Next Article in Journal
Applied Time Series Analyses (2000–2017) of Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Pathogenic and Non-Pathogenic Strains) in the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica
Previous Article in Journal
Advancing Dye Degradation: Integrating Microbial Metabolism, Photocatalysis, and Nanotechnology for Eco-Friendly Solutions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Presence, Pathogenicity, Antibiotic Resistance, and Virulence Factors of Escherichia coli: A Review

by
Natalie Naidoo
and
Oliver T. Zishiri
*
Discipline of Genetics, School of Life Sciences, College of Agriculture Engineering and Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Bacteria 2025, 4(1), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4010016
Submission received: 6 January 2025 / Revised: 6 March 2025 / Accepted: 9 March 2025 / Published: 11 March 2025

Abstract

:
Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a Gram-negative, commensal/pathogenic bacteria found in human intestines and the natural environment. Pathogenic E. coli is known as extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC) or intestinal pathogenic E. coli (InPEC). InPEC E. coli strains are separated into six pathogenic groups, known as enteropathogenic (EPEC), enterotoxigenic (ETEC), enteroinvasive (EIEC), enteroaggregative (EAEC), enterohaemorrhagic (EHEC), and diffusely adherent (DAEC), that have various virulence factors that cause infection. Virulence factors refer to a combination of distinctive accessory traits that affect a broad range of cellular processes in pathogens. There are two important virulence factors that directly interact with cells to cause diarrhoeal diseases within the intestines: adhesion and colonization factors and exotoxins. Virulence factors are crucial for bacteria to overcome the host’s immune system and result in antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics are used to combat the symptoms and duration of infection by pathogenic E. coli. However, the misuse and overuse of antibiotics have led to the global concern of antibiotic resistance. Currently, the antibiotic colistin is the last-resort drug to fight infection caused by this bacterium. Antibiotic resistance can be achieved in two main ways: horizontal gene transfer and mutation in different genes. The genetic basis for developing antibiotic resistance in E. coli occurs through four mechanisms: limiting drug uptake, modification of the drug target, inactivation of the drug, and active efflux of the drug. These mechanisms use different processes to remove the antibiotic from the bacterial cell or prevent the antibiotic from entering the bacterial cell or binding to targets. This prevents drugs from working effectively, and bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance. E. coli is classified into different phylogenetic groups (A, B1, B2, D1, D2, E, and clade I). It is a very versatile bacterium that can easily adapt to different environmental factors. The present review gathered information about the pathogenicity, antimicrobial resistance, and phylogenetics of E. coli. These aspects are interconnected; thus, it will provide information on tracking the spread of pathogenic strains and antibiotic resistance genes of different strains using phylogenetics and how antibiotic resistance genes evolve. Understanding genetic variation in E. coli will help in monitoring and controlling outbreaks and in developing novel antibiotics and treatment. The increasing rate of antibiotic resistance, and the ability of E. coli to evolve rapidly, suggest that in-depth research is needed in these areas.

1. Introduction

Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a Gram-negative, non-sporing, aerobic and facultative anaerobic, rod-shaped bacterium that belongs to the Enterobacteriaceae family [1,2,3]. It is an intestinal bacterium that is found in warm-blooded animals, humans, water, the environment, and in some instances, in contaminated food [1,4,5,6]. This bacterium is highly adaptable and can survive, thrive, and multiply under various environmental conditions [7].
E. coli isolates have been subdivided into pathogenic and commensal strains [1,8]. Commensal E. coli can adapt to different hosts and abiotic factors and is able to evolve to become pathogenic [4,9]. Pathogenic E. coli causes several human diseases that affect the extra-intestinal regions and gastrointestinal tract, including diarrhoeal diseases and urinary tract infections [9,10]. Pathogenic E. coli is separated into different pathotypes based on characteristics such as virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, and environmental influences [11,12,13]. Pathotypes include enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), enterohaemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC), enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC), and diffusely adherent E. coli (DAEC) [14].
Virulence factors enable the bacterial cells to colonize the host and spread, resulting in infection [15]. Specific genes found on bacterial chromosomes or mobile genetic elements (MGEs) encode for virulence factors [16,17]. Virulence factors include adhesions, exotoxins, and colonization [14,18]. In addition to virulence factors, antibiotic resistance is becoming more prevalent. Bacteria need virulence factors to disable hosts’ defence systems, and antibiotic resistance prevents drugs from fighting illnesses or infections; therefore, bacteria are able to adapt [19]. Antibiotic resistance is a result of the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in healthcare, animal husbandry, and agriculture [20,21]. Mobile genetic elements carry genes that are resistant to antibiotics and can be passed on to other bacteria via horizontal gene transfer [22,23]. This means that bacteria of the same species can share resistant traits between each other and potentially have a pool of antibiotic-resistant genes [24]. This ability emphasizes the importance of understanding the evolution and spread of antibiotic resistance [25]. Additionally, multiple studies have demonstrated that various factors such as environment, human population dynamics, and ecological conditions result in variability in E. coli populations [26,27]. This suggests that E. coli is able to adapt to different conditions.
To find relevant documents describing the presence, pathogenicity, antibiotic resistance, and virulence factors of E. coli, various searches were conducted on these different areas of interest on Google Scholar, mostly from 2010 to 2025. This review outlines the impact of pathogenic E. coli on humans and animals, the use of antibiotics to combat illnesses caused by the bacteria and its role in antibiotic resistance, and the impact of high rates of evolution on genomic variation. Understanding these subjects is essential to implement or improve on current prevention strategies and control outbreaks.

1.1. Presence of Escherichia coli in Animal Products

Livestock are a major source of foodborne pathogens [28]. The human population is increasing and, as result, the demand for the consumption of more animal products has led to a surge in animal production and processing [29]. This demand could result in flawed processing practices and the risk of contamination by foodborne pathogens from production to consumption [30]. E. coli pathogens can cause human illnesses or infections when contaminated or undercooked animal products are consumed [31,32]. From a microbiological perspective, the quality of livestock products depends on (1) the quality of products used during processing operations, (2) efficacy of the cooking process, (3) hygiene during processing and packaging, i.e., ensuring refrigeration from the point of processing to the point to the purchase, and (4) hygiene during handling at the retail point [33].
In a study, 600 raw milk and dairy products were analysed to determine the prevalence of E. coli [34]. The results reported that 30.16% (181 out of 600 samples) harboured E. coli. The O157 E. coli serogroup (43.75%) and the O26 E. coli serogroup (37.50%) were identified most frequently [34]. In a separate study by Davis and colleagues (2018), chicken and turkey retail meats were tested to identify the presence of E. coli. It was reported that 91%, 88%, and 18% of meat samples from turkey, chicken, and prepacked retail meat products (beef, chicken, pork, turkey, venison, veal, and mixed minced pork and beef), respectively, contained E. coli isolates. This study also determined that 18% (17/97) of the samples were ESBL-E. coli isolates [35]. These studies indicate that at some point during production and processing, the samples were contaminated with E. coli. This also means that if the animal products are not cooked or handled correctly, there is a risk of illness or infection. Therefore, it is vital to practice good hygiene from production to consumption.

1.2. Presence of Escherichia coli in Raw Fresh Produce

Fresh produce contains nutrients and important functional properties that can alleviate chronic illnesses and diseases [36]. Hence, recently there has been an increase in the consumption of fresh produce [37]. This high demand is associated with foodborne outbreaks as a result of bacterial contamination [38,39]. Fresh produce is exposed to its environment and handling from seed to table [40]; the risk of contamination could be due to manure that is poorly composted, exposure to contaminated water from irrigation/flooding, or by faecal matter from animals [41]. Post-harvest decontamination techniques have been used to decrease the risk of contamination; however, research has shown that it is not effective and can lead to cross-contamination [42,43]. E. coli are able to colonize plants internally, making it difficult for the bacteria to be washed away or removed using disinfectants, resulting in dissemination of the organism to uncontaminated products and eventually the food production chain via consumable products that are infested [44]. As a result, if decontamination is not effective or possible, consumption is not safe [45].
Recently, a study by Pakbin and colleagues identified the prevalence of E. coli in 115 vegetable salad samples collected from various areas in Iran [46]. E. coli was identified in 3.4% of the samples [46]. In another study, 100 raw lettuce heads were sampled from the kitchen of a military hospital in Tunis [47]. Microbiological quality testing showed that 80% of the samples had satisfactory quality, 10% was good enough for consumption, and the remaining 10% was not satisfactory [47]. Between 1973 and 2012, 18% of leafy-vegetable outbreaks associated with Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) have been reported in the United States. The research mentioned above indicates that fresh produce farms need to practice or improve their hygiene and management to avoid E. coli dissemination. Hence, there is a need for more effective decontamination methods.

1.3. Presence of Escherichia coli in the Environment

Intestinal systems are the primary habitats for E. coli to survive; however, the bacterium is also able to survive in various environments [48,49]. E. coli has been examined to a great extent in laboratory conditions; however, very little is known about its behaviour in the natural environment [48]. Some E. coli strains can generate filamentous structures to attach to cell surfaces, enabling colonisation of E. coli from sources such as soil, water, manure, and contaminated seeds [50,51]. However, E. coli strains show a great ability to grow and survive in diverse environments [52]. For that reason, it is vital to understand the various environmental conditions, such as fluctuating temperatures, limited moisture, levels of oxygen, and low or high pH, and their effect on the rate of survival of E. coli [7].
In a study at broiler and laying hen farms, a higher prevalence of E. coli (77% of samples) was identified in soil from laying hen farms compared with broiler farms. In contrast, the surface water adjacent to broiler farms was more prevalent (63% of samples) than that of laying hen farms [53]. E. coli has also been located in river and sea water in Malaysia at levels above the recommended limits. Water samples were collected from 15 different sites along the Kelantan River, adjacent coastal water, and estuaries [54]. E. coli was prevalent at the Kelantan River, adjacent coastal water, and estuaries. The average abundance of E. coli present at the sample sites was above the recommended limits. E. coli found at Kota Bahru had the highest prevalence in river water, and E. coli found in the Semarak River had the highest prevalence at estuaries and coastal sites [54]. In 2021, Nguyen and others investigated the effects of steady and fluctuating nutrients on bacterial growth rate using single-cell microscopy [55]. There was an approximate 50% reduction in growth rate in samples that had a fluctuation in nutrients compared with a steady influx of nutrients [55]. These studies reflect the ubiquitous nature of E. coli and its ability to adapt to various environments and conditions.

2. Pathogenesis of Escherichia coli

In E. coli species, there are pathogenic and commensal strains: commensal E. coli strains are located in the human gut and are essential for human health [56,57], and pathogenic E. coli strains are able to colonize other animal species [1,58]. Depending on the clinical manifestations and site of infection in humans, the pathogenic strains are further sub-grouped.
Pathogenic E. coli is categorised as intestinal pathogenic E. coli (InPEC) or extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC) and differentiated based on virulence factors [9,59]. ExPEC colonises the intestinal tract and does not cause gastroenteritis, but results in infections of regions external to the intestinal tract and is associated with septicaemia, urinary tract infections, and neonatal meningitis [32]. Conversely, InPEC strains can cause various forms of gastroenteritis. InPEC E. coli strains are sub-grouped into six groups: enteropathogenic (EPEC), enterotoxigenic (ETEC), enteroinvasive (EIEC), enteroaggregative (EAEC), enterohaemorrhagic (EHEC), and diffusely adherent (DAEC) [58,60]. Each pathogenic sub-group is associated with different infection mechanisms and symptoms [9,21]. Different E. coli groups express specific virulence factors and are therefore associated with various diseases [61]. Understanding their localization, cell interaction, pathogenesis, and adherence patterns has the potential to assist in advancing medication and treatment processes, thereby protecting humans from disease [62]. In this review, attention is drawn to the InPEC E. coli pathogenic groups.

2.1. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli

EPEC pathogens are associated with fatal diarrhoea in children, vomiting, fever, and nausea [63,64,65]. EPEC pathogenesis is a three-stage model, which includes (1) adhesion of bacterial cells, (2) signal transduction, and (3) intimate attachment [62,66]. EPEC pathogens do not directly attack enterocytes, but form attaching and effacing (A/E) lesions on the surfaces of the host’s intestinal epithelial cells (IECs) [32,59,67,68]. The A/E lesion in EPEC pathogenesis occurs by the bacteria attaching to and effacing the microvilli, resulting in the formation of actin pedestals at the site of attachment and damage to the microvilli [59,64,69]. A chromosomal pathogenicity island (PAI), which is approximately 35 kb of virulence genes known as the locus of enterocyte effacement (LEE) island, is necessary for virulence [32,70]. The formation of A/E lesions relies on the LEE island, which encodes the type III secretory system (T3SS), which translocates the bacterial effector protein into the host [63,70]. Intimate attachment occurs by interactions between intimin (bacterial outer membrane protein) and the intimin receptor (Tir) (bacterial receptor protein) via T3SS to produce actin pedestals [32,69]. This secretion process is necessary for EPEC pathogenesis [59]. The initial attachment of EPEC to enterocytes involves the bundle-forming pilus, which is encoded on the E. coli adherence factor (EAF) plasmid [63,65]. The EPEC bundle-forming pili enable EPEC to form microcolonies for adherence and bind to receptors on host cell surfaces [63,71].

2.2. Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli

Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) causes travellers’ diarrhoea and diarrhoea in children from developing countries, especially in locations with poor sanitation [59,63,65,67]. ETEC infections cause watery diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and fever [72,73]. ETEC can produce two forms of enterotoxins, known as heat-stable (ST) and heat-labile (LT), and colonization factors (CFs) [58,59,69,74]. ETEC strains inhabit the small intestine and adhere to the microvilli, mediated by colonization factors such as fimbrial, non-fimbrial, helical, and fibrillar types [58,59,63]. Following adherence, either one or two of the enterotoxins are produced and bind to the cell surface, causing diarrhoea [63,72]. Subunit A activates adenylyl cyclase, which increases cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) in cells and results in the secretion of electrolytes and water in the intestinal lumen, and subunit B binds to the GM1 ganglioside, which allows the cell to absorb the toxin [59,63,71,72]. Guanylyl cyclase receptors bind to microvilli, which results in the ST enterotoxin accumulating cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) [14,32]. The increase in cGMP in cells results in reduced absorption of sodium chloride, causing an increased secretion of water into the intestinal lumen and passing of diarrhoeal stool [32,62,69]. It has been proposed that virulence factors and plasmid-borne toxins are the major factors that make ETEC E. coli pathogenic [72,75].

2.3. Enteroinvasive Escherichia coli

Enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC) causes severe diarrhoea that is watery and has blood and mucus present, and in some instances, abdominal cramps [32,63,71]. EIEC pathogens are more similar to Shigella species than other E. coli pathogens in terms of taxonomy and physiology [63,65]. EIEC and Shigella species are known as facultative intracellular pathogens and have the same pathogenic mechanisms [65,76]. These are extremely invasive pathogens that reproduce in the large intestine [59,68]. EIEC pathogens attack the human colonic mucosa, microfold cells (M cells), macrophages, and epithelial cells [32,71,76]. When contaminated food or water is consumed, infection occurs once the pathogens reach the colon via M cells to reach the colonic submucosa, and the pathogen is then taken up through macrophages [62,63,76]. The pathogens enter and reproduce in the colonocytes after escaping from the macrophages [63,65]. Endotoxins and virulence factors are secreted by T3SS into the host cell, causing infection [32,63].

2.4. Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli

Enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC, also known as EAggEC) is also a pathogen that causes travellers’ diarrhoea [59,68,69,77]. EAEC causes persistent diarrhoea in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients and children, and often the stool is watery and may discharge with blood and mucus. Other symptoms are vomiting, low fever, and abdominal pain [58,67]. EAEC is phenotypically characterised by an aggregative adherence to Hep-2 cells, forming a dense cluster that has a brick-like pattern [63]. There is a three-part model that has been developed for the pathogenesis of EAEC: (1) adherence to the microvilli in the intestinal mucosa via fimbriae, (2) increased mucus production that forms a biofilm, and (3) increased production of toxins and mucosal inflammation [59,63,71,78]. EAEC pathogenesis is established by adherence to the microvilli of the intestinal mucosa by association with the afimbrial adhesins and fimbria (aggregative adhesion fimbria (AAF)) [79]. There are many strains of EAEC that contain various diverse afimbrial adhesins, also known as outer membrane proteins that have an association with aggregative adhesion [79,80]. The major subunit of the AAF has five different variants, aggA (AAF/I), aafA (AAF/II), agg3A (AAF/III), agg4A (AAF/IV), and agg5A (AAF/V), that are associated with different EAEC strains [81]. The second step is the production of cytotoxins and enterotoxins, which results in microvillus vesiculation, increased epithelial cell extrusion, and enlarged crypt openings [82,83]. EAEC strains produce three main toxins: Shigella-like enterotoxin (ShET1), plasmid-encoded toxin (Pet), and EAEC heat-stable enterotoxin (EAST1) [63]. EAST1 accumulates cGMP by the activation of guanine cyclase, which results in secretion of water into the intestinal lumen. Pet causes a disruption in the enterocyte cytoskeleton, which results in cell detachment, and ShET1 also plays a role in the secretion of water [78,84,85]. Inflammation depends on the strain of EAEC and the host’s immune system; thus, when the gastrointestinal tract is infected, the adhesion of EAEC to the intestinal epithelial cells results in inflammatory diarrhoea [86].

2.5. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli

Enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) is a Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) that causes haemolytic uraemic syndrome and haemorrhagic colitis [9,63,65,68,69]. Most outbreaks are food-associated and cause abdominal pains and bloody diarrhoea [59,65]. Common foods that are undercooked, such as meat, dairy products, and raw vegetables, are known to be the reservoirs for EHEC, and infection can also occur via contact with animals that are infected [32,59]. LEE encodes the eae gene, which produces intimin on the bacterial outer membrane, and Tir, which is moved via the T3SS into the host cell [66]. An intimate attachment is formed when Tir attaches to the bacterial intimin protein and is characterised by A/E lesions when the pathogen colonizes the large bowel [65,68]. After attachment, the T3SS passes the bacterial effecter proteins into the host cell [63]. This allows STEC to modify the host cell environment, leading to infection. The major virulence factor for EHEC is the phage-encoded Shiga toxin (Stx) and is sub-grouped into Stx1 and Stx2 [59]. Stx is an AB5 toxin that consists of five B subunits and is bound non-covalently to an A subunit that is enzymatically active [63,65]. The B subunits of Stx receptors bind to kidney epithelial cells and the globotriaosylceramides (Gb3s) in the intestinal mucosa [14,87,88,89]. An interaction between the Stx subunit B and the Gb3 causes membrane invaginations to enable the toxin to internalize; it is then transported to the Golgi apparatus, where the subunit A (RNA-glycosidase, which inhibits protein synthesis) removes an adenine nucleotide, which results in cell death [63,68,89]. The Stx does not inhibit protein synthesis or initiate necrosis, but reduces chemokine expression, thus suppressing inflammatory responses [90].

2.6. Diffusely Adherent Escherichia coli

Diffusely adherent E. coli (DAEC) pathogens colonize in the small bowel and are possibly the cause of watery diarrhoea in infants and children that are younger than five years [63]. DAEC pathogens attach to host cell surfaces (HeLa and Hep-2 cells) in a diffuse adherence pattern that is mediated via fimbrial (Dr and F1845) and afimbrial adhesins (Afa) causing diarrhoea [59,74]. On epithelial cells (intestinal and urinary), there is an interaction of Afa–Dr adhesins with brush border-associated complement decay-accelerating factor (DAF), causing rearrangement or destruction of the cytoskeleton structures of the microvilli [91]. A few DAECs also bind with the Carcino-Embryogenic Antigen-Related Cell Adhesion Molecule (CAECAM-1 and CAECAM-6), and when this binding occurs, the pathogens are internalized into the epithelial cells [14]. Microtubules and lipid draft of DAF-expressing cells allow internalization, resulting in pathogen colonization [14]. After attachment, secreted autotransporter toxin (SAT) creates lesions on epithelial cells at tight junctions, which results in an increase in cellular permeability, causing the induction of watery diarrhoea; however, uncertainty still surrounds this induction mechanism [63].

3. Intestinal Escherichia coli Pathogens’ Virulence Factors

Most E. coli strains are commensal; however, there are some pathogenic strains that cause infection or diseases in humans [9,92,93]. As mentioned previously, the well-known intestinal pathogenic E. coli are EPEC, EHEC, ETEC, EAEC, EIEC, and DAEC. Infection or disease caused by intestinal E. coli pathogens are a result of various virulence factors [9,92,93]. The most important virulence factors that are associated with intestinal E. coli pathogens are adhesion and colonization factors and exotoxins, which have direct interactions with epithelial cells [9,93]. Surface structures such as fimbrial adhesins and afimbrial adhesins mediate the adhesion to epithelial cells [93]. Exotoxins are not secreted; however, they are proteins that are able to target the cell metabolism, cell cytoplasmic membrane, or the cell skeleton [93].

3.1. EPEC Virulence Factors

Initially, bundle-forming pili were suspected to be involved in adherence; however, recently they are considered to assist bacteria with attaching together to form microcolonies, also known as localized adherence patterns [92]. They are also involved in intestinal colonization and may also have a part in protecting bacteria from antimicrobial agents [94]. The T3SS is crucial for Gram-negative pathogenic bacteria to disrupt host signal pathways by directly injecting virulence proteins [95]. The LEE is a pathogenicity island that plays an important role in forming the A/E lesions [92]. The LEE pathogenicity island contains essential functional genetic clusters that are involved in the pathogenic process by using the T3SS. The espA, espB, and espD genes are integral to the physical structure of the injectisome, enabling the bacteria to directly inject virulence factors into the host cell. The translocated intimin receptor (tir) gene produces the effector Tir, which binds to intimin, creating an intimate attachment of the bacteria to the host cell, and the experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (eae) gene codes for the intimin adhesin [92,93]. The injectisome has a dual role in both adherence and effector protein translocation [95].

3.2. EHEC Virulence Factors

Key virulence factors of EHEC are Shiga toxin (Stx), also known as verotoxin (VTx) families, known as Stx1 and Stx2 [74,96]. Stx1 and STx2 are approximately 60% similar and comprise five B subunits that are soluble [97,98,99]. Once the toxin is released, it binds to the glycolipid globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) on the target cell surface [74]. This results in catalytic inactivation of the ribosomal subunit, thereby inhibiting protein synthesis in endothelial or epithelial cells [9,96]. Additionally, verotoxins are also able to induce cell death in many cellular types [96]. Verotoxins are associated with haemolytic–uremic syndrome in people and oedema disease in pigs [92,95]. The genes encoded for VTx are found on phages and enable bacteria to colonize the intestines [92,93,100].

3.3. ETEC Virulence Factors

Toxins are released by activating the guanylate cyclase pathway, which increases the production of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), disrupting ion transport [92,101]. AB toxins comprise two different subunits, one A subunit and one or more B subunits, and other AB toxins are made of two subunits that correspond to the A and B subunits [92]. The A subunit is the toxic element, and subunit B is responsible for binding toxins to receptors [92]. The toxic activity of the AB toxin is activated by enzymatic cleavage, causing interference with the secretion pathways, DNA metabolism, cytoskeleton integrity, or various protein syntheses [93]. Heat-labile enterotoxin (LT) involves the type 2 secretion system, which transports proteins to remove signal sequences [92]. LT consists of an A subunit and B subunits. The B subunit is responsible for binding to specific receptors (the main receptor is ganglioside GM1) on the apical surface of enterocytes, initiating receptor-mediated endocytosis [92]. The A subunit undergoes a conformational change and translocates to the cytoplasm, activating adenylate cyclase and leading to an increase in cAMP levels within the host cell [92]. Heat-stable enterotoxin (STa and STb) and LT increase the secretion of intracellular messengers such as chloride, carbonate ions, and water and inhibit the absorption of sodium, resulting in watery, cholera-like diarrhoea [9,89,92,102].

3.4. EIEC Virulence Factors

Infection by EIEC occurs by proteins such as IpaB and IpaC entering the host epithelial cells via penetration using the T3SS [62]. IpaC plays a role in induing actin polymerization and activating the GTPases Cdc42 and Rac, which forms cell extensions [74]. IpAs change cell extensions via binding to vinculin, which results in actin depolymerization, allowing bacterial cells to enter [74]. IpgD is involved in the internalization of bacteria into host cells during infection [62,103,104]. After this, the bacteria reproduce inside the cells and enter and damage surrounding epithelial cells, resulting in infection [104,105,106].

3.5. EAEC Virulence Factors

In EAEC, virulence factors are coded on pathogenicity islands and plasmids known as the plasmid of aggregative adherence (pAA) in the chromosome [107]. The most important virulence factor is AggR, a member of the transcriptional regulator family (AraC), which is found on the pAA to control the expression of virulence genes [108]. EAEC involves the attachment and adherence to the intestinal mucosal cells and the secretion of EAST1 [79]. AAF, which are encoded by AAF genes, are involved in aggregative adherence [79]. The toxin secretion results in enlarged crypt opening, microvillus vesiculation, and epithelial cell extrusion, causing watery diarrhoea [68].

3.6. DAEC Virulence Factors

The diffused adherence pattern is mediated by the fimbrial adhesion family, which is made up of six variants, which are Dr, Afa, Nfa, M, AAF, and F1845. The genes for fimbrial adhesins are coded on chromosomes or plasmids [83,93]. The Afa, Dr, and M variants are true fimbrial adhesins, while the F1845 and AAF code for small fibrillae and the Nfa variant generates capsule-like structures that surround the bacterial cell. Fimbrial adhesins bind to the glycoprotein known as decay-accelerating factor (DAF), which is distributed on urinary, intestinal, human, and haemopoietic endothelial cells [93]. These fimbriae break down the actin network, causing long cellular extensions, elongation, and malfunction of the microvilli in intestinal cells [89,91,109]. There are some Afa/Dr adhesins that bind to the epithelial cell surface, resulting in CDC42 activation, CEACAM aggregation during adhesion, microvilli effacement, and internalization of the bacterial pathogen, causing infection of the intestinal epithelial cells [14,91].

4. Antibiotics: Uses and Resistance Concerns

Antibiotics are compounds that have antimicrobial activity and occur naturally or are synthetic or semi-synthetic [110]. These compounds are administered orally, parenterally, or topically [111]. Antibiotics are used for purposes such as growth promotion in food animals, in human medicine and veterinary medicine for major medical procedures, and to prevent disease [112,113]. Additionally, antibiotics are used in feed and water of animals that are bred for food consumption to increase the growth and size of the animal and in human and veterinary medicine to control the spread of disease, prevent infections, and treat sick individuals [114,115]. The focus here is on antibiotics used in human medicine, specifically, to treat diarrhoeal diseases.
Antibiotics are vital in the control and treatment of E. coli infections, especially in cases were diarrhoea is persistent, with the aim of managing and reducing the symptoms and duration of infection [116,117]. The antibiotic used for treatment depends on the susceptibility of E. coli. Antibiotics such as fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMZ) are commonly used to treat diarrhoeal diseases to shorten the time period of infection [118]. Infections caused by Shiga toxin-producing varieties are significantly reduced by using the azithromycin antibiotic [119]. Other antibiotics used are carbapenems (imipenem and meropenem, ertapenem, and doripenem), Cephalosporins, aminoglycosides, tigecycline, colistin, Fosfomycin, and a combination of antibiotics [120]. When diarrhoeal diseases last for more than one day and the individual experiences fever or dehydration for more than one week with the use of antibiotics, faecal specimens should be evaluated [121]. This may be a result of antibiotic resistance. Although using antibiotics to treat diarrhoeal diseases is successful, antibiotic resistance is rising at an alarming rate and becoming a major concern [115,122].
Humans have become more vulnerable to diseases due to antibiotic resistance, which is a result of infections being treated poorly the and overuse and negligent use of antibiotics; treatment is difficult because pathogens are immune to the available antibiotic drugs [123,124,125,126]. Over time, E. coli has become resistant to the antibiotics that are used to treat diarrhoeal diseases, and there is a lot of interest around the antibiotic resistance in E. coli because of intestinal infections that cause diarrhoea [9,127]. It is important to determine how resistance is developed and how resistant genes are transferred between various bacteria as well as between bacteria and hosts [128]. Several countries have established programs to monitor antibiotic resistance; however, misuse and mismanagement is still an issue [129]. Understanding the manner in which antibiotic resistance is spread is important to developing effective management strategies [129]. Figure 1 shows how resistant bacteria are developed and spread to humans, animals, food, and the environment. It is also of particular concern the role that animals play in being a reservoir for resistant genes or pathogens that may result in human diseases [130].
The frequency of antimicrobial resistance is increasing, and the lack of development of new drugs poses a serious threat to the treatment of infection. Gram-negative bacteria pose the greatest threat to human health, since resistance is developed at a greater rate and there are few antibiotics available for infections associated with this type of bacteria [131]. Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria such as carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae have sparked an interest in the colistin antibiotic, which is used for treating Gram-negative infections [132]. Colistin is an antibiotic that is widely used in veterinary medicine and rarely used in human medicine [133]. This antibiotic interacts with the outer cell membrane of Gram-negative bacteria [134]. Currently, in human medicine colistin is the last therapeutic option for the treatment of infections caused by carbapenemase-producing bacteria. The first report of the colistin resistance gene mcr-1 was identified in China in 2015 and was detected in livestock animals, raw meat, and humans [135]. Since this discovery, there have been various studies conducted in Asia, North Africa, Europe, and North and South America to determine the global spread of the mcr-1 gene. The mcr-1 gene has been detected in Salmonella, Shigella, Klebsiella, Vibrio, and Enterobacteria; however, it is most often detected in E. coli. A study by Grami and colleagues in 2016 [136] showed that the mcr-1 gene mediated colistin resistance between countries through the trading of food-producing animals and retail meat. This indicates that the worldwide spread of the plasmid-encoded colistin resistance gene mcr-1 reflects a major topic at the interface between human and animal health [136]. Thus, it is critical to determine the prevalence of the mcr-1 gene.

4.1. Genetic Basis of Antimicrobial Resistance in E. coli

The genetic makeup of bacterial pathogens allows them to thrive in extreme environmental conditions, even in the presence of antibiotic molecules [137]. Resistance is naturally present or can be obtained in bacteria via different mechanisms associated with several genetic loci [138,139,140]. Antibiotic resistance can be attained in two main ways: (1) horizontal gene transfer (acquiring foreign resistant DNA) and (2) mutation in different genes [137,141].

4.2. Horizontal Gene Transfer

Antimicrobial resistance by horizontal gene transfer is an important factor for bacterial evolution [137]. DNA can be transferred in three ways: (1) transformation, (2) transduction, and (3) conjugation by drivers such as bacteriophages, plasmids, and extracellular DNA [25,69,137,142]. Horizontal gene transfer by transformation occurs when extracellular DNA is recombined into a host cell [25]. When bacterial genes are passed through viral particles, then transduction has taken place [25]. The transfer of genetic material through conjugation involves cell-to-cell contact and takes place in the gastrointestinal tract [137]. Mobile genetic elements such as plasmids (transferable DNA elements), integrons, and transposons play a vital role in developing and distributing antimicrobial resistance [69,137]. Antibiotic resistance and multiple-drug resistance can be explained by the ability of bacteria to exchange genetic material [140]. In other words, when environmental selective pressures are strong, antibiotic resistance genes are acquired by bacteria, which decreases their susceptibility to antibiotics [25].

4.3. Mutations

Bacterial pathogens that are susceptible to antibiotics can develop mutations in genes as a result of random events such as replication errors or when damaged DNA is incorrectly repaired in cells that are actively dividing [143]. These mutations affect the activity of the antibiotics, which increases the survival rate of the bacteria in the presence of that antibiotic [137]. In bacterial cells, antibiotics have various targets, access, and protection pathways; thus, several genes may be involved in antibiotic resistance [144]. Essentially, mutations that result in antibiotic resistance will eradicate bacteria that are susceptible and allow the resistant bacteria to thrive [145]. Mutations that result in antimicrobial resistance modify the antibiotic action through one of these mechanisms: (1) modifying the antimicrobial target, (2) reducing the drug uptake, (3) activating efflux mechanisms to remove the harmful molecule, or (4) altering essential metabolic pathways through the modulation of regulatory networks [137,140]. Therefore, resistance acquired through mutational changes is diverse and varies in its complexity [137].

4.4. Mechanism of Antibiotic Resistance in E. coli

In general, Gram-negative bacteria can acquire or develop antibiotic resistance through four mechanisms, which include (1) limiting drug uptake, (2) modification of the drug target, (3) inactivation of the drug, and (4) active efflux of the drug [146,147,148]. All four mechanisms occur on the chromosomal genes of bacteria within a species or from other bacteria by horizontal gene transfer [128,146]. Figure 2 shows the general antimicrobial resistance mechanism, and Table 1 shows the summary of antibiotic resistance mechanisms found in E. coli species.
  • (1) Limiting drug uptake
Bacteria can limit the uptake of antimicrobial molecules by decreasing the absorption, increasing the discharge, or using both mechanisms concurrently [146]. The outer membranes of bacteria form a permeability barrier which antibiotics must pass to reach their target [144,146]. Hence, when the antimicrobial’s ability to enter the bacterial cell is reduced, it inhibits the antimicrobial from meeting the target [141]. Gram-negative bacteria comprise a lipid bilayer and porins that serve as the route of entry for hydrophobic (aminoglycosides, quinolones, and macrolides) and hydrophilic (β-lactams) antibiotics to pass through the bacterial outer membrane [59,137,144]. Mutations at porin sites cause inactivation or downregulation of porin proteins like OprD, leading to reduced permeability to antimicrobials [149]. The quantity and variety of these porins significantly affect the ability of hydrophilic antimicrobials to penetrate the bacterial cell, ultimately affecting the antibiotic susceptibility of the bacterium [150,151]. The access of drugs is limited by changes in the porin channels in two ways: (1) reduction in the number of porins and (2) reduction in the binding properties or function of the porin channel due to a change in charge [59,128,148]. In E. coli species, the production of porin may decrease or stop, or they may produce a different porin as a result of mutations [128,145]. Antimicrobial agents that are susceptible to limitation of drug uptake in E. coli are tetracyclines, erythromycins, fluoroquinolones, and chloramphenicol due to the decrease in permeability and increase in efflux [59,144]. Antimicrobials must be able to reach the target site for binding to prevent bacterial growth; thus, any mechanism that hinders this process will lead to ineffective treatment [145].
  • (2) Modification of the drug target
Gram-negative bacteria modify drug targets to allow resistance to antimicrobial groups such as β-lactams, fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, and the combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SXT) [59,128,137,152]. Spontaneous mutations in the genes encoding the protein targets cause drug targets to be modified [145]. Hence, antibiotics are prevented from binding, and this results in treatment failure. Drugs generally target the bacterial ribosome, which results in the inhibition of protein synthesis. There are many mechanisms that protect the ribosomal units of bacteria from being attacked by the drug, such as ribosomal mutation, ribosomal methylation, or ribosomal protection, which inhibit the ability of the drug to bind to the ribosome [146,148,153]. Aminoglycoside drugs bind to ribosomes and inhibit protein synthesis. The targets on ribosomes are modified in bacteria through methylation, which results in the bonding ability of the drug decreasing [128,146]. Many methyltransferases have been characterized and identified. The armA and rmtB genes encode for aminoglycoside resistance methylase and ribosomal methyltransferase, respectively [59,128]. Fluoroquinolone drugs hinder nucleic acid synthesis by competing for the DNA binding site of DNA gyrase or topoisomerase IV [59,137,148]. Resistance to fluoroquinolone drugs is a result of mutations in the chromosomally encoded ParC subunit of topoisomerase IV (parC gene) or the GyrA subunit of gyrase (gyrA gene), which reduces the binding ability [147]. Research has also demonstrated that low-level resistance may develop through plasmids carrying quinolone resistance (qnr) genes [137,154,155]. Penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) are peptidases that play a role in formation of the peptidoglycan cell wall [59,137,146]. Gram-negative bacteria produce PBPs that are β-lactam resistant. Resistance to β-lactam drugs occurs through alterations in the structure or number of PBPs or both [147]. This results in the inability of drugs to bind. There are numerous PBPs that are naturally produced by E. coli, and certain E. coli species decrease their binding affinity to certain β-lactam drugs. This mechanism enables bacteria to acquire antibiotic resistance, which presents a major challenge in the treatment of infections [145].
  • (3) Inactivation of the drug
One of the most effective methods bacteria use for protection is to either degrade or change the active component of the antimicrobial drug [145]. There are two main ways that drug inactivation is achieved in bacteria: (1) degradation of the antibiotic or (2) transfer of a chemical group to the antibiotic [59,144,148]. Drug inactivation against aminoglycoside and β-lactams is used by Gram-negative bacteria. β-lactamase enzymes inactivate β-lactam drugs, which results in degradation of the drugs, and E. coli produces many β-lactamase enzymes [59,146]. The β-lactam drugs’ main structure comprises a four-sided ring known as a β-lactam ring [148]. β-lactamases inactivate the drugs by hydrolyzation at a particular site in the β-lactam ring [137,156]. This results in the opening of the ring and inactivation of the drug because the drug cannot bind to the target proteins. There are many β-lactamases that have been identified to inactivate β-lactam drugs, and Gram-negative bacteria use this mechanism against β-lactam drugs [137,146,157]. Transferring a chemical group to the drug also results in drug inactivation. Modifying enzymes catalyse biochemical reactions such as adenylation, acetylation, and phosphorylation [128,148]. These are transfer mechanisms that are used against the aminoglycosides, chloramphenicol, streptogramins, and fluoroquinolone drugs [148]. Aminoglycosides-modifying enzymes (AMEs) are located in mobile genetic elements and provide the best example of drug inactivation [128,137,158]. AMEs are classified based on their biochemical activity. These enzymes include the adenyltransferases (ANTs, ant genes), phosphotransferases (APHs, aph genes), and acetyltransferases (AACs, aac genes) [128,137,147,158]. The AMEs covalently alter the amino or hydroxyl group, making it inactive [145].
  • (4) Active efflux of the drug
For a drug to have an effect, it needs to be in the bacteria’s system for a long time in high concentrations; however, some bacteria use efflux pumps to remove drugs as soon as they enter [159]. Efflux pumps are common mechanisms used to remove toxic substances outside the bacterial cell [137,147,156]. Bacteria use efflux pumps to export antibiotics, and this is an essential contributor to Gram-negative bacteria’s intrinsic resistance [145]. Efflux pumps have encoded genes that are either constitutively expressed or the expression is promoted by the environment [59,148]. Several substances can be transported through the efflux pump; thus, it is known as a multidrug resistance (MDR) mechanism [146,160]. There are five efflux pump groups known, which are the small multidrug resistance (SMR), multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (MATE) family, resistance-nodulation cell division (RND), ATP-binding cassette (ABC), and major facilitator superfamily (MFS) [59,137,148].
The SMR efflux pumps are hydrophobic and are powered by the proton-motive force (H+) that exports lipophilic cations [148,161]. The genes encoding for SMR efflux pumps are located in chromosomal DNA and mobile genetic elements like plasmids and transposons [148]. This efflux pump has a narrow substrate range and contributes resistance to β-lactams and some aminoglycosides [148].
The MATE efflux pumps use a sodium ion gradient as the energy source in the bacterial membrane [148,162]. MATE pumps have been shown to efflux fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides, which are important treatments for infections [148,163]. The NorE pump is a MATE efflux pump found in E. coli that transports fluoroquinolones. However, whether the clinical significance of the NorE pump has an influence on antimicrobial resistance is still questionable [164]. MATE efflux pumps are found mostly in Gram-negative bacteria, which often face more complex challenges with antibiotic resistance due to the presence of the outer membrane [148].
The ABC (ATP-binding cassette) transporter family is one of the most significant because it has an uptake and efflux system [148,159]. To transport amino acids, drugs, ions, polysaccharides, proteins, and sugars, the pumps use ATP hydrolysis [148,165]. This transport system consists of six transmembrane segments comprising α-helices, functions as either homodimers or heterodimer pairs in the membrane, and works in combination with cytoplasmic ATPases [148].
In Gram-negative bacteria, RND efflux pumps have clinical significance and determine resistance to many antimicrobials [59,137,148]. The RND efflux pumps use a substrate/H+ antiport mechanism to remove substrates [148,161]. This pump plays a role in removing antibiotics, detergents, heavy metals, solvents, and dyes [148,166]. Some RND pumps are substrate specific, for example, Tet pumps for tetracycline and Mef pumps for macrolides [148]. The RND efflux pumps are tripartite: (1) an inner membrane transporter, (2) an outer membrane porin, and (3) a periplasmic accessory protein [59,137,144]. This pump functions by connecting to an OMP, which is stabilized by MFPs [167]. The genes for the RND pumps are arranged as an operon, and the gene for the regulator is next to the MFP gene, which is next to the main pump gene followed by the OMP gene [148]. There are five known RND pumps in E. coli: AcrAD-TolC and AcrAB-TolC to efflux β-lactams and aminoglycosides, MdtABC-TolC to efflux quinolones, MdtEF-TolC to efflux erythromycin, and AcrEF-TolC to efflux quinolones and tigecycline [59,137,161].
The MFS efflux pumps use either the proton-motive force (H⁺ gradient) or sodium gradient (Na⁺) for the active transport of anions, drugs, metabolites, and sugars [148,168]. This indicates that MFS pumps have a great substrate diversity; however, individual pumps are substrate specific [148]. E. coli have individual MFS pumps for macrolides (MefB), fluoroquinolones (QepA), and trimethoprim (Fsr) [148]. In E. coli, there are five MFS efflux pumps that are known that can transport fluoroquinolones (QepA2, EmrAB-TolC, and MdfA pumps), macrolides (MefB and MdfA pumps), chloramphenicol (MdfA pump), trimethoprim (Fsr pumps), and tetracycline (EmrAB-TolC and MdfA pumps) [169].

5. Phylogenetics

E. coli strains are classified into the phylogenetic groups A, B1, B2, D1, D2, E, and clade I [170,171,172]. Non-pathogenic E. coli that inhabit the gastrointestinal tract belong to group A; commensal and certain pathogenic strains belong to group B1; InPEC belong to groups D1, D2, and E; most ExPEC belong to group B2; and strains that are phenotypically indistinguishable and genetically diverse belong to clade I [12,173,174]. Categorizing the E. coli strains into different phylogenetic groups provides important information on E. coli populations and helps to explain relationships between strains and diseases [175]. E. coli is one of the most adaptable bacteria because it can colonize and persist in the host [74]. It has a high genome plasticity, which enables the bacteria to evolve by gaining and losing genes via genetic changes, leading to the development of pathogenic strains from the commensal strains. In the evolutionary process, E. coli strains require virulence factors to become pathogenic [74]. Most virulence genes are found on transmissible genetic elements; thus, genes can be exchanged via horizontal gene transfer and can rearrange in other bacteria. Studies on phylogenetics of the core genome of various E. coli pathotypes have shown interrelated genetic structures [21]. Furthermore, researchers have shown that InPEC lineages have evolved numerous times, under different genetic makeups, and joined into a specific pathotype [176,177,178,179]. Environmental factors have a strong influence on E. coli evolution; this means that genes and mobile elements that are acquired from environmental bacteria play a role in the diversification of the E. coli genome [21]. During this process of evolution, commensal and pathogenic strains can function as genetic sources that gain or lose DNA to become pathogenic or revert to commensalism, respectively [180]. Environmental factors also have a great influence on gaining or losing genes or mobile elements, causing bacterial genome diversification [21]. The in-depth analysis of whole genomes is possible because sequencing technology is always advancing; thus, E. coli genome evolution can be studied extensively [181]. Gene content is the most important source of variation between genomes and is due to specific selective pressures experienced during evolution [182]. For example, 5.5 Mb genome of two E. coli strains (O157:H7 EDL933 and K-12 MG1655) shared a core genome of 4.1 Mb, indicating that the majority of the sequences were highly similar [181]. Also, analysis of more E. coli strains showed that a significant percentage of genes have been laterally acquired, and this means that there is a shared core genome [181]. Thus, phylogenetic analysis enables us to understand how the bacterium evolves over time and identify genetic variations or similarities. This will be beneficial for studying disease outbreaks and developing new drugs to combat diseases. Furthermore, phylogenetic analysis can provide information about genetic changes that contribute to antibiotic resistance and its dissemination, which ultimately will help to improve management and prevent emerging infections.

6. Conclusions

Every person requires food to survive, and with the continuous increase in the population, there is a higher demand on farming practices to meet the need. Studies have shown that E. coli is present in animal products and fresh produce, and it can survive in multiple environments. E. coli isolates acquire specific virulence attributes by adapting to the environment, thus allowing a wide range of infections [92]. Additionally, to meet the increasing meat demands, livestock production commonly uses antibiotics as growth promoters and to control bacterial pathogens that may cause diseases [183]. However, the overuse of antibiotics results in the rapid increase in resistant bacteria, which decreases the efficacy of antibiotics [184]. This has led to infection by E. coli becoming more prevalent in communities and hospitals in recent years [120]. In pharmaceutical industries, a major challenge is the lack of development of novel drugs for the treatment of bacterial infections [185]. As a result of the rise in resistance to antibiotics, the ineffectiveness of the available treatments for bacterial infections could possibly become fatal [185]. The State of the World’s Antibiotics report in 2015 showed that the rise in drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria such as E. coli has led to reliance on the colistin antibiotic as a last line of defence. Spreading of antibiotic resistance can be limited by practising good hygiene from production to consumption, using antibiotics rationally, screening, treating, and raising awareness/education to prevent spread from person to person [186]. The above-mentioned prevention measures are good to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance; however, in-depth research to develop new antibiotics and increase the efficiency of existing drugs is necessary and will be beneficial [187]. Importantly, it should be noted that to date, no new antibiotics have been discovered to fight the bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics [188,189]. The disease-causing aspects of pathogenic E. coli is commonly studied; however, they can also differ in evolution [182]. It is evident that E. coli isolates have evolved numerous times through HGT, recombination, and/or mutation, which contributes to the genetic diversity of bacteria [182,190]. As a result, the emergence of new E. coli isolates will always be a challenge. Knowing the phylogenetic history of the core genome of E. coli isolates compared with the variable genome will provide meaningful and updated information of pathotypes [179]. E. coli is a widely studied bacterium that is highly adaptable, and thus, its characteristics are always evolving [191]. This rate of evolution means that researchers need to constantly be analysing E. coli strains to determine zoonotic transmission potential and its implications for human health. Thus, future research should focus on identifying the genetic composition of E. coli strains via phylogenetics to aid in controlling outbreaks and monitoring the spread of antibiotic resistance, ensuring development of new drug therapies and treatment strategies, and identify possible future antibiotic-resistance patterns [190].

Funding

This research was funded by Prof Oliver Tendayi Zishiri.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lukjancenko, O.; Wassenaar, T.M.; Ussery, D.W. Comparison of 61 sequenced Escherichia coli genomes. Microb. Ecol. 2010, 60, 708–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Abd El Tawab, A.A.; Ammar, A.M.; Nasef, S.A.; Reda, R.M. Prevalence of E. coli in diseased chickens with its antibiogram pattern. Benha Vet. Med. J. 2015, 28, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bell, C.; Kyriakides, A. Pathogenic Escherichia coli. In Foodborne Pathogens; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 581–626. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tenaillon, O.; Skurnik, D.; Picard, B.; Denamur, E. The population genetics of commensal Escherichia coli. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Calero, P.; Nikel, P.I. Chasing bacterial chassis for metabolic engineering: A perspective review from classical to non-traditional microorganisms. Microb. Biotechnol. 2019, 12, 98–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lamprecht, C.; Romanis, M.; Huisamen, N.; Carinus, A.; Schoeman, N.; Sigge, G.O.; Britz, T.J. Escherichia coli with virulence factors and multidrug resistance in the Plankenburg River. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2014, 110, 01–06. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jang, J.; Hur, H.G.; Sadowsky, M.J.; Byappanahalli, M.N.; Yan, T.; Ishii, S. Environmental Escherichia coli: Ecology and public health implications-a review. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 123, 570–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ramos, S.; Silva, V.; Dapkevicius, M.L.E.; Canica, M.; Tejedor-Junco, M.T.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P. Escherichia coli as Commensal and Pathogenic Bacteria Among Food-Producing Animals: Health Implications of Extended Spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) Production. Animals 2020, 10, 2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kaper, J.B.; Nataro, J.P.; Mobley, H.L. Pathogenic Escherichia coli. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 2, 123–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lindstedt, B.A.; Finton, M.D.; Porcellato, D.; Brandal, L.T. High frequency of hybrid Escherichia coli strains with combined Intestinal Pathogenic Escherichia coli (IPEC) and Extraintestinal Pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC) virulence factors isolated from human faecal samples. BMC Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mafokwane, T.; Djikeng, A.; Nesengani, L.T.; Dewar, J.; Mapholi, O. Gastrointestinal Infection in South African Children under the Age of 5 years: A Mini Review. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2023, 2023, 1906782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boroumand, M.B.; Naghmachi, M.; Ghatee, M.A. Detection of phylogenetic groups and drug resistance genes of Escherichia coli causing urinary tract infection in southwest Iran. Jundishapur J. Microbiol. 2021, 14, e112547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Staji, H.; Khoshgoftar, J.; Vayeghan, A.J.; Bejestani, M. Phylogenetic grouping and assessment of virulence genotypes, with antibiotic resistance patterns, of Escherichia coli strains implicated in female urinary tract infections. Int. J. Enteric Pathog. 2016, 4, 4-31609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pakbin, B.; Brück, W.M.; Rossen, J.W. Virulence factors of enteric pathogenic Escherichia coli: A review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Daga, A.P.; Koga, V.L.; Soncini, J.G.M.; de Matos, C.M.; Perugini, M.R.E.; Pelisson, M.; Kobayashi, R.K.T.; Vespero, E.C. Escherichia coli bloodstream infections in patients at a university hospital: Virulence factors and clinical characteristics. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alegbeleye, O.O.; Singleton, I.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Sources and contamination routes of microbial pathogens to fresh produce during field cultivation: A review. Food Microbiol. 2018, 73, 177–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dale, A.P.; Woodford, N. Extra-intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC): Disease, carriage and clones. J. Infect. 2015, 71, 615–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mora-Rillo, M.; Fernández-Romero, N.; Navarro-San Francisco, C.; Díez-Sebastián, J.; Romero-Gómez, M.P.; Arnalich Fernández, F.; Arribas López, J.R.; Mingorance, J. Impact of virulence genes on sepsis severity and survival in Escherichia coli bacteremia. Virulence 2015, 6, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Livermore, D.M. Bacterial resistance: Origins, epidemiology, and impact. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2003, 36, S11–S23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Puvača, N.; Tankosić, J.V.; Ignjatijević, S.; Carić, M.; Prodanović, R. Antimicrobial resistance in the environment: Review of the selected resistance drivers and public health concerns. J. Agron. Technol. Eng. Manag. 2022, 5, 793–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Geurtsen, J.; de Been, M.; Weerdenburg, E.; Zomer, A.; McNally, A.; Poolman, J. Genomics and pathotypes of the many faces of Escherichia coli. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2022, 46, fuac031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nasrollahian, S.; Graham, J.P.; Halaji, M. A review of the mechanisms that confer antibiotic resistance in pathotypes of E. coli. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2024, 14, 1387497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Poirel, L.; Madec, J.-Y.; Lupo, A.; Schink, A.-K.; Kieffer, N.; Nordmann, P.; Schwarz, S. Antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hutinel, M.; Fick, J.; Larsson, D.J.; Flach, C.-F. Investigating the effects of municipal and hospital wastewaters on horizontal gene transfer. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 276, 116733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lerminiaux, N.A.; Cameron, A.D. Horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes in clinical environments. Can. J. Microbiol. 2019, 65, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Stoppe, N.d.C.; Silva, J.S.; Carlos, C.; Sato, M.I.; Saraiva, A.M.; Ottoboni, L.M.; Torres, T.T. Worldwide phylogenetic group patterns of Escherichia coli from commensal human and wastewater treatment plant isolates. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Montealegre, M.C.; Talavera Rodríguez, A.; Roy, S.; Hossain, M.I.; Islam, M.A.; Lanza, V.F.; Julian, T.R. High genomic diversity and heterogenous origins of pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli in household settings represent a challenge to reducing transmission in low-income settings. Msphere 2020, 5, e00704-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fuhrmeister, E.R.; Ercumen, A.; Pickering, A.J.; Jeanis, K.M.; Ahmed, M.; Brown, S.; Arnold, B.F.; Hubbard, A.E.; Alam, M.; Sen, D. Predictors of enteric pathogens in the domestic environment from human and animal sources in rural Bangladesh. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 10023–10033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Heredia, N.; García, S. Animals as sources of food-borne pathogens: A review. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rani, Z.T.; Hugo, A.; Hugo, C.J.; Vimiso, P.; Muchenje, V. Effect of post-slaughter handling during distribution on microbiological quality and safety of meat in the formal and informal sectors of South Africa: A review. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 47, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Messele, Y.E.; Abdi, R.D.; Tegegne, D.T.; Bora, S.K.; Babura, M.D.; Emeru, B.A.; Werid, G.M. Analysis of milk-derived isolates of E. coli indicating drug resistance in central Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 661–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, S.-C.; Lin, C.-H.; Aljuffali, I.A.; Fang, J.-Y. Current pathogenic Escherichia coli foodborne outbreak cases and therapy development. Arch. Microbiol. 2017, 199, 811–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Heetun, I.; Goburdhun, D.; Neetoo, H. Comparative microbiological evaluation of raw chicken from markets and chilled outlets of Mauritius. J. Worlds Poul Res. 2015, 5, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ranjbar, R.; Safarpoor Dehkordi, F.; Sakhaei Shahreza, M.H.; Rahimi, E. Prevalence, identification of virulence factors, O-serogroups and antibiotic resistance properties of Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli strains isolated from raw milk and traditional dairy products. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2018, 7, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ludden, C.; Raven, K.E.; Jamrozy, D.; Gouliouris, T.; Blane, B.; Coll, F.; de Goffau, M.; Naydenova, P.; Horner, C.; Hernandez-Garcia, J. One health genomic surveillance of Escherichia coli demonstrates distinct lineages and mobile genetic elements in isolates from humans versus livestock. MBio 2019, 10, e02693-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Tighe-Neira, R.; Alberdi, M.; Arce-Johnson, P.; Romero-Romero, J.L.; Reyes-Díaz, M.; Inostroza-Blancheteau, C. Foods with functional properties and their potential uses in human health. In Superfood and Functional Food-An Overview of Their Processing and Utilization; Waisundara, V., Shiomi, N., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hess, T.; Sutcliffe, C. The exposure of a fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain to global water-related risks. Water Int. 2018, 43, 746–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Luna-Guevara, J.J.; Arenas-Hernandez, M.M.; Martínez de la Peña, C.; Silva, J.L.; Luna-Guevara, M.L. The role of pathogenic E. coli in fresh vegetables: Behavior, contamination factors, and preventive measures. Int. J. Microbiol. 2019, 2019, 2894328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mostafidi, M.; Sanjabi, M.R.; Shirkhan, F.; Zahedi, M.T. A review of recent trends in the development of the microbial safety of fruits and vegetables. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 103, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nüesch-Inderbinen, M.; Stephan, R. Fresh fruit and vegetables as vehicles of bacterial foodborne disease: A review and analysis of outbreaks registered by proMED-mail associated with fresh produce. J. Food Saf. Food Qual. 2016, 67, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bintsis, T. Microbial pollution and food safety. AIMS Microbiol. 2018, 4, 377–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Feliziani, E.; Lichter, A.; Smilanick, J.L.; Ippolito, A. Disinfecting agents for controlling fruit and vegetable diseases after harvest. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gombas, D.; Luo, Y.; Brennan, J.; Shergill, G.; Petran, R.; Walsh, R.; Hau, H.; Khurana, K.; Zomorodi, B.; Rosen, J. Guidelines to validate control of cross-contamination during washing of fresh-cut leafy vegetables. J. Food Prot. 2017, 80, 312–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Merget, B.; Forbes, K.J.; Brennan, F.; McAteer, S.; Shepherd, T.; Strachan, N.J.; Holden, N.J. Influence of plant species, tissue type, and temperature on the capacity of Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli to colonize, grow, and be internalized by plants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e00123-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ranjbaran, M.; Verma, M.S. Microfluidics at the interface of bacteria and fresh produce. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 128, 102–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pakbin, B.; Allahyari, S.; Amani, Z.; Bruck, W.M.; Mahmoudi, R.; Peymani, A. Prevalence, Phylogroups and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Escherichia coli Isolates from Food Products. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gritli, A.; Belkahla, I.; Moussa, M.B.; Abassi, M. Occurrence and characterization of Escherichia coli in raw lettuce consumed in a military hospital. J. New Sci. 2015, 11, 899–907. [Google Scholar]
  48. Osińska, A.; Korzeniewska, E.; Harnisz, M.; Niestępski, S. The prevalence and characterization of antibiotic-resistant and virulent Escherichia coli strains in the municipal wastewater system and their environmental fate. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 577, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Devane, M.L.; Moriarty, E.; Weaver, L.; Cookson, A.; Gilpin, B. Fecal indicator bacteria from environmental sources; strategies for identification to improve water quality monitoring. Water Res. 2020, 185, 116204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Riggio, G.M.; Wang, Q.; Kniel, K.E.; Gibson, K.E. Microgreens—A review of food safety considerations along the farm to fork continuum. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 290, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Enany, M.E.; Algammal, A.M.; Nasef, S.A.; Abo-Eillil, S.A.; Bin-Jumah, M.; Taha, A.E.; Allam, A.A. The occurrence of the multidrug resistance (MDR) and the prevalence of virulence genes and QACs resistance genes in E. coli isolated from environmental and avian sources. AMB Express 2019, 9, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nguyen, J.; Lara-Gutiérrez, J.; Stocker, R. Environmental fluctuations and their effects on microbial communities, populations and individuals. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2021, 45, fuaa068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Blaak, H.; van Hoek, A.H.; Hamidjaja, R.A.; van der Plaats, R.Q.; Kerkhof-de Heer, L.; de Roda Husman, A.M.; Schets, F.M. Distribution, numbers, and diversity of ESBL-producing E. coli in the poultry farm environment. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bong, C.W.; Chai, S.K.; Chai, L.C.; Wang, A.J.; Lee, C.W. Prevalence and characterization of Escherichia coli in the Kelantan River and its adjacent coastal waters. Water Supply 2020, 20, 930–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nguyen, J.; Fernandez, V.; Pontrelli, S.; Sauer, U.; Ackermann, M.; Stocker, R. A distinct growth physiology enhances bacterial growth under rapid nutrient fluctuations. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 3662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Conway, T.; Cohen, P.S. Commensal and pathogenic Escherichia coli metabolism in the gut. In Metabolism and Bacterial Pathogenesis; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 343–362. [Google Scholar]
  57. Macfarlane, S.; Bahrami, B.; Macfarlane, G.T. Mucosal biofilm communities in the human intestinal tract. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 75, 111–143. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Gomes, T.A.; Elias, W.P.; Scaletsky, I.C.; Guth, B.E.; Rodrigues, J.F.; Piazza, R.M.; Ferreira, L.; Martinez, M.B. Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2016, 47, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Reygaert, W.C. Antimicrobial Mechanisms of Escherichia coli; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kolenda, R.; Burdukiewicz, M.; Schierack, P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology of pathogenic Escherichia coli of calves and the role of calves as reservoirs for human pathogenic E. coli. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2015, 5, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vila, J.; Sáez-López, E.; Johnson, J.R.; Römling, U.; Dobrindt, U.; Cantón, R.; Giske, C.; Naas, T.; Carattoli, A.; Martínez-Medina, M. Escherichia coli: An old friend with new tidings. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2016, 40, 437–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Govindarajan, D.K.; Viswalingam, N.; Meganathan, Y.; Kandaswamy, K. Adherence patterns of Escherichia coli in the intestine and its role in pathogenesis. Med. Microecol. 2020, 5, 100025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Smith, J.; Fratamico, P. Escherichia coli as a Pathogen. In Foodborne Diseases; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 189–208. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mare, A.D.; Ciurea, C.N.; Man, A.; Tudor, B.; Moldovan, V.; Decean, L.; Toma, F. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli—A summary of the literature. Gastroenterol. Insights 2021, 12, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Croxen, M.A.; Finlay, B.B. Molecular mechanisms of Escherichia coli pathogenicity. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Donnenberg, M.; Kaper, J. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli. Infect. Immun. 1992, 60, 3953–3961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Baruah, S.M. The Versatile and Pathogenic Faces of Escherichia coli. Assam J. Intern. Med. 2024, 14, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Croxen, M.A.; Law, R.J.; Scholz, R.; Keeney, K.M.; Wlodarska, M.; Finlay, B.B. Recent advances in understanding enteric pathogenic Escherichia coli. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 26, 822–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Manu, D.; Lupan, I.; Popescu, O. Mechanisms of pathogenesis and antibiotics resistance in Escherichia coli. Ann. Rom. Soc. Cell Biol. 2011, 16, 7–19. [Google Scholar]
  70. Cepeda-Molero, M.; Berger, C.N.; Walsham, A.D.; Ellis, S.J.; Wemyss-Holden, S.; Schüller, S.; Frankel, G.; Fernández, L.Á. Attaching and effacing (A/E) lesion formation by enteropathogenic E. coli on human intestinal mucosa is dependent on non-LEE effectors. PLoS Pathog. 2017, 13, e1006706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Martinez de la Peña, C.F.; De Masi, L.; Nisa, S.; Mulvey, G.; Tong, J.; Donnenberg, M.S.; Armstrong, G.D. BfpI, BfpJ, and BfpK minor pilins are important for the function and biogenesis of bundle-forming pili expressed by enteropathogenic Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 2016, 198, 846–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dubreuil, J.D.; Isaacson, R.E.; Schifferli, D.M. Animal enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. EcoSal Plus 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fleckenstein, J.M.; Kuhlmann, F.M. Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli infections. Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2019, 21, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pokharel, P.; Dhakal, S.; Dozois, C.M. The diversity of Escherichia coli pathotypes and vaccination strategies against this versatile bacterial pathogen. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. von Mentzer, A.; Blackwell, G.A.; Pickard, D.; Boinett, C.J.; Joffré, E.; Page, A.J.; Svennerholm, A.-M.; Dougan, G.; Sjöling, Å. Long-read-sequenced reference genomes of the seven major lineages of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) circulating in modern time. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 9256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pasqua, M.; Michelacci, V.; Di Martino, M.L.; Tozzoli, R.; Grossi, M.; Colonna, B.; Morabito, S.; Prosseda, G. The intriguing evolutionary journey of enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC) toward pathogenicity. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Okhuysen, P.C.; DuPont, H.L. Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC): A cause of acute and persistent diarrhea of worldwide importance. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 202, 503–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Estrada-Garcia, T.; Navarro-Garcia, F. Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli pathotype: A genetically heterogeneous emerging foodborne enteropathogen. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 66, 281–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dias, R.C.; Tanabe, R.H.; Vieira, M.A.; Cergole-Novella, M.C.; Dos Santos, L.F.; Gomes, T.A.; Elias, W.P.; Hernandes, R.T. Analysis of the virulence profile and phenotypic features of typical and atypical enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC) isolated from diarrheal patients in Brazil. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Mancini, J.; Weckselblatt, B.; Chung, Y.K.; Durante, J.C.; Andelman, S.; Glaubman, J.; Dorff, J.D.; Bhargava, S.; Lijek, R.S.; Unger, K.P. The heat-resistant agglutinin family includes a novel adhesin from enteroaggregative Escherichia coli strain 60A. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 4813–4820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jønsson, R.; Struve, C.; Boisen, N.; Mateiu, R.V.; Santiago, A.E.; Jenssen, H.; Nataro, J.P.; Krogfelt, K.A. Novel aggregative adherence fimbria variant of enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. Infect. Immun. 2015, 83, 1396–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Jacobson, M. On the infectious causes of neonatal piglet diarrhoea—A review. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Harrington, S.M.; Dudley, E.G.; Nataro, J.P. Pathogenesis of enteroaggregative Escherichia coli infection. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2006, 254, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kong, H.; Hong, X.; Li, X. Current perspectivesin pathogenesis and antimicrobial resistance of enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. Microb. Pathog. 2015, 85, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hebbelstrup Jensen, B.; Olsen, K.E.; Struve, C.; Krogfelt, K.A.; Petersen, A.M. Epidemiology and clinical manifestations of enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 27, 614–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jenkins, C. Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. In Escherichia coli, a Versatile Pathogen; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 27–50. [Google Scholar]
  87. Betz, J.; Bielaszewska, M.; Thies, A.; Humpf, H.-U.; Dreisewerd, K.; Karch, H.; Kim, K.S.; Friedrich, A.W.; Müthing, J. Shiga toxin glycosphingolipid receptors in microvascular and macrovascular endothelial cells: Differential association with membrane lipid raft microdomains. J. Lipid Res. 2011, 52, 618–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Betz, J.; Bauwens, A.; Kunsmann, L.; Bielaszewska, M.; Mormann, M.; Humpf, H.-U.; Karch, H.; Friedrich, A.W.; Müthing, J. Uncommon membrane distribution of Shiga toxin glycosphingolipid receptors in toxin-sensitive human glomerular microvascular endothelial cells. Biol. Chem. 2012, 393, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Nataro, J.P.; Kaper, J.B. Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1998, 11, 142–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Schüller, S. Shiga toxin interaction with human intestinal epithelium. Toxins 2011, 3, 626–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Meza-Segura, M.; Zaidi, M.B.; Vera-Ponce de León, A.; Moran-Garcia, N.; Martinez-Romero, E.; Nataro, J.P.; Estrada-Garcia, T. New insights into DAEC and EAEC pathogenesis and phylogeny. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 572951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gebisa, E.S.; Gerasu, M.A.; Leggese, D.T. A review on virulence factors of Escherichia coli. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2019, 7, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mainil, J. Escherichia coli virulence factors. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2013, 152, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Clavijo, A.P.; Bai, J.; Gómez-Duarte, O.G. The Longus type IV pilus of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) mediates bacterial self-aggregation and protection from antimicrobial agents. Microb. Pathog. 2010, 48, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bolton, D.J. Verocytotoxigenic (Shiga toxin–producing) Escherichia coli: Virulence factors and pathogenicity in the farm to fork paradigm. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2011, 8, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bergan, J.; Lingelem, A.B.D.; Simm, R.; Skotland, T.; Sandvig, K. Shiga toxins. Toxicon 2012, 60, 1085–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Karpman, D.; Ståhl, A.l. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli pathogenesis and the host response. In Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli Other Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 381–402. [Google Scholar]
  98. Nguyen, Y.; Sperandio, V. Enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) pathogenesis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2012, 2, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Meng, J.; LeJeune, J.T.; Zhao, T.; Doyle, M.P. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli. In Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 287–309. [Google Scholar]
  100. Scheutz, F.; Teel, L.D.; Beutin, L.; Piérard, D.; Buvens, G.; Karch, H.; Mellmann, A.; Caprioli, A.; Tozzoli, R.; Morabito, S. Multicenter evaluation of a sequence-based protocol for subtyping Shiga toxins and standardizing Stx nomenclature. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012, 50, 2951–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Gyles, C.; Fairbrother, J.  Escherichia coli. Pathog. Bact. Infect. Anim. 2010, 4, 267–308. [Google Scholar]
  102. Nagy, B.; Fekete, P.Z. Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) in farm animals. Vet. Res. 1999, 30, 259–284. [Google Scholar]
  103. Dhakal, R.; Wang, Q.; Howard, P.; Sintchenko, V. Genome sequences of enteroinvasive Escherichia coli sequence type 6, 99, and 311 strains acquired in Asia Pacific. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2019, 8, e00944-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Schnupf, P.; Sansonetti, P.J. Shigella pathogenesis: New insights through advanced methodologies. In Bacteria and Intracellularity; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 15–39. [Google Scholar]
  105. Kotloff, K.L.; Riddle, M.S.; Platts-Mills, J.A.; Pavlinac, P.; Zaidi, A.K. Shigellosis. Lancet 2018, 391, 801–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lambrecht, N.J.; Bridges, D.; Wilson, M.L.; Adu, B.; Eisenberg, J.N.; Folson, G.; Baylin, A.; Jones, A.D. Associations of bacterial enteropathogens with systemic inflammation, iron deficiency, and anemia in preschool-age children in southern Ghana. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0271099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Boisen, N.; Krogfelt, K.A.; Nataro, J.P. Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. In Escherichia coli; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 247–273. [Google Scholar]
  108. Guerrieri, C.G.; Pereira, M.F.; Galdino, A.C.M.; Santos, A.L.S.d.; Elias, W.P.; Schuenck, R.P.; Spano, L.C. Typical and atypical enteroaggregative Escherichia coli are both virulent in the Galleria mellonella model. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Servin, A.L. Pathogenesis of human diffusely adhering Escherichia coli expressing Afa/Dr adhesins (Afa/Dr DAEC): Current insights and future challenges. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 27, 823–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Hutchings, M.I.; Truman, A.W.; Wilkinson, B. Antibiotics: Past, present and future. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2019, 51, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kwatra, S.; Taneja, G.; Nasa, N. Alternative routes of drug administration-transdermal, pulmonary & parenteral. Indo Glob. J. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 2, 409–426. [Google Scholar]
  112. Van Boeckel, T.P.; Brower, C.; Gilbert, M.; Grenfell, B.T.; Levin, S.A.; Robinson, T.P.; Teillant, A.; Laxminarayan, R. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2015, 112, 5649–5654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Allen, H.K. Alternatives to antibiotics: Why and how. In NAM Perspectives; National Academy of Medicine: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  114. Meek, R.W.; Vyas, H.; Piddock, L.J.V. Nonmedical uses of antibiotics: Time to restrict their use? PLoS Biol. 2015, 13, e1002266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Alonso, C.; Zarazaga, M.; Ben Sallem, R.; Jouini, A.; Ben Slama, K.; Torres, C. Antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli in husbandry animals: The African perspective. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 64, 318–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ahs, J.W.; Tao, W.; Löfgren, J.; Forsberg, B.C. Diarrheal diseases in low-and middle-income countries: Incidence, prevention and management. Open Infect. Dis. J. 2010, 4, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hawk, D.; Tribble, D.R.; Riddle, M.S. Clinical treatment of nondysentery travelers’ diarrhea during deployment. Mil. Med. 2010, 175, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Alzaidi, S.; Veillette, J.J.; May, S.S.; Olson, J.; Jackson, K.; Waters, C.D.; Butler, A.M.; Hutton, M.A.; Buckel, W.R.; Webb, B.J. Oral β-Lactams, Fluoroquinolones, or Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole for Definitive Treatment of Uncomplicated Escherichia coli or Klebsiella Species Bacteremia From a Urinary Tract Source. In Proceedings of the Open Forum Infectious Diseases; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2024; p. ofad657. [Google Scholar]
  119. Bielaszewska, M.; Idelevich, E.A.; Zhang, W.; Bauwens, A.; Schaumburg, F.; Mellmann, A.; Peters, G.; Karch, H. Effects of antibiotics on Shiga toxin 2 production and bacteriophage induction by epidemic Escherichia coli O104: H4 strain. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012, 56, 3277–3282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Padmini, N.; Ajilda, A.A.K.; Sivakumar, N.; Selvakumar, G. Extended spectrum β-lactamase producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae: Critical tools for antibiotic resistance pattern. J. Basic Microbiol. 2017, 57, 460–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lakshminarayanan, S.; Jayalakshmy, R. Diarrheal diseases among children in India: Current scenario and future perspectives. J. Nat. Sci. Biol. Med. 2015, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Economou, V.; Gousia, P. Agriculture and food animals as a source of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Infect. Drug Resist. 2015, 8, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Gould, I.M.; Bal, A.M. New antibiotic agents in the pipeline and how they can help overcome microbial resistance. Virulence 2013, 4, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Wright, G.D. Something old, something new: Revisiting natural products in antibiotic drug discovery. Can. J. Microbiol. 2014, 60, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Sengupta, S.; Chattopadhyay, M.K.; Grossart, H.-P. The multifaceted roles of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance in nature. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Hamdani, S.S.; Bhat, B.A.; Tariq, L.; Yaseen, S.I.; Ara, I.; Rafi, B.; Hamdani, S.N.; Hassan, T.; Rashid, O. Antibiotic resistance: The future disaster. Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 7. [Google Scholar]
  127. Urban-Chmiel, R.; Marek, A.; Stępień-Pyśniak, D.; Wieczorek, K.; Dec, M.; Nowaczek, A.; Osek, J. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria—A review. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Blair, J.M.; Webber, M.A.; Baylay, A.J.; Ogbolu, D.O.; Piddock, L.J. Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 13, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Huang, Z.; Pan, H.; Zhang, P.; Cao, X.; Ju, W.; Wang, C.; Zhang, J.; Meng, J.; Yuan, Z.; Xu, X. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli in Shanghai, China. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2016, 35, 835–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Rolain, J.-M. Food and human gut as reservoirs of transferable antibiotic resistance encoding genes. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kumarasamy, K.K.; Toleman, M.A.; Walsh, T.R.; Bagaria, J.; Butt, F.; Balakrishnan, R.; Chaudhary, U.; Doumith, M.; Giske, C.G.; Irfan, S. Emergence of a new antibiotic resistance mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: A molecular, biological, and epidemiological study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cassir, N.; Rolain, J.-M.; Brouqui, P. A new strategy to fight antimicrobial resistance: The revival of old antibiotics. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Irrgang, A.; Roschanski, N.; Tenhagen, B.-A.; Grobbel, M.; Skladnikiewicz-Ziemer, T.; Thomas, K.; Roesler, U.; Kaesbohrer, A. Prevalence of mcr-1 in E. coli from livestock and food in Germany, 2010–2015. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Newton-Foot, M.; Snyman, Y.; Maloba, M.R.B.; Whitelaw, A.C. Plasmid-mediated mcr-1 colistin resistance in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. clinical isolates from the Western Cape region of South Africa. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2017, 6, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Liu, Y.-Y.; Wang, Y.; Walsh, T.R.; Yi, L.-X.; Zhang, R.; Spencer, J.; Doi, Y.; Tian, G.; Dong, B.; Huang, X. Emergence of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: A microbiological and molecular biological study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Grami, R.; Mansour, W.; Mehri, W.; Bouallègue, O.; Boujaâfar, N.; Madec, J.-Y.; Haenni, M. Impact of food animal trade on the spread of mcr-1-mediated colistin resistance, Tunisia, July 2015. Eurosurveillance 2016, 21, 30144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Munita, J.M.; Arias, C.A. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. In Virulence Mechanisms of Bacterial Pathogens; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 481–511. [Google Scholar]
  138. Ghannad, M.S.; Mohammadi, A. Bacteriophage: Time to re-evaluate the potential of phage therapy as a promising agent to control multidrug-resistant bacteria. Iran. J. Basic Med. Sci. 2012, 15, 693. [Google Scholar]
  139. Kester, J.C.; Fortune, S.M. Persisters and beyond: Mechanisms of phenotypic drug resistance and drug tolerance in bacteria. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2014, 49, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Schroeder, M.; Brooks, B.D.; Brooks, A.E. The complex relationship between virulence and antibiotic resistance. Genes 2017, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Peterson, E.; Kaur, P. Antibiotic resistance mechanisms in bacteria: Relationships between resistance determinants of antibiotic producers, environmental bacteria, and clinical pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Manson, J.M.; Hancock, L.E.; Gilmore, M.S. Mechanism of chromosomal transfer of Enterococcus faecalis pathogenicity island, capsule, antimicrobial resistance, and other traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 12269–12274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Revitt-Mills, S.A.; Robinson, A. Antibiotic-induced mutagenesis: Under the microscope. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 585175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Arzanlou, M.; Chai, W.C.; Venter, H. Intrinsic, adaptive and acquired antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. Essays Biochem. 2017, 61, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  145. Belay, W.Y.; Getachew, M.; Tegegne, B.A.; Teffera, Z.H.; Dagne, A.; Zeleke, T.K.; Abebe, R.B.; Gedif, A.A.; Fenta, A.; Yirdaw, G. Mechanism of antibacterial resistance, strategies and next-generation antimicrobials to contain antimicrobial resistance: A review. Front. Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1444781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Cag, Y.; Caskurlu, H.; Fan, Y.; Cao, B.; Vahaboglu, H. Resistance mechanisms. Ann. Transl. Med. 2016, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Reygaert, W.C. Insights on the antimicrobial resistance mechanisms of bacteria. Adv. Clin. Med. Microbiol. 2016, 2. [Google Scholar]
  148. Reygaert, W.C. An overview of the antimicrobial resistance mechanisms of bacteria. AIMS Microbiol. 2018, 4, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Reynolds, D.; Burnham, J.P.; Guillamet, C.V.; McCabe, M.; Yuenger, V.; Betthauser, K.; Micek, S.T.; Kollef, M.H. The threat of multidrug-resistant/extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative respiratory infections: Another pandemic. Eur. Respir. Rev. 2022, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Fernández, L.; Hancock, R.E. Adaptive and mutational resistance: Role of porins and efflux pumps in drug resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2012, 25, 661–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Choi, U.; Lee, C.-R. Distinct roles of outer membrane porins in antibiotic resistance and membrane integrity in Escherichia coli. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Wright, G.D. Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 4055–4061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, M.M.; Varela, M.F. Modulation of bacterial multidrug resistance efflux pumps of the major facilitator superfamily. Int. J. Bacteriol. 2013, 2013, 204141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Schultsz, C.; Geerlings, S. Plasmid-mediated resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: Changing landscape and implications for therapy. Drugs 2012, 72, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Hooper, D.C.; Jacoby, G.A. Mechanisms of drug resistance: Quinolone resistance. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2015, 1354, 12–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Nas, F. Mechanisms of Bacterial Antibiotics Resistance: A Review. J. Adv. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Bush, K.; Jacoby, G.A. Updated functional classification of β-lactamases. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 969–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Ramirez, M.S.; Tolmasky, M.E. Aminoglycoside modifying enzymes. Drug Resist. Updates 2010, 13, 151–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Ray, S.; Das, S.; Suar, M. Molecular mechanism of drug resistance. In Drug Resistance in Bacteria, Fungi, Malaria, and Cancer; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 47–110. [Google Scholar]
  160. Nikaido, H.; Pagès, J.-M. Broad-specificity efflux pumps and their role in multidrug resistance of Gram-negative bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2012, 36, 340–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Anes, J.; McCusker, M.P.; Fanning, S.; Martins, M. The ins and outs of RND efflux pumps in Escherichia coli. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Alvarez-Ortega, C.; Olivares, J.; Martínez, J.L. RND multidrug efflux pumps: What are they good for? Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Abdi, S.N.; Ghotaslou, R.; Ganbarov, K.; Mobed, A.; Tanomand, A.; Yousefi, M.; Asgharzadeh, M.; Kafil, H.S. Acinetobacter baumannii efflux pumps and antibiotic resistance. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Swick, M.C.; Morgan-Linnell, S.K.; Carlson, K.M.; Zechiedrich, L. Expression of multidrug efflux pump genes acrAB-tolC, mdfA, and norE in Escherichia coli clinical isolates as a function of fluoroquinolone and multidrug resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2011, 55, 921–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. De Gaetano, G.V.; Lentini, G.; Famà, A.; Coppolino, F.; Beninati, C. Antimicrobial resistance: Two-component regulatory systems and multidrug efflux pumps. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Zack, K.M.; Sorenson, T.; Joshi, S.G. Types and Mechanisms of Efflux Pump Systems and the Potential of Efflux Pump Inhibitors in the Restoration of Antimicrobial Susceptibility, with a Special Reference to Acinetobacter baumannii. Pathogens 2024, 13, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Kornelsen, V.; Kumar, A. Update on multidrug resistance efflux pumps in Acinetobacter spp. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, 10-1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Pasqua, M.; Grossi, M.; Zennaro, A.; Fanelli, G.; Micheli, G.; Barras, F.; Colonna, B.; Prosseda, G. The varied role of efflux pumps of the MFS family in the interplay of bacteria with animal and plant cells. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Gauba, A.; Rahman, K.M. Evaluation of antibiotic resistance mechanisms in gram-negative bacteria. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Coura, F.M.; Diniz, A.N.; Oliveira, C.A.; Lage, A.P.; Lobato, F.C.F.; Heinemann, M.B.; Silva, R.O.S. Detection of virulence genes and the phylogenetic groups of Escherichia coli isolated from dogs in Brazil. Ciência Rural. 2018, 48, e20170478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Ranjbar, R.; Nazari, S.; Farahani, O. Phylogenetic analysis and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli strains isolated from UTI-suspected patients. Iran. J. Public Health 2020, 49, 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Nowrouzian, F.L.; Clermont, O.; Edin, M.; Östblom, A.; Denamur, E.; Wold, A.E.; Adlerberth, I. Escherichia coli B2 phylogenetic subgroups in the infant gut microbiota: Predominance of uropathogenic lineages in Swedish infants and enteropathogenic lineages in Pakistani infants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e01681-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Chakraborty, A.; Saralaya, V.; Adhikari, P.; Shenoy, S.; Baliga, S.; Hegde, A. Characterization of Escherichia coli phylogenetic groups associated with extraintestinal infections in South Indian population. Ann. Med. Health Sci. Res. 2015, 5, 241–246. [Google Scholar]
  174. Baponi, S.; Taravati, A.; Dilmagani, M. Determination of Phylogenetic Groups of Escherichia coli Isolated from Human Urine in Urmia City; Crescent Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences: Encino, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  175. Halaji, M.; Fayyazi, A.; Rajabnia, M.; Zare, D.; Pournajaf, A.; Ranjbar, R. Phylogenetic group distribution of uropathogenic Escherichia coli and related antimicrobial resistance pattern: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 790184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Hazen, T.H.; Sahl, J.W.; Fraser, C.M.; Donnenberg, M.S.; Scheutz, F.; Rasko, D.A. Refining the pathovar paradigm via phylogenomics of the attaching and effacing Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 12810–12815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Hazen, T.H.; Leonard, S.R.; Lampel, K.A.; Lacher, D.W.; Maurelli, A.T.; Rasko, D.A. Investigating the relatedness of enteroinvasive Escherichia coli to other E. coli and Shigella isolates by using comparative genomics. Infect. Immun. 2016, 84, 2362–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Ingle, D.J.; Tauschek, M.; Edwards, D.J.; Hocking, D.M.; Pickard, D.J.; Azzopardi, K.I.; Amarasena, T.; Bennett-Wood, V.; Pearson, J.S.; Tamboura, B. Evolution of atypical enteropathogenic E. coli by repeated acquisition of LEE pathogenicity island variants. Nat. Microbiol. 2016, 1, 15010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Denamur, E.; Clermont, O.; Bonacorsi, S.; Gordon, D. The population genetics of pathogenic Escherichia coli. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Rasko, D.A.; Rosovitz, M.; Myers, G.S.; Mongodin, E.F.; Fricke, W.F.; Gajer, P.; Crabtree, J.; Sebaihia, M.; Thomson, N.R.; Chaudhuri, R. The pangenome structure of Escherichia coli: Comparative genomic analysis of E. coli commensal and pathogenic isolates. J. Bacteriol. 2008, 190, 6881–6893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Yu, D.; Banting, G.; Neumann, N.F. A review of the taxonomy, genetics, and biology of the genus Escherichia and the type species Escherichia coli. Can. J. Microbiol. 2021, 67, 553–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Chaudhuri, R.R.; Henderson, I.R. The evolution of the Escherichia coli phylogeny. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2012, 12, 214–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Marshall, B.M.; Levy, S.B. Food animals and antimicrobials: Impacts on human health. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 24, 718–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Ventola, C.L. The antibiotic resistance crisis: Part 1: Causes and threats. Pharm. Ther. 2015, 40, 277. [Google Scholar]
  185. Rather, I.A.; Kim, B.-C.; Bajpai, V.K.; Park, Y.-H. Self-medication and antibiotic resistance: Crisis, current challenges, and prevention. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 24, 808–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Aslam, B.; Wang, W.; Arshad, M.I.; Khurshid, M.; Muzammil, S.; Rasool, M.H.; Nisar, M.A.; Alvi, R.F.; Aslam, M.A.; Qamar, M.U. Antibiotic resistance: A rundown of a global crisis. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 1645–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Ahmad, M.; Khan, A.U. Global economic impact of antibiotic resistance: A review. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2019, 19, 313–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Piddock, L.J. The crisis of no new antibiotics—What is the way forward? Lancet Infect. Dis. 2012, 12, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Bartlett, J.G.; Gilbert, D.N.; Spellberg, B. Seven ways to preserve the miracle of antibiotics. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2013, 56, 1445–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Touchon, M.; Perrin, A.; De Sousa, J.A.M.; Vangchhia, B.; Burn, S.; O’Brien, C.L.; Denamur, E.; Gordon, D.; Rocha, E.P. Phylogenetic background and habitat drive the genetic diversification of Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet. 2020, 16, e1008866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. da Silva, G.J.; Mendonça, N. Association between antimicrobial resistance and virulence in Escherichia coli. Virulence 2012, 3, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Development and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria among animals, humans, and food sources.
Figure 1. Development and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria among animals, humans, and food sources.
Bacteria 04 00016 g001
Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms.
Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms.
Bacteria 04 00016 g002
Table 1. Summary of antibiotic resistance mechanisms found in Escherichia coli species [59].
Table 1. Summary of antibiotic resistance mechanisms found in Escherichia coli species [59].
Antimicrobial AgentsMechanisms of ResistanceGenetic Basis
β-lactamsβ-lactamases inactivate drugsampC
PenicillinsActive effluxbla genes-plasmid
Cephalosporins (TEM, SHV, CTX-M, NDM)
Monobactams acrAB(tolC), acrAD(tolC)
Carbapenems
AminoglycosidesAminoglycoside-modifying enzymesaac, ant, aph-plasmid
AmikacinModify target-16S rRNAamrA, rmtB
GentamicinActive effluxmdtEF(tolC)
Tobramycin
TetracyclinesLimiting uptakeompF
TetracyclinesActive effluxacrAB(tolC)
tetA, tetB-plasmid
ChloramphenicolLimiting uptakeompF
Active effluxacrAB(tolC)
FluoroquinolonesLimiting uptakeompF
CiprofloxacinModified target-gyrasegyrA
NorfloxacinModified target-topoisomerase IVparC
Active effluxacrAB(tolC), acrEF(tolC)
mdtABC(tolC)
Metabolic pathway inhibitorsTarget enzyme modificationTMP-dhfr
Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole SXT-dhps
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

Naidoo, N.; Zishiri, O.T. Presence, Pathogenicity, Antibiotic Resistance, and Virulence Factors of Escherichia coli: A Review. Bacteria 2025, 4, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4010016

AMA Style

Naidoo N, Zishiri OT. Presence, Pathogenicity, Antibiotic Resistance, and Virulence Factors of Escherichia coli: A Review. Bacteria. 2025; 4(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4010016

Chicago/Turabian Style

Naidoo, Natalie, and Oliver T. Zishiri. 2025. "Presence, Pathogenicity, Antibiotic Resistance, and Virulence Factors of Escherichia coli: A Review" Bacteria 4, no. 1: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4010016

APA Style

Naidoo, N., & Zishiri, O. T. (2025). Presence, Pathogenicity, Antibiotic Resistance, and Virulence Factors of Escherichia coli: A Review. Bacteria, 4(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4010016

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop