https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1242-7493
Figures
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the potential mechanisms associated with the persistence of chloramphenicol (CHP) resistance in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica isolated from pigs, pork, and humans in Thailand. The CHP-resistant E. coli (n = 106) and Salmonella (n = 57) isolates were tested for their CHP susceptibility in the presence and absence of phenylalanine arginine β-naphthylamide (PAβN). The potential co-selection of CHP resistance was investigated through conjugation experiments. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed to analyze the E. coli (E329, E333, and E290) and Salmonella (SA448, SA461, and SA515) isolates with high CHP MIC (32–256 μg/mL) and predominant plasmid replicon types. The presence of PAβN significantly reduced the CHP MICs (≥4-fold) in most E. coli (67.9%) and Salmonella (64.9%). Ampicillin, tetracycline, and streptomycin co-selected for CHP-resistant Salmonella and E. coli-transconjugants carrying cmlA. IncF plasmids were mostly detected in cmlA carrying Salmonella (IncFIIAs) and E. coli (IncFIB and IncF) transconjugants. The WGS analysis revealed that class1 integrons with cmlA1 gene cassette flanked by IS26 and TnAs1 were located on IncX1 plasmid, IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B plasmids and IncFII/FIB plasmids. IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1in SA448 contained catA flanked by IS1B and TnAs3. In conclusion, cross resistance through proton motive force-dependent mechanisms and co-selection by other antimicrobial agents involved the persistence of CHP-resistance in E. coli in this collection. Dissemination of CHP-resistance genes was potentially facilitated by mobilization via mobile genetic elements.
Citation: Puangseree J, Prathan R, Srisanga S, Chuanchuen R (2024) Molecular basis of the persistence of chloramphenicol resistance among Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. from pigs, pork and humans in Thailand. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0304250. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304250
Editor: Mabel Kamweli Aworh, North Carolina State University, UNITED STATES
Received: March 3, 2024; Accepted: May 9, 2024; Published: May 24, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Puangseree et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. And WGS data of three E. coli and three Salmonella isolates are available from NCBI database (accession numbers SAMN35027954 - SAMN35027959).
Funding: This study was supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) Basic Research Grant (Grant number BRG6080014). The WGS analysis and reagents were supported by Thailand Science research and Innovation Fund Chulalongkorn University (CU_FRB65 hea(88)_193_31_12). It was also supported by National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) Project ID N42A660897. The funders had 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
One of the primary drivers to the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a serious global public health threat, is the indiscriminate use of antimicrobials (AMU) [1]. AMR develops more rapidly through the inappropriate and excessive use of antimicrobial agents and therefore, reducing or ceasing the use of antimicrobials is expected to lessen the likelihood of AMR bacteria development and distribution [2]. In other words, AMR would have vanished if the AMU had been removed.
In contrast, bacteria resistant to restricted antimicrobial drugs have been consistently isolated. For example, the use of chloramphenicol in food animals has been banned in many countries e.g., the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and China since 1994 due to being a cause of aplastic anemia [3]. The antibiotic has been outlawed in Thailand since 1998 [4]; nonetheless, chloramphenicol-resistant bacteria are continuously isolated from food animals and meat e.g., pig [5], poultry [6], pork and chicken [7, 8]. It was suggested to be the result of co-selection or cross-resistance brought on by other antimicrobials [9–11].
Chloramphenicol is a broad-spectrum antibiotic in the amphenicol group, which inhibits bacterial protein synthesis by binding to 50s ribosomal subunit [12, 13]. One of the most common mechanisms of chloramphenicol resistance is its enzymatic inactivation, particularly by cat-encoded acetyltransferases [14]. Another possible resistance mechanisms include the expression of efflux pumps, which frequently function as multidrug extrusion transporters, reduced outer membrane permeability, and target site mutation or alteration. The cml and floR genes encode specific exporters of chloramphenicol, while the AcrAB-TolC multidrug efflux system can also export chloramphenicol, but to a lesser degree [15]. Several chloramphenicol resistance genes (e.g., catA, catB, cmlA and floR) were found to be located on either transposon (e.g., Tn9 and Tn2424) and plasmids. In certain plasmids (e.g., IncX plasmid), chloramphenicol resistance genes were preserved, rather than in others [16]. These genes were found co-located on the same conjugative plasmid with the other AMR genes such as tet, aadA and sul, conferring multidrug resistance phenotype [17]. Despite being banned in food animals, chloramphenicol is used topically to treat eye infections in humans. It has antibiofilm activity, hypothetical low impact on ocular microbiota and narrow resistance rate [18]. There might be the resuscitation of an old antimicrobial medication such as chloramphenicol in the situation that newer medications are not readily available due to the AMR issue. Therefore, investigating the mechanisms behind the persistence of chloramphenicol resistance in the absence of the antibiotic is worthwhile.
To date, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) has become an indispensable technique for AMR research and control, with the potential for the discovery of novel antibiotics, identification of AMR in clinical samples, AMR epidemiological surveillance, and tracking of AMR emergence [19]. Information generated by WGS is greatly beneficial for comprehending the origins and transmission of AMR as well as the foundation of AMR mechanisms. This study aimed to determine possible mechanisms associated with the persistence of chloramphenicol resistance in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica isolated from pigs, pork, and humans. WGS was applied to allow genome-wide analysis of CHP-resistant bacteria.
Materials and methods
Bacterial isolates and antimicrobial susceptibilities
The E. coli (n = 106) and Salmonella (n = 57) isolates resistant to chloramphenicol (MIC≥ 32 μg/ml) were obtained from our previous AMR monitoring projects during 2007–2008. The E. coli isolates were obtained from fecal content on rectal swabs of clinically healthy pigs at slaughterhouses. The rectal swab samples were immediately taken from pigs after stunning and bleeding but before the scalding process. E. coli were isolated and biochemically confirmed [20, 21] and a single colony of E. coli of each positive sample was collected. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined using agar dilution technique [22]. The isolates exhibited resistance to ampicillin (AMP, 81.2%), chloramphenicol (CHP,100%), ciprofloxacin (CIP, 43.6%), gentamicin (GEN, 47%), streptomycin (STR, 57.3%), sulfamethoxazole (SMX, 67.5%), tetracycline (TET, 98.3%) and trimethoprim (TMP, 91.5%). All the pigs were raised in closed house system in large-scale commercial farming operations with between 11,000 and 13,000 pigs. According to the information provided by farm veterinarians, the antimicrobials routinely used were amoxicillin, chlortetracycline, tylosin, tiamulin, and fosfomycin.
