
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the leading agents of nosocomial and community-acquired infections. In this study, we explored the genomic characterization of eight methicillin-resistant clinical isolates of S. aureus from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Notably, all strains were resistant to penicillin, cephalosporins, and monobactams, with partial susceptibility to meropenem and complete susceptibility to amikacin, vancomycin, and tigecycline antibiotics. The strains were found to have an average genome size of 2.73 Mbp and an average of 32.64% GC content. Multi-locus sequence typing analysis characterized the most predominant sequence type as ST361, which belongs to the clonal complex CC361. All isolates harbored the mecA gene, often linked to SCCmec_type IV variants. Multidrug resistance was attributed to efflux pumps NorA, NorC, SdrM, and LmrS alongside genes encoding beta-lactamase BlaZ and factors like ErmC and MepA. Additionally, virulence factors including adsA, sdrC, cap8D, harA, esaA, essC, isdB, geh, and lip were commonly identified. Furthermore, genes associated with heme uptake and clumping were present, highlighting their roles in S. aureus colonization and pathogenesis. Nine secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters were found, of which six were common in all the strains. Numerous toxin-antitoxin systems were predicted, with ParE and ParB-like nuclease domains found to be the most prevalent toxin and antitoxin, respectively. Pan-genome analysis revealed 2007 core genes and 229 unique genes in the studied strains. Finally, the phylogenomic analysis showed that most Bangladeshi strains were grouped into two unique clades. This study provides a genomic and comparative insight into the multidrug resistance and pathogenicity of S. aureus strains, which will play a crucial role in the future antibiotic stewardship of Bangladesh.
Citation: Afia Anjum, Jarin Tabassum, Sohidul Islam, A. K. M. Imrul Hassan, Ishrat Jabeen, Sabbir R. Shuvo. Deciphering the genomic character of the multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from Dhaka, Bangladesh[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(4): 833-858. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024036
[1] | Maureen U. Okwu, Mitsan Olley, Augustine O. Akpoka, Osazee E. Izevbuwa . Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and anti-MRSA activities of extracts of some medicinal plants: A brief review. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(2): 117-137. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.2.117 |
[2] | Anthonia O. Oluduro, Yetunde M. Adesiyan, Olumide O. Omoboye, Adebowale T. Odeyemi . Phenotypic and molecular characterization of Staphylococcus aureus from mobile phones in Nigeria. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(3): 402-418. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023021 |
[3] | Manjusha Lekshmi, Parvathi Ammini, Jones Adjei, Leslie M. Sanford, Ugina Shrestha, Sanath Kumar, Manuel F. Varela . Modulation of antimicrobial efflux pumps of the major facilitator superfamily in Staphylococcus aureus. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(1): 1-18. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.1.1 |
[4] | Farhana Haque, Ishrat Jabeen, Chaman Ara Keya, Sabbir R. Shuvo . Whole-genome sequencing and comparative analysis of heavy metals tolerant Bacillus anthracis FHq strain isolated from tannery effluents in Bangladesh. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(2): 226-238. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022018 |
[5] | Liliana Galia, Marco Ligozzi, Anna Bertoncelli, Annarita Mazzariol . Real-time PCR assay for detection of Staphylococcus aureus, Panton-Valentine Leucocidin and Methicillin Resistance directly from clinical samples. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(2): 138-146. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.2.138 |
[6] | Ana M. Castañeda-Meléndrez, José A. Magaña-Lizárraga, Marcela Martínez-Valenzuela, Aldo F. Clemente-Soto, Patricia C. García-Cervantes, Francisco Delgado-Vargas, Rodolfo Bernal-Reynaga . Genomic characterization of a multidrug-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli and evaluation of Echeveria plant extracts as antibacterials. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 41-61. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024003 |
[7] | Tomokazu Shoji, Ryusei Muto, Ryoko Sakai, Hiroki Matsumura, Takashi Uchida, Fumihiko Kitta, Osamu Inoue, Keishi Kawata, Manabu Akazawa . Estimated medical costs of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection classified by polymerase chain reaction-based open reading frame typing in Japan. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(4): 528-543. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022034 |
[8] | Reham M. Al-Mosawi, Hanadi Abdulqadar Jasim, Athir Haddad . Study of the antibacterial effects of the starch-based zinc oxide nanoparticles on methicillin resistance Staphylococcus aureus isolates from different clinical specimens of patients from Basrah, Iraq. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(1): 90-107. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023006 |
[9] | Tuangrat Tunvongvinis, Weeyawat Jaitrong, Yudthana Samung, Somboon Tanasupawat, Wongsakorn Phongsopitanun . Diversity and antimicrobial activity of the tropical ant-derived actinomycetes isolated from Thailand. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 68-82. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024005 |
[10] | Ogueri Nwaiwu, Chiugo Claret Aduba . An in silico analysis of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes in Aeromonas plasmids. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(1): 75-91. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020005 |
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the leading agents of nosocomial and community-acquired infections. In this study, we explored the genomic characterization of eight methicillin-resistant clinical isolates of S. aureus from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Notably, all strains were resistant to penicillin, cephalosporins, and monobactams, with partial susceptibility to meropenem and complete susceptibility to amikacin, vancomycin, and tigecycline antibiotics. The strains were found to have an average genome size of 2.73 Mbp and an average of 32.64% GC content. Multi-locus sequence typing analysis characterized the most predominant sequence type as ST361, which belongs to the clonal complex CC361. All isolates harbored the mecA gene, often linked to SCCmec_type IV variants. Multidrug resistance was attributed to efflux pumps NorA, NorC, SdrM, and LmrS alongside genes encoding beta-lactamase BlaZ and factors like ErmC and MepA. Additionally, virulence factors including adsA, sdrC, cap8D, harA, esaA, essC, isdB, geh, and lip were commonly identified. Furthermore, genes associated with heme uptake and clumping were present, highlighting their roles in S. aureus colonization and pathogenesis. Nine secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters were found, of which six were common in all the strains. Numerous toxin-antitoxin systems were predicted, with ParE and ParB-like nuclease domains found to be the most prevalent toxin and antitoxin, respectively. Pan-genome analysis revealed 2007 core genes and 229 unique genes in the studied strains. Finally, the phylogenomic analysis showed that most Bangladeshi strains were grouped into two unique clades. This study provides a genomic and comparative insight into the multidrug resistance and pathogenicity of S. aureus strains, which will play a crucial role in the future antibiotic stewardship of Bangladesh.
Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Staphylococcus aureus is capable of manifesting in a wide range of nosocomial and community-acquired infections, from mild erythema to potentially deadly diseases like endocarditis, pneumonia, and septicemia [1]–[4]. The species can carry a multitude of resistance determinants [5], and it is becoming increasingly difficult to combat them because of resistance to antibiotics like cefotaxime and cefepime, making them clinically significant [6],[7]. Besides, the seven common antibiotics currently used to treat S. aureus infections, namely vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim, quinupristin-dalfopristin, clindamycin, and tigecycline are also losing their efficacy [8]–[10]. The emergence of MDR S. aureus has led to the development of complex resistance mechanisms, which include chromosomal intrinsic resistance, plasmid, and mobile genetic elements, including staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec)-mediated acquired resistance and an active efflux system [11]–[13]. Besides, the pathogenicity of this species is predominantly aggressive, as it carries genes encoding a wide range of virulence factors that contribute to its survival, transmission, and nutrient acquisition [14]–[16].
Management of staphylococcal infection has not been extensively monitored in Bangladesh [17], with limited data regarding the prevalence and genotypes of different MDR S. aureus strains, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). In contrast, many other Asian countries, including Japan, China, and India, have had extensive surveys providing much better insights [18],[19]. The existing data, nevertheless, is alarming, as Bangladesh shows an increasing trend of MRSA in patients ranging from 15.38% to 80.3% [6],[20]–[22]. This aggravating situation makes it imperative for Bangladesh to have a comprehensive understanding of the cause and prevalence of antibiotic resistance.
In this present study, we have explored the genomic characterization of MDR clinical isolates of S. aureus from Dhaka, Bangladesh by a genomic study, with a particular focus on genetic variation, antimicrobial resistance, virulence profile, and phylogenomic analysis. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first genomic studies on S. aureus in Bangladesh.
In January 2022, a total of eight S. aureus isolates were collected from clinical specimens from Dhaka, Bangladesh. SAC1, SAC3, SAC4, SAC5, and SAC6 were isolated from wound swabs from five inpatients from the burn unit of Dhaka Medical College. Isolates SAC8, SAC9, and SAC10 were obtained from outpatient blood cultures from the LABAID Diagnostic Ltd., Mirpur, Dhaka. Isolation of the S. aureus strains was performed on mannitol salt agar (MSA; Condalab, Spain), followed by the subculture on MSA to observe their distinctive characteristics. All strains were stored in Luria-Bertani broth (HiMedia, India) containing 50% glycerol at −80 °C until further use. All procedures were approved by the North South University Research Ethics Committee (IRB: 2022/OR-NSU/IRB/0703).
