Next Article in Journal
Role of Exercise in Visceral Adipose Tissue Inflammation and Macrophage Polarization in Hypertensive Mice
Previous Article in Journal
Regeneration-Associated Factors in the Regulation of Adult and Post-Traumatic Neurogenesis in the Forebrain of Fish and Other Vertebrates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 27
Issue 1
10.3390/ijms27010250
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Prophage φEr670 and Genomic Island GI_Er147 as Carriers of Resistance Genes in Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strains

by
Marta Dec
1,*,
Aldert L. Zomer
2,3,
Marian J. Broekhuizen-Stins
2 and
Renata Urban-Chmiel
1
1
Department of Veterinary Prevention and Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Głęboka 30, 20-612 Lublin, Poland
2
Division of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands
3
WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Campylobacter and Antimicrobial Resistance from a One Health Perspective/WOAH Reference Laboratory for Campylobacteriosis, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2026, 27(1), 250; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27010250 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 8 December 2025 / Revised: 21 December 2025 / Accepted: 23 December 2025 / Published: 25 December 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In this study we employed nanopore whole genome sequencing to analyze the resistance genes, genomic islands and prophage DNA in two multidrug resistant E. rhusiopathiae strains, i.e., 670 and 147, isolated from domestic geese. MLST profiles and core-genome phylogeny were determined to assess strain relatedness. In strain 670 (serotype 8, ST 113), a novel 53 kb prophage φEr670 carrying the lnuB and lsaE resistance genes was identified. Regions highly homologous to the φEr670 prophage were detected in 36 of 586 (6.14%) publicly available E. rhusiopathiae genomes, as well as in some other Gram-positive bacteria, and usually contained resistance genes. E. rhusiopathiae strain 147 (serotype 5, ST 243) was found to contain a composite 98 kb genomic island (GI_Er147) carrying the ant(6)-Ia and spw genes, as well as gene encoding a putative lincosamide nucleotidyltransferase designated lnu(J) and a vat family gene encoding a putative streptogramin A O-acetyltransferase. The lnu(J) gene exhibited 83.6% homology to the lnu(D) gene, and lnu(J)-positive E. rhusiopathiae strains displayed intermediate susceptibility to lincomycin. Vat-positive strain 147 and vat-negative E. rhusiopathiae strains showed similar susceptibility to quinupristin/dalfopristin. The presence of the Tn916 transposon carrying the tetM gene was confirmed in the genomes of both E. rhusiopathiae strains; in strain 147, however, Tn916 was located within ICEEr1012. Based on analyses of additional E. rhusiopathiae genomes, the integration sites of Tn916, ICEEr1012, and GI_Er147 were identified as genomic “hot spots,” contributing to the genome plasticity of E. rhusiopathiae. Prophage φEr670 and GI_Er147 as well as the Tn916 transposon and ICEEr1012 are most likely responsible for the dissemination of resistance genes in E. rhusiopathiae. Prophages highly homologous to φEr670 act as carriers of resistance genes in various Gram-positive bacteria. However, the transferability of the identified genetic elements and the functional role of the lnu(J) gene require further investigation. This study provides new insights into the diversity of MGEs in E. rhusiopathiae and advances understanding of the genomic mechanisms driving antimicrobial resistance in Gram-positive bacteria.

1. Introduction

Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae is a Gram-positive bacterium responsible for erysipelas in a wide range of hosts, including poultry, swine, and other domestic and wild animals, and it also poses a zoonotic risk to humans [1]. In poultry, infections with E. rhusiopathiae can cause acute septicaemia, sudden mortality, and chronic disease manifestations, leading to significant economic losses in waterfowl and turkey production [2,3,4]. Outbreaks of erysipelas are typically controlled using antimicrobial therapy, with penicillins remaining the treatment of choice [2,5]. However, the increasing detection of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) among E. rhusiopathiae isolates has raised growing concerns regarding the effectiveness of current therapeutic strategies, with potential implications for both animal health and public health [5]. Moreover, the lack of commercially available vaccines specifically approved for the prevention of erysipelas in geese and ducks [5] reinforces the dependence on antimicrobial therapy and emphasizes the need for continuous surveillance of AMR in this pathogen. Accordingly, a deeper understanding of the molecular mechanisms driving AMR and horizontal gene transfer in E. rhusiopathiae is crucial.
The acquisition and dissemination of resistance determinants in bacteria are often mediated by mobile genetic elements (MGEs), such as prophages, plasmids, genomic islands, and integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs), including transposons. These elements not only provide a reservoir of AMR determinants but also facilitate their horizontal transfer across strains and even species boundaries [6]. Prophages, in particular, are increasingly recognized as important vehicles of resistance genes in Gram-positive bacteria [7,8], while ICEs represent versatile elements capable of integrating into bacterial chromosomes and mediating conjugative transfer. To date, several MGEs carrying AMR genes have been identified in E. rhusiopathiae, including the bacteriophage φ1605, ICEEr0106 [9], ICEEr1023 and ICEEr1012 [10]. However, the diversity and functional roles of MGEs in this species, and their contribution to shaping its resistome, remain far from fully understood.
In our previous work, we characterized the antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance gene content of E. rhusiopathiae isolates from waterfowl, identifying multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains carrying both resistance genes and phage- or ICE-associated sequences. In serotype 8 isolate 670, the lsaE gene was located adjacent to phage-related genes, whereas serotype 5 isolate 147 harbored conjugation-related genes together with resistance determinants such as ant(6)-Ia and spw [5]. Encouraged by these observations, we carried out the present study to perform detailed genomic analyses of these E. rhusiopathiae isolates (670 and 147). We identified and characterized a novel prophage (φEr670) and a novel composite genomic island (GI_Er147), both associated with resistance genes, as well as the well-known transposon Tn916 carrying tetM. Furthermore, we examined the distribution of φEr670-like prophages in publicly available genomes of E. rhusiopathiae and related Gram-positive bacteria. Collectively, these analyses provide new insights into the contribution of MGEs to resistance gene carriage and dissemination in E. rhusiopathiae, and highlight their broader potential role in the spread of AMR among Gram-positive bacteria.

2. Results

2.1. Basic Genomic Analyses, ST Determination and Detection of Resistance Genes

The genome size of E. rhusiopathiae strains 670 serotype 8 and 147 serotype 5 was 1,874,230 bp and 1,918,116 bp, respectively, and the GC content was 36.3–36.6%. Both genomes contained 55 tRNAs with 3–7 rRNA loci (Table 1). These results are consistent with reports by other authors that the genome size of E. rhusiopathiae strains ranges from 1.6 to 1.9 Mb and the GC content ranges from 36% to 38%; the number of tRNAs ranges from 53 to 57 and the number of rRNA operons from 3 to 9 [10,11,12], NCBI database, The Ribosomal RNA Database (https://rrndb.umms.med.umich.edu, accessed on 15 July 2025).
ST 113 strains such as strain 670 were previously found to express serotype 8 and were isolated from waterfowl and pigs in Poland [5,13]. Globally, this sequence type appears to be rare: among 557 E. rhusiopathiae isolates analyzed, ST113 has been identified only in three serotype 1b strains from Canada [5]. ST 243 identified in strain 147 with serotype 5 was previously detected in only one of 557 E. rhusiopathiae strains, i.e., strain 267 with serotype 5 isolated from geese in Poland [10].
Genotypic resistance profiles obtained from WGS data were consistent with the results of previous PCR-based detection of resistance genes [5]. The multidrug-resistant strain 670 confirmed the presence of tetM, lnuB, and lsaE genes, while strain 147 contained tetM, ant(6)-Ia, and spw genes (Table 1).