The Salmonella isolates were obtained from raw pork (n = 22) at retail markets, and patient’s stools (n = 37) at the hospitals by using ISO 6579:2002 [23] and serotyped using slide agglutination test. One colony of each serovars was collected from each positive sample. The Salmonella serovars included Anatum (n = 5), Corvallis (n = 5), Enteritidis (n = 3), Kedougou (n = 17), Newport (n = 2), Panama (n = 4), Rissen (n = 7), Stanley (n = 7), Typhimurium (n = 4) and Weltevreden (n = 3). These Salmonella were resistant to AMP (89.5%), CHP (100%), CIP (17.5%), GEN (38.6%), STR (89.5%), SMX (63.2%), TET (89.5%) and TMP (91.5%). All bacterial isolates were stored as 20% glycerol at -80°C.
Each isolate of E. coli and Salmonella carried at least catA, catB, and cmlA but with varying combinations, including cmlA only (50.9%, 49%), catA only (0, 5.3%), catB only (4.7%, 10.5%), cmlA/catA (0.9%, 12.3%), cmlA/catB (28.3%, 10.5%), catA/catB (13.2%, 5.3%) and cmlA/catA/catB (1.9%, 7.0%).
Determination of efflux system inhibitor effects on chloramphenicol susceptibility
The MIC value of CHP (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO) was determined in the presence and absence of 25 μg/mL phenylalanine arginine β-naphthylamide (PAβN, Sigma-Aldrich) using two-fold agar dilution method [22]. The concentrations of CHP ranged from 1 μg/mL to 1,024 μg/mL. A 4-fold or more change in the chloramphenicol MIC value following the addition of PaβN was defined as significant. Experiments were repeated on two separate occasions.
PCR based replicon typing (PBRT)
DNA templates were prepared using whole cell boiling method [24]. All PCR amplification was performed using Top Taq Master Mix kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instruction. All primers used in this study are listed in Table 1. Eighteen replicons including HI1, HI2, I1, X, L/M, N, FIA, FIB, W, Y, P, FIC, A/C, T, FIIAs, FrepB, K and B/O were PCR amplified using the following thermocycles: one cycle of denaturation at 94°C for 5 min; followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 1 min, annealing at 60°C for 30 s, and extension at 72°C for 1 min; and a final extension at 72°C for 5 min. The exception was for F simplex PCR using FrepB primers which employed an annealing temperature of 52°C.
Conjugation experiment
Biparental mating was performed to determine co-selection of CHP resistance by other antibiotics. All the CHP-resistant E. coli (n = 106) and Salmonella (n = 57) isolates served as donors. Salmonella Enteritidis SE12rifR (CHP MIC = 4 μg/mL) [27] and E. coli MG1655rifR (CHP MIC = 4 μg/mL) [28] were used as recipients for the E. coli and Salmonella donors, respectively. Neither E. coli MG1655rifR nor Salmonella SE12rifR carry any of the 18 replicons tested. Transconjugants were selected on Luria Bertani agar containing rifampicin (32 μg/mL) and one of the following antibiotics, AMP (150 μg/mL), TET (10 μg/mL) and STR (50 μg/mL). Transconjugants were confirmed to be E. coli or Salmonella by growing on Eosin Methylene Blue agar (EMB; Difco™, MI, USA) or Xylose Lysine Deoxycholate agar (XLD; Difco™, MI, USA), respectively. The transconjugants were determined for their susceptibilities to CHP and corresponding antibiotics (i.e., AMP, TET or STR) and screened for catA, catB and cmlA [26]. CHP MIC changed by at least four times from the recipients was considered significant. One of transconjugant from each selective pressure plate was selected for further plasmid studying. The E. coli (n = 11) and Salmonella (n = 9) donors and their corresponding transconjugants with CHP MIC ≥4-fold increase (17 Salmonella transconjugants and 18 E. coli transconjugants), were subjected to PBRT.
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) and bioinformatics analysis
Genomic DNA was extracted from the E. coli from pigs (n = 3) and Salmonella from pork (n = 3) that could transfer CHP resistance genes using ZymoBIOMICS™ DNA Miniprep Kit (Zymo Research Corp., Irvine, CA, USA). The degradation of the genomic DNA was assessed by running 5 μL of the DNA on 0.8% agarose gel. The quality and quantity of the genomic DNA were assessed using NanoDrop™ 1000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Deleware, USA) and submitted for WGS using Oxford Nanopore technologies (ONT) for long read sequencing at Siriraj Long-read Lab, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand and using Illumina platform Hiseq sequencers (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) for short read sequencing at GENEWIZ China and Suzhou Lab, (GENEWIZ, Suzhou, China). Sequencing analysis was performed as previously described [29]. Briefly, adapters were trimmed using Porechop v0.2.4 (https://github.com/rrwick/Porechop). ONT and Illumina reads were quality checked using NanoPlot [30] and FastQC [31], respectively. High quality ONT and Illumina reads were assembled to create hybrid genome using Unicycler [32]. Genomic characteristics including genome size, number of contigs and % GC content were identified using QUAST [33]. Taxonomic identification was performed using Kraken2 [34] and Genome annotation was conducted using NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (PGAP) [35]. The assembled genome/contigs were then analyzed at Center for Genomic Epidemiology website (http://www.genomicepidemiology.org/services/). Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) was performed using MLST 2.0 with the obtained data from http://pubmlst.org. The serotypes of E. coli were classified by SeroTypeFinder [36]. The Salmonella serotypes were confirmed by SeqSero 1.2 [37]. Virulence genes were identified by VirulenceFinder 2.0 [38]. AMR genes were identified by ResFinder4.1 [39]. Mobile genetic elements (MGE) and plasmids were identified by MobileElementFinder v1.0.3 [40] and PlasmidFinder2.1 [41, 42], respectively. Plasmid Multilocus Sequence Typing (pMLST) and replicon sequence type (RST) of IncI1, IncF and IncHI plasmids were identified. Variant calling and core genome alignment with E. coli LF82 reference strain (accession no. CP082771) and Salmonella Typhimurium LT2 (accession no. NC003197.2) were performed by Snippy [43]. Sequences of E. coli (ST10/2, accession no. SRR12903891 and SRR24437713; ST19/156, accession no. SRR3745274 and SRR25176867) and Salmonella (Salmonella Weltevreden or ST365, accession no. SRR13853517, SRR24258077 and SRR21734369; and Salmonella Rissen or ST469, accession no. SRR13853514 and SRR24401736) with similar serotypes were additionally included to ensure homogeneity. Phylogenetic trees were generated by IQ-TREE [44] and visualized by iTOL v6 [45]. The comparison of genetic environment of CHP resistance genes and the location of insertion sequences (ISs) and mobile genetic elements were achieved using EasyFig [46] and Proksee [47].
