Next Article in Journal
Prevalence, Diversity, and Virulence of Campylobacter Carried by Migratory Birds at Four Major Habitats in China
Previous Article in Journal
Porcine Monocyte DNA Traps Formed during Infection with Pathogenic Clostridioides difficile Strains
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/pathogens13030229
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genetic Diversification and Resistome of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci from Nostrils of Healthy Dogs and Dog-Owners in La Rioja, Spain

by
Idris Nasir Abdullahi
1,2,
Carmen Lozano
1,
Carmen González-Azcona
1,
Myriam Zarazaga
1 and
Carmen Torres
1,*
1
Area of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, One-Health-UR Research Group, University of La Rioja, 26006 Logroño, Spain
2
Department of Medical Laboratory Science, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, College of Medical Sciences, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria 810107, Nigeria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2024, 13(3), 229; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13030229
Submission received: 15 February 2024 / Revised: 28 February 2024 / Accepted: 1 March 2024 / Published: 5 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Bacterial Pathogens)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) species in healthy dogs and their owners could be transferred between these hosts and carry diverse antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes of public health concern. This study determined the frequency, diversity, and AMR genes of nasal CoNS from healthy dogs and in-contact people as well as the rate of intra-household (between healthy dogs and dog-owners) transmission of CoNS. Nasal samples were collected and processed from 34 dogs and 41 humans from 27 households, and CoNS identification was done by MALDI-TOF-MS. The AMR determinants and genetic lineages were determined by PCR/sequencing. A total of 216 CoNS isolates were initially obtained and identified, and the AMR phenotypes were determined. From these, 130 non-repetitive CoNS were selected (one isolate of each species per sample or more than one if they presented different AMR phenotypes) and further characterized. The predominant species from dog carriers were S. epidermidis (26.5%), S. hominis (8.8%), and S. cohnii (8.8%), whereas in the human carriers, the predominant ones were S. epidermidis (80.4%), S. lugdunensis (9.8%), and S. hominis (9.8%). Intra-host species diversity (>one CoNS species) was detected in 37.5% of dogs and 21.6% of dog-owners. Conversely, 50% of dogs and 70.3% of dog-owners had intra-species AMR diversity (2–4 AMR-CoNS profiles). About 20% were susceptible to all antimicrobial agents tested, 31.5% displayed a multidrug resistance phenotype, and 17.4% were mecA-positive, located in SCCmec type V (24.2%), III (18.1%), IVc (12.1%), and II (6.1%). The other mec-A positive CoNS isolates (39.5%) had non-typeable SCCmec. The highest AMR rates were found against erythromycin (32.3%/mph(C), msr(A)) and mupirocin (20.8%/mupA), but the resistance rates for other antimicrobial agents were <10% each. Remarkably, one linezolid-resistant S. epidermidis-ST35 isolate was identified and mediated by four amino acid substitutions in L3 and one in L4 ribosomal proteins. Dogs and dog-owners as carriers of S. epidermidis with similar AMR patterns and genetic lineages (ST59, ST61, ST166 and ST278) were detected in four households (14.8%). Diverse CoNS carriage and moderate level of AMR were obtained from this study. The detection of CoNS carrying diverse SCCmec elements and intra-species AMR diversity highlights the roles of dog ownership in the potential transmission of antimicrobial-resistant CoNS in either direction.

1. Introduction

Recently, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) species have been attracting public health interest as they have been implicated in healthcare-associated infections, with substantial impacts on human and animal health [1,2]. However, they are rarely reported in community-associated infections [1,2]. Staphylococcus epidermidis is the most common CoNS responsible for various clinical conditions ranging from prosthetic device-associated infections and neonatal sepsis due to its high strain-level heterogeneity [3,4,5]. S. lugdunensis is another CoNS species that causes a wide range of infections like those of Staphylococcus aureus [6]. Particularly, it is more virulent than other CoNS and has been confirmed to be responsible for life-threatening infective endocarditis [7]. Moreover, S. lugdunensis is a good bacteriocin producer (lugdunin) against many Gram-positive cocci such as S. aureus [8,9]. Although sparsely reported, some CoNS species (such as methicillin-resistant S. haemolyticus and S. epidermidis) have been identified as etiological agents for infections in dogs [10,11,12], but their zoonotic potential and relevance in canine health need to be determined.
The ability of CoNS species to notoriously acquire antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes and produce biofilms on inanimate surfaces makes them very difficult to treat [13,14]. Moreover, the methicillin-resistant CoNS (MRCoNS) isolates are often associated with additional AMR genes which may facilitate the risk of gene transfer between MRCoNS with other Staphylococcus species with higher pathogenic properties through mobile genetic elements [15]. Also, multidrug resistant-CoNS could significantly limit the availability of treatment options for staphylococcal infections of humans and animals, especially if they carry critical AMR genes such as those that mediate linezolid resistance [16,17].
Coagulase-positive staphylococci (CoPS) can be exchanged in dog-owning households as demonstrated by our recent study [18]. However, few data are available on the incidence and diversity of CoNS in healthy dogs and their owners at the household level and the potential cases of interhost transmission. Among the few available studies is a previous study conducted by our research group, in which samples were collected over a decade ago to determine the potential influence of dog ownership on the concomitant nasal carriage of more than one CoNS species and transmission between dogs and their owners [19]. This present study fundamentally evaluated the current situation in the same area (La Rioja, Spain), specifically to determine the ecology and resistome diversity of CoNS obtained from the nasal cavities of clinically healthy dogs and in-contact people, and to classify the Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome mec (SCCmec) mobile elements of methicillin-resistant-CoNS and determine the intra-household (between healthy dogs and dog-owners) transmission of S. epidermidis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Participants and Bacterial Recovery and Identification

The description of the enrolled individuals (dogs and dog-owners) and how the nasal samples were obtained is provided in the previous study in which the prevalence of CoPS was addressed [18]. However, this present study was focused on the isolation and identification of CoNS from 34 dogs and 41 dog-owners in 27 unrelated households of the La Rioja region in northern Spain. All isolates with morphological characteristics of staphylococci were identified by MALDI-TOF-MS as previously described [20]. The protocols and methodology used in this study have been reviewed and approved by the ethical research committee of the University of La Rioja (Spain). In this regard, the collection, processing, and analyses of human and animal samples were carried out following all applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for human experiments (as described in the revised Helsinki declaration) and for ethical use of animals (directive 2010/63/EU, Spanish laws 9/2003 and 32/2007, and RD 178/2004 and RD 1201/2005).

