Next Article in Journal
Insights into the Evolving Epidemiology of Clostridioides difficile Infection and Treatment: A Global Perspective
Next Article in Special Issue
Tracing the Evolutionary Pathways of Serogroup O78 Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Characterization of Antibiotic Resistance Determinants in Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates Recovered from Hospital Effluents in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
Plasmid Costs Explain Plasmid Maintenance, Irrespective of the Nature of Compensatory Mutations
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Dissemination of Enterococcal Genetic Lineages: A One Health Perspective

by
Joana Monteiro Marques
1,2,
Mariana Coelho
1,2,
Andressa Rodrigues Santana
1,2,
Daniel Pinto
1,2 and
Teresa Semedo-Lemsaddek
1,2,*
1
Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, Av. da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal
2
Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(7), 1140; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071140
Submission received: 31 May 2023 / Revised: 22 June 2023 / Accepted: 29 June 2023 / Published: 1 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genomic Analysis of Antibiotics Resistance in Pathogens, 2nd Edition)

Abstract

:
Enterococcus spp. are commensals of the gastrointestinal tracts of humans and animals and colonize a variety of niches such as water, soil, and food. Over the last three decades, enterococci have evolved as opportunistic pathogens, being considered ESKAPE pathogens responsible for hospital-associated infections. Enterococci’s ubiquitous nature, excellent adaptative capacity, and ability to acquire virulence and resistance genes make them excellent sentinel proxies for assessing the presence/spread of pathogenic and virulent clones and hazardous determinants across settings of the human–animal–environment triad, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis of the One Health continuum. This review provides an overview of enterococcal fitness and pathogenic traits; the most common clonal complexes identified in clinical, veterinary, food, and environmental sources; as well as the dissemination of pathogenic genomic traits (virulome, resistome, and mobilome) found in high-risk clones worldwide, across the One Health continuum.

1. Enterococcus spp.—An Overview

Enterococcus spp. are ubiquitous gram-positive cocci that inhabit the normal intestinal microbiota of humans and animals and colonize a variety of environmental sources such as soils, water, and fresh and fermented foods. These facultative anaerobes, catalase-negative, non-spore-forming bacteria can tolerate high salt concentrations (6.5% NaCl), wide pH values (4.5–10.0), and growth temperatures ranging from 10 to 45 °C (optimal at 36 °C) and present variable resistance to chemical disinfectants, such as alcohol and chlorhexidine [1,2,3]. In fact, enterococci possess remarkable stress resilience, which can be enhanced by exposure to sublethal harsh conditions, surviving temperatures as high as 60 °C, desiccation in the environment, and starvation [4]. In addition, enterococci are known to hydrolyze esculin in the presence of 40% bile salts [1,2]. As homofermentative bacteria, they produce lactic acid from glucose fermentation without gas production [2]. Likewise, enterococci play a significant role in the organoleptic properties of fermented foods, due to their natural occurrence as contaminants in raw and dairy food products, resistance to food processing conditions (thermotolerance), low toxicity, and ability to acidify the environment [2]. These attributes are crucial for successful use in food fermentation processes, either as starter or non-starter bacteria, and inclusion in probiotic formulations [5].
However, enterococci have emerged as relevant opportunistic pathogens in the last decades, representing a major cause of healthcare-associated infections due to rapid adaptation to the host and ability to acquire a diversity of virulence and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs; resistome [6]) through horizontal gene transfer (HGT), largely mediated by mobile genetic elements (MGEs; composing the mobilome) [7]. These bacteria can cause a variety of infections in humans (urinary tract, intra-abdominal, and tissue infections; bacteremia, and endocarditis [8]) and animals (urinary tract infection, otitis externa, peritonitis, endocarditis, and mastitis in dairy animals [9]). Among the growing number of enterococcal species identified, Enterococcus faecalis and E. faecium are the most common infection-related species, with E. faecalis accounting for the majority of infections [10]. Yet, the proportion of E. faecium infections has been progressively increasing, due to the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly vancomycin-resistant E. faecium (VREfm), which has been responsible for the majority of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) outbreaks worldwide [11,12]. According to recent evidence, the percentage of clinical VREfm varies between 1 and 46.3% in Europe, 75 and 80% in the USA, and 11.3 and 75% in Australia [11]. These increased levels of resistance have led to the inclusion of VREfm in the high-priority pathogens list, defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the ESKAPE pathogen group formed by E. faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp. [13,14]. Other relevant species of the enterococcal genus include E. avium, E. gallinarum, E. casseliflavus, E. hirae, E. mundtii, and E. raffinosus, E. gallinarum and E. casseliflavus being of special interest, due to their intrinsic resistance to vancomycin [2]. In general, it has been estimated that enterococci represent 6.1–17.5% of the total number of isolates obtained from European patients carrying hospital-acquired infections between 2010 and 2020 [15].
The aim of this literature review is to describe enterococci’s most relevant features, focusing on the overall dissemination of virulence and antimicrobial resistance genetic traits across the One Health sectors. A literature search was mainly conducted on PubMed and ScienceDirect databases (including cross-references). Only the most recent reports (with a major focus on the last five years) addressing the dissemination of genetic determinants between sectors of the One Health triad were selected (further clarified in Section 4).

2. Genetic Lineages

E. faecalis and E. faecium exhibit conserved genomes, although they possess a significant accessory genome (up to 38% in E. faecium), which contributes to remarkable genomic plasticity [16]. The evolution of enterococci was predominantly influenced by recombination and proficiency in acquiring novel genes through HGT facilitated by MGEs, such as plasmids, transposons [16,17], genomic islands (GI), and prophages [18]. The genome plasticity of clinical E. faecium can be explained by the lack of genome defense mechanisms limiting HGT, such as CRISPR–Cas and restriction-modification systems [16]. Accordingly, an inverse correlation between the presence of the CRISPR–Cas locus and acquired antimicrobial resistance in E. faecalis was first demonstrated in 2010 [19]. Recently, the lack of CRISPR–Cas genes was also associated with higher antimicrobial resistance rates and multidrug resistance in E. faecalis and E. faecium originating from hospital wastewater [20].
The duality between commensals and infection-causing organisms, and the remarkable adaptability to various environmental sources, led to the division of E. faecium into two distinct genomic clades: clade A, encompassing hospital-associated lineages (e.g., vancomycin-resistant isolates); and clade B, comprising community-associated enterococci [3,21,22]. However, the discovery of clinical isolates within the clade B lineage led some authors to challenge this classification [23]. Palmer et al. [17] pointed out two evolutionary theories to explain the emergence of the two clades. The first is that clade A and clade B may be endogenous to the gastrointestinal tracts of different hosts and now coexist among human microbiota, as a result of antibiotic elimination of competitors. The other is that clades A and B may be diverging from each other, due to antibiotic use and ecological isolation, although this is less likely [17]. Clade A can be further classified into two distinct sub-clades: clade A1, consisting of human clinical epidemic strains, which account for the majority of human infections (mostly referred to as CC17, further explored in Section 4); and clade A2, typically associated with livestock/animal strains and some occasional human infection isolates [22]. Interestingly, some animal-origin enterococci found in clade A1 were isolated from pet dogs, suggesting an interconnection between hospital strains and household pets [22]. In fact, an additional study demonstrated that sub-clade A1 emerged from A2, and that hospital isolates identified as A2 represent a genetic continuum between A1 and community E. faecium placed in clade B [7]. Thus, the existence of this sub-clade division has been contested and remains uncertain [7,23].
In comparison to E. faecium, E. faecalis isolates do not exhibit a multiclade structure, instead displaying a significant reliance on the acquisition of mobile elements as a primary driver of genomic diversity [17]. Nevertheless, some major high-risk enterococcal clonal complexes (HiRECCs), namely CC2, CC9, and CC87 (further explored in Section 4), have been associated to hospital settings and healthcare-associated infections [1,24].

3. Enterococcal Fitness Factors, Virulence Traits, and Antimicrobial Resistance

3.1. Fitness Factors

Enterococci express various fitness and adaptive factors, referring to cumulative evolutionary mechanisms that allow them to survive and thrive in high-pressure selective environments (e.g., healthcare facilities and food industries). Their durability, and impressive multistress tolerance, optimizes enterococci as competitors of the host gastrointestinal tract and allow them to persist in healthcare environments, despite careful disinfection procedures, and they acquire antimicrobial resistance genes from other bacteria present in the same niche [25]. A key feature contributing to the enhancement of enterococcal fitness is the ability to produce biofilms (partly regulated by quorum-sensing mechanisms), leading to rapid adhesion onto abiotic surfaces, tissue colonization, and higher stress tolerance [26]. Some examples of molecular mechanisms involved in stress tolerance regulation include oxidative stress (in some E. faecalis catalase-positive katA; peroxidases; and sodA superoxide dismutase), thermal stress (heat stress regulated by heat-shock proteins; and cold stress by physiological changes, expression of cold shock proteins, and cold acclimation proteins), pH stress (alkaline mediated by Na+ (V1V0)-type ATPase and K+/H+ antiporter in E. hirae; acid mediated by F1F0-APTase), osmotic stress (ion transport systems, chaperones, and alterations in the physiochemical properties of the cell envelope), metal stress (copper, manganese, and iron), nutritional stress (nutrient-sensing global regulators CcpA, CodY, and (p)ppGpp messenger), antibiotic stress (associated mechanisms further explored in Section 3.3), host-related stresses (antimicrobial peptides, bile, and blood), disinfectants, among others (reviewed by Gaca and Lemos [25]). Overall, stress tolerance and pathogenesis are closely interlinked, considering that both contribute to enterococcal resilience and survival in harsh environments [25].

3.2. Virulence Traits

Virulence factors are bacterial traits that result in host infection [3]. These determinants are encoded by virulence genes, some of which can be found in pathogenesis islands (PAIs) or plasmids, thus being important to consider in the dissemination of specific genetic lineages across the One Health continuum. Previous reports have shown that clinical enterococcal isolates present the highest virulence, with E. faecalis having the leading role [1], followed by food isolates and starter strains [27]. Virulence factors can be divided into two main groups: (a) externally secreted factors, e.g., cytolysin, gelatinase, secreted antigen A, serine protease, and glycosyl hydrolase; and (b) cell-surface factors, e.g., extracellular surface proteins (Esp), aggregation substances, adhesins, pili, and others [1,5].
Cytolysin is responsible for a bactericidal effect against other gram-positive bacteria and hemolytic disruption of blood erythrocytes [8,28]. It is commonly encoded on plasmids [29], also being found on the chromosome [3], and is regulated by a quorum-sensing mechanism [27]. Gelatinase is a member of the metalloprotease extracellular zinc-endopeptidase family, able to hydrolyze gelatin, collagen, casein, and other peptides [30]. Encoded by the gelE gene, located on the chromosome, it is co-transcribed with the serine protease SprE, by the FSR system [1,8]. Both cytolysin and gelatinase have been mostly studied for E. faecalis [30]. Secreted antigen A (SagA) is a protein exclusively present in E. faecium, with a role in stress activation and cell growth, being putatively involved in cell wall metabolism [31]. In addition, SagA containing a repeated region in clade A1 enterococci appears to improve biofilm formation, in contrast to SagA present in strains from clade B [32]. Glycosyl hydrolase, mistakenly named hyaluronidase in E. faecium, is a degradative enzyme encoded by the chromosomal hyl gene, acting on hyaluronic acid present in cellular tissue and facilitating the spread of enterococci and secreted toxins through the host tissues [27,30]. However, there is still no proof that it contributes to enterococcal colonization and pathogenesis [33].
Regarding cell-surface virulence factors, these are important for bacterial defense mechanisms, such as biofilm formation and immune system evasion [1]. The enterococcal surface protein (Esp), mostly present in E. faecalis and E. faecium clinical isolates, is an adhesin associated with colonization and persistence in urinary tract infections [8] and has an important role in biofilm formation and antimicrobial resistance [34,35]. The esp gene can be encoded in PAIs and may be transmitted by conjugation [5]. Aggregation substances (known as AS or Agg) are pheromone-inducible surface proteins, responsible for the adhesion to both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells [5,8], also aiding in colonization. Aggregation substances are mediated by plasmids—pPD1 contains genes encoding the Asp1 protein, pCF10 contains genes encoding the Asc10 protein, and pAD1 contains genes encoding the Asa1 protein [5]. Microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules (MSCRAMMs) are a subfamily of adhesins that are able to bind to extracellular matrix elements. Three types of MSCRAMMs have been described so far in Enterococcus: (1) Ace (adhesion of collagen from E. faecalis), which plays a role in endocarditis pathogenesis together with (2) Acm (adhesion of collagen from E. faecium), and, lastly, (3) Scm (second collagen from E. faecium) [1,27]. Pili are composed of multimeric fibers made of pilin subunits. In E. faecalis, pili are encoded by two distinct gene clusters: ebp (endocarditis- and biofilm-associated pili) and bee (biofilm formation) [1].
Other factors accounting for enterococcal virulence are PrpA, a thermosensitive protein that binds fibrinogen, fibronectin, and platelets; and phosphotransferase system (PTS) transmembrane proteins and PTS-associated BepA, a permease that contributes to biofilm formation in human serum, being mostly present in clade A isolates (reviewed by Gao et al. [30]).
A scheme of the most important virulence factors described in Enterococcus spp. is displayed in Figure 1, some of which are explored further in Section 4.

3.3. Antimicrobial Resistance and Associated Mechanisms

AMR refers to the ability of bacterial cells to withstand and avoid the harmful effects of antimicrobial agents [36], leading to difficulties in treating infections caused by resistant bacteria. As opportunistic pathogens, enterococci initially caused infections in immunocompromised patients, and later gained relevance as a major pathogen in hospitals with the introduction of third-generation cephalosporins (β-lactams class), to which these bacteria are naturally resistant [3]. As resistance to ampicillin and ciprofloxacin emerged a decade later [3,5], the glycopeptide vancomycin started being used as an alternative therapeutic option [3]. Moreover, the incorrect and prophylactic overuse of antimicrobials, both in healthcare environments and production animals, led to a progressive increase of resistance among enterococci, even to last-resort antimicrobials [5]. Thus, there is an urgent need for active biosurveillance of the dissemination of ARGs between bacteria present in each sector of the One Health triad.
Briefly, enterococci are known to be intrinsically resistant to a variety of antimicrobials, including cephalosporins, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and present low-level resistance to β-lactams and aminoglycosides [27]. Healthcare-associated strains belonging to clade A are generally resistant to ampicillin [37] and quinolones [24]. In addition, the animal-associated sub-clade A2, and the community-associated clade B, rarely lead to invasive infection or present vancomycin resistance [22,23]. Multidrug resistance to macrolides, tetracyclines, streptogramins, and glycopeptides has been observed in both clinical and animal/veterinary enterococci [38]. A summary of the main antimicrobial classes, mechanisms of action in enterococcal species, and genes responsible for antimicrobial resistance is presented in Table 1.
VRE, particularly VREfm, has become a growing concern in modern medicine, especially considering that vancomycin is a last-resort antimicrobial to treat hospital-acquired life-threatening infections (HAIs). Accordingly, VREfm, defined as an ESKAPE pathogen, is identified by the WHO as a high-priority pathogen, emphasizing the urgent need for the development of novel antimicrobial treatment options [40]. Glycopeptide resistance (e.g., vancomycin and teicoplanin) occurs through the substitution of N-terminal D-Alanine-D-Alanine in the peptidoglycan synthesis pathway, to either D-Alanine-D-Lactate (D-Ala-D-Lac) or D-Alanine-D-Serine (D-Ala-D-Ser) [41], leading to a lower binding affinity of glycopeptides in the cell. To date, various gene clusters responsible for glycopeptide resistance have been described in enterococci, named vanA to vanN [42]. Vancomycin resistance is more common in the species E. faecium, vanA and vanB operons being the most frequently detected [1,42,43]. vanA is plasmid-located and mediated by Tn1576 transposon, being characterized by a high degree of acquired inducible resistance to both vancomycin and teicoplanin [5,42,44]. While predominantly observed in E. faecium strains, it has also been detected in E. faecalis and, to a lesser extent, in E. durans, E. raffinosus, E. hirae, E. avium, and E. gallinarum [5]. In contrast, the vanB resistance phenotype, encoded on the chromosome and carried by Tn1549-Tn5382, is characterized by variable levels of vancomycin resistance and susceptibility to teicoplanin [42,44].
A recently described variant of VRE, vancomycin-variable enterococci (VVE), are susceptible to vancomycin while carrying the vanA genotype (VVE-S), with the ability of becoming resistant to vancomycin upon exposure to glycopeptides [42,45]. Several outbreaks of VVE have been reported around the globe [42,45,46,47].
Linezolid (oxazolidinone) has been chosen as a last-resource antimicrobial to fight multidrug-resistant and VRE infections, as it presents bacteriostatic activity against a broad range of gram-positive bacteria. However, resistance to linezolid was first observed only 1 year after its introduction (in 2000) and has been increasing among clinical isolates, leading to the introduction of new antimicrobials with variable availability around the world [5,48]. Tigecycline (glycylcycline) and daptomycin (cyclic anionic lipopeptide) are additional last-resource options [42].

4. Enterococcal Genetic Traits: Dissemination in the One Health Continuum

According to the WHO [49], around 75% of emergent human infectious diseases originate in animals, due to the interdependence between humans and animals, changes in ecosystems, intensification of agriculture, urbanization, travel, and commerce [50]. To tackle this increasing issue, the “One Health” concept was coined over two decades ago, aiming to define an integrated, multisectoral, and sustainably balanced health approach that recognizes the interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health [51]. As a result of enterococcal duality and transversality to different ecosystems, rapid adaptation to the host, and propensity to acquire virulence and resistance traits, enterococci are fit to be used as indicator organisms for tracking and monitoring the transmission of pathogenicity-related genetic determinants in a One Health perspective [52]. Accordingly, antimicrobial resistance and the dissemination of resistance genes through interconnected ecosystems have been considered quintessential One Health issues [53]. To face this problem, many authors [18,36,38,54,55] have been performing comparative genomic analyses of Enterococcus spp. as indicator bacteria, to study the transference of ARGs, virulence genes, and MGE determinants across the One Health continuum.
Accordingly, considering the extensive number of studies addressing the dissemination of genetic determinants within each sector (human health, animal health, environmental health, and food safety), the present review will focus on the dissemination of genetic traits across sectors of the One Health triad. However, considering that HiRECCs are associated with hospital settings and healthcare-associated infection, human-related studies are discussed in more detail, to assure understanding of the topic under review.

4.1. Human Healthcare-Associated Genetic Traits

As aforementioned, enterococci have emerged as one of the most frequent causes of infections in clinical and healthcare settings [56]. Among all species of Enterococcus spp., E. faecalis and E. faecium are the main healthcare-related pathogens, despite a fast-epidemic growth of multidrug-resistant E. faecium clones, which has resulted in increased prevalence of E. faecium in comparison to E. faecalis [15,57]. According to previous studies [29,58] using MLST, there are host-specific genetic clusters of E. faecalis and E. faecium isolated from hospital-acquired infections, defined as clonal complexes (CCs), in which a variety of sequence types (STs) are assembled.
From an evolutionary perspective, the gain and loss of virulence and ARGs via MGEs directly influence the emergence of new specific lineages in a particular geographic area, which could quickly disperse in healthcare-associated settings worldwide [59,60]. The existence of certain resistance genes and virulence factors in a specific local environment induces the acquisition of these traits by epidemic clones via HGT, which may influence evolutionary development toward genetic subpopulations, completely adapted to healthcare settings [58].
Table 2 summarizes some genetic features of the most relevant enterococcal clinical clonal lineages. Given the worldwide heterogenous epidemiology, data are displayed focusing on STs.
Most E. faecalis isolated from healthcare environments have been associated with HiRECCs such as CC2 and CC9, which have spread globally [29,64,72]. However, in Europe, CC87 may replace CC9 as a potential high-risk complex [63]. Particularly, CC2, CC8, and CC9 lineages have revealed higher acquired antimicrobial resistance; CC2, CC16, and CC87 were associated with multidrug resistance, of which CC2 and CC87 were associated with healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) [73].
E. faecalis CC2 comprises various strains in which the genetic determinants are variably present, differences being associated with distinct lineages. For instance, CC2 is characterized by the presence of the aac (6′)-aph(2″) gene for high-level gentamicin resistance, encoded by Tn5281 [62,74], vanB-type resistance or vancomycin-susceptibility, high-level resistance to β-lactams due to β-lactamase production (conferred by the blaZ gene), and resistance to erythromycin by the occurrence of the ermB gene [59,61,75]. Additionally, some studies [62,76,77] in Asia detected at least two virulence genes in CC2 and CC87, including esp, gelE, cylA, asaI, ace, and hyl. Although E. faecalis CC87 from Poland is not distributed worldwide, as is also the case for CC2 or CC9, these three complexes share several virulence and antibiotic resistance determinants, as illustrated in Table 2. However, a remarkable characteristic of CC87 is the exclusive dissemination of certain MGEs, such as repUS1pVEF1 plasmids, which carry vanA resistance in Polish hospitals [78].
Compared with CC2, the other globally disseminated E. faecalis healthcare-associated complex, CC9, has not been so well described in the literature, in terms of phenotypic and genotypic features. However, virulence and antimicrobial resistance traits, in common with CC2, have been identified [29,61,64].
Furthermore, in E. faecalis a wide range of plasmids and transposons are involved in the genetic transmission of resistance and virulence, which may promote the prevalence and dissemination of CC2 and CC9 in healthcare settings [29,79]. Nonetheless, these healthcare-associated clones are not only disseminated in hospitals, but also in the community and in animals, especially CC2 [56].
Regarding E. faecium, some specific clones have rapidly developed multiple AMR since the 1990s, which allowed adaptation and spread in healthcare environments [65]. Clinical-derived E. faecium forms a polyclonal subpopulation of different CCs assembled in clade A, which have separately developed from several ancestral clones, namely MLST sequence type 17 (ST17), ST18, ST78, ST192, and ST203 [17,37,80].
E. faecium CC17 or clade A1 have been found in at least five continents, carrying ampicillin, vancomycin, high-level quinolone resistance, and the presence of an accessory genome that contains putative virulence genes, namely esp and hyl genes [60,68,81,82]. Moreover, fms genes are also present in CC17 isolates (e.g., fms8, fms9, and fms21), coding for virulence factors such as MSCRAMM-like proteins [69]. For instance, fms8 or acm seem to contribute to the success of healthcare-associated infections, being related to a higher prevalence of CC17 in hospitals [59].
Recent studies [83,84] have demonstrated significant genome flexibility and specific clonal outbreaks in certain hospitals, resulting in new clonal lineages with novel adaptative genetic traits, belonging to CC17. In Germany hospitals, E. faecium ST117 significantly increased from 2010 to 2019 and became a highly widespread lineage of CC17 [85]. This sequence type is frequently linked to vanB-type resistance, as seen by the formerly dominant ST192 [85]. In contrast, one of the most prevalent CC17 clones in hospitals in China and Japan has been ST78 VRE, which carries a linear plasmid with a distinctive structural Tn1546 including vanA [86,87,88].
As in other countries, the emergence of E. faecium clones (belonging to CC17) has also occurred in Australia, namely ST203, ST796, ST1421, and ST17 [67,70,71,89]. Initially, ST203 isolates were susceptible to vancomycin, but the acquisition of vanB, encoded by Tn1549, was responsible for the emergence of VRE ST203 strains [90]. In 2011, ST203 became the most prevalent cause of E. faecium bloodstream infections in Australian hospitals [70]. Three years later, in 2014, ST203 was completely replaced by vanB ST796 E. faecium [70]. This clone caused several outbreaks in Australia and New Zealand, before quickly spreading to other countries in Europe, such as Switzerland in 2017 [91,92]. The presence of vanA in some ST796 clones from Switzerland has also been reported [92]. However, a change in the molecular epidemiology of VREfm occurred between 2013 and 2020 in Australia, leading to a large rise in the incidence of vanA VREfm in 2016, due to the emergence of vanA ST1421 [71,89]. More recently, a decrease in vanA VREfm was observed, mainly due to a decrease in ST1421 and ST1424 clones and an increase in vanB ST17, which became the most predominant clone in 2020 [89].
Therefore, some clones are endemic to specific geographic regions. For example, E. faecalis CC87 is still present in hospitals in Poland [78]; E. faecium ST796 was present in Australia and New Zealand in 2014, being later detected in Europe (Switzerland) [70,93]; the first E. faecium ST192 and more recently ST117 in Germany [85]; E. faecalis ST525 in Brazil [94]; E. faecium ST80 associated with the spread of a vanA-containing plasmid and acquisition of a heterogeneous accessory genome in Denmark [95]; and E. faecium ST1421, which became the predominant vanA-type clone from 2015 to 2019 in some Denmark regions [96], among others.
Overall, the prevalence and spread of enterococcal genetic traits are not just a concern in clinical practice, but also a threat to public health, concerning animals, the environment, and the community, due to enterococcal ubiquity across all sectors of the One Health continuum.

4.2. Dissemination of Genetic Traits across One Health Sectors

Many authors [18,36,38,97] have been focusing on the interplay between human, animal, community, and environmental enterococcal clones, from a One Health perspective. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, no review has provided a roadmap of the clonal spread from human clinical settings to animals, food, the community, and the environment, highlighting the dissemination not only between sectors but also around the globe, as hereby presented.
Table 3 summarizes the distribution of specific genetic lineages, virulence features, and antimicrobial resistance of isolates present across the One Health continuum. Only studies comprising MLST analysis with discriminated STs, respective ARGs, and virulence genes were included. To facilitate interpretation and better highlight the dissemination within and between One Health sectors, STs were grouped within the respective CCs.
Several studies [9,115] performed over the years have demonstrated that specific enterococcal strains or genetic traits are shared between animals (or animal-derived food) and humans. In fact, enterococci are known to be present in the gastrointestinal tract of most animals, and there is abundant evidence that drug-resistant strains can occur in companion, farm, or wild animals and be transmitted to humans, causing zoonotic infections [9,115]. Moreover, the overuse of antimicrobials in both human and veterinary medicine has led to the rapid emergence and dissemination of resistant bacteria, which nowadays are resistant to most antimicrobials used in clinical practice [116]. Furthermore, the usage of several antimicrobial classes is shared between human and animal clinical practice, resulting in an overlap of resistant genes detected in both settings, thus compromising human and animal welfare [117,118].
A recent report [119] observed identical antibiotic resistance to ampicillin, virulence patterns, and bacteriocin production within clusters of clinical, farm animal, and retail meat samples, which indicates the transference of enterococcal genetic traits between animals and animal-based foods. This transmission between humans and animals was also confirmed in a previous report [120], which evaluated the spread of antimicrobial-resistant enterococci between dogs and owners in three different households. The authors [120] identified E. faecalis in all three settings with very similar resistance patterns and detected clonal spread between pets and the respective owners within each household, the animals’ body parts, and shared domestic objects. Another study described a 100-fold higher proportion of enterococci, including multidrug-resistant (MDR) E. faecalis and/or E. faecium, in the fecal microbiota of dogs submitted to antimicrobial therapy after leaving an intensive care unit, in comparison to healthy canines [121]. In fact, dogs were proven to harbor E. faecium belonging to STs related to human clinical isolates or hospital outbreaks, for instance ST17 [121,122]. Moreover, enterococcal contamination in medical-associated surfaces at small veterinary hospitals was described by KuKanich et al. [123], who also found MDR E. faecium isolates. Regarding studies which applied MLST, a previous report [121] examined enterococcal antimicrobial resistance in a veterinary clinic and demonstrated that dogs from intensive care submitted to antibiotherapy harbored MDR-Enterococcus, namely belonging to the species E. faecalis and E. faecium. In addition, dog food commercially available in Portugal was reported as a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance enterococci with clinical relevance [110]. All the above highlight the importance of habitat sharing as a risk factor for the spread of pathogenic microorganisms and associated genetic determinants. Accordingly, a study by Jernberg et al. [124], focusing on human and mouse microbiota, concluded that resistance due to antimicrobial treatment may be long-lasting, meaning that resistant strains may remain for long periods after the treatment is finished. Hence, this over-time colonization may increase the risk of the zoonotic spread of multi-resistant bacterial strains [125,126,127].
Previous reports [106] have already demonstrated the dissemination of specific genetic lineages between animals and humans. For example, E. faecalis ST6 (CC2) carrying pheromone-like vanA plasmids is disseminated among human and swine hosts in Europe. Furthermore, Neumann et al. [128] performed a core genome MLST analysis of E. faecalis strains collected from human infection and colonization, showing a close relationship with isolates from clinical sewage/wastewater, belonging to ST6. From the 97 ST6 enterococci, 57 were allocated in 34 distinct CTs, indicating high potential for rapid adaptation. The authors [128] also found that human–clinical associated lineage ST6 included most of the VRE observed. Barros et al. [129] identified enterococci belonging to ST6 in natural gilthead seabream recovered off the coast of Portugal. Regarding E. faecium, in Portugal, ST132 (CC17) conveying vanA plasmids was found to be spread between humans and swine. The ST273 described in the previous study was also found in a wastewater treatment plant in Czech Republic (Table 3) [112,129].
A major study [101], using MLST, investigated the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant and virulence genes in E. faecalis from ducks at slaughterhouses, and the dominant sequence types were ST170, ST593, ST314, ST903, and ST192. The other STs present were represented by a single isolate, and the overall results revealed the presence of 16 distinct CCs. It should also be noted that ST170, a single-locus variant (SLV) of ST82, has already been identified in a hospitalized patient in Poland. Additionally, ST116 recovered from duck skin is an SLV of ST145, which has previously been isolated in hospitalized patients from Spain. CC93 comprises four STs, including ST75 (already found in a hospitalized patient from Portugal), ST657 (in a hospitalized patient from China), ST226 (from poultry meat), and ST98 [101]. Overall, the abovementioned data highlight that E. faecalis isolated from ducks are associated with human healthcare-related enterococci, which may pose a serious risk to public health. Furthermore, regarding antimicrobial patterns, the vast majority of the duck isolates were resistant to tetracycline, doxycycline, erythromycin, and norfloxacin, which may be associated with therapeutic failure. Other noteworthy STs include ST29, which was identified in poultry, wild birds, rodents, and non-hospitalized humans [130] and in pigs from six different Brazilian states [131]; ST13, which was recovered from poultry in Sweden [132]; ST242, ST214, and ST955, which were all found in bovine feces [104], with ST242 being also discovered in wild Magellanic Penguins [133]; ST214, which was observed in non-hospitalized humans [134]; and ST955, which was found in a hospitalized human in Canada [135]. Other studies, such as the one performed by Fatoba et al. [105], demonstrated the presence of the clinical E. faecium CC17 and transmission of multiple STs carrying ARGs and MGEs, from poultry litter to agricultural soil.
In Malaysia, a research group analyzed the genetic variability and evolutionary relationships of VRE isolated from humans, poultry, and swine [108]. Regarding VREfm, enterococci belonging to ST203 (CC17) were found in both humans and poultry. This sequence type has been associated with healthy individuals, farms, slaughterhouses, and the environment. Moreover, another isolate of ST17 (CC17), one of the most widespread genetic lineages associated with human infections, was identified in swine- [136] and poultry-based products [111].
Overall, antibiotic-resistant bacteria dissemination through food-producing animals or the food chain is considered a public health problem, but its real effect as an impact on human health continues to be uncertain [137]. The rise of AMR poses significant challenges to global health and food safety, to the extent that the WHO anticipates entry into the post-antimicrobial era during the present century [138]. Numerous studies [139,140,141] addressed antimicrobial resistance patterns and virulence factors in food products. Regarding the dissemination of ARGs and virulence determinants, some authors [111,119] have found evidence of clinical antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus disseminated across the food chain. Indeed, meat was indicated as a transmission pathway of E. faecium and ARGs from animals to humans. Gouliouris et al. [142] performed a genomic survey of the presence and ARG relatedness of VREfm isolates from livestock farms, retail meat, WWTPs, and bloodstream infections in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Although the authors [120] observed a decrease in VREfm prevalence (between 2003 and 2018), VREfm was isolated in retail meat and was considered ubiquitous in WWTPs. Furthermore, the majority of human- and livestock-related isolates were genetically distinct, and limited sharing of acquired ARGs was observed between healthcare-associated enterococci and livestock. However, Freitas et al. [119] demonstrated that human clinical ampicillin- and multidrug-resistant E. faecium clones disseminated in Tunisia were not only genetically identical to clinical enterococci found in other countries and continents, but also identical to strains isolated from animal sources and food in this country.
Regarding the spread of enterococcal-related resistance and virulence within food samples, López et al. [111] demonstrated that E. faecium belonging to CC17 is present in poultry, veal, and rabbit. More recently, Elghaieb et al. [143] investigated the presence of poxtA- and optrA-carrying linezolid-resistant E. faecalis in food-producing animals and retail meat in Tunisia. OptrA is a gene responsible for acquired linezolid resistance and has been rapidly spreading among enterococci of various origins. The authors [143] also highlighted that enterococci recovered from food-producing animals and retail meat in Tunisia carried a plasmid fragment similar to the one found in enterococcal human and swine samples from China. Additionally, some E. faecium from animals and E. faecalis from the community displayed genetic profiles related with healthcare-associated epidemic strains belonging to clade A1, specifically ST17, ST18, and ST78. However, the community’s E. faecalis was mostly associated with healthcare sequence types, such as ST6, ST40, and ST116. Supporting the results by Elghaieb et al. [143], Ni et al. [144] recently isolated enterococci strains from pig carcasses and environmental samples in duck slaughterhouses in China. Approximately 11% of the isolates were resistant to linezolid, with a portion being poxtA-positive (1.7%) and optrA-positive (16.2%), demonstrating the widespread existence of oxazolidone resistance genes through the food chain to humans [144]. The detection of the same linezolid-resistant enterococci in both food-producing animals and retail meat suggests a potential role of the food chain in the dissemination of this trait, even without selective pressure. Furthermore, the same study also identified the presence of virulence genes typically found in clinical E. faecium from clade A1, including sgrA, ecbA, esp, and acm. These findings indicate the putative pathogenicity of those enterococcal isolates and highlight the possibility of transmission to humans through food [143]. Additionally, another research group performed a molecular characterization of high-level gentamicin-resistant (HLGR) E. faecalis harboring aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes and virulence genes in retail poultry meats from Korea [100]. The authors [100] described ST82 as a foodborne HLGR E. faecalis clone, with a track record of outbreaks in poultry in other countries.
Although enterococci can persist and survive in both fresh and marine water, there is still a lack of consensus regarding their ability to grow and multiply in these environments, due to the scarcity of nutrients [2,145]. Despite this fact, enterococci can be isolated from a panoply of environmental settings with variable availability of nutrients, such as soil, freshwater, beaches [146], and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) [147,148]. Specifically, the latter are considered a cost-effective point of control for the dissemination of AMR determinants in the environment, as WWTPs gather excreted urine and feces from urban surrounding areas [102]. Accordingly, E. faecalis and E. faecium are used as indicators of fecal contamination in water [102]. A comparative genomics study [102] of VRE and MDR enterococci isolated from WWTPs recently performed, described a variety of E. faecium and E. faecalis STs and associated ARGs, virulence genes, and MGEs (Table 3), pointing to WWTPs as key to achieving a better understanding of the linkage between enterococci present in this setting and AMR dissemination [102]. Another recent study [148] detected VREfm and ampicillin-resistant E. faecium hospital-adapted lineages in municipal WWTPs, whose levels in untreated wastewater were significantly higher than directly received hospital sewage. From 28 different ARGs found in the hospital-adapted E. faecium clade, 23 were present in bloodstream infection, hospital sewage, and municipal WWTP enterococci, indicating a genetic overlap between isolates from all sectors and a potential ARG transmission route [148]. An additional study [149] detected vanA-positive E. faecium ST17 and ST80 (CC17) in hospital wastewater, once again highlighting the possible dissemination of healthcare-associated antimicrobial-resistant strains to the environment and community through wastewater. For instance, the ST78 strain from the vast CC17 was associated with isolates derived from WWTP samples, according to [107]. Another study [112] identified the same genetic lineage in WWTP from the Czech Republic. Those ST78 clones were also isolated from bovine meat/milk in Tunisia samples [143,150], which described this complex clone as one of the most common in Chinese cities, leading to its spread throughout the world and indicating clonal persistence in different settings. Sadowy and Luczkiewicz [107] described a set of distinct STs (e.g., ST66, ST361, and ST386) (Table 3) in the Gulf of Gdansk, Poland in wastewater and marine outfalls, influencing the quality of waters. ST66 was also found in water sources for agriculture/recreational purposes in Australia [151]. One study [103], which focused on VREfm ST133 isolated from an aquatic environment in Switzerland (Table 3), demonstrated a close phylogenetic relationship to ST133 recovered from swine feces, highlighting the role of surface water in VRE dissemination.
Sanderson et al. [18] explored the mobilome and resistome of E. faecium across two disparate geographic locations (Canada and United Kingdom) and found that the dissemination of E. faecium MGEs and antimicrobial resistance determinants is not limited by within-species phylogeny, habitat (clinical, agriculture, municipal and agricultural wastewater, and natural water sources), or geography. Nevertheless, the authors [18] found association between specific gene profiles and MGEs with the habitat and pointed out the possibility of enterococcal pathogenicity features being associated with a group of clinical/municipal wastewater genomes, which might constitute a human-associated ecotype within clade A. Recently, a One Health comparative genomic analysis of virulome, resistome, and mobilome in E. faecium and E. faecalis isolated from livestock, human clinical samples, municipal wastewater, and other environmental sources was performed [36]. The study [36] identified 31 E. faecium and 34 E. faecalis ARGs (62 and 68% being plasmid-associated, respectively), with tetracycline (tetL and tetM, frequently found on pM7M2) and macrolide (ermB) resistance being described in all sectors of the One Health continuum. Additionally, Noh et al. [152] also observed the presence of tetM, ermA, and ermB genes in virulent-MDR E. faecalis strains recovered from poultry in Korea, highlighting the spread of tetracycline and macrolide resistance genes among enterococcal isolates from various sectors.

5. Conclusions

In general, it is fundamental to emphasize that a diversity of enterococcal genetic lineages has been observed amongst animals, food, community, and human patients. The widespread nature of enterococci-carrying emerging ARGs and virulence genes between and within humans, animals, and the environment is known to occur, regardless of antimicrobial pressure. The present review aimed to highlight the need for effective genomic biosurveillance studies, focusing on enterococci-carrying virulence and/or antimicrobial resistance genetic elements, across sectors of the One Health continuum, and to expose the urgent need for global measures addressing the spread of MDR and highly pathogenic variants. It is imperative to address the issue of patients acquiring difficult-to-treat healthcare-associated infections upon visits or admission to healthcare facilities. However, it is also essential to acknowledge the potential for those microorganisms to be acquired from community-related settings, including the food chain and contact with domestic animals. Overall, the selective environmental pressure granted by the incorrect use and overuse of antimicrobials in humans, agriculture, pets, and livestock further intensifies the exchange of genetic elements between the One Health sectors, as represented in Figure 2.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S.-L. and J.M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M.M., M.C., A.R.S. and D.P.; writing—review and editing, T.S.-L.; supervision and funding acquisition, T.S.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia IP Portugal, through projects PTDC/OCE-ETA/1785/2020 [EMOTION], UIDB/00276/2020 (CIISA—Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon), and LA/P/0059/2020-AL4ANIMALS (AL4AnimalS). Teresa Semedo-Lemsaddek is financially supported by national funds through FCT under the Transitional Standard—DL57/2016/CP1438/CT0004; Joana Monteiro Marques holds a doctoral fellowship (BIPM CIISA 2/2022) supported by national funds.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Geraldes, C.; Tavares, L.; Gil, S.; Oliveira, M. Enterococcus Virulence and Resistant Traits Associated with Its Permanence in the Hospital Environment. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lebreton, F.; Willems, R.J.L.; Gilmore, M.S. Enterococcus Diversity, Origins in Nature, and Gut Colonization. In Enterococci: From Commensals to Leading Causes of Drug Resistant Infection; Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary: Boston, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lee, T.; Pang, S.; Abraham, S.; Coombs, G.W. Antimicrobial-Resistant CC17 Enterococcus faecium: The Past, the Present and the Future. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2019, 16, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Lebreton, F.; Manson, A.L.; Saavedra, J.T.; Straub, T.J.; Earl, A.M.; Gilmore, M.S. Tracing the Enterococci from Paleozoic Origins to the Hospital. Cell 2017, 169, 849–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Krawczyk, B.; Wityk, P.; Gałęcka, M.; Michalik, M. The Many Faces of Enterococcus spp.—Commensal, Probiotic and Opportunistic Pathogen. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kim, D.W.; Cha, C.J. Antibiotic Resistome from the One-Health Perspective: Understanding and Controlling Antimicrobial Resistance Transmission. Exp. Mol. Med. 2021, 53, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. van Hal, S.J.; Willems, R.J.L.; Gouliouris, T.; Ballard, S.A.; Coque, T.M.; Hammerum, A.M.; Hegstad, K.; Pinholt, M.; Howden, B.P.; Malhotra-Kumar, S.; et al. The Interplay between Community and Hospital Enterococcus faecium Clones within Health-Care Settings: A Genomic Analysis. Lancet Microbe 2022, 3, e133–e141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Semedo, T.; Almeida Santos, M.; Silva Lopes, M.F.; Figueiredo Marques, J.J.; Barreto Crespo, M.T.; Tenreiro, R. Virulence Factors in Food, Clinical and Reference Enterococci: A Common Trait in the Genus? Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 26, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Stępień-Pyśniak, D.; Bertelloni, F.; Dec, M.; Cagnoli, G.; Pietras-Ożga, D.; Urban-Chmiel, R.; Ebani, V.V. Characterization and Comparison of Enterococcus spp. Isolates from Feces of Healthy Dogs and Urine of Dogs with UTIs. Animals 2021, 11, 2845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hashem, Y.A.; Abdelrahman, K.A.; Aziz, R.K. Phenotype–Genotype Correlations and Distribution of Key Virulence Factors in Enterococcus faecalis Isolated from Patients with Urinary Tract Infections. Infect. Drug Resist. 2021, 14, 1713–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhou, X.; Willems, R.J.L.; Friedrich, A.W.; Rossen, J.W.A.; Bathoorn, E. Enterococcus faecium: From Microbiological Insights to Practical Recommendations for Infection Control and Diagnostics. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2020, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Markwart, R.; Willrich, N.; Haller, S.; Noll, I.; Koppe, U.; Werner, G.; Eckmanns, T.; Reuss, A. The Rise in Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium in Germany: Data from the German Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (ARS). Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2019, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Denissen, J.; Reyneke, B.; Waso-Reyneke, M.; Havenga, B.; Barnard, T.; Khan, S.; Khan, W. Prevalence of ESKAPE Pathogens in the Environment: Antibiotic Resistance Status, Community-Acquired Infection and Risk to Human Health. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2022, 244, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rice, L.B. Federal Funding for the Study of Antimicrobial Resistance in Nosocomial Pathogens: No ESKAPE. J. Infect. Dis. 2008, 197, 1079–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Brinkwirth, S.; Ayobami, O.; Eckmanns, T.; Markwart, R. Hospital-Acquired Infections Caused by Enterococci: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Who European Region, 1 January 2010 to 4 February 2020. Eurosurveillance 2021, 26, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cattoir, V. The Multifaceted Lifestyle of Enterococci: Genetic Diversity, Ecology and Risks for Public Health. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2022, 65, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Palmer, K.L.; Godfrey, P.; Griggs, A.; Kos, V.N.; Zucker, J.; Desjardins, C.; Cerqueira, G.; Gevers, D.; Walker, S.; Wortman, J.; et al. Comparative Genomics of Enterococci: Variation in Enterococcus faecalis, Clade Structure in E. Faecium, and Defining Characteristics of E. gallinarum and E. casseliflavus. mBio 2012, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Sanderson, H.; Gray, K.L.; Manuele, A.; Maguire, F.; Khan, A.; Liu, C.; Navanekere Rudrappa, C.; Nash, J.H.E.; Robertson, J.; Bessonov, K.; et al. Exploring the Mobilome and Resistome of Enterococcus faecium in a One Health Context across Two Continents. Microb. Genom. 2022, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Palmer, K.L.; Gilmore, M.S. Multidrug-Resistant Enterococci Lack CRISPR-Cas. mBio 2010, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Alduhaidhawi, A.H.M.; Alhuchaimi, S.N.; Al-Mayah, T.A.; Al-Ouqaili, M.T.S.; Alkafaas, S.S.; Muthupandian, S.; Saki, M. Prevalence of CRISPR-Cas Systems and Their Possible Association with Antibiotic Resistance in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium Collected from Hospital Wastewater. Infect. Drug Resist. 2022, 15, 1143–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Galloway-Peña, J.; Roh, J.H.; Latorre, M.; Qin, X.; Murray, B.E. Genomic and SNP Analyses Demonstrate a Distant Separation of the Hospital and Community-Associated Clades of Enterococcus faecium. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Lebreton, F.; van Schaik, W.; McGuire, A.M.; Godfrey, P.; Griggs, A.; Mazumdar, V.; Corander, J.; Cheng, L.; Saif, S.; Young, S.; et al. Emergence of Epidemic Multidrug-Resistant Enterococcus faecium from Animal and Commensal Strains. mBio 2013, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Raven, K.E.; Reuter, S.; Reynolds, R.; Brodrick, H.J.; Russell, J.E.; Török, M.E.; Parkhill, J.; Peacock, S.J. A Decade of Genomic History for Healthcare-Associated Enterococcus faecium in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Genome Res. 2016, 26, 1388–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Leavis, H.L.; Bonten, M.J.; Willems, R.J. Identification of High-Risk Enterococcal Clonal Complexes: Global Dispersion and Antibiotic Resistance. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2006, 9, 454–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gaca, A.O.; Lemos, J.A. Adaptation to Adversity: The Intermingling of Stress Tolerance and Pathogenesis in Enterococci. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2019, 83, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Parga, A.; Manoil, D.; Brundin, M.; Otero, A.; Belibasakis, G.N. Gram-Negative Quorum Sensing Signalling Enhances Biofilm Formation and Virulence Traits in Gram-Positive Pathogen Enterococcus faecalis. J. Oral. Microbiol. 2023, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fisher, K.; Phillips, C. The Ecology, Epidemiology and Virulence of Enterococcus. Microbiology 2009, 155, 1749–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Segarra, R.A.; Booth, M.C.; Morales, D.A.; Huycke, M.M.; Gilmore, M.S. Molecular Characterization of the Enterococcus faecalis Cytolysin Activator. Infect. Immun. 1991, 59, 1239–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Ruiz-Garbajosa, P.; Bonten, M.J.M.; Robinson, D.A.; Top, J.; Nallapareddy, S.R.; Torres, C.; Coque, T.M.; Cantón, R.; Baquero, F.; Murray, B.E.; et al. Multilocus Sequence Typing Scheme for Enterococcus faecalis Reveals Hospital-Adapted Genetic Complexes in a Background of High Rates of Recombination. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 2220–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Gao, W.; Howden, B.P.; Stinear, T.P. Evolution of Virulence in Enterococcus faecium, a Hospital-Adapted Opportunistic Pathogen. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2018, 41, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Teng, F.; Kawalec, M.; Weinstock, G.M.; Hryniewicz, W.; Murray, B.E. An Enterococcus faecium Secreted Antigen, SagA, Exhibits Broad-Spectrum Binding to Extracellular Matrix Proteins and Appears Essential for E. faecium Growth. Infect. Immun. 2003, 71, 5033–5041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Paganelli, F.L.; de Been, M.; Braat, J.C.; Hoogenboezem, T.; Vink, C.; Bayjanov, J.; Rogers, M.R.C.; Huebner, J.; Bonten, M.J.M.; Willems, R.J.L.; et al. Distinct SagA from Hospital-Associated Clade A1 Enterococcus faecium Strains Contributes to Biofilm Formation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 6873–6882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Panesso, D.; Montealegre, M.C.; Rincán, S.; Mojica, M.F.; Rice, L.B.; Singh, K.V.; Murray, B.E.; Arias, C.A. The HylEfm Gene in PHylEfm of Enterococcus faecium Is Not Required in Pathogenesis of Murine Peritonitis. BMC Microbiol. 2011, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Tendolkar, P.M.; Baghdayan, A.S.; Gilmore, M.S.; Shankar, N. Enterococcal Surface Protein, Esp, Enhances Biofilm Formation by Enterococcus faecalis. Infect. Immun. 2004, 72, 6032–6039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Heikens, E.; Bonten, M.J.M.; Willems, R.J.L. Enterococcal Surface Protein Esp Is Important for Biofilm Formation of Enterococcus faecium E1162. J. Bacteriol. 2007, 189, 8233–8240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Zaidi, S.-Z.; Zaheer, R.; Poulin-Laprade, D.; Scott, A.; Rehman, M.A.; Diarra, M.; Topp, E.; Van Domselaar, G.; Zovoilis, A.; McAllister, T.A. Comparative Genomic Analysis of Enterococci across Sectors of the One Health Continuum. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Willems, R.J.L.; Top, J.; Van Santen, M.; Robinson, D.A.; Coque, T.M.; Baquero, F.; Grundmann, H.; Bonten, M.J.M. Global Spread of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium from Distinct Nosocomial Genetic Complex. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 821–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zaheer, R.; Cook, S.R.; Barbieri, R.; Goji, N.; Cameron, A.; Petkau, A.; Polo, R.O.; Tymensen, L.; Stamm, C.; Song, J.; et al. Surveillance of Enterococcus spp. Reveals Distinct Species and Antimicrobial Resistance Diversity across a One-Health Continuum. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Top, J.; Willems, R.; Bonten, M. Emergence of CC17 Enterococcus faecium: From Commensal to Hospital-Adapted Pathogen. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 52, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. WHO Publishes List of Bacteria for Which New Antibiotics Are Urgently Needed. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/27-02-2017-who-publishes-list-of-bacteria-for-which-new-antibiotics-are-urgently-needed (accessed on 25 May 2023).
  41. Ahmed, M.O.; Baptiste, K.E. Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci: A Review of Antimicrobial Resistance Mechanisms and Perspectives of Human and Animal Health. Microb. Drug Resist. 2018, 24, 590–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Bender, J.K.; Cattoir, V.; Hegstad, K.; Sadowy, E.; Coque, T.M.; Westh, H.; Hammerum, A.M.; Schaffer, K.; Burns, K.; Murchan, S.; et al. Update on Prevalence and Mechanisms of Resistance to Linezolid, Tigecycline and Daptomycin in Enterococci in Europe: Towards a Common Nomenclature. Drug Resist. Updat. 2018, 40, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Miller, W.R.; Munita, J.M.; Arias, C.A. Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance in Enterococci. Expert. Rev. Anti. Infect. 2014, 12, 1221–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Park, I.J.; Wee, G.L.; Jong, H.S.; Kyung, W.L.; Gun, J.W. VanB Phenotype-VanA Genotype Enterococcus faecium with Heterogeneous Expression of Teicoplanin Resistance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 3091–3093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Sivertsen, A.; Pedersen, T.; Larssen, K.W.; Bergh, K.; Rønning, T.G.; Radtke, A.; Hegstad, K. A Silenced VanA Gene Cluster on a Transferable Plasmid Caused an Outbreak of Vancomycin-Variable Enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 4119–4127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Jung, Y.H.; Lee, Y.S.; Lee, S.Y.; Yoo, J.S.; Yoo, J.I.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, O.; Yu, J. yon Structure and Transfer of the VanA Cluster in VanA-Positive, Vancomycin-Susceptible Enterococcus faecium, and Its Revertant Mutant. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014, 80, 148–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Szakacs, T.A.; Kalan, L.; McConnell, M.J.; Eshaghi, A.; Shahinas, D.; McGeer, A.; Wright, G.D.; Low, D.E.; Patel, S.N. Outbreak of Vancomycin-Susceptible Enterococcus faecium Containing the Wild-Type VanA Gene. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014, 52, 1682–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Mutnick, A.H.; Enne, V.; Jones, R.N. Linezolid Resistance since 2001: SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Ann. Pharmacother. 2003, 37, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. One Health. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/one-health (accessed on 24 May 2023).
  50. Mackenzie, J.S.; Jeggo, M. The One Health Approach-Why Is It So Important? Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2019, 4, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Guardabassi, L.; Butaye, P.; Dockrell, D.H.; Fitzgerald, J.R.; Kuijper, E.J. One Health: A Multifaceted Concept Combining Diverse Approaches to Prevent and Control Antimicrobial Resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 1604–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Semedo-Lemsaddek, T.; Pedroso, N.M.; Freire, D.; Nunes, T.; Tavares, L.; Verdade, L.M.; Oliveira, M. Otter Fecal Enterococci as General Indicators of Antimicrobial Resistance Dissemination in Aquatic Environments. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 1113–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Baquero, F.; Coque, T.M.; Martínez, J.L.; Aracil-Gisbert, S.; Lanza, V.F. Gene Transmission in the One Health Microbiosphere and the Channels of Antimicrobial Resistance. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Gouliouris, T.; Coll, F.; Ludden, C.; Blane, B.; Raven, K.E.; Naydenova, P.; Crawley, C.; Török, M.E.; Enoch, D.A.; Brown, N.M.; et al. Quantifying Acquisition and Transmission of Enterococcus faecium Using Genomic Surveillance. Nat. Microbiol. 2021, 6, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. He, Q.; Hou, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Li, W.; Kwok, L.-Y.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, H.; Zhong, Z. Comparative Genomic Analysis of Enterococcus faecalis: Insights into Their Environmental Adaptations. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Guzman Prieto, A.M.; van Schaik, W.; Rogers, M.R.C.; Coque, T.M.; Baquero, F.; Corander, J.; Willems, R.J.L. Global Emergence and Dissemination of Enterococci as Nosocomial Pathogens: Attack of the Clones? Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Suetens, C.; Latour, K.; Kärki, T.; Ricchizzi, E.; Kinross, P.; Moro, M.L.; Jans, B.; Hopkins, S.; Hansen, S.; Lyytikäinen, O.; et al. Prevalence of Healthcare-Associated Infections, Estimated Incidence and Composite Antimicrobial Resistance Index in Acute Care Hospitals and Long-Term Care Facilities: Results from Two European Point Prevalence Surveys, 2016 to 2017. Eurosurveillance 2018, 23, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. van Schaik, W.; Willems, R.J.L. Genome-Based Insights into the Evolution of Enterococci. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2010, 16, 527–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Nallapareddy, S.R.; Wenxiang, H.; Weinstock, G.M.; Murray, B.E. Molecular Characterization of a Widespread, Pathogenic, and Antibiotic Resistance-Receptive Enterococcus faecalis Lineage and Dissemination of Its Putative Pathogenicity Island. J. Bacteriol. 2005, 187, 5709–5718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Willems, R.J.L.; Hanage, W.P.; Bessen, D.E.; Feil, E.J. Population Biology of Gram-Positive Pathogens: High-Risk Clones for Dissemination of Antibiotic Resistance. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 35, 872–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. McBride, S.M.; Fischetti, V.A.; LeBlanc, D.J.; Moellering, R.C.; Gilmore, M.S. Genetic Diversity among Enterococcus faecalis. PLoS ONE 2007, 2, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Rao, C.; Dhawan, B.; Vishnubhatla, S.; Kapil, A.; Das, B.; Sood, S. Emergence of High-Risk Multidrug-Resistant Enterococcus faecalis CC2 (ST181) and CC87 (ST28) Causing Healthcare-Associated Infections in India. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2020, 85, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kuch, A.; Willems, R.J.L.; Werner, G.; Coque, T.M.; Hammerum, A.M.; Sundsfjord, A.; Klare, I.; Ruiz-Garbajosa, P.; Simonsen, G.S.; van Luit-Asbroek, M.; et al. Insight into Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Population Structure of Contemporary Human Enterococcus faecalis Isolates from Europe. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2012, 67, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Kawalec, M.; Pietras, Z.; Daniłowicz, E.; Jakubczak, A.; Gniadkowski, M.; Hryniewicz, W.; Willems, R.J.L. Clonal Structure of Enterococcus faecalis Isolated from Polish Hospitals: Characterization of Epidemic Clones. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Peng, Z.; Yan, L.; Yang, S.; Yang, D. Antimicrobial-Resistant Evolution and Global Spread of Enterococcus faecium Clonal Complex (CC) 17: Progressive Change from Gut Colonization to Hospital-Adapted Pathogen. China CDC Wkly. 2022, 4, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Lam, M.M.C.; Seemann, T.; Tobias, N.J.; Chen, H.; Haring, V.; Moore, R.J.; Ballard, S.; Grayson, L.M.; Johnson, P.D.R.; Howden, B.P.; et al. Comparative Analysis of the Complete Genome of an Epidemic Hospital Sequence Type 203 Clone of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium. BMC Genom. 2013, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Buultjens, A.H.; Lam, M.M.C.; Ballard, S.; Monk, I.R.; Mahony, A.A.; Grabsch, E.A.; Grayson, M.L.; Pang, S.; Coombs, G.W.; Robinson, J.O.; et al. Evolutionary Origins of the Emergent ST796 Clone of Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus faecium. PeerJ 2017, 2017, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Leavis, H.L.; Willems, R.J.L.; Top, J.; Bonten, M.J.M. High-Level Ciprofloxacin Resistance from Point Mutations in GyrA and ParC Confined to Global Hospital-Adapted Clonal Lineage CC17 of Enterococcus faecium. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 1059–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Galloway-Peña, J.R.; Nallapareddy, S.R.; Arias, C.A.; Eliopoulos, G.M.; Murray, B.E. Analysis of Clonality and Antibiotic Resistance among Early Clinical Isolates of Enterococcus faecium in the United States. J. Infect. Dis. 2009, 200, 1566–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Mahony, A.A.; Buultjens, A.H.; Ballard, S.A.; Grabsch, E.A.; Xie, S.; Seemann, T.; Stuart, R.L.; Kotsanas, D.; Cheng, A.; Heffernan, H.; et al. Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Sequence Type 796—Rapid International Dissemination of a New Epidemic Clone. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2018, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Coombs, G.W.; Daley, D.A.; Lee, Y.T.; Pang, S. Australian Group on Antimicrobial Resistance (AGAR) Australian Enterococcal Sepsis Outcome Programme (AESOP) Annual Report 2016. Commun. Dis. Intell. 2018, 42, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  72. Arias, C.A.; Murray, B.E. The Rise of the Enterococcus: Beyond Vancomycin Resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2012, 10, 266–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Palmer, K.L.; van Schaik, W.; Willems, R.J.L.; Gilmore, M.S. Enterococcal Genomics. In Enterococci: From Commensals to Leading Causes of Drug Resistant Infection; Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary: Boston, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  74. Arredondo-Alonso, S.; Top, J.; McNally, A.; Puranen, S.; Pesonen, M.; Pensar, J.; Marttinen, P.; Braat, J.C.; Rogers, M.R.C.; van Schaik, W.; et al. Plasmids Shaped the Recent Emergence of the Major Nosocomial Pathogen Enterococcus faecium. mBio 2020, 11, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Solheim, M.; Brekke, M.C.; Snipen, L.G.; Willems, R.J.L.; Nes, I.F.; Brede, D.A. Comparative Genomic Analysis Reveals Significant Enrichment of Mobile Genetic Elements and Genes Encoding Surface Structure-Proteins in Hospital-Associated Clonal Complex 2 Enterococcus faecalis. BMC Microbiol. 2011, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Hasani, A.; Sharifi, Y.; Ghotaslou, R.; Naghili, B.; Hasani, A.; Aghazadeh, M.; Milani, M.; Bazmani, A. Molecular Screening of Virulence Genes in High-Level Gentamicin-Resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium Isolated from Clinical Specimens in Northwest Iran. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 30, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zalipour, M.; Esfahani, B.N.; Halaji, M.; Azimian, A.; Havaei, S.A. Molecular Characterization of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecalis among Inpatients at Iranian University Hospitals: Clonal Dissemination of ST6 and ST422. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 3039–3047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Wardal, E.; Żabicka, D.; Hryniewicz, W.; Sadowy, E. VanA-Enterococcus faecalis in Poland: Hospital Population Clonal Structure and VanA Mobilome. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2022, 41, 1245–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Palmer, K.L.; Kos, V.N.; Gilmore, M.S. Horizontal Gene Transfer and the Genomics of Enterococcal Antibiotic Resistance. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2010, 13, 632–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Willems, R.J.L.; van Schaik, W. Transition of Enterococcus faecium from Commensal Organism to Nosocomial Pathogen. Future Microbiol. 2009, 4, 1125–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Willems, R.J.L.; Top, J.; van Schaik, W.; Helen, L.; Bonten, M.; Sirén, J.; Hanage, W.P.; Corander, J.; Stephen, K.P. Restricted Gene Flow among Hospital Subpopulations of Enterococcus faecium. mBio 2012, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Hammerum, A.M. Enterococci of Animal Origin and Their Significance for Public Health. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 619–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. van Hal, S.J.; Willems, R.J.L.; Gouliouris, T.; Ballard, S.A.; Coque, T.M.; Hammerum, A.M.; Hegstad, K.; Westh, H.T.; Howden, B.P.; Malhotra-Kumar, S.; et al. The Global Dissemination of Hospital Clones of Enterococcus faecium. Genome Med. 2021, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. van Hal, S.J.; Ip, C.L.C.; Ansari, M.A.; Wilson, D.J.; Espedido, B.A.; Jensen, S.O.; Bowden, R. Evolutionary Dynamics of Enterococcus faecium Reveals Complex Genomic Relationships between Isolates with Independent Emergence of Vancomycin Resistance. Microb. Genom. 2016, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Werner, G.; Neumann, B.; Weber, R.E.; Kresken, M.; Wendt, C.; Bender, J.K.; Becker, K.; Borgmann, S.; Diefenbach, A.; Hamprecht, A.; et al. Thirty Years of VRE in Germany—“Expect the Unexpected”: The View from the National Reference Centre for Staphylococci and Enterococci. Drug Resist. Updat. 2020, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Fujiya, Y.; Harada, T.; Sugawara, Y.; Akeda, Y.; Yasuda, M.; Masumi, A.; Hayashi, J.; Tanimura, N.; Tsujimoto, Y.; Shibata, W.; et al. Transmission Dynamics of a Linear VanA-Plasmid during a Nosocomial Multiclonal Outbreak of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in a Non-Endemic Area, Japan. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Yang, J.; Jiang, Y.; Guo, L.; Ye, L.; Ma, Y.; Luo, Y. Prevalence of Diverse Clones of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium ST78 in a Chinese Hospital. Microb. Drug Resist. 2016, 22, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Yang, J.X.; Li, T.; Ning, Y.Z.; Shao, D.H.; Liu, J.; Wang, S.Q.; Liang, G.W. Molecular Characterization of Resistance, Virulence and Clonality in Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis: A Hospital-Based Study in Beijing, China. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2015, 33, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Coombs, G.W.; Daley, D.A.; Yee, N.W.T.; Shoby, P.; Mowlaboccus, S. Australian Group on Antimicrobial Resistance (AGAR) Australian Enterococcal Sepsis Outcome Programme (AESOP) Annual Report 2020. Commun. Dis. Intell. 2022, 2018, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Howden, B.P.; Holt, K.E.; Lam, M.M.C.; Seemann, T.; Ballard, S.; Coombs, G.W.; Tong, S.Y.C.; Grayson, M.L.; Johnson, P.D.R.; Stinear, T.P. Genomic Insights to Control the Emergence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci. mBio 2013, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. O’Toole, R.F.; Leong, K.W.C.; Cumming, V.; van Hal, S.J. Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium and the Emergence of New Sequence Types Associated with Hospital Infection. Res. Microbiol. 2023, 174, 104046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Wassilew, N.; Seth-Smith, H.M.B.; Rolli, E.; Fietze, Y.; Casanova, C.; Führer, U.; Egli, A.; Marschall, J.; Buetti, N. Outbreak of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Clone ST796, Switzerland, December 2017 to April 2018. Eurosurveillance 2018, 23, 1800351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Piezzi, V.; Wassilew, N.; Atkinson, A.; D’Incau, S.; Kaspar, T.; Seth-Smith, H.M.B.; Casanova, C.; Bittel, P.; Jent, P.; Sommerstein, R.; et al. Nosocomial Outbreak of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) ST796, Switzerland, 2017 to 2020. Eurosurveillance 2022, 27, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. De Oliveira, E.S.; Freitas, A.R.; Peixe, L.; Novais, C.; Melo, M.C. Silent Clonal Spread of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecalis ST6 and ST525 Colonizing Patients at Hospital Admission in Natal, Brazil. Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 41, 485–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Pinholt, M.; Bayliss, S.C.; Gumpert, H.; Worning, P.; Jensen, V.V.S.; Pedersen, M.; Feil, E.J.; Westh, H. WGS of 1058 Enterococcus faecium from Copenhagen, Denmark, Reveals Rapid Clonal Expansion of Vancomycin-Resistant Clone ST80 Combined with Widespread Dissemination of a VanA-Containing Plasmid and Acquisition of a Heterogeneous Accessory Genome. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 1776–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hammerum, A.M.; Justesen, U.S.; Pinholt, M.; Roer, L.; Kaya, H.; Worning, P.; Nygaard, S.; Kemp, M.; Clausen, M.E.; Nielsen, K.L.; et al. Surveillance of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci Reveals Shift in Dominating Clones and National Spread of a Vancomycin-Variable VanA Enterococcus faecium ST1421-CT1134 Clone, Denmark, 2015 to March 2019. Eurosurveillance 2019, 24, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Ekwanzala, M.D.; Dewar, J.B.; Kamika, I.; Momba, M.N.B. Comparative Genomics of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus spp. Revealed Common Resistome Determinants from Hospital Wastewater to Aquatic Environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 719, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zischka, M.; Künne, C.T.; Blom, J.; Wobser, D.; Sakinç, T.; Schmidt-Hohagen, K.; Dabrowski, P.W.; Nitsche, A.; Hübner, J.; Hain, T.; et al. Comprehensive Molecular, Genomic and Phenotypic Analysis of a Major Clone of Enterococcus faecalis MLST ST40. BMC Genom. 2015, 16, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Novais, C.; Freitas, A.R.; Silveira, E.; Antunes, P.; Silva, R.; Coque, T.M.; Peixe, L. Spread of Multidrug-Resistant Enterococcus to Animals and Humans: An Underestimated Role for the Pig Farm Environment. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 2746–2754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Choi, J.M.; Woo, G.J. Molecular Characterization of High-Level Gentamicin-Resistant Enterococcus faecalis from Chicken Meat in Korea. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 165, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Li, J.; Yang, L.; Huang, X.; Wen, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Huang, X.; Xia, J.; Huang, Y.; Cao, S.; Du, S.; et al. Molecular Characterization of Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Factors of Enterococcus faecalis from Ducks at Slaughterhouses. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Sanderson, H.; Ortega-Polo, R.; Zaheer, R.; Goji, N.; Amoako, K.K.; Brown, R.S.; Majury, A.; Liss, S.N.; McAllister, T.A. Comparative Genomics of Multidrug-Resistant Enterococcus spp. Isolated from Wastewater Treatment Plants. BMC Microbiol. 2020, 20, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Wist, V.; Morach, M.; Schneeberger, M.; Cernela, N.; Stevens, M.J.A.; Zurfluh, K.; Stephan, R.; Nüesch-Inderbinen, M. Phenotypic and Genotypic Traits of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci from Healthy Food-Producing Animals. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Beukers, A.G.; Zaheer, R.; Goji, N.; Amoako, K.K.; Chaves, A.V.; Ward, M.P.; McAllister, T.A. Comparative Genomics of Enterococcus spp. Isolated from Bovine Feces. BMC Microbiol. 2017, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Fatoba, D.O.; Amoako, D.G.; Akebe, A.L.K.; Ismail, A.; Essack, S.Y. Genomic Analysis of Antibiotic-Resistant Enterococcus spp. Reveals Novel Enterococci Strains and the Spread of Plasmid-Borne Tet(M), Tet(L) and Erm(B) Genes from Chicken Litter to Agricultural Soil in South Africa. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 302, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Freitas, A.R.; Coque, T.M.; Novais, C.; Hammerum, A.M.; Lester, C.H.; Zervos, M.J.; Donabedian, S.; Jensen, L.B.; Francia, M.V.; Baquero, F.; et al. Human and Swine Hosts Share Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium CC17 and CC5 and Enterococcus faecalis CC2 Clonal Clusters Harboring Tn1546 on Indistinguishable Plasmids. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 925–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Sadowy, E.; Luczkiewicz, A. Drug-Resistant and Hospital-Associated Enterococcus faecium from Wastewater, Riverine Estuary and Anthropogenically Impacted Marine Catchment Basin. BMC Microbiol. 2014, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Getachew, Y.; Hassan, L.; Zakaria, Z.; Abdul Aziz, S. Genetic Variability of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis Isolates from Humans, Chickens, and Pigs in Malaysia. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 4528–4533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  109. Trościańczyk, A.; Nowakiewicz, A.; Osińska, M.; Łagowski, D.; Gnat, S.; Chudzik-Rząd, B. Comparative Characteristics of Sequence Types, Genotypes and Virulence of Multidrug-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Isolated from Various Hosts in Eastern Poland. Spread of Clonal Complex 17 in Humans and Animals. Res. Microbiol. 2022, 173, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Finisterra, L.; Duarte, B.; Peixe, L.; Novais, C.; Freitas, A.R. Industrial Dog Food Is a Vehicle of Multidrug-Resistant Enterococci Carrying Virulence Genes Often Linked to Human Infections. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 358, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. López, M.; Sáenz, Y.; Rojo-Bezares, B.; Martínez, S.; del Campo, R.; Ruiz-Larrea, F.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Detection of VanA and VanB2-Containing Enterococci from Food Samples in Spain, Including Enterococcus faecium Strains of CC17 and the New Singleton ST425. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 133, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Oravcová, V.; Peixe, L.; Coque, T.M.; Novais, C.; Francia, M.V.; Literák, I.; Freitas, A.R. Wild Corvid Birds Colonized with Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium of Human Origin Harbor Epidemic VanA Plasmids. Environ. Int. 2018, 118, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Biggel, M.; Nüesch-Inderbinen, M.; Raschle, S.; Stevens, M.J.A.; Stephan, R. Spread of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium ST133 in the Aquatic Environment in Switzerland. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 27, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Belloso Daza, M.V.; Milani, G.; Cortimiglia, C.; Pietta, E.; Bassi, D.; Cocconcelli, P.S. Genomic Insights of Enterococcus faecium UC7251, a Multi-Drug Resistant Strain From Ready-to-Eat Food, Highlight the Risk of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Food Chain. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ghosh, A.; KuKanich, K.; Brown, C.E.; Zurek, L. Resident Cats in Small Animal Veterinary Hospitals Carry Multi-Drug Resistant Enterococci and Are Likely Involved in Cross-Contamination of the Hospital Environment. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Rousham, E.K.; Unicomb, L.; Islam, M.A. Human, Animal and Environmental Contributors to Antibiotic Resistance in Low-Resource Settings: Integrating Behavioural, Epidemiological and One Health Approaches. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 285, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Guardabassi, L.; Schwarz, S.; Lloyd, D.H. Pet Animals as Reservoirs of Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2004, 54, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Pomba, C.; Rantala, M.; Greko, C.; Baptiste, K.E.; Catry, B.; van Duijkeren, E.; Mateus, A.; Moreno, M.A.; Pyörälä, S.; Ružauskas, M.; et al. Public Health Risk of Antimicrobial Resistance Transfer from Companion Animals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 957–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Freitas, A.R.; Tedim, A.P.; Almeida-santos, A.C.; Duarte, B.; Elghaieb, H.; Abbassi, M.S.; Hassen, A.; Novais, C. High-Resolution Genotyping Unveils Identical Ampicillin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Strains in Different Sources and Countries: A One Health Approach. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Leite-Martins, L.; Meireles, D.; Bessa, L.J.; Mendes, Â.; de Matos, A.J.; Martins da Costa, P. Spread of Multidrug-Resistant Enterococcus faecalis Within the Household Setting. Microb. Drug Resist. 2014, 20, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ghosh, A.; Dowd, S.E.; Zurek, L. Dogs Leaving the ICU Carry a Very Large Multi-Drug Resistant Enterococcal Population with Capacity for Biofilm Formation and Horizontal Gene Transfer. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Damborg, P.; Sørensen, A.H.; Guardabassi, L. Monitoring of Antimicrobial Resistance in Healthy Dogs: First Report of Canine Ampicillin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Clonal Complex 17. Vet. Microbiol. 2008, 132, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. KuKanich, K.S.; Ghosh, A.; Skarbek, J.V.; Lothamer, K.M.; Zurek, L. Surveillance of Bacterial Contamination in Small Animal Veterinary Hospitals with Special Focus on Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Traits of Enterococci. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2012, 240, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Jernberg, C.; Löfmark, S.; Edlund, C.; Jansson, J.K. Long-Term Ecological Impacts of Antibiotic Administration on the Human Intestinal Microbiota. ISME J. 2007, 1, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Dethlefsen, L.; Huse, S.; Sogin, M.L.; Relman, D.A. The Pervasive Effects of an Antibiotic on the Human Gut Microbiota, as Revealed by Deep 16S RRNA Sequencing. PLoS Biol. 2008, 6, e280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Jernberg, C.; Löfmark, S.; Edlund, C.; Jansson, J.K. Long-Term Impacts of Antibiotic Exposure on the Human Intestinal Microbiota. Microbiology 2010, 156, 3216–3223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  127. Antonopoulos, D.A.; Huse, S.M.; Morrison, H.G.; Schmidt, T.M.; Sogin, M.L.; Young, V.B. Reproducible Community Dynamics of the Gastrointestinal Microbiota Following Antibiotic Perturbation. Infect. Immun. 2009, 77, 2367–2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Neumann, B.; Prior, K.; Bender, J.K.; Harmsen, D.; Klare, I.; Fuchs, S.; Bethe, A.; Zühlke, D.; Göhler, A.; Schwarz, S.; et al. A Core Genome Multilocus Sequence Typing Scheme for Enterococcus faecalis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2019, 57, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Barros, J.; Andrade, M.; Radhouani, H.; López, M.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P.; Torres, C. Detection of VanA-Containing Enterococcus Species in Faecal Microbiota of Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata). Microbes Environ. 2012, 27, 509–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Almeida, L.M.; Lebreton, F.; Gaca, A.; Bispo, P.M.; Saavedra, J.T.; Calumby, R.N.; Grillo, L.M.; Nascimento, T.G.; Filsner, P.H.; Moreno, A.M.; et al. Transferable Resistance Gene OptrA in Enterococcus faecalis from Swine in Brazil. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Almeida, L.M.; Gaca, A.; Bispo, P.M.; Lebreton, F.; Saavedra, J.T.; Silva, R.A.; Basílio-Júnior, I.D.; Zorzi, F.M.; Filsner, P.H.; Moreno, A.M.; et al. Coexistence of the Oxazolidinone Resistance–Associated Genes Cfr and OptrA in Enterococcus faecalis From a Healthy Piglet in Brazil. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Torres, C.; Alonso, C.A.; Ruiz-Ripa, L.; León-Sampedro, R.; Del Campo, R.; Coque, T.M. Antimicrobial Resistance in Enterococcus Spp. of Animal Origin. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018, 6, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Prichula, J.; Van Tyne, D.; Schwartzman, J.; Sant’Anna, F.H.; Pereira, R.I.; da Cunha, G.R.; Tavares, M.; Lebreton, F.; Frazzon, J.; D’Azevedo, P.A.; et al. Enterococci from Wild Magellanic Penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) as an Indicator of Marine Ecosystem Health and Human Impact. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 86, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Li, W.; Wang, A. Genomic Islands Mediate Environmental Adaptation and the Spread of Antibiotic Resistance in Multiresistant Enterococci—Evidence from Genomic Sequences. BMC Microbiol. 2021, 21, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Boyd, D.A.; Lévesque, S.; Picard, A.C.; Golding, G.R. Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Harbouring VanN in Canada: A Case and Complete Sequence of PEfm12493 Harbouring the VanN Operon. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2015, 70, 2163–2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Braga, T.M.; Pomba, C.; Lopes, M.F.S. High-Level Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus faecium Related to Humans and Pigs Found in Dust from Pig Breeding Facilities. Vet. Microbiol. 2013, 161, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Obeng, A.S.; Rickard, H.; Ndi, O.; Sexton, M.; Barton, M. Comparison of Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns in Enterococci from Intensive and Free Range Chickens in Australia. Avian. Pathol. 2013, 42, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Mencía-Ares, O.; Borowiak, M.; Argüello, H.; Cobo-Díaz, J.F.; Malorny, B.; Álvarez-Ordóñez, A.; Carvajal, A.; Deneke, C. Genomic Insights into the Mobilome and Resistome of Sentinel Microorganisms Originating from Farms of Two Different Swine Production Systems. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Bastião Rocha, P.A.; Monteiro Marques, J.M.; Barreto, A.S.; Semedo-Lemsaddek, T. Enterococcus spp. from Azeitão and Nisa PDO-Cheeses: Surveillance for Antimicrobial Drug Resistance. LWT 2021, 154, 112622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ben Said, L.; Hamdaoui, M.; Klibi, A.; Ben Slama, K.; Torres, C.; Klibi, N. Diversity of Species and Antibiotic Resistance in Enterococci Isolated from Seafood in Tunisia. Ann. Microbiol. 2017, 67, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Pesavento, G.; Calonico, C.; Ducci, B.; Magnanini, A.; Lo Nostro, A. Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance of Enterococcus spp. Isolated from Retail Cheese, Ready-to-Eat Salads, Ham, and Raw Meat. Food Microbiol. 2014, 41, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Gouliouris, T.; Raven, K.E.; Ludden, C.; Blane, B.; Corander, J.; Horner, C.S.; Hernandez-Garcia, J.; Wood, P.; Hadjirin, N.F.; Radakovic, M.; et al. Genomic Surveillance of Enterococcus faecium Reveals Limited Sharing of Strains and Resistance Genes between Livestock and Humans in the United Kingdom. mBio 2018, 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Elghaieb, H.; Freitas, A.R.; Abbassi, M.S.; Novais, C.; Zouari, M.; Hassen, A.; Peixe, L. Dispersal of Linezolid-Resistant Enterococci Carrying PoxtA or OptrA in Retail Meat and Food-Producing Animals from Tunisia. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 2865–2869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Ni, J.; Long, X.; Wang, M. Transmission of Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus Isolates Carrying OptrA and PoxtA Genes in Slaughterhouses. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Byappanahalli, M.N.; Nevers, M.B.; Korajkic, A.; Staley, Z.R.; Harwood, V.J. Enterococci in the Environment. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2012, 76, 685–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. dos Santos, L.D.R.; Furlan, J.P.R.; Gallo, I.F.L.; Ramos, M.S.; Savazzi, E.A.; Stehling, E.G. Occurrence of Multidrug-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Isolated from Environmental Samples. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 73, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Monteiro, S.; Santos, R. Incidence of Enterococci Resistant to Clinically Relevant Antibiotics in Environmental Waters and in Reclaimed Waters Used for Irrigation. J. Water Health 2020, 18, 911–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Gouliouris, T.; Raven, K.E.; Moradigaravand, D.; Ludden, C.; Coll, F.; Blane, B.; Naydenova, P.; Horner, C.; Brown, N.M.; Corander, J.; et al. Detection of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Hospital-Adapted Lineages in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Indicates Widespread Distribution and Release into the Environment. Genome Res. 2019, 29, 626–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Cherak, Z.; Bendjama, E.; Moussi, A.; Benbouza, A.; Grainat, N.; Rolain, J.M.; Loucif, L. First Detection of VanA Positive Enterococcus faecium Clonal Complex 17 in Hospital Wastewater in Algeria: An Epidemiological Report. New Microbes New Infect. 2022, 47, 100977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Zhao, J.; Liu, R.; Sun, Y.; Yang, X.; Yao, J. Tracing Enterococci Persistence along a Pork Production Chain from Feed to Food in China. Anim. Nutr. 2022, 9, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Rathnayake, I.; Hargreaves, M.; Huygens, F. SNP Diversity of Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium in a South East Queensland Waterway, Australia, and Associated Antibiotic Resistance Gene Profiles. BMC Microbiol. 2011, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Noh, E.B.; Kim, Y.B.; Seo, K.W.; Son, S.H.; Ha, J.S.; Lee, Y.J. Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring of Commensal Enterococcus faecalis in Broiler Breeders. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 2675–2683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Enterococcus spp. most relevant virulence factors. Created with BioRender.com. Adapted from references [1,30].
Figure 1. Enterococcus spp. most relevant virulence factors. Created with BioRender.com. Adapted from references [1,30].
Antibiotics 12 01140 g001
Figure 2. One Health sectors (human, animal, and environmental health). Created with BioRender.com.
Figure 2. One Health sectors (human, animal, and environmental health). Created with BioRender.com.
Antibiotics 12 01140 g002
Table 1. Main antimicrobials to which the different species of enterococci are resistant (intrinsic and acquired resistance), the mechanisms of resistance, and associated genetic determinants. Adapted from references [1,39].
Table 1. Main antimicrobials to which the different species of enterococci are resistant (intrinsic and acquired resistance), the mechanisms of resistance, and associated genetic determinants. Adapted from references [1,39].
Antibiotic ClassCellular TargetSpecies
(Mostly Present)
Type of
Resistance
Mechanism of ResistanceAssociated
Antimicrobial
Resistance Genes
β-lactamsPeptidoglycan synthesisAll enterococciIntrinsicLow affinity of penicillin-binding proteins (PBP)pbp5/pbp4
E. faecium, E. hirae, E. faecalisAcquired (ampicillin high-level)Overproduction or PBP alterations lead to lower affinity; β-lactamase-
AminoglycosidesProtein synthesis (30 s)All enterococciIntrinsic (low-level)Poor antibiotic uptake -
E. faeciumIntrinsic (moderate-level)Modification of the antibiotic moleculeaac
E. faeciumIntrinsicTarget modification with rRNA methyltransferaseefmM
E. faecalis, E. faecium, E. gallinarum, E. casseliflavusAcquired (high-level)Modification of the antibiotic molecule aph, ant, aac-aph
E. faecium,
E. faecalis
AcquiredTarget modification (point mutations)-
AnsamycinsDNA replicationE. faecium, E. faecalisAcquiredMutations in the gene that encodes the β-subunit of RNA polymerase rpoB
GlycopeptidesCell wall synthesisE. gallinarum, E. casseliflavusIntrinsic (low-level) Production of D-Ala-D-Lac/D-Ala-D-Ser terminus peptidoglycan precursorsvan operons (vanAvanM)
E. faecium, E. faecalisAcquired (high-level)Precursor modification
FluoroquinolonesDNA replicationE. faecium, E. faecalisAcquiredTarget-site modification (gene mutation in DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV)gyrA, pacC
TetracyclinesProtein synthesis (30 s)E. faecium, E. faecalisIntrinsic/acquiredTarget-site modificationpoxtA
-Antibiotic effluxtet (K), tet (L)
-Target-site protectiontet (M), tet (O), tet (S)
MacrolidesProtein synthesis (50 s)Most enterococciAcquiredRibosomal methylationermA, ermB, ermC, ermS, ermV
OxazolidinonesProtein synthesis (23 s)E. faecium, E. faecalisIntrinsic/acquiredTarget-site protectionpoxtA, optrA
E. faeciumAcquiredTarget-site modification (point mutations)-
Phenicols (Chloramphenicol)Protein synthesisE. faecium, E. faecalisAcquiredCAT-encoding enzymescatA, catB
(mostly)
StreptoGraminsProtein synthesis (early/late stage)E. faecalis, E. avium, E. gallinarum, E. casseliflavusIntrinsicAntibiotic efflux-
Table 2. Most relevant healthcare-associated enterococcal STs. Information was gathered considering enterococcal species allocation, source, geographic location, virulence, and antimicrobial resistance genes.
Table 2. Most relevant healthcare-associated enterococcal STs. Information was gathered considering enterococcal species allocation, source, geographic location, virulence, and antimicrobial resistance genes.
SpeciesSourceLocation (Date)CladeClonal LineagesVirulence GenesAntimicrobial
Resistance Genes
Ref.
MLST
Sequence Type
Clonal
Complex
E. faecalisSepticemias and endocarditisWorldwideNAST2 CC2gelEblaZ, aac6′-aph2”, vanB[61,62,63]
ST6esp, gelEblaZ, aac6′-aph2”, ermB, vanA, vanB[61,63]
Healthcare-associated infectionsWorldwide (first in Argentina the USA)NAST9CC9esp, gelEblaZ, aac6′-aph2”, ermB[29,61,64]
ST106gelEaac6′-aph2”[61]
BacteremiaPolandNAST28CC87asaI, ace esp, gelEcyl, hylaac6′-aph2”, vanA[61,62,64]
E. faeciumHealthcare-associated infectionsWorldwide (first in the USA)Clade AST17CC17acm, esp, hyl, fmsvanA, vanB, dfrG, tetM, msrC, ermB, aac6′-aph2[37,65,66,67,68,69]
ST18acm, esp, hyl-[65,66,67,68,69]
ST78--[65,68]
ST203acm, espvanB[65,66,67,68,70]
ST796acm, espvanA, vanB, dfrG, tetM, msrC, ermB, aac6′-aph2[65,66,67,68,70]
ST1421 - vanA[71]
NA—Non-applicable. Information on virulence or antimicrobial resistance genes, associated with each ST, was recovered from the cited reference source, which does not imply that the indicated STs may not harbor other genetic traits.
Table 3. Most relevant enterococcal STs present in animals, food, community, and environment. Information was gathered considering enterococcal species allocation, source, geographic location, virulence, and antimicrobial resistance genes.
Table 3. Most relevant enterococcal STs present in animals, food, community, and environment. Information was gathered considering enterococcal species allocation, source, geographic location, virulence, and antimicrobial resistance genes.
SpeciesClonal LineagesVirulence GenesAntimicrobial
Resistance Genes
SourceLocationRef.
Clonal ComplexMLST Sequence Type
E. faecalisCC2ST40GelEtetMCheesePoland[98]
ST6NDvanA, tetM, aac6′-Ie-aph2″-IaWater in swine facilityPortugal[99]
CC21ST21NDtetM, tetL, aac6′-Ie-aph2″-IaAir in facility; liquid manure
ST202gelE, efaA, aceaac6’–aph2”-IaPoultry meatKorea[100]
CC82ST170gdh, gyd, pstS, gki, aroE, xpt, yqiLNDDuck’s cecumChina[101]
CC93ST93
CC192ST192
CC314ST314
CC593ST593
CC903ST903
CC476ST116Duck’s skin
-ST16, ST21, ST26, ST84, ST138/501, ST207, ST209, ST277, ST326, ST672, ST674, ST715tuf, hyl, ebpA, bopD, fss1ermBWWTPCanada[102]
ST29NDdfrE, emeA, efrA, efrB, lsaA, vanACattle fecesSwitzerland[103]
-ST242efaA, ace, ebpA, ebpB, epbC, gelE, fsrB-Bovine fecesCanada[104]
-ST271NDlsaA, tetM, tetL, dfrE, emeAUnamended soilSouth Africa[105]
-ST1004, ST1006NDdfrE, lsaA, emeALitter-amended soil
E. faeciumCC5ST5NDvanA, tetM, ermBSwine feces in slaughterhouseDenmark[106]
ST150NDtetM, ermBAdult swine fecesPortugal[99]
ST185NDvanA, tetM, tetL, ermBSoil, solid manure, and adult swine diarrheal feces
NDvanA, tetM, ermBSwine feces in slaughterhouseDenmark[106]
ST66fms5, fms17, fms21tetM, tetLWWTPPoland[107]
CC9ST433NDtetM, tetLAir from swine facilityPortugal[99]
ST437NDtetM, tetL, ermBAdult swine feedPortugal[99]
ST29, ST57aptA, ddl, gdh, purK, gyd, pstS, adkNDPoultryMalaysia[108]
CC17ST10NDaac6′-Ii, ant6-Ia, aph3′- III, ermB, lnuG, eatA, tetM, tetL, dfrG, efmALitter-amended soilSouth Africa[105]
efaA, ccf/6NDPoultryPoland[109]
ST17ptsD, sgrA, IS16, orf1481, espNDDog foodPortugal[110]
ST18tuf, aga, efaA, sgrA, uppS, lisR, acm, esp, scm, bsh, tip/ropA, bopD, eno, rfbA-1NDWWTPCanada[102]
ST203aptA, ddl, gdh, purK, gyd, pstS, adk-PoultryMalaysia[108]
ST78NDvanA, ermB, ant6-Ia, aac6′-Ie-aph2″-Ia, aph3′-IIIaRabbit meatSpain[111]
ST78fms20, fms14, ebpA, fms16NDWWTPCzech Republic[112]
ST132NDvanA, aac6′-Ie-aph2″-IaWater in swine facilitiesPortugal[99]
ST431NDtetM, tetL, ermBSwine facility dust
ST386esp/intA, fms5, fms17, fms19, fms21ant6’-laWWTPPoland[107]
CC18ST273fms20, fms14, ebpA, fms16NDWWTPCzech Republic[112]
CC22ST21fms17, fms19, fms21ant6’-la, tetM), tetLWWTPPoland[107]
ST32NDtetM, tetL, tetSAntiseptic, drinking water in a swine facilityPortugal[99]
ST55aptA, ddl, gdh, purK, gyd, pstS, adkNDPoultry and swineMalaysia[108]
CC94ST40tuf, aga, efaA, sgrA, upp, lisR, acm, esp, scm, bsh, tip/ropA, bopD, eno, rfbA-1NDWWTPCanada[102]
ST361fms5, fms17, fms19, fms21ant6’-la, tetLWWTPPoland[107]
ST1754NDaac6′-Ii, msrC, eatAPoultry litterSouth Africa[105]
-ST1700NDaac6′-Ii, ant6-Ia, ant9- Ia, ermB, lnuB, lsaE, msrC, cat, tetL, tetM, eatA
-ST1752, ST1756NDaac6′-Ii, ermB, msrC, tetL, tetM, eatA, efmA
-ST1753, ST1755 aac6′-Ii, ermB, msr C, tetL, tetM, eatA, efmALitter-amended soil
-ST214, ST955efaA, acmermB, msrC, aac6′-Ii, tetL, tetM, tetOBovine fecesCanada[104]
-ST133NDaac60-Ii, eatAv, cadA, cadC, copZ, czrA, merA, merR, tetW/N/W, vanA, zosASwine fecesSwitzerland[103]
-NDaac6′-Ii, eatAv, efrA, msrC, tetM, vanAEnvironmental waterSwitzerland[113]
-ST425NDvanA, erm (B), tet (M)Poultry meatSpain[111]
-ST13NDaac60-Ii, aadK, eatAv, vanAPoultry fecesSwitzerland[103]
CC117ST117efaA, sagA, malR, swpA, swpB, swpCant6-la, ant1, aph, lnuB, isaE, tetL, satA, erm_1, erm_2, aad6-laFermented dry sausageItaly[114]
NA—not applicable; ND—not determined. WWTP—wastewater treatment plant.
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

Monteiro Marques, J.; Coelho, M.; Santana, A.R.; Pinto, D.; Semedo-Lemsaddek, T. Dissemination of Enterococcal Genetic Lineages: A One Health Perspective. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071140

AMA Style

Monteiro Marques J, Coelho M, Santana AR, Pinto D, Semedo-Lemsaddek T. Dissemination of Enterococcal Genetic Lineages: A One Health Perspective. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(7):1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071140

Chicago/Turabian Style

Monteiro Marques, Joana, Mariana Coelho, Andressa Rodrigues Santana, Daniel Pinto, and Teresa Semedo-Lemsaddek. 2023. "Dissemination of Enterococcal Genetic Lineages: A One Health Perspective" Antibiotics 12, no. 7: 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071140

APA Style

Monteiro Marques, J., Coelho, M., Santana, A. R., Pinto, D., & Semedo-Lemsaddek, T. (2023). Dissemination of Enterococcal Genetic Lineages: A One Health Perspective. Antibiotics, 12(7), 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071140

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