2.2. Detection of Prophage Regions

Using the PHASTER tool, three regions containing incomplete prophage DNA were detected in the genome of E. rhusiopathiae strain 147 (PHASTER score < 60), while in strain 670 two prophage regions were detected (PHASTER score 80 and 150). One was highly homologous to the Erysipelothrix phage SE-1 (GB: NC_029078.1; size 33,997 bp) (score 150—intact), the second –designated φEr670—showed some similarity to the Corynebacterium Adelaide phage (GB: NC_048791.1; 44 kb) (score 80—questionable). The sequence of both prophages (SE-1 and φEr670) contained a clearly higher percentage of GC than (>40%) than the whole genome DNA (36.6%), indicating horizontal gene transfer.
The size of the φEr670 prophage was estimated at 53,020 bp (GB: CP183044.1:544708-597727), and further analyses using BLAST (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi, accessed on 4 June 2025) showed its significant similarity to the sequence of phage Javan630 (48 kb) infecting Streptococcus uberis [14] and to phage φ1605 (90,000 bp, GB: MF172979.1) infecting E. rhusiopathie [9] (Figure 1). Both of these phages represent the class Caudoviricetes [9,14].
Regions highly homologous (≥89.9%) to the φEr670 prophage were detected in the genomes of 36 E. rhusiopathiae strains out of 586 (6.14%) examined, and in 1 out of 30 strains representing other Erysipelothrix species (Table S1). The φEr670-like prophages were also found in two strains of Thomasclavelia ramosa as well as in some genomes of Gram-positive bacteria outside the Erysipelothrixales family, i.e., Listeria, Anaerotignum, Eubacterium, Enterococcus and Blautia (Figure 1, Table 2). A notably high prevalence of φEr670-like prophages was observed in Listeria innocua; BLAST searches identified prophage-positive regions in at least 100 publicly available genomes of this species (Figure A1).
The size of φEr670-like prophage regions detected in E. rhusiopathiae strains (n = 36/586) and other Gram-positive bacteria ranged from 50 to 59 kb (excluding the larger 90 kb φ1605 phage) (Table 2), which is consistent with their classification as medium-sized dsDNA phages [15].
Within the φEr670 prophage, two AMR genes, i.e., lsaE and lnuB, were identified. Similarly, in most of the 36 E. rhusiopathiae strains carrying φEr670-like prophages, prophage-associated DNA also contained resistance determinants, including lsaE and lnuB (n = 12/36). In 17 genomes the prophage contained the ant(6)-Ia and spw genes, while in 11 genomes the tetM or mefA gene was additionally present. The tetM, mefA, msrD and lnuD-like genes were present in the φ1605 prophage of E. rhusiopathiae ZJ, and strain EMAI_31 had two homologous prophage regions, one containing the msrD and ermG resistance genes and the other the mphB gene (Table 2 and Table S1). Various resistance genes (lnuB, lsaE, ant6-Ia, spw mefA, msrD, mphB, tetM, arr, and putative resistance genes vat-like and lnu-like) were present within φEr670-like prophages detected in the genomes of Gram-positive bacteria outside the Erysipelothrix genus (Table 2, Figure 1).
Comparative genomic analysis revealed a high degree of structural conservation across φEr670 and its homologous prophages identified in E. rhusiopathiae and other Gram-positive bacteria. As shown in Figure 2, extensive synteny blocks span the major functional modules, including those involved in DNA replication, genome packaging (terminase subunits), virion assembly (capsid and tail proteins), and host–cell lysis. They correspond to the 38–46 core genes (out of 51 identified in φEr670) that were consistently present across the 36 prophage–positive E. rhusiopathiae genomes (Table S1). In contrast, genomic variation is largely confined to the accessory regions near the prophage termini, which exhibit substantial differences in gene content. Such divergence likely reflects intra-lineage modular exchange, including the acquisition of AMR genes, and is consistent with the natural genetic variability commonly observed among closely related prophages [15,16]. BLAST-based comparisons demonstrated 63–93% query coverage and 89.9–95.7% nucleotide identity relative to φEr670 (Table 2), and the corresponding orthoANI values ranged from 87.8 to 97.2% (or 92.7–97.2% for E. rhusiopathiae prophages when the divergent φ1605 phage is excluded). Together, these metrics indicate that the φEr670-like prophages form a cohesive evolutionary group, with most elements falling within or just below the ~95% ANI threshold often used to delineate species in dsDNA phage taxonomy [16].
Table 2. List of bacterial strains containing DNA regions homologous to the φEr670 prophage and the size of the prophages, its similarity to the φEr670 prophage and associated resistance genes.
Table 2. List of bacterial strains containing DNA regions homologous to the φEr670 prophage and the size of the prophages, its similarity to the φEr670 prophage and associated resistance genes.
Taxonomic GroupStrainProphage Size [kb]Resistance Genes Located Within Prophage RegionsHomology with Phage φEr670Ortho ANI Value [%]GenBank Acc. No. Reference
Query Cover [%]Similarity [%]
E.rhusiopathiae
(prophageφEr670)		67053lsaE, lnuBNANA100CP183044.1This study
E. rhusiopathiae
(prophage φ1605)		ZJ90mef(A), msr(D), lnu(D)-like, tetM6392.787.8MF172979.1[9]
E. rhusiopathiaeEMAI_2951mph(B)7194.294.9JARGDV010000003.1[17]
E. rhusiopathiaeEMAI_31~52msr(D), erm(G)7695.2NDJAQTEO010000002.1[17]
E. rhusiopathiaeEMAI_31~52mph(B)7095.394.4JAQTEO010000011.1[17]
E. rhusiopathiaeEMAI_3351mph(B)7095.394.4JAQTEM010000002.1[17]
E. rhusiopathiaeEMAI_9153lsaE, lnuB8294.494.5JAQTCI010000002.1[17]
E. rhusiopathiaeEMAI_9254spw, ant(6)-Ia, mef(A)7294.995.1JAQTCH010000002.1[17]
E. rhusiopathiaeEMAI_14153.5lsaE, lnuB7894.795.1JAQTAO010000004.1[17]
E.rhusiopathiaeB312954.5spw, ant(6)-Ia7595.095.1SRR2085573UN
E.rhusiopathiaeB314254.5spw, ant(6)-Ia7595.095.1SRR2085574UN
E.rhusiopathiaeB557754spw, ant(6)-Ia7595.395.1SRR2085578UN
E.rhusiopathiaeB314354spw, ant(6)-Ia9395.095.3SRR2085575UN
E.rhusiopathiaeB314450none7292.192.7SRR2085576UN
E.rhusiopathiaeB315951lsaE, lnuB8191.491.5SRR2085577UN
E.rhusiopathiaeG252.5lsaE, lnuB8994.694.7SRR2085593UN
E.rhusiopathiae260451lsaE, lnuB7894.794.7SRR2085518UN
E.rhusiopathiae262852lsaE, lnuB8295.295.4SRR2085520UN
E.rhusiopathiae286053lsaE, lnuB7894.394.4SRR2085522UN
E.rhusiopathiae602853lsaE, lnuB7894.694.5SRR2085524UN
E.rhusiopathiae610652lsaE, lnuB8091.991.8SRR2085525UN
E.rhusiopathiaeChiba 9159spw, ant(6)-Ia, tetM7392.792.9DRR035665[18]
E.rhusiopathiaeSaitama 9159spw, ant(6)-Ia, tetM7392.792.9DRR035666[18]
E.rhusiopathiaeChiba 92A59spw, ant(6)-Ia, tetM7392.792.9DRR035667[18]
E.rhusiopathiaeChiba 92B56.5spw, ant(6)-Ia, tetM7394.194.7DRR035668[18]
E.rhusiopathiaeChiba 9359spw, ant(6)-Ia, tetM7392.7NDDRR035669[18]
E.rhusiopathiaeKanagawa 9558spw, ant(6)-Ia, tetM7392.7NDDRR035671[18]
E.rhusiopathiaeNagano 9859spw, ant(6)-Ia, tetM7392.794DRR035672[18]
E.rhusiopathiaeSaitama 0159spw, ant(6)-Ia, tetM7392.7NDDRR035675[18]
E.rhusiopathiae16BKT03100555ermG, msr(D), tetM7294.0NDERR3932976[19]
E.rhusiopathiae16BKT03101351.5lnuB, lsaE8295.795.3ERR3932981[19]
E.rhusiopathiae16BKT3100954lnuB, lsaE7794.8NDERR3932985[19]
E.rhusiopathiae17MIK064234152none7394.694.7ERR3932998[19]
E.rhusiopathiae17MIK064235154.5spw, ant(6)-Ia7595.0NDERR3932999[19]
E.rhusiopathiae17MIK064236151.5lnuB, lsaE8295.295.4ERR3933000[19]
E.rhusiopathiae17MIK064237154.5spw, ant(6)-Ia7595.0NDERR3933001[19]
E.rhusiopathiaeswine10052spw, ant(6)-Ia7796.197.2ERR3678831[20]
E.rhusiopathiaeswine2955spw, ant(6)-Ia, mefA7293.4NDERR3678845[20]
Erysipelothrix larvaeLV19~59none7694.4NDCP013213.1[21]
Thomasclavelia ramosaDFI.6.11253none7294.994.2JANGCB010000009.1UN
Thomasclavelia ramosaDFI.6.3053none7294.994.2JAJCKK010000013.1UN
Streptococcus uberis (prophage Javan630)C832952lsaE, lnuB, spw, ant(6)-Ia7795.594.8JATG01000004.1UN
Anaerotignum sp.MB30-C6NDlsaE, lnuB8195.694.6CP133078.1[22]
Eubacterium callanderiDSM 2594NDnone7494.6NDCP132136.1[23]
Eubacterium callanderiDSM 2593NDnone7494.6NDCP132135.1[23]
Eubacterium limosumEI140557none7593.794.2CP171347.1UN
Eubacterium limosumDFI.6.10754none7293.994.1JAJCLO010000002.1UN
Listeria monocytogenesN24-030656none6989.988.3CP168809.1[24]
Blautia productaPMF-1NDmef(A)8295.2NDCP035945.1UN
Clostridiaceae bacteriumHFYG-1003NDmef(A), msr(D)7194.6NDCP102060.1UN
Enterococcus faecalis200212758ant(6)-Ia7492.690.1ABRTHB010000042.1UN
Listeria innocua2022-1507-1654none7294.8NDABTHAP010000005.1UN
Listeria innocuaA3334154mef(A), msr(D), vat-like 7695.694.8DABKOZ010000007.1[25]
Listeria innocua24MDFML00
6584B		NDnone7293.6NDABTFHD010000005.1UN
Listeria innocuafattening pig54mph(B), vat-like, lnu(J)-like7595.3NDDAFNDJ010000003.1[25]
Listeria innocuaFDA1205947-
C002-006		56none7189.9NDABJLEO010000012.1UN
Listeria innocuaFDA090454555.5none7192.992.9ABEKZN010000012.1UN
Listeria innocuaFM23-15753mef(A), msr(D), vat-like7195.5NDABLHUQ010000017.1UN
Listeria innocuaFNW2205 55none6892.993ABYVVV010000010.1UN
Listeria innocua22-014951-BAC-0153none7195.694.7ABGJAN010000006.1UN
Listeria innocuaP222130041-751none7894.794.3ABTHAR010000006.1UN
Listeria innocuaM-4255.5mef(A), vat-like, arr, ant(6)-Ia, spw, lnu-like6891.892.2DANSOM010000007.1[25]
NA—not applicable; ND—not determined; ANI—average nucleotide identity; UN—unpublished.
The φEr670 prophage and φEr670-like prophages were characterized by a specific integration site (att). In E. rhusiopathiae strain 670 and other E. rhusiopathiae strains (except strains EMI_91 and EMAI_141), the prophage DNA was flanked by a gene encoding 23S rRNA (uracil(1939-(C5)) methyltransferase RlmD [its product catalyzes the formation of 5-methyl-uridine at position 1939 (m5U1939) in 23S rRNA] and a gene encoding FAD-dependent oxidoreductase. The RlmD methyltransferase gene also flanked prophage DNA in the genomes of other Gram-positive bacteria, indicating a key role of this gene in prophage DNA integration. (Figure 1 and Figure A1).
In our previous study, we confirmed the presence of three genes of prophage φEr670 (encoding the major capsid protein, a minor tail protein, and a site-specific recombinase) as well as the adjacent region encompassing the phage recombinase and lsaE gene in 7 out of 60 E. rhusiopathiae isolates recovered from waterfowl and in 1 out of 14 isolates from pigs. Notably, these three prophage genes were found exclusively in multidrug-resistant strains (lsaE-lnuB-tetM) of serotype 8 and ST113 [5]. In contrast, isolates from geographically distant regions that carried φEr670-like prophages represented other serotypes, most often 1a (10/36), 1b (11/36) and 2 (11/36), (Table S1). These findings suggest that the infection of E. rhusiopathiae strains with φEr670 phage is not dependent on serotype-specific receptor recognition. Instead, the occurrence of φEr670-positive strains of serotype 8 and ST113 on several poultry and swine farms in Poland may reflect clonal expansion and passive maintenance of integrated prophage DNA, rather than recent active transduction events.
The results of our analyses suggest that prophages of the φEr670 lineage play an important evolutionary role in shaping the resistome of E. rhusiopathiae and may contribute more broadly to the dissemination of antimicrobial resistance across Gram-positive bacteria. The phenomenon of AMR gene transfer via bacteriophage-mediated transduction is increasingly well documented and understood [26,27]. In Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, this mechanism was demonstrated by Gu et al. [9], who showed mitomycin C–induced transfer of the φ1605 prophage carrying the mef(A), msr(D), and tetM resistance genes from strain ZJ to strain G4T10. Similarly, future studies may assess whether the φEr670 prophage is capable of producing progeny phages that could infect E. rhusiopathiae strains and mediate the transfer of the lnuB and lsaE genes. To date, the occurrence of these resistance determinants within prophage-associated DNA has been reported only in Streptococcus pyogenes [28]. The present study therefore provides the first evidence of lnuB and lsaE being located within prophage sequences in E. rhusiopathiae as well as in Streptococcus uberis and Anaerotignum sp. (Table 1).
The detection of prophages of φEr670 family across distinct Gram-positive bacterial species is an intriguing finding that warrants further investigation. Bacteriophages have traditionally been considered narrow-host-range viruses, often restricted to specific strains of single species [29]. However, increasing evidence points to the existence of broad host range phages that contribute to interspecies gene transfer. For example, Listeria phage A511 targets a wide range of Listeria species [30] while Staphylococcus phage K infects multiple coagulase-positive and coagulase-negative staphylococci [31]. Similarly, wastewater-derived staphylococcal phages were shown to infect multiple Staphylococcus species [32], and phage Φm46.1 is able to transfer between S. suis and S. pyogenes [33]. Mechanistically, such broadened host tropism may result from the utilization of conserved surface receptors (e.g., wall teichoic acids), structural adaptability of tail fiber or baseplate proteins, and the deployment of anti-restriction or anti-CRISPR mechanisms that allow phages to circumvent taxon-specific bacterial defense systems [34,35]. Together, these observations—combined with the presence of φEr670-like prophages not only in E. rhusiopathiae but also across multiple Gram-positive bacterial species—strongly support the hypothesis that this phage lineage is capable of cross-species transfer. Such interspecies mobility positions φEr670-related prophages as important evolutionary drivers shaping the resistome of E. rhusiopathiae and potentially contributing to the broader dissemination of AMR among Gram-positive bacteria.

2.3. Detection of ICEs and Genomic Islands

In Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae strains 670 and 147, an 18 kb tetM-carrying Tn916 transposon was identified. It showed >99.7% sequence similarity to Tn916 elements described in other Gram-positive bacteria, including E. rhusiopathiae [9,10,36,37,38]. In strain 670, the Tn916 transposon occurred as an independent element, whereas in strain 147, it was located within the 80 kb ICEEr1012 element, previously identified in E. rhusiopathiae strain 1012 isolated from geese in Poland [10]. The ICE_Er1012 element containing Tn916 was additionally detected in E. rhusiopathiae strain EMAI_31, while a variant lacking Tn916 (designated ICEEr1012a) was found in several E. rhusiopathiae isolates of swine origin from Australia (EMAI_35, 159, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 171, 172, and 180) [17] (Figure 2). The presence of ICEEr1012a and Tn916 in association with a resistance gene cluster was also previously confirmed on the large (130 kb) genomic island ICEEr1023, identified previously in E. rhusiopathiae strain 1023 [10]. All of these MGEs (Tn916, ICEEr1012a, ICEEr1012, and ICEEr1023) were integrated at a specific chromosomal site located in the vicinity of tRNA-encoding genes (Figure 2), suggesting that this region may represent a genomic “hot spot” for the acquisition and recombination of MGEs in E. rhusiopathiae.
A 98 kb genomic island was detected in E. rhusiopathiae strain 147 (CP184721.1: 1185333-1283798) and designed as GI_Er147. It carries resistant genes, i.e., ant(6)-Ia, spw, vat-like gene and lnu-like gene as well as genes involved in bacterial conjugation, i.e., genes encoding recombinases, transposases, relaxase MobL and the genes found on type IV secretion systems (T4SS) (Figure 2). However, it is not known whether this is the complete set of genes enabling the formation of protein machinery for DNA transfer between bacterial cells. Therefore, this element was classified as a genomic island and not as an ICE (Figure 3).
GI_Er147 showed only little similarity to the genomic islands previously found in E. rhusiopathiae, i.e., ICEEr1023, ICEEr1012 [10] and ICEEr0106 [9] (Figure A2).
Within GI_Er147, a 30 kb integrative mobile element was identified, harboring two transposase genes (belonging to the IS3 and IS30 families) and a recombinase-family gene, which together suggest a potential capacity for mobility. This element, designated IME_Er30, was detected also in strain 670 and 3 other E. rhusiopathiae strains from geese in Poland (1023, and 267), in several dozen Australian isolates [17], and in E. amsterdamensis strain A18Y020d (GB: OW659496.1). In contrast, IME_Er30 was not found in the reference strains E. rhusiopathiae Fujisawa and NCTC 8163 (ATCC 19414), nor in isolates originating from China (ZJ, WH13013, ML101, SY1027, GAT10, SE38, and GXBY-1). The functions of IME_Er30 remain unknown, but this element may contribute to the acquisition of additional adaptive traits in E. rhusiopathiae. In the genomes of E. rhusiopathiae strains 670, EMAI_5, and EMAI_51, IME_Er30 is located adjacent to prophage SE-31, forming a hybrid IME–prophage element (Figure 3). In E. amsterdamensis strain A18Y020d, as well as in E. rhusiopathiae strain 147, IME_Er30 is positioned next to a large integrative element carrying Type IV Secretion System (T4SS) genes. IME_Er30, the SE-1 prophage, and hybrid elements formed through the combination of IME_Er30 with other MGEs such as GI_Er147, were all integrated at the same chromosomal locus in E. rhusiopathiae, located near the gene encoding tRNA 2-thiouridine(34) synthase MnmA. This integration site, similar to the insertion site of the Tn916 transposon and larger Tn916-containing ICEs, may represent a genomic “hot spot” for horizontal gene transfer in E. rhusiopathiae (Figure 3). Similar preferential integration near tRNA or tRNA-related genes has been widely reported for both prophages and integrative elements, as these loci contain short, conserved sequence motifs (att sites) that are efficiently recognized by integrases [39,40]. The coexistence of prophages and IMEs at the same chromosomal position also supports the concept of mosaic or hybrid genomic islands, which arise through sequential integration and recombination events between different MGEs [41].
Within GI_Er147, the presence of several resistance genes was demonstrated, i.e., ant(6)-Ia (aadE, coding for aminoglycoside nucleotidyltransferase ANT(6)-Ia), spw (encoding for ANT(9) spectinomycin adenyltransferase), vat family gene encoding putative streptogramin A O-acetyltransferase (2 copies), and gene encoding nucelotidyltransferase domain-containing protein (2 copies). The coexistence of ant(6)-Ia and spw genes noted in these studies is common in Gram-positive bacteria [10]. In E. rhusiopathiae they can be located on large genomic islands (e.g., ICEEr1023 and Er0106) [9,10,37], including prophages of φEr670 family [this study] (Figure 1 and Figure A2).
The gene encoding nucelotidyltransferase domain-containing protein (GB: CP184721.1 locus_tag AC-PCEN_09575 and ACPCEN_09590), designed as lnu(J) (495 bp, GB: PV882487), showed similarity to the lnu family genes encoding lincosamide nucleotidyltransferase, with the highest homology, i.e., 83.6% (100% coverage), with the lnu(D) gene (GB: NG_047925.1, 513 bp) (Figure 4). Genes homologous to lnu(J) gene (83–100% homology) were found in strains of various Gram-positive bacteria, i.e., Kurthia, Streptococcus, Anaerocolumna, Clostridium, and in phages infecting streptococci, as well as in several E. rhusiopathiae strains, i.e., ZJ (within prophage φ1605), and B3129, B3142 and B5577 (Figure 4). Unfortunately, susceptibility of these strains to lincosamides is unknown.
PCR analysis of 60 wild-type isolates of E. rhusiopathiae from waterfowl [5], including strains 147 and 670, showed that the lnu(J) gene was present only in two strains representing serotype 5, i.e., strain 147 and 136. Both strains were characterized by intermediate resistance to lincomycin, i.e., MIC 4–8 µg/mL and were susceptible to clindamycin (Table 3) [5].
The MIC for lincomycin of the E. rhusiopathiae strains in which neither the lnu(J) nor the lnu(B) gene was detected (n = 49/61, including 60 wild-type strains and reference strain E. rhusiopathiae ATCC 19414) was in the range 0.25–1 µg/mL, while the lnu(B)-positive E. rhusiopathiae strains (n = 9/61) are characterized by very high lincomycin MIC values, i.e., >64 µg/mL (with a simultaneous clindamycin MIC of 1–4 µg/mL) (Table 3) [5]. Despite these indications of the involvement of the lnu(J) gene in the reduction in the susceptibility of E. rhusiopathiae strains to lincomycin, the unambiguous definition of the role of the lnu(J) gene requires additional analyses.
It was previously shown that the lnu(D) gene, to which the lnu(J) gene shows 83.6% homology, was responsible for the moderate sensitivity of S. uberis UCN 42 strain to lincomycin (MIC = 2 µg/mL) (MIC for lnuD-negative S. uberis 72 strain was 0.06 µg/mL). Introduction of the recombinant pUC18 plasmid with the cloned lnu(D) gene into E. coli resulted in a change in the lincomycin MIC from 32 µg/mL to 128 µg/mL [42].
The gene encoding putative streptogramin A O-acetyltransferase, located within GI_Er147 showed 71.2% (89% coverage) similarity to the vat(B) gene (GB: NG_048538.1) and lower homology to other genes of the vat family (Figure A3). This gene was also detected in the genomes of other Gram-positive bacteria (deposited in the GenBank database), and in some strains (Kurthia and Bacillus, and within the phage YS387 detected in Streptococcus suis where it was located next to the lnu(J) gene. However, our studies did not confirm that the vat family gene of GI_Er147 confers resistance to streptogramins. Phenotypic testing using E-tests showed no difference in the sensitivity of strain 147 and vat-negative strains to quinupristin/dalfopristin (mixed streptogramins type A and B) (Table 3). It is also possible that the gene could also not be expressed as its promoter is not well recognized or because it encodes a different functionality as it is only 71.2% similar to known vat genes.
It is worth emphasizing that the serine recombinase encoding gene within GI_Er147 shows high homology to the recombinase of prophage φEr670 and related phages in other Erysipelothrix strains, as well as to recombinases carried by diverse MGEs (phages, plasmids, transposons and other ICEs) found in other Gram-positive bacteria (Figure A4). This pattern reflects the strong evolutionary conservation of serine recombinases, which mediate site-specific integration and excision. Unlike tyrosine recombinases, which use a stepwise cleavage–religation mechanism, serine recombinases catalyze coordinated double-strand breaks and strand exchange in a single concerted reaction [43], making them particularly efficient modules for horizontal movement across MGEs.

2.4. Core Genome Phylogeny

The phylogenetic tree based on the core-genome alignment clearly separates E. rhusiopathiae isolates into several distinct clades corresponding to their sequence types (STs) and geographic origins. All Polish isolates, except for strain 584 (ST32), form a single, well-supported branch, indicating a close genomic relationship. Strains 147 (ST243) and 670 (ST113) show the greatest similarity to isolates from Poland and Canada sharing the same STs. This clustering pattern suggests a common evolutionary background of Polish goose isolates, distinct from pig-derived strains from China and Japan and from porpoise isolates originating from the Netherlands. The reference strains NCTC 8163 (serotype 2, ST9, United Kingdom) and NCTC 7999 (serotype 1, ST118, France) form separate branches, while isolates from Asia (e.g., Fujisawa, ZJ, ML101) group together within the ST48 lineage (Figure 5).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Isolation, Identification, and Phenotypic Characterization of E. rhusiopathiae Strains

The two isolates of E. rhusiopathiae included in this study, i.e., 670 serotype 8 and 147 serotype 5, were isolated in 2020 from internal organs of domestic geese that were delivered dead to the laboratory for diagnostic purposes [2].
Strains E. rhusiopathiae 670 and 147 were selected from a pool of 60 E. rhusiopathiae isolates from waterfowl based on phenotypic and genotypic resistance profiles as well as detection of putative phage genes (coding for major capsid protein and minor tail protein) and ICEs related genes (mobL, int-Tn). The serotype of the strains was previously determined using multiplex PCR [5].

3.2. Whole Genome Sequencing

Nanopore sequencing was performed according to protocol SQK-RBK110.96 with Flow Cell ver. R10 on a MinION device (FLO-MIN106D; Oxford Nanopore, Oxford, UK), using the super-accurate base-calling method in MinKNOW v22.12.7. Reads were trimmed and down-sampled to 200× coverage using Filtlong (https://github.com/rrwick/Filtlong, accessed on 12 May 2025) and assembled into circular contigs using Flye v2.9.1 [44]. Genomes were polished using Medaka (https://github.com/nanoporetech/medaka, accessed on 4 June 2025) and Homopolish [45] and annotated using NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline (PGAP) [46]. The genome assemblies of both strains were deposited in the GenBank database (NCBI) under accession numbers CP183044.1 (strain 670) and CP184721.1 (strain 147).

3.3. Detection of Resistance Genes, Genomic Islands and Prophage DNA

Resistance genes were previously identified using PCR in E. rhusiopathiae strains 147 and 670 [5]. In this work, more detailed detection of resistance genes was performed based on WGS analysis using Resfinder 4.1 [47] and Resistance Gene Identifier (RGI) ver. 6.0.3 [48]. Synonymous mutations in the gyrA gene were determined by aligning amino acid sequences predicted using ORF Finder (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/orffinder/, accessed on 12 June 2025). Genomic islands of E. rhusiopathiae strains 670 and 147 were identified by aligning the whole genome sequences of these strains with those of the reference strains E. rhusiopathiae Fujisawa and NCTC 8163 using the BLAST tool (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi, accessed on 1 October 2025). Prophage DNA was detected in the genomes of the E. rhusiopathiae strain 147 and 670 using the PHAge Search Tool—Enhanced Release (PHASTER) [49]. Regions homologous to the φEr670 prophage were detected in the genomes of E. rhusiopathiae strains (n = 586) and other Erysipelothrix species (n = 30) retrieved from the GenBank database (Table S1) using Kaptive v3 and a custom database containing the annotated sequence of φEr670 [50].

3.4. Determination of Susceptibility to Streptogramins and Lincosamides

The susceptibility of strain 147 (vat-family positive) and several other E. rhusiopathiae strains with known genomic sequence to streptogramins was determined using E-tests containing quinupristin/dalfopristin (Liofilchem, Roseto degli Abruzzi, Italy). The test was performed on blood agar with a bacterial inoculum of 0.5 McFarland density. The plates were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C, 5% CO2. The susceptibility of the bacteria to lincomycin and clindamycin was determined using the broth microdilution method [5]. The antimicrobial susceptibility test was performed in duplicate.

3.5. Detection of lnu(J) Gene

The lnu(J) gene identified in the genome of strain 147 was detected by PCR in 60 wild-type E. rhusiopathiae isolates listed in our previous paper [5]. The negative control was the reference strain E. rhusiopathiae ATCC 19414 (NCTC 8163), whose genome is deposited in the GenBank database (NZ_LR134439.1). Amplification of lnu(J) gene was performed using the following primers: forward 5’-TTGGATAGATGGCGGTTGGG-3’ and reverse 5’-ACTTGTATTCACTCGGAACAGGAA-3’. The PCR product size was 431 bp. For 5 wild type isolates whose WGSs are publicly available (nos. 1023, 1012, 584, 267, 670), detection was based also on in silico analysis.

3.6. Determination of Homology Between DNA Sequences

The similarity of the MGEs detected in strains 670 and 147 to the sequences found in the genomes of other E. rhusiopathiae strains as well as other bacterial species was determined using BLAST (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi, accessed on 13 September 2025) and Clinker [51].
Average nucleotide identity (ANI) between prophage φEr670 and homologous prophages was calculated with OrthoANI [52] using online calculator (www.ezbiocloud.net/tools/ani, accessed on 6 December 2025).
The phylogenetic relationships between the lnu(J) and vat-family genes identified in E. rhusiopathiae strain 147 and reference lnu and vat genes were inferred using the Maximum Likelihood method implemented in MEGA ver. 11 [53].

3.7. Multilocus Sequence Typing

Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) of E. rhusiopathiae strains was performed according to the scheme developed by Webster et al. [17] using mlst v.2.19.0 (https://github.com/tseemann/mlst, accessed on 18 June 2025).

3.8. Phylogenetic Inference

The phylogenetic analysis included the E. rhusiopathiae strain 670 and 147 from geese and 25 other E. rhusiopathiae strains, including several MDR strains which, like strain 670, contained the lsaE, lnuB and tetM genes. Two of these strains, i.e., ZJ and 2860, contained regions homologous to the φEr670 prophage, and strain 2860, like strain 670, represented ST113. In turn, strain 267 represents the same sequence type as strain 147, i.e., 243. WGSs of 25 E. rhusiopathiae strains used for comparative analysis were downloaded from the GenBank database (accession numbers in Table S1). Whole genome alignments were performed using parsnp v2.0 [54]. Phylogenetic trees were constructed using Fasttree v 2.1.11 [55] and visualized using iTOL v5 [56].

4. Conclusions

In this study, we provide a comprehensive whole-genome characterization of MGEs associated with AMR in two E. rhusiopathiae strains, i.e., multidrug-resistant serotype 8 strain 670 and the serotype 5 strain 147, isolated from domestic geese. We report the identification of a previously undescribed prophage, φEr670 (53 kb), carrying the lnuB and lsaE resistance genes, as well as a novel hybrid genomic island, GI_Er147 (98 kb), harboring several resistance determinants and T4SS genes. Together with the detection of Tn916 (18 kb), ICEEr1012 (80 kb), and two chromosomal “hotspots” that promote the integration and recombination of diverse MGEs, these findings reveal a previously underappreciated complexity of the E. rhusiopathiae mobilome.
The widespread distribution of φEr670-like prophages—most of which also carry AMR genes—strongly suggests that this phage lineage plays an important role in shaping the resistome of E. rhusiopathiae and other Gram-positive bacteria.
Overall, this study provides new insights into the diversity and organization of MGEs in E. rhusiopathiae, thereby advancing current understanding of the genomic mechanisms underlying the evolution and dissemination of AMR in this species and potentially across Gram-positive bacteria. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the mobility of the newly identified genetic elements and the functional significance of the lnu(J) gene encoding a putative lincosamide nucleotidyltransferase.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms27010250/s1. References [57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D.; methodology, M.D. and A.L.Z.; formal analysis, M.D. and A.L.Z.; investigation, M.D., M.J.B.-S. and R.U.-C.; resources, M.D. and M.J.B.-S.; data curation, M.D. and A.L.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D.; writing—review and editing, A.L.Z.; visualization, M.D. and A.L.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Ijms 27 00250 g0a1
Figure A1. Clinker visualization of prophage regions in Listeria innocua strains and their homology with the prophage φEr670 of E. rhusiopathiae 670. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at the bottom of the figure).
Figure A1. Clinker visualization of prophage regions in Listeria innocua strains and their homology with the prophage φEr670 of E. rhusiopathiae 670. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at the bottom of the figure).
Ijms 27 00250 g0a1
Ijms 27 00250 g0a2
Figure A2. Homology between GI_Er147 and ICEs previously detected in E. rhusiopathiae strains. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at the bottom of the figure).
Figure A2. Homology between GI_Er147 and ICEs previously detected in E. rhusiopathiae strains. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at the bottom of the figure).
Ijms 27 00250 g0a2
Ijms 27 00250 g0a3
Figure A3. A dendrogram showing the similarity of the vat-like gene (encoding a putative streptogramin A O-acetyltransferase) from GI_Er147 to reference vat family genes retrieved from the GenBank database (accession numbers prefixed with “NG”) and to vat-like genes identified in other bacteria. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa were clustered together in the bootstrap test (200 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Scale bars show genetic distance.
Figure A3. A dendrogram showing the similarity of the vat-like gene (encoding a putative streptogramin A O-acetyltransferase) from GI_Er147 to reference vat family genes retrieved from the GenBank database (accession numbers prefixed with “NG”) and to vat-like genes identified in other bacteria. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa were clustered together in the bootstrap test (200 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Scale bars show genetic distance.
Ijms 27 00250 g0a3
Ijms 27 00250 g0a4
Figure A4. Clinker visualization of homology between recombinases located within GI_Er147, prophage φEr670, and other MGEs found in various Gram-positive bacteria. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at the bottom of the figure).
Figure A4. Clinker visualization of homology between recombinases located within GI_Er147, prophage φEr670, and other MGEs found in various Gram-positive bacteria. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at the bottom of the figure).
Ijms 27 00250 g0a4

References

  1. Stackebrandt, E. Erysipelothrix. In Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria, 1st ed.; Whitman, W.B., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA; Bergey’s Manual Trust: Glasgow, UK, 2015; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nowak, T.; Wódz, K.; Kwiecieński, P.; Kwieciński, A.; Dec, M. Incidence of erysipelas in waterfowl in Poland—Clinical & pathological investigations. Br. Poult. Sci. 2024, 65, 762–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bobrek, K.; Nowak, M.; Borkowska, J.; Bobusia, K.; Gaweł, A. An outbreak of erysipelas in commercial geese. Pak. Vet. J. 2016, 36, 372–374. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jordan, F.T.W.; Bisgaard, M. “Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae—Różyca” [Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae—Erysipelas]. In Choroby Drobiu [Poultry Diseases], 1st ed.; Wieliczko, A., Ed.; Edra Urban & Partner: Wrocław, Poland, 2011; pp. 257–261. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dec, M.; Nowak, T.; Webster, J.; Wódz, K. Serotypes, Antimicrobial Susceptibility, and Potential Mechanisms of Resistance Gene Transfer in Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strains from Waterfowl in Poland. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 12192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Han, B.; Feng, C.; Jiang, Y.; Ye, C.; Wei, Y.; Liu, J.; Zeng, Z. Mobile genetic elements encoding antibiotic resistance genes and virulence genes in Klebsiella pneumoniae: Important pathways for the acquisition of virulence and resistance. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1529157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Huang, J.; Dai, X.; Wu, Z.; Hu, X.; Sun, J.; Tang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Han, P.; Zhao, J.; Liu, G.; et al. Conjugative transfer of streptococcal prophages harboring antibiotic resistance and virulence genes. ISME J. 2023, 17, 1467–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Quirós, P.; Colomer-Lluch, M.; Martínez-Castillo, A.; Miró, E.; Argente, M.; Jofre, J.; Navarro, F.; Muniesa, M. Antibiotic resistance genes in the bacteriophage DNA fraction of human fecal samples. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 606–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gu, J.; Li, Y.X.; Xu, C.W.; Xie, X.J.; Li, P.; Ma, G.X.; Lei, C.W.; Liu, J.X.; Zhang, A.Y. Genome sequence of multidrug-resistant Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae ZJ carrying several acquired antimicrobial resistance genes. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 21, 13–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dec, M.; Zomer, A.; Webster, J.; Nowak, T.; Stępień-Pyśniak, D.; Urban-Chmiel, R. Integrative and Conjugative Elements and Prophage DNA as Carriers of Resistance Genes in Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strains from Domestic Geese in Poland. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 4638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kwok, A.H.; Li, Y.; Jiang, J.; Jiang, P.; Leung, F.C. Complete genome assembly and characterization of an outbreak strain of the causative agent of swine erysipelas—Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae SY1027. BMC Microbiol. 2014, 14, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wu, C.; Zhang, Z.; Kang, C.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Xiao, J.; Jin, M. The C-Terminal Repeat Units of SpaA Mediate Adhesion of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae to Host Cells and Regulate Its Virulence. Biology 2022, 11, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dec, M.; Łagowski, D.; Nowak, T.; Pietras-Ożga, D.; Herman, K. Serotypes, Antibiotic Susceptibility, Genotypic Virulence Profiles and SpaA Variants of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strains Isolated from Pigs in Poland. Pathogens 2023, 12, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rezaei Javan, R.; Ramos-Sevillano, E.; Akter, A.; Brown, J.; Brueggemann, A.B. Prophages and satellite prophages are widespread in Streptococcus and may play a role in pneumococcal pathogenesis. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hatfull, G.F.; Hendrix, R.W. Bacteriophages and their genomes. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2011, 1, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Aldeguer-Riquelme, B.; Conrad, R.E.; Antón, J.; Rosselló-Móra, R.; Konstantinidis, K.T. A Natural ANI Gap That Can Define Intra-Species Units of Bacteriophages and Other Viruses. mBio 2024, 15, e01536-24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Webster, J.; Bowring, B.; Stroud, L.; Marsh, I.; Sales, N.; Bogema, D. Population Structure and Genomic Characteristics of Australian Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Reveals Unobserved Diversity in the Australian Pig Industry. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ogawa, Y.; Shiraiwa, K.; Ogura, Y.; Ooka, T.; Nishikawa, S.; Eguchi, M.; Hayashi, T.; Shimoji, Y. Clonal Lineages of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Responsible for Acute Swine Erysipelas in Japan Identified by Using Genome-Wide Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83, e00130-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Söderlund, R.; Formenti, N.; Caló, S.; Chiari, M.; Zoric, M.; Alborali, G.L.; Sørensen Dalgaard, T.; Wattrang, E.; Eriksson, H. Comparative genome analysis of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae isolated from domestic pigs and wild boars suggests host adaptation and selective pressure from the use of antibiotics. Microb. Genom. 2020, 6, mgen000412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Forde, T.L.; Kollanandi Ratheesh, N.; Harvey, W.T.; Thomson, J.R.; Williamson, S.; Biek, R.; Opriessnig, T. Genomic and Immunogenic Protein Diversity of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Isolated From Pigs in Great Britain: Implications for Vaccine Protection. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lim, S.; Rhee, M.S.; Chang, D.H.; Kim, B.C. Whole-genome sequence of Erysipelothrix larvae LV19(T) (=KCTC 33523(T)), a useful strain for arsenic detoxification, from the larval gut of the rhinoceros beetle, Trypoxylus dichotomus. J. Biotechnol. 2016, 223, 40–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Feng, F.; Wu, C.-H.; Shih, C.-J.; Wu, Y.-C.; Lai, S.-J.; You, Y.-T.; Chen, S.-C. Complete genome sequence of Anaerotignum sp. strain MB30-C6, isolated from sewage sludge of the wastewater treatment plant at a steel factory. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2024, 13, e0007824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Flaiz, M.; Poehlein, A.; Wilhelm, W.; Mook, A.; Daniel, R.; Dürre, P.; Bengelsdorf, F.R. Refining and illuminating acetogenic Eubacterium strains for reclassification and metabolic engineering. Microb. Cell Fact. 2024, 23, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Biggel, M.; Cernela, N.; Horlbog, J.A.; Stephan, R. Oxford Nanopore’s 2024 sequencing technology for Listeria monocytogenes outbreak detection and source attribution: Progress and clone-specific challenges. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2024, 62, e0108324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Souvorov, A.; Agarwala, R.; Lipman, D.J. SKESA: Strategic k-mer extension for scrupulous assemblies. Genome Biol. 2018, 19, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Colavecchio, A.; Cadieux, B.; Lo, A.; Goodridge, L.D. Bacteriophages Contribute to the Spread of Antibiotic Resistance Genes among Foodborne Pathogens of the Enterobacteriaceae Family—A Review. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Leclerc, Q.J.; Wildfire, J.; Gupta, A.; Lindsay, J.A.; Knight, G.M. Growth-Dependent Predation and Generalized Transduction of Antimicrobial Resistance by Bacteriophage. mSystems 2022, 7, e0013522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Berbel, D.; Càmara, J.; García, E.; Tubau, F.; Guérin, F.; Giard, J.C.; Domínguez, M.Á.; Cattoir, V.; Ardanuy, C. A novel genomic island harbouring lsa(E) and lnu(B) genes and a defective prophage in a Streptococcus pyogenes isolate resistant to lincosamide, streptogramin A and pleuromutilin antibiotics. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2019, 54, 647–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. York, A. Predicting phage-host specificity. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2025, 23, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Habann, M.; Leiman, P.G.; Vandersteegen, K.; Van den Bossche, A.; Lavigne, R.; Shneider, M.M.; Bielmann, R.; Eugster, M.R.; Loessner, M.J.; Klumpp, J. Listeria phage A511, a model for the contractile tail machineries of SPO1-related bacteriophages. Mol. Microbiol. 2014, 92, 84–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. O’Flaherty, S.; Coffey, A.; Edwards, R.; Meaney, W.; Fitzgerald, G.F.; Ross, R.P. Genome of staphylococcal phage K: A new lineage of Myoviridae infecting gram-positive bacteria with a low G+C content. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 2862–2871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Göller, P.C.; Elsener, T.; Lorgé, D.; Radulovic, N.; Bernardi, V.; Naumann, A.; Amri, N.; Khatchatourova, E.; Coutinho, F.H.; Loessner, M.J.; et al. Multi-species host range of staphylococcal phages isolated from wastewater. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 6965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Giovanetti, E.; Brenciani, A.; Morroni, G.; Tiberi, E.; Pasquaroli, S.; Mingoia, M.; Varaldo, P.E. Transduction of the Streptococcus pyogenes bacteriophage Φm46.1, carrying resistance genes mef(A) and tet(O), to other Streptococcus species. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 5, 746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hyman, P.; Abedon, S.T. Bacteriophage host range and bacterial resistance. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 70, 217–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Labrie, S.J.; Samson, J.E.; Moineau, S. Bacteriophage resistance mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Flannagan, S.E.; Zitzow, L.A.; Su, Y.A.; Clewell, D.B. Nucleotide sequence of the 18-kb conjugative transposon Tn916 from Enterococcus faecalis. Plasmid 1994, 32, 350–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Browne, H.P.; Anvar, S.Y.; Frank, J.; Lawley, T.D.; Roberts, A.P.; Smits, W.K. Complete genome sequence of BS49 and draft genome sequence of BS34A, Bacillus subtilis strains carrying Tn916. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2015, 362, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhao, D.; Hu, Y.; Wu, H.; Feng, Z.; Hu, C.; Hu, H.; Liu, Y.; Sun, W.; Yu, X. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of a Highly Virulent Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strain. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2024, 2024, 5401707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Williams, K.P. Integration sites for genetic elements in prokaryotic tRNA and tmRNA genes: Sublocation preference of integrase subfamilies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30, 866–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vladimirova, M.E.; Roumiantseva, M.L.; Saksaganskaia, A.S.; Muntyan, V.S.; Gaponov, S.P.; Mengoni, A. Hot Spots of Site-Specific Integration into the Sinorhizobium meliloti Chromosome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 10421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bellanger, X.; Payot, S.; Leblond-Bourget, N.; Guédon, G. Conjugative and mobilizable genomic islands in bacteria: Evolution and diversity. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 38, 720–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Petinaki, E.; Guérin-Faublée, V.; Pichereau, V.; Villers, C.; Achard, A.; Malbruny, B.; Leclercq, R. Lincomycin resistance gene lnu(D) in Streptococcus uberis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 626–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Grindley, N.D.; Whiteson, K.L.; Rice, P.A. Mechanisms of site-specific recombination. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2006, 75, 567–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kolmogorov, M.; Yuan, J.; Lin, Y.; Pevzner, P.A. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 540–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Huang, Y.T.; Liu, P.Y.; Shih, P.W. Homopolish: A method for the removal of systematic errors in nanopore sequencing by homologous polishing. Genome Biol. 2021, 22, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Li, W.; O’Neill, K.R.; Haft, D.H.; DiCuccio, M.; Chetvernin, V.; Badretdin, A.; Coulouris, G.; Chitsaz, F.; Derbyshire, M.K.; Durkin, A.S.; et al. RefSeq: Expanding the Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline reach with protein family model curation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021, 49, D1020–D1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bortolaia, V.; Kaas, R.S.; Ruppe, E.; Roberts, M.C.; Schwarz, S.; Cattoir, V.; Philippon, A.; Allesoe, R.L.; Rebelo, A.R.; Florensa, A.F.; et al. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 3491–3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Alcock, B.P.; Raphenya, A.R.; Lau, T.T.Y.; Tsang, K.K.; Bouchard, M.; Edalatmand, A.; Huynh, W.; Nguyen, A.V.; Cheng, A.A.; Liu, S.; et al. CARD 2020: Antibiotic resistome surveillance with the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, D517–D525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Arndt, D.; Grant, J.R.; Marcu, A.; Sajed, T.; Pon, A.; Liang, Y.; Wishart, D.S. PHASTER: A better, faster version of the PHAST phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016, 44, W16–W21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wyres, K.L.; Wick, R.R.; Gorrie, C.; Jenney, A.; Follador, R.; Thomson, N.R.; Holt, K.E. Identification of Klebsiella capsule synthesis loci from whole genome data. Microb. Genom. 2016, 2, e000102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gilchrist, C.L.M.; Chooi, Y.H. Clinker & clustermap.js: Automatic generation of gene cluster comparison figures. Bioinformatics 2021, 37, 2473–2475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yoon, S.H.; Ha, S.M.; Lim, J.M.; Kwon, S.J.; Chun, J. A large-scale evaluation of algorithms to calculate average nucleotide identity. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 2017, 110, 1281–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tamura, K.; Stecher, G.; Kumar, S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 11. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 3022–3027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kille, B.; Nute, M.G.; Huang, V.; Kim, E.; Phillippy, A.M.; Treangen, T.J. Parsnp 2.0: Scalable Core-Genome Alignment for Massive Microbial Datasets. bioRxiv 2024, 2024.01.30.577458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Price, M.N.; Dehal, P.S.; Arkin, A.P. FastTree 2—Approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e9490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. 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]
  57. IJsseldijk, L.L.; Begeman, L.; Duim, B.; Gröne, A.; Kik, M.J.L.; Klijnstra, M.D.; Lakemeyer, J.; Leopold, M.F.; Munnink, B.B.O.; Ten Doeschate, M.; et al. Harbor porpoise deaths associated with Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, the Netherlands, 2021. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2023, 29, 835–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Seru, L.V.; Forde, T.L.; Roberto-Charron, A.; Mavrot, F.; Niu, Y.D.; Kutz, S.J. Genomic characterization and virulence gene profiling of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae isolated from widespread muskox mortalities in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. BMC Genom. 2024, 25, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tang, H.B.; Xie, J.; Wang, L.; Liu, F.; Wu, J. Complete genome sequence of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae strain GXBY-1 isolated from acute swine erysipelas outbreaks in south China. Genom. Data 2016, 8, 70–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wu, C.; Lv, C.; Zhao, Y.; Zhu, W.; Liu, L.; Wang, T.; Kang, C.; Yang, Y.; Sun, X.; Zhang, Q.; et al. Characterization of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae isolates from diseased pigs in 15 Chinese provinces from 2012 to 2018. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ogawa, Y.; Ooka, T.; Shi, F.; Ogura, Y.; Nakayama, K.; Hayashi, T.; Shimoji, Y. The genome of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, the causative agent of swine erysipelas, reveals new insights into the evolution of Firmicutes and intracellular adaptations. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 2959–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yang, L.; Zhu, Y.; Peng, Z.; Ding, Y.; Jie, K.; Wang, Z.; Peng, Y.; Tang, X.; Wang, X.; Chen, H.; et al. Comparative genome analysis of a pathogenic Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae isolate WH13013 from pig reveals potential genes involved in bacterial adaptations and pathogenesis. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 74. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lee, K.; Park, S.Y.; Seo, H.W.; Cho, Y.; Choi, S.G.; Seo, S.; Han, W.; Lee, N.K.; Kwon, H.; Han, J.E.; et al. Pathological and genomic findings of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae isolated from a free-ranging rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) stranded in Korea. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 774836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kovalchuk, S.; Babii, A. Draft genome sequence data of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae vaccine strain VR-2. Data Brief 2020, 33, 106352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Nesbitt, K.; Bloodgood, J.; Mullis, M.M.; Deming, A.C.; Colegrove, K.; Reese, B.K. Draft genome sequences of Erysipelothrix sp. strains isolated from stranded septic bottlenose dolphins in Alabama, USA. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2022, 11, e0027322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Zautner, A.E.; Tersteegen, A.; Schiffner, C.J.; Ðilas, M.; Marquardt, P.; Riediger, M.; Delker, A.M.; Mäde, D.; Kaasch, A.J. Human Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae infection via bath water—Case report and genome announcement. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 981477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mileto, I.; Merla, C.; Corbella, M.; Gaiarsa, S.; Kuka, A.; Ghilotti, S.; De Cata, P.; Baldanti, F.; Cambieri, P. Bloodstream infection caused by Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae in an immunocompetent patient. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chang, R.K.; Miller, M.A.; Tekedar, H.C.; Rose, D.; García, J.C.; LaFrentz, B.R.; Older, C.E.; Waldbieser, G.C.; Pomaranski, E.; Shahin, K.; et al. Pathology, microbiology, and genetic diversity associated with Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae and novel Erysipelothrix spp. infections in southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis). Front. Microbiol. 2024, 14, 1303235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shiraiwa, K.; Ogawa, Y.; Nishikawa, S.; Eguchi, M.; Shimoji, Y. Multiplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection and differentiation of clonal lineages of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae serovar 1a strains circulating in Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2017, 79, 1318–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rouse, N.; Burek Huntington, K.; Goertz, C.E.C.; Hunter, N.; Radhakrishnan, S.; Forde, T. Erysipelothrix in Cook Inlet, Alaska, USA: An emerging bacterial pathogen of the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2025, 163, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhong, J.; Medvecky, M.; Tornos, J.; Clessin, A.; Le Net, R.; Gantelet, H.; Gamble, A.; Forde, T.L.; Boulinier, T. Erysipelothrix amsterdamensis sp. nov., associated with mortalities among endangered seabirds. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2024, 74, 006264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 27 00250 g001
Figure 1. Clinker visualization of homology between prophage φEr670 of E. rhusiopathiae strain 670 and phage φ1605 and Corynebacterium phage Adelaide as well as φEr670-like prophages of selected E. rhusiopathiae strains and strains of other Gram-positive bacteria. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at bottom of the figure).
Figure 1. Clinker visualization of homology between prophage φEr670 of E. rhusiopathiae strain 670 and phage φ1605 and Corynebacterium phage Adelaide as well as φEr670-like prophages of selected E. rhusiopathiae strains and strains of other Gram-positive bacteria. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at bottom of the figure).
Ijms 27 00250 g001
Ijms 27 00250 g002
Figure 2. Clinker visualization of the location of the tetM-carrying transposon Tn916 in E. rhusiopathiae strains 147 (within ICEEr1012) and strain 670. Comparison of Tn916-containing regions to homologous MGEs found in other E. rhusiopathiae strains and integrated into the same chromosomal “hot spot”. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at bottom of the figure).
Figure 2. Clinker visualization of the location of the tetM-carrying transposon Tn916 in E. rhusiopathiae strains 147 (within ICEEr1012) and strain 670. Comparison of Tn916-containing regions to homologous MGEs found in other E. rhusiopathiae strains and integrated into the same chromosomal “hot spot”. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at bottom of the figure).
Ijms 27 00250 g002
Ijms 27 00250 g003
Figure 3. Genomic island GI_Er147, containing IME_Er30, the T4SS gene region, and the resistance gene cluster, compared with homologous MGEs present in other E. rhusiopathiae strains and integrated at the same chromosomal “hot spot”. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at bottom of the figure).
Figure 3. Genomic island GI_Er147, containing IME_Er30, the T4SS gene region, and the resistance gene cluster, compared with homologous MGEs present in other E. rhusiopathiae strains and integrated at the same chromosomal “hot spot”. Arrows represent genes; the arrow’s colors represent the gene clusters identified by Clinker; homology between genes is represented by a gray gradient (%, the scale at bottom of the figure).
Ijms 27 00250 g003
Ijms 27 00250 g004
Figure 4. Dendrogram showing the similarity of the lnu(J) gene sequence of E. rhusiopathiae 147 to reference genes from the lnu family derived from the GenBank database (with the prefix NG in the acc. No.) and lnu-like genes found in other bacterial strains. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa were clustered together in the bootstrap test (200 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Scale bars show genetic distance.
Figure 4. Dendrogram showing the similarity of the lnu(J) gene sequence of E. rhusiopathiae 147 to reference genes from the lnu family derived from the GenBank database (with the prefix NG in the acc. No.) and lnu-like genes found in other bacterial strains. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa were clustered together in the bootstrap test (200 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Scale bars show genetic distance.
Ijms 27 00250 g004
Ijms 27 00250 g005
Figure 5. Phylogenetic tree of a 1,528,858 bp whole genome alignment of E. rhusiopathiae strains 670 and 147 (marked in blue), compared with 25 genomes of E. rhusiopathiae strains whose sequences were obtained from the GenBank database (the accession numbers are listed in Table S1). s.—serotype; ST—sequence type.
Figure 5. Phylogenetic tree of a 1,528,858 bp whole genome alignment of E. rhusiopathiae strains 670 and 147 (marked in blue), compared with 25 genomes of E. rhusiopathiae strains whose sequences were obtained from the GenBank database (the accession numbers are listed in Table S1). s.—serotype; ST—sequence type.
Ijms 27 00250 g005
Table 1. Basic information about the WGSs of strains 147 and 670 and the results of the MLST analysis, antimicrobial susceptibility test and detection of resistance genes and MGEs.
Table 1. Basic information about the WGSs of strains 147 and 670 and the results of the MLST analysis, antimicrobial susceptibility test and detection of resistance genes and MGEs.
Isolate ID
(Genome ID)		670
(24S01951-1)		147
(24S1949-1)
GenBank Acc. No.CP183044.1CP184721.1
Serotype85
Source/hostDomestic gooseDomestic goose
Year of isolation, country2020, Poland2020, Poland
Genome size (bp)1,874,230 bp1,918,116 bp
Genes (total)18421871
Genes (coding)17531795
tRNAs5555
rRNAs7, 7, 7 (5S, 16S, 23S)3, 3, 3 (5S, 16S, 23S)
GC content (%)36.636.3
ST (MLST)113243
Antimicrobial susceptibility test results (MIC in μg/mL) aTET(32), LIN(>64), CLI(2), TIA(>64), ERY(0.125), ENR(8), AMP(≤0.06)
QDA(0.5), STR(128), SPE(64)		TET(32), LIN(8) b, CLI(0.125), TIA(0.5), ERY(0.125), ENR(8), AMP(≤0.06)
QDA(0.38), STR(>512), SPE(512)
Resistance genestetM, lnuB, lsaEtetM, ant(6)-Ia, spw, lnu(J) c, vat-family c
Mutations in gyrA gene
& in parC gene		Thr86 → Ile
Ser81 → Ile		Thr86 → Lys
Ser81 → Ile
MGEs
  • Prophage φEr670 (lnuB, lsaE);
  • Tn916 (tetM);
  • Genomic island containing prophage SE-1 and IME_Er30 (no resistance genes)
  • GI_Er147 containing T4SS-positive region and IME_Er30 (ant(6)-Ia, spw, lnu(J) c, vat-family c);
  • ICEEr1012 containing T4SS-positive region and Tn916 (tetM)
a numbers in brackets refer to the MIC value expressed in µg/mL; bold values indicate resistance; b value indicating moderate susceptibility to antibiotics. [5] c putative resistance genes. AMP—ampicillin, CLI—clindamycin, ENR—enrofloxacin, ERY—erythromycin, LIN—lincomycin, QDA—quinupristin/dalfopristin, SPE—spectinomycin, STR—streptomycin, TET—tetracycline, TIA—tiamulin.
Table 3. Results of determining the susceptibility of E. rhusiopathiae strains to streptogramins and lincosamides.
Table 3. Results of determining the susceptibility of E. rhusiopathiae strains to streptogramins and lincosamides.
StrainGenBank Acc. No.Resistance GenesMIC [µg/mL]
Lincomycin
R ≥ 16 µg/mL
I 4–8 µg/mL		Clindamycin
R ≥ 1 µg/mL
I 0.5 µg/mL		Quinupristin/Dalfopristin
ATCC 19414LR134439.1none0.25–0.50.15–0.030.38
147CP184721.1tetM, ant(6)-Ia, spw, lnu(J) *, vat-family *80.06–0.1250.38
136NAtetM, ant(6)-Ia, spw, lnu(J) *, vat-family *4–80.125–0.250.5
670CP183044.1tetM, lnuB, lsaE>6420.5
1023CP180440.1tetM, lnuB, lsaE, ant(6)-Ia, spw, erm47>642 0.5
584CP192437.1none0.50.060.38
1012CP180318.1tetM0.5–10.06–0.1250.38
R—resistant; I—intermediate; NA—not applicable; *—putative resistance genes.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dec, M.; Zomer, A.L.; Broekhuizen-Stins, M.J.; Urban-Chmiel, R. Prophage φEr670 and Genomic Island GI_Er147 as Carriers of Resistance Genes in Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strains. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2026, 27, 250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27010250

AMA Style

Dec M, Zomer AL, Broekhuizen-Stins MJ, Urban-Chmiel R. Prophage φEr670 and Genomic Island GI_Er147 as Carriers of Resistance Genes in Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strains. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2026; 27(1):250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27010250

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dec, Marta, Aldert L. Zomer, Marian J. Broekhuizen-Stins, and Renata Urban-Chmiel. 2026. "Prophage φEr670 and Genomic Island GI_Er147 as Carriers of Resistance Genes in Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strains" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 27, no. 1: 250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27010250

APA Style

Dec, M., Zomer, A. L., Broekhuizen-Stins, M. J., & Urban-Chmiel, R. (2026). Prophage φEr670 and Genomic Island GI_Er147 as Carriers of Resistance Genes in Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Strains. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 27(1), 250. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27010250

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop