Human infections caused by Streptococcus canis. A case series and description of a zoonotic infection in a northern Spain university hospital.

  1. Domingo Fernández Vecilla
  2. José Luis Díaz de Tuesta del Arco

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Streptococcus canis is a β-hemolytic streptococcus first described in 1986. It belongs to Lancefield's group G and is part of the commensal flora of the skin and mucosa of the urinary, gastrointestinal and reproductive tract, mainly in dogs and cats. The first human infection by this microorganism was described in 1997 in a patient with sepsis. We conducted a retrospective descriptive study by reviewing medical records of all patients presenting with a positive culture of S. canis between December 2017 and June 2022, both as a pure culture and accompanied by other microorganisms. Thirty-nine patients (18 males and 21 females) with a mean of 51.2 years and median of 51 years (range, 5 to 90 years) were included. This series demonstrates the ability of S. canis to produce serious infections in humans.

Article activity feed

  1. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    This is an unusual paper in that it includes both a clinical case report and a short review of previous cases of humans infected with Streptococcus canis. The title accurately reflects the content of the paper. The account of a new infection includes data relevant to a case study. The conclusion is well supported by the data presented, namely that this is a clear case of a human infection resulting from the patient allowing her infected dog to lick her skin. *The author is requested to expand the one word subheading, which currently reads: Case. How about "An unequivocal case of a human infection from a pet dog". There is no reference in the text to Figure 1, which in any case is completely redundant. The author should please delete this figure. Table 1summaises data available from 40 previous examples of humans being infected with S. canis. Through no fault of the authors, insufficient information is available to conclude that the majority of these infections arose from interaction with animals. However, this point is clearly made by the author, so Table 1 is acceptable as it stands. My main criticism of the text is the statement that infection with S. canis can lead to serious symptoms. This statement is not supported by the data presented and should therefore either be deleted, or substantiated with much more evidence. My recommendation is that a minor modification to cover the above points is required before this paper can be accepted for publication.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Satisfactory

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Satisfactory

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Partially support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  2. Access Microbiology

    Two people with expertise in the field have reviewed this paper. I am pleasd to tell you that both of them recommend that the paper will be accepted for publication providing you respond to the question raised and suggestions made.

  3. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000501.v1 on Access Microbiology
  4. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Line 41, 67, 89, 186 and 212: The streptococcus in "β-hemolytic streptococcus" and "Brucella" should begin with a capital letter and italicized Line 41: Lancefield's group or Lancefield group The abstract should also reflect the most effective antibiotic that resolved the infection Line 81: 16180 leucocytes (4500-11000), what is the unit for the leucocytes count? Line 84, 89, 180 and 218: State the full meaning of "IV", "TSA", "HIV" and "MLSB" first time use Line 89-90: Make the sentence simpler, it is ambiguous Line 97: This statement "After knowing the results of the antibiogram" could be rephrased "Based on the antibiogram" Line 118: "was done MALDI…" something appears to be missing before MALDI Line 136 and 172: Could this statement "had had close contact with animals" be rephrased "contacted animals…" Line 157: "predisposing patient factors…" Line 165: "Streptococci" streptococci Line 143 and 210: reconcile glycopeptide and glucopeptide Line 148, 213 and 215: Check the spelling of gentamicin Line 215: Check the spelling of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazol

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Satisfactory

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Strongly support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    No: The isolates were from human patients but the authors wrote ethical approval not required because it is a retrospective study