Next Article in Journal
Interprofessional Collaboration between ICU Physicians, Staff Nurses, and Hospital Pharmacists Optimizes Antimicrobial Treatment and Improves Quality of Care and Economic Outcome
Next Article in Special Issue
Spread of Multidrug-Resistant Microorganisms
Previous Article in Journal
How COVID-19 Has Influenced Public Interest in Antimicrobials, Antimicrobial Resistance and Related Preventive Measures: A Google Trends Analysis of Italian Data
Previous Article in Special Issue
Massive Spread of OXA-48 Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in the Environment of a Swiss Companion Animal Clinic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/antibiotics11030380
antibiotics-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

Antimicrobial Resistance, Biofilm Formation, and Virulence Genes in Enterococcus Species from Small Backyard Chicken Flocks

by
Othman M. Alzahrani
1,†,
Mahmoud Fayez
2,3,*,†,
Amal S. Alswat
4,
Mohamed Alkafafy
4,
Samy F. Mahmoud
4,
Theeb Al-Marri
2,
Ahmed Almuslem
2,
Hassan Ashfaq
5 and
Shaymaa Yusuf
6,*,†
1
Department of Biology, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
2
Al-Ahsa Veterinary Diagnostic Lab, Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Bacteriology, Veterinary Serum and Vaccine Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Cairo 11381, Egypt
4
Department of Biotechnology, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
5
Institute of Continuing Education and Extension, University of Veterinary Animal Sciences, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
6
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut City 71515, Egypt
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Antibiotics 2022, 11(3), 380; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030380
Submission received: 31 December 2021 / Revised: 9 March 2022 / Accepted: 11 March 2022 / Published: 13 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Spread of Multidrug-Resistant Microorganisms )
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Backyard birds are small flocks that are more common in developing countries. They are used for poultry meat and egg production. However, they are also implicated in the maintenance and transmission of several zoonotic diseases, including multidrug-resistant bacteria. Enterococci are one of the most common zoonotic bacteria. They colonize numerous body sites and cause a wide range of serious nosocomial infections in humans. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to investigate the diversity in Enterococcus spp. in healthy birds and to determine the occurrence of multidrug resistance (MDR), multi-locus sequence types, and virulence genes and biofilm formation. From March 2019 to December 2020, cloacal swabs were collected from 15 healthy backyard broiler flocks. A total of 90 enterococci strains were recovered and classified according to the 16S rRNA sequence into Enterococcus faecalis (50%); Enterococcus faecium (33.33%), Enterococcus hirae (13.33%), and Enterococcus avium (3.33%). The isolates exhibited high resistance to tetracycline (55.6%), erythromycin (31.1%), and ampicillin (30%). However, all of the isolates were susceptible to linezolid. Multidrug resistance (MDR) was identified in 30 (33.3%) isolates. The enterococci AMR-associated genes ermB, ermA, tetM, tetL, vanA, cat, and pbp5 were identified in 24 (26.6%), 11 (12.2%), 39 (43.3%), 34 (37.7%), 1 (1.1%), 4 (4.4%), and 23 (25.5%) isolates, respectively. Of the 90 enterococci, 21 (23.3%), 27 (30%), and 36 (40%) isolates showed the presence of cylA, gelE, and agg virulence-associated genes, respectively. Seventy-three (81.1%) isolates exhibited biofilm formation. A statistically significant correlation was obtained for biofilm formation versus the MAR index and MDR. Multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) identified eleven and eight different STs for E. faecalis and E. faecium, respectively. Seven different rep-family plasmid genes (rep1–2, rep3, rep5–6, rep9, and rep11) were detected in the MDR enterococci. Two-thirds (20/30; 66.6%) of the enterococci were positive for one or two rep-families. In conclusion, the results show that healthy backyard chickens could act as a reservoir for MDR and virulent Enterococcus spp. Thus, an effective antimicrobial stewardship program and further studies using a One Health approach are required to investigate the role of backyard chickens as vectors for AMR transmission to humans.

1. Introduction

Enterococci are Gram-positive bacteria that belong to the commensal microbiota of humans, animals, and poultry [1]. They are ubiquitous in nature and can be found in soils, freshwater, and plants [2]. Enterococcus spp. are important opportunistic human pathogens that are responsible for a wide range of serious nosocomial infections, including bacteremia, urinary tract infections, endocarditis, and intra-abdominal infections [3,4,5].
In veterinary medicine, enterococci are particularly significant as the causative agent of different infections, such as mastitis in cattle, bacteremia in dogs and pigs [6,7], and septicemia, endocarditis, amyloid arthropathy, and spondylitis in poultry [8,9].
Antibiotic resistance is an emerging world health threat. Many bacteria have developed resistance to frequently used antibiotics due to the unregulated use of antimicrobials in humans, agriculture, animals, poultry husbandry, and aquaculture in many developing countries [10,11].
One of the major concerns regarding opportunistic pathogens is their frequent antimicrobial-resistance (AMR) profile. Enterococci are intrinsically resistant to commonly used antibiotic classes, such as cephalosporins, β-lactams, sulfonamides, and are resistant at variable levels to aminoglycosides. Moreover, they are able to acquire resistance to clinically relevant drugs via horizontal transfer [12,13]. Enterococci are thought to play a key role in the acquisition, conservation, and transmission of AMR genes to other bacteria [14].
Enterococci pathogenesis is attributed to a variety of virulence factors. The most important adhesion factors that play a role in biofilm formation are Asa (aggregation substance), Esp (extracellular surface protein), EfaA (E. faecalis antigen A), Ace (adhesin of collagen from E. faecalis), and Ebp (endocarditis and biofilm-associated pili). Enterococci secrete the pathogenic factors CylA (cytolysin) and GelE (gelatinase), which are responsible for the exacerbation of infection. The expression of these factors is essential for biofilm formation, attachment, invasion, and the secretion of toxins [1,15,16,17].
Several molecular typing methods have been used to type enterococci, including pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, random amplification of polymorphic DNA, repetitive sequence-based PCR, ribotyping, and multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) [18,19,20,21,22,23]. MLST is a preferable tool for several pathogens, especially when epidemiological, geographical, and evolutionary studies need to be carried out [24,25]. Two MLST schemes have been developed for typing E. faecalis and E. faecium based on differences in the sequences of seven housekeeping genes (gdh, gyd, pstS, gki, aroE, xpt, and yiqL) for E. faecalis and (adk, atpA, ddl, gyd, gdh, purK, and pstS) for E. faecium [22,23].
One of the major public health concerns related to enterococci is their frequent antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Human infection by AMR enterococci occurs mainly by consuming contaminated meat or meat products from poultry and other livestock [26,27,28], and contamination can occur during slaughtering and evisceration [29].
Enterococci have a high capacity to acquire antimicrobial resistance either by point mutation or by the horizontal transfer of genetic elements [30,31,32]. Conjugation is thought to be the most common way of exchanging genetic elements, either by conjugative transposons or by horizontal transfer of plasmids [33].
In general, enterococcal plasmids are classified into two groups: a conjugative group consisting of pheromone-responsive and non-pheromone-responsive plasmids and a nonconjugative group consisting of small rolling-circle replicating (RCR) and mosaic plasmids [34].
Inc18 plasmids and pMG1-type plasmids are classified as conjugative non-pheromone-responsive plasmids, and frequently carry antibiotic resistance genes [34,35]. Nonconjugative RCR plasmids are typically small, with a high copy number, and a broad host range. Moreover, they frequently contain antibiotic resistance genes [36]. Jensen et al. [37] recently developed a classification scheme for enterococci based on the replication–initiation genes (rep) and distinguished 19 families and various unique rep genes.
Backyard birds are small flocks that are common in developing countries. They are also very popular in the USA, where birds are raised for meat production. Direct contact between poultry and humans is frequent; thus, these backyard flocks are considered a vehicle for disease transmission. Moreover, backyard poultry could be an emerging predisposing cause for MDR pathogenic bacteria, which can disseminate among humans [38]. In Saudi Arabia, many studies highlighted the prevalence of MDR enterococci in hospitals and communities [39,40]. The first vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus was detected in 1992 [41]; however, information concerning enterococci in backyard chicken is scarce.
Consequently, this study aimed to investigate the antimicrobial resistance, virulence determinants, and biofilm formation, and to characterize the plasmid content and multi-locus sequence types in Enterococcus isolates from healthy chickens in backyard farms to highlight their zoonotic importance.

2. Results

2.1. Bacterial Isolation and Identification

Ninety Enterococcus isolates were isolated from 15 backyard chicken flocks and were biochemically identified into four species. The predominant species were Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) (50%), followed by Enterococcus faecium (E. faecium) (33.33%), Enterococcus hirae (E. hirae) (13.33%), and Enterococcus avium (E. avium) (3.33%). Genetically, the 16S rRNA sequences showed more than a 99% homology with the relevant enterococci in the NCBI database. They were deposited in the NCBI sequence database with GenBank accession numbers OL691094-OL691103, OL677341-OL677350, OL691538-OL691543. On the basis of the 16S rRNA sequence analysis, 45 E. faecalis, 30 E. faecium, 12 E. hirae, and 3 E. avium isolates were clustered with the reference enterococci (E. faecalis NR_040789.1, E. faecium NR_042054.1, E. hirae NR_037082.1, and E. avium NR_028748.1), with a similarity level of 100% Supplementary Figure S1.

2.2. Antimicrobial Sensitivity

The antimicrobial-resistance profile of the 90 Enterococcus isolates is shown in Figure 1. Sixteen isolates (17.7%) were susceptible to all antibiotics. Resistance to one or more antimicrobials was determined in 74 (82.22%) enterococci. The MIC values and the resistance levels of 90 enterococci to 10 different antimicrobials are shown in Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1. Resistance to tetracycline (55.6%), erythromycin (31.1%), ampicillin (30%), ciprofloxacin (21.1%), and nitrofurantoin (17.8%) were the most frequent. Conversely, none of the isolates were resistant to linezolid, and four isolates (3.3%) showed resistance to vancomycin. E. faecalis showed a high frequency of resistance to tetracycline (62.2%), rifampin (24.4%), and nitrofurantoin (22.2%), while E. faecium exhibited a high resistance to tetracycline (50%), ampicillin (30.3%), and ciprofloxacin (23.3%).
Of the 74 resistant enterococci, 9 isolates (10%) were resistant to one antimicrobial agent, 35 (38.9%) showed resistance to two antimicrobials, and the remaining 30 (33.3%) showed MDR. The MDR enterococci isolates were distributed into 15 E. faecalis (33.3%), 8 E. faecium (26.7%), and 5 E. hirae (41.6%) isolates. The mean MAR index was 0.22 for E. faecalis (range: 0.1 to 0.5), 0.3 for E. avium, 0.23 for E. faecium (range: from 0.1 to 0.4), and 0.25 for E. hirae. (range: from 0.1 to 0.4). Table 2 shows the resistance profile of the 90 enterococcus isolates.

2.3. Antimicrobial-Resistance Genes

Nine antimicrobial-resistance genes were detected among the enterococci. Of the vancomycin-resistant isolates, 33.3% (1/3) contained vanA, while vanB was not detected in the three isolates. Twenty-four (86%) phenotypically erythromycin-resistant isolates were positive for erythromycin-resistant genes; the ermB gene was detected in all isolates, whereas the ermA gene was only detected in 11 isolates. Four tetracycline resistance genes (tetM, tetA, tetB, and tetL) were found in 94% (47/50) of tetracycline-resistant isolates. The prevalent resistance genes were tetM and tetL, accounting for 78% and 68% of the isolates, respectively; however, tetA and tetB were detected in 2% of the isolates. The cat gene was detected in 66% of the chloramphenicol-resistance isolates and the pbp5 gene for ampicillin resistance was detected in 22 enterococci isolates. Table 3 shows the distribution of antimicrobial-resistance genes among different enterococci.

2.4. Biofilm Formation

Overall, 73 Enterococcus isolates (81.1%) were biofilm producers, among which 39 were E. faecalis, 24 were E. faecium, 8 were E. hirae, and 2 were E. avium. The isolates were further classified into four categories based on the OD of the bacterial biofilm: 17 non-biofilm producers (18.9%), 16 weak biofilm producers (17.8%), 29 medium biofilm producers (32.2%), and 28 strong biofilm producers (31.1%). E. faecalis showed a significantly higher biofilm formation (p < 0.0001), and 13 E. faecalis isolates (28.9%) exhibited strong biofilm formation.
Figure 2 shows the biofilm formation strength of the Enterococcus species. A statistically significant pairwise correlation (p < 0.001) was obtained for biofilm formation versus MAR index (r = 0.807) and MDR (r = 0.639). Table 4 shows the bacterial biofilm OD MAR index mean values in the four categories.

2.5. Gelatinase and Cytolysin Activity

Fifteen Enterococcus isolates (16.7%) were gelatinase producing, and 12 exhibited cytolysin activity (13.3%) (Figure 3). E. faecalis showed significantly higher gelatinase and cytolysin activities (p < 0.0001). A statistically significant pairwise correlation (p < 0.001) was found between biofilm formation versus gelatinase activity (r = 0.245) and cytolysin activity (r = 0.386) (Figure 4).

2.6. Virulence Genes

Figure 3 shows the distribution of virulence genes in all of the isolates and can be summarized as follows: agg in 21 E. faecalis (46.7%), 10 E. faecium (33.33%), and 5 E. hirae (41.66%); gelE in 18 E. faecalis (40%), 5 E. faecium (16.7%), 3 E. hirae (25%), and 1 E. avium (33.3%); cylA in 13 E. faecalis (28.9%), 6 E. faecium (20%), and 2 E. hirae (16.6%). The virulence genes were significantly higher in E. faecalis isolates (p < 0.0001). Simultaneously, nine E. faecalis (20%), two E. faecium (6.7%), and one E. hirae (8.3%) were positive for the three tested genes. The distribution of virulence genes among different biofilm categories is shown in Table 4. A significant correlation (p < 0.0001) was found between gelE and gelatinase (r = 0.521), cylA and cytolysin (r = 0.7), agg versus MDR (r = 0.0577), and gelE versus MDR (r = 0.514) (Figure 4).

2.7. MLST of E. faecalis and E. faecium

MLST allelic profiles for E. faecalis and E. faecium are presented in Table 5 and Table 6. A total of 11 STs were found among the E. faecalis isolates. The most prevalent STs were ST16 (n = 10) and ST302 (n = 8), followed by ST179 (n = 6), ST480 (n = 5), and ST752 (n = 3) (Table 5). On the basis of the eBurst analysis and the phylogenetic analysis of the concatenated MLST sequences, seven STs were clustered into three groups: the first contained ST16, ST179, and ST302; the second ST81 and ST725; and the third ST176 and ST177; the remaining four STs (ST21, ST32, ST41, and ST480) were identified as singletons (Figure 5).
Eight STs were identified among the E. faecium isolates. The most abundant ST was ST194 (n = 8), followed by ST157 (n = 5), ST82 (n = 5), and ST9 (n = 4) (Table 6). The eBurst analysis shows that the registered isolates belong to five major clonal complexes (CC) in the order of their size: CC17, CC9, CC22, CC5, and CC94. Accordingly, ST9, ST157, ST82, ST194, and ST12 identified in this work are part of CC9, and ST16, ST18, and ST360 are part of the globally dispersed clonal lineage CC17 (Figure 6).

2.8. repA Genes (Plasmid Families)

Seven different rep-family plasmid genes (rep1–2, rep3, rep5–6, rep9, and rep11) were detected in the MDR enterococci. Two-thirds (20/30; 66.6%) of the enterococci were positive for one or two rep-families (Table 7). Seven out of fifteen E. faecalis (46.6%), two out of eight E. faecium (25%), one out of five E. hirae (20%), and one E. avium did not yield an amplicon for the rep-families. The most prevalent rep-family among E. faecalis was rep9 (pCF10), which was found in six isolates, followed by rep6 (pS86), which was found in three isolates; rep1 (pIP501) was found in one isolate. The predominant rep-family among E. faecium isolates was rep2 (pEF1071) with five isolates. Positive amplicons for rep6 (pS86) and rep1 (pIP501) were found in two and one isolates, respectively. Four different rep-families were found among E. hirae: rep5 (pN315) in three isolates, and each of rep3 (pAW63), rep6 (pS86), and rep11 (pEF1071) in one isolate. Positive amplicons for rep6 (pS86) and rep9 (pCF10) were found in the two E. avium isolates.

3. Discussion

Backyard chickens are considered to be a vector for disseminating several zoonotic diseases, including Salmonella, Campylobacter, enteropathogenic E. coli, and several antibiotic-resistant microorganisms [42,43,44]. Moreover, enterococci, notably E. faecium and E. faecalis, have emerged as major multidrug-resistant zoonotic bacteria due to the widespread use of antibiotics in human and veterinary treatments [45].
In the current study, four Enterococcus species were isolated from healthy backyard chickens. E. faecalis was the most predominant species, which is consistent with the results of previous studies [43,46,47]. In contrast, E. faecium was reported as the prevalent species in poultry [48,49].
Antimicrobial resistance is one of the characteristics of enterococci, and their ability to acquire and spread antibiotic resistance presents a challenge for infection control [50].
In this study, a high proportion of resistance was identified in the isolated enterococci, the majority showing tetracycline resistance, which is accordance with various studies [43,51,52,53]. Tetracycline-resistance genes (tetM and tetL) were detected in 78% and 68% of the isolates, respectively, while tetA and tetB genes were detected in 2% of the isolates. Tetracycline resistance is most often mediated by tetM and tetL in enterococci from humans, animals, food, and the environment [46,54,55,56,57]. Different tetracycline-resistance genes were identified in the Enterococcus species [28,58]. Phenotypic resistance to erythromycin and ampicillin was observed in 31.1% and 30% of isolates. The ermB gene was detected in 86% of isolates, whereas the ermA gene was detected in 11 isolates, which is in accordance with Mlynarczyk et al. [59] who described erm(B) as the most prevalent gene conferring erythromycin resistance in enterococci. The pbp5 gene of ampicillin resistance was identified in 22 isolates, concordant with [43]. A high level of Enterococcus resistance to both tetracycline and erythromycin was reported in Switzerland [60], the Netherlands [61], France [62], and Portugal [63]. Macrolides, tetracyclines, and penicillins are the major antimicrobials used in integrated broiler companies [64], while in Saudi Arabia, tetracycline and erythromycin are the most frequently used antimicrobials in poultry farms [65]. Furthermore, tetracycline resistance has been described to co-select for erythromycin resistance [53]. The WHO classified macrolides as critically important (the highest priority) and tetracycline as highly important antimicrobials for human medicine [66].
Resistance to vancomycin has generated substantial research interest during the last decade since it is the drug of last resort to treat enterococci infections in humans [67]. In this work, we observed low vancomycin resistance (3.3%) among the isolated enterococci. However, the vanA gene was identified in all phenotypic-resistance isolates.
Our values are lower than those reported in other studies [68,69] and higher than the results of da Costa et al. [70]. However, Semedo-Lemsaddek et al. [43] did not detect any vancomycin resistance among their isolates. In the last decade, linezolid-resistant enterococci were detected in the USA, Europe, and Asia [50,71,72]. Remarkably, linezolid-resistant enterococci were not detected in our study.
MDR was frequently detected among the isolated enterococci in this study. The emergence of MDR enterococci has also been reported worldwide, particularly in Korea (26.9%), Spain (87.5%), and Ethiopia (78.2%), and is currently regarded as a growing public health concern [72,73,74].
Biofilm formation plays a considerable role in enterococcal infections and antibiotic resistance [75,76]. In this study, biofilm formation was observed in 81.1% of the isolates, which is concordant with [75,76]. A positive pairwise correlation was observed between biofilm production and both the MAR index and MDR. Moreover, biofilm production has been linked to antibiotic resistance in enterococci [77]. In addition, the gelE gene was found in all biofilm-producing isolates but not in non-biofilm-producing isolates, suggesting its significance in biofilm development. gelE is necessary for biofilm formation because it stimulates cell aggregation in microcolonies, allowing them to construct a three-dimensional structure [78].
Despite gelE gene detection in 28% of isolates, in vitro gelatinase activity was only detected in 17% of isolates. Similarly, other investigations found that 30%, 56%, and 59% of clinical isolates generated gelatinase, while 90%, 88%, and 92% were gelE positive, respectively [79,80,81]. Together with our findings, these reports show that while gelE regulated by the fsr locus is necessary for gelatinase activity, it is insufficient since fsrA and fsrB are also required for the gelatinase phenotype.
Enterococcal cytolysin is a hemolytic virulence factor linked to human disease and increased patient mortality [82]. The cylA gene was detected in 21 isolates (23%), concordant with other studies in poultry [64,65]. However, only 57.1% of the isolates expressed hemolysin activity, which is in agreement with the results in [83,84,85]. These findings may be attributable to environmental factors such as the in vitro and in vivo conditions used to test for phenotypic characteristics, as these could have a significant impact on gene expression [86].
MLST represents an outstanding tool for global and long-term epidemiological studies. In this work, all 45 E. faecalis were divided into 11 STs. The most common STs in the backyard chickens (ST16, ST302, and ST179) have been previously found in poultry, wild birds, and pigs [63,87,88]. Furthermore, ST16, ST21, ST179, and ST480 were reported among E. faecalis hospital isolates in Saudi Arabia [89]. ST16 isolates were previously reported to display major diversity as to the source of isolation and lesions [22]. Among the ST16 E. faecalis isolates, two isolates were resistant to vancomycin. vanA E. faecalis ST116 isolates were previously isolated from turkey meat and non-hospitalized humans [67,90].
MLST genotyping of E. faecium isolates revealed eight different ST types, of which five belonged to CC9 and three belonged to CC17, suggesting an evolutionary link between backyard E. faecium isolates [91]. ST9, ST157, ST194, and CC9 in particular were previously isolated from poultry and poultry meat [92,93]. Although CC17 was reported as a nosocomial clonal complex [94], several studies reported the circulation of E. faecium CC17 in animals [67,93,95]. Backyard chickens possibly acquired the CC17 E. faecium isolates from contaminated environments, or humans visiting the farm. This suggestion is supported by a previous study that demonstrated the transmission of E. faecium of human origin to chickens [96]. Moreover, human-linked E. faecium has been isolated from various water and food sources [97,98].
Plasmids are believed to be plastic structures that change as a result of the ever-changing environment in which they reside [33]. In this work, a recently published scheme for plasmid classification was utilized in order to investigate whether specific plasmid families were involved in AMR in enterococcus from backyard chickens. Ten enterococci did not carry any plasmid of the rep-families. This result is concordant with the studies of Jensen et al. and Cho et al. [37,99], in which approximately one-third of their isolates sets from humans, animals, and environments did not yield any amplicons. However, a lower percentage of negative rep-families was reported elsewhere [100,101], where 4% and 1.3% of E. faecium and E. faecalis did not yield any amplicons, respectively.
Seven different rep-family plasmid genes were identified in this study, a value concordant with several previous studies that detected five to nine rep-family plasmid genes [37,54,102,103,104] and lower than the study of Cho et al. [99], who identified 12 rep-family plasmid genes.
In this study, rep9 (pCF10) and rep2 (pEF1071) were the predominant plasmid among E. faecalis and E. faecium, respectively. These two rep-families were also reported in earlier studies [37,54,102,103,104]. The linkage between both Inc18 plasmids, mainly represented by rep2pRE25, and pheromone-responsive plasmids, represented by rep9 pCF10 and both tetracycline and glycopeptide, was previously reported [105,106,107].
Studies on E. hirae revealed the detection of rep5 (pN315), rep3 (pAW63), and rep11 (pEF1071). These rep-families had not been previously detected among E. faecalis and E. faecium isolates [37,54,102,103,104]. However, Cho et al. [99] reported these rep-families among E. hirae, E. casseliflavus, E. gallinarum, and E. mundti. This finding may suggest diverse plasmid contents among different species of Enterococcus.
A limitation of this study was the lack of environmental samples from the investigated flocks. However, in a previous study [108], a diversity of Enterococcus species was isolated from farm environments with multiple antibiotic-resistance profiles, indicating the role of chicken in environmental contamination. Furthermore, this was a small study that could not include additional samples of Enterococcus species taken from this region.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Area

The study was conducted in Al-Ahsa Governorate, in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia (25°22′44.1″ N 49°35′12.5″ E ) from March 2019 to December 2020. A total of 150 cloacal swabs were collected from apparently healthy broilers in 15 different backyard chicken flocks (10 samples from each flock). Selected backyard flocks size ranged from 20 to 180 (median = 80) chickens per flock. Chickens were fed a balanced diet of protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals without antibiotic additives. Swabs were collected by random capture of birds and transported at 4 °C to the laboratory for bacteriological examination.

4.2. Bacterial Isolation

Swabs were cultured on BD™ Enterococcosel™ Agar (Heidelberg, Germany) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Colonies exhibiting a black hallo were selected and subcultured on 5% sheep blood agar (Oxoid, UK) for purification. Purified isolates were identified based on colony morphology, Gram staining, catalase, and oxidase tests. Further, species-level identification was conducted biochemically using GP identification cards and the automated Vitek 2 compact system (BioMérieux, France).

4.3. DNA Extraction and 16S rRNA Gene Amplification and Sequencing

Biochemically identified isolates were cultured in brain heart infusion broth (Oxoid, UK) at 37 °C for 48 h. Cells were harvested by centrifugation, and the bacterial DNA was extracted and purified using the QIAamp DNA mini-kit (Qiagen SA, Courtaboeuf, France) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The 16S rRNA gene was amplified and sequenced according to Weisburg et al. [109] and further analyzed using the National Center for Biological Information (NCBI) Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi, accessed on 15 December 2021).

4.4. Antimicrobial Sensitivity Test

Ten antimicrobials, i.e., vancomycin (VAN, ≥4 μg/mL), erythromycin (ERY, ≥0.5 μg/mL), ampicillin (AMP, ≥8 μg/mL), nitrofurantoin (NIT, ≥32 μg/mL), tetracycline (TET, ≥4 μg/mL), linezolid (LZD, ≥2 μg/mL), chloramphenicol (CHL, ≥8 μg/mL), ciprofloxacin (CIP, ≥1 μg/mL), rifampicin (RIF, ≥1 μg/mL), and fosfomycin (FOS, ≥64 μg/mL) (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), were selected for enterococcus antimicrobial sensitivity testing. Each antibiotic’s minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was established using the CLSI 202 criteria and recommendations [110]. Multidrug resistance (MDR) was considered when isolates were resistant to three or more different antimicrobial classes [111], and the MAR index was calculated using the methodology outlined by Krumperman et al. [112]. Calculation of MIC50 and MIC90 (equivalent to the median MIC value) was performed according to Schwarz et al. [113].

4.5. Detection of Antimicrobial-Resistance Genes

Antimicrobial-resistance genes associated with vancomycin (vanA, vanB), erythromycin (ermA, ermB), tetracycline (tetA, tetB, tetM, tetL), chloramphenicol (cat), linezolid (optrA), and ampicillin(pbp5) were determined by PCR [11,114,115,116,117,118,119,120]. Primers and PCR conditions are presented in Supplementary Table S2.

4.6. Phenotypic Detection of Virulence Factors

4.6.1. Quantitative Biofilm Assay

Antimicrobial Biofilm formation was assessed according to the methods described by Stepanović et al. [121]. Enterococci from an overnight culture were cultivated in trypticase soy broth (TSB) supplemented with 1% glucose and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. The culture density was adjusted to an approximate 0.5 McFarland standard. Each culture was diluted in sterile TSB (1:100), and 200 μL from each was transferred to three wells of sterile 96 well polystyrene microtiter plates (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO USA). A sterile TSB was used as a negative control, and E. faecalis (ATCC 29212) was used as a positive control. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 48 h, washed with sterile phosphate-buffered solution, air-dried, and stained with 2% crystal violet for 30 min. Subsequently, the wells were gently washed with sterile deionized water and air-dried. The dye bound to the adherent cells was re-solubilized with absolute ethanol (150) µL. Each well’s optical density (OD) was measured at 570 nm in a plate reader (BioTek-800 ST, St. Louis, MO USA). The experiment was performed in triplicate on three different days. Each Enterococcus isolate was classified as a negative, weak, moderate, or strong biofilm producer following the criteria described by Stepanović et al. [121].

4.6.2. Gelatinase Activity

Gelatinase activity was assessed by inoculating pure culture on agar plates containing 3% gelatin [122]. After 48 h incubation, plates were flooded with a saturated ammonium sulfate solution. A transparent halo zone surrounding the colonies was considered positive for gelatinase.

4.6.3. Cytolysin Activity

For screening hemolysin production, Enterococcus isolates were streaked on Columbia agar supplemented with 5% horse blood and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. A clear (ß-hemolysis) or green (α hemolysis) zone around the colonies was defined as positive, whereas the γ-hemolysis was defined as negative activity [123].

4.7. Molecular Detection of Virulence Factor Genes

The virulence factor genes, including gelE (gelatinase), agg (aggregation substance), and cylA (activator of cytolysin), were screened by PCR, according to [124,125]. Primers and PCR conditions are tabulated in Supplementary Table S2.

4.8. Multi-Locus Sequence Typing

MLST for E. faecalis and E. faecium was performed by sequencing seven housekeeping genes described by Ruiz-Garbajosa et al. and Homan et al. [22,23]. Different sequences were assigned allele numbers, and different allelic profiles were assigned STs based on the MLST database (http://www.mlst.net/databases/, accessed: 15 December 2021).

4.9. PCR for repA Genes (Plasmid Families)

All MDR isolates were screened for rep-like sequences by PCR according to Jensen et al. [37] with primers and PCR conditions listed in Supplementary Table S2.

4.10. Statistical Analysis

The Fisher’s exact test or Chi-square test and Spearman’s rank correlation test were used for statistical analyses of the data (Prism 8 GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Alignment and phylogenetic reconstructions were performed using the function “build” of ETE3 v3.1.1 [126] as implemented on the GenomeNet (https://www.genome.jp/tools/ete/, accessed: 15 December 2021). The tree was constructed using the Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) v6.4.3 tool (https://itol.embl.de/, accessed: 15 December 2021) [127].

5. Conclusions

This study investigated virulence genes, antibiotic resistance, multi-locus sequence types, plasmid-associated genes, and the biofilm production of enterococci from healthy backyard chickens in Saudi Arabia to highlight the role of backyard chickens as a potential reservoir for MDR and virulent enterococci. Molecular analyses revealed the presence of nosocomial-associated CC17 and a variety of mobile genetic elements among the enterococci from backyard chickens, suggesting the possibility of their dissemination in backyard farms and their environments.
High resistance to different antimicrobial classes was identified, suggesting the over-use of antimicrobials in backyard chicken farms. The emergence of MDR and virulent enterococci in backyard chicken farms is a public health concern. Thus, regular surveillance for the occurrence of MDR and virulent enterococci in backyard poultry and its environment is recommended to prevent its spread and to minimize environmental contamination.
Furthermore, proactive antimicrobial agent control measures should be developed to limit the spread of MDR enterococci.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics11030380/s1, Figure S1: Description and categories of the collected variables. Table S1: Description and categories of the collected variables. Table S2: Description and categories of the collected variables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.F., A.S.A., M.A. and T.A.-M.; methodology, M.F., S.Y., A.A. and O.M.A. software, M.F., A.A. and S.Y.; validation, M.F., S.Y. and M.A.; formal analysis, M.F., S.F.M. and M.A.; investigation, T.A.-M., A.A., A.S.A. and S.F.M.; resources, M.A., S.F.M., A.A., H.A. and T.A.-M.; data curation, M.F., H.A., M.A. and S.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, M.F., S.Y. and H.A.; writing—review and editing, M.F., S.Y., A.S.A. and H.A.; visualization, S.Y. and H.A.; supervision, M.F.; project administration, O.M.A.; funding acquisition, O.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number (TURSP-2020/262), Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Taif University Ethics Committee has approved the study protocol (TURSP-2020-262).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Al-Ahsa Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory staff, Saudi Arabia, for technical assistance and sample collection. Authors would also like to thank Taif University Researchers Supporting Program (Project number: TURSP-2020/262), Taif University, Saudi Arabia for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fisher, K.; Phillips, C. The ecology, epidemiology and virulence of Enterococcus. Microbiology 2009, 155, 1749–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Byappanahalli, M.N.; Nevers, M.B.; Korajkic, A.; Staley, Z.R.; Harwood, V.J. Enterococci in the environment. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2012, 76, 685–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. García-Solache, M.; Rice, L.B. The Enterococcus: A model of adaptability to its environment. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2019, 32, e00058-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Sava, I.G.; Heikens, E.; Huebner, J. Pathogenesis and immunity in enterococcal infections. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2010, 16, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ammerlaan, H.S.; Harbarth, S.; Buiting, A.G.; Crook, D.W.; Fitzpatrick, F.; Hanberger, H.; Herwaldt, L.A.; van Keulen, P.H.; Kluytmans, J.A.; Kola, A.; et al. Secular trends in nosocomial bloodstream infections: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria increase the total burden of infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2013, 56, 798–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cheng, W.N.; Han, S.G. Bovine mastitis: Risk factors, therapeutic strategies, and alternative treatments—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 33, 1699–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Wood, M.W.; Lepold, A.; Tesfamichael, D.; Lasarev, M.R. Risk factors for enterococcal bacteriuria in dogs: A retrospective study. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2020, 34, 2447–2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Robbins, K.M.; Suyemoto, M.M.; Lyman, R.L.; Martin, M.P.; Barnes, H.J.; Borst, L.B. An outbreak and source investigation of enterococcal spondylitis in broilers caused by Enterococcus cecorum. Avian Dis. 2012, 56, 768–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Seputiene, V.; Bogdaite, A.; Ruzauskas, M.; Suziedeliene, E. Antibiotic resistance genes and virulence factors in Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis from diseased farm animals: Pigs, cattle and poultry. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2012, 15, 431–438. [Google Scholar]
  10. Katakweba, A.; Mtambo, M.; Olsen, J.E.; Muhairwa, A.P. Awareness of human health risks associated with the use of antibiotics among livestock keepers and factors that contribute to selection of antibiotic resistance bacteria within livestock in Tanzania. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev. 2012, 24, 170. [Google Scholar]
  11. Osman, K.M.; Badr, J.; Orabi, A.; Elbehiry, A.; Saad, A.; Ibrahim, M.D.; Hanafy, M.H. Poultry as a vector for emerging multidrug resistant Enterococcus spp.: First report of vancomycin (van) and the chloramphenicol–florfenicol (cat-fex-cfr) resistance genes from pigeon and duck faeces. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 128, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hollenbeck, B.L.; Rice, L.B. Intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms in enterococcus. Virulence 2012, 3, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Asgin, N.; Otlu, B. Antibiotic Resistance and Molecular Epidemiology of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Turkey. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Werner, G.; Coque, T.M.; Franz, C.M.; Grohmann, E.; Hegstad, K.; Jensen, L.; van Schaik, W.; Weaver, K. Antibiotic resistant enterococci—Tales of a drug resistance gene trafficker. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 303, 360–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Anderson, A.C.; Jonas, D.; Huber, I.; Karygianni, L.; Wolber, J.; Hellwig, E.; Arweiler, N.; Vach, K.; Wittmer, A.; Al-Ahmad, A. Enterococcus faecalis from Food, Clinical Specimens, and Oral Sites: Prevalence of Virulence Factors in Association with Biofilm Formation. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Sandoe, J.A.; Witherden, I.R.; Cove, J.H.; Heritage, J.; Wilcox, M.H. Correlation between enterococcal biofilm formation in vitro and medical-device-related infection potential in vivo. J. Med. Microbiol. 2003, 52, 547–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Kayaoglu, G.; Orstavik, D. Virulence factors of Enterococcus faecalis: Relationship to endodontic disease. Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med. 2004, 15, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Pryce, T.M.; Wilson, R.D.; Kulski, J.K. Identification of enterococci by ribotyping with horseradish-peroxidase-labelled 16S rDNA probes. J. Microbiol. Methods 1999, 36, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Malathum, K.; Singh, K.V.; Weinstock, G.M.; Murray, B.E. Repetitive sequence-based PCR versus pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for typing of Enterococcus faecalis at the subspecies level. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1998, 36, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Seetulsingh, P.S.; Tomayko, J.F.; Coudron, P.E.; Markowitz, S.M.; Skinner, C.; Singh, K.V.; Murray, B.E. Chromosomal DNA restriction endonuclease digestion patterns of beta-lactamase-producing Enterococcus faecalis isolates collected from a single hospital over a 7-year period. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1996, 34, 1892–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tomayko, J.F.; Murray, B.E. Analysis of Enterococcus faecalis isolates from intercontinental sources by multilocus enzyme electrophoresis and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995, 33, 2903–2907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Ruiz-Garbajosa, P.; Bonten, M.J.; Robinson, D.A.; Top, J.; Nallapareddy, S.R.; Torres, C.; Coque, T.M.; Cantón, R.; Baquero, F.; Murray, B.E.; et al. Multilocus sequence typing scheme for Enterococcus faecalis reveals hospital-adapted genetic complexes in a background of high rates of recombination. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 2220–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Homan, W.L.; Tribe, D.; Poznanski, S.; Li, M.; Hogg, G.; Spalburg, E.; Van Embden, J.D.; Willems, R.J. Multilocus sequence typing scheme for Enterococcus faecium. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002, 40, 1963–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Achtman, M. Evolution, population structure, and phylogeography of genetically monomorphic bacterial pathogens. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 62, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Maâtallah, M.; Bakhrouf, A.; Habeeb, M.A.; Turlej-Rogacka, A.; Iversen, A.; Pourcel, C.; Sioud, O.; Giske, C.G. Four Genotyping Schemes for Phylogenetic Analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Comparison of Their Congruence with Multi-Locus Sequence Typing. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e82069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Aslam, M.; Diarra, M.S.; Checkley, S.; Bohaychuk, V.; Masson, L. Characterization of antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes in Enterococcus spp. isolated from retail meats in Alberta, Canada. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 156, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kim, H.J.; Koo, M. Occurrence, Antimicrobial Resistance and Molecular Diversity of Enterococcus faecium in Processed Pork Meat Products in Korea. Foods 2020, 9, 1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Holman, D.B.; Klima, C.L.; Gzyl, K.E.; Zaheer, R.; Service, C.; Jones, T.H.; McAllister, T.A. Antimicrobial Resistance in Enterococcus spp. Isolated from a Beef Processing Plant and Retail Ground Beef. Microbiol. Spectr. 2021, 9, e0198021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Moreno, M.F.; Sarantinopoulos, P.; Tsakalidou, E.; De Vuyst, L. The role and application of enterococci in food and health. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 106, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Hegstad, K.; Mikalsen, T.; Coque, T.M.; Werner, G.; Sundsfjord, A. Mobile genetic elements and their contribution to the emergence of antimicrobial resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2010, 16, 541–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Grohmann, E.; Muth, G.; Espinosa, M. Conjugative plasmid transfer in gram-positive bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. MMBR 2003, 67, 277–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Hammerum, A.M.; Flannagan, S.E.; Clewell, D.B.; Jensen, L.B. Indication of transposition of a mobile DNA element containing the vat(D) and erm(B) genes in Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001, 45, 3223–3225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Osborn, M.; Bron, S.; Firth, N.; Holsappel, S.; Huddleston, A.; Kiewiet, R.; Meijer, W.; Seegers, J.; Skurray, R.; Terpstra, P.J.; et al. The evolution of bacterial plasmids. In The Horizontal Gene Pool: Bacterial Plasmids and Gene Spread; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 301–363. [Google Scholar]
  34. Coque, T.M. Evolutionary biology of pathogenic enterococci. In Evolutionary Biology of Bacterial and Fungal Pathogens; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 501–521. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gilmore, M.S.; Clewell, D.B.; Courvalin, P.; Dunny, G.M.; Murray, B.E.; Rice, L.B. The Enterococci: Pathogenesis, Molecular Biology, and Antibiotic Resistance; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
