Next Article in Journal
Brucellosis and One Health: Inherited and Future Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols in Poultry Houses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/microorganisms11082069
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles 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

Endemic High-Risk Clone ST277 Is Related to the Spread of SPM-1-Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period in Northern Brazil

by
Pabllo Antonny Silva Dos Santos
1,2,†,
Yan Corrêa Rodrigues
2,3,4,*,†,
Davi Josué Marcon
1,2,
Amália Raiana Fonseca Lobato
2,
Thalyta Braga Cazuza
2,
Maria Isabel Montoril Gouveia
2,
Marcos Jessé Abrahão Silva
2,3,
Alex Brito Souza
2,
Luana Nepomuceno Gondim Costa Lima
1,2,3,
Ana Judith Pires Garcia Quaresma
2,
Danielle Murici Brasiliense
1,2,3 and
Karla Valéria Batista Lima
1,2,3,*
1
Program in Parasitic Biology in the Amazon Region (PPGBPA), State University of Pará (UEPA), Tv. Perebebuí, 2623-Marco, Belém 66087-662, PA, Brazil
2
Bacteriology and Mycology Section, Evandro Chagas Institute (SABMI/IEC), Ministry of Health, Ananindeua 67030-000, PA, Brazil
3
Program in Epidemiology and Health Surveillance (PPGEVS), Evandro Chagas Institute (IEC), Ministry of Health, Ananindeua 67030-000, PA, Brazil
4
Department of Natural Science, State University of Pará (DCNA/UEPA), Belém 66050-540, PA, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(8), 2069; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11082069
Submission received: 13 June 2023 / Revised: 20 July 2023 / Accepted: 20 July 2023 / Published: 11 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Antimicrobial Resistance in the Time of COVID-19)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a high-priority bacterial agent that causes healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs), which often leads to serious infections and poor prognosis in vulnerable patients. Its increasing resistance to antimicrobials, associated with SPM production, is a case of public health concern. Therefore, this study aims to determine the antimicrobial resistance, virulence, and genotyping features of P. aeruginosa strains producing SPM-1 in the Northern region of Brazil. To determine the presence of virulence and resistance genes, the PCR technique was used. For the susceptibility profile of antimicrobials, the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method was performed on Mueller–Hinton agar. The MLST technique was used to define the ST of the isolates. The exoS+/exoU− virulotype was standard for all strains, with the aprA, lasA, toxA, exoS, exoT, and exoY genes as the most prevalent. All the isolates showed an MDR or XDR profile against the six classes of antimicrobials tested. HRC ST277 played a major role in spreading the SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa strains.

1. Introduction

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a high-priority bacterial agent that causes healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs), which often lead to serious infections and poor prognosis in vulnerable patients, such as those who are in intensive care units (ICUs); those who have weakened immune systems, have undergone surgery, or have a history of inappropriate antibiotic use or severe burns; and those who have cystic fibrosis (CF), causing chronic lung colonization [1,2,3,4]. Globally, multi-drug and extensively resistant (MDR/XDR) strains of P. aeruginosa posing a difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) phenotype have emerged in different clinical, hospital, and even environmental settings. These strains are of particular concern due to difficulties and limitations in treatment and their association with a high virulence potential, which can lead to severe and prolonged infections, and increased treatment costs, length of hospital stay, and patient mortality [5,6,7].
As a versatile opportunistic pathogen, P. aeruginosa is capable of causing both acute and chronic infections. Its pathogenic profile stems from the large and variable arsenal of virulence factors and antibiotic resistance determinants contained in the P. aeruginosa genome of several strains, with remarkable metabolic flexibility and the ability to adapt to multiple conditions, including the host immune response [8,9,10]. Virulence products passively produced and secreted by bacterial cells are generally associated with adhesion, nutrient acquisition, and regulation, including pigments with siderophore activity and O-polysaccharide (OPS), whereas products actively secreted by secretion systems, such as the type I secretion system (T1SS), type II secretion system (T2SS), and type III secretion system (T3SS), are associated with tissue invasion and evasion of host defenses [11,12,13]. Among these, the virulotyping of P. aeruginosa strains by detecting exoS/exoU genes and OPS serotyping has been widely applied and recommended due to its association with the clinical progress of patients, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and vaccine targets [14,15,16,17].
Concerning AMR, the production of carbapenemases has been pointed out as one of the main causes of carbapenem resistance among several bacterial pathogen species. Indeed, carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa (CR-PA) has been described as a priority pathogen by the World Health Organization (WHO) and several other health agencies [1,18,19,20]. Among the carbapenemases, metallo-β-lactamases (MβLs) are of particular interest and concern due to several factors, such as their ability to hydrolyze and provide resistance to virtually all β-lactam antibiotics, the limitations and unavailability of clinically useful MβLs inhibitors, the rapid rate at which new variants are isolated, the transferability of their coding genes, and their ubiquity, as there are reports of isolates from both hospitals and environmental sources [21,22]. The São Paulo metallo-β-lactamase (SPM-1) is an important determinant of carbapenem resistance and non-susceptibility phenotypes in P. aeruginosa isolates in Brazil. In different Brazilian geographic regions, the dissemination of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa is associated with the endemic clone, ST277, which may be related to the high and increasing rates of carbapenem resistance reported [23,24,25,26].
Several recent reports have described an increase in MDR/XDR organisms during the COVID-19 pandemic [27,28]. In the current pandemic healthcare emergency, sentinel reports have shown that secondary infections were present in up to 30% of critically ill patients, and these infections were shown to markedly decrease the survival of patients with COVID-19. MDR/XDR-CR-PA was one of the most commonly reported antibiotic-resistant bacterial species in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICUs [29,30]. The production of SPM-1 has been proven as a key antimicrobial mechanism in Brazilian P. aeruginosa strains, and with the pandemic situation of COVID-19 and rampant use of antibiotics for the treatment of secondary infections, a relevant increase in CR-PA isolates harboring the blaSPM-1 gene has been observed in health institutions in northern Brazil. Additionally, previous reports in the state of Pará by our research group have revealed the presence of P. aeruginosa harboring the blaSPM-1 gene, which causes complicated infections and is a genotypic marker of high virulence [31,32]. Thus, this study aims to explore the AMR, virulence, and genotypic features of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa recovered from the pre-pandemic period in healthcare institutions in the states of Pará (PA) and Acre (AC), in the northern Brazilian Amazon region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Isolates

This is a cross-sectional and descriptive study aiming to provide data on the SPM-1-producing-P. aeruginosa isolates received at a reference center—the Special Pathogens Laboratory, Bacteriology and Mycology Evandro Chagas Institute (LabPate/SABMI/IEC)—for the routine surveillance of antimicrobial resistance. Since mid-2017, LabPate/SABMI/IEC has been acting in the antimicrobial resistance surveillance flow routine by confirming and detecting AMR mechanisms in bacterial isolates from public and private hospitals in the states of Pará (PA) and Acre (AC), northern Brazil. For the present study, 34 non-repeatable isolates of P. aeruginosa were obtained from various biological sample sources of patients admitted to healthcare services from 2018 to 2021, with suspected infection and/or colonization by MDR/XDR microorganisms and production of carbapenemases (resistance to carbapenems). All the isolates were identified using the Vitek-2 automated system at a routine hospital (BioMérieux). Subsequently, the isolates were sent to Evandro Chagas Institute for further analysis.

2.2. Phenotypic and Molecular Assays Associated with Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Genetic Variant Definition of blaSPM-1

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (ATS) was performed by applying the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method on Mueller–Hinton Agar (MHA) for 12 antimicrobials belonging to six (06) different classes: piperacillin, piperacillin + tazobactam, and ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (penicillin + β-lactamase inhibitor class); ceftazidime and cefepime (cephalosporins class); aztreonam (monobactams class); imipenem (carbapenems class); gentamicin, tobramycin, and amikacin (aminoglycosides class); and ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin (fluoroquinolone class). The results were interpreted according to the criteria and breakpoints of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, where isolates were classified as susceptible (S), intermediate (I), and resistant (R) [33,34]. Additionally, P. aeruginosa isolates were phenotypically classified based on their propensity to be MDR when they were resistant to ≥1 drug in ≥3 antimicrobial classes; XDR when they were not susceptible to 1 agent in all antimicrobial classes tested, except ≤2, according to the criteria described by Magiorakos et al. [35] and Mulet et al. [36]; and DTR based on the susceptibility results with ceftazidime, cefepime, imipenem, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin, as described by Kadri et al. [7].
Bacterial genomic DNA was obtained from a single overnight grown colony of P. aeruginosa cultures via the boil-and-freeze method and using the commercial PureLink™ Genomic DNA Mini Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, São Paulo, Brazil), following the manufacturer’s recommendations. The genomic DNA obtained was quantified using a Picodrop PICO100 spectrophotometer (Picodrop Limited, Hinxton, UK) and concentrations set between 25–50 ng/μL were used for all molecular assays. The detection of AMR genes encoding carbapenemase blaSPM, blaIMP, blaVIM, blaNDM, blaKPC, and blaOXA-48 was performed via PCR in a Veriti thermal cycler (Applied Biosystem, Foster City, CA, USA) as described [37]. Visualization of PCR products was performed via electrophoresis in a 1.5% agarose gel at 110 V for 45 min in TAE 1× buffer (89 nM Tris-borate and 2 mM EDTA pH 8.0). DNA ladder 1 Kb (Invitrogen™, Carlsbad, CA, USA)) was used as molecular weight marker, gel stained with SyberSafe (Invitrogen™, Carlsbad, CA, USA)), and differentiation of bands visualized under ultraviolet light.
For determination of the blaSPM variant, the PCR products were direct sequenced bidirectionally using the Big Dye Terminator v3.1 kit on the ABI Prism 3100 or 3500XL Genetic Analyzer platform (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), and the sequences obtained were compared with those available in the BLAST database (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi (accessed on 6 June 2023)).

2.3. Molecular and Phenotypic Detection of Virulence-Related Factors

The detection of invasion-related genes belonging to the T1SS, T2SS and T3SS was performed via PCR in a Veriti thermal cycler (Applied Biosystem, Foster City, CA, USA) according to the protocol described by Rodrigues et al. [32]. Visualization of PCR products was performed via 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis at 110 V for 45 min in TAE 1× buffer (89 nM Tris-borate and 2 mM EDTA pH 8.0). As molecular weight marker, 1 Kb DNA ladder (Invitrogen™) was used, gel stained with SyberSafe (Invitrogen™, Carlsbad, CA, USA)) and differentiation of bands visualized under ultraviolet light. In addition, the pigment production and mucoid phenotype of P. aeruginosa isolates were verified by observing bacterial growth on MHA agar plates and slants.

2.4. Molecular Typing by Multilocus Sequencing Typing–MLST

The MLST genotyping procedure followed the protocol outlined by Curran et al. [38], with modifications by using new design primers, except for aroE gene (Supplementary Table S1). In brief, the Veriti thermocycler (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) was used to amplify via PCR the seven housekeeping genes constituting the scheme (acsA, aroE, guaA, mutL, nuoD, ppsA, and trpE). The resulting reaction products were sequenced bidirectionally using Big Dye Terminator v3.1 chemistry on the ABI Prism 3100 or 3500XL Genetic Analyzer platforms (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). The obtained results were compared and matched to the data available at the PubMLST database (http://pubmlst.org/paeruginosa (accessed on 6 June 2023)) to determine the allelic profiles and sequence types (STs).

2.5. Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS) and Bioinformatics Analysis

Libraries were prepared from the previously extracted DNA using the Nextera XT kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) with the addition of I5 and i7 indexes, according to the manufacturers’ protocol. The quality of the libraries was verified using the Bioanalyzer High Sensitivity DNA Analysis kit (Agilent™, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and quantified using the High Sensitivity Double Strand DNA Quibit kit (Invitrogen™, Carlsbad, CA, USA)). Subsequently, the libraries were added into a pool and sequenced with the 2 × 151 paired-end protocol on Illumina nextseq 550 using Mid Output (Illumina™) reagent cartridges and flow cells at the Arbovirology section of the Instituto Evandro Chagas.
The quality of the reads was checked using the fastqc v0.11.9 tool, treated using the fastp v0.23.2 tool to remove low quality reads and remove adapters. Subsequently, genome assembly was performed using the spades tool v3.15.3 based on the reference strains for P. aeruginosa CCBH4851 (NZ_CP021380.2), which belongs to clone ST277 reported as cause of endemic outbreak in Brazil in 2008 [39]. After assembly, the scaffolds were evaluated using the quast software (v 5.2.0) and submitted to the bactopia v2.2 pipeline for annotation using the prokka tool v1.14.6, resistance prediction using amrfinder v3.10.45. The modular tools of the bactopia pipeline were also used for downstream analysis: abricate for searching resistance genes, amrfinderplus for predicting resistance and proteins, MLST typing was predicted by searching for sequence in the PubMLST database, pasty for predicting P. aeruginosa serogroup, and plasmidfinder for predicting plasmid presence in sequencing. Finally, the annotated genomes produced by Bactopia were finally submitted type Strain Genome Server (TGYS) [40] web server for whole-genome similarity, clusterization and phylogenetic inference.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

The present study is in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the terms of the CNS Resolution No. 466/2012 of the National Health Council. Since this is an experimental study, which used stored and provided samples by the institutions involved, without any contact and possibility of identifying the respective patients, the project did not need to be referred to the Ethics Committee on Research Involving Human Beings.

3. Results

3.1. Antimicrobial-Susceptibility-Related Features

The AST results revealed that all included P. aeruginosa isolates were resistant to carbapenems (IMP, 34/34–100.0%), followed by significant non-susceptibility to antipseudomonal fluoroquinolones (OFX, 33/34–97.1%; CIP, 31/34–91.7%), antipseudomonal penicillin + β -lactamase inhibitors (PRL and TTC, 32/34–94.1%), antipseudomonal cephalosporins (CAZ and FEP 31/34–91.7%), and aminoglycosides (GEN, 32/34–94.1%; TOB, 30/34 and AMK 30/34–88.2%). Antagonistically, ATM and TZP were considered to be the most effective antimicrobials with 61.7% (21/34) and 26.5% (9/34) of sensitive isolates, respectively. According the susceptibility classification, 64.7% (22/34) were phenotypically classified as MDR, 35.3% (12/34) as XDR, and 26.5% (9/34) as DTR (Table 1).
Molecular detection of carbapenemase genes and sequencing confirmed that all included CR-PA harbored the blaSPM-1 variant (34/34–100%). The blaIMP, blaVIM, blaNDM, blaKPC, and blaOXA-48 genes were not detected (Table 1 and Table 2).

3.2. Virulence-Related Features

Most of the T1SS, T2SS, and T3SS virulence genes (aprA, lasA, toxA, exoS, exoT, and exoY) were homogenously detected among evaluated isolates (34/34–100.0%), while a sample only (1/34–3.0%) was negative for the lasB gene. Additionally, all isolates (34/34–100.0%) were related to the invasive virulotype (exoS+/exoU−), as the exoU gene was absent. As for the mucoid characteristic and pigment production by the colonies, 44.1% (15/34) of the samples were presenting a mucoid-like feature, and positivity for both pyocyanine and pyoverdine pigments (Table 2).

3.3. Genotyping by MLST Data

From the pool of P. aeruginosa isolates presenting MDR phenotypes, nine (9) randomly selected isolates were subjected to molecular typing via MLST, revealing that all nine MDR-P. aeruginosa isolates belonged to the high-risk clone (HRC) and endemic clone ST277 determined by the combination of the seven housekeeping genes used in the MLST scheme for P. aeruginosa (acsA 39, aroE 5, guaA 9, mutL 11, nuoD 27, ppsA 5, and trpE 2) (Table 2).

3.4. WGS Data Results

From the pool of P. aeruginosa isolates presenting XDR phenotypes, 10 randomly selected isolates were subjected to WGS analysis. Most of the XDR samples (9/10) presented similarity (dDDH-d0) between 99.9–100% and had MLST associated with the HRC ST277. The following set of antimicrobial resistance genes was detected: aac(6′)-Ib1, aadA7, aph(3′)-IIb, blaOXA-494, blaOXA-56, blaPDC-374, blaSPM-1, catB7, cmx, crpP, fosA-354827590, rmtD1, and sul, which indicated resistance to the multiple antimicrobial classes, such as: carbapenems, cephalosporins, chloramphenicol, fluoroquinolones, fosfomycin, gentamicin, kanamycin, streptomycin and sulfonamide. Interestingly, the sample, 57,508, presented similarity between 99.1–99.5% when compared to the other nine samples, and 99.3% similarity when compared to CCBH485 strain. This sample was also found to belong to ST2711 (MLST confirmed via sanger sequencing). A similar set of resistance genes was found, however, with presence of the blaOXA-50 gene instead of the bla-OXA494 (Figure 1). Via serotyping prediction, all samples were related to the O2 serogroup.

4. Discussion

Recently, the rapid emergence of CR-PA strains has become prominent in scientific interest and epidemiological surveillance, mainly due to the dissemination of MβLs that break down antibiotic compounds that are commonly used as a last-resort treatment to serious infections, rendering penicillin, cephalosporins, and carbapenems ineffective. This scenario is the result of several factors, including the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, and the poor infection control practices in healthcare settings. Certainly, the COVID-19 pandemic has also placed a tremendous pressure on healthcare systems worldwide, as critically ill patients were at increased risk for secondary bacterial infections associated with MDR/XDR/DTR strains, including MβL-producing-P. aeruginosa. In the present investigation, we report the spread of SPM-1-producing-P. aeruginosa strains mostly associated with the HRC ST277, and detected since the pre and early COVID-19 pandemic period in healthcare institutions in northern Brazilian.
Worrying rates of AMR associated with XDR/MDR/DTR P. aeruginosa isolates have been reported in the last decade, as demonstrated by Jean et al. [41] in Taiwan, where the AMR rate in 2015 was less than 18.0%, while in the following years (2016 and 2018), the rate increased to 19.7% and 27.5%, respectively. A study conducted in Spain reported that 17.0% of P. aeruginosa infections were caused by XDR strains, and high rates of over 30.0% of CR-PA were linked to hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) as reported in many European Union states since 2015 [42,43]. Additionally, DTR among P. aeruginosa were related to almost 8.0% of isolates causing BSIs [44]. Despite this, there is still scarce global information on the prevalence of MDR/XDR/DTR-P. aeruginosa [20]. Further, due to the similarity of symptoms between hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and those with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia, it is a common practice to administer broad-spectrum antibiotics as empirical treatments [45]. According to a review conducted by Fattorini et al. [29], 476 out of 539 patients (88.3%) diagnosed with COVID-19 received broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as expanded-spectrum cephalosporins (e.g., ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, and cefepime), fluoroquinolones, and carbapenems. Consequently, the use of antibiotics has significantly increased in many healthcare settings globally during this period [46].
As per national data by the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), from 2018 to 2021 in adult ICUs, CR-PA was the third-most-detected bacterial pathogen related to BSIs and urinary-tract infections (UTIs), and demonstrated carbapenem resistance rates from 30.9% to 41.4%, and from 41.7% to 43.0%, respectively [47,48,49,50,51]. Worryingly, it is relevant to emphasize the staggering increase in the number of P. aeruginosa isolates causing BSIs in 2021 (pandemic-period), totaling 3,845 cases, a remarkable 168.1% surge compared to 2019 (pre-pandemic period), which recorded only 1432 cases. Surely, the resistance phenotypes of the CR-PA in this study, which included MDR/XDR/DTR isolates, reflect this worrisome scenario, further complicated by the presence of SPM-producing isolates. Finally, such findings also align with our research group’s previous data, in which Rodrigues et al. [32] documented the early spread of MDR/XDR CR-PA within local ICUs in the state of PA from 2010 to 2013.
The monobactam antibiotic ATM has presented potential in the treatment of infections caused by MDR/XDR CR-PA [52,53]. In the present report, ATM has been indicated as an effective antimicrobial against CR-PA, with a resistance rate of only 37.1%. This sensitivity profile can be attributed to the fact that the antibiotic is not broken down by SPM. Studies conducted worldwide and in Brazil have reported similar findings, suggesting the strong efficacy of ATM against CR-PA [54,55]. However, it is noteworthy that resistance to ATM was observed in some isolates, pointing out the presence of other AMR mechanisms, such as mutations observed in mexAB-oprM efflux system [56]. Further investigations are needed to fully understand the role of ATM and its potential strategies in the management of CR-PA infections [57].
Results obtained through the WGS analysis of the 10 XDR SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa allowed further insights into the AMR mechanisms presented in such strains, in which the aac(6′)-Ib’, aadA7, aph(3′)-IIb, blaOXA-56, blaPDC-374, blaSPM-1, catB7, cmx, crpP, fosA-354827590 and rmtD1 markers were commonly found. For the blaOXA-494 gene, only one sample was negative; in contrast, for the blaOXA-50 gene, only one sample was positive. This bacterial resistome echoes the findings in the Brazilian study published by Galetti et al. (2018), where in genomic analysis of 13 different P. aeruginosa strains belonging to ST277 revealed a highly conserved resistome (blaSPM-1, rmtD, aacA4, aadA7, blaOXA-56, blaOXA-396, blaPAO, aph(3′)-IIb, aac(6′)Ib-cr, crpP, catB7, cmx, and fosA), playing an important role in the persistence of this clone in infections occurring in Brazilian hospitals. The blaOXA gene variants are considered as naturally occurring in the P. aeruginosa genome, and its high prevalence indicates a potential horizontal transfer in which class D β-lactamases can be introduced by other co-habituating bacterial species [58,59]. According to Horcajada et al. [1] and Nicolau [60], the blaOXA-50 gene plays an important role in P. aeruginosa resistance, since classical β-lactamase inhibitors show weak activity against it. Indeed, kinetic analysis of β-Lactams hydrolysis by OXA-50 variants of P. aeruginosa demonstrated that chromosomally encoded AMR mechanisms mainly provided weak carbapenemase activity, but may act synergically [61]. Among the aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes presented, the aac(6′) acetyltransferase is one of the most frequently described, conferring resistance to both tobramycin and amikacin, or tobramycin alone [1,62,63].
To fuel its pathogenicity, P. aeruginosa possesses an array of virulence factors that enable the colonization, invasion, and persistence within host tissues, often leading to acute and chronic challenging-to-treat infections. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of these virulence mechanisms is imperative for the development of effective strategies to manage P. aeruginosa infections [13]. In relation to presence of pigments like pyocyanin and pyoverdine, it has been implicated in exacerbating infections as these pigments sequester iron from host cells, serving the metabolic needs of the bacterium, and consequently intensifying the infection and pathogenesis [64]. A study conducted by Fothergill et al. [65] reported pyocyanin production in P. aeruginosa isolates ranging from 41.3% to 81.5%, findings consistent with the data obtained in the current investigation, where pyocyanin production among isolates was of 42.9%. With regard to pyoverdin, Prado et al. [66] observed pyoverdin production in over 74.0% of clinical strains, while Silva et al. [67] found that more than 90.0% of the isolates investigated exhibited pyoverdin production. Interestingly, the present study recorded a pyoverdine production rate of 42.9%, which contrasts with the previous findings. In this study, aprA, a gene belonging to T1SS, and lasA and lasB genes belonging to T2SS, showed high positive occurrence. Other studies with SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa also reported a strong presence of these virulence genes, as in the studies by Adonizio et al. [68] and Silva et al. [67].
In addition, the translocation of up to four cytotoxic effector proteins by the T3SS is responsible for distinct tissue injury to the host, with exoU having a higher impact on bacterial virulence [11]. The distribution of the genes encoding these cytotoxins is not uniform among P. aeruginosa strains, and some of them, particularly exoS and exoU, are almost mutually exclusive [69]. In fact, a large, multicenter study conducted in Spain revealed that the exoU+/exoS− genotype was an independent risk factor for early mortality in P. aeruginosa BSIs, and was negatively linked to XDR profiles [14].Thus, the T3SS factor is an important differential factor that needs to be considered when analyzing virulence and clinical outcomes associated with HRC [70]. Results on the present study highlight the fact that all evaluated strains were related to the invasive virulotype (exoS+/exoU−), genotypic virulence profile usually observed among MDR/XDR P. aeruginosa strains, as exoU carriage along with several AMR mechanisms may pose a fitness cost to bacterial cell [71,72,73]. Furthermore, all 10 samples analyzed belonged to serogroup O2. According to Stanislavsky [74], polysaccharide O (OPS), the most variable region of the lipopolysaccharide (LPS), is of major relevance in the virulence and is responsible for conferring serogroup specificity. According to Donta et al. [75], serogroup O2, along with serogroups O1, O3, O4, O5, O6, O7, O10, and O16, accounts for 90% of bacteriemic strains of P. aeruginosa. In a study by Nasrin et al. [17], serotype O2, along with serotypes O5, O16, O18, and O20, were among the most common, which corroborates with the findings of the present study.
Global epidemiology data further highlight a small geographic spread of blaSPM-1 strains when compared to its endemicity in Brazil, with rare reports of this variant in countries such as Iran [76,77], UK [78], Chile [79], Egypt [80], and the USA [81,82,83]. In Brazil, the clonal expansion of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa strains is related to the HRC ST277, with its detection in all Brazilian regions, including São Paulo [25], Rio de Janeiro [84], Paraná [85], Porto Alegre [86], Minas Gerais [87], and Pará [31,32], showing its dissemination potential, high adaptability, and establishment as an international clone. In the present report, the MLST genotyping revealed that 18 strains with MDR/XDR/DTR characteristics belonged to the ST277 lineage, and one related to the ST2711, which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first report of blaSPM-1 in another clone than the ST277. This finding also supports the limited genetic diversity of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa, and indicates the possible occurrence of an outbreak, with recent clonal expansion probably related to the high selective pressure on healthcare institutions in northern Brazil. The clonal expansion of such strain also raises concerns regarding the potential dissemination of AMR gene, and the limited effectiveness of conventional treatment options. Further, when comparing the genomic phylogenetic inference, we highlight the distance between sample 57508/ST2711 and the other samples, being the most distant sample when compared to CCBH4851; the remaining samples were clustered as a possible transmission chain due elevated similarity (above 99.9%). Further investigation is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms driving the persistence and spread of these particular STs in the clinical or environmental settings.
As the pandemic spread, hospitals globally observed an increase in patients infected with COVID-19, a situation requiring major adjustments in healthcare systems and infrastructure, especially in infection control and antimicrobial management programs [88]. In this regard, some reports indicate that the indiscriminate use of antibiotics determined by the therapeutic challenges in combating the pandemic has resulted in increased AMR rates, especially related to individuals infected with P. aeruginosa hospitalized in ICUs [89]. Unfortunately, less robust healthcare systems, such as those in the Latin American and Asian countries, where AMR rates are dangerously high and antimicrobial stewardship programs are just beginning to be implemented, are adjusting their response to the pandemic to varying degrees [90,91,92,93]. Regrettably, these circumstances create the so-called “perfect storm” for an accelerated evolution of AMR, especially in clinically important strains, such as P. aeruginosa [94]. The present study is one of first in Brazil to thoroughly report data on AMR after the COVID-19, pandemic reflecting a comparative perspective between studies conducted before the pandemic, where the peak detection of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa strains occurred between 2008 and 2015 [32,95,96,97], and in the post-pandemic context, as with results in the current study, a re-emergence and the possibility of an outbreak of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa was observed.
The present study is not without its limitations. Firstly, a notable limitation was the loss of isolates during the culture process, which may have resulted in an incomplete dataset. Additionally, our laboratory faced the constraint of unavailability of certain essential testing disks for evaluating classical antipseudomonal drugs such as meropenem and colistin, and novel antibiotics including cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, and ceftolozane-tazobactam. Another limitation stems from the lack of comprehensive data regarding the origin and specific wards from which the P. aeruginosa isolates were recovered, limiting our ability to assess potential associations between strain characteristics and clinical settings, and outbreak investigation. Lastly, all included samples could not be genotyped via MLST and WGS due to a lack of necessary reagents, which could have provided valuable insights into genetic relatedness and transmission patterns. These limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the findings and highlight areas for further investigation and improvement in future studies.

5. Conclusions

The CR-PA isolates included in this study showed a high prevalence of virulence genes, where among them, aprA, lasA, toxA, exoS, exoT, and exoY were positive in all strains, suggesting a high pathogenicity capacity. The exoS+/exoU− virulotype was standard in all isolates, indicating an invasive characteristic. As for the phenotypic profile of resistance, all strains showed either MDR or XDR, in addition to a pool of DTR isolates, thus posing a challenge regarding the management and treatment of patients infected with P. aeruginosa producing SPM. Additionally, results obtained through MLST and WGS revealed the major role of the HRC ST277 in spreading SPM-1-producing strains, in addition to the novel report of the blaSPM-1 variant in the clone, ST2711, and a conserved resistome.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms11082069/s1, Table S1: MLST primers design for the present study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.A.S.D.S., Y.C.R. and D.M.B.; methodology, Y.C.R., D.M.B. and D.J.M.; validation, P.A.S.D.S., Y.C.R., K.V.B.L., D.M.B., A.J.P.G.Q. and L.N.G.C.L.; investigation, P.A.S.D.S., Y.C.R., M.I.M.G., A.R.F.L., A.B.S. and T.B.C.; resources, D.M.B., K.V.B.L. and L.N.G.C.L., writing—original draft preparation, Y.C.R., K.V.B.L., D.M.B., P.A.S.D.S. and M.J.A.S.; writing—review and editing, P.A.S.D.S., Y.C.R., M.J.A.S., K.V.B.L. and D.M.B.; visualization, Y.C.R., K.V.B.L., D.M.B. and P.A.S.D.S.; supervision, K.V.B.L., Y.C.R. and D.M.B.; project administration, K.V.B.L., Y.C.R. and D.M.B.; funding acquisition, K.V.B.L., Y.C.R. and D.M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Evandro Chaga Institute (IEC/PA). Yan Corrêa Rodrigues scholarship is funded by PDPG—Pós-Doutorado Estratégico (PDPG-POSDOC), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES/Edital 16/2022). Pabllo Antonny Silva Dos Santos is funded by CAPES.

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data is provided within the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Horcajada, J.P.; Montero, M.; Oliver, A.; Sorlí, L.; Luque, S.; Gómez-Zorrilla, S.; Benito, N.; Grau, S. Epidemiology and Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant and Extensively Drug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2019, 32, e00031-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Reynolds, D.; Kollef, M. The Epidemiology and Pathogenesis and Treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections: An Update. Drugs 2021, 81, 2117–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sarges, E.D.S.N.F.; Rodrigues, Y.C.; Furlaneto, I.P.; Melo, M.V.H.D.; Brabo, G.L.D.C.; Lopes, K.C.M.; Quaresma, A.J.P.G.; Lima, L.; Lima, K.V.B. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Type III Secretion System Virulotypes and Their Association with Clinical Features of Cystic Fibrosis Patients. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020, 13, 3771–3781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Parkins, M.D.; Somayaji, R.; Waters, V.J. Epidemiology, Biology, and Impact of Clonal Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections in Cystic Fibrosis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2018, 31, e00019-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Cepas, V.; Soto, S.M. Relationship between Virulence and Resistance among Gram-Negative Bacteria. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Horna, G.; Amaro, C.; Palacios, A.; Guerra, H.; Ruiz, J. High frequency of the exoU+/exoS+ genotype associated with multidrug-resistant “high-risk clones” of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates from Peruvian hospitals. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 10874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Kadri, S.S.; Adjemian, J.; Lai, Y.L.; Spaulding, A.B.; Ricotta, E.; Prevots, D.R.; Palmore, T.N.; Rhee, C.; Klompas, M.; Dekker, J.P.; et al. Difficult-to-Treat Resistance in Gram-negative Bacteremia at 173 US Hospitals: Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Prevalence, Predictors, and Outcome of Resistance to All First-line Agents. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2018, 67, 1803–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Riquelme, S.A.; Liimatta, K.; Wong Fok Lung, T.; Fields, B.; Ahn, D.; Chen, D.; Lozano, C.; Sáenz, Y.; Uhlemann, A.-C.; Kahl, B.C.; et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Utilizes Host-Derived Itaconate to Redirect Its Metabolism to Promote Biofilm Formation. Cell Metab. 2020, 31, 1091–1106.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moradali, M.F.; Ghods, S.; Rehm, B.H.A. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Lifestyle: A Paradigm for Adaptation, Survival, and Persistence. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Francis, V.I.; Stevenson, E.C.; Porter, S.L. Two-component systems required for virulence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2017, 364, fnx104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Lombardi, C.; Tolchard, J.; Bouillot, S.; Signor, L.; Gebus, C.; Liebl, D.; Fenel, D.; Teulon, J.-M.; Brock, J.; Habenstein, B.; et al. Structural and Functional Characterization of the Type Three Secretion System (T3SS) Needle of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Sauvage, S.; Hardouin, J. Exoproteomics for Better Understanding Pseudomonas aeruginosa Virulence. Toxins 2020, 12, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jurado-Martín, I.; Sainz-Mejías, M.; McClean, S. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: An Audacious Pathogen with an Adaptable Arsenal of Virulence Factors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pena, C.; Cabot, G.; Gomez-Zorrilla, S.; Zamorano, L.; Ocampo-Sosa, A.; Murillas, J.; Almirante, B.; Pomar, V.; Aguilar, M.; Granados, A.; et al. Influence of Virulence Genotype and Resistance Profile in the Mortality of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 60, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sawa, T.; Momiyama, K.; Mihara, T.; Kainuma, A.; Kinoshita, M.; Moriyama, K. Molecular epidemiology of clinically high-risk Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains: Practical overview. Microbiol. Immunol. 2020, 64, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hasannejad-Bibalan, M.; Jafari, A.; Sabati, H.; Goswami, R.; Jafaryparvar, Z.; Sedaghat, F.; Sedigh Ebrahim-Saraie, H. Risk of type III secretion systems in burn patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa wound infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Burns 2021, 47, 538–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nasrin, S.; Hegerle, N.; Sen, S.; Nkeze, J.; Sen, S.; Permala-Booth, J.; Choi, M.; Sinclair, J.; Tapia, M.D.; Johnson, J.K.; et al. Distribution of serotypes and antibiotic resistance of invasive Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a multi-country collection. BMC Microbiol. 2022, 22, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Al-Orphaly, M.; Hadi, H.A.; Eltayeb, F.K.; Al-Hail, H.; Samuel, B.G.; Sultan, A.A.; Skariah, S. Epidemiology of Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the Middle East and North Africa Region. mSphere 2021, 6, e00202-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tacconelli, E. Global Priority List of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria to Guide Research, Discovery, and Development; Infection Control Africa Network: Cape Town, South Africa, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. World Helth Organization. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in Europe, 2020 data: Executive summary. In Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance in Europe, 2020 Data: Executive Summary; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tooke, C.L.; Hinchliffe, P.; Bragginton, E.C.; Colenso, C.K.; Hirvonen, V.H.A.; Takebayashi, Y.; Spencer, J. β-Lactamases and β-Lactamase Inhibitors in the 21st Century. J. Mol. Biol. 2019, 431, 3472–3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bush, K.; Bradford, P.A. Epidemiology of β-Lactamase-Producing Pathogens. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2020, 33, e00047-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Castanheira, M.; Fritsche, T.R.; Sader, H.S.; Jones, R.N. RmtD 16S RNA Methylase in Epidemiologically Unrelated SPM-1-Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates from Brazil. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 1587–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Escandón-Vargas, K.; Reyes, S.; Gutiérrez, S.; Villegas, M.V. The epidemiology of carbapenemases in Latin America and the Caribbean. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 2017, 15, 277–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gales, A.C. Dissemination in distinct Brazilian regions of an epidemiccarbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa producing SPM metallo-β-lactamase. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2003, 52, 699–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Galetti, R.; Andrade, L.N.; Clímaco, E.C.; Pitondo-Silva, A.; Ferreira, J.C.; Darini, A.L.C. Genomic diversification and virulence features in SPM-1–producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa 13 years later. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2015, 82, 179–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tiri, B.; Sensi, E.; Marsiliani, V.; Cantarini, M.; Priante, G.; Vernelli, C.; Martella, L.A.; Costantini, M.; Mariottini, A.; Andreani, P.; et al. Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, COVID-19, and Infection Control: Spread of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella Pneumoniae Colonization in ICU COVID-19 Patients. What Did Not Work? J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hughes, S.; Troise, O.; Donaldson, H.; Mughal, N.; Moore, L.S.P. Bacterial and fungal coinfection among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study in a UK secondary-care setting. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 1395–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fattorini, L.; Creti, R.; Palma, C.; Pantosti, A. Bacterial coinfections in COVID-19: An underestimated adversary. Ann. Ist. Super. Sanita 2020, 56, 359–364. [Google Scholar]
  30. Dudoignon, E.; Caméléna, F.; Deniau, B.; Habay, A.; Coutrot, M.; Ressaire, Q.; Plaud, B.; Berçot, B.; Dépret, F. Bacterial Pneumonia in COVID-19 Critically Ill Patients: A Case Series. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 72, 905–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Matos, E.C.O.D.; Andriolo, R.B.; Rodrigues, Y.C.; Lima, P.D.L.D.; Carneiro, I.C.D.R.S.; Lima, K.V.B. Mortality in patients with multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: A meta-analysis. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2018, 51, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Rodrigues, Y.C.; Furlaneto, I.P.; Maciel, A.H.P.; Quaresma, A.J.P.G.; De Matos, E.C.O.; Conceição, M.L.; Vieira, M.C.D.S.; Brabo, G.L.D.C.; Sarges, E.D.S.N.F.; Lima, L.N.G.C.; et al. High prevalence of atypical virulotype and genetically diverse background among Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from a referral hospital in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Miller, R.A. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Suscepribility Testing of Bacteria Isolated from Aquatic Animals, 3rd ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Wayne, PA, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-1-68440-075-1. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hudzicki, J. Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion susceptibility test protocol. Am. Soc. Microbiol. 2009, 15, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
  35. 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] [Green Version]
  36. Mulet, X.; Boyd, B.J.; Drummond, C.J. Advances in drug delivery and medical imaging using colloidal lyotropic liquid crystalline dispersions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2013, 393, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mendes, R.E.; Kiyota, K.A.; Monteiro, J.; Castanheira, M.; Andrade, S.S.; Gales, A.C.; Pignatari, A.C.C.; Tufik, S. Rapid Detection and Identification of Metallo-β-Lactamase-Encoding Genes by Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assay and Melt Curve Analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 544–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Curran, B.; Jonas, D.; Grundmann, H.; Pitt, T.; Dowson, C.G. Development of a Multilocus Sequence Typing Scheme for the Opportunistic Pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 5644–5649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Silveira, M.; Albano, R.; Asensi, M.; Assef, A.P.C. The draft genome sequence of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain CCBH4851, a nosocomial isolate belonging to clone SP (ST277) that is prevalent in Brazil. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2014, 109, 1086–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Meier-Kolthoff, J.P.; Göker, M. TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genome-based taxonomy. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Jean, S.-S.; Harnod, D.; Hsueh, P.-R. Global Threat of Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 823684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Micek, S.T.; Wunderink, R.G.; Kollef, M.H.; Chen, C.; Rello, J.; Chastre, J.; Antonelli, M.; Welte, T.; Clair, B.; Ostermann, H.; et al. An international multicenter retrospective study of Pseudomonas aeruginosa nosocomial pneumonia: Impact of multidrug resistance. Crit. Care 2015, 19, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Del Barrio-Tofiño, E.; Zamorano, L.; Cortes-Lara, S.; López-Causapé, C.; Sánchez-Diener, I.; Cabot, G.; Bou, G.; Martínez-Martínez, L.; Oliver, A.; GEMARA-SEIMC/REIPI Pseudomonas Study Group; et al. Spanish nationwide survey on Pseudomonas aeruginosa antimicrobial resistance mechanisms and epidemiology. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 1825–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Giannella, M.; Bussini, L.; Pascale, R.; Bartoletti, M.; Malagrinò, M.; Pancaldi, L.; Toschi, A.; Ferraro, G.; Marconi, L.; Ambretti, S.; et al. Prognostic Utility of the New Definition of Difficult-to-Treat Resistance Among Patients with Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2019, 6, ofz505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Rawson, T.M.; Moore, L.S.P.; Zhu, N.; Ranganathan, N.; Skolimowska, K.; Gilchrist, M.; Satta, G.; Cooke, G.; Holmes, A. Bacterial and Fungal Coinfection in Individuals with Coronavirus: A Rapid Review to Support COVID-19 Antimicrobial Prescribing. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 71, 2459–2468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Al-Hadidi, S.H.; Alhussain, H.; Abdel Hadi, H.; Johar, A.; Yassine, H.M.; Al Thani, A.A.; Eltai, N.O. The Spectrum of Antibiotic Prescribing During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Literature Review. Microb. Drug Resist. 2021, 27, 1705–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Plan Nacional Para la Prevención y el Control de la Resistencia Microbiana en Los Servicios de Salud—Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária—Anvisa. Available online: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/servicosdesaude/publicacoes/plan-nacional-para-la-prevencion-y-el-control-de-la-resistencia-microbiana-en-los-servicios-de-salud/view (accessed on 9 June 2023).
  48. Microsoft Power BI. Available online: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODkzMzNiYmQtYWRkYi00NzRmLWI1ZGQtYjI5NGEzNjk1YTE0IiwidCI6ImI2N2FmMjNmLWMzZjMtNGQzNS04MGM3LWI3MDg1ZjVlZGQ4MSJ9 (accessed on 13 June 2023).
  49. Microsoft Power BI. Available online: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZjQ5ZDhjZmEtNDdhOC00MDk3LWFiNDEtNzg0MmE4MmE2MjlhIiwidCI6ImI2N2FmMjNmLWMzZjMtNGQzNS04MGM3LWI3MDg1ZjVlZGQ4MSJ9&pageName=ReportSectionac5c0437dbe709793b4b (accessed on 13 June 2023).
  50. Microsoft Power BI. Available online: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNGUxYWVjOGUtODBmYy00MzJkLWE1MDEtNWVlYTNmN2Y0ODdhIiwidCI6ImI2N2FmMjNmLWMzZjMtNGQzNS04MGM3LWI3MDg1ZjVlZGQ4MSJ9 (accessed on 13 June 2023).
  51. Microsoft Power BI. Available online: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZDIwZjYyMzUtMmYxZS00MTRjLTk0NWMtZWE2ZDUzOGRjOTVjIiwidCI6ImI2N2FmMjNmLWMzZjMtNGQzNS04MGM3LWI3MDg1ZjVlZGQ4MSJ9 (accessed on 13 June 2023).
  52. Mauri, C.; Maraolo, A.E.; Di Bella, S.; Luzzaro, F.; Principe, L. The Revival of Aztreonam in Combination with Avibactam against Metallo-β-Lactamase-Producing Gram-Negatives: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies and Clinical Cases. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shields, R.K.; Doi, Y. Aztreonam Combination Therapy: An Answer to Metallo-β-Lactamase–Producing Gram-Negative Bacteria? Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 71, 1099–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Davido, B.; Fellous, L.; Lawrence, C.; Maxime, V.; Rottman, M.; Dinh, A. Ceftazidime-avibactam and aztreonam, an interesting strategy to overcome β-lactam resistance conferred by metallo-β-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e01008-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Rojo-Molinero, E.; Macià, M.D.; Rubio, R.; Moyà, B.; Cabot, G.; López-Causapé, C.; Pérez, J.L.; Cantón, R.; Oliver, A. Sequential treatment of biofilms with aztreonam and tobramycin is a novel strategy for combating Pseudomonas aeruginosa chronic respiratory infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 2912–2922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Jorth, P.; McLean, K.; Ratjen, A.; Secor, P.R.; Bautista, G.E.; Ravishankar, S.; Rezayat, A.; Garudathri, J.; Harrison, J.J.; Harwood, R.A.; et al. Evolved Aztreonam Resistance Is Multifactorial and Can Produce Hypervirulence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. MBio 2017, 8, e00517-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Ma, Z.; Xu, C.; Zhang, X.; Wang, D.; Pan, X.; Liu, H.; Zhu, G.; Bai, F.; Cheng, Z.; Wu, W.; et al. A MexR Mutation Which Confers Aztreonam Resistance to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 659808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Girlich, D.; Naas, T.; Nordmann, P. Biochemical Characterization of the Naturally Occurring Oxacillinase OXA-50 of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2004, 48, 2043–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Kong, K.-F.; Jayawardena, S.R.; Del Puerto, A.; Wiehlmann, L.; Laabs, U.; Tümmler, B.; Mathee, K. Characterization of poxB, a chromosomal-encoded Pseudomonas aeruginosa oxacillinase. Gene 2005, 358, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nicolau, C.J.; Oliver, A. Carbapenemasas en especies del género Pseudomonas. Enfermedades Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 2010, 28, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Streling, A.P.; Cayô, R.; Nodari, C.S.; Almeida, L.G.P.; Bronze, F.; Siqueira, A.V.; Matos, A.P.; Oliveira, V.; Vasconcelos, A.T.R.; Marcondes, M.F.M.; et al. Kinetics Analysis of β-Lactams Hydrolysis by OXA-50 Variants of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microb. Drug Resist. 2022, 28, 849–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Poole, K. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Resistance to the Max. Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Castanheira, M.; Deshpande, L.M.; Woosley, L.N.; Serio, A.W.; Krause, K.M.; Flamm, R.K. Activity of plazomicin compared with other aminoglycosides against isolates from European and adjacent countries, including Enterobacteriaceae molecularly characterized for aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes and other resistance mechanisms. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 3346–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ghssein, G.; Ezzeddine, Z. A Review of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Metallophores: Pyoverdine, Pyochelin and Pseudopaline. Biology 2022, 11, 1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fothergill, J.L.; Panagea, S.; Hart, C.A.; Walshaw, M.J.; Pitt, T.L.; Winstanley, C. Widespread pyocyanin over-production among isolates of a cystic fibrosis epidemic strain. BMC Microbiol. 2007, 7, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Sistema Nou-Rau: Biblioteca Digital da UEL. Available online: http://www.bibliotecadigital.uel.br/document/?code=vtls000151945 (accessed on 9 June 2023).
  67. Silva, S.T. Análise Fenotípica e Genética de Fatores Virulência de Isolados Clínicos de Pseudomonas aeruginosa Multidroga-sensível e Multidroga-Resistente de Recife-PE. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  68. Adonizio, A.; Kong, K.-F.; Mathee, K. Inhibition of Quorum Sensing-Controlled Virulence Factor Production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa by South Florida Plant Extracts. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Ben Haj Khalifa, A.; Moissenet, D.; Vu Thien, H.; Khedher, M. Virulence factors in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Mechanisms and modes of regulation. Ann. Biol. Clin. 2011, 69, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oliver, A.; Mulet, X.; López-Causapé, C.; Juan, C. The increasing threat of Pseudomonas aeruginosa high-risk clones. Drug Resist. Updat. 2015, 21–22, 41–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yousefi-Avarvand, A.; Khashei, R.; Sedigh Ebrahim-Saraie, H.; Emami, A.; Zomorodian, K.; Motamedifar, M. The Frequency of Exotoxin A and Exoenzymes S and U Genes Among Clinical Isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Shiraz, Iran. Int. J. Mol. Cell. Med. 2015, 4, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  72. Sharma, P.; Faridi, F.; Mir, I.A.; Sharma, S.K. Characterization of exo-s, exo-u, and alg virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from migratory Egyptian vultures from India. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2014, 4, 24553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kiyaga, S.; Kyany’a, C.; Muraya, A.W.; Smith, H.J.; Mills, E.G.; Kibet, C.; Mboowa, G.; Musila, L. Genetic Diversity, Distribution, and Genomic Characterization of Antibiotic Resistance and Virulence of Clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa Strains in Kenya. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 835403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Stanislavsky, E.S.; Lam, J.S. Pseudomonas aeruginosa antigens as potential vaccines. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 1997, 21, 243–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Donta, S.T.; Peduzzi, P.; Cross, A.S.; Sadoff, J.; Haakenson, C.; Cryz, S.J.; Kauffman, C.; Bradley, S.; Gafford, G.; Elliston, D.; et al. Immunoprophylaxis against Klebsiella and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections. J. Infect. Dis. 1996, 174, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Azimi, A.; Peymani, A.; Pour, P.K. Phenotypic and molecular detection of metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from patients with burns in Tehran, Iran. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2018, 51, 610–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Ghamgosha, M.; Shahrekizahedani, S.; Kafilzadeh, F.; Bameri, Z.; Taheri, R.A.; Farnoosh, G. Metallo-beta-Lactamase VIM-1, SPM-1, and IMP-1 Genes Among Clinical Pseudomonas aeruginosa Species Isolated in Zahedan, Iran. Jundishapur J. Microbiol. 2015, 8, e17489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Hopkins, K.L.; Meunier, D.; Findlay, J.; Mustafa, N.; Parsons, H.; Pike, R.; Wright, L.; Woodford, N. SPM-1 metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa ST277 in the UK. J. Med. Microbiol. 2016, 65, 696–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wozniak, A.; Rodríguez, N.; Alcalde-Rico, M.; Castillo, C.; García, P. Primer aislado de Pseudomonas aeruginosa productora de Sao Paulo metalo-β-lactamasa (SPM-1) en un paciente chileno. Rev. Chil. Infectol. 2021, 38, 724–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Abdelaziz, N.A. Phenotype-genotype correlations among carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales recovered from four Egyptian hospitals with the report of SPM carbapenemase. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2022, 11, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fehlberg, L.C.C. Estudo Comparativo dos Mecanismos de Resistência Aos β-lactâmicos em Amostras Clínicas de Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isoladas de Infecção de Corrente Sanguínea no Brasil e Nos Estados Unidos da América. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  82. Almarzoky Abuhussain, S.S.; Sutherland, C.A.; Nicolau, D.P. In vitro potency of antipseudomonal β-lactams against blood and respiratory isolates of P. aeruginosa collected from US hospitals. J. Thorac. Dis. 2019, 11, 1896–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hong, D.J.; Bae, I.K.; Jang, I.-H.; Jeong, S.H.; Kang, H.-K.; Lee, K. Epidemiology and Characteristics of Metallo-β-Lactamase-Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect. Chemother. 2015, 47, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Cacci, L.C.; Chuster, S.G.; Martins, N.; Carmo, P.R.D.; Girão, V.B.D.C.; Nouér, S.A.; Freitas, W.V.D.; Matos, J.A.D.; Magalhães, A.C.D.G.; Ferreira, A.L.P.; et al. Mechanisms of carbapenem resistance in endemic Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates after an SPM-1 metallo-β-lactamase producing strain subsided in an intensive care unit of a teaching hospital in Brazil. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2016, 111, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Kalluf, K.O.; Arend, L.N.; Wuicik, T.E.; Pilonetto, M.; Tuon, F.F. Molecular epidemiology of SPM-1-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa by rep-PCR in hospitals in Parana, Brazil. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2017, 49, 130–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Martins, A.F.; Zavascki, A.P.; Gaspareto, P.B.; Barth, A.L. Dissemination of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Producing SPM-1-like and IMP-1-like Metallo-β-lactamases in Hospitals from Southern Brazil. Infection 2007, 35, 457–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Cezário, R.C.; Duarte De Morais, L.; Ferreira, J.C.; Costa-Pinto, R.M.; Da Costa Darini, A.L.; Gontijo-Filho, P.P. Nosocomial outbreak by imipenem-resistant metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an adult intensive care unit in a Brazilian teaching hospital. Enfermedades Infecc. Microbiol. Clínica 2009, 27, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Davis, M.W.; McManus, D.; Koff, A.; Jaszczur, G.R.; Malinis, M.; Dela Cruz, C.; Britto, C.J.; Price, C.; Azmy, V.; Kaman, K.; et al. Repurposing antimicrobial stewardship tools in the electronic medical record for the management of COVID-19 patients. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 41, 1335–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Daikos, G.L.; Da Cunha, C.A.; Rossolini, G.M.; Stone, G.G.; Baillon-Plot, N.; Tawadrous, M.; Irani, P. Review of Ceftazidime-Avibactam for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. García-Betancur, J.C.; Appel, T.M.; Esparza, G.; Gales, A.C.; Levy-Hara, G.; Cornistein, W.; Vega, S.; Nuñez, D.; Cuellar, L.; Bavestrello, L.; et al. Update on the epidemiology of carbapenemases in Latin America and the Caribbean. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 2021, 19, 197–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sader, H.S.; Castanheira, M.; Arends, S.J.R.; Goossens, H.; Flamm, R.K. Geographical and temporal variation in the frequency and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria isolated from patients hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia: Results from 20 years of the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1997–2016). J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 1595–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cox, J.A.; Vlieghe, E.; Mendelson, M.; Wertheim, H.; Ndegwa, L.; Villegas, M.V.; Gould, I.; Levy Hara, G. Antibiotic stewardship in low- and middle-income countries: The same but different? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Garcia, P.J.; Alarcón, A.; Bayer, A.; Buss, P.; Guerra, G.; Ribeiro, H.; Rojas, K.; Saenz, R.; Salgado De Snyder, N.; Solimano, G.; et al. COVID-19 Response in Latin America. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 103, 1765–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mojica, M.F.; Rossi, M.-A.; Vila, A.J.; Bonomo, R.A. The urgent need for metallo-β-lactamase inhibitors: An unattended global threat. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2022, 22, e28–e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Silva, F.M.; Carmo, M.S.; Silbert, S.; Gales, A.C. SPM-1-Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Analysis of the Ancestor Relationship Using Multilocus Sequence Typing, Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis, and Automated Ribotyping. Microb. Drug Resist. 2011, 17, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. De Oliveira Santos, I.C.; Pereira De Andrade, N.F.; Da Conceição Neto, O.C.; Da Costa, B.S.; De Andrade Marques, E.; Rocha-de-Souza, C.M.; Asensi, M.D.; D’Alincourt Carvalho-Assef, A.P. Epidemiology and antibiotic resistance trends in clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Rio de janeiro—Brazil: Importance of mutational mechanisms over the years (1995–2015). Infect. Genet. Evol. 2019, 73, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Martins, W.M.B.S.; Narciso, A.C.; Cayô, R.; Santos, S.V.; Fehlberg, L.C.C.; Ramos, P.L.; Da Cruz, J.B.; Gales, A.C. SPM-1-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa ST277 clone recovered from microbiota of migratory birds. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2018, 90, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Microorganisms 11 02069 g001
Figure 1. Similarity and genomic characteristics of XDR SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa isolated during pandemic period in northern Brazil. (+: positive, −: negative).
Figure 1. Similarity and genomic characteristics of XDR SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa isolated during pandemic period in northern Brazil. (+: positive, −: negative).
Microorganisms 11 02069 g001
Table 1. Antimicrobial susceptibility phenotypes of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa isolates in northern Brazil.
Table 1. Antimicrobial susceptibility phenotypes of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa isolates in northern Brazil.
IDPRLTZPTTCCAZFEPATMIMPGENTOBAMKCIPOFXSusceptibility Phenotype
46586IIIRRRRRRRRRXDR #
46716ISRRRSRISSRRMDR
54178SSIRRSRRRRRRMDR
56158IRIRRSRRRRRRMDR
56572RSSSSRRSRSSRMDR
57415ISSSSSRSSRRRMDR
57508RSIISIRRSSSRXDR
57564IIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
57568RRRRRIRRRRRRXDR #
57654RIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
57716IRRRRSRRRRRRMDR
57729RIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
57863RIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
57877ISRRRIRRRRRRXDR #
57884RIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
57989RIRRRIRRRRRRXDR #
58005RIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
58007IIRRRIRRRRRRXDR #
58111RIRRRIRRRRRRXDR #
58218IIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
58276RIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
58479RSRRRRRRRRRRXDR #
58482IIRRRSRRSSRRMDR
58608RRRRRSRRRRRRMDR
58739SRRSRSRRSRSSMDR
58798RRRRRSRRRRRRMDR
58820IIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
58835ISRRRRRRRRRRXDR #
58924RIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
59035RIRRRRRRRRRRXDR #
59183RIRRRSRRRRRRMDR
59202RIRRRRRRRRRRXDR #
59233ISRRRSRRRRRRMDR
59329RIRRRRRRRRRRXDR #
PRL (piperacillin); TZP (piperacillin + tazobactam); TTC (ticarcillin-clavulanic Acid); CAZ (ceftazidime); FEP (cefepime); ATM (aztreonam); IMP (imipenem); GEN (gentamicin); TOB (tobramycin) AMK (amikacin); CIP (ciprofloxacin); OFX (ofloxacin); # DTR isolates.
Table 2. AMR, virulence and genotypic features of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa isolates in northern Brazil.
Table 2. AMR, virulence and genotypic features of SPM-1-producing P. aeruginosa isolates in northern Brazil.
IDDate at LabPate/IECBiological SourceOriginResistance PhenotypeSTblaSPM−1blaIMPblaVIMblaNDMblaKPCblaOXA−48aprAlasAlasBtoxAexoSexoUexoTexoYMucoidPyoverdinePyocyanine
4658631 July 2018UrinePI/ACXDR277 *+−−−−−+++++−+++++
467168 August 2018UrinePI/PAMDR277+−−−−−+++++−++−−−
541786 November 2019TSPI/ACMDR277+−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5615827 March 2020TSPI/ACMDR277+−−−−−+++++−+++++
5657221 May 2020TSPI/ACMDR277+−−−−−+++++−+++++
5741510 February 2021UrinePR/PAMDR277+−−−−−+++++−++−−−
575083 March 2021TSPI/PAXDR2711 *§+−−−−−+++++−+++++
5756422 March 2021UrinePR/PAMDR277+−−−−−+++++−+++++
5756822 March 2021TSPR/PAXDR +−−−−−+++++−+++++
576546 April 2021TSPR/PAMDR277+−−−−−+++++−++−−−
577166 May 2021TSNIMDR277+−−−−−+++++−++−−−
577296 May 2021TSNIMDR277+−−−−−+++++−+++++
5786324 May 2021UrineNIMDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5787724 May 2021BloodNIXDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5788424 May 2021TSNIMDR +−−−−−++−++−++−−−
5798916 June 2021BloodNIXDR277 *+−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5800516 June 2021CTPI/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5800716 June 2021WSNIXDR277 *+−−−−−+++++−+++++
5811130 June 2021TSNIXDR277 *+−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5821815 July 2021UrinePI/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5827627 July 2021LiquorPI/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5847920 August 2021UrineNIXDR277 *+−−−−−+++++−+++++
5848220 August 2021BloodPR/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5860810 September 2021UrinePI/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−+++++
5873928 September 2021MTPI/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−+++++
5879814 October 2021TSPR/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5882014 October 2021WSPR/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5883514 October 2021ISPR/PAXDR277 *+−−−−−+++++−+++++
5892428 October 2021UrinePI/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−+++++
5903518 November 2021BloodPI/PAXDR277 *+−−−−−+++++−+++++
5918310 December 2021UrinePI/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5920210 December 2021TSPI/PAXDR277 *+−−−−−+++++−++−−−
5923316 December 2021TSPI/PAMDR +−−−−−+++++−++−−−
593295 January 2022UrinePR/PAXDR277 *+−−−−−+++++−+++++
MDR: multidrug resistant; XDR: extensively drug resistant; PI: public institution, PR: private institution, PA: Pará State; AC: Acre State; NI: not informed; TS: tracheal secretion, LAS: lumbar abscess secretion; WS: wound secretion, IS: inguinal swab, MT: muscular tissue, CT: catheter tip; * defined by WGS; § defined by Sanger sequencing; +: positive; −: negative.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dos Santos, P.A.S.; Rodrigues, Y.C.; Marcon, D.J.; Lobato, A.R.F.; Cazuza, T.B.; Gouveia, M.I.M.; Silva, M.J.A.; Souza, A.B.; Lima, L.N.G.C.; Quaresma, A.J.P.G.; et al. Endemic High-Risk Clone ST277 Is Related to the Spread of SPM-1-Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period in Northern Brazil. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2069. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11082069

AMA Style

Dos Santos PAS, Rodrigues YC, Marcon DJ, Lobato ARF, Cazuza TB, Gouveia MIM, Silva MJA, Souza AB, Lima LNGC, Quaresma AJPG, et al. Endemic High-Risk Clone ST277 Is Related to the Spread of SPM-1-Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period in Northern Brazil. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(8):2069. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11082069

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dos Santos, Pabllo Antonny Silva, Yan Corrêa Rodrigues, Davi Josué Marcon, Amália Raiana Fonseca Lobato, Thalyta Braga Cazuza, Maria Isabel Montoril Gouveia, Marcos Jessé Abrahão Silva, Alex Brito Souza, Luana Nepomuceno Gondim Costa Lima, Ana Judith Pires Garcia Quaresma, and et al. 2023. "Endemic High-Risk Clone ST277 Is Related to the Spread of SPM-1-Producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period in Northern Brazil" Microorganisms 11, no. 8: 2069. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11082069

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