Statistical analysis
The descriptive statistic including percentage was analyzed by excel program. The chi-squared test and z-test using Bonferroni method with SPSS version 22.0 program was used to compare the effect of PAβN on MIC values of chloramphenicol. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Effect of efflux pump inhibitor to chloramphenicol MIC
Effects of PAβN on CHP MICs were determined in all E. coli (n = 106) and Salmonella (n = 57) (Table 2). Most E. coli (67.9%) and Salmonella (64.9%) had ≥4-fold CHP MIC decrease in the presence of PAβN. Only in E. coli, the presence of CHP genes was significantly correlated with the CHP MICs reduction when PAβN was present (p<0.05).
The presence of cmlA was considerably higher in E. coli with ≥4-fold CHP MIC decrease (29/72, 40.3%) than in those with <4-fold CHP MIC decrease (25/34, 75%). All E. coli carrying both catA and catB (14/72, 19.4%) exhibited ≥4-fold CHP MIC decrease in the presence of PAβN (p<0.05). Neither of catA nor catB were detected among E. coli with <4-fold CHP MIC decrease. In contrast, all the Salmonella isolates with <4-fold reduction of CHP MIC in the presence of PAβN (3/20, 15%) carried both catA and catB genes. None of the Salmonella isolates with ≥4-fold CHP MIC reduction contained catA and catB.
Co-selection of chloramphenicol resistance by other antibiotics
The E. coli donors yielded CHP resistant Salmonella-transconjugants that exhibited ≥ 4-fold CHP MIC increase when AMP (i.e., E289, E290, E291, E292, E293, E294, E297, E331 and E333), TET (i.e., E290, E291, E292, E293, E294 and E295) and STR (i.e., E329 and E392) were used as selective pressure. Nine E. coli yielded Salmonella-transconjugants with CHP MIC ≥ 32 μg/mL (32–256 μg/mL) in the presence of different selective pressure (AMP, n = 6; TET, n = 6 and STR, n = 1) (Table 3). All the above E. coli donors could horizontally transfer cmlA. Salmonella transconjugants carrying cmlA with ≥ 4-fold CHP MIC increase (32–128 μg/mL) were obtained when AMP, TET and STR were used as selective pressure.
Some Salmonella produced CHP resistant E. coli-transconjugants with ≥ 4-fold CHP MIC increase when AMP (i.e., SA449 and SA606), TET (i.e., SA448, SA449, SA461, SA515, SA633, SA639, SA666 and SA759) and STR (i.e., SA448, SA461, SA515, SA633, SA639, SA666, SA741 and SA759) were used as selective pressure. Among these, 10 Salmonella donors generated E. coli transconjugants with CHP MIC ≥ 32 μg/mL (32–512 μg/mL) (Table 3). SA448 and SA741 yielded cmlA-carrying E. coli transconjugants with ≥ 4-fold CHP MIC increase (MIC = 32–256 μg/mL) under the AMP, TET and STR selective pressure. SA448 additionally produced catA carrying E. coli transconjugants exhibiting ≥ 4-fold CHP MIC increase (256–512 μg/mL) in the presence of TET and STR.
Incompatibility groups of transferable plasmids
Eleven E. coli that were capable of horizontally transferring CHP resistance carried at least two plasmids (i.e., IncI1/K/F (n = 7), IncI1/F (n = 1), IncHI1/ FIIAs/K (n = 2) and IncHI1/K/FIB / (n = 1)) (Table 4). IncFIIAs plasmids were commonly found in Salmonella transconjugants selected by AMP (i.e., AMPE289, AMPE290, AMPE291, AMPE293, AMPE294, AMPE297 and AMPE333) and TET (i.e., TETE290, TETE291, TETE292, TETE293 and TETE295). Two Salmonella transconjugants selected by AMP (AMPE331 and AMPE333) and their donors carried IncHI plasmid. Three Salmonella transconjugants (i.e., AMPE292, TETE294 and STRE329) acquired cmlA from their donors but were not positive to any replicons detected.
The Salmonella isolates with the ability to transfer CHP resistance (n = 9) contained at least one plasmid including IncHI1/FIIAs (n = 2), IncI1/FIB/F (n = 1), IncFIB/A/C/F (n = 1), IncFIIAs (n = 1) IncFIB and F (n = 4). Most E. coli transconjugants (i.e., SA449T_TET, SA449T_AMP, SA515T_TET, SA515T_STR, SA633T_STR, SA639T_TET, SA639T_STR, SA666T_TET, SA666T_STR, SA759T_TET and SA759T_STR) harbored both IncFIB and IncF replicons that were present in their donors. While E. coli transconjugants of SA488 (i.e., SA448T_TET and SA448T_STR), SA461 (i.e., SA461T_TET and SA461T_STR), SA606 (i.e., SA606T_AMP) and SA633 (i.e., SA633T_TET) acquired only IncHI1, F, FIIAs and FIB plasmids from their respective donors.
Genomic characteristics of CHP-resistant E. coli and Salmonella
The quality of genome assembly of selected E. coli and Salmonella is shown in Table 5. The genome size and GC content of E290 (serotype O8:H16), E329 (serotype O37:H34), and E333 (serotype O37:H34) was 5,203,479 bp, 50.66%; 5,193,590 bp, 50.46% and 5,193,591 bp, 50.46%, respectively. E290 was made up of 9 contigs including a chromosome and 8 plasmids. E329’s whole genome contained one chromosome and 6 plasmids. Eight contigs, comprising 2 chromosomes and 6 plasmids, were present in E333.
For Salmonella, genome size and GC content in Salmonella Weltevreden SA448, Salmonella Rissen SA461 and Salmonella Rissen SA515 were 5,419,175 bp, 51.86%; 5,127,858 bp, 52.05%, and 5,214,816 bp, 52.06%, respectively (Table 5). SA448 and SA461 comprised 4 contigs, including one for chromosome and 3 for plasmids. There were 11 contigs in SA515 including 3 for plasmids and 8 for chromosomes.
Genetic relatedness of CHP-resistant E. coli and Salmonella.
Genome was compared by MLST analysis using Whole Genome Sequence data. Using E. coli scheme#1, E290, E329, and E333 were identified as ST10, ST156, and ST156, respectively (S1 Table). According to E. coli scheme#2, they were identified as ST2, ST19, and ST19, respectively (S1 Table). Two distinct clades of E. coli were identified in phylogenetic trees. E290 was closely related to the E. coli ST10/2 reference. E329 and E333 were in the same clade with close relationship to E. coli ST156 (accession no. SRR25176867) and E. coli O8:H16 (accession no. SRR5040873). SA448, SA461 and SA515 were classified as ST365, ST469 and ST469, respectively. Genetic relatedness was demonstrated using phylogenetic trees (Fig 1B), of which 2 distinct clades were identified. SA448 was closely related to Salmonella Weltevreden (accession no. SRR24258077) and Salmonella ST365 (accession no. SRR21734369). SA461 and SA515 shared a close lineage with Salmonella Rissen (accession no. SRR13853514) and Salmonella Rissen ST469 (accession no. SRR13853514).
(A) Chromosomal sequences of (A) E290, E329, E333, reference strains (E. coli ST10/2; E. coli O8:H16; E. coli ST19 and E. coli ST156) were aligned with E. coli LF82 and (B) SA448, SA461, SA515, Salmonella Weltevreden, Salmonella ST365, Salmonella Rissen and Salmonella ST469 were aligned with Salmonella Typhimurium LT2. The single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were called using Snippy. Phylogenetic trees were generated using Core SNP alignment and visualized by iTOL. The number on the branch indicates genetic changes.
Antimicrobial resistance genes and plasmid characteristics.
AMR and virulence genes and plasmids were predicted using whole genome assembly data (Table 6). All three E. coli carried class1 integrons with intI1-dfrA12-aadA2-cmlA1-aadA1 gene cassette array, of which qacL and sul3 were present in 3′conserved region. In E290, the class1 integrons were co-localized with blaTEM-1B and tetA on IncX1 plasmid. The isolates additionally contained pO111 plasmid carrying blaTEM-1B. The class 1 integrons in E329 and E333 were present on IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B plasmids carrying aph(3′′)-Ib, aac(3)-IId, mcr3.1, mefB, and blaTEM-1B. These two isolates additionally possessed IncX1 plasmid with no AMR genes but virulence gene, mrkA and chromosomally encoded tetB. According to pMLST and RST, IncFII plasmid of the FAB formula F10:A-:B-, and IncI1 plasmid of ST7 were identified in E290 but without AMR genes. IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B plasmids in E329 and E333 were identified as sequence type (ST) 1 for IncHI1and FAB formular F-:A8:B- for IncF.
All Salmonella isolates carried at least one CHP resistance genes including catA in SA448 and cmlA1 in SA461 and SA515 (Table 6). Class1 integrons with cmlA1 on IncFII/FIB plasmids was found in both SA461 and SA515 but not SA448. The aadA2, aph(3’)-Ia, aadA1, sul3, dfrA12, blaTEM-1B, mefB and qacL genes were co-localized on the same plasmid. SA515 additionally contained IncA/C plasmid with floR, as well as aph(6)-Id, aph(3”)-Ib, sul2 and blaCMY-2. IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1 plasmid of SA448 carried catA as well as aph(6)-Id, aph(3”)-Ib, sul2, and tetB. In addition, acc(6’)-Iaa was chromosomally encoded in all three Salmonella isolates. The tetA gene was exclusively found in the chromosome of SA461 and SA515.
Based on pMLST and RST results (S2 Table), IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1 plasmids in SA448 were identified as ST2 and F-:A8:B-. In the same isolate, IncFII(s) plasmid belonged to S1:A-:B- FAB formula was found with the absence of AMR genes. IncFII/FIB plasmids carrying cmlA1 in SA461 and SA515 was in F46:A-:B- FAB formula. SA461 additionally carried IncI1plasmid without resistance and virulence genes. IncA/C plasmid of ST3 lacking floR was found in SA515.
Structural comparison of plasmid carrying cmlA1, catA and floR.
IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B plasmid from E329 and E333 and IncFII/FIB plasmid from SA461 and SA515 shared similar structure and sequences (Fig 2). AMR genes and ISs in two regions located upstream and downstream of IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B plasmids are distributed in IncFII/FIB and IncX1 plasmid. In the upstream region, class1 integrons with dfrA12-aadA2-cmlA1-aadA1 gene cassette array and qacL-IS256-sul3 conserved region were identified in all plasmids. Class 1 integrons were flanked by Tn3-like element Tn3 or TnAs1 family transposase at upstream and IS6-like element of IS26 family transposase at downstream. The downstream region with blaTEM-1B and ISs/transposons (i.e., IS6-like element of IS26 family transposase, IS256 and Tn3) were identified in all plasmids.
(A) Whole plasmid sequences of IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B plasmid from E329 and E333, IncFII/FIB plasmid from SA461, SA515, and IncX1 plasmid from E290 were compared. Green arrows indicate the position and direction of genes. Blue vertical blocks indicate regions of shared similarity shaded according to BLASTn (dark blue for matches in the same direction and red for inverted matches). (B) A zoomed-in view (yellow dashed line-box) shows the area containing class1 integrons with cmlA1 gene cassette, which is flanked by Tn3-like element Tn3 or TnAs1 family transposase at upstream and IS6-like element of IS26 family transposase at downstream. (C) A zoomed-in view (gray dashed line-box) shows the position of blaTEM-1B and IS6-like element of IS26 family transposase that are located downstream of class1 integrons in IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B plasmid of E329 and E333 and IncX1 plasmid of E290 and upstream in IncFII/FIB plasmid from SA461 and SA515.
IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1 plasmid from SA448 had the highest sequence similarity with p30155-1 plasmid from Salmonella Derby originated from swine (accession no., CP053049.1) (Fig 3). The tetB, aph(6)-Id, aph(3”)-Ib, sul2 and catA1 genes were found in all plasmids, except CP022495.1. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) regions were present only in IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1 plasmid of SA448, CP053049.1 and CP022495.1 (Fig 3A and 3B). The catA1 gene was in the HGT region and flanked by IS1-like element IS1B family transposase and Tn3-like element TnAs3 family transposase.
(A) The comparison was against the highest similarity sequence obtained from NCBI database (accession no., AL513383.1, KF362121.2, KF362122.2, AM412236, CP053049.1 and CP022495.1). The outer red circle indicates AMR genes from CARD database. Green, pink and purple color are sequences of the high degree similarity of reference plasmids. The light blue and navy blue denote the location of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) region and integration/excision genes, respectively. Green block arcs show the area containing AMR genes found in among all plasmids, except for CP022495.1. The pink block arc indicates the area containing HGT region and integration/excision region that are found only in IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1 plasmid of SA448, CP053049.1 and CP022495.1. (B) The whole plasmid sequence comparison of IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1, AL513383.1 and CP022495.1. Yellow arrows indicate the position and direction of the genes. Vertical blocks between sequences indicate regions of shared similarity shaded according to BLASTn (dark blue for matches in the same direction or red for inverted matches). Green and pink rectangles correspond to green and pink block mentioned above.
IncA/C plasmid carrying floR identified in Salmonella strain SA515 was closely related to pSANI-1736 from Salmonella Anatum isolated from bovine (accession no., CP014658.1) and pF18S036-1 from Salmonella Ohio isolated from swine (accession no., CP082407.1) (Fig 4). The common resistance genes found in all plasmids included tetA, aph(6)-Id, aph(3”)-Ib, sul2 and blaCMY-2. The floR gene was flanked by IS91-like element ISVsa3 family transposase and IS91 family transposase. The int2 gene of class 2 integrons were additionally identified.
The comparison was made to the sequence with the highest similarity obtained from NCBI database (pSANI-1736, accession no., CP014658.1 and pF18S036-1, CP082407.1). Blue and red circles indicate the integration/excision genes and AMR genes from CARD database, respectively. The aligned sequences in yellow and green circles show a significant degree of similarity of IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1 plasmid to pSANI-1736 from bovine-Salmonella Anatum and pF18S036-1 from swine-Salmonella Ohio.
Discussion
It is becoming more well recognized that bacteria can continue to develop resistance even when antibiotics are banned, of which CHP resistance is among the most well-known examples of this phenomena. Our findings demonstrated that the mechanisms involved in the persistence of CHP resistance in E. coli and Salmonella, including cross-resistance mediated by the expression of multidrug efflux systems using proton motif force and co-selection of R plasmids by other antimicrobial agents.
All E. coli and Salmonella in this study were resistant to CHP, of which most E. coli (67.9%) and Salmonella (56.1%) exhibited ≥4-fold CHP MIC decrease when PAβN is present, indicating the involvement of the RND multidrug efflux systems in their CHP resistance phenotype. Hence, any antimicrobial agent that activates the expression of a multidrug efflux pump (s) may promote cross resistance to CHP. At the same time, most CHP-resistant E. coli and Salmonella with <4-fold reduction of CHP MICs (0 to ≤ 2 folds) in the presence of PAβN, carried cmlA encoding a proton motif force dependent multidrug efflux pump that belongs to Major Facilitator superfamily. This implies that the CmlA multidrug efflux pump confers a low-level resistance to CHP.
A plasmid borne- or chromosomally encoded- cat gene encodes chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) enzyme. The genes were common in the CHP-resistant E. coli and Salmonella (41% and 51%, respectively), in agreement with previous studies [48, 49]. The contribution of RND efflux pumps in CHP resistance was limited in the CHP-resistant Salmonella carrying catA and catB (<4-fold CHP MIC reduction). In contrast, the presence of PAβN reduced CHP MIC ≥4 fold in E. coli carrying catA and catB, indicating the accumulative effects of enzymatic and non-enzymatic mechanisms on CHP resistance.
In conjugation experiment, AMP, TET and STR selective pressure co-selected for CHP resistance in E. coli or Salmonella transconjugants, similar to previous studies conducted in E. coli isolates from humans and food animals from United States [50]. Almost all CHP-resistant E. coli or Salmonella transconjugants carried cmlA, while one CHP-resistant Salmonella transconjugants contained cat, indicating the localization of cmlA and cat on transferable R plasmids and in agreement with previous studies [51, 52]. However, the CHP MIC among Salmonella and E. coli transconjugants increased ≥ 4 folds (from 4 to 32 and 4 to 128 folds, respectively) and was inconsistent with the limited contribution of cmlA suggested by the PAβN experiment. It was possible that the contribution of cmlA to CHP resistance level was more clearly observed in in vitro settings where the recipients with low CHP MIC were used (CHP MIC of 4 μg/ml for both E. coli MG1655rifr and Salmonella Enteritidis SE12 rifr).
In the PBRT experiment, no plasmids were detected in some cmlA carrying Salmonella transconjugants (E292T_AMP, E294T_TET and E329T_STR), in agreement with their corresponded donors. The possibility exists that the gene was located on plasmids that were not part of the PBRT scheme used in this study. It was previously suggested that PBRT may be unable to detect some replicons on the large multiple-replicon plasmids due to mutation through transpositional alterations and unknown existence of the new replicons [53]. It highlighted the necessity of expanding the PBRT to enable rapid plasmid screening. IncF plasmids were predominantly found in cmlA carrying transconjugants, in agreement with a previous study [52]. This was not surprising because IncF plasmids are prevalent in Enterobacterales. In addition to IncF plasmids, IncHI1 and IncA/C plasmids were horizontally transferred (E331T_AMP, E333T_AMP, SA448T_TET, SA448T_STR, SA515T_TET, SA515T_STR) in agreement with a previous study conducted in Salmonella clinical isolates [52, 54]. Nevertheless, it remained unclear which plasmid carried cmlA and this could be a subject of future study.
According to WGS analysis, cmlA was identified on class1 integrons with dfrA12-aadA2-cmlA1-aadA1cassette array either located on IncX1 plasmid (in E290), in agreement with previous studies conducted in E. coli from human and livestock [55, 56] or IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B (in E329 and E333). In SA461 and SA515 from pork, cmlA was found on IncFII/FIB plasmid carrying class 1 integrons carrying dfrA12-aadA2-cmlA1-aadA1 gene cassette array, in agreement with previous reports in Europe [57]. The gene was additionally found located on class 1 integrons with estX-psp-aadA2-cmlA1-aadA1 cassette array in E. coli and Shigella from China and Taiwan [58, 59]. Besides, the cmlA gene was previously found on other transferable plasmids such as IncF, IncA/C, IncHI1 and IncR plasmids [52, 60]. As such, co-selection for cmlA1 conferring CHP resistance could occur when trimethoprim, streptomycin, and spectinomycin are used. The presence of cmlA on different class 1 integrons located on different plasmids could explain its widespread along the food chain.
