Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Antimicrobial susceptibility and genotyping of Mycoplasma pneumoniae isolates in Beijing, China, from 2014 to 2016

  • 1, 2,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 4,
  • 1, 2,
  • 3 and
  • 1, 2Email author
Contributed equally
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control20198:18

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-019-0469-7

  • Received: 10 November 2018
  • Accepted: 9 January 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

The presence of macrolide-resistant Myocplasma pneumoniae has been frequently reported in recent years, especially in China. In this study, we investigated the antimicrobial susceptibility and genotype against M. pneumoniae isolates from 2014 to 2016, Beijing.

Methods

We investigated the activities of four antibiotics against 81 M. pneumoniae isolates in vitro. All isolates were amplification of domains II and V of the 23S rRNA gene and the L4 and L22 ribosomal protein fragments. All isolates were genotyped with duplex real-time PCR, MLVA and VNTR detection in p1 gene.

Results

The macrolide resistance rate was 65.4% (53/81). Each of the macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae isolates was resistant to erythromycin (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration, MIC, ≥256 μg/ml) and azithromycin (MIC, 2–64 μg/ml), but susceptible to tetracycline and levofloxacin in vitro. Fifty two macrolide-resistant isolates harbored the A2063G mutation, and only 1 macrolide-resistant isolates harbored the A2064G mutation in domain V of the 23S ribosomal RNA gene. The C162A, A430G, and T279C mutations in the L4 and L22 ribosomal protein genes were not responsible for macrolide resistance, but they were related to the particular genotype of M. pneumoniae. 95.7% of type 1 isolates (45/47) were macrolide-resistance, and 23.5% of the type 2 isolates (8/34) were macrolide-resistance. Type 2 M. pneumoniae macrolide-resistance rate was 50.6% higher than that of the previous reports in China. The eight macrolide-resistant type 2 M. pneumoniae isolates were belong to 3/5/6/2 and 3/5/7/2 MLVA genotypes.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this phenomenon likely resulted from a combination of genotype shifting from type1 to type 2 and antibiotic selection pressure in M. pneumoniae in China in recent years. The increase of resistance in type 2 is not due to the spread of same clone. However, the relationship between genotype shifts and macrolide resistance in M. pneumoniae needs to be further verified with more extensive surveillance data.

Keywords

  • Mycoplasma pneumoniae
  • Macrolide resistance
  • 23S rRNA gene
  • Genotype

Background

Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a common pathogen that causes human respiratory tract infections, especially in community-acquired pneumonia, which accounts for 10–40% of cases [13]. Although most of the infections are mild or self-limited, severe clinical symptoms are increasingly occurring. Furthermore, M. pneumoniae infections may lead to more severe extra-pulmonary conditions, such as erythema multiforme, myocarditis, and meningitis neuritis [46]. It is well known that M. pneumoniae is one of the smallest self-replicating organisms and lacks a cell wall, which makes it non-susceptible to β-lactam antibiotics. Therefore, macrolides are the primary drugs of choice for the treatment of M. pneumoniae infections in clinical settings [7].

Excessive or inappropriate use of antibiotics provides selective pressure for the development of macrolide resistance in M. pneumoniae. Since 2000, the emergence of macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae strains has become a growing global problem. Macrolide resistance rates were reported to be approximately 3% in Germany [8], 10% in France [9], 2% in Switzerland [10], 26% in Italy [11], 3% in Denmark [12], and 11% in the United States [13]. Finally in Spain, the presence of a macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae isolate causing community-acquired pneumonia was first reported in 2014 [14]. Although Europe and the United States have lower rates of macrolide resistance, Asiatic countries have the highest rates. After the first macrolide-resistant strain of M. pneumoniae was isolated in 2001 [15], Japan reported a dramatic increase in macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae, and the macrolide resistance rate exceeded 90% in 2011 [1619]. In South Korea, the prevalence of macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae increased from 0 to 63% within 10 years [20, 21]. In China, the infection rate of macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae has always been high, ranging from 69 to 100% [2224] in recent years. Given the distinct increase in the prevalence of macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae, it is crucial to detect macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae in a timely fashion and facilitate targeted treatment adjustments for M. pneumoniae-induced infections.

The resistance mechanism employed by M. pneumoniae involves point mutations in domain V of the 23S rRNA gene. Specifically, mutations at positions 2063 or 2064 lead to high-level resistance, whereas mutations at positions 2067 or 2617 are associated with low-level resistance to macrolides [25, 26]. Furthermore, point mutations that occur in the L4 and L22 ribosomal protein genes seem to have no impact on resistance to macrolides in M. pneumoniae [22, 26]. Until now, many erythromycin ribosome methylation (erm) and efflux pump (mef) genes introduced via transposons or plasmids have been reported in many strains of pneumococci and enterobacteria [27], but these genes have still not been detected in M. pneumoniae [28]. The existence of any other macrolide resistance mechanisms of M. pneumoniae remains unclear and requires further study. Although early reports have found some potential correlation between macrolide-resistance and genotype in China, most type 2 isolates are macrolide-susceptible [2224, 28, 29]. The data are relatively limited, and the association of the macrolide-resistance with genotype does not exist abroad reports [14, 26]. Therefore, macrolide-resistance and genotypes of M. pneumoniae need to do further research.

In this study, 81 M. pneumoniae isolates were obtained from 271 throat swabs that were collected between 2014 and 2016 in Beijing, China, to evaluate the prevalence of macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae and characterize its mechanisms of resistance, and analyze the correlation between genotype and macrolide resistance observed in M. pneumoniae in China.

Methods

Study design

Microbiological testing was conducted at the Department of Communicable Disease Diagnostics of National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Research Ethics Committee of the Beijing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Research Ethics Committee of the Beijing Children’s Hospital. The segment of the work based on molecular analysis was carried out at laboratory of National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

M. pneumoniae isolates, culturing, and genomic DNA extraction

From January 2014 to December 2016, total 271 throat swabs were collected from the Beijing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Beijing Children’s Hospital. None of the patients were immunocompromised, patients with neutropenia, and patients receiving immunosuppressive chemotherapy were excluded. All specimens were collected from patients with respiratory tract infections according to clinical symptoms. Each throat swab was cultured in Mycoplasma selective liquid media (OXOID) at 37 °C. When the color of the media changed from red to yellow, approximately 0.1 ml of the suspension was transferred onto agar to subculture and purify the bacteria using the filtration-cloning technique for M. pneumoniae clinical isolates. Genomic DNA from each obtained isolate was extracted with the QIAamp DNA MINI kit (QIAGEN) using the protocol for blood and body fluids, and the identity of each isolate was verified using real-time PCR [30].

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of M. pneumoniae

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of four antibiotics, including erythromycin, azithromycin, levofloxacin and tetracycline (Sigma), were determined via micro-dilution methods using SP4 broth (Remel). M. pneumoniae M129 (ATCC 29342) and ICDC P028 (Clinical isolate) were used as macrolide-susceptible and -resistant controls, respectively. The MIC operation was carried out according to the latest version of CSLI M43-A. Serial two-fold dilutions of each antibiotic prepared in SP4 broth containing about 105 colony-forming units (CFU)/ml of M. pneumoniae were plated in 96-well micro-plates. The micro-plates were sealed with sterilized liquid paraffin oil and incubated at 37 °C for 5 days. Each antimicrobial susceptibility test was performed in triplicate. The MIC was determined as the lowest concentration of antimicrobial agent that induced a color change in the control media.

Amplification and sequencing domains II and V of the 23S rRNA gene and the L4 and L22 ribosomal protein genes

Amplification of domains II and V of the 23S rRNA gene and the L4 and L22 ribosomal protein fragments were performed using the primers described previously [26]. Each reaction was performed in a final volume of 20 μl, containing 2 μl 10× Ex Taq Buffer (Mg2+ plus), 0.4 μM primers, 1.6 μl dNTP mixture (each 2.5 μM), 0.2 μl TaKaRa Ex Taq (5 U/μl), 1 μl of template DNA, and nuclease-free water to achieve a 20-μl final volume. The cycling conditions were as follows: 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 30 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 55 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 60 s with a final extension step of 72 °C for 5 min. All amplification products were sequenced bidirectionally by Sangon Biotech (Beijing) Co. Ltd.

