SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Cattle;
  • CC130;
  • CC1943;
  • epidemiology;
  • livestock;
  • mecA LGA251 ;
  • mecC ;
  • methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus;
  • sheep

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. Transparency Declaration
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Clin Microbiol Infect

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major cause of healthcare-associated (HA), community-associated (CA) and livestock-associated (LA) infections. Recently, the discovery of human and bovine MRSA isolates carrying a new mecA gene homologue, mecALGA251 (now designated mecC), has caused concern because they are not detected by conventional, confirmatory tests for MRSA. Very little is known about their frequency, epidemiology and possible transmission between livestock and humans. In this study, the epidemiology of the mecC isolates in Denmark was investigated by screening the national collections of MRSA cases (from 1988 onwards) and S. aureus bacteraemia cases (from 1958 onwards). Isolates carrying mecC were only recovered infrequently before 2003 (n = 2) but now seem to be increasing, with 110 cases in 2003–2011. Clinical data on mecC-carrying MRSA demonstrated that mecC-MRSA were primarily community-acquired (CA-MRSA) and affected persons typically living in rural areas, being older than other CA-MRSA patients. Among 22 cases in Region Zealand, four reported contact with cattle and sheep. Two of these persons lived on farms with livestock positive for mecC-carrying MRSA, sharing spa type (t843), MLVA (MT429) and PFGE pattern with the human isolates. These observations indicate that mecC-carrying MRSA can be exchanged between humans and ruminants.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. Transparency Declaration
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major cause of hospital acquired (HA-MRSA) infections as well as an increasing cause of infections in non-hospitalized persons (community acquired, CA-MRSA) (1–3). Since 2006 detection of MRSA in livestock, especially pigs, but also in calves, chickens, horses, turkey and dairy cattle, has shown that livestock constitute a reservoir of MRSA belonging to clonal complex (CC) 398 (LA-MRSA), which can be transmitted to humans (4–6). Interchange of isolates between the reservoirs may be accomplished by adaptation to the host as well as to differences in antibiotic pressure. Price et al. (6) suggested that CC398 originated as methicillin susceptible in humans, jumped to pigs, wherein methicillin resistance was acquired, and is now seen re-infecting humans.

In 2011, a new mecA gene homologue, mecALGA251, was found in isolates from both humans and dairy cattle (7). It has been suggested by the International Working Group on the Classification of Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome (SCC) Elements (8) that the mecALGA251 gene should be renamed mecC, and this term will be used herein. The mecC-containing MRSA isolates were found to belong to lineages typically reported in cattle (i.e. CC130, CC1943 and sequence type (ST) 425), which indicated the existence of a zoonotic MRSA reservoir (7). Bovine isolates belonging to CC130 and CC1943 have been found in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and Sweden (7–10) (http://www.smittskyddsinstitutet.se/nyhetsarkiv/2012/ny-variant-av-antibiotikaresistent-bakterie and F. Laurent personal communication). However, in a Danish study of S. aureus isolated from cattle, pigs and chicken, no such isolates were found (11).

In humans, 11 mecC-positive CC130 isolates were detected among a total of 12 691 (prevalence of 0.1%) in Germany (12) and sporadic human cases have also been detected in Norway, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands (L. Marstein, S. Hagman, A. Petersson, O. Denise, personal communications).

In Denmark, we suggested a frequency of mecC-positive strains between 0.2 and 1% of all MRSA isolates, based on initial findings of human isolates with spa type t843 (7). This may, however, be an underestimate because these isolates have not previously been recognized as MRSA and no systematic surveillance studies have been carried out as yet.

This study provides insight into the emergence, frequency and epidemiology of mecC-containing strains in an MRSA low-prevalence country. Investigations of individual cases further substantiated the hypothesis of a zoonotic reservoir and transmission to humans.

