Next Article in Journal
Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Tegoprazan in Lipopolysaccharide-Stimulated Bone-Marrow-Derived Macrophages
Next Article in Special Issue
RanBP2/Nup358 Mediates Sumoylation of STAT1 and Antagonizes Interferon-α-Mediated Antiviral Innate Immunity
Previous Article in Journal
Detrimental Actions of Chlorinated Nucleosides on the Function and Viability of Insulin-Producing Cells
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Virulence Mechanisms of Staphylococcal Animal Pathogens

Pathogen Molecular Genetics Section, Laboratory of Bacteriology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 50 South Drive, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(19), 14587; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241914587
Submission received: 25 August 2023 / Revised: 20 September 2023 / Accepted: 23 September 2023 / Published: 26 September 2023

Abstract

:
Staphylococci are major causes of infections in mammals. Mammals are colonized by diverse staphylococcal species, often with moderate to strong host specificity, and colonization is a common source of infection. Staphylococcal infections of animals not only are of major importance for animal well-being but have considerable economic consequences, such as in the case of staphylococcal mastitis, which costs billions of dollars annually. Furthermore, pet animals can be temporary carriers of strains infectious to humans. Moreover, antimicrobial resistance is a great concern in livestock infections, as there is considerable antibiotic overuse, and resistant strains can be transferred to humans. With the number of working antibiotics continuously becoming smaller due to the concomitant spread of resistant strains, alternative approaches, such as anti-virulence, are increasingly being investigated to treat staphylococcal infections. For this, understanding the virulence mechanisms of animal staphylococcal pathogens is crucial. While many virulence factors have similar functions in humans as animals, there are increasingly frequent reports of host-specific virulence factors and mechanisms. Furthermore, we are only beginning to understand virulence mechanisms in animal-specific staphylococcal pathogens. This review gives an overview of animal infections caused by staphylococci and our knowledge about the virulence mechanisms involved.

1. Introduction

Many staphylococci, above all Staphylococcus aureus, are important human pathogens, causing many moderately severe skin and soft tissue infections, but also severe and often fatal infections such as sepsis, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, and pneumonia [1]. In animals, staphylococci can cause similar infections, which in addition to animal welfare issues result in a massive financial cost for animal farmers. Arguably the most notorious and overall costly type of animal infection that is predominantly due to staphylococci is mastitis in cows, which in 2011 was estimated to cost the global dairy industry $20–$33 billion per year [2]. In addition to the economic burden, staphylococcal infections in livestock represent a source of transfer of antimicrobial resistance to humans. There is a massive use of antibiotics for such infections, which results in widespread occurrence of resistant staphylococcal strains, such as livestock-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus (LA-MRSA) [3].
Staphylococci, grouped in the genus Staphylococcus with more than 80 species, are non-motile facultative anaerobic Gram-positive cocci [4]. All species are part of the natural epithelial microbiota of mammals. Many, such as S. aureus or S. epidermidis, are found in a variety of hosts, while other species show pronounced host specificity (e.g., S. hyicus in swine [5], S. pseudintermedius in dogs [6], or S. felis in cats [7]). However, specific lineages of a species, as has been shown for S. aureus, may be adapted to a specific host [8]. Host specificity does not seem to be absolute. S. hyicus, for example, can also be found in other mammals [9,10]. Based on their ability to produce coagulase, staphylococci are divided into the commonly more pathogenic coagulase-positive staphylococci (CoPS), with S. aureus as the major species, and the less pathogenic coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), such as S. epidermidis [4].
From a veterinary perspective, the most important pathogens are S. aureus and other CoPS, namely S. intermedius, S. pseudintermedius, S. delphini, S. hyicus, and S. cornubiensis, which are members of the S. intermedius group, as well as S. lutrae, S. agnetis, and S. schleiferi [11]. Of these species, some can show variability in coagulase positivity. Based on whole-genome sequencing, it has recently been proposed that the two subspecies of S. schleiferi be classified as their own distinct species (S. schleiferi and S. coagulans) [12].
CoNS, particularly S. epidermidis, have more recently drawn much attention due to potential beneficial functions in the human microbiome by contributing to skin barrier homeostasis [13] and fighting pathogens directly or after engaging the host’s immune system [14,15,16]. However, traditionally they are known for their capacity to cause biofilm-associated medical device infections and concomitant complications, such as septicemia, in humans [17,18]. As animals only rarely undergo similar medical interventions, the importance of CoNS as animal pathogens is generally low. Nevertheless, some CoNS have been reported to cause infections in animals, such as S. felis [19]. These infections may occur only in an opportunistic fashion in compromised hosts, or remain subclinical, such as subclinical mastitis caused by CoNS [20]. Furthermore, as is often observed in humans, attribution of clinical symptoms to CoNS may be due to sample contamination rather than a true pathogenic role [21]. However, CoNS may represent an important reservoir for the transfer of antimicrobial resistance to CoPS of veterinary importance [22,23].
In humans, based on research with S. aureus, it is well established that staphylococcal infections originate from asymptomatic colonization or contaminated fomites [24,25]. One can assume that the same is true for animal infections, although evidence is scarcer. There is, however, some evidence underscoring that notion, indicating that S. aureus isolates from mammary and extra-mammary sites, such as particularly hock skin, are genetically related [26].
Research into virulence factors and mechanisms of the staphylococci has mostly focused on S. aureus and, among the CoNS, S. epidermidis [1,27]. Generally, S. aureus and, to a more limited degree, other CoPS have a large arsenal of virulence factors of different sorts, comprising many toxins, adhesion molecules, immune evasion factors, as well as a complicated network of regulatory mechanisms to control their production [1]. CoNS, in contrast, have much fewer virulence factors, which also tend to be more passive in nature [28].
In this review, we will first give an overview of staphylococcal virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance. We then present the main species of animals in which staphylococcal infections have been observed and investigated, provide an overview of the major infection types and staphylococcal species involved, and present and discuss main underlying virulence mechanisms.

2. Overview of Staphylococcal Virulence Factors

All virulence mechanisms of staphylococci aim to increase survival after the bacteria have breached the epithelial barrier of the skin or mucosal surfaces, where they reside in an asymptomatic fashion, or to achieve that breach. Although staphylococcal asymptomatic colonization is an important source of infection [24], factors that only facilitate asymptomatic survival on the epithelia are not considered virulence factors.
Virulence factors facilitating the transition from colonization to systemic infection mostly comprise alpha-toxin [29], which facilitates invasion through the keratinocyte layer, and other toxins that promote skin abscess formation, such as several leukocidins (leukotoxins) and phenol-soluble modulins (PSMs) [30,31].
Once in the bloodstream, the bacteria are attacked by manifold modes of immune defense mechanisms. S. aureus and, to a more limited extent, other staphylococci, have a plethora of immune evasion factors to counter host immune defenses [32,33]. These can be categorized into passive defense mechanism, such as capsule, exopolysaccharide, or biofilm formation [34,35,36], mechanisms that alter the nature of bacterial structures by which the immune system recognizes the invader (for example, enzymes that remove formyl-methionine from proteins or fatty acids from lipoproteins [37,38]), and molecules that block specific steps of innate immune defense mechanisms, e.g., within the complement enzymatic cascade [39]. Furthermore, surface proteins, many of which belong to the family called “microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules” (MSCRAMMs), facilitate adhesion to host tissues, and some are involved in abscess formation in organs [40,41,42]. Examples include the collagen-binding protein Cna and the fibronectin-binding proteins FnBPA and FnBPB. On the other hand, especially S. aureus produces a series of aggressive toxins that can directly eliminate immune cells. The most important among those are the abovementioned alpha-toxin, PSMs, and the family of leukocidins [30,43,44]. Alpha-toxin is a pore-forming toxin that forms a heptameric pore in target cells after binding to the ADAM10 receptor [44]. PSMs are detergent-like peptides that have membrane-perturbing cytolytic capacity toward a variety of cell types in a non-receptor-dependent fashion [45]. As for the leukocidin family, five different leukocidins exist in S. aureus that are associated with human infections: leukocidin ED (LukED), Panton–Valentine leukocidin (PVL or LukSF–PV), gamma-hemolysins AB and CB (HlgAB and HlgCB), and leukocidin AB (LukAB; also known as LukGH) [43]. LukF′M [46], LukPQ [47], and LukI [48] are associated with bovine, equine, and canine infections, respectively. Leukocidin functionality requires S and F subunits, in which the S-component first recognizes host-specific cell immune receptors with high-affinity [49], followed by the recruitment of the F-component and the subsequent assembly of an octameric beta-barrel pore into the host plasma membrane lipid bilayer. Notably, leukocidins can have pronounced and alpha-toxin has limited target species specificity [44,49]. In contrast, owing to their mechanism, PSMs do not show such specificity [45]. Exfoliating toxins are another class of toxins that are produced by S. aureus and certain other staphylococcal species. To date, five members (ETA, ETB, ETC, ETD, and ETE) have been described in S. aureus [50,51,52,53], and, according to the presence of a triad of conserved catalytic residues [54], are categorized as glutamate-specific serine proteases [51]. The exfoliative toxins specifically target the cleavage of a single peptide bond within the extracellular domain of desmoglein-1 (Dsg-1) [55,56], which is expressed ubiquitously in stratified squamous epithelia [57] and is involved in intercellular adhesion [58]. ETA, ETB, and ETD are found in human isolates, whereas ETC and ETE were discovered in horse and ovine isolates, respectively [50,51,52,53].
While the control of staphylococcal infections is predominantly due to innate mechanisms of host defense, S. aureus also targets acquired (antibody-based) immunity by producing protein A, a protein that binds to the invariant Fc part of IgG molecules, thus producing what has been called a “camouflage coat” of non-specific antibodies on the bacterial surface [59]. Additionally, protein A skews the immune response away from recognizing other virulence factors by eliciting the production of B cells that almost exclusively recognize protein A [60].
Further staphylococcal virulence factors comprise a superfamily of over 20 superantigens [61], which lead to an overshooting immune response with pronounced cytokine secretion by activating T cells in a non-specific manner [62], proteases, which degrade host tissue for nutrient acquisition but also have more specific roles in destroying specific immune factors, such as complement factors and antimicrobial peptides [39,63], and many further proteins, such as coagulase, the enzyme on which the CoNS–CoPS classification is based. Coagulase converts fibrinogen into fibrin, thereby causing blood plasma to clot [64].
For more detail, the reader is referred to reviews that have described the virulence factors of S. aureus, many of which we have cited above. Here, it shall only be noted in conclusion that virulence mechanisms of S. aureus are subject to strict control by a plethora of regulatory systems [1,65]. Among them, the quorum-sensing virulence regulator Agr is probably the most important and best described [66]. Agr positively controls virtually all toxins, degradative exoenzymes, and similar virulence factors, with having an exceptionally direct and strict control of PSM production [67]. This is believed to postpone the production of aggressive virulence factors, many of which directly or indirectly stimulate host defense, until those host defenses can be countered by a sufficiently large infectious bacterial population. It is generally believed that Agr controls all surface proteins in a negative fashion (to limit their production to the beginning of an infection when adherence to host tissues is the most important task) [68], but more recent research in clinically important S. aureus has shown that this is true only for some surface proteins, such as protein A [69]. Notably, there are frequently different subgroups of Agr in a species, and the auto-inducing peptide (AIP) Agr extracellular signal of a non-self species or subgroup often is inhibitory to Agr by competitive interaction at the AgrC histidine kinase AIP receptor [66,70].
CoPS other than S. aureus have the potential to produce several of those virulence factors. We will present this in the dedicated chapters of this review. In contrast, CoNS only very rarely produce toxins other than PSMs and generally possess only passive virulence mechanisms such as biofilm formation [28]. The virulence factors of the CoNS are believed to have an original role in the asymptomatic commensal state, some of which are of additional value during infection owing to their intrinsic characteristics but—unlike S. aureus virulence factors—do not seem to be produced specifically to promote infection [27].

3. Antimicrobial Resistance

Staphylococcal infections are often difficult to treat due to antimicrobial resistance [71]. Many staphylococci have a pronounced capacity to form biofilms, which provide largely non-specific resistance (or more correctly, tolerance) to virtually all antibiotics [34]. Biofilm formation is involved in device-associated infection, but also many other infections, such as endocarditis. Despite intensive efforts, no efficient drugs targeting biofilms have been developed; as a result, biofilms still represent an enormous problem in the clinic [72].
However, when talking about antimicrobial resistance, most people mean resistance that is due to specific resistance genes and targets specific antibiotics. This type of resistance is due to many different mechanisms, such as drug export, change of target structures, or degradation [73]. The more a particular antibiotic is used, the more likely it is that resistant strains develop and spread. Furthermore, resistance genes can often be transferred between strains and species by horizontal gene transfer [74].
Staphylococcal resistance to most antibiotics in use has been reported in animals [75,76]. The frequency of antibiotic-resistant strains in animal infections often exceeds that found in humans, because antibiotics are used much more deliberately in animal agriculture, not only to prevent infections but also to increase growth [76,77]. In the United States, about 80% of all used antibiotics are used in animal agriculture, and of those 70% are deemed “medically important” (for humans) [78]. In many countries, for example in Asia, antibiotic use in livestock considerably exceeds that in the US or Europe [79].
Resistance to methicillin, afforded by the presence of the mecA gene in a mobile genetic element (MGE) called staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec), is the most important antibiotic resistance determinant in staphylococci infecting animals. The mecA gene codes for a transpeptidase (penicillin-binding protein 2A [PBP2A]), which has a critical role in the synthesis of the bacterial cell wall [80]. Strains that have acquired the mecA gene are able to grow in the presence of beta-lactam antibiotics because PBP2A has low affinity for these drugs. In contrast, strains harboring native PBPs are unable to grow under the same conditions due to their greater affinity for beta-lactams [81].
Livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA) is an enormous problem in animal farming [82]. Despite considerable reduction in antibiotic use, for example in some European countries, the frequency of LA-MRSA has barely declined [83]. This may be explained by the only minor fitness cost that methicillin resistance genes impose on the bacterial host, especially in some MRSA lineages, meaning that, once specific types of MRSA have spread, it is difficult to reduce them in the animal (or human) population [84]. It has been shown that humans in close contact with livestock, such as pig farmers or veterinarians, are at increased risk of being colonized and infected with LA-MRSA [85,86]. However, likely since human MRSA and LA-MRSA comprise different lineages with different host adaptation characteristics, LA-MRSA has not been a considerable factor that has contributed to the human CA-MRSA epidemic of the last two decades [82,87], although LA-MRSA human infections may be severe and fatal when they occur [88]. Finally, pet animals may be responsible for recurring infections in households, despite MRSA colonization of pet animals being deemed transient [89].

4. Staphylococcal Infections in Animal Hosts

In this section, we will present staphylococcal infections in animals, sorted according to the animal host. An overview of main infection types and staphylococcal species typically causing infections in a specific host is given in Table 1. Main virulence factors associated with a specific staphylococcal species and demonstrated or assumed function in animal infections are shown in Table 2.

4.1. Staphylococcus Infections in Ruminants (Cattle, Sheep, and Goats)

While staphylococci are likely able to generally cause similar systemic and, to a certain extent, skin infections in ruminants as in humans, those that are most important from a clinical and agricultural perspective are infections of the udder, i.e., mastitis. In cattle, goats, and sheep, staphylococci can cause intramammary infections (IMIs): subclinical or, less frequently, clinical mastitis, with the latter being distinguished from subclinical mastitis by visible abnormalities in the milk and swelling or tenderness of the udder, with a frequent presence of pus [117]. In severe cases, usually due to S. aureus, it can develop into necrotizing gangrene [118]. CoNS, including S. chromogenes, S. simulans, S. haemolyticus, S. xylosus, S. epidermidis, and several other species, are the most frequent causes of subclinical mastitis [20,95,100].
Ruminants show similar S. aureus carriage rates as humans, ~20–30% [119], and many non-S. aureus species are assumed to be widespread in ruminants as well [95]. Bovine staphylococcal mastitis, the most thoroughly investigated staphylococcal infection among ruminants, stems from such asymptomatically colonizing bacteria on the animals or the milker’s hands, or from other infected animals, which are introduced via the teat canal [120]. Among the many S. aureus clonal complexes (CCs) that have been associated with bovine mastitis, CC97 is the most frequent [93]. Other widespread CCs causing bovine mastitis are CC1, CC5, CC8 (which are common causes of human infections), and CC398 (which is a common source of infection in pigs) [121]. The latter were probably transferred from humans and pigs, respectively, by relatively recent transmission events [122,123,124]. CC97 is predicted by genome analysis and according to in vivo studies to have pronounced virulence [125,126], but other lineages, notably CC479, have also been associated with pronounced virulence potential [127]. Recent studies on CC97 and ST59, the major mastitis clone in Asia, have indicated that there were a series of host switching events between humans and cattle [90,91,92]. There is evidence that these were accompanied by host adaptation, for example increasing lactose utilization in cattle after human-to-cattle jumps or human innate immune evasion capacity after cattle-to-human jumps [92].
S. aureus virulence determinants that have a potential impact on mastitis are manifold and for the most part reflect the mechanisms described in human infections. However, evidence is generally obtained only from gene content, in vitro experiments, and correlative analyses—only very rarely from direct analysis in mastitis models.
As in humans, adhesion to tissues is facilitated by members of the MSCRAMM family [40]. Some discrepancies with human infection have been found, including fibrinogen-independent adhesion to bovine mammary epithelial cells via ClfA [128]. Probably owing to pronounced functional redundancy among MSCRAMMs, there is great variation in the MSCRAMM repertoire in S. aureus isolates obtained from mastitis [121]. Given that mastitis is a chronic infection, biofilm formation is widely believed to contribute to it [129,130], but there is no direct evidence supporting that notion. Rather, this assumption is based on in vitro analysis of mastitis isolates, many of which have the ica genes coding for the exopolysaccharide PIA/PNAG or the gene encoding biofilm-associated protein (Bap) [131], which is carried by a putative composite transposon inserted in the bovine S. aureus pathogenicity island SaPIbov2. However, the presence of bap in S. aureus isolates of animals, including those of bovine or human origin, appears to be very low [132]. Superantigenic toxin and enterotoxin gene content is highly variable in mastitis isolates, as these factors are mostly encoded on MGEs [121]. The presence of specific enterotoxin genes has been associated with acute clinical mastitis [133]. In a mastitis model in dairy cattle, a derivative of the bovine strain RF122, in which eight superantigen genes were deleted, more rarely caused clinical mastitis as compared to wild-type RF122 [134]. While the hla gene for alpha-toxin was deleted in both strains in this study to limit overshadowing alpha-toxin-related virulence, these results indicate a role for superantigens in clinical mastitis. As for alpha-toxin itself, an hla mutant of a mastitis strain showed reduced mortality after intra-mammary injection in a mouse mastitis model, but not reduced survival in the mouse mammary gland [135]. Leukocidins are deemed particularly important to establish intramammary infection by providing resistance to invading neutrophils [136]. Some strains from cattle and other animals contain a LukF variant, LukF-P83 (LukF’), as part of the leukocidin LukF’M, which is associated with main CCs causing mastitis in cattle [46]. Finally, PSMs have been reported to decrease the production of some interleukins, especially IL-32, in bovine mammary epithelial cells [137], which somewhat contrasts the generally pro-inflammatory effects of PSMs that is mediated by stimulation of the formyl peptide receptor 2 (FPR2) [138]. Interestingly, the bovine origin RF122 strain revealed very limited production of PSMs other than the delta-toxin, reflecting the situation in some laboratory human strains of S. aureus such as 8325-4 [137].
The differences in host-specific virulence capacity and mechanisms that are associated with S. aureus from specific animals, or humans, are believed to be mainly due to differences in MGEs and the factors encoded on them. According to a compilation by Haag et al. [8], in addition to what was mentioned above regarding bap, ruminant-specific MGEs and associated virulence antibiotic resistance factors comprise the following: (i) enterotoxins encoded on the bovine pathogenicity island SaPIbov (sec-bovine, sel, and tsst-1) [139,140] and an enterotoxin cluster (seg, sei, sem, sen, and seo) [140,141]; (ii) the staphylococcal superantigen-like genes ssl07 and ssl08 [142], the gene encoding von Willebrand factor binding protein (vWbp) on SaPIbov4 [143], a gene coding for an LPXTG surface protein on a non-mec staphylococcal cassette chromosome (SCCmec) element [122], and the mecA homolog, mecC, on SCC-mecC [144]. Contrastingly, the phiSa3 (beta-hemolysin converting phage) that encodes several immune evasion factors, such as the chemotaxis inhibitory protein of S. aureus (CHIPS) and staphylococcal complement inhibitor (SCIN), in addition to several enterotoxin genes, appears to be specific to humans and is absent in other animals [92].
Bovine mastitis is caused by non-S. aureus species in about 5–12% of cases, as studies from different countries indicate [145,146,147]. Intramammary infections (IMIs) by non-S. aureus staphylococci seem to be increasing in relative frequency as compared to those due to S. aureus, potentially due to S. aureus-focused control measures. Several studies revealed CoNS/non-S. aureus staphylococci as the predominant causes of IMIs/subclinical mastitis in cows [92,148]. The predominant non-S. aureus staphylococcal species involved with IMIs is S. chromogenes [149,150]. This species appears to be adapted to ruminant hosts [151,152] and shows a higher virulence potential than other non-S. aureus species, as indicated by a higher inflammatory capacity and an increased duration of IMIs [153,154].
Staphylococci are also the most frequent pathogens associated with mastitis in sheep and goats [96]. In these animals, like in cows, S. aureus is the most common cause of clinical mastitis, and non-S. aureus staphylococci typically cause subclinical mastitis [96,97]. CoNS are the most frequent cause of subclinical mastitis in small ruminants, making up >70% of infectious isolates obtained from such infections in sheep and goats [100]. S. caprae is the predominant infectious CoNS in goats, as it appears to exhibit pronounced host specificity [100]. According to its genome, S. caprae has a virulence potential comparable to that of other CoNS such as S. epidermidis [155]. Immune responses due to CoNS mammary infection were similar among goats, sheep, and cows, but showed higher leukocyte numbers in goats [156]. After experimental inoculation with S. chromogenes, goats showed increased signs of inflammation [98]. Finally, Morel’s disease is a sort of lymphadenitis that is restricted to sheep and goats and caused by a host-specific microaerophilic subspecies of S. aureus, S. aureus subsp. anaerobius [99,157]. The role of specific staphylococcal virulence mechanisms in small ruminant diseases remains poorly explored.
Antimicrobial resistance plays a considerable role in ruminant infections. LA-MRSA has already been discussed above. With regard to ruminant-infecting staphylococci, the average values of MRSA prevalence in bulk milk from dairy cows and in individual milk samples from more than one farm are ~2.9% and ~4.5%, respectively [158]. However, in specific cases, values of up to ~50% were observed, and considerable geographic variation exists. In Europe, CC398 is the most prominent LA-MRSA lineage in dairy herds [158]. In a recent study performed in several countries, prevalence of penicillin and erythromycin resistance in S. aureus isolated from cases of clinical mastitis was about 20%, while methicillin resistance was sporadic [159]. In another study analyzing Belgian and Norwegian isolates from milk samples, including non-S. aureus staphylococci, resistance to trimethoprim-sulfonamide was frequent in S. epidermidis and S. haemolyticus, while mecA was harbored in 10 out of 64 isolates from Belgium but was absent from isolates obtained in Norway [160]. These studies also indicated that frequency of the mecC mecA-homolog, which was first described in 2011 [144], appears to still be very low in cattle, and similar findings were achieved in goats [161].
Table 2. Summary of virulence factors from pathogenic staphylococcal species with demonstrated functions in animal infections.
Table 2. Summary of virulence factors from pathogenic staphylococcal species with demonstrated functions in animal infections.
Staphylococcal SpeciesVirulence FactorDescriptionReference(s)
S. aureusPNAG/PIABiofilm formation[162]
FnBPBinding of fibronectin[163]
von Willebrand factor-binding protein (vWbp)Plasma coagulation[143]
Enterotoxin gene clusterSuperantigens[134]
Alpha-toxinPore-forming toxin[135]
LukF’MBicomponent leukocidin[46]
Phenol-soluble modulins (PSMs)Cytolytic/proinflammatory peptide toxins[137]
ScpAThiol protease[164]
SAAV_0062 and SAAV_0064Unknown, allow growth at 42 °C[164]
S. pseudintermediusPSMs (Delta-toxin and PSMepsilon)Cytolytic/proinflammatory peptide toxins[165]
SIET, ExpA (EXI), ExpBExfoliative toxin[166,167,168]
LukIBicomponent leukocidin[48]
SECCANINESuperantigen[169]
SpsP, SpsQImmune evasion (binding of IgG Fc, altering B cell function)[170,171]
SpsD, SpsOCell wall-anchored proteins involved in adherence[171]
NucB/AdsANuclease/adenosine synthase[172]
S. hyicusSHETA, SHETB, ExhA, EXhB, ExhDExfoliative toxins[101,173,174,175]
Protein A homologImmune evasion (binding of IgG Fc, altering B cell function)[176]
LipaseCleaves triglyceride lipids[177,178]
S. chromogenesSCET, ExhBExfoliative toxins[103,179]
S. felisPSMs (delta toxin, PSMbeta 1–3)Cytolytic/proinflammatory peptide toxins[180]
S. xylosusPSMs (PSM⍺, PSMβ1)Cytolytic/proinflammatory peptide toxins[181]
SxsACell wall-anchored protein involved in adherence[182]

4.2. Staphylococcal Pathogens in Dogs and Cats

Skin disease (pyoderma) and infections of the external ear canal (otitis externa) and the urogenital tract are main reasons for seeking veterinary attention for cats and dogs [6,7,183,184,185,186]. Pyoderma is seen as a spectrum of diseases and is the most frequent infection observed in household pets caused by staphylococci. The least invasive form (superficial bacterial folliculitis) is characterized by pustules, alopecia, erythema, crusts, scaling, and pruritus that may proceed to more deep-seated and painful forms (furunculosis and cellulitis) [6,187,188]. While pyoderma skin infections are not life-threatening, they can have a profound impact on well-being and health. Dogs with underlying food and environmental allergen sensitivities as well as pre-existing inflammatory dermatological conditions, such as atopic dermatitis (AD) [189,190,191,192,193], are more prone to pyoderma [189] and ear-canal infections [194]. It is thought that AD-induced scratching leads to mechanical damage to the skin barrier and concomitant transfer of staphylococci to these inflamed sites from licking or grooming [195], facilitating bacterial penetration into the upper skin layers, which can lead to secondary infections.
Molecular typing methods have redefined the taxonomy and host associations of S. intermedius group members. In two pivotal studies, all isolates recovered from dogs, cats, and humans were identified as S. pseudintermedius; thus, S. pseudintermedius (not S. intermedius) was revealed as the common causative agent of canine pyoderma [196,197]. S. pseudintermedius is a primary commensal of canines [6,198] and is also detected in other non-canine species including horses and cats [199]. However, the colonization rates in these other animal species tends to be low [188,200]. For instance, cats show a ~6.5 fold-lower colonization rate compared to dogs [188,200]. As S. pseudintermedius is frequently isolated from canine skin-, urine-, and ear canal-infections [6,105,106,110,183,201,202], there is general agreement in the veterinary field that S. pseudintermedius is the major etiological agent of canines, and despite the recent emergence of S. coagulans [12,107,203], it has received most attention as a canine pathogen. In contrast, the coagulase negative staphylococcal species, S. felis, appears to be the common cat commensal and is more frequently isolated from sick animals [184].
Over the last two decades, the global emergence of multidrug resistance among methicillin-resistant S. pseudintermedius (MRSP) isolates from canine infections has created a serious challenge to the veterinary sector [6]. MRSP infections complicate treatment procedures and necessitate multiple drugs to clear infections, thereby prolonging disease resolution and encouraging the development of more antimicrobial resistance [6,204,205]. Given the high frequency of multi-drug-resistant, disease-causing staphylococcal pathogens that already exist in humans (e.g., S. aureus, S. epidermidis, and S. haemolyticus [18,27]), zoonotic transmission of MRSP to humans poses a further public health risk, especially for pet owners and veterinary staff [206,207]. In humans, MRSP-associated soft tissue infections, occurring through dog bites from colonized or diseased animals [208], are becoming increasingly common. Moreover, MRSP-invasive bloodstream infections have been described but are restricted to elderly individuals in nosocomial settings or those with pre-disposed health conditions, such as diabetes [209,210,211]. On the other hand, the incidence of multidrug resistance in S. felis is rare [112,212], and only one case of cat-to-human transmission has been reported to date [213].
Like its pathogenic human cousin S. aureus, S. pseudintermedius possesses an active Agr quorum-sensing system [214]. S. pseudintermedius Agr has been described in detail [214,215,216]. Interestingly, there are four AIP alleles in S. pseudintermedius [216] that each contain a serine in place of the conserved AIP cysteine residue, resulting in the formation of a cyclic lactone rather than the thiolactone ring that is typically present in other staphylococcal AIPs [214,215,216]. Activation of the S. pseudintermedius Agr system results in the transcription of some toxin genes [214], but it is currently unknown if Agr has a crucial role in the development of S. pseudintermedius skin infections or other diseases, as has been established for the major human pathogens S. aureus [217] and S. epidermidis [218]. It is clear from whole genome sequencing [219] that S. pseudintermedius harbors a multitude of other putative virulence genes, including those that are involved in adherence, biofilm formation, and immune evasion, and a plethora genes encoding a diverse array of toxins [11].
One such family of toxins are PSMs; it was previously shown that that a delta-toxin gene homolog (hld) is present in S. pseudintermedius [214]. More recently, it has been found that clinical S. pseudintermedius isolates produce one of two delta-toxin variants and an additional PSM, PSMepsilon [165]. Both delta-toxin variants and PSMepsilon are cytolytic, similar to the alpha-type PSMs of S. aureus [220] and S. epidermidis [221]. However, in the context of canine skin infections, the PSMs may have an additional role. A breakthrough study by Nakamura et al. [222] first highlighted a central role of the mast cell-degranulating properties of S. aureus delta-toxin for the development of AD. However, a later study implied that mast cell degranulation was a general feature of PSMs [223]. S. pseudintermedius PSMs may exacerbate AD in canines, but this remains to be investigated.
In addition to PSMs, canine strains of S. pseudintermedius produce a number of other toxins that could potentiate pyoderma infections, including three different exfoliative toxins, SIET [166], ExpA (formally known as EXI) [167], and ExpB [168]. Dogs subcutaneously injected with purified SIET and ExpA developed clinical signs such as erythema, exfoliation, and crusting. Only ExpB has been shown to target the canine form of the cadherin transmembrane protein, Dsg-1 [168]. Other toxin genes found in the S. pseudintermedius genome include a bicomponent leukocidin LukI [224], which targets polymorphonuclear white blood cells from canine origin [48], a beta-hemolysin [225] and enterotoxin SECCANINE, which acts as a superantigen [169]. Further enterotoxin genes have been identified by analytical PCR and by whole genome sequencing in S. pseudintermedius [226,227].
Otherwise, S. pseudintermedius harbors a repertoire of virulence genes similar to S. aureus such as the biofilm-forming ica genes [228] and two protein A orthologs (SpsP and SpsQ) [229], whose IgG-binding activities were only recently characterized [170,230]. In addition to SpsP and SpsQ, S. pseudintermedius is predicted to encode 16 other putative cell-wall-anchored surface proteins [219,229]. The introduction of two cell-wall-anchored genes (spsD and spsO) into a heterologous host, Lactococcus lactis, resulted in increased adherence to canine corneocytes ex vivo [171].
It has also been shown that, similar to S. aureus [231,232], S. pseudintermedius relies on adenosine synthase A (AdsA) for abscess formation in a systemic model of bloodstream infection in mice [172]. The underlying mechanism consists of a two-step process in which the nuclease (NucB)-dependent breakdown of host DNA promotes the release of deoxyadenosine monophosphate (dAMP). AdsA converts dAMP into a cytotoxic derivative that ultimately kills macrophages and therefore impairs the host’s ability to control infection.
In contrast, little has been done to characterize S. felis or its virulence factors. Information from whole genome sequencing reveals the presence of genes associated with adhesion, immune evasion, biofilm formation, and toxin and proteolytic enzymes [212]. However, three PSMbeta peptides and a delta-toxin were recently identified in an S. felis isolate [180]. As in other staphylococci, only the delta-toxin, not the PSMbeta peptides, showed pronounced cytolytic activity [45,180,220].

4.3. Staphylococcal Infections in Swine

S. hyicus and S. chromogenes form a major part of the normal microbiota of pigs as well as poultry and cattle [233,234], and both species can be isolated from swine exudative epidermitis (EE) [101,102,179]. EE is a major skin disease of pigs. Recently weaned piglets are the most vulnerable population. The disease is best characterized by the enhanced production of a greasy exudate, giving rise to its common name “greasy pig disease”. Clinical symptoms, initially most prevalent surrounding the pinnae and in the axillary, inguinal, and abdominal areas, can eventually spread systematically, leading to more serious outcomes. In those cases, exfoliation, pyoderma, erythema, and the development of crusts [235] may manifest across the entire body, turning the skin brown within 24–48 h [236,237]. Piglets with EE often suffer from dehydration and malnourishment, and thus, high mortality rates are observed [101,173]. Compared to S. hyicus, the association of S. chromogenes with EE is less frequent [103], which highlights S. hyicus as the principal agent underlying EE disease [101,102].
The increase in demand for pork products has resulted in concentrated industrial-scale pig-farming practices alongside the widespread use of antibiotics in feed. Surprisingly, there is little literature describing drug resistance patterns in S. hyicus and S. chromogenes. However, reports from Brazil [238] and Denmark [239] indicate that antimicrobial resistance patterns of S. hyicus isolates change over time and are tied closely to the antimicrobials that are administered. Another study evaluated antimicrobial sensitivities in S. hyicus isolates from pigs with EE from 30 herds in Ontario, Canada. Here, it was demonstrated that resistance to one or more antimicrobials was detected in 99.3% (142/143) of S. hyicus isolates, with resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics being the most prevalent [240]. More worrisome was that, in the same study, 40.6% (58/143) of S. hyicus isolates demonstrated resistance to five or more antimicrobials. There is even less data regarding S. chromogenes, but according to the few reports available, it is not uncommon for S. chromogenes to be resistant to more than one drug [240,241].
The clinical manifestations of EE are similar to those observed in human staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS), a disease afflicting neonates and young children [242,243]. SSSS is a systemic infection involving fever, malaise, substantial degrees of blister formation, and exfoliation of superficial skin over large parts of the body [244,245] and is seen as the advanced stage of bullous impetigo, a local form of SSSS [246]. In SSSS, pathogenesis is mediated by S. aureus strains that produce exfoliating toxins. As the toxins move into the stratum granulosum of the epidermis, followed by the exfoliative toxin-mediated cleavage of Dsg-1 [55,56], these intercellular interactions between stratified squamous epithelia are disrupted [246] causing intraepidermal desquamation and a subsequent formation of blisters [247,248]. S. aureus itself is not found in the exfoliation sites or from cultures of the bullae, indicating that the exfoliative toxins can spread systemically from the primary site to other parts of the body [246].
EE pathogenesis is also mediated by exfoliative toxins as demonstrated by a strong association between exfoliative toxin expression in S. hyicus and EE in pigs [101,174,249,250]. Six different exfoliative toxin genes have been discovered to date: a chromosomally-encoded SHETA [173], a plasmid-encoded SHETB [251,252]), and four Exh variants (ExhA, ExhB, ExhC, and ExhD) [101,253], whose genes are located on a pathogenicity island or a prophage-related element [254,255]. While all recombinant Exh proteins have the capacity to specifically cleave swine Dsg-1 in vitro [175,256], this has not yet been demonstrated for SHETA and SHETB. However, pathogenesis is observed after subcutaneous injection with purified toxins or by comparing toxin- and non-toxin-producing S. hyicus strains in piglets [101,173,174,175].
Other virulence determinants of S. hyicus include delta-toxin [255], an IgG-binding protein A homolog [176], and a lipase [177,178]. Although a role in S. hyicus pathogenesis has not been demonstrated, expression of S. hyicus lipase in a heterologous host (S. aureus) promotes biofilm formation and an invasion of keratinocytes [257]. Other potential interesting genes that could contribute to S. hyicus pathogenesis are located in two genomic regions present in toxigenic strains [254].
In S. chromogenes, putative virulence genes identified from whole genome sequencing include those associated with biofilm formation, attachment, and immune evasion [258,259]. Additionally, two exfoliative toxins, SCET [179] and ExhB [103] have been described. As the only studies conducted with SCET [179] and ExhB [103] were performed in pigs without adequate controls, a contribution towards EE is difficult to endorse. However, in the latter study, subcutaneous injection behind the ear with an ExhB-expressing S. chromogenes strain caused local exfoliation and at a distal site (the hoof), which is reminiscent of the clinical symptoms featured in SSSS disease. No further research has been conducted on these toxins since their discoveries.

4.4. Staphylococcal Infections in Chicken

An increased demand for poultry meat over the past several decades has forced alterations in the way birds are reared for production, such as the genetic selection of birds that grow faster. In the past, it would take 120 days for a broiler chicken to reach 1.5 kg in body weight, whereas nowadays the same weight can be reached in a quarter of that time [260]. This rapid and excessive accumulation of body weight in short periods has a profound impact on the mobility of the birds [260]. Moreover, these practices are linked with abnormal skeletal development in the leg bone tissue, resulting in increased bone deformities and leg trauma, lameness, and pain [260,261,262]. Poor leg health and lameness can occur from noninfectious and infectious origins [263]. In the latter, bacterial chondronecrosis with osteomyelitis (BCO) is a leading cause of lameness [264] and defined as a septic necrosis of the skeletal system. In BCO, bacteria may find entry into the bones through microfractures and clefts, caused by the mechanical stress of walking, which eventually causes micro- and macroscopic lesions [264]. BCO lesions can be detected in 28% of the mortalities and culls [265]. Furthermore, bacterial endocarditis and bacteremia are serious systemic diseases that appear sporadically in poultry farms, but their prevalence is not well documented in the literature. However, it is estimated that bacteremia accounts for up to 62% mortality in broiler breeders [266], while mortality rates due to endocarditis outbreaks in flocks are between 29 and 36% [266,267,268]. Lastly, a dermatological disease called Focal Ulcerative Dermatitis Syndrome (FUDS) has recently been reported in cage-free laying flocks [269]. FUDS is characterized by the development of lesions on the dorsal regions of the birds, next to the sebaceous uropygial gland [269]. Hens with clinical signs of FUDS experience significant decreases in egg production and loss of life [269]. Altogether, these diseases result in substantial economic losses in the poultry industry.
Staphylococci are often found in diseased birds from poultry farm environments. In particular, S. aureus and S. hyicus can be isolated from osteomyelitis and systemic infections, but other staphylococcal species are also found [113]. One of these is the coagulase-variable S. agnetis, which historically has been associated with clinical and subclinical cases of bovine mastitis [94]. S. agnetis has also been detected in BCO lesions [114] and cases of septicemia in broiler breeder flocks [115]. S. aureus and S. agnetis have been described as potential causative agents of FUDS [269]. Antimicrobial resistance in poultry isolates of S. agnetis and S. hyicus has not been well characterized. Multidrug resistance was reportedly not prevalent in S. agnetis isolates from a commercial laying hen operation with a history of FUDS in the mid-west United States [269], while a report from Denmark noted a high prevalence of multidrug resistance in S. hyicus poultry isolates [270].
In contrast to cattle where staphylococcal infections are mostly associated with the mammary glands, S. agnetis infections in poultry include those of the bone, blood, and organs. Little is known about what drives S. agnetis infections. Whole genome analyses of S. agnetis isolates from cattle [271] and poultry [272] indicate the presence of genes commonly involved in staphylococcal pathogenesis, such as toxins (a PSMbeta peptide, an exfoliative toxin A homolog, multiple superantigens, and a beta-hemolysin), genes for cellular adherence (seven fibronectin-binding proteins, elastin- and fibrinogen-binding proteins, and a collagen adhesin), biofilm formation, immune evasion, and an Agr quorum-sensing system. To explain the recent epidemic success of S. agnetis in poultry, Shwani et al. compared the genome sequences of cattle and poultry isolates of S. agnetis [273], but no distinguishing genes to explain recent trends or host tropism were found. In contrast, some chicken-adapted S. aureus isolates appear to have undergone significant genetic changes. For instance, one study discovered that genetic recombination events happened in specific poultry isolates of the CC5 lineage, which caused the loss of genes involved in human pathogenesis but also allowed several host adaptations, including the improved ability to grow at the core body temperature of chickens (42 °C), the inhibition of neutrophil activation and chemotaxis via a thiol protease, staphopain A, and the increased lysis of chicken erythrocytes [164].

4.5. Staphylococcal Infections in Mice

Bacterial skin infections are a common occurrence in laboratory mice, especially in mice of the C57BL/6J background, which have defects in immune function resulting from genetic manipulation [274,275]. The coagulase-negative S. xylosus is the dominant commensal of laboratory mice [276,277] and is commonly thought to be the major contributor to murine skin infections, as evidenced by its frequent isolation from skin lesions of mice suffering from AD-like symptoms [278,279,280,281,282].
The observation that S. xylosus could be detected in murine AD-like lesions is especially interesting because of the association of S. aureus with AD in humans [283,284] where it was shown to be dependent on S. aureus PSMs triggering mast cell degranulation [222,223]. While the overall capacity of S. xylosus to promote AD was shown to be significantly weaker than that of S. aureus, two main PSMs were identified in S. xylosus, PSMalpha and PSMbeta1, which may trigger inflammatory responses responsible for AD-like symptoms in mice [181]. The development of such responses likely requires a predisposed host [281,282]. Of note, the mast cell-degranulating properties of the S. xylosus PSMs correlated with their cytolytic capacities, emphasizing the notion that this pathogenic feature is not receptor-mediated. However, PSMs may also interact with other cell types, raising the question of whether the progression of AD could also be attributed to PSM-dependent activation of FPR2, e.g., in keratinocytes. Lebtig et al. recently showed that FPR2 inhibition or the absence of the receptor in FPR2−/− mice prevented the release of key inflammatory cytokines in a mouse model of AD [285].
Genomic analysis of an S. xylosus isolate collected from mouse feces did not reveal the presence of toxin genes (other than PSMs), in accordance with other CoNS [286]. Interestingly, S. xylosus can be recovered at high frequencies two weeks after topical application onto the ears of C57BL/6 mice, which is in contrast to other staphylococcal species, such as S. aureus [287], suggesting that S. xylosus may express determinants that better allow it to survive on or adhere to murine skin. Two genome-encoded biofilm genes, bap and sxsA (a novel virulence factor), were recently identified in S. xylosus isolates from raw fermented sausages [182,288]. It was shown that only SxsA had a major importance in the biofilm formation of S. xylosus in vitro.
Lastly, S. aureus should not be discounted as a mouse pathogen, even though a recent microbiome analysis showed that it was not present in mouse colonies from distinct facilities across Europe [276]. The S. aureus strains that were found to circulate in mouse colonies appear to have adapted to the mouse host [116,289]. Interestingly, mouse-adapted S. aureus isolates lack the beta-hemolysin-converting phages that harbor genes for superantigens and human-specific immune evasion factors, a genomic feature that also exists in other animal isolates [290].

5. Conclusions and Outlook

Staphylococcal infections in animals not only are of great importance for animal welfare but also affect the agricultural economy to an increasingly considerable extent, owing to the extensive and in part still uncontrolled use of antibiotics in that sector. Human health is strongly impacted by staphylococcal animal infections, due to at least temporary host jumps and resulting infections in humans and because antibiotic overuse in livestock represents a reservoir for the spread of antibiotic resistance genes.
Some staphylococcal strains have pronounced host specificity, while in others, such as S. aureus, host adaptation has been observed and linked to specific genetic determinants. To understand how these species and strains cause infections in animals, dedicated pathogenesis research is needed, as findings obtained in humans on virulence factors and mechanisms may have only limited bearing for animal infections. Such research is imperative for the development of anti-virulence drugs, which may represent one possible avenue to deal with the problem of increasing antimicrobial resistance that is especially pronounced in livestock.
However, except for some more in-depth research into the molecular underpinnings of the pathogenesis of S. aureus-mediated bovine mastitis, our understanding of virulence mechanisms underlying staphylococcal animal infections is still very limited. Challenges that will be key to change this situation comprise first and foremost the development of genetic tools that can manipulate non-S. aureus staphylococci of relevance for animal infections, which has proved difficult in many cases, and the setup of infection models in the animals under consideration.

Funding

This research was funded by the Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, project number ZIA-AI000904.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cheung, G.Y.C.; Bae, J.S.; Otto, M. Pathogenicity and virulence of Staphylococcus aureus. Virulence 2021, 12, 547–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hogeveen, H.; Huijps, K.; Lam, T.J. Economic aspects of mastitis: New developments. N. Z. Vet. J. 2011, 59, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cuny, C.; Wieler, L.H.; Witte, W. Livestock-Associated MRSA: The Impact on Humans. Antibiotics 2015, 4, 521–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gotz, F.; Bannerman, T.; Schleifer, K.H. The Genera Staphylococcus and Macrococcus. In Prokaryotes: A Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria, 3rd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; Volume 4, pp. 5–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Devriese, L.A. Isolation and identification of Staphylococcus hyicus. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1977, 38, 787–792. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bannoehr, J.; Guardabassi, L. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in the dog: Taxonomy, diagnostics, ecology, epidemiology and pathogenicity. Vet. Dermatol. 2012, 23, 253–266, e251–e252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Higgins, R.; Gottschalk, M. Quebec. Isolation of Staphylococcus felis from cases of external otitis in cats. Can. Vet. J. 1991, 32, 312–313. [Google Scholar]
  8. Haag, A.F.; Fitzgerald, J.R.; Penades, J.R. Staphylococcus aureus in Animals. Microbiol. Spectr. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Devriese, L.A.; Derycke, J. Staphylococcus hyicus in cattle. Res. Vet. Sci. 1979, 26, 356–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Devriese, L.A.; Thelissen, M. Staphylococcus hyicus in donkeys. Vet. Rec. 1986, 118, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gonzalez-Martin, M.; Corbera, J.A.; Suarez-Bonnet, A.; Tejedor-Junco, M.T. Virulence factors in coagulase-positive staphylococci of veterinary interest other than Staphylococcus aureus. Vet. Q. 2020, 40, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Naing, S.Y.; Duim, B.; Broens, E.M.; Schweitzer, V.; Zomer, A.; van der Graaf-van Bloois, L.; van der Meer, C.; Stellingwerff, L.; Fluit, A.C.; Wagenaar, J.A. Molecular Characterization and Clinical Relevance of Taxonomic Reassignment of Staphylococcus schleiferi Subspecies into Two Separate Species, Staphylococcus schleiferi and Staphylococcus coagulans. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e04670-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zheng, Y.; Hunt, R.L.; Villaruz, A.E.; Fisher, E.L.; Liu, R.; Liu, Q.; Cheung, G.Y.C.; Li, M.; Otto, M. Commensal Staphylococcus epidermidis contributes to skin barrier homeostasis by generating protective ceramides. Cell Host Microbe 2022, 30, 301–313.e309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Liu, Q.; Liu, Q.; Meng, H.; Lv, H.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J.; Wang, H.; He, L.; Qin, J.; Wang, Y.; et al. Staphylococcus epidermidis Contributes to Healthy Maturation of the Nasal Microbiome by Stimulating Antimicrobial Peptide Production. Cell Host Microbe 2020, 27, 68–78.e65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Heilbronner, S.; Krismer, B.; Brotz-Oesterhelt, H.; Peschel, A. The microbiome-shaping roles of bacteriocins. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 726–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chen, Y.E.; Fischbach, M.A.; Belkaid, Y. Skin microbiota-host interactions. Nature 2018, 553, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vuong, C.; Otto, M. Staphylococcus epidermidis infections. Microbes Infect. 2002, 4, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Becker, K.; Heilmann, C.; Peters, G. Coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 27, 870–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Patel, A.; Lloyd, D.H.; Howell, S.A.; Noble, W.C. Investigation into the potential pathogenicity of Staphylococcus felis in a cat. Vet. Rec. 2002, 150, 668–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. De Buck, J.; Ha, V.; Naushad, S.; Nobrega, D.B.; Luby, C.; Middleton, J.R.; De Vliegher, S.; Barkema, H.W. Non-aureus Staphylococci and Bovine Udder Health: Current Understanding and Knowledge Gaps. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 658031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kassis, C.; Rangaraj, G.; Jiang, Y.; Hachem, R.Y.; Raad, I. Differentiating culture samples representing coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia from those representing contamination by use of time-to-positivity and quantitative blood culture methods. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 3255–3260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fisarova, L.; Pantucek, R.; Botka, T.; Doskar, J. Variability of resistance plasmids in coagulase-negative staphylococci and their importance as a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance. Res. Microbiol. 2019, 170, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Otto, M. Coagulase-negative staphylococci as reservoirs of genes facilitating MRSA infection: Staphylococcal commensal species such as Staphylococcus epidermidis are being recognized as important sources of genes promoting MRSA colonization and virulence. Bioessays 2013, 35, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. von Eiff, C.; Becker, K.; Machka, K.; Stammer, H.; Peters, G. Nasal carriage as a source of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001, 344, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Miller, L.G.; Diep, B.A. Clinical practice: Colonization, fomites, and virulence: Rethinking the pathogenesis of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin. Infect Dis. 2008, 46, 752–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Capurro, A.; Aspan, A.; Ericsson Unnerstad, H.; Persson Waller, K.; Artursson, K. Identification of potential sources of Staphylococcus aureus in herds with mastitis problems. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Otto, M. Staphylococcus epidermidis--the ‘accidental’ pathogen. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 7, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Otto, M. Virulence factors of the coagulase-negative staphylococci. Front. Biosci. 2004, 9, 841–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Soong, G.; Chun, J.; Parker, D.; Prince, A. Staphylococcus aureus activation of caspase 1/calpain signaling mediates invasion through human keratinocytes. J. Infect Dis. 2012, 205, 1571–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Peschel, A.; Otto, M. Phenol-soluble modulins and staphylococcal infection. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yoong, P.; Torres, V.J. The effects of Staphylococcus aureus leukotoxins on the host: Cell lysis and beyond. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2013, 16, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Foster, T.J. Immune evasion by staphylococci. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2005, 3, 948–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Thammavongsa, V.; Kim, H.K.; Missiakas, D.; Schneewind, O. Staphylococcal manipulation of host immune responses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 13, 529–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Otto, M. Staphylococcal Biofilms. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. O’Riordan, K.; Lee, J.C. Staphylococcus aureus capsular polysaccharides. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2004, 17, 218–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Nguyen, H.T.T.; Nguyen, T.H.; Otto, M. The staphylococcal exopolysaccharide PIA—Biosynthesis and role in biofilm formation, colonization, and infection. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 3324–3334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, X.; Alonzo, F., 3rd. Bacterial lipolysis of immune-activating ligands promotes evasion of innate defenses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 3764–3773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mader, D.; Rabiet, M.J.; Boulay, F.; Peschel, A. Formyl peptide receptor-mediated proinflammatory consequences of peptide deformylase inhibition in Staphylococcus aureus. Microbes Infect. 2010, 12, 415–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rooijakkers, S.H.; van Strijp, J.A. Bacterial complement evasion. Mol. Immunol. 2007, 44, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Foster, T.J. The MSCRAMM Family of Cell-Wall-Anchored Surface Proteins of Gram-Positive Cocci. Trends Microbiol. 2019, 27, 927–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cheng, A.G.; DeDent, A.C.; Schneewind, O.; Missiakas, D. A play in four acts: Staphylococcus aureus abscess formation. Trends Microbiol. 2011, 19, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cheng, A.G.; Kim, H.K.; Burts, M.L.; Krausz, T.; Schneewind, O.; Missiakas, D.M. Genetic requirements for Staphylococcus aureus abscess formation and persistence in host tissues. FASEB J. 2009, 23, 3393–3404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Alonzo, F., 3rd; Torres, V.J. The bicomponent pore-forming leucocidins of Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2014, 78, 199–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Berube, B.J.; Bubeck Wardenburg, J. Staphylococcus aureus alpha-toxin: Nearly a century of intrigue. Toxins 2013, 5, 1140–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Cheung, G.Y.; Joo, H.S.; Chatterjee, S.S.; Otto, M. Phenol-soluble modulins--critical determinants of staphylococcal virulence. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 38, 698–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Schlotter, K.; Ehricht, R.; Hotzel, H.; Monecke, S.; Pfeffer, M.; Donat, K. Leukocidin genes lukF-P83 and lukM are associated with Taphylococcus aureus clonal complexes 151, 479 and 133 isolated from bovine udder infections in Thuringia, Germany. Vet. Res. 2012, 43, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Koop, G.; Vrieling, M.; Storisteanu, D.M.; Lok, L.S.; Monie, T.; van Wigcheren, G.; Raisen, C.; Ba, X.; Gleadall, N.; Hadjirin, N.; et al. Identification of LukPQ, a novel, equid-adapted leukocidin of Staphylococcus aureus. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abouelkhair, M.A.; Bemis, D.A.; Giannone, R.J.; Frank, L.A.; Kania, S.A. Characterization of a leukocidin identified in Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Spaan, A.N.; van Strijp, J.A.G.; Torres, V.J. Leukocidins: Staphylococcal bi-component pore-forming toxins find their receptors. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 435–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yamaguchi, T.; Nishifuji, K.; Sasaki, M.; Fudaba, Y.; Aepfelbacher, M.; Takata, T.; Ohara, M.; Komatsuzawa, H.; Amagai, M.; Sugai, M. Identification of the Staphylococcus aureus etd pathogenicity island which encodes a novel exfoliative toxin, ETD, and EDIN-B. Infect. Immun. 2002, 70, 5835–5845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ladhani, S.; Joannou, C.L.; Lochrie, D.P.; Evans, R.W.; Poston, S.M. Clinical, microbial, and biochemical aspects of the exfoliative toxins causing staphylococcal scalded-skin syndrome. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1999, 12, 224–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sato, H.; Matsumori, Y.; Tanabe, T.; Saito, H.; Shimizu, A.; Kawano, J. A New-Type of Staphylococcal Exfoliative Toxin from a Staphylococcus-Aureus Strain Isolated from a Horse with Phlegmon. Infect. Immun. 1994, 62, 3780–3785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Imanishi, I.; Nicolas, A.; Caetano, A.C.B.; Castro, T.L.D.; Tartaglia, N.R.; Mariutti, R.; Guedon, E.; Even, S.; Berkova, N.; Arni, R.K.; et al. Exfoliative toxin E, a new Staphylococcus aureus virulence factor with host-specific activity. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 16336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Dancer, S.J.; Garratt, R.; Saldanha, J.; Jhoti, H.; Evans, R. The epidermolytic toxins are serine proteases. FEBS Lett. 1990, 268, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Amagai, M.; Yamaguchi, T.; Hanakawa, Y.; Nishifuji, K.; Sugai, M.; Stanley, J.R. Staphylococcal exfoliative toxin B specifically cleaves desmoglein 1. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2002, 118, 845–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Amagai, M.; Matsuyoshi, N.; Wang, Z.H.; Andl, C.; Stanley, J.R. Toxin in bullous impetigo and staphylococcal scalded-skin syndrome targets desmoglein 1. Nat. Med. 2000, 6, 1275–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shirakata, Y.; Amagai, M.; Hanakawa, Y.; Nishikawa, T.; Hashimoto, K. Lack of mucosal involvement in pemphigus foliaceus may be due to low expression of desmoglein 1. J. Investig. Dermatol. 1998, 110, 76–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nilles, L.A.; Parry, D.A.D.; Powers, E.E.; Angst, B.D.; Wagner, R.M.; Green, K.J. Structural-Analysis and Expression of Human Desmoglein—A Cadherin-Like Component of the Desmosome. J. Cell Sci. 1991, 99, 809–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Forsgren, A.; Sjoquist, J. “Protein A” from S. aureus. I. Pseudo-immune reaction with human gamma-globulin. J. Immunol. 1966, 97, 822–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pauli, N.T.; Kim, H.K.; Falugi, F.; Huang, M.; Dulac, J.; Henry Dunand, C.; Zheng, N.Y.; Kaur, K.; Andrews, S.F.; Huang, Y.; et al. Staphylococcus aureus infection induces protein A-mediated immune evasion in humans. J. Exp. Med. 2014, 211, 2331–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fisher, E.L.; Otto, M.; Cheung, G.Y.C. Basis of Virulence in Enterotoxin-Mediated Staphylococcal Food Poisoning. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Spaulding, A.R.; Salgado-Pabon, W.; Kohler, P.L.; Horswill, A.R.; Leung, D.Y.; Schlievert, P.M. Staphylococcal and streptococcal superantigen exotoxins. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 26, 422–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Joo, H.S.; Fu, C.I.; Otto, M. Bacterial strategies of resistance to antimicrobial peptides. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Cheng, A.G.; McAdow, M.; Kim, H.K.; Bae, T.; Missiakas, D.M.; Schneewind, O. Contribution of coagulases towards Staphylococcus aureus disease and protective immunity. PLoS Pathog. 2010, 6, e1001036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Cheung, A.L.; Bayer, A.S.; Zhang, G.; Gresham, H.; Xiong, Y.Q. Regulation of virulence determinants in vitro and in vivo in Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2004, 40, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Le, K.Y.; Otto, M. Quorum-sensing regulation in staphylococci-an overview. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Queck, S.Y.; Jameson-Lee, M.; Villaruz, A.E.; Bach, T.H.; Khan, B.A.; Sturdevant, D.E.; Ricklefs, S.M.; Li, M.; Otto, M. RNAIII-independent target gene control by the agr quorum-sensing system: Insight into the evolution of virulence regulation in Staphylococcus aureus. Mol. Cell 2008, 32, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Novick, R.P.; Geisinger, E. Quorum sensing in staphylococci. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2008, 42, 541–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cheung, G.Y.; Wang, R.; Khan, B.A.; Sturdevant, D.E.; Otto, M. Role of the accessory gene regulator agr in community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pathogenesis. Infect. Immun. 2011, 79, 1927–1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ji, G.; Beavis, R.; Novick, R.P. Bacterial interference caused by autoinducing peptide variants. Science 1997, 276, 2027–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lowy, F.D. Antimicrobial resistance: The example of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Investig. 2003, 111, 1265–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Koo, H.; Allan, R.N.; Howlin, R.P.; Stoodley, P.; Hall-Stoodley, L. Targeting microbial biofilms: Current and prospective therapeutic strategies. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 740–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Christaki, E.; Marcou, M.; Tofarides, A. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria: Mechanisms, Evolution, and Persistence. J. Mol. Evol. 2020, 88, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Davies, J.; Davies, D. Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2010, 74, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Lloyd, D.H. Reservoirs of antimicrobial resistance in pet animals. Clin. Infect Dis. 2007, 45 (Suppl. S2), S148–S152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Van Boeckel, T.P.; Pires, J.; Silvester, R.; Zhao, C.; Song, J.; Criscuolo, N.G.; Gilbert, M.; Bonhoeffer, S.; Laxminarayan, R. Global trends in antimicrobial resistance in animals in low- and middle-income countries. Science 2019, 365, eaaw1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Economou, V.; Gousia, P. Agriculture and food animals as a source of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Infect. Drug Resist. 2015, 8, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Martin, M.J.; Thottathil, S.E.; Newman, T.B. Antibiotics Overuse in Animal Agriculture: A Call to Action for Health Care Providers. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 2409–2410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Coyne, L.; Arief, R.; Benigno, C.; Giang, V.N.; Huong, L.Q.; Jeamsripong, S.; Kalpravidh, W.; McGrane, J.; Padungtod, P.; Patrick, I.; et al. Characterizing Antimicrobial Use in the Livestock Sector in Three South East Asian Countries (Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam). Antibiotics 2019, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pinho, M.G.; Filipe, S.R.; de Lencastre, H.; Tomasz, A. Complementation of the essential peptidoglycan transpeptidase function of penicillin-binding protein 2 (PBP2) by the drug resistance protein PBP2A in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol. 2001, 183, 6525–6531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lim, D.; Strynadka, N.C. Structural basis for the beta lactam resistance of PBP2a from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2002, 9, 870–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Graveland, H.; Duim, B.; van Duijkeren, E.; Heederik, D.; Wagenaar, J.A. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals and humans. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2011, 301, 630–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. European Food Safety, A.; European Centre for Disease, P. The European Union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Collins, J.; Rudkin, J.; Recker, M.; Pozzi, C.; O’Gara, J.P.; Massey, R.C. Offsetting virulence and antibiotic resistance costs by MRSA. ISME J. 2010, 4, 577–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Wardyn, S.E.; Forshey, B.M.; Farina, S.A.; Kates, A.E.; Nair, R.; Quick, M.K.; Wu, J.Y.; Hanson, B.M.; O’Malley, S.M.; Shows, H.W.; et al. Swine Farming Is a Risk Factor for Infection with and High Prevalence of Carriage of Multidrug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 61, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chen, C.; Wu, F. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) colonisation and infection among livestock workers and veterinarians: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 78, 530–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Graveland, H.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Bergs, K.; Heesterbeek, H.; Heederik, D. Persistence of livestock associated MRSA CC398 in humans is dependent on intensity of animal contact. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e16830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Larsen, J.; Petersen, A.; Larsen, A.R.; Sieber, R.N.; Stegger, M.; Koch, A.; Aarestrup, F.M.; Price, L.B.; Skov, R.L.; Danish, M.S.G. Emergence of Livestock-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections in Denmark. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 65, 1072–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Davis, M.F.; Iverson, S.A.; Baron, P.; Vasse, A.; Silbergeld, E.K.; Lautenbach, E.; Morris, D.O. Household transmission of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and other staphylococci. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2012, 12, 703–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ward, M.J.; Goncheva, M.; Richardson, E.; McAdam, P.R.; Raftis, E.; Kearns, A.; Daum, R.S.; David, M.Z.; Lauderdale, T.L.; Edwards, G.F.; et al. Identification of source and sink populations for the emergence and global spread of the East-Asia clone of community-associated MRSA. Genome Biol. 2016, 17, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Spoor, L.E.; McAdam, P.R.; Weinert, L.A.; Rambaut, A.; Hasman, H.; Aarestrup, F.M.; Kearns, A.M.; Larsen, A.R.; Skov, R.L.; Fitzgerald, J.R. Livestock origin for a human pandemic clone of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. mBio 2013, 4, e00356-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Richardson, E.J.; Bacigalupe, R.; Harrison, E.M.; Weinert, L.A.; Lycett, S.; Vrieling, M.; Robb, K.; Hoskisson, P.A.; Holden, M.T.G.; Feil, E.J.; et al. Gene exchange drives the ecological success of a multi-host bacterial pathogen. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 1468–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Smith, E.M.; Green, L.E.; Medley, G.F.; Bird, H.E.; Fox, L.K.; Schukken, Y.H.; Kruze, J.V.; Bradley, A.J.; Zadoks, R.N.; Dowson, C.G. Multilocus sequence typing of intercontinental bovine Staphylococcus aureus isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 4737–4743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Taponen, S.; Supre, K.; Piessens, V.; Van Coillie, E.; De Vliegher, S.; Koort, J.M.K. Staphylococcus agnetis sp. nov., a coagulase-variable species from bovine subclinical and mild clinical mastitis. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2012, 62, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Vanderhaeghen, W.; Piepers, S.; Leroy, F.; Van Coillie, E.; Haesebrouck, F.; De Vliegher, S. Identification, typing, ecology and epidemiology of coagulase negative staphylococci associated with ruminants. Vet. J. 2015, 203, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Vasileiou, N.G.C.; Chatzopoulos, D.C.; Sarrou, S.; Fragkou, I.A.; Katsafadou, A.I.; Mavrogianni, V.S.; Petinaki, E.; Fthenakis, G.C. Role of staphylococci in mastitis in sheep. J. Dairy Res. 2019, 86, 254–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Menzies, P. Udder Health for Dairy Goats. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pr. 2021, 37, 149–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Lasagno, M.; Ortiz, M.; Vissio, C.; Yaciuk, R.; Bonetto, C.; Pellegrino, M.; Bogni, C.; Odierno, L.; Raspanti, C. Pathogenesis and inflammatory response in experimental caprine mastitis due to Staphylococcus chromogenes. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 116, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Yebra, G.; Haag, A.F.; Neamah, M.M.; Wee, B.A.; Richardson, E.J.; Horcajo, P.; Granneman, S.; Tormo-Mas, M.A.; de la Fuente, R.; Fitzgerald, J.R.; et al. Radical genome remodelling accompanied the emergence of a novel host-restricted bacterial pathogen. PLoS Pathog. 2021, 17, e1009606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bergonier, D.; de Cremoux, R.; Rupp, R.; Lagriffoul, G.; Berthelot, X. Mastitis of dairy small ruminants. Vet. Res. 2003, 34, 689–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wegener, H.C.; Andresen, L.O.; Billehansen, V. Staphylococcus-Hyicus Virulence in Relation to Exudative Epidermitis in Pigs. Can. J. Vet. Res. 1993, 57, 119–125. [Google Scholar]
  102. Wegener, H.C. Diagnostic-Value of Phage Typing, Antibiogram Typing, and Plasmid Profiling of Staphylococcus-Hyicus from Piglets with Exudative Epidermitis. J. Vet. Med. B 1993, 40, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Andresen, L.O.; Ahrens, P.; Daugaard, L.; Bille-Hansen, V. Exudative epidermitis in pigs caused by toxigenic Staphylococcus chromogenes. Vet. Microbiol. 2005, 105, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Morgan, M. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and animals: Zoonosis or humanosis? J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2008, 62, 1181–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Fazakerley, J.; Nuttall, T.; Sales, D.; Schmidt, V.; Carter, S.D.; Hart, C.A.; McEwan, N.A. Staphylococcal colonization of mucosal and lesional skin sites in atopic and healthy dogs. Vet. Dermatol. 2009, 20, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ravens, P.A.; Vogelnest, L.J.; Ewen, E.; Bosward, K.L.; Norris, J.M. Canine superficial bacterial pyoderma: Evaluation of skin surface sampling methods and antimicrobial susceptibility of causal Staphylococcus isolates. Aust. Vet. J. 2014, 92, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lee, G.Y.; Lee, H.H.; Hwang, S.Y.; Hong, J.; Lyoo, K.S.; Yang, S.J. Carriage of Staphylococcus schleiferi from canine otitis externa: Antimicrobial resistance profiles and virulence factors associated with skin infection. J. Vet. Sci. 2019, 20, e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Bugden, D.L. Identification and antibiotic susceptibility of bacterial isolates from dogs with otitis externa in Australia. Aust. Vet. J. 2013, 91, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Dziva, F.; Wint, C.; Auguste, T.; Heeraman, C.; Dacon, C.; Yu, P.; Koma, L.M. First identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius strains among coagulase-positive staphylococci isolated from dogs with otitis externa in Trinidad, West Indies. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2015, 5, 29170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ball, K.R.; Rubin, J.E.; Chirino-Trejo, M.; Dowling, P.M. Antimicrobial resistance and prevalence of canine uropathogens at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Teaching Hospital, 2002–2007. Can. Vet. J. 2008, 49, 985–990. [Google Scholar]
  111. Cavana, P.; Robino, P.; Stella, M.C.; Bellato, A.; Crosaz, O.; Fiora, S.R.; Nebbia, P. Staphylococci isolated from cats in Italy with superficial pyoderma and allergic dermatitis: Characterisation of isolates and their resistance to antimicrobials. Vet. Dermatol. 2023, 34, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Litster, A.; Moss, S.M.; Honnery, M.; Rees, B.; Trott, D.J. Prevalence of bacterial species in cats with clinical signs of lower urinary tract disease: Recognition of Staphylococcus felis as a possible feline urinary tract pathogen. Vet. Microbiol. 2007, 121, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Szafraniec, G.M.; Szeleszczuk, P.; Dolka, B. A Review of Current Knowledge on Staphylococcus agnetis in Poultry. Animals 2020, 10, 1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Alrubaye, A.A.K.; Ekesi, N.S.; Hasan, A.; Koltes, D.A.; Wideman, R.F., Jr.; Rhoads, D.D. Chondronecrosis with osteomyelitis in broilers: Further defining a bacterial challenge model using standard litter flooring and protection with probiotics. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 6474–6480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Poulsen, L.L.; Thofner, I.; Bisgaard, M.; Olsen, R.H.; Christensen, J.P.; Christensen, H. Staphylococcus agnetis, a potential pathogen in broiler breeders. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 212, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Schulz, D.; Grumann, D.; Trube, P.; Pritchett-Corning, K.; Johnson, S.; Reppschlager, K.; Gumz, J.; Sundaramoorthy, N.; Michalik, S.; Berg, S.; et al. Laboratory Mice Are Frequently Colonized with Staphylococcus aureus and Mount a Systemic Immune Response-Note of Caution for In vivo Infection Experiments. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. De Vliegher, S.; Fox, L.K.; Piepers, S.; McDougall, S.; Barkema, H.W. Invited review: Mastitis in dairy heifers: Nature of the disease, potential impact, prevention, and control. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 1025–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Mork, T.; Waage, S.; Tollersrud, T.; Kvitle, B.; Sviland, S. Clinical mastitis in ewes; bacteriology, epidemiology and clinical features. Acta Vet. Scand. 2007, 49, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Mork, T.; Kvitle, B.; Jorgensen, H.J. Reservoirs of Staphylococcus aureus in meat sheep and dairy cattle. Vet. Microbiol. 2012, 155, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Roberson, J.R.; Fox, L.K.; Hancock, D.D.; Gay, J.M.; Besser, T.E. Ecology of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from various sites on dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 1994, 77, 3354–3364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Campos, B.; Pickering, A.C.; Rocha, L.S.; Aguilar, A.P.; Fabres-Klein, M.H.; de Oliveira Mendes, T.A.; Fitzgerald, J.R.; de Oliveira Barros Ribon, A. Diversity and pathogenesis of Staphylococcus aureus from bovine mastitis: Current understanding and future perspectives. BMC Vet. Res. 2022, 18, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Resch, G.; Francois, P.; Morisset, D.; Stojanov, M.; Bonetti, E.J.; Schrenzel, J.; Sakwinska, O.; Moreillon, P. Human-to-bovine jump of Staphylococcus aureus CC8 is associated with the loss of a beta-hemolysin converting prophage and the acquisition of a new staphylococcal cassette chromosome. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e58187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Sakwinska, O.; Giddey, M.; Moreillon, M.; Morisset, D.; Waldvogel, A.; Moreillon, P. Staphylococcus aureus host range and human-bovine host shift. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 5908–5915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. McCarthy, A.J.; Lindsay, J.A.; Loeffler, A. Are all meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) equal in all hosts? Epidemiological and genetic comparison between animal and human MRSA. Vet. Dermatol. 2012, 23, 267–275, e253–e264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Guinane, C.M.; Sturdevant, D.E.; Herron-Olson, L.; Otto, M.; Smyth, D.S.; Villaruz, A.E.; Kapur, V.; Hartigan, P.J.; Smyth, C.J.; Fitzgerald, J.R. Pathogenomic analysis of the common bovine Staphylococcus aureus clone (ET3): Emergence of a virulent subtype with potential risk to public health. J. Infect. Dis. 2008, 197, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Naushad, S.; Nobrega, D.B.; Naqvi, S.A.; Barkema, H.W.; De Buck, J. Genomic Analysis of Bovine Staphylococcus aureus Isolates from Milk To Elucidate Diversity and Determine the Distributions of Antimicrobial and Virulence Genes and Their Association with Mastitis. mSystems 2020, 5, e00063-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hoekstra, J.; Zomer, A.L.; Rutten, V.; Benedictus, L.; Stegeman, A.; Spaninks, M.P.; Bennedsgaard, T.W.; Biggs, A.; De Vliegher, S.; Mateo, D.H.; et al. Genomic analysis of European bovine Staphylococcus aureus from clinical versus subclinical mastitis. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ashraf, S.; Cheng, J.; Zhao, X. Clumping factor A of Staphylococcus aureus interacts with AnnexinA2 on mammary epithelial cells. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Felipe, V.; Morgante, C.A.; Somale, P.S.; Varroni, F.; Zingaretti, M.L.; Bachetti, R.A.; Correa, S.G.; Porporatto, C. Evaluation of the biofilm forming ability and its associated genes in Staphylococcus species isolates from bovine mastitis in Argentinean dairy farms. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 104, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Pereyra, E.A.; Picech, F.; Renna, M.S.; Baravalle, C.; Andreotti, C.S.; Russi, R.; Calvinho, L.F.; Diez, C.; Dallard, B.E. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus adhesion and biofilm-producing genes and their expression during internalization in bovine mammary epithelial cells. Vet. Microbiol. 2016, 183, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Cucarella, C.; Tormo, M.A.; Ubeda, C.; Trotonda, M.P.; Monzon, M.; Peris, C.; Amorena, B.; Lasa, I.; Penades, J.R. Role of biofilm-associated protein bap in the pathogenesis of bovine Staphylococcus aureus. Infect. Immun. 2004, 72, 2177–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Vautor, E.; Abadie, G.; Pont, A.; Thiery, R. Evaluation of the presence of the bap gene in Staphylococcus aureus isolates recovered from human and animals species. Vet. Microbiol. 2008, 127, 407–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Haveri, M.; Roslof, A.; Rantala, L.; Pyorala, S. Virulence genes of bovine Staphylococcus aureus from persistent and nonpersistent intramammary infections with different clinical characteristics. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 103, 993–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Wilson, G.J.; Tuffs, S.W.; Wee, B.A.; Seo, K.S.; Park, N.; Connelley, T.; Guinane, C.M.; Morrison, W.I.; Fitzgerald, J.R. Bovine Staphylococcus aureus Superantigens Stimulate the Entire T Cell Repertoire of Cattle. Infect. Immun. 2018, 86, e00505-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Bramley, A.J.; Patel, A.H.; O’Reilly, M.; Foster, R.; Foster, T.J. Roles of alpha-toxin and beta-toxin in virulence of Staphylococcus aureus for the mouse mammary gland. Infect. Immun. 1989, 57, 2489–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Younis, A.; Krifucks, O.; Fleminger, G.; Heller, E.D.; Gollop, N.; Saran, A.; Leitner, G. Staphylococcus aureus leucocidin, a virulence factor in bovine mastitis. J. Dairy Res. 2005, 72, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Deplanche, M.; Alekseeva, L.; Semenovskaya, K.; Fu, C.L.; Dessauge, F.; Finot, L.; Petzl, W.; Zerbe, H.; Le Loir, Y.; Rainard, P.; et al. Staphylococcus aureus Phenol-Soluble Modulins Impair Interleukin Expression in Bovine Mammary Epithelial Cells. Infect. Immun. 2016, 84, 1682–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kretschmer, D.; Gleske, A.K.; Rautenberg, M.; Wang, R.; Koberle, M.; Bohn, E.; Schoneberg, T.; Rabiet, M.J.; Boulay, F.; Klebanoff, S.J.; et al. Human formyl peptide receptor 2 senses highly pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus. Cell Host Microbe 2010, 7, 463–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Fitzgerald, J.R.; Monday, S.R.; Foster, T.J.; Bohach, G.A.; Hartigan, P.J.; Meaney, W.J.; Smyth, C.J. Characterization of a putative pathogenicity island from bovine Staphylococcus aureus encoding multiple superantigens. J. Bacteriol. 2001, 183, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Smyth, D.S.; Hartigan, P.J.; Meaney, W.J.; Fitzgerald, J.R.; Deobald, C.F.; Bohach, G.A.; Smyth, C.J. Superantigen genes encoded by the egc cluster and SaPIbov are predominant among Staphylococcus aureus isolates from cows, goats, sheep, rabbits and poultry. J. Med. Microbiol. 2005, 54, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Jarraud, S.; Peyrat, M.A.; Lim, A.; Tristan, A.; Bes, M.; Mougel, C.; Etienne, J.; Vandenesch, F.; Bonneville, M.; Lina, G. egc, a highly prevalent operon of enterotoxin gene, forms a putative nursery of superantigens in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Immunol. 2001, 166, 669–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Bar-Gal, G.K.; Blum, S.E.; Hadas, L.; Ehricht, R.; Monecke, S.; Leitner, G. Host-specificity of Staphylococcus aureus causing intramammary infections in dairy animals assessed by genotyping and virulence genes. Vet. Microbiol. 2015, 176, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Viana, D.; Blanco, J.; Tormo-Mas, M.A.; Selva, L.; Guinane, C.M.; Baselga, R.; Corpa, J.; Lasa, I.; Novick, R.P.; Fitzgerald, J.R.; et al. Adaptation of Staphylococcus aureus to ruminant and equine hosts involves SaPI-carried variants of von Willebrand factor-binding protein. Mol. Microbiol. 2010, 77, 1583–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Garcia-Alvarez, L.; Holden, M.T.; Lindsay, H.; Webb, C.R.; Brown, D.F.; Curran, M.D.; Walpole, E.; Brooks, K.; Pickard, D.J.; Teale, C.; et al. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a novel mecA homologue in human and bovine populations in the UK and Denmark: A descriptive study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2011, 11, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Olde Riekerink, R.G.; Barkema, H.W.; Kelton, D.F.; Scholl, D.T. Incidence rate of clinical mastitis on Canadian dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 1366–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Verbeke, J.; Piepers, S.; Supre, K.; De Vliegher, S. Pathogen-specific incidence rate of clinical mastitis in Flemish dairy herds, severity, and association with herd hygiene. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 6926–6934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Levison, L.J.; Miller-Cushon, E.K.; Tucker, A.L.; Bergeron, R.; Leslie, K.E.; Barkema, H.W.; DeVries, T.J. Incidence rate of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on conventional and organic Canadian dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1341–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Piepers, S.; De Meulemeester, L.; de Kruif, A.; Opsomer, G.; Barkema, H.W.; De Vliegher, S. Prevalence and distribution of mastitis pathogens in subclinically infected dairy cows in Flanders, Belgium. J. Dairy Res. 2007, 74, 478–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Condas, L.A.Z.; De Buck, J.; Nobrega, D.B.; Carson, D.A.; Naushad, S.; De Vliegher, S.; Zadoks, R.N.; Middleton, J.R.; Dufour, S.; Kastelic, J.P.; et al. Prevalence of non-aureus staphylococci species causing intramammary infections in Canadian dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 5592–5612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Jenkins, S.N.; Okello, E.; Rossitto, P.V.; Lehenbauer, T.W.; Champagne, J.; Penedo, M.C.T.; Arruda, A.G.; Godden, S.; Rapnicki, P.; Gorden, P.J.; et al. Molecular epidemiology of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species isolated at different lactation stages from dairy cattle in the United States. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Huebner, R.; Mugabi, R.; Hetesy, G.; Fox, L.; De Vliegher, S.; De Visscher, A.; Barlow, J.W.; Sensabaugh, G. Characterization of genetic diversity and population structure within Staphylococcus chromogenes by multilocus sequence typing. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0243688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Zadoks, R.N.; Middleton, J.R.; McDougall, S.; Katholm, J.; Schukken, Y.H. Molecular epidemiology of mastitis pathogens of dairy cattle and comparative relevance to humans. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 2011, 16, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Valckenier, D.; Piepers, S.; Schukken, Y.H.; De Visscher, A.; Boyen, F.; Haesebrouck, F.; De Vliegher, S. Longitudinal study on the effects of intramammary infection with non-aureus staphylococci on udder health and milk production in dairy heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 899–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Souza, R.M.; Souza, F.N.; Batista, C.F.; Piepers, S.; De Visscher, A.; Santos, K.R.; Molinari, P.C.; Ferronatto, J.A.; Franca da Cunha, A.; Blagitz, M.G.; et al. Distinct behavior of bovine-associated staphylococci species in their ability to resist phagocytosis and trigger respiratory burst activity by blood and milk polymorphonuclear leukocytes in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 1625–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Watanabe, S.; Aiba, Y.; Tan, X.E.; Li, F.Y.; Boonsiri, T.; Thitiananpakorn, K.; Cui, B.; Sato’o, Y.; Kiga, K.; Sasahara, T.; et al. Complete genome sequencing of three human clinical isolates of Staphylococcus caprae reveals virulence factors similar to those of S. epidermidis and S. capitis. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Leitner, G.; Merin, U.; Krifucks, O.; Blum, S.; Rivas, A.L.; Silanikove, N. Effects of intra-mammary bacterial infection with coagulase negative staphylococci and stage of lactation on shedding of epithelial cells and infiltration of leukocytes into milk: Comparison among cows, goats and sheep. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2012, 147, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. de la Fuente, R.; Suarez, G. Respiratory deficient Staphylococcus aureus as the aetiological agent of “abscess disease”. Zentralbl. Vet. B 1985, 32, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Schnitt, A.; Tenhagen, B.A. Risk Factors for the Occurrence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Dairy Herds: An Update. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2020, 17, 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Monistero, V.; Barberio, A.; Biscarini, F.; Cremonesi, P.; Castiglioni, B.; Graber, H.U.; Bottini, E.; Ceballos-Marquez, A.; Kroemker, V.; Petzer, I.M.; et al. Different distribution of antimicrobial resistance genes and virulence profiles of Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from clinical mastitis in six countries. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 3431–3446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Fergestad, M.E.; De Visscher, A.; L’Abee-Lund, T.; Tchamba, C.N.; Mainil, J.G.; Thiry, D.; De Vliegher, S.; Wasteson, Y. Antimicrobial resistance and virulence characteristics in 3 collections of staphylococci from bovine milk samples. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 10250–10267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Nelli, A.; Voidarou, C.C.; Venardou, B.; Fotou, K.; Tsinas, A.; Bonos, E.; Fthenakis, G.C.; Skoufos, I.; Tzora, A. Antimicrobial and Methicillin Resistance Pattern of Potential Mastitis-Inducing Staphylococcus aureus and Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Isolates from the Mammary Secretion of Dairy Goats. Biology 2022, 11, 1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Schonborn, S.; Kromker, V. Detection of the biofilm component polysaccharide intercellular adhesin in Staphylococcus aureus infected cow udders. Vet. Microbiol. 2016, 196, 126–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Brouillette, E.; Talbot, B.G.; Malouin, F. The fibronectin-binding proteins of Staphylococcus aureus may promote mammary gland colonization in a lactating mouse model of mastitis. Infect. Immun. 2003, 71, 2292–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Murray, S.; Pascoe, B.; Meric, G.; Mageiros, L.; Yahara, K.; Hitchings, M.D.; Friedmann, Y.; Wilkinson, T.S.; Gormley, F.J.; Mack, D.; et al. Recombination-Mediated Host Adaptation by Avian Staphylococcus aureus. Genome Biol. Evol. 2017, 9, 830–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Maali, Y.; Badiou, C.; Martins-Simoes, P.; Hodille, E.; Bes, M.; Vandenesch, F.; Lina, G.; Diot, A.; Laurent, F.; Trouillet-Assant, S. Understanding the Virulence of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius: A Major Role of Pore-Forming Toxins. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Terauchi, R.; Sato, H.; Hasegawa, T.; Yamaguchi, T.; Aizawa, C.; Maehara, N. Isolation of exfoliative toxin from Staphylococcus intermedius and its local toxicity in dogs. Vet. Microbiol. 2003, 94, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Futagawa-Saito, K.; Makino, S.; Sunaga, F.; Kato, Y.; Sakurai-Komada, N.; Ba-Thein, W.; Fukuyasu, T. Identification of first exfoliative toxin in Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2009, 301, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Iyori, K.; Hisatsune, J.; Kawakami, T.; Shibata, S.; Murayama, N.; Ide, K.; Nagata, M.; Fukata, T.; Iwasaki, T.; Oshima, K.; et al. Identification of a novel Staphylococcus pseudintermedius exfoliative toxin gene and its prevalence in isolates from canines with pyoderma and healthy dogs. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2010, 312, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Edwards, V.M.; Deringer, J.R.; Callantine, S.D.; Deobald, C.F.; Berger, P.H.; Kapur, V.; Stauffacher, C.V.; Bohach, G.A. Characterization of the canine type C enterotoxin produced by Staphylococcus intermedius pyoderma isolates. Infect. Immun. 1997, 65, 2346–2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Abouelkhair, M.A.; Bemis, D.A.; Kania, S.A. Characterization of recombinant wild-type and nontoxigenic protein A from Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. Virulence 2018, 9, 1050–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Bannoehr, J.; Brown, J.K.; Shaw, D.J.; Fitzgerald, R.J.; van den Broek, A.H.; Thoday, K.L. Staphylococccus pseudintermedius surface proteins SpsD and SpsO mediate adherence to ex vivo canine corneocytes. Vet. Dermatol. 2012, 23, 119–124.e126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Bunsow, D.; Tantawy, E.; Ostermeier, T.; Bahre, H.; Garbe, A.; Larsen, J.; Winstel, V. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius synthesizes deoxyadenosine to cause persistent infection. Virulence 2021, 12, 989–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Sato, H.; Tanabe, T.; Kuramoto, M.; Tanaka, K.; Hashimoto, T.; Saito, H. Isolation of exfoliative toxin from Staphylococcus hyicus subsp. hyicus and its exfoliative activity in the piglet. Vet. Microbiol. 1991, 27, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Tanabe, T.; Sato, H.; Sato, H.; Watanabe, K.; Hirano, M.; Hirose, K.; Kurokawa, S.; Nakano, K.; Saito, H.; Maehara, N. Correlation between occurrence of exudative epidermitis and exfoliative toxin-producing ability of Staphylococcus hyicus. Vet. Microbiol. 1996, 48, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Fudaba, Y.; Nishifuji, K.; Andresen, L.O.; Yamaguchi, T.; Komatsuzawa, H.; Amagai, M.; Sugai, M. Staphylococcus hyicus exfoliative toxins selectively digest porcine desmoglein 1. Microb. Pathog. 2005, 39, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Rosander, A.; Guss, B.; Pringle, M. An IgG-binding protein A homolog in Staphylococcus hyicus. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 149, 273–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Gotz, F.; Popp, F.; Korn, E.; Schleifer, K.H. Complete nucleotide sequence of the lipase gene from Staphylococcus hyicus cloned in Staphylococcus carnosus. Nucleic Acids Res. 1985, 13, 5895–5906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Demleitner, G.; Gotz, F. Evidence for importance of the Staphylococcus hyicus lipase pro-peptide in lipase secretion, stability and activity. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1994, 121, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Sato, H.; Hirose, K.; Terauchi, R.; Abe, S.; Moromizato, I.; Kurokawa, S.; Maehara, N. Purification and characterization of a novel Staphylococcus chromogenes exfoliative toxin. J. Vet. Med. Ser. B-Infect. Dis. Vet. Public Health 2004, 51, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. O’Neill, A.M.; Worthing, K.A.; Kulkarni, N.; Li, F.; Nakatsuji, T.; McGrosso, D.; Mills, R.H.; Kalla, G.; Cheng, J.Y.; Norris, J.M.; et al. Antimicrobials from a feline commensal bacterium inhibit skin infection by drug-resistant S. pseudintermedius. Elife 2021, 10, e66793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Reshamwala, K.; Cheung, G.Y.C.; Hsieh, R.C.; Liu, R.; Joo, H.S.; Zheng, Y.; Bae, J.S.; Nguyen, T.H.; Villaruz, A.E.; Gozalo, A.S.; et al. Identification and characterization of the pathogenic potential of phenol-soluble modulin toxins in the mouse commensal Staphylococcus xylosus. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 999201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Schiffer, C.J.; Schaudinn, C.; Ehrmann, M.A.; Vogel, R.F. SxsA, a novel surface protein mediating cell aggregation and adhesive biofilm formation of Staphylococcus xylosus. Mol. Microbiol. 2022, 117, 986–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Lynch, S.A.; Helbig, K.J. The Complex Diseases of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in Canines: Where to Next? Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Bierowiec, K.; Korzeniowska-Kowal, A.; Wzorek, A.; Rypula, K.; Gamian, A. Prevalence of Staphylococcus Species Colonization in Healthy and Sick Cats. Biomed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 4360525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Lehner, G.; Linek, M.; Bond, R.; Lloyd, D.H.; Prenger-Berninghoff, E.; Thom, N.; Straube, I.; Verheyen, K.; Loeffler, A. Case-control risk factor study of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP) infection in dogs and cats in Germany. Vet. Microbiol. 2014, 168, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Litster, A.; Thompson, M.; Moss, S.; Trott, D. Feline bacterial urinary tract infections: An update on an evolving clinical problem. Vet. J. 2011, 187, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Bloom, P. Canine superficial bacterial folliculitis: Current understanding of its etiology, diagnosis and treatment. Vet. J. 2014, 199, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. van Duijkeren, E.; Catry, B.; Greko, C.; Moreno, M.A.; Pomba, M.C.; Pyorala, S.; Ruzauskas, M.; Sanders, P.; Threlfall, E.J.; Torren-Edo, J.; et al. Review on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2011, 66, 2705–2714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Pinchbeck, L.R.; Cole, L.K.; Hillier, A.; Kowalski, J.J.; Rajala-Schultz, P.J.; Bannerman, T.L.; York, S. Genotypic relatedness of staphylococcal strains isolated from pustules and carriage sites in dogs with superficial bacterial folliculitis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2006, 67, 1337–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Santoro, D.; Marsella, R.; Pucheu-Haston, C.M.; Eisenschenk, M.N.; Nuttall, T.; Bizikova, P. Review: Pathogenesis of canine atopic dermatitis: Skin barrier and host-micro-organism interaction. Vet. Dermatol. 2015, 26, 84-e25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Hillier, A.; Griffin, C.E. The ACVD task force on canine atopic dermatitis (I): Incidence and prevalence. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2001, 81, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Saridomichelakis, M.N.; Farmaki, R.; Leontides, L.S.; Koutinas, A.F. Aetiology of canine otitis externa: A retrospective study of 100 cases. Vet. Dermatol. 2007, 18, 341–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Paterson, S. Discovering the causes of otitis externa. Practice 2016, 38, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. O’Neill, D.G.; Volk, A.V.; Soares, T.; Church, D.B.; Brodbelt, D.C.; Pegram, C. Frequency and predisposing factors for canine otitis externa in the UK—A primary veterinary care epidemiological view. Canine Med. Genet. 2021, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Saijonmaa-Koulumies, L.E.; Lloyd, D.H. Colonization of the canine skin with bacteria. Vet. Dermatol. 1996, 7, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Sasaki, T.; Kikuchi, K.; Tanaka, Y.; Takahashi, N.; Kamata, S.; Hiramatsu, K. Reclassification of phenotypically identified staphylococcus intermedius strains. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 2770–2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Devriese, L.A.; Vancanneyt, M.; Baele, M.; Vaneechoutte, M.; De Graef, E.; Snauwaert, C.; Cleenwerck, I.; Dawyndt, P.; Swings, J.; Decostere, A.; et al. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius sp. nov., a coagulase-positive species from animals. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 1569–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Rubin, J.E.; Chirino-Trejo, M. Prevalence, sites of colonization, and antimicrobial resistance among Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolated from healthy dogs in Saskatoon, Canada. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2011, 23, 351–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Foster, A.P. Staphylococcal skin disease in livestock. Vet. Dermatol. 2012, 23, 342–351.e363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Hanselman, B.A.; Kruth, S.A.; Rousseau, J.; Weese, J.S. Coagulase positive staphylococcal colonization of humans and their household pets. Can. Vet. J. 2009, 50, 954–958. [Google Scholar]
  201. Bean, D.C.; Wigmore, S.M. Carriage rate and antibiotic susceptibility of coagulase-positive staphylococci isolated from healthy dogs in Victoria, Australia. Aust. Vet. J. 2016, 94, 456–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Menandro, M.L.; Dotto, G.; Mondin, A.; Martini, M.; Ceglie, L.; Pasotto, D. Prevalence and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius from symptomatic companion animals in Northern Italy: Clonal diversity and novel sequence types. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2019, 66, 101331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Cain, C.L.; Morris, D.O.; Rankin, S.C. Clinical characterization of Staphylococcus schleiferi infections and identification of risk factors for acquisition of oxacillin-resistant strains in dogs: 225 cases (2003–2009). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2011, 239, 1566–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Ruscher, C.; Lubke-Becker, A.; Wleklinski, C.G.; Soba, A.; Wieler, L.H.; Walther, B. Prevalence of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolated from clinical samples of companion animals and equidaes. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 136, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Worthing, K.A.; Abraham, S.; Coombs, G.W.; Pang, S.; Saputra, S.; Jordan, D.; Trott, D.J.; Norris, J.M. Clonal diversity and geographic distribution of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius from Australian animals: Discovery of novel sequence types. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 213, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Moses, I.B.; Santos, F.F.; Gales, A.C. Human Colonization and Infection by Staphylococcus pseudintermedius: An Emerging and Underestimated Zoonotic Pathogen. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Blondeau, L.D.; Deneer, H.; Rubin, J.E.; Kanthan, R.; Sanche, S.E.; Hamula, C.L.; Blondeau, J.M. Zoonotic Staphylococcus pseudintermedius: An underestimated human pathogen? Future Microbiol. 2023, 18, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Borjesson, S.; Gomez-Sanz, E.; Ekstrom, K.; Torres, C.; Gronlund, U. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius can be misdiagnosed as Staphylococcus aureus in humans with dog bite wounds. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015, 34, 839–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Somayaji, R.; Priyantha, M.A.R.; Rubin, J.E.; Church, D. Human infections due to Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, an emerging zoonosis of canine origin: Report of 24 cases. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2016, 85, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Starlander, G.; Borjesson, S.; Gronlund-Andersson, U.; Tellgren-Roth, C.; Melhusa, A. Cluster of Infections Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in Humans in a Tertiary Hospital. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014, 52, 3118–3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Yarbrough, M.L.; Lainhart, W.; Burnham, C.A.D. Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles of Human Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus intermedius Group. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01788-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Worthing, K.; Pang, S.; Trott, D.J.; Abraham, S.; Coombs, G.W.; Jordan, D.; McIntyre, L.; Davies, M.R.; Norris, J. Characterisation of Staphylococcus felis isolated from cats using whole genome sequencing. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 222, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Sips, G.J.; van Dijk, M.A.M.; van Westreenen, M.; van der Graaf-van Bloois, L.; Duim, B.; Broens, E.M. Evidence of cat-to-human transmission of Staphylococcus felis. J. Med. Microbiol. 2023, 72, 001661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Sung, J.M.; Chantler, P.D.; Lloyd, D.H. Accessory gene regulator locus of Staphylococcus intermedius. Infect. Immun. 2006, 74, 2947–2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Bannoehr, J.; Ben Zakour, N.L.; Waller, A.S.; Guardabassi, L.; Thoday, K.L.; van den Broek, A.H.M.; Fitzgerald, J.R. Population genetic structure of the Staphylococcus intermedius group: Insights into agr diversification and the emergence of methicillin-resistant strains. J. Bacteriol. 2007, 189, 8685–8692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Ji, G.; Pei, W.; Zhang, L.; Qiu, R.; Lin, J.; Benito, Y.; Lina, G.; Novick, R.P. Staphylococcus intermedius produces a functional agr autoinducing peptide containing a cyclic lactone. J. Bacteriol. 2005, 187, 3139–3150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Cheung, G.Y.; Villaruz, A.E.; Joo, H.S.; Duong, A.C.; Yeh, A.J.; Nguyen, T.H.; Sturdevant, D.E.; Queck, S.Y.; Otto, M. Genome-wide analysis of the regulatory function mediated by the small regulatory psm-mec RNA of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 304, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Vuong, C.; Kocianova, S.; Yao, Y.; Carmody, A.B.; Otto, M. Increased colonization of indwelling medical devices by quorum-sensing mutants of Staphylococcus epidermidis in vivo. J. Infect. Dis. 2004, 190, 1498–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Ben Zakour, N.L.; Bannoehr, J.; van den Broek, A.H.; Thoday, K.L.; Fitzgerald, J.R. Complete genome sequence of the canine pathogen Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 2363–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Wang, R.; Braughton, K.R.; Kretschmer, D.; Bach, T.H.; Queck, S.Y.; Li, M.; Kennedy, A.D.; Dorward, D.W.; Klebanoff, S.J.; Peschel, A.; et al. Identification of novel cytolytic peptides as key virulence determinants for community-associated MRSA. Nat. Med. 2007, 13, 1510–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Cheung, G.Y.; Rigby, K.; Wang, R.; Queck, S.Y.; Braughton, K.R.; Whitney, A.R.; Teintze, M.; DeLeo, F.R.; Otto, M. Staphylococcus epidermidis strategies to avoid killing by human neutrophils. PLoS Pathog. 2010, 6, e1001133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Nakamura, Y.; Oscherwitz, J.; Cease, K.B.; Chan, S.M.; Munoz-Planillo, R.; Hasegawa, M.; Villaruz, A.E.; Cheung, G.Y.; McGavin, M.J.; Travers, J.B.; et al. Staphylococcus delta-toxin induces allergic skin disease by activating mast cells. Nature 2013, 503, 397–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  223. Hodille, E.; Cuerq, C.; Badiou, C.; Bienvenu, F.; Steghens, J.P.; Cartier, R.; Bes, M.; Tristan, A.; Plesa, A.; Le, V.T.; et al. Delta Hemolysin and Phenol-Soluble Modulins, but Not Alpha Hemolysin or Panton-Valentine Leukocidin, Induce Mast Cell Activation. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Prevost, G.; Bouakham, T.; Piemont, Y.; Monteil, H. Characterisation of a synergohymenotropic toxin produced by Staphylococcus intermedius. FEBS Lett. 1995, 376, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Garbacz, K.; Zarnowska, S.; Piechowicz, L.; Haras, K. Pathogenicity potential of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius strains isolated from canine carriers and from dogs with infection signs. Virulence 2013, 4, 255–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Breyer, G.M.; Saggin, B.F.; de Carli, S.; da Silva, M.; da Costa, M.M.; Brenig, B.; Azevedo, V.A.C.; Cardoso, M.R.I.; Siqueira, F.M. Virulent potential of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in dogs. Acta Trop. 2023, 242, 106911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Sahin-Toth, J.; Kovacs, E.; Tothpal, A.; Juhasz, J.; Forro, B.; Banyai, K.; Havril, K.; Horvath, A.; Ghidan, A.; Dobay, O. Whole genome sequencing of coagulase positive staphylococci from a dog-and-owner screening survey. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Crawford, E.C.; Singh, A.; Gibson, T.W.; Scott Weese, J. Biofilm-Associated Gene Expression in Staphylococcus pseudintermedius on a Variety of Implant Materials. Vet. Surg. 2016, 45, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Bannoehr, J.; Ben Zakour, N.L.; Reglinski, M.; Inglis, N.F.; Prabhakaran, S.; Fossum, E.; Smith, D.G.; Wilson, G.J.; Cartwright, R.A.; Haas, J.; et al. Genomic and surface proteomic analysis of the canine pathogen Staphylococcus pseudintermedius reveals proteins that mediate adherence to the extracellular matrix. Infect. Immun. 2011, 79, 3074–3086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Takeuchi, H.; Nakajima, C.; Konnai, S.; Maekawa, N.; Okagawa, T.; Usui, M.; Tamura, Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Murata, S.; Ohashi, K. Characterization of SpsQ from Staphylococcus pseudintermedius as an affinity chromatography ligand for canine therapeutic antibodies. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0281171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Thammavongsa, V.; Kern, J.W.; Missiakas, D.M.; Schneewind, O. Staphylococcus aureus synthesizes adenosine to escape host immune responses. J. Exp. Med. 2009, 206, 2417–2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Winstel, V.; Schneewind, O.; Missiakas, D. Staphylococcus aureus Exploits the Host Apoptotic Pathway To Persist during Infection. mBio 2019, 10, e02270-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Devriese, L.A.; Schleifer, K.H.; Adegoke, G.O. Identification of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci from Farm-Animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1985, 58, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Shimizu, A.; Ozaki, J.; Kawano, J.; Saitoh, Y.; Kimura, S. Distribution of Staphylococcus species on animal skin. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 1992, 54, 355–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. L’Ecuyer, C.; Jericho, K. Exudative epidermitis in pigs: Etiological studies and pathology. Can. J. Comp. Med. Vet. Sci. 1966, 30, 94–101. [Google Scholar]
  236. L’Ecuyer, C. Exudative epidermitis in pigs. Clinical studies and preliminary transmission trials. Can. J. Comp. Med. Vet. Sci. 1966, 30, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  237. Andrews, J.J. Ulcerative glossitis and stomatitis associated with exudative epidermitis in suckling swine. Vet. Pathol. 1979, 16, 432–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  238. Moreno, A.M.; Moreno, L.Z.; Poor, A.P.; Matajira, C.E.C.; Moreno, M.; Gomes, V.T.M.; da Silva, G.F.R.; Takeuti, K.L.; Barcellos, D.E. Antimicrobial Resistance Profile of Staphylococcus hyicus Strains Isolated from Brazilian Swine Herds. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  239. Aarestrup, F.M.; Jensen, L.B. Trends in antimicrobial susceptibility in relation to antimicrobial usage and presence of resistance genes in Staphylococcus hyicus isolated from exudative epidermitis in pigs. Vet. Microbiol. 2002, 89, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Park, J.; Friendship, R.M.; Poljak, Z.; Weese, J.S.; Dewey, C.E. An investigation of exudative epidermitis (greasy pig disease) and antimicrobial resistance patterns of Staphylococcus hyicus and Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical cases. Can. Vet. J. 2013, 54, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
  241. Regecova, I.; Vyrostkova, J.; Zigo, F.; Gregova, G.; Kovacova, M. Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance of Bacteria Staphylococcus chromogenes Isolated from Sheep’s Milk and Cheese. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Staiman, A.; Hsu, D.Y.; Silverberg, J.I. Epidemiology of staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome in US adults. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2018, 79, 774–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  243. Cribier, B.; Piemont, Y.; Grosshans, E. Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome in adults. A clinical review illustrated with a new case. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1994, 30, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Brazel, M.; Desai, A.; Are, A.; Motaparthi, K. Staphylococcal Scalded Skin Syndrome and Bullous Impetigo. Medicina 2021, 57, 1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Johnson, M.K. Impetigo. Adv. Emerg. Nurs. J. 2020, 42, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Leung, A.K.C.; Barankin, B.; Leong, K.F. Staphylococcal-scalded skin syndrome: Evaluation, diagnosis, and management. World J. Pediatr. 2018, 14, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Hanakawa, Y.; Schechter, N.M.; Lin, C.Y.; Nishifuji, K.; Amagai, M.; Stanley, J.R. Enzymatic and molecular characteristics of the efficiency and specificity of exfoliative toxin cleavage of desmoglein 1. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279, 5268–5277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  248. Hanakawa, Y.; Schechter, N.M.; Lin, C.Y.; Garza, L.; Li, H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Fudaba, Y.; Nishifuji, K.; Sugai, M.; Amagai, M.; et al. Molecular mechanisms of blister formation in bullous impetigo and staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome. J. Clin. Investig. 2002, 110, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Andresen, L.O.; BilleHansen, V.; Wegener, H.C. Staphylococcus hyicus exfoliative toxin: Purification and demonstration of antigenic diversity among toxins from virulent strains. Microb. Pathog. 1997, 22, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Futagawa-Saito, K.; Ba-Thein, W.; Higuchi, T.; Sakurai, N.; Fukuyasu, T. Nationwide molecular surveillance of exfoliative toxigenic Staphylococcus hyicus on pig farms across Japan. Vet. Microbiol. 2007, 124, 370–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Sato, H.; Watanabe, T.; Murata, Y.; Ohtake, A.; Nakamura, M.; Aizawa, C.; Saito, H.; Maehara, N. New exfoliative toxin produced by a plasmid-carrying strain of Staphylococcus hyicus. Infect. Immun. 1999, 67, 4014–4018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Watanabe, T.; Sato, H.; Hatakeyama, Y.; Matsuzawa, T.; Kawai, M.; Aizawa, C.; Danbara, H.; Maehara, N. Cloning of the gene coding for Staphylococcus hyicus exfoliative toxin B and its expression in Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 2000, 182, 4101–4103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  253. Ahrens, P.; Andresen, L.O. Cloning and sequence analysis of genes encoding Staphylococcus hyicus exfoliative toxin types A, B, C, and D. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 1833–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  254. Leekitcharoenphon, P.; Pamp, S.J.; Andresen, L.O.; Aarestrup, F.M. Comparative genomics of toxigenic and non-toxigenic Staphylococcus hyicus. Vet. Microbiol. 2016, 185, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Calcutt, M.J.; Foecking, M.F.; Hsieh, H.Y.; Adkins, P.R.; Stewart, G.C.; Middleton, J.R. Sequence Analysis of Staphylococcus hyicus ATCC 11249T, an Etiological Agent of Exudative Epidermitis in Swine, Reveals a Type VII Secretion System Locus and a Novel 116-Kilobase Genomic Island Harboring Toxin-Encoding Genes. Genome Announc. 2015, 3, e01525-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Nishifuji, K.; Fudaba, Y.; Yamaguchi, T.; Iwasaki, T.; Sugai, M.; Amagai, M. Cloning of swine desmoglein 1 and its direct proteolysis by Staphylococcus hyicus exfoliative toxins isolated from pigs with exudative epidermitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2005, 16, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Nguyen, M.T.; Luqman, A.; Bitschar, K.; Hertlein, T.; Dick, J.; Ohlsen, K.; Broker, B.; Schittek, B.; Gotz, F. Staphylococcal (phospho)lipases promote biofilm formation and host cell invasion. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2018, 308, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  258. Fry, P.R.; Calcutt, M.J.; Foecking, M.F.; Hsieh, H.Y.; Suntrup, D.G.; Perry, J.; Stewart, G.C.; Middleton, J.R. Draft Genome Sequence of Staphylococcus chromogenes Strain MU 970, Isolated from a Case of Chronic Bovine Mastitis. Genome Announc. 2014, 2, e00835-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Chin, D.; Deecker, S.R.; Ensminger, A.W.; Heinrichs, D.E. Draft Genome Sequence of Staphylococcus chromogenes ATCC 43764, a Coagulase-Negative Staphylococcus Strain with Antibacterial Potential. Microbiol. Resour. Ann. 2021, 10, e0049221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Julian, R.J. Rapid growth problems: Ascites and skeletal deformities in broilers. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 1773–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Shim, M.Y.; Karnuah, A.B.; Mitchell, A.D.; Anthony, N.B.; Pesti, G.M.; Aggrey, S.E. The effects of growth rate on leg morphology and tibia breaking strength, mineral density, mineral content, and bone ash in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 1790–1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Leterrier, C.; Nys, Y. Composition, cortical structure and mechanical properties of chicken tibiotarsi: Effect of growth rate. Br. Poult. Sci. 1992, 33, 925–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  263. Gentle, M.J. Pain issues in poultry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 135, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. McNamee, P.T.; Smyth, J.A. Bacterial chondronecrosis with osteomyelitis (‘femoral head necrosis’) of broiler chickens: A review. Avian. Pathol. 2000, 29, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Wijesurendra, D.S.; Chamings, A.N.; Bushell, R.N.; Rourke, D.O.; Stevenson, M.; Marenda, M.S.; Noormohammadi, A.H.; Stent, A. Pathological and microbiological investigations into cases of bacterial chondronecrosis and osteomyelitis in broiler poultry. Avian. Pathol. 2017, 46, 683–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  266. Bisgaard, M.; Bojesen, A.M.; Christensen, J.P.; Christensen, H. Observations on the incidence and aetiology of valvular endocarditis in broiler breeders and detection of a newly described taxon of Pasteurellaceae, Avibacterium endocarditidis. Avian. Pathol. 2010, 39, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Chadfield, M.S.; Christensen, J.P.; Christensen, H.; Bisgaard, M. Characterization of streptococci and enterococci associated with septicaemia in broiler parents with a high prevalence of endocarditis. Avian. Pathol. 2004, 33, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Velkers, F.C.; van de Graaf-Bloois, L.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Westendorp, S.T.; van Bergen, M.A.; Dwars, R.M.; Landman, W.J. Enterococcus hirae-associated endocarditis outbreaks in broiler flocks: Clinical and pathological characteristics and molecular epidemiology. Vet. Q. 2011, 31, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Ayala, D.I.; Grum, D.S.; Evans, N.P.; Russo, K.N.; Kimminau, E.A.; Trible, B.R.; Lahoti, M.M.; Novak, C.L.; Karnezos, T.P. Identification and characterization of the causative agents of Focal Ulcerative Dermatitis in commercial laying hens. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 1110573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Aarestrup, F.M.; Agers, L.Y.; Ahrens, P.; JC, J.L.; Madsen, M.; Jensen, L.B. Antimicrobial susceptibility and presence of resistance genes in staphylococci from poultry. Vet. Microbiol. 2000, 74, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Calcutt, M.J.; Foecking, M.F.; Fry, P.R.; Hsieh, H.Y.; Perry, J.; Stewart, G.C.; Scholl, D.T.; Messier, S.; Middleton, J.R. Draft Genome Sequence of Bovine Mastitis Isolate Staphylococcus agnetis CBMRN 20813338. Genome Announc. 2014, 2, e00883-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Al-Rubaye, A.A.; Couger, M.B.; Ojha, S.; Pummill, J.F.; Koon, J.A., 2nd; Wideman, R.F., Jr.; Rhoads, D.D. Genome Analysis of Staphylococcus agnetis, an Agent of Lameness in Broiler Chickens. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  273. Shwani, A.; Adkins, P.R.F.; Ekesi, N.S.; Alrubaye, A.; Calcutt, M.J.; Middleton, J.R.; Rhoads, D.D. Whole-Genome Comparisons of Staphylococcus agnetis Isolates from Cattle and Chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 86, e00484-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  274. Gozalo, A.S.; Hoffmann, V.J.; Brinster, L.R.; Elkins, W.R.; Ding, L.; Holland, S.M. Spontaneous Staphylococcus xylosus infection in mice deficient in NADPH oxidase and comparison with other laboratory mouse strains. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 2010, 49, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  275. Supre, K.; Haesebrouck, F.; Zadoks, R.N.; Vaneechoutte, M.; Piepers, S.; De Vliegher, S. Some coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species affect udder health more than others. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 2329–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Belheouane, M.; Vallier, M.; Cepic, A.; Chung, C.J.; Ibrahim, S.; Baines, J.F. Assessing similarities and disparities in the skin microbiota between wild and laboratory populations of house mice. ISME J. 2020, 14, 2367–2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Nagase, N.; Sasaki, A.; Yamashita, K.; Shimizu, A.; Wakita, Y.; Kitai, S.; Kawano, J. Isolation and species distribution of staphylococci from animal and human skin. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2002, 64, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Acuff, N.V.; LaGatta, M.; Nagy, T.; Watford, W.T. Severe Dermatitis Associated with Spontaneous Staphylococcus xylosus Infection in Rag(−/−)Tpl2(−/−) Mice. Comp. Med. 2017, 67, 344–349. [Google Scholar]
  279. Russo, M.; Invernizzi, A.; Gobbi, A.; Radaelli, E. Diffuse scaling dermatitis in an athymic nude mouse. Vet. Pathol. 2013, 50, 722–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Kim, Y.; Lee, Y.S.; Yang, J.Y.; Lee, S.H.; Park, Y.Y.; Kweon, M.N. The resident pathobiont Staphylococcus xylosus in Nfkbiz-deficient skin accelerates spontaneous skin inflammation. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 6348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Bradfield, J.F.; Wagner, J.E.; Boivin, G.P.; Steffen, E.K.; Russell, R.J. Epizootic fatal dermatitis in athymic nude mice due to Staphylococcus xylosus. Lab. Anim. Sci. 1993, 43, 111–113. [Google Scholar]
  282. Won, Y.S.; Kwon, H.J.; Oh, G.T.; Kim, B.H.; Lee, C.H.; Park, Y.H.; Hyun, B.H.; Choi, Y.K. Identification of Staphylococcus xylosus isolated from C57BL/6J-Nos2(tm1Lau) mice with dermatitis. Microbiol. Immunol. 2002, 46, 629–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  283. Kong, H.H.; Oh, J.; Deming, C.; Conlan, S.; Grice, E.A.; Beatson, M.A.; Nomicos, E.; Polley, E.C.; Komarow, H.D.; Program, N.C.S.; et al. Temporal shifts in the skin microbiome associated with disease flares and treatment in children with atopic dermatitis. Genome Res. 2012, 22, 850–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  284. Leyden, J.J.; Marples, R.R.; Kligman, A.M. Staphylococcus aureus in the lesions of atopic dermatitis. Br. J. Dermatol. 1974, 90, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  285. Lebtig, M.; Scheurer, J.; Muenkel, M.; Becker, J.; Bastounis, E.; Peschel, A.; Kretschmer, D. Keratinocytes use FPR2 to detect Staphylococcus aureus and initiate antimicrobial skin defense. Front. Immunol. 2023, 14, 1188555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Kaur, G.; Arora, A.; Sathyabama, S.; Mubin, N.; Verma, S.; Mayilraj, S.; Agrewala, J.N. Genome sequencing, assembly, annotation and analysis of Staphylococcus xylosus strain DMB3-Bh1 reveals genes responsible for pathogenicity. Gut Pathog. 2016, 8, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Naik, S.; Bouladoux, N.; Linehan, J.L.; Han, S.J.; Harrison, O.J.; Wilhelm, C.; Conlan, S.; Himmelfarb, S.; Byrd, A.L.; Deming, C.; et al. Commensal-dendritic-cell interaction specifies a unique protective skin immune signature. Nature 2015, 520, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Schiffer, C.J.; Abele, M.; Ehrmann, M.A.; Vogel, R.F. Bap-Independent Biofilm Formation in Staphylococcus xylosus. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Holtfreter, S.; Radcliff, F.J.; Grumann, D.; Read, H.; Johnson, S.; Monecke, S.; Ritchie, S.; Clow, F.; Goerke, C.; Broker, B.M.; et al. Characterization of a mouse-adapted Staphylococcus aureus strain. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e71142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Sung, J.M.; Lloyd, D.H.; Lindsay, J.A. Staphylococcus aureus host specificity: Comparative genomics of human versus animal isolates by multi-strain microarray. Microbiol. Read. 2008, 154, 1949–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Summary of most frequent animal diseases and associated staphylococcal pathogens.
Table 1. Summary of most frequent animal diseases and associated staphylococcal pathogens.
Animal SpeciesDisease TypeAssociated Staphylococcus SpeciesReference(s)
CattleMastitisS. aureus[90,91,92,93]
Subclinical mastitisS. agentis[94]
S. chromogenes, S. simulans, S. haemolyticus, S. xylosus, S. epidermidis[95]
SheepMastitisS. aureus[96,97]
S. chromogenes[98]
LymphadenitisS. aureus subsp. anaerobius[99]
GoatsMastitisS. aureus
S. caprae[100]
LymphadenitisS. aureus subsp. anaerobius[99]
S. caprae
PigsExudative dermatitisS. hyicus[101,102]
S. chromogenes[103]
HorsesSkin and soft tissue infection, bacteremia, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, implant- and catheter-related infections, metritis, omphalitis, pneumoniaS. aureus[104]
DogAtopic dermatitis, pyodermaS. pseudintermedius[105,106]
S. coagulans[12,107]
Otitis externaS. pseudintermedius[108,109]
S. coagulans[12,107]
Urinary tract infectionsS. pseudintermedius[110]
CatPyodermaS. aureus[111]
S. felis[111]
Urinary tract infectionsS. felis[112]
AvianChondronecrosis with osteomyelitisS. aureus[113]
S. agnetis[114]
Systemic infectionsS. aureus[113]
S. hyicus[113]
S. agnetis[115]
Focal Ulcerative Dermatitis SyndromeS. aureus[116]
S. agnetis[116]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheung, G.Y.C.; Otto, M. Virulence Mechanisms of Staphylococcal Animal Pathogens. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 14587. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241914587

AMA Style

Cheung GYC, Otto M. Virulence Mechanisms of Staphylococcal Animal Pathogens. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(19):14587. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241914587

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheung, Gordon Y. C., and Michael Otto. 2023. "Virulence Mechanisms of Staphylococcal Animal Pathogens" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 19: 14587. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241914587

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop