Genetic and phenotypic characterization of methicillin-resistant staphylococci isolated from veterinary hospitals in South Korea

Abstract

Staphylococci were isolated from veterinary staff, hospitalized animals, and medical equipment from 2 major tertiary veterinary hospitals in South Korea to investigate antimicrobial resistance and genetic relatedness. The detection rate for staphylococci was 55.2% (111/201 samples), and 11 species were identified among the collected staphylococcal strains. The most prevalent species were Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (52/111, 46.8%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (21/111, 18.9%), and Staphylococcus aureus (19/111, 17.1%). The methicillin-resistance rates of staphylococci isolated from veterinary staff and medical equipment were higher than those from hospitalized animals. The genotype of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) strains in the current study was sequence type (ST)72-SCCmec IVc-t324, which is similar to the genotype of prevalent MRSA strains in human beings and food animals in South Korea. Among the mecA-positive S. pseudintermedius isolates, SCCmec V was most prevalent in strains originating from both veterinary staff and hospitalized animals. SCCmec IVa was detected in methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis, whereas SCCmec IVc was found in other methicillin-resistant, coagulase-negative staphylococci. The SCCmec typing, antimicrobial susceptibility tests, and pulsed field gel electrophoresis results showed that methicillin-resistant staphylococci dissemination between hospitalized animals and veterinary staff is possible in South Korean veterinary hospitals.

Keywords

Methicillin-resistant staphylococci veterinary hospital

Introduction

Methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS) are important zoonotic pathogens that cause serious public health problems by increasing both the failure rate of antibiotic therapy and mortality rates among human beings and animals.⁴ The microorganisms can colonize the skin or mucous membranes, or attach to the surface of medical equipment, and cause a variety of pathologic complications ranging from mild infections to severe systemic diseases.⁴ The β-lactam resistance of MRS is due to penicillin-binding protein (PBP2a), which is encoded by the methicillin-resistant gene, mecA. The mecA gene is located in the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec), a 21- to 67-kb mobile genetic element that can be transferred between different species of staphylococci.¹³

SCCmec types I–III are usually detected in hospital-associated, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), whereas SCCmec types IV and V are generally detected in community-associated MRSA.²¹ However, several MRSA strains harboring SCCmec IV are frequently detected in nosocomial as well as community infections worldwide—for example, USA300 in the United States, EMRSA-15 in the United Kingdom, and sequence type (ST)72 clones in South Korea.^8,20,25 In addition, SCCmec IV has the most diverse subtypes (IVa–h)²⁵ among the SCCmec types. Various SCCmec types also have been reported among methicillin-resistant, coagulase-negative staphylococci (MR-CNS) as well as MRSA.¹³ Despite the importance of monitoring MR-CNS, veterinary medicine studies have been primarily limited to coagulase-positive staphylococci (CPS) such as Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus intermedius, and Staphylococcus pseudintermedius.¹²

There are growing concerns about the direct dissemination of MRS between human beings and companion animals through contact and the emergence of new MRS strains resulting from SCCmec transfer between staphylococci.¹ In several reports, antibiotic-resistant bacteria in cats and dogs were found to be transmitted to owners and veterinary staff or vice versa.^6,14 Veterinary hospitals could be significant sources of pathogen dissemination between veterinary staff and hospitalized animals from direct human–animal contact and indirect exposure to contaminated environments or medical equipment.

Preventing the dissemination of MRS in veterinary hospitals requires better knowledge of MRS distribution. Thus, in the present study, staphylococci were collected from veterinary staff, hospitalized animals, and medical equipment in tertiary veterinary hospitals in South Korea. The genetic and phenotypic characteristics were evaluated based on antibiotic susceptibility tests, pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis, multilocus sequence typing (MLST), SCCmec typing, and spa typing.

Materials and methods

Bacterial isolation and identification

Staphylococci were collected from 2 tertiary veterinary hospitals—1 veterinary teaching hospital and 1 referral hospital—in Seoul and Gyeonggi provinces (South Korea) between March and April 2008. A total of 201 swab samples were taken from 37 veterinary staff (37 nasal cavity and 37 hand samples), 18 hospitalized animals (31 ear, 17 skin, 17 anus, 14 nasal mucosa, 4 foot pad, 1 vulva, and 2 infected wound samples), and 41 different locations in the hospitals (door handles, telephones, floors, tables, computers in the veterinarians’ offices, cages, and medical devices). Medical devices and other objects that frequently had contact with the veterinary staff and hospitalized animals were selected for sampling. All samples were collected using culture swabs^a and were kept refrigerated during transfer to the laboratory.

Swabs were streaked on 5% sheep blood agar^b and incubated for 24–48 hr at 37°C. After incubation, 1 representative staphylococci-like colony was collected. The selected colonies were identified to the species level using an automated microbial identification system.^c The results were confirmed by species-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing analysis of the sodA gene for CNS.³¹ Staphylococcus pseudintermedius was identified using a PCR–restriction fragment length polymorphism approach.² If different species or genotypes were identified within 1 sample, then the staphylococci isolates collected from that sample were considered to be different strains.

Antibiotic susceptibility tests

Antibiotic susceptibility tests were carried out using the disk diffusion method according to the Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute guidelines.⁹ Ten antibiotics^d were used: oxacillin, ampicillin, amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, erythromycin, gentamicin, amikacin, tetracycline, vancomycin, sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim, and ciprofloxacin. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of oxacillin^e was determined using a broth microdilution method⁹ and was used to identify MRS, which were defined in the present study as strains showing MIC ≥4 µg/ml (for S. aureus and S. pseudintermedius) or MIC ≥0.5 µg/ml (for other staphylococci). For quality control, S. aureus ATCC (American Type Culture Collection) 25923 was used in the disk diffusion tests, and Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212 were used in the microdilution tests.

Methicillin-resistant staphylococci genotyping

Genomic DNA was isolated using a commercial DNA extraction kit^f according to the manufacturer’s instructions with a modified cell lysis step performed with 50 U/ml of lysostaphin.^g Identifications of MRS strains were confirmed by mecA amplification, and the SCCmec type was determined with 3 multiplex PCR strategies. The first multiplex PCR identified the mec class (A, B, or C), whereas the second determined the type of ccr complex genes (ccrAB1, ccrAB2, ccrAB3, ccrAB4, or ccrC).²² The third multiplex PCR was used for SCCmec IV subtyping (IVa–h).²⁵

Multilocus sequence typing analysis was performed for S. aureus¹⁰ and Staphylococcus epidermidis.²⁶ Pulsed field gel electrophoresis was performed as previously described to genotype all MRS strains.²³ The PFGE patterns were analyzed by commercial software,^h and the percent similarity was expressed as a Dice coefficient at a 2% tolerance and 2% optimization. Spa typing¹⁶ was performed on MRSA strains, and the results were analyzed by commercial software.ⁱ A based upon repeat pattern algorithm was used to group the spa types.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 12.0 for Windows.^j The prevalence of staphylococci according to staphylococcal species and origin, the comparison of MRS detection rates according to coagulase-negative and -positive results, and the comparison of multidrug resistance rates according to methicillin susceptibility were calculated using χ² tests for categorical variables. P values <0.01 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Distribution of staphylococci in veterinary hospital settings

A total of 201 samples were collected from veterinary staff (n = 86), hospitalized animals (n = 74), and medical equipment (n = 41), with staphylococci detected in 111 samples (55.2%). Among the 111 staphylococcal isolates, 11 species were identified: S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. pseudintermedius, S. intermedius, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Staphylococcus warneri, Staphylococcus lentus, Staphylococcus cohnii subsp. urealyticus, Staphylococcus auricularis, Staphylococcus simulans, and Staphyloccis vitulinus (Table 1). The most prevalent species were S. pseudintermedius (52/111 strains, 46.8%), S. epidermidis (21/111 strains, 18.9%), and S. aureus (19/111 strains, 17.1%). Staphylococci were isolated at a significantly higher (P < 0.001) rate from veterinary staff (60 strains from 86 samples, 81.1%) than from medical equipment (18 strains from 41 samples, 43.9%) or hospitalized animals (33 strains from 86 samples, 38.4%). Significantly more (P < 0.001) species were observed on veterinary staff (9 species) than on hospitalized animals (6 species) or medical equipment (5 species).

Table 1.

Staphylococcal isolates and methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS) strains isolated from 2 veterinary hospitals in South Korea.*

	Hospitalized animals								Veterinary staff
	Ear	Skin	Anus	Nasal mucosa	Footpad	Vulva	Wound	Total	Hand	Nasal mucosa	Total	Medical equipment	Total	Detection rate†
No. of staphylococci strains/No. of samples‡	11/31 (35.5)	3/17 (17.6)	12/17 (70.6)	3/14 (21.4)	3/4 (75.0)	0/1 (0.0)	1/2 (50.0)	33/86 (38.4)	25/37 (67.6)	35/37 (94.5)	60/74 (81.1)	18/41 (43.9)	111/201 (55.2)
No. of MRS strains/No. of staphylococci strains	2/11 (18.2)	1/3 (33.3)	5/12 (41.7)	0/3 (0.0)	0/3 (0.0)	—	0/1 (0.0)	6/33 (18.2)	14/25 (56.0)	13/35 (37.1)	27/60 (45.0)	8/18 (44.4)	41/111 (36.9)
No. of staphylococci strains§
S. aureus	4 [1]	1 [1]	2 [0]					7 [2]	3 [0]	7 [2]	10 [2]	2 [0]	19 [4]	17.1 [21.1]
S.epidermidis	1 [1]		1 [1]					2 [2]	9 [9]	5 [5]	14 [14]	5 [5]	21 [21]	18.9 [100.0]
S. pseudintermedius	6 [0]	1 [0]	6 [0]	2 [0]	3 [0]		1 [0]	19 [0]	9 [3]	16 [3]	25 [6]	8 [3]	52 [9]	46.8 [17.3]
S. intermedius		1 [0]	1 [0]	1 [0]				3 [0]	2 [0]	2 [0]	4 [0]		7 [0]	6.3 [0.0]
S. saprophyticus			1 [1]					1 [1]	1 [1]		1 [1]		2 [2]	1.8 [100.0]
S. warneri									1 [1]	2 [2]	3 [3]	2 [0]	5 [3]	4.5 [60.0]
S. auricularis										1 [0]	1 [0]		1 [0]	0.9 [0.0]
S. cohnii subsp. urealyticus										1 [0]	1 [0]		1 [0]	0.9 [0.0]
S. lentus										1 [1]	1 [1]		1 [1]	0.9 [100.0]
S. vitulinus			1 [1]					1 [1]					1 [1]	0.9 [100.0]
S. simulans												1 [0]	1 [0]	0.9 [0.0]

Numbers in parentheses are percentages.

†

Detection rate indicates the percentage of isolates of each species among the total number of samples (n = 111). Numbers in brackets are MRS rates, which indicate the percentage of MRS of each species divided by the number of strains for each species.

‡

There was no sample from which more than 1 staphylococcal strain was isolated.

The number of staphylococci strains includes the number of MRS shown in brackets.

Methicillin-resistant staphylococci detection in veterinary hospital settings

The MRS detection rates are summarized in Table 1. Among the 111 staphylococcal isolates, 41 strains (36.9%) were identified as MRS. Based on origin, the methicillin-resistance rates of staphylococci isolated from veterinary staff (27/60 strains, 45.0%) and medical equipment (8/18 strains, 44.4%) were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than that from hospitalized animal staphylococci (6/33 strains, 18.2%).

Methicillin-resistant staphylococci were detected in the following 7 species: S. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. pseudintermedius, S. saprophyticus, S. warneri, S. lentus, and S. vitulinus. Higher methicillin-resistance rates were observed among CNS compared with CPS (P < 0.001). For example, S. epidermidis (21/21 strains, 100.0%), S. saprophyticus (2/2 strains, 100.0%), S. warneri (3/5 strains, 60.0%), S. lentus (1/1 strain, 100.0%), and S. vitulinus (1/1 strain, 100.0%) showed higher methicillin-resistance rates than S. pseudintermedius (9/52 strains, 17.3%) and S. aureus (4/19, 21.1%).

There were 25 strains of S. pseudintermedius that had the mecA gene. However, only 9 strains were resistant to oxacillin, whereas the other 16 strains were oxacillin susceptible. The latter have been referred to as oxacillin-susceptible, mecA-positive S. pseudintermedius.¹⁵ These strains were isolated from hospitalized animals (7 strains), veterinary staff (6 strains), and medical equipment (3 strains) in the current study.

Antibiotic resistance

Among the 111 staphylococcal isolates, 49 different antibiotic-resistance patterns and 47 multidrug-resistant isolates (defined as isolates resistant to more than 3 antibiotic subclasses) were observed (Table 2). No vancomycin-resistant staphylococci were identified. Most of the 41 MRS strains were resistant to β-lactam antibiotics, including ceftiofur (97.6%) and amoxicillin–clavulanic acid (85.4%), erythromycin (65.9%), gentamicin (46.5%), and tetracycline (41.5%).

Table 2.

Antibiotic resistance patterns of staphylococci isolated from 2 veterinary hospitals in South Korea.*

		No. of Staphylococcus spp.
	Antibiotic resistance pattern	Hospitalized animals	Veterinary staff	Medical equipment	Total†	No. of MDR†
MSS
0		SA (1), SP (1), SI (3)	SA (6), SP (4)	SA (1), SP (1), SW (1)	18 (16.2)	22/70 (31.4)‡
1	C			SS (1)	18 (16.2)
	CC	SA (3)	SA (1)	SA (1)
	E			SW (1)
	TE	SA (1), SP (2)	SP (7)	SP (1)
2	TE-CIP	SP (3)			8 (7.2)
	TE-CC		SC (1)
	CFT-CC		SA (1)
	TE-CIP		SP (1)
	GM-TE		SP (2)
3	AmC-CFT-TE		SAC (1)		2 (1.8)
	C-E-CC	SP (1)
4	TE-CIP-E-CC		SP (1)		3 (2.7)
	TE-CIP-E-CC	SP (1)
	TE-E-CC-SXT	SP (1)
5	GM-TE-C-E-CC	SP (1)	SP (2)		14 (12.6)
	GM-TE-CIP-E-SXT			SP (2)
	TE-C-E-CC-SXT	SP (1)	SP (1)
	TE-CIP-E-CC-SXT	SP (3)	SP (3)	SP (1)
6	GM-C-CIP-E-CC-SXT	SP (3)			5 (4.5)
	GM-TE-C-E-CC-SXT	SP (1)
	TE-C-CIP-E-CC-SXT		SP (1)
MRS
2	OX-CFT		SE (2)		2 (1.8)	25/41 (61.0)‡
3	OX-AmC-CFT	SV (1)	SE (1)		9 (8.1)
	OX-CFT-E		SE (1), SL (1)	SE (2), SP (1)
	OX-CFT-GM		SS (1), SW (1)
4	OX-AmC-CFT-E	SA (2)	SA (2)		6 (5.4)
	OX-AmC-CFT-GM	SS (1)
	OX-GM-TE-E		SE (1)
5	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-C		SE (1)		7 (6.3)
	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-E		SE (1)
	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-TE		SW (1)
	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-CIP		SE (1)
	OX-CFT-CIP-E-SXT		SE (2)
	OX-CFT-CIP-TE-SXT			SP (1)
6	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-TE-CIP		SW (1)		6 (5.4)
	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-E-C			SE (1)
	OX-CFT-GM-TE-E-C		SE (1)
	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-TE-C	SE (1)
	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-CIP-E		SE (1)
	OX-AmC-CFT-TE-E-SXT			SE (1)
7	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-C-CIP-SXT	SE (1)			2 (1.8)
	OX-CFT-GM-TE-CIP-E-SXT			SP (1)
8	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-TE-C-E-CC		SP (1)		7 (6.3)
	OX-AmC-CFT-TE-C-E-CC-SXT		SP (5)
	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-AN-TE-E-CC			SE (1)
9	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-AN-TE-CIP-E-CC		SE (1)		2 (1.8)
	OX-AmC-CFT-GM-AN-TE-E- CC-SXT		SE (1)
	MDR strains†	13/33 (39.4)	26/60 (43.3)	8/18 (44.4)		47/111 (42.3)

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains, defined as strains resistant to more than 3 antibiotic subclasses tested in the current study, are indicated by bold text. MSS = methicillin-sensitive staphylococci, including oxacillin-susceptible, mecA-positive Staphylococcus pseudintermedius; MRS = methicillin-resistant staphylococci; AN = amikacin; AmC = amoxicillin–clavulanic acid; C = chloramphenicol; CC = clindamycin; CFT = ceftiofur; CIP = ciprofloxacin; E = erythromycin; GM = gentamicin; OX = oxacillin; SXT = sulfonamide/trimethoprim; TE = tetracycline; SA = Staphylococcus aureus; SE = Staphylococcus epidermidis; SP = Staphylococcus pseudintermedius; SI = Staphylococcus intermedius; SW = Staphylococcus warneri; SS = Staphylococcus saprophyticus; SC = Staphylococcus cohnii subsp. urealyticus; SAC = Staphylococcus auricularis; SL = Staphylococcus lentus; SV = Staphylococcus vitulinus.

†

Numbers in parentheses are percentages.

‡

There were statistical differences (P < 0.001) between the MDR rates of oxacillin-resistant staphylococci and oxacillin-sensitive staphylococci.

At the species level, S. pseudintermedius showed the highest multidrug resistance rate (30/47 strains, 63.8%), followed by S. epidermidis (15/47 strains, 31.9%). In comparing MRS and methicillin-sensitive staphylococci (MSS), the multidrug resistance rate of MRS was significantly higher (P < 0.002) than that of MSS (Table 2). Although the multidrug-resistant MRS included 3 species—S. epidermidis, S. warneri, and S. pseudintermedius—the multidrug-resistant MSS was composed of only 1 species, S. pseudintermedius (Table 2). The multidrug resistance rates were not significantly different between the isolates from veterinary staff (26/60 strains, 43.3%), medical equipment (8/18 strains, 44.4%), and hospitalized animals (13/33 strains, 39.4%).