The confirmed S. aureus isolates were tested to identify their antimicrobial resistance pattern by using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion technique [23] on Mueller-Hinton agar (HiMedia, India) according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [24] guideline (Table S1). The antibiotics tested were ampicillin (AMP, 30 µg), amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (AMC, 30 µg), tazobactam with piperacillin (TZP, 110 µg), ceftazidime (CAZ, 30 µg), cefixime (CFM, 5 µg), ceftriaxone (CRO, 30 µg), cefotaxime (CTX, 30 µg), cefepime (FEP, 5 µg), aztreonam (ATM, 30 µg), meropenem (MEM, 10 µg), amikacin (AMK, 30 µg), gentamicin (GEN, 10 µg), ciprofloxacin (CIP, 5 µg), levofloxacin (LEV, 5 µg), erythromycin (ERY, 15 µg), tetracycline (TET, 30 µg), tigecycline (TGC, 15 µg), and colistin (COL, 10 µg) (Bioanalyse, Turkey). The methicillin resistance was confirmed using cefoxitin (FOX, 30 µg) [25]. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of S. aureus strains against vancomycin (VAN) was determined by broth microdilution method following CLSI guidelines. Briefly, the strains were grown in cation-adjusted Mueller–Hinton broth (Condalab, Madrid, Spain). The overnight bacterial suspensions were adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard and were grown for 20 h at 37 °C in the presence of vancomycin (Opsonin Pharmaceutical, Bangladesh). The vancomycin concentrations used ranged from 0.5 to 256 µg/mL. Each experiment was performed in duplicates, and bacterial growth was visually observed.
Biofilm formation was determined by a conventional microtiter-plate assay with minor modifications [26]. A single colony from each culture plate was picked and incubated overnight at 37 °C in a shaking incubator at 220 rpm. The inoculum was then diluted 1:1000 in nutrient broth and incubated at 37 °C for 48 h under static conditions. Biofilm formation was assessed using 0.1% crystal violet staining. The biomass was dissolved with 30% acetic acid to quantify the biofilm, and its absorbance was measured at 590 nm using a microplate reader (Multiskan EX, Thermo Scientific, Finland). All procedures were conducted at room temperature and repeated three times under identical conditions.
The genomic DNA of the S. aureus isolates was extracted using Wizard® Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega, USA) following the manufacturer's instructions. The quantity and quality of extracted DNA was determined using a NanoDrop™ 2000 (Thermo Scientific, USA). Sequence raw read files of all S. aureus strains were generated using Ion Torrent Sequencing Technology on an Ion GeneStudio™ S5 System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions (DNA Solution Ltd, Dhaka, Bangladesh). For each sample, multiple reads were generated and quality control and adapter trimming were performed using the integrated Torrent Suite™ Software version 5.10.0. Assembly was done using Unicycler version v0.4.8 [27] and SAMtools version 1.11 [28]. To assess the quality of assembly, Quast v5.0.2 was used [29]. The annotations were done using the Rapid Annotation using Subsystem Technology (RAST) tool kit (RASTtk) [30]. The assembly and annotation services were provided by the Bacterial and Viral Bioinformatics Resource Center (BV-BRC) [31],[32]. Proksee was used to generate a circular map reflecting the local alignment of the strains [33]. Assembled draft genomes were stored at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) (BioProject: PRJNA983588).
Assembled draft genomes were used in the Resistance Gene Identifier (RGI) tool offered by the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) to predict the resistomes of the strains [34]. The SCCmecFinder-1.2 was used to predict the SCCmec types [35]–[37]. Multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) of S. aureus isolates was determined by MLST-2.0 web server [37]–[39]. MLST was performed by identifying different variants located in seven housekeeping genes, carbamate kinase (arcC), shikimate dehydrogenase (aroE), glycerol kinase (glpF), guanylate kinase (gmk), phosphate acetyltransferase (pta), triosephosphate isomerase (tpi), and acetyl coenzyme A acetyltransferase (yqiL). Clonal complexes (CC) were assigned comparing our MLST data with the PubMLST S. aureus typing database (updated August 12, 2024) using the Burst analysis software available on the PubMLST server and were defined as single-locus variants (SLVs) [40]. SpaTyper-1.0 [38],[41], alongside basic local alignment search tool (BLAST) from NCBI, were used for staphylococcal protein A (spa) typing. Pathogenfinder-1.1 [42] web service was offered by the Center for Genomic Epidemiology (CGE) [37],[43] and used to determine the pathogenicity of the strains. Default parameters were used for all the services.
Plasmidfinder-2.1 [37],[43], Phage Search Tool Enhanced Release (PHASTER) [44],[45], and ICEfinder-1.0 [46] for Integrative and Conjugative Elements (ICE's) were used to identify plasmid, phage and type IV secretion system of the strains, respectively. Default parameters were used for all programs. The presence of virulence factors for the strains was predicted using the Virulence Factor Database (VFDB) (http://www.mgc.ac.cn/VFs/) [47]. The strains were systematically scanned by Antibiotics & Secondary Metabolite Analysis Shell (antiSMASH) v7.0.1 with default parameters for the number and types of secondary metabolite Biosynthetic Gene Clusters (BGCs) present [48]. Toxin-antitoxin systems mania (TASmania) [49] was used to predict toxin-antitoxin systems.
The Bacterial Pan Genome Analysis (BPGA) v1.3 [50] tool was used for pan-genome analysis. Average nucleotide identity (ANI) analysis was performed using Kostas Lab [51] (Figure S1). A phylogenomic tree was constructed from fifty closely related S. aureus strains isolated worldwide based on ANI (Figure S1 and Table S2). Phylogenomic analysis was carried out in the Type Strain Genome Server (TYGS) (https://tygs.dsmz.de) for a whole genome-based taxonomic analysis [52]. Later, CSIPhylogeny version 1.4 was used for the generation of a phylogenomic tree against the reference genome S. aureus NCTC 8325 (accession number: CP000253) based on single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) [53]. Both the phylogenomic trees were visualized by the Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) [54]. All heatmaps were generated using Science and Research (SR) online Plot (www.bioinformatics.com.cn).
An increasing incidence of MDR S. aureus (97.4%) infections has recently been reported in Bangladesh [55]. Among the twenty antibiotics used in this study, all isolated strains demonstrated resistance to eight, namely ampicillin, ceftazidime, cefixime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, cefepime, aztreonam, and cefoxitin, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. The MIC of vancomycin for all the strains was found to be 1 µg/mL using the broth microdilution method, which is considered sensitive according to CLSI guidelines. However, S. aureus is intrinsically resistant to colistin, which was also observed in this study. Therefore, tigecycline, vancomycin, and amikacin antibiotics were the most effective against all strains, whereas only SAC 4 showed intermediate resistance to amikacin. In addition, weak biofilm formation was observed in S. aureus strains SAC 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8, whereas SAC 4, 9, and 10 were non-biofilm formers (Table S3).
The studied isolates were found to have an average genome size of 2.73 Mbp. SAC 6 had the largest genome size at 2.84 Mbp (Table 2 and Figure 2). The isolates had an average of 32.64% GC content and an average of 2698.5 coding sequences (CDs). SAC 4 had the maximum predicted coding sequence of 2963. The draft genome sequences were aligned with reference genome NCTC 8325 (Figure 2), representing the gaps in the draft genomes. The subsystem superclass distribution identified ‘metabolism’ as the most predominant subsystem for all the strains (Figure S2).
Antibiotic class | Penicillin | Penicillin + beta-lactamase inhibitors | Cephalosporin | Monobactam | Carbapenem | Aminoglycoside | Fluoroquinolone | Macrolide | Tetracycline | Polymyxin | Glycopeptide | |||||||||
Strains (SAC) | AMP | AMC | TZP | FOX | CAZ | CFM | CRO | CTX | FEP | ATM | MEM | AMK | GEN | CIP | LEV | ERY | TET | TGC | COL | VAN |
SAC1 | R | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC3 | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | S | R | R | S | R | S |
SAC4 | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | I | I | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC5 | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | S |
SAC6 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | R | R | S | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC8 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC9 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | R | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC10 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
*R = resistant; S = sensitive; I = intermediate
The MRSA isolates of our study were assigned to 4 genetic lines (CC5, CC8, CC80, and CC361) with their sequence types matching the central genotype at ≥ 6 loci. From the MLST analysis, it was found that SAC 5 and 9 belong to sequence type ST6 (CC5), prevalent in Bangladesh [56]. The MLSTs (other than ST6) identified in the isolates appear to be unique or not previously registered in clinical isolates of Bangladesh according to the PubMLST database [40]. SAC1 was found to belong to ST80 (CC80), which is considered one of the most important toxinogenic clones present in the species across the world [57]. 50% of the isolated strains were classified as part of the MLST type 361 (Table 2). Despite the apparent bias of the study with the small number of strains used, the results are consistent with established knowledge of MRSA isolates through literature [58]–[61]. In multiple studies, including one in Bangladesh, the comparative sporadicity of ST361 was reported [62],[63], which demonstrated a gradual change with more cases linked to ST361 (CC361) [58]. Subsequent documentation revealed the presence of ST361 with the SpaType T315 in the processed fish fingers and Chatpatti in Dhaka, Bangladesh [59]; similar Sequence and Spa Type were recovered from patients in Irish hospitals between 2000 and 2012 [60] and in Kuwait in 2010 [61]. The rest of the isolates (SAC 3, 4, 8) have different SpaTypes (Table 2).
Name of the strains | Genome size (bp) | aN50 | bL50 | GC (%) | Coding genes | tRNA & rRNA | MLST | Clonal complex (CC) | Spa types | NCBI BioSample ID |
SAC 1 | 2,787,226 | 176,673 | 7 | 32.71 | 2715 | 61 | ST80 | CC80 | T376 | SAMN35731402 |
SAC 3 | 2,754,801 | 131,013 | 5 | 32.66 | 2721 | 57 | ST361 | CC361 | T304 | SAMN35731599 |
SAC 4 | 2,814,822 | 116,081 | 7 | 32.64 | 2963 | 57 | ST361 | CC361 | T463 | SAMN35731600 |
SAC 5 | 2,784,621 | 111,616 | 8 | 32.69 | 2714 | 22 | ST6 | CC5 | T4407 | SAMN35731637 |
SAC 6 | 2,846,622 | 141,025 | 8 | 32.58 | 2807 | 59 | ST8 | CC8 | T3364 | SAMN35731648 |
SAC 8 | 2,709,879 | 70,277 | 14 | 32.62 | 2616 | 21 | ST361 | CC361 | T2379 | SAMN35731650 |
SAC 9 | 2,817,774 | 192,408 | 7 | 32.71 | 2752 | 58 | ST6 | CC5 | T304 | SAMN35731660 |
SAC 10 | 2,801,390 | 108,408 | 8 | 32.65 | 2741 | 59 | ST361 | CC361 | T315 | SAMN35731667 |
**aN50 = Half of the genome assembly is contained in contigs equal to or larger than this value; bL50 = smallest number of contigs (each with its length) in the genome assembly needed to cover approximately half of the total genome size.
The strains were subjected to prophage sequence identification, leading to the determination of two intact prophage regions in SAC 1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 (Table S4). SAC 8 and 10 have only one predicted prophage in their genomes. Except for SAC 8, which contains a single plasmid, the rest of the strains harbor multiple plasmids ranging from 2 to 6. Moreover, SAC 1, 3, 8, and 10 had putative integrative and conjugative element (ICE) regions with T4SS (Table S4). Pathogen finders predicted (97%–98%) that all the strains were to be human pathogens.
Several antibiotic-resistant genes, ranging from efflux pumps to antibiotic inactivation, antibiotic target alteration, protection, and replacement, have been predicted by CARD in the studied S. aureus clinical strains from Bangladesh. All strains studied were found to be MRSA and predicted to have mecA (Table 1 and Figure 3), conferring the presence of SCCmec genomic islands. However, mecR1, a gene that encodes a membrane-spanning signal transduction protein responsible for the upregulation of mecA, is only present in SAC 1, 5, 6, 9, 10. These five strains also contained variations of SCCmec type_IV, while SCCmec_type_IVa (2B) was the most common (Table 3). SAC 1, 5, and 9 had SCCmec subtype a, whereas SAC 6 and 10 contained subtypes c and g, respectively. The strains with identifiable SCCmec elements contained ccrA2/ccrB2 recombinases (Table S5). The server was unable to detect a complete SCCmec element in SAC 3, 4, and 8 with a template coverage of at least 40% but was found to carry ccrC1-allele-2. Besides, in these strains, MecR1 was also absent (Figure 3). SAC 8 was found to have the class complex mec-class-C2 (Table S5), which is composed of insertion sequence IS431, truncated remnants of mecR1, mecA, and another copy of IS431 in the opposite direction. Based on the combination of the mec complex class and the ccr complex type, SAC 8 could belong to SCCmec_type_V [64].
Strains | SCCmec types | Predicted ccr gene |
SAC 1 | SCCmec_type_IVa(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 3 | Not detected | ccrC1-allele-2 |
SAC 4 | Not detected | ccrC1-allele-2 |
SAC 5 | SCCmec_type_IVa(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 6 | SCCmec_type_IVc(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 8 | Not detected | ccrC1-allele-2 |
SAC 9 | SCCmec_type_IVa(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 10 | SCCmec_type_IVg(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
In this study, 100% of the studied S. aureus were found to be resistant to penicillin, cephalosporin, and monobactam class of antibiotics (Figure 1). Only two out of eight MRSA strains were either susceptible or intermediately susceptible to meropenem. The efficacy of penicillin, either amoxicillin or tazobactam, increased when tested along with beta-lactamase inhibitors (Table 1). The beta-lactamase inhibitors improved the susceptibility test results from resistant to intermediately resistant only in 40%–50% of the strains when clavulanic acid was used with amoxicillin or piperacillin was used with tazobactam. All these strains harbored PC1 beta-lactamase blaZ (Figure 3).
Aminoglycosides appear to be relatively successful in neutralization of the clinical strains, where only 1 out of the 8 strains showed intermediate resistance to amikacin, and two strains showed resistance to gentamicin (Table 1). The genes that are typically responsible for encoding the modifying enzymes conferring aminoglycoside resistance through antibiotic inactivation include AAC(6′)-APH(2")-la, APH(3′)-IIIa, ANT(4′)-Ia, and aad (6) [65],[66], each of which was detected only in SAC 10. However, SAC 10 was found to be sensitive to both the aminoglycosides amikacin and gentamicin. APH (3′)-IIIa, conferring resistance to amikacin [67], along with aad(6), were also detected in SAC 3, 4, 8, and 10. Conversely, only SAC 4 showed intermediate resistance to amikacin. The strains SAC 6 and 9, despite the absence of all of these aminoglycoside modifying enzymes (AMEs), showed resistance to gentamicin. Given the limited detection of AME-encoded genes and the lack of a clear phenotypic correlation with their presence, alternative resistance mechanisms might be responsible for the observed aminoglycoside resistance in these two isolates.
The studied S. aureus strains harbored genes for various superfamilies of efflux pumps. Notably, NorA, NorC, and SDrM are described as the cause of fluoroquinolone antibiotic resistance in S. aureus [68]–[70]. All but strain SAC 5 were resistant to the second-generation fluoroquinolone ciprofloxacin, and none of the strains were resistant to the third-generation fluoroquinolone levofloxacin. The efflux pump encoding genes norA, norC, and sdrM conferring resistance to fluoroquinolones were predicted in every strain, including the reference strain NCTC 8325. While the presence of genes encoding efflux pumps suggests a potential resistance mechanism for fluoroquinolones, the expression of these pumps likely requires prior exposure to fluoroquinolones. SAC 5, a clinical strain, may have undergone antibiotic exposure other than fluoroquinolones and thus developed resistance to those antibiotics.
A previous study demonstrated a biphasic killing response of the reference strain S. aureus NCTC 8325 to ciprofloxacin. At concentrations ≥ 5 µg/mL, NCTC 8325 exhibits persister formation [71]. However, this strain remains susceptible at lower concentrations (1 µg/mL) despite harboring genes predicted to encode efflux pumps [71]. This observed difference in susceptibility compared to clinical isolates, which may have undergone selective pressure leading to efflux pump overexpression, suggests that these genes alone may not be sufficient for ciprofloxacin resistance in NCTC 8325.
The contribution of the efflux pump and their elevated expression during antibiotic pressure in clinical settings, along with quinolone resistance determining region (QRDR) mutations, may contribute to the fluoroquinolone resistance of these strains. Among the QRDR mutations, the parC gene, predicted to carry a single nucleotide polymorphism S80F (Table S6), and the gyrA gene, predicted to carry S84L mutation, are known to confer resistance to fluoroquinolones [72],[73], both of which were predicted in SAC 8. This may explain why SAC 8 exhibits complete or intermediate resistance to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin, respectively (Table 1, Figure 1). SAC 1, 4, 9, and 10 also showed the same resistance pattern concerning fluoroquinolones as SAC 8 despite lacking the parC S80F mutation in the respective strains. The efflux pumps and the gyrA mutation may contribute to fluoroquinolone resistance. SAC 6, notably missing the gyrA mutation, was found to be resistant to ciprofloxacin yet sensitive to levofloxacin, thus attributing its ciprofloxacin resistance to the efflux pumps.