As evidenced by a comparison of structural variations in WGS, several resistance genes resided on cmlA or catA-carrying plasmids. All plasmids (IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B, IncFII/FIB and IncX1 plasmids) carried class 1 integrons with dfrA12-aadA2-cmlA1-aadA1 cassette array. IncFII/FIB of SA461 and SA515 contained the same upstream and downstream genes as IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B of E329 and E333, but in a different order. In addition, the aph(3”)-Ib, mcr3.1, tetM, aac(3)-IId and blaTEM-1 genes were found at the downstream of IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B in E329 and E333. Notably, cmlA and blaTEM-1 were found together in all plasmids, similar to previous study [61]. The class 1 integrons with dfrA12-aadA2-cmlA1-aadA1 cassette array were flanked by TnAs1/ Tn3 at upstream and IS6/ IS26 at downstream, in agreement with previous studies [62, 63]. TnAs1 and TnAs3 are members of the Tn21 family with Tn As3 more frequently linked to cmlA1 and intI1 [64]. The mobilization of phenicol resistance genes is commonly mediated with transposons, particularly Tn21 [64], in agreement with the observation in this study. Flanking by insertion sequences facilitates the mobilization of many genes, whereas IS26 and other IS6 family members was previously shown to enhance the ability for replicon fusions, or the cointegration of donor and target replicons, contributing to the spread of the resistance determinants [65]. Another evidence is that SA448 carried catA that was situated between IS1B and TnAs3 on IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1 plasmid, similar to a previous study [66]. Besides, GCN5-related N-acetyltransferase (GNAT) encoding gene that is primarily implicated in resistance to CHP, aminoglycosides and streptogramins was inserted between catA and TnAs3 immediately upstream to IS6/IS26 [67]. GNAT and a global regulator, clp, were linked and co-transcribed for CHP detoxification leading to CHP resistance. Taken together, these findings are evidence of how the co-selection of CHP resistance is mediated by other antibiotics.
According to the structural comparison, the nearly all sequences of the IncFIA(HI1)/HI1B/Q1 plasmid of SA448 and the reference plasmid (accession no. CP022495.1) were identical with the exception of two horizontal gene transfer regions (HGT region) containing IS1B-catA-GNAT-TnAs3-IS26-IS6 and IS26-aph(6)-ld-aph(3”)-lb-sul2-IS26. The CP022495.1 reference plasmid originated from Salmonella Derby; however, further details regarding origins and locations were absent. Regardless, the findings demonstrated the dynamics of AMR gene mobilization through R plasmids, contributing to AMR dissemination.
CHP is a substrate for AcrAB-TolC multidrug efflux pump. In this study, SA448, SA461 and SA515 carried point mutations in chromosomally encoded acrB, leading to amino L40P and F28L acid substitution of AcrB. The relation of the amino acid substitution to any specific AMR was not predicted due to a lack of the mutation available in the ResFinder database. The mutations suggested that the CHP resistance phenotype in the isolates was not attributed to the expression of this system.
There are limitations to this study that should be noted. Only PaβN that primarily reduces the efflux effect of RND efflux pumps was used, therefore, the effects of efflux pumps in different families were disregarded. Although WGS produces a massive amount of data, a lot of it could be irrelevant or ambiguous. Despite advances in genomics, many resistance genes are still not identified and not comprised in databases available for AMR analysis. In addition, the limited number of CHP-resistant isolates from pigs were included. Increasing the number of isolates from other livestock would reveal more insights of the mechanisms contributing to the CHP resistance persistence.
In conclusion, the results unveiled cross resistance by multidrug efflux system and co-selection of R plasmids by other antimicrobial drugs as key mechanisms, contributing to the persistence of CHP resistance in E. coli and Salmonella in this study. Reduction and optimization of antimicrobial consumption is necessary to combat AMR. It is evident that restricting the use of a single antimicrobial agent is insufficient to address the issue. In addition to the prohibition on antibiotic usage, several policies and initiatives that reduce the need for antibiotics and delay the spread of AMR are necessary e.g., farm biosecurity, infection control, vaccination program, prudent antimicrobial use etc. Veterinarians are advised to undertake antimicrobial stewardship to improve antimicrobial utilization and decrease the indiscriminate use of antibiotics. Laboratory-based AMR surveillance should be prioritized and conducted at phenotypic and genotypic level with coordination among sectors.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Allele types of Escherichia coli and Salmonella.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304250.s001
(PDF)
S2 Table. Allele types of IncA/C, IncHI1, IncI1 and IncF plasmid.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304250.s002
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We thank the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. program (Scholarship Number PHD/0194/2559) in support of JP. We are thankful to Dr. Anna Sheppard who provided expertise that greatly assisted in WGS analysis.
References
- 1. Ekakoro JE, Okafor CC. Antimicrobial use practices of veterinary clinicians at a veterinary teaching hospital in the United States. Vet Anim Sci. 2019;7:100038. Epub 2018/09/26. pmid:32734061.
- 2. Abimbola S, Otieno M, Cole J. Reducing the Use of Antimicrobials as a Solution to the Challenge of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR): Approaching an Ethical Dilemma through the Lens of Planetary Health. Challenges. 2021;12(2).
- 3. Hanekamp JC, Bast A. Antibiotics exposure and health risks: chloramphenicol. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;39(1):213–20. Epub 2014/12/22. pmid:25528412.
- 4.
Suwannarak W, editor Food safety controls from farm to table with emphasis on aquaculture shrimp in Thailand. Fifth World Fish Inspection and Quality Control Congress; 2003; The Hague, Natherlands. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2005.
- 5. Lay KK, Koowattananukul C, Chansong N, Chuanchuen R. Antimicrobial resistance, virulence, and phylogenetic characteristics of Escherichia coli isolates from clinically healthy swine. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2012;9(11):992–1001. Epub 2012/09/08. pmid:22953741.
- 6. Nhung NT, Cuong NV, Thwaites G, Carrique-Mas J. Antimicrobial Usage and Antimicrobial Resistance in Animal Production in Southeast Asia: A Review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2016;5(4). Epub 2016/11/10. pmid:27827853.
- 7. Trongjit S, Angkititrakul S, Tuttle RE, Poungseree J, Padungtod P, Chuanchuen R. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica isolated from broiler chickens, pigs and meat products in Thailand-Cambodia border provinces. Microbiol Immunol. 2017;61(1):23–33. Epub 2017/01/04. pmid:28042666.
- 8. Trongjit S, Angkittitrakul S, Chuanchuen R. Occurrence and molecular characteristics of antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli from broilers, pigs and meat products in Thailand and Cambodia provinces. Microbiol Immunol. 2016;60(9):575–85. Epub 2016/07/31. pmid:27474453.
- 9. Pal C, Bengtsson-Palme J, Kristiansson E, Larsson DG. Co-occurrence of resistance genes to antibiotics, biocides and metals reveals novel insights into their co-selection potential. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:964. Epub 2015/11/19. pmid:26576951.
- 10. Cheng G, Ning J, Ahmed S, Huang J, Ullah R, An B, et al. Selection and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in Agri-food production. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:158. Epub 2019/10/28. pmid:31649815.
- 11.