Duplex real-time PCR assay for genotyping of M. pneumoniae

Amplification of the genotype specific regions from all obtained isolates was performed with the duplex real-time PCR assay described previously [31]. Each PCR mixture was prepared in a total volume of 25 μl and contained the following per reaction: 12.5 μl Platinum Quantitative PCR SuperMix-UDG (Life Technologies-Invitrogen), 1.5 μl MgCl2(50 mM), 0.5 μM final concentration of each primer, 0.2 μM final concentration of each probe, 1.25 U Platinum Taq DNA polymerase(5 U/μl; Life Technologies-Invitrogen), 1 μl PCR nucleotide mix (10 mM), 5 μl nucleic acid extracted from each specimen, and nuclease-free water to achieve a 25 μl final volume. Real-time PCR for each target was performed in the CFX96 Real-time PCR Detection System (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) under the following conditions: predenaturation at 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 45 cycles at 95 °C for 15 s and 56 °C for 15 s. The data were analyzed with the CFX Manager Software (version 2.1; Bio-Rad).

MLVA genotyping and VNTR detection in p1 gene

Extracted nucleic acids from all 81 isolates were used as the template for PCR amplification of the four loci selected for multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat (VNTR) analysis (MLVA), as described previously [32]. Furthermore, all nucleic acids were also as the template for PCR amplification of the high resolution VNTR sequence in the p1 gene [24], The PCR products were sequenced by the Sangon Biotech (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

Results

Clinical M. pneumoniae culture and identification

A total of 81 M. pneumoniae isolates were obtained from 271 patients. Of the 81 isolates, 27 were isolated in 2014, 19 were isolated in 2015, and 35 were isolated in 2016. Genomic DNAs from all 81 obtained isolates was identified by real-time PCR, which indicated that each isolate was indeed M. pneumoniae.

Antimicrobial susceptibility of M. pneumoniae

Of the 81 clinical isolates, 53 (65.4%) were erythromycin resistant (MIC, ≥256 μg/ml). These erythromycin-resistant isolates, as well as the reference strain ICDCP028, also showed resistance for the azithromycin. The MIC for the 15-member macrolide, azithromycin (2–64 μg/ml), was lower than that of erythromycin. The other 28 isolates, as well as the reference strain, M129, were macrolide-susceptible with each having an MIC of ≤0.008 for erythromycin and azithromycin. All 81 clinical isolates were susceptible to tetracycline and levofloxacin used in this study. (Table 1).
Table 1

Genotype characteristics and MIC ranges of four antimicrobial agents used against 81 M. pneumoniae clinical isolates from 2014 to 2016

Year

Mutation in the 23S rRNA

Isolates number

MLVA genotype (Numbers)

No. of “AGT” VNTRs repeats in p1 gene (Number)

MIC (μg/ml)

type1

type2

type1

type2

type1

type2

ERY

AZM

LVX

TET

2014

A2063G

13

2

4/5/7/2 (10)

4/5/7/3 (2)

4/4/7/2 (1)

3/5/6/2 (2)

5 repeats(1)

7 repeats(6)

8 repeats(5)

11repeats(1)

6 repeats(1)

8 repeats(1)

≥256

2–32

0.25–1

0.016–0.25

A2064G

1

0

4/5/7/2 (1)

0

7 repeats(1)

 

≥256

4

0.25

0.032

None

2

9

4/5/7/2 (2)

3/5/6/2 (9)

5 repeats(1)

7 repeats(1)

6 repeats(3)

7 repeats(2)

8 repeats(3)

12 repeats(1)

≤0.008

≤0.008

0.25–1

0.032–0.25

2015

A2063G

12

2

4/5/7/2 (12)

3/5/6/2 (2)

4 repeats(1)

6 repeats(5)

7 repeats(4)

8 repeats(2)

8 repeats(2)

≥256

2–64

0.125–0.5

0.032–0.5

None

0

5

0

3/5/6/2 (5)

0

5 repeats(1)

8 repeats(4)

≤0.008

≤0.008

0.25–1

0.032–0.25

2016

A2063G

19

4

4/5/7/2 (17)

4/5/7/3 (2)

3/5/6/2 (3)

3/5/7/2 (1)

6 repeats(2)

7 repeats(5)

8 repeats(4)

9 repeats(6)

10 repeats(1)

12 repeats(1)

7 repeats(3)

10 repeats(1)

≥256

2–64

0.125–1

0.016–0.5

None

0

12

0

3/5/6/2 (11)

3/5/7/2 (1)

0

6 repeats(2)

7 repeats(5)

8 repeats(3)

10 repeats(1)

14 repeats(1)

≤0.008

≤0.008

0.25–1

0.032–0.5

The MIC of each agent was defined as the lowest concentration of each antibiotic that prevented the color change

ERY erythromycin, AZM azithromycin, LVX levofloxacin, TET tetracycline

Clinical patient data

Clinical data for M. pneumoniae-related cases of pneumonia were available for the 81 patients, 53 (65.4%) of whom had pneumonia caused by macrolide-resistant isolates. None of patients had coinfection with Streptococcus pneumoniae (as defined by positive results of sputum culture, blood culture, and urinary antigen testing for S. pneumoniae) or Legionella pneumophila (as defined by urinary antigen testing). Demographic characteristics and clinical presentations were similar between the group infected with macrolide-resistant isolates (53/81) and the group infected with macrolide-susceptible isolates (28/81) (Table 2).
Table 2

Clinical data comparing 81 cases of respiratory tract infections caused by M. pneumoniae with different in vitro susceptibility to macrolides

 

Macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae group (n = 53)

Macrolide-susceptible M. pneumoniae group (n = 28)

Male

22 (41.5%)

11 (39.2%)

Clinical Symptoms

 Temperature (°C)

38.12

37.96

 Cough

39 (73.6%)

18 (64.3%)

 Sputum

33 (62.3%)

(53.8%)

 Headache

16 (30.2%)

11 (39.3%)

 Chest pain

3 (5.7%)

0

Leukocyte count (109 cells/L)

8.44

8.71

Antibiotics usage before detection

14 (26.4%)

10 (35.7%)

Amplification and sequencing of the 23S rRNA gene and the L4 and L22 ribosomal protein genes

98.1%(52/53) macrolide-resistant clinical isolates harbored the A2063G mutation in domain V of the 23S rRNA gene. Only one (1/53) macrolide-resistant clinical isolates harbored the A2064G mutation in domain V of the 23S rRNA gene. None 2063 or 2064 mutation was found in 28 macrolide-susceptible clinical isolates. Furthermore, no other mutations in domain V of the 23S rRNA gene were observed in the 81 isolates (Table 1). The C162A and A430G mutations in the L4 ribosomal protein gene and the T279C mutation in the L22 ribosomal protein gene were identified in 34 isolates, including the reference strain ICDC P028.

Genotyping of M. pneumoniae with three methods

A total of 47 (58.0%) isolates were classified as type 1, and the other 34 (42.0%) isolates belonged to type 2 with duplex real-time PCR. Among the 47 type 1 isolates, 45 were macrolide-resistant, and only two was macrolide-susceptible. The 34 type 2 isolates, 8 were macrolide-resistant, and other 26 was macrolide-susceptible. 89.4% (42/47) type 1 isolates were 4/5/7/2 MLVA type, and 94.1% (32/34) type 2 isolates were 3/5/6/2 MLVA type (Table 1). The numbers of VNTR in the p1 gene from all 81 M. pneumoniae isolates were different, ranging from 5 to 14, as shown in Table 1.

Macrolide-resistant isolates with genotyping from 2014 to 2016

The total Macrolide-resistant rate was 59.3, 73.7 and 65.7% from 2014 to 2016, respectively. However, the macrolide-resistant rate of type 1 isolates was 87.5%(14/16), 100.0% (12/12) and 100.0% (19/19), and was only 18.2% (2/11), 28.6% (2/7) and 25.0% (4/16) in type 2 isolate from 2014 to 2016 (Table 1).

Disscussion

In general, macrolides are the primary therapeutic agent for treating M. pneumoniae infections in both children and adults, but the macrolide resistance rate has been shown to be very high in clinical isolates of M. pneumoniae in China in recent years [2224, 31]. Basic clinical data demonstrated that the demographic characteristics, clinical presentations, and biochemical blood indices were similar between the group infected with macrolide-resistant isolates and the group infected with macrolide-susceptible isolates, which is consistent with our previous report [22]. This suggests that the pathogenicity of the macrolide-susceptible and macrolide-resistant isolates is unremarkable. However, our previous study found that patients infected with macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae required significantly longer durations of antibiotic therapy and needed more time to recuperate from fevers [22]. Unfortunately, we did not obtain further clinical treatment data in this study. Although, Lluch-Senar [33] found that type 2 strains show higher expression levels of CARDS toxin, a protein recently shown to be one of the major factors of inflammation. It proposed that type 2 strains could be more toxigenic than type 1 strains of M. pneumoniae. Our basic clinical data still have not found some features in common for the patients with different genotypes. This suggests that the pathogenicity may also unremarkable for M. pneumoniae with genotypes. Therefore, the influence of the macrolide-resistance and the genotypes of M. pneumoniae isolates on the effect of the clinical outcomes requires further investigation.

Macrolide resistance in M. pneumoniae is strongly associated with mutations in the 23S rRNA gene [34]. Several common mutations in the 23S rRNA gene were found at positions 2063, 2064, and 2617 [15, 35, 36]. Among these genetic loci, the A2063G and A2064G mutations are responsible for high levels of macrolide resistance in M. pneumoniae. Notably, the A2063G mutation in domain V of the 23S rRNA gene is the most prevalent in macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae isolates in China [22, 28, 31, 37, 38]. In this study, 98.1%(52/53) macrolide-resistant clinical isolates harbored this A2063G mutation. Only one (1/53) macrolide-resistant clinical isolates harbored the A2064G mutation, and no other mutations in the 23S rRNA gene were observed. These findings coincided with the results from the antimicrobial susceptibility tests. Based on our antimicrobial susceptibility results, each of the A2063G isolates was responsible for high-level resistance to erythromycin (≥256 μg/ml), and azithromycin (2–64 μg/ml) in vitro. The susceptibility data also revealed that all M. pneumoniae isolates were susceptible to tetracycline and fluoroquinolones. Taken together, these findings suggest that these antibiotics have the potential to be used as alternatives for treating M. pneumoniae infections in adults with cases of high macrolide resistance, but this class of antibiotics is not ordinarily recommended for children, except in particular cases.

Furthermore, mutations in the L4 and L22 ribosomal proteins are related to macrolide resistance in other species [39]. In this study, we found that the C162A and A430G mutations in the L4 ribosomal protein gene and the T279C mutation in the L22 ribosomal protein gene were observed in all isolates classified as type 2 for the p1 gene, which is consistent with our previous report [22]. An intensive study using whole genome sequence analysis of 20 Chinese clinically isolated strains (unpublished data) and M. pneumoniae genomes available in NCBI database [33, 40], identified the C162A, A430G, and T279C mutations in the ribosomal protein gene that were detected in all type 2 isolates. We reasoned that the three mutations in L4 and L22 were not responsible for macrolide resistance, but rather influenced the particular genotype of M. pneumoniae.

This study showed a comparatively low macrolide resistance rate of 65.4% in China, in recent 10 years [2224, 37, 38, 4145]. Interestingly, 95.7% (45/47) of the type 1 isolates were resistant to macrolides, whereas only 23.5% (8/34) of the type 2 isolates were resistant to macrolides in this study. To our knowledge, this interesting phenomenon has not been reported in other counties [26, 46]. Due to the relatively low resistance rate of type 2 isolates, the overall rate of macrolides resistance is lower than previously reported in China [23, 24, 28, 29, 37, 38, 47]. In recent publication, we found that M. pneumoniae type 1 was the predominate genotype present during 2008–2012 in Beijing, and a genotype shift from type 1 to type 2 began to occur in 2013. Here, the percentage of type 2 M. pneumoniae isolates was low to19.5% (34/349) before 2012, and was 26.3% (8/41) during 2012, but raised to 39.4% (29/66) during 2013–2014 [31]. In this study, genotyping results support this earlier research findings. The percentage of type 2 M. pneumoniae isolates was 42.0% (34/81) during 2014–2016. These indicates that the genotype of M. pneumoniae isolates in Beijing is shifting from type 1 to type 2. Based on earlier work [48], which reported that M. pneumoniae genotype shifts occur every 8–10 years and that a shift from one type to another requires 2–3 years. Our publication deduced that type 2 will likely become the predominate genotype in Beiijing over the next few years [31]. However, in this research, the M. pneumoniae genotype in Beijing still did not become the absolute dominant type 2 till 2016, but entered the stage where the ratio of type 1 and type 2 was nearly closed. This is not consistent in the M. pneumoniae genotype shift cycle reported in publication [48]. Maybe the genotype shift cycle takes more longer in Beijing, and perhaps there is no very regular periodic genotype shifting about M. pneumoniae [14, 26, 49]. After all, M. pneumoniae genotyping research is less than 15 years in China, and requiring researchers to do longer-term monitoring and research.

Although the macrolide resistance rate of type 2 M. pneumoniae isolates is not very high in this study. Compared with the previous data, we found that the macrolide resistance rate of type 2 isolates is also increased synchronously with the increase of the proportion of type 2 isolate (Table 3). No macrolide resistance M. pneumoniae of type 2 isolates was found in 2008 in Beijing. The proportion of macrolide resistance M. pneumoniae of type 2 isolates increased from 15.6% before 2012 to 23.5% in this study. Macrolide resistance rate of type 2 M. pneumoniae increased by 50.6% within 9 years in China. In contrast, although the proportion of type 1 isolates is decreasing gradually, the macrolide resistance rate still remains above 90.0%. We deduced that this phenomenon may be related to the irregular use of antibiotics in China. The widespread overuse of antibiotics is very common in China, especially in some district hospitals. Under tremendous antibiotic selection pressure, almost all of the predominant type 1 M. pneumoniae strains isolated in China could certainly turn into macrolide-resistant isolates. Relatively speaking, the inferior type 2 M. pneumoniae strains with little chance to suffer from antibiotic selection pressure might still remain macrolide-susceptible in early years. With the increasing of the proportion of type 2 isolates in recent year, the chances of exposure to macrolide antibiotics increase greatly. Under the excessive selection of antibiotic pressure, macrolide -resistant type 2 isolates appear and spread rapidly, resulting in an increase in the macrolide -resistant rate of type 2 isolates in recent years in Beijing. The MLVA and the VNTRs in the p1 gene results both indicated that the increase of resistance in genotype 2 is not due to the spread of same clone. We will continue to monitor the status of the genotypes and macrolide resistance rates of M. pneumoniae in Beijing over the next few years to verify our hypotheses.
Table 3

Prevalence of macrolide resistance and genotyping in M.pneumoniae clinical isolates in China

Area

Year

Macrolide resistance rate (No. of resistant isolate/total isolate)

Type 1 macrolide resistance rate (No. of type 1 resistant isolate/total type 1 isolate)

Type 2 macrolide resistance rate (No. of type 2 resistant isolate/total type2 isolate)

References

China a (Beijing, Shanghai)

2008–2011

86.0% (351/408)

91.8% (345/376)

15.6% (5/32)

See below

 Beijing, China

2008–2009

68.7% (46/67)

78.0% (46/59)

0% (0/8)

[22]

 Shanghai, China

2008–2009

90.0% (90/100)

95.7% (89/93)

14.3 (1/7)

[46]

 Beijing, China

2011

95.0% (38/40)

95.0% (38/40)

NA

[43]

 Beijing, China

2008–2011

88.1% (177/201)

93.5% (172/184)

23.5% (4/17)

[24]

China (Beijing)

2014–2016

65.4% (53/81)

95.7% (45/47)

23.5% (8/34)

This study

aReferences with consistent Macrolide resistance and genotype included

NA No type2 isolates

Our study had limitations. This was a single-center study conducted over 3 year, and only 81 M. pneumoniae isolates were studied. The statistical power may have been insufficient to assess other clinical outcomes.

Conclusions

In summary, macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae in Beijing, China, has been present at high levels in recent years. The A2063G transition in domain V of the 23S rRNA gene was identified in all macrolide-resistant M. pneumoniae isolates, and we noted that the mutations in L4 and L22 were not responsible for macrolide resistance but rather influenced the particular genotype of M. pneumoniae. We deduced that the significant increased macrolide-resistant type 2 isolates may be due to the genotype shifting of M. pneumoniae in Beijing. The relationship between genotype shifts and macrolide resistance in M. pneumoniae needs to be further verified with more extensive surveillance data.

Notes

Abbreviations

AZM: 

Azithromycin

CARDS TX: 

Community-Acquired Respiratory Distress Syndrome Toxin

ERY: 

Erythromycin

LVX: 

Levofloxacin

MIC: 

Minimum inhibitory concentration

MLVA: 

Multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis

TET: 

Tetracycline

VNTR: 

Variable-number tandem-repeat

Declarations

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81772154).

Availability of data and materials

The data sets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

ZF, LJR, SWX and ZJZ designed the study. ZF, LLY, HF and ZSY performed the experimental work. LJR, HF, and ZSY collected the data. ZF, LJR, SWX and ZJZ analysed the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Research Ethics Committee of the Beijing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Research Ethics Committee of the Beijing Children’s Hospital.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

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)
National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 155 Changbai Road, Changping District, Beijing, 102206, China
(2)
State Key Laboratory of Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, 155 Changbai Road, Changping District, Beijing, 102206, China
(3)
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Children’s Hospital, National Center for Children’s Health, Capital Medical University, Nanlishi Road 56, Xicheng District, Beijing, China
(4)
Beijing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Hepingli Middle Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100013, China

References

  1. Morozumi M, et al. Macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae: characteristics of isolates and clinical aspects of community-acquired pneumonia. J Infect Chemother. 2010;16:78–86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Hammerschlag MR. Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2001;14:181–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. McIntosh K. Community-acquired pneumonia in children. N Engl JMed. 2002;346:429–37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sánchez-Vargas FM, et al. Mycoplasma pneumoniae-an emerging extra-pulmonary pathogen. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008;14:105–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Kashyap S, et al. Mycoplasma pneumonia: clinical features and management. Lung India. 2010;27:75–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Meyer Sauteur PM, et al. Mycoplasma pneumoniae-associated encephalitis in childhood--nervous system disorder during or after a respiratory tract infection. Klin Padiatr. 2011;223:209–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Waites KB, et al. Mycoplasma pneumoniae and its role as a human pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17:697–728.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Dumke R, et al. Occurrence of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae strains in Germany. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;16:613–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Peuchant O, et al. Increased macrolide resistance of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in France directly detected in clinical specimens by real-time PCR and melting curve analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64:52–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Meyer Sauteur PM, et al. Survey of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae in children with community-acquired pneumonia in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2014;144:w14041.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chironna M, Sallustio A, et al. Emergence of macrolide-resistant strains during an outbreak of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in children. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:734–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Uldum SA, et al. Epidemic of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in Denmark, 2010 and 2011. Euro Surveill. 2012;17(5):20073.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Diaz MH, et al. Investigations of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in the United States: trends in molecular typing and macrolide resistance from 2006 to 2013. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53:124–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Caballero Jde D, et al. First report of macrolide resistance in a Mycoplasma pneumoniae isolate causing community-acquired pneumonia in Spain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:1265–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Okazaki N, et al. Characteristics of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae strains isolated from patients and induced with erythromycin in vitro. Microbiol Immunol. 2001;45:617–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Morozumi M, et al. Increased macrolide resistance of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in pediatric patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52:348–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Matsuda K, et al. Gene and cytokine profile analysis of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in Fukuoka, Japan. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:591.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Kawai Y, et al. Nationwide surveillance of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in pediatric patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:4046–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Miyashita N, et al. Macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae in adolescents with community-acquired pneumonia. BMC Infect Dis. 2012;12:126.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Seo YH, et al. Predictive value of C-reactive protein in response to macrolides in children with macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia. Korean J Pediatr. 2014;57:186–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Hong KB, et al. Macrolide resistance of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, South Korea, 2000-2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19:1281–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Cao B, et al. High prevalence of macrolide resistance in Mycoplasma pneumoniae isolates from adult and adolescent patients with respiratory tract infection in China. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:189–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Xin D, et al. Molecular mechanisms of macrolide resistance in clinical isolates of Mycoplasma pneumoniae from China. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:2158–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhao F, et al. Antibiotic sensitivity of 40 Mycoplasma pneumoniae isolates and molecular analysis of macrolide-resistant isolates from Beijing, China. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:1108–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Lucier TS, et al. Transition mutations in the 23S rRNA of erythromycin-resistant isolates of Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39:2770–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Matsuoka M, et al. Characterization and molecular analysis of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae clinical isolates obtained in Japan. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:4624–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Morvan A, et al. Antimicrobial resistance of listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from humans in France. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:2728–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhao F, et al. Surveillance of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae in Beijing, China, from 2008 to 2012. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:1521–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhou Z, et al. Macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae in adults in Zhejiang, China. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:1048–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhao F, et al. Evaluation of a new real-time PCR assay for detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in clinical specimens. Biomed Environ Sci. 2012;25:77–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhao F, et al. Culture-independent detection and genotyping of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in clinical specimens from Beijing, China. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0141702.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Chalker VJ, et al. International Mycoplasma pneumoniae typing study: interpretation of M. pneumoniae multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis. New Microbes New Infect. 2015;7:37–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Lluch-Senar M, et al. Comparative “-omics” in Mycoplasma pneumoniae clinical isolates reveals key virulence factors. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0137354.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Waites KB, et al. New insights into the pathogenesis and detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections. Future Microbiol. 2008;3:635–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Principi N, et al. Macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae: its role in respiratory infection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68:506–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Morozumi M, et al. Emergence of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae with a 23S rRNA gene mutation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:2302–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhao H, et al. Surveillance of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection among children in Beijing from 2007 to 2012. Chin Med J. 2014;127:1244–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou Y, et al. More complications occur in macrolide-resistant than in macrolide-sensitive Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:1034–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Gregory ST, et al. Erythromycin resistance mutations in ribosomal proteins L22 and L4 perturb the higher order structure of 23 S rRNA. J Mol Biol. 1999;289:827–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Xiao L, et al. Comparative genome analysis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:610.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Qu J, et al. Specific multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis genotypes of Mycoplasma pneumoniae are associated with diseases severity and macrolide susceptibility. PLoS One. 2013;8:e82174.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Xue G, et al. Molecular characterizations of PCR-positive Mycoplasma pneumoniae specimens collected from Australia and China. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52:1478–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Tian XJ, et al. P1 gene of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in clinical isolates collected in Beijing in 2010 and relationship between genotyping and macrolide resistance. Chin Med J. 2013;126:3944–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhao F, et al. Multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis of 201 Mycoplasma pneumoniae isolates from Beijing, China, from 2008 to 2011. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51:636–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang L, et al. Genotyping of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in nasopharyngeal aspirate from children with pneumonia in Zhejiang Province. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2011;49:750–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Spuesens EB, et al. Macrolide resistance determination and molecular typing of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in respiratory specimens collected between 1997 and 2008 in The Netherlands. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:1999–2004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Liu Y, et al. Characterization of macrolide resistance in Mycoplasma pneumoniae isolated from children in Shanghai, China. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010;67(4):355–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Kenri T, et al. Genotyping analysis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae clinical strains in Japan between 1995 and 2005: type shift phenomenon of M. pneumoniae clinical strains. J Med Microbiol. 2008;57:469–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Jacobs E, et al. New insights in the outbreak pattern of Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Int J Med Microbiol. 2015;305(7):705–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement