Genomic epidemiology of mecC-carrying Staphylococcus aureus isolates from human clinical cases in New Zealand
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
In 2011, a novel methicillin resistance gene, mecC , was described in human and bovine Staphylococcus aureus isolates. mecC- positive S. aureus is most commonly associated with livestock and wildlife populations across Europe and is particularly prevalent in hedgehogs, but only occasionally causes human infections. In this study, we characterize and investigate the origin of two human S. aureus isolates containing mecC genes from New Zealand. The two isolates were identified from patients with severe invasion infections as part of an S. aureus bacteraemia study. Whole-genome sequencing was used to characterize staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCC mec ) elements and perform phylogenetic comparisons with publicly available strains from mecC -associated clonal complexes, including isolates from hedgehogs from New Zealand and Europe/United Kingdom (UK), and livestock, wildlife and human isolates from Europe/UK. The two isolates from our study have almost identical SCC mec type XI elements containing a mecC gene. However, this gene contains a premature stop codon, consistent with the methicillin-susceptible phenotype observed for these isolates. Core genome SNP analyses showed that the two isolates are 234 SNPs apart and are most closely related to an isolate obtained from a New Zealand hedgehog. However, there are considerable differences in the mecC mobile element between the human and hedgehog isolates, indicating the presence of an as-yet-unknown reservoir of mecC S. aureus in the New Zealand environment.
Article activity feed
-
-
Congratulations, both reviewers have commented that the paper is well written and they they enjoyed reading it. They both agree that this manuscript can be accepted without revisions. Reviewer 1 has made a suggestion which might improve clarity in supplementary table 2, and reviewer 2 has highlighted to me a few typographical issues that will be picked up during production (italicizing bacterial names for example). Thank you to both reviewers for assessing the manuscript and providing honest and refreshingly positive feedback.
-
Comments to Author
Thank you for this interesting research and descibing the first human mecC isolates in New Zealand. It makes sense for the New Zealand hedgehog strains to carry mecC identical to that of Mammaliiococcus sciuri as a large amount of CoNS are also found on hedgehogs, including Mammaliiococcus sciuri, simulans and xylosus and may have acquired from them. With such a small sample size of both two human isolates and one hedgehog isolate, its hard to draw any major conclusions that there might be a yet unknown reservoir of mecC in NZ. Sampling from more New Zealand hedgehogs would be a good first place to look, as the lack of scn and belonging to CC49 does suggest a animal reservoir.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the …
Comments to Author
Thank you for this interesting research and descibing the first human mecC isolates in New Zealand. It makes sense for the New Zealand hedgehog strains to carry mecC identical to that of Mammaliiococcus sciuri as a large amount of CoNS are also found on hedgehogs, including Mammaliiococcus sciuri, simulans and xylosus and may have acquired from them. With such a small sample size of both two human isolates and one hedgehog isolate, its hard to draw any major conclusions that there might be a yet unknown reservoir of mecC in NZ. Sampling from more New Zealand hedgehogs would be a good first place to look, as the lack of scn and belonging to CC49 does suggest a animal reservoir.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
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?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
This paper describes the analysis of two mecC (with premature stop codons) MRSA isolates from patients in New Zealand. The paper is well written and provides a useful contribution the literature. All the methodology is sound and the sequence data has been placed into the public domain. I have no need for any substantial corrections. I did notice that the virulence genes listed in Supplementary table 2 were identical for both the isolates and wonder if it is mentioning this in line 271 and making it clear in the table. Other than that I think the authors should be commended on writing a concise and thorough report which I enjoyed reading. I do think that their results suggest that there is an interesting evolutionary story to uncovered in New Zealand.
Please rate the manuscript for …
Comments to Author
This paper describes the analysis of two mecC (with premature stop codons) MRSA isolates from patients in New Zealand. The paper is well written and provides a useful contribution the literature. All the methodology is sound and the sequence data has been placed into the public domain. I have no need for any substantial corrections. I did notice that the virulence genes listed in Supplementary table 2 were identical for both the isolates and wonder if it is mentioning this in line 271 and making it clear in the table. Other than that I think the authors should be commended on writing a concise and thorough report which I enjoyed reading. I do think that their results suggest that there is an interesting evolutionary story to uncovered in New Zealand.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
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?
Yes
-