  36. Khan, S.A. Rolling-circle replication of bacterial plasmids. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1997, 61, 442–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Jensen, L.B.; Garcia-Migura, L.; Valenzuela, A.J.; Løhr, M.; Hasman, H.; Aarestrup, F.M. A classification system for plasmids from enterococci and other Gram-positive bacteria. J. Microbiol. Methods 2010, 80, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kwon, K.H.; Hwang, S.Y.; Moon, B.Y.; Park, Y.K.; Shin, S.; Hwang, C.Y.; Park, Y.H. Occurrence of antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes, and distribution of enterococcal clonal complex 17 from animals and human beings in Korea. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2012, 24, 924–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Salem-Bekhit, M.M.; Moussa, I.M.; Muharram, M.M.; Alanazy, F.K.; Hefni, H.M. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance pattern of multidrug-resistant enterococci isolated from clinical specimens. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 30, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Abdallah, M.; Al-Saafin, M. Overview of Prevalence, Characteristics, Risk Factors, Resistance, and Virulence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in Saudi Arabia. Microb. Drug Resist. 2019, 25, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Qadri, S.H.; Qunibi, W.Y.; Al-Ballaa, S.R.; Kadhi, Y.; Burdette, J.M. Vancomycin resistant enterococcus: A case report and review of the literature. Ann. Saudi Med. 1993, 13, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Pohjola, L.; Nykasenoja, S.; Kivisto, R.; Soveri, T.; Huovilainen, A.; Hanninen, M.L.; Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M. Zoonotic Public Health Hazards in Backyard Chickens. Zoonoses Public Health 2016, 63, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Semedo-Lemsaddek, T.; Bettencourt Cota, J.; Ribeiro, T.; Pimentel, A.; Tavares, L.; Bernando, F.; Oliveira, M. Resistance and virulence distribution in enterococci isolated from broilers reared in two farming systems. Ir. Vet. J. 2021, 74, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Al-Marri, T.; Al-Marri, A.; Al-Zanbaqi, R.; Ajmi, A.A.; Fayez, M. Multidrug resistance, biofilm formation, and virulence genes of Escherichia coli from backyard poultry farms. Vet. World 2021, 14, 2869–2877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Guzman Prieto, A.M.; van Schaik, W.; Rogers, M.R.; Coque, T.M.; Baquero, F.; Corander, J.; Willems, R.J. Global emergence and dissemination of enterococci as nosocomial pathogens: Attack of the clones? Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. 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. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2000, 37, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kaukas, A.; Hinton, M.; Linton, A.H. Changes in the faecal enterococcal population of young chickens and its effect on the incidence of resistance to certain antibiotics. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1986, 2, 5–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Diarra, M.S.; Rempel, H.; Champagne, J.; Masson, L.; Pritchard, J.; Topp, E. Distribution of antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes in Enterococcus spp. and characterization of isolates from broiler chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 8033–8043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Yoshimura, H.; Ishimaru, M.; Endoh, Y.S.; Kojima, A. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of enterococci isolated from faeces of broiler and layer chickens. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 31, 427–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Tyson, G.H.; Nyirabahizi, E.; Crarey, E.; Kabera, C.; Lam, C.; Rice-Trujillo, C.; McDermott, P.F.; Tate, H. Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterococci Isolated from Retail Meats in the United States, 2002 to 2014. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e01902-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Boulianne, M.; Arsenault, J.; Daignault, D.; Archambault, M.; Letellier, A.; Dutil, L. Drug use and antimicrobial resistance among Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. isolates from chicken and turkey flocks slaughtered in Quebec, Canada. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2016, 80, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Obeng, A.S.; Rickard, H.; Ndi, O.; Sexton, M.; Barton, M. Comparison of antimicrobial resistance patterns in enterococci from intensive and free range chickens in Australia. Avian Pathol. 2013, 42, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Persoons, D.; Dewulf, J.; Smet, A.; Herman, L.; Heyndrickx, M.; Martel, A.; Catry, B.; Butaye, P.; Haesebrouck, F. Prevalence and persistence of antimicrobial resistance in broiler indicator bacteria. Microb. Drug Resist. 2010, 16, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sadowy, E.; Luczkiewicz, A. Drug-resistant and hospital-associated Enterococcus faecium from wastewater, riverine estuary and anthropogenically impacted marine catchment basin. BMC Microbiol. 2014, 14, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Jackson, C.R.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Davis, J.A.; Barrett, J.B.; Brousse, J.H.; Gustafson, J.; Kucher, M. Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance and genetic relatedness among enterococci isolated from dogs and cats in the United States. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 108, 2171–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Huys, G.; D’Haene, K.; Collard, J.M.; Swings, J. Prevalence and molecular characterization of tetracycline resistance in Enterococcus isolates from food. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 1555–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Cauwerts, K.; Decostere, A.; De Graef, E.M.; Haesebrouck, F.; Pasmans, F. High prevalence of tetracycline resistance in Enterococcus isolates from broilers carrying the erm(B) gene. Avian Pathol. 2007, 36, 395–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Zaheer, R.; Cook, S.R.; Barbieri, R.; Goji, N.; Cameron, A.; Petkau, A.; Polo, R.O.; Tymensen, L.; Stamm, C.; Song, J.; et al. Surveillance of Enterococcus spp. reveals distinct species and antimicrobial resistance diversity across a One-Health continuum. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mlynarczyk, B.; Mlynarczyk, A.; Kmera-Muszynska, M.; Majewski, S.; Mlynarczyk, G. Mechanisms of resistance to antimicrobial drugs in pathogenic Gram-positive cocci. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2010, 10, 928–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Frei, A.; Goldenberger, D.; Teuber, M. Antimicrobial susceptibility of intestinal bacteria from Swiss poultry flocks before the ban of antimicrobial growth promoters. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 24, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. van den Bogaard, A.E.; Stobberingh, E.E. Epidemiology of resistance to antibiotics: Links between animals and humans. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2000, 14, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Petsaris, O.; Miszczak, F.; Gicquel-Bruneau, M.; Perrin-Guyomard, A.; Humbert, F.; Sanders, P.; Leclercq, R. Combined antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus faecium isolated from chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 2796–2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Novais, C.; Coque, T.M.; Costa, M.J.; Sousa, J.C.; Baquero, F.; Peixe, L.V. High occurrence and persistence of antibiotic-resistant enterococci in poultry food samples in Portugal. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2005, 56, 1139–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kim, Y.B.; Seo, K.W.; Jeon, H.Y.; Lim, S.K.; Sung, H.W.; Lee, Y.J. Molecular characterization of erythromycin and tetracycline-resistant Enterococcus faecalis isolated from retail chicken meats. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 977–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Al-Mustafa, Z.H.; Al-Ghamdi, M.S. Use of antibiotics in the poultry industry in Saudi Arabia: Implications for public health. Ann. Saudi Med. 2002, 22, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Collignon, P.; Conly, J.; Andremont, A. Members of the World Health Organization Advisory Group, Bogota meeting on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance (WHO-AGISAR). Clin. Infect. Dis. 2016, 63, 1087–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Ahmed, M.O.; Baptiste, K.E. Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci: A Review of Antimicrobial Resistance Mechanisms and Perspectives of Human and Animal Health. Microb. Drug Resist. 2018, 24, 590–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Jung, W.K.; Lim, J.Y.; Kwon, N.H.; Kim, J.M.; Hong, S.K.; Koo, H.C.; Kim, S.H.; Park, Y.H. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci from animal sources in Korea. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 113, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Lim, S.-K.; Kim, T.-S.; Lee, H.-S.; Nam, H.-M.; Joo, Y.-S.; Koh, H.-B. Persistence of van A-type Enterococcus faecium in Korean livestock after ban on avoparcin. Microb. Drug Resist. 2006, 12, 136–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. da Costa, P.M.; Oliveira, M.; Bica, A.; Vaz-Pires, P.; Bernardo, F. Antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus spp. and Escherichia coli isolated from poultry feed and feed ingredients. Vet. Microbiol. 2007, 120, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Cavaco, L.M.; Korsgaard, H.; Kaas, R.S.; Seyfarth, A.M.; Leekitcharoenphon, P.; Hendriksen, R.S. First detection of linezolid resistance due to the optrA gene in enterococci isolated from food products in Denmark. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2017, 9, 128–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Yoon, S.; Kim, Y.B.; Seo, K.W.; Ha, J.S.; Noh, E.B.; Lee, Y.J. Characteristics of linezolid-resistant Enterococcus faecalis isolates from broiler breeder farms. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 6055–6061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Castano-Arriba, A.; Gonzalez-Machado, C.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P.; Alonso-Calleja, C.; Capita, R. Antibiotic Resistance and Biofilm-Forming Ability in Enterococcal Isolates from Red Meat and Poultry Preparations. Pathogens 2020, 9, 1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Bekele, B.; Ashenafi, M. Distribution of drug resistance among enterococci and Salmonella from poultry and cattle in Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2010, 42, 857–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. El-Zamkan, M.A.; Mohamed, H.M.A. Antimicrobial resistance, virulence genes and biofilm formation in Enterococcus species isolated from milk of sheep and goat with subclinical mastitis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Oliva, A.; Stefani, S.; Venditti, M.; Di Domenico, E.G. Biofilm-Related Infections in Gram-Positive Bacteria and the Potential Role of the Long-Acting Agent Dalbavancin. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 749685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Chai, W.L.; Hamimah, H.; Cheng, S.C.; Sallam, A.A.; Abdullah, M. Susceptibility of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm to antibiotics and calcium hydroxide. J. Oral Sci. 2007, 49, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Hancock, L.E.; Perego, M. The Enterococcus faecalis fsr two-component system controls biofilm development through production of gelatinase. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 5629–5639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Hashem, Y.A.; Amin, H.M.; Essam, T.M.; Yassin, A.S.; Aziz, R.K. Biofilm formation in enterococci: Genotype-phenotype correlations and inhibition by vancomycin. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Roberts, J.C.; Singh, K.V.; Okhuysen, P.C.; Murray, B.E. Molecular epidemiology of the fsr locus and of gelatinase production among different subsets of Enterococcus faecalis isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 2317–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Mohamed, J.A.; Murray, B.E. Lack of correlation of gelatinase production and biofilm formation in a large collection of Enterococcus faecalis isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 5405–5407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Cox, C.R.; Coburn, P.S.; Gilmore, M.S. Enterococcal cytolysin: A novel two component peptide system that serves as a bacterial defense against eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2005, 6, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Gholizadeh, P.; Aghazadeh, M.; Ghotaslou, R.; Ahangarzadeh Rezaee, M.; Pirzadeh, T.; Kose, S.; Ganbarov, K.; Yousefi, M.; Kafil, H.S. CRISPR-cas system in the acquisition of virulence genes in dental-root canal and hospital-acquired isolates of Enterococcus faecalis. Virulence 2020, 11, 1257–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Sun, J.; Sundsfjord, A.; Song, X. Enterococcus faecalis from patients with chronic periodontitis: Virulence and antimicrobial resistance traits and determinants. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2012, 31, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Sedgley, C.M.; Molander, A.; Flannagan, S.E.; Nagel, A.C.; Appelbe, O.K.; Clewell, D.B.; Dahlen, G. Virulence, phenotype and genotype characteristics of endodontic Enterococcus spp. Oral Microbiol. Immunol. 2005, 20, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Finlay, B.B.; Falkow, S. Common themes in microbial pathogenicity revisited. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. MMBR 1997, 61, 136–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Stępień-Pyśniak, D.; Hauschild, T.; Nowaczek, A.; Marek, A.; Dec, M. Wild birds as a potential source of known and novel multilocus sequence types of antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus faecalis. J. Wildl. Dis. 2018, 54, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Gregersen, R.H.; Petersen, A.; Christensen, H.; Bisgaard, M. Multilocus sequence typing of Enterococcus faecalis isolates demonstrating different lesion types in broiler breeders. Avian Pathol. 2010, 39, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Farman, M.; Yasir, M.; Al-Hindi, R.R.; Farraj, S.A.; Jiman-Fatani, A.A.; Alawi, M.; Azhar, E.I. Genomic analysis of multidrug-resistant clinical Enterococcus faecalis isolates for antimicrobial resistance genes and virulence factors from the western region of Saudi Arabia. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2019, 8, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Freitas, A.R.; Novais, C.; Ruiz-Garbajosa, P.; Coque, T.M.; Peixe, L. Clonal expansion within clonal complex 2 and spread of vancomycin-resistant plasmids among different genetic lineages of Enterococcus faecalis from Portugal. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2009, 63, 1104–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. De Leener, E.; Martel, A.; De Graef, E.M.; Top, J.; Butaye, P.; Haesebrouck, F.; Willems, R.; Decostere, A. Molecular analysis of human, porcine, and poultry Enterococcus faecium isolates and their erm(B) genes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 2766–2770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Wist, V.; Morach, M.; Schneeberger, M.; Cernela, N.; Stevens, M.J.A.; Zurfluh, K.; Stephan, R.; Nüesch-Inderbinen, M. Phenotypic and Genotypic Traits of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci from Healthy Food-Producing Animals. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Torres, C.; Alonso, C.A.; Ruiz-Ripa, L.; León-Sampedro, R.; Del Campo, R.; Coque, T.M. Antimicrobial Resistance in Enterococcus spp. of animal origin. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Lopez, M.; Hormazabal, J.; Maldonado, A.; Saavedra, G.; Baquero, F.; Silva, J.; Torres, C.; Del Campo, R. Clonal dissemination of Enterococcus faecalis ST201 and Enterococcus faecium CC17–ST64 containing Tn5382–vanB2 among 16 hospitals in Chile. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2009, 15, 586–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Getachew, Y.; Hassan, L.; Zakaria, Z.; Abdul Aziz, S. Genetic variability of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolates from humans, chickens, and pigs in Malaysia. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 4528–4533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Sakai, Y.; Tsukahara, T.; Ushida, K. Possibility of vancomycin-resistant enterococci transmission from human to broilers, and possibility of using the vancomycin-resistant gram-positive cocci as a model in a screening study of vancomycin-resistant enterococci infection in the broiler chick. Anim. Sci. J. 2006, 77, 538–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Blanch, A.; Caplin, J.; Iversen, A.; Kühn, I.; Manero, A.; Taylor, H.; Vilanova, X. Comparison of enterococcal populations related to urban and hospital wastewater in various climatic and geographic European regions. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 94, 994–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Novais, C.; Coque, T.M.; Ferreira, H.; Sousa, J.C.; Peixe, L. Environmental contamination with vancomycin-resistant enterococci from hospital sewage in Portugal. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 3364–3368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Cho, S.; Barrett, J.B.; Frye, J.G.; Jackson, C.R. Antimicrobial Resistance Gene Detection and Plasmid Typing Among Multidrug Resistant Enterococci Isolated from Freshwater Environment. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Wardal, E.; Gawryszewska, I.; Hryniewicz, W.; Sadowy, E. Abundance and diversity of plasmid-associated genes among clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecalis. Plasmid 2013, 70, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Rosvoll, T.C.; Lindstad, B.L.; Lunde, T.M.; Hegstad, K.; Aasnaes, B.; Hammerum, A.M.; Lester, C.H.; Simonsen, G.S.; Sundsfjord, A.; Pedersen, T. Increased high-level gentamicin resistance in invasive Enterococcus faecium is associated with aac(6′)Ie-aph(2″)Ia-encoding transferable megaplasmids hosted by major hospital-adapted lineages. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 66, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Tremblay, C.L.; Charlebois, A.; Masson, L.; Archambault, M. Characterization of hospital-associated lineages of ampicillin-resistant Enterococcus faecium from clinical cases in dogs and humans. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Song, X.; Sun, J.; Mikalsen, T.; Roberts, A.P.; Sundsfjord, A. Characterisation of the plasmidome within Enterococcus faecalis isolated from marginal periodontitis patients in Norway. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Wardal, E.; Kuch, A.; Gawryszewska, I.; Żabicka, D.; Hryniewicz, W.; Sadowy, E. Diversity of plasmids and Tn1546-type transposons among VanA Enterococcus faecium in Poland. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2017, 36, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Ike, Y.; Flannagan, S.E.; Clewell, D.B. Hyperhemolytic phenomena associated with insertions of Tn916 into the hemolysin determinant of Enterococcus faecalis plasmid pAD1. J. Bacteriol. 1992, 174, 1801–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Zheng, B.; Tomita, H.; Inoue, T.; Ike, Y. Isolation of VanB-type Enterococcus faecalis strains from nosocomial infections: First report of the isolation and identification of the pheromone-responsive plasmids pMG2200, Encoding VanB-type vancomycin resistance and a Bac41-type bacteriocin, and pMG2201, encoding erythromycin resistance and cytolysin (Hly/Bac). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 735–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Freitas, A.R.; Coque, T.M.; Novais, C.; Hammerum, A.M.; Lester, C.H.; Zervos, M.J.; Donabedian, S.; Jensen, L.B.; Francia, M.V.; Baquero, F.; et al. Human and swine hosts share vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium CC17 and CC5 and Enterococcus faecalis CC2 clonal clusters harboring Tn 1546 on indistinguishable plasmids. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 925–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Hayes, J.R.; English, L.L.; Carr, L.E.; Wagner, D.D.; Joseph, S.W. Multiple-antibiotic resistance of Enterococcus spp. isolated from commercial poultry production environments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 6005–6011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  109. Weisburg, W.G.; Barns, S.M.; Pelletier, D.A.; Lane, D.J. 16S ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study. J. Bacteriol. 1991, 173, 697–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. CLSI Supplement M100, 31st ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Malvern, PA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  111. 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] [Green Version]
  112. Krumperman, P.H. Multiple antibiotic resistance indexing of Escherichia coli to identify high-risk sources of fecal contamination of foods. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1983, 46, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Schwarz, S.; Silley, P.; Simjee, S.; Woodford, N.; van Duijkeren, E.; Johnson, A.P.; Gaastra, W. Editorial: Assessing the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria obtained from animals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65, 601–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Nam, S.; Kim, M.J.; Park, C.; Park, J.G.; Maeng, P.J.; Lee, G.C. Detection and genotyping of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. by multiplex polymerase chain reaction in Korean aquatic environmental samples. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2013, 216, 421–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Werckenthin, C.; Schwarz, S. Molecular analysis of the translational attenuator of a constitutively expressed erm(A) gene from Staphylococcus intermedius. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2000, 46, 785–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Jensen, L.B.; Frimodt-Moller, N.; Aarestrup, F.M. Presence of erm gene classes in gram-positive bacteria of animal and human origin in Denmark. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1999, 170, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Ng, L.K.; Martin, I.; Alfa, M.; Mulvey, M. Multiplex PCR for the detection of tetracycline resistant genes. Mol. Cell. Probes 2001, 15, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Trzcinski, K.; Cooper, B.S.; Hryniewicz, W.; Dowson, C.G. Expression of resistance to tetracyclines in strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2000, 45, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Wang, S.; Zhang, S.; Liu, Z.; Liu, P.; Shi, Z.; Wei, J.; Shao, D.; Li, B.; Ma, Z. Molecular characterization of enterohemorrhagic E. coli O157 isolated from animal fecal and food samples in Eastern China. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 946394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Jureen, R.; Top, J.; Mohn, S.C.; Harthug, S.; Langeland, N.; Willems, R.J. Molecular characterization of ampicillin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates from hospitalized patients in Norway. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003, 41, 2330–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Stepanovic, S.; Vukovic, D.; Hola, V.; Di Bonaventura, G.; Djukic, S.; Cirkovic, I.; Ruzicka, F. Quantification of biofilm in microtiter plates: Overview of testing conditions and practical recommendations for assessment of biofilm production by staphylococci. APMIS Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Immunol. Scand. 2007, 115, 891–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Lopes Mde, F.; Simoes, A.P.; Tenreiro, R.; Marques, J.J.; Crespo, M.T. Activity and expression of a virulence factor, gelatinase, in dairy enterococci. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 112, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. De Vuyst, L.; Foulquie Moreno, M.R.; Revets, H. Screening for enterocins and detection of hemolysin and vancomycin resistance in enterococci of different origins. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 84, 299–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Dupre, I.; Zanetti, S.; Schito, A.M.; Fadda, G.; Sechi, L.A. Incidence of virulence determinants in clinical Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolates collected in Sardinia (Italy). J. Med. Microbiol. 2003, 52, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Vankerckhoven, V.; Van Autgaerden, T.; Vael, C.; Lammens, C.; Chapelle, S.; Rossi, R.; Jabes, D.; Goossens, H. Development of a multiplex PCR for the detection of asa1, gelE, cylA, esp, and hyl genes in enterococci and survey for virulence determinants among European hospital isolates of Enterococcus faecium. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 4473–4479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  126. Huerta-Cepas, J.; Serra, F.; Bork, P. ETE 3: Reconstruction, Analysis, and Visualization of Phylogenomic Data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016, 33, 1635–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  127. Letunic, I.; Bork, P. Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) v5: An online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021, 49, W293–W296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Antibiotics 11 00380 g001 550
Figure 1. Frequency of antimicrobial resistance of Enterococci isolates (n = 90) recovered from healthy backyard chickens.
Figure 1. Frequency of antimicrobial resistance of Enterococci isolates (n = 90) recovered from healthy backyard chickens.
Antibiotics 11 00380 g001
Antibiotics 11 00380 g002 550
Figure 2. OD570 values indicate the amounts of bacterial biofilm among the Enterococcus species (n = 90): non-biofilm producers (0.29–0.31); weak producers (0.4–0.55); medium producers (0.7–1.1); and strong producers (1.4–1.7).
Figure 2. OD570 values indicate the amounts of bacterial biofilm among the Enterococcus species (n = 90): non-biofilm producers (0.29–0.31); weak producers (0.4–0.55); medium producers (0.7–1.1); and strong producers (1.4–1.7).
Antibiotics 11 00380 g002
Antibiotics 11 00380 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution of gelE (gelatinase), agg (aggregation substance), and cylA (activator of cytolysin) genes, and gelatinase and cytolysin activity in the 90 Enterococcus isolates.
Figure 3. Distribution of gelE (gelatinase), agg (aggregation substance), and cylA (activator of cytolysin) genes, and gelatinase and cytolysin activity in the 90 Enterococcus isolates.
Antibiotics 11 00380 g003
Antibiotics 11 00380 g004 550
Figure 4. Correlation matrix of phenotypic (biofilm formation ability, gelatinase activity, hemolytic activity, and antibiotic resistance) and genotypic (agg, gelE, cylA, and antibiotic-resistance genes) features exhibiting a significant (p < 0.05) correlation. White spaces are not significantly correlated. Significant positive correlation is represented by blue circles, whereas significant negative correlation is represented by red circles. The numerical value of the Phi correlation coefficient is represented by the size and strength of the color.
Figure 4. Correlation matrix of phenotypic (biofilm formation ability, gelatinase activity, hemolytic activity, and antibiotic resistance) and genotypic (agg, gelE, cylA, and antibiotic-resistance genes) features exhibiting a significant (p < 0.05) correlation. White spaces are not significantly correlated. Significant positive correlation is represented by blue circles, whereas significant negative correlation is represented by red circles. The numerical value of the Phi correlation coefficient is represented by the size and strength of the color.
Antibiotics 11 00380 g004
Antibiotics 11 00380 g005 550
Figure 5. Phylogeny of sequence types (ST) of E. faecalis isolated from backyard chickens based on neighbor-joining analysis of concatenated sequences of the seven housekeeping genes used for multi-locus sequence typing (MLST).
Figure 5. Phylogeny of sequence types (ST) of E. faecalis isolated from backyard chickens based on neighbor-joining analysis of concatenated sequences of the seven housekeeping genes used for multi-locus sequence typing (MLST).
Antibiotics 11 00380 g005
Antibiotics 11 00380 g006 550
Figure 6. Phylogeny of sequence types (ST) of E. faecium isolated from backyard chickens based on neighbor-joining analysis of concatenated sequences of the seven housekeeping genes used for multi-locus sequence typing (MLST).
Figure 6. Phylogeny of sequence types (ST) of E. faecium isolated from backyard chickens based on neighbor-joining analysis of concatenated sequences of the seven housekeeping genes used for multi-locus sequence typing (MLST).
Antibiotics 11 00380 g006
Table
Table 1. Frequency of antimicrobial resistance and MIC values to 10 different antimicrobials for E. faecalis, E. faecium, E. hirae and E. avium isolated from backyard chickens.
Table 1. Frequency of antimicrobial resistance and MIC values to 10 different antimicrobials for E. faecalis, E. faecium, E. hirae and E. avium isolated from backyard chickens.
Antimicrobial
Agents		E. faecalis (n = 45)E. faecium (n = 30)E. hirae (n = 12)E. avium (n = 3)
%RMIC50MIC90%RMIC50MIC90%RMIC50MIC90%RMIC50MIC90
Ampicillin15.623233.346466.7163266.73232
Rifampin24.4116101100.51011
Ciprofloxacin13.31823.311633.31866.748
Fosfomycin17.83225613.3322568.33225603264
Nitrofurantoin22.21625616.7162568.3163203232
Linezolid012012012012
Vancomycin3.3243.324024024
Chloramphenicol8.9486.748048048
Tetracycline62.232645043241.743266.71632
Erythromycin31.10.53216.71625633.30.51600.50.5
Table
Table 2. Antimicrobial-resistance profile of Enterococcus isolates (n = 90).
Table 2. Antimicrobial-resistance profile of Enterococcus isolates (n = 90).
Resistance ProfileNumber of Isolates%Isolates
1617.8
FOS33.3
TCY44.4
ERY22.2
CIP FOS11.1
TCY RIF22.2
TCY FOS22.2
TCY CIP33.3
NIT TCY55.6
AMP CIP55.6
AMP CHL11.1
AMP TCY44.4
AMP NIT22.2
ERY RIF22.2
ERY CHL22.2
ERY TCY33.3
ERY NIT22.2
VAN TCY11.1
TCY CHL RIF11.1
NIT TCY RIF22.2
AMP TCY FOS33.3
AMP TCY CIP33.3
ERY TCY RIF22.2
ERY TCY FOS11.1
ERY TCY CIP33.3
ERY NIT RIF22.2
ERY NIT TCY11.1
ERY PEN TCY66.7
AMP TCY CHL CIP11.1
AMP NIT CIP FOS11.1
ERY CHL CIP FOS11.1
VAN NIT TCY RIF11.1
VAN ERY TCY RIF11.1
AMP TCY CIP FOS RIF11.1
FOS = Fosfomycin; TCY = tetracycline; ERY = erythromycin; CIP = ciprofloxacin; VAN = vancomycin; PEN = penicillin; NIT = nitrofurantoin; LZD = linezolid; CHL = chloramphenicol; RIF = rifampicin.
Table
Table 3. Distribution of antimicrobial-resistance genes among the isolated enterococci.
Table 3. Distribution of antimicrobial-resistance genes among the isolated enterococci.
E. faecalis (N = 45)E. faecium (N = 30)E. hirae (N = 12)E. avium (N = 3)Total Enterococci
(N = 90)
vanA10001
vanB00000
ermA542011
ermB1392024
pbp5786223
tetA10001
tetB00011
tetM2683239
tetL15125234
optrA00000
Cat31004
Table
Table 4. Distribution of mean MAR index and virulence genes among different biofilm categories.
Table 4. Distribution of mean MAR index and virulence genes among different biofilm categories.
Biofilm Category Mean Biofilm ODMean MAR IndexMDRGelatinase Cytolysin Agg gelE
Non-biofilm producers 0.290.01700000
Weak biofilm producers 0.470.1303022
Medium biofilm producers 0.90.2283387
Strong biofilm producers 1.650.322992316
Table
Table 5. Multi-locus sequence types and allele numbers for 45 E. faecalis strains isolated from backyard chickens.
Table 5. Multi-locus sequence types and allele numbers for 45 E. faecalis strains isolated from backyard chickens.
STNOMLST Allelic ProfilePhenotypic Activities
gdhgydpstSgkiaroExptyqiLBiofilmMDRGelatinase Cytolysin
1610511377610623
21317911111000
32187954411000
4151711211413001
811272162826211110
17621573373915112010
177115237373915110000
179651137165232
3028511377608452
480511222271765201
75232721628268313000
Table
Table 6. Multi-locus sequence types and allele numbers for 30 E. faecium strains isolated from backyard chickens.
Table 6. Multi-locus sequence types and allele numbers for 30 E. faecium strains isolated from backyard chickens.
STNOMLST Allelic ProfilePhenotypic Activities
atpAddlgdhpurKgydpstSadkBiofilmMDRGelatinase Cytolysin
12152661710000
360252661110000
16312111112100
194811111118421
157571115115201
9445131114000
182151111111010
825136111114101
Table
Table 7. Rep-families, phenotypic and genotypic resistance profile detected among MDR enterococci from backyard chickens.
Table 7. Rep-families, phenotypic and genotypic resistance profile detected among MDR enterococci from backyard chickens.
Enterococcus spp.Phenotypic Profile AMR GenesVirulence GenesGelatinase Cytolysin Rep-FamilyPlasmid
E. faecalisAMP, ERY, TETpbp5, tetM, tetLgelE, agg−−9pCF10
E. faecalisAMP, TET, FOSpbp5, tetMgelE, agg, cylA−−
E. faecalisERY, NIT, TETermA, ermB, tetMgelE, agg+−9pCF10
E. faecalisERY, CHL, CIP, FOSermBgelE, agg, cylA+−
E. faecalisVAN, ERY, TET, RIFvanA, ermB, tetM, tetLgelE, agg+−9, 1pIP501, pCF10
E. faecalisERY, NIT, RIFermAgelE, agg, cylA−+
E. faecalisERY, NIT, RIFermBgelE, agg−−
E. faecalisAMP, TET, CIP, RIF, FOSpbp5gelE, agg, cylA−+6pS86
E. faecalisTET, CHL, RIFtetM, cat −−
E. faecalisAMP, TET, FOSpbp5, tetMgelE, agg+−
E. faecalisAMP, TET, FOSpbp5, tetM, tetLgelE, agg, cylA++9pCF10
E. faecalisERY, TET, RIFermB, tetMgelE, agg+−9pCF10
E. faecalisNIT, TET, RIFtetMgelE, agg+−6pS86
E. faecalisERY, TET, RIFermB, tetL −−9pCF10
E. faecalisNIT, TET, RIF gelE, agg, cylA−−
E. faeciumAMP, TET, CIPpbp5, tetM, tetLagg−−2pRE25
E. faeciumVAN, NIT, TET, RIFvanA, tetM, tetLagg−−2, 1pIP501, pRE25
E. faeciumAMP, TET, CHL, CIPpbp5, tetM, tetL, catgeIE, agg+−2pRE25
E. faeciumERY, AMP, TETermA, ermB, tetLcylA−−
E. faeciumERY, TET, CIPtetLgelE, agg, cylA−+2, 6pRE25, pS86
E. faeciumERY, TET, CIPermBagg−−
E. faeciumERY, TET, CIPermA, ermBgeIE, agg+−6pS86
E. faeciumERY, TET, FOSermA, ermB, tetM, tetLagg, cylA−+2pRE25
E. hiraeERY, AMP, TETtetLagg−−
E. hiraeERY, AMP, TETermA, ermB, pbp5, tetM, tetL −−5pN315
E. hiraeERY, AMP, TETermA, ermB, pbp5, tetLgelE, agg, cylA−+5,3pN315, pAW63
E. hiraeAMP, NIT, CIP, FOSpbp5geIE, agg−−6pS86
E. hiraeERY, AMP, TETermA, ermB, pbp5, tetM, tetLagg−+5, 11pN315, pEF1071
E. aviumAMP, TET, CIPpbp5, tetB, tetM, tetL −−6pS86
E. aviumAMP, TET, CIPpbp5, tetM, tetLgeIE−−6, 9pS86, pCF10
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alzahrani, O.M.; Fayez, M.; Alswat, A.S.; Alkafafy, M.; Mahmoud, S.F.; Al-Marri, T.; Almuslem, A.; Ashfaq, H.; Yusuf, S. Antimicrobial Resistance, Biofilm Formation, and Virulence Genes in Enterococcus Species from Small Backyard Chicken Flocks. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030380

AMA Style

Alzahrani OM, Fayez M, Alswat AS, Alkafafy M, Mahmoud SF, Al-Marri T, Almuslem A, Ashfaq H, Yusuf S. Antimicrobial Resistance, Biofilm Formation, and Virulence Genes in Enterococcus Species from Small Backyard Chicken Flocks. Antibiotics. 2022; 11(3):380. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030380

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alzahrani, Othman M., Mahmoud Fayez, Amal S. Alswat, Mohamed Alkafafy, Samy F. Mahmoud, Theeb Al-Marri, Ahmed Almuslem, Hassan Ashfaq, and Shaymaa Yusuf. 2022. "Antimicrobial Resistance, Biofilm Formation, and Virulence Genes in Enterococcus Species from Small Backyard Chicken Flocks" Antibiotics 11, no. 3: 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11030380

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