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. Transparency Declaration
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Setting

Denmark has 5.58 million inhabitants, in five different regions: North Denmark (0.58 million), Central Denmark (1.27 million), Southern Denmark (1.20 million), Zealand 0.82 million) and Capital (1.72 million) (http://www.statistics-denmark.dk/, visited March 11, 2012). Since 1958, S. aureus has been surveyed at the Staphylococcus reference laboratory (SRL) at Statens Serum Institut (SSI). A low prevalence (<2%) of MRSA has been detected among Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia cases (SAB) since 1975. Nationwide surveillance of SAB has been carried out since 1958 and for MRSA since 1988. One isolate from each case has prospectively been submitted to the SRL, where it has been typed, susceptibility tested and stored. spa typing has been performed since 2007 (n = 17 969) and on additionally selected isolates prior to 2007 (n = 2116).

Search strategy

Staphylococcus aureus isolates were selected for this study based on being phenotypic MRSA but negative for mecA using conventional in-house PCR (13) from the national collection of SAB isolates 1960–2011 (n = 45 000), the national collection of MRSA irrespective of origin isolated between 1988 and 2011 (n = 7700), and a healthy nasal carriers in 2009–2010 (n = 403) (13,14). In addition, SAB and presumed MRSA isolates routinely received in our laboratory after 1 August 2011 (n = 643) were included in the study. See Table 1 for description of collections.

Table 1.   Description of Staphylococcus aureus bacterial collections included in the study
Bacterial collectionSearch strategy and confirmationUse in the study
SAB 1960–2011 (n = 45 000)
 Danish S. aureus bacteraemia isolates submitted voluntarily. All isolates typed by various methods and tested for susceptibility to antimicrobials. Clinical and epidemiological information retrieved from hospital discharge summariesDatabase search 1960–July 2011: (1) phenotypic MRSA, negative for mecA—PCR for detection of mecC; (2) search for spa types previously associated with mecC carriage. From 1 August 2011 all isolates received were tested for the presence of mecC.Clinical and bacteriological information
MRSA 1988–2011 (n = 7700)
 From 1988 to 31 October 2006, all MRSA were systematically collected at SRL. From 1 November 2006, all new MRSA cases were mandatory reportable and isolates were sent to SRL. All isolates were spa typed and tested for susceptibility to antimicrobials. Clinical and epidemiological information has been retrieved for all MRSA isolates.  A subset consisting of mecA-positive S. aureus from 2007–2011 categorized as CA-MRSA (n = 2636)Database search 1988–July 2011: phenotypic MRSA, negative for mecA—PCR for detection of mecC From 1 August 2011 all isolates received were tested for the presence of mecCClinical and bacteriological information Clinical and bacteriological information. Used for comparison
Staphylococcus aureus from healthy carriers 2009–2010
 Strain collections from: Andersen et al. (13) (n = 325) Fode et al. (14) (n = 78)Search for spa types previously associated with mecC. 
UK isolates
 Positive mecC isolates from the UK (human = 2, animal = 2) Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis
Danish animal isolates
 Positive mecC isolates from sheep (n = 3) and cow (n = 1) Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis

mecC detection and characterization of isolates

The isolates were confirmed as mecC positive by a recently developed multiplex PCR assay (16).

Isolates were spa-typed and subjected to MLST typing if spa types were not previously directly linked to CC130, CC2361 or ST425 (17,18). Selected isolates were subjected to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and multi-locus VNTR analysis (MLVA) as previously described (19, 20).

SCCmec typing was performed as previously described (7,21). Antimicrobial susceptibility was determined using disc diffusion according to EUCAST methodology for 12 antimicrobials (penicillin, cefoxitin, norfloxacin, erythromycin, clindamycin, kanamycin, tetracycline, linezolid, fusidic acid, rifampicin, sulphamethoxazole-trimethoprim and mupirocin) (http://www.eucast.org).

Clinical information

MRSA in humans became notifiable in Denmark on 1 November 2006. Because mecC-positive isolates previously were defined as borderline oxacillin-resistant or modified S. aureus, no standardized notification was made by the submitting hospitals. On such isolates, regular notifications were received for all mecC-carrying isolates from 1 January 2010 onwards. From the notifications, reason for sampling (infection or carriage) and place of acquisition (HA, CA or travel, or healthcare-associated with a community onset (HACO)) were registered. Acquisition was determined as previously described based on the time of sampling after admission to hospital (< or >48 h), travel activities and occupation (22). In addition, contact with other MRSA-positive persons was registered. Residential county and Danish or foreign origin (defined as being born outside or having a parent who was born outside of Denmark) was investigated through the Danish civil registration system. Clinical information for isolates from before 2010 was retrieved from hospital discharge summaries or general practitioners’ notes, when available.

In Region Zealand (820 000 inhabitants) and North Denmark (580 000 inhabitants), 22 and 12 mecC-positive persons were contacted by the MRSA infection control nurse, at Slagelse and Aalborg Hospitals, respectively, and interviewed about occupation and contact with animals. If contact with animals was confirmed, animal samples were taken, whenever possible, from the animals after the owner’s informed consent. Samples were taken from the muzzles/nostrils of sheep, goats, cows, dogs, horses and rabbits. The time between human and animal sampling was 3–12 months.

Presence of S. aureus was confirmed by growth in selective broth (Tryptic Soy Broth + 7.5% NaCl), morphology on 5% horse blood agar (SSI Diagnostika, Hillerød, Denmark), positive agglutination by Slidex Staph Plus (Biomérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) and detection of the spa gene fragment.

The human mecC MRSA cohort was compared with other MRSA cases from our database, using data from 1 January 2007 onwards (i.e. since MRSA became notifiable).

Statistics

Statistical significance was assessed using the Fisher′s exact test and Student’s t-test, with a p value of <0.05 indicating significance.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. Transparency Declaration
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

The retrospective search was made among all isolates in Table 1. A total number of 87 were mecC-positive MRSA isolates. Two mecC-positive isolates were from 1975 and 1992, respectively. Prospective testing for presence of mecC in SAB and presumed MRSA isolates during 5 months (1 August to 31 December 2011) identified 25 unique mecC-positive isolates among 643 MRSA (3.9%). The combined annual incidence between 2003 and 2011 was: n = 3, 7, 11, 12, 6, 5, 9, 21 and 36, respectively (Fig. 1). Clinical and microbiological description of the mecC-positive isolates included in the study is shown in supplementary Table S1. Compared with the total number of MRSA in the period 2003–2011, mecC constituted 112/6960 (1.5%), with an increasing tendency, the frequency reaching 21/1097 (1.9%) and 36/1294 (2.8%) in 2010 and 2011, respectively (Fig. 1). By searching for isolates with spa types related to carriage of mecC, we identified 12 MSSA isolates (t528, n = 11 and t1048, n = 1) among more than 45 000 entries in our databases (<0.03%). No mecC-positive isolates were found among healthy carriers (n = 403, sampled in 2009 and 2010, Table 1).

image

Figure 1.  Number of total MRSA and mecC harbouring isolates/year.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Clinical information

In addition to the notifications received after 1 January 2010, information regarding 40 patients before this date was obtained on request; however, clinical information varied in quality. Annotation of the reason for sampling was possible for 95 cases: infection in 79 cases, screening in 10 cases and another reason in six cases (Table 2). Infection was predominantly skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) (n = 63); the remainder were SAB (n = 8), postoperative wound infections (n = 4), one urinary tract infection, and three that remained unknown.

Table 2.   Comparison of MRSA-mecC and CA-MRSA patients and isolates (2007–2011)
  mecC MRSA total n = 112 mecC CA-MRSA n = 64CA-MRSA n = 2636
  1. Bold: predominant spa type. NA: not available.

  2. aResistance to three or more groups of antimicrobials in addition to beta-lactams.

  3. ***p <0.001

Clinical
 Gender ratio (F/M)1.041.031.02
 Average age (years)51 (n = 110, 2 NA)4836***
 Reason for sampling(n = 95)  
  Infection79 (83%)48 (75%)55%***
  Screen10 (11%)9 (14%)39%
  Other/NA6 (6%)7 (11%)6%
 Type of infection(n = 79)(n = 47) 
 SSTI63 (80%)42 (89%)77%
 Blood8 (10%)4 (10%)1%
 Urine1 (1%)1 (2%)2%
 Postoperative4 (5%)0
 Unknown3 (4%)20%
Bacteriological
 MLST CC (spa types)CC130 (n = 98)CC130 (n = 60)CC8, CC5, CC398, CC80, CC30, CC22, CC1, CC45 and 17 others
t373, t528, t843, t1048, t1532, t1535, t1736, t1773, t3218, t3256, t3570, t5970, t6220, t9397t528, t843, t1048, t1773, t3256, t3570, t6220
CC2361 (n = 14)CC2361 (n = 4) 
t978, t2345, t3391, t8835, t9395t978, t2345 
 PVL (%)0038
 SCCmec typeXIXIIV, V
 Multiresistance (%)a0036

Epidemiological classification into CA, HA, HACO or imported cases was possible for 78 cases (n = 64, 3, 10 and 1 cases, respectively). Six patients who had MRSA carrying mecC had been born, or had parents born, outside Denmark (Iran, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Thailand and the USA).

As the majority of the mecC isolates were CA-MRSA, we compared cases with mecA-positive CA-MRSA cases, 2007–2011 (n = 2636) (Table 2). No differences were observed between the two cohorts regarding gender (p 1.00, Fisher’s exact test); however, CA-MRSA mecC patients were significantly older than other CA-MRSA cases (p <0.001, Student’s t-test). Moreover, CA-MRSA-mecC patients had a significantly higher frequency of infections (p <0.001, Fisher’s exact test). However, no significant difference in the proportion of infections was seen from 2011 onwards when compared with mecA-positive CA-MRSA cases, 2007–2011.

Typing and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of isolates harbouring mecC

The mecC-carrying MRSA isolates could be grouped into MLST clonal complexes CC130 (n = 98) and CC2361 (n = 14), based on spa typing and MLST of representative isolates (n = 10). Two new MLST types were found, ST2173 (allelic profile 18-313-260-18-235-223-5) and ST2174 (18-313-279-18-7-223-5), both STs belonging to clonal complex CC2361, to which other mecC-positive spa types already belonged. spa typing revealed 19 different spa types (Table 2), dominated by t843 belonging to CC130 (n = 70), t528/CC130 (n = 9) and t978/CC2361 (n = 7). Several spa types not previously reported to be mecC positive were found to harbour mecC (CC130: t373, t528, t1048, t3218, t3256, t3570, t5970, t9379 and CC2361: t2345, t3391, t8835, t9395). blaZ, mecI and mecR specific for the SCCmec XI were detected in all isolates, but amplification of ccrA1 and ccrB3 failed for some isolates belonging to different spa types. Except for one isolate resistant to norfloxacin, mecC MRSA isolates only expressed resistance to beta-lactams. No isolates carried the PVL gene (lukF-PV).

Rural distribution and relation to bovine or ovine reservoirs

mecC-positive isolates were found in all regions, with the majority in more rural areas (n = 86) and only six isolates from the Capital region (Fig. 2).

image

Figure 2.  Accumulated incidence of MRSA-mecC cases found in Danish municipalities (2003–2011). The five major cities are shown: Copenhagen (Capital), Aarhus (Central Denmark), Aalborg (North Denmark), Odense and Esbjerg (South Denmark).

Download figure to PowerPoint

The highest number of cases was found in Region Zealand and North Denmark (n = 29 and 15, respectively). In Region Zealand, 14 were healthy carriers and the remaining had infections: SSTI (n = 4), wound infections (n = 7), blood (n = 2), urinary tract infections (n = 1), and unknown (n = 1).

Twenty-two patients (22/29) from Region Zealand were interviewed at follow-up about occupation and possible contact with livestock animals.

In four cases contact with animals was reported.

Case 1: female, 53 years, with bacteraemia; teacher; living on a small farm with two cows and a horse, only one cow carried mecC MRSA in the nostrils. Case 2: female, 69 years, with SSTI; nurse in old peoples’ home; living on a farm with a herd of sheep and a dog, three of 10 sheep carried mecC MRSA (t843) but not the dog.

Case 3 and 4: both male, 64 years, presenting with SSTI and positive uriculture, respectively; working as butchers (cattle); worked and lived apart and no animals were available for screening.

The mecC-carrying MRSA isolates from cows and sheep in proximity to case 1 and case 2, respectively, had the same spa type (t843) and MLVA profile (MT429) as the owners. MT429 was the predominant MLVA profile found among other humans in Region Zealand, as well as in other regions. PFGE of the isolates confirmed the similarity between animal and human isolates; however, other t843 isolates from Region Zealand with no known contact with these cases revealed similar patterns. The same was true for isolates from the United Kingdom included as likely outliers and the PFGE results were therefore inconclusive (Fig. 3). Four persons infected with t843 isolates from North Denmark reported contact with live cows. Subsequent screening of ten cows in the vicinity of three of the patients revealed no MRSA but a single MSSA isolate (t591-CC1).

image

Figure 3.  Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis SmaI gel picture of t843 human and animal isolates from Slagelse Clinical Microbiological Department and the United Kingdom. Lanes 1, 15 and 28: Lambda size marker. Lanes 2, 14 and 27: NCTC8325. Lanes 3–13 and 16: human samples from Slagelse. Lanes 17 and 21: animal owners. Lanes 18–20: S (sheep). Lane 22: C (cow). Lanes 23–24: human samples, United Kingdom. Lanes 25–26: animal samples, United Kingdom.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. Transparency Declaration
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

The discovery of MRSA carrying the mecC gene has caused speculations about the origin, epidemiology and impact of these isolates. In this study these questions were addressed by searching the Danish Saureus collections for isolates harbouring the mecC gene and collecting demographic and clinical information from the affected patients. This search revealed 112 such cases. The majority of isolates were found in recent years and there has been an increase in numbers and frequency to a total of 36, comprising 2.8% of all new MRSA cases in 2011.

The national MRSA guidelines advocate eradication of MRSA in carriers and close contacts, which means that a large proportion of Danish MRSA cases (approximately 40%) are found by active screening. This procedure has not been practised systematically for MRSA being negative for mecA before August 2011, meaning that the true prevalence of mecC-carrying MRSA may be underestimated. This is compatible with results of prospective testing since August 2011, which showed a proportion of mecC-carrying MRSA of 3.9% among new MRSA isolates. However, only 20% of these cases were found by active screening, meaning that (i) screening procedures still perform differently for mecC MRSA cases compared with other MRSA cases, (ii) mecC-carrying MRSA isolates cause infections with a relatively higher frequency or (iii) other preferred colonization niches exist that were not screened. This difference may also explain why a higher frequency of infection was found in the retrospective period compared with the situation after August 2011. Contacts with mecC-positive persons would then routinely have been screened and more non-infected carriers would be detected. Countries with a low prevalence of MRSA have the opportunity to survey every MRSA case in detail, which may explain the higher prevalence found in this study compared with the findings in Germany (11). However, a high number of isolates of both MSSA and MRSA with the various spa types detected in this study was found in the Ridom spa server (http://spaserver.ridom.de/) and likewise ovine, bovine and caprine isolates with sequence type (ST) 130, 151, 425, 1245 and 1526 from Norway, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and the UK, are registered in the MLST database. (http://www.MLST.net). These registrations indicate that mecC-carrying MRSA may be more widely distributed, but not recognized yet. Our search among bacteraemia patients and healthy carriers only revealed a few MSSA spa types (t528 and t1048, but none of the most frequent spa type t843) associated with mecC. Further studies of S. aureus carriage in ruminants could be of interest to confirm if a non-human reservoir of mecC MRSA exists in, for example, cows or sheep.

The initial characterization of mecC-carrying MRSA strains showed that they in general were susceptible to most other classes of antibiotics. The lack of mecA detection could, however, have been associated with initial treatment failures using, for example, dicloxacillin. In countries with an infection control system where MRSA cases are registered based on mecA confirmation, a number of cases have definitely not been recognized, resulting in a risk of continued spread. The SCCmec XI element lacks non-beta-lactam resistance mechanisms and the high susceptibility of these isolates is in accordance with other bovine S. aureus, indicating that the antimicrobial pressure is low (8). Penicillin is the preferred antibiotic used in cattle in Denmark (22). The isolates therefore differ from LA-MRSA (CC398) isolates (related to pigs), which are highly resistant to tetracycline and heavy metals used in pig production.

Comparison of clinical data with those of CA-MRSA showed differences regarding patient characteristics. For example MRSA-mecC patients were older than other CA-MRSA patients, indicating that mecC MRSA has a different origin and epidemiology to typical CA-MRSA. We have previously reported a high degree of suggested import of CA-MRSA in Denmark, as 35% of CA-MRSA patients were born or had parents born outside Denmark (22). Among the mecC-carrying MRSA, only six patients (5%) were found to have a non-Danish origin, suggesting that import does not contribute substantially to the emergence of mecC-carrying MRSA in Denmark. The finding of mecC-carrying MRSA in human, bovine and ovine samples indicates the existence of several distinct reservoirs. The higher frequency of human cases in rural areas compared with the capital region (Fig. 2) may also indicate that contact with livestock could be a risk factor for acquiring mecC-carrying MRSA whereas transmission via food is not. Possible zoonotic transmissions were inferred from detection of seven human cases with bovine or ovine contact and the subsequent finding of mecC-carrying MRSA in animals with contact with two of the patients. The carriage rate among tested animals confirmed that only a few animals in a cohort were colonized in the snouts (24). Therefore sampling a larger number of animals in especially North Denmark could possibly have resulted in findings of mecC-carrying MRSA. We need comprehensive, veterinary studies to specify the optimal sites for culture of S. aureus in different animals. Early UK retrieval of MRSA-mecC in pooled milk samples suggests that milk or udders should be tested.

Furthermore, three patients carried MRSA-mecC for 2–4 years and household transmission events were observed in five cases (data not shown), indicating that mecC-carrying MRSA are well adapted as human colonizers. However, in a S. aureus collection from healthy carriers no isolates had spa types matching the mecC-carrying isolates, pointing to a low frequency.

Our results confirm that ruminants (dairy cattle and sheep) are healthy carriers of CC130 isolates and thus substantiate MRSA-mecC as a new zoonosis.

The range of infections caused by mecC-carrying MRSA is the same as seen for other S. aureus, including life-threatening diseases such as bacteraemia.

In conclusion, we present the first nationwide analysis of the prevalence of S. aureus isolates carrying mecC, which shows that the prevalence has increased in the last few years and is now encompassing 2% of the annual human MRSA cases in Denmark. The most recent and most complete data from 1 August 2011 to 31 December 2011 indicate that the frequency could be as high as 4%. The detected isolates belonged to only two genetic lineages, CC130 and CC2361. We found cows and sheep to be carrying mecC MRSA isolates and in two cases evidence suggested transmission and development of bacteraemia and skin infection in humans.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. Transparency Declaration
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Danish Clinical Microbiological Departments for sending S. aureus isolates. Christopher Teale and Angela Kearns (UK isolates). Technical assistance at SSI: Stine Frese-Madsen, Lone Ryste Hansen Kildevang, Julie Hindsberg-Nielsen, Karin Sixhøj Petersen and Henrik Bang.

Transparency Declaration

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. Transparency Declaration
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

The authors declare that they have no conflicting interests in relation to this work.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. Transparency Declaration
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information
  • 1
    Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Schmitz FJ et al. Survey of infections due to Staphylococcus species: frequency of occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates collected in the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, and the Western Pacific region for the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance. Clin Infect Dis2001; 32 (Suppl 2): S114S132.
  • 2
    Allegranzi B, Bagheri Nejad S, Combescure C et al. Burden of endemic health-care-associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet2011; 377: 228241.
  • 3
    David MZ, Daum RS. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology and clinical consequences of an emerging epidemic. Clin Microbiol Rev2010; 23: 616687.
  • 4
    Vanderhaeghen W, Hermans K, Haesebrouck F, Butaye P. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in food production animals. Epidemiol Infect2010; 138: 606625.
  • 5
    Graveland H, Duim B, van Duijkeren E, Heederik D, Wagenaar JA. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals and humans. Int J Med Microbiol2011; 301: 630634.
  • 6
    Price LB, Stegger M, Hasman H et al. Staphylococcus aureus CC398: host adaptation and emergence of methicillin resistance in livestock. mBio2012; 3: e0030511. doi:10.1128/mbio
  • 7
    García-Álvarez L, Holden MTG, Lindsay H et al. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a novel mecA homologue in human and bovine populations in the UK and Denmark: a descriptive study. Lancet Infect Dis2011; 11: 595603.
  • 8
    International Working group on the classification of stephylococcal Cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec): Guidelines for reporting novel mecA Gene Homologues. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2012. doi: 10.1128/AAc.01197-12.
  • 9
    Shore AC, Deasy EC, Slickers P et al. Detection of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec type XI carrying highly divergent mecA, mecI, mecR1, blaZ, and ccr genes in human clinical isolates of clonal complex 130 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2011; 55: 37653773.
  • 10
    Laurent F, Chardon H, Haenni M et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012; 18: 14651467.
  • 11
    Hasman H, Moodley A, Guardabassi L et al. Spa type distribution in Staphylococcus aureus originating from pigs, cattle and poultry. Vet Microbiol2010; 141: 326331.
  • 12
    Cuny C, Layer F, Strommenger B, Witte W. Rare occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC130 with a novel mecA homologue in humans in Germany. PLoS One2011; 6: e24360.
  • 13
    Larsen AR, Stegger M, Sørum M. spa typing directly from a mecA, spa and pvl multiplex PCR assay-a cost-effective improvement for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus surveillance. Clin Microbiol Infect2008; 14: 611614.
  • 14
    Andersen PS, Pedersen JK, Fode P et al . Influence of host genetics and environment on nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus in Danish middle-aged and elderly twins. J Infect Dis2012; 206: 11781184.
  • 15
    Fode P, Stegger M, Andersen PS. Human β-defensin 3 (DEFB103) and its influence on Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage. Int J Infect Dis2011; 15: e388e394.
  • 16
    Stegger M, Andersen PS, Kearns A et al. Rapid detection, differentiation and typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus harbouring either mecA or the new mecA homologue mecA(LGA251). Clin Microbiol Infect2012; 18: 395400.
  • 17
    Harmsen D, Claus H, Witte W et al. Typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a university hospital setting by using novel software for spa repeat determination and database management. J Clin Microbiol2003; 41: 54425448.
  • 18
    Enright MC, Day NP, Davies CE et al. Multilocus sequence typing for characterization of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible clones of Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol2000; 38: 10081015.
  • 19
    Murchan S, Kaufmann ME, Deplano A et al. Harmonization of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis protocols for epidemiological typing of strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a single approach developed by consensus in 10 European laboratories and its application for tracing the spread of related strains. J Clin Microbiol2003; 41: 15741585.
  • 20
    Schouls LM, Spalburg EC, van Luit M et al. Multiple-locus variable number tandem repeat analysis of Staphylococcus aureus: comparison with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and spa-typing. PLoS One2009; 4: e5082.
  • 21
    Kondo Y, Ito T, Ma XX et al. Combination of multiplex PCRs for staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec type assignment: rapid identification system for mec, ccr, and major differences in junkyard regions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2007; 51: 264274.
  • 22
    Larsen AR, Stegger M, Böcher S et al. Emergence and characterization of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphyloccocus aureus infections in Denmark, 1999 to 2006. J Clin Microbiol2009; 47: 7378.
  • 23
    DANMAP2011. Use of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from food animals, food and humans in Denmark. ISSN 1600–2032.
  • 24
    Sakwinska O, Giddey M, Moreillon M et al. Staphylococcus aureus host range and human-bovine host shift. Appl Environ Microbiol2011; 77: 59085915.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. Transparency Declaration
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Table S1. Clinical and microbiological description of the mecC positive isolates included in the study

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
clm12036_sm_TableS1.xlsx25KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.