Genetic comparison of methicillin-resistant staphylococci isolates

The genotype of 57 mecA-positive staphylococci strains were compared by SCCmec typing, MLST, PFGE analysis, and spa typing. Four MRSA isolates, including 2 from veterinary staff and 2 from hospitalized animals, were identified as ST72-SCCmec IVc-t324. The PFGE pulsotype of these isolates had 94.0–100.0% similarity (Fig. 1A) even though they were isolated from different hospitals. A total of 25 mecA-positive S. pseudintermedius isolates, including 9 MRSP strains and 16 oxacillin-susceptible, mecA-positive S. pseudintermedius strains, were compared by PFGE (Fig. 1B). Thirteen PFGE pulsotypes and 3 SCCmec types, including V (15 strains), IV (1 strain), and nontypeable (9 strains), were observed. The genetic features of the strains isolated from the 2 hospitals differed. The 10 strains isolated from veterinary hospital A contained 9 PFGE patterns, whereas the 15 strains from veterinary hospital B consisted of 3 similar clones according to antibiotic resistance patterns, PFGE patterns, and SCCmec typing. Among these 3 clones, 2 were isolated from both veterinary staff and hospitalized animals. For example, the oxacillin-susceptible, mecA-positive S. pseudintermedius snu 98 strain isolated from veterinary staff and MRSP snu 120 strain isolated from hospitalized animals had indistinguishable PFGE pulsotypes and identical SCCmec type (SCCmec V) and antibiotic resistance pattern (TE-CIP-E-CC). In addition, strains snu 93 and snu 101 isolated from veterinary staff and strains snu 117, snu 119, snu 118, snu 121, and snu 129 isolated from hospitalized animals were all oxacillin susceptible and had identical PFGE pulsotype, SCCmec type (SCCmec V), and antibiotic resistance pattern (TE-CIP-E-CC-SXT). In contrast, other clones, including MRSP strains snu 91, snu 92, snu 97, snu 102, and snu 103, isolated from veterinary staff, possessed nontypeable SCCmec and showed indistinguishable Sma I (Fig. 1B) and Asc I PFGE patterns (data not shown).

Figure 1.

Genetic and phenotypic characteristics of methicillin-resistant, coagulase-positive staphylococci (MR-CPS). A, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. B, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and oxacillin-susceptible, methicillin-resistant S. pseudintermedius. Genotypes were analyzed by pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) typing. For S. aureus, multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and spa typing were also performed. *ST = sequence types; †VS = veterinary staff, HA = hospitalized animals, ME = medical equipment; ‡OXA MIC = minimum inhibitory concentration against oxacillin (µg/ml); the breakpoint for methicillin-resistant S. aureus isolates was 4 µg/ml; §AN = amikacin, AmC = amoxicillin–clavulanic acid; C = chloramphenicol, CC = clindamycin, CFT = ceftiofur, CIP = ciprofloxacin, E = erythromycin, GM = gentamicin, OX = oxacillin, SXT = sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim, TE = tetracycline; #NT = nontypeable; ¶OXA MIC = minimum inhibitory concentration for oxacillin (µg/ml); the breakpoint for methicillin-resistant S. pseudintermedius isolates was 4 µg/ml.

Twenty-one methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis (MRSE) isolates had relatively diverse SCCmec types (6 types), sequence types (12 types), and PFGE pulsotypes (21 types). SCCmec type V and various SCCmec IV subtypes, including IVa, IVc, IVd, IVg, and non-subtypeable IV (IVnt), were detected. SCCmec IVa was the predominant subtype found in MRSE isolated from all sources. Among the 12 sequence types detected, ST258, ST267, ST268, and ST290 were newly identified types. Twenty-one different PFGE pulsotypes having 55–90% similarity were observed. Interestingly, the PFGE pulsotypes of the snu 41 and snu 44 strains were approximately 90% similar, although they were isolated from hospitalized animals and medical equipment, respectively (Fig. 2A).

Figure 2.

Genetic and phenotypic characteristics of methicillin-resistant, coagulase-negative staphylococci (MR-CNS). A, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis; B, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus saprophyticus; C, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus warneri; D, other methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Genotypes were analyzed by pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) typing, and multilocus sequence typing (MLST). #IVnt = nontypeable IV; *ST = sequence types; †VS = veterinary staff, HA = hospitalized animals, ME = medical equipment; ‡OXA MIC = minimum inhibitory concentration for oxacillin (µg/ml); §AN = amikacin, AmC = amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, C = chloramphenicol, CC = clindamycin, CFT = ceftiofur, CIP = ciprofloxacin, E = erythromycin, GM = gentamicin, OX = oxacillin, SXT = sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim, TE = tetracycline.

Two strains of methicillin-resistant S. saprophyticus isolated from veterinary staff and hospitalized animals in the same hospital were SCCmec type IVc and showed an 83% PFGE pulsotype similarity (Fig. 2B). The pulsotypes of 3 methicillin-resistant S. warneri strains isolated from veterinary staff were 70–94% similar (Fig. 2C). The methicillin-resistant S. lentus strain recovered from veterinary staff and the methicillin-resistant S. vitulinus strain collected from a hospitalized animal were SCCmec type I and IVnt, respectively (Fig. 2D).

Discussion

In the present study, staphylococci were collected from veterinary staff, hospitalized animals, and medical equipment in 2 tertiary veterinary hospitals. Although only 2 hospitals were investigated, both provide care for large regions and handle many cases requiring long-term antibiotic therapy. Interestingly, the highest staphylococcal detection rate and the most diverse kinds of species were found among veterinary staff and not hospitalized animals or medical equipment. This is presumably due to the different host specificities of the staphylococcal species or the dynamic and frequent exposure of veterinary staff with medical equipment and hospitalized animals.¹¹ Moreover, methicillin-resistance rates were higher for isolates from veterinary staff and medical equipment than for those from hospitalized animals. These results support the hypothesis that veterinary staff and medical equipment may serve as possible reservoirs or fo-mites for the dissemination of MRS in the veterinary hospital setting.

Among the 11 staphylococcal species detected, S. pseudintermedius and S. epidermidis were the most dominant. In general, S. pseudintermedius is part of the commensal flora in cats and dogs as well as an etiological agent that causes skin infections, such as pyoderma, as well as otitis.³⁶ In the current study, the anus of hospitalized animals was the primary site colonized by S. pseudintermedius (35.3%, 6 strains from 17 samples), a colonization rate higher than that reported for the rectum in a previous study.³² Interestingly, the current study found that 43.2% (16 strains from 37 samples) of veterinary staff had S. pseudintermedius in their nasal cavity. This detection rate is higher compared with previous studies in which 5–23% of veterinary staff members were found to have S. pseudintermedius.¹⁸ The higher prevalence of S. epidermidis among veterinary staff and medical equipment compared with hospitalized animals could be explained by the fact that S. epidermidis is not only commensal in human beings but also produces a biofilm that enables attachment to machinery.³⁰

Methicillin-resistance analysis showed higher resistance rates among CNS compared with CPS. This has been previously reported in human¹¹ as well as veterinary medicine.⁷ In terms of origin, 81.1% of veterinary staff harbored staphylococci, and more than half of these microorganisms (33 strains, 55.5%) were MRS.

In the present study, all MRSA were resistant to every β-lactam tested, OX-CFT-AmC. Among MRSP, 6 strains (63.3%) were resistant to OX-CFT-AmC, and 3 strains (31.7%) were only resistant to oxacillin. Three types were shown in MR-CNS: 16 strains (57.1%) with OX-CFT-AmC resistance, 11 strains (39.3%) with OX-CFT resistance, and 1 strain (3.6%) resistant to oxacillin. These different β-lactam–resistant phenotypes of MRS were also observed in previous studies.³³ The different expression and absence or presence of blaZ or genes regulating mecA might be the influencing factors.⁵

In 2004, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines recommended an MIC breakpoint of 0.5 µg/ml against oxacillin for the MRSP isolates from animals.²⁹ In 2008, this breakpoint was changed to 4 µg/ml for veterinary MRSP isolates.⁹ A previous study, however, has demonstrated that the breakpoint of 4 µg/ml for oxacillin can lead to a failure to detect some mecA-positive S. pseudintermedius isolates.³ It was also observed that 16 of 25 mecA-positive S. pseudintermedius isolates had an MIC less than 0.5 µg/ml to oxacillin. This might have been caused by reduced expression of the mecA gene, as previously reported for S. aureus.³⁴

In the current study, multidrug resistance was more common among both methicillin-susceptible and -resistant S. pseudintermedius than other staphylococcal species. All multidrug-resistant MSS were S. pseudintermedius and were resistant to erythromycin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol, clindamycin, trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole, and fluoroquinolone. These are medicines generally prescribed for treating pyoderma, otitis, and enterocolitis in dogs.^27,35 Further studies should be conducted to determine whether there are any advantages for acquiring resistance to various antibiotics in S. pseudintermedius compared with other staphylococci species in veterinary hospitals.

The genetic similarity observed with PFGE patterns among MRS isolated from veterinary staff and hospitalized animals suggested the existence of widely distributed clones with a broad host range or the possibility of movement between veterinary staff and hospitalized animals in agreement with previous studies.^1,12 The MRSE strains, on the other hand, showed the most diverse genetic patterns, including 6 SCCmec types, 21 PFGE pulsotypes, and 11 sequence types. The pulsotype patterns differed even among the strains isolated from a single hospital, which had identical SCCmec types and sequence types. For example, both the MRSE snu 41 and snu 44 strains were ST2-SCCmec IVa, but their PFGE pulsotypes had only an 80% similarity. In human medicine, MRSE strains isolated from a single hospital or even a single infection site were found to have distinct genetic characteristics.¹⁷ Consistent with previous reports,^17,19 the current study found a genetically heterogeneous population of MRSE.

In the current study, all MRSA strains isolated from the 2 veterinary hospitals were found to have ST72-SCCmec IVc-t324. In South Korea, the predominant clones found in human hospitals and the general community were ST72-SCCmec IVa-t324 and ST72-SCCmec IVA-t324.²⁰ These sequence types also have been isolated in South Korea from food animals and products, including raw meat and raw milk.^24,28 The MRSA strains isolated from companion animals in the present study were different from these sequence types only in terms of the SCCmec type. One possible explanation is that the ST72-SCCmec IVc-t324 clones were established in the veterinary hospital setting, independent from human medical environments, food animals, and MSSA-ST72-t324 strains that had acquired SCCmec IVc from other MRSA or MR-CNS strains. Indeed, it was found that methicillin-resistant S. saprophyticus and methicillin- resistant S. warneri strains harbored SCCmec IVc.

Most of the MRSE strains, unlike MRSA strains, possessed SCCmec IVa. Although MRSE has been intensively studied as a putative SCCmec donor for MRSA,¹³ the same SCCmec type from MRSA was more frequently found in methicillin-resistant S. saprophyticus and methicillin-resistant S. warneri. In other countries, S. epidermidis harboring SCCmec IVa is predominantly found in human beings,¹⁹ and it is possible that human MRSE strains are disseminated to companion animals via veterinary staff. More MRSA and MRSE sampling from both veterinary and human medical facilities should be performed to investigate the origin of MRSE harboring SCCmec IVa.

In summary, 11 species of MRS isolated from veterinary staff, hospitalized animals, and medical equipment in 2 South Korean veterinary hospitals were genetically characterized. The study found evidence of possible MRS dissemination between veterinary staff and hospitalized animals. To protect public health, continuous surveillance of MRS strains, more stringent sanitization guidelines for veterinary staff, and the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine are needed.

Footnotes

a.

BBL™ CultureSwab™, BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, MD.

b.

Promed, Sungnam, Gyeonggi, South Korea.

c.

Vitek II system, bioMérieux Inc., Durham, NC.

d.

BBL™ Sensi-Disc™, BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, MD.

e.

Oxacillin, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO.

f.

Blood DNeasy kit, Qiagen Inc., Valencia, CA.

g.

Lysostaphin, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO.

h.

BioNumerics version 2.0, Applied Maths, Kortrijk, Belgium.

i.

Ridom GmbH, Wurzburg, Germany.

j.

SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.

The author(s) declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or the publication of this article.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service (C-AD13-2006-14-04); National Research Foundation of Korea grants funded by the South Korean government (NRF-2010-013-E00025 and NRF-2010-1-E00057); the Research Institute of Veterinary Science, Department of Veterinary Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine; and the BK21 Program for Veterinary Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.

References

Anderson

Lefebvre

Weese

: 2008, Evaluation of prevalence and risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in veterinary personnel attending an international equine veterinary conference. Vet Microbiol 129:410–417.

Bannoehr

Franco

Iurescia

.: 2009, Molecular diagnostic identification of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. J Clin Microbiol 47:469–471.

Bemis

Jones

Frank

Kania

: 2009, Evaluation of susceptibility test breakpoints used to predict mecA-mediated resistance in Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolated from dogs. J Vet Diagn Invest 21:53–58.

Ben Zakour

Guinane

Fitzgerald

: 2008, Pathogenomics of the staphylococci: insights into niche adaptation and the emergence of new virulent strains. FEMS Microbiol Lett 289:1–12.

Berger-Bächi

Rohrer

: 2002, Factors influencing methicillin resistance in staphylococci. Arch Microbiol 178:165–171.

Boost

O’Donoghue

James

: 2008, Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus carriage among dogs and their owners. Epidemiol Infect 136:953–964.

Busscher

van Duijkeren

Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan

: 2006, The prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococci in healthy horses in the Netherlands. Vet Microbiol 113:131–136.

Chambers

Deleo

: 2009, Waves of resistance: Staphylococcus aureus in the antibiotic era. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:629–641.

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): 2008, Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals—third edition. Approved standard M31-A3. CLSI, Wayne, PA.

10.

Enright

Day

Davies

.: 2000, Multilocus sequence typing for characterization of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible clones of Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 38:1008–1015.

11.

Garza-González

Morfín-Otero

Llaca-Díaz

Rodriguez-Noriega

: 2010, Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) in methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci: a review and the experience in a tertiary-care setting. Epidemiol Infect 138:645–654.

12.

Hanselman

Kruth

Weese

: 2008, Methicillin-resistant staphylococcal colonization in dogs entering a veterinary teaching hospital. Vet Microbiol 126:277–281.

13.

Hanssen

Ericson Sollid

: 2006, SCCmec in staphylococci: genes on the move. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 46:8–20.

14.

Heller

Kelly

Reid

Mellor

: 2010, Qualitative risk assessment of the acquisition of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pet dogs. Risk Anal 30:458–472.

15.

Hososaka

Hanaki

Endo

.: 2007, Characterization of oxacillin-susceptible mecA-positive Staphylococcus aureus: a new type of MRSA. J Infect Chemother 13:79–86.

16.

Hwang

Park

Koo

Park

: 2010, spa typing and enterotoxin gene profile of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine raw milk in Korea. J Vet Sci 11:125–131.

17.

Ibrahem

Salmenlinna

Lyytikäinen

.: 2008, Molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis strains from bacteraemic patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 14:1020–1027.

18.

Ishihara

Shimokubo

Sakagami

.: 2010, Occurrence and molecular characteristics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in an academic veterinary hospital. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:5165–5174.

19.

Jamaluddin

Kuwahara-Arai

Hisata

.: 2008, Extreme genetic diversity of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis strains disseminated among healthy Japanese children. J Clin Microbiol 46:3778–3783.

20.

Kim

Song

Lee

.: 2007 A survey of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Korea. J Antimicrob Chemother 60:1108–1114. Erratum in J Antimicrob Chemother 2008 62:214.

21.

Kobayashi

DeLeo

: 2009, An update on community-associated MRSA virulence. Curr Opin Pharmacol 9:545–551.

22.

Kondo

Ito

.: 2007, 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 Chemother 51:264–274.

23.

Kwon

Park

Moon

.: 2005, Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) characterization and molecular analysis for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and novel SCCmec subtype IVg isolated from bovine milk in Korea. J Antimicrob Chemother 56:624–632.

24.

Lim

Nam

Park

.: 2010, Prevalence and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in raw meat in Korea. J Microbiol Biotechnol 20:775–778.

25.

Milheiriço

Oliveira

de Lencastre

: 2007, Multiplex PCR strategy for subtyping the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec type IV in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: ‘SCCmec IV multiplex’. J Antimicrob Chemother 60:42–48.

26.

Miragaia

Carriço

Thomas

.: 2008, Comparison of molecular typing methods for characterization of Staphylococcus epidermidis: proposal for clone definition. J Clin Microbiol 46:118–129.

27.

Morris

Rook

Shofer

Rankin

: 2006, Screening of Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus intermedius, and Staphylococcus schleiferi isolates obtained from small companion animals for antimicrobial resistance: a retrospective review of 749 isolates (2003–04). Vet Dermatol 17:332–337.

28.

Nam

Lee

Jung

.: 2011, Antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis in Korea. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8:231–238.

29.

National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS): 2004, Performance standard for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals; informational supplement M31-S1. NCCLS, Wayne, PA.

30.

Otto

: 2009, Staphylococcus epidermidis—the ‘accidental’ pathogen. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:555–567.

31.

Poyart

Quesne

Boumaila

Trieu-Cuot

: 2001, Rapid and accurate species-level identification of coagulase-negative staphylococci by using the sodA gene as a target. J Clin Microbiol 39:4296–4301.

32.

Rubin

Chirino-Trejo

: 2011, Prevalence, sites of colonization, and antimicrobial resistance among Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolated from healthy dogs in Saskatoon, Canada. J Vet Diagn Invest 23:351–354.

33.

Sasaki

Kikuchi

Tanaka

.: 2007, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in a veterinary teaching hospital. J Clin Microbiol 45:1118–1125.

34.

Schissler

Hillier

Daniels

.: 2009, Evaluation of Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute interpretive criteria for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolated from dogs. J Vet Diagn Invest 21:684–688.

35.

Watson

ADJ

Sykes

: 2007, Antimicrobial drug use in dogs and cats. In: Antimicrobial therapy in veterinary medicine, 4th ed., ed. Giguère

Prescott

Baggot

., pp. 463–483. Blackwell, Ames, IA.

36.

Yoon

Lee

.: 2010, Antibiotic resistance profiles of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius isolates from canine patients in Korea. J Microbiol Biotechnol 20:1764–1768.