2.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests

All identified CoNS isolates were tested for their antimicrobial susceptibility to 13 agents by the agar disk diffusion method following the recommendations and breakpoints provided by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing [21]. The antimicrobial agents tested were as follows (µg/disk): penicillin (10), cefoxitin (30), gentamicin (10), tobramycin (10), erythromycin (ERY, 15), clindamycin (CLI, 2), chloramphenicol (30), linezolid (10), mupirocin (200), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (1.25 + 23.75), tetracycline (30), and ciprofloxacin (5). Also, the minimum inhibition concentration (MIC) of linezolid in the linezolid-resistant CoNS (initially detected by disc diffusion) was determined by Etest (BioMérieux Linezolid Etest®, Marcy l’Étoile, France) and results were interpreted as per the recommendation of the test manufacturer and EUCAST 2022. Inducible resistance to clindamycin was tested by the ‘D test’. In this regard, the ERY and CLI disks were placed together (12 mm apart). Isolates that were resistant to ERY and susceptible to CLI but showed a D-shaped distorted zone of inhibition around CLI under the influence of ERY were considered ERY-CLI inducible resistance.
Multidrug resistance (MDR) in the CoNS isolates was defined by the presence of resistance to ≥3 classes of antimicrobial agents used in human and veterinary medicine [22,23]. All non-repetitive CoNS isolates (isolates of different samples or those of the same sample but with different species or different AMR phenotypes) were further characterized.

2.3. Characterization of Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants

The mechanism of AMR in all non-repetitive CoNS isolates was tested by PCR and confirmed by sequencing (when required). The following genes were selected based on the type and class of antimicrobial agents: beta-lactams (blaZ, mecA), aminoglycosides (aac6′-aph2″ and ant4′), tetracycline (tet(K), tet(L), tet(M)), erythromycin and clindamycin (erm(A), erm(B), erm(C), erm(T), lnu(A), lnu(B), vga(A), msr(A), mph(C)), chloramphenicol (fexA, fexB, catA, catpC194, catpC221, and catpC223), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (dfrA, dfrD, dfrG, dfrK), mupirocin (mupA), and linezolid (cfr, cfrD, optrA, and poxtA). Primers and conditions of PCRs for the AMR genes tested are included in Supplementary Table S1. Moreover, mutations in 23S rRNA were investigated by PCR/sequencing. Also, amino acid substitutions on the 50S ribosomal proteins L3 (rplC), L4 (rplD), and L22 (rplV) were screened on the linezolid-resistant CoNS by PCR/sequencing (Supplementary Table S1). The obtained sequences were compared with those of S. epidermidis ATCC12228 (GenBank accession number CP022247) using the EMBOSS Needle software (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/jdispatcher/psa/emboss_needle, accessed on 12 February 2023) for nucleotide or amino acid (BLOSUM 62 cost matrix) alignments.

2.4. Molecular Typing of S. epidermidis and MRCoNS Isolates

The sequence types of all S. epidermidis isolates with similar antimicrobial susceptibility profiles from hosts (dogs and dog-owners) of the same households were determined by MultiLocus Sequence Typing (MLST). The seven housekeeping genes of S. epidermidis (acrC, aroE, gtr, pyrR, mutS, tpi, and yqiL) were amplified, and the sequence type (ST) was assigned according to the MLST database (https://pubmlst.org/, accessed on 23 April 2023). Moreover, SCCmec typing of all non-repetitive MRCoNS was performed by multiplex PCRs as previously described [24]. Primers and conditions of PCRs for the AMR genes tested are included in Supplementary Table S1. Positive controls (confirmed by sequencing) from the collection of the University of La Rioja were included in all PCRs in this study.

3. Results

3.1. Frequencies and Species Diversity of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci in Healthy Dogs and Dog-Owners

A total of 216 CoNS were recovered from the 34 dogs and 41 dog-owners of the 27 households tested in this study (up to six isolates per positive sample), and the distribution of species is indicated in Table 1. After species identification and AMR phenotype determination, a collection of 130 non-repetitive CoNS isolates was obtained and genetically characterized and considered in this study. These 130 CoNS isolates corresponded to one isolate of each species per sample or more than one if they presented different AMR phenotypes (Table 1).
A total of 32 non-repetitive CoNS isolates were identified from 16 of the 34 dogs (of nine species: S. epidermidis, S. hominis, S. cohnii, S. pasteuri, S. warneri, S. xylosus, S. haemolyticus, S. simulans, and S. muscae) (Table 1). In addition, 98 non-repetitive isolates were identified from 37 of 41 dog-owners (of six species: S. epidermidis, S. lugdunensis, S. hominis, S. pasteuri, S. warneri, and S. xylosus) (Table 1). About 41.7% and 90.2% of dogs and dog-owners carried at least one CoNS species, respectively (Table 1). The predominant species from dog carriers were S. epidermidis (26.5%), S. hominis (8.8%), and S. cohnii (8.8%); whereas in the human carriers, the predominant ones were S. epidermidis (80.4%), S. lugdunensis (9.8%), and S. hominis (9.8%) (Table 1).

3.2. Antimicrobial Resistance Phenotypes and Genotypes of Non-Repetitive CoNS Isolates

Of the 32 and 98 non-repetitive CoNS from dogs and dog-owners, 21.9% and 19.4% were susceptible to all antimicrobial agents tested, respectively. Also, 34.4% and 26.5% of the isolates from dogs and dog-owners, respectively, were resistant to only one antimicrobial agent tested (Table 1). However, 28.1% and 32.7% of the isolates from dogs and dog-owners presented an MDR phenotype. Collectively, 20% were susceptible to all antimicrobial agents tested, while 31.5% carried multidrug resistance (MDR) phenotypes (Table 1). The rates of resistance detected in the collection of 130 CoNS isolates were as follows [percentage of resistance/detected genes, mutation, or amino acid substitution]: penicillin [50/blaZ], cefoxitin (17.4/mecA), erythromycin–clindamycin-inducible [8.5/erm(A)], erythromycin–clindamycin-constitutive [8.5/erm(C), erm(T)], erythromycin [32.3/mph(C), msr(A)], clindamycin [5.4/vga(A), lsaB], tobramycin [9.2/ant4′], gentamicin–tobramycin [5.4/aac6′-aph2″), tetracycline [10/tet(K), tet(M)], sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim [13.1/dfrA, dfrG], chloramphenicol [4.6/catPC221], mupirocin [20.8/mupA], linezolid [0.8/four amino acid substitutions in L3 and one in L4 ribosomal proteins] and ciprofloxacin [3.8] (Table 2 and Table 3 and Figure 1). The erm(T) gene was detected only in S. epidermidis and S. hominis isolates of dog-owners (Table 2). Moreover, one of the four S. lugdunensis isolates identified in four dog-owners carried an MDR phenotype (PEN-ERY-MUP/blaZ, erm(A), mupA), two others were only resistant to PEN (blaZ), and the remaining one was susceptible to all antimicrobial agents tested (Table 2 and Table 3). The linezolid-resistant S. epidermidis isolate had an MIC for this antimicrobial agent of 16 μg/mL and resistance was mediated by amino acid substitutions on 50S ribosomal protein L3 (Ile188Val, Gly218Val, Asp219Ile, Leu220Asp) and L4 (Asn158Ser) (Supplementary Figure S1a,b). Among the 33 MRCoNS, all were mecA-positive, but only 20 were associated with a specific SCCmec type. In this regard, the SCCmec type V element was the predominant (24.2%), followed by SCCmec type III (18.1%), SCCmec type IVc (12.1%), and SCCmec type II (6.1%). The other mec-A positive CoNS isolates (39.5%) had non-typeable SCCmec (Figure 2).

3.3. Intra-Host Species Diversity of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci in Healthy Dogs and Dog-Owners

Intra-host species diversity (more than one CoNS species in a sample) was detected in 37.5% of dogs and 21.6% of dog-owners (Figure 3 and Table 4). In one of the dog-owners (number 26 in household 11) carrying diverse isolates, three heterogeneous S. epidermidis and two S. hominis isolates carrying different resistomes were identified (Table 4). Also, in dog-owner 66 of household 25, three heterogeneous S. epidermidis and one S. lugdunensis isolates carrying different antimicrobial resistance genes were identified (Table 4). In dog 18 of household 8, five different isolates of S. epidermidis, S. haemolyticus, and S. warneri carrying both methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible traits were identified (Table 4). Conversely, 50% of dogs and 70.3% of dog-owners had intra-species AMR diversity (2–4 varied AMR profiles) (Figure 3).

3.4. Intra-Household Carriers of Similar S. epidermidis Isolates and Their Genetic Lineages

Dogs and dog-owners that were carriers of S. epidermidis with similar AMR patterns and genetic lineages were detected in four households (14.8%). In two of these households, the S. epidermidis were susceptible to all antimicrobial agents tested while the other S. epidermidis isolates from the three households were resistant to only clindamycin (Table 5). The genetic lineage of S. epidermidis in the carriers in households 3, 6, 11, 13, and 19 were ST59, ST61, ST166, and ST278.

4. Discussion

There are few available data on the nasal carriage of CoNS, especially in healthy pets and their owners. Aside from the previous study by Gómez-Sanz et al. [19], we are not aware of any similar comprehensive study on the nasal staphylococci microbiota and intra-species heterogeneity of AMR in these hosts. In the present study, several CoNS species were isolated from the two hosts, but they were more diverse in healthy dogs than in their owners. This is similar to the report from a study in Trinidad where significantly more diverse species of CoNS were identified from healthy dogs than from the owners [25]. However, the CoNS species widely differ between our study and that of Suepaul et al. [25], perhaps due to the type of dog breed or the geographical/hygienic status of the hosts. Most of the CoNS isolated in the present study belonged to the species S. epidermidis in both dogs and their owners. S. epidermidis is the most reported among CoNS in humans [26] and has often been detected in healthy pets [27]. Being the major nasal commensal in humans, the predominance of S. epidermidis is not surprising in the dog-owners. Although at lower rates, it is also a predominant species in healthy dogs [19,27] perhaps due to the influence of human–pet direct or indirect contact in their household. It is important to note that S. epidermidis is largely not a normal microbiota in dogs.
Aside from S. epidermidis, S. hominis was identified at a moderate rate in both hosts. Reports on the carriage of S. hominis in healthy dogs and humans are scarce; the same is true for other species identified at low rates (S. haemolyticus, S. pastueri, and S. warneri). A recent similar study reported the same trend, but in nasal skin samples of healthy dogs [28]. Remarkably, S. lugdunensis was identified only in four dog-owners but not in dogs. This is a very relevant CoNS species in humans causing diverse clinical infections [9]. None of the dogs was colonized by this species; however, colonized dog-owners could place their dogs at risk of anthroponotic infections, as has previously been implicated in canine infection [29].
Concerning the AMR profile of the CoNS in this study, mecA-positive CoNS (carried by diverse SCCmec elements) was found in 23.2% of the isolates of healthy dog-owners and is slightly higher than those detected in studies among clinically healthy people (less than 20%) [25,30,31]. However, a slightly higher rate of 27.9% was reported from dog-owners in Spain [19] and much higher rates (>50%) have previously been reported in studies on Asian children and a remote population in French Guiana [32,33]. Conversely, the carriage rate of MR-CoNS obtained in this study was similar to a multinational study on hospital workers (21.4%) [34]. Put together, these data indicate the variation in nasal carriage of MR-CoNS based on occupation, age, geographical region, and contact with animals. However, it is important to note that studies on MRCoNS from dog-owners are particularly sparse. Most of the MRCoNS from our study were of the species S. epidermidis, others include S. hominis in both dogs and owners, but S. cohnii only in dogs. The MR-S. cohnii and MR-S. hominis are rarely isolated from healthy dogs. If we consider the comparably similar types of SCCmec elements in some of these MRCoNS isolates, one could suggest the potential transfer of the mecA gene to these non-epidermidis-MRCoNS isolates.
Half of the CoNS from dogs and their owners were penicillin-resistant, mediated by the blaZ gene that produces a beta-lactamase. A similar rate was reported by Seupaul et al [25]. This is not surprising, as penicillin is one of the first-line antimicrobial agents, and its frequent use may contribute to selection pressures in the Staphylococcus spp. Moreover, various forms of macrolide–lincosamide–streptogramin (MLS) resistance phenotypes/genotypes such as the erythromycin-resistant-clindamycin-susceptible (by msr(A), mph(C)), erythromycin–clindamycin-constitutive (by erm(A) and erm(T)), erythromycin–clindamycin-inducible (by erm(C)), and erythromycin-susceptible–clindamycin-resistant (by vga(A), lsa(B)) were exhibited by over 50% of the CoNS. These classes of antimicrobial agents are relevant treatment options in most clinical staphylococcal infections [35,36]. Hence, the AMR to this category of drugs is of serious concern. Of note is the detection of the erm(T) gene in S. epidermidis and S. hominis. This is an unusual mechanism of erythromycin–clindamycin-constitutive resistance that appears to be evolving in humans and animals.
Resistance to aminoglycosides and chloramphenicol has been reported at very low rates. Aminoglycosides are used extensively in clinical settings [27,35,36], and chloramphenicol is rarely in use in humans or pets. Perhaps this is why the fexA and fexB genes were not detected among the chloramphenicol-resistant isolates; rather, catpC221 was detected, which appears to be one of the common mechanisms of resistance in non-aureus staphylococci. Most important is the detection of linezolid-resistant S. epidermidis isolate mediated by multiple amino acid substitutions on L3 and one on L4 ribosomal proteins. This is the first report on this mechanism of linezolid resistance in S. epidiermidis-ST35 in the literature. These mechanisms of resistance are not transferable to other species or bacteria but confirm the silent and slow emergence of high-level resistance in CoNS in dog-owners.
Tetracycline resistance was generally detected at a moderate level but relatively more in dog-owners than in dogs. Most studies on mupirocin resistance focused on S. aureus isolates and very few data are available on the CoNS species [19], especially from healthy pets and their owners. In this study, the mupirocin resistance rate was high among the CoNS from both hosts, and this is a cause for concern, as mupirocin has long been used in the nasal decolonization of S. aureus [37].
MDR was high in both dogs and dog-owners, but slightly less in dogs than in their owners. MDR from healthy pets and their owners may limit the available treatment options for staphylococcal infections in humans and animal medicine [38]. Another important phenomenon to remark on is the high intra-host species and intra-species AMR diversity. Being heterogeneous, more S. epidermidis exhibited intra-species diversity with varied AMR genes. This may pose a difficulty in eradicating S. epidermidis, especially in prosthetic joint infections [5,39]. The potential transmission of S. epidermidis between owners and their pets was detected in five households where the dogs and dog-owners were colonized by similar CoNS species with the same genetic lineages. Similar findings were previously reported in Spain but on MR-CoNS [19]. Put together, this highlights the transmission of Staphylococcus species other than S. aureus and S. pseudintermedius in dog-owning households.

5. Conclusions

Diverse CoNS carriage and moderate-level AMR were obtained from the hosts. The detection of MRCoNS carrying SCCmec elements, intra-host species diversity and linezolid resistant S. epidermidis highlight the need for the extension of AMR surveillance systems to CoNS and as well as dog-owning households. Also, the detection of nasal S. epidermidis of the same lineages and indistinguishable AMR genotypic in participants from the same household are good indicators that strains are exchanged between humans and their dogs (potential anthroponosis). However, the ultimate proof of exchange events would be the comparison of the whole genome sequences of the respective isolates.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens13030229/s1, Table S1: Genes and primer sequences utilized for all PCRs in this study. References [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] are only cited in the Supplementary Materials. Figure S1a: Amino acid substitutions on 50S ribo-somal protein L3 of the linezolid-resistant S. epidermidis ST35. Figure S1b: Amino acid substitution on 50S ribosomal protein L4 of the linezolid-resistant S. epidermidis ST35.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: I.N.A. and C.T.; methodology: I.N.A. and C.T.; Laboratory experiments: I.N.A., software analysis: I.N.A., validation: C.T., I.N.A., M.Z. and C.L.; formal analysis: I.N.A., C.T., M.Z. and C.L.; data curation: C.T., C.G.-A. and I.N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, I.N.A., C.G.-A. and C.T.; writing—review and editing: C.T., I.N.A., C.G.-A., M.Z. and C.L.; supervision: C.T. and C.L.; project administration: C.T.; funding acquisition: C.T., M.Z. and I.N.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financed by project PID2019-106158RB-I00 of MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by project PID2022-139591OB-I00 of MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and FEDER, EU. Also, it received funding from the European Union’s H2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 801586.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The protocols and methodology used in this study have been reviewed and approved by the ethical research committee of the University of La Rioja (Spain) with the approval number: CE-15-2021.

Informed Consent Statement

All the dog owners gave written informed consent for themselves and on behalf of their animals before enrollment in this study.

Data Availability Statement

All the data derived from this study were comprehensively presented in this article. However, additional information may be requested from the corresponding author (C.T.).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. França, A.; Gaio, V.; Lopes, N.; Melo, L.D.R. Virulence Factors in Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci. Pathogens 2021, 10, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Argemi, X.; Hansmann, Y.; Prola, K.; Prévost, G. Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Pathogenomics. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Severn, M.M.; Horswill, A.R. Staphylococcus epidermidis and its dual lifestyle in skin health and infection. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2023, 21, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Joubert, I.A.; Otto, M.; Strunk, T.; Currie, A.J. Look Who’s Talking: Host and Pathogen Drivers of Staphylococcus epidermidis Virulence in Neonatal Sepsis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Widerström, M.; Stegger, M.; Johansson, A.; Gurram, B.K.; Larsen, A.R.; Wallinder, L.; Edebro, H.; Monsen, T. Heterogeneity of Staphylococcus epidermidis in prosthetic joint infections: Time to reevaluate microbiological criteria? Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2022, 41, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Heilbronner, S.; Foster, T.J. Staphylococcus lugdunensis: A Skin Commensal with Invasive Pathogenic Potential. Clin. Microb. Rev. 2020, 34, e00205-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Aldman, M.H.; Rasmussen, M.; Olaison, L.; Påhlman, L.I. Endocarditis due to Staphylococcus lugdunensis-a retrospective national registry-based study. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 40, 1103–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Heilbronner, S. Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Trends Microbiol. 2021, 29, 1143–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fernández-Fernández, R.; Lozano, C.; Ruiz-Ripa, L.; Robredo, B.; Azcona-Gutiérrez, J.M.; Alonso, C.A.; Aspiroz, C.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Antimicrobial Resistance and Antimicrobial Activity of Staphylococcus lugdunensis Obtained from Two Spanish Hospitals. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kizerwetter-Świda, M.; Chrobak-Chmiel, D.; Rzewuska, M. High-level mupirocin resistance in methicillin-resistant staphylococci isolated from dogs and cats. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. LoPinto, A.J.; Mohammed, H.O.; Ledbetter, E.C. Prevalence and risk factors for isolation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus in dogs with keratitis. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2015, 18, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bean, D.C.; Wigmore, S.M.; Wareham, D.W. Draft Genome Sequence of a Canine Isolate of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus. Genome Announc. 2017, 5, e00146-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Marincola, G.; Liong, O.; Schoen, C.; Abouelfetouh, A.; Hamdy, A.; Wencker, F.D.R.; Marciniak, T.; Becker, K.; Köck, R.; Ziebuhr, W. Antimicrobial resistance profiles of coagulase-Negative Staphylococci in community-based healthy individuals in Germany. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 684456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bowler, P.; Murphy, C.; Wolcott, R. Biofilm exacerbates antibiotic resistance: Is this a current oversight in antimicrobial stewardship? Antimicrob. Resis Infect. Contr. 2020, 9, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Grazul, M.; Balcerczak, E.; Sienkiewicz, M. Analysis of the Presence of the Virulence and Regulation Genes from Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) in Coagulase Negative Staphylococci and the Influence of the Staphylococcal Cross-Talk on Their Functions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gostev, V.; Leyn, S.; Kruglov, A.; Likholetova, D.; Kalinogorskaya, O.; Baykina, M.; Dmitrieva, N.; Grigorievskaya, Z.; Priputnevich, T.; Lyubasovskaya, L.; et al. Global Expansion of Linezolid-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 661798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Heilmann, C.; Ziebuhr, W.; Becker, K. Are coagulase-negative staphylococci virulent? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 1071–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Abdullahi, I.N.; Lozano, C.; Zarazaga, M.; Saidenberg, A.B.S.; Stegger, M.; Torres, C. Clonal relatedness of coagulase-positive staphylococci among healthy dogs and dog-owners in Spain. Detection of multidrug-resistant-MSSA-CC398 and novel linezolid-resistant-MRSA-CC5. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1121564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gómez-Sanz, E.; Ceballos, S.; Ruiz-Ripa, L.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Clonally Diverse Methicillin and Multidrug Resistant Coagulase Negative Staphylococci Are Ubiquitous and Pose Transfer Ability between Pets and Their Owners. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Torres-Sangiao, E.; Leal Rodriguez, C.; García-Riestra, C. Application and Perspectives of MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry in Clinical Microbiology Laboratories. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters Version 12.0. Sweden: European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 2022. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. EUCAST Clinical Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters, Version 12.0. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_14.0_Breakpoint_Tables.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2022).
  22. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Feßler, A.T.; Wang, Y.; Burbick, C.R. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing in veterinary medicine: Performance, interpretation of results, best practices and pitfalls. One Health Adv. 2023, 1, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, K.; McClure, J.A.; Elsayed, S.; Louie, T.; Conly, J.M. Novel multiplex PCR assay for characterization and concomitant subtyping of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec types I to V in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 5026–5033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Suepaul, S.; Georges, K.; Unakal, C.; Boyen, F.; Sookhoo, J.; Ashraph, K.; Yusuf, A.; Butaye, P. Determination of the frequency, species distribution and antimicrobial resistance of staphylococci isolated from dogs and their owners in Trinidad. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Burke, T.L.; Rupp, M.E.; Fey, P.D. Staphylococcus epidermidis. Trends Microbiol. 2023, 31, 763–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Han, J.I.; Yang, C.H.; Park, H.M. Prevalence and risk factors of Staphylococcus spp. carriage among dogs and their owners: A cross-sectional study. Vet. J. 2016, 212, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Štempelová, L.; Kubašová, I.; Bujňáková, D.; Kačírová, J.; Farbáková, J.; Maďar, M.; Karahutová, L.; Strompfová, V. Distribution and Characterization of Staphylococci Isolated from Healthy Canine Skin. Top Compan. Animal. Med. 2021, 49, 100665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rook, K.A.; Brown, D.C.; Rankin, S.C.; Morris, D.O. Case-control study of Staphylococcus lugdunensis infection isolates from small companion animals. Vet. Dermatol. 2012, 23, 476-e90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abadi, M.I.M.; Moniri, R.; Khorshidi, A.; Piroozmand, A.; Mousavi, S.G.A.; Dastehgoli, K. Molecular characteristics of nasal carriage methicillin-resistant coagulase negative staphylococci in school students. Jundishapur J. Microbiol. 2015, 68, e18591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, Z.; Shah, H.N.; Misra, R.; Chen, J.; Zhang, W.; Liu, Y. The prevalence, antibiotic resistance and mecA characterization of coagulase negative staphylococci recovered from non-healthcare settings in London, UK. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2018, 7, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lebeaux, D.; Barbier, F.; Angebault, C.; Benmahdi, L.; Ruppé, E.; Felix, B.; Gaillard, K.; Djossou, F.; Epelboin, L.; Dupont, C.; et al. Evolution of nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci in a remote population. Antimicrob. Agents Chemotherap. 2012, 56, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jamaluddin, T.Z.; Kuwahara-Arai, K.; Hisata, K.; Terasawa, M.; Cui, L.; Baba, T.; Sotozono, C.; Kinoshita, S.; Ito, T.; Hiramatsu, K. Extreme genetic diversity of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis strains disseminated among healthy Japanese children. J. Clin Microbiol. 2008, 46, 3778–3783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Morgenstern, M.; Erichsen, C.; Hackl, S.; Mily, J.; Militz, M.; Friederichs, J.; Hungerer, S.; Bühren, V.; Moriarty, T.F.; Post, V.; et al. Antibiotic Resistance of Commensal Staphylococcus aureus and Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci in an International Cohort of Surgeons: A Prospective Point-Prevalence Study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0148437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mahfouz, A.A.; Said, H.S.; Elfeky, S.M.; Shaaban, M.I. Inhibition of erythromycin and erythromycin-Induced resistance among Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Conner, J.G.; Smith, J.; Erol, E.; Locke, S.; Phillips, E.; Carter, C.N.; Odoi, A. Temporal trends and predictors of antimicrobial resistance among Staphylococcus spp. isolated from canine specimens submitted to a diagnostic laboratory. PLoS ONE 2018, 138, e0200719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Allport, J.; Choudhury, R.; Bruce-Wootton, P.; Reed, M.; Tate, D.; Malviya, A. Efficacy of mupirocin, neomycin and octenidine for nasal Staphylococcus aureus decolonisation: A retrospective cohort study. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Contr. 2022, 11, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Lord, J.; Millis, N.; Jones, R.D.; Johnson, B.; Kania, S.A.; Odoi, A. Patterns of antimicrobial, multidrug and methicillin resistance among Staphylococcus spp. isolated from canine specimens submitted to a diagnostic laboratory in Tennessee, USA: A descriptive study. BMC Vet. Res. 2022, 18, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Coustillères, F.; Renault, V.; Corvec, S.; Dupieux, C.; Simões, P.M.; Lartigue, M.F.; Plouzeau-Jayle, C.; Tande, D.; Lamoureux, C.; Lemarié, C.; et al. Clinical, Bacteriological, and Genetic Characterization of Bone and Joint Infections Involving Linezolid-Resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis: A Retrospective Multicenter Study in French Reference Centers. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e0419022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schnellmann, C.; Gerber, V.; Rossano, A.; Jaquier, V.; Panchaud, Y.; Doherr, M.G.; Thomann, A.; Straub, R.; Perreten, V. Presence of new mecA and mph(C) variants conferring antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus spp. isolated from the skin of horses before and after clinic admission. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 4444–4454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Poulsen, A.B.; Skov, R.; Pallesen, L.V. Detection of methicillin resistance in coagulase-negative staphylococci and in staphylococci directly from simulated blood cultures using the EVIGENE MRSA Detection Kit. J. Antimicrob. Chemotherap. 2003, 51, 419–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sutcliffe, J.; Grebe, T.; Tait-Kamradt, A.; Wondrack, L. Detection of erythromycin-resistant determinants by PCR. Antimicrob. Agent Chemotherap. 1996, 40, 2562–2566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Gómez-Sanz, E.; Torres, C.; Lozano, C.; Fernández-Pérez, R.; Aspiroz, C.; Ruiz-Larrea, F.; Zarazaga, M. Detection, molecular characterization, and clonal diversity of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC398 and CC97 in Spanish slaughter pigs of different age groups. Foodborne Path. Dis. 2010, 7, 1269–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wondrack, L.; Massa, M.; Yang, B.V.; Sutcliffe, J. Clinical strain of Staphylococcus aureus inactivates and causes efflux of macrolides. Antimicrob. Agent Chemotherap. 1996, 40, 992–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lina, G.; Quaglia, A.; Reverdy, M.E.; Leclercq, R.; Vandenesch, F.; Etienne, J. Distribution of genes encoding resistance to macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins among staphylococci. Antimicrob. Agent Chemotherap. 1999, 43, 1062–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bozdogan, B.; Berrezouga, L.; Kuo, M.S.; Yurek, D.A.; Farley, K.A.; Stockman, B.J.; Leclercq, R. A new resistance gene, linB, conferring resistance to lincosamides by nucleotidylation in Enterococcus faecium HM1025. Antimicrob. Agent Chemotherap. 1999, 43, 925–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lozano, C.; Aspiroz, C.; Rezusta, A.; Gómez-Sanz, E.; Simon, C.; Gómez, P.; Ortega, C.; Revillo, M.J.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Identification of novel vga(A)-carrying plasmids and a Tn5406-like transposon in meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis of human and animal origin. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agent 2012, 40, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Van de Klundert, J.; Vliegenthart, J. PCR detection of genes coding for aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes. In Diagnostic Molecular Microbiology: Principles and Applications; American Society for Microbiology: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 547–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Aarestrup, F.M.; Agerso, Y.; Gerner-Smidt, P.; Madsen, M.; Jensen, L.B. Comparison of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes and resistance genes in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium from humans in the community, broilers, and pigs in Denmark. Diagn. Mcrobiol. Infect Dis. 2020, 37, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kehrenberg, C.; Schwarz, S. Florfenicol-chloramphenicol exporter gene fexA is part of the novel transposon Tn558. Antimicrob. Agent Chemotherap. 2005, 49, 813–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, H.; Wang, Y.; Wu, C.; Schwarz, S.; Shen, Z.; Jeon, B.; Ding, S.; Zhang, Q.; Shen, J. A novel phenicol exporter gene, fexB, found in enterococci of animal origin. J. Antimicrob. Chemotherap. 2012, 67, 322–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kehrenberg, C.; Schwarz, S. Distribution of florfenicol resistance genes fexA and cfr among chloramphenicol-resistant Staphylococcus isolates. Antimicrob. Agent Chemotherap. 2006, 50, 1156–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lee, S.M.; Huh, H.J.; Song, D.J.; Shim, H.J.; Park, K.S.; Kang, C.I.; Ki, C.S.; Lee, N.Y. Resistance mechanisms of linezolid-nonsusceptible enterococci in Korea: Low rate of 23S rRNA mutations in Enterococcus faecium. J. Med. Microbiol. 2017, 66, 1730–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ruiz-Ripa, L.; Feßler, A.T.; Hanke, D.; Eichhorn, I.; Azcona-Gutiérrez, J.M.; Pérez-Moreno, M.O.; Seral, C.; Aspiroz, C.; Alonso, C.A.; Torres, L.; et al. Mechanisms of Linezolid Resistance Among Enterococci of Clinical Origin in Spain-Detection of optrA- and cfr(D)-Carrying E. faecalis. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wang, Y.; Lv, Y.; Cai, J.; Schwarz, S.; Cui, L.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, R.; Li, J.; Zhao, Q.; He, T.; et al. A novel gene, optrA, that confers transferable resistance to oxazolidinones and phenicols and its presence in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium of human and animal origin. J. Antimicrobial. Chemotherap. 2015, 70, 2182–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Udo, E.E.; Al-Sweih, N.; Noronha, B.C. A chromosomal location of the mupA gene in Staphylococcus aureus expressing high-level mupirocin resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemotherap. 2003, 51, 1283–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Thomas, J.C.; Vargas, M.R.; Miragaia, M.; Peacock, S.J.; Archer, G.L.; Enright, M.C. Improved multilocus sequence typing scheme for Staphylococcus epidermidis. J. Clin. Miicrobiol. 2007, 45, 616–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pathogens 13 00229 g001
Figure 1. Frequency of antimicrobial resistance among non-repetitive coagulase-negative staphylococci isolates from nasal cavities of healthy dogs and dog-owners. CHL: chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; MDR: multi-drug resistance phenotype; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline, TOB: tobramycin.
Figure 1. Frequency of antimicrobial resistance among non-repetitive coagulase-negative staphylococci isolates from nasal cavities of healthy dogs and dog-owners. CHL: chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; MDR: multi-drug resistance phenotype; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline, TOB: tobramycin.
Pathogens 13 00229 g001
Pathogens 13 00229 g002
Figure 2. Frequency of the SCCmec mobile elements identified among the 33 non-repetitive methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci isolates in healthy dogs and dog-owners.
Figure 2. Frequency of the SCCmec mobile elements identified among the 33 non-repetitive methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci isolates in healthy dogs and dog-owners.
Pathogens 13 00229 g002
Pathogens 13 00229 g003
Figure 3. Frequency of intra-host species and intra-species AMR diversity among non-repetitive coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy dogs and dog-owners. Note: The number of hosts with nasal carriage of more than one CoNS species were 16 dogs and 37 dog-owners.
Figure 3. Frequency of intra-host species and intra-species AMR diversity among non-repetitive coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy dogs and dog-owners. Note: The number of hosts with nasal carriage of more than one CoNS species were 16 dogs and 37 dog-owners.
Pathogens 13 00229 g003
Table 1. Frequencies of coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy dogs and dog-owners and characteristics of non-repetitive isolates a.
Table 1. Frequencies of coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy dogs and dog-owners and characteristics of non-repetitive isolates a.
CoNS SpeciesTotal Isolates
Recovered from Dogs and Dog-Owners		Non-Repetitive
Isolates		No. of Carriers (%)Non-Repetitive Isolates with the Following Characteristics
Susceptible to All Antimicrobial
Agents (%)		Resistance to Only One Antimicrobial Agent (%)MDR Phenotype (%)
DogsDog-OwnersDogsDog-OwnersDogsDog-OwnersDogsDog-OwnersDogsDog-OwnersTotal
S. epidermidis16712829 (26.5)33 (80.4)3 (25)14 (17.1)4 (33.3)22 (26.8)4 (33.3)29 (35.6)33 (35.1)
S. hominis13353 (8.8)4 (9.8)1 (33.3)1 (20)1 (33.3)1 (20)2 (66.7)2 (40)4 (50)
S. cohnii4303 (8.8)000002 (66.7)02 (66.7)
S. lugdunensis50404 (9.8)01 (25)01 (25)01 (25)1 (25)
S. pasteuri7141 (2.9)3 (7.3)1 (100)2 (50)01 (25)000
S. warneri9522 (5.7)2 (4.9)01 (50)2 (40)01 (20)01 (14.3)
S. xylosus4211 (2.9)1 (2.4)001 (50)1 (100)000
S. haemolyticus3302 (5.7)01 (33.3)01 (33.3)0000
S. simulans3202 (5.7)01 (50)01 (50)0000
S. muscae1101 (2.9)0001 (100)0000
Total (%)216329816 (47.1)37 (90.2)7 (21.9)19 (19.4)11 (34.4)26 (26.5)9 (28.1)32 (32.7)41 (31.5)
a Non-repetitive isolates are those of different individuals or of different species or different AMR phenotypes.
Table 2. Antimicrobial resistance phenotypes and genotypes in non-repetitive coagulase-negative staphylococci identified in healthy dog-owners.
Table 2. Antimicrobial resistance phenotypes and genotypes in non-repetitive coagulase-negative staphylococci identified in healthy dog-owners.
Species with Antimicrobial Resistance in Dog-OwnersAntimicrobial Resistance among Isolates from Dog-Owners
Phenotype (Number of Isolates)Genes or Amino Acid Substitutions Detected (Number of Isolates)
S. epidermidis, S. pasteuri, xylosusPEN (49)blaZ (46)
S. lugdunensisPEN (3)blaZ (3)
S. epidermidis, S. hominisFOX (23)mecA (23)
S. epidermidis, S. hominisERY-CLI constitutive (5)erm(A) (5)
S. epidermidis, S. hominisERY-CLI constitutive (2)erm(T) (2)
S. epidermidisERY-CLI inducible (8)erm(C) (8)
S. epidermidis, S. pasteuri, S. hominisERY (33)msr(A) (33), mph(C) (6)
S. lugdunensisERY (1)msr(A) (1)
S. epidermidisCLI (5)vga(A) (5), lsa(B) (1)
S. epidermidisGEN-TOB (2)aac6′-aph2″ (2)
S. epidermidisTOB (9)ant4′ (9)
S. epidermidis, S. hominisGEN (4)aac6′-aph2″ (4)
S. epidermidisCIP (5)NT
S. epidermidis, S. hominisTET (11)tet(K) (11), tet(M) (1)
S. epidermidisSXT (11)dfrA (10), dfrG (5)
S. epidermidisCHL (5)catpC221 (5)
S. epidermidis-ST35LZD (1)-MIC 16 µg/mLAmino acid changes in L3 (I188V, G218V, N219I, L220D) and L4 (N158S)
S. epidermidis, S. hominis, S. warneriMUP (23)mupA (23)
S. lugdunensisMUP (1)mupA (1)
CHL: chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline, TOB: tobramycin. NT: Not tested.
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance phenotypes and genotypes in non-repetitive coagulase-negative staphylococci identified from healthy dogs.
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance phenotypes and genotypes in non-repetitive coagulase-negative staphylococci identified from healthy dogs.
Species with Antimicrobial Resistance in DogsAntimicrobial Resistance among Isolates from Dog
Phenotype (Number of Isolates)Genes or Amino Acid Substitutions Detected (Number of Isolates)
S. epidermidis, S. cohnii, S. simulans, xylosusPEN (13)blaZ (13)
S. epidermidis, S. cohnii, S. hominisFOX (10)mecA (10)
S. epidermidis, S. cohniiERY-CLI constitutive (4)erm(A) (4)
S. epidermidis, S. hominisERY-CLI inducible (3)erm(C) (3)
S. epidermidis, S. warneri, S. hominisERY (9)msr(A) (9)
S. epidermidisCLI (2)vga(A)(2)
S. haemolyticusGEN-TOB (1)aac6′-aph2″ (1)
S. hominis, S. xylosusTOB (3)ant4′ (3)
S. haemolyticusTET (1)tet(K) (1)
S. epidermidis, S. warneri, S. hominisSXT (6)dfrA (6)
S. warneriCHL (1)catpC221 (1)
S. epidermidisMUP (3)mupA (3)
CHL: chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline, TOB: tobramycin.
Table 4. Intra-host species and intra-species AMR diversity in coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy dogs and dog-owners.
Table 4. Intra-host species and intra-species AMR diversity in coagulase-negative staphylococci from healthy dogs and dog-owners.
HostHost ID/HouseholdSpeciesAMR PhenotypeAMR Genes Detected
Human22/10S. pasteuri
S. pasteuri
S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis		Susceptible
PEN-ERY
PEN-TOB
MUP		NT
blaZ, msr(A)
blaZ, ant4′
mupA
26/11S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis
S. hominis
S. hominis		PEN
PEN-ERY-CLIind
PEN-ERY-CLI-MUP-LZD
PEN-FOX-ERY-CLI-TET-MUP
PEN-ERY-GEN-MUP		blaZ
blaZ, erm(C)
blaZ, mecA, msr(A), mph(C), mupA
blaZ, mecA, erm(A), tet(K), mupA
blaZ, mecA, msr(A), aac6′-aph2″, mupA
27/11S. epidermidis
S. lugdunensis
S. hominis		PEN-ERY-CLI-MUP
PEN
PEN		blaZ, erm(C), mupA
blaZ
blaZ
35/14S. pasteuri
S. epidermidis		ERY
CLI-FOX		msr(A)
lnuA, mecA
64/24S. xylosus
S. epidermidis		PEN
Susceptible		blaZ
NT
66/25S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis
S. lugdunensis		FOX-TET-MUP
PEN-FOX-ERY-MUP
PEN-FOX-GEN-TOB-CIP
PEN-ERY-MUP		mecA, tet(K), mupA
blaZ, mecA, msr(A), mph(C), mupA
blaZ, mecA, aac6′-aph2″
blaZ, msr(A), mupA
72/27S. epidermidis
S. hominis		PEN-ERY
Susceptible		blaZ, msr(A), mph(C)
NT
74/27S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis
S. lugdunensis		PEN-SXT-CIP
PEN-FOX-ERY-CIP
PEN		blaZ, dfrA, dfrG,
blaZ, mecA, msr(A)
blaZ
Dog4/2S. hominis
S. epidermidis		PEN-ERY-TOB
ERY		blaZ, msr(A), ant4′
msr(A)
18/8S. haemolyticus
S. warneri
S. warneri
S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis		TET
ERY-SXT
ERY-SXT-CHL
PEN-FOX-ERY-SXT
PEN-FOX		tet(K), tet(M)
msr(A), dfrA
msr(A), dfrA, catpC221
blaZ, mecA, msr(A), dfrA
blaZ, mecA
28/11S. simulans
S. epidermidis
S. pasteuri		Susceptible
PEN
Susceptible		NT
blaZ
NT
29/11S. cohnii
S. simulans		PEN-FOX-ERY-CLIind
PEN		blaZ, mecA, erm(A)
blaZ
32/13S. haemolyticus
S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis
S. haemolyticus		GEN-TOB
FOX-ERY-CLIind-MUP
Susceptible
FOX-ERY-MUP
FOX-ERY-CLIind-SXT-MUP		aac6′-aph2″
mecA, erm(A), mupA
NT
mecA, msr(A), mupA
mecA, erm(A), dfrA, mupA
59/21S. hominis
S. warneri
S. wareneri		PEN
PEN-ERY
PEN		blaZ
blaZ, msr(A)
blaZ
CHL: Chloramphenicol; CLI: clindamycin; CLIind: clindamycin inducible; CIP: ciprofloxacin; ERY: erythromycin; FOX: cefoxitin; GEN: gentamicin; LZD: linezolid; MUP: mupirocin; PEN: penicillin; SXT: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim; TET: tetracycline, TOB: tobramycin. NT: Not tested.
Table 5. Intra-household carriers of coagulase-negative staphylococci with similar AMR pattern and sequence type.
Table 5. Intra-household carriers of coagulase-negative staphylococci with similar AMR pattern and sequence type.
Household CodeHost ID CodeSpeciesAMR PhenotypeAMR Gene
Detected		Sequence Type
3Human 5S. epidermidisSusceptibleNTST59
Dog 6S. epidermidisSusceptibleNTST59
6Human 13S. epidermidisSusceptibleNTST166
Dog 12S. epidermidisSusceptibleNTST166
11Human 26S. epidermidisPENblaZST5
Dog 28S. epidermidisPENblaZST88
13Dog 32S. epidermidisSusceptibleNTST61
Human 33S. epidermidisSusceptibleNTST61
Human 34S. epidermidisSusceptibleNTST73
19Human 50S. epidermidisSusceptibleNTST85
Hunan 51S. epidermidisCLIvga(A)ST278
Dog 53S. epidermidisCLIvga(A)ST278
CLI: clindamycin; PEN: penicillin; NT: not tested.
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

Abdullahi, I.N.; Lozano, C.; González-Azcona, C.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Genetic Diversification and Resistome of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci from Nostrils of Healthy Dogs and Dog-Owners in La Rioja, Spain. Pathogens 2024, 13, 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13030229

AMA Style

Abdullahi IN, Lozano C, González-Azcona C, Zarazaga M, Torres C. Genetic Diversification and Resistome of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci from Nostrils of Healthy Dogs and Dog-Owners in La Rioja, Spain. Pathogens. 2024; 13(3):229. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13030229

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abdullahi, Idris Nasir, Carmen Lozano, Carmen González-Azcona, Myriam Zarazaga, and Carmen Torres. 2024. "Genetic Diversification and Resistome of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci from Nostrils of Healthy Dogs and Dog-Owners in La Rioja, Spain" Pathogens 13, no. 3: 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13030229

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