NewBioWorld A
Journal of Alumni Association of Biotechnology (2024) 6(2):1-7
RESEARCH
ARTICLE
Comparative antibiotic susceptibility profiling of S.
haemolyticus recovered from frequency hand-touched surfaces of hospital
settings and urban built environments of central India
Anushri Keshri, Varaprasad Kolla*
Amity
Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Chhattisgarh, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, 493225, India.
Authors Email: Anug7797@gmail.com;
vkolla@rpr.amity.edu
*Corresponding Author Email- vkolla@rpr.amity.edu
ARTICLE INFORMATION
|
|
ABSTRACT
|
Article history:
Received
14 October 2024
Received in revised form
10 December 2024
Accepted
Keywords:
Multidrug resistance; Antibiotic susceptibility;
CoNS;
S. haemolyticus; Surveillance
programme
|
|
Staphylococcus
haemolyticus (S. haemolyticus),
a significant species among coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), has
emerged as a pathogenic bacterium with increasing multidrug resistance,
posing challenges to its treatment. Notably, this resistance is not limited
to clinical settings but extends to non-clinical environments, such as urban
built environments (UBEs), which are becoming reservoirs for
antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This study aimed to investigate the presence
of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on frequently hand-touched surfaces in UBEs
and hospital settings. A total of 200 isolates were collected from various
sampled areas, cultured on Mannitol Salt Agar (MSA), and examined for
staphylococcal characteristics. All isolates were confirmed as Gram-positive,
catalase-positive, and exhibited both positive and negative coagulase
responses. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed using 12
antibiotics, beginning with ampicillin and methicillin. Among the isolates,
84 exhibited antibiotic resistance, with 51 originating from UBEs and 33 from
hospital settings. Further identification using the VITEK 2 system confirmed
28 isolates as S. haemolyticus,
of which 16 were from UBEs and 12 were from hospital settings. Notably,
multidrug resistance was more prevalent in hospital isolates compared to
those from UBEs. The findings provide valuable insights into the epidemiology
of S. haemolyticus and underscore the critical need for comprehensive
measures to address the spread of antibiotic resistance. These measures
should focus on stringent infection control, monitoring resistance patterns,
and promoting prudent antibiotic use in both clinical and non-clinical
settings.
|
|
Introduction
DOI: 10.52228/NBW-JAAB.2024-6-2-1
|
A coagulase-negative staphylococci
(CoNS) species has emerged as an opportunistic pathogen, primarily associated
with nosocomial infections (Argemi X et al 2019). Staphylococcus
haemolyticus (S. haemolyticus) accounts for 10–20% of clinical CoNS
infections (Renaud F et al. 1991) and is the second-highest species of CoNS in
frequency and importance among isolates from clinical infections after S. epidermidis
(Zczuka E et al. 2015). The species was known for its ability to
colonize human skin and mucosa, it can act as a reservoir for antimicrobial
resistance genes, posing significant challenges to public health (Eltwisy HO et
al.). This is particularly concerning in healthcare settings, where antibiotic
use is high, creating selective pressure that fosters the emergence of
multidrug-resistant strains, including methicillin-resistant S. haemolyticus
(MRSH) (HAYATI Z 2019). Frequently hand-touched surfaces, such as door handles,
chairs, and washbasin taps, serve as critical fomite reservoirs for these
pathogens, enabling their transmission and persistence within hospitals (Keshri
A et al. 2024). Beyond healthcare settings, urban built environments (UBEs) characterized
by high human traffic and limited hygiene infrastructure also present potential
hotspots for the transmission of resistant bacteria (Cave R et al. 2019).
The study of S. haemolyticus is crucial due
to its increasing role in human infections and its remarkable ability to
acquire resistance to multiple antibiotics. Although traditionally S.
haemolyticus is considered less virulent than Staphylococcus aureus,
it is associated with severe conditions, including bacteremia, endocarditis,
and infections in implanted medical devices (Eltwisy HO et al.). Its pathogenicity
is often linked to its capacity to form biofilms, which enhance its resistance
to antibiotics and immune system clearance, making treatment challenging (Fredheim
EG et al. 2009). Additionally, its genetic plasticity allows for the horizontal
transfer of resistance genes, posing a risk of amplifying resistance across
bacterial populations (Sharma 2020). The growing prevalence of
multidrug-resistant S. haemolyticus highlights the urgent need for
studies that address its epidemiology and resistance mechanisms, particularly
in regions like India, where antibiotic misuse is widespread (da Costa PM et al.
2013).
Antibiotic resistance in India has become an
escalating public health concern, driven by factors such as over-the-counter
availability of antibiotics, inadequate infection control practices, and
widespread misuse (Laxminarayan R et al. 2016). While substantial research has
focused on hospital-acquired pathogens, there is a paucity of data on the
antibiotic resistance profiles of pathogens isolated from non-hospital settings
like educational environments (Kumari H et al. 2020). A comparative analysis of
S. haemolyticus isolates from these distinct environments could provide
insights into the ecological niches of this pathogen and the potential for
inter-environmental transmission of resistant strains.
This study aims to investigate and compare the
antibiotic susceptibility patterns of S. haemolyticus recovered from
frequently hand-touched surfaces in hospital and UBE environments in central
India. By identifying resistance trends and potential reservoirs of
multidrug-resistant S. haemolyticus, the findings could inform targeted
interventions to control the spread of resistant pathogens in both healthcare
and community settings.
Materials
and Methods
Sampling
from frequently hand-touched surfaces of UBEs and hospital settings
Samples were collected from frequently hand-touched
surfaces at various public places in UBEs and various hospital settings in
Vidarbha, Maharashtra. A total of 200 isolates were tested, 100 from each
environment (urban and hospital). The sampling was carried out in 0.9% sterile
saline along with a swab, which was used for the sampling and kept in
microcentrifuge tubes. After sampling, the bottles are kept in a cool condition
and the samples are transferred to the laboratory in 2 hours.
Isolation
of staphylococci species
To isolate staphylococci
species from the sampled environment, a selective medium of mannitol salt agar
(MSA – MH118-500G) has been used. The contaminated swab was used to inoculate
the sterile media via the spread plate technique and incubated at 37 ° C for
24-48 hours. The isolated colonies were further maintained on an MSA plate under
the same conditions.
Screening
of staphylococci species
The colonies were screened for the potential
staphylococci characteristics, including performing the conventional method
such as gram staining, catalase, and coagulase tests, and the identification of
the selected isolates at the species level using the VITEK 2 (BioMerieux) (Pincus
DH et al. 2010).
Antibiotic
susceptibility testing
Initially, ampicillin (10
µg) and methicillin (10 µg) antibiotics were checked for resistance and
only those strains which are positive for the resistance were taken forward to
investigate other antibiotics such as oxacillin (1
µg), gentamicin (10 µg), amoxicillin
(10 µg), mupirocin (20 µg), erythromycin
(15 µg), cefoxitin (30 µg), fusidic acid (10 µg), cefepime (30 µg), penicillin
G (1 unit) and piperacillin (100 µg) (HI media, India). Antibiotic sensitivity test
carried out on Muller Hinton Agar (MHA –
M173-500G). A bacterial load of 0.5 McFarland standard was made with 24 hrs old
culture maintained on nutrient broth. The lawn was prepared, and further
antibiotic discs were placed on MHA plates and incubated for 24 hrs at 37ºC.
After incubation, the growth of inhibition for antibiotic resistance was noted
with the standard scale of the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI
2018) Table 1.
Statistical analysis
In this study, the
per-drug sensitivity of UBEs and hospital-based CoNS were statistically
analyzed using an unpaired T-test with P<0.05 to determine significance via
GraphPad Prism software.
Table 1: Antibiotic
susceptibility profiling of S. haemolyticus recovered from frequently
touched surfaces of UBE and hospital settings and their zone of inhibition in
mm.
Isolates
|
AMP
|
MET
|
OXA
|
AMX
|
FOX
|
FEN
|
FUA
|
MUP
|
GEN
|
ERM
|
PEN
|
PIP
|
Zone of inhibition (mm)
|
Hospital settings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H6
|
33
(S)
|
0
(R)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
H22
|
14
(R)
|
0
(R)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
18 (S)
|
14 (S)
|
35 (S)
|
0 (R)
|
H29
|
17
(R)
|
13 (R)
|
11 (R)
|
28 (R)
|
35 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
35 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
33 (S)
|
18 (S)
|
24 (R)
|
14 (R)
|
H42
|
22
(R)
|
10 (R)
|
15 (R)
|
24 (R)
|
28 (S)
|
21 (R)
|
40 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
35 (S)
|
17 (S)
|
14 (R)
|
40 (S)
|
H52
|
17
(R)
|
12 (R)
|
12 (R)
|
16 (R)
|
21 (R)
|
16 (R)
|
37 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
36 (S)
|
39 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
H62
|
17
(R)
|
12 (R)
|
12 (R)
|
18 (R)
|
28 (S)
|
26 (S)
|
39 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
20 (S)
|
18 (S)
|
34 (S)
|
33 (S)
|
H67
|
13
(R)
|
0
(R)
|
16 (R)
|
10 (R)
|
18 (R)
|
32 (S)
|
29 (S)
|
39 (S)
|
24 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
19 (R)
|
26 (S)
|
H72
|
29
(S)
|
16 (R)
|
22 (S)
|
15 (R)
|
31 (S)
|
27 (S)
|
36 (S)
|
16 (R)
|
24 (S)
|
17 (S)
|
32 (S)
|
24 (S)
|
H76
|
21
(R)
|
13 (R)
|
14 (R)
|
12 (R)
|
10 (R)
|
28 (S)
|
32 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
20 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
27 (S)
|
H81
|
40 (S)
|
15 (R)
|
12 (R)
|
20 (R)
|
20 (R)
|
19 (R)
|
28 (S)
|
37 (S)
|
33 (S)
|
28 (S)
|
20 (R)
|
21 (R)
|
H92
|
21
(R)
|
13 (R)
|
17 (R)
|
22 (R)
|
17 (R)
|
35 (S)
|
27 (S)
|
33 (S)
|
25 (S)
|
22 (S)
|
16 (R)
|
29 (S)
|
H97
|
12
(R)
|
12 (R)
|
38 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
35 (S)
|
26 (S)
|
23 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
UBE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P7
|
10
(R)
|
10 (R)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
18 (S)
|
19 (S)
|
32 (S)
|
23 (S)
|
P9
|
0
(R)
|
S
|
11 (R)
|
22 (R)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
21 (R)
|
33 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
13 (R)
|
0 (R)
|
P14
|
22
(R)
|
0
(R)
|
17 (R)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
28 (S)
|
P23
|
16
(R)
|
15 (R)
|
0
(R)
|
S
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
11 (R)
|
26 (R)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
P34
|
13
(R)
|
16 (R)
|
36 (S)
|
S
|
18 (R)
|
14 (R)
|
30 (S)
|
23 (R)
|
11 (R)
|
11 (R)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
P37
|
23
(R)
|
15 (R)
|
21 (S)
|
31 (S)
|
27 (S)
|
27 (S)
|
15 (R)
|
15 (R)
|
33 (S)
|
31 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
P48
|
23
(R)
|
19 (S)
|
22 (S)
|
32 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
31 (S)
|
23 (R)
|
39 (S)
|
16 (S)
|
21 (S)
|
39 (S)
|
22 (R)
|
P52
|
38
(S)
|
0
(R)
|
38 (S)
|
S
|
21 (R)
|
12 (R)
|
25 (S)
|
22 (R)
|
0
(R)
|
10 (R)
|
14 (R)
|
16 (R)
|
P56
|
21
(R)
|
13 (R)
|
16 (R)
|
36 (S)
|
26 (S)
|
39 (S)
|
30 (S)
|
34 (S)
|
30 (S)
|
19 (S)
|
32 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
P59
|
13
(R)
|
27 (S)
|
39 (S)
|
34 (S)
|
36 (S)
|
34 (S)
|
16 (R)
|
23 (R)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
16 (R)
|
16 (R)
|
P64
|
13
(R)
|
29 (S)
|
24 (S)
|
37 (S)
|
37 (S)
|
32 (S)
|
12 (R)
|
24 (R)
|
20 (S)
|
18 (S)
|
29 (S)
|
28 (S)
|
P71
|
26
(R)
|
13 (R)
|
40 (S)
|
34 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
32 (S)
|
34 (S)
|
31 (S)
|
26 (S)
|
17 (R)
|
38 (S)
|
P77
|
21
(R)
|
0
(R)
|
22 (S)
|
37 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
39 (S)
|
24 (R)
|
33 (S)
|
24 (S)
|
34 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
39 (S)
|
P86
|
17
(R)
|
12 (R)
|
0 (R)
|
S
|
31 (S)
|
37 (S)
|
10 (R)
|
17 (R)
|
35 (S)
|
36 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
26 (S)
|
P88
|
18
(R)
|
29 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
35 (S)
|
29 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
18 (R)
|
23 (R)
|
21 (S)
|
16 (S)
|
29 (S)
|
36 (S)
|
P98
|
15
(R)
|
28 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
35 (S)
|
32 (S)
|
29 (S)
|
32 (S)
|
38 (S)
|
21 (S)
|
22 (S)
|
40 (S)
|
23 (S)
|
S- Sensitive, R- Resistant, I-
Intermediate. AMP (Ampicillin):- S – >29, R – <28, MET (Methicillin):- S
– >18, R – <17, OXA (Oxacillin):- S – >18, R– <17, AMX
(Amoxicillin):- S – >28, R – <28, FOX (Cefoxitin):- S – >25, R – <
25, FEN (Cefepime):- S – >24, R – <24, FUA (Fusidic acid):- S – >24,
R– <24, MUP (Mupirocin):- S – >37, R – <31, GEN (Gentamicin):- S –
>15, R – <12, ERN (Erythromycin):- S – >23, R – <13, PEN
(Penicillin G):- S – >29, R – <28, PIP (Piperacillin):- S – >22, R –
< 22
Results
and Discussion
Surveying
staphylococci species in urban built environments and hospital settings
Staphylococci colonies were grown on Mannitol Salt
Agar (MSA) plates. Microbial loads varied significantly across locations. In
UBE bus stops had an average colony count of 36 (range: 0-153), ATMs averaged
29 colonies (range: 3-58), while cafes showed a lower mean of 6.8 colonies
(range: 0-28). Gardens and automobiles displayed typical counts of 13 and 54
colonies, respectively. In hospitals, washbasins had an average of 8.2 colonies
(range: 0-23), lifts averaged 2 colonies (range: 0-8), and wheelchairs, doors,
and tables had mean counts of 48, 86, and 49, respectively, reflecting
substantial variability (Figure a). Circular colonies with yellow and pink hues
on MSA agar indicated the presence of S. aureus and coagulase-negative
staphylococci (CoNS) species, which are gram-positive, catalase-positive, and
exhibit variable coagulase responses (Figure b).
Screening
of staphylococci species
All the colonies grown in MSA are gram-positive and catalase-positive
and exhibit variable coagulase responses (both positive and negative).
Antimicrobial
susceptibility analysis
Antibiotic-resistant staphylococci isolates from
urban and hospital contexts demonstrated considerable disparities in resistance
patterns. In UBEs and hospital settings, 51% and 33% were shown
antibiotic-resistant staphylococci respectively. This represented a significant
18% difference between both environments, demonstrating that antibiotic
resistance is more prevalent in metropolitan constructed environments (Figure c).
Figure a: No. of colonies recovered
from various frequently touched surfaces
of (a)UBEs (b) Hospital settings.
Figure b: Results of Gram stain, catalase and coagulase
tests.
Figure c: Antibiotic susceptibility test of isolates
recovered from different directions of: (A) urban built environments and (B)
hospital settings towards various antibiotics used in this study.
Species-level
identification of recovered isolates
Species-level identification via VITEK 2 confirms out
of 84 antibiotic-resistant staphylococci 28 (33.33%) are identified as S.
haemolyticus of which 16 belong to UBE and 12 from the hospital as it
exhibits positivity for ARGININE DIHYDROLASE 1 (ADH1) and
N-ACETYL-D-GLUCOSAMINE (NAG).
Comparative
analysis of antibiotic-resistant S. haemolyticus species in urban and hospital
settings
In a comparison of UBEs and hospital settings,
57.14% and 42.85% of S. haemolyticus were detected respectively differing
by 14.29%. We also examined the
antibiotic resistance trends of S. haemolyticus species in both urban
and hospital settings, demonstrating significant heterogeneity among
antibiotics. S. haemolyticus exhibited a resistance rate of 93.8% to
ampicillin in UBEs and 75.0% in hospital settings. The recorded resistance to
methicillin was 62.5% in UBEs and 100% in hospital settings. Resistance to
oxacillin was found to be 31.3% in UBEs and 75% in hospital settings. For
amoxicillin, the resistance rates were 6.3% in UBEs and 75% in hospital
settings. Resistance to cefoxitin was 12.5% in UBEs and 41.7% in hospital settings.
Cefepime showed a resistance rate of 12.5% in UBEs and 25% in hospital settings.
Additionally, resistance to fusidic
acid was recorded at 56.3% in UBEs and 0% in hospital settings. Mupirocin
resistance was reported at 50% in UBEs and 16.7% in hospital settings.
Gentamicin resistance was 18.8% in UBEs and 0% in hospital settings, while
erythromycin resistance was also recorded at 18.8% in UBEs and 0% in hospital
settings. For penicillin G, the resistance rates were 18.8% in UBEs and 33.3%
in hospital settings. Resistance to piperacillin was found to be 25% in both
environments.
Comparative multi-drug resistant profiling of S.
haemolyticus species in urban and
hospital settings
Multi-drug resistant
profiling indicated that 91.66% of strains in hospital settings are MDR, while
81.25% of strains from UBEs are MDR. Therefore, the prevalence of MDR is higher
in hospitals than in UBEs (Figure d).