Next Article in Journal
The Gut Microbiota–Tryptophan–Brain Axis in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A New Frontier for Probiotic Intervention
Previous Article in Journal
Indigenous Olive Orchard Bacteria as Biocontrol Agents: An Integrated Culture-Dependent and Soil Microbiome Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antibiotic Resistance and Molecular Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus Strains Colonizing the Nose and Pharynx
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/microorganisms14020311
microorganisms-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Biofilm Formation of Staphylococcus aureus Strains Isolated from Pediatric Patients with Atopic Dermatitis

by
Carolina Romo-González
1,
Alejandra Aquino-Andrade
2,
Abril Pérez-Carranza
3,
Diana Chaparro-Camacho
3,
Andrea Becerril-Osnaya
3 and
Maria Teresa García-Romero
4,*
1
Experimental Bacteriology Laboratory, Instituto Nacional de Pediatría, Mexico City 04530, Mexico
2
Molecular Microbiology Laboratory, Instituto Nacional de Pediatría, Mexico City 04530, Mexico
3
Diagnostic Bacteriology, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Cuautitlán Izcalli 54740, Mexico
4
Department of Dermatology, Instituto Nacional de Pediatría, Mexico City 04530, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2026, 14(2), 311; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14020311
Submission received: 18 October 2025 / Revised: 7 December 2025 / Accepted: 9 December 2025 / Published: 29 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Drug Resistance and Molecular Research of Staphylococcus spp.)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by barrier dysfunction and susceptibility to Staphylococcus aureus colonization. Biofilm formation modifies antibiotic resistance and the host immune response. This longitudinal study analyzed antimicrobial susceptibility and biofilm formation in 136 S. aureus isolates obtained over 18 months from lesional, nonlesional, and nasal samples of 26 pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was determined by the disk diffusion method, and biofilm production was quantified using a crystal violet microtiter assay. Clinical parameters, including disease severity, treatment response, and the administration of dilute bleach baths, were evaluated in relation to bacterial characteristics. Overall, 60.2% of isolates exhibited moderate-to-strong biofilm production, significantly associated with severe AD at baseline (p = 0.01), lack of clinical improvement (p = 0.04), and persistent moderate-to-severe disease (p = 0.01). Resistance rates for penicillin, gentamicin, clindamycin, and erythromycin exceeded 15%. Isolates from patients using dilute bleach baths showed greater resistance to ciprofloxacin (p < 0.0001) and exhibited constitutive or inducible macrolide–lincosamide–streptogramin B (MLSB) resistance, with ermA detected in 80% of inducible cases. In conclusion, S. aureus biofilm formation is linked to disease severity and treatment failure in pediatric AD, underscoring the importance of culture-guided, targeted therapeutic strategies.

1. Introduction

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic multifactorial inflammatory skin disease characterized by alterations in epidermal barrier function and an exaggerated innate immune response. It affects 20–30% of children and is among of the most frequent reasons for medical consultation [1,2]. Manifestations of AD include erythematous, scaly patches that are intensely pruritic, leading to a vicious cycle of scratching that exacerbates the disease. Patients frequently exhibit colonization or secondary infection of AD by S. aureus, and this pathogen plays a role in the physiopathology of the disease by producing superantigens, decreasing the expression of antimicrobial peptides, and forming biofilms that impair the effects of targeted treatment [1,2].
The antimicrobial susceptibility of S. aureus strains that cause disease or are isolated from patients with AD has been reported to differ from that of strains isolated from healthy controls. Since distinguishing mild secondary infections from disease flares can be challenging, antibiotics are often used as empiric treatment [3]. Furthermore, resistance to antibiotics recommended as first-line empirical therapy for skin infections may exceed the optimal threshold (prevalence of >15% resistant isolates) [4,5,6,7,8,9], and methicillin resistance and multidrug resistance are potentially associated with age, severity of AD, and treatment [6,10]. S. aureus produces biofilms, which protect bacteria from environmental hazards, innate immune response-derived antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), antibiotics, and phagocytosis, and contribute to the pathogenesis of chronic infections. Biofilms have been detected on the skin of AD patients and possibly contribute to the inflammation process [11,12,13,14]. In this study, we sought to analyze the antimicrobial susceptibility profiles, characterize biofilm formation, and identify differences associated with clinical characteristics in S. aureus strains isolated longitudinally from children with AD.

2. Materials and Methods

This longitudinal observational study was performed at the National Institute of Pediatrics (NIP) (IRB approval number 073/2019). We obtained S. aureus isolates from a cohort of children with moderate–severe AD who attended the dermatology clinic from July 2017 to December 2018. We procured informed consent from all subjects involved in the study. The severity of AD was quantified via the Severity Score for AD (SCORAD) [15]. Superficial swabs were obtained from 7 body sites (nares, antecubital folds, and popliteal folds) in up to 5 visits (one baseline and four follow-ups). Cultures and colony isolation were performed at the Experimental Bacteriology Laboratory of the NIP. For each patient, we selected up to 3 colonies: one isolate from a lesional site, one from a non-lesional site, and one from the nares, at baseline and at a follow-up visit (1 to 4 months after). Isolates obtained during initial visits were given preference over those from the latest visit. For each isolate, we (1) performed antimicrobial susceptibility testing via the disk diffusion test, (2) analyzed in vitro biofilm production, and (3) performed detection of the ermA, ermB, ermC, and msrA genes by PCR. Patients were categorized as those receiving standard treatment for their AD (medium- to high-potency topical steroids and/or calcineurin inhibitors) and those receiving adjunctive dilute bleach baths (0.006%).

2.1. Sample Collection and Processing

Each sample was then streaked onto the surface of sheep blood agar and mannitol salt agar (Becton Dickinson, Le Pont de Claix, France) plates and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h for purity verification and identification. After the incubation period, colonies were identified by mannitol fermentation and colony morphology, in addition to Gram staining, and the final identification was performed using conventional biochemical tests (e.g., catalase, coagulase, and DNase); subsequently, all isolates included in this study were sequenced according to a previous study [16]. For this study, a total of 136 S. aureus isolates from patients with AD were selected. All the isolates were further tested for antimicrobial susceptibility and biofilm formation.

2.2. Patients’ Clinical Characteristics

We investigated differences in the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns and biofilm formation of S. aureus isolates according to the following categories based on the clinical characteristics of the patients:
  • Body sites from which isolates were obtained: affected skin, unaffected skin, or nares;
  • Severity of AD at baseline: moderate or severe;
  • Baseline visit or follow-up visit (once patients had received treatment);
  • Number of body sites colonized by S. aureus at baseline: ≤three sites or more than three sites;
  • Adjunctive treatment with or without dilute bleach baths;
  • Response to treatment (decrease of at least 15 SCORAD points from baseline to final visit);
  • Persistent moderate-to-severe AD throughout all visits.

2.3. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

The antimicrobial susceptibility profiles and the inducible clindamycin resistance (ICR) test were performed according to the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [17,18]. A disk diffusion test was performed for penicillin (P), cefoxitin (FOX), erythromycin (E), clindamycin (CC), ciprofloxacin (CIP), tetracycline (TE), gentamicin (GM), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT), and linezolid (LIN) (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). The concentrations of all antibiotic disks used in this study are detailed in Supplementary Table S1. The inducible macrolide–lincosamide–streptogramin B (iMLSB) was considered when the isolates were resistant to E or sensitive or intermediate to CC, with a positive inducible clindamycin resistance (ICR) test; the macrolide-streptogramin B (MSB) phenotype was considered when the ICR test was negative; and the constitutive phenotype (cMLSB) was considered if they were resistant to E and CC [19].

2.4. Biofilm Assay

Each isolate was grown on brain heart infusion (BHI) agar plates at 37 °C for 24 h. Next, the cell density was adjusted to 0.5 MacFarland (1.5 × 108 CFU/mL) in 0.9% physiological saline solution. The strain controls for this test were the same as those used by Singh et al. [20]. Biofilm production was performed with BHI supplemented with 222.2 mM glucose, 116.9 mM saccharose, and 1000 mM NaCl. Overnight cultures were enriched with BHI, a suspension equivalent to 0.5 MacFarland was diluted 1:100 in freshly prepared BHI. Aliquots (100 μL) were transferred to 96-well microtiter plates. Sterile broth without culture served as a control. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. After incubation, the contents of each well were gently decanted. The wells were washed 2–3 times with 200 μL of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) to remove planktonic bacteria. Then, the plate was air-dried at room temperature and stained with 0.5% crystal violet. The wells were subsequently washed with distilled water 5–6 times to remove excess stain. The stain adherent to the walls was dissolved in 100 μL of alcohol/acetone (80:20), and the optical density was read at 570 nm via an Epoch Microplate Absorbance Reader (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). All experiments with clinical isolates were performed in triplicate, and mean OD values and standard deviations were calculated. The biofilms formed by the S. aureus isolates were classified as Non–biofilm producers (OD ≤ ODc); Weak biofilm producers (ODc < OD ≤ 2 × ODc); Moderate biofilm producers (2 × ODc < OD ≤ 4 × ODc); Strong biofilm producers (4 × ODc < OD) as suggested by Singh et al. [20].

2.5. Detection of ermA, ermB, ermC, and msrA Genes

DNA was obtained using the QIAmp® DNA mini kit (Qiagen, Hilden, North Rhine–Westphalia, Germany). The DNA was eluted and stored at −20 °C until use. The genes ermA, ermB, ermC, and msrA were amplified by PCR using previously reported primers and conditions [21,22]. The primer sequences and amplification conditions are provided in the Supplementary Materials (Table S2). Positive control strains of S. aureus O2 (ermA and ermC) and O46 (ermA), previously sequenced and reported by Aguilar-Gómez et al. [23], were used as positive controls.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize continuous variables with means and standard deviations and categorical variables with numbers and percentages. Differences between groups were analyzed via the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test (SPSS Version 21.0, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered significant.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the S. aureus Isolates

We included 136 S. aureus isolates from 26 patients (Table 1). Fifty-five (40.4%) of the isolates were obtained from patients’ nares, 50 (36.7%) from affected skin, and 31 (22.7%) from unaffected skin. All patients had moderate or severe AD at baseline (SCORAD ≥ 25). At the baseline visit, all patients were prescribed emollients and moderate-potency topical steroids twice daily; 12 received adjunctive diluted bleach baths (0.006%) in addition to standard treatment, while 14 did not. Seventy-two isolates of S. aureus (52.9%) were obtained from the baseline visits. At the initial visit, 15 patients had >3 body sites colonized by S. aureus, and 58 isolates (80.5%) were obtained from these patients.
Sixty-four isolates (47%) were obtained from follow-up visits. Of these, 23 (35.9%) were isolated from 7 patients who received diluted bleach baths as adjunctive treatment, and 41 (64%) were isolated from 9 patients who did not. Most patients (18, 69.2%) responded well to treatment, and their disease severity decreased 15 or more SCORAD points from baseline to the end of the study; 96 isolates (70.5%) were derived from these individuals. Five patients (19.2%) had persistent moderate–severe AD throughout the study period, accounting for 58 isolates (42.6%).

3.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Biofilm Production

In general, isolates of S. aureus had suboptimal resistance rates (>15%) to P (103, 75.7%), GM (49, 36%), CC (34, 25%), and E (34, 25%) (Table 2). The inhibition zone diameters, are provided together in Supplementary Table S1. All 136 isolates were methicillin sensitive. The MLSB phenotype was documented in 58 (23.8%) of the isolates: 14 (10.2%) had cMLSB, 20 (14.7%) had iMLSB, and 1 (0.7%) had the MSB phenotype (Table 3). The ermA gene was detected in 16 isolates (80%) with the iMLSB phenotype, of which one was associated with msrA; ermB and ermC were not detected. In total, 23 (16.9%) isolates did not form biofilms, 31 (22.7%) were weak producers, 55 (40.4%) were moderate producers, and 27 (19.8%) were strong producers. Mean optical density (OD) values and standard deviations for isolates classified in different categories of biofilm producers are shown in Table S3.
We searched for differences between 2 categories of biofilm production (none or weak vs. moderate or strong producers) and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles, finding no difference. We further studied MLSB resistance patterns and moderate or strong biofilm production in the isolates and found no differences (Table 3).

3.3. Clinical Characteristics, Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns, and Biofilm Formation

We analyzed the clinical characteristics of patients from whom the isolates were obtained, and the characteristics of the S. aureus isolates (Table 4). Patients with non-severe AD at baseline were more likely to have isolates from the initial visit that were resistant to P (p = 0.02). Those with severe AD at baseline were more likely to have S. aureus isolates that produced biofilms at moderate to strong levels (p = 0.01). Isolates from patients whose SCORAD improved throughout the study were more frequently resistant to P (p = 0.001) and predominantly classified as non-biofilm producers or weak biofilm producers (p = 0.04). Isolates from those whose SCORAD did not improve accordingly were more frequently resistant to CIP (p < 0.0001), GM (p = 0.03), CC (p = 0.01), and E (p = 0.02).
These isolates were also more likely to have cMLSB and iMLSB (p < 0.0001). S. aureus isolates from patients with persistent moderate–severe AD throughout the study were significantly more frequently resistant (or intermediately resistant) to CIP (p = 0.03) but sensitive to P (p < 0.0001) and TE (p = 0.02). These isolates were also more likely to have cMLSB and iMLSB (p < 0.0001) and be moderate-strong biofilm producers (p = 0.01). Isolates collected during follow-up visits from patients who did not receive dilute bleach baths as adjunctive treatment were more likely to be resistant to CIP (p < 0.0001). These isolates were also more likely to have cMLSB and iMLSB (p = 0.01). Isolates from patients who received adjunctive treatment with dilute bleach baths were more likely to be resistant to P (p = 0.004).

4. Discussion

In this study of 136 isolates of S. aureus from children with AD, we found a predominance of moderate to strong biofilm production capacity (60.2%), which was associated with clinical characteristics such as disease severity at baseline, lack of response to treatment, and persistent moderate–severe AD throughout the study visits. We also found suboptimal antimicrobial susceptibility rates (<15%) to CC, GM, P, and E. According to proposed recommendations, when the prevalence of methicillin- and clindamycin-resistant S. aureus exceeds 15%, alternative antibiotics should be used as empiric therapy to improve outcomes [4,5,6,7,8,9]. S. aureus is a frequent colonizer in patients with AD; approximately 70% of affected individuals exhibited colonization in lesional skin, compared to 10% of healthy individuals [24,25]. Our understanding of this species’ role in AD has improved recently. Recent longitudinal analyses have shown that the skin microbiome of children with atopic dermatitis is dominated by S. aureus, and that its abundance decreases with treatment, gradually restoring a healthy microbial balance and correlating with clinical improvement [26], and the bacterium plays a role in epidermal barrier malfunction and inflammation [27,28]. Moreover, S. aureus evolves and adapts within hosts with AD and likely develops additional virulence factors that contribute to adhesion, inflammation, and barrier alterations, such as clumping factors and loss of capsule elements [16,29]. Specific clonal complexes have been found in patients with AD and are associated with disease exacerbation [3,27,30].
Biofilms produced by S. aureus protect it from antimicrobial peptides and phagocytosis, enabling persistence in the host [12]. In our study, we found that 60.2% of the isolates were moderate-to-strong biofilm producers, a finding similar to that of a previous study on children with AD [31]. One study reported that 67% of S. aureus strains were strong biofilm producers, whereas strains from healthy carriers exhibited lower biofilm-forming capacity [31]. These findings suggest a potential role for biofilms in the pathogenesis of AD [32]. Thus, the significant associations observed herein between increased biofilm production and baseline disease severity, lack of treatment response, and persistent moderate-severe AD throughout the study visits are relevant. Our results align with those of Di Domenico et al., who reported a correlation between biofilm formation and increased severity of AD lesions. Additionally, they noted that S. aureus biofilm production occurred in both the acute and chronic phases of the disease [33].
It is hypothesized that biofilms contribute to sweat duct occlusion and skin inflammation by inducing keratinocyte proliferation and cytokine secretion [31]. These processes may collectively impair skin barrier function, promote sensitization, and exacerbate pruritus, thereby prolonging the course of the disease [14]. However, biofilm production is also a successful strategy that protects bacteria from environmental threats and treatments such as antibiotics, potentially contributing to increased resistance of S. aureus to conventional antibiotics [14]. Importantly, all the isolates studied were methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) strains. However, some studies have reported a low prevalence of MRSA in children with AD [34], along with an absence of multidrug resistance in isolates from both children and adults with AD [35]. MRSA strains are associated with more severe infections and exhibit greater antibiotic resistance complexity. However, it remains controversial whether MRSA strains are inherently more virulent than MSSA strains [36,37].
We found that more than 50% of the MSSA strains studied produced moderate to strong biofilms. A potential difference in biofilm formation between these two bacterial types has been suggested: a review of the differences in biofilm production between MRSA and MSSA was performed, and among the 20 research articles analyzed, 50% reported that MRSA isolates form biofilms better than MSSA, 45% reported no differences, and only 5% reported that MSSA formed biofilms better than MRSA. Future analyses should focus on better characterizing the isolates to provide more detailed information on their clonal origin [38]. The ability of strains to form biofilms, combined with their characteristic resistance profile, significantly contributes to an overall increase in bacterial resistance. Biofilms create a protective barrier that impedes the action of antibiotics, and the multidrug resistance profile further amplifies this challenge, severely limiting the availability of therapeutic options [39]. Consequently, this synergistic interaction between biofilm formation and multidrug resistance can lead to persistent therapeutic failure, highlighting the urgent need for innovative strategies to combat biofilm-associated infections. Our findings of suboptimal antimicrobial sensitivity to antibiotics commonly used to empirically treat AD flares and/or superinfections, such as CC and E, are relevant. A pivotal study by Allen et al. revealed, as did our findings, that the antibiotics with the highest percentages of isolates showing resistance were E (85.7%), CC (80.0%), and levofloxacin (65.7%) [31]. However, we obtained no MRSA isolates, unlike studies in other populations, where rates reached 60% [31]. In a recent meta-analysis, the antimicrobial susceptibility of S. aureus isolated from patients with AD to commonly prescribed beta-lactams, E, CC, and fusidic acid was found to be <85% [4], a proposed threshold at which an antibiotic should no longer be considered an empirical therapy [40]. All these findings emphasize that antibiotic treatment in patients with AD should be reserved for clinically evident superinfections and should always be guided by culture results.
We observed particular antimicrobial susceptibility profiles for the studied S. aureus isolates. In patients who did not have severe AD at baseline, in those whose severity improved throughout the study, and in those in whom the disease was not persistently severe, isolates were more frequently resistant to P. Strains of S. aureus resistant to P have been documented since 1942 [41]. The current resistance rates to this antibiotic range from 14% to 26% for MSSA (data from 1997 to 2016) [42], but in other studies, resistance rates as high as 85% have been reported [43,44]. Thus, we expected the isolates studied to show high resistance to P. Resistance to P does not necessarily imply increased virulence of S. aureus, but in some reports, the coexistence of P resistance in MSSA isolates and the presence of Panton-Valentine leukocidin has been reported [45,46]. Although this agent is rarely used to treat patients with AD and SSTIs, we decided to include it in testing, anticipating a low frequency of MRSA isolates in the cohort studied. Characterizing antimicrobial susceptibility to P provides relevant epidemiological information, indicating that the beta-lactam susceptibility profiles of AD patients differ from those of patients with other types of infection [42,47].
Patients who did not exhibit improvement harbored isolates more likely to be resistant to CIP, GM, CC, and E. High rates of E and CC resistance have been observed in MSSA, but a relationship with microbiological treatment has not been established [43,44,47]. Further studies could confirm or rule out this association. Data on MLSB phenotypes in S. aureus from AD patients are limited. In this collection, the iMLSB phenotype was observed in 14.7% of the isolates, and notably, all the isolates were MSSA. The distribution of the iMLSB phenotype is reported to differ between MRSA and MSSA [18]; in MRSA, the frequency varies from 0 to 76.4% [48,49,50], whereas in MSSA, it ranges from 5.9 to 66% [49,51,52]. In China, Japan, and Brazil, the ermA and ermB genes are predominant among MRSA and MSSA [49,51,53]; however, in studies on isolates from other regions of Asia and Africa, ermC was the most frequently detected gene (40.7–72.4%) [48,54,55]. Information from Mexico about the genes involved in MLSB phenotypes is limited; in a collection of 21 MRSA isolates obtained from catheter-associated infections, the coexistence of ermA and ermB was observed [56].
In this study, the ermA gene was detected in 80% of the isolates with the iMLSB phenotype. No gene related to the iMLSB phenotype was amplified from four isolates suggesting that another erm allele, such as emrT, may be involved, as it has been detected in isolates from the hospital environment and the nostrils of inpatients and health workers [55,57]. We found a significant association between the cMLSB and iMLSB phenotypes in isolates from patients who showed no improvement throughout the study, who had persistent moderate–severe AD, and who did not receive diluted bleach baths. These findings merit further study in prospective larger-sample studies. All these findings support the need to develop targeted treatments with mechanisms of action distinct from those of antibiotics to reduce the abundance of S. aureus and its virulence and pathogenic factor levels, particularly those related to biofilm production and quorum sensing.
Sodium hypochlorite, which is commonly used in the management of AD at concentrations ranging from 0.005 to 0.006% as an adjunctive treatment, has recently been shown in a meta-analysis to be effective in reducing AD severity and S. aureus abundance [58]. It has also proven effective against S. aureus biofilms. However, the concentrations required to eliminate S. aureus biofilms are greater than those for planktonic cells at concentrations between 0.01% and 0.08%. In vitro eradication of S. aureus biofilms was achieved at concentrations ranging from 0.01% to 0.16%, much higher than those currently used in bleach baths for patients with AD (0.006%) [59,60]. We found that adjunctive dilute bleach baths at follow-up visits were associated with resistance to CIP and constitutive and inducible MLSB. Although no studies support this association in S. aureus, previous studies on Candida albicans have reported that adaptation to sodium hypochlorite renders it ineffective [61].
We believe our findings are relevant and warrant further in vitro and in vivo studies to establish whether sodium hypochlorite may play a potential role in gene expression, protein transcription, adaptation, or other mechanisms of resistance in S. aureus. In terms of limitations, our results might be skewed by selection bias, as all the isolates were obtained from patients cared for at a tertiary institution who might have antimicrobial susceptibility profiles and biofilm production phenotypes. Additionally, we did not test for other relevant antibiotics or perform functional studies that might have shed light on S. aureus pathogenicity and virulence in the context of AD. However, data on the specific characteristics of S. aureus as a colonizer and pathogen in the skin of patients with AD are scarce. In Mexico, data on the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of bacteria causing soft tissue and skin infections are scarce, especially for bacteria from the skin of patients with AD. Our findings contribute to epidemiological data on antimicrobial susceptibility profiles, are essential for establishing regional treatment guidelines, and offer further insights into the role of S. aureus in the pathophysiology of AD.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, 60.2% of S. aureus isolates from children with AD were moderate or strong biofilm producers, and this was significantly associated with severe AD at baseline, a lack of response to treatment, and persistent moderate-severe AD throughout the study visits. We also found suboptimal resistance rates to frequently used and recommended empiric antibiotics in the context of AD, such as CC, P, and E, which could be a consequence of biofilm-mediated survival strategies, among other factors. Our findings indicate that adequate treatment of SSTIs in patients with AD should always be guided by culture and antibiograms. Moreover, these results highlight the need to study further host-microbial interactions and their implications for AD, as well as increase our understanding of staphylococcal biofilms in the context of AD, to facilitate the development of targeted treatments to reduce skin colonization, improve barrier function, weaken the immune response, and reduce flares while not promoting antibiotic resistance.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms14020311/s1, Table S1. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus isolates: inhibition zone diameter ranges and breakpoint (CLSI, 2023). Table S2. Primer sequences used for the detection of ermA, ermB, ermC, and msrA genes in Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Table S3. Mean OD₅₇₀ values (± SD) according to biofilm production categories. Figure S1. Representative agarose gel electrophoresis showing PCR amplification of MLSB-related genes in any Staphylococcus aureus isolates and positive controls: ermA (lines samples 1, 2 positive control 3 and no-template control, NTC 4); ermB (lines samples 5, 6 and 7); ermC (lines samples 8, 9, 11, Non-study isolate 10, positive control 12 and no-template control NTC 13) Molecular weight marker, M.

Author Contributions

C.R.-G. cultured bacteria from clinical samples and extracted DNA and designed the biofilm assay. A.A.-A. designed and performed all the gene determination by PCR. A.P.-C. and A.B.-O. performed the antimicrobial susceptibility testing. D.C.-C. performed the biofilm assay. M.T.G.-R. designed the clinical cohort, enrolled patients, and collected clinical samples, funding acquisition, and wrote the manuscript with feedback from C.R.-G. and A.A.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Mexican Government Ministry of Taxes Program E022 for Health Research Development project 073/2019 (to M.T.G.-R.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This project was approved by the Research, Ethics, and Biosecurity Committees of the National Institute of Pediatrics under registration number 073-2019 (date: 14 November 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

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

Acknowledgments

We thank Juan Cancino-Diaz of National Polytechnic Institute, Mexico City (IPN) for the donation of the S. epidermidis strains ATCC 12228 (non-biofilm- producer) and ATCC 35984 (high biofilm producer) to standardize the biofilm technique according to reference [19].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

AMPsAntimicrobial peptides
cMLSBconstitutive macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance
iMLSBinducible macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance
ICRInducible clindamycin resistance
MRSAMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
MSSAMethicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus
ADAtopic dermatitis
LZLinezolid
CCClindamycin
GMGentamicin
CIPCiprofloxacin
PPenicillin
EErythromycin
TETetracycline
FOXCefoxitin
SXTTrimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole

References

  1. Tollefson, M.M.; Bruckner, A.L.; Cohen, B.A.; Antaya, R.; Bruckner, A.; Horii, K.; Silverberg, N.B.; Wright, T. Atopic dermatitis: Skin-directed management. Pediatrics 2014, 134, e1735–e1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Kong, H.H.; Oh, J.; Deming, C.; Conlan, S.; Grice, E.A.; Beatson, M.A.; Nomicos, E.; Polley, E.C.; Komarow, H.D. Nisc Comparative Sequence Program; et al. Temporal shifts in the skin microbiome associated with disease flares and treatment in children with atopic dermatitis. Genome Res. 2012, 22, 850–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  3. Paller, A.S.; Kong, H.H.; Seed, P.; Naik, S.; Scharschmidt, T.C.; Gallo, R.L.; Luger, T.; Irvine, A.D. The microbiome in patients with atopic dermatitis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2019, 143, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  4. Elizalde-Jiménez, I.G.; Ruiz-Hernández, F.G.; Carmona-Cruz, S.A.; Pastrana-Arellano, E.; Aquino-Andrade, A.; Romo-González, C.; Arias-de la Garza, E.; Álvarez-Villalobos, N.A.; García-Romero, M.T. Global antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Staphylococcus aureus in atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2024, 160, 1171–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Dukic, V.M.; Lauderdale, D.S.; Wilder, J.; Daum, R.S.; David, M.Z. Epidemics of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e52722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Jung, M.Y.; Chung, J.Y.; Lee, H.Y.; Park, J.; Lee, D.Y.; Yang, J.M. Antibiotic susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus in atopic dermatitis: Current prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Korea and treatment strategies. Ann. Dermatol. 2015, 27, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Edslev, S.M.; Clausen, M.L.; Agner, T.; Stegger, M.; Andersen, P.S. Genomic analysis reveals different mechanisms of fusidic acid resistance in Staphylococcus aureus from Danish atopic dermatitis patients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 856–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Bessa, G.R.; Quinto, V.P.; Machado, D.C.; Lipnharski, C.; Weber, M.B.; Bonamigo, R.R.; D’Azevedo, P.A. Staphylococcus aureus resistance to topical antimicrobials in atopic dermatitis. An. Bras. Dermatol. 2016, 91, 604–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Alzolibani, A.; Al Robaee, A.; Al Shobaili, H.; Bilal, J.; Ahmad, M.; Saif, G.B. Documentation of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) among children with atopic dermatitis in the Qassim region, Saudi Arabia. Acta Dermatovenerol. Alp. Pannonica Adriat. 2012, 21, 51–53. [Google Scholar]
  10. Velázquez-Meza, M.E.; Mendoza-Olazarán, S.; Echániz-Aviles, G.; Camacho-Ortiz, A.; Martínez-Reséndez, M.F.; Valero-Moreno, V.; Garza-González, E. Chlorhexidine whole-body washing of patients reduces methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and has a direct effect on the distribution the ST5-MRSA-II (New York/Japan) clone. J. Med. Microbiol. 2017, 66, 721–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Gonzalez, T.; Stevens, M.L.; Baatyrbek Kyzy, A.; Alarcon, R.; He, H.; Kroner, J.W.; Spagna, D.; Grashel, B.; Sidler, E.; Martin, L.J.; et al. Biofilm propensity of Staphylococcus aureus skin isolates is associated with increased atopic dermatitis severity and barrier dysfunction in the MPAACH pediatric cohort. Allergy 2021, 76, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Sonesson, A.; Przybyszewska, K.; Eriksson, S.; Mörgelin, M.; Kjellström, S.; Davies, J.; Potempa, J.; Schmidtchen, A. Identification of bacterial biofilm and the Staphylococcus aureus derived protease, staphopain, on the skin surface of patients with atopic dermatitis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 8689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  13. Peng, Q.; Tang, X.; Dong, W.; Sun, N.; Yuan, W. A review of biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus and its regulation mechanism. Antibiotics 2022, 12, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Gonzalez, T.; Myers, J.M.B.; Herr, A.B.; Hershey, G.K.K. Staphylococcal biofilms in atopic dermatitis. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 2017, 17, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Chopra, R.; Vakharia, P.P.; Sacotte, R.; Patel, N.; Immaneni, S.; White, T.; Kantor, R.; Hsu, D.Y.; Silverberg, J.I. Severity strata for eczema area and severity index (EASI), modified EASI, scoring atopic dermatitis (SCORAD), objective SCORAD, atopic dermatitis severity index and body surface area in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis. Br. J. Dermatol. 2017, 177, 1316–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Key, F.M.; Khadka, V.D.; Romo-González, C.; Blake, K.J.; Deng, L.; Lynn, T.C.; Lee, J.C.; Chiu, I.M.; García-Romero, M.T.; Lieberman, T.D. On-person adaptive evolution of Staphylococcus aureus during treatment for atopic dermatitis. Cell Host Microbe 2023, 31, 593–603.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 33rd ed.; CLSI Supplement M100; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne PA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  18. CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 29th ed.; CLSI Supplement M100; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Miklasińska-Majdanik, M. Mechanisms of resistance to macrolide antibiotics among Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Singh, A.K.; Prakash, P.; Achra, A.; Singh, G.P.; Das, A.; Singh, R.K. Standardization and Classification of In vitro Bio-film Formation by Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Glob. Infect. Dis. 2017, 9, 93–101. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fri, J.; Njom, H.A.; Ateba, C.N.; Ndip, R.N. Antibiotic resistance and virulence gene characteristics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from healthy edible marine fish. Int. J. Microbiol. 2020, 2020, 9803903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Khodabandeh, M.; Mohammadi, M.; Abdolsalehi, M.R.; Alvandimanesh, A.; Gholami, M.; Bibalan, M.H.; Pournajaf, A.; Kafshgari, R.; Rajabnia, R. Analysis of resistance to macrolide-lincosamide streptogramin B among mecA-positive Staphylococcus aureus isolates. Osong Public Health Res. Perspect. 2019, 10, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Aguilar-Gómez, N.E.; Merida-Vieyra, J.; Isunza-Alonso, O.D.; Morales-Pirela, M.G.; Colín-Martínez, O.; Juárez-Benítez, E.J.; García de la Puente, S.; Aquino-Andrade, A. Surveillance of osteoarticular infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus in a pediatric hospital in Mexico City. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 999268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Harkins, C.P.; Holden, M.T.G.; Irvine, A.D. Antimicrobial resistance in atopic dermatitis. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019, 122, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  25. Rangel, S.M.; Paller, A.S. Bacterial colonization, overgrowth, and superinfection in atopic dermatitis. Clin. Dermatol. 2018, 36, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  26. Khadka, V.D.; Key, F.M.; Romo-González, C.; Martínez-Gayosso, A.; Campos-Cabrera, B.L.; Gerónimo-Gallegos, A.; Lynn, T.C.; Durán-McKinster, C.; Coria-Jiménez, R.; Lieberman, T.D.; et al. The skin microbiome of patients with atopic dermatitis normalizes gradually during treatment. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 720674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Hwang, J.; Thompson, A.; Jaros, J.; Blackcloud, P.; Hsiao, J.; Shi, V.Y. Updated understanding of Staphylococcus aureus in atopic dermatitis: From virulence factors to commensals and clonal complexes. Exp. Dermatol. 2021, 30, 1532–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Simpson, E.L.; Villarreal, M.; Jepson, B.; Rafaels, N.; David, G.; Hanifin, J.; Taylor, P.; Boguniewicz, M.; Yoshida, T.; De Benedetto, A.; et al. Patients with atopic dermatitis colonized with Staphylococcus aureus have a distinct phenotype and endotype. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2018, 138, 2224–2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Fleury, O.M.; McAleer, M.A.; Feuillie, C.; Formosa-Dague, C.; Sansevere, E.; Bennett, D.E.; Towell, A.M.; McLean, W.H.I.; Kezic, S.; Robinson, D.A.; et al. Clumping factor B promotes adherence of Staphylococcus aureus to corneocytes in atopic dermatitis. Infect. Immune 2017, 85, e00994-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Clausen, M.L.; Edslev, S.M.; Andersen, P.S.; Clemmensen, K.; Krogfelt, K.A.; Agner, T. Staphylococcus aureus colonization in atopic eczema and its association with filaggrin gene mutations. Br. J. Dermatol. 2017, 177, 1394–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Allen, H.B.; Vaze, N.D.; Choi, C.; Hailu, T.; Tulbert, B.H.; Cusack, C.A.; Joshi, S.G. The presence and impact of biofilm-producing staphylococci in atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2014, 150, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Conte, A.L.; Brunetti, F.; Marazzato, M.; Longhi, C.; Maurizi, L.; Raponi, G.; Palamara, A.T.; Grassi, S.; Conte, M.P. Atopic dermatitis-derived Staphylococcus aureus strains: What makes them special in the interplay with the host. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1194254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Di Domenico, E.G.; Cavallo, I.; Bordignon, V.; Prignano, G.; Sperduti, I.; Gurtner, A.; Trento, E.; Toma, L.; Pimpinelli, F.; Capitanio, B.; et al. Inflammatory cytokines and biofilm production sustain Staphylococcus aureus outgrowth and persistence: A pivotal interplay in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. Rezaei, M.; Chavoshzadeh, Z.; Haroni, N.; Armin, S.; Navidinia, M.; Mansouri, M.; Shamshiri, A.R.; Mesdaghi, M.; Eshgh, F.A. Colonization with methicillin resistant and methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus subtypes in patients with atopic dermatitis and its relationship with severity of eczema. Arch. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. 2013, 1, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Ogonowska, P.; Szymczak, K.; Empel, J.; Urbaś, M.; Woźniak-Pawlikowska, A.; Barańska-Rybak, W.; Świetlik, D.; Nakonieczna, J. Staphylococcus aureus from atopic dermatitis patients: Its genetic structure and susceptibility to phototreatment. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e0459822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Fooladi, A.A.I.; Ashrafi, E.; Tazandareh, S.G.; Koosha, R.Z.; Rad, H.S.; Amin, M.; Soori, M.; Larki, R.A.; Choopani, A.; Hosseini, H.M. The distribution of pathogenic and toxigenic genes among MRSA and MSSA clinical isolates. Microb. Pathog. 2015, 81, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Rozgonyi, F.; Kocsis, E.; Kristóf, K.; Nagy, K. Is MRSA more virulent than MSSA? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2007, 13, 843–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Hernández-Cuellar, E.; Tsuchiya, K.; Valle-Ríos, R.; Medina-Contreras, O. Differences in biofilm formation by methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strains. Diseases 2023, 11, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Silva, V.; Hermenegildo, S.; Ferreira, C.; Manaia, C.M.; Capita, R.; Alonso-Calleja, C.; Carvalho, I.; Pereira, J.E.; Maltez, L.; Capelo, J.L.; et al. Genetic characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from human bloodstream infections: Detection of MLS(B) resistance. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Cressman, A.M.; MacFadden, D.R.; Verma, A.A.; Razak, F.; Daneman, N. Empiric antibiotic treatment thresholds for serious bacterial infections: A scenario-based survey study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 69, 930–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. 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]
  42. Diekema, D.J.; Pfaller, M.A.; Shortridge, D.; Zervos, M.; Jones, R.N. Twenty-year trends in antimicrobial susceptibilities among Staphylococcus aureus from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2019, 6, S47–S53, Correction in Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2019, 6, ofz202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Dai, C.; Ji, W.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, W.; Wang, H.; Wang, X. Molecular characteristics, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections among critically ill pediatric patients in Shanghai, 2016–2021. Front. Pediatr. 2024, 12, 1457645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. McNeil, J.C.; Sommer, L.M.; Joseph, M.; Hulten, K.G.; Kaplan, S.L. Penicillin susceptibility among Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections at a children’s hospital. Microbiol. Spectr. 2024, 12, e0086924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  45. Darboe, S.; Dobreniecki, S.; Jarju, S.; Jallow, M.; Mohammed, N.I.; Wathuo, M.; Ceesay, B.; Tweed, S.; Basu Roy, R.; Okomo, U.; et al. Prevalence of panton-valentine leukocidin (PVL) and antimicrobial resistance in community-acquired clinical Staphylococcus aureus in an urban gambian hospital: A 11-year period retrospective pilot study. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Kilani, A.M.; Alabi, E.D.; Adeleke, O.E. Coexistence of the blaZ gene and selected virulence determinants in multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Insights from three Nigerian tertiary hospitals. BMC Infect. Dis. 2024, 24, 1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  47. de Menezes, I.L.; Pone, S.M.; Pone, M.V.D.S. Clinical, demographic characteristics and antimicrobial resistance profile of Staphylococcus aureus isolated in clinical samples from pediatric patients in a tertiary hospital in Rio de Janeiro: 7-year longitudinal study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2024, 24, 1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Assefa, M. Inducible clindamycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains in Africa: A systematic review. Int. J. Microbiol. 2022, 2022, 1835603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Pereira, J.N.D.P.; Rabelo, M.A.; Lima, J.L.D.C.; Neto, A.M.B.; Lopes, A.C.D.S.; Maciel, M.A.V. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of resistance to macrolides, lincosamides and type B streptogramin of clinical isolates of Staphylococcus spp. of a university hospital in Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 2016, 20, 276–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Timsina, R.; Shrestha, U.; Singh, A.; Timalsina, B. Inducible clindamycin resistance and erm genes in Staphylococcus aureus in school children in Kathmandu, Nepal. Future Sci. 2020, 7, FSO361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Wang, L.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Huang, G.; Wang, C.; Deng, L.; Zheng, Y.; Fu, Z.; Li, C.; Shang, Y.; et al. Multidrug-resistant clones of community-associated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from Chinese children and the resistance genes to clindamycin and mupirocin. J. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 61, 1240–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Elkammoshi, A.M.; Ghasemzadeh-Moghaddam, H.; Nordin, S.A.; Taib, N.M.; Subbiah, S.K.; Neela, V.; Hamat, R.A. A low prevalence of inducible macrolide, lincosamide, and streptogramin B resistance phenotype among methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus isolated from Malaysian patients and healthy individuals. Jundishapur J. Microbiol. 2016, 9, e37148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Nahar, L.; Hagiya, H.; Nada, T.; Iio, K.; Gotoh, K.; Matsushita, O.; Otsuka, F. Prevalence of inducible macrolide, lincosamide, and streptogramin B (inducible MLSB) resistance in clindamycin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus at Okayama university hospital. Acta Med. Okayama 2023, 77, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  54. Goudarzi, M.; Tayebi, Z.; Fazeli, M.; Miri, M.; Nasiri, M.J. Molecular characterization, drug resistance and virulence analysis of constitutive and inducible clindamycin resistance Staphylococcus aureus strains recovered from clinical samples, Tehran—Iran. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  55. Manouchehrifar, M.; Khademi, F.; Doghaheh, H.P.; Habibzadeh, S.; Arzanlou, M. Macrolide-lincosamide resistance and virulence genes in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical specimens in Ardabil, Iran. Iran. J. Pathol. 2023, 18, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  56. Paniagua-Contreras, G.L.; Monroy-Pérez, E.; Vaca-Paniagua, F.; Rodríguez Moctezuma, J.R.; Negrete-Abascal, E.; Vaca, S. Implementation of a novel in vitro model of infection of reconstituted human epithelium for expression of virulence genes in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from catheter-related infections in Mexico. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2014, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  57. Laceb, Z.M.; Diene, S.M.; Lalaoui, R.; Kihal, M.; Chergui, F.H.; Rolain, J.M.; Hadjadj, L. Genetic diversity and virulence profile of methicillin and inducible clindamycin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates in Western Algeria. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Bakaa, L.; Pernica, J.M.; Couban, R.J.; Tackett, K.J.; Burkhart, C.N.; Leins, L.; Smart, J.; Garcia-Romero, M.T.; Elizalde-Jiménez, I.G.; Herd, M.; et al. Bleach baths for atopic dermatitis. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2022, 128, 660–668.e669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Eriksson, S.; van der Plas, M.J.A.; Mörgelin, M.; Sonesson, A. Antibacterial and antibiofilm effects of sodium hypochlorite against Staphylococcus aureus isolates derived from patients with atopic dermatitis. Br. J. Dermatol. 2017, 177, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Wong, S.M.; Ng, T.G.; Baba, R. Efficacy and safety of sodium hypochlorite (bleach) baths in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in Malaysia. J. Dermatol. 2013, 40, 874–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Karpiński, T.M.; Korbecka-Paczkowska, M.; Ożarowski, M.; Włodkowic, D.; Wyganowska, M.L.; Seremak-Mrozikiewicz, A.; Cielecka-Piontek, J. Adaptation to sodium hypochlorite and potassium permanganate may lead to their ineffectiveness against Candida albicans. Pharmaceuticals 2024, 17, 1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of 26 patients from whom S. aureus was isolated (n = 136).
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of 26 patients from whom S. aureus was isolated (n = 136).
Clinical CharacteristicsNumber of Isolates (%)
Site50 (36.7)
Affected skin
 Unaffected skin31 (22.7)
 Nares55 (40.4)
Severity of AD at baseline a
 Moderate42 (58.3)
 Severe30 (41.7)
Visit
 Baseline72 (52.9)
 Subsequent64 (47)
Body sites colonized by S. aureus at baseline a
 ≤314 (19.4)
 >358 (80.6)
Adjunctive treatment with dilute bleach baths b
 No41 (62.1)
 Yes23 (37.9)
SCORAD decreased 15 or more points from baseline to 4th visit
 No40 (29.4)
 Yes96 (70)
Persistently moderate-severe AD
 No78 (57.3)
 Yes58 (42.7)
Abbreviations: SCORAD: Severity score for AD; AD: atopic dermatitis. a Only samples from the baseline visit were analyzed (n = 72). b Only samples from subsequent visits were analyzed (n = 66).
Table 2. Patterns of susceptibility/resistance to the tested antibiotics in all the S. aureus isolates (n = 136).
Table 2. Patterns of susceptibility/resistance to the tested antibiotics in all the S. aureus isolates (n = 136).
VariablesLZCCGMCIPPETESXTFOX
Resistant, n (%)034 (25)87 (64)1 (0.7)103 (75.7)34 (25)3 (2.2)1 (0.7)0
Intermediate, n (%)–––21 (15.4)–1 (0.7)9 (6.6)0–
Sensitive, n (%)136 (100)102 (75)49 (36)114 (83.8)33 (24.3)101 (74.3)124 (91.2)135 (99.3)136 (100)
Abbreviations: LZ: linezolid; CC: clindamicin; GM: gentamicin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; P: penicillin; E: erythromycin; TE: tetracycline; FOX: cefoxitin (proxy for methicillin resistance); SXT: trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.
Table 3. S. aureus MLSB sensitivity (n = 136).
Table 3. S. aureus MLSB sensitivity (n = 136).
VariablesNumber of IsolatesModerate-Strong Biofilm (n = 82)p Value
n (%)n (%)
E-S, CC-S101 (74.2)62 (61.4)NS
E-R, CC-R (constitutive MLSB)14 (10.2)8 (57.1)NS
E-R, CC-S (D-test positive, inducible MLSB)20 (14.7)11 (55)NS
E-R, CC-S (D-test negative, MS)1 (0.7)1 (100)NS
Indeterminate00NS
E: erythromycin; S: sensitive; R: resistant; CC: clindamycin; MLSB: macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance; MS: Macrolide-Streptogramin B. Not significant (NS).
Table 4. Antibiotic resistance in S. aureus isolates and clinical characteristics of the studied population.
Table 4. Antibiotic resistance in S. aureus isolates and clinical characteristics of the studied population.
Intermediate/ResistantBiofilm Production
CC, n (%)GM, n (%)CIP, n (%)P, n (%)E, n (%)TE, n (%)SXT, n (%)FOXModerate/Strong, n (%)
All isolates 34492210335121082
Site         
Nonlesional (n = 50)11 (32.4)19 (38.8)10 (45.4)37 (35.9)11 (31.4)6 (50)0 29 (35.4)
Lesional (n = 31)8 (23.5)9 (18.4)4 (18.1)22 (21.4)8 (22.8)3 (25)1 (100) 22 (26.8)
Nares (n = 55)15 (44.1)21 (42.9)8 (36.3)44 (42.7)16 (45.7)3 (25)0 31 (37.8)
Type of visit         
Baseline visit (n = 72)14 (41.2)25 (51)8 (36.3)55 (53.4)14 (40)6 (50)1 (100) 38 (46.3)
Follow-up visits (n = 64)20 (58.8)24 (49)14 (63.7)48 (46.6)21 (60)6 (50)0 44 (53.7)
SCORAD decreased ≥ 15 from baseline to final visit         
Yes (n = 40)16 (47.1)20 (40.8)16 (72.7)22 (21.4)16 (45.7)4 (33.3)0 29 (35.4)
No (n = 96)18 (52.9) **29 (59.2) *6 (27.3) ***81 (78.6) ***19 (54.3) *8 (66.6)1 (100) 53 64.6) *
Persistently moderate-severe AD
Yes (n = 58)25 (73.5)41 (83.7)16 (72.7)35 (34)26 (74.2) ***2 (16.6) *042 (51.2)
No (n = 78)9 (26.5) ***8 (16.3) ***6 (27.3) **68 (66) ***9 (25.8)10 (83.4)1 (100) 40 (48.8) *
Isolates from baseline visit only, (n = 72)14258551461038
No. of sites colonized by S. aureus at baseline
<3 sites a (n = 14)1 (7.1)4 (16)012 (21.8)1 (7.1)1 (16.7)05 (13.2)
≥3 sites a (n = 58)13 (92.9)21 (84)8 (100)43 (78.2)13 (92.9)5 (83.3)1 (100) 33 (86.8)
Severity of AD at baseline
Nonsevere AD a (n = 42)7 (50)14 (56)5 (62.5)36 (65.5)7 (50)4 (66.6)07 (44.7)
Severe a (n = 30)7 (50)11 (44)3 (37.5)19 (34.5) *7 (50)2 (33.3)1 (100) 21 (55.3) *
Isolates from subsequent visits only, (n = 64)202414482160044
Type of treatment
Adjunctive diluted bleach baths b (n = 23)7 (35)10 (41.7)1 (7.2) *22 (45.8) **8 (38.1)1 (16.6)019 (56.8)
Standard treatment b (n = 41)13 (65)14 (58.3)13 (92.8)26 (54.2)13 (61.9)5 (83.4)0 19 (43.2)
Notes: SCORAD: Severity score for AD; AD: atopic dermatitis; LZ: linezolid; CC: clindamicin; GM: gentamicin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; P: penicillin; E: erythromycin; TE: tetracycline; FOX: cefoxitin; SXT: trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. * p = 0.05; ** p < 0.001; *** p < 0.0001. a Only samples from the baseline visit were analyzed (n = 72); b Only samples from subsequent visits were analyzed (n = 64).
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

Romo-González, C.; Aquino-Andrade, A.; Pérez-Carranza, A.; Chaparro-Camacho, D.; Becerril-Osnaya, A.; García-Romero, M.T. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Biofilm Formation of Staphylococcus aureus Strains Isolated from Pediatric Patients with Atopic Dermatitis. Microorganisms 2026, 14, 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14020311

AMA Style

Romo-González C, Aquino-Andrade A, Pérez-Carranza A, Chaparro-Camacho D, Becerril-Osnaya A, García-Romero MT. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Biofilm Formation of Staphylococcus aureus Strains Isolated from Pediatric Patients with Atopic Dermatitis. Microorganisms. 2026; 14(2):311. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14020311

Chicago/Turabian Style

Romo-González, Carolina, Alejandra Aquino-Andrade, Abril Pérez-Carranza, Diana Chaparro-Camacho, Andrea Becerril-Osnaya, and Maria Teresa García-Romero. 2026. "Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Biofilm Formation of Staphylococcus aureus Strains Isolated from Pediatric Patients with Atopic Dermatitis" Microorganisms 14, no. 2: 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14020311

APA Style

Romo-González, C., Aquino-Andrade, A., Pérez-Carranza, A., Chaparro-Camacho, D., Becerril-Osnaya, A., & García-Romero, M. T. (2026). Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Biofilm Formation of Staphylococcus aureus Strains Isolated from Pediatric Patients with Atopic Dermatitis. Microorganisms, 14(2), 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14020311

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