01 February 2011: Basic Research
Phenotypic and genotypic study of macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin B (MLSB) resistance in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus in Tehran, Iran
Horieh Saderi ABCDEFG , Behzad Emadi BCDF , Parviz Owlia ABCDEFG
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.881386
Med Sci Monit 2011; 17(2): BR48-53
Background
Macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin B (MLSB) antibiotics have different structure, but similar mode of action. These antibiotics inhibit bacterial protein synthesis by binding to 23s rRNA in 50S ribosomal subunits [1]. Erythromycin (a macrolide) and clindamycin (a lincosamide) are widely used in treatment of
Three mechanisms have been reported for resistance to MLSB antibiotics: target site modification, efflux of antibiotics, and drug modification [1]. Methylation of the A2058 residue, located in the conserved domain V of 23s rRNA, takes place in target-site modification and prevents the binding of MLSB antibiotics to their ribosomal target. This phenomenon leads to cross-resistance to these antibiotics, and produces the MLSB phenotype that was encoded by erythromycin ribosome methylases (
On the other hand, MLSB phenotype can be constitutive (rRNA methylase is always produced) or inducible (methylase is produced only in the presence of an inducing agent) [1,7]. While strains with constitutive MLSB resistance (cMLSB) phenotypes can be detected by routine disk diffusion testing, strains with inducible MLSB resistance (iMLSB) phenotypes show resistance to erythromycin and sensitivity to clindamycin, similar to strains containing the MS phenotype, which had resistance to only macrolide and streptogramin B, not to clindamycin. Therefore, a special disk diffusion method, the D-test, was developed for the detection of iMLSB. In this test, an erythromycin disk was placed in close proximity to a clindamycin disk. In iMLSB-resistant strains, resistance to clindamycin is induced by diffusion of erythromycin through the agar, and leads to flattening of the clindamycin zone of inhibition adjacent to the erythromycin disk (a D-shaped zone), while MS phenotype-containing strains form a circular zone around the clindamycin disk [2].
There are reports of clinical failures of clindamycin in treating patients with iMLSB resistance phenotype [8–12], attributed to selection for a mutation in the macrolide-responsive promoter region upstream of the
The present investigation was undertaken to determine the prevalence of cMLSB, iMLSB and MS resistance phenotypes and primary
Material and Methods
BACTERIAL STRAINS:
All
PHENOTYPIC DETERMINATION OF ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE:
Disk diffusion testing was used to determine antibiotic resistance according to the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), with S. aureus ATCC 25923 as control. For detecting erythromycin and clindamycin resistance, 15 μg erythromycin disks and 2 μg clindamycin disks (purchased from Mast Co., Merseyside, UK) were used. Interpretation of the diameters of zones of inhibition was as follows: for erythromycin =23 mm; S, 14–22 mm; I, =13 mm; R, and for clindamycin =21 mm; S, 15–20 mm; I, =14 mm; R [13]. Intermediate resistant strains were considered resistant. Erythromycin-resistant S. aureus strains were selected for further studies.
D-testing was performed for erythromycin-resistant S. aureus strains according to the guidelines of the CLSI. Suspension equivalent to 0.5 McFarland of each freshly cultured isolate in normal saline was prepared and used for inoculation of Mueller-Hinton agar (Merck-Hampshire, England) plates. Erythromycin and clindamycin disks were placed on inoculated plates 15 mm apart (edge-to-edge). Plates were read after 18 h of incubation at 35°C and the shape of the clindamycin zone was verified. Strains resistant to both antibiotics were considered to have cMLSB resistance. Strains with flattening of the susceptible zone of inhibition to clindamycin adjacent to the erythromycin disk (D-shape) were considered to contain iMLSB-resistance, while strains with circular zones were considered to contain MS resistance [2].
POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION (PCR):
DNA was extracted from all erythromycin-resistant S. aureus strains by rapid DNA extraction method [14]. Five colonies of each isolate’s overnight growth on brain-heart infusion agar were suspended in 300 μl of sterile distilled water and heated for 15 min at 100°C. After centrifugation at 14 000 rpm for 5 min, supernatant was collected and used as the DNA template in each PCR run.
PCR was performed with primers specific for ermA, ermC, mecA and nuc genes according to previous studies [3,15,16]. Primers were purchased from Cinnagen, Iran, and their sequences, thermal cycling profile and PCR fragment size are shown in Table 1. PCR reaction was performed in a 20 μl volume, and 2 μl of DNA template was added to 18 μl of PCR mixture consisting of 2 μl of PCR buffer (10×), 1 μl of MgCl2 (50mM), 4 μl of dNTPs (1mM), 1 μl of each primers (10 Pmol), 0.25 μl of Taq DNA polymerase (5 u/μl) and 8.75 μl of double-distilled water. DNA amplification was carried out in a thermocycler (Touchgene Gradient, Techne, UK). In each thermal cycling profile, there was an initial denaturation step at 94°C for 5 min, and a final extension step at 72°C for 5 min. After PCR amplification, 5 μl of PCR product was subjected to agarose gel electrophoresis (2% agarose, 1× Tris-acetate-EDTA, 100 V, 100 min). The gel was stained with ethidium bromide, and a PCR fragment was visualized using a gel documentation system by comparison with a molecular size marker (100 bp ladder, Eurobio, UK). Positive control strains for ermA and ermC donated by Mohammad Emaneini (Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran) and molecular grade water instead of template DNA as the negative control were included in each run. S. aureus ATCC29213 (without ermA, ermC, and mecA genes) was also used as a negative control.
Results
During the 6-month study period, 186
In PCR testing, 76 and 69 strains (60.3% and 54.8%) showed
The
Of 86 MRSA strains, 70 strains contained the
Discussion
The increasing frequency of
In this study, resistance to erythromycin (67.7%) was higher than in studies from other countries, such as the study of Schmitz et al. on
In the present study, prevalence of cMLSB, iMLSB and MS resistance phenotypes among erythromycin-resistant
We studied the distribution of 2
A notable finding of the present study was the co-existence of
We found prevalence of 81.4% for MRSA strains and 15% for MSSA isolates for
Conclusions
Although there are some reports of MLSB resistance phenotypes in Iranian isolates of
References
1. Leclercq R, Mechanisms of resistance to macrolides and lincosamides: Nature of the resistance elements and their clinical implications: Clin Infect Dis, 2002; 34; 482-92, pmid: 11797175
2. Fiebelkorn KR, Crawford SA, McElmeel ML, Jorgensen JH: J Clin Microbiol, 2003; 41; 4740-44, pmid: 14532213
3. Lina G, Quaglia A, Reverdy ME, Distribution of genes encoding resistance to macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins among staphylococci: Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 1999; 43(5); 1062-66, pmid: 10223914
4. Kasten MJ, Clindamycin, metronidazole, and chloramphenicol: Mayo Clin Proc, 1999; 74; 825-33, pmid: 10473362
5. Weisblum B, Erythromycin resistance by ribosome modification: Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 1995; 39; 577-85, pmid: 7793855
6. Roberts MC, Sutcliffe J, Courvalin P, Nomenclature for macrolide and macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance determinants: Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 1999; 43; 2823-30, pmid: 10582867
7. Daurel C, Huet C, Dhalluin A: J Clin Microbiol, 2008; 46(2); 546-50, pmid: 18077631
8. Levin TP, Suh B, Axelrod P: Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2005; 49(3); 1222-24, pmid: 15728934
9. Drinkovic D, Fuller ER, Shore KP: J Antimicrob Chemother, 2001; 48(2); 315-16, pmid: 11481309
10. Frank AL, Marcinak JF, Mangat PD: Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2002; 21; 530-34, pmid: 12182377
11. Siberry GK, Tekle T, Carroll K, Dick J: Clin Infect Dis, 2003; 37(9); 1257-60, pmid: 14557972
12. Panagea S, Perry JD, Kate Gould F: J Antimicrob Chemother, 1999; 44; 581-82, pmid: 10588329
13. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility tests; Fifteenth informational supplement, 2005; 25(1), Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute CLSI document M100—S15
14. Perez-Roth E, Claverie-Martin F, Villar J, Mendez-Alvarez S: J Clin Microb, 2001; 39; 4037-41
15. Zhang K, Sparling J, Chow BL: J Clin Microbiol, 2004; 42(11); 4947-55, pmid: 15528678
16. Spiliopoulou I, Petinaki E, Papandreou P, Dimitracopoulos G: J Antimicrob Chemother, 2004; 53(5); 814-17, pmid: 15056638
17. Yilmaz G, Aydin K, Iskender S: J Med Microbiol, 2007; 56; 342-45, pmid: 17314364
18. Schmitz FJ, Verhoef J, Fluit AC, Prevalence of resistance to MLS antibiotics in 20 European university hospitals participating in the European SENTRY surveillance programme. Sentry Participants Group: J Antimicrob Chemother, 1999; 43; 783-92, pmid: 10404317
19. Saderi H, Owlia P, Habibi M: Med Sci Monit, 2008; 14(10); BR210-13, pmid: 18830185
20. Rahbar M, Hajia M: Pak J Biol Sci, 2007; 10(1); 189-92, pmid: 19070014
21. Delialioglu N, Aslan G, Ozturk C, Inducible clindamycin resistance in staphylococci isolated from clinical samples: Jpn J Infect Dis, 2005; 58; 104-6, pmid: 15858290
22. Schreckenberger PC, Ilendo E, Ristow KL: J Clin Microbiol, 2004; 42; 2777-79, pmid: 15184468
23. Zelazny AM, Ferraro MJ, Glennen A: J Clin Microbiol, 2005; 43(6); 2613-15, pmid: 15956373
24. Martineau F, Picard FJ, Lansac N: Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2000; 44(2); 231-38, pmid: 10639342
25. Schmitz FJ, Sadurski R, Kray A: J Antimicrob Chemother, 2000; 45(6); 891-94, pmid: 10837446
26. Westh H, Hougaard DM, Vuust J, Rosdahl VT: APMIS, 1995; 103; 225-32, pmid: 7755979
27. Aktas Z, Aridogan A, Kayacan CB, Aydin D, Resistance to macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin antibiotics in staphylococci isolated in Istanbul, Turkey: J Microbiol, 2007; 45(4); 286-90, pmid: 17846580
28. Gul HC, Kilic A, Guclu AU: Pol J Microbiol, 2008; 57(4); 307-12, pmid: 19275044
29. Otsuka T, Zaraket H, Takano T: Clin Microbiol Infect, 2007; 13(3); 325-27, pmid: 17391391
In Press
Clinical Research
Institutional and Regional Variations in Access to Clinical Trials and Next-Generation Sequencing in Turkis...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951027
Clinical Research
Low-Intensity Blood Flow-Restricted Multi-Joint Exercise Improves Muscle Function in Patients With Patellof...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950516
Review article
Musculoskeletal Ultrasound and MRI in the Evaluation of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A ReviewMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951283
Clinical Research
Sensory Processing, Dissociation, and Affective Symptoms in Misophonia: A Cross-Sectional Study of 35 AdultsMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950938
Most Viewed Current Articles
17 Jan 2024 : Review article 10,187,196
Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron VariantDOI :10.12659/MSM.942799
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799
13 Nov 2021 : Clinical Research 3,708,487
Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Associated Factors Among Cancer Patients Attending the Oncology ...DOI :10.12659/MSM.932788
Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e932788
14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research 2,341,643
Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase LevelsDOI :10.12659/MSM.937990
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990
16 May 2023 : Clinical Research 706,524
Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387
Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387






