Aeromonas dhakensis: Clinical Isolates with High Carbapenem Resistance
by
, , ,
Suat Moi Puah
1,†
,
Wei Ching Khor
2,†
,
Kyaw Thu Aung
2,3,
Tien Tien Vicky Lau
1,
S. D. Puthucheary
1 and
Kek Heng Chua
1,* 1
Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
2
National Centre for Food Science, Singapore Food Agency, 52 Jurong Gateway Road, JEM Office Tower, 14-01, Singapore 608550, Singapore
3
School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 60 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637551, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Pathogens 2022, 11(8), 833; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080833
Submission received: 26 May 2022
/
Revised: 21 July 2022
/
Accepted: 22 July 2022
/
Published: 26 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Bacterial Pathogens)
Abstract
:Aeromonas dhakensis is ubiquitous in aquatic habitats and can cause life-threatening septicaemia in humans. However, limited data are available on their antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) profiles. Hence, we aimed to examine their AST patterns using clinical (n = 94) and non-clinical (n = 23) isolates with dehydrated MicroScan microdilution. Carbapenem resistant isolates were further screened for genes related to carbapenem resistance using molecular assay. The isolates exhibited resistance to imipenem (76.9%), doripenem (62.4%), meropenem (41.9%), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (11.1%), cefotaxime (8.5%), ceftazidime (6%), cefepime (1.7%) and aztreonam (0.9%), whereas all isolates were susceptible to amikacin. Clinical isolates showed significant association with resistance to doripenem, imipenem and meropenem compared to non-clinical isolates. These blacphA were detected in clinical isolates with resistance phenotypes: doripenem (67.2%, 45/67), imipenem (65.9%, 54/82) and meropenem (65.2%, 30/46). Our findings showed that the MicroScan microdilution method is suitable for the detection of carbapenem resistance in both clinical (48.9–87.2%) and non-clinical (4.3–13.0%) isolates. This study revealed that A. dhakensis isolates had relatively high carbapenem resistance, which may lead to potential treatment failure. Continued monitoring of aquatic sources with a larger sample size should be carried out to provide further insights.
1. Introduction
Aeromonas species are ubiquitous, Gram-negative, facultative anaerobes, which can cause a variety of infections in poikilothermic animals and humans [1]. They can be isolated from virtually all environmental niches where bacterial ecosystems exist (aquatic habitats, fish, foods, domesticated pets, invertebrate species, birds, ticks, insects and natural soils). The number of species in the genus increased rapidly in the age of molecular genetics and consists of 36 species reported to date [2]. The exact incidence of Aeromonas infection in humans on a global basis is limited, as many cases are undetected or not reported.
Aeromonas dhakensis (previously named A. hydrophilla or A. aquariorum) is emerging as a clinically important pathogen that can cause severe soft tissue degloving infections arising from occupational and recreational hazards, as well as bloodstream infections in immunocompromised individuals with malignancy and cirrhosis [3]. A higher mortality rate was observed in A. dhakensis bacteraemia compared to bacteraemia caused by non-A. dhakensis species [4]. Researchers reported greater virulence properties in A. dhakensis than other species, such as more robust biofilm formation and a lower survival rate in Caenorhabditis elegans, and some strains exhibited a higher minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for certain antimicrobial agents [4]. Recently, two fatal cases of A. dhakensis bacteraemia and necrotising fasciitis in severe dengue patients were reported in Southern Taiwan, and a fatal case of A. dhakensis septicaemia in a hepatitis B virus-infected patient after the ingestion of a meal of raw snakehead fish was reported in China [5,6].
A. dhakensis has been misidentified as A. hydrophila or A. caviae by phenotypic methods in the past decade. Our previous studies conducted since 2012 identified A. dhakensis as the predominant species (47/94, 50%) among clinical isolates in Malaysia by using a combination gene analysis of GCAT and rpoD genes, as well as multilocus sequence typing [7,8]. Following these studies, the presence of A. dhakensis was reported from aquatic sources in Malaysia, including multipurpose freshwater recreational lakes in Selangor [9], tank water of ornamental fish in Klang Valley [10], food fish in East Malaysia [11] and as clinical isolates of A. dhakensis in Singapore [12]. All aforementioned studies shed light on the clinical relevance of A. dhakensis and its ability to present/colonise various sources posing public health concerns. Recognising its clinical relevance and capability of causing invasive disease, understanding the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profile of A. dhakensis is important to support the selection of optimal treatment regimens. In this study, we examined the antimicrobial resistance patterns of A. dhakensis from clinical and non-clinical sources (ornamental fish tank water, freshwater from a recreational lake and food fish) based on minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) using the broth microdilution method.
2. Results
2.1. AST Patterns
AST results for 18 antimicrobial agents were interpreted according to the CLSI 2015 (Table 1). All isolates were susceptible to amikacin. The top 8 resistance patterns observed in 117 A. dhakensis were present in the following proportions: imipenem, 76.9%; doripenem, 62.4%; meropenem, 41.9%; trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, 11.1%; cefotaxime, 8.5%; ceftazidime, 6.0%; cefepime, 1.7%; and aztreonam, 0.9% (Table 1). The MIC range for imipenem and meropenem was 4 to >8 µg/mL, and most A. dhakensis isolates with >8 µg/mL were observed for imipenem (Malaysia clinical isolates, 72.3% (34/47); Singapore clinical isolates, 90.2% (37/41); non-clinical isolates, 26.1% (6/23)) compared to meropenem. The resistant isolates in our study showed MIC values towards antimicrobial agents as follow: cefotaxime >4 to >32 μg/mL; ceftazidime and aztreonam, >16 μg/mL; cefepime, 16 μg/mL; doripenem, 4 to 4 μg/mL; imipenem and meropenem, 4 to 8 μg/mL; and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, >4/76 μg/mL.
Our study revealed that clinical A. dhakensis isolates exhibited > 2.5-fold significantly higher carbapenem resistance than non-clinical isolates, i.e., doripenem, 71.3% vs. 26.1% (p-value = 0.0001); imipenem, 87.2% vs. 34.8% (p-value = 0.0001); and meropenem, 48.9% vs. 13.0% (p-value = 0.0019). Further comparison between the clinical isolates from Malaysia and Singapore (Table 2) showed comparable resistance rates against carbapenems: doripenem, 70.2% and 72.3%; imipenem, 87.2% for both countries; and meropenem, 48.9% in both countries. However, Singapore had a significantly higher proportion of resistance than Malaysia’s clinical isolates to cefotaxime (19.1% vs. 0%) and ceftazidime (14.9% vs. 0%). Six clinical A. dhakensis recovered from Singapore (one stent, one bile drain, one fluid, one wound, one peritoneal fluid and one blood) had a cefotaxime MIC of 32 µg/mL.
2.2. Comparison of Categorisation Results Using CLSI and EUCAST
Application of the EUCAST 2020 increased the number of resistant isolates when compared to CLSI 2015 for ceftazidime (8.6% vs. 6.0%), aztreonam (1.7% vs. 0.9%), ciprofloxacin (3.4% vs. 0%) and levofloxacin (0.9% vs. 0%) (Table 3).
2.3. Screening for Carbapenem-Resistant Genes
Of seven genes investigated, six genes (blaKPC, blaVIM, blaNDM, blaGES-24, blaIMP-19 and blaOXA-48) were not detected in any of the tested isolates, except for blacphA. The presence of blacphA was detected in carbapenem resistant isolates with clinical origins but not observed in non-clinical isolates. Overall, more than 65% of carbapenem resistant clinical isolates carried blacphA in resistance phenotypes: doripenem (67.2%, 45/67), imipenem (65.9%, 54/82) and meropenem (65.2%, 30/46).
3. Discussion
A. dhakensis, increasingly recognised as an emerging human pathogen, was identified as the predominant Aeromonas species among clinical isolates in Malaysia (50%, 47/94) and Singapore (40.5%, 47/116). The similarity of dominant species in the two countries may be due to comparable environmental factors, such as climate, temperature and humidity, as well as dietary patterns. In this study, although the 94 clinical isolates recovered from patients in Malaysia and Singapore were previously characterised through molecular fingerprinting as not clonally related, A. dhakensis isolates from both countries were found to harbour a higher number of virulence genes when compared to other Aeromonas species [12]. All clinical isolates were positive for at least 6 of the 15 virulence genes, and these genes (ela, lip, alt, ser, exu, fla and aer) were present in ≥90% of the isolates (Supplementary Figure S1). The dominance of A. dhakensis infections in Malaysia and Singapore was postulated to be an indication of the virulence potential of this species, in accordance with findings of other studies [13,14]. Furthermore, A. dhakensis in both countries were revealed to be not unequivocally considered diarrhoeal pathogens, as they were frequently isolated from extraintestinal sites, i.e., most frequently from pus/wound culture in Malaysia clinical isolates and from blood culture from Singapore clinical isolates [12]. Whereas antimicrobials are usually not prescribed for self-limiting diarrhoeal infections, empirical clinical antimicrobial therapy may be considered for severe diarrhoea (e.g., bloody diarrhoea) or invasive infections (e.g., septicaemia). Recognising the clinical relevance of A. dhakensis and its ability to cause invasive disease, the antimicrobial resistance profiles of the A. dhakensis from clinical and non-clinical sources generated from this study could facilitate a better understanding of the antimicrobial resistance traits of the pathogen to support the selection of optimal treatment regimens for disease management.
Carbapenems are recognised as a critically important antimicrobial (CIA) by the World Health Organization for human medicine. Resistance to such antimicrobials is a public health concern, as it would render treatment of infection less effective and increase healthcare costs. The mortality rate of patients infected with carbapenem resistant Aeromonas spp. due to meropenem treatment failure was reported as 33.3% (7/21) and 100% in patients with bacteraemia [15]. Further genotypic screening revealed that more than 65% of carbapenem resistant clinical isolates carried the chromosomally encoded metallo-beta-lactamase blacphA, suggesting an intrinsic AMR mechanism could underlie the local epidemiology of resistant Aeromonas infections in the investigated countries. However, the clinical isolates included in our study were from selected public hospitals and might not represent complete case data to draw a concrete conclusion on resistance patterns from both countries. In the future, more samples from more hospitals in these countries could be screened to further substantiate our current findings.
Antimicrobial resistance of clinical A. dhakensis to imipenem and meropenem has been reported previously in two studies in Taiwan but with lower frequencies compared to this study [4,13]. Chen et al. reported that the resistance rate of imipenem was 10.8% (4/37) using E-test strips [4]. Wu et al. documented a resistance rate of 4.2% (2/48) for both imipenem and meropenem using the broth microdilution method of the Trek Sensititre system [13]. The relatively higher carbapenem resistance rate in the clinical isolates in our study has three possible explanations:(i) different platforms with different inoculum preparations; (ii) geographically related variations in antimicrobial resistance patterns due to differences in the healthcare system, particularly in terms of treatment regimen recommended, practices of healthcare professionals and patients’ behaviour towards the use of antimicrobials; or (iii) indirect factors, such as lifestyle, seasonal difference, dietary preference, e.g., the Southeast Asia region exhibits a remarkably high per capita fish consumption of 33.4 kg compared to Asia as a whole (21.3 kg) [16]. This calls for constant monitoring of A. dhakensis from aquatic-related sources for public health mitigation. It also underscores that clinical empirical carbapenem therapy for A. dhakensis infection should be used with caution.
Among non-clinical isolates, those recovered from the gills of healthy food fish Marble Goby exhibited a relatively higher resistance rate to carbapenems than that of others (ornamental fish tank water and recreational lake water): imipenem, 100% vs. 16.7% and 100%; doripenem, 75% vs. 16.7% and 0%; and meropenem, 25% vs. 11.1% and 0% (Data not shown). The occurrence of A. dhakensis (12.7%, 8/63) was also reported in freshly and moribund Nile tilapia samples in India [17]. The study reported that one A. dhakensis isolate randomly selected for AMR profiling showed resistance towards imipenem and meropenem with an MIC >32 µg/mL via MIC strips (HiMedia), whereas, in our study, we determined the MIC of the carbapenems (imipenem and meropenem) to be up to 8 µg/mL. The detection of carbapenem resistant A. dhakensis in food fish revealed a potential risk to public health, as well as a potential pathway for humans to acquire resistant bacteria through consumption of aquaculture food contaminated with resistant bacteria. However, only a limited number of isolates (n = 4) from a relatively small sample size of food fish (n = 15) collected at intervals from November 2015 to October 2017 were used in the study. Further longitudinal monitoring for AMR A. dhakensis with larger sample size and increased sampling coverage, preferably complemented by whole-genome sequencing, should be carried out to identify possible transmission routes of A. dhakensis. The exceptional rate of aquaculture growth in Asia as a region should also be considered in terms of meeting the majority of the global seafood demand. Intensification of the aquaculture system might be expected to drive the usage of antimicrobials to maintain animal health. Hence, continued monitoring of resistant aeromonads is warranted using a larger sample size in the environmental niches that the bacterium possibly inhabits.
Among the three carbapenems, the AST for meropenem of the 94 clinical isolates and 4 non-clinical isolates from food fish (Marble Goby) was previously reported using the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method [11,12]. However, in these studies, only one meropenem resistant clinical isolate was detected, and no resistance was observed in food fish isolates. Possible explanations for the discrepancy between the results of microdilution and disk diffusion assays could be the concentrations of antimicrobial agents and different inoculum preparation methods. MicroScan Prompt (the microdilution method used in this study) preparation offers a standardised inoculum (generally expected inoculum size: 6.9 × 105 cfu/mL), whereas the disk diffusion test requires manual preparation with inoculums adjusted to match a 0.5 MacFarland turbidity standard (104–105 cfu/mL). The determination of in vitro susceptibility of carbapenemase-producing aeromonads by disk diffusion or dilution techniques usually yields a susceptible genotype unless using a large inoculum (3 × 108 cfu/mL) [18]. For the detection of meropenem resistance in A. dhakensis, Sinclair et al. reported a low accuracy of disk diffusion (2.6%, 1/39) and E-test (0%) compared to the microdilution method (61.5%, 24/39) [19]. By using the microdilution method via the MicroScan system, the emergence of carbapenem resistance of Aeromonas spp., including A. dhakensis, was reported in Colombia [15]. This observation underscores the importance of selecting an appropriate method for the examination of carbapenem resistance in Aeromonas.
Each AST detection platform has inherent strengths and limitations. As shown in this study, most MIC results from MicroScan for nine antimicrobial agents—piperacillin/tazobactam, cefuroxime, cefoxitin, ertapenem, gentamicin, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and chloramphenicol—were outside the reference MIC range of CLSI. These MIC results were categorised as “not determinable”, as the MICs could not be assessed using CLSI 2015 breakpoints (Table 3). A high rate of “not determinable” was observed in cefoxitin (82.9%) and ertapenem (62.4%) (Table 1). This also calls for continuous improvement of commercial platforms to incorporate the latest antimicrobial breakpoints [20].
The kappa statistics for A. dhakensis showed almost perfect agreement (kappa value: 0.810–1.000) between CLSI 2015 and EUCAST 2020 for cefepime, ceftazidime and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. There is no interpretative breakpoint for carbapenem resistance provided by EUCAST 2020; thus, the agreement of carbapenem resistance between EUCAST and CLSI methods was not discussed in this study. For ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin, kappa analysis revealed no agreement (kappa value = 0), as four clinical isolates with MIC >2 µg/mL interpreted as susceptible to ciprofloxacin by CLSI 2015 were categorised as resistant by EUCAST 2020. On the other hand, a clinical isolate with >4 µg/mL interpreted as susceptible to levofloxacin by CLSI 2015 was categorised as resistance by EUCAST 2020. Overall, EUCAST 2020 has a more stringent breakpoint for susceptibility for selected antimicrobial agents compared to CLSI 2015 (Table 3). The stringent breakpoint might help to curb the inappropriate use of antibiotics and control the rising rate of AMR, but this may require further harmonisation, as this has implications for laboratories considering switching between CLSI and EUCAST, as well as for a large-scale AMR surveillance comparing data within and between countries.
Further investigation of the genetic background of carbapenem resistant isolates in our study revealed a chromosomally encoded metallo-β-lactamase cphA gene, indicating that these clinical isolates are attributed to intrinsic resistance. This finding is in agreement with previously published reports on A. dhakensis isolated from human infections in Australia [19], Taiwan [20] and China [21]. The results suggest that clinical use of carbapenem monotherapy should be considered with caution in order to avoid potential treatment failure and that alternative antimicrobial treatment options, such as fourth-generation cephalosporins, quinolones, amikacin, aztreonam and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, remain active for most A. dhakensis isolates.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Bacterial Isolates
A total of 117 A. dhakensis isolates were retrieved from previous studies [7,8,9,10,11,12,22]. These isolates consisted of 94 clinical isolates from Malaysia and Singapore and 23 non-clinical isolates from Malaysia (Table 4). Briefly, these isolates were recovered using Aeromonas selective agar, and their genus identities were confirmed using GCAT gene and species level using rpoD gene sequencing. For non-clinical strains, non-replicate isolate clones were confirmed using enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus PCR. The bacterial isolates were revived from glycerol stock onto 3 mL of LB broth and incubated at 35 °C for 20 h with agitation. The next day, bacterial suspensions were subcultured on LB agar and incubated at 35 °C for 20 h.
4.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
The isolates were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing by the broth microdilution using a MicroScan plate (Beckman Coulter, CA, USA). Four well-isolated colonies were selected using an inoculation wand of the Prompt Inoculation System D and inoculated into a diluent. Following mixing, 115 µL of bacterial suspension was added to each well of the MicroScan plate. The plates were incubated at 35 °C for 20 h, and MIC values were determined manually, followed by susceptibility categorisation based on the CLSI and EUCAST guidelines [23,24]. Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853 were used as quality-control organisms as per the manufacturer’s protocol.
4.3. Screening for Carbapenem-Resistant Genes
The genomic DNA of carbapenem resistant A. dhakensis isolates was extracted using the boiling method [25]. These isolates were screened for seven carbapenem-related genes, including blacphA, blaKPC, blaVIM, blaNDM, blaGES-24, blaIMP-19 and blaOXA-48, using primers and conditions as described in published studies (Supplementary Table S1). A representative of a positive isolate was randomly chosen and confirmed by direct DNA sequencing.
5. Conclusions
In summary, our study revealed a high prevalence of carbapenem resistance in A. dhakensis clinical isolates, and most of these isolates were found to harbour the blacphA gene, which is linked to intrinsic resistance. Given their inherent nature, A. dhakensis infections could be difficult to be treated with carbapenem monotherapy before screening. Therefore, the reliable identification of carbapenemase-producing isolates is an important first step in prescribing an appropriate drug in order to prevent the development of untreatable infections.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens11080833/s1, Figure S1: Primers sequences used for carbapenem resistant genes detection; Table S1: Heatmap of presence/absence of the 15 genes with variable pattern of virulence among clinical Aeromonas dhakensis. References [26,27,28,29,30] are mentioned in Supplementary file.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, W.C.K. and S.M.P.; methodology, W.C.K. and K.T.A.; data collection, S.M.P. and T.T.V.L.; data analysis, S.M.P. and W.C.K.; resources, K.H.C., S.D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.P.; writing—review and editing, W.C.K., K.T.A., S.D.P. and K.H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments
This work was a collaborative project between University Malaya and Singapore Food Agency. The authors gratefully appreciate and thank staff of the University Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia and Singapore General Hospital for their donation of clinical isolates and initiation of the Aeromonas research.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Fernández-Bravo, A.; Figueras, M.J. An update on the genus Aeromonas: Taxonomy, epidemiology, and pathogenicity. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Puah, S.M.; Khor, W.C.; Kee, B.P.; Tan, J.A.M.A.; Puthucheary, S.D.; Chua, K.H. Development of a species-specific PCR-RFLP targeting rpoD gene fragment for discrimination of Aeromonas species. J. Med. Microbiol. 2018, 67, 1271–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, P.L.; Lamy, B.; Ko, W.C. Aeromonas dhakensis, an increasingly recognized human pathogen. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, P.L.; Wu, C.J.; Chen, C.S.; Tsai, P.J.; Tang, H.J.; Ko, W.C. A comparative study of clinical Aeromonas dhakensis and Aeromonas hydrophila isolates in southern Taiwan: A. dhakensis is more predominant and virulent. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014, 20, O428–O434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, H.L.; Chen, P.L.; Lin, S.Y.; Chen, T.C.; Chang, K.; Ko, W.C.; Lu, P.L.; Chen, Y.H. Two fatal cases of Aeromonas dhakensis bacteremia and necrotising fasciitis in severe dengue patients. J. Microbial. Immunol. Infect. 2018, 51, 692–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, M.; Chen, H.; Li, C.; Liu, Y.; Gan, C.; El-Sayed Ahmed, M.A.E.; Liu, R.; Shen, C.; Zhong, R.; Tian, G.B.; et al. Rapid fulminant progression and mortality secondary to Aeromonas dhakensis septicemia with Hepatitis B virus infection following the ingestion of snakehead fish in Mainland China: A case report. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2020, 17, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puthucheary, S.D.; Puah, S.M.; Chua, K.H. Molecular characterisation of clinical isolates of Aeromonas species from Malaysia. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lau, T.T.V.; Tan, J.M.A.; Puthucheary, S.D.; Puah, S.M.; Chua, K.H. Genetic relatedness and novel sequence types of clinical Aeromonas dhakensis from Malaysia. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2020, 51, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khor, W.C.; Puah, S.M.; Tan, J.A.; Puthucheary, S.D.; Chua, K.H. Phenotypic and genetic diversity of Aeromonas species isolated from freshwater lakes in Malaysia. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0145933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cheok, Y.Y.; Puah, S.M.; Chua, K.H.; Tan, J.A.M.A. Isolation and molecular identification of Aeromonas species from the tank waters of ornamental fishes. Acta Vet. Hung. 2020, 68, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lau, T.V.V.; Puah, S.M.; Hon, C.K.K.; Ching, F.F.; Tan, J.A.M.A.T.; Puthucheary, S.D.; Lee, P.C.; Chua, K.H. Isolation, molecular characterisation, and antimicrobial susceptibility of Aeromonas spp. isolated from Tiger Grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus) and Marble Goby (Oxyeleotris marmoratus) fish in Sabah, Malaysia. Aquac. Res. 2020, 51, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khor, W.C.; Puah, S.M.; Koh, T.H.; Tan, J.A.M.A.; Puthucheary, S.D.; Chua, K.H. Comparison of clinical isolates of Aeromonas from Singapore and Malaysia with regard to molecular identification, virulence and antimicrobial profiles. Microb. Drug Resist. 2018, 24, 469–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, C.J.; Chen, P.L.; Hsueh, P.R.; Chang, M.C.; Tsai, P.J.; Shih, H.I.; Wang, H.C.; Chou, P.H.; Ko, W.C. Clinical implications of species identification in monomicrobial Aeromonas bacteremia. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0117821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.J.; Ko, W.C.; Lee, N.Y.; Su, S.L.; Li, C.W.; Li, M.C.; Chen, Y.W.; Su, Y.C.; Shu, C.Y.; Lin, Y.T.; et al. Aeromonas isolates from fish and patients in Tainan City, Taiwan: Genotypic and phenotypic characteristics. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e01360-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosso, F.; Cedano, J.A.; Parra-Lara, L.G.; Sanz, A.M.; Toala, A.; Velez, J.F.; Hormaza, M.P.; Moncada, P.A.; Correa, A. Emerging carbapenem-resistant Aeromonas spp. infections in Cali, Colombia. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 23, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, C.Y.; Tran, N.; Dao, C.D.; Sulser, T.B.; Phillips, M.J.; Batka, M.; Wiebe, K.; Preston, N. Fish to 2050 in the ASEAN Region; Working Paper: 2017-01; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Preena, P.G.; Dharmaratnam, A.; Jayadradhan Rejish Kumar, V.; Swaminathan, T.R. Plasmid-mediated antimicrobial resistance in motile aeromonads from diseased Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquac. Res. 2021, 52, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roossolini, G.M.; Walsh, T.; Amicosante, G. The Aeromonas metallo-β-lactamases: Genetics, enzymology, and contribution to drug resistance. Microb. Drug Resist. 1996, 2, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinclair, H.A.; Heney, C.; Sidjabat, H.E.; George, N.M.; Bergh, H.; Anuj, S.N.; Nimmo, G.R.; Paterson, D.L. Genotypic and phenotypic identification of Aeromonas species and CphA-mediated carbapenem resistance in Queensland, Australia. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2016, 85, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.J.; Chen, P.L.; Wu, J.J.; Yan, J.J.; Lee, C.C.; Lee, H.C.; Lee, N.Y.; Chang, C.M.; Lin, Y.T.; Chiu, Y.C.; et al. Distribution and phenotypic and genotypic detection of a metallo-β-lactamase, CphA, among bacteraemic Aeromonas isolates. J. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 61 Pt 5, 712–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, W.; Fang, R.; Wu, Q.; He, H.; Xu., C.; Zhou, C.; Cao, J.; Chen, L.; et al. Taxonomy, virulence determinants and antimicrobial susceptibility of Aeromonas spp. isolated from bacteremia in southeastern China. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2021, 10, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puah, S.M.; Puthucheary, S.D.; Liew, F.Y.; Chua, K.H. Aeromonas aquariorum clinical isolates: Antimicrobial profiles, plasmids and genetic determinants. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2013, 41, 281–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standrads Institute (CLSI). Methods for Antimicrobial Dilution and Disk Susceptibility Testing of Infrequently Isolated or Fastidious Bacteria, 3rd ed.; CLSI Guideline M45; Clinical and laboratotry Standard Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters; Version 10.0; 2020. Available online: http://www.eucast.org (accessed on 30 September 2021).
- Puah, S.M.; Tan, J.A.M.A.; Chew, C.H.; Chua, K.H. Diverse profiles of biofilm and adhesion genes in Staphylococcus aureus food strains isolated from sushi and sashimi. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 2337–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dallenne, C.; Da Costa, A.; Decré, D.; Favier, C.; Arlet, G. Development of a set of multiplex PCR assays for the detection of genes encoding important beta-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Poirel, L.; Walsh, T.R.; Cuvillier, V.; Nordmann, P. Multiplex PCR for detection of acquired carbapenemase genes. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2011, 70, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poirel, L.; Le Thomas, I.; Naas, T.; Karim, A.; Nordmann, P. Biochemical sequence analyses of GES-1, a novel class A extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, and the class 1 integron In52 from Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000, 44, 622–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neuwirth, C.; Siebor, E.; Robin, F.; Bonnet, R. First occurrence of an IMP metallo-beta-lactamase in Aeromonas caviae: IMP-19 in an isolate from France. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2007, 51, 4486–4488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szekely, E.; Damjanova, I.; Janvari, L.; Vas, K.E.; Molnar, S.; Bilca, D.V.; Lorinczi, L.K.; Toth, A. First description of bla(NDM-1), bla(OXA-48), bla(OXA-181) producing Enterobacteriaceae strains in Romania. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 303, 697–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Antibiotic susceptibility profile of clinical and non-clinical Aeromonas dhakensis.
| Antimicrobial Class | Antimicrobial Agent | Interpretative Break Points # (µg/mL) | Total (n = 117) | Clinical Isolates (n = 94) | Non-Clinical Isolates (n = 23) | p Value | ND | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Susceptible/Resistant | R n (%) | S n (%) | I n (%) | R n (%) | S n (%) | I n (%) | R n (%) | ||||
| Penicillins and beta-lactam | Piperacillin/Tazobactam | ≤16/4/≥128/4 | 0 (0) | 83 (88.3) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 16 (69.6) | 5 (21.7) | 0 (0) | 1 | 12 (10.3) |
| Cephems | Cefuroxime | ≤8/≥32 | 0 (0) | 83 (88.3) | 2 (2.1) | 0 (0) | 21 (91.3) | 2 (8.7) | 0 (0) | 1 | 9 (7.7) |
| Cefotaxime | ≤1/≥4 | 10 (8.5) | 81 (86.2) | 4 (4.3) | 9 (9.6) | 19 (82.6) | 3 (13.0) | 1 (4.3) | 0.6847 | 0 (0) | |
| Cefoxitin | ≤8/≥32 | 0 (0) | 9 (9.6) | 7 (7.4) | 0 (0) | 1 (4.3) | 2 (8.7) | 0 (0) | 1 | 97 (82.9) | |
| Ceftazidime | ≤4/≥16 | 7 (6.0) | 85 (90.4) | 2 (2.1) | 7 (7.4) | 22 (95.7) | 1 (4.3) | 0 (0) | 0.3428 | 0 (0) | |
| Cefepime | ≤4/≥16 | 2 (1.7) | 90 (95.7) | 2 (2.1) | 2 (2.1) | 23 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | 0 (0) | |
| Carbapenems | Doripenem | ≤1/≥4 | 73 (62.4) | 17 (18.1) | 10 (10.6) | 67 (71.3) | 15 (65.2) | 2 (8.7) | 6 (26.1) | 0.0001 * | 0 (0) |
| Ertapenem | ≤0.5/≥2 | 0 (0) | 13 (13.8) | 14 (14.9) | 0 (0) | 14 (60.9) | 2 (8.7) | 0 (0) | 1 | 73 (62.4) | |
| Imipenem | ≤1/≥4 | 90 (76.9) | 11 (11.7) | 1 (1.1) | 82 (87.2) | 15 (65.2) | 0 (0) | 8 (34.8) | 0.0001 * | 0 (0) | |
| Meropenem | ≤1/≥4 | 49 (41.9) | 29 (30.9) | 19 (20.2) | 46 (48.9) | 18 (78.3) | 2 (8.7) | 3 (13.0) | 0.0019 * | 0 (0) | |
| Monobactams | Aztreonam | ≤4/≥16 | 1 (0.9) | 93 (98.9) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 22 (95.7) | 0 (0) | 1 (4.3) | 0.1949 | 0 (0) |
| Aminoglycosides | Amikacin | ≤16/≥64 | 0 (0) | 93 (98.9) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 21 (91.3) | 2 (8.7) | 0 (0) | 1 | 0 (0) |
| Gentamicin | ≤4/≥16 | 0 (0) | 85 (90.4) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 22 (95.7) | 1 (4.3) | 0 (0) | 1 | 8 (6.8) | |
| Tetracyclines | Tetracycline | ≤4/≥16 | 0 (0) | 60 (63.8) | 5 (5.3) | 0 (0) | 20 (87.0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | 32 (27.4) |
| Fluoroquinolones | Ciprofloxacin | ≤1/≥4 | 0 (0) | 91 (96.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 22 (95.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | 4 (3.4) |
| Levofloxacin | ≤1/≥8 | 0 (0) | 93 (98.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 23 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | 1 (0.9) | |
| Folate Pathway Inhibitors | Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole | ≤2/38/≥4/76 | 13 (11.1) | 82 (87.2) | 0 (0) | 12 (12.8) | 22 (95.7) | 0 (0) | 1 (4.3) | 0.4588 | 0 (0) |
| Phenicols | Chloramphenicol | ≤8/≥32 | 0 (0) | 85 (90.4) | 4 (4.2) | 0 (0) | 21 (91.3) | 2 (8.7) | 0 (0) | 1 | 5 (4.3) |
Interpretative break points: #—based on CLSI guideline M45-A3 (2015); ND—not determinable, as the MicroScan MIC ranges are outside the CLSI breakpoints (2015); S—susceptible; I—intermediate; R—resistant; *—statistical significance at the 5% level (fisher exact test with a 2 × 2 contingency table).
Table 2.
Comparison of antibiotic susceptibility profiles of clinical Aeromonas dhakensis isolates between Malaysia and Singapore.
Table 2.
Comparison of antibiotic susceptibility profiles of clinical Aeromonas dhakensis isolates between Malaysia and Singapore.
| Antimicrobial Agent | Malaysia (47 Isolates) n (%) | Singapore (47 Isolates) n (%) | Total (94 Isolates) n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cefotaxime | ||||
| Susceptible | 46 (97.9) | 35 (74.5) | 81 (86.2) | |
| Intermediate | 1 (2.1) | 3 (6.4) | 4 (4.3) | |
| Resistance | 0 | 9 (19.1) | 9 (9.6) | |
| Ceftazidime | ||||
| Susceptible | 47 (100) | 38 (80.9) | 85 (90.4) | |
| Intermediate | 0 | 2 (4.3) | 2 (2.1) | |
| Resistance | 0 | 7 (14.9) | 7 (7.4) | |
| Cefepime | ||||
| Susceptible | 47 (100) | 43 (91.5) | 90 (95.7) | |
| Intermediate | 0 | 2 (4.3) | 2 (2.1) | |
| Resistance | 0 | 2 (4.3) | 2 (2.1) | |
| Doripenem | ||||
| Susceptible | 9 (19.1) | 8 (17.0) | 17 (18.1) | |
| Intermediate | 5 (10.6) | 5 (10.6) | 10 (10.6) | |
| Resistance | 33 (70.2) | 34 (72.3) | 67 (71.3) | |
| Imipenem | ||||
| Susceptible | 6 (12.8) | 5 (10.6) | 11 (11.7) | |
| Intermediate | 0 | 1 (2.1) | 1 (1.1) | |
| Resistance | 41 (87.2) | 41 (87.2) | 82 (87.2) | |
| Meropenem | ||||
| Susceptible | 15 (31.9) | 14 (29.8) | 29 (30.9) | |
| Intermediate | 9 (19.1) | 10 (21.3) | 19 (20.2) | |
| Resistance | 23 (48.9) | 23 (48.9) | 46 (48.9) | |
| Aztreonam | ||||
| Susceptible | 47 (100) | 46 (97.9) | 93 (98.9) | |
| Intermediate | 0 | 1 (2.1) | 1 (1.1) | |
| Resistance | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole | ||||
| Susceptible | 40 (85.1) | 42 (89.4) | 82 (87.2) | |
| Intermediate | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Resistance | 7 (14.9) | 5 (10.6) | 12 (12.8) | |
Table 3.
Differences between Aeromonas dhakensis isolate susceptibilities to various antimicrobials in accordance with CLSI 2015 and EUCAST 2020 recommendations.
Table 3.
Differences between Aeromonas dhakensis isolate susceptibilities to various antimicrobials in accordance with CLSI 2015 and EUCAST 2020 recommendations.
| Antimicrobial Agent | Susceptible/Resistant MIC Points | Susceptible | Intermediate | Resistant | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLSI 2015 | EUCAST 2020 | CLSI 2015 | EUCAST 2020 | Kappa Value | CLSI 2015 | EUCAST 2020 | Kappa Value | CLSI 2015 | EUCAST 2020 | Kappa Value | |
| Cefepime | ≤4/≥ 16 | ≤1/>4 | 113 | 112 | 0.885 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.000 |
| Ceftazidime | ≤4/≥16 | ≤1/>4 | 107 | 106 | 0.948 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 0.810 |
| Aztreonam | ≤4/≥ 16 | ≤1/>4 | 115 | 114 | 0.796 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0.663 |
| Ciprofloxacin | ≤1/≥ 4 | ≤0.25/>0.5 | 113 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Levofloxacin | ≤1/≥ 8 | ≤0.25/>1 | 116 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Trimethoprim/sulfamethazole | ≤2/38/≥ 4/76 | ≤2/ 4 | 104 | 104 | 1.000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 10 | 0.856 |
Table 4.
Aeromonas dhakensis isolates used in this study.
| Isolates | Origins | Malaysia | Singapore |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical | Stool | 27 | 13 |
| Peritoneal fluid | 5 | 1 | |
| Pus/wound | 13 | 8 | |
| Urine | 1 | 1 | |
| Others * | 1 | 4 | |
| Blood | 10 | ||
| Bile | 6 | ||
| Tissue | 3 | ||
| Sputum | 1 | ||
| Total | 47 | 47 | |
| Non-clinical | Ornamental fish tank water | 18 | |
| Freshwater recreational lake | 1 | ||
| Food fish (Marble Goby) | 4 | ||
| Total | 23 |
* Others from lung, fluid and stent.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Puah, S.M.; Khor, W.C.; Aung, K.T.; Lau, T.T.V.; Puthucheary, S.D.; Chua, K.H. Aeromonas dhakensis: Clinical Isolates with High Carbapenem Resistance. Pathogens 2022, 11, 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080833
AMA Style
Puah SM, Khor WC, Aung KT, Lau TTV, Puthucheary SD, Chua KH. Aeromonas dhakensis: Clinical Isolates with High Carbapenem Resistance. Pathogens. 2022; 11(8):833. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080833
Chicago/Turabian StylePuah, Suat Moi, Wei Ching Khor, Kyaw Thu Aung, Tien Tien Vicky Lau, S. D. Puthucheary, and Kek Heng Chua. 2022. "Aeromonas dhakensis: Clinical Isolates with High Carbapenem Resistance" Pathogens 11, no. 8: 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11080833
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
