Next Article in Journal
Neospora caninum: Structure and Fate of Multinucleated Complexes Induced by the Bumped Kinase Inhibitor BKI-1294
Previous Article in Journal
Inhibition of Asaia in Adult Mosquitoes Causes Male-Specific Mortality and Diverse Transcriptome Changes
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Characterization of Staphylococci and Streptococci Isolated from Milk of Bovides with Mastitis in Egypt

1
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Institute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Naumburger Str. 96a, 07743 Jena, Germany
2
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Benha University, PO Box 13736 Moshtohor Toukh, Egypt
3
Leibniz Institute of Photonic Technology (IPHT), Albert-Einstein-Str. 9, 07745 Jena, Germany
4
InfectoGnostics Research Campus Jena e. V., Philosophenweg 7, 07743 Jena, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2020, 9(5), 381; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9050381
Submission received: 20 April 2020 / Revised: 13 May 2020 / Accepted: 14 May 2020 / Published: 15 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Pathogens)

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to characterize staphylococci and streptococci in milk from Egyptian bovides. In total, 50 milk samples were collected from localities in the Nile Delta region of Egypt. Isolates were cultivated, identified using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS), and antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed by the broth microdilution method. PCR amplifications were carried out, targeting resistance-associated genes. Thirty-eight Staphylococcus isolates and six Streptococcus isolates could be cultivated. Staphylococcus aureus isolates revealed a high resistance rate to penicillin, ampicillin, clindamycin, and erythromycin. The mecA gene defining methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, erm(C) and aac-aphD genes was found in 87.5% of each. Coagulase-negative staphylococci showed a high prevalence of mecA, blaZ and tetK genes. Other resistance-associated genes were found. All Streptococcus dysgalactiae isolates carried blaZ, erm(A), erm(B), erm(C) and lnuA genes, while Streptococcus suis harbored erm(C), aphA-3, tetL and tetM genes, additionally. In Streptococcus gallolyticus, most of these genes were found. The Streptococcus agalactiae isolate harbored blaZ, erm(B), erm(C), lnuA, tetK, tetL and tetM genes. Streptococcus agalactiae isolate was analyzed by DNA microarray analysis. It was determined as sequence type 14, belonging to clonal complex 19 and represented capsule type VI. Pilus and cell wall protein genes, pavA, cadD and emrB/qacA genes were identified by microarray analysis.

1. Introduction

Mastitis is an infection or inflammation of the mammary gland. It is the most common bacterial disease on dairy farms and leads to a reduction in milk production, with high economic losses due to high costs of treatment and the need of disposing of potentially contaminated milk. The prevention and treatment of mastitis lead to the administration of a considerable amount of antimicrobials to adult dairy cattle [1]. Microorganisms like Escherichia (E.) coli, different Staphylococcus (S.) and Streptococcus (St.) species are transmitted through colostrum to young calves and can cause gastrointestinal and pulmonary diseases. In some cases, this leads to the death of calves [2].
Inflammation of the udder in the case of mastitis is due to the release of leukocytes into the mammary gland in response to the invasion of the teat canal by microbes, their multiplication, and the production of toxins which all cause injury to milk-secreting tissue and to the various ducts within the mammary gland. The process results in a reduction of the amount of milk and in a change of the milk composition, with a high level of leukocytes or somatic cells [3].
Mastitis-diseased cattle can transmit pathogenic bacteria to humans through milk consumption, thus, they can be regarded as a public health hazard. Diseases that have been shown previously to be transmissible by milk from livestock to humans include tuberculosis, brucellosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, streptococcal sore throat, and Q fever. Pasteurization techniques can control these diseases, but several bacteria still contribute to illness and disease outbreaks [4]. There are two types of mastitis, categorized into contagious and environmental mastitis, and both can be caused by a wide range of microorganisms [5]. Contagious pathogens are those for which the udders of infected cattle act as the main reservoir. These microorganisms can spread from cow to cow during milking, resulting in chronic subclinical infections. They include S. aureus, St. agalactiae, Mycoplasma species and Corynebacterium bovis [6]. Environmental mastitis is an intra-mammary infection caused by pathogens which are mainly present in the environment of cattle [7]. The majority of infections are clinical and of short duration [8]. Environmental pathogens include E. coli, Klebsiella species, St. dysgalactiae and St. uberis.
S. aureus is a coagulase-positive and Gram-positive bacterium, which is among the main etiological pathogens of contagious bovine mastitis [9]. This microorganism is well known for its high resistance to a wide range of antimicrobial agents and its ability to persist in bovine mammary epithelial cells, which allows it to evade the host immune system and to survive inside a wide variety of mammalian cells. This ability also aggravates antimicrobial therapy [10]. S. aureus is a human pathogen causing a variety of diseases like skin and soft tissue infections, but also food intoxications. Recently, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) have become the most common agents causing bovine mastitis. They are now predominant over S. aureus and have been considered as emerging mastitis pathogens. Species such as S. sciuri, S. haemolyticus, S. chromogenes, S. epidermidis, S. saprophyticus, and S. simulans belong to the CoNS group [11]. Some of the species are human pathogens.
St. agalactiae, referred to as group B Streptococcus (GBS) is an important pathogen in humans and a range of animal species. It is a common cause of mastitis in dairy cattle [12]. St. agalactiae is, in contrast to S. aureus, one of the mastitis-causing pathogens that can only grow and multiply in the udder. However, it can survive for short time periods on hands, parts of milking machines and teat skin, leading to its spread from cow to cow during milking. St. agalactiae is most commonly introduced into a clean herd when an infected cow is purchased. Because of the silent nature of infection and its highly contagious nature, infections can spread quickly. In humans, GBS causes serious neonatal infections, invasive diseases and other infections in adults, especially in the elderly. Other Streptococcus species show a zoonotic potential, too.
Antimicrobials are commonly used for the prevention and control of mastitis. Unfortunately, the therapeutic result is limited, due to the antimicrobial resistance of pathogens [13]. The emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria has become a major threat to animal and human health [14]. This problem may not only limit the option for effective treatment, but also the spreading of resistance genes from contaminated milk to human normal flora [15].
The identification and characterization of staphylococci and streptococci can be performed by biochemical investigations, molecular assays (PCR and DNA sequencing) and physical techniques like matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). In recent years, DNA microarrays have been developed not only to investigate the expression of multiple genes in tissues but also for the genotyping of bacteria. DNA microarray technology allows the simultaneous detection of a high number of molecular targets. This approach facilitates a genotype-based assessment of virulence, as well as of the antibiotic resistance of a given isolate [16].
Here, a description is given which reflects what the Egyptian farmers and consumers expect when drinking milk directly from producers without pasteurization. The prevalence of staphylococci and streptococci in milk from cattle and buffaloes and the characterization of isolates is described concerning their phenotypic and genotypic resistance to antibiotics, because the knowledge about the situation in Egypt is limited.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection and Cultivation

The present study was conducted in 2018 and 2019 on 50 milk samples of dairy animals from 50 different localities in Qalyubia and Monufia governorates in the Nile Delta region of Egypt. All dairy cattle and buffaloes were local Egyptian breed and kept by smallholders (1–5 animals) at different localities. They were hand-milked twice daily.
All animals were subjected to clinical examination. Animals with clinical mastitis were identified when one or more of the following signs were observed: cardinal signs of inflammation in one or more of udder’s quarters, signs of systemic reaction, such as fever, depression, disturbed appetite and abnormal physical character of milk such as clot formation, discoloration, altered viscosity, aberrant smell or presence of blood. Due to the absence of observable clinical signs in animals with subclinical mastitis, the presumptive diagnosis was done based on laboratory diagnostic tests of milk samples, including the California mastitis test (CMT).
Milk samples were taken after washing and drying of the udder. Teat ends were disinfected with cotton swabs soaked in 70% ethanol. The first few streams were discarded. Approximately 10 mL of milk from each udder quarter were put into sterile tubes. Samples were transported to the laboratory on ice and stored at 4 °C for subsequent bacteriological analyses according to National Mastitis Council guidelines [17].
Isolation of bacteria from milk samples was carried out as described by the National Mastitis Council [17]. A loopful of milk sample was streaked on blood agar (Oxoid Deutschland GmbH, Wesel, Germany), supplemented with 5% sheep red blood cells and then subcultured on selective media: Mannitol Salt Agar, Edwards Medium and Brilliance ESBL Agar (Oxoid Deutschland GmbH), for the identification of expanded-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing microorganisms. All plates were incubated aerobically at 37 °C for 24 h. The plates were examined for colony morphology, pigmentation and hemolytic characteristics after 24–48 h.

2.2. MALDI-TOF MS

Isolates were identified using MALDI-TOF MS [18]. Briefly, bacteria from overnight cultures were suspended in 300 µL of bi-distilled water and mixed with 900 µL of ethanol (96% vol/vol; Carl Roth GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany) for precipitation. After centrifugation for 5 min at 10,000× g, the supernatant was removed and the pellet was re-suspended in 50 µL of 70% (vol/vol) formic acid (Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH, Steinheim, Germany). Fifty microliters of acetonitrile (Carl Roth GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany) were added, mixed and centrifuged for 5 min at 10,000× g. One and a half microliters of the supernatant were transferred onto an MTP 384 Target Plate Polished Steel TF (Bruker Daltonik GmbH, Bremen, Germany). After air-drying the material was overlaid with 2 µL of a saturated solution of α-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid (Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH, Steinheim, Germany) in a mix of 50% acetonitrile and 2.5% trifluoroacetic acid (Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH, Steinheim, Germany). After air-drying spectra were acquired with an Ultraflex instrument (Bruker Daltonik GmbH, Bremen, Germany), the instrument was calibrated with the IVD Bacterial Test Standard (Bruker Daltonik GmbH, Bremen, Germany). An analysis was carried out with the Biotyper 3.1 software (Bruker Daltonik GmbH, Bremen, Germany). An interpretation of results was performed according to the manufacturer’s recommendation: score of ≥ 2.3 represented reliable species-level identification; score 2.0–2.29, probable species-level identification; score 1.7–1.9, probable genus-level identification, and score ≤ 1.7 was considered an unreliable identification.

2.3. DNA Extraction

Genomic bacterial DNA was prepared from colonies with typical growth and subculture on blood agar. A loop-full of bacteria was added to 0.2 mL aliquot of lysis enhancer A2 dissolved in lysis buffer A1 (both from the StaphyType Kit, Alere Technologies GmbH, Jena, Germany), followed by incubation for 60 min at 37 °C and 550 rpm in a thermomixer.
For staphylococci, 10 µL of lysostaphin (Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH; 2 mg/mL bidistilled water) and 5 µL of lysozyme (10 mg/mL bidistilled water) were used for lysis and incubated at 37 °C and 550 rpm in a thermomixer.
For streptococci, 10 µL of achromopeptidase (Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH; 100 units dissolved in 5 mL of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and stored frozen in small aliquots) and 5 µL of lysozyme (10 mg/mL bidistilled water) were used for lysis and incubated at 37 °C and 550 rpm in a thermomixer.
After lysis, the samples were processed using the High Pure PCR Template Purification Kit (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany), according to the instructions of the manufacturer.

2.4. Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing

The antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed by broth microdilution method with the MICRONAUT system for Gram-positive bacteria using commercial 96-well microtiter plates (MICRONAUT-S MRSA/GP; Merlin, Bornheim, Germany), according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. MICRONAUT system for Gram-positive bacteria allowed the determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 22 antimicrobial agents, including ampicillin (β-lactam), cefoxitin (β-lactam; cephamycin), ceftaroline (cephalosporin 5th generation), clindamycin (lincosamide), daptomycin (cyclic lipopeptide), erythromycin (macrolide), erythromycin/clindamycin, fosfomycin (epoxide antibiotic), fusidic acid (steroid antibiotic), gentamicin (aminoglycoside), linezolid (oxazolidinone), moxifloxacin (fluorchinolone 4th generation), mupirocin, oxacillin (β-lactam), penicillin G (β-lactam), rifampicin (ansamycine), synercid (streptogramin), teicoplanin (glycopeptide), tigecycline (glycylcycline), trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole (trimethoxy-benzyl pyrimidine/sulfonamide), and vancomycin (glycopeptide).

2.5. Detection of Resistance-Associated Genes

For staphylococci, PCR amplifications were carried out, targeting resistance-associated genes of β-lactam antibiotics (blaZ, mecA, mecB, mecC), tetracyclines (tetK, tetL, tetM, tetS, tetO), erythromycin/clindamycin (erm(A), erm(B), erm(C)), macrolides (msrC), aminoglycosides (aac-aphD), vancomycin (vanA, vanB, vanC1) and linezolid (optrA, valS, cfr).
For streptococci, PCR amplifications were done to detect the genes responsible for resistance to lincosamide (lnuA and lnuD), macrolides (mefA, erm(A), erm(B), erm(C) and erm(TR)), penicillin (blaZ), aminoglycosides (aad-6, aphA-3, aac6-aph2) and tetracycline (tetK, tetL, tetM, tetS and tetO). PCR conditions followed those given in the references in Table 1. PCR products were analyzed by gel electrophoresis on 2% agarose gels following staining with ethidium bromide and visualized under UV light.

2.6. Microarray Analysis

For the analysis of streptococci, a microarray specifically developed and validated for St. agalactiae (Alere Technologies GmbH, Jena, Germany) was used, targeting group B streptococci virulence-associated markers and resistance-associated genes. Additionally, macrolide/lincosamide, tetracycline, and heavy metal resistance genes, genes associated with phages and gene motility were included. Protocols, data interpretation, and evaluation have been described previously [36]. Briefly, a linear and thermally synchronized primer elongation reaction was used for labeling. A mix of 1 to 2 µg of unfragmented RNA-free target DNA, 1.5 µL of a primer mixture (0.135 µmol/L each), dNTP mix, Taq DNA polymerase, and biotin-16-dUTP was amplified and labeled, using the following program: an initial denaturation at 96 °C for 5 min was followed by 55 cycles (60 s at 96 °C, 20 s at 50 °C, and 40 s at 72 °C). After washing, the hybridization of labeled DNA samples in ArrayStrips (Alere Technologies GmbH, Jena, Germany) was carried out. After washing, the microarrays were incubated with 100 µL of horseradish peroxidase-streptavidin mixture for 15 min. A repeated washing step followed. Finally, 100 µL of a precipitating substrate were added. After 5 min of incubation at room temperature (without shaking), the substrate was removed and the arrays were scanned and analyzed using the ArrayMate reader (Alere Technologies GmbH, Jena, Germany), using a specific software.

3. Results

3.1. Bacterial Isolation and Identification by MALDI-TOF MS

In this study, 38 Staphylococcus isolates were obtained from 50 milk samples of cattle and buffaloes. Additionally, six Streptococcus isolates could be cultivated. Identification by MALDI-TOF MS resulted in S. warneri (n = 9), S. aureus (n = 8), S. pasteuri (n = 8), S. xylosus (n = 4), S. epidermidis (n = 2), S. chromogenes (n = 2), S. cohnii (n = 1), S. hyicus (n = 1), S. haemolyticus (n = 1), S. sciuri (n = 1), S. lentus (n = 1), St. dysgalactiae (n = 3), St. agalactiae (n = 1; 19CS0081), St. gallolyticus (n = 1) and St. suis (n = 1). The distribution of isolates from cattle and buffaloes is given in Table 2 and Table 3.
In some milk samples more than one pathogen was detected. A few of them harbored two or three different Staphylococcus species. Additionally, mixed infections with Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species occurred.

3.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles of Staphylococci

All Staphylococcus isolates, 8 S. aureus, and 30 CoNS, were examined for their susceptibility to 22 antimicrobial agents. Table 4 shows that S. aureus isolates had high resistance rates to penicillin (87.5%), ampicillin, clindamycin, and erythromycin (75.0% each), respectively. All S. aureus isolates were fully susceptible to ceftaroline, teicoplanin, and vancomycin. Resistance rates to other antibiotics ranged between 25.0% and 62.5%.
Non-Staphylococcus aureus isolates showed high resistance rates to erythromycin, erythromycin/clindamycin, fosfomycin, fusidic acid, clindamycin, daptomycin, moxifloxacin and gentamicin, with 96.7%, 93.3%, 93.3%, 90.0%, 83.3%, 83.3%, 80.0% and 80.0%, respectively. Resistance rates of other antimicrobials ranged between 13.3% for vancomycin and mupirocin and 73.3% for penicillin, respectively.
With described microdilution plates and Streptococcus isolates, no valid results were obtained.

3.3. Detection of Resistance-associated Genes in Staphylococci

All S. aureus isolates harbored the blaZ gene associated with penicillin resistance, the tetK gene associated with tetracycline resistance and valS often found in the optrA operon connected with linezolid resistance (Table 5). Other frequently detected resistance determinants were mecA associated with β-lactam resistance, erm(C) for erythromycin resistance and aac-aphD responsible for aminoglycoside resistance in 87.5% of all isolates. The erm(B) (resistance to erythromycin) and msrC (macrolide resistance) genes were also found frequently, with 75.0%.
Non-Staphylococcus aureus isolates exhibited a high prevalence of resistance genes mecA, blaZ and tetK, with 96.6%, 80.0%, and 73.3%, respectively. Approximately half of the isolates harbored aac-aphD, erm(C) and erm(B) genes.

3.4. Detection of Resistance-Associated Genes in Streptococci

According to streptococci, St. dysgalactiae isolates (n = 3) showed the presence of the blaZ gene responsible for penicillin resistance in all isolates as well as erm(A), erm(B) and erm(C) associated with macrolide resistance and lnuA connected with lincosamide resistance (Table 6). Additionally, tetL and tetM genes associated with tetracycline resistance were found in these isolates. Additionally, the aphA-3 gene responsible for aminoglycoside resistance was detected in 2 isolates.
The St. agalactiae isolate harbored blaZ, erm(B), erm(C), lnuA, tetK, tetL and tetM genes as resistance-associated determinants, while St. suis isolate carried blaZ, erm(A), erm(B), erm(C), lnuA, aphA-3, tetL and tetM genes. The genes blaZ, erm(B), erm(C), aphA-3, aad-6, lnuA, tetK, tetL, tetM and tetS were detected in the St. gallolyticus isolate by PCR. The aac6-aph2 genes were not found in any of the Streptococcus isolates.

3.5. Microarray Analysis of Streptococcus Isolates

Six Streptococcus isolates of different species were tested with a microarray system. This system was developed and validated exclusively for St. agalactiae and only for this isolate (19CS0081) was a valid result obtained. The other Streptococcus isolates did not harbor more antibiotic resistance-associated genes, as detected by PCR investigation.
Isolate 19CS0081 was a St. agalactiae strain belonged to clonal complex (CC) 19. The sequence type (ST) was 14. The isolate represented capsule type VI, but it obtained a hybridization signal with one of the capsule III probes (cpsG-III), too. Belonging to the alpha antigenic cell wall protein genes, the alp-5 gene was detected. Pilus protein genes pilA1, pilB1 and pilC1 could be detected. From the group of surface proteins, the sip gene (surface immunogenic protein) was detected, as well as MSCRAMM (microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules) adhesin protein gene pavA (fibronectin-binding protein gene). Besides the antimicrobial resistance-associated genes heavy metal resistance marker cadD encoding cadmium resistance protein D and multidrug resistance transporter genes, emrB/qacA were found in the St. agalactiae isolate.

4. Discussion

Staphylococci are major causative agents of clinical or subclinical bovine mastitis and generate important losses in the dairy industry in Egypt [37]. They are also considered as a risk factor for food poisoning in humans [38].
In this study, 38 Staphylococcus isolates were cultivated from 50 milk samples, whereas 32 came from cattle and buffaloes with clinical signs of mastitis and 18 from subclinical mastitis cases, respectively. The prevalence of staphylococci with 75.0% and 77.7% nearly agreed with the data of Dorgham et al. [39]. The authors detected staphylococci in 68.8% and 62.5% of milk samples from Egypt. The milk came from cattle, buffaloes, and goats with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Others also reported rates of 52.0% and 67.0% Staphylococcus positive milk samples, in cases of clinical and subclinical bovine mastitis in Egypt [40].
Eight isolates (16.0%) were identified as S. aureus, which was similar to other studies on mastitis milk samples in Egypt who reported about 16.1%, 14.9% and 25.8% S. aureus positive samples, respectively [41,42,43]. Other previous studies have confirmed that S. aureus and St. agalactiae were the most prevalent causative agents of mastitis in Egypt [44,45,46].
Several Staphylococcus species, like S. warneri, S. pasteuri, S. xylosus, and others were found in the milk samples of cattle and buffaloes. A similar spectrum of species was found in milk of cattle and buffaloes with subclinical mastitis, namely S. intermedius, S. xylosus, S. epidermidis, S. hominis, S. sciuri, S. hyicus, S. lugdunensis and S. simulans [47]. These reports complete the results of investigations made in cattle herds with mastitis problems, where S. chromogenes, S. hyicus, S. simulans, S. epidermidis, S. hominis, S. haemolyticus, S. xylosus, S. warneri, S. sciuri, S. capitis, S. saprophyticus, and S. lentus were found [48,49,50]. They assured that the environment was found as a reservoir, suggesting that intra-mammary infection with such bacterial species is possibly considered as an environmental hazard.
Streptococci form a large group of organisms. Some of them are associated with bovine udder infections. The most common pathogens causing bovine mastitis are St. agalactiae, St. dysgalactiae and St. uberis [51]. In the present study, in 12.0% of milk samples, Streptococcus isolates were detected, which was similar to results from China, where 8.7% of dairy cattle found positive for Streptococcus species [52]. Atypical streptococci found and connected with mastitis were St. suis and St. gallolyticus.
More than a single pathogen was detected in some of milk samples. There were cases with two or three different Staphylococcus species, as well as mixed infections of staphylococci and streptococci. This makes it difficult to identify the true mastitis causing agent. As a result, a possible antibiotic treatment is dependent on the antibiotic resistance of the different bacteria.
Seven out of eight isolates carried the mecA gene, which is defining them as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This is a high rate of MRSA from milk samples and this observation might indicate an uncontrolled usage of antibiotics. The results were supported by other investigations, which described the presence of mecA gene in phenotypic β-lactam-resistant S. aureus isolates in more than half of Egyptian milk samples originating from mastitis cases [53,54]. In contrast, an investigation on milk samples from Switzerland and Germany resulted in only 2 MRSA out of 128 isolates [55]. The presence of mecA gene in S. aureus isolates from bovine milk have been reported in previous studies from India [56], China [57], Italy [58], Tunisia [59] and Brazil [60]. MRSA isolates showed not only resistance to methicillin/oxacillin and other β-lactams; they were also resistant to other antibiotics as aminoglycosides, macrolides and/or quinolones [61]. In this study, all MRSA isolates showed multidrug resistance, which is in agreement with previous reports on MRSA isolated from dairy products [37,53,62,63]. The mecB and mecC genes also responsible for methicillin resistance were not detected. They were found only sporadically in S. aureus isolates from domestic animals yet, although in a Bavarian dairy herd, multiple cases of methicillin resistant CC130 S. aureus were found harboring the mecC gene [64].
Penicillin resistance of Staphylococcus species is usually mediated by blaZ gene about enzymatic hydrolysis of β-lactam ring of antibiotics. It was detected in all S. aureus isolates and 73.3% of non-S. aureus isolates, from which a high percentage showed phenotypic resistance to penicillin. High prevalence of blaZ gene in penicillin-resistant staphylococci was reported from Egypt [53], China [57] and Brazil [65]. Similar results were obtained with Polish Streptococcus isolates [66]. Resistance to penicillin G is very important, because this antimicrobial agent is the most recommended and used antibiotic for the treatment of staphylococcal mastitis. Increasing resistance to penicillin G can be explained by the uncontrolled use of antimicrobial agents in Egypt.
Resistance to macrolides (such as erythromycin) occurred among staphylococci in this study. Resistance to this group of antibiotics is conferred via a variety of mechanisms. Three related determinants, erm (A), erm (B), and erm (C) genes, have been identified to be mainly responsible for erythromycin resistance [67]. In this study, the three erm genes were detected in 25.0% to 87.5% of the S. aureus isolates. This is comparable to the results described previously [35]. Additionally, the macrolide resistance gene msrC was prevalent and the percentage in S. aureus was much higher than in other staphylococci. The erm (B) and erm (C) genes occurred in all Streptococcus isolates, which reflects the situation reported by other authors [68,69,70]. The main cause for this result may be due to the localization of these genes on transposons and the ability of a transfer from bacteria to another, including streptococci by horizontal gene transfer [68]. Erm (TR) gene was not detected in this study, which was in agreement with the results of Dogan et al. [71]. They described the absence of the erm (TR) gene in bovine streptococci, however, it could be detected in human isolates.
Aminoglycoside resistance (including gentamicin) was frequently detected in staphylococci and is caused, to a great extent, by the presence of aac-aphD genes, as previously described for Chinese isolates [57]. Aminoglycoside resistance in streptococci is mediated by aad-6 and aphA-3 genes, resulting in the enzymatic inactivation of antibiotics. Both genes were not detected in the St. agalactiae isolate, but at least one was present in other isolates, which is equal to results from Poland [66].
Tetracycline resistance genes spread among bacteria and can be found regularly in multidrug resistant bacteria [72]. In the current study, tetK, tetL, and tetM genes were frequently detected, which corresponded with reports from China for S. aureus [57] and isolates from Egypt for other CoNS [47]. The cause is the extensive and frequent usage of tetracycline in mastitis treatment and as prophylaxis to reduce bacterial infections in general in Egypt, which leads to increased resistance to this antimicrobial [73]. Tetracycline resistance-associated genes (tetK, tetL, tetM, and tetS) in streptococci were detected in all isolates, in which St. gallolyticus harbored all four genes. All isolates carried tetL and tetM genes, which was described equally for Polish isolates [66].
Linezolid is one of the few clinically effective drugs for the control of MRSA and MRCoNS infections. Resistance to linezolid in staphylococci is still very rare, but has been increased in recent years [74]. Transferable linezolid resistance due to the presence of the cfr gene has been known since the year 2000. The cfr gene was first discovered in a bovine S. sciuri isolate and was later reported in various Staphylococcus species. In this study, the cfr gene was not detected. The result was in agreement with a study on Staphylococcus isolates from chicken meat in Egypt [75].
Linezolid and phenicol resistance can be mediated by the optrA gene, too [76]. Phenotypic resistance to linezolid was detected in 50.0% of S. aureus and 70.0% of non-S. aureus isolates and the optrA gene was frequently detected by PCR. Previously, the presence of optrA gene connected with resistance to linezolid in Staphylococcus isolates was reported [77,78]. This result is alarming because linezolid is an antibiotic with good activity against MRSA, making it desirable for the treatment of staphylococcal infections [74].
Vancomycin resistance in staphylococci is very important, because vancomycin is becoming the final choice for the treatment of MRSA infections in humans [79]. Phenotypic vancomycin resistance in S. aureus was not determined [80], however, it was detected in other staphylococci, as described before [75]. In this study, the discrepancy between phenotypic resistance and the presence of resistance genes was noticeable. More than 60% of S. aureus isolates carried the vanC1 gene, but did not show phenotypic resistance determined by the broth microdilution method. A similar situation arises with other staphylococci.
Although erm genes responsible for macrolide-lincosamide-type B streptogramin-associated resistance in Streptococcus species, lincosamide resistance was mediated by the presence of specific genes (lnu), which cause enzymatic inactivation of the drug due to nucleotide transferases. This mechanism was detected for the first time for Enterococcus faecium and thought to be exclusively present in this species, although later on, it was detected in other species like St. agalactiae and St. uberis [81,82]. In this study, the lnuA gene was detected in all streptococcal isolates, as it was identical with the results of a previous investigation [66].
Antibiotic resistance is increasing, because treatment of mastitis generally occurs by using antibiotics without testing of antibiotic susceptibilities of causative bacteria [83]. In this study, 75.0% of S. aureus isolates detected were multidrug-resistant and revealed a high phenotypic resistance to penicillin, ampicillin, and erythromycin/clindamycin, thus have been reported by [53] for S. aureus isolates and by [63], too. A similar situation was described for Egyptian CoNS isolates from cattle, buffaloes, and goats [39].
In this study, we used a microarray-based assay for the simultaneous detection of typing markers, resistance determinants and clinically relevant virulence factors in St. agalactiae. The system was developed especially for this species. For other Streptococcus species, only the probes for resistance determinants were useful, but gave no advantage in comparison to PCR assays. For St. agalactiae, it was possible to determine the ST and CC of the isolate. With DNA microarrays, it is possible to genotype isolates. The method is less cumbersome than MLST, in which an isolate is characterized after sequencing of seven house-keeping genes. Here, hybridization patterns for the St. agalactiae isolate appear to correspond to ST14 within CC19. CC19 is the most common but very diverse clonal complex. In a study about German St. agalactiae, 75% of human isolates and 32% of bovine isolates belonged to this CC [36]. The determined capsule type VI is a very rare type and was found in a German strain collection, only once in an isolate of human origin.
In Egyptian milk samples which were obtained from cattle and buffaloes of small farmers, several zoonotic bacteria like staphylococci, streptococci, E. coli, and enterococci were detected. Normally, the milk is directly consumed by farmers, sold to consumers or used for the production of soft cheese, etc., without pasteurization. The consumption of dairy products entails a health hazard, because some of the bacteria are able to infect humans or are causing agents of food poisoning. Reinforced is the risk by the increasingly occurred resistance of bacteria during the last decades.
In this study, multidrug-resistant isolates of different bacterial species were confirmed via phenotypic characterization as well as the detection of resistance determinants. One source of reinforced occurrence of resistant bacteria is to look for inexpertly and excessively use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine. Here, the consumption of antibiotics has to be reduced, veterinarians and farmers need to be trained in the use of antimicrobials, a diagnosis must be made before therapy, and last but not least, milk must be pasteurized. Additionally, governmental monitoring tools can help to reduce antibiotic usage.

Author Contributions

Data curation, W.A. and H.H.; Investigation, W.A., F.I.E.H., S.M. and H.H.; Methodology, W.A., S.M. and H.H.; Supervision, H.N., H.T., A.A.A. and H.H.; Writing—original draft, W.A., S.M. and H.H.; Writing—review and editing, H.N., H.T., S.M., A.A.A. and H.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Egyptian Cultural and Educational Office of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Germany and the Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education for financial support. The authors would like to thank Byrgit Hofmann, Peggy Methner, Elke Müller and Annett Reissig for their excellent technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ruegg, P.L. A 100-Year Review: Mastitis detection, management, and prevention. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 10381–10397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Zhang, D.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, C.; Gao, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Tian, C.; Hong, W.; Niu, S.; Liu, M. The phylogenetic group, antimicrobial susceptibility, and virulence genes of Escherichia coli from clinical bovine mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 572–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Oliver, S.P.; Calvinho, L.F. Influence of inflammation on mammary gland metabolism and milk composition. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mahantesh, M.K.; Basappa, B.K. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria isolated from bovine mastitis. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res. 2011, 2, 229–235. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cervinkova, D.; Vlkova, H.; Borodacova, I.; Makovcova, J.; Babak, V.; Lorencova, A.; Vrtkova, I.; Marosevic, D.; Jaglic, Z. Prevalence of mastitis pathogens in milk from clinically healthy cows. Vet. Med. 2013, 58, 567–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Radostits, O.M.; Gay, C.C.; Hinchcliff, K.W.; Constable, P.D. Veterinary Medicine: A Text Book of the Diseases of Cattle, Horses, Sheep, Pigs and Goats, 10th ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  7. Smith, K.L.; Todhunter, D.A.; Schoenberger, P.S. Environmental mastitis: Cause, prevalence, prevention. J. Dairy Sci. 1985, 68, 1531–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Harmon, R.J. Physiology of mastitis and factors affecting somatic cell counts. J. Dairy Sci. 1994, 77, 2103–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Seixas, R.; Varanda, D.; Bexiga, R.; Tavares, L.; Oliveira, M. Biofilm-formation by Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis isolates from subclinical mastitis in conditions mimicking the udder environment. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2015, 18, 787–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Ochoa-Zarzosa, A.; Loeza-Lara, P.D.; Torres-Rodríguez, F.; Loeza-Ángeles, H.; Mascot-Chiquito, N.; Sanchez-Baca, S.; Lopez-Meza, J.E. Antimicrobial susceptibility and invasive ability of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from mastitis from dairy backyard systems. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 2008, 94, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gomes, F.; Saavedra, M.J.; Henriques, M. Bovine mastitis disease/pathogenicity: Evidence of the potential role of microbial biofilms. Pathog. Dis. 2016, 74, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Sørensen, U.B.S.; Klaas, I.C.; Boes, J.; Farre, M. The distribution of clones of Streptococcus agalactiae (group B streptococci) among herdspersons and dairy cows demonstrates lack of host specificity for some lineages. Vet. Microbiol. 2019, 235, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Saini, V.; McClure, J.T.; Léger, D.; Keefe, G.P.; Scholl, D.T.; Morck, D.W.; Barkema, H.W. Antimicrobial resistance profiles of common mastitis pathogens on Canadian dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 4319–4332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Parra, S.A.; Rather, M.I.; Para, P.A.; Ganguly, S. The emergence of drug resistant bacteria: Effects on human health. J. Environ. Life Sci. 2017, 2, 77–79. [Google Scholar]
  15. Galal Abdel Hameed, K.; Sender, G.; Korwin-Kossakowska, A. Public health hazard due to mastitis in dairy cows. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2006, 25, 73–85. [Google Scholar]
  16. Monecke, S.; Slickers, P.; Ehricht, R. Assignment of Staphylococcus aureus isolates to clonal complexes based on microarray analysis and pattern recognition. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 53, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. National Mastitis Council (U.S.) (NMC). Microbiological Procedures for the Diagnosis of Udder Infection and Determination of Milk Quality, 4th ed.; National Mastitis Council Inc.: Verona, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bizzini, A.; Greub, G. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry, a revolution in clinical microbial identification. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2010, 16, 1614–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Pedroso, S.H.S.P.; Sandes, S.H.C.; Filho, R.A.T.; Nunes, A.C.; Serufo, J.C.; Farias, L.M.; Carvalho, M.A.R.; Bomfim, M.R.Q.; Santos, S.G. Coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from human bloodstream infections showed multidrug resistance profile. Microb. Drug Resist. 2018, 24, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Becker, K.; van Alen, S.; Idelevich, E.A.; Schleimer, N.; Seggewiß, J.; Mellmann, A.; Kaspar, U.; Peters, G. Plasmid-encoded transferable mecB-mediated methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2018, 24, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Vesterholm-Nielsen, M.; Olhom Larsen, M.; Elmerdahl Olsen, J.; Moller Aarestrup, F. Occurrence of the blaZ gene in penicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis in Denmark. Acta Vet. Scand. 1999, 40, 279–286. [Google Scholar]
  22. Getachew, Y.; Hassan, L.; Zakaria, Z.; Zaid, C.Z.; Yardi, A.; Shukor, R.A.; Marawin, L.T.; Embong, F.; Aziz, S.A. Characterization and risk factors of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) among animal-affiliated workers in Malaysia. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 113, 1184–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ünal, N.; Askar, S.; Yildirim, M. Antibiotic resistance profile of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolated from broiler cloacal samples. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2017, 41, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sutcliffe, J.; Grebe, T.; Tait-Kamradt, A.; Wondrack, L. Detection of erythromycin-resistant determinants by PCR. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1996, 40, 2562–2566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Villaseñor-Sierra, A.; Katahira, E.; Jaramillo-Valdivia, A.N.; Barajas-García Mde, L.; Bryant, A.; Morfín-Otero, R.; Márquez-Díaz, F.; Tinoco, J.C.; Sánchez-Corona, J.; Stevens, D.L. Phenotypes and genotypes of erythromycin-resistant Streptococcus pyogenes strains isolated from invasive and non-invasive infections from Mexico and the USA during 1999–2010. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2012, 16, e178–e181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Werner, G.; Hildebrandt, B.; Witte, W. The newly described msrC gene is not equally distributed among all isolates of Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001, 45, 3672–3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Ng, L.K.; Martin, I.; Alfa, M.; Mulvey, M. Multiplex PCR for the detection of tetracycline resistant genes. Mol. Cell. Probes 2001, 15, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Aarestrup, F.M.; Agerso, Y.; Gerner-Smidt, P.; Madsen, M.; Jensen, L.B. Comparison of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes and resistance genes in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium from humans in the community, broilers, and pigs in Denmark. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2000, 37, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Van Asselt, G.J.; Vliegenthart, J.S.; Petit, P.L.; Van de Klundert, J.A.; Mouton, R.P. High-level aminoglycoside resistance among enterococci and group A streptococci. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1992, 30, 651–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Poyart-Salmeron, C.; Carlier, C.; Trieu-Cuot, P.; Courtieu, A.L.; Courvalin, P. Transferable plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance in Listeria monocytogenes. Lancet 1990, 335, 1422–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Poyart, C.; Celli, J.; Trieu-Cuot, P. Conjugative transposition of Tn916-related elements from Enterococcus faecalis to Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas fluorescens. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1995, 39, 500–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Fan, R.; Li, D.; Feßler, A.T.; Wu, C.; Schwarz, S.; Wang, Y. Distribution of optrA and cfr in florfenicol-resistant Staphylococcus sciuri of pig origin. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 210, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moawad, A.A.; Hotzel, H.; Awad, O.; Roesler, U.; Hafez, H.M.; Tomaso, H.; Neubauer, H.; El-Adawy, H. Evolution of antibiotic resistance of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from healthy turkeys in Egypt: First report of linezolid resistance. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Haenni, M.; Saras, E.; Chaussière, S.; Treilles, M.; Madec, J.Y. ermB-mediated erythromycin resistance in Streptococcus uberis from bovine mastitis. Vet. J. 2011, 189, 356–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lina, G.; Quaglia, A.; Reverdy, M.E.; Leclercq, R.; Vandenesch, F.; Etienne, J. Distribution of genes encoding resistance to macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins among staphylococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1999, 43, 1062–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Nitschke, H.; Slickers, P.; Müller, E.; Ehricht, R.; Monecke, S. DNA microarray-based typing of Streptococcus agalactiae isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014, 52, 3933–3943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Kamal, R.M.; Bayoumi, M.A.; Abd El Aal, S.F.A. MRSA detection in raw milk, some dairy products and hands of dairy workers in Egypt, a mini-survey. Food Control 2013, 33, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kadariya, J.; Smith, T.C.; Thapaliya, D. Staphylococcus aureus and staphylococcal food-borne disease: An ongoing challenge in public health. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 827965. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dorgham, S.M.; Hamza, D.; Khairy, E.A.; Hedia, H.S. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci in mastitic animals in Egypt. Glob. Vet. 2013, 11, 714–720. [Google Scholar]
  40. Asfour, H.A.E.; Darwish, S.F. Phenotypic and genotypic detection of both mecA- and blaZ-genes mediated β-lactam resistance in Staphylococcus strains isolated from bovine mastitis. Glob. Vet. 2011, 6, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  41. Salem-Bekhit, M.M.; Muharram, M.M.; Alhosiny, I.M.; Ehab, S.Y. Molecular detection of genes encoding virulence determinants in Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from bovine mastitis. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2010, 6, 121–128. [Google Scholar]
  42. Amin, A.S.; Hamouda, R.H.; Abdel-All, A.A.A. PCR assays for detecting major pathogens of mastitis in milk samples. World J. Dairy Food Sci. 2011, 6, 199–206. [Google Scholar]
  43. Elbably, M.A.; Emeash, H.H.; Asmaa, N.M. Risk factors associated with mastitis occurrence in dairy herds in Benisuef, Egypt. Worlds Vet. J. 2013, 3, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hamed, M.I.; Ziatoun, A.M.A. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus subclinical mastitis in dairy buffaloes farms at different lactation seasons at Assiut Governorate, Egypt. Int. J. Livest Res. 2014, 4, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Elhaig, M.M.; Selim, A. Molecular and bacteriological investigation of subclinical mastitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus agalactiae in domestic bovids from Ismailia, Egypt. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2015, 47, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Elsayed, M.S.; Mahmoud El-Bagoury, A.E.; Dawoud, M.A. Phenotypic and genotypic detection of virulence factors of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical and subclinical mastitis in cattle and water buffaloes from different farms of Sadat City in Egypt. Vet. World 2015, 8, 1051–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. El-Razik, K.A.A.; Arafa, A.A.; Hedia, R.H.; Ibrahim, E.S. Tetracycline resistance phenotypes and genotypes of coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates from bubaline mastitis in Egypt. Vet. World 2017, 10, 702–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Sawant, A.A.; Gillespie, B.E.; Oliver, S.P. Antimicrobial susceptibility of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species isolated from bovine milk. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 134, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Piessens, V.; Van Coillie, E.; Verbist, B.; Supre, K.; Braem, G.; Van Nuffel, A.; De Vuyst, L.; Heyndrickx, M.; De Vliegher, S. Distribution of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species from milk and environment of dairy cows differs between herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 2933–2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. El-Jakee, J.K.; Aref, N.E.; Gomaa, A.; El-Hariri, M.D.; Galal, H.M.; Omar, S.A.; Samir, A. Emerging of coagulase negative staphylococci as a cause of mastitis in dairy animals: An environmental hazard. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med. 2013, 1, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Wyder, A.B.; Boss, R.; Naskova, J.; Kaufmann, T.; Steiner, A.; Graber, H.U. Streptococcus spp. and related bacteria: Their identification and their pathogenic potential for chronic mastitis—A molecular approach. Res. Vet. Sci. 2011, 91, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tian, X.Y.; Zheng, N.; Han, R.W.; Ho, H.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.T.; Wang, S.Q.; Li, H.G.; Liu, H.W.; Yu, Z.N. Antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes of Streptococcus isolated from dairy cows with mastitis in China. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 131, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Awad, A.; Ramadan, H.; Nasr, S.; Ateya, A.; Atwa, S. Genetic characterization, antimicrobial resistance patterns and virulence determinants of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 20, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. Elkenany, R.M. Genetic characterization of enterotoxigenic strains of methicillin-resistant and susceptible Staphylococcus aureus recovered from bovine mastitis. 2018. Asian J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Monecke, S.; Kuhnert, P.; Hotzel, H.; Slickers, P.; Ehricht, R. Microarray based study on virulence-associated genes and resistance determinants of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from cattle. Vet. Microbiol. 2007, 125, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Shah, M.S.; Qureshi, S.; Kashoo, Z.; Farooq, S.; Wani, S.A.; Hussain, M.I.; Banday, M.S.; Khan, A.A.; Gull, B.; Habib, A.; et al. Methicillin resistance genes and in vitro biofilm formation among Staphylococcus aureus isolates from bovine mastitis in India. Comp. Immunol. Microbio. Infect. Dis. 2019, 64, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Qu, Y.; Zhao, H.; Nobrega, D.B.; Cobo, E.R.; Han, B.; Zhao, Z.; Li, S.; Li, M.; Barkema, H.W.; Gao, J. Molecular epidemiology and distribution of antimicrobial resistance genes of Staphylococcus species isolated from Chinese dairy cows with clinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 1571–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Magro, G.; Rebolini, M.; Beretta, D.; Piccinini, R. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC22-MRSA-IV as an agent of dairy cow intramammary infections. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 227, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Klibi, A.; Maaroufi, A.; Torres, C.; Jouini, A. Detection and characterization of methicillin-resistant and susceptible coagulase-negative staphylococci in milk from cows with clinical mastitis in Tunisia. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2018, 52, 930–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mello, P.L.; Pinheiro, L.; Martins, L.A.; Brito, M.A.V.P.; Ribeiro de Souza da Cunha, M.L. Short communication: β-lactam resistance and vancomycin heteroresistance in Staphylococcus spp. isolated from bovine subclinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 6567–6571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Turutoglu, H.; Hasoksuz, M.; Ozturk, D.; Yildirim, M.; Sagnak, S. Methicillin and aminoglycoside resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolates from bovine mastitis and sequence analysis of their mecA genes. Vet. Res. Commun. 2009, 33, 945–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Can, H.Y.; Celik, T.H. Detection of enterotoxigenic and antimicrobial resistant S. aureus in Turkish cheeses. Food Cont. 2012, 24, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Al-Ashmawy, M.A.; Sallam, K.I.; Abd-Elghany, S.M.; Elhadidy, M.; Tamura, T. Prevalence, molecular characterization, and antimicrobial susceptibility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from milk and dairy products. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2016, 13, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Schlotter, K.; Huber-Schlenstedt, R.; Gangl, A.; Hotzel, H.; Monecke, S.; Müller, E.; Reißig, A.; Proft, S.; Ehricht, R. Multiple cases of methicillin-resistant CC130 Staphylococcus aureus harboring mecC in milk and swab samples from a Bavarian dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 2782–2788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Da Costa Krewer, C.; Santos Amanso, E.; Veneroni Gouveia, G.; de Lima Souza, R.; da Costa, M.M.; Aparecido Mota, R. Resistance to antimicrobials and biofilm formation in Staphylococcus spp. isolated from bovine mastitis in the Northeast of Brazil. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2015, 47, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kaczorek, E.; Małaczewska, J.; Wójcik, R.; Rękawek, W.; Siwicki, A.K. Phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Streptococcus spp. isolated from cases of clinical mastitis in dairy cattle in Poland. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 6442–6453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Thakker-Varia, S.; Jenssen, W.D.; Moon-McDermott, L.; Weinstein, M.P.; Dubin, D.T. Molecular epidemiology of macrolides-lincosamides-streptogramin B resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1987, 31, 735–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Loch, I.M.; Glenn, K.; Zadoks, R.N. Macrolide and lincosamide resistance genes of environmental streptococci from bovine milk. Vet. Microbiol. 2005, 111, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gao, J.; Yu, F.Q.; Luo, L.P.; He, J.Z.; Hou, R.G.; Zhang, H.Q.; Li, S.M.; Su, J.L.; Han, B. Antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus agalactiae from cows with mastitis. Vet. J. 2012, 194, 423–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rato, M.G.; Bexiga, R.; Florindo, C.; Cavaco, L.M.; Vilela, C.L.; Santos-Sanches, I. Antimicrobial resistance and molecular epidemiology of streptococci from bovine mastitis. Vet. Microbiol. 2013, 161, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dogan, B.; Schukken, Y.H.; Santisteban, C.; Boor, K.J. Distribution of serotypes and antimicrobial resistance genes among Streptococcus agalactiae isolates from bovine and human hosts. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 5899–5906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Levy, S.B.; McMurry, L.M.; Barbosa, T.M.; Burdett, V.; Courvalin, P.; Hillen, W.; Roberts, M.C.; Rood, J.I.; Taylor, D.E. Nomenclature for new tetracycline resistance determinants. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1999, 43, 523–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Jamali, H.; Paydar, M.; Radmehr, B.; Ismail, S.; Dadrasnia, A. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from raw milk and dairy products. Food Control 2015, 54, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gu, B.; Kelesidis, T.; Tsiodras, S.; Hindler, J.; Humphries, R.M. The emerging problem of linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Osman, K.; Badr, J.; Al-Maary, K.S.; Moussa, I.M.I.; Hessain, A.M.; Girah, Z.M.S.A.; Abo-Shama, U.H.; Orabi, A.; Saad, A. Prevalence of the antibiotic resistance genes in coagulase-positive-and negative-Staphylococcus in chicken meat retailed to consumers. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Wang, Y.; Lv, Y.; Cai, J.; Schwarz, S.; Cui, L.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, R.; Li, J.; Zhao, Q.; He, T.; et al. A novel gene, optrA, that confers transferable resistance to oxazolidinones and phenicols and its presence in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium of human and animal origin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2015, 70, 2182–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Fan, R.; Li, D.; Wang, Y.; He, T.; Feßler, A.T.; Schwarz, S.; Wu, C. Presence of the optrA gene in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus sciuri of porcine origin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 7200–7205. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Li, D.; Wang, Y.; Schwarz, S.; Cai, J.; Fan, R.; Li, J.; Feßler, A.T.; Zhang, R.; Wu, C.; Shen, J. Co-location of the oxazolidinone resistance genes optrA and cfr on a multiresistance plasmid from Staphylococcus sciuri. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016, 71, 1474–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Saha, B.; Singh, A.K.; Ghosh, A.; Bal, M. Identification and characterization of a vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from Koklata (South Asia). J. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 57, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Öztürk, D.; Türütoglu, H.; Pehlivanoglu, F.; Sahan Yapicier, Ö. Identification of bacteria isolated from dairy goats with subclinical mastitis and investigation of methicillin and vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. Ankara Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg. 2019, 66, 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  81. Petinaki, E.; Guérin-Faublée, V.; Pichereau, V.; Villers, C.; Achard, A.; Malbruny, B.; Leclercq, R. Lincomycin resistance gene lnu(D) in Streptococcus uberis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 626–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Arana, D.M.; Rojo-Bezares, B.; Torres, C.; Alós, J.I. First clinical isolate in Europe of clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus mediated by the lnu(B) gene. Rev. Esp. Quimioter. 2014, 27, 106–109. [Google Scholar]
  83. Sievert, D.M.; Rudrik, J.T.; Patel, J.B.; McDonald, L.C.; Wilkins, M.J.; Hagemann, J.C. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States. 2002–2006. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 46, 668–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Table 1. Primers and their sequences used for the detection of antibiotic resistance-associated genes in Staphylococcus and Streptococcus isolates.
Table 1. Primers and their sequences used for the detection of antibiotic resistance-associated genes in Staphylococcus and Streptococcus isolates.
AntibioticTarget GenePrimer Sequences
(5′-3′)
Expected Amplicon Size (bp)Reference
Methicillin/
oxacillin
mecAF: TCC AGA TTA CAA CTT CAC CAG G
R: CCA CTT CAT ATC TTG TAA CG
161[19]
mecBF: TTA ACA TAT ACA CCC GCT TG
R: TAA AGT TCA TTA GGC ACC TCC
2263[20]
mecCAL3: TCA AAT TGA GTT TTT CCA TTA TCA
AL4: AAC TTG GTT ATT CAA AGA TGA CGA
1931[20]
PenicillinblaZF: ACT TCA ACA CCT GCT GCT GCT TTC
R: TGA CCA CTT TTA TCA GCA ACC
172[19]
blaZF: AAG AGA TTT GCC TAT GCT TC
R: GCT TGA CCA CTT TTA TCA GC
517[21]
VancomycinvanAF: ATG AAT AGA ATA AAA GTT GCA ATA
R: CCC CTT TAA CGC TAA TAC GAT CAA
1030[22]
vanBF: AAG CTA TGC AAG AAG CCA TG
R: CCG ACA AAA TCA TCC TC
536[22]
vanC1F: GGA ATC AAG GAA ACC TC
R: CTT CCG CCA TCA TAG CT
822[23]
Erythromycinerm(B)F: GAA AAG GTA CTC AAC CAA ATA
R: AGT AAC GGT ACT TAA ATT GTT TAC
639[24]
erm(A)F: TAT CTT ATC GTT GAG AAG GGA TT
R: CTA CAC TTG GCT TAG GAT GAA A
138[19]
erm(C)F: CTT CTT GAT CAC GAT AAT TTC C
R: ATC TTT TAG CAA ACC CGT ATT C
189[19]
erm(TR)F: ATAGAAATTGGGTCAGGAAAAGG
R: CCCTGTTTACCCATTTATAAACG
376[25]
MacrolidesmsrCF: AAG GAA TCC TTC TCT CTC CG
R: GTA AAC AAA ATC GTT CCC G
342[26]
mefAF: AGT ATC ATT AAT CAC TAG TGC
R: TTC TTC TGG TAC TAA AAG TGG
500[25]
Tetracycline tetKF: TCG ATA GGA ACA GCA GTA
R: CAG CAG ATC CTA CTC CTT
169[27]
tetLF: TCG TTA GCG TGC TGT CAT
R: GTA TCC CAC CAA TGT AGC CG
267[27]
tetMF: GTG GAC AAA GGT ACA ACG AG
R: CGG TAA AGT TCG TCA CAC AC
406[27]
tetOF: AAC TTA GGC ATT CTG GCT CAC
R: TCC CAC TGT TCC ATA TCG TCA
515[27]
tetSF: TGG AAC GCC AGA GAG GTA TT
R: ACA TAG ACA AGC CGT TGA CC
660[28]
Aminoglyco-sidesaac6-aph2F: CCA AGA GCA ATA AGG GCA TA
R: CAC TAT CAT AAC CAC TAC CG
219[29]
aac-aphDF: TAA TCC AAG AGC AAT AAG GGC
R: GCC ACA CTA TCA TAA CCA CTA
227[19]
aad-6F: AGA AGA TGT AAT AAT ATA G
R: CTG TAA TCA CTG TTC CCG CCT
978[30]
aphA-3F: GGG GTA CCT TTA AAT ACT GTA G
R: TCT GGA TCC TAA AAC AAT TCA TCC
848[31]
Linezolid,
chlor-amphenicol
optrAF: AGG TGG TCA GCG AAC TCA
R: ATC AAC TGT TCC CAT TCA
1400[32]
LinezolidvalSF: GTA ACG ATC ATC ATT TGG G
R: CTT TAT TAG AGC TCA ATG GGC
339[33]
OxazolidinonecfrF: TGA AGT ATA AAG CAG GTT GGG AGT CA
R: ACC ATA TAA TTG ACC ACA AGC AGC
400[32]
Lincosamide lnuD F: ACG GAG GGA TCA CAT GGT AA
R: TCT CTC GCA TAA TAA CCT TAC GTC
475[34]
lnuAF: GGT GGC TGG GGG GTA GAT GTA TTA ACT GG
R: GCT CTC TTT GAA ATA CAT GGT ATT TTT CGA TC
323[35]
Table 2. Prevalence of Staphylococcus and Streptococcus isolates in milk samples from cattle and buffaloes with clinical and subclinical mastitis.
Table 2. Prevalence of Staphylococcus and Streptococcus isolates in milk samples from cattle and buffaloes with clinical and subclinical mastitis.
Type of MastitisOrigin of MilkNumber of SamplesStaphylococcus aureus IsolatesNon-Staphylococ-
cus aureus Isolates
Streptococcus Isolates
No.%No.%No.%
Clinical mastitisCattle2229.11254.614.6
Buffaloes10110.0990.0110.0
Subclinical mastitisCattle5120.05100120.0
Buffaloes13430.8430.8323.1
Total 50816.03060.0612.0
Table 3. Identified non-Staphylococcus aureus species recovered from 50 bovine milk samples.
Table 3. Identified non-Staphylococcus aureus species recovered from 50 bovine milk samples.
CoNSS. warneriS. pasteuriS. xylosusS. epidermidisS. chromogenesS. cohniiS. hyicusS. haemolyticusS. sciuriS. lentusTotal
Cattle 353220001117
Buffaloes631001110013
Table 4. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus isolates from milk.
Table 4. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus isolates from milk.
AntibioticClassStaphylococcus aureus Isolates
(n = 8)
Non-Staphylococcus aureus Isolates
(n = 30)
SIRRR
(%)
SIRRR
(%)
Ampicillin β-Lactam20675.0902170.0
Cefoxitin β-Lactam; cephamycin40450.01531240.0
Ceftaroline Cephalosporin
5th generation
8000.0222620.0
ClindamycinLincosamide20675.0502583.3
Daptomycin Cyclic lipopeptide21562.5322583.3
Erythromycin Macrolide 20675.0102996.7
Erythromycin/
clindamycin
20675.0202893.3
Fosfomycin Epoxide antibiotic60225.0112893.3
Fusidic acidSteroide antibiotic40450.0212790.0
Gentamicin Aminoglyside30562.5512480.0
Gentamicin high levelAminoglyside30562.51621240.0
Linezolid Oxazolidinone40450.0722170.0
Moxifloxacin Fluorchinolone
4th generation
40450.0512480.0
Mupirocin 51225.0215413.3
Oxacillin β-Lactam40450.0732066.7
Penicillin G β-Lactam10787.5622273.3
RifampicinAnsamycine31450.01701343.3
Synercid Streptogramine50337.51121756.7
TeicoplaninGlycopeptide8700.0817516.7
Tigecycline Glycylcycline40450.0912066.7
Trimethoprim/
sulphamethoxazole
Dihdrofolatreductase/
sulfonamide
21562.5632170.0
VancomycinGlycopeptide8000.0179413.3
S—susceptible; I—immediate; R—resistant; RR—resistance rate.
Table 5. PCR results for detection of resistance-associated genes of staphylococci.
Table 5. PCR results for detection of resistance-associated genes of staphylococci.
Resistance-Associated GenesStaphylococcus aureus (n = 8)Non-Staphylococcus aureus (n = 30)
Detected
(n)
%Detected
(n)
%
β-Lactam resistancemecA787.52996.7
mecB00.000.0
mecC00.000.0
Penicillin resistanceblaZ81002273.3
Linezolid resistance optrA450.0310.0
valS8100930.0
cfr00.000.0
Erythromycin resistance erm(B)675.01550.0
erm(A)225.013.33
erm(C)787.51653.3
Vancomycin resistance vanA00.026.7
vanB00.0930.0
vanC1562.526.7
Macrolide resistance msrC675.0413.3
Aminoglycoside resistance aac-aphD787.51756.7
Tetracycline resistancetetK81002480.0
tetM225.0413.3
tetL450.0723.3
tetS00.0310.0
tetO00.000.0
Table 6. Antibiotic resistance-associated genes in streptococci.
Table 6. Antibiotic resistance-associated genes in streptococci.
Penicillin ResistanceMacrolide
Resistance
Lincosamide ResistanceAminoglycoside ResistanceTetracycline
Resistance
blaZmefAerm(TR)erm(C)erm(B)erm(A)lnuAlnuDaphA-3aad-6tetStetKtetLtetMtetO
Streptococcus dysgalactiae
(n = 3)
300333302000330
Streptococcus agalactiae
(n = 1)
100110100001110
Streptococcus suis
(n = 1)
100111101000110
Streptococcus gallolyticus
(n = 1)
100110101111110

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahmed, W.; Neubauer, H.; Tomaso, H.; El Hofy, F.I.; Monecke, S.; Abdeltawab, A.A.; Hotzel, H. Characterization of Staphylococci and Streptococci Isolated from Milk of Bovides with Mastitis in Egypt. Pathogens 2020, 9, 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9050381

AMA Style

Ahmed W, Neubauer H, Tomaso H, El Hofy FI, Monecke S, Abdeltawab AA, Hotzel H. Characterization of Staphylococci and Streptococci Isolated from Milk of Bovides with Mastitis in Egypt. Pathogens. 2020; 9(5):381. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9050381

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahmed, Wedad, Heinrich Neubauer, Herbert Tomaso, Fatma Ibrahim El Hofy, Stefan Monecke, Ashraf Awad Abdeltawab, and Helmut Hotzel. 2020. "Characterization of Staphylococci and Streptococci Isolated from Milk of Bovides with Mastitis in Egypt" Pathogens 9, no. 5: 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9050381

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