Périchon B, Courvalin P, Stratton CW. Antibiotic Resistance. Encyclopedia of Microbiology. 4: Elsevier; 2014. p. 127–39.
- 12. Cannon M, Harford S, Davies J. A comparative study on the inhibitory actions of chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol and some fluorinated derivatives. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1990;26:307–17. pmid:2228823
- 13. Davis JL. Pharmacologic Principles. Equine Internal Medicine 2018. p. 79–137.
- 14. Sykes JE, Papich MG. Antibacterial Drugs. Canine and Feline Infectious Diseases 2014. p. 66–86.
- 15. Schwarz S, Kehrenberg C, Doublet B, Cloeckaert A. Molecular basis of bacterial resistance to chloramphenicol and florfenicol. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2004;28(5):519–42. Epub 2004/11/13. pmid:15539072.
- 16. Darphorn TS, Bel K, Koenders-van Sint Anneland BB, Brul S, Ter Kuile BH. Antibiotic resistance plasmid composition and architecture in Escherichia coli isolates from meat. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):2136. Epub 2021/01/24. pmid:33483623.
- 17. Ozawa M, Shirakawa T, Moriya K, Furuya Y, Kawanishi M, Makita K, et al. Role of Plasmids in Co-Selection of Antimicrobial Resistances Among Escherichia coli Isolated from Pigs. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2023. Epub 2023/08/04. pmid:37540099.
- 18. Lorenzo D. Chloramphenicol Resurrected: A Journey from Antibiotic Resistance in Eye Infections to Biofilm and Ocular Microbiota. Microorganisms. 2019;7(9). Epub 2019/08/24. pmid:31438629.
- 19. Koser CU, Ellington MJ, Peacock SJ. Whole-genome sequencing to control antimicrobial resistance. Trends Genet. 2014;30(9):401–7. Epub 2014/08/07. pmid:25096945.
- 20.
Quinn PJ, Carter ME, Markey BK, Carter GB. Enterobacteriaceae. In: Grafos SA, editor. Bacteriology: Clinical Veterinary Microbiology. Spain: Mosby-Year Book Europe; 1994. p. 209–36.
- 21.
C GRCole a JR. Diagnostic Procedures in Veterinary Bacteriology and Mycology. Academic press, Inc. 1990;fifth edition.
- 22. CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. CLSI supplement M100. 2021;41.
- 23.
ISO. ISO6579-1:2017 Microbiology of food chain—horizontal method for the detection, enumeration and serotyping of Salmonella 2017:1–47.
- 24. Lévesque C, Piché L, Larose C, Roy PH. PCR Mapping of Integrons Reveals Several Novel Combinations of Resistance Genes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39(1):185–91. pmid:7695304
- 25. Carattoli A, Bertini A, Villa L, Falbo V, Hopkins KL, Threlfall EJ. Identification of plasmids by PCR-based replicon typing. journal of Microbiological Methods. 2005;63(3):219–28. Epub 2005/06/07. pmid:15935499.
- 26. Chuanchuen R, Padungtod P. Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Salmonella enterica Isolates from Poultry and Swine in Thailand. J Vet Med Sci. 2009;71(10):1349–55.
- 27. Pungpian C, Sinwat N, Angkititrakul S, Prathan R, Chuanchuen R. Presence and Transfer of Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants in Escherichia coli in Pigs, Pork, and Humans in Thailand and Lao PDR Border Provinces. Microb Drug Resist. 2020. Epub 2020/09/09. pmid:32898454.
- 28. Khemtong S, Chuanchuen R. Class 1 integrons and Salmonella Genomic Island 1 among Salmonella enterica isolated from poultry and swine. Microb Drug Resist. 2008;14(1):65–70.
- 29. Arigul T, Jenjaroenpun P, Wankaew N, Vespiromc J, Thuamkaew P, Wongsurawat T, et al. Complete Genome Sequences of Three Salmonella Strains Obtained from a Poultry Production Farm in Thailand. J Bacteriol. 2023;12(2). pmid:36651783
- 30. De Coster W, D’Hert S, Schultz DT, Cruts M, Van Broeckhoven C. NanoPack: visualizing and processing long-read sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(15):2666–9. Epub 2018/03/17. pmid:29547981.
- 31.
Andrews S. FASTQC. A quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. 2010.
- 32. Wick RR, Judd LM, Gorrie CL, Holt KE. Unicycler: Resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017;13(6):e1005595. Epub 2017/06/09. pmid:28594827.
- 33. Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(8):1072–5. Epub 2013/02/21. pmid:23422339.
- 34. Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol. 2019;20(1):257. Epub 2019/11/30. pmid:31779668.
- 35. Tatusova T, DiCuccio M, Badretdin A, Chetvernin V, Nawrocki EP, Zaslavsky L, et al. NCBI prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(14):6614–24. Epub 2016/06/28. pmid:27342282.
- 36. Joensen KG, Tetzschner AM, Iguchi A, Aarestrup FM, Scheutz F. Rapid and Easy In Silico Serotyping of Escherichia coli Isolates by Use of Whole-Genome Sequencing Data. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(8):2410–26. Epub 2015/05/15. pmid:25972421.
- 37. Zhang S, Yin Y, Jones MB, Zhang Z, Deatherage Kaiser BL, Dinsmore BA, et al. Salmonella serotype determination utilizing high-throughput genome sequencing data. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(5):1685–92. Epub 2015/03/13. pmid:25762776.
- 38. Joensen KG, Scheutz F, Lund O, Hasman H, Kaas RS, Nielsen EM, et al. Real-time whole-genome sequencing for routine typing, surveillance, and outbreak detection of verotoxigenic Escherichia coli. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(5):1501–10. Epub 2014/02/28. pmid:24574290.
- 39. Florensa AF, Kaas RS, Clausen P, Aytan-Aktug D, Aarestrup FM. ResFinder—an open online resource for identification of antimicrobial resistance genes in next-generation sequencing data and prediction of phenotypes from genotypes. Microb Genom. 2022;8(1). Epub 2022/01/25. pmid:35072601.
- 40. Johansson MHK, Bortolaia V, Tansirichaiya S, Aarestrup FM, Roberts AP, Petersen TN. Detection of mobile genetic elements associated with antibiotic resistance in Salmonella enterica using a newly developed web tool: MobileElementFinder. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021;76(1):101–9. Epub 2020/10/04. pmid:33009809.
- 41. Carattoli A, Zankari E, Garcia-Fernandez A, Voldby Larsen M, Lund O, Villa L, et al. In silico detection and typing of plasmids using PlasmidFinder and plasmid multilocus sequence typing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(7):3895–903. Epub 2014/04/30. pmid:24777092.
- 42. Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10:421. Epub 2009/12/17. pmid:20003500.
- 43.
Seemann T. snippy: fast bacterial variant calling from NGS reads. 2015.
- 44. Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: A Fast and Effective Stochastic Algorithm for Estimating Maximum-Likelihood Phylogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2015;32(1):268–74. pmid:25371430
- 45. Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(W1):W293–W6. Epub 2021/04/23. pmid:33885785.
- 46. Sullivan MJ, Petty NK, Beatson SA. Easyfig: a genome comparison visualizer. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(7):1009–10. Epub 2011/02/01. pmid:21278367.
- 47. Grant JR, Enns E, Marinier E, Mandal A, Herman EK, Chen CY, et al. Proksee: in-depth characterization and visualization of bacterial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51(W1):W484–W92. Epub 2023/05/04. pmid:37140037.
- 48. Urban-Chmiel R, Marek A, Stepien-Pysniak D, Wieczorek K, Dec M, Nowaczek A, et al. Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria-A Review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(8). Epub 2022/08/27. pmid:36009947.
- 49. Leong SS, Lihan S, Toh SC. Prevalence of chloramphenicol-resistant gene in Escherichia coli from water sources in aquaculture farms and rivers of Kuching, Northwestern Borneo. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2022;25(4):202–13.
- 50. Tadesse DA, Zhao S, Tong E, Ayers S, Singh A, Bartholomew MJ, et al. Antimicrobial drug resistance in Escherichia coli from humans and food animals, United States, 1950–2002. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(5):741–9. Epub 2012/04/21. pmid:22515968.
- 51.
Roberts MC, Schwarz S. Tetracycline and Chloramphenicol Resistance Mechanisms. Antimicrobial Drug Resistance. 1: Humana Press; 2009. p. 183–93.
- 52. McMillan EA, Jackson CR, Frye JG. Transferable plasmids of Salmonella enterica associated with antibiotic resistance genes. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:562181. Epub 2020/11/03. pmid:33133037.
- 53. Minja CA, Shirima G, Mshana SE. Conjugative Plasmids Disseminating CTX-M-15 among Human, Animals and the Environment in Mwanza Tanzania: A Need to Intensify One Health Approach. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021;10(7). Epub 2021/08/07. pmid:34356757.
- 54. Han J, Pendleton SJ, Deck J, Singh R, Gilbert J, Johnson TJ, et al. Impact of co-carriage of IncA/C plasmids with additional plasmids on the transfer of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica isolates. Int J Food Microbiol. 2018;271:77–84. Epub 2018/03/20. pmid:29549790.
- 55. Zhu DM, Ding Q, Li PH, Wang YL, Li YZ, Yu Li X, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in E. Coli of animal origin and discovery of a novel ICE mobile element in Northeast China. BMC Vet Res. 2023;19(1):255. Epub 2023/12/06. pmid:38053138.
- 56. Chah KF, Agbo IC, Eze DC, Somalo S, Estepa V, Torres C. Antimicrobial resistance, integrons and plasmid replicon typing in multiresistant clinical Escherichia coli strains from Enugu State, Nigeria. J Basic Microbiol. 2010;50 Suppl 1:S18–24. Epub 2010/10/23. pmid:20967784.
- 57. Chakravortty D, García P, Hopkins KL, García V, Beutlich J, Mendoza MC, et al. Diversity of Plasmids Encoding Virulence and Resistance Functions in Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Serovar Typhimurium Monophasic Variant 4,[5],12:i:- Strains Circulating in Europe. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2). pmid:24586926
- 58. Bischoff KM, White DG, Hume ME, Poole TL, Nisbet DJ. The chloramphenicol resistance gene cmlA is disseminated on transferable plasmids that confer multiple-drug resistance in swine Escherichia coli. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2005;243(1):285–91. Epub 2005/01/26. pmid:15668031.
- 59. Chang CY, Lu PL, Lin CC, Lee TM, Tsai MY, Chang LL. Integron types, gene cassettes, antimicrobial resistance genes and plasmids of Shigella sonnei isolates from outbreaks and sporadic cases in Taiwan. J Med Microbiol. 2011;60(Pt 2):197–204. Epub 2010/10/16. pmid:20947666.
- 60. Li IC, Wu HH, Chen ZW, Chou CH. Prevalence of IncFIB Plasmids Found among Salmonella enterica Serovar Schwarzengrund Isolates from Animal Sources in Taiwan Using Whole-Genome Sequencing. Pathogens. 2021;10(8). Epub 2021/08/29. pmid:34451486.
- 61. Wyrsch ER, Dolejska M, Djordjevic SP. Genomic Analysis of an I1 Plasmid Hosting a sul3-Class 1 Integron and bla(SHV-12) within an Unusual Escherichia coli ST297 from Urban Wildlife. Microorganisms. 2022;10(7). Epub 2022/07/28. pmid:35889108.
- 62. Harmer CJ, Hall RM. An analysis of the IS6/IS26 family of insertion sequences: is it a single family? Microb Genom. 2019;5(9). Epub 2019/09/06. pmid:31486766.
- 63. Pfeiffer F, Zamora-Lagos MA, Blettinger M, Yeroslaviz A, Dahl A, Gruber S, et al. The complete and fully assembled genome sequence of Aeromonas salmonicida subsp. pectinolytica and its comparative analysis with other Aeromonas species: investigation of the mobilome in environmental and pathogenic strains. BMC Genomics. 2018;19(1):20. Epub 2018/01/07. pmid:29304740.
- 64. Ross K, Varani AM, Snesrud E, Huang H, Alvarenga DO, Zhang J, et al. TnCentral: a Prokaryotic Transposable Element Database and Web Portal for Transposon Analysis. mBio. 2021;12(5):e0206021. Epub 2021/09/15. pmid:34517763.
- 65. Varani A, He S, Siguier P, Ross K, Chandler M. The IS6 family, a clinically important group of insertion sequences including IS26. Mob DNA. 2021;12(1):11. Epub 2021/03/25. pmid:33757578.
- 66. Partridge SR, Hall RM. Complex multiple antibiotic and mercury resistance region derived from the r-det of NR1 (R100). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(11):4250–5. Epub 2004/10/27. pmid:15504849.
- 67. Alcala A, Ramirez G, Solis A, Kim Y, Tan K, Luna O, et al. Structural and functional characterization of three Type B and C chloramphenicol acetyltransferases from Vibrio species. Protein Sci. 2020;29(3):695–710. Epub 2019/11/26. pmid:31762145.