This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Acikgoz, Z. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gocer, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Acikgoz, Z. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gocer, S.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2004, p. 1410-1412, Vol. 48, No. 4
0066-4804/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.48.4.1410-1412.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Macrolide Resistance Determinants of Invasive and Noninvasive Group B Streptococci in a Turkish Hospital

Ziya Cibali Acikgoz,1* Ebru Almayanlar,2 Sohret Gamberzade,1 and Safiye Gocer1

Department of Microbiology and Clinical Microbiology, Fatih University Faculty of Medicine, Fatih Üniversitesi Hastanesi, 06510 Emek,1 METIS Biotechnology Ltd., Ostim, Ankara, Turkey2

Received 28 August 2003/ Returned for modification 5 November 2003/ Accepted 16 December 2003


arrow
ABSTRACT
 
Macrolide resistance in 156 consecutive group B streptococcal isolates was investigated. Thirty-five isolates (22.4%) had inducible (80%) or constitutive (20%) erythromycin resistance. The genes responsible were erm(B), erm(A) subclass erm(TR), and erm(B) plus erm(TR) in 62.9, 2.9, and 8.6% of isolates, respectively. Nine isolates (25.7%) harbored neither mef nor detectable erm genes.


arrow
TEXT
 
Group B streptococci (GBS), namely, Streptococcus agalactiae, are one of the most important causes of neonatal meningitis and sepsis. GBS also cause other infections in pregnant women and the elderly. The treatment of choice for S. agalactiae infections is penicillin or its congeners. However, if there is a penicillin allergy or a lack of clinical response, macrolides are the major substitutes. Unfortunately, macrolide resistance among gram-positive cocci has been increasing worldwide. Macrolide resistance in streptococci arises mainly from three mechanisms: active drug efflux controlled by the mef(A) gene, modification of the drug target on the rRNA through methylases encoded by erm genes, and mutational changes in the target rRNA or protein. The resistance is expressed as either a macrolide-restricted (M) phenotype or inducible and constitutive macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B (MLSB) cross-resistance phenotypes (iMLS and cMLS, respectively). Although there are numerous reports of macrolide resistance mechanisms in Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus pneumoniae, studies of these mechanisms in S. agalactiae are very rare (3, 5, 6, 8, 11-13). In this study, the macrolide resistance determinants of S. agalactiae isolates in Turkey were defined for the first time.

We collected a total of 156 S. agalactiae isolates from 110 vaginal or vaginoanorectal swabs (from women of reproductive age for another GBS screening study) and 46 urine samples (from patients with urinary infections) via standard methods. To avoid any duplication, only one isolate per patient was included in the study. Identification of the isolates was performed with a commercial latex agglutination kit (Avipath-Strep; Omega Diagnostics, Alloa, Scotland, United Kingdom) in addition to the conventional catalase and CAMP tests. All isolates were initially screened for penicillin and erythromycin resistance by the NCCLS disk diffusion method. Macrolide resistance phenotypes were investigated by a double-disk test (9) with erythromycin and clindamycin disks (Oxoid, Basingstoke, United Kingdom). The MICs of erythromycin and clindamycin were measured by the NCCLS agar dilution method for all the resistant isolates. The susceptibilities of these isolates to tetracycline and other antibiotics routinely used for streptococcal infections (azithromycin, clarithromycin, vancomycin, chloramphenicol, and levofloxacin) were also determined by the NCCLS disk diffusion method. All the erythromycin-resistant isolates were analyzed by PCR for the presence of mef(A), erm(A), erm(B), and erm(A) subclass erm(TR) gene determinants, as described elsewhere (2, 4). Two reference Escherichia coli strains carrying erm(A) and erm(BP) genes, respectively, and one S. pyogenes strain positive for mef(A/E) (kindly provided by Helena Seppäla, National Public Health Institute, Turku, Finland) were used as positive PCR controls. An S. pyogenes isolate harboring erm(TR) as confirmed by PCR and sequence analysis was used as the subclass erm(TR) control. For statistical analysis of the results, Fisher's exact test was used and P values of <0.05 were considered significant.

All isolates were susceptible to penicillin, while 23 (26%) vaginal and 12 (20.9%) urinary isolates (total, 35 [22.4%]) (P = 0.6) were resistant to erythromycin. None of the resistant isolates had the M phenotype. A total of 28 (80%) isolates (8 urinary and 20 vaginal isolates) expressed the iMLS phenotype, and the remaining 7 (20%; 5 urinary and 2 vaginal isolates) expressed the cMLS phenotype. In nine (25.7%) isolates none of the investigated genes were detected. None of the isolates carried the mef(A) or erm(A) gene. erm(TR) and erm(B) coexisted in three (8.6%) vaginal iMLS isolates. This coexistence was confirmed by repeating the PCR tests for subcultures of these three isolates. Separately, erm(A) subclass erm(TR) and erm(B) gene determinants were detected in 1 (2.9%) and 22 (62.9%) isolates, respectively. Corresponding phenotypes and genotypes are shown in Table 1. All isolates resistant to erythromycin were also resistant to azithromycin, clarithromycin, and tetracycline but were susceptible to vancomycin and levofloxacin. The chloramphenicol resistance rate was 44.2% overall, 43% in cMLS isolates, and 46.4% in iMLS isolates. The difference noted between cMLS and iMLS isolates for chloramphenicol resistance was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05). MIC test results are summarized in Table 2.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Distribution of MLSB resistance phenotypes according to genotype


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. MICs of erythromycin and clindamycin for the erythromycin-resistant isolates

The English-language literature dealing with the macrolide resistance phenotypes and genotypes of S. agalactiae is very limited (3, 5, 6, 8, 11-13). In Turkey as well there is no previously published report on this issue. The macrolide resistance rate of our S. agalactiae isolates was high, consistent with previous reports of 18% in Ontario, Canada (3); 21.4% in France (6); 16% in North Carolina (11); 14.7% in Spain (12); and 29.7% in Taiwan (13). It should be noted that this rate is much higher than those observed for group A (2.6%) and C and G (6.95%) streptococci from Turkey (1, 7). This could be due to the fact that these bacteria have different localizations: group A, C, and G streptococci colonize or infect mainly the upper respiratory tract, whereas S. agalactiae is isolated mainly from the gastrointestinal and genitourinary systems, where MLSB-resistant bacteria are more abundant and transfer of resistance to S. agalactiae is more likely. The most common phenotype that we observed was iMLS, in contrast to prior reports, in which the most frequent phenotype was cMLS (3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13). It is possible that iMLS may have been misevaluated as cMLS due to zonal overgrowth caused by induction in the case of extended incubation in the double- and/or triple-disk test. Indeed, for almost all our isolates we observed zonal overgrowth in both disk zones, which made the zones very hard to discern. The zonal growth in blunted clindamycin zones was obviously due to self-induction, which may explain the high MIC of clindamycin (128 µg/ml). Note also the high proportion of isolates carrying erm(B), a determinant commonly associated with high-level resistance. The M-phenotype prevalence rates reported from other countries are relatively low: 15% in Canada (3), 6 to 7.4% in France (6, 8), and 5 to 9.3% in Spain (5, 12), with the exception of Taiwan, where the M-phenotype prevalence was 37% (13). Interestingly, none of our isolates had the M phenotype. All the resistant isolates had iMLS or cMLS phenotypes; that is, none of the MLSB drugs can be used to treat the infections caused by these isolates.

erm(B) was the gene most frequently responsible for MLSB resistance, in agreement with prior studies, except for one from Canada in which erm(A) subclass erm(TR) was the most prevalent gene (3). All cMLS-expressing isolates had the erm(B) gene as expected. Coexistence of the resistance genes (erm with erm or erm with mef) in S. agalactiae is not uncommon (3, 5, 6, 12). Three of our isolates (8.6%) also harbored erm(TR) and erm(B) genes together and expressed the iMLS phenotype. Note that we did not detect the mef gene in any isolates. The isolates from which we could not amplify any of the resistance genes investigated might have harbored other erm genes not investigated or mutants of the investigated genes. Mutations of some ribosomal proteins such as L4 and L22 are other possible resistance mechanisms for the above isolates (10).

The high rate of tetracycline resistance (100%) that we observed among the erythromycin-resistant S. agalactiae isolates was also noted in some previous reports (>80% in Canada, 89.1% in France, 87% in Spain, and 99.2% in Taiwan). However, the mechanisms of this coexistence are yet not clear (5). On the other hand, the chloramphenicol resistance rate that we detected (44.2%) was considerably higher than those previously reported from Taiwan (20.3%) (13) and the United States (1%) (11). This rate was also considerably higher than that detected in Turkish S. pyogenes isolates (5.6%), in which tetracycline resistance was 39% (1). However, to asses the statistical significance of erythromycin-chloramphenicol coresistance detected in our isolates, the erythromycin-susceptible isolates should be compared with the resistant ones.

In conclusion, the MLSB resistance rate is high and accompanied by very high rates of tetracycline and chloramphenicol resistance in Turkish S. agalactiae isolates. Vancomycin and levofloxacin are the two reliable substitutes for erythromycin for GBS infections in patients with a penicillin allergy.


arrow
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was supported by the Fatih University Research Project Fund.

We thank Helena Seppälä from the National Public Health Institute, Turku, Finland, for providing the PCR control strains.


arrow
FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Fatih Üniversitesi Hastanesi, Alpaslan Türkes Caddesi, No. 57, 06510 Emek, Ankara, Turkey. Phone: 90 312 2126262. Fax: 90 312 2153614. E-mail: zcacikgoz{at}yahoo.com. Back


arrow
REFERENCES
 
    1
  1. Acikgoz, Z. C., S. Gocer, and S. Tuncer. 2003. Macrolide resistance determinants of group A streptococci in Ankara, Turkey. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52:110-112.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    2. 2
  2. Alós, J. I., B. Aracil, J. Oteo, C. Torres, J. L. Gómez-Garcés and the Spanish Group for the Study of Infection in the Primary Health Care Setting. 2000. High prevalence of erythromycin-resistant, clindamycin/miocamycin-susceptible (M phenotype) Streptococcus pyogenes: results of a Spanish multicentre study in 1998. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 45:605-609.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    3. 3
  3. Azavedo, J. C. S., M. McGavin, C. Duncan, D. E. Low, and A. McGeer. 2001. Prevalence and mechanisms of macrolide resistance in invasive and noninvasive group B streptococcus isolates from Ontario, Canada. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:3504-3508.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    4. 4
  4. Bingen, E., F. Fitoussi, C. Doit, R. Cohen, A. Tanna, R. George, C. Loukil, N. Brahimi, I. L. Thomas, and D. Deforche. 2000. Resistance to macrolides in Streptococcus pyogenes in France in pediatric patients. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 44:1453-1457.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    5. 5
  5. Culebras, E., I. R. Avial, C. Betriu, M. Redondo, and J. Picazo. 2002. Macrolide and tetracycline resistance and molecular relationship of clinical strains of Streptococcus agalactiae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:1574-1576.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    6. 6
  6. De Mouy, D., J.-D. Cavallo, R. Leclercq, R. Fabre and The AFORCOPI-BIO Network. 2001. Antibiotic susceptibility and mechanisms of erythromycin resistance in clinical isolates of Streptococcus agalactiae: French multicenter study. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:2400-2402.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    7. 7
  7. Ergin, A., S. Ercis, and G. Hasçelik. 2003. In vitro susceptibility, tolerance and MLS resistance phenotypes of group C and group G streptococci isolated in Turkey between 1995 and 2002. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 22:160-163.[CrossRef][Medline]
    8. 8
  8. Fitoussi, F., C. Loukil, I. Gros, O. Clermont, M. Mariani, S. Bonacorsi, I. Thomas, D. Deforche, and E. Bingen. 2001. Mechanisms of macrolide resistance in clinical group B streptococci isolated in France. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:1889-1891.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    9. 9
  9. Kataja, J., P. Huovinen, M. Skurnik, the Finnish Study Group for Antimicrobial Resistance, and H. Seppälä. 1999. Erythromycin resistance in group A streptococci in Finland. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:48-52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    10. 10
  10. Malbruny, B., K. Nagai, M. Coquemont, B. Bozdogan, A. T. Andrasevic, H. Hupkova, R. Leclerq, and P. C. Appelbaum. 2002. Resistance to macrolides in clinical isolates of Streptococcus pyogenes due to ribosomal mutations. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 49:935-939.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    11. 11
  11. Murdoch, M., and L. B. Reller. 2001. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of group B streptococci isolated from patients with invasive disease: 10-year perspective. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:3623-3624.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    12. 12
  12. Portillo, A., M. Lantero, I. Olarte, F. Ruiz-Larrea, and C. Torres. 2001. MLS resistance phenotypes and mechanisms in ß-haemolytic isolates in La Rioja, Spain. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 47:113-124.[Free Full Text]
    13. 13
  13. Wu, J. J., K. Y. Lin, P. Hsueh, J. W. Liu, H. Pan, and S. M. Sheu. 1997. High incidence of erythromycin-resistant streptococci in Taiwan. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:844-846.[Abstract]

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2004, p. 1410-1412, Vol. 48, No. 4
0066-4804/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.48.4.1410-1412.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Zeng, X., Kong, F., Wang, H., Darbar, A., Gilbert, G. L. (2006). Simultaneous Detection of Nine Antibiotic Resistance-Related Genes in Streptococcus agalactiae Using Multiplex PCR and Reverse Line Blot Hybridization Assay. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50: 204-209 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Acikgoz, Z. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gocer, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Acikgoz, Z. C.
Right arrow Articles by Gocer, S.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»