Next Article in Journal
The Dual Nature of Metals: Essential Nutrients and Environmental Contaminants
Previous Article in Journal
Radiofrequency Fields at 2.45 GHz Reprogram Mitochondria–Lysosome Crosstalk and Modulate the Survival/Death of Macrophages Exposed to LPS and/or the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the Food Chain: Molecular Epidemiology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Public Health Implications

Department of Public Health, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Qassim University, P.O. Box 6666, Buraydah 51452, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2026, 27(9), 3814; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27093814
Submission received: 29 March 2026 / Revised: 19 April 2026 / Accepted: 23 April 2026 / Published: 24 April 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Insight into Antimicrobial Resistance)

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major antimicrobial-resistant pathogen affecting both human and animal health. Although historically associated with healthcare settings, MRSA is now established in livestock production and throughout the production chain. Its detection in animals, food products, and processing environments reflects the complex ecology of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in modern food systems. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on the molecular basis of methicillin resistance and multidrug resistance determinants, as well as the epidemiology of MRSA in food-associated settings. Particular emphasis is placed on its occurrence in animal-derived foods and key reservoirs within farms, slaughterhouses, and processing environments. Livestock-associated populations are dominated by clonal complex CC398. In contrast, CC9 is prevalent in pig production systems in Asia, while CC5-related lineages occur at the human and animal interface. MRSA has been detected in retail meat and animal-derived foods at low but measurable prevalence, indicating contamination during slaughter and processing. Virulence determinants include staphylococcal enterotoxins linked to food poisoning and Panton–Valentine leukocidin associated with severe infections. Biofilm formation and adhesins further support persistence and colonization. Epidemiological and molecular evidence indicates that livestock, processing environments, and food-contact surfaces act as interconnected reservoirs sustaining MRSA circulation. Human exposure occurs primarily through occupational contact and environmental pathways, whereas foodborne transmission appears less common. Effective control requires integrated surveillance, responsible antimicrobial use in livestock production, and strict hygiene practices throughout the production chain within a One Health framework.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global public health challenge [1,2]. Since their introduction, antibiotics have transformed the treatment of infectious diseases [3]. However, their widespread and often inappropriate use in human medicine, veterinary practice, and agriculture has accelerated the emergence of resistant microorganisms [4,5]. As a result, many infections are becoming increasingly difficult to treat in both hospital and community settings [6]. Global estimates indicate that bacterial AMR was directly responsible for approximately 1.27 million deaths and associated with nearly 4.95 million deaths worldwide in 2019 [7].
Among bacterial pathogens, Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is a major opportunistic organism affecting humans and animals. It causes a broad range of diseases, including skin and soft tissue infections, bloodstream infections, pneumonia, and endocarditis [8]. Its adaptability and ability to acquire resistance genes through mutation and horizontal gene transfer have driven the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains [9].
The emergence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) represents a key step in the evolution of AMR. First reported shortly after the introduction of methicillin in the 1960s, MRSA demonstrates the rapid response of this pathogen to antibiotic pressure [10]. Resistance is primarily mediated by acquisition of the mecA gene, which encodes PBP2a, a penicillin-binding protein with reduced affinity for β-lactam antibiotics [11,12]. This mechanism allows continued cell wall synthesis in the presence of these drugs, resulting in resistance to most β-lactams and contributing to the persistence of MRSA as a major cause of difficult-to-treat infections worldwide [8,9,13].
Although initially associated with healthcare settings, MRSA has expanded beyond clinical environments. Increasing evidence illustrates its presence in livestock production systems and along the food supply chain. Food-producing animals, including pigs, cattle, and poultry, act as reservoirs, contributing to the emergence of livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA) lineages [14,15]. These strains may spread through direct animal contact or contamination during slaughter and processing [15].
MRSA has also been detected in various food products, including raw meat, poultry, and processed foods [15,16]. While foodborne transmission appears less common than direct exposure, contamination of food products indicates a potential route for dissemination of resistant strains [16].
The occurrence of MRSA in food production systems results from interactions between animals, food products, processing environments, and humans within a One Health framework [17,18]. Understanding these interconnected pathways requires integration of molecular resistance mechanisms, clonal distribution, and transmission dynamics [11,19].
Despite extensive research, knowledge remains fragmented across clinical, veterinary, and food safety disciplines. Many studies address resistance mechanisms or epidemiology separately, without integrating these components within the context of the food system.
This review provides an integrated overview of MRSA from a One Health perspective, combining current knowledge on resistance mechanisms, genomic epidemiology, and occurrence within the food chain. The aim is to clarify how resistant strains emerge, persist, and spread across interconnected environments and to identify key gaps for future research.

2. Literature Search Strategy

Relevant studies were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, covering publications from 1995 to early 2026. This period was selected because it corresponds to the widespread adoption of molecular approaches for characterizing S. aureus, including detection of the mecA gene and early typing methods.
Search terms included “methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)”, “antimicrobial resistance (AMR)”, “livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA)”, “mecA”, “SCCmec”, “food chain”, “food contamination”, and “molecular epidemiology”. These terms were applied individually and in combination to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Only peer-reviewed articles published in English were included. Studies were selected if they addressed resistance mechanisms, virulence determinants, molecular epidemiology, or the occurrence and transmission of MRSA in livestock, food products, or food-processing environments. Studies lacking clear methodological description or direct relevance were excluded.
The search identified 1398 records, of which 1124 remained after duplicate removal. After title and abstract screening, 242 full-text articles were assessed, and 79 primary studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Selection was based on relevance, methodological quality, and contribution to the topic, with priority given to recent studies while retaining key earlier work. This review follows a narrative approach; therefore, no formal quantitative selection framework was applied.

3. Evolutionary Emergence and Epidemiological Lineages of MRSA

3.1. Emergence of Methicillin Resistance in S. aureus

MRSA was identified shortly after the introduction of methicillin in 1959, with resistant isolates reported within two years in the United Kingdom [20,21]. Resistance is primarily mediated by acquisition of the mecA gene, which encodes PBP2a, an altered penicillin-binding protein that allows cell wall synthesis to continue in the presence of β-lactam antibiotics [21,22].
The mecA gene is carried on the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec), a mobile genetic element that facilitates horizontal transfer between strains [23].
SCCmec elements are classified into several types based on their genetic structure. Larger types (I–III) are typically associated with hospital-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) and often carry additional resistance genes, whereas smaller types (IV and V) are more common in community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) [22,23].

3.2. Major Epidemiological Lineages of MRSA

MRSA has diversified into distinct populations adapted to different environments and is commonly grouped into HA-MRSA, CA-MRSA, and LA-MRSA lineages [21].
HA-MRSA represents the earliest group and remains a major cause of healthcare-associated infections, often showing resistance to multiple antimicrobial classes and carrying larger SCCmec elements [13]. Prominent clones include ST239, ST5, and ST22 [13,24].
CA-MRSA emerged later and is typically associated with infections in individuals without healthcare exposure. These strains often carry smaller SCCmec elements and may harbor virulence factors such as Panton–Valentine leukocidin (PVL). Representative lineages include ST8 (USA300), ST30, and ST80 [21,25]. Prominent CA lineages include ST8 (USA300), as well as ST30 and ST80, reported in different regions [13,25].
LA-MRSA is linked to food-producing animals and agricultural environments. These strains have been identified in pigs, cattle, and poultry, as well as in individuals with occupational exposure [26,27]. The most widely stated lineage is clonal complex 398 (CC398), which is prevalent in livestock populations and is transmitted between animals and humans [27].

3.3. Adaptation of MRSA to Livestock Reservoirs

LA-MRSA represents a key link between animal and human reservoirs. Its emergence was recognized in the early 2000s following detection in pigs and in individuals working in livestock production [28]. Most isolates belong to CC398, which is widely distributed in livestock populations [18,28].
Genomic evidence suggests that this lineage originated from a human-associated ancestor and subsequently adapted to animal hosts through acquisition of resistance determinants and genetic changes supporting persistence in livestock environments [27].
Livestock production systems provide conditions that facilitate colonization and spread. High carriage rates have been reported in pigs, and individuals in contact with animals display increased colonization [29].
Although CC398 predominates in many regions, other lineages such as CC9 have been reported in livestock, particularly in Asia, indicating that multiple lineages adapt to animal hosts [15,30].
The presence of MRSA in livestock also raises concerns regarding entry into the food chain during slaughter and processing [31]. The evolutionary emergence and diversification of MRSA lineages are illustrated in Figure 1.

4. Molecular Basis of Methicillin Resistance

4.1. The mec Gene Complex

Methicillin resistance in S. aureus is driven by acquisition of the mec gene complex, most notably mecA, which encodes PBP2a. This alternative penicillin-binding protein sustains peptidoglycan synthesis despite β-lactam-mediated inhibition of native PBPs [13,32,33,34,35].
Expression of mecA is regulated by mecI and mecR1, which respond to β-lactam exposure. Disruption of this regulatory system, commonly observed in MRSA, leads to constitutive resistance [36,37,38].
An alternative determinant, mecC, has been identified in both human and animal isolates, indicating circulation across different reservoirs [39,40].

4.2. Structure and Function of PBP2a

PBP2a sustains cell wall synthesis under β-lactam pressure by retaining transpeptidase activity despite antibiotic exposure. Its low affinity for β-lactams allows continued peptidoglycan cross-linking when native PBPs are inhibited [11,41,42].
Structural studies have identified an allosteric site that regulates access to the catalytic domain, enabling substrate binding while limiting antibiotic interference [43].

4.3. Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome mec (SCCmec)

The mec gene complex is carried on SCCmec, a mobile genetic element that integrates into the chromosome of S. aureus and enables horizontal transfer of resistance [44,45].
SCCmec contains both the mec complex and cassette chromosome recombinase (ccr) genes, which mediate integration and excision. Variability in these elements defines distinct SCCmec types that differ in size and genetic content, with some carrying additional resistance determinants [23,45,46,47]. The organization of SCCmec and its role in resistance are illustrated in Figure 2.

4.4. Auxiliary Resistance Factors

Additional genes involved in cell wall synthesis, including members of the fem family, contribute to full resistance expression by supporting the peptidoglycan structure [9,47,48,49]. Global regulatory systems further influence resistance levels, contributing to phenotypic variability among MRSA strains [9,50].

4.5. Evolution of SCCmec Elements

SCCmec diversity is associated with adaptation to different ecological niches. Larger elements are typically linked to HA-MRSA and often carry multiple resistance genes, whereas smaller elements are more common in community-associated strains [51,52,53]. This diversity supports the spread of MRSA between clinical, animal, and environmental settings [51].

5. Multidrug Resistance Determinants in MRSA

MRSA commonly exhibits resistance to multiple antimicrobial classes beyond β-lactams. This phenotype arises from a combination of acquired resistance genes and chromosomal mutations affecting antibiotic targets or intracellular drug accumulation [54,55].

5.1. Macrolides and Lincosamides

Resistance is mainly mediated by erm genes, which encode methylases that modify 23S rRNA and prevent antibiotic binding [56,57]. Common variants (ermA, ermB, and ermC) are often located on mobile elements [58,59].
Inducible resistance may occur upon antibiotic exposure, while efflux systems such as msrA reduce intracellular drug concentrations [60,61].

5.2. Tetracycline

Resistance involves efflux and ribosomal protection mechanisms. tetK encodes an efflux pump, whereas tetM protects the ribosome by displacing tetracycline from its binding site [56,62,63,64]. These genes are widely disseminated between human and animal populations.

5.3. Fluoroquinolone

Resistance arises from mutations in genes encoding DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV. Alterations in gyrA/gyrB and grlA/grlB reduce drug binding, with combined mutations leading to higher resistance levels [65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72].

5.4. Efflux Systems and Environmental Selection

Efflux systems contribute to multidrug resistance by lowering intracellular antibiotic concentrations [63,73]. Transporters such as NorA, NorB, NorC, MdeA, LmrS, and MepA act on diverse compounds [74,75,76], and their overexpression is associated with increased resistance [77,78].
Plasmid-encoded pumps such as qacA and qacB confer tolerance to disinfectants, particularly quaternary ammonium compounds, linking resistance mechanisms to food-processing environments [79,80]. Exposure to sublethal disinfectant concentrations may select for strains carrying these genes and promote persistence [81,82].
The accumulation of multiple resistance determinants enhances survival under antimicrobial pressure and supports the multidrug-resistant phenotype observed in MRSA [55,63]. Their distribution across lineages facilitates dissemination between clinical settings, animal reservoirs, and food production systems [14,83].
In food-related environments, selective pressures extend beyond antibiotic use to include disinfectants and other stress conditions, shaping resistance profiles and persistence along the production continuum [81,82]. Major resistance determinants are summarized in Table 1.

6. MRSA Reservoirs in the Food Production Continuum

The food production continuum includes multiple environments that support MRSA persistence. Resistant strains occur between livestock, slaughterhouses, and processing facilities, forming linked reservoirs within production systems [14,16].

6.1. Livestock Reservoirs

Food-producing animals represent major reservoirs of MRSA, with reports in pigs, cattle, poultry, and other species worldwide [14]. Colonization occurs mainly in the nasal cavity and on the skin and is often asymptomatic. Pigs are particularly important reservoirs and are frequently associated with CC398 lineages [89,90].
Cattle and poultry also harbor MRSA, indicating that multiple species contribute to its maintenance in agricultural systems [14]. Colonization persists within farms and spreads through direct contact and shared environments. Individuals in close contact with livestock, including farmers and veterinarians, show higher carriage rates than the general population [91]. MRSA has also been detected in airborne dust and bioaerosols within livestock facilities [92,93].

6.2. Slaughterhouse and Processing Environments

Slaughterhouses represent a key interface between animal reservoirs and food production. During processing, bacteria from colonized animals contaminate carcasses, equipment, and surrounding surfaces [16].
MRSA has been identified on carcasses, cutting surfaces, and processing equipment, indicating contamination throughout slaughter operations [31,94]. In swine production systems, strains present in animals have the ability to enter processing environments during handling.
Cross-contamination occur at multiple stages, including skin removal, cutting, and equipment handling, allowing transfer between carcasses and surfaces [16].

6.3. Food Handling and Processing Surfaces

Food-processing environments provide conditions that support MRSA persistence. S. aureus survives on stainless steel and plastic commonly used as food-contact surfaces [95].
Persistence is influenced by moisture and organic residues, which promote surface conditioning and increase the likelihood of contamination [95,96,97]. Biofilm formation further enhances survival by protecting cells from environmental stress and reducing the effectiveness of cleaning procedures [96].
Monitoring studies have detected S. aureus on surfaces within meat-processing facilities, particularly during active production [97]. Biofilms enable prolonged surface attachment, and cells released from these structures contaminate food products during processing [98].
Persistence in these environments results from repeated contamination and adaptation to local conditions. Surface adhesion, biofilm formation, and tolerance to disinfectants enable certain strains to persist despite routine sanitation. The role of biofilm formation is discussed in Section 9.3. Major reservoirs and contamination pathways are illustrated in Figure 3.

7. Occurrence of MRSA in Food Products

MRSA has been reported in a range of food products across regions, with contamination identified in retail and production settings, including raw meat, dairy products, and ready-to-eat (RTE) foods. Entry into the food chain occur during animal production, slaughter, processing, or handling [99,100,101].
Detection in food does not imply transmission through consumption but indicates contamination at different stages and highlights the need to monitor antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in food systems. These data clarify movement of resistant strains between animals, food products, and humans [19,102]. Representative findings are summarized in Table 2.

7.1. Raw Animal-Derived Food Products

Raw animal-derived foods are among the most studied sources of MRSA contamination. MRSA has been detected in retail meat, including beef, pork, and poultry, with evidence linking these strains to livestock reservoirs and contamination during slaughter or processing [99,103]. In the Netherlands, MRSA was found in 11.9% of retail meat samples (264/2217), with higher rates in poultry [99].
Studies from North America report lower but variable detection rates. In the United States, MRSA was identified in 6.6% (9/136) and 1.2% (2/165) of retail meat samples in separate investigations [100,104]. Genetic similarity between isolates from meat and livestock supports contamination during production stages.
MRSA has also been detected in milk and dairy products. Sources include infected animals, particularly mastitis cases, and contamination during milking or processing [105,106]. In Iran, MRSA was identified in ~2.0% of samples (53/2650), representing 16.2% of S. aureus isolates [106]. In Italy, prevalence was lower at 0.37% (6/1634) in animal-derived foods [103].

7.2. RTE Foods

RTE foods present a potential exposure route because they are consumed without further heat treatment. Contamination may occur during preparation, packaging, or handling by colonized workers [101]. Reported prevalence is generally lower than in raw meat. In China, MRSA was detected in 2.5% (5/197) of retail food samples, corresponding to 12.2% of S. aureus isolates [105]. Despite a lower frequency, the absence of a final decontamination step makes even low-level contamination relevant [101].

7.3. Global Distribution and Prevalence

MRSA contamination of food products has been reported worldwide, with prevalence varying by region, food type, and study design. Sample-based estimates range from low to moderate levels. Reported rates include 11.9% in retail meat in the Netherlands (264/2217) [99], 6.6% (9/136) and 1.2% (2/165) in the United States [100,104], 2.5% (5/197) in retail foods in China [105], and approximately 2.0% (53/2650) in dairy products in Iran [106]. Lower values have been described in some settings, such as 0.37% (6/1634) in Italy [103].
Variation is driven by differences in sampling strategies, food categories, and analytical methods. Some studies report MRSA as a proportion of S. aureus isolates rather than total samples, which complicates comparison. For example, MRSA accounted for 7.4% of S. aureus isolates in retail meat in China [101].
Across studies, prevalence typically ranges from <1% in certain dairy products to >10% in some meat samples. These differences likely reflect both regional factors and methodological variation, including detection approaches and reporting criteria [99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106]. Livestock production practices, antimicrobial use, and hygiene conditions during processing further influence these estimates [107].
Consistent detection across settings suggests repeated introduction from animal reservoirs rather than sustained growth within food products. This suggests that food acts primarily as a transient carrier rather than a stable reservoir [99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108].
Most studies report detection frequencies rather than standardized prevalence, limiting direct comparison across datasets. Although systematic reviews confirm the presence of MRSA in retail food products across multiple countries, lack of harmonized surveillance remains a key limitation. Standardized approaches are needed to improve comparability and interpretation of global data [108].
Overall, available evidence shows consistent but generally low-level contamination of food products, supporting a limited role in direct transmission but a potential contribution to MRSA dissemination along the food chain.

8. Molecular Epidemiology of Foodborne MRSA

Molecular epidemiology provides a framework for characterizing the genetic diversity, transmission pathways, and evolutionary relationships of MRSA populations in animal production systems and along the food chain [109,110]. Typing methods enable comparison of isolates from livestock, food products, and humans, supporting identification of transmission links and clonal structure across regions and environments [47,111].
MRSA populations consist of several genetically distinct lineages that are differentiated using sequence-based methods, including multilocus sequence typing (MLST), staphylococcal protein A (spa) typing, SCCmec typing, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) [47,112,113].

8.1. Classical Molecular Typing Methods

Classical typing methods have been central to defining MRSA population structure and tracking dissemination among human, animal, and food sources [114,115]. Standardized protocols enable consistent data generation and contribute to global surveillance of MRSA dissemination [116,117].
MLST characterizes isolates based on sequence variation in conserved housekeeping genes, assigning sequence types that are grouped into clonal complexes representing evolutionary lineages [47,118,119,120]. This approach has been widely used to describe the global distribution of major MRSA clones [14,47].
Spa typing targets the polymorphic X region of the spa gene, generating repeat-based profiles that allow rapid differentiation of isolates. Its simplicity and standardized nomenclature make it suitable for surveillance and outbreak investigations [121,122]. SCCmec typing classifies isolates according to the structure of the cassette carrying the mec gene complex, providing insight into lineage origin and association with hospital, community, or livestock settings [123,124].
PFGE provides high-resolution discrimination based on restriction patterns of chromosomal DNA, enabling detection of closely related isolates. However, its limited reproducibility and labor-intensive workflow have reduced its use in favor of sequence-based approaches [113,125,126,127].

8.2. Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS) in MRSA Surveillance

WGS enables high-resolution analysis of MRSA genomes, allowing direct comparison between strains and precise characterization of genetic variation [128,129,130,131].
Genome-level analysis identifies single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), mobile genetic elements, resistance genes, and virulence determinants, supporting reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships and lineage evolution [132,133,134].
Recent studies have applied WGS to compare isolates from livestock, food products, and processing environments. Analyses across multiple stages of the production chain including slaughterhouse and retail settings allow assessment of genetic relatedness between isolates recovered at different points [135,136].
For example, isolates from livestock, slaughterhouse environments, and retail meat have been shown to cluster within closely related lineages, supporting epidemiological links across the production continuum [137,138]. These isolates often differ by fewer than 20 SNPs, a range consistent with recent transmission rather than independent emergence [27,138].
WGS enhances resolution among closely related strains and reveals transmission links not resolved by conventional typing methods [132,133,134]. It also supports differentiation between persistent contamination within processing environments and repeated introduction from animal reservoirs [135,136].
Furthermore, WGS enables comprehensive analysis of resistance and virulence determinants, providing insight into adaptation of MRSA populations within food production systems [107,139,140,141,142]. These capabilities make WGS a central tool for modern AMR surveillance. The main molecular and genomic methods used to investigate MRSA transmission along the food chain are summarized in Figure 4.

8.3. Dominant MRSA Clones in the Food Chain

Several MRSA clones are associated with livestock and food production systems [143], as summarized in Table 3.
CC398 is the most widely distributed lineage in food-producing animals and represents the predominant livestock-associated MRSA clone [14,144,145,146]. Within livestock populations, ST398 strains how genetic diversity and are often associated with spa types such as t011 and t034. These strains commonly colonize animals and may infect humans with occupational exposure, indicating zoonotic potential [147].
ST9 is frequently detected in pig production systems, particularly in Asia, and has been identified in both animals and pork products, indicating circulation within agricultural environments and entry into the food chain [148,149].
Human-associated clones, including ST5, have also been detected in food products, suggesting exchange between clinical and food production settings [150,151].
The presence of multiple lineages between animals, food products, and humans illustrates the complexity of MRSA epidemiology in interconnected systems [26]. Continued molecular surveillance, particularly using genomic approaches, remains essential for detecting emerging clones and clarifying transmission patterns [152].
Table 3. Major MRSA clones detected in livestock and food production systems.
Table 3. Major MRSA clones detected in livestock and food production systems.
Clone/LineagePrimary HostGeographic DistributionTypical Spa TypesCommon SCCmec TypesKey References
CC398 (ST398)Pigs, cattle, poultryEurope, North America, Asiat011, t034IV, V[26,90,145]
ST9 (CC9)PigsEast and Southeast Asiat899 lineage variantsIV, V[148,149]
ST5 (CC5)Humans, livestockGlobalt002 and related typesII, IV[47,150]
ST8 (CC8)Humans; occasionally food productsNorth Americat008IV[47,100]

9. Virulence Determinants of Foodborne MRSA

Virulence determinants shape the pathogenic potential of MRSA in food-associated contexts. These include toxins, cytolytic proteins, and surface-associated factors that mediate colonization, immune evasion, and persistence in production environments [153,154]. Key traits relevant to foodborne MRSA include staphylococcal enterotoxins, PVL, and mechanisms supporting biofilm formation and surface attachment [155,156].

9.1. Staphylococcal Enterotoxins

Staphylococcal enterotoxins are major contributors to foodborne illness caused by S. aureus [157,158]. These toxins are heat-stable and remain active after food processing, leading to rapid-onset symptoms including nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea following ingestion of contaminated food [159,160].
Classical enterotoxins (SEA–SEE) are most frequently associated with outbreaks, although additional variants have been identified in food-related isolates. These toxins act as superantigens, triggering widespread T-cell activation and excessive cytokine release that underlies gastrointestinal symptoms [161].
Enterotoxin-encoding genes such as sea, seb, sec, and sed have been detected in MRSA isolates from food products, indicating the presence of toxin-producing strains [162].

9.2. Panton–Valentine Leukocidin (PVL)

PVL is a cytolytic toxin associated with severe S. aureus infections. It consists of LukS-PV and LukF-PV components that form pores in host immune cells, particularly neutrophils and macrophages [163,164,165].
PVL is commonly linked to CA-MRSA and has been associated with skin infections and necrotizing pneumonia. Its genes are associated with specific lineages, supporting their role in virulence [166,167,168,169].
Although primarily described in clinical isolates, PVL has also been identified in strains from animals and food products, indicating that food-associated MRSA may carry clinically relevant virulence traits [170].

9.3. Biofilm Formation and Persistence

Biofilm formation plays a central role in MRSA persistence in food production environments. These structured communities are embedded in a matrix that protects cells from environmental stress, disinfectants, and host defenses [171]. In food-processing settings, development is influenced by surface properties and environmental conditions. Materials such as stainless steel and plastic support attachment, while organic residues enhance surface conditioning and promote biofilm establishment [171,172,173,174,175,176,177].
Substrates including raw meat, protein-rich residues, and dairy components further support adhesion and biofilm development. Organic matter forms conditioning layers rich in proteins and lipids that modify surface properties and facilitate attachment. MRSA isolates from food sources form biofilms on materials such as stainless steel and polystyrene, with protein-rich matrices contributing to structural stability [178,179]. Similar observations in dairy environments highlight persistence in the presence of food residues [95,180]. These conditions support survival on equipment surfaces and increase cross-contamination risk [181,182].
Biofilm formation is supported by genes such as icaA and icaD, which mediate synthesis of polysaccharide intercellular adhesin and stabilize biofilm structure [172]. The presence of these determinants in isolates from food and processing environments enhances survival under routine conditions, while temperature variation and sanitation practices further influence biofilm stability [162].

9.4. Surface Adhesins and Host Colonization

Surface adhesins enable MRSA to attach to host tissues and abiotic surfaces. These proteins bind extracellular matrix components such as fibronectin, fibrinogen, and collagen, facilitating early stages of colonization [154,173].
Key adhesin genes include clfA, clfB, fnbA, fnbB, and cna, which contribute to adherence and persistence [174,175]. These genes have also been identified in isolates from food and processing environments, indicating an enhanced capacity for surface attachment and persistence during production [176,177].
These virulence determinants contribute to MRSA survival and dissemination along the food chain. Enterotoxins are directly linked to foodborne illness, whereas biofilm formation and adhesins support persistence and contamination in production environments, influencing potential exposure to humans [154,174].

10. Transmission Pathways from the Food Chain to Humans

MRSA transmission between animals, food products, environments, and humans occurs within the structure of modern food production systems. These pathways link animal health, food safety, and human exposure within a One Health framework [151,183,184,185].
Epidemiological evidence reveals that MRSA spreads within these interfaces through direct contact, environmental exposure, and contaminated food products, enabling movement between ecological niches and contributing to the wider dissemination of AMR [186,187].

10.1. Occupational Exposure

Occupational contact represents a primary route linking livestock reservoirs to human carriage. Individuals working in animal production, including farmers, veterinarians, and slaughterhouse workers, are frequently exposed to colonized animals and contaminated environments through direct contact, inhalation of dust, or exposure to animal secretions [186,188].
Higher MRSA carriage rates have consistently been reported among livestock workers compared with the general population. Colonization commonly occurs in the nasal cavity and may persist depending on exposure intensity. Livestock-associated lineages such as CC398 have been identified in these individuals, supporting their zoonotic potential [26,188].

10.2. Foodborne Exposure

Food products derived from colonized animals represent an additional route of human exposure. Contamination occurs during slaughter, processing, or handling, facilitating the transfer of bacteria from animals or processing environments to products that reach consumers [16,151].
Although infection through consumption appears less frequent than direct exposure, detection of MRSA in food products confirms that resistant strains enter the food supply. Handling raw products or consuming inadequately prepared foods may result in transient colonization or exposure to enterotoxin-producing strains [189]. Molecular evidence showing similarity between isolates from food and livestock supports the role of contaminated products in dissemination [14,189].

10.3. Environmental Dissemination

Environmental reservoirs contribute to indirect transmission between animals and humans. MRSA shed by colonized animals persists in farm environments, slaughter facilities, and processing areas, remaining on surfaces or within organic material [190,191].
Airborne dust, bioaerosols, and contaminated surfaces act as carriers in agricultural settings. Viable MRSA has been recovered from airborne particles in livestock facilities, indicating potential for distribution within and beyond these environments [192,193].
Contamination of processing environments further supports persistence and cross-contamination through equipment and contact surfaces, reinforcing the role of environmental reservoirs in transmission along the food chain [194].

11. Public Health Implications

The presence of MRSA in food production systems represents a continuing public health concern. Resistant strains have been detected in animals, food products, and production environments, indicating their ability to persist and move between sectors [16,195,196].
Human exposure occurs through occupational, environmental, and food-related pathways, with higher colonization rates observed in individuals working in livestock settings [91,189,195,197]. Although the risk associated with food consumption appears limited, contaminated products may introduce resistant bacteria into the community [189].
A broader concern is the dissemination of AMR. MRSA strains in production environments frequently harbor multiple resistance determinants, driving spread across bacterial populations and complicating infection control in clinical settings [14,47,198].
Addressing this issue requires coordinated surveillance, effective hygiene practices, and responsible antimicrobial use among animal production systems.

12. Surveillance and Control Strategies

Limiting MRSA circulation in food production systems requires coordinated action between human, animal, and environmental sectors. Movement of resistant bacteria between livestock, food products, and human populations makes isolated interventions insufficient. Effective control depends on integrated measures combining surveillance, responsible antimicrobial use, and consistent hygiene practices along the production chain [199,200].

12.1. Integrated One Health Surveillance Systems

Integrated surveillance is essential for monitoring AMR. The One Health approach supports coordinated tracking of resistant bacteria across human, animal, food, and environmental sectors, improving early detection of emerging resistance patterns and clarifying transmission pathways [201,202].
These systems integrate data from clinical laboratories, veterinary monitoring programs, food inspection networks, and environmental sampling. This allows identification of resistant strains in animal populations, detection of contamination in production systems, and assessment of risks to human health [203].
Several countries have implemented national monitoring programs based on this model, generating data that support risk assessment and guide evidence-based policies to limit AMR spread [204].

12.2. Antimicrobial Stewardship in Livestock Production

Responsible antimicrobial use in livestock production is critical for reducing the emergence and spread of resistance. Stewardship programs promote appropriate antibiotic use through guidelines addressing drug selection, dosing, and treatment duration [205].
In some systems, antibiotics have been used for disease prevention and growth promotion, creating selective pressure that favors multidrug-resistant bacteria, including MRSA [200,206].
Stewardship efforts therefore focus on reducing non-therapeutic use and promoting alternative strategies such as vaccination, improved animal management, and strengthened biosecurity. These measures help maintain animal health while limiting selective pressure in livestock populations [207].

12.3. Hygiene and Food Safety Interventions

Hygiene measures throughout the production chain are essential for limiting contamination. These include farm biosecurity, sanitation of equipment in slaughter facilities, and strict hygiene during processing and handling [208].
Cleaning and disinfection reduce bacterial load and limit cross-contamination between animals, equipment, and food products. Consistent application is critical; otherwise, inadequate sanitation or the introduction of contaminated animals leads to persistence within production systems [208].
Additional measures include hazard analysis and critical control point systems, routine microbiological monitoring, and training of food handlers. These approaches reduce contamination risk and help prevent entry of resistant organisms into the food supply [209].

13. Future Perspectives and Research Priorities

Future research should focus on strengthening surveillance and improving understanding of MRSA transmission between human, animal, and environmental reservoirs. Advances in molecular epidemiology have improved characterization of MRSA populations and enabled identification of emerging lineages, but continued expansion of monitoring programs remains necessary to track their spread [169,210].
A key priority is the broader application of genomic surveillance. WGS enables detailed analysis of MRSA evolution, resistance determinants, and transmission pathways. Integrating genomic data with epidemiological and environmental information enhances detection of emerging lineages, supports risk assessment, and informs targeted control measures within a One Health framework [17,211,212,213,214].
Metagenomic approaches provide complementary insight by enabling detection of AMR genes directly from environmental and food samples without prior isolation. These methods expand understanding of the resistome in agricultural settings and may support earlier identification of emerging resistance [211].
Further research is required to clarify MRSA ecology in livestock systems, including mechanisms of persistence, host adaptation, and environmental survival. Studies integrating genomic, ecological, and epidemiological data will help define factors that sustain resistant strains in agricultural environments [169].
Development of rapid diagnostic technologies represents another important direction. Advances in molecular and culture-independent methods may enable faster detection of MRSA in clinical, food, and environmental samples, supporting earlier intervention and improved surveillance [212].
Finally, interdisciplinary collaboration remains essential. Integration of data in human health, veterinary, food safety, and environmental sectors is required to better understand MRSA circulation and to develop effective strategies for limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance through the food chain [210].

14. Conclusions

MRSA is no longer confined to healthcare settings and is now established across livestock production systems and the food supply chain. Its presence in animals, processing environments, and food products arises from linked sources that enable transfer of resistant strains between sectors. Molecular and genomic analyses have clarified the diversity of MRSA lineages and their dissemination between animal, food, and human interfaces, reinforcing the need for coordinated surveillance. Virulence determinants, including toxins and surface-associated factors, support persistence in production environments and contribute to pathogenic potential. Although foodborne infection appears less common than direct exposure routes, contaminated products and environments may still facilitate human contact with resistant strains. Limiting MRSA dissemination requires integrated surveillance, responsible antimicrobial use in livestock, and effective hygiene practices during processing and handling, supported by coordinated, system-level action across sectors.

Author Contributions

Supervision, A.E.; Formal analysis, A.E., E.M., A.A. and A.E.E.; Writing—original draft, A.E., E.M., A.A. and A.E.E.; Visualization, A.E., E.M., A.A. and A.E.E.; Data curation, A.E., E.M., A.A. and A.E.E.; Validation, A.E., E.M., A.A. and A.E.E.; Conceptualization, A.E. and E.M.; Writing—review and editing, A.E., E.M., A.A. and A.E.E.; Funding acquisition, A.E., E.M., A.A. and A.E.E. 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

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to thank the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research at Qassim University for financial support (QU-APC-2026).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Prestinaci, F.; Pezzotti, P.; Pantosti, A. Antimicrobial resistance: A global multifaceted phenomenon. Pathog. Glob. Health 2015, 109, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. World Health Organization (WHO). Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564748 (accessed on 15 February 2026).
  3. Ventola, C.L. The antibiotic resistance crisis: Part 1: Causes and threats. Pharm. Ther. 2015, 40, 277. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ferri, M.; Ranucci, E.; Romagnoli, P.; Giaccone, V. Antimicrobial resistance: A global emerging threat to public health systems. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 2857–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Salam, M.A.; Al-Amin, M.Y.; Salam, M.T.; Pawar, J.S.; Akhter, N.; Rabaan, A.A.; Alqumber, M.A. Antimicrobial resistance: A growing serious threat for global public health. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  6. Okeke, I.N.; de Kraker, M.E.; Van Boeckel, T.P.; Kumar, C.K.; Schmitt, H.; Gales, A.C.; Bertagnolio, S.; Sharland, M.; Laxminarayan, R. The scope of the antimicrobial resistance challenge. Lancet 2024, 403, 2426–2438, Erratum in Lancet 2024, 404, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Murray, C.J.; Ikuta, K.S.; Sharara, F.; Swetschinski, L.; Aguilar, G.R.; Gray, A.; Han, C.; Bisignano, C.; Rao, P.; Wool, E. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis. Lancet 2022, 399, 629–655, Erratum in Lancet 2022, 400, 1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Tabassum, F.; Munir, A.; Shakeel, F.; Zia, T.; Khan, M.U.Z.; Tahir, Z. Methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: A review of the mecA gene and its role in antibiotic resistance. Indus J. Biosci. Res. 2025, 3, 2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Peacock, S.J.; Paterson, G.K. Mechanisms of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2015, 84, 577–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Abebe, A.A.; Birhanu, A.G. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Molecular mechanisms underlying drug resistance development and novel strategies to combat. Infect. Drug Resist. 2023, 16, 7641–7662. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lade, H.; Kim, J.-S. Molecular determinants of β-lactam resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): An updated review. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Liu, Y.; Lu, H.; Hu, G.; Liu, J.; Lian, S.; Pang, S.; Zhu, G.; Ding, X. Unmasking MRSA’s Armor: Molecular Mechanisms of Resistance and Pioneering Therapeutic Countermeasures. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Turner, N.A.; Sharma-Kuinkel, B.K.; Maskarinec, S.A.; Eichenberger, E.M.; Shah, P.P.; Carugati, M.; Holland, T.L.; Fowler, V.G., Jr. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: An overview of basic and clinical research. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 17, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Silva, V.; Araújo, S.; Monteiro, A.; Eira, J.; Pereira, J.E.; Maltez, L.; Igrejas, G.; Lemsaddek, T.S.; Poeta, P. Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA in livestock: Antimicrobial resistance and genetic lineages. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Khairullah, A.R.; Kurniawan, S.C.; Effendi, M.H.; Sudjarwo, S.A.; Ramandinianto, S.C.; Widodo, A.; Riwu, K.H.P.; Silaen, O.S.M.; Rehman, S. A review of new emerging livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from pig farms. Vet. World 2023, 16, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Xing, L.; Cheng, M.; Wang, S.; Jiang, J.; Li, T.; Zhang, X.; Yang, J.; Tian, Y.; Liu, W. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus contamination in meat and meat products: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1636622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Habib, I.; Ghazawi, A.; Mohamed, M.-Y.I.; Lakshmi, G.B.; Nassar, R.; Monecke, S.; Ehricht, R.; Moradigaravand, D.; Everett, D.; Goering, R. Exploring human-to-food contamination potential: Genome-based analysis of diversity, toxin repertoire, and antimicrobial resistance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in United Arab Emirates retail meat. One Health 2025, 21, 101216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Köck, R.; Schaumburg, F.; Mellmann, A.; Köksal, M.; Jurke, A.; Becker, K.; Friedrich, A.W. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) as causes of human infection and colonization in Germany. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e55040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Kluytmans, J. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food products: Cause for concern or case for complacency? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2010, 16, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Jevons, M.P. “Celbenin”-resistant staphylococci. Br. Med. J. 1961, 1, 124–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Chambers, H.F.; DeLeo, F.R. Waves of resistance: Staphylococcus aureus in the antibiotic era. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 7, 629–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Hiramatsu, K.; Katayama, Y.; Yuzawa, H.; Ito, T. Molecular genetics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2002, 292, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. International Working Group on the Classification of Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome Elements (IWG-SCC). Classification of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec): Guidelines for reporting novel SCCmec elements. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 4961–4967. [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Harris, S.R.; Feil, E.J.; Holden, M.T.; Quail, M.A.; Nickerson, E.K.; Chantratita, N.; Gardete, S.; Tavares, A.; Day, N.; Lindsay, J.A. Evolution of MRSA during hospital transmission and intercontinental spread. Science 2010, 327, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Otto, M. Community-associated MRSA: What makes them special? Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 303, 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Smith, T.C.; Wardyn, S.E. Human infections with Staphylococcus aureus CC398. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2015, 2, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Price, L.B.; Stegger, M.; Hasman, H.; Aziz, M.; Larsen, J.; Andersen, P.S.; Pearson, T.; Waters, A.E.; Foster, J.T.; Schupp, J.M. Staphylococcus aureus CC398: Host adaptation and emergence of methicillin resistance in livestock. mBio 2012, 3, e00305-11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Graveland, H.; Duim, B.; Van Duijkeren, E.; Heederik, D.; Wagenaar, J.A. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals and humans. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2011, 301, 630–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Anjum, M.F.; Marco-Jimenez, F.; Duncan, D.; Marín, C.; Smith, R.P.; Evans, S.J. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from animals and animal products in the UK. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Butaye, P.; Argudín, M.; Smith, T. Livestock-associated MRSA and its current evolution. Curr. Clin. Microbiol. Rep. 2016, 3, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Li, X.; Xie, L.; Huang, H.; Li, Z.; Li, G.; Liu, P.; Xiao, D.; Zhang, X.; Xiong, W.; Zeng, Z. Prevalence of livestock-associated MRSA ST398 in a swine slaughterhouse in Guangzhou, China. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 914764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Vestergaard, M.; Frees, D.; Ingmer, H. Antibiotic resistance and the MRSA problem. Microbiol. Spectr. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Wielders, C.; Fluit, A.; Brisse, S.; Verhoef, J.; Schmitz, F. mecA gene is widely disseminated in Staphylococcus aureus population. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002, 40, 3970–3975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Shalaby, M.-A.W.; Dokla, E.M.; Serya, R.A.; Abouzid, K.A. Penicillin binding protein 2a: An overview and a medicinal chemistry perspective. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 199, 112312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Fergestad, M.E.; Stamsås, G.A.; Morales Angeles, D.; Salehian, Z.; Wasteson, Y.; Kjos, M. Penicillin-binding protein PBP2a provides variable levels of protection toward different β-lactams in Staphylococcus aureus RN4220. Microbiologyopen 2020, 9, e1057. [Google Scholar]
  36. Niemeyer, D.M.; Pucci, M.J.; Thanassi, J.A.; Sharma, V.K.; Archer, G.L. Role of mecA transcriptional regulation in the phenotypic expression of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol. 1996, 178, 5464–5471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. McKinney, T.K.; Sharma, V.K.; Craig, W.A.; Archer, G.L. Transcription of the gene mediating methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus (mecA) is corepressed but not coinduced by cognate mecA and β-lactamase regulators. J. Bacteriol. 2001, 183, 6862–6868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Oliveira, D.C.; De Lencastre, H. Methicillin-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus is not affected by the overexpression in trans of the mecA gene repressor: A surprising observation. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e23287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Harrison, E.M.; Paterson, G.K.; Holden, M.T.; Larsen, J.; Stegger, M.; Larsen, A.R.; Petersen, A.; Skov, R.L.; Christensen, J.M.; Bak Zeuthen, A. Whole genome sequencing identifies zoonotic transmission of MRSA isolates with the novel mecA homologue mecC. EMBO Mol. Med. 2013, 5, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Paterson, G.K.; Harrison, E.M.; Holmes, M.A. The emergence of mecC methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Trends Microbiol. 2014, 22, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Kim, C.; Mwangi, M.; Chung, M.; Milheirço, C.; de Lencastre, H.; Tomasz, A. The mechanism of heterogeneous beta-lactam resistance in MRSA: Key role of the stringent stress response. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e82814, Correction in PLoS ONE 2014, 9. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ambade, S.S.; Gupta, V.K.; Bhole, R.P.; Khedekar, P.B.; Chikhale, R.V. A review on five and six-membered heterocyclic compounds targeting the penicillin-binding protein 2 (PBP2A) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Molecules 2023, 28, 7008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Rosado, P.C.; Marques, M.M.; Justino, G.C. Targeting MRSA penicillin-binding protein 2a: Structural insights, allosteric mechanisms, and the potential of adjuvant inhibitors. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2025, 239, 117048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Loor-Giler, A.; Sanchez-Castro, C.; Puga-Torres, B.; Santander-Parra, S.; Nuñez, L. mecA and mecC Positive Strains of Staphylococcus aureus Detected and Isolated from Raw Milk of Ecuador. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Maree, M.; Thi Nguyen, L.T.; Ohniwa, R.L.; Higashide, M.; Msadek, T.; Morikawa, K. Natural transformation allows transfer of SCCmec-mediated methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 2477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Liu, J.; Chen, D.; Peters, B.M.; Li, L.; Li, B.; Xu, Z.; Shirliff, M.E. Staphylococcal chromosomal cassettes mec (SCCmec): A mobile genetic element in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Microb. Pathog. 2016, 101, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Lakhundi, S.; Zhang, K. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Molecular characterization, evolution, and epidemiology. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2018, 31, e00020-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Rohrer, S.; Berger-Bachi, B. FemABX peptidyl transferases: A link between branched-chain cell wall peptide formation and β-lactam resistance in gram-positive cocci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 837–846. [Google Scholar]
  49. Berger-Bächi, B.; Rohrer, S. Factors influencing methicillin resistance in staphylococci. Arch. Microbiol. 2002, 178, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Cheung, A.L.; Nishina, K.A.; Trotonda, M.P.; Tamber, S. The SarA protein family of Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2008, 40, 355–361. [Google Scholar]
  51. Malachowa, N.; DeLeo, F.R. Mobile genetic elements of Staphylococcus aureus. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2010, 67, 3057–3071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Planet, P.J. Life after USA300: The rise and fall of a superbug. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 215, S71–S77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Deurenberg, R.H.; Stobberingh, E.E. The evolution of Staphylococcus aureus. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2008, 8, 747–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Mlynarczyk-Bonikowska, B.; Kowalewski, C.; Krolak-Ulinska, A.; Marusza, W. Molecular mechanisms of drug resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Brdová, D.; Ruml, T.; Viktorová, J. Mechanism of staphylococcal resistance to clinically relevant antibiotics. Drug Resist. Updates 2024, 77, 101147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Zaghen, F.; Sora, V.M.; Meroni, G.; Laterza, G.; Martino, P.A.; Soggiu, A.; Bonizzi, L.; Zecconi, A. Epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance genes in Staphyloccocus aureus isolates from a public database in a one health perspective—Sample characteristics and isolates’ sources. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Miklasińska-Majdanik, M. Mechanisms of resistance to macrolide antibiotics among Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Mohammad, S.Q.; Awayid, H.S.; Zarrouk-Mahjoub, S.; Jallil, I.S. Molecular identification of erm A and erm B, erm C genes in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from burns patients and their association with multidrug resistance. Cell. Mol. Biol. 2025, 71, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. El-Banna, T.E.-S.; Sonbol, F.I.; Kamer, A.M.A.; Badr, S.A.M.M. Genetic diversity of macrolides resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates and the potential synergistic effect of vitamins, C and K3. BMC Microbiol. 2024, 24, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Yao, W.; Xu, G.; Li, D.; Bai, B.; Wang, H.; Cheng, H.; Zheng, J.; Sun, X.; Lin, Z.; Deng, Q. Staphylococcus aureus with an erm-mediated constitutive macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance phenotype has reduced susceptibility to the new ketolide, solithromycin. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Gherardi, G.; De Florio, L.; Lorino, G.; Fico, L.; Dicuonzo, G. Macrolide resistance genotypes and phenotypes among erythromycin-resistant clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci, Italy. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2009, 55, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Pinheiro, P.G.; Santiago, G.M.P.; da Silva, F.E.F.; de Araújo, A.C.J.; de Oliveira, C.R.T.; Freitas, P.R.; Rocha, J.E.; de Araújo Neto, J.B.; da Silva, M.M.C.; Tintino, S.R. Ferulic acid derivatives inhibiting Staphylococcus aureus tetK and MsrA efflux pumps. Biotechnol. Rep. 2022, 34, e00717. [Google Scholar]
  63. Dashtbani-Roozbehani, A.; Brown, M.H. Efflux pump mediated antimicrobial resistance by staphylococci in health-related environments: Challenges and the quest for inhibition. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Lade, H.; Joo, H.-S.; Kim, J.-S. Molecular basis of non-β-lactam antibiotics resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1378. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kaatz, G.W.; Seo, S.M.; Ruble, C.A. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Infect. Dis. 1991, 163, 1080–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Hooper, D.C. Emerging mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2001, 7, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  67. Piddock, L.J. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance: An update 1994–1998. Drugs 1999, 58, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Atta, S.E.; Ghannawi, L.; Shakir, O.Y.; Gharab, K.M. Molecular investigation of gyrA mutations in clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus derived from diverse sources. Al-Rafidain J. Med. Sci. 2023, 5, S64–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Poole, K. Efflux-mediated resistance to fluoroquinolones in gram-positive bacteria and the mycobacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000, 44, 2595–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  70. Tanaka, M.; Wang, T.; Onodera, Y.; Uchida, Y.; Sato, K. Mechanism of quinolone resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Infect. Chemother. 2000, 6, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Horii, T.; Suzuki, Y.; Monji, A.; Morita, M.; Muramatsu, H.; Kondo, Y.; Doi, M.; Takeshita, A.; Kanno, T.; Maekawa, M. Detection of mutations in quinolone resistance-determining regions in levofloxacin-and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Effects of the mutations on fluoroquinolone MICs. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2003, 46, 139–145. [Google Scholar]
  72. Costa, S.S.; Junqueira, E.; Palma, C.; Viveiros, M.; Melo-Cristino, J.; Amaral, L.; Couto, I. Resistance to antimicrobials mediated by efflux pumps in Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 2013, 2, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Rajput, P.; Nahar, K.S.; Rahman, K.M. Evaluation of antibiotic resistance mechanisms in gram-positive bacteria. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Sinha, S.; Aggarwal, S.; Singh, D.V. Efflux pumps: Gatekeepers of antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Microb. Cell 2024, 11, 368. [Google Scholar]
  75. Lekshmi, M.; Ammini, P.; Adjei, J.; Sanford, L.M.; Shrestha, U.; Kumar, S.; Varela, M.F. Modulation of antimicrobial efflux pumps of the major facilitator superfamily in Staphylococcus aureus. AIMS Microbiol. 2018, 4, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  76. Costa, R.H.S.d.; Pessoa, R.T.; Silva, E.d.S.; Araujo, I.M.; Gonçalves, S.A.; Rocha, J.E.; Pereira Junior, F.N.; Oliveira, N.C.; Oliveira, V.M.d.; Rocha, M.N.d. Antibacterial and Inhibitory Activity of Nora and Mepa Efflux Pumps of Estragole Complexed to β-Cyclodextrin (ES/β-CD) In Vitro Against Staphylococcus aureus Bacteria, Molecular Docking and MPO-Based Pharmacokinetics Prediction. Pharmaceutics 2024, 16, 1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Zimmermann, S.; Klinger-Strobel, M.; Bohnert, J.A.; Wendler, S.; Rödel, J.; Pletz, M.W.; Löffler, B.; Tuchscherr, L. Clinically approved drugs inhibit the Staphylococcus aureus multidrug NorA efflux pump and reduce biofilm formation. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  78. Ika Irianti, M.; Vincken, J.-P.; Van Dinteren, S.; Ter Beest, E.; Pos, K.M.; Araya-Cloutier, C. Prenylated isoflavonoids from Fabaceae against the NorA efflux pump in Staphylococcus aureus. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  79. Hassanzadeh, S.; Pourmand, M.R.; Mashhadi, R.; Ghazvini, K. Epidemiology of efflux pumps genes mediating resistance among Staphylococcus aureus; A systematic review. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 139, 103850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Sharma, A.; Gupta, V.K.; Pathania, R. Efflux pump inhibitors for bacterial pathogens: From bench to bedside. Indian J. Med. Res. 2019, 149, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Mitchell, B.A.; Brown, M.H.; Skurray, R.A. QacA multidrug efflux pump from Staphylococcus aureus: Comparative analysis of resistance to diamidines, biguanidines, and guanylhydrazones. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1998, 42, 475–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  82. Buffet-Bataillon, S.; Tattevin, P.; Bonnaure-Mallet, M.; Jolivet-Gougeon, A. Emergence of resistance to antibacterial agents: The role of quaternary ammonium compounds—A critical review. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2012, 39, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Foster, T.J. Antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Current status and future prospects. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 41, 430–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Roberts, M.C. Update on macrolide–lincosamide–streptogramin, ketolide, and oxazolidinone resistance genes. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2008, 282, 147–159. [Google Scholar]
  85. Wendlandt, S.; Li, B.; Ma, Z.; Schwarz, S. Complete sequence of the multi-resistance plasmid pV7037 from a porcine methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Vet. Microbiol. 2013, 166, 650–654. [Google Scholar]
  86. Chopra, I.; Roberts, M. Tetracycline antibiotics: Mode of action, applications, molecular biology, and epidemiology of bacterial resistance. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2001, 65, 232–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Hooper, D.C.; Jacoby, G.A. Topoisomerase inhibitors: Fluoroquinolone mechanisms of action and resistance. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2016, 6, a025320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  88. Kaatz, G.W.; McAleese, F.; Seo, S.M. Multidrug resistance in Staphylococcus aureus due to overexpression of a novel multidrug and toxin extrusion (MATE) transport protein. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 1857–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  89. Golob, M.; Pate, M.; Kušar, D.; Zajc, U.; Papić, B.; Ocepek, M.; Zdovc, I.; Avberšek, J. Antimicrobial resistance and molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from two pig farms: Longitudinal study of LA-MRSA. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  90. Silva, V.; Monteiro, A.; Pereira, J.E.; Maltez, L.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P. MRSA in humans, pets and livestock in Portugal: Where we came from and where we are going. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  91. Chen, C.; Wu, F. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) colonisation and infection among livestock workers and veterinarians: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup. Environ. Med. 2021, 78, 530–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  92. Madsen, A.M.; Kurdi, I.; Feld, L.; Tendal, K. Airborne MRSA and total Staphylococcus aureus as associated with particles of different sizes on pig farms. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2018, 62, 966–977. [Google Scholar]
  93. Pedersen, K.; Nielsen, M.W.; Fertner, M.E.; Espinosa-Gongora, C.; Bækbo, P. Development of Livestock-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) Loads in Pigs and Pig Stables During the Fattening Period. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  94. Sadiq, A.; Samad, M.; Saddam; Basharat, N.; Ali, S.; Roohullah; Saad, Z.; Khan, A.N.; Ahmad, Y.; Khan, A. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in slaughter houses and meat shops in capital territory of Pakistan during 2018–2019. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 577707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  95. Di Ciccio, P.; Vergara, A.; Festino, A.R.; Paludi, D.; Zanardi, E.; Ghidini, S.; Ianieri, A. Biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus on food contact surfaces: Relationship with temperature and cell surface hydrophobicity. Food Control 2015, 50, 930–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  96. Shen, J.; Wang, H.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, M.; Shang, F.; Xue, T. Effect of biofilm on the survival of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from raw milk in high temperature and drying environment. Food Res. Int. 2021, 149, 110672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  97. Pérez-Boto, D.; D’Arrigo, M.; García-Lafuente, A.; Bravo, D.; Pérez-Baltar, A.; Gaya, P.; Medina, M.; Arqués, J.L. Staphylococcus aureus in the processing environment of cured meat products. Foods 2023, 12, 2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  98. Song, M.; Tang, Q.; Ding, Y.; Tan, P.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, T.; Zhou, C.; Xu, S.; Lyu, M.; Bai, Y. Staphylococcus aureus and biofilms: Transmission, threats, and promising strategies in animal husbandry. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2024, 15, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  99. de Boer, E.; Zwartkruis-Nahuis, J.; Wit, B.; Huijsdens, X.; De Neeling, A.; Bosch, T.; Van Oosterom, R.; Vila, A.; Heuvelink, A. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in meat. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 134, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  100. Waters, A.E.; Contente-Cuomo, T.; Buchhagen, J.; Liu, C.M.; Watson, L.; Pearce, K.; Foster, J.T.; Bowers, J.; Driebe, E.M.; Engelthaler, D.M. Multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in US meat and poultry. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2011, 52, 1227–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  101. Wu, S.; Huang, J.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, F.; Yang, X.; Wu, H.; Zeng, H.; Chen, M.; Ding, Y. Staphylococcus aureus isolated from retail meat and meat products in China: Incidence, antibiotic resistance and genetic diversity. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  102. Fetsch, A.; Contzen, M.; Hartelt, K.; Kleiser, A.; Maassen, S.; Rau, J.; Kraushaar, B.; Layer, F.; Strommenger, B. Staphylococcus aureus food-poisoning outbreak associated with the consumption of ice-cream. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 187, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  103. Normanno, G.; Corrente, M.; La Salandra, G.; Dambrosio, A.; Quaglia, N.C.; Parisi, A.; Greco, G.; Bellacicco, A.; Virgilio, S.; Celano, G.V. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in foods of animal origin product in Italy. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 117, 219–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  104. Hanson, B.; Dressler, A.; Harper, A.; Scheibel, R.; Wardyn, S.; Roberts, L.; Kroeger, J.; Smith, T. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on retail meat in Iowa. J. Infect. Public Health 2011, 4, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  105. Wang, X.; Li, G.; Xia, X.; Yang, B.; Xi, M.; Meng, J. Antimicrobial susceptibility and molecular typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in retail foods in Shaanxi, China. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2014, 11, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  106. Jamali, H.; Paydar, M.; Radmehr, B.; Ismail, S.; Dadrasnia, A. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from raw milk and dairy products. Food Control 2015, 54, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  107. Oniciuc, E.A.; Likotrafiti, E.; Alvarez-Molina, A.; Prieto, M.; Santos, J.A.; Alvarez-Ordóñez, A. The present and future of whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole metagenome sequencing (WMS) for surveillance of antimicrobial resistant microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance genes across the food chain. Genes 2018, 9, 268, Correction in Genes 2018, 9, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  108. Oniciuc, E.-A.; Likotrafiti, E.; Alvarez-Molina, A.; Prieto, M.; López, M.; Alvarez-Ordóñez, A. Food processing as a risk factor for antimicrobial resistance spread along the food chain. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2019, 30, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  109. Algammal, A.M.; Hetta, H.F.; Elkelish, A.; Alkhalifah, D.H.H.; Hozzein, W.N.; Batiha, G.E.-S.; El Nahhas, N.; Mabrok, M.A. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): One health perspective approach to the bacterium epidemiology, virulence factors, antibiotic-resistance, and zoonotic impact. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 3255–3265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  110. Abdullahi, I.N.; Lozano, C.; Ruiz-Ripa, L.; Fernández-Fernández, R.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Ecology and genetic lineages of nasal Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA carriage in healthy persons with or without animal-related occupational risks of colonization: A review of global reports. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  111. Bal, A.; Coombs, G.; Holden, M.; Lindsay, J.; Nimmo, G.; Tattevin, P.; Skov, R. Genomic insights into the emergence and spread of international clones of healthcare-, community-and livestock-associated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Blurring of the traditional definitions. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2016, 6, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  112. Kumar, S.; Anwer, R.; Yadav, M.; Sehrawat, N.; Singh, M.; Kumar, V. Molecular typing and global epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus. Curr. Pharmacol. Rep. 2021, 7, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  113. Mehndiratta, P.; Bhalla, P. Typing of Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A technical review. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 30, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  114. Maeda, R.; Kobayashi, H.; Higashidani, M.; Matsuhisa, T.; Sawa, A.; Miyake, K.; Tayama, Y.; Kimura, K.; Itoh, H.; Okano, T. Molecular epidemiological and pharmaceutical studies of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated at hospitals in Kure City, Japan. Access Microbiol. 2022, 4, 000319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  115. Shokoohizadeh, L.; Dehghani, T.; NamordiZadeh, V.; Karmostaji, A. New sequence types of Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from hospitals and community settings in southern Iran. Jundishapur J. Microbiol. 2024, 17, e144398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  116. Faria, N.A.; Carrico, J.A.; Oliveira, D.C.; Ramirez, M.; De Lencastre, H. Analysis of typing methods for epidemiological surveillance of both methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  117. Hallin, M.; Deplano, A.; Struelens, M.J. Molecular typing of bacterial pathogens: A tool for the epidemiological study and control of infectious diseases. In New Frontiers of Molecular Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases; Morand, S., Beaudeau, F., Cabaret, J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 9–25. [Google Scholar]
  118. Enright, M.C.; Day, N.P.; Davies, C.E.; Peacock, S.J.; Spratt, B.G. Multilocus sequence typing for characterization of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible clones of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2000, 38, 1008–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  119. Maiden, M.C.; Bygraves, J.A.; Feil, E.; Morelli, G.; Russell, J.E.; Urwin, R.; Zhang, Q.; Zhou, J.; Zurth, K.; Caugant, D.A. Multilocus sequence typing: A portable approach to the identification of clones within populations of pathogenic microorganisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 3140–3145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  120. Feil, E.J.; Li, B.C.; Aanensen, D.M.; Hanage, W.P.; Spratt, B.G. eBURST: Inferring patterns of evolutionary descent among clusters of related bacterial genotypes from multilocus sequence typing data. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 1518–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  121. Harmsen, D.; Claus, H.; Witte, W.; Rothganger, J.; Claus, H.; Turnwald, D.; Vogel, U. Typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a university hospital setting by using novel software for spa repeat determination and database management. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003, 41, 5442–5448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  122. Shopsin, B.; Gomez, M.; Montgomery, S.; Smith, D.; Waddington, M.; Dodge, D.; Bost, D.; Riehman, M.; Naidich, S.; Kreiswirth, B. Evaluation of protein A gene polymorphic region DNA sequencing for typing of Staphylococcus aureus strains. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1999, 37, 3556–3563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  123. Oumarou, Z.; Henri, O.S.; Nestor, I.H.; Francois, T.; Aly, S. History, Structure, Epidemiology and Molecular Typing of Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosomes Mec (Sccmec) involved in Multiple Resistances to Beta-Lactams in the Genus Staphylococcus: An Overview. Arch. Clin. Biomed. Res. 2022, 6, 791–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  124. Abdulgader, S.M.; Shittu, A.O.; Nicol, M.P.; Kaba, M. Molecular epidemiology of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Africa: A systematic review. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  125. Tenover, F.C.; Arbeit, R.D.; Goering, R.V.; Mickelsen, P.A.; Murray, B.E.; Persing, D.H.; Swaminathan, B. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: Criteria for bacterial strain typing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995, 33, 2233–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  126. Murchan, S.; Kaufmann, M.E.; Deplano, A.; de Ryck, R.; Struelens, M.; Zinn, C.E.; Fussing, V.; Salmenlinna, S.; Vuopio-Varkila, J.; El Solh, N. Harmonization of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis protocols for epidemiological typing of strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A single approach developed by consensus in 10 European laboratories and its application for tracing the spread of related strains. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003, 41, 1574–1585. [Google Scholar]
  127. Güven Gökmen, T.; Kalayci, Y.; Yaman, A.; Köksal, F. Molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains by spa typing and pulsed field gel electrophoresis methods. BMC Microbiol. 2018, 18, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  128. Coleman, D.C.; Shore, A.C.; Goering, R.V.; Monecke, S. New insights and updates on the molecular epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance of MRSA in humans in the whole-genome sequencing era. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  129. Humphreys, H.; Coleman, D. Contribution of whole-genome sequencing to understanding of the epidemiology and control of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Hosp. Infect. 2019, 102, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  130. Zhang, H.; Tian, L.; Chen, T.; Chen, W.; Ge, Y.; Bi, J.; Fang, Z.; Chen, M. Prevalence and WGS-based characteristics of MRSA isolates in hospitals in Shanghai, China. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1002691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  131. Salipante, S.J.; SenGupta, D.J.; Cummings, L.A.; Land, T.A.; Hoogestraat, D.R.; Cookson, B.T. Application of whole-genome sequencing for bacterial strain typing in molecular epidemiology. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015, 53, 1072–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  132. Ullah, N.; Dar, H.A.; Naz, K.; Andleeb, S.; Rahman, A.; Saeed, M.T.; Hanan, F.; Bae, T.; Ali, A. Genomic investigation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST113 strains isolated from tertiary care hospitals in Pakistan. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  133. Kim, D.-H.; Han, D.-G.; Lee, S.; Yoo, J.-S.; Jeon, S.-M. Comparative Genomic and Epidemiologic Analysis of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolates in Republic of Korea. Antibiotics 2026, 15, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  134. Cho, H.; Kim, Y.; Jang, B.; Park, K.T. Clonal distribution of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms of Korea: Emergence of a novel variant staphylococcal chromosome cassette mec. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2025, 441, 111341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  135. Aanensen, D.M.; Feil, E.J.; Holden, M.T.; Dordel, J.; Yeats, C.A.; Fedosejev, A.; Goater, R.; Castillo-Ramírez, S.; Corander, J.; Colijn, C. Whole-genome sequencing for routine pathogen surveillance in public health: A population snapshot of invasive Staphylococcus aureus in Europe. mBio 2016, 7, e00444-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  136. Echaniz-Avilés, G.; Núñez-García, L.Á.; Rodríguez-Noriega, E.; Velázquez-Acosta, C.; López-Jácome, L.E.; López-Gutiérrez, E.; Pérez-Vicelis, T.; Torres-Báez, C.; Garza-Ramos, U.; Rodríguez-Medina, N. Genomic characteristics and molecular epidemiology of MRSA from medical centers in Mexico: Results from the Invifar network. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0317284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  137. Tang, Y.; Larsen, J.; Kjeldgaard, J.; Andersen, P.S.; Skov, R.; Ingmer, H. Methicillin-resistant and-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus from retail meat in Denmark. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 249, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  138. Sieber, R.N.; Skov, R.L.; Nielsen, J.; Schulz, J.; Price, L.B.; Aarestrup, F.M.; Larsen, A.R.; Stegger, M.; Larsen, J. Drivers and dynamics of methicillin-resistant livestock-associated Staphylococcus aureus CC398 in pigs and humans in Denmark. mBio 2018, 9, e02142-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  139. Kong, Z.; Zhao, P.; Liu, H.; Yu, X.; Qin, Y.; Su, Z.; Wang, S.; Xu, H.; Chen, J. Whole-genome sequencing for the investigation of a hospital outbreak of MRSA in China. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0149844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  140. Soliman, M.S.; Soliman, N.S.; El-Manakhly, A.R.; ElBanna, S.A.; Aziz, R.K.; El-Kholy, A.A. Genomic characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) by high-throughput sequencing in a tertiary care hospital. Genes 2020, 11, 1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  141. Silva, V.; Silva, A.; Barbero, R.; Romero, M.; Del Campo, R.; Caniça, M.; Cordeiro, R.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P. Resistome, Virulome, and Clonal Variation in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Healthy Swine Populations: A Cross-Sectional Study. Genes 2024, 15, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  142. González, M.J.; Parada, J.; Blasko, E.; Sosa, E.J.; Suleyman, G.; Kaur, J.; Maki, G.; Prentiss, T.; Corti Isgro, M.; Pereyra, N. Phylogenomic insights into LA-MRSA from Argentine pig farm environments: Novel OptrA variant and regional emergence of an ST9 lineage co-circulating with international CC398 lineages. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1662779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  143. Catry, B.; Van Duijkeren, E.; Pomba, M.; Greko, C.; Moreno, M.; Pyörälä, S.; Ružauskas, M.; Sanders, P.; Threlfall, E.; Ungemach, F. Reflection paper on MRSA in food-producing and companion animals: Epidemiology and control options for human and animal health. Epidemiol. Infect. 2010, 138, 626–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  144. Sharma, M.; Nunez-Garcia, J.; Kearns, A.M.; Doumith, M.; Butaye, P.R.; Argudín, M.A.; Lahuerta-Marin, A.; Pichon, B.; AbuOun, M.; Rogers, J. Livestock-associated methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) clonal complex (CC) 398 isolated from UK animals belong to European lineages. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  145. Verkade, E.; Kluytmans, J. Livestock-associated Staphylococcus aureus CC398: Animal reservoirs and human infections. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2014, 21, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  146. Pantosti, A. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus associated with animals and its relevance to human health. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  147. Bortolami, A.; Williams, N.J.; McGowan, C.M.; Kelly, P.G.; Archer, D.C.; Corrò, M.; Pinchbeck, G.; Saunders, C.J.; Timofte, D. Environmental surveillance identifies multiple introductions of MRSA CC398 in an Equine Veterinary Hospital in the UK, 2011–2016. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  148. Fluit, A. Livestock-associated Staphylococcus aureus. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 735–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  149. He, W.; Liu, Y.; Qi, J.; Chen, H.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, F.; Li, H.; Wang, H. Food-animal related Staphylococcus aureus multidrug-resistant ST9 strains with toxin genes. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2013, 10, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  150. Taniguchi, Y.; Koide, S.; Maeyama, Y.; Tamai, K.; Hayashi, W.; Tanaka, H.; Iimura, M.; Suzuki, M.; Nagano, Y.; Arakawa, Y. Predominance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus SCCmec type II-CC5 and SCCmec type IV-CC1/CC8 among companion animal clinical isolates in Japan: Findings from phylogenetic comparison with human clinical isolates. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 20, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  151. Alkuraythi, D.M.; Alkhulaifi, M.M. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prevalence in food-producing animals and food products in Saudi Arabia: A review. Vet. World 2024, 17, 1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  152. Habib, I.; Lakshmi, G.B.; Mohamed, M.-Y.I.; Ghazawi, A.; Khan, M.; Al-Rifai, R.H.; Abdalla, A.; Anes, F.; Elbediwi, M.; Khalifa, H.O. Staphylococcus spp. in salad vegetables: Biodiversity, antimicrobial resistance, and first identification of methicillin-resistant strains in the United Arab Emirates food supply. Foods 2024, 13, 2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  153. Otto, M. MRSA virulence and spread. Cell. Microbiol. 2012, 14, 1513–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  154. Cheung, G.Y.; Bae, J.S.; Otto, M. Pathogenicity and virulence of Staphylococcus aureus. Virulence 2021, 12, 547–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  155. Zhang, Y.; Xu, D.; Shi, L.; Cai, R.; Li, C.; Yan, H. Association between agr type, virulence factors, biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from pork production. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  156. Jiang, H.; Wang, K.; Yan, M.; Ye, Q.; Lin, X.; Chen, L.; Ye, Y.; Zhang, L.; Liu, J.; Huang, T. Pathogenic and virulence factor detection on viable but non-culturable methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 630053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  157. Argudín, M.Á.; Mendoza, M.C.; Rodicio, M.R. Food poisoning and Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxins. Toxins 2010, 2, 1751–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  158. Hennekinne, J.-A.; De Buyser, M.-L.; Dragacci, S. Staphylococcus aureus and its food poisoning toxins: Characterization and outbreak investigation. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2012, 36, 815–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  159. Mairi, A.; Ibrahim, N.A.; Idres, T.; Touati, A. A Comprehensive review of detection methods for Staphylococcus aureus and its Enterotoxins in Food: From traditional to emerging technologies. Toxins 2025, 17, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  160. Alghizzi, M.; Shami, A. Staphylococcus aureus as food-borne disease: An ongoing threat in public health in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 17, 2624–2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  161. Fisher, E.L.; Otto, M.; Cheung, G.Y. Basis of virulence in enterotoxin-mediated staphylococcal food poisoning. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  162. Moreno, J.; Diana, L.; Martínez, M.; Iribarnegaray, V.; Puentes, R. Comprehensive analysis of antimicrobial resistance, biofilm formation and virulence factors of staphylococci isolated from bovine mastitis. Heliyon 2025, 11, e42749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  163. Löffler, B.; Hussain, M.; Grundmeier, M.; Brück, M.; Holzinger, D.; Varga, G.; Roth, J.; Kahl, B.C.; Proctor, R.A.; Peters, G. Staphylococcus aureus panton-valentine leukocidin is a very potent cytotoxic factor for human neutrophils. PLoS Pathog. 2010, 6, e1000715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  164. Shallcross, L.J.; Fragaszy, E.; Johnson, A.M.; Hayward, A.C. The role of the Panton-Valentine leucocidin toxin in staphylococcal disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2013, 13, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  165. Tromp, A.T.; Van Strijp, J.A. Studying staphylococcal leukocidins: A challenging endeavor. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  166. Umar, K.; Abdullahi, I.N.; Magashi, A.M.; Kawo, A.H.; Usman, Y.; Ahmad, A.E.-f.; Torres, C. Prevalence and clonal lineages of biofilm-producing Staphylococcus aureus from clinical samples and healthcare workers at Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria. GMS Hyg. Infect. Control 2024, 19, Doc49. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  167. Vittorakis, E.; Vică, M.L.; Zervaki, C.O.; Vittorakis, E.; Maraki, S.; Mavromanolaki, V.E.; Schürger, M.E.; Neculicioiu, V.S.; Papadomanolaki, E.; Sinanis, T. Examining the prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility of S. aureus strains in hospitals: An analysis of the pvl gene and its co-occurrence with other virulence factors. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  168. Kaneko, H.; Kanai, M.; Saito, T.; Yanagi, Y.; Kobayashi, H.; Kurihara, R.; Ikeda, M.; Nemoto, O.; Baba, N.; Matsuzaki, Y. Significant increase in the prevalence of Panton–Valentine leukocidin-positive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, particularly the USA300 variant ΨUSA300, in the Japanese community. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e01248-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  169. Briki, A.; Alkhatib, N.; Aloba, B.; Verma, S.; Nassar, R.; Everett, D.; Ehricht, R.; Monecke, S.; Senok, A. Molecular epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Gulf Cooperation Council countries (2010–2025): A scoping review. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1714252, Correction in Front. Microbiol. 2026, 17, 1791202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  170. Tang, Y.; Li, Y.; Xiao, N.; Wang, L.; Li, S.; Zou, J.; Yu, Y.; Shao, J.; Jiang, M. Antibiotic Resistance, Biofilm Formation, and Molecular Epidemiology of Foodborne Staphylococcus aureus Isolated in Northwest Hubei Province, China. Food Sci. Nutr. 2025, 13, e70791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  171. Šmitran, A.; Sladojević, Ž.; Božić, L.; Gajić, I.; Marković, T.; Kasagić, D.; Subić, I.; Katalina, G.; Golić, B. Comparison of biofilm production and virulence genes distribution among human and canine isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. Iran. J. Vet. Res. 2023, 24, 74. [Google Scholar]
  172. Dandrawy, M.K.; Atiyahullah, T.M.; Saber, H.; Hadad, G.; Abdelaleem, M.M.; Diab, H.M.; Abdelhafeez, H.H.; Ahmed, A.S.; El-Zamkan, M.A.; Elbarbary, N.K. Unleashing the biological potential of marine algal extracts against Staphylococcus aureus isolated from ready-to-eat beef products. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 30111. [Google Scholar]
  173. Foster, T.J.; Höök, M. Surface protein adhesins of Staphylococcus aureus. Trends Microbiol. 1998, 6, 484–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  174. Touaitia, R.; Mairi, A.; Ibrahim, N.A.; Basher, N.S.; Idres, T.; Touati, A. Staphylococcus aureus: A review of the pathogenesis and virulence mechanisms. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  175. Foster, C.E.; Kok, M.; Flores, A.R.; Minard, C.G.; Luna, R.A.; Lamberth, L.B.; Kaplan, S.L.; Hulten, K.G. Adhesin genes and biofilm formation among pediatric Staphylococcus aureus isolates from implant-associated infections. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  176. Ren, Q.; Liao, G.; Wu, Z.; Lv, J.; Chen, W. Prevalence and characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from subclinical bovine mastitis in southern Xinjiang, China. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 3368–3380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  177. Soltani, E.; Farrokhi, E.; Zamanzad, B.; Shahini Shams Abadi, M.; Deris, F.; Soltani, A.; Gholipour, A. Prevalence and distribution of adhesins and the expression of fibronectin-binding protein (FnbA and FnbB) among Staphylococcus aureus isolates from Shahrekord Hospitals. BMC Res. Notes 2019, 12, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  178. Rodríguez-Lázaro, D.; Alonso-Calleja, C.; Oniciuc, E.A.; Capita, R.; Gallego, D.; González-Machado, C.; Wagner, M.; Barbu, V.; Eiros-Bouza, J.M.; Nicolau, A.I. Characterization of biofilms formed by foodborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  179. Vergara, A.; Normanno, G.; Di Ciccio, P.; Pedonese, F.; Nuvoloni, R.; Parisi, A.; Santagada, G.; Colagiorgi, A.; Zanardi, E.; Ghidini, S. Biofilm formation and its relationship with the molecular characteristics of food-related methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 2364–2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  180. Thiran, E.; Di Ciccio, P.; Graber, H.; Zanardi, E.; Ianieri, A.; Hummerjohann, J. Biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus dairy isolates representing different genotypes. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 1000–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  181. Bridier, A.; Sanchez-Vizuete, P.; Guilbaud, M.; Piard, J.-C.; Naitali, M.; Briandet, R. Biofilm-associated persistence of food-borne pathogens. Food Microbiol. 2015, 45, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  182. Giaouris, E.; Heir, E.; Hébraud, M.; Chorianopoulos, N.; Langsrud, S.; Møretrø, T.; Habimana, O.; Desvaux, M.; Renier, S.; Nychas, G.-J. Attachment and biofilm formation by foodborne bacteria in meat processing environments: Causes, implications, role of bacterial interactions and control by alternative novel methods. Meat Sci. 2014, 97, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  183. Aires-de-Sousa, M. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among animals: Current overview. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  184. Qian, J.; Wu, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, C. One Health: A holistic approach for food safety in livestock. Sci. One Health 2022, 1, 100015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  185. Khalifa, H.O.; Abdelhamid, M.A.; Oreiby, A.; Mohamed, M.-Y.I.; Ramadan, H.; Elfadadny, A.; Pack, S.P.; Yoo, H.S.; Habib, I. Fire under the ashes: A descriptive review on the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the food supply chain. J. Agric. Food Res. 2025, 19, 101606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  186. Petinaki, E.; Spiliopoulou, I. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among companion and food-chain animals: Impact of human contacts. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 626–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  187. Crippa, B.L.; Camargo, C.H.; Rall, V.L.M.; Silva, N.C.C. MRSA: The relationship between animal source foods (ASF) and humans–A One Health Concern. Curr. Food Sci. Technol. Rep. 2025, 3, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  188. Cuny, C.; Wieler, L.H.; Witte, W. Livestock-associated MRSA: The impact on humans. Antibiotics 2015, 4, 521–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  189. Fetsch, A.; Etter, D.; Johler, S. Livestock-associated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—Current situation and impact from a One Health perspective. Curr. Clin. Microbiol. Rep. 2021, 8, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  190. Elbehiry, A.; Marzouk, E. Staphylococci in livestock: Molecular epidemiology, antimicrobial resistance, and translational strategies for One Health protection. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  191. Ferguson, D.D.; Leedom Larson, K.R.; Moritz, E.D.; Smith, T.C. The Environment as a Factor Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Transmission. Rev. Environ. Health 2010, 25, 121–134. [Google Scholar]
  192. Feld, L.; Bay, H.; Angen, Ø.; Larsen, A.R.; Madsen, A.M. Survival of LA-MRSA in dust from swine farms. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2018, 62, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  193. Agersø, Y.; Vigre, H.; Cavaco, L.; Josefsen, M.H. Comparison of air samples, nasal swabs, ear-skin swabs and environmental dust samples for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in pig herds. Epidemiol. Infect. 2014, 142, 1727–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  194. Kozajda, A.; Jeżak, K.; Kapsa, A. Airborne Staphylococcus aureus in different environments—A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 34741–34753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  195. Sergelidis, D.; Angelidis, A.S. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A controversial food-borne pathogen. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 64, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  196. Barua, N.; Rahman, N.; Tin, M.C.; Yang, L.; Alim, A.; Akther, F.; Handapangoda, N.; Manathunga, T.A.; Jinadasa, R.N.; Liyanapathirana, V. Prevalence of MRSA in Livestock, Including Cattle, Farm Animals, and Poultry, in Mainland China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  197. Komodromos, D.; Kotzamanidis, C.; Giantzi, V.; Pappa, S.; Papa, A.; Zdragas, A.; Angelidis, A.; Sergelidis, D. Prevalence, infectious characteristics and genetic diversity of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in two raw-meat processing establishments in Northern Greece. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1370. [Google Scholar]
  198. Mohammed, R.; Nader, S.M.; Hamza, D.A.; Sabry, M.A. Public health implications of multidrug-resistant and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in retail oysters. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 4496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  199. Ala’a, B.; Momani, S.; Hasan, H.; Obeidat, A.; Horabi, M. Tackling antimicrobial resistance in the food chain under the One Health umbrella: A systems thinking approach with a focus on Jordan. Sci. One Health 2025, 4, 100115. [Google Scholar]
  200. Islam, M.A.; Bose, P.; Rahman, M.Z.; Muktaruzzaman, M.; Sultana, P.; Ahamed, T.; Khatun, M.M. A review of antimicrobial usage practice in livestock and poultry production and its consequences on human and animal health. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2024, 11, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  201. Aenishaenslin, C.; Häsler, B.; Ravel, A.; Parmley, E.J.; Mediouni, S.; Bennani, H.; Stärk, K.D.; Buckeridge, D.L. Evaluating the integration of one health in surveillance systems for antimicrobial use and resistance: A conceptual framework. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 611931. [Google Scholar]
  202. Bordier, M.; Uea-Anuwong, T.; Binot, A.; Hendrikx, P.; Goutard, F.L. Characteristics of One Health surveillance systems: A systematic literature review. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020, 181, 104560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  203. Sudatip, D.; Tiengrim, S.; Chasiri, K.; Kritiyakan, A.; Phanprasit, W.; Morand, S.; Thamlikitkul, V. One health surveillance of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes in selected communities in Thailand. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  204. Delpy, L.; Astbury, C.C.; Aenishaenslin, C.; Ruckert, A.; Penney, T.L.; Wiktorowicz, M.; Ciss, M.; Benko, R.; Bordier, M. Integrated surveillance systems for antibiotic resistance in a One Health context: A scoping review. BMC Public Health 2024, 24, 1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  205. Lloyd, D.H.; Page, S.W. Antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary medicine. In Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria from Livestock and Companion Animals; Schwarz, S., Cavaco, L.M., Shen, J., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 507–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  206. Gomes, E.; Mesquita, T.G.; Serra, P.; Araújo, D.; Almeida, C.; Machado, A.; Oliveira, R.; Castro, J. Antimicrobial Resistance in the Food Chain: Bridging Knowledge Gaps for Effective Detection and Control. Antibiotics 2026, 15, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  207. Arama, U.O.; Oduoye, M.O.; Akanbi-Hakeem, B.; Khan, M.; Wechuli, P.; Aliyu, A. A systematic review of One Health perspective on the use of antimicrobials in Nigeria. CABI One Health 2025, 4, 0004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  208. Sawodny, S.; Käsbohrer, A.; Bröker, L.; Firth, C.; Marschik, T. Intervention strategies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus control in pig farming: A comprehensive review. Porc. Health Manag. 2025, 11, 17. [Google Scholar]
  209. Islam, M.S.; Wollie, A.M.; Razu, S.; Gebeyehu, D.T.; Jahan, N.; Kasse, G.E. Antimicrobial resistance in food-related sources: A One Health perspective through comparative meta-analysis. Crit. Public Health 2026, 36, 2607343. [Google Scholar]
  210. Alarawi, M.S.; Altammami, M.; Abutarboush, M.; Kulmanov, M.; Alkuraithy, D.M.; Kafkas, S.; Radley, R.; Abdelhakim, M.; Aldakhil, H.; Bawazeer, R.A. Genomic diversity and antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus aureus in Saudi Arabia: A nationwide study using whole-genome sequencing. Microb. Genom. 2025, 11, 001540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  211. Pennone, V.; Cobo-Díaz, J.F.; Prieto, M.; Alvarez-Ordóñez, A. Application of genomics and metagenomics to improve food safety based on an enhanced characterisation of antimicrobial resistance. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 43, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  212. Chigozie, V.U.; Aniokete, C.U.; Ogbonna, P.I.; Iroha, R.I. Transforming antimicrobial resistance mitigation: The genomic revolution in one health and public health. Discov. Appl. Sci. 2025, 7, 1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  213. Djordjevic, S.P.; Jarocki, V.M.; Seemann, T.; Cummins, M.L.; Watt, A.E.; Drigo, B.; Wyrsch, E.R.; Reid, C.J.; Donner, E.; Howden, B.P. Genomic surveillance for antimicrobial resistance—A One Health perspective. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2024, 25, 142–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  214. Tiwari, S.; Dhakal, T.; Kim, B.-J.; Jang, G.S.; Oh, Y. Genomics in epidemiology and disease surveillance: An exploratory analysis. Life 2025, 15, 1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Evolutionary emergence and diversification of MRSA lineages. Following the introduction of methicillin, S. aureus acquired the mecA gene within the SCCmec element, leading to the emergence of MRSA. Subsequent diversification produced major epidemiological lineages, HA-MRSA, CA-MRSA, and LA-MRSA each linked to distinct ecological reservoirs. The figure highlights lineage divergence and their association with clinical, community, and livestock environments, including potential dissemination within the supply chain.
Figure 1. Evolutionary emergence and diversification of MRSA lineages. Following the introduction of methicillin, S. aureus acquired the mecA gene within the SCCmec element, leading to the emergence of MRSA. Subsequent diversification produced major epidemiological lineages, HA-MRSA, CA-MRSA, and LA-MRSA each linked to distinct ecological reservoirs. The figure highlights lineage divergence and their association with clinical, community, and livestock environments, including potential dissemination within the supply chain.
Ijms 27 03814 g001
Figure 2. Molecular mechanism of methicillin resistance in MRSA. The SCCmec element integrates into the chromosome of S. aureus and carries the mecA gene encoding PBP2a. In the presence of β-lactam antibiotics, the MecR1–MecI regulatory system induces mecA expression, leading to production of PBP2a, which maintains peptidoglycan cross-linking despite inhibition of native penicillin-binding proteins.
Figure 2. Molecular mechanism of methicillin resistance in MRSA. The SCCmec element integrates into the chromosome of S. aureus and carries the mecA gene encoding PBP2a. In the presence of β-lactam antibiotics, the MecR1–MecI regulatory system induces mecA expression, leading to production of PBP2a, which maintains peptidoglycan cross-linking despite inhibition of native penicillin-binding proteins.
Ijms 27 03814 g002
Figure 3. MRSA reservoirs and contamination routes among the food production continuum. Schematic representation of linked reservoirs of MRSA, including livestock, slaughterhouse environments, and food-processing surfaces. During slaughter and processing, bacteria from colonized animals contaminate carcasses, equipment, and contact surfaces, enabling cross-contamination within production systems. These processes facilitate the presence of MRSA in animal-derived food products such as meat, milk, and eggs, highlighting the role of the food production continuum as a pathway for dissemination.
Figure 3. MRSA reservoirs and contamination routes among the food production continuum. Schematic representation of linked reservoirs of MRSA, including livestock, slaughterhouse environments, and food-processing surfaces. During slaughter and processing, bacteria from colonized animals contaminate carcasses, equipment, and contact surfaces, enabling cross-contamination within production systems. These processes facilitate the presence of MRSA in animal-derived food products such as meat, milk, and eggs, highlighting the role of the food production continuum as a pathway for dissemination.
Ijms 27 03814 g003
Figure 4. Molecular and genomic approaches for investigating MRSA dissemination along the food production continuum. The diagram integrates transmission pathways of MRSA from livestock reservoirs through slaughter and processing environments to animal-derived food products, together with analytical approaches used to characterize these processes. Classical typing methods (MLST, spa typing, SCCmec typing, and PFGE) and genomic approaches, including WGS, SNP-based phylogeny, and core genome MLST (cgMLST), enable high-resolution analysis of clonal relationships, resistance determinants, and virulence profiles. These tools support identification of transmission links and surveillance of MRSA across animal, food, and human sectors within a One Health framework.
Figure 4. Molecular and genomic approaches for investigating MRSA dissemination along the food production continuum. The diagram integrates transmission pathways of MRSA from livestock reservoirs through slaughter and processing environments to animal-derived food products, together with analytical approaches used to characterize these processes. Classical typing methods (MLST, spa typing, SCCmec typing, and PFGE) and genomic approaches, including WGS, SNP-based phylogeny, and core genome MLST (cgMLST), enable high-resolution analysis of clonal relationships, resistance determinants, and virulence profiles. These tools support identification of transmission links and surveillance of MRSA across animal, food, and human sectors within a One Health framework.
Ijms 27 03814 g004
Table 1. Major AMR genes identified in MRSA and their associated antibiotic classes.
Table 1. Major AMR genes identified in MRSA and their associated antibiotic classes.
Antibiotic ClassMajor Resistance GenesMechanism of ResistanceReferences
Macrolides/LincosamidesermA, ermB, ermCRibosomal methylation of 23S rRNA preventing binding of
MLSB antibiotics
[84,85]
Macrolides/StreptograminsmsrAATP-binding cassette efflux transporter exporting macrolides[85]
TetracyclinestetKMembrane efflux pump reducing intracellular
tetracycline concentration
[86]
tetMRibosomal protection protein displacing tetracycline from
the ribosome
[86]
FluoroquinolonesgyrA/gyrB mutationsTarget modification of DNA gyrase[87]
grlA/grlB mutationsTarget modification of topoisomerase IV[87]
Multidrug resistancenorAMajor facilitator superfamily (MFS) efflux pump exporting
multiple antibiotics
[72]
norB, norCMultidrug efflux transporters contributing to drug efflux[72]
mepAMATE family multidrug efflux pump[88]
Antiseptics/disinfectantsqacA, qacBPlasmid-encoded efflux pumps conferring tolerance to quaternary ammonium compounds[81,82]
Table 2. Reported occurrence of MRSA in food products from different regions of the world.
Table 2. Reported occurrence of MRSA in food products from different regions of the world.
Food ProductCountry/RegionMain FindingReference
Animal-derived foodsItalyMRSA detected in 0.37% (6/1634)[103]
Retail meatNetherlandsMRSA detected in 11.9% (264/2217)[99]
United StatesMRSA detected in 6.6% (9/136)[100]
MRSA detected in 1.2% (2/165)[104]
Retail meat (isolates)ChinaMRSA detected in 7.4% of S. aureus isolates (48/648)[101]
Retail foodsMRSA detected in 2.5% (5/197)[105]
Raw milk & dairyIranMRSA detected in ~2.0% (53/2650)[106]
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

Elbehiry, A.; Abalkhail, A.; Elmanssury, A.E.; Marzouk, E. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the Food Chain: Molecular Epidemiology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Public Health Implications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2026, 27, 3814. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27093814

AMA Style

Elbehiry A, Abalkhail A, Elmanssury AE, Marzouk E. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the Food Chain: Molecular Epidemiology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Public Health Implications. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2026; 27(9):3814. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27093814

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elbehiry, Ayman, Adil Abalkhail, Ahmed Elnadif Elmanssury, and Eman Marzouk. 2026. "Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the Food Chain: Molecular Epidemiology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Public Health Implications" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 27, no. 9: 3814. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27093814

APA Style

Elbehiry, A., Abalkhail, A., Elmanssury, A. E., & Marzouk, E. (2026). Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the Food Chain: Molecular Epidemiology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Public Health Implications. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 27(9), 3814. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27093814

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop