Epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus food isolates: Comparison of conventional methods with whole genome sequencing typing methods

IF 4.5 1区 农林科学 Q1 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Noémie Vingadassalon , Déborah Merda , Arnaud Felten , Virginie Chesnais , Christos Kourtis , Tom Van Nieuwenhuysen , Yacine Nia , Jacques-Antoine Hennekinne , Marina Cavaiuolo
{"title":"Epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus food isolates: Comparison of conventional methods with whole genome sequencing typing methods","authors":"Noémie Vingadassalon ,&nbsp;Déborah Merda ,&nbsp;Arnaud Felten ,&nbsp;Virginie Chesnais ,&nbsp;Christos Kourtis ,&nbsp;Tom Van Nieuwenhuysen ,&nbsp;Yacine Nia ,&nbsp;Jacques-Antoine Hennekinne ,&nbsp;Marina Cavaiuolo","doi":"10.1016/j.fm.2024.104625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A variety of methods exists for typing bacteria. However, guidelines for the application and interpretation of typing tools in epidemiologic investigations of <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> are lacking. This study aimed to identify appropriate typing methods for <em>S. aureus</em> population studies and outbreak investigation. We compared pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), seven loci multi-locus sequence typing (MLST), core genome MLST (cgMLST), core single nucleotide polymorphism (cSNP), and enterotoxin (<em>se</em>/SE) profiles on 351 <em>S. aureus</em> isolates. The discriminatory power, concordance, and congruence of typing results were assessed. cgMLST, cSNP, and PFGE yielded the highest discrimination value, followed by <em>se</em>/SE typing and MLST. The best concordance of results was found between cgMLST and cSNP, while the best congruence was observed for cgMLST and cSNP with all methods, followed by PFGE with MLST. The strengths and weaknesses of each method are highlighted. For population structure, cgMLST and cSNP performed better than PFGE and MLST in terms of resolution of clusters and in phylogenetic inference. Enterotoxin profiles matched with MLST groups, suggesting the use of <em>se</em>/SE typing to predict MLST results. For the retrospective analysis of 31 outbreaks, all methods performed almost equally to discriminate epidemiologically related strains and can be used to unambiguously distinguish outbreak strains.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12399,"journal":{"name":"Food microbiology","volume":"125 ","pages":"Article 104625"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740002024001631/pdfft?md5=bffb9d61d5e16515233955840646a26f&pid=1-s2.0-S0740002024001631-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740002024001631","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A variety of methods exists for typing bacteria. However, guidelines for the application and interpretation of typing tools in epidemiologic investigations of Staphylococcus aureus are lacking. This study aimed to identify appropriate typing methods for S. aureus population studies and outbreak investigation. We compared pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), seven loci multi-locus sequence typing (MLST), core genome MLST (cgMLST), core single nucleotide polymorphism (cSNP), and enterotoxin (se/SE) profiles on 351 S. aureus isolates. The discriminatory power, concordance, and congruence of typing results were assessed. cgMLST, cSNP, and PFGE yielded the highest discrimination value, followed by se/SE typing and MLST. The best concordance of results was found between cgMLST and cSNP, while the best congruence was observed for cgMLST and cSNP with all methods, followed by PFGE with MLST. The strengths and weaknesses of each method are highlighted. For population structure, cgMLST and cSNP performed better than PFGE and MLST in terms of resolution of clusters and in phylogenetic inference. Enterotoxin profiles matched with MLST groups, suggesting the use of se/SE typing to predict MLST results. For the retrospective analysis of 31 outbreaks, all methods performed almost equally to discriminate epidemiologically related strains and can be used to unambiguously distinguish outbreak strains.

金黄色葡萄球菌食品分离物的流行病学:传统方法与全基因组测序分型方法的比较
对细菌进行分型的方法多种多样。然而,在金黄色葡萄球菌的流行病学调查中,缺乏应用和解释分型工具的指南。本研究旨在确定适合金黄色葡萄球菌群体研究和疫情调查的分型方法。我们比较了 351 株金黄色葡萄球菌分离物的脉冲场凝胶电泳(PFGE)、七个位点多焦点序列分型(MLST)、核心基因组多焦点序列分型(cgMLST)、核心单核苷酸多态性(cSNP)和肠毒素(se/SE)图谱。cgMLST 、cSNP 和 PFGE 的鉴别值最高,其次是 se/SE 分型和 MLST。cgMLST 和 cSNP 的结果一致性最好,而所有方法中 cgMLST 和 cSNP 的一致性最好,其次是 PFGE 和 MLST。每种方法的优缺点都得到了强调。就种群结构而言,cgMLST 和 cSNP 在分辨聚类和系统发育推断方面的表现优于 PFGE 和 MLST。肠毒素特征与 MLST 群体相匹配,这表明可以使用 se/SE 分型来预测 MLST 结果。在对 31 起疫情进行回顾性分析时,所有方法在区分流行病学相关菌株方面的效果几乎相同,可用于明确区分疫情菌株。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Food microbiology
Food microbiology 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
179
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: Food Microbiology publishes original research articles, short communications, review papers, letters, news items and book reviews dealing with all aspects of the microbiology of foods. The editors aim to publish manuscripts of the highest quality which are both relevant and applicable to the broad field covered by the journal. Studies must be novel, have a clear connection to food microbiology, and be of general interest to the international community of food microbiologists. The editors make every effort to ensure rapid and fair reviews, resulting in timely publication of accepted manuscripts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信