Next Article in Journal
The Paradox of Suicide Prevention
Previous Article in Journal
Perceptions, Attitudes, Experiences and Opinions of Tuberculosis Associated Stigma: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives among the Bolgatanga Municipality People of Ghana
Previous Article in Special Issue
Water as a Source of Indoor Air Contamination with Potentially Pathogenic Aeromonas hydrophila in Aquaculture
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 22
10.3390/ijerph192214997
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance and Respective Genes among Bacillus spp., a Versatile Bio-Fungicide

by
Pari Wash
1,
Asiya Batool
1,
Shah Mulk
1,
Shabnum Nazir
1,
Humaira Yasmin
1,†,
Saqib Mumtaz
1,
Mohammed Nasser Alyemeni
2,
Prashant Kaushik
3 and
Muhammad Nadeem Hassan
1,*
1
Department of Biosciences, COMSATS University Islamabad (CUI), Park Road, Islamabad 45550, Pakistan
2
Botany and Microbiology Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
3
Instituto de Conservation y Mejora de la Agrodiversidad, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Current address: Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, South Kensigton Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(22), 14997; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214997
Submission received: 12 October 2022 / Revised: 7 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 November 2022 / Published: 14 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microbial Ecology and Health Risk in Human Activity Sites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The plant rhizosphere is not only a reservoir of microbes but also a hub of antimicrobial resistance genes. Rhizospheric Bacillus spp. are the potential bio-inoculants with a versatile application in agriculture as bio-fertilizer and bio-fungicide. In the current study, the potential bio-control agent that is the Bacillus species (n = 7) was screened for the antimicrobial resistance pattern to assess their risk before registering them as a bio-inoculant. All of the Bacillus spp. were categorized as multi-drug-resistant (MDR), bacteria but none of them was either pan-drug-resistant (PDR) or extensive-drug-resistant (XDR). The multiple antimicrobial resistance (MAR) index of Bacillus spp. was higher than the critical value (0.2). The Bacillus spp. showed resistance to antimicrobial classes such as β lactam, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracycline, aminoglycosides, and lincosamide. Various antimicrobial resistance genes, namely VmiR, ImrB, tetL, mphK, ant-6, penp, and bla OXA, associated with different mechanisms of resistance, were also detected in Bacillus spp. The Bacillus spp. also showed stress-tolerance traits such as ACC deaminase and EPS activity except the strains MAZ-117 and FZV-34, respectively. A significant correlation was observed between the PGPR and antimicrobial resistance, which shows that they may have adapted drug-resistance mechanisms to tolerate the environmental stress. These findings suggest that bio-fungicidal Bacillus spp. could be used very carefully on a commercial scale.

1. Introduction

The accumulations of antimicrobials and antimicrobial-resistance genes (ARGs) in the environment have led to the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria in the environment [1]. Utilization of the antimicrobial-contaminated animal manure, sewage sludge, and untreated industrial water leads to the development of resistance in the indigenous micro flora possessing beneficial traits in different fields such as crop production and bioremediation [2]. The frequent use of antimicrobials agents in livestock as feed additives is responsible for about 75% of the antimicrobials released into the environment [3]. Infections caused by antimicrobial-resistant bacteria cause the death of about 700,000 people every year [4].
The plant rhizosphere is not only a reservoir of microbes but also a hub of antimicrobial-resistance genes. The rhizospheric microbes could harbor antimicrobial genes due to their mutual interaction, especially between the pathogenic and beneficial bacteria. Rhizospheric Bacillus spp. are potential bio-inoculants with a versatile application in agriculture as bio-fertilizers and bio-fungicides. They secrete various metabolites that play an important role in soil fertility, nutrient recycling, plant growth, and productivity of crops, and they also help the plants in overcoming biotic and abiotic stress [5]. These plant-benefitting bacteria include species of Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Burkholderia, and Azospirillum, etc. The Bacillus spp. are one of the most well-characterized and widely used plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). There are numerous studies about the abundance of ARGs in agriculture soil, but less attention has been paid to the presence of drug-resistance traits in PGPR. The rhizospheric soil, enriched with ARGs, is the main source of the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance in the human food chain [6]. Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria can be intrinsic, acquired, and/or adaptive [7]. The intracellular cytoplasmic membrane is the major target of the most antimicrobial agents because of consequent changes in cell permeability and the presence of efflux pumps. These efflux pumps are present naturally in bacteria, and they are essential for bacterial survival and growth despite their exposure to various environmental challenges [8]. Various types of efflux pump families have been characterized in bacteria, such as the major facilitator superfamily, the small multidrug-resistance family, the resistance nodulation cell division family (RND), the ATP-binding cassette family, and the multidrug/toxic compound extrusion family [9]. Hydrophilic antibiotics, i.e., β lactam and tetracycline, cross the membrane barrier by water-filled channels known as porins. The alteration of porins in conjugation with the overexpression of efflux pumps leads to antimicrobial resistance. The Mef gene which is present in Streptococcus and other Gram-positive bacteria, is responsible for efflux-mediated resistance of macrolides. Other efflux pumps in Gram-positive bacteria include MsrA and MsrC, belonging to the ATP-binding cassette transporter family [10], while acquired resistance occurs through conjugation, transduction, and transformation. These include the alterations in enzymes involved in cell wall synthesis, nucleic acid synthesis, and protein synthesis, which include DNA gyrase, topoisomerase, and penicillin-binding protein [11]. The mobile genetic elements of bacteria, such as transposon, integrons, and plasmids, facilitate the horizontal transfer of ARGs among the soil bacteria [2]. Antimicrobial resistance could be a potential risk associated with the application of PGPR in soil, but it has been thus far ignored. Therefore, the present study aims to detect the antimicrobial-resistance pattern and respective AMRs genes in PGPR to be used as bio-fungicide.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Rhizobacteria and Culture Conditions

The strains of Bacillus spp. (n = 7) exhibiting bio-control activity against economically important pathogens of different crops (Table 1) were obtained from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology Laboratory (AMBL), COMSATS University Islamabad (CUI), Pakistan. These strains were stored in 20% glycerol at −80 °C. The Bacillus spp. were grown on Luria Bertani (LB) agar (10 g L−1 trypton (Biolab, Budapest, Hungary), 5 g L−1 NaCl (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany), 5 g L−1 yeast extract (Biochem, Karlsruhe, Germany), and agar (Biochem, Karlsruhe, Germany) 10 g L−1) at 37 ± 2 °C [12].

2.2. Assessment of Drug-Resistance Determinents

2.2.1. Phenotypic Assay

Bacillus spp. were tested for the susceptibility/resistance to different antimicrobial agents by the Kirby and Bauer’s disk diffusion method. The class and the number of antimicrobial agents for Bacillus spp. were selected by following the criteria of Staphylococcus given by clinical laboratory standards institute CLSI (Table 2) [19,20]. Each strain of Bacillus spp. was spread on LB agar to make a lawn and dried by keeping at room temperature for 2–5 min. The antimicrobial discs were placed on each agar plate by using automatic disc dispenser. The plates were incubated at 30 ± 2 °C for 24 h and were observed for the appearance of an inhibition zone around each colony. Based on inhibition zone diameter, the bacteria were categorized as resistant, susceptible, and intermediate by following the criteria of CLSI and/or EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing) [19,21].

2.2.2. Multiple Antimicrobial Resistance Index (MAR Index)

The multiple antimicrobial resistance (MAR) index of the isolates was determined by the formula given below [22].
MAR index (multiple antimicrobial resistance) = Total number of antimicrobial resistance cases/Total number of antimicrobial agents used

2.3. Molecular Typing of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes of Bacillus spp.

2.3.1. DNA Extraction and Primers

DNA was extracted by cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) method [23]. Sixteen sets of primers (Table S1) targeting five major classes of ARGs were used to amplify the genes, namely aminoglycoside 3-N-acetyltransferase (aac-3), streptomycin 6-O-nucleotidyltransferase (ant-6), aminoglycoside 3′-O-phosphotransferase (aph-3′), macrolide 2’-phosphotransferase (mphK), lincomycin resistance (lmrB), (VmiR), penicillinase (penp), oxacillinase (bla OXA), subclass β1 metallo β-lactamase (bla), and tetracycline efflux MFS transporter (tetL) [24]. The DNA bands were electrophorized in 1 × TBE buffer using 1.2% (w/v) agarose gel pre-stained with ethidium bromide and visualized in a gel documentation system.

2.3.2. PCR Amplification of AMR Genes

The drug-resistance genes were amplified through thermal cycler (peqSTAR, Deutschland, Germany) using cycling conditions given by [13] with slight modification including an initial denaturation at 94 °C for 5 min 45 s, with annealing temperature for each gene given in Table S1, and with final extinction at 72 °C for 11 min 30 s. A 25 μL reaction mixture was prepared by using PCR water (15.25 μL), 10 × Taq buffer (2.5 μL), 2 μL MgCl2 (25 mM), 0.5 μL dNTPs (10 mM), 1 μL of each primer (100 pM), 0.25 μL Taq polymerase (500 Units, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham. MA, USA), and 2.5 μL template DNA (10–15 ng/μL). The previously amplified strain of Bacillus spp. (B. subtilis SM-23, B. subtilis SM-7, B. velezensis SM-22, and B. halotolerans SM-29) were used as a positive control, and DNA was replaced by distilled water in the negative control [24]. The amplified PCR product was analyzed in gel documentation system as described above.

2.4. Assessment of Stress-Tolerating Traits

2.4.1. 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-Carboxylic Acid (ACC) Deaminase Activity

The Bacillus spp. were screened for the utilization of ACC as nitrogen source. Bacillus spp. were grown in LB medium at 37 °C with continuous shaking (120 rpm) for 24 h. A 24 h old culture of respective bacteria was inoculated at the center of the DF (Dworkin and Foster) medium supplemented with ACC [25]. Plates amended with ammonium sulphate were used as a positive control. Plates were allowed to incubate at 37 °C for 3 days. The growth of bacteria on ACC-supplemented plates was compared to both the positive and negative controls [26].

2.4.2. Exopolysaccharide (EPS) Production

To determine the stress-tolerating ability of Bacillus spp., they were screened for EPS production on ATCC (American Type Culture Collection) no 4 medium as described by [27]. Bacterial colonies were streaked on ATCC no 4 medium and incubated at 37 °C for 3 days. Slime productions around the colonies were considered positive for EPS production.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All tests for phenotypic assessment were conducted in triplicates at the least. The Pearson’s correlation was carried out between the genotypic and phenotype resistance of antimicrobial agents, ARGs, and PGPR traits. A correlation plot was constructed with OriginPro, version 2022, using “correlation plot” application. Additionally, a heat map showing prevalence of ARGs was compiled with the same tool using “split heat map” plot. A p-value greater than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Phenotypic Resistance and MAR Indices

The Bacillus spp. showed resistance to antimicrobial agents from different classes as shown in Figure 1 and Table S2. Antimicrobial susceptibility reveals that Bacillus spp. showed the highest resistance to β lactams, macrolides, and lincosamide (100%), followed by tetracycline (40%) (Figure 1 and Table S2). Bacillus spp. showed the least resistant to the sulfonamide (30%) and aminoglycoside (20%) classes of antimicrobial agents. Overall, all the tested Bacillus spp. showed resistance to azithromycin, clindamycin, aztreonam, and ampicillin (100%), followed by amoxicillin, penicillin, clarithromycin (85.7%), sulfamethoxazole, and rifampin (42.8%), while the least resistance was shown to trimethoprim (28.5%), cefalexin, kanamycin, and tetracycline (14.2%). All the tested strains were resistant to at least six antimicrobial agents, while one isolate showed resistance to ten antimicrobial discs. All the strains were characterized as multidrug-resistant (MDR) based on the resistance to at least three antimicrobials from different classes.
All the Bacillus spp. showed cumulative MAR indices greater than 0.2 as shown in Figure 2b. The highest MAR index (cumulative) was shown by B. subtilis MAZ-117, B. subtilis MAZ-10SR, and B. subtilis FZV-1 (MAR = 0.35), followed by B. subtilis KFP-5, B. subtilis NH-217, B. halotolerans FZV-34 (MAR = 0.29), and B. subtilis NH-100 (0.25). In case of different antimicrobial classes, the highest resistance was shown against macrolides (MAR = 0.8–1), lincosamide (MAR = 1), and β lactams (MAR = 0.3–0.6), followed by sulfonamide (MAR = 0.5–10, tetracycline (MAR = 0.33), and aminoglycoside (MAR = 0.8) as shown in Figure 2a. All the Bacillus spp. were susceptible to the nitrofurantoin, phenicols, glycopeptides, fluoroquanolones, and oxazolidinones classes of antimicrobials agents (MAR = 0) (Figure 1).

3.2. Detection of Antimicrobial-Resistance Genes in the Bacillus spp.

The number of genes encoding antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was found to be different in the Bacillus spp. as depicted in their resistance genotype (Table S2, Figure 3a). The maximum number of genes were detected in B. subtilis FZV-1 (60%), followed by B. subtilis KFP-5 and B. subtilis NH-217 (50%). The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance genes in B. subtilis MAZ-10 SR was 40%. In B. subtilis MAZ-117 and B. subtilis NH-100, the frequency of prevalence was 30; however, the antimicrobial-resistance genes were less prevalent in B. halotolerans FZV-34 (10%) as shown in Figure 3a. The most prevalent genotype was VmiR and ImrB (detected in six Bacillus spp.), followed by tetL (detected in five Bacillus spp.) and mphK (detected in four Bacillus spp.). The penp (detected in two Bacillus spp.), ant-6 (detected in two Bacillus spp.), and bla OXA (detected in one Bacillus spp.) were the least-expressed genotype among Bacillus spp. The AMRs genes, namely aac-3, aph-3, and bla2, were not detected in any of the Bacillus spp. A close relationship was found between the βlactam MAR index and βlactam genotype (r = 0.23) and tetracycline MAR index and genotype (r = 0.2); however, the least correlation was found between macrolide MAR index and genotypes and aminoglycoside MAR index and genotypes (r = −0.15 and −0.26) as shown in Figure 3b.

3.3. ACC Deaminase and Exopolyscharride Production

The Bacillus spp. grew well on DF medium supplemented with ACC except B. subtilis MAZ-117, which showed its ability to utilize ACC as a nitrogen source and exhibited ACC deaminase activity. All the species also produced exopolysaccharides except B. halotolerans FZV-34 (Table 3). The correlation plot (Figure 4) showed a strong correlation between MAR index and PGPR traits. The highest correlation was found between antagonism and MAR index (r = 0.85) followed by glucunase and MAR index (r = 0.66), disease severity and MAR index (r = 0.46), phosphate solubilization and MAR index (r = 0.41), potassium solubilization and MAR index (r = 0.4), protease and MAR index (r = 0.3), siderophore and MAR index (r = 0.25), ACC deaminase and MAR index, and EPS production and MAR index (r = 0.44, 0.68).

4. Discussion

The plant rhizosphere is an important reservoir of antimicrobial resistance determinants. PGPR inhibit the rhizosphere and could harbor antimicrobial-resistance traits. Their application at commercial scale may augment the antimicrobial resistance genes in rhizosphere. Moreover, these resistance determinants could disseminate to the clinical isolates through horizontal gene transfer [2]. Hence, characterization of drug-resistance determinants among PGPR is essential to utilize them as commercial bio-inoculants.
In the current study, based on the resistance pattern, all the Bacillus spp. were categorized as multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria because they resisted at least one antimicrobial disc among the three different classes of antimicrobial agents. No strain was found as XDR (Extensive Drug Resistance) and PDR (Pan Drug resistance) [28]. The resistance potential of multidrug-resistant bacteria is also expressed as MAR. The tested Bacillus spp. showed an MAR of 0.29–0.35, which was greater than the critical value of MAR, i.e., 0.2. A bacterium having MAR ≥ 0.2 is a potential hazard to the environment. The possible reason for higher MAR index in rhizobacteria could be due to the higher anthropogenic contamination and exchange of antimicrobial resistance genes among the beneficial and pathogenic bacteria inhabiting a common habitat such as a soil rhizosphere [29]. The resistance pattern against various antimicrobial classes was also found highly variable among the different strains. The highest phenotypic resistance was shown against the classes β lactam, macrolides, and lincosamide (100%), while a lower resistance was found against sulfonamide (28%), tetracycline, and aminoglycosides (14%). The Bacillus spp. were susceptible to nitrofurantoins, glycopeptides, oxazolidinones, phenicol, and fluoroquinolones. These findings are similar to the earlier reports by [28], where Staphylococcus aureus isolated from raw meat was resistant/susceptible to above-mentioned classes. The resistance/susceptibility to various antimicrobial classes by Bacillus spp. has already been reported in different studies [29,30,31]. However, for the first time, we report the categorization of plant-benefitting Bacillus spp. as MDR based on their resistance/susceptibility against eleven different classes. The resistance/susceptibility of bacteria to a particular class could be due to the adaption of specific mechanisms, such as modification of the cell wall permeability and change in the number of membrane transporter/porins and efflux pumps [32,33]. These mechanisms could be detected biochemically or genetically [30].
The resistance pattern of bacteria within each class was also variable depending on the antimicrobial agent. The frequency of resistance to antimicrobial agents among the tested strains was 0–100%. The variable resistance to various antimicrobial agents by Bacillus spp. isolated from different habitats has already been reported in previous studies [34,35]. The drug resistance/susceptibility depends upon different factors such as, exposure to a particular antibiotic termed as doze-dependent susceptible (S-DD), and growth-dependent bacteria antibiotic interaction, termed as drug indifferences [35]. This is why some drugs are considered to be most effective against Gram-positive bacteria, such as linezolid, as observed by LEADER (Linezolid Experience and Accurate Determination of Resistance), while some are considered as the “forgotten drugs” because of their less-common use, such as nitrofurantoins [36].
The phenotypic resistance of antimicrobial agents is related to the genotypic resistance. Genotypic resistance consists of certain genes that encode different mechanisms of resistance among different bacteria. In the current study, the Bacillus spp., which were phenotypically susceptible/resistant to antimicrobial classes, harbor certain genes that are associated with genetic mechanisms such as efflux pumps and inactivation of antimicrobial agents by production of certain enzymes such as β lactamases, macrolide phosphotransferase, and aminoglycosides nucleotidyltransferases. The most frequent genes occurring in the Bacillus spp. were VmiR, ImrB, and tetL encoding efflux pumps, followed by mphK, penp, ant-6, and bla OXA, which encode a genetic mechanism of enzymatic inactivation of antimicrobial agents/antibiotics. The prevalence of an efflux-pump-mediated resistance mechanism in Bacillus could be due to the natural occurrence of efflux pumps in bacteria, which they use for maintaining pH, establishment of proper charge, and uptake of nutrients.
Drug resistance might occur if the antimicrobial agent resembles their natural substrate, or the selection of substrate by the pump is low [8]. The absence of certain genes in drug-resistant Bacillus spp. might be because of the presence of some novel mechanisms of resistance, such as enzymatic modifications by aminoglycoside 5-phosphotransferase (aph 5) and methylation in 23S rRNA [37,38]. The phenotypic expression of a certain antimicrobial agents does not always depend upon the resistance genotype and vice versa; that is why the Pearson correlation depicted between resistance phenotypes and genotypes was heterologous. These findings suggest that the presence/absence of efflux pumps and their expressions should be detected biochemically.
Bio-fungicidal Bacillus spp. have been found to play an important role in the elevation of biotic and abiotic stress [5]. In the current study, the majority of the Bacillus spp. also showed stress-tolerance traits. The existence of PGPR, stress-tolerance, and drug-resistance traits shows that Bacillus spp. could use the same mechanism for both drug resistance and PGPR activities. A comprehensive understanding requires plasmid profiling and the locational analysis of the AMR genes in these strains to assess their impact on the environment.

5. Conclusions

The present study showed that bio-fungicidal Bacillus spp. carries drug-resistance traits and respective genes. Hence, they could be a source of transferring multidrug-resistance traits to other soil bacteria. This fact could limit their use in the environment. However, further investigation is required to explore the origin of drug resistance, respective mechanisms, and escape rate of the resistance determinants to assess the risk associated with their commercial use.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph192214997/s1, Table S1: List of Primers, their annealing temperatures, and amplicon size; Table S2: Resistance genotype and phenotype of Bacillus spp.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.N.H.; methodology, P.W.; software, P.W., A.B. and S.M. (Shah Mulk); validation, M.N.H. and S.M. (Shah Mulk); formal analysis, M.N.H., H.Y., S.M. (Saqib Mumtaz), M.N.A. and P.K.; investigation, M.N.H. and H.Y.; resources, S.M. (Shah Mulk), S.N., H.Y., S.M. (Saqib Mumtaz), M.N.A., P.K. and M.N.H.; data curation, P.W., A.B., S.N., M.N.A., P.K. and M.N.H.; writing—original draft preparation, P.W.; writing—review and editing, H.Y. and M.N.H.; visualization, H.Y., S.M. (Saqib Mumtaz) and M.N.H.; supervision, H.Y., S.M. (Saqib Mumtaz) and M.N.H.; project administration, M.N.H.; funding acquisition, M.N.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Higher Education Commission Pakistan, grant number “NRPU-8062”, and Researchers Supporting Project Number (RSP-2021/180) by King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhu, T.T.; Su, Z.X.; Lai, W.X.; Zhang, Y.B.; Liu, Y.W. Insights into the Fate and Removal of Antibiotics and Antibiotic Resistance Genes Using Biological Wastewater Treatment Technology. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 776, 145906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, Y.J.; Hu, H.W.; Chen, Q.L.; Singh, B.K.; Yan, H.; Chen, D.; He, J.Z. Transfer of Antibiotic Resistance fromManure-Amended Soils to Vegetable Microbiomes. Environ. Int. 2019, 130, 104912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sun, Y.; Guo, Y.; Shi, M.; Qiu, T.; Gao, M.; Tian, S.; Wang, X. Effect of Antibiotic Type and Vegetable Species on Antibiotic Accumulation in Soil-Vegetable System, Soil Microbiota, and Resistance Genes. Chemosphere 2021, 263, 128099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Christaki, E.; Marcou, M.; Tofarides, A. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria: Mechanisms, Evolution, and Persistence. J. Mol. Evol. 2020, 88, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mehmood, S.; Muneer, M.A.; Tahir, M.; Javed, M.T.; Mahmood, T.; Afridi, M.S.; Pakar, N.P.; Abbasi, H.A.; Munis, M.F.H.; Chaudhary, H.J. Deciphering Distinct Biological Control and Growth Promoting Potential of Multi-Stress Tolerant Bacillus subtilis PM32 for Potato Stem Canker. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2021, 27, 2101–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Guo, Y.; Qiu, T.; Gao, M.; Sun, Y.; Cheng, S.; Gao, H.; Wang, X. Diversity and abundance of antibiotic resistance genes in rhizosphere soil and endophytes of leafy vegetables: Focusing on the effect of the vegetable species. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 415, 125595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Langendonk, R.F.; Neill, D.R.; Fothergill, J.L. The Building Blocks of Antimicrobial Resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Implications for Current Resistance-Breaking Therapies. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 665759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Blanco, P.; Hernando-Amado, S.; Reales-Calderon, J.A.; Corona, F.; Lira, F.; Alcalde-Rico, M.; Bernardini, A.; Sanchez, M.B.; Martinez, J.L. Bacterial Multidrug Efflux Pumps: Much More than Antibiotic Resistance Determinants. Microorganisms 2016, 4, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Schindler, B.D.; Kaatz, G.W. Multidrug Efflux Pumps of Gram-Positive Bacteria. Drug Resist. Updat. 2016, 27, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Smith, M. Antibiotic Resistance Mechanisms. In Journeys in Medicine and Research on Three Continents Over 50 Years; World Scientific: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2017; pp. 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jiang, Q.; Feng, M.; Ye, C.; Yu, X. Effects and Relevant Mechanisms of Non-Antibiotic Factors on the Horizontal Transfer of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Water Environments: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hassan, M.N.; Namood-e-Sahar; Zia-Ul-Husnain Shah, S.; Afghan, S.; Hafeez, F.Y. Suppression of Red Rot Disease by Bacillus sp. Based Biopesticide Formulated in Non-Sterilized Sugarcane Filter Cake. BioControl 2015, 60, 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zia, M.A.; Yasmin, H.; Shair, F.; Jabeen, Z.; Mumtaz, S.; Hayat, Z.; Shah, S.Z.U.H.; Afghan, S.; Hafeez, F.Y.; Hassan, M.N. Glucanolytic Rhizobacteria Produce Antifungal Metabolites and Elicit ROS Scavenging System in Sugarcane. Sugar Tech. 2019, 21, 244–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zia, M.A.; Riaz, R.; Batool, A.; Yasmin, H.; Nosheen, A.; Naz, R.; Hassan, M.N. Glucanolytic rhizobacteria associated with wheat-maize cropping system suppress the Fusarium wilt of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.). Sci. Hortic. 2021, 287, 110275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rais, A.; Shakeel, M.; Hafeez, F.Y.; Hassan, M.N. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria suppress blast disease caused by Pyricularia oryzae and increase grain yield of rice. BioControl 2016, 61, 769–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rais, A.; Shakeel, M.; Malik, K.; Hafeez, F.Y.; Yasmin, H.; Mumtaz, S.; Hassan, M.N. Antagonistic Bacillus spp. reduce blast incidence on rice and increase grain yield under field conditions. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 208, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hassan, M.N.; Afghan, S.; Hafeez, F.Y. Suppression of red rot caused by Colletotrichum falcatum on sugarcane plants using plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Biocontrol 2010, 55, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Riaz, R.; Khan, A.; Khan, W.J.; Jabeen, Z.; Yasmin, H.; Naz, R.; Nosheen, A.; Hassan, M.N. Vegetable associated Bacillus spp. suppress the pea (Pisum sativum L.) root rot caused by Fusarium solani. Biol. Control 2021, 158, 104610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 27th ed.; CLSI Supplement M100; Patel, J.B., Ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Deng, F.; Chen, Y.; Sun, T.; Wu, Y.; Su, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhou, J.; Deng, Y.; Wen, J. Antimicrobial Resistance, Virulence Characteristics and Genotypes of Bacillus Spp. from Probiotic Products of Diverse Origins. Food Res. Int. 2021, 139, 109949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters. 2015. Available online: http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_5.0_Breakpoint_Table_01.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  22. Al-dulaimi, M.M.K.; Mutalib, S.A.; Ghani, M.A. Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR), Plasmid Profiles, and DNA Polymorphisms among Vibrio Vulnificus Isolates. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. William, S.; Feil, H.; Copeland, A. Bacterial DNA Isolation CTAB Protocol Bacterial Genomic DNA Isolation Using CTAB Materials & Reagents. Sigma 2012, 50. Available online: https://jgi.doe.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/JGI-Bacterial-DNA-isolation-CTAB-Protocol-2012.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2022).
  24. Humera, S.; (COMSATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan); Sidra, A.; (COMSATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan); Sania, S.; (COMSATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan). Personal communication, 2020.
  25. Dworkin, M.; Foster, J.W. Expermients withsomeMicroorganisms which Utilize Ethane and Hydrogen. J. Bacteriol. 1958, 75, 592–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Chen, Z.; Zhou, W.; Sui, X.; Xu, N.; Zhao, T.; Guo, Z.; Niu, J. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria with ACC Deaminase Activity Enhance Maternal Lateral Root and Seedling Growth in Switchgrass. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12, 800783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Xia, Y.; Asad, M.; Tariq, M.; Aqeel, M.; Mukhtar, T.; Ali, J.; Tabassum, T.; Farooq, M.; Munis, H.; Sultan, T.; et al. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry Multi-Stress Tolerant PGPR Bacillus Xiamenensis PM14 Activating Sugarcane (Saccharum Officinarum L.) Red Rot Disease Resistance. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 151, 640–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-Resistant, Extensively Drug-Resistant and Pandrug-Resistant Bacteria: An International Expert Proposal for Interim Standard Definitions for Acquired Resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Safari, N.Y.A.A.; Gh, S. Detection of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Culturable Bacteria Isolated from Soils around Mines in Hamedan, Iran. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 7643–7652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ghazaei, C.; Azizpour, A. Identification of blaVIM, blaIMP and blaSPM-1 Metallo-β-Lactamase Genes in Bacillus subtilis Strains Isolated from Raw Milk and Cheese Samples. Int. J. Basic Sci. Med. 2018, 3, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Id, D.J.; Lee, B.; Heo, S.; Oh, Y.; Heo, G.; Id, H.L. Two Genes Involved in Clindamycin Resistance of Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus paralicheniformis Identified by Comparative Genomic Analysis. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Jubeh, B.; Breijyeh, Z. Resistance of Gram-Positive Bacteria to Current Antibacterial Agents and Overcoming Approaches. Molecules 2020, 25, 2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ramakrishna, W.; Yadav, R.; Li, K. Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria in Agriculture: Two Sides of a Coin. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 138, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Walsh, F.; Duffy, B. The Culturable Soil Antibiotic Resistome: A Community of Multi-Drug Resistant Bacteria. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e65567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Verma, M.; Mishra, J.; Arora, N.K. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: Diversity and Applications. In Environmental Biotechnology: For Sustainable Future; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 129–173. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gardiner, B.J.; Stewardson, A.J.; Abbott, I.J.; Peleg, A.Y. Nitrofurantoin and Fosfomycin for Resistant Urinary Tract Infections: Old Drugs for Emerging Problems. Aust. Prescr. 2019, 42, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Parulekar, R.S.; Barale, S.S.; Sonawane, K.D. Antibiotic Resistance and Inhibition Mechanism of Novel Aminoglycoside Phosphotransferase APH(5) from B. subtilis subsp. subtilis Strain RK. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2019, 50, 887–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Adimpong, D.B.; Sørensen, K.I.; Thorsen, L.; Stuer-Lauridsen, B.; Abdelgadir, W.S.; Nielsen, D.S.; Derkx, P.M.F.; Jespersen, L. Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Bacillus Strains Isolated from Primary Starters for African Traditional Bread Production and Characterization of the Bacitracin Operon and Bacitracin Biosynthesis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 7903–7914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 14997 g001 550
Figure 1. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in the Bacillus spp. ERY, Erythromycin; AZM, Azithromycin; RIF, Rifampin; CLR, Clarithromycin; NIT, Nitrofurantoin; CHL, Chloramphenicol; VAN, Vancomycin; NOR, Norfloxacin; OFX, Ofloxacin; MXF, Moxifloxacin; AMK, Amikacin; GEN, Gentamycin; TOB, Tobramycin; LZD, Linezolid; DOX, Doxycycline; MIN, Minocycline; PIP, Piperacillin; IPM, Imipenem; FEP, Cefepime; LEX, Cefalexin CLI, Clindamycin; OXA, Oxacillin; ATM, Aztreonam; CPT, Ceftaroline; AMP, Ampicillin; AML, Amoxicillin; PEN, Penicillin; SXT, Sulfamethoxazole; TMP, Trimethoprim; KAN, Kanamycin; TET, tetracycline.
Figure 1. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in the Bacillus spp. ERY, Erythromycin; AZM, Azithromycin; RIF, Rifampin; CLR, Clarithromycin; NIT, Nitrofurantoin; CHL, Chloramphenicol; VAN, Vancomycin; NOR, Norfloxacin; OFX, Ofloxacin; MXF, Moxifloxacin; AMK, Amikacin; GEN, Gentamycin; TOB, Tobramycin; LZD, Linezolid; DOX, Doxycycline; MIN, Minocycline; PIP, Piperacillin; IPM, Imipenem; FEP, Cefepime; LEX, Cefalexin CLI, Clindamycin; OXA, Oxacillin; ATM, Aztreonam; CPT, Ceftaroline; AMP, Ampicillin; AML, Amoxicillin; PEN, Penicillin; SXT, Sulfamethoxazole; TMP, Trimethoprim; KAN, Kanamycin; TET, tetracycline.
Ijerph 19 14997 g001
Ijerph 19 14997 g002 550
Figure 2. MAR indices of Bacillus spp.: (A) cumulative; (B) among class.
Figure 2. MAR indices of Bacillus spp.: (A) cumulative; (B) among class.
Ijerph 19 14997 g002
Ijerph 19 14997 g003 550
Figure 3. Presence of antibiotic-resistance genes in Bacillus spp. and correlation between resistant phenotype and genotype. (A) Frequency of antimicrobial resistance genes in Bacillus spp. (B) Phenotypic and genotypic correlation between antimicrobial resistance agents.
Figure 3. Presence of antibiotic-resistance genes in Bacillus spp. and correlation between resistant phenotype and genotype. (A) Frequency of antimicrobial resistance genes in Bacillus spp. (B) Phenotypic and genotypic correlation between antimicrobial resistance agents.
Ijerph 19 14997 g003
Ijerph 19 14997 g004 550
Figure 4. Correlation between MAR index and PGPR traits. ACC, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid; EPS, exopolysaccharides; MAR index, multiple antimicrobial resistance index.
Figure 4. Correlation between MAR index and PGPR traits. ACC, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid; EPS, exopolysaccharides; MAR index, multiple antimicrobial resistance index.
Ijerph 19 14997 g004
Table
Table 1. Plant growth-promotional and antagonistic properties of Bacillus spp.
Table 1. Plant growth-promotional and antagonistic properties of Bacillus spp.
Strains16S rRNA a Accession No.In Vitro PGPR b TraitsIn Vivo PGPR b
Activity		Antagonistic Activity
(% c)		References
Sideropore (mm) dProteases
(mm) e 		Glucunase (mm) e Phosphate (mm) ePotassium (mm) e Disease Suppression (% c)
B. subtilis
MAZ-10SR		MH598974--14.448.6-5762.7[13]
B. subtilis
MAZ-117		MH70200113.323.314.441514.3364.15764.5[14]
B. subtilis
KFP-5		KT3808257.21511.92.83.04463[15,16]
B. subtilis
NH-100		EU627167---3.2-5653.3 [12,17]
B. subtilis
NH-217		EU627170---5.2-5360 [12,17]
B. subtilis
FZV-1		MN810073-2.24.6--8967.6 [18]
B. halotolerans
FZV-34		MN8100743.82.35.2--3061.1 [18]
a 16S rRNA, 16S small ribosomal subunit; b PGPR, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria; c %, percentage; d discoloration zone in millimeters; e solubilization zone in millimeters.
Table
Table 2. List of antimicrobial agents used in this study.
Table 2. List of antimicrobial agents used in this study.
Sr. No.Antimicrobial NameAntimicrobial Class
1Erythromycin (15 µg)Macrolides
2Azithromycin (15 µg)
3Rifampin (5 µg)
4Clarithromycin (15 µg)
5Nitrofurantoin (300 µg)Nitrofurantoin
6Chloramphenicol (30 µg)Phenicol
7Vancomycin (30 µg)Glycopeptides
8Clindamycin (2 µg)Lincosamide
9Norfloxacin (10 µg)Fluoroquinolones
10Ofloxacin (5 µg)
11Moxifloxacin (5 µg)
12Gentamicin (10 µg)Aminoglycosides
13Kanamycin (30 µg)
14Tobramycin (10 µg)
15Amikacin (30 µg)
16Linezolid (30 µg)Oxazolidinones
17Tetracycline (30 µg)Tetracyclines
18Doxycycline (30 µg)
19Minocycline (30 µg)
20Piperacillin (100 µg)β lactam
21Aztreonam (30 µg)
22Ceftaroline (30 µg)
23Imipenem (10 µg)
24Cefepime (30 µg)
25Cefalexin (30 µg)
26Ampicillin (10 µg)
27Amoxicillin (30 µg)
28Oxacillin (5 µg)
29Penicillin (10 µg)
30Sulfamethoxazole (25 µg)Sulfonamide
31Trimethoprim (5 µg)
Table
Table 3. ACC deaminase activity and EPS production in Bacillus spp.
Table 3. ACC deaminase activity and EPS production in Bacillus spp.
IsolatesACC Deaminase ActivityEPS Production
B. subtilis MAZ-117−+
B. subtilis-10SR++
B. subtilisKFP-5++
B. subtilisNH-100++
B. subtilis NH-217++
B. subtilis FZV-1++
B. halotoleransFZV-34+−
“+” indicates positive; “−” indicates negative.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wash, P.; Batool, A.; Mulk, S.; Nazir, S.; Yasmin, H.; Mumtaz, S.; Alyemeni, M.N.; Kaushik, P.; Hassan, M.N. Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance and Respective Genes among Bacillus spp., a Versatile Bio-Fungicide. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14997. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214997

AMA Style

Wash P, Batool A, Mulk S, Nazir S, Yasmin H, Mumtaz S, Alyemeni MN, Kaushik P, Hassan MN. Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance and Respective Genes among Bacillus spp., a Versatile Bio-Fungicide. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(22):14997. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214997

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wash, Pari, Asiya Batool, Shah Mulk, Shabnum Nazir, Humaira Yasmin, Saqib Mumtaz, Mohammed Nasser Alyemeni, Prashant Kaushik, and Muhammad Nadeem Hassan. 2022. "Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance and Respective Genes among Bacillus spp., a Versatile Bio-Fungicide" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 22: 14997. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214997

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop