Next Article in Journal
Effective Methods of Estimation of Pathogen Prevalence in Pooled Ticks
Previous Article in Journal
Trends in the Prevalence of Hepatitis B Virus, Hepatitis C Virus, and HIV Infections in Iranian Patients with Hereditary Bleeding Disorders
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/pathogens12040556
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of Methicillin Resistance in Staphylococci Isolated from an Egyptian University Hospital

by
Marwa A. Abdelwahab
1,
Wesam H. Amer
1,
Dalia Elsharawy
2,
Reham M. Elkolaly
2,
Rehab Abd El Fattah Helal
3,
Dina Ahmed El Malla
3,
Yomna G. Elfeky
4,
Hebatallah A. Bedair
4,
Rania S. Amer
5,
Marwa E. Abd-Elmonsef
1 and
Marwa S. Taha
1,*
1
Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
2
Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
3
Department of Anathesia, Surgical Intensive Care, and Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
4
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
5
Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2023, 12(4), 556; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12040556
Submission received: 20 February 2023 / Revised: 30 March 2023 / Accepted: 3 April 2023 / Published: 5 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Bacterial Pathogens)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Methicillin-resistant in Staphylococci is a serious public health issue. It is mostly encoded by the mecA gene. The mecC gene is a new mecA analog responsible for resistance to methicillin in some Staphylococcal clinical isolates. This mecC gene is still underestimated in Egypt. The aim of the current study was to detect mecA and mecC genes in clinical Staphylococci isolates from a tertiary care university hospital in Egypt compared to the different phenotypic methods. A total of 118 Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and 43 coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS) were identified from various hospital-acquired infections. Methicillin resistance was identified genotypically using the PCR technique and phenotypically using the cefoxitin disc diffusion test, oxacillin broth microdilution and the VITEK2 system in all Staphylococcal isolates. The mecA gene was detected in 82.2% of S. aureus and 95.3% of CoNS isolates, while all of the isolates tested negative for the mecC gene. Interestingly, 30.2% of CoNS isolates showed the unique character of inducible oxacillin resistance, being mecA-positive but oxacillin-susceptible (OS-CoNS). The dual use of genotypic and phenotypic methods is highly recommended to avoid missing any genetically divergent strains.
Keywords:
mecC; mecA; MRSA; OS-CoNS; PCR; VITEK2

1. Introduction

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common pathogen capable of producing a wide variety of clinical illnesses [1]. The first report of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) was published in 1961 [2]. Methicillin resistance has also increased among coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS) [3].
The emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains among these Staphylococci raises concerns and restricts the number of antimicrobials available for the treatment of these infections [2]. MRSA is one of the most common causes of infections acquired in hospitals. Healthcare-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) infections are a substantial burden on the healthcare system because of the increased morbidity and extra costs associated with extended hospital stays, as well as higher fatalities than those caused by methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) [4].
MRSA strains carry a unique and transmissible genetic component known as Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) that harbors the mecA gene at the 3′ end of a chromosomal open reading frame named orfX. It encodes a penicillin-binding protein (PBP2a) with a reduced affinity for beta-lactam antibiotics. Consequently, these strains are resistant to all beta-lactam antibiotics, with the exception of fifth-generation cephalosporins [5,6,7].
In 2011, a novel SCCmec—type XI, carrying another mec homolog called mecC—was discovered in S. aureus [8]. mecC shares approximately 70% nucleotide sequence identity with the classical mecA gene, causing false negative outcomes when using molecular methods to detect MRSA [9]. PBP2c is the altered PBP encoded by the chromosomal gene mecC [10]. It only shows a 63% amino acid homology to PBP2a [11]. There are currently thirteen types of SCCmec known, along with several deletion variants, composites and irregular components. [12,13].
Interestingly, PBP2c’s attachment affinity for oxacillin is four times higher than that of PBP2a. As a result, mecC-harboring MRSA demonstrated low-level resistance to β-lactamases [11,14]. Previous studies on mecC reported minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 0.75 to 32 μg/mL for oxacillin and 4 to 64 μg/mL for cefoxitin [11,15]. This low-level resistance exhibited by mecC-harboring strains leads to them being misdiagnosed as methicillin-susceptible S. aureus when using phenotypic methods, and when treated with β-lactam antibiotics can lead to highly resistant strains [16].
The mecC-harboring MRSA has been isolated from a wide variety of host species, including humans, wildlife, livestock and pets from many European countries [8]. In contrast, data about the existence of the mecC gene in other Staphylococcal species are limited. Only two previous studies have been conducted on the prevalence of mecC-gene-harboring MRSA in Egypt [17,18]. Moreover, no previous studies have been conducted on the prevalence of CoNS carrying the mecC gene in Egypt, and there are no data about the prevalence of mecC-harboring Staphylococci in the University hospitals where our study was conducted. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the presence of mecC-harboring Staphylococci isolated from patients suffering from hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) in Tanta University Hospitals.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients

This cross-sectional study included 500 patients admitted to different clinical departments, including the Pediatric, Chest, Internal Medicine, and Intensive Care Units of Tanta University Hospitals. Samples were collected over the course of a year, from March 2021 to March 2022.
Inclusion criteria:
  • Patients have signs of infection that developed after 48 h of admission.
  • Patients show an unsatisfactory response to empirical antibiotic treatment.
Exclusion criteria:
  • Patients have infections that develop less than 48 h after admission (community-acquired infection).
Culture-positive specimens taken from sterile sites, e.g., blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), were directly defined as infection. Positive cultures from patients’ sputum, urine, and surgical wound sites were also defined as infection, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Health Care Safety Network (NHSN) [19,20]. All cases defined as infection gave positive culture results from 48 h after admission.

2.2. Bacterial Isolation

Different clinical specimens, including blood, CSF, urine, wound, and sputum, were collected from hospitalized patients admitted to Tanta University Hospitals and transported as soon as possible to the Laboratory of the Microbiology Department for further processing. The samples were first codified, and blood specimens were processed using a qualitative automated culture system (BacT/ALERT 3 D 60, bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France) [21]. Positive blood cultures were cultured on BacT/ALERT, and the other collected specimens were cultured on MacConkey’s agar, brain–heart infusion agar and blood agar (Oxoid, England) and incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h for further identification. Positive growth was observed for colony morphology and Gram stain. Suspected Staphylococci were further identified by biochemical reactions, slide and tube coagulase test, subcultured on mannitol salt agar (Oxoid) and incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h. Species identification was performed by an automatic VITEK2 system for Gram-positive identification (bioMérieux, France) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The members of the S. aureus clonal complex (S. argenteus and S. schweitzeri) were not distinguished from S. aureus in our research. Isolates were stored at −80 °C for further antibiotic susceptibility testing and molecular study.

2.3. Antibiotic Susceptibility

All Staphylococcal isolates were tested for antibiotic susceptibility by the following methods: (i) Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method using the following antimicrobials discs: penicillin (P) 10 U., cefoxitin (FOX) 30 μg, vancomycin (VA) 30 μg, gentamicin (CN) 10 μg, erythromycin (E) 15 μg, tetracycline (TE) 30 μg, ciprofloxacin (CIP) 5 μg, clindamycin (DA) 2 μg, trimethoprim-sulfamethaxole (SXT) 25 μg, chloramphenicol (C) 30 μg, rifampin (RD) 5 μg, and linezolid (LZD) 30 μg (Oxoid, UK). We interpreted the result of the susceptibility based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute guidelines (CLSI M100-S29) [22], where FOX inhibition zones of ≤21 mm for S. aureus and ≤24 mm for CoNS were considered resistant. (ii) Oxacillin broth microdilution method (BMD) (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany) according to CLSI guidelines [22,23], where MICs were interpreted to be resistant if (≥4 μg/mL) for S. aureus and (≥0.5 μg/mL) for CoNS. (iii) VITEK2 system (bioMérieux, France) with the Gram-positive susceptibility panel AST-67 according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) index of each isolate was estimated according to Tambekar et al.’s method [24].

2.4. Molecular Study

DNA was extracted from all Staphylococcal isolates using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The existence of mecA and mecC genes was detected by conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay [15,25]. The used primers are shown in Table S1 in the Supplementary section.
Control strains of S. aureus American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) 43300 for mecA positive, ATCC 25923 for mecA negative, and National Collection of Type Cultures (NCTC) 13552 for mecC positive were used as a control for all used tests.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using the SPSS, Version 26 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, United States, 2019). Categorical data were represented as numbers and percentages. The chi-square test was applied to investigate the association between the categorical variables. Alternatively, Monte Carlo or Fisher’s exact correction tests were applied when more than 20% of the cells had an expected count of less than five. Quantitative data were expressed as a range (minimum and maximum), mean and standard deviation. Student’s t-test was used to compare two groups in terms of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy for agreement between PCR mecA and different tests. The significance of the obtained results was judged at the 5% level.3.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

Basic characteristics of the patients infected with the isolated Staphylococci are shown in Table 1, regarding age, gender, and included samples. A total of 500 clinical samples were taken from 500 patients admitted to different clinical departments at our hospital, from which 553 isolates were detected, including 210 Gram +ve isolates, 307 Gram −ve isolates and 36 Candida species. S. aureus was isolated from 118 patients, while CoNS were isolated from 43 patients. Isolates other than Staphylococci are displayed in Supplemental Table S2 in the Supplementary section.
There were statistically significant differences between the isolated Staphylococcal species regarding different sample types. CoNS were significantly isolated from CSF, while S. aureus was significantly isolated from both sputum and wound.

3.2. Distribution of Isolated Staphylococci along the Study Period

All the isolated Staphylococci were scheduled according to the time of isolation and the number of collected samples. The number of Staphylococci was collectively recorded for each season (Table 2). The isolated Staphylococci reached its highest in summer (35.8%), while it was significantly lower in winter (15.3%) when compared with the other seasons (p < 0.05) (Table 2).

3.3. Distribution of CoNS Species Isolated from Different Clinical Samples

This study included 553 isolates from 500 patients admitted to Tanta University Hospitals, Egypt. Of these, 161 isolates (29.1%) were Staphylococci, of which the most frequent species were S. aureus 118/161 (73.3%), and the remaining 43/161 (26.7%) were CoNS, represented as follows: S. epidermidis, 17 (39%); S. haemolyticus, 16 (37%); S. hominis, 5 (12%); and S. saprophytic, 5 (12%). Moreover, S. epidermidis, followed by S. hominis, were significantly isolated from blood samples. At the same time, both S. epidermidis and S. haemolyticus were significantly isolated from CSF samples. S. saprophyticus represented the most frequently isolated CoNS species from urine samples (Table 3).

3.4. Antibiotic Susceptibility Patterns among Staphylococcal Isolates Detected by Disc Diffusion Method

Regarding S. aureus, overall, 100% of isolates exhibited resistance to penicillin and cefotaxime. We observed resistance to chloramphenicol as the next highest among 75.4% of the isolates, followed by erythromycin (68.4%). Furthermore, 58.4% and 56.8% of the isolates exhibited resistance to doxycycline and ciprofloxacin, whereas 32.2% and 28% were resistant to gentamycin and trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole, respectively. We found the lowest resistance rates corresponded to tetracycline (17%), followed by rifampicin (16%). Vancomycin and linezolid were 100% susceptible.
Regarding CoNS, the highest resistance rates to penicillin and cefoxitin were observed in S. haemolyticus (87%), followed by S. epidermidis (58.8%), while S. saprophyticus and S.hominis showed the same lowest resistance rate (40%). All CoNS isolates showed 100% susceptibility to vancomycin and linezolid.

3.5. Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns among S. aureus Isolates

The antimicrobial resistance patterns of the S. aureus-resistant isolates (n = 118) were grouped according to the number and type of the tested antimicrobials with resistant profiles. In general, multiple antimicrobial resistances were common among the tested isolates, where S. aureus exhibited 35 antimicrobial resistance patterns. Moreover, S. aureus-tested isolates showed very heterogeneous resistance patterns. Based on the antimicrobial resistance patterns of these isolates, MAR index values were calculated (ranging from 0.16–0.83) in Table 4.

3.6. Prevalence of Methicillin Resistance among Staphylococcal Isolates Detected by Phenotypic Methods

Regarding cefoxitin DD, resistance was detected in all S. aureus isolates (118/118, 100%) and 28/43 (65.1%) of CoNS isolates. Using the oxacillin BMD method, all S. aureus isolates were found to be resistant, with MICs ranging from 4 μg/mL to ≥ 512  μg/mL, while 36/43 (83.7%) of CoNS were resistant, with MICs ranging from 0.5  μg/mL to 512 μg/mL.

3.7. Prevalence of Methicillin Resistance among Staphylococcal Isolates Detected by Genotypic Method (PCR)

None of the Staphylococcal isolates carried the mecC gene, while 97/118 (82.2%) of S. aureus, 16/17 (94%) of S. epidermidis, 15/16 (93.7%) of S. hemolyticus, 5/5 (100%) of both S. hominis and S. saprophyticus isolates were found to carry mecA gene (Table 5).

3.8. Sensitivity and Specificity of Cefoxitin DD, VITEK2 Cefoxitin, VITEK2 Oxacillin, and BMD Oxacillin in Detecting Methicillin Resistance Compared to the Genotypic Method (mecA PCR)

Regarding S. aureus, methicillin resistance detected by VITEK2 oxacillin showed only 85.57% sensitivity and 88% accuracy, whereas the other phenotypic methods showed 100% sensitivity with 82% accuracy.
Concerning CoNS, methicillin resistance tested by VITEK2 cefoxitin showed the highest sensitivity (97.56%), followed by VITEK2 oxacillin (90.24%), while cefoxitin DD showed the lowest sensitivity. Moreover, all tests showed 100% specificity, with VITEK2 cefoxitin having the highest accuracy (97.67%). (Table 6).

4. Discussion

MRSA is one of the most significant microorganisms associated with hospital infections globally. It is no longer confined to ICUs, burn units, and specialized medical facilities but has also extended to less critical departments, posing significant problems to hospital infection control [26]. Methicillin resistance in Staphylococci is based on the production of mutated penicillin-binding proteins with a reduced affinity for beta-lactam antibiotics. These proteins are encoded by various mec genes (mecA or mecC), of which mecA is the most prevalent and frequent [19]. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of both mecA and mecC genes among isolated Staphylococci.
In the current study, Staphylococcus spp. isolates were recovered from 32.2% of the processed clinical samples. The isolated Staphylococci showed statistically significant seasonal variations; the number of isolates reached its highest in summer and was significantly lower in winter when compared to the other seasons. Similar to ours are the results of Casson et al. [27], who found that during late spring and early summer, MRSA incidence reached its peak, while it troughed during late fall and early winter; their findings may be attributed to the increased rate of intravenous vancomycin usage during periods with high MRSA incidence, with a possible association with antimicrobial usage. However, the seasonality of bacterial illnesses frequently links rising temperatures to rises in infection rates. Notably, seasonality in hospitals is reported by a study on S. aureus infections [28].
In the current study, 39% of MRSA isolates were recovered from blood, followed by wound swabs and sputum (38% and 12% of isolated MRSA, respectively). Our findings were to some extent similar to Shebl et al. [18], who isolated 50% of MRSA from blood, followed by wounds and sputum. Contrary to our results, Khan et al. [29] isolated 62% of MRSA from pus, 14% from urine and only 9% isolated from blood.
Among MRSA isolates, we detected 100% susceptibility to vancomycin and linezolid, in accordance with the results of Girgis et al. [29], who detected 100% susceptibility to vancomycin. Additionally, Khan et al. and Al-Zoubi et al. [30,31] reported 96% and 96.5% susceptibility to linezolid, respectively. On the other hand, we detected 100% resistance to penicillin, which was comparable with the results described in other surveys conducted in various governorates in Egypt [32,33]. These results suggest that S. aureus infections in Egypt can no longer be treated with this drug. Additionally, high resistance to chloramphenicol was detected (75.4%), followed by erythromycin (68.4%), doxycycline (58.4%), and ciprofloxacin. This was in alignment with various studies worldwide [29,34,35,36,37], whereas our pattern of resistance was lower than that reported for MRSA by Karami et al. [38].
The first identification of mecC-harboring MRSA was in southwest England, isolated from a tank milk specimen [39]. Since this discovery, mecC has been widely detected among livestock and wild animals [40]. However, its distribution in humans is still low [27,41] and has mainly been reported in Europe so far [9,14,42,43]. According to earlier research, the nations with the highest mecC concentrations in MRSA isolates were the UK and Denmark [11,44,45]. The mecC gene was not detected in any of our PCR-tested MRS isolates. Similarly, the absence of the mecC gene in MRS isolates from human samples was reported by several recent studies worldwide [17,46,47,48,49,50]. On the other hand, the mecC gene was reported for the first time in Egypt by Shebl et al. [18], who detected the mecC gene in three PCR-tested MRSA isolates, representing 6% of the total isolates. This study was conducted in the largest university hospital in Egypt, which is the target of many patients from different rural and urban areas.
Remarkably, 21/118 (17.8%) isolates of S. aureus were phenotypically resistant but did not carry either the mecA or mecC genes. Of these 21 isolates, six had a MIC of 4 μg/mL with oxacillin BMD, while the MIC of the remaining 15 isolates ranged from 256 μg/mL to ≥512 μg/mL. It is important to clarify that the absence of the mecA and mecC genes is no longer used as a reliable marker to exclude MRSA [43]. In the current study, the existence of phenotypically MRS isolates with negative mecA and mecC genes can be attributed to mutations in genes encoding PBP [51] or by the presence of hyper-β-lactamase-producing strains, which were termed borderline oxacillin-resistant S. aureus (BORSA); these strains show low borderline resistance to oxacillin [52]. BORSA is not a carrier of modified PBP2a encoded by either the mecA or mecC genes [53]. In this study, the six isolates with a low MIC of 4 μg/mL may have been BORSA isolates. Further studies are required to specifically characterize the mechanism of oxacillin resistance in our mecA- and mecC-negative isolates.
Besides S. aureus, four different species of CoNS were detected in our research, where S. epidermidis was the most prevalent. S. epidermidis has been shown to be the most frequently isolated CoNS in numerous surveys [54,55,56]. In disparity, some surveys have identified S. capitis [56]. In this study, the second-most frequent CoNS was S. haemolyticus, which was observed mainly in CSF samples; this was in accordance with Singh et al. [57]. We detected that S. saprophyticus was the least prevalent species, which was detected mainly in urine samples. According to published research, S. saprophyticus is a frequently isolated CoNS and a common cause of urinary tract infection [57,58,59]. The distribution of different species may be influenced by patient features that affect colonization, as well as how well each species adapts to environmental factors such as biocides and antimicrobials [57].
Over the past few decades, oxacillin resistance in CoNS isolates has significantly increased. More than 80% of our CoNS isolates showed resistance to oxacillin, with the highest MR in S. haemolyticus, which is supported by results from other centers with resistance rates up to 90% [60]. Consequently, the need for more expensive and perhaps more toxic therapeutic medicines [61].In the current study, all CoNS isolates were susceptible to vancomycin and linezolid; these findings are in accordance with Singh et al. [57]. Patients with MRCoNS infections may receive these medications as part of their treatment; however, their use as an empirical therapy must be avoided since excessive use of these antibiotics might lead to the development of glycopeptide and oxazolidinone resistance [60,62].
Interestingly, in the present study, 13 out of 43 CoNS isolates (30.2%) carried the mecA gene but were susceptible to cefoxitin, as demonstrated by DD testing; they showed cefoxitin resistance in VITEK2 testing and oxacillin resistance in BMD and VITEK2 testing. Based on the CLSI guidelines, the cefoxitin DD test is currently recommended as a surrogate for the oxacillin DD test [22]. This may be due to the fact that cefoxitin is a potent promotor of the mecA gene that is less affected than oxacillin by the hyperproduction of penicillinase [63,64]. However, over the last decade, unique S. aureus strains have been identified and categorized as oxacillin-susceptible MRSA (OS-MRSA); these strains possess a mecA gene but are phenotypically sensitive to cefoxitin and oxacillin [65,66]. Little is known about CoNS that demonstrate this phenomenon (OS-CoNS), though they have been reported by a recent study in the UK [67]. As far as we know, the present study is the first report of OS-CoNS strains in Egypt.
These unique strains are highly heterogeneous and have been shown to be “inducible oxacillin resistant” [66]. Several studies reported the changing of these highly heterogeneous OS-MRSAs into homogeneously oxacillin-resistant strains after exposing them to different concentrations of oxacillin and cefotaxime [65,68]. This may explain why the 13 CoNS isolates in our study were susceptible to cefoxitin DD, though later, they became cefoxitin- and oxacillin-resistant in the VITEK2 system and in oxacillin BMD. In agreement with this, other studies reported OS-MRSA isolates’ resistance to oxacillin and cefoxitin in the VITEK2 system [69,70]. This unique phenotypic–genotypic disparity has been suggested to be related to mutations in the sites of nucleotide repeats within the mecA gene, making such strains phenotypically susceptible to oxacillin. These strains become resistant after antibiotic exposure by simple and relatively frequent point mutation to restore gene function [71]. Therefore, using β-lactam drugs to treat such strains may lead to the failure of therapy as oxacillin resistance is induced in vivo [72].
One of the most striking findings in the current study was the high level of methicillin resistance among our isolates of S. aureus and CoNS, since 82.2% of our S. aureus isolates and 95.3% of CoNS isolates were methicillin-resistant and carrying the mecA gene. In previous studies carried out in other Egyptian cities, the prevalence of methicillin resistance ranged from 44% to 88.2% in HA-S. aureus [73,74], and from 38.8% to 75% in HA-CoNS [74,75]. Our data are consistent with a previous report comparing the rates of antibiotic resistance between the countries of the Arab League, in which Egypt showed the highest prevalence of methicillin resistance in S. aureus among 19 Arabic countries [76]. All these data highlight a serious problem in Egyptian hospitals. The high level of resistance encountered in our hospital can be attributed to the unrestricted use of antibiotics and lack of resources for infection control, resulting in the lax implementation of infection prevention measures, which contributes to increasing the rate of resistance to HA-Staphylococcal infection.
Among the phenotypic techniques used in this study to identify methicillin resistance in S. aureus isolates the cefoxitin disc diffusion test exhibited the best diagnostic performance, with 100% sensitivity compared to mecA PCR. Similar results were reported by many researchers who used PCR as a reference method [77,78,79], while Perazzi et al. and Martins et al. [80,81] reported lower sensitivities of 80% and 91.3%, respectively. We detected that cefoxitin disc was superior to oxacillin, consistent with previous reports [82,83].
Regarding CoNS isolates, VITEK2 Cefoxitin had the best diagnostic performance among all phenotypic methods used for the detection of methicillin resistance, with a sensitivity of 97.56%, followed by VITEK2 oxacillin (90.24%); BMD oxacillin (87.80%), while cefoxitin DD showed the lowest sensitivity (68.29%). According to our study, Graham et al. [84] measured oxacillin sensitivity using oxacillin DD and oxacillin MIC by E-test and found that these methods are insufficient to identify methicillin resistance. Contrary to our findings, Shrestha et al. [85] showed high sensitivity (95.4%) to cefoxitin DD; moreover, similar results have also been reported by Secchi et al. and Bhatt et al. [86,87].

5. Conclusions

No mecC-harboring Staphylococci were isolated in this study. However, they were detected in a minimal non-alarming percentage in two previous Egyptian studies. The lack of data on the prevalence of mecC-carrying MRSA isolates from Egypt may be due to the low prevalence of this resistance mechanism or the limited number of performed studies. However, it is important to clarify that the absence of the mecA and mecC genes is no longer used as a reliable marker to exclude methicillin resistance. Therefore, further studies are required to specifically characterize the mechanism of oxacillin resistance in our mecA and mecC negative isolates. On the other hand, the high rate of methicillin resistance in our Staphylococci is worrisome, raising the alarm towards revising the antibiotic policy and infection prevention and control protocols in our hospitals. In addition, this is the first Egyptian study that has shed light on mecA-positive OS-CoNS strains and the need for increased molecular epidemiological studies for a better understanding of the impact of these strains in human infections, especially HA infections, and the best laboratory methods for their accurate diagnosis.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens12040556/s1, Table S1: The sequence of the used primers, product size and PCR protocol of mecA and mecC genes.; Table S2: Different bacterial and fungal isolates distribution in the collected clinical samples.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.A., W.H.A., M.E.A.-E. and M.S.T.; Data curation, W.H.A., D.E., R.M.E., H.A.B. and R.S.A.; Formal analysis, R.A.E.F.H., Y.G.E. and R.S.A.; Investigation, M.A.A. and R.S.A.; Methodology, M.A.A., M.E.A.-E. and M.S.T.; Resources, M.A.A., D.A.E.M., Y.G.E., H.A.B., R.S.A. and M.S.T.; Software, D.E., R.M.E., R.A.E.F.H., D.A.E.M. and Y.G.E.; Supervision, D.E., D.A.E.M., H.A.B. and M.S.T.; Validation, W.H.A., R.M.E. and R.A.E.F.H.; Visualization, D.E. and R.M.E.; Writing—original draft, W.H.A. and M.E.A.-E.; Writing—review & editing, M.A.A. and M.S.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University (No: 33240, July 2019). All procedures were carried out in compliance with the ethical guidelines of the relevant committee on human experimental research (institutional and national) as well as the principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration (1975), as updated in (2013).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was taken from all participants or from their parents (in the case of pediatric patients).

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Morgan, M. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and animals: Zoonosis or humanosis? J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2008, 62, 1181–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Costa, S.S.; Ribeiro, R.; Serrano, M.; Oliveira, K.; Ferreira, C.; Leal, M.; Pomba, C.; Couto, I. Staphylococcus aureus Causing Skin and Soft Tissue Infections in Companion Animals: Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles and Clonal Lineages. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schaberg, D.R.; Culver, D.H.; Gaynes, R.P. Major Trends in The Microbial Etiology of Nosocomial Infection. Am. J. Med. 1991, 91, 72S–75S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Köck, R.; Becker, K.; Cookson, B.; van Gemert-Pijnen, J.E.; Harbarth, S.; Kluytmans, J.; Mielke, M.; Peters, G.; Skov, R.L.; Struelens, M.J.; et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): Burden of disease and control challenges in Europe. Eur. Surveill. 2010, 15, 19688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Peacock, S.J.; Paterson, G.K. Mechanisms of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2015, 84, 577–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Barbier, F.; Ruppé, E.; Hernandez, D.; Lebeaux, D.; Francois, P.; Felix, B.; Desprez, A.; Maiga, A.; Woerther, P.; Gaillard, K.; et al. Methicillin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci in the Community: High Homology of SCCmec IVa between Staphylococcus epidermidis and Major Clones of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 202, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ballhausen, B.; Kriegeskorte, A.; Schleimer, N.; Peters, G.; Becker, K. The mecA Homolog mecC Confers Resistance Against β-lactams in Staphylococcus aureus Irrespective of the Genetic Strain Background. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 2014, 58, 3791–3798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. 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] [Green Version]
  10. Kim, C.; Milheirico, C.; Gardete, S.; Holmes, M.A.; Holden, M.T.G.; de Lencastre, H.; Tomasz, A. Properties of a Novel PBP2A Protein Homolog from Staphylococcus aureus Strain LGA251 and its Contribution to the B-lactam Resistant Phenotype. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287, 36854–36863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. García-Álvarez, M.; Holden, M.T.; Lindsay, H.; Webb, C.R.; Brown, D.F.J.; Curran, M.D.; Walpole, E.; Brooks, K.; Pickard, D.J.; Teale, C.; et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a Novel mecA Homologue in Human and Bovine Populations in the UK and Denmark: A Descriptive Study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2011, 11, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Monecke, S.; Slickers, P.; Gawlik, D.; Müller, E.; Reissig, A.; Ruppelt-Lorz, A.; de Jäckel, S.C.; Feßler, A.T.; Frank, M.; Hotzel, H.; et al. Variability of SCCmec elements in livestock-associated CC398 MRSA. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 217, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Baig, S.; Johannesen, T.B.; Overballe-Petersen, S.; Larsen, J.; Larsen, A.R.; Stegger, M. Novel SCCmec type XIII (9A) identified in an ST152 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2018, 61, 74–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Shore, A.C.; Deasy, E.C.; Slickers, P.; Brennan, G.; O'Connell, B.; Monecke, S.; Ehricht, R.; Coleman, D.C. Detection of Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome mec type XI Carrying Highly Divergent mecA, mecI, mecR1, blaZ, and ccr Genes in Human Clinical Isolates of Clonal Complex 130 Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 2011, 55, 3765–3773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Cuny, C.; Layer, F.; Strommenger, B.; Witte, W. Rare Occurrence of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC130 with a Novel mecA Homologue in Humans in Germany. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Milheirico, C.; de Lencastre, H.; Tomasz, A. Full-Genome Sequencing Identifies in the Genetic Background Several Determinants That Modulate the Resistance Phenotype in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Strains Carrying the Novel MecC Gene. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 2017, 61, e02500–e02516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Rania, A.A.; Nsreen, M.K.; Rasha, H.E.; Mona, M.A. Evaluation for the Novel mecC Methicillin Resistance among Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcal Isolates in two Egyptian University Hospitals. Arch. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 9, 71. [Google Scholar]
  18. Shebl, H.R.; Zaki, W.K.; Saleh, A.N.; Abdel Salam, S.A. Prevalence of MecC Gene Among Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from Patients in AinShams University Hospita. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 14, 2807–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lowy, F.D. Antimicrobial resistance: The example of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Investig. 2003, 111, 1265–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Horan, T.C.M.; Andrus, M.R.B.C.; Dudeck, M.A.M. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care–associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. AJIC 2008, 36, 309–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Agyeman, P.; Aebi, C.; Hirt, A.; Niggli, F.K.; Nadal, D.; Simon, A.; Ozsahin, H.; Kontny, U.; Kühne, T.; Beck Popovic, M.; et al. Predicting bacteremia in children with cancer and fever in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: Results of the prospective multicenter SPOG 2003 FN study. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2011, 30, e114–e119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [CLSI]. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 30th ed.; Supplement M100, 2020; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  23. Andrews, J.M. Determination of Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2001, 48, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Tambekar, D.; Dhanorkar, D.; Gulhane, S.; Khandelwal, V.; Dudhane, M. Antibacterial susceptibility of some urinary tract pathogens to commonly used antibiotics. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2006, 5, 1562–1565. [Google Scholar]
  25. Spanu, T.; Sanguinetti, M.; D'Inzeo, T.; Ciccaglione, D.; Romano, L.; Leone, F.; Mazzella, P.; Fadda, G. Identification of methicillin-resistant isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococci responsible for bloodstream infections with the Phoenix™ system. Diag. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2004, 48, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mao, P.; Peng, P.; Liu, Z.; Xue, Z.; Yao, C. Risk Factors And Clinical Outcomes Of Hospital-Acquired MRSA Infections In Chongqing, China. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 3709–3717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Cassone, M.; Mantey, J.; Gontjes, K.J.; Lansing, B.J.; Gibson, K.E.; Wang, J.; Mody, L. Seasonal Patterns in Incidence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Common Bacterial Pathogens in Nursing Home Patients and Their Rooms. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 671428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Delorme, T.; Garcia, A.; Nasr, P. A longitudinal analysis of methicillin-resistant and sensitive Staphylococcus aureus incidence in respect to specimen source, patient location, and temperature variation. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 54, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Girgis, S.A.; Gomaa, H.E.; Saad, N.E.; Salem, M.M. A comparative study for detection of methicillin resistance Staphylococci by polymerase chain reaction and phenotypic methods. Life Sci. J. 2013, 10, 3711–3718. [Google Scholar]
  30. Khan, A.A.; Alia, A.; Tharmalingamb, N.; Mylonakis, E.; Zahra, R. First report of mecC gene in clinical methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA) from tertiary care hospital Islamabad, Pakistan. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1501–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Al-Zoubi, M.S.; Al-Tayyar, I.A.; Hussein, E.; Al Jabali, A.; Khudairat, S. Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical specimens in Northern area of Jordan. Iran J. Microbiol. 2015, 7, 265. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ameen, F.; Reda, S.A.; El-Shatoury, S.A.; Riad, E.M.; Enany, M.E.; Alarfaj, A.A. Prevalence of antibiotic resistant mastitis pathogens in dairy cows in Egypt and potential biological control agents produced from plant endophytic actinobacteria. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019, 26, 1492–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. El-Banna, T.E.; Sonbol, F.I.; Ghazal, A.A.; Elbouseary, M.; Ellabody, H.O. Molecular characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates recovered from children with otitis media in Alexandria hospitals, EGYPT. Int. Res. J. Pharm. 2020, 11, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pramodhini, S.; Thenmozhivalli, P.R.; Selvi, R.; Dillirani, V.; Vasumathi, A.; Agatha, D. Comparison of Various Phenotypic Methods and mecA Based PCR for the Detection of MRSA. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2011, 5, 1359–1362. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaur, N.; Prasad, R.; Varma, A. Detection of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) by automated and manual methods. Int. J. Pharma Bio Sci. 2013, 4, 534–540. [Google Scholar]
  36. Olowe, O.A.; Kukoyi, O.O.; Taiwo, S.S.; Ojurongbe, O.; Opaleye, O.O.; Bolaji, O.S.; Adegoke, A.A.; Makanjuola, O.B.; Ogbolu, D.O.; Alli, O.T. Phenotypic and molecular characteristics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from Ekiti State, Nigeria. Infect. Drug Resist. 2013, 6, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Falagas, M.E.; Karageorgopoulos, D.E.; Leptidis Jand Korbila, I.P. MRSA in Africa: Filling the Global Map of Antimicrobial Resistance. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e68024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Karami, S.; Rahbar, M.; Yousefi, J.V. Evaluation of Five Phenotypic Methods for Detection of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Iran. J. Pathol. 2011, 6, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  39. García Álvarez, L.; Webb, C.R.; Holmes, M.A. A Novel Field-Based Approach to Validate the Use of Network Models for Disease Spread Between Dairy Herds. Epidemiol. Infect. 2011, 139, 1863–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Becker, K.; Ballhausen, B.; Kock, R.; Kriegeskorte, A. Methicillin Resistance in Staphylococcus Isolates: The “mec alphabet” with Specific Consideration of mecC, a mec Homolog Associated with Zoonotic S. aureus Lineages. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 304, 794–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lozano, C.; Fernández-Fernández, R.; Ruiz-Ripa, L.; Gómez, P.; Myriam Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Human mecC-Carrying MRSA: Clinical Implications and Risk Factors. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ciesielczuk, H.; Xenophontos, M.; Lambourne, J. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Harboring mecC Still Eludes Us in East London, United Kingdom. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2019, 57, e00020-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Becker, K.; Denis, O.; Roisin, S.; Mellmann, A.; Idelevich, E.A.; Knaack, D.; van Alen, S.; André Kriegeskorte, A.; Köck, R.; Schaumburg, F.; et al. Detection of mecA- and mecC-Positive Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Isolates by the New Xpert MRSA Gen 3 PCR Assay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2016, 54, 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Petersen, A.; Stegger, M.; Heltberg, O.; Christensen, J.; Zeuthen, A.; Knudsen, L.K.; Urth, T.; Sorum, M.; Schouls, L.; Larsen, J.; et al. Epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carrying the novel mecC gene in Denmark corroborates a zoonotic reservoir with transmission to humans. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2013, 19, E16–E22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Stegger, M.; Andersen, P.S.; Kearns, A.; Pichon, B.; Holmes, M.A.; Edwards, G.; Laurent, F.; Teale, C.; Skov, R.; Larsen, A.R. Rapid detection, differentiation and typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus harbouring either mecA or the new mecA homologue mecA(LGA251). Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 395–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Cikman, A.; Aydin, M.; Gulhan, B.; Karakecili, F.; Kurtoglu, M.G.; Yuksekkaya, S.; Parlak, M.; Gultepe, B.S.; Cicek, A.C.; Bilman, F.B.; et al. Absence of the mecC gene in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolated from Various Clinical Samples: The First Multi-Centered Study in Turkey. J. Infect. Public. Health. 2019, 12, 528–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Khairalla, A.S.; Wasfi, R.; Ashour, H.M. Carriage frequency, phenotypic, and genotypic characteristics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from dental health-care personnel, patients, and environment. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Peterson, J.C.; Durkee, H.; Miller, D.; Maestre-Mesa, J.; Arboleda, A.; Aguilar, M.C.; Relhan, N.; Flynn, H.W.; Amescua, G.; Parel, J.M.; et al. Molecular Epidemiology and Resistance Profiles among Healthcare- and Community-Associated Staphylococcus aureus Keratitis Isolates. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 831–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Kiliç, A.; Doğan, E.; Kaya, S.; Baysallar, M. Investigation of the Presence of mecC and Panton-Valentine Leukocidin Genes in Staphylococcus aureus Strains Isolated from Clinical Specimens During Seven Years Period. Mikrobiyol. Bul. 2015, 49, 594–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Nijjar, C.K.; Smith, M.H.; Eltringham, I.J. Adjunctive mecA PCR for routine detection of methicillin susceptibility in clinical isolates of coagulase-negative Staphylococci. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014, 52, 1678–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Banerjee, R.; Gretes, M.; Harlem, C.; Basuino, L.; Chambers, H.F. A mecA-Negative Strain of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus with High-Level Β-Lactam Resistance Contains Mutations in Three Genes. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 2010, 54, 4900–4902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Hryniewicz, M.M.; Garbacz, K. Borderline Oxacillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (BORSA)–a More Common Problem Than Expected? J. Med. Microbiol. 2017, 66, 1367–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Barg, N.; Chambers, H.; Kernodle, D. Borderline Susceptibility to AntiStaphylococcal Penicillins is not Conferred Exclusively by the Hyperproduction of B-lactamase. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 1991, 35, 1975–1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Oliveira, A.; Cunha, M.D.L.R.S. Comparison of methods for the detection of biofilm production in coagulase-negative Staphylococci. BMC Res. Notes 2010, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Shrestha, L.; Bhattarai, N.R.; Khanal, B. Comparative evaluation of methods for the detection of biofilm formation in coagulase-negative Staphylococci and correlation with antibiogram. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 607–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Khosravi, A.D.; Roointan, M.; Montazeri, E.A.; Aslani, S.; Hashemzadeh, M.; Soodejani, M.T. Application of tuf gene sequence analysis for the identification of species of coagulase-negative Staphylococci in clinical samples and evaluation of their antimicrobial resistance pattern. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 1275–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Singh, S.; Dhawan, B.; Kapil, A.; Kabra, S.K.; Suri, A.; Sreenivas, V.; Das, B.K. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci causing blood stream infection at an Indian tertiary care hospital: Prevalence, antimicrobial resistance and molecular characterisation. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2016, 34, 500–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. De Vecchi, E.; George, D.A.; Romanò, C.L.; Pregliasco, F.E.; Mattina, R.; Drago, L. Antibiotic sensitivities of coagulase-negative Staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus in hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections: Does this differ if patients meet the international consensus meeting criteria? Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Becker, K.; Heilmann, C.; Peters, G. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 27, 870–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Barros, E.M.; Ceotto, H.; Bastos, M.C.; Dos Santos, K.R.; Giambiagi-Demarval, M. Staphylococcus haemolyticus as an important hospital pathogen and carrier of methicillin resistance genes. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012, 50, 166–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Ferreira, R.B.; Nunes, A.P.; Kokis, V.M.; Krepsky, N.; Fonseca Lde, S.; Bastos Mdo, C.; Giambiagi-deMarval, M.; Santos, K.R. Simultaneous detection of the mecA and ileS-2 genes in coagulase-negative Staphylococci isolated from Brazilian hospitals by multiplex PCR. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2002, 42, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Takeuchi, F.; Watanabe, S.; Baba, T.; Yuzawa, H.; Ito, T.; Morimoto, Y.; Kuroda, M.; Cui, L.; Takahashi, M.; Ankai, A.; et al. Whole-genome sequencing of Staphylococcus haemolyticus uncovers the extreme plasticity of its genome and the evolution of human-colonizing Staphylococcal species. J. Bacteriol. 2005, 187, 7292–7308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Swenson, J.M.; Tenover, F.C. Results of Disk Diffusion Testing with Cefoxitin Correlate with Presence of mecA in Staphylococcus Spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 3818–3823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Swenson, J.M.; Lonsway, D.; McAllister, S.; Thompson, A.; Jevitt, L.; Zhu, W.; Patel, J.B. Detection of mecA-Mediated Resistance Using Reference and Commercial Testing Methods in a collection of Staphylococcus aureus Expressing Borderline Oxacillin MICs. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2007, 58, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kampf, G.; Adena, S.; Ruden, H.; Weist, K. Inducibility and Potential Role of mecA Gene-Positive Oxacillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus from Colonized Healthcare Workers as a source for Nosocomial Infections. J. Hosp. Infect. 2003, 54, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Tenover, F.C.; Tickler, I.A. Is that Staphylococcus aureus Isolate Really Methicillin Susceptible? Clin. Microbiol. News. 2015, 37, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xu, Z.; Shah, H.N.; Misra, R.; Chen, J.; Zhang, W.; Liu, Y.; Cutler, R.R.; Mkrtchyan, H.V. The Prevalence, Antibiotic Resistance and mecA Characterization of Coagulase Negative Staphylococci Recovered from Non-Healthcare Settings in London, UK. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2018, 7, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Forbes, B.A.; Bombicino, K.; Plata, K.; Cuirolo, A.; Webber, D.; Bender, C.L.; Rosato, A.E. Unusual Form of Oxacillin Resistance in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clinical Strains. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2008, 61, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Ikonomidis, A.; Michail, G.; Vasdeki, A.; Labrou, M.; Karavasilis, V.; Stathopoulos, C.; Maniatis, A.N.; Pournaras, S. In vitro and In Vivo Evaluations of Oxacillin Efficiency against mecA-Positive Oxacillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 2008, 52, 3905–3908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Kumar, V.A.; Steffy, K.; Chatterjee, M.; Sugumar, M.; Dinesh, K.R.; Manoharan, A.; Karim, S.; Biswas, R. Detection of Oxacillin-Susceptible mecA-Positive Staphylococcus aureus Isolates by Use of Chromogenic Medium MRSA ID. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 318–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Goering, R.V.; Swartzendruber, E.A.; Obradovich, A.E.; Tickler, I.A.; Tenover, F.C. Emergence of Oxacillin Resistance in Stealth Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus due to mecA Sequence Instability. Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother. 2019, 63, e00558-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Sakoulas, G.; Gold, H.S.; Venkataraman, L.; DeGirolami, P.C.; Eliopoulos, G.M.; Qian, Q. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Comparison of Susceptibility Testing Methods and Analysis of mecA-Positive Susceptible Strains. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 3946–3951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Elshimy, R.; Khattab, R.A.; Zedan, H.; Hosny, A.E.S.; Elmorsy, T.H. Study on Prevalence and Genetic Discrimination of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Egyptian Hospitals. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 12, 629–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Abd El-Aziz, N.K.; Abd El-Hamid, M.I.; Bendary, M.M.; El-Azazy, A.A.; Ammar, A.M. Existence of Vancomycin Resistance Among Methicillin Resistant S. aureus Recovered from Animal and Human Sources in Egypt. Slov. Vet. Res. 2018, 55 (Suppl. S20), 221–230. [Google Scholar]
  75. Eed, E.M.; Ghonaim, M.M.; Khalifa, A.S.; Alzahrani, K.J.; Alsharif, K.F.; Taha, A.A. Prevalence of Mupirocin and Chlorhexidine Resistance among Methicillin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Isolated During Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Decolonization Strategies. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2019, 47, 1319–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Moghnieh, R.A.; Kanafani, Z.A.; Tabaja, H.Z.; Sharara, S.L.; Awad, L.S.; Kanj, S.S. Epidemiology of Common Resistant Bacterial Pathogens in the Countries of the Arab League. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, e379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Sasirekha, B.; Usha, M.S.; Amruta, A.J.; Ankit, S.; Brinda, N.; Divya, R. Evaluation and Comparison of Different Phenotypic Tests to Detect Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and their Biofilm Production. Int. J. PharmTech Res. 2012, 4, 532–541. [Google Scholar]
  78. Datta, P.; Gulati, N.; Singla, N.; Vasdeva, H.R.; Bala, K.; Chander, J.; Gupta, V. Evaluation of various methods for the detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains and susceptibility patterns. J. Med. Microbiol. 2011, 60, 1613–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Soodabeh, R.; Mojtaba, M.; Saeed, S.; Maryam, T.; Zahra, F. Comparison of mecA gene-based PCR with CLSI cefoxitin and oxacillin disc diffusion methods for detecting methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2013, 7, 2438–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Perazzi, B.; Fermepin, M.R.; Malimovka, A.; García, S.D.; Orgambide, M.; Vay, C.A.; de Torres, R.; Famiglietti, A.M.R. Accuracy of Cefoxitin Disk Testing for Characterization of Oxacillin Resistance Mediated by Penicillin-BindingProtein 2a in Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 3634–3639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Martins, A.; Pereira, V.C.; Cunha, M.L.R.S. Oxacillin Resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from the University Hospital of Botucatu Medical School in Brazil. Chemotherapy 2010, 56, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mathews, A.A.; Thomas, M.; Appalaraju, B.; Jayalakshmi, J. Evaluation and comparison of tests to detect methicillin resistant S. aureus. Indian J. Pathol. Microbiol. 2010, 53, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Broekema, N.M.; Van, T.T.; Monson, T.A.; Marshall, S.A.; Warshauer, D.M. Comparison of cefoxitin and oxacillin disk diffusion methods for detection of mecA-mediated resistance in Staphylococcus aureus in a large-scale study. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 217–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Graham, J.C.; Murphy, O.M.; Stewart, D.; Kearns, A.M.; Galloway, A.; Freeman, R. Comparison of PCR detection of mecA with methicillin and oxacillin disc susceptibility testing in coagulase-negative Staphylococci. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2000, 45, 111–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Shrestha, L.B.; Bhattarai, N.R.; Rai, K.; Khanal, B. Antibiotic resistance and mecA gene characterization of coagulase-negative Staphylococci isolated from clinical samples in Nepal. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 3163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Secchi, C.; Souza Antunes, A.L.; Rodrigues Perez, L.R.; Cantarelli, V.V.; d’Azevedo, P.A. Identification and detection of methicillin resistance in non-Epidermidis coagulase-negative Staphylococci. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 2008, 12, 316–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Bhatt, P.; Tandel, K.; Singh, A.; Mugunthan, M.; Grover, N.; Sahni, A.K. Species distribution and antimicrobial resistance pattern of Coagulase-negative Staphylococci at a tertiary care centre. Med. J. Armed Forces India 2016, 72, 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Comparison between S. aureus and CoNS according to basic characteristics of the patients.
Table 1. Comparison between S. aureus and CoNS according to basic characteristics of the patients.
S. aureus (n = 118)CoNS (n = 43)Test of Sig.p
Age
Range (years)1.5–751–76t = 0.1500.881
Mean (±SD)33.46 (±19.4)32.9 (±24.7)
Gender
Male66 (55.9%)22 (51.2%)χ2 = 0.2890.591
Female52 (44.1%)21 (48.8%)
Sample type (total number)
Blood (153)46 (39%)20 (46.5%)χ2 = 0.7380.390
CSF (50)0 (0%)17 (39.5%)χ2 = 52.159 *FE p < 0.001 *
Urine (92)15 (12.7%)6 (14%)χ2 = 0.0430.836
Wound (111)45 (38.1%)0 (0%)χ2 = 22.760 *<0.001 *
Sputum (94)12 (10.2%)0 (0%)χ2 = 4.725 *FE p = 0.037 *
SD: Standard deviation; t: Student t-test; χ2: Chi-square test; FE: Fisher Exact; p: p-value; CoNS: coagulase-negative Staphylococci; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; *: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Results of S. aureus and CoNS surveillance, including (Month/Year of isolation, number of collected samples, and number of S. aureus and CoNS isolates) during the study period.
Table 2. Results of S. aureus and CoNS surveillance, including (Month/Year of isolation, number of collected samples, and number of S. aureus and CoNS isolates) during the study period.
Season (No. of Staphylococci) (% of Total Samples)Month/YearNo. of Collected SamplesNo. of S. aureusNo. of CoNS
Spring (n = 47) (33.1%)March 20215514-----
April 202155157
May 202132101
Summer (n = 43) (35.8%)June 202142106
July 20213154
August 202146144
Autumn (n = 42) (32.1%)September 202158155
October 20213654
November 20213785
Winter (n = 13) (15.3%)December 2021364----
January 20222523
February 2022244----
March 202223124
Total 50011843
χ2p
11.514 *0.009 *
CoNS: coagulase-negative Staphylococci; B: blood; CSF: cerebrospinal fluid; U: urine; W: wound; S: sputum; χ2: Chi-square test; p: p-value for comparing between the different studied groups; *: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Distribution of CoNS species isolated from different clinical samples.
Table 3. Distribution of CoNS species isolated from different clinical samples.
CoNS Species χ2MC p
S. epidermidisS. haemolyticusS. hominisS. saprophyticusTotal
Sample type
Blood10 (58.8%)5 (31.3%)5 (100%)0 (0%)20 (100%)26.750 *<0.001 *
CSF7 (41.2%)10 (62.5%)0 (0%)0 (0%)17 (100%)
Urine0 (0.0%)1 (6.3%)0 (0%)5 (100%)6 (100%)
17 (39%)16 (37%)5 (12%)5 (12%)43 (100%)
CoNS: coagulase-negative Staphylococci; S. epidermidis: Staphylococci epidermidis; S. haemolyticus: Staphylococci haemolyticus; S. hominis: Staphylococci hominis; S. saprophyticus: Staphylococci saprophytics: χ2: Chi-square test; MC: Monte Carlo; p: p-value for comparing between the different studied groups; *: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Antimicrobial resistance patterns among S. aureus isolates.
Table 4. Antimicrobial resistance patterns among S. aureus isolates.
Pattern CodeAntimicrobial Resistance PatternMAR IndexNumber of MRSA Isolates (n = 118)
S IIP, FOX0.162 (1.7%)
S III a P, FOX, E0.253 (2.5%)
S III bP, FOX, C0.255 (4.2%)
S III cP, FOX, DA0.254 (3.4%)
S III dP, FOX, RD0.255 (4.2%)
S IV aP, FOX, E, C0.339 (7.6%)
S IV bP, FOX, E, DA0.334 (3.4%)
S IV dP, FOX, E, CIP0.335 (4.2%)
S IV eP, FOX, C, CIP0.333 (2.5%)
S V aP, FOX, E, C, DA0.425 (4.2%)
S V bP, FOX, E, C, CIP0.424 (3.4%)
S V cP, FOX, C, CIP, DA0.425 (4.2%)
S V dP, FOX, C, CIP, CN0.423 (2.5%)
S V eP, FOX, TE, C, DA0.422 (1.7%)
S V fP, FOX, CIP, SXT, DA0.424 (3.4%)
S VI aP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP0.52 (1.7%)
S VI bP, FOX, E, C, DA, CN0.53 (2.5%)
S VI cP, FOX, E, C, DA, SXT0.54 (3.4%)
S VI dP, FOX, C, E, CIP, SXT0.52 (1.7%)
S VI eP, FOX, CN, C, RD, SXT0.52 (1.7%)
S VI f P, FOX, SXT, C, TE, E0.51 (0.8%)
S VI gP, FOX, SXT, CIP, TE, RD0.52 (1.7%)
S VII aP, FOX, E, C, CIP, SXT, CN0.583 (2.5%)
S VII bP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, CN0.584 (3.4%)
S VII cP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, TE0.582 (1.7%)
S VII dP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, SXT0.584 (3.4%)
S VII eP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, RD0.583 (2.5%)
S VII fP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, CN0.582 (1.7%)
S VIII aP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, CN, SXT0.674 (3.4%)
S VIII bP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, CN, TE0.674 (3.4%)
S VIII cP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, CN, RD0.673 (2.5%)
S IX aP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, CN, SXT, RD0.751 (0.8%)
S IX bP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, CN, SXT, TE0.754 (3.4%)
S IX cP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, CN, RD, TE0.751 (0.8%)
S X aP, FOX, E, C, DA, CIP, CN, TE, RD, SXT0.834 (3.4%)
S: Staphylococci; II-XII: groups according to the number of resistant antibiotics; MAR: multiple antibiotic resistance; MRSA: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; P: Penicillin, FO: Cefoxitin; VA: Vancomycin; CN: Gentamicin; E: Erythromycin; TE: Tetracycline, CIP; Ciprofloxacin, DA; Clindamycin, SXT; Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, C; Chloramphenicol, RD; Rifampin, LZD; Linezolid: a–f; different combinations of antibiotics for each Latin number group.
Table
Table 5. Prevalence of methicillin resistance among Staphylococcal isolates detected by genotypic method (PCR).
Table 5. Prevalence of methicillin resistance among Staphylococcal isolates detected by genotypic method (PCR).
Staphylococcus SpeciesTotal no. of IsolatesNo. (%) of mecA PCR-Positive IsolatesNo. (%) of mecC PCR-Positive Isolates
S. aureus11897 (82.2)-
S. epidermidis1716 (94)-
S. hemolyticus1615 (93.7)-
S. hominis55 (100)-
S. saprophyticus55 (100)-
Table
Table 6. Sensitivity and specificity of different phenotypic methods compared to the genotypic method (PCR) in detecting methicillin resistance in Staphylococci.
Table 6. Sensitivity and specificity of different phenotypic methods compared to the genotypic method (PCR) in detecting methicillin resistance in Staphylococci.
S. aureus (n = 118)
PCR mecASensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVAccuracy
Negative (n = 21)Positive (n = 97)
Cefoxitin DD resistance
VITEK2 cefoxitin resistance
BMD oxacillin resistance
Negative00100.00.082.20–82.20
Positive2197
VITEK2 oxacillin resistance
Negative211485.57100.0100.060.088.14
Positive083
CoNS species (n = 43)
PCR mecASensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVAccuracy
Negative (n = 2)Positive (n = 41)
Cefoxitin DD resistance
Negative21368.29100.0100.013.3369.77
Positive028
VITEK2 oxacillin resistance
Negative2490.24100.0100.033.3390.70
Positive037
VITEK2 cefoxitin resistance
Negative2197.56100.0100.066.6797.67
Positive040
BMD oxacillin resistance
Negative2587.80100.0100.028.5788.37
Positive036
CoNS: coagulase-negative Staphylococci; DD: disc diffusion; BMD: broth microdilution; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value.
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

Abdelwahab, M.A.; Amer, W.H.; Elsharawy, D.; Elkolaly, R.M.; Helal, R.A.E.F.; El Malla, D.A.; Elfeky, Y.G.; Bedair, H.A.; Amer, R.S.; Abd-Elmonsef, M.E.; et al. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of Methicillin Resistance in Staphylococci Isolated from an Egyptian University Hospital. Pathogens 2023, 12, 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12040556

AMA Style

Abdelwahab MA, Amer WH, Elsharawy D, Elkolaly RM, Helal RAEF, El Malla DA, Elfeky YG, Bedair HA, Amer RS, Abd-Elmonsef ME, et al. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of Methicillin Resistance in Staphylococci Isolated from an Egyptian University Hospital. Pathogens. 2023; 12(4):556. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12040556

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abdelwahab, Marwa A., Wesam H. Amer, Dalia Elsharawy, Reham M. Elkolaly, Rehab Abd El Fattah Helal, Dina Ahmed El Malla, Yomna G. Elfeky, Hebatallah A. Bedair, Rania S. Amer, Marwa E. Abd-Elmonsef, and et al. 2023. "Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of Methicillin Resistance in Staphylococci Isolated from an Egyptian University Hospital" Pathogens 12, no. 4: 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12040556

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