethkingia meningoseptica in a dog. Can Vet J. 2016;57(9):994. Epub 2016/09/03. pmid:27587896; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4982576.
      • 61. de Carvalho Filho EB, Marson FAL, Levy CE. Challenges in the identification of Chryseobacterium indologenes and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica in cases of nosocomial infections and patients with cystic fibrosis. New Microbes New Infect. 2017;20:27–33. pmid:29062487; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5643076.
      • 62. Mirza HC, Tuncer O, Olmez S, Sener B, Tugcu GD, Ozcelik U, et al. Clinical Strains of Chryseobacterium and Elizabethkingia spp. Isolated from Pediatric Patients in a University Hospital: Performance of MALDI-TOF MS-Based Identification, Antimicrobial Susceptibilities, and Baseline Patient Characteristics. Microb Drug Resist. 2017. pmid:29227188.
      • 63. Nicholson AC, Gulvik CA, Whitney AM, Humrighouse BW, Graziano J, Emery B, et al. Revisiting the taxonomy of the genus Elizabethkingia using whole-genome sequencing, optical mapping, and MALDI-TOF, along with proposal of three novel Elizabethkingia species: Elizabethkingia bruuniana sp. nov., Elizabethkingia ursingii sp. nov., and Elizabethkingia occulta sp. nov. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2018;111(1):55–72. pmid:28856455.
      • 64. Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, DeJongh M, Disz T, Edwards RA, et al. The RAST Server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:75. Epub 2008/02/12. pmid:18261238; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2265698.
      • 65. Brettin T, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Olsen GJ, 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. Epub 2015/02/11. pmid:25666585; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4322359.
      • 66. Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ, Disz T, et al. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D206–14. Epub 2013/12/03. pmid:24293654; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3965101.
      • 67. Angiuoli SV, Gussman A, Klimke W, Cochrane G, Field D, Garrity G, et al. Toward an online repository of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for (meta)genomic annotation. OMICS. 2008;12(2):137–41. Epub 2008/04/18. pmid:18416670; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3196215.
      • 68. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–10. Epub 1990/10/05. pmid:2231712.
      • 69. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25(17):3389–402. Epub 1997/09/01. pmid:9254694; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC146917.
      • 70. Nicholson AC, Humrighouse BW, Graziano JC, Emery B, McQuiston JR. Draft Genome Sequences of Strains Representing Each of the Elizabethkingia Genomospecies Previously Determined by DNA-DNA Hybridization. Genome Announc. 2016;4(2). pmid:26966213; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4786648.
      • 71. Treangen TJ, Ondov BD, Koren S, Phillippy AM. The Harvest suite for rapid core-genome alignment and visualization of thousands of intraspecific microbial genomes. Genome Biol. 2014;15(11):524. Epub 2014/11/21. pmid:25410596; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4262987.
      • 72. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–9. Epub 2013/10/18. pmid:24132122; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3840312.
      • 73. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: [document]. Wayne, Pa.: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2005. p. volumes.
        • 74. Doijad S, Ghosh H, Glaeser S, Kampfer P, Chakraborty T. Taxonomic reassessment of the genus Elizabethkingia using whole-genome sequencing: Elizabethkingia endophytica Kampfer et al. 2015 is a later subjective synonym of Elizabethkingia anophelis Kampfer et al. 2011. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2016;66(11):4555–9. Epub 2016/08/09. pmid:27498788.
        • 75. Kampfer P, Matthews H, Glaeser SP, Martin K, Lodders N, Faye I. Elizabethkingia anophelis sp. nov., isolated from the midgut of the mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2011;61(Pt 11):2670–5. Epub 2010/12/21. pmid:21169462.
        • 76. Rossolini GM, Franceschini N, Lauretti L, Caravelli B, Riccio ML, Galleni M, et al. Cloning of a Chryseobacterium (Flavobacterium) meningosepticum chromosomal gene (blaA(CME)) encoding an extended-spectrum class A beta-lactamase related to the Bacteroides cephalosporinases and the VEB-1 and PER beta-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(9):2193–9. Epub 1999/09/03. pmid:10471563; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC89445.
        • 77. Moran-Barrio J, Lisa MN, Larrieux N, Drusin SI, Viale AM, Moreno DM, et al. Crystal Structure of the Metallo-beta-Lactamase GOB in the Periplasmic Dizinc Form Reveals an Unusual Metal Site. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(10):6013–22. pmid:27458232; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5038331.
        • 78. Lin XH, Xu YH, Sun XH, Huang Y, Li JB. Genetic diversity analyses of antimicrobial resistance genes in clinical Chryseobacterium meningosepticum isolated from Hefei, China. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;40(2):186–8. Epub 2012/05/23. pmid:22612901.
        • 79. Matsumoto T, Nagata M, Ishimine N, Kawasaki K, Yamauchi K, Hidaka E, et al. Characterization of CIA-1, an Ambler class A extended-spectrum beta-lactamase from Chryseobacterium indologenes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(1):588–90. Epub 2011/11/16. pmid:22083470; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3256067.
        • 80. Li XZ, Plesiat P, Nikaido H. The challenge of efflux-mediated antibiotic resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(2):337–418. Epub 2015/03/20. pmid:25788514; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4402952.
        • 81. Poole K. Efflux-mediated antimicrobial resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56(1):20–51. Epub 2005/05/26. pmid:15914491.
        • 82. Du D, van Veen HW, Murakami S, Pos KM, Luisi BF. Structure, mechanism and cooperation of bacterial multidrug transporters. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2015;33:76–91. Epub 2015/08/19. pmid:26282926.
        • 83. Lubelski J, Konings WN, Driessen AJ. Distribution and physiology of ABC-type transporters contributing to multidrug resistance in bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2007;71(3):463–76. Epub 2007/09/07. pmid:17804667; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2168643.
        • 84. Pao SS, Paulsen IT, Saier MH Jr. Major facilitator superfamily. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998;62(1):1–34. Epub 1998/04/08. pmid:9529885; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC98904.
        • 85. Saier MH Jr., Beatty JT, Goffeau A, Harley KT, Heijne WH, Huang SC, et al. The major facilitator superfamily. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 1999;1(2):257–79. Epub 2000/08/16. pmid:10943556.
        • 86. Kuroda T, Tsuchiya T. Multidrug efflux transporters in the MATE family. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1794(5):763–8. Epub 2008/12/23. pmid:19100867.
        • 87. Nikaido H. Structure and mechanism of RND-type multidrug efflux pumps. Adv Enzymol Relat Areas Mol Biol. 2011;77:1–60. Epub 2011/06/23. pmid:21692366; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3122131.
        • 88. Chung YJ, Saier MH Jr. SMR-type multidrug resistance pumps. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel. 2001;4(2):237–45. Epub 2001/05/31. pmid:11378963.
        • 89. Fralick JA. Evidence that TolC is required for functioning of the Mar/AcrAB efflux pump of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1996;178(19):5803–5. Epub 1996/10/01. pmid:8824631; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC178425.
        • 90. Lin J, Michel LO, Zhang Q. CmeABC functions as a multidrug efflux system in Campylobacter jejuni. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46(7):2124–31. Epub 2002/06/19. pmid:12069964; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC127319.
        • 91. Okusu H, Ma D, Nikaido H. AcrAB efflux pump plays a major role in the antibiotic resistance phenotype of Escherichia coli multiple-antibiotic-resistance (Mar) mutants. J Bacteriol. 1996;178(1):306–8. Epub 1996/01/01. pmid:8550435; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC177656.
        • 92. Poole K, Krebes K, McNally C, Neshat S. Multiple antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: evidence for involvement of an efflux operon. J Bacteriol. 1993;175(22):7363–72. Epub 1993/11/01. pmid:8226684; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC206881.
        • 93. Pumbwe L, Piddock LJ. Identification and molecular characterisation of CmeB, a Campylobacter jejuni multidrug efflux pump. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002;206(2):185–9. Epub 2002/01/30. pmid:11814661.
        • 94. Mine T, Morita Y, Kataoka A, Mizushima T, Tsuchiya T. Expression in Escherichia coli of a new multidrug efflux pump, MexXY, from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(2):415–7. Epub 1999/01/30. pmid:9925549; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC89094.
        • 95. Schindler BD, Frempong-Manso E, DeMarco CE, Kosmidis C, Matta V, Seo SM, et al. Analyses of multidrug efflux pump-like proteins encoded on the Staphylococcus aureus chromosome. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(1):747–8. Epub 2014/11/19. pmid:25403665; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4291402.
        • 96. Baquero F. Resistance to quinolones in gram-negative microorganisms: mechanisms and prevention. Eur Urol. 1990;17 Suppl 1:3–12. Epub 1990/01/01. pmid:2162298.
        • 97. Jacoby GA. Mechanisms of resistance to quinolones. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41 Suppl 2:S120–6. Epub 2005/06/09. pmid:15942878.
        • 98. Ruiz J. Mechanisms of resistance to quinolones: target alterations, decreased accumulation and DNA gyrase protection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51(5):1109–17. Epub 2003/04/17. pmid:12697644.
        • 99. Schmitz FJ, Higgins PG, Mayer S, Fluit AC, Dalhoff A. Activity of quinolones against gram-positive cocci: mechanisms of drug action and bacterial resistance. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002;21(9):647–59. Epub 2002/10/10. pmid:12373497.
        • 100. Smith JT. The mode of action of 4-quinolones and possible mechanisms of resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1986;18 Suppl D:21–9. Epub 1986/11/01. pmid:3542946.
        • 101. Wolfson JS, Hooper DC. Bacterial resistance to quinolones: mechanisms and clinical importance. Rev Infect Dis. 1989;11 Suppl 5:S960–8. Epub 1989/07/01. pmid:2549610.
        • 102. Yoshida H, Kojima T, Yamagishi J, Nakamura S. Quinolone-resistant mutations of the gyrA gene of Escherichia coli. Mol Gen Genet. 1988;211(1):1–7. Epub 1988/01/01. pmid:2830458.
        • 103. Ruiz J, Marco F, Goni P, Gallardo F, Mensa J, Trilla A, et al. High frequency of mutations at codon 83 of the gyrA gene of quinolone-resistant clinical isolates of Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995;36(4):737–8. Epub 1995/10/01. pmid:8591951.
        • 104. Yoshida H, Bogaki M, Nakamura M, Nakamura S. Quinolone resistance-determining region in the DNA gyrase gyrA gene of Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990;34(6):1271–2. Epub 1990/06/01. pmid:2168148; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC171799.
        • 105. Cambau E, Gutmann L. Mechanisms of resistance to quinolones. Drugs. 1993;45 Suppl 3:15–23. Epub 1993/01/01. pmid:7689446.
        • 106. Lewin CS, Allen RA, Amyes SG. Potential mechanisms of resistance to the modern fluorinated 4-quinolones. J Med Microbiol. 1990;31(3):153–62. Epub 1990/03/01. pmid:2156074.
        • 107. Yoshida T, Muratani T, Iyobe S, Mitsuhashi S. Mechanisms of high-level resistance to quinolones in urinary tract isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994;38(7):1466–9. Epub 1994/07/01. pmid:7979273; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC284577.
        • 108. Rybak MJ, Lomaestro BM, Rotschafer JC, Moellering RC Jr., Craig WA, Billeter M, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adults summary of consensus recommendations from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(11):1275–9. Epub 2009/10/31. pmid:19873687.
        • 109. Rybak MJ, Lomaestro BM, Rotschafer JC, Moellering RC, Craig WA, Billeter M, et al. Vancomycin therapeutic guidelines: a summary of consensus recommendations from the infectious diseases Society of America, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(3):325–7. Epub 2009/07/03. pmid:19569969.
        • 110. Jean SS, Hsieh TC, Ning YZ, Hsueh PR. Role of vancomycin in the treatment of bacteraemia and meningitis caused by Elizabethkingia meningoseptica. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017;50(4):507–11. Epub 2017/07/15. pmid:28705672.
        • 111. Finch NA, Zasowski EJ, Murray KP, Mynatt RP, Zhao JJ, Yost R, et al. A Quasi-Experiment To Study the Impact of Vancomycin Area under the Concentration-Time Curve-Guided Dosing on Vancomycin-Associated Nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(12). Epub 2017/09/20. pmid:28923869; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5700348.