The MFS efflux pump LmrS was also detected in all Bangladeshi-resistant strains and can efflux several structurally unrelated drugs, which include lincomycin, kanamycin, fusidic acid, etc. [68]. These strains also contained multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (MATE) superfamily efflux transporter gene mepA and small multidrug resistance (SMR) superfamily efflux transporter SepA. MepA confers resistance to tetracycline and contributes to decreased susceptibility to tigecycline antibiotics [74],[75], whereas SepA is reported to efflux disinfecting agents and antiseptics [76].
A recent study on resistance to macrolide antibiotics of S. aureus strains confirmed the ermC gene to be the most common determinant of macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramin B (MLSB) resistance, compared to msrA [77]. Our study consistently predicted the presence of the ermC gene in each of the clinical strains except SAC 6, which confer erythromycin resistance by methylating 23S rRNA [78]. Only SAC 10 was predicted to carry the msrA gene encoding the ATP-dependent efflux pump (ABC), conferring resistance to certain macrolides and streptogramin type B in Staphylococcus spp [79]. However, despite the absence of both ermC and msrA genes, SAC 6 was resistant to the tested macrolide erythromycin. The efflux pump encoding LmrS predicted in every strain could be the contributing factor since its role in multi-drug resistance including macrolides is well-established [68].
The tet(K) gene is one of the major genes associated with tetracycline resistance among Gram-positive bacteria [80]. Among all the strains, only SAC 3 harbored tet(K) and showed resistance against this antibiotic. While both tet(45) (predicted only in SAC 4) and tet(38) (predicted in all strains) encode tetracycline efflux pumps [81],[82], their presence did not correlate with resistance in our study. It is important to note that overexpression is often required for tet(38) and tet(K)-like efflux pumps to confer tetracycline resistance [75],[83]. Additionally, S. aureus is intrinsically resistant to polymyxins [84]; each of our studied strains was found resistant to colistin.
Finally, some genes were predicted whose associated antibiotics were not tested on our strains including sepA, fosB, fosY, sat-4, and dfrG. Among the two Fosfomycin-resistance enzymes predicted, fosB and fosY [85],[86], the latter is a relatively novel member of the Fos family and has profound implications considering its predicted detection in 50% of our strains alongside fosfomycin being a treatment of choice in many cases [86]. The dfrG gene (predicted only in SAC 6) is validated to confer trimethoprim resistance [87].
Numerous classes of genes for virulence factors were widely distributed among the Bangladeshi S. aureus clinical strains, which were completely absent from the reference strain. However, adsA, sdrC, cap8D, harA, esaA, essC, isdB, geh, and lip were present in each of the strains including the reference NCTC8325 (Figure 4). Most of the virulence factors predicted are responsible for either immune evasion or function as enterotoxins.
In the isolated strains, the virulence genes associated with heme-uptake and clumping were predicted ubiquitously in the isolates, reflecting their significance (Figure 4). The Isd system works together for hemoglobin binding and heme-iron acquisition and is required for the colonization of the host and pathogenesis [88]. IsdB removes heme from bound hemoglobin and transfers this cofactor to other proteins of the Isd system, which import and degrade heme to release iron in the cytoplasm. Apart from differences with respect to the virulence factors like esxC, esaG, and essA, SAC 5 and 9 were the only strains found to carry the gene for the virulence factor cna, collagen binding protein. Cna allows both SAC 5 and 9 to adhere to the host and bypass the host immune system, which piques interest as MLST characterized both the isolates in sequence type ST6. This result is consistent with the findings of another study conducted using S. aureus strains in India, which established that the strains having the same sequence type tend to follow the same patterns of distribution of virulence factors and immune evasion factors [89]. Drawing further comparison, the virulence factors spa, set24 are missing in SAC 4 but present in SAC 3, whereas the virulence factors vWbp, ssPC, and chp are present in SAC 4, yet missing in SAC 3. Moreover, SAC 3 demonstrates levofloxacin sensitivity and meropenem resistance (Table 1), while SAC 4 exhibits intermediate resistance to both. This suggests that the differential virulence genes pattern may also be responsible for the modest difference in the phenotypic antibiotic resistance pattern [90].
Secondary metabolites are not crucial for bacterial growth but play various roles in ensuring survival in natural environments [91]. Thus, the biosynthetic gene clusters could provide insight into potential targets to reduce the pathogenicity of the bacteria, as evidenced in numerous studies [92]–[95]. Nine types of secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) were found (Figure 5). Six of the BGCs were present in each of the strains investigated: cylic-lactone autoinducer, opine-like-metallophore, non-ribosomal peptide synthase (NRPS), terpene, and type III Polyketide synthase (T3PKS). T3PKS was mostly found to be located in the same region as that of terpene. However, only SAC 5 was predicted to have the two genes in different regions based on antiSMASH results. Each strain was found to have two non-ribosomal peptide synthetase (NRPS)-independent IucA/IucC like (NI)-siderophore, with the most known cluster corresponding to either staphylofferin A or staphyloferrin B.
The immune effector calprotectin can bind zinc with very high affinity, sequestering zinc away from the pathogen, which provides a layer of nutritional immunity [96]. However, with the metallophore staphylopine, S. aureus can compete with the host for zinc, enhancing its ability to cause a successful infection [96]. The (NRPS)-independent IucA/IucC like (NI)-siderophores (most similar with clusters staphyloferrin A and staphyloferrin B) also function in a similar fashion but chelate iron instead of zinc [97]. Lanthipeptide-class-i type was present in four (SAC 1, 5, 6, and 9) of the strains. SAC 1, 5, and 9 were found to carry unspecified ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptide product (RiPP)-like BGC, whereas lasso peptide was found only in SAC 4. T3PKS lacks investigations with a link to potentially enhanced virulence for S. aureus. It is believed that T3PKS may contribute to the persistence of mycobacterium infections through dynamic cell wall remodeling, despite the process not being well understood [98]. The possibility of the same process happening in S. aureus requires further research. However, BGCs of type NRPS, with 100% similarity with the known clusters aureusimine A/aureusimine B/aureusimine C are established not to be pathogenic [99]. Class I lanthipeptides, (RiPP)-like BGCs, and lasso peptides detected in the isolates are all ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptides (RiPPs), showing promise as natural therapeutic alternatives of antibiotics [100]–[102].
TA systems were analyzed through toxin-antitoxin system mania (TASmania) (Figure 6). It revealed the ParE toxin of the type II TA, ParDE (as the most abundant toxin), with SAC 4 predicted to have nine of them (Figure 6A). An abundance of YoeB-like toxin of bacterial type II TA system was also seen among all the strains. However, Toxin YafO of type II TA system was only carried by SAC 1, whereas Toxin SymE, type I TA system, was carried only by SAC 1 and 9.
The significance of the ParB-like nuclease domain as the most abundant antitoxin was ascertained (Figure 6B). SAC 4 was found to carry ten of the ParB-like nuclease domains as the most abundant antitoxin, whereas SAC 3 and 8 were found to carry eight of each. The most abundant toxin among the strains was ParE of the type II toxin-antitoxin system (Figure 6A), ParDE, which prevents the loss of antibiotic resistance by providing plasmid stability, eliminating the plasmid-free cells [103]. Usually, persister formation is linked to toxin-antitoxin modules only in the case of Gram-negative bacteria like Escherichia coli [104],[105]. Besides, antitoxins usually counteract the toxicity of toxins, rendering their functions futile under normal physiological conditions [106]. Antitoxins are unstable as they are continuously degraded and replenished in the Type II TA systems. However, during environmental stress (such as the application of antibiotics), replenishment of antitoxins is not sufficient, and toxins prevail in the toxin-antitoxin ratios [106],[107]. Our study reflects that it is imperative to put more focus on the investigation of TA modules in the case of S. aureus. Zeta toxin, part of the Omega/Epsilon/Zeta three-component TA system, is considered the cognate of epsilon antitoxin in existing literature [108]. Though each strain showed hits for the presence of Zeta toxin, not a single instance of hits for Epsilon antitoxin was found (Figure 6B).
