Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Genome sequencing and analysis of the first spontaneous Nanosilver resistant bacterium Proteus mirabilis strain SCDR1

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control20176:119

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-017-0277-x

Received: 11 July 2017

Accepted: 9 November 2017

Published: 23 November 2017

Abstract

Background

P. mirabilis is a common uropathogenic bacterium that can cause major complications in patients with long-standing indwelling catheters or patients with urinary tract anomalies. In addition, P. mirabilis is a common cause of chronic osteomyelitis in Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) patients. We isolated P. mirabilis SCDR1 from a Diabetic ulcer patient. We examined P. mirabilis SCDR1 levels of resistance against Nanosilver colloids, the commercial Nanosilver and silver containing bandages and commonly used antibiotics. We utilized next generation sequencing techniques (NGS), bioinformatics, phylogenetic analysis and pathogenomics in the characterization of the infectious pathogen.

Results

P. mirabilis SCDR1 was the first Nanosilver resistant isolate collected from a diabetic patient polyclonal infection. P. mirabilis SCDR1 showed high levels of resistance against Nanosilver colloids, Nanosilver chitosan composite and the commercially available Nanosilver and silver bandages. The P. mirabilis -SCDR1 genome size is 3,815,621 bp. with G + C content of 38.44%. P. mirabilis-SCDR1 genome contains a total of 3533 genes, 3414 coding DNA sequence genes, 11, 10, 18 rRNAs (5S, 16S, and 23S), and 76 tRNAs. Our isolate contains all the required pathogenicity and virulence factors to establish a successful infection. P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate is a potential virulent pathogen that despite its original isolation site, the wound, can establish kidney infection and its associated complications. P. mirabilis SCDR1 contains several mechanisms for antibiotics and metals resistance, including, biofilm formation, swarming mobility, efflux systems, and enzymatic detoxification.

Conclusion

P. mirabilis SCDR1 is the first reported spontaneous Nanosilver resistant bacterial strain. P. mirabilis SCDR1 possesses several mechanisms that may lead to the observed Nanosilver resistance.

Keywords

Proteus Mirabilis Multi-drug resistanceSilver nanoparticlesGenome analysisPathogenomicsBiofilm formationSwarming mobilityResistomeGlutathione S-transferaseCopper/silver efflux system

Background

The production and utilization of nanosilver is one of the primary and still growing applications in the field of nanotechnology. Nanosilver is used as the essential antimicrobial ingredient in both clinical and environmental technologies. Nanosilver is utilized in the formulation of dental resin amalgams, medical device coatings, water filter antimicrobial coating, antimicrobial agents in air sanitizers, textiles, pillows, respirators, socks, wet wipes, detergents, soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, washing machines, bone cement, wound dressings, hospital beds and furniture to control infection and support anti-biofilm activity [18]. Nanosilver is known to exert inhibitory and bactericidal effects against many Gram-positive, Gram-negative and fungal pathogens [9]. Latest studies suggest that the use of nanosilver-containing wound dressings prevents or reduces microbial growth in wounds, and may improve the healing process [10]. Moreover, antibacterial nanosilver-containing wound dressing gels may be important for patients that are at risk of non-healing of diabetic foot wounds and traumatic/surgical wounds [11]. Increased usage of nanosilver in both medical and environmental products has generated concerns about the development of bacterial resistance against the antimicrobial ingredient. Bacterial resistance against metallic silver has been documented with several bacterial strains such as E. coli Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Salmonella typhimurium [12, 13]. However, information about bacterial resistance against Nanosilver is scarce. Only Gunawan et al., (2013) reported the occurrence of induced adaptation, of non-targeted environmental Bacillus species, to antimicrobial Nanosilver [14]. In this study, we report on a spontaneous nanosilver-resistant Proteus mirabilis isolate (“SCDR1”). Proteus mirabilis is a motile gram-negative bacterium that is characterized by its swarming behavior [15, 16]. P. mirabilis is a common uropathogen that can cause major complications. In addition, P. mirabilis can cause respiratory and wound infections, bacteremia, and other infections [1621]. In fact, P. mirabilis is a common cause of chronic osteomyelitis in Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) patients along with Bacteroides fragilis, E coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae [22]. Generally, P. mirabilis is responsible for 90% of genus Proteus infections, and can be considered as a community-acquired infection [23]. As a pathogen P. mirabilis acquires many virulence determinants that enable it to establish successful infections [2426]. A lot of information concerning antibiotic resistance is available for P. mirabilis [2735]. P. mirabilis is intrinsically resistant to tetracyclines and polymyxins. Moreover, multidrug-resistant (MDR) P. mirabilis strain resistance to β-lactams, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, phenicols, streptothricin, tetracycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole has been reported [36]. However, limited information about heavy metals, including silver, is available. In this study, we present the first report and genome sequence of the nanosilver resistant bacterium P. mirabilis strain SCDR1, isolated from diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) patient.

Methods

Bacterial isolate

Proteus mirabilis strain SCDR1 was isolated from a diabetic ulcer patient in the diabetic foot unit at the University Diabetes Center, King Saud University. P. mirabilis SCDR1 was the first nanosilver resistant isolate to be collected from a diabetic patient’s polyclonal infection. A Proper wound swab was obtained from the patient and was sent for further microbiological study and culture. Wounds needing debridement were debrided before swabbing the surface of the wound. The specimen was inoculated onto blood agar (BA; Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) and MacConkey agar (Oxoid) and incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h. The Vitek 2 system and its advanced expert system were used for microbial identification, antibiotic sensitivity testing, and the interpretation of results. ID GN cards were used to identify the bacterial isolate, and AST-N204 was used for the antimicrobial susceptibility testing of gram-negative rods. Manual disk diffusion and MIC method for AgNPs and antibiotic sensitivity testing were performed when required. Results were categorized according to EUCAST 2.0 VITEK 2 MIC breakpoints.

Preparation of colloidal and composite Nanosilver and commercial products for antimicrobial activity testing

Colloidal silver nanoparticles were prepared and characterized, and their concentration was determined as described by Saeb et al., 2014 [9]. Nanosilver chitosan composite preparations were made by chemical reduction method, as described by Latif et al., 2015 [37]. Moreover, the following commercially silver and nanosilver containing wound dressing bandages were used for antimicrobial activity testing: Silvercel non-adherent antimicrobial alginate Dressing (Acelity L.P. Inc., San Antonio, Texas, USA), Sorbsan Silver dressing made of Calcium alginate with silver (Aspen Medical Europe Ltd., Leicestershire, UK), ColActive® Plus Ag (Covalon Technologies Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada), exsalt®SD7 wound dressing (Exciton Technologies, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada), Puracol Plus AG+ Collagen Dressings with Silver (Medline, Mundelein, Illinois, USA) and ACTISORB™ silver antimicrobial wound dressing 220 (Acelity L.P. Inc., San Antonio, Texas, USA).

Antimicrobial susceptibility test

Antimicrobial activities were performed against the following strains: Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213, Proteus mirabilis ATCC 29906, Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 700603, E. coli ATCC 25922 and Enterobacter cloacae ATCC 29212.

Disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed as described by Matuschek et al. [38]. Briefly, Mueller–Hinton (MH) agar plates were inoculated with agar with an inoculum corresponding to a McFarland 0.5 turbidity with a sterile cotton swab to prepare bacterial lawns of the abovementioned bacterial test strains. Sterile discs were loaded with different concentrations (50–200 ppm) of colloidal silver nanoparticles solutions and the Nanosilver chitosan composite (composite concentration ranged from 0.1% and 0.01 M to 3.2% and 0.16 M from chitosan and Silver nitrate respectively) and then placed on Mueller–Hinton (MH) agar plates with bacterial lawns. Within 15 min of application of antimicrobial disks, the plates were inverted and incubated at 37C for 16 h. All experiments were done in aseptic conditions in a laminar air flow cabinet. After incubation, inhibition zones were read at the point where no apparent growth was detected. The inhibition zone diameters were measured to the nearest millimeter. Similarly, 5 mm desks from the commercially available bandages were prepared in aseptic conditions and tested for antimicrobial activity, as previously described.

Minimum bactericidal (MBC) and minimal inhibitory concertation (MIC) test

MBC and MIC testing were performed as described by Holla et al., [39]. Briefly, a dilution with 1 × 105 CFU/ml (equivalent to 0.5 McFarland) was used as an inoculum for MIC testing. Different volumes that contained a range of silver Nanoparticles (50–700 ppm) were delivered to 7.5 ml of Muller-Hinton (MH) broth, each inoculated with 0.2 ml of the bacterial suspensions. Within 15 min of application of silver nanoparticles, the tubes were incubated at 37C for 16 h in a shaker incubator at 200 rpm. We included a positive control (tubes containing inoculum and nutrient media without silver nanoparticles) and a negative control (tubes containing silver nanoparticles and nutrient media without inoculum).

Biofilm formation

In order to test the ability of P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate to form biofilm, a culture was prepared by inoculation on Columbia agar, supplemented with 5% blood and incubated at 37 C° for 24 h. The culture was then used to prepare 0.5 McFarland standard bacterial suspension. Wells of sterile 96- well flat- bottomed plastic microplates were filled with 250 μL of the Brain-heart infusion broth. Negative control wells contained the broth only. Twenty μL of bacterial suspension were then added to each well. The plate was incubated at 37 C° for 24 h. Following the incubation, the content of each well was aspirated and washed three times with 300 μL of sterile distilled water. The remaining attached bacteria were fixed with 200 μL of methanol per well, and after 15 min the plates were emptied and left to dry air. After this, the plates were stained for 5 min with 160 μL per well of crystal violet used for gram stain. Excess stain was rinsed off by placing the microplates under running tap water. After the plates were air dried, the dye which was bound to the adherent cells was re-solubilized with 160 μL of 33% (v/v) glacial acetic acid per well. The optical density (OD) was measured at 570 nm [40].

Molecular genomics analysis

DNA purification, sequencing, bioinformatics and phylogenetic analysis

DNA isolation, purification, genome sequencing, bioinformatics and phylogenetic analysis were performed as described by Saeb et al., 2017 [41]. In addition, we used Mauve [42] and CoCoNUT [43] to generate the whole genome pairwise and multiple alignments of the draft P. mirabilis strain SCDR1 genome against selected reference genomes. Furthermore, we performed whole genome phylogeny based proteomic comparison among P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate and other related Proteus mirabilis strains using Proteome Comparison service which is a protein sequence-based comparison using bi-directional BLASTP available at (https://www.patricbrc.org/app/SeqComparison) [44].

Gene annotation and Pathogenomics analysis

P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome contigs were annotated using the Prokaryotic Genomes Automatic Annotation Pipeline (PGAAP) available at NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). In addition, contigs were further annotated using the bacterial bioinformatics database and analysis resource (PATRIC) gene annotation service (https://www.patricbrc.org/app/Annotation) [44]. The PathogenFinder 1.1 pathogenicity prediction program available at (https://cge.cbs.dtu.dk/services/PathogenFinder/) was used to examine the nature of P. mirabilis SCDR1 as a human pathogen [45]. Virulence gene sequences and functions, corresponding to different major bacterial virulence factors of Proteus mirabilis were collected from GenBank and validated using virulence factors of the pathogenic bacteria database available at (http://www.mgc.ac.cn/VFs/) [46], the Victors virulence factors search program available at (http://www.phidias.us/victors/) and the PATRIC_VF tool available at https://www.patricbrc.org/= [44].

Resistome analysis

P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome contigs were investigated manually for the presence of antibiotic resistance loci using the PGAAP and PATRIC gene annotation services. Antibiotic resistance loci were further investigated using specialized search tools and services, namely Antibiotic Resistance Gene Search available at (https://www.patricbrc.org/=) [44], Genome Feature Finder (antibiotic resistance) available at (https://www.patricbrc.org/=) [44], ARDB (Antibiotic Resistance Genes Database) available at (https://ardb.cbcb.umd.edu/) [47],

CARD (The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database) available at (https://card.mcmaster.ca/) [48, 49], Specialty Gene Search available at (https://www.patricbrc.org/=) and ResFinder 2.1 available at (https://cge.cbs.dtu.dk//services/ResFinder/) [50].

The heavy metal resistance gene search for P. mirabilis SCDR1 contigs were investigated using PGAAP and PATRIC gene annotation services, PATRIC Feature Finder searches tool and BacMet (antibacterial biocide and metal resistance genes database) available at (http://bacmet.biomedicine.gu.se/) [44, 51].

Results

Initial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility test

The Vitek 2 system showed that our isolate belongs to the Proteus mirabilis species. Antibiotic sensitivity testing using Vitek 2 AST-N204 card showed that our isolate P. mirabilis SCDR1 is resistant to ampicillin, nitrofurantoin, and Trimethoprim/ Sulfamethoxazole. In addition, P. mirabilis SCDR1 was resistant to ethidium bromide, tetracycline, tigecycline, colistin, polymyxin B, rifamycin, doxycycline, vancomycin, fusidic acid, bacitracin, metronidazole, clarithromycin, erythromycin, oxacillin, clindamycin, trimethoprim, novobiocin, and minocycline. P. mirabilis SCDR1 was intermediate resistant against nalidixic acid, Imipenem, and Cefuroxime. Conversely, it was sensitive to chloramphenicol, amoxicillin/ clavulanic Acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefepime, cefaclor, cephalothin, ertapenem, meropenem, amikacin, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, tobramycin, streptomycin, and fosfomycin.

P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate showed high resistance against colloidal and composite Nanosilver and metallic silver compared with other tested Gram positive and negative bacterial species. For instance, Table 1, shows the resistance of P. mirabilis SCDR1 against colloidal Nanosilver assessed by the disk diffusion method, in comparison with S. aureus ATCC 29213, P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853, E. coli ATCC 25922 and E. cloacae ATCC 29212. Generally, P. mirabilis SCDR1 showed high resistance (0.0 cm), while K. pneumoniae showed the highest sensitivity (1.5–1.9 cm) against all tested silver nanoparticle concentrations (50–200 ppm). S. aureus also showed high sensitivity (1.4–1.6 cm) against all tested silver nanoparticle concentrations. None of the tested bacterial isolates except for P. mirabilis SCDR1 showed any resistance against silver-nanoparticles, even against the lowest concentration (50 ppm). Furthermore, Table 2 shows the resistance of P. mirabilis SCDR1 against colloidal Nanosilver assessed by a minimal inhibitory concentration method, compared with other tested Gram positive and negative bacterial species. Once more, P. mirabilis SCDR1 showed high resistance against the gradually increased concentrations of colloidal nanosilver. We observed P. mirabilis SCDR1 bacterial growth to colloidal Nanosilver concentration up to 500 ppm. On the other hand, K. pneumoniae showed the highest sensitivity against silver nanoparticles, with no observed growth at only 100 ppm colloidal nanosilver concentration. In addition, both E. coli and P. aeruginosa showed high sensitivity against silver nanoparticles, with no observed growth at 150 ppm colloidal Nanosilver concentration. Conversely, S. aureus tolerated only 200 ppm colloidal Nanosilver concentration. Similarly, Table 3 shows the resistance of P. mirabilis SCDR1 against silver and Nanosilver composite assessed by disk diffusion method. Nanosilver chitosan composites, with a concentration ranging from between 0.1% and 0.01 M to 3.2% and 0.16 M from chitosan and Silver nitrate respectively, had a comparable killing effect on both Gram positive and negative bacterial, namely S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. Meanwhile, none of the tested Nanosilver chitosan composites had any killing effect on P. mirabilis SCDR1. Similarly, all the tested commercially available silver and Nanosilver containing wound dressing bandages showed the enhanced killing effect on both S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. However, all these wound dressing bandages failed to inhibit P. mirabilis SCDR1 growth. P. mirabilis SCDR1 was able to produce strong biofilm with OD of 0.296.
Table 1

Resistance of P. mirabilis SCDR1 against colloidal Nano-Silver assessed by desk diffusion method

S. No.

Sample ID

Zone Of Inhibition (cm) S. aureus

Zone Of Inhibition (cm) E. cloacae

Zone Of Inhibition (cm) P. aeruginosa

Zone Of Inhibition (cm) E. coli

Zone Of Inhibition (cm) K. pneumoniae

Zone Of Inhibition (cm) P. mirabilis SCDR1

1

200 ppm

1.6 cm

1.5 cm

1.4 cm

1.1 cm

1.9 cm

0.0 cm

2

150 ppm

1.5 cm

1.2 cm

1.3 cm

1.0 cm

1.7 cm

0.0 cm

3

100 ppm

1.5 cm

1.2 cm

1.3 cm

1.0 cm

1.6 cm

0.0 cm

4

50 ppm

1.4 cm

1.1 cm

1.1 cm

0.9 cm

1.5 cm

0.0 cm

Table 2

Resistance of P. mirabilis SCDR1 against colloidal Nanosilver assessed by minimal inhibitory concentration method

AgNPs (concentration in ppm)

 

Bacterial species/strain

S. aureus ATCC 29213

P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853

E. cloacae ATCC 29212

E. coli ATCC 25922

K. pneumoniae ATCC 700603

P. mirabilis SCDR1

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

50

Growth

Growth

Growth

Growth

Growth

Growth

Growth

100

Growth

Growth

Growth

Growth

No Growth

Growth

Growth

150

Growth

No Growth

Growth

No Growth

No Growth

Growth

Growth

200

Growth

No Growth

Growth

No Growth

No Growth

Growth

Growth

250

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

Growth

Growth

300

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

Growth

Growth

350

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

Growth

Growth

400

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

Growth

Growth

450

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

Growth

Growth

500

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

Growth

No Growth

550

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

600

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

650

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

700

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

No Growth

S. aureus: 250 ppm/7.5

P. aeruginosa: 150 ppm/7.5

E. cloacae: 250 ppm/7.5

P. mirabilis SCDR1: 550 ppm/7.5

P. mirabilis ATCC: 500 ppm/7.5

Table 3

Resistance of P. mirabilis SCDR1 against silver and Nanosilver composite assessed by desk diffusion method

Sample ID

Zone Of Inhibition (cm)

Zone Of Inhibition (cm)

Zone Of Inhibition (cm)

S. aureus

P. aeruginosa

P. mirabilis SCDR1

A

0.9 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

B

0.9 cm

0.9 cm

No. Inhibition

C

0.8 cm

0.9 cm

No. Inhibition

D

0.8 cm

0.9 cm

No. Inhibition

E

0.9 cm

0.9 cm

No. Inhibition

F

0.8 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

G

0.7 cm

0.7 cm

No. Inhibition

H

0.9 cm

0.9 cm

No. Inhibition

I

0.9 cm

1.0 cm

No. Inhibition

J

0.9 cm

1.0 cm

No. Inhibition

K

0.8 cm

0.6 cm

No. Inhibition

L

0.8 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

M

0.9 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

N

0.9 cm

0.9 cm

No. Inhibition

O

1.0 cm

0.9 cm

No. Inhibition

P

0.8 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

Q

0.9 cm

0.7 cm

No. Inhibition

R

0.9 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

S

0.8 cm

0.9 cm

No. Inhibition

T

1.0 cm

0.9 cm

No. Inhibition

U

0.8 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

V

0.9 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

W

0.9 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

X

1.0 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

Y

0.8 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

Z

0.7 cm

0.7 cm

No. Inhibition

A1

0.8 cm

0.7 cm

No. Inhibition

B2

0.9 cm

0.7 cm

No. Inhibition

C3

0.9 cm

0.8 cm

No. Inhibition

D4

0.6 cm

NA

No. Inhibition

Silvercel

1.3 cm

1.4 cm

No. Inhibition

Sorbsan silver

1.9 cm

2.0 cm

No. Inhibition

Colactive® Plus Ag

1.5 cm

2.0 cm

No. Inhibition

Exsalt™ SD7

1.5 cm

1.5 cm

No. Inhibition

Puracol ® Plus Ag

1.4 cm

2.0 cm

No. Inhibition

Actisorb® Silver 220

0.9 cm

1.2 cm

No. Inhibition

General genome features

Data from our draft genome of P. mirabilis SCDR1 was deposited in the NCBI-GenBank and was assigned accession number LUFT00000000. The bacterial bioinformatics database and analysis resource (PATRIC) gene annotation analysis showed the presence 308 unique genes of the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites such as tetracycline, Streptomycin, Novobiocin, and Betalain. It is also noteworthy that Xenobiotics Biodegradation and Metabolism pathways also maintained a high number of dedicated unique gene (245) (Additional files 1 and 2: Tables S1 and S2).

Pathogen identification and phylogenetic analysis

As previously stated, biochemical identification of the isolate confirmed the identity of our isolate as belonging to the Proteus mirabilis species. Moreover, Primary analysis of Metaphlan showed that Proteus mirabilis is the most dominant species in the sample (Fig. 1). The appearance of other bacterial species in the Metaphlan diagram is explained by the genomic homology similarity of other bacteria to Proteus mirabilis. P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome showed high similarly, 92.07%, to the genome of P. mirabilis strain BB2000 followed by P. mirabilis strain C05028 (90.99%) and P. mirabilis strain PR03 (89.73%) (Table 4). A similar scenario was observed when constructing the phylogenetic relationship between our isolate and other Proteus mirabilis available in the NCBI- GenBank. 16Sr DNA-based maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2) showed that our isolate is located within a large clade that contains the majority of Proteus mirabilis strains and isolates. In addition, P. mirabilis SCDR1 was shown to be closely related to the reference strain P. mirabilis HI4320 compared with P. mirabilis BB2000, which is located in another clade of four Proteus mirabilis taxa. On the contrary, the whole genome Neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree of Proteus mirabilis spices including P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate (Fig. 3), showed that our isolate was more closely related to P. mirabilis BB2000 compared with the reference strain/genome P. mirabilis HI4320. However, Fig. 4 showed that P. mirabilis SCDR1 exhibited obvious genetic divergence from other Proteus mirabilis species. Similar results were observed when performing pairwise pair-wise whole genome alignment of P. mirabilis strain SCDR1 against reference genomes (Fig. 4). This was also confirmed with the clear divergence among P. mirabilis SCDR1 Proteus mirabilis species at the proteomic level (Fig. 5).
Fig. 1

Metaphlan primary identification of the tested taxon

Table 4

Comparison of Proteus mirabilis SCDR1 to complete and draft reference genomes of Proteus mirabilis

NCBI ID

Reference

Ref Size

Gaps sum length

Gaps > = 100 bp

Bases sum length

Bases >500 bp

% Reference

Completed Genomes

 NC_010554.1

Proteus mirabilis HI4320

4,063,606

555,251

549,285

3,508,355

3,472,919

86.33

 NC_010555.1

Proteus mirabilis plasmid pHI4320

36,289

36,289

36,289

0

0

0

 NC_022000.1

Proteus mirabilis BB2000

3,846,754

304,708

298,947

3,542,046

3,510,682

92.07

Draft Genomes

 NZ_ACLE00000000

Proteus mirabilis ATCC_29,906

4,027,100

565,180

560,679

3,461,920

3,432,786

85.96

 NZ_ANBT00000000

Proteus mirabilis C05028

3,817,619

343,688

338,218

3,473,931

3,445,432

90.99

 NZ_AORN00000000

Proteus mirabilis PR03

3,847,612

394,926

390,203

3,452,686

3,430,536

89.73

 NZ_AMGU00000000

Proteus mirabilis WGLW4

3,960,485

474,704

469,864

3,485,781

3,458,264

88.01

 NZ_AMGT00000000

Proteus mirabilis WGLW6

4,101,891

606,773

601,555

3,495,118

3,461,467

85.20

Fig. 2

16S rDNA based Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree of Proteus mirabilis spices including Pm-SCDR1 isolate

Fig. 3

Whole genome Neighbor joining phylogenetic tree of Proteus mirabilis spices including Pm-SCDR1 isolate

Fig. 4

Pair-wise Whole Genome Alignment of P. mirabilis strain SCDR1 against reference genomes. a P. mirabilis BB200 and P. mirabilis SCDR1 Mauve whole genome alignment, b P. mirabilis HI4320 and P. mirabilis SCDR1, c P. mirabilis AOUC001 and P. mirabilis SCDR1, d P. mirabilis CYPM1 and P. mirabilis SCDR1, e P. vulgaris CYPV1 and P. mirabilis SCDR1, f P. mirabilis SAS71 and P. mirabilis SCDR1 Mauve whole genome alignment

Fig. 5

Whole genome phylogeny based proteomic comparison among Proteus mirabilis strains

Bacterial pathogenic and virulence factors

Pathogenomics analysis using PathogenFinder 1.1 showed that our input organism was predicted as a human pathogen, and the probability of being a human pathogen was 0.857. P. mirabilis SCDR1 comparative proteome analysis showed 35 matched hits from pathogenic families and only one hit from non-pathogenic families (Additional file 3: Table S3). In addition, genome analysis showed that P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate contains numerous virulence factor genes and/or operons that marks it out to be a virulent pathogenic bacterium. These virulence factors include swarming behavior, mobility (flagellae), adherence, toxin and hemolysin production, Urease, Quorum sensing, iron acquisition systems, proteins that function in immune evasion, cell invasion and biofilm formation, stress tolerance factors, and chemotaxis related factors (Additional file 4: Table S4).

Proteus Mirabilis SCDR1 Resistome

Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance identification Perfect and Strict analysis using Resistance Gene Identifier (RGI) showed that P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate contains 34 antibiotic resistance genes that serve in 21 antibiotic resistance functional categories (Additional file 5: Table S5 and Fig. 6). Meanwhile, using the less strict (Loose) antibiotic resistance identification criteria identified 3750 hits in P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome that represent potential AROs (Antibiotic Resistance Ontology) that fall into 59 antibiotic resistance functional categories (Fig. 7) of which 38 are considered to lose antibiotic resistance functional categories. Modified loose antibiotic resistance identification criteria, by removing all hits with objectionable e-values, lead to a number of 366 antibiotic resistance related hits (Additional file 6: Table S6 and Fig. 7). Manual genome annotation based mining resulted in the identification of 64 drug resistance related proteins in P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome (Additional file 7: Table S7).
Fig. 6

Antibiotic Resistance strict gene and function analysis for Proteus mirabilis SCDR1

Fig. 7

Antibiotic Resistance lose functional categories analysis for Proteus mirabilis SCDR1

Proteus Mirabilis comparative genomics based resistome analysis

We performed a species-wide antibiotic resistome constituent analysis of P. mirabilis. All available P. mirabilis genomes, including the P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome, were included in this analysis (Table 5). Results of our analysis (Table 6 and Fig. 8) showed that the number of the observed antimicrobial resistance based ontologies (AMRO) in P. mirabilis genomes is 61. Only 16 AMROs were observed amongst all the studied 56 P. mirabilis genomes. Meanwhile, 13 AMROs were observed amongst 55 P. mirabilis genomes. In addition, only four AMROs were observed amongst 54 P. mirabilis genomes and two AMROs were observed amongst 48 P. mirabilis genomes. This suggests that the core constituent of antibiotic resistome of P. mirabilis species is made up of 35 AMROs (Table 6). On the other hand, eight AMROs were detected only in one P. mirabilis genome. For example, the membrane fusion component of tripartite multidrug resistance system was only observed in our P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome.
Table 5

Proteus mirabilis genomes represented in the species wide comparative genomics antibiotic resistance analysis

Genome/Strain Name

Genome Status

GenBank Accessions

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

WGS

ACLE00000000

P. mirabilis BB2000

Complete

CP004022.1

P. mirabilis C05028

WGS

ANBT00000000

P. mirabilis HI4320

Complete

AM942759,AM942760

P. mirabilis PR03

WGS

AORN00000000

P. mirabilis SCDR1

WGS

LUFT00000000

P. mirabilis WGLW4

WGS

AMGU00000000

P. mirabilis WGLW6

WGS

AMGT00000000

P. mirabilis strain 1114_PMIR

WGS

JWCS01000000

P. mirabilis strain 1134_PMIR

WGS

JWBY01000000

P. mirabilis strain 1150_PMIR

WGS

JWBG01000000

P. mirabilis strain 1166_PMIR

WGS

JWAP01000000

P. mirabilis strain 127_PMIR

WGS

JVWE01000000

P. mirabilis strain 1293_PMIR

WGS

JVVD01000000

P. mirabilis strain 1310_PMIR

WGS

JVUH01000000

P. mirabilis strain 1313_PMIR

WGS

JVUE01000000

P. mirabilis strain1326_PMIR

WGS

JVTO01000000

P. mirabilis strain1330_PMIR

WGS

JVTJ01000000

P. mirabilis strain 232_PMIR

WGS

JVPB01000000

P. mirabilis strain 25,933 GTA

WGS

LANL01000000

P. mirabilis strain 25_PMIR

WGS

JVOK01000000

P. mirabilis strain 292_PMIR

WGS

JVMQ01000000

P. mirabilis strain 360_PMIR

WGS

JVKD01000000

P. mirabilis strain 373_PMIR

WGS

JVJQ01000000

P. mirabilis strain 418_PMIR

WGS

JVHX01000000

P. mirabilis strain 429_PMIR

WGS

JVHK01000000

P. mirabilis strain 430_PMIR

WGS

JVHI01000000

P. mirabilis strain 47_PMIR

WGS

JVFU01000000

P. mirabilis strain 50,664,164

WGS

LNHT01000000

P. mirabilis strain 51_PMIR

WGS

JVEH01000000

P. mirabilis strain 646_PMIR

WGS

JUYT01000000

P. mirabilis strain 672_PMIR

WGS

JUXR01000000

P. mirabilis strain 68_PMIR

WGS

JUXK01000000

P. mirabilis strain AOUC-001

Complete

CP015347

P. mirabilis strain ATCC 7002

WGS

JOVJ00000000

P. mirabilis strain C02011

WGS

KV388086,KV388087,KV388088, KV388089,KV388090,KV388091,

KV388092,LAGU00000000

P. mirabilis strain CYPM1

Complete

CP012674

P. mirabilis strain FDAARGOS 60

Complete

JTBW01000000

P. mirabilis strain FDAARGOS 67

Complete

JTBP01000000

P. mirabilis strain FDAARGOS 80

WGS

JTBB01000000

P. mirabilis strain FDAARGOS 81

Complete

JTBA01000000

P. mirabilis strain FDAARGOS 85

WGS

JTAW01000000

P. mirabilis strain GB08

WGS

LQNN00000000

P. mirabilis strain GB11

WGS

LQNO00000000

P. mirabilis strain GED7834

WGS

KQ960957,KQ960958,KQ960959,KQ960960,

KQ960961,KQ960962,KQ960963,KQ960964,

KQ960965,KQ960966,KQ960967,KQ960968,

KQ960969,KQ960970,KQ960971,KQ960972,

KQ960973,KQ960974,KQ960975,KQ960976,

KQ960977,KQ960978,KQ960979,KQ960980,

KQ960981,KQ960982,KQ960983,KQ960984,

KQ960985,KQ960986,KQ960987,KQ960988,

KQ960989,KQ960990,KQ960991,KQ960992,

KQ960993,KQ960994,KQ960995,KQ960996,

KQ960997,KQ960998,KQ960999,KQ961000,

KQ961001,KQ961002,KQ961003,KQ961004

,KQ961005,KQ961006,KQ961007,KQ961008,

KQ961009,KQ961010,KQ961011,KQ961012,

KQ961013,KQ961014,KQ961015,KQ961016,

KQ961017,KQ961018

P. mirabilis strain M16

WGS

LQQZ00000000

P. mirabilis strain NIVEDI3-PG74

WGS

LWDB00000000

P. mirabilis strain NO-051/03

WGS

LGAY01000000

P. mirabilis strain PM593

WGS

JSUP01000000

P. mirabilis strain PM655

WGS

JSUO01000000

P. mirabilis strain PM_125

WGS

LWUL00000000

P. mirabilis strain PM_178

WGS

LWUM00000000

P. mirabilis strain Pm-Oxa48

WGS

JSCB01000000

P. mirabilis strain Pr2921

WGS

LGTA00000000

P. mirabilis strain SAS71

WGS

LDIU01000000

P. mirabilis strain Wood

WGS

LTBK00000000

Table 6

Species wide Proteus mirabilis antibiotic resistome constituents

Antimicrobial Resistance based ontology (AMRO)

Number of Genomes shared AMRO

6′-N-acetyltransferase

4

Aminoglycoside 3′-phosphotransferase @ Streptomycin 3′-kinase StrA

13

Aminoglycoside 3′-phosphotransferase

16

Putative transport protein ARO:3,001,215, ARO:1,000,001

48

Beta-lactamase

14

Bicyclomycin resistance protein

3

Chloramphenicol acetyltransferase

54

COG0488: ATPase components of ABC transporters with duplicated ATPase domains

1

Copper sensory histidine kinase CpxA

56

Copper-sensing two-component system response regulator CpxR

56

Cyclic AMP receptor protein

56

Dihydropteroate synthase

56

Dihydropteroate synthase type-2 @ Sulfonamide resistance protein

16

DNA gyrase subunit A

56

DNA-binding protein H-NS

55

DNA-directed RNA polymerase beta subunit

56

Ethidium bromide-methyl viologen resistance protein EmrE

55

Gentamicin 3′-N-acetyltransferase

2

Hypothetical protein ARO: 3,000,230, ARO: 1,000,001

2

Streptomycin 3″-O-adenylyltransferase @ Spectinomycin 9-O-adenylyltransferase

5

Macrolide export ATP-binding/permease protein MacB

56

Macrolide-specific efflux protein MacA

55

Membrane fusion component of tripartite multidrug resistance system

1

MFS superfamily export protein YceL

55

Mobile element protein ARO: 3,000,903, ARO: 1,000,001

9

Multi antimicrobial extrusion protein (Na (+)/drug antiporter), MATE family of MDR efflux pumps

56

Multidrug resistance protein D. ARO: 3,000,309, ARO: 1,000,001

56

Multidrug resistance protein ErmA

55

Multidrug resistance protein ErmB

56

Multidrug transporter MdtB

56

Multidrug transporter MdtC

56

Multidrug-efflux transporter, major facilitator superfamily (MFS)

54

N-3-oxohexanoyl-L-homoserine lactone quorum-sensing transcriptional activator

1

Outer membrane porin OmpF

54

Outer membrane protein F precursor

1

Probable RND efflux membrane fusion protein

1

Putative transport protein ARO: 3,001,215, ARO: 1,000,001

48

Redox-sensitive transcriptional activator SoxR

55

Response regulator BaeR

56

Ribosomal RNA methyltransferase

1

Rifampin ADP-ribosyl transferase

3

RND efflux system, inner membrane transporter ARO: 3,000,216, ARO: 1,000,001

2

RND efflux system, inner membrane transporter: Aminoglycoside, Glycylcycline, Beta_lactam, Macrolide, Acriflavin

3

RND efflux system, inner membrane transporter Aminoglycoside, Glycylcycline, Beta_lactam, Macrolide, Acriflavin ARO: 3,000,216, ARO: 1,000,001

3

RND efflux system, membrane fusion protein (acrA, ARO: 1,000,001, ARO: 3,000,207) OR (mdtA, ARO: 1,000,001, ARO: 3,000,792)

56

RND multidrug efflux transporter; Acriflavin resistance protein

2

Sensor histidine kinase PhoQ

55

Sensory histidine kinase BaeS

56

SSU rRNA (adenine (1518)-N (6)/adenine (1519)-N (6))-dimethyltransferase

1

Streptomycin 3″-O-adenylyltransferase @ Spectinomycin 9-O-adenylyltransferase (spectinomycin, streptomycin) (ARO: 1,000,001, ARO: 3,000,232) (tobramycin,gentamicin, dibekacin, sisomicin, kanamycin)

9

Tetracycline efflux protein TetA

55

Topoisomerase IV subunit A

54

Transcription repressor of multidrug efflux pump acrAB operon, TetR (AcrR) family

3

Transcriptional regulator of acrAB operon, AcrR

56

Transcriptional regulatory protein PhoP

55

Transcriptional repressor MprA

55

Translation elongation factor Tu

55

TrkA-N: Sodium/hydrogen exchanger

3

Two-component system response regulator OmpR

55

Type I secretion outer membrane protein, TolC precursor

55

UDP-4-amino-4-deoxy-L-arabinose formyltransferase/ UDP-glucuronic acid oxidase (UDP-4-keto-hexauronic acid decarboxylating)

1

Fig. 8

Species wide Proteus mirabilis antibiotic resistome constituents

Consensus P. mirabilis-SCDR1 antibiotic Resistome

Table 7 displays the consensus P. mirabilis-SCDR1 antibiotic resistome. Genomics analysis of P. mirabilis-SCDR1 63 contigs showed that our isolates contained genetic determinants for tetracycline resistance (tetAJ), fluoroquinolones resistance (gyrA, parC and parE), sulfonamide resistance (folP), daptomycin and rifamycin resistance (rpoB), elfamycin antibiotics resistance (tufB), Chloramphenicol (cpxR, cpxA and cat), ethidium bromide-methyl viologen resistance protein (emrE) and polymyxin resistance (phoP). In addition, several multidrug resistance efflux systems and complexes such as MdtABC-TolC, MacAB-TolC, AcrAB-TolC, EmrAB-TolC, AcrEF-TolC and MATE.
Table 7

Consensus P. mirabilis-SCDR1 antibiotic Resistome

Source

Source Organism

Gene

Product

Function

Query Coverage

Identity

E-value

ARDB

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

tetAJ

Tetracycline efflux protein TetA

Major facilitator superfamily transporter, tetracycline efflux pump.

97

95

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

tetAJ

Tetracycline efflux protein TetA

Major facilitator superfamily transporter, tetracycline efflux pump.

97

94

0

ARDB

P. mirabilis HI4320

tetAJ

Tetracycline efflux protein TetA

Major facilitator superfamily transporter, tetracycline efflux pump.

80

99

2e-74

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

gyrA

DNA gyrase subunit A (EC 5.99.1.3)

Point mutation of Escherichia coli gyrA resulted in the lowered affinity between fluoroquinolones and gyrA. Thus, conferring resistance

98

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

baeR

Response regulator BaeR

BaeR is a response regulator that promotes the expression of MdtABC and AcrD efflux complexes.

100

99

2e-171

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

baeS

Sensory histidine kinase BaeS

BaeS is a sensor kinase in the BaeSR regulatory system. While it phosphorylates BaeR to increase its activity.

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

mdtC

Multidrug transporter MdtC

MdtC is a transporter that forms a hetero-multimer complex with MdtB to form a multidrug transporter. MdtBC is part of the MdtABC-TolC efflux complex.

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

mdtB

Multidrug transporter MdtB

MdtB is a transporter that forms a heteromultimer complex with MdtC to form a multidrug transporter. MdtBC is part of the MdtABC-TolC efflux complex.

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

mdtA

RND efflux system, membrane fusion protein

MdtA is the membrane fusion protein of the multidrug efflux complex mdtABC.

100

98

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

folP

Dihydropteroate synthase (EC 2.5.1.15)

Point mutations in dihydropteroate synthase folP prevent sulfonamide antibiotics from inhibiting its role in folate synthesis, thus conferring sulfonamide resistance.

100

100

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

soxR

Redox-sensitive transcriptional activator SoxR

SoxR is a sensory protein that upregulates soxS expression in the presence of redox-cycling drugs. This stress response leads to the expression many multidrug efflux pumps.

100

100

0

CARD

Shigella dysenteriae Sd197

ompR

Two-component system response regulator OmpR

Transcriptional regulatory protein

99

87

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

emrR

Transcriptional repressor MprA

EmrR is a negative regulator for the EmrAB-TolC multidrug efflux pump in E. coli. Mutations lead to EmrAB-TolC overexpression.

100

100

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

emrA

Multidrug resistance protein ErmA

EmrA is a membrane fusion protein, providing an efflux pathway with EmrB and TolC between the inner and outer membranes of E. coli, a Gram-negative bacterium.

95

96

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

acrE

Membrane fusion component of tripartite multidrug resistance system

AcrEF-TolC is a tripartite multidrug efflux system similar to AcrAB-TolC and found in Gram-negative bacteria. AcrE is the membrane fusion protein, AcrF is the inner membrane transporter, and TolC is the outer membrane channel protein.

100

98

3e-44

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

emrB

Multidrug resistance protein ErmB

emrB is a translocase in the emrB -TolC efflux protein in E. coli. It recognizes substrates including carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone (CCCP), nalidixic acid, and thioloactomycin.

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

rpoB

DNA-directed RNA polymerase beta subunit (EC 2.7.7.6)

Mutations in rpoB gene confers antibiotic resistance (Daptomycin and Rifamycin)

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

tufB

Translation elongation factor Tu

Sequence variants of elongation factor Tu confer resistance to elfamycin antibiotics.

100

100

1e-43

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

cpxA

Copper sensory histidine kinase CpxA

cpxA mutant confer resistant to amikacin

94

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

cpxR

Copper-sensing two-component system response regulator CpxR

CpxR is a regulator that promotes acrD expression when phosphorylated by a cascade involving CpxA, a sensor kinase. Cefepime and chloramphenicol

100

100

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

emrD

Multidrug resistance protein D

EmrD is a multidrug transporter from the Major Facilitator Superfamily (MFS) primarily found in Escherichia coli. EmrD couples efflux of amphipathic compounds with proton import across the plasma membrane.

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

macA

Macrolide-specific efflux protein MacA

MacA is a membrane fusion protein that forms an antibiotic efflux complex with MacB and TolC.

100

99

3e-177

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

macB

Macrolide export ATP-binding/permease protein MacB (EC 3.6.3.-)

MacB is an ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter that exports macrolides with 14- or 15- membered lactones. It forms an antibiotic efflux complex with MacA and TolC.

100

98

0

ARDB

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

cat

Chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (EC 2.3.1.28)

Group A chloramphenicol acetyltransferase, which can inactivate chloramphenicol.

99

93

6e-150

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

cat

Chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (EC 2.3.1.28)

Group A chloramphenicol acetyltransferase, which can inactivate chloramphenicol.

99

93

4e-151

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

acrR

Transcription repressor of multidrug efflux pump acrAB operon, TetR (AcrR) family

AcrR is a repressor of the AcrAB-TolC multidrug efflux complex. AcrR mutations result in high level antibiotic resistance.

100

95

9e-25

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

acrR

Transcriptional regulator of acrAB operon, AcrR

AcrR is a repressor of the AcrAB-TolC multidrug efflux complex. AcrR mutations result in high level antibiotic resistance.

93

95

2e-114

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

acrA

RND efflux system, membrane fusion protein

Protein subunit of AcrA-AcrB-TolC multidrug efflux complex. AcrA represents the periplasmic portion of the transport protein.

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

mdtK

Multi antimicrobial extrusion protein (Na(+)/drug antiporter), MATE family of MDR efflux pumps

A multidrug and toxic compound extrusions (MATE) transporter conferring resistance to norfloxacin, doxorubicin and acriflavine.

98

99

3e-164

CARD

Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Agona str. SL483

hns

DNA-binding protein H-NS

H-NS is a histone-like protein involved in global gene regulation in Gram-negative bacteria. It is a repressor of the membrane fusion protein genes acrE, mdtE, and emrK as well as nearby genes of many RND-type multidrug exporters.

100

80

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

tufB

Translation elongation factor Tu

Sequence variants of elongation factor Tu confer resistance to elfamycin antibiotics.

100

99

0

CARD

Shigella dysenteriae Sd197

crp

Cyclic AMP receptor protein

CRP is a global regulator that represses MdtEF multidrug efflux pump expression.

100

98

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

emrE

Ethidium bromide-methyl viologen resistance protein EmrE

EmrE is a small multidrug transporter that functions as a homodimer and that couples the efflux of small polyaromatic cations from the cell with the import of protons down an electrochemical gradient. EmrE is found in E. coli and P. aeruginosa.

100

99

6e-73

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

mdtK

Multi antimicrobial extrusion protein (Na(+)/drug antiporter), MATE family of MDR efflux pumps

A multidrug and toxic compound extrusions (MATE) transporter conferring resistance to norfloxacin, doxorubicin and acriflavine.

100

100

2e-113

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

NIA

Putative transport protein

NIA

100

94

7e-59

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

NIA

Multidrug resistance protein

NIA

99

96

2e-112

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

parC

Topoisomerase I subunit A (EC 5.99.1.-)

ParC is a subunit of topoisomerase IV, which decatenates and relaxes DNA to allow access to genes for transcription or translation. Point mutations in ParC prevent fluoroquinolone antibiotics from inhibiting DNA synthesis, and confer low-level resistance. Higher-level resistance results from both gyrA and parC mutations.

99

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

parE

Topoisomerase IV subunit B (EC 5.99.1.-)

ParE is a subunit of topoisomerase IV, necessary for cell survival. Point mutations in ParE prevent fluoroquinolones from inhibiting DNA synthesis, thus conferring resistance.

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

tolC

Type I secretion outer membrane protein, TolC precursor

TolC is a protein subunit of many multidrug efflux complexes in Gram negative bacteria. It is an outer membrane efflux protein and is constitutively open. Regulation of efflux activity is often at its periplasmic entrance by other components of the efflux complex.

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

mdtH

MFS superfamily export protein YceL

Multidrug resistance protein MdtH

100

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

phoP

Transcriptional regulatory protein PhoP

A mutant phoP activates pmrHFIJKLM expression responsible for L-aminoarabinose synthesis and polymyxin resistance, by way of alteration of negative charge

100

99

5e-165

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

phoQ

Sensor histidine kinase PhoQ (EC 2.7.13.3)

Mutations in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PhoQ of the two-component PhoPQ regulatory system. Presence of mutation confers resistance to colistin

90

99

0

CARD

P. mirabilis BB2000

phoQ

Sensor histidine kinase PhoQ (EC 2.7.13.3)

Mutations in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PhoQ of the two-component PhoPQ regulatory system. Presence of mutation confers resistance to colistin

98

98

1e-45

Evidence: BLASTP, NIA: No information available, ARDB: Antibiotic Resistance Genes Database, CARD: Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database

• MdtC: In the absence of MdtB, MdtC can form a homomultimer complex that results in a functioning efflux complex with a narrower drug specificity

• MdtABC-TolC https://card.mcmaster.ca/ontology/37167

• Elongation factor Tu is required for peptide elongation in bacterial protein synthesis

• cpxA http://www.uniprot.org/citations/2185221

• cpxR Srinivasan VB, et al. 2012. PLoS One 7(4): E33777. Role of the two component signal transduction system CpxAR in conferring cefepime and chloramphenicol resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae NTUH-K2044. (PMID 22496764)

• MacAB-TolC: MacAB-TolC is an ABC efflux pump complex expressed in E. coli and Salmonella enterica. It confers resistance to macrolides, including erythromycin

Heavy metal resistance

Table 8 presents P. mirabilis SCDR1 heavy metal resistance/binding factors. Numerous genetic determinants for metal resistance were observed in the P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome. Several Copper resistance genes/proteins were detected, namely, copA, copB, copC, copD, cueO, cueR, cutC, cutF and CuRO_2_CopA_like1. In addition, gene determinants of Copper/silver efflux system were observed, namely, oprB, oprM and cusC_1. Moreover, several heavy metal resistance proteins and efflux systems were observed, such as magnesium/cobalt efflux protein CorC, metal resistance proteins (AGS59089.1, AGS59090.1 and AGS59091.1), nickel-cobalt-cadmium resistance protein NccB, arsenical pump membrane protein (ArsB permease), Lead, cadmium, zinc and mercury transporting ATPase, outer membrane component of tripartite multidrug resistance system (CusC) and complete P. mirabilis tellurite resistance loci (terB, terA, terC, terD, terE, terZ). Furthermore, enzymes involved in heavy metal resistance were also observed such as glutathione S-transferase (gst1, gst, Delta and Uncharacterized), arsenite S-adenosylmethyltransferase (Methyltransferase type 11) and alkylmercury lyase (MerB).
Table 8

P. mirabilis SCDR1 Heavy Metal Resistance/Binding factors

Annotation

Reference Genome

Accession Number

Gene

Protein ID

AA Length

Corresponding Protein

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668580

corC

ZP_03842837.1

293

Magnesium/cobalt efflux protein CorC.

RefSeq

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

NA

AGS60530.1

305

cation efflux protein (Divalent metal cation (Fe/Co/Zn/Cd) transporter).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668576

cueR

ZP_03840921.1

133

MerR-family transcriptional regulator (copper efflux regulator).

RefSeq

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

arsB

AGS60689.1

429

Arsenical pump membrane protein (ArsB_permease).

RefSeq

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

NA

AGS59089.1

AGS59090.1

AGS59091.1

129

678

243

Metal resistance protein.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

P. mirabilis strain 25,933 GTA

NZ_GG668576

LANL01000027

ahpF

NA

ZP_03839875.1

KKC60389.1

521

678

Protein-disulfide reductase.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668576

NZ_GG668583

dsbB

dsbA

ZP_03840198.1

ZP_03839563.1

174

207

Protein disulfide oxidoreductase.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

P. mirabilis BB2000

NZ_GG668576

NZ_GG668576

NZ_GG668578

CP004022

actP1

copA

ppaA

zntA

ZP_03840801.1

ZP_03840922.1

ZP_03842696.1

AGS58561.1

829

984

803

796

(zinc/cadmium/mercury/lead-transporting ATPase) (HMA).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668578

gloB

ZP_03842342.1

251

hydroxyacylglutathione hydrolase.

RefSeq

P. mirabilis strain ATCC 7002

JOVJ01000008

grxA

KGA90223.1

87

Glutaredoxin, GrxA family.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

P. mirabilis strain 1134_PMIR

NZ_GG668576

NZ_GG668576

gst1

gst

Delta

Uncharacterized

ZP_03840532.1

ZP_03840063.1

PGF_02913068a

PGF_00008413a

204

203

195

110

Glutathione S-transferase (EC 2.5.1.18).

RefSeq

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

cueO

AGS58840.1

526

Multicopper oxidase.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668578

NA

ZP_03842149.1

243

FIG00003370: Multicopper polyphenol oxidase.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis strain ATCC 7002

JOVJ01000009

yobA

ZP_03839688.1

130

Copper resistance protein (Copper-binding protein CopC (methionine-rich)) [Inorganic ion transport and metabolism].

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668576

copD

ZP_03839689.1

279

Copper resistance protein.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis strain SAS71

LDIU01000481

NA

PGF_00419563

114

Copper resistance protein D.

BRC1

P. mirabilis HI4320

NC_010554

NA

NA

300

Putative copper resistance protein, secreted.

PATRIC

RefSeq

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668576

copC

ZP_03839688.1

130

Copper resistance protein CopC.

PATRIC

E. coli 7–233-03_S4_C2

JORW01000046

copB

KEN13242.1

296

Copper resistance protein B.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668576

cutC

ZP_03839779.1

250

Copper homeostasis protein CutC (Cytoplasmic copper homeostasis protein CutC).

RefSeq

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

cop A

AGS60771.1

904

Copper exporting ATPase.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668576

cop A

ZP_03840922.1

949

Lead, cadmium, zinc and mercury transporting ATPase (EC 3.6.3.3) (EC 3.6.3.5); Copper-translocating P-type ATPase (EC 3.6.3.4).

RefSeq

P. mirabilis strain ATCC 7002

JOVJ01000009

kdpB

KGA89427.1

685

Copper exporting ATPase (potassium-transporting ATPase subunit B).

RefSeq

P. mirabilis

WP_012368272.1, WP_020946123.1

copA- CopZ- HMA

WP_012368272

WP_020946123

984

Copper exporting ATPase (Heavy-metal-associated domain (HMA)).

RefSeq

P. mirabilis strain ATCC 7002

JOVJ01000005

cueR

KGA91278.1

135

Copper -responsive transcriptional regulator (HTH_MerR-SF Superfamily).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis BB2000

P. mirabilis strain 1310_PMIR

CP004022

JVUH01000152

JVUH01001396

cutF

ZP_03841587.1

PGF_00241126a

PGF_00241126a

225

154

78

Copper homeostasis protein CutF precursor/Lipoprotein NlpE involeved in surface adhesion.

PATRIC

RefSeq

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

terB

terA

terC

terD

terE

terZ

AGS60978.1

AGS60979.1

AGS60977.1

AGS60976.1

AGS60975.1

AGS60980.1

151

382

341

192

191

194

P. mirabilis tellurite resistance loci.

PATRIC

RefSeq

Mycobacterium sp.

YP_001705575.1

CP002992

ctpC

AEN01737.1

718

Probable cation-transporting ATPase G (ATPase-IB2_Cd).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668579

yntB

ZP_03841770.1

325

Nickel transport system permease protein nikB2 (TC 3.A.1.5.3).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668579

yntA

ZP_03841771.1

527

Nickel ABC transporter, periplasmic nickel-binding protein nikA2 (TC 3.A.1.5.3).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668583

NA

ZP_03839446.1

289

Nickel transport system permease protein NikC (TC 3.A.1.5.3).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668583

NA

ZP_03839447.1

269

Nickel transport ATP-binding protein NikD (TC 3.A.1.5.3).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668579

yntD

ZP_03841768.1

267

Nickel transport ATP-binding protein nikD2 (TC 3.A.1.5.3).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668579

yntE

ZP_03841767.1

203

Nickel transport ATP-binding protein nikE2 (TC 3.A.1.5.3).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668579

yntC

ZP_03841769.1

270

Nickel transport system permease protein nikC2 (TC 3.A.1.5.3).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

hybF

AGS58541.1

113

[NiFe] hydrogenase nickel incorporation protein HypA.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis ATCC 29906

NZ_GG668578

hybB

ZP_03842517.1

282

[NiFe] hydrogenase nickel incorporation-associated protein HypB.

RefSeq

C. crescentus OR37

APMP01000019

NA

ENZ81282.1

723

Copper/silver/heavy metal-translocating P-type ATPase, Cd/Co/Hg/Pb/Zn-transporting.

RefSeq

Armatimonadetes bacterium OLB18

C. gilvus

JZQX01000123

WP_013884717.1

arsM

KXK16912.1

283

Arsenite S-adenosylmethyltransferase (Methyltransferase type 11).

RefSeq

R. palustris TIE-1

NC_011004

NA

YP_001990857.1

973

Heavy metal translocating P-type ATPase (ATPase-IB1_Cu).

RefSeq

M. ulcerans str. Harvey

EUA92940.1,

CuRO_2_CopA_like1

EUA92940.1

552

Multicopper oxidase family protein.

RefSeq

B. mallei NCTC 10229

NC_008835

oprB

YP_001024205.1

553

Copper/silver efflux system outer membrane protein CusC (outer membrane efflux protein OprB).

RefSeq

B. pseudomallei 576

NZ_ACCE01000001

oprM

ZP_03450560.1

558

Copper/silver efflux system outer membrane protein CusC (outer membrane efflux protein OprM).

PATRIC

RefSeq

Achromobacter sp. strain 2789STDY5608636

B. pseudomallei 1710b

CYTV01000008

ABA52627.1

cusC_1

ABA52627

515

Copper/silver efflux system outer membrane protein CusC (RND efflux system outer membrane lipoprotein).

RefSeq

Achromobacter sp. strain 2789STDY5608623

CYSZ01000001

NA

CUI29018.1

98

Outer membrane component of tripartite multidrug resistance system (CusC).

RefSeq

R. opacus

WP_012687282.1, BAH48260.1

merB

WP_012687282

334

Alkylmercury lyase (MerB).

PATRIC

RefSeq

B. ubonensis strain MSMB2185WGS

Q44585.1

LPIU01000068

NA

Q44585

PGF_01102114a

379

377

Nickel-cobalt-cadmium resistance protein NccB.

PATRIC

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

zntA

AGS58561.1

798

Lead, cadmium, zinc and mercury transporting ATPase (EC 3.6.3.3) (EC 3.6.3.5); Copper-translocating P-type ATPase (EC 3.6.3.4)

PATRIC

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

copA

AGS60771.1

949

Lead, cadmium, zinc and mercury transporting ATPase (EC 3.6.3.3) (EC 3.6.3.5); Copper-translocating P-type ATPase (EC 3.6.3.4).

PATRIC

P. mirabilis BB2000

CP004022

copA

AGS60770.1

54

Lead, cadmium, zinc and mercury transporting ATPase (EC 3.6.3.3) (EC 3.6.3.5); Copper-translocating P-type ATPase (EC 3.6.3.4).

NA Not availbe

aPATRIC cross-genus families (PGfams)

Discussion

Proteus mirabilis isolate was observed as mixed culture along with S. aureus isolate while testing our produced silver Nanoparticles against several pathogenic S. aureus isolates [9]. Whereas other tested Gram positive and negative bacteria showed great sensitivity against silver Nanoparticles, P. mirabilis, SCDR1 isolate exhibited extreme resistance. P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate resistant against at least one antibiotic belonging to ansamycins, glycopeptides, fucidanes, cyclic peptides, nitroimidazoles, macrolides, lincosamides, folate pathway inhibitors and aminocoumarin antimicrobial categories. Moreover, our isolate exhibited intrinsic resistance against tetracyclines and polymyxins specific to P. mirabilis species [36, 52, 53]. However, fortunately, our isolate was sensitive to several operational antimicrobial categories such as penicillins with b-lactamase inhibitors, extended-spectrum cephalosporins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones and phosphonic acids. In addition, our P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate showed high resistance against colloidal and composite Nanosilver and metallic silver when compared to other tested Gram positive and negative bacterial species, both qualitatively and quantitatively. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of bacterial spontaneous resistance to colloidal and composite nanosilver. However, Gunawan et al., (2013) reported the occurrence of induced adaptation, of non-targeted environmental Bacillus species to antimicrobial Nanosilver [14]. In addition, it was found that bacteria can straightforwardly develop resistance to AgNPs, and this occurs by relatively simple genomic changes [54]. They both showed that a Bacillus sp. environmental isolate and an E.coli isolate were able to adapt to Nanosilver cytotoxicity upon continued exposure. Nonetheless, as previously stated, P. mirabilis SCDR1 exhibited instantaneous resistance against nanosilver without the need for any prolonged exposure. P. mirabilis SCDR1 demonstrated resistance against colloidal nanosilver assessed either by disk diffusion or by minimal inhibitory concentration methods. While all used concentrations of colloidal Nanosilver have shown strong effects on all tested microorganisms (Table 1), there was no effect on the bacterial growth of P. mirabilis SCDR1 even at the highest used concentration (200 ppm). Similarly, P. mirabilis SCDR1 was able to resist ten fold (500 ppm) higher than K. pneumoniae (50 ppm), five fold higher than P. aeruginosa and E. coli (100 ppm) and two and a half fold (200 ppm) higher than S. aureus and E. cloacae (Table 2). Moreover, while both laboratory prepared and commercially available silver and Nanosilver composite showed a clear effect against both S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, the most common pathogens of diabetic foot ulcer, not effect was observed against P. mirabilis SCDR1 (Table 3). Although chitosan nanosilver composites have documented combined effect against both Gram positive and negative pathogens [37] no effect was observed against P. mirabilis SCDR1. Silver is a highly toxic element for microbes. The Nanosilver exhibits high surface to volume ratio, which shows increased antimicrobial power in comparison to the same bulk silver material [55]. It is suggested that the antimicrobial mechanism of silver ions involves the disruption of phospholipids of cytoplasmic, and the disruption of DNA replication, impairing the function of ribosomes to transcribe messenger RNA and/or inactivation of cytochrome b by binding with sulfhydryl group [56]. P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome analysis showed that our isolate contains a large number of genes (245) responsible for xenobiotics biodegradation and metabolism (Additional file 2: Table S2). Although P. mirabilis SCDR1 does not contain the chitinase genes responsible for Chitin and chitosan degradation, it contained Chitin binding protein (cbp, 203 amino acid protein). This may justify the ability of P. mirabilis SCDR1 to resist the antimicrobial effect of chitosan. Chitin-binding protein even without any catalytic domain can facilitate the degradation of β-chitin by means of disrupting the crystalline chitin polymer structure [57, 58]. Microbial ability to produce proteins with high specific affinity to a certain crystalline chitin structure could be pivotal for the capability of bacteria to differentiate and react to specific crystalline chitin structures [59]. In addition, these chitin-binding domains may affect chitin degradation by facilitating adhesion of cells to the chitinous materials [57]. Thus, although we did not detect chitinase genes in P. mirabilis SCDR1, the presence of Chitin-binding protein suggests that P. mirabilis SCDR1 has some mechanisms of protection against chitin and the chitosan antimicrobial effect. In addition, the presence of genes encoding for the members Chitosanase family GH3 of N, N′-diacetylchitobiose-specific 6-phospho-beta-glucosidase (EC 3.2.1.86), Beta N-acetyl-glucosaminidase (nagZ, beta-hexosaminidase) (EC 3.2.1.52), and Glucan endo-1, 4-beta-glucosidase (EC 3.2.1.-) in P. mirabilis SCDR1 suggests that it can hydrolyze chitosan to glucosamine [6062]. This justifies the lack of antimicrobial effect of chitosan against P. mirabilis SCDR1. Likewise, P. mirabilis SCDR1 showed resistance against all the tested commercially available silver and Nanosilver containing wound dressing bandages. These silver containing commercially available bandages (wound dressing material) use different manufacturing technology and constituents. For example, Silvercel wound dressing contains high G calcium alginate in addition to 28% Silver-coated fibers (dressing contains 111 mg silver/100 cm2). The silver-coated fibers encompass elemental silver, which is converted to silver oxide upon contact with oxygen. Silver oxide dissolves in fluid and releases ionic silver (Ag+) that has antimicrobial action [63]. Clinical studies showed that Silvercel wound dressing is effective against many common wound pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), methicillin -resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). In addition, these studies showed that Silvercel wound dressing prevented and disrupted the formation of bacterial biofilms [64, 65]. However, this was not the case with our P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate. Similarly, Sorbsan Silver wound dressing which is made of the fiber of the calcium salt of the alginic acid that contains 1.5% silver [6668] did not show any antimicrobial effect against P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate. Likewise, Colactive® Plus Ag, which is a silver impregnated collagen-based /alginate foam sheet wound dressing, did not show any antimicrobial effect against P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate. In addition, Exsalt ®SD7 is a silver wound dressing that uses silver oxysalts technology. Silver oxysalts offer greater oxidation states of silver* (Ag2+, Ag3+) capable of interacting with microbial DNA, proteins and lipids, as well as providing potent oxidizing action through the increased power of Ag2+,3+ for advanced biocidal activity. Exsalt ®SD7 showed high antimicrobial activity against tested Gram-negative and positive bacteria and fungi tested [69]. P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate showed high resistance against Exsalt ®SD7. In addition, P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate showed high resistance against Puracol ® Plus Ag, which is made of 100% Collagens in addition to antimicrobial silver. Furthermore, Actisorb® Silver 220, which is a sterile primary dressing encompassing an activated charcoal cloth, impregnated with silver within a spun bonded perforated nylon sleeve [70] was not active against P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate.

Pathogenomics analysis showed that P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate is a potential virulent pathogen (Additional files 3 and 4: Tables 3 and 4). P. mirabilis SCDR1 shows that it possesses the characteristic bull’s eye pattern of swarming behavior. Presenting swarmer cells form is associated with the increase in expression of virulence genes [71]. Swarming is important to P. mirabilis uropathogenesis. It has been shown that swarming bacteria that move in multicellular groups exhibit adaptive resistance to multiple antibiotics [72]. Swarming behavior promotes the survival of bacteria in harsh environments or in unfavorable conditions. Moreover, migrating swarm cells display an increased resistance to many of antimicrobial agents. Therefore antimicrobial resistance could be a general feature of bacterial multicellular social behavior [73]. For example, the swarm cells of P. aeruginosa were able to migrate very close to the disc containing arsenite, indicating resistance to this heavy metal [73]. It has been suggested that high densities promote bacterial survival, the ability to move, as well as the speed of movement, confers an added advantage, making swarming an effective strategy for prevailing against antimicrobials including heavy metals [72, 73]. Furthermore, altruism or self-sacrifice is a suggested phenomenon associated with swarming, which involves risk of wiping out some individuals upon movement of bacteria to a different location, allowing the remaining individuals to continue their quest [72, 74]. Another suggested phenomenon associated with swarming is selfish behavior, in which the survival may be highest on top cells that are furthest from the antimicrobial agent while the lower cells in the swarm die because of the proximity to antimicrobial agents [72, 75]. Thus, selfish cells within the swarm sense where the best location is to avoid the toxic effect of the antimicrobial agent. Swarming behavior may indeed be one main reason for the observed nanosilver resistance of P. mirabilis SCDR1. Thus, maintaining high cell density, through the observed quorum sensing ability (Additional file 4: Table S4) and the circulation within the multilayered colony to minimize exposure to the heavy metal in addition to the death of individuals that are directly exposed, could be the key to the observed nanosilver resistance.

P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate exhibited the ability of biofilm formation and also our pathogenomics analysis showed that it contains the genes responsible for this, such as glpC gene coding for anaerobic glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase subunit C (EC 1.1.5.3), pmrI gene coding for UDP-glucuronic acid decarboxylase and baaS gene coding for biofilm formation regulatory protein BssS. We believe that the ability of P. mirabilis SCDR1 to form biofilm may also assist in the observed Nanosilver resistance. Biofilm formation can reduce the metal toxic effect by trapping it outside the cells. It was found that in the relative bacteria Proteus vulgaris XC 2, the biofilm cells showed considerably greater resistance to Chloromycetin compared to planktonic cells (free-floating counterparts) [76]. Moreover, it is suggested that the ability of biofilm formation may play a pivotal role in Polymyxin B antibiotic resistance in P. mirabilis [77]. Furthermore, it was found that biofilm formation is very important for heavy metal resistance in Pseudomonas sp. and that a biofilm lacking mutant was less tolerant to heavy metals [78]. Furthermore, it was found that both Extracellular Polysaccharides and Biofilm Formation is a resistance mechanism against toxic metals in Sinorhizobium meliloti, the nitrogen-fixing bacterium [79]. In addition, several reports claimed that the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of some antibiotics for biofilms can be 1000-fold higher than that for planktonic bacteria [80].

It is well known that there are several mechanisms for metal resistance. These include physicochemical interactions, efflux, intracellular sequestration and extracellular precipitation by the excreted polymeric compounds [79]. Indeed, additional to swarming activity, Polysaccharides and biofilm formation (Additional file 4: Table S4), P. mirabilis SCDR1 contains several genes and proteins that also facilitate metal resistance including silver and Nanosilver (Table 8). Our results indicate the presence of endogenous silver and copper resistance mechanism in P. mirabilis SCDR1. We observed the presence of gene determinants of Copper/silver efflux system, oprB encoding for Copper/silver efflux system outer membrane protein CusC (outer membrane efflux protein OprB), oprM encoding for Copper/silver efflux system outer membrane protein CusC (outer membrane efflux protein OprM), cusC_1 encoding for Copper/silver efflux system outer membrane protein CusC (RND efflux system outer membrane lipoprotein), cpxA encoding for Copper sensory histidine kinase and outer membrane component of tripartite multidrug resistance system (CusC). In addition, we observed the presence of several Copper resistance genes/proteins were detected, namely, copA, copB, copC, copD, cueO, cueR, cutC, cutF and CuRO_2_CopA_like1. A similar endogenous silver and copper resistance mechanism has been described in E. coli and has been associated with the loss of porins from the outer membrane and up-regulation of the native Cus efflux mechanism, which is capable of transporting silver out of the cell [81, 82]. However, the genetic basis resistant phenotypes are still not fully known, and it is not known if they are obligatory or sufficient to exhibit resistance to silver [83]. Thus, we suggest a comprehensive study for this endogenous silver resistance mechanism within the Proteus mirabilis as well as E. coli.

Furthermore, we observed the presence of genes encoding to enzymes involved in heavy metal resistance such as Glutathione S-transferase (EC 2.5.1.18) (gst1, gst, Delta and Uncharacterized) in P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome. Thus, we propose a role of Glutathione S-transferases of P. mirabilis SCDR1 in the observed Nanosilver resistance. Glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) are a family of multifunctional proteins that play an important role in the detoxification of harmful physiological and xenobiotic compounds in organisms [84]. Moreover, it was found that a Glutathione S-transferase is involved in copper, cadmium, Lead and mercury resistance [85]. Furthermore, it was found that GST genes are differentially expressed in defense against oxidative stress caused by Cd and Nanosilver exposure [85].

Moreover, we observed the presence of a complete tellurite resistance operon (terB, terA, terC, terD, terE, terZ) which was suggested as contributing to virulence or fitness and protection from other forms of oxidative stress or agents causing membrane damage, such as silver and Nanosilver, in P. mirabilis [86]. Several other heavy metal resistance genes and proteins were observed in the P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome. These included arsM encoding for arsenite S-adenosylmethyltransferase (Methyltransferase type 11), which play an important role in prokaryotic resistance and detoxification mechanism to arsenite [87, 88] and merB encoding for alkylmercury lyase that cleaves the carbon-mercury bond of organomercurials, such as phenylmercuric acetate [89]. Moreover, numerous heavy metal resistance proteins were observed, such as magnesium/cobalt efflux protein CorC, metal resistance proteins, nickel-cobalt-cadmium resistance protein NccB, arsenical pump membrane protein (ArsB permease), Lead, cadmium, zinc and mercury transporting ATPase (Table 8).

In order to gain information about antimicrobial resistome constituents in P. mirabilis species, we performed comparative genomics analysis amongst all available 56 P. mirabilis genomes, including the P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome. As stated before, all P. mirabilis genomes shared 16 AMROs (Table 6). For example, all genomes contained the AMRO of copper sensory histidine kinase CpxA in cpxA mutant confer resistant to amikacin, copper-sensing two-component system response regulator CpxR, which is a regulator that promotes acrD expression when phosphorylated by a cascade involving CpxA, a sensor kinase and linked to cefepime and chloramphenicol resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae [90]. However, different P. mirabilis genomes varied in the remaining 45 studied AMRO (Table 6). For example, genomics analysis of P. mirabilis-SCDR1 showed that our isolates contained genetic determinants for fluoroquinolones resistance (gyrA, parC and parE) [91, 92], Daptomycin and Rifamycin resistance (rpoB) [93], Chloramphenicol (cpxR, cpxA and cat) [90, 94], Ethidium bromide-methyl viologen resistance protein (emrE) [95] and Polymyxin and colistin resistance (phoP) [96]. In addition, several multidrug resistance efflux systems and complexes were observed. These include MdtABC-TolC, which is a multidrug efflux system in Gram-negative bacteria, including E. coli and Salmonella that confer resistance against β-lactams, novobiocin and deoxycholate. It is noteworthy that MdtABC-TolC and AcrD plays a role in metal resistance (copper and zinc), along with their BaeSR regulatory system [97] which was also was found in our P. mirabilis SCDR1 genome [Table 7], and thus may also play an additional role in silver resistance. MdtABC-TolC contains MdtA, which is a membrane fusion protein, TolC, which is the outer membrane channel and MdtBC that forms a drug transporter. In the absence of MdtB, the MdtAC-TolC has narrower drug specificity, leading to the loss of novobiocin resistance [98]. The MdtABC and AcrD systems may be related to bacterial metal homeostasis by transporting metals directly. This is to some extent similar to the copper and silver resistance mechanism by cation efflux of the CusABC system belonging to the RND protein superfamily [97, 99].

As stated before, this is the first report for spontaneous resistance against nanosilver. However, Gunawan et al., (2013) reported the natural ability of Bacillus sp. to adapt to nanosilver cytotoxicity under prolonged cellular oxidative stress stimulation through the nanoparticles incubation [14]. They found that the induced effects of adaptation continued even after discontinuation of nanosilver exposure. They also suggested that this characteristic ability of the ubiquitously-occurring Bacillus sp. may pose adversative consequences to the extensive use of nanosilver. Moreover, Graves et al., (2015) showed that after 225 generations of the treatment with nanosilver, the treated E. coli populations demonstrated greater fitness compared with control strains in the presence of silver nanoparticles [54]. We could also have suggested that the observed P. mirabilis SCDR1 nanosilver resistance might be an adaptive effect of the use of silver containing bandages in the Diabetic foot ulcer clinic. However, the reference strain P. mirabilis ATCC 29906 (isolated from urogenital tract of Homo sapiens) also showed resistance against colloidal nanosilver. In addition, it seems that nanosilver resistance is a widespread character in P. mirabilis species, since all other tested 50 isolates showed resistance against colloidal nanosilver [unpublished data]. Comparative metal resistance in P. mirabilis genomes contains some of the genetics determinants that can aid in nanosilver/silver resistance [unpublished data]. However, this conclusion needs to be further tested in a larger number of P. mirabilis isolated from different infection sites and geographical locations.

Increasing antimicrobial nanosilver usage could prompt a silver resistance problem in Gram-negative pathogens, particularly since silver resistance is already known to exist in several such species [81, 100]. Both exogenous (horizontally acquired Sil system) endogenous (mutational Cus system) resistance to silver has been reported in Gram-negative bacteria [13, 81]. Li et al. [81] selected five Escherichia coli mutants that present a ≥ 64-fold decreases in silver susceptibility compared with their original strain. All the mutants exhibited loss of expression of outer membrane porins (OmpF or OmpF/C), which seemingly resulted in the reduction of outer membrane permeability. These findings implied that reduced silver susceptibility is a result of restricting silver entrance into the bacterial cell. Moreover, they found that these mutants express active efflux that pumps silver outside of the cell. It was found that the cus CFBA operon is the responsible of silver efflux pump. Similarly, in our case, we observed the presence of resistance operon with high similarity to the cus operon, which is a chromosomally encoded system because of the lack of any plasmid in P. mirabilis SCDR1. However, both endogenous and exogenous silver resistance systems, in Gram-negative bacteria, remain incompletely understood [83].

The occurrence of induced nanosilver resistance (in vitro) in Bacillus sp. and E. coli [14, 54], spontaneous resistance (in our case) and the frequent uses and misuses of nanosilver-containing medical products should suggest adopting an enhanced surveillance systems for nanosilver-resistant isolates in medical setups. In addition, there should be greater control over utilizing nanosilver-containing products in order to maintain nanosilver as a valuable alternative approach in the fight against multidrug resistant pathogens.

Conclusion

In the present study, we introduced the P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate that was collected from a diabetic ulcer patient. P. mirabilis SCDR1 showed high levels of resistance against nanosilver colloids, nanosilver chitosan composite and the commercially available nanosilver and silver bandages. Our isolate contains all the required pathogenicity and virulence factors to establish a successful infection. P. mirabilis SCDR1 contains several physical and biochemical mechanisms for antibiotics and silver/nanosilver resistance, which are biofilm formation, swarming mobility, efflux systems, and enzymatic detoxification.

Abbreviations

16S rRNA: 

16S ribosomal RNA gene

AMRO: 

Antimicrobial Resistance based ontology

AROs: 

Antibiotic Resistance Ontology

BLASTn: 

Basic Local Alignment Search Tool nucleotide

bp: 

Base pair

DDT: 

1, 1, 1-Trichloro-2, 2-bis (4-chlorophenyl) ethane

DFU: 

Diabeticfoot ulcer

GC content: 

guanine-cytosine content

KFSHRC: 

King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center

Mb: 

Mega base pairs

MDR: 

multidrug-resistant

MIC: 

Minimum Inhibitory Concentration

MRSA: 

methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

MRSE: 

methicillin -resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis

NGS: 

Next generation sequencing techniques

PATRIC: 

Pathosystems recourse Integration center

PPM: 

part per million

RGI: 

Resistance Gene Identifier

RND: 

Resistance-Nodulation- Division

SCDR: 

Strategic center for Diabetes research

tRNAs: 

Transfer ribonucleic acid

VRE: 

Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank the members of the Diabeticfoot unit in the University Diabetes Center at King Saud University for their help in collecting the bacteria samples. Furthermore, we want to thanks the members of the nanotechnology department in SCDR for providing the chitosan nanosilver composites. In addition we want to acknowledge that NGS experiments and analysis were supported by the Saudi Human Genome Program (SHGP) at KACST and KFSHRC. Moreover, we want to thank Dr. Rebecca Wattam, form the Biocomplexity Institute at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, for her great assistance during data analysis using PATRIC services and tools.

Funding

The authors received internal research fund from King Faisal specialist hospital and research center to support the publication.

Availability of data and materials

Data from our draft genome of P. mirabilis SCDR1 isolate was deposited in NCBI-GenBank with an accession number LUFT00000000.

Authors’ contributions

ATMS: Involved in study conception and design, data analysis and interpretation. Involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content. Preparing the final approval of the version to be published. KA: Involved in study conception and design. Preparing the final approval of the version to be published. MAH: Involved in study design. Involved in acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; preparation and involved in drafting the manuscript. MS: Involved in acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data. HT: Involved in study conception and design. Involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content. Preparing the final approval of the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by institutional review board in King Saud University, Collage of Medicine Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The subject was provided written informed consent for participating in this study.

Consent for publication

All authors have consented for publication of this manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Genetics and Biotechnology Department, Strategic Center for Diabetes Research, College of medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(2)
Genetics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(3)
Saudi Human Genome Project, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(4)
Integrated Gulf Biosystems, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

References

  1. Chen X, Schluesener HJ. Nanosilver: a nanoproduct in medical application. Toxicol Lett. 2008;176:1–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dunn K, Edwards-Jones V. The role of Acticoat with nanocrystalline silver in the management of burns. Burns J. Int. Soc. Burn Inj 2004;30 Suppl 1:S1–9.Google Scholar
  3. Franci G, Falanga A, Galdiero S, Palomba L, Rai M, Morelli G, et al. Silver nanoparticles as potential antibacterial agents. Mol. Basel Switz. 2015;20:8856–74.Google Scholar
  4. Lu L, Sun RW-Y, Chen R, Hui C-K, Ho C-M, Luk JM, et al. Silver nanoparticles inhibit hepatitis B virus replication. Antivir Ther. 2008;13:253–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Microsoft Word - Final_Opinion_Health Effects of Exposure to nanosilver to be published on 13 06 2014.docx - scenihr_o_039.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2016 Nov 3]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_039.pdf
  6. Oyanedel-Craver VA, Smith JA. Sustainable colloidal-silver-impregnated ceramic filter for point-of-use water treatment. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42:927–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Prabhu S, Poulose EK. Silver nanoparticles: mechanism of antimicrobial action, synthesis, medical applications, and toxicity effects. Int. Nano Lett. 2012;2:32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Samuel U, Guggenbichler JP. Prevention of catheter-related infections: the potential of a new nano-silver impregnated catheter. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004;23(Suppl 1):S75–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Saeb ATM, Alshammari AS, Al-Brahim H, Al-Rubeaan KA. Production of silver nanoparticles with strong and stable antimicrobial activity against highly pathogenic and multidrug resistant bacteria. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:704708.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Velázquez-Velázquez JL, Santos-Flores A, Araujo-Meléndez J, Sánchez-Sánchez R, Velasquillo C, González C, et al. Anti-biofilm and cytotoxicity activity of impregnated dressings with silver nanoparticles. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2015;49:604–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lullove EJ, Bernstein B. Use of SilvrSTAT® in lower extremity wounds: a two center case series « Journal of Diabetic Foot Complications 2015;7:13–16.Google Scholar
  12. Hendry AT, Stewart IO. Silver-resistant Enterobacteriaceae from hospital patients. Can J Microbiol. 1979;25:915–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. McHugh GL, Moellering RC, Hopkins CC, Swartz MN. Salmonella typhimurium resistant to silver nitrate, chloramphenicol, and ampicillin. Lancet Lond Engl. 1975;1:235–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunawan C, Teoh WY, Marquis CP. Amal R. Induced adaptation of Bacillus sp to antimicrobial nanosilver Small Weinh Bergstr Ger. 2013;9:3554–60.Google Scholar
  15. Jansen AM, Lockatell CV, Johnson DE, Mobley HLT. Visualization of Proteus Mirabilis morphotypes in the urinary tract: the elongated swarmer cell is rarely observed in ascending urinary tract infection. Infect Immun. 2003;71:3607–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Mobley HL, Belas R. Swarming and pathogenicity of Proteus Mirabilis in the urinary tract. Trends Microbiol. 1995;3:280–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mathur S, Sabbuba NA, Suller MTE, Stickler DJ, Feneley RCL. Genotyping of urinary and fecal Proteus Mirabilis isolates from individuals with long-term urinary catheters. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. 2005;24:643–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicolle LE. Catheter-related urinary tract infection. Drugs Aging. 2005;22:627–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Armbruster CE, Mobley HLT. Merging mythology and morphology: the multifaceted lifestyle of Proteus Mirabilis. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:743–54.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobsen SM, Stickler DJ, Mobley HLT, Shirtliff ME. Complicated catheter-associated urinary tract infections due to Escherichia Coli and Proteus Mirabilis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008;21:26–59.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Rózalski A, Sidorczyk Z, Kotełko K. Potential virulence factors of Proteus bacilli. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev MMBR. 1997;61:65–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Bronze MS, Cunha BA. Diabetic Foot Infections: Practice Essentials, Background, Pathophysiology [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 3]. Available from: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/237378-overview
  23. Gonzalez G, Bronze MS. Proteus Infections: Background, Pathophysiology, Epidemiology [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 3]. Available from: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/226434-overview
  24. Pearson MM, Sebaihia M, Churcher C, Quail MA, Seshasayee AS, Luscombe NM, et al. Complete genome sequence of uropathogenic Proteus Mirabilis, a master of both adherence and motility. J Bacteriol. 2008;190:4027–37.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Habibi M, Asadi Karam MR, Bouzari S. In silico design of fusion protein of FimH from uropathogenic Escherichia Coli and MrpH from Proteus Mirabilis against urinary tract infections. Adv. Biomed Res. 2015;4:217.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Baldo C, Rocha SPD. Virulence factors of Uropathogenic Proteus Mirabilis - a mini review. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Emerg. Eng. Res. 2014;3:24–7.Google Scholar
  27. Bush K. Alarming β-lactamase-mediated resistance in multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2010;13:558–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nordmann P, Naas T, Poirel L. Global spread of Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17:1791–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Horner CS, Abberley N, Denton M, Wilcox MH. Surveillance of antibiotic susceptibility of Enterobacteriaceae isolated from urine samples collected from community patients in a large metropolitan area, 2010-2012. Epidemiol Infect. 2014;142:399–403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Miró E, Agüero J, Larrosa MN, Fernández A, Conejo MC, Bou G, et al. Prevalence and molecular epidemiology of acquired AmpC β-lactamases and carbapenemases in Enterobacteriaceae isolates from 35 hospitals in Spain. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Off Publ Eur Soc Clin Microbiol. 2013;32:253–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Sheng W-H, Badal RE, Hsueh P-R, Program SMART. Distribution of extended-spectrum β-lactamases, AmpC β-lactamases, and carbapenemases among Enterobacteriaceae isolates causing intra-abdominal infections in the Asia-Pacific region: results of the study for monitoring antimicrobial resistance trends (SMART). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:2981–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Bouchillon SK, Badal RE, Hoban DJ, Hawser SP. Antimicrobial susceptibility of inpatient urinary tract isolates of gram-negative bacilli in the United States: results from the study for monitoring antimicrobial resistance trends (SMART) program: 2009-2011. Clin Ther. 2013;35:872–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hawser SP, Badal RE, Bouchillon SK, Hoban DJ, Hackel MA, Biedenbach DJ, et al. Susceptibility of gram-negative aerobic bacilli from intra-abdominal pathogens to antimicrobial agents collected in the United States during 2011. J Inf Secur. 2014;68:71–6.Google Scholar
  34. Karlowsky JA, Adam HJ, Baxter MR, Lagacé-Wiens PRS, Walkty AJ, Hoban DJ, et al. Vitro activity of ceftaroline-avibactam against gram-negative and gram-positive pathogens isolated from patients in Canadian hospitals from 2010 to 2012: results from the CANWARD surveillance study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:5600–11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Sader HS, Farrell DJ, Flamm RK, Jones RN. Antimicrobial susceptibility of gram-negative organisms isolated from patients hospitalized in intensive care units in United States and European hospitals (2009-2011). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;78:443–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Chen L, Al Laham N, Chavda KD, Mediavilla JR, Jacobs MR, Bonomo RA, et al. First report of an OXA-48-producing multidrug-resistant Proteus Mirabilis strain from Gaza, Palestine. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:4305–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Latif U, Al-Rubeaan K, Saeb ATM. A review on antimicrobial chitosan-silver nanocomposites: a roadmap toward pathogen targeted synthesis. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater. 2015;64:448–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Matuschek E, Brown DFJ, Kahlmeter G. Development of the EUCAST disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing method and its implementation in routine microbiology laboratories. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. Infect Dis. 2014;20:O255–66.Google Scholar
  39. Holla G, Yeluri R, Munshi AK. Evaluation of minimum inhibitory and minimum bactericidal concentration of nano-silver base inorganic anti-microbial agent (Novaron(®)) against streptococcus mutans. Contemp. Clin Dent. 2012;3:288–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Yassien M, Khardori N. Interaction between biofilms formed by Staphylococcus Epidermidis and quinolones. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001;40:79–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Saeb AT, Abouelhoda M, Selvaraju M, Althawadi SI, Mutabagani M, Adil M, et al. The Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in the Identification of a Fastidious Pathogen: A Lesson From a Clinical Setup. Evol. Bioinforma. Online [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Oct 11];13. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5395265/
  42. Darling ACE, Mau B, Blattner FR, Perna NT. Mauve: multiple alignment of conserved genomic sequence with rearrangements. Genome Res. 2004;14:1394–403.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Abouelhoda MI, Kurtz S, Ohlebusch E. CoCoNUT: an efficient system for the comparison and analysis of genomes. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9:476.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Wattam AR, Abraham D, Dalay O, Disz TL, Driscoll T, Gabbard JL, et al. PATRIC, the bacterial bioinformatics database and analysis resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D581–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Cosentino S, Voldby Larsen M, Møller Aarestrup F, Lund O. PathogenFinder--distinguishing friend from foe using bacterial whole genome sequence data. PLoS One. 2013;8:e77302.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. VFDB: Virulence Factors Database [Internet]. Virulance Factors Pathog. Bact. 2003 [cited 2016 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.mgc.ac.cn/VFs/
  47. Liu B, Pop M. ARDB--antibiotic resistance genes database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:D443–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. McArthur AG, Wright GD. Bioinformatics of antimicrobial resistance in the age of molecular epidemiology. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015;27:45–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. McArthur AG, Waglechner N, Nizam F, Yan A, Azad MA, Baylay AJ, et al. The comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:3348–57.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Zankari E, Hasman H, Cosentino S, Vestergaard M, Rasmussen S, Lund O, et al. Identification of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67:2640–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Pal C, Bengtsson-Palme J, Rensing C, Kristiansson E, Larsson DGJ. BacMet: antibacterial biocide and metal resistance genes database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D737–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Olaitan AO, Morand S, Rolain J-M. Mechanisms of polymyxin resistance: acquired and intrinsic resistance in bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:643.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Magiorakos A-P, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, 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. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2012;18:268–81.Google Scholar
  54. Graves JL, Tajkarimi M, Cunningham Q, Campbell A, Nonga H, Harrison SH, et al. Rapid evolution of silver nanoparticle resistance in Escherichia coli. Front. Genet. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Oct 16];6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330922/
  55. Tang Z, Liu S, Dong S, Wang E. Electrochemical synthesis of ag nanoparticles on functional carbon surfaces. J Electroanal Chem. 502:146–51.Google Scholar
  56. Park H-J, Kim JY, Kim J, Lee J-H, Hahn J-S, MB G, et al. Silver-ion-mediated reactive oxygen species generation affecting bactericidal activity. Water Res. 2009;43:1027–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Beier S, Bertilsson S. Bacterial chitin degradation-mechanisms and ecophysiological strategies. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:149.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Vaaje-Kolstad G, Horn SJ, van Aalten DMF, Synstad B, Eijsink VGH. The non-catalytic chitin-binding protein CBP21 from Serratia Marcescens is essential for chitin degradation. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:28492–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Svitil AL, Chadhain S, Moore JA, Kirchman DL. Chitin degradation proteins produced by the marine bacterium Vibrio Harveyi growing on different forms of chitin. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63:408–13.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Wieczorek AS, Hetz SA, Kolb S. Microbial responses to chitin and chitosan in oxic and anoxic agricultural soil slurries. Biogeosciences. 2014;11:3339–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Gupta V, Prasanna R, Natarajan C, Srivastava AK, Sharma J. Identification, characterization, and regulation of a novel antifungal chitosanase gene (cho) in anabaena spp. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76:2769–77.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Gupta V, Prasanna R, Srivastava AK, Sharma J. Purification and characterization of a novel antifungal endo-type chitosanase from anabaena fertilissima. Ann Microbiol. 2011;62:1089–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Cutting K, White R, Edmonds M. The safety and efficacy of dressings with silver - addressing clinical concerns. Int Wound J. 2007;4:177–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. McInroy L, Cullen B, Clark R. Are silver-containing dressings effective against bacteria in biofilms? [internet]. Orlando; 2010. Available from: www.systagenix.it/cms/uploads/McInroy_biofilms_SAWC_2010.pdf
  65. Stephens S, Clark R, Del Bono M, Snyder R. Designing in vitro, in vivo and clinical evaluations to meet the needs of the patient and clinician: dressing wound adherence. Geneva; 2010.Google Scholar
  66. Thomas S. Alginate dressings in surgery and wound management--part 1. J Wound Care. 2000;9:56–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Thomas S. Alginate dressings in surgery and wound management: part 2. J Wound Care. 2000;9:115–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomas S. Alginate dressings in surgery and wound management: part 3. J Wound Care. 2000;9:163–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Exsalt® SD7 Powerful and effective interaction with microbes. [Internet]. [cited 2016 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.excitontech.com/images/docs/exsalt%20Science%20Broad%20Spectrum.pdf
  70. Haycocks S, Chadwick P. Using an activated charcoal dressing with silver for malodour, infection and overgranulation in diabetic foot ulcers importance of appropriate dressing selection for diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Foot J. 2014;17:74–7.Google Scholar
  71. Allison C, Lai HC, Hughes C. Co-ordinate expression of virulence genes during swarm-cell differentiation and population migration of Proteus Mirabilis. Mol Microbiol. 1992;6:1583–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Butler MT, Wang Q, Harshey RM. Cell density and mobility protect swarming bacteria against antibiotics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:3776–81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Lai S, Tremblay J, Déziel E. Swarming motility: a multicellular behaviour conferring antimicrobial resistance. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:126–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Gadagkar R. SURVIVAL STRATEGIES: COOPERATION AND CONFLICT IN ANIMAL SOCIETIES. [Internet]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1997 [cited 2016 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276238210_Gadagkar_R_1997_SURVIVAL_STRATEGIES_COOPERATION_AND_CONFLICT_IN_ANIMAL_SOCIETIES_Harvard_University_Press_Cambridge_Massachusetts_x_196_pp_ISBN_0-674-17055-5_price_hardcover_2200
  75. Hamilton WD. Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol. 1971;31:295–311.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Wu YL, Liu KS, Yin XT, Fei RM. GlpC gene is responsible for biofilm formation and defense against phagocytes and imparts tolerance to pH and organic solvents in Proteus vulgaris. Genet Mol Res GMR. 2015;14:10619–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Jiang S-S, Liu M-C, Teng L-J, Wang W-B, Hsueh P-R, Liaw S-J. Proteus Mirabilis pmrI, an RppA-regulated gene necessary for polymyxin B resistance, biofilm formation, and urothelial cell invasion. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:1564–71.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Chien C-C, Lin B-C, Biofilm WC-H. Formation and heavy metal resistance by an environmental pseudomonas sp. Biochem Eng J. 2013;78:132–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Nocelli N, Bogino PC, Banchio E, Giordano W. Roles of extracellular polysaccharides and biofilm formation in heavy metal resistance of rhizobia. Materials. 2016;9:418.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Høiby N, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M, Molin S, Ciofu O. Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;35:322–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Li XZ, Nikaido H, Williams KE. Silver-resistant mutants of Escherichia Coli display active efflux of ag+ and are deficient in porins. J Bacteriol. 1997;179:6127–32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Lok C-N, Ho C-M, Chen R, Tam PK-H, Chiu J-F, Che C-M. Proteomic identification of the Cus system as a major determinant of constitutive Escherichia Coli Silver resistance of chromosomal origin. J Proteome Res. 2008;7:2351–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Randall CP, Gupta A, Jackson N, Busse D, O’Neill AJ. Silver resistance in gram-negative bacteria: a dissection of endogenous and exogenous mechanisms. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70:1037–46.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhang W, Yin K, Li B, Chen LA. Glutathione S-transferase from Proteus Mirabilis involved in heavy metal resistance and its potential application in removal of Hg2+. J Hazard Mater. 2013;261:646–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Nair PMG, Choi J. Identification, characterization and expression profiles of Chironomus Riparius glutathione S-transferase (GST) genes in response to cadmium and silver nanoparticles exposure. Aquat Toxicol Amst Neth. 2011;101:550–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Toptchieva A, Sisson G, Bryden LJ, Taylor DE, Hoffman PS. An inducible tellurite-resistance operon in Proteus Mirabilis. Microbiol Read Engl. 2003;149:1285–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Qin J, Lehr CR, Yuan C, Le XC, McDermott TR, Rosen BP. Biotransformation of arsenic by a Yellowstone thermoacidophilic eukaryotic alga. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:5213–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Qin J, Rosen BP, Zhang Y, Wang G, Franke S, Rensing C. Arsenic detoxification and evolution of trimethylarsine gas by a microbial arsenite S-adenosylmethionine methyltransferase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:2075–80.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  89. Marchler-Bauer A, Derbyshire MK, Gonzales NR, Lu S, Chitsaz F, Geer LY, et al. CDD: NCBI’s conserved domain database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:D222–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Srinivasan VB, Vaidyanathan V, Mondal A, Rajamohan G. Role of the two component signal transduction system CpxAR in conferring cefepime and chloramphenicol resistance in Klebsiella Pneumoniae NTUH-K2044. PLoS One. 2012;7:e33777.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  91. Nawaz M, Sung K, Kweon O, Khan S, Nawaz S, Steele R. Characterisation of novel mutations involved in quinolone resistance in Escherichia Coli isolated from imported shrimp. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;45:471–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Kubanov A, Vorobyev D, Chestkov A, Leinsoo A, Shaskolskiy B, Dementieva E, et al. Molecular epidemiology of drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Russia (current status, 2015). BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:389.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  93. Jin DJ, Gross CA. Mapping and sequencing of mutations in the Escherichia Coli rpoB gene that lead to rifampicin resistance. J Mol Biol. 1988;202:45–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Zhao J, Aoki T. Cloning and nucleotide sequence analysis of a chloramphenicol acetyltransferase gene from vibrio anguillarum. Microbiol Immunol. 1992;36:695–705.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Bay DC, Rommens KL, Turner RJ. Small multidrug resistance proteins: a multidrug transporter family that continues to grow. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2008;1778:1814–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Lee J-Y, Ko KS. Mutations and expression of PmrAB and PhoPQ related with colistin resistance in Pseudomonas Aeruginosa clinical isolates. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;78:271–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Franke S, Grass G, Rensing C, Nies DH. Molecular analysis of the copper-transporting efflux system CusCFBA of Escherichia Coli. J Bacteriol. 2003;185:3804–12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  98. Nishino K, Nikaido E, Yamaguchi A. Regulation of multidrug efflux systems involved in multidrug and metal resistance of salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium. J Bacteriol. 2007;189:9066–75.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  99. Outten FW, Huffman DL, Hale JA, O’Halloran TV. The independent cue and cus systems confer copper tolerance during aerobic and anaerobic growth in Escherichia Coli. J Biol Chem. 2001;276:30670–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Andersson DI. Persistence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2003;6:452–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement