Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 2005, p. 5195-5201, Vol. 43, No. 10
0095-1137/05/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JCM.43.10.5195-5201.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Department of Medicine and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 1V7,1 Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333,2 Battelle Memorial Institute, Battelle Science and Technology International, Chemical and Environmental Technologies, Atlanta Analytical Chemistry Group, 2971 Flowers Road South, Atlanta, Georgia 30341,3 Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 303104
Received 6 May 2005/ Returned for modification 1 June 2005/ Accepted 8 August 2005
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Very little is known about the epidemiology, pathogenesis, or clinical significance of this group of organisms, but existing information favors an environmental or exogenous source. We report the first blood culture isolate of enteric group 58 associated with infection of a central venous catheter and describe the phenotypic characteristics of 21 enteric group 58 strains isolated from clinical specimens.
After the original study was completed, we were able to study three strains of enteric group 58 by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. These results confirmed by a second method that enteric group 58 is distinct from all of the characterized genera and species in the family Enterobacteriaceae. These later results compelled us to give enteric group 58 a scientific name, a critical step in learning more about a newly recognized bacterium.
|
|
|---|
Treatment was initiated with i.v. ampicillin and gentamicin. Two sets of blood cultures drawn from peripheral veins yielded a gram-negative rod after one day of incubation. The bacterium was identified as Enterobacter amnigenus biotype II (Table 1, case 1 [also designated strain 1 for this paper]) by use of the hospital's automated identification system. Susceptibility results indicated resistance to ampicillin and cefazolin and susceptibility to cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Clinical response to i.v. antibiotics was rapid (36 to 48 h), and the subcutaneous port was not removed. On day 3, the patient was discharged from the hospital to complete a 14-day course of oral ciprofloxacin.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Summary of 21 enteric group 58 cases
|
The first identification of strain 1 as being enteric group 58, rather than E. amnigenus biotype II, was done at the National Laboratory for Enteric Pathogens at the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control (LCDC) in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
|
|
|---|
CDC laboratory methods and media. The additional enteric group 58 strains used in this study were collected at the CDC beginning in 1973 and are listed in Table 1. Although each strain has been assigned a CDC strain number, for simplicity, we will use the case number and strain number interchangeably, e.g., strain 1 is the designation for the strain identified in case 1. A detailed description of media and methods used to characterize Enterobacteriaceae has been previously published (7-9, 11).
Biochemical testing and computer analysis (CDC). All strains were studied with biochemical tests normally used to characterize strains of Enterobacteriaceae (7-9, 11). Tests were read at 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days. Tests were repeated if the results disagreed with the sender's results and for all tests that had strain-to-strain variation (such as citrate utilization and urea hydrolysis [Table 2]). The biochemical test results were analyzed with two different computer programs, GEORGE (version 99B) and STRAIN MATCHER (9). GEORGE compares the test strain with over 150 named taxa (genera, species, subspecies, biogroups, and enteric groups) in the family Enterobacteriaceae. It lists 24 different mathematical scores that indicate how well the test strain fits the taxa that are the closest biochemical matches. It also lists the biochemical tests that are incompatible with the taxon chosen as the best biochemical fit. It is based on the "normalized likelihood" method of Lapage et al. (9, 10, 14). STRAIN MATCHER does a "strain by strain" analysis and compares the test strain to over 11,000 individual strains in the database. The final printout lists the 60 strains from the database that are the closest biochemical matches of the test strain (9).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Biochemical reactions of 21 enteric group 58 strainsa
|
Antibiograms as a taxonomic tool (CDC). Antibiograms were determined by the disk diffusion method of Bauer et al. (2). We used the "standard taxonomic set" of 12 antibiotics (Table 3) that has been used in the CDC's Enteric Reference Laboratory since 1972 for testing cultures of Enterobacteriaceae and Vibrionaceae (8).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 3. "Taxonomic antibiograms" (disk diffusion method) of 10 enteric group 58 strains
|
The 16S rRNA gene was amplified with primers 8F and 1492R (17). A volume of 2 µl of cell suspension was used as the template in the PCR, which was carried out in a total volume of 50 µl with 2.5 U of AmpliTaq Gold in 1x AmpliTaq Gold buffer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, Calif.). Final concentrations of other reagents were as follows: 0.5 µM for each primer, 200 µM for deoxynucleoside triphosphates, and 1.5 mM for MgCl2. The thermal cycle, which was preceded by a 15-min soak at 93°C, was repeated 40 times and consisted of the following steps: 92°C for 30 s, 50°C for 60 s, and 72°C for 2 min. A subsequent extension step at 72°C was run for 5 min.
QIAquick PCR columns (QIAGEN, Valencia, Calif.) were used to purify the amplicon, which was approximately 1,480 bp. The purified template was quantified by visual comparison to the low-mass ladder (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.), following electrophoresis in a 1.5% agarose gel that was stained with ethidium bromide and illuminated with UV light.
Sequence determination was accomplished with a dye terminator cycle sequencing kit (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, Calif.) with approximately 200 ng of template per 15 µl reaction mixture. A total of 20 ng of primer was used in each reaction. Sequences were determined with primers 8F, 357F, 515F, 980F, 1290F, 357R, 515R, 734R, 980R, and1492R (17). Chromatograms for each isolate were imported into the program SEQMAN (Lasergene, Madison, Wis.) and assembled into contigs. A consensus for each isolate was determined from the chromatograms and exported. The sequences for the three isolates were then aligned, and an unambiguous consensus of 1,375 bp representing enteric group 58 was exported and used for a BLAST search of the GenBank database and the Ribosomal Database Project II (RDP II). The 20 most closely matched sequences from GenBank were downloaded and aligned using Clustal X (22) with default settings. An alignment of 1,317 bp was imported into the program MEGA (13), and a gene tree was constructed with the neighbor-joining algorithm (18) from Jukes-Cantor corrected distances that excluded positions containing gaps. A measure of support for the branching order of the tree was estimated by the bootstrap procedure implemented in MEGA. Next, a total of 42 sequences that included the diversity of taxa that closely matched enteric group 58 were aligned using Clustal X (22) with default settings. Sequences for Citrobacter spp., Salmonella spp., and Escherichia spp. were included as out-groups in the phylogenetic analysis. An alignment of 1,283 bp was imported into the program MEGA (13), and a gene tree was constructed as described above.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. GenBank accession numbers for the three sequences are as follows: for strain 1 (CDC9501-97), DQ158206; for strain 4 (CDC2362-79), DQ158204; and for strain 14 (CDC571-86), DQ158205.
|
|
|---|
Enteric group 58 was not included in the Vitek or the Microscan gram-negative database, based upon review of technical manuals furnished by the manufacturer of each system.
Summary of enteric group 58 clinical isolates. Strain 1 was compared with 20 other strains studied at CDC since 1973 (Table 1). Patient demographics and accompanying comments are provided where the submitter furnished them. Enteric group 58 has been isolated in North America and in Europe. It is most commonly recovered from traumatic injuries, fractures, and wound sites but has been recovered from stool and now from blood. Enteric group 58 has been most commonly misidentified as Enterobacter spp., Salmonella spp., Serratia spp., Kluyvera spp., or Escherichia spp.
CDC biochemical profiles. Strains of enteric group 58 are gram-negative, fermentative, nonpigmented rods that are oxidase negative. They possess the general characteristics of the family Enterobacteriaceae. The biochemical reactions of 21 enteric group 58 strains are summarized in Table 2. These strains were found by computer analysis to be most closely related to 14 different species in eight genera (data not shown). The strains of enteric group 58 all clustered together (results not shown), indicating their phenotypic similarity and separation from other Enterobacteriaceae. Strain 1 failed to grow on laboratory media at 4°C within 21 days.
Taxonomic antibiograms. Taxonomic antibiograms were determined at the time of strain submission to the CDC. This was done as a taxonomic tool (8) rather than to provide information for antibiotic usage for patients with infection. Historically, these strains were received at several laboratories within the CDC, not all of which utilized antibiograms for taxonomic purposes. Data were available for 10 enteric group 58 strains, including strain 1, and are summarized in Table 3. Although the overall susceptibility pattern was uniform, there was some strain-to-strain variation for sulfadiazine and ampicillin. The results of an "unidentified clinical strain" can be compared to the results in this table to assist in confirming a likely identification as enteric group 58.
Analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences. The three 16S rRNA gene sequences for the enteric group 58 isolates were identical except for three positions where the sequence of one or more strains was ambiguous. An unambiguous consensus sequence of 1,375 bp was deduced from the alignment of the three individual isolate sequences. The 16S rRNA gene sequence representing enteric group 58 shared 99.6% similarity (five bases differed from the consensus sequence) with sequence AJ489826 in GenBank, which was obtained from an unnamed member of the family Enterobacteriaceae, designated CF01Ent-1 (4). The next two closest matches were sequences from two strains of Enterobacter aerogenes, where the sequence similarities were 99.2% (11 nucleotides differed from the consensus sequence) (GenBank AJ251468) and 99.1% (12 nucleotides differed from the consensus sequence) (GenBank AB004750), and the next closest was GenBank AF310218, a sequence from Kluyvera cryocrescens that shared 98.8% similarity (16 nucleotides differed from the consensus sequence) with the enteric group 58 sequence.
In the phylogenetic analysis, the sequence for enteric group 58 clustered most closely with that from an isolate designated CF01Ent-1. Strain CF01Ent-1 was described previously (4) as perhaps a new unnamed species of the family Enterobacteriaceae, on the basis of rpoB and 16S rRNA gene sequencing studies. As was the case with many isolates of enteric group 58, the CF01Ent-1 strain was isolated from an infected wound. Our isolates differ from this strain at 5 out of the 1,253 nucleotide positions (0.39%), a value that falls within the range of divergence values between species of several enteric genera (e.g., Buttiauxella, 0.0 to 1.0%, and Salmonella, 0.31 to 1.8%) and within the range of differences between 16S rRNA operons within a single genome (0.0 to 1.3%) (5).
The sequences from enteric group 58 and CF01Ent-1 form a separate group that is distinct from other well-supported clusters of sequences in the neighbor-joining tree (Fig. 1). The results presented here are consistent with those of Bonnet et al. (4), who found that the 16S rRNA gene sequence from CF01Ent-1 did not show a close relationship to sequences from other genera in the family Enterobacteriaceae.
![]() View larger version (50K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Relationships among 16S rRNA sequences as determined by a neighbor-joining algorithm. The accession number for each sequence drawn from GenBank is shown in parentheses. The numbers at the nodes of the tree represent the percentage of bootstrap replications in which that particular node was resolved in at least 50% of the replications. The scale bar indicates the branch length that corresponds to 0.005 nucleotide substitutions per nucleotide site.
|
The species name dalhousiensis is formed as a neo-Latin feminine adjective from Dalhousie University, the source of the first published individual case (6) and the source of this first case of septicemia (case 1). We designate the type strain (holotype) of A. dalhousiensis CDC9501-97 (case 1 in this paper). Two additional strains will be deposited at the ATCC: CDC2362-79 (case 4) and CDC571-86 (case 14). ATCC numbers will be available in the GenBank sequence files. The phenotypic description is given in Tables 1 to 3 and in the text. A. dalhousiensis is defined in terms of its type strain, and future studies will be needed to determine if all 21 strains should continue to be classified in the same species. The sequencing data for strain CF01Ent-1 indicate possible genetic diversity in the genus Averyella. Future studies should include this strain, but we propose that it be reclassified as Averyella sp. CF01Ent-1 until additional genotypic and phenotypic data become available.
|
|
|---|
Since enteric group 58 was first characterized as a distinct biogroup in 1985 (9), only a small number of strains have been reported. There is little known about the epidemiology, pathogenesis, or clinical significance of this organism. Most enteric group 58 strains have been isolated from traumatic injuries, fractures, wound sites, and rarely stool (Table 1). Information submitted to CDC with clinical isolates thus far has not suggested that enteric group 58 is a significant cause of human infection. One case report of enteric group 58 recovered from an orthopedic compression plate has been published in the literature (6). This device had loosened 1 year after implantation and required removal. Infection was considered possible; however, the patient remained clinically well and never required antibiotic therapy. This isolate also came from the QEII HSC in 1987, a fact only discovered after a thorough search of the literature. Identification of this isolate was also performed at the National Laboratory for Enteric Pathogens at LCDC in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Correspondence with LCDC yielded two additional enteric group 58 isolates from Canada: one submitted from the province of Alberta (burn site of right foot) and the other from the province of Ontario (site unknown). Although we were unable to obtain these strains, it appears that the Ontario strain is case 5 (Table 1). These examples lead us to suspect that enteric group 58 is usually an environmental or exogenous organism of low pathogenicity. Future studies should examine clinical features associated with enteric group 58 infection, especially as it relates to symptomatic infection versus colonization of traumatic injuries and wounds. In addition, little is known about the antibiotic resistance profile of enteric group 58 or whether it might serve as a reservoir for antibiotic resistance.
After our original study was completed, we obtained phylogenetic data that compelled us to assign a scientific name to enteric group 58 in order to facilitate communication within the research community. The results of 16S rRNA gene sequencing demonstrate that enteric group 58 is not closely related to other known genera or species in the family Enterobacteriaceae. Although we consider DNA-DNA hybridization to be the "gold standard" for DNA relatedness studies, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain this type of analysis. We feel that the distinct phenotypic characteristics of enteric group 58, in combination with the divergence observed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing, warrant the proposal of a formal scientific name. Thus, we propose Averyella dalhousiensis gen. nov., sp. nov. Future studies measuring evolutionary distance should include the type strain, all other strains (including our 20 strains), and the French strain CF01Ent1 (4).
This new member of the family Enterobacteriaceae is being misidentified in clinical and public health microbiology laboratories (Table 1). Our case report illustrates that one reason for this is the fact that the organism is not included in the databases of commercial identification systems. Manufacturers of these systems should obtain these strains and include them in their databases in order to assist exploration of the clinical spectrum of disease of Averyella dalhousiensis. Until this problem is corrected, it will be difficult to determine its importance in human infections. Future studies and case reports should focus on differentiating infection from colonization and should include patients' antibody responses. We hope that this report, and the assignment of a scientific name, will increase knowledge about this new genus and species.
Bruce H. Brown, Jr., was supported by a grant from the Minority Health Professions Foundation through a program developed by the Morehouse School of Medicine in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
|
|
|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»