The pan-genome of the eight S. aureus isolates characterized in this study had 20,217 genes. It was estimated that the number of core genes shared by all the strains is 2007, whereas the number of accessory genes is 3932. Moreover, there were 229 unique genes in the isolates, where SAC 6, 1, and 10 were found to have acquired the highest number of unique genes, that is, 120, 52, and 26, respectively.
The core–pan plot (Figure 7A) represented that the pan-genome of the clinical S. aureus strains was “open” but soon to be closed as the trend curve almost reached a plateau with the addition of more genomes to the analysis. The functional adaptations of Bangladeshi S. aureus showed Bpan values (total expansion rate) of 0.0888959 (i.e., <1) for the number of gene families f(x) in the power-law equation f(x) = a.xb, also suggesting that the pan-genome may be closed soon [109],[110]. This shows that the addition of newer genome sequences is unlikely to make a big difference to the pan-genome size, validating that the sequencing effort for MDR S. aureus was adequate. The core genome was considered “conserved” since its trendline leveled out.
The cluster of orthologs groups (COG) distribution (Figure 7B) reveals that the genes under the categories of different membrane biogenesis, defense mechanisms, replication, recombination, and repair are mostly unique. Despite having representation in core genomes, the percentage difference highlights the inter-species variations of these categories. Besides, the increasing multidrug resistance can be attributed to the enhanced defense mechanisms or mutations introduced during replication, recombination, and repair, each associated with unique genes. Thus, these categories also reflect the possible role of the addition of unique genes in the genome evolution of the strains in their development of multidrug resistance.
The COG distribution (Figure 7B) predicted the core genomes of the eight investigated strains to be predominantly (about 37%) associated with functions of metabolism and transport of carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleotides, coenzymes, lipids, and inorganic ions. These categories also had a decent representation (about 26%) of accessory genomes. However, the unique genes predominate in categories of cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis, defense mechanisms, replication, recombination and repair, and general functions.
A phylogenomic tree based on the whole genome was performed with closely related MDR S. aureus strains (Figure 8A). SAC 1, 4, 8, and 10 are in the same clade; in contrast, SAC 5 and 9 are in the same clade. Meanwhile, SAC 6 is in the clade with reference strains NCTC 8525.
Furthermore, the WGS-based phylogenomic tree (Figure 8A) places SAC 1 separately from the rest of the isolates, and it may have evolved from the same node as Dresden-275757 (isolated from Dresden, Germany), GR2 (isolated from Greece), and 11819-97 (isolated from Denmark). Besides, from the phylogenomic tree, it can be understood that strains originating from the same node (such as SAC 5 and SAC 9) and sharing a common ancestral origin exhibit very similar virulome and genotypic resistance patterns.
Through single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis, an SNP tree was generated (Figure 8B). The SNP tree supports the phylogenomic tree based on the WGS of the strains further: SAC 5 and 9 had a common ancestral origin, sharing a very close relationship reflected by their branch lengths. SAC 3, 4, 8, and 10 originate from the same root. However, unlike the whole-genome-based phylogenomic results, the SNP analysis shows a very close relationship between the strains SAC 1 and 6, grouping them in the same clade.
The study consisted of eight clinical MDR S. aureus strains collected from two hospitals based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We identified several antibiotic-resistance genes, virulence determinants, toxin-antitoxin systems, and biosynthetic gene clusters in the studied strains through WGS analysis. Our study identified four different clonal complexes and the dominance of CC361, with four out of the eight strains belonging to ST361. Given the global prevalence of this sequence type, its rapid emergence in Bangladesh emphasizes the need for ongoing surveillance and research.
The glycopeptide vancomycin remains the gold-standard antibiotic for many clinical cases in Bangladesh for infections caused by MRSA. Our data from antibiotic resistance profiling is coherently suggestive of its efficacy, as 100% of the tested strains were found to be sensitive. Moreover, tigecycline and amikacin exhibited sufficient potency against the tested strains, showing potential as better therapeutic options to combat such infections. However, despite the current phenotypical sensitivity of the strains to vancomycin, tigecycline, and amikacin, data highlighted that their cautionary application is imperative, as the detection of relevant resistance genes raises concerns about the potential for the emergence of resistance under selective pressure. Such a situation also underscores the need to mitigate the reliance on phenotypic assays alone and incorporate more integrative approaches, including genotypic and phenotypic data, to guide treatment decisions. The detected wide array of genes conferring antibiotic resistance in S. aureus mediates their actions in many ways, including antibiotic efflux, inactivation, target alteration, target protection, and target replacement.
Notably, the almost-closed nature of the pan-genome reflected that the sequencing effort was sufficient and the WGS data have considerable practical utility. Further research should focus on identifying the most prevalent genes and their resultant proteins associated with resistance and pathogenicity of the species and target them for drug-designing experiments. Moreover, the studied strains allow for correlation with other clinical isolates of S. aureus in Bangladesh through phylogenomic analyses, enriching the data of S. aureus genome variability and helping shed light on its epidemiology in the country.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
[1] |
Tong SYC, Davis JS, Eichenberger E, et al. (2015) Staphylococcus aureus infections: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev 28: 603-661. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00134-14 ![]() |
[2] |
Self WH, Wunderink RG, Williams DJ, et al. (2016) Staphylococcus aureus community-acquired pneumonia: prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. Clin Infect Dis 63: 300-309. https://doi.org/10.1093/CID/CIW300 ![]() |
[3] |
Grapsa J, Blauth C, Chandrashekhar YS, et al. (2022) Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: jacc patient pathways. JACC Case Reports 4: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACCAS.2021.10.002 ![]() |
[4] |
Kwiecinski JM, Horswill AR (2020) Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: pathogenesis and regulatory mechanisms. Curr Opin Microbiol 53: 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MIB.2020.02.005 ![]() |
[5] |
Malachowa N, Deleo FR (2010) Mobile genetic elements of Staphylococcus aureus. Cell Mol Life Sci 67: 3057-3071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-010-0389-4 ![]() |
[6] | Islam T, Kubra K, Hassan Chowdhury MM (2018) Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Hospitals in Chittagong, Bangladesh: A threat of nosocomial infection. J Microsc Ultrastruct 6: 188-191. https://doi.org/10.4103/JMAU.JMAU_33_18 |
[7] |
Kayili E, Sanlibaba P (2020) Prevalence, characterization and antibiotic resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from traditional cheeses in Turkey. Int J Food Prop 23: 1441-1451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2020.1814323 ![]() |
[8] |
Loomba P, Taneja J, Mishra B (2010) Methicillin and vancomycin resistant S. aureus in hospitalized patients. J Glob Infect Dis 2: 275-283. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-777x.68535 ![]() |
[9] |
Kali A (2015) Antibiotics and bioactive natural products in treatment of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a brief review. Pharmacogn Rev 9: 29-34. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-7847.156329 ![]() |
[10] | Abdallah EM, Mohamed Abdallah E (2016) Medicinal plants as an alternative drug against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Microbiol Allied Sci 3: 35-42. |
[11] |
Zhang K, McClure JA, Elsayed S, et al. (2009) Novel staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec type, tentatively designated type VIII, harboring class A mec and type 4 ccr gene complexes in a Canadian epidemic strain of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53: 531-540. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01118-08 ![]() |
[12] |
Foster TJ (2017) Antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Current status and future prospects. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41: 430-449. https://doi.org/10.1093/FEMSRE/FUX007 ![]() |
[13] |
Hou Z, Liu L, Wei J, et al. (2023) Progress in the prevalence, classification and drug resistance mechanisms of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Drug Resist 16: 3271-3292. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S412308 ![]() |
[14] | Geoghegan JA, Foster TJ (2017) Cell wall-anchored surface proteins of Staphylococcus aureus: Many proteins, multiple functions. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology.Springer Verlag 95-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/82_2015_5002 |
[15] |
Foster TJ, Geoghegan JA, Ganesh VK, et al. (2014) Adhesion, invasion and evasion: The many functions of the surface proteins of Staphylococcus aureus. Nat Rev Microbiol 12: 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3161 ![]() |
[16] | Tam K, Torres VJ (2019) Staphylococcus aureus secreted toxins and extracellular enzymes. Microbiol Spectr 7. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.gpp3-0039-2018 |
[17] | Yusuf MA, Islam S, Shamsuzzaman A, et al. (2013) Burden of infection caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Bangladesh: a systematic review. Glob Adv Res J Microbiol 2: 213-223. |
[18] |
Nickerson EK, West TE, Day NP, et al. (2009) Staphylococcus aureus disease and drug resistance in resource-limited countries in south and east Asia. Lancet Infect Dis 9: 130-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70022-2 ![]() |
[19] |
Chongtrakool P, Ito T, Ma XX, et al. (2006) Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated in 11 Asian countries: A proposal for a new nomenclature for SCCmec elements. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50: 1001-1012. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.50.3.1001-1012.2006 ![]() |
[20] |
Hussain K, Rahman M, Nazir KHMNH, et al. (2016) Methicillin pesistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Patients of Community Based Medical College Hospital, Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Am J Biomed Life Sci 4: 26-29. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajbls.20160403.11 ![]() |
[21] | Roy S, Barman TK, Hossain MA, et al. (2017) Molecular-characterization of methicillin-resistance Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from different Tertiary Care Hospitals in Bangladesh. Mymensingh Med J 26: 37-44. |
[22] |
Rahman MM, Amin KB, Rahman SMM, et al. (2018) Investigation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among clinical isolates from humans and animals by culture methods and multiplex PCR. BMC Vet Res 14: 300. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1611-0 ![]() |
[23] |
Jorgensen JH, Turnidge JD (2015) Susceptibility test methods: dilution and disk diffusion methods. Manual of Clinical Microbiology.John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 1253-1273. https://doi.org/10.1128/9781555817381.ch71 ![]() |
[24] | CLSIM100-performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, clinical and laboratory standards institute (2022). |
[25] |
Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, et al. (2012) Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 18: 268-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x ![]() |
[26] |
Stepanović S, Vuković D, Dakić I, et al. (2000) A modified microtiter-plate test for quantification of staphylococcal biofilm formation. J Microbiol Methods 40: 175-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7012(00)00122-6 ![]() |
[27] |
Wick RR, Judd LM, Gorrie CL, et al. (2017) Unicycler: Resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Comput Biol 13: e1005595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005595 ![]() |
[28] |
Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, et al. (2009) The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25: 2078-2079. https://doi.org/10.1093/BIOINFORMATICS/BTP352 ![]() |
[29] |
Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, et al. (2013) QUAST: Quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 29: 1072-1075. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086 ![]() |
[30] |
Brettin T, Davis JJ, Disz T, et al. (2015) RASTtk: A modular and extensible implementation of the RAST algorithm for building custom annotation pipelines and annotating batches of genomes. Sci Rep 5: 8365. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08365 ![]() |
[31] |
Olson RD, Assaf R, Brettin T, et al. (2023) Introducing the bacterial and viral bioinformatics resource center (BV-BRC): a resource combining PATRIC, IRD and ViPR. Nucleic Acids Res 51: D678-D689. https://doi.org/10.1093/NAR/GKAC1003 ![]() |
[32] |
Wattam AR, Davis JJ, Assaf R, et al. (2017) Improvements to PATRIC, the all-bacterial bioinformatics database and analysis resource center. Nucleic Acids Res 45: D535-D542. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1017 ![]() |
[33] |
Grant JR, Enns E, Marinier E, et al. (2023) Proksee: In-depth characterization and visualization of bacterial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 51: W484-W492. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad326 ![]() |
[34] |
Alcock BP, Huynh W, Chalil R, et al. (2023) CARD 2023: expanded curation, support for machine learning, and resistome prediction at the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database. Nucleic Acids Res 51: D690-D699. https://doi.org/10.1093/NAR/GKAC920 ![]() |
[35] |
Ito T, Hiramatsu K, Oliveira DC, et al. (2009) Classification of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec): Guidelines for reporting novel SCCmec elements. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53: 4961-4967. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00579-09 ![]() |
[36] |
Kondo Y, Ito T, Ma XX, et al. (2007) Combination of multiplex PCRs for staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec type assignment: Rapid identification system for mec, ccr, and major differences in junkyard regions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51: 264-274. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00165-06 ![]() |
[37] |
Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, et al. (2009) BLAST+: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10: 421. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 ![]() |
[38] |
Larsen MV, Cosentino S, Rasmussen S, et al. (2012) Multilocus sequence typing of total-genome-sequenced bacteria. J Clin Microbiol 50: 1355-1361. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.06094-11 ![]() |
[39] |
Griffiths D, Fawley W, Kachrimanidou M, et al. (2010) Multilocus sequence typing of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 48: 770-778. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01796-09 ![]() |
[40] |
Jolley KA, Bray JE, Maiden MCJ (2018) Open-access bacterial population genomics: BIGSdb software, the PubMLST.org website and their applications. Wellcome Open Res 3: 124. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14826.1 ![]() |
[41] |
Bartels MD, Petersen A, Worning P, et al. (2014) Comparing whole-genome sequencing with sanger sequencing for spa typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 52: 4305-4308. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01979-14 ![]() |
[42] |
Cosentino S, Voldby Larsen M, Møller Aarestrup F, et al. (2013) PathogenFinder-distinguishing friend from foe using bacterial whole genome sequence data. PLoS One 8: e77302. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077302 ![]() |
[43] |
Carattoli A, Zankari E, Garciá-Fernández A, et al. (2014) In Silico detection and typing of plasmids using plasmidfinder and plasmid multilocus sequence typing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58: 3895-3903. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02412-14 ![]() |
[44] |
Arndt D, Grant JR, Marcu A, et al. (2016) PHASTER: a better, faster version of the PHAST phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res 44: W16-W21. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw387 ![]() |
[45] |
Zhou Y, Liang Y, Lynch KH, et al. (2011) PHAST: A fast phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res 39: W347-W352. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr485 ![]() |
[46] |
Liu M, Li X, Xie Y, et al. (2019) ICEberg 2.0: An updated database of bacterial integrative and conjugative elements. Nucleic Acids Res 47: D660-D665. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1123 ![]() |
[47] |
Chen L, Yang J, Yu J, et al. (2005) VFDB: a reference database for bacterial virulence factors. Nucleic Acids Res 33: D325-D328. https://doi.org/10.1093/NAR/GKI008 ![]() |
[48] |
Blin K, Shaw S, Augustijn HE, et al. (2023) antiSMASH 7.0: new and improved predictions for detection, regulation, chemical structures and visualisation. Nucleic Acids Res 51: W46-W50. https://doi.org/10.1093/NAR/GKAD344 ![]() |
[49] |
Akarsu H, Bordes P, Mansour M, et al. (2019) TASmania: A bacterial Toxin-Antitoxin Systems database. PLOS Comput Biol 15: e1006946. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1006946 ![]() |
[50] |
Chaudhari NM, Gupta VK, Dutta C (2016) BPGA-an ultra-fast pan-genome analysis pipeline. Sci Rep 6: 24373. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24373 ![]() |
[51] | Rodriguez-R LM, Konstantinidis KT (2016) The enveomics collection: a toolbox for specialized analyses of microbial genomes and metagenomes. PeerJ Prepr 4: e1900v1. https://doi.org/10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.1900V1 |
[52] |
Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M (2019) TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat Commun 10: 2182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3 ![]() |
[53] |
Kaas RS, Leekitcharoenphon P, Aarestrup FM, et al. (2014) Solving the problem of comparing whole bacterial genomes across different sequencing platforms. PLoS One 9: e104984. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0104984 ![]() |
[54] |
Letunic I, Bork P (2021) Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 49: W293-W296. https://doi.org/10.1093/NAR/GKAB301 ![]() |
[55] |
Alam FM, Tasnim T, Afroz S, et al. (2023) Epidemiology and antibiogram of clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates from Tertiary Care Hospitals in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Avicenna J Clin Microbiol Infect 9: 137-147. https://doi.org/10.34172/AJCMI.2022.3391 ![]() |
[56] |
Haque N, Aung MS, Paul SK, et al. (2019) Molecular epidemiological characterization of methicillin-susceptible and -resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from skin and soft tissue infections in Bangladesh. Microb Drug Resist 25: 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1089/mdr.2018.0123 ![]() |
[57] |
Mairi A, Touati A, Lavigne JP (2020) Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST80 Clone: A systematic review. Toxins 12: 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins12020119 ![]() |
[58] |
Sarkhoo E, Udo EE, Boswihi SS, et al. (2021) The dissemination and molecular characterization of clonal complex 361 (CC361) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Kuwait Hospitals. Front Microbiol 12: 658772. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.658772 ![]() |
[59] |
Islam MA, Parveen S, Rahman M, et al. (2019) Occurrence and characterization of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in processed raw foods and ready-to-eat foods in an urban setting of a developing country. Front Microbiol 10: 503. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMICB.2019.00503 ![]() |
[60] |
Kinnevey PM, Shore AC, Brennan GI, et al. (2014) Extensive genetic diversity identified among sporadic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates recovered in Irish hospitals between 2000 and 2012. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58: 1907-1917. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02653-13 ![]() |
[61] |
Boswihi SS, Udo EE, Al-Sweih N (2016) Shifts in the clonal distribution of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Kuwait Hospitals: 1992-2010. PLoS One 11: e0162744. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162744 ![]() |
[62] |
Afroz S, Kobayashi N, Nagashima S, et al. (2008) Genetic characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates carrying Panton-Valentine leukocidin genes in Bangladesh. Jpn J Infect Dis 61: 393-396. https://doi.org/10.7883/yoken.jjid.2008.393 ![]() |
[63] | Weber S, Ehricht R, Slickers P (2010) Genetic fingerprinting of MRSA from Abu Dhabi. ECCMID . |
[64] | Martínez-Meléndez A, Morfín-Otero R, Villarreal-Treviño L, et al. (2015) Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome mec (SCCmec) in coagulase negative staphylococci. Med Univ 17: 229-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RMU.2015.10.003 |
[65] |
Liakopoulos A, Foka A, Vourli S, et al. (2011) Aminoglycoside-resistant staphylococci in Greece: Prevalence and resistance mechanisms. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 30: 701-705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-010-1132-7 ![]() |
[66] | Khoramrooz SS, Alipoor Dolatabad S, Mostafapour Dolatabad F, et al. (2017) Detection of tetracycline resistance genes, aminoglycoside modifying enzymes, and coagulase gene typing of clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus in the Southwest of Iran. Iran J Basic Med Sci 20: 912-919. https://doi.org/10.22038/IJBMS.2017.9114 |
[67] |
Becker B, Cooper MA (2013) Aminoglycoside antibiotics in the 21st century. ACS Chem Biol 8: 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1021/CB3005116 ![]() |
[68] |
Floyd JL, Smith KP, Kumar SH, et al. (2010) LmrS is a multidrug efflux pump of the major facilitator superfamily from Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54: 5406-5412. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00580-10 ![]() |
[69] |
Costa SS, Sobkowiak B, Parreira R, et al. (2019) Genetic diversity of norA, coding for a main efflux pump of Staphylococcus aureus. Front Genet 9: 710. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00710 ![]() |
[70] |
Silva KPT, Sundar G, Khare A (2023) Efflux pump gene amplifications bypass necessity of multiple target mutations for resistance against dual-targeting antibiotic. Nat Commun 14: 3402. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38507-4 ![]() |
[71] |
Sandvik EL, Fazen CH, Henry TC, et al. (2015) Non-monotonic survival of Staphylococcus aureus with respect to ciprofloxacin concentration arises from prophage-dependent killing of persisters. Pharmaceuticals 8: 778-792. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph8040778 ![]() |
[72] |
Lai CC, Chen CC, Lu YC, et al. (2018) The clinical significance of silent mutations with respect to ciprofloxacin resistance in MRSA. Infect Drug Resist 11: 681-687. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S159455 ![]() |
[73] |
Hyun JC, Kavvas ES, Monk JM, et al. (2020) Machine learning with random subspace ensembles identifies antimicrobial resistance determinants from pan-genomes of three pathogens. PLOS Comput Biol 16: e1007608. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1007608 ![]() |
[74] |
Huang H, Wan P, Luo X, et al. (2023) Tigecycline resistance-associated mutations in the mepa efflux pump in Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiol Spectr 11: e0063423. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00634-23 ![]() |
[75] |
Zeng W, Zhang X, Liu Y, et al. (2022) In vitro antimicrobial activity and resistance mechanisms of the new generation tetracycline agents, eravacycline, omadacycline, and tigecycline against clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Front Microbiol 13: 1043736. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1043736 ![]() |
[76] |
Dashtbani-Roozbehani A, Brown MH (2021) Efflux pump mediated antimicrobial resistance by staphylococci in health-related environments: Challenges and the quest for inhibition. Antibiotics 10: 1502. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10121502 ![]() |
[77] |
Miklasińska-Majdanik M (2021) Mechanisms of resistance to macrolide antibiotics among Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 10: 1406. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10111406 ![]() |
[78] |
Rowe SJ, Mecaskey RJ, Nasef M, et al. (2020) Shared requirements for key residues in the antibiotic resistance enzymes ErmC and ErmE suggest a common mode of RNA recognition. J Biol Chem 295: 17476-17485. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA120.014280 ![]() |
[79] | Duran N, Ozer B, Duran GG, et al. (2012) Antibiotic resistance genes & susceptibility patterns in staphylococci. Indian J Med Res 135: 389-396. |
[80] |
Aziz KE, Abdulrahman ZFA (2021) Detection of tetracycline tet(k) gene in clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 761: 012128. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/761/1/012128 ![]() |
[81] |
You Y, Hilpert M, Ward MJ (2013) Identification of Tet45, a tetracycline efflux pump, from a poultry-litter-exposed soil isolate and persistence of tet(45) in the soil. J Antimicrob Chemother 68: 1962-1969. https://doi.org/10.1093/JAC/DKT127 ![]() |
[82] |
Truong-Bolduc QC, Villet RA, Estabrooks ZA, et al. (2014) Native efflux pumps contribute resistance to antimicrobials of skin and the ability of Staphylococcus aureus to colonize skin. J Infect Dis 209: 1485-1493. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jit660 ![]() |
[83] |
Chen C, Hooper DC (2018) Effect of Staphylococcus aureus Tet38 native efflux pump on in vivo response to tetracycline in a murine subcutaneous abscess model. J Antimicrob Chemother 73: 720-723. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx432 ![]() |
[84] |
Vestergaard M, Nøhr-Meldgaard K, Bojer MS, et al. (2017) Inhibition of the ATP synthase eliminates the intrinsic resistance of Staphylococcus aureus towards polymyxins. MBio 8: e01114-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01114-17 ![]() |
[85] |
Thompson MK, Keithly ME, Goodman MC, et al. (2014) Structure and function of the genomically encoded fosfomycin resistance enzyme, FosB, from Staphylococcus aureus. Biochemistry 53: 755-765. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi4015852 ![]() |
[86] |
Chen Y, Ji S, Sun L, et al. (2022) The novel fosfomycin resistance gene fosY is present on a genomic island in CC1 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Emerg Microbes Infect 11: 1166-1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2022.2058421 ![]() |
[87] |
Nurjadi D, Schäfer J, Friedrich-Jänicke B, et al. (2015) Predominance of dfrG as determinant of trimethoprim resistance in imported Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Microbiol Infect 21: 1095.e5-1095.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2015.08.021 ![]() |
[88] |
Pishchany G, Sheldon JR, Dickson CF, et al. (2014) IsdB-dependent hemoglobin binding is required for acquisition of heme by Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis 209: 1764-1772. https://doi.org/10.1093/INFDIS/JIT817 ![]() |
[89] |
Shambat S, Nadig S, Prabhakara S, et al. (2012) Clonal complexes and virulence factors of Staphylococcus aureus from several cities in India. BMC Microbiol 12: 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-12-64 ![]() |
[90] |
Beceiro A, Tomás M, Bou G (2013) Antimicrobial resistance and virulence: A successful or deleterious association in the bacterial world?. Clin Microbiol Rev 26: 185-230. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00059-12 ![]() |
[91] |
Ruiz B, Chávez A, Forero A, et al. (2010) Production of microbial secondary metabolites: Regulation by the carbon source. Crit Rev Microbiol 36: 146-167. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408410903489576 ![]() |
[92] | Grim KP, Radin JN, Solórzano PKP, et al. (2020) Intracellular accumulation of staphylopine can sensitize Staphylococcus aureus to host-imposed zinc starvation by chelation-independent toxicity. J Bacteriol 202: e00014-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00014-20 |
[93] |
Chen C, Hooper DC (2019) Intracellular accumulation of Staphylopine impairs the fitness of Staphylococcus aureus cntE mutant. FEBS Lett 593: 1213-1222. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.13396 ![]() |
[94] |
Dale SE, Doherty-Kirby A, Lajoie G, et al. (2004) Role of siderophore biosynthesis in virulence of Staphylococcus aureus: identification and characterization of genes involved in production of a siderophore. Infect Immun 72: 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.72.1.29-37.2004 ![]() |
[95] |
Tripathi A, Schofield MM, Chlipala GE, et al. (2014) Baulamycins A and B, broad-spectrum antibiotics identified as inhibitors of siderophore biosynthesis in Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus anthracis. J Am Chem Soc 136: 1579-1586. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja4115924 ![]() |
[96] |
Grim KP, San Francisco B, Radin JN, et al. (2017) The metallophore staphylopine enables Staphylococcus aureus to compete with the host for zinc and overcome nutritional immunity. MBio 8: e01281-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01281-17 ![]() |
[97] |
Ghssein G, Ezzeddine Z (2022) The key element role of metallophores in the pathogenicity and virulence of Staphylococcus aureus: A review. Biology 11: 1525. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11101525 ![]() |
[98] |
Parvez A, Giri S, Giri GR, et al. (2018) Novel type iii polyketide synthases biosynthesize methylated polyketides in Mycobacterium marinum. Sci Rep 8: 6529. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24980-1 ![]() |
[99] |
Sun F, Cho H, Jeong DW, et al. (2010) Aureusimines in Staphylococcus aureus Are Not Involved in Virulence. PLoS One 5: e15703. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015703 ![]() |
[100] |
Barbosa J, Caetano T, Mendo S (2015) Class I and Class II lanthipeptides produced by Bacillus spp. J Nat Prod 78: 2850-2866. https://doi.org/10.1021/np500424y ![]() |
[101] |
Hudson GA, Mitchell DA (2018) RiPP antibiotics: biosynthesis and engineering potential. Curr Opin Microbiol 45: 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2018.02.010 ![]() |
[102] |
Stariha LM, McCafferty DG (2021) Discovery of the Class I antimicrobial lasso peptide arcumycin. ChemBioChem 22: 2632-2640. https://doi.org/10.1002/CBIC.202100132 ![]() |
[103] |
Kamruzzaman M, Iredell J (2019) A ParDE-family toxin antitoxin system in major resistance plasmids of Enterobacteriaceae confers antibiotic and heat tolerance. Sci Rep 9: 9872. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46318-1 ![]() |
[104] |
Maisonneuve E, Shakespeare LJ, Jørgensen MG, et al. (2011) Bacterial persistence by RNA endonucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 13206-13211. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100186108 ![]() |
[105] |
Dörr T, Vulić M, Lewis K (2010) Ciprofloxacin causes persister formation by inducing the TisB toxin in Escherichia coli. PLOS Biol 8: e1000317. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.1000317 ![]() |
[106] |
Schuster CF, Bertram R (2013) Toxin–antitoxin systems are ubiquitous and versatile modulators of prokaryotic cell fate. FEMS Microbiol Lett 340: 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6968.12074 ![]() |
[107] |
Mruk I, Kobayashi I (2014) To be or not to be: Regulation of restriction-modification systems and other toxin-antitoxin systems. Nucleic Acids Res 42: 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt711 ![]() |
[108] |
Schuster CF, Bertram R (2016) Toxin-antitoxin systems of Staphylococcus aureus. Toxins 8: 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8050140 ![]() |
[109] |
Motyka-Pomagruk A, Zoledowska S, Misztak AE, et al. (2020) Comparative genomics and pangenome-oriented studies reveal high homogeneity of the agronomically relevant enterobacterial plant pathogen Dickeya solani. BMC Genomics 21: 449. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06863-w ![]() |
[110] |
Sivakumar R, Pranav PS, Annamanedi M, et al. (2023) Genome sequencing and comparative genomic analysis of bovine mastitis-associated Staphylococcus aureus strains from India. BMC Genomics 24: 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-022-09090-7 ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1. | K.M. Shayerul Abedin Shayer, Sabbir R. Shuvo, Ishrat Jabeen, Mahmud Hossain, Sohidul Islam, Draft genome sequence data of Serratia marcescens strain harboring bla from Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2024, 23523409, 111133, 10.1016/j.dib.2024.111133 |
Antibiotic class | Penicillin | Penicillin + beta-lactamase inhibitors | Cephalosporin | Monobactam | Carbapenem | Aminoglycoside | Fluoroquinolone | Macrolide | Tetracycline | Polymyxin | Glycopeptide | |||||||||
Strains (SAC) | AMP | AMC | TZP | FOX | CAZ | CFM | CRO | CTX | FEP | ATM | MEM | AMK | GEN | CIP | LEV | ERY | TET | TGC | COL | VAN |
SAC1 | R | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC3 | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | S | R | R | S | R | S |
SAC4 | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | I | I | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC5 | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | S |
SAC6 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | R | R | S | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC8 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC9 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | R | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC10 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
*R = resistant; S = sensitive; I = intermediate
Name of the strains | Genome size (bp) | aN50 | bL50 | GC (%) | Coding genes | tRNA & rRNA | MLST | Clonal complex (CC) | Spa types | NCBI BioSample ID |
SAC 1 | 2,787,226 | 176,673 | 7 | 32.71 | 2715 | 61 | ST80 | CC80 | T376 | SAMN35731402 |
SAC 3 | 2,754,801 | 131,013 | 5 | 32.66 | 2721 | 57 | ST361 | CC361 | T304 | SAMN35731599 |
SAC 4 | 2,814,822 | 116,081 | 7 | 32.64 | 2963 | 57 | ST361 | CC361 | T463 | SAMN35731600 |
SAC 5 | 2,784,621 | 111,616 | 8 | 32.69 | 2714 | 22 | ST6 | CC5 | T4407 | SAMN35731637 |
SAC 6 | 2,846,622 | 141,025 | 8 | 32.58 | 2807 | 59 | ST8 | CC8 | T3364 | SAMN35731648 |
SAC 8 | 2,709,879 | 70,277 | 14 | 32.62 | 2616 | 21 | ST361 | CC361 | T2379 | SAMN35731650 |
SAC 9 | 2,817,774 | 192,408 | 7 | 32.71 | 2752 | 58 | ST6 | CC5 | T304 | SAMN35731660 |
SAC 10 | 2,801,390 | 108,408 | 8 | 32.65 | 2741 | 59 | ST361 | CC361 | T315 | SAMN35731667 |
**aN50 = Half of the genome assembly is contained in contigs equal to or larger than this value; bL50 = smallest number of contigs (each with its length) in the genome assembly needed to cover approximately half of the total genome size.
Strains | SCCmec types | Predicted ccr gene |
SAC 1 | SCCmec_type_IVa(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 3 | Not detected | ccrC1-allele-2 |
SAC 4 | Not detected | ccrC1-allele-2 |
SAC 5 | SCCmec_type_IVa(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 6 | SCCmec_type_IVc(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 8 | Not detected | ccrC1-allele-2 |
SAC 9 | SCCmec_type_IVa(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 10 | SCCmec_type_IVg(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
Antibiotic class | Penicillin | Penicillin + beta-lactamase inhibitors | Cephalosporin | Monobactam | Carbapenem | Aminoglycoside | Fluoroquinolone | Macrolide | Tetracycline | Polymyxin | Glycopeptide | |||||||||
Strains (SAC) | AMP | AMC | TZP | FOX | CAZ | CFM | CRO | CTX | FEP | ATM | MEM | AMK | GEN | CIP | LEV | ERY | TET | TGC | COL | VAN |
SAC1 | R | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC3 | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | S | R | R | S | R | S |
SAC4 | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | I | I | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC5 | R | I | I | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | S |
SAC6 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | R | R | S | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC8 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC9 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | R | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
SAC10 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | I | R | S | S | R | S |
Name of the strains | Genome size (bp) | aN50 | bL50 | GC (%) | Coding genes | tRNA & rRNA | MLST | Clonal complex (CC) | Spa types | NCBI BioSample ID |
SAC 1 | 2,787,226 | 176,673 | 7 | 32.71 | 2715 | 61 | ST80 | CC80 | T376 | SAMN35731402 |
SAC 3 | 2,754,801 | 131,013 | 5 | 32.66 | 2721 | 57 | ST361 | CC361 | T304 | SAMN35731599 |
SAC 4 | 2,814,822 | 116,081 | 7 | 32.64 | 2963 | 57 | ST361 | CC361 | T463 | SAMN35731600 |
SAC 5 | 2,784,621 | 111,616 | 8 | 32.69 | 2714 | 22 | ST6 | CC5 | T4407 | SAMN35731637 |
SAC 6 | 2,846,622 | 141,025 | 8 | 32.58 | 2807 | 59 | ST8 | CC8 | T3364 | SAMN35731648 |
SAC 8 | 2,709,879 | 70,277 | 14 | 32.62 | 2616 | 21 | ST361 | CC361 | T2379 | SAMN35731650 |
SAC 9 | 2,817,774 | 192,408 | 7 | 32.71 | 2752 | 58 | ST6 | CC5 | T304 | SAMN35731660 |
SAC 10 | 2,801,390 | 108,408 | 8 | 32.65 | 2741 | 59 | ST361 | CC361 | T315 | SAMN35731667 |
Strains | SCCmec types | Predicted ccr gene |
SAC 1 | SCCmec_type_IVa(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 3 | Not detected | ccrC1-allele-2 |
SAC 4 | Not detected | ccrC1-allele-2 |
SAC 5 | SCCmec_type_IVa(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 6 | SCCmec_type_IVc(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 8 | Not detected | ccrC1-allele-2 |
SAC 9 | SCCmec_type_IVa(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |
SAC 10 | SCCmec_type_IVg(2B) | ccrA2, ccrB2 |