Preliminary Communication

Effect of polymicrobial interactions on antimicrobial resistance: an in vitro analysis in human ocular infections

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +91 406 810 2522;

E-mail Address: sanchita034@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2773-3568

Jhaveri Microbiology Centre, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, Hyderabad, 500034, India

Search for more papers by this author

Aparajita Mallick

Ocular Microbiology Services, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Mithu Tulsi Chanrai Campus, Bhubaneswar, 751024, India

Search for more papers by this author

Shilpa Priyadarshini

Ocular Microbiology Services, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Mithu Tulsi Chanrai Campus, Bhubaneswar, 751024, India

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:22 Mar 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb-2021-0114

View article

Abstract

Purpose: Investigate the effect of polymicrobial interactions on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) of ocular pathogens in polymicrobial settings, compared with monomicrobial infections. Methods: Polymicrobial interactions were labeled as antagonistic, synergistic or indifferent based on a reduction, an increase or no change, respectively, in antibiotics' MIC by the Vitek 2 compact system, compared with monomicrobial pathogens. Results:Staphylococcus epidermidis showed antagonistic polymicrobial interactions (22.6%); Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed synergistic interactions (62.5%); multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii showed increased susceptibility to select antibiotics; Serratia ficaria (inherently colistin resistant) became colistin-susceptible in polymicrobial combinations. Conclusion: Both antagonistic and synergistic interactions exist among human pathogens in polymicrobial settings. Gram-positive pathogens had significantly higher antagonistic polymicrobial interactions (increased MICs: 20.4%) compared with Gram-negative ones (synergistic: 59.4%).

Keywords:

References

1. Peters BM, Jabra-Rizk MA, O'May GA, Costerton JW, Shirtliff ME. Polymicrobial interactions: impact on pathogenesis and human disease. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 25(1), 193–213 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Cummings LA, Hoogestraat DR, Rassoulian-Barrett SL et al. Comprehensive evaluation of complex polymicrobial specimens using next-generation sequencing and standard microbiological culture. Sci. Rep. 10, 5446 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Murray JL, Connell JL, Stacy A, Turner KH, Whiteley M. Mechanisms of synergy in polymicrobial infections. J. Microbiol. 52(3), 188–199 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Bustinduy AL, Sutherland LJ, Chang-Cojulun A et al. Age-stratified profiles of serum IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α cytokines among Kenyan children with Schistosoma haematobium, Plasmodium falciparum, and other chronic parasitic co-infections. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 92(5), 945–951 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Shen SS, Qu XY, Zhang WZ et al. Infection against infection: parasite antagonism against parasites, viruses and bacteria. Infect. Dis. Poverty 8, 49 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Foster KR, Bell T. Competition, not co-operation, dominates interactions among culturable microbial species. Curr. Biol. 22, 1845–1850 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Pérez J, Moraleda-Muñoz A, Marcos-Torres FJ, Muñoz-Dorado J. Bacterial predation. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 766–779 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Tshikantwa TS, Ullah MW, He F, Yang G. Current trends and potential applications of microbial interactions in human welfare. Front. Microbiol. 9(1156), 1–19 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Todd OA, Peters BM. Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus pathogenicity and polymicrobial interactions: lessons beyond Koch's postulates. J. Fungi (Basel) 5(3), 81 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
10. Lozupone CA. Getting to know the microbiome. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16030 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Giesecke MT, Schwabe P, Wichlas F et al. Impact of high prevalence of pseudomonas and polymicrobial Gram-negative infections in major sub-/total traumatic amputations on empiric antimicrobial therapy: a retrospective study. World J. Emerg. Surg. 9, 55 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Ogba OM, Nsan E, Eyam ES. Aerobic bacteria associated with diabetic foot ulcers and their susceptibility pattern. Biomed. Dermatol. 3, 1 (2019).
Google Scholar
13. Jindal A, Moreker MR, Pathengay A et al. Polymicrobial endophthalmitis: prevalence, causative organisms, and visual outcomes. J. Ophthalmic Inflamm. Infect. 3(1), 6 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Jones DB. Polymicrobial keratitis. Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 79, 153–167 (1981).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Zhou Y, Holland MJ, Makalo P et al. The conjunctival microbiome in health and trachomatous disease: a case control study. Genome Med. 6(11), 99 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Tuft S. Polymicrobial infection and the eye. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 90(3), 257–258 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Melo GB, Bispo PJ, Yu MC, Pignatari AC, Höfling-Lima AL. Microbial profile and antibiotic susceptibility of culture-positive bacterial endophthalmitis. Eye (Lond.) 25(3), 382–387 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Bourcier T, Thomas F, Borderie V, Chaumeil C, Laroche L. Bacterial keratitis: predisposing factors, clinical and microbiological review of 300 cases. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 87(7), 834–838 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Reed JM, O'Callaghan RJ, Girgis DO, McCormick CC, Caballero AR, Marquart ME. Ocular virulence of capsule-deficient Streptococcus pneumoniae in a rabbit keratitis model. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 46(2), 604–608 (2005).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Teweldemedhin M, Gebreyesus H, Atsbaha AH, Asgedom SW, Saravanan M. Bacterial profile of ocular infections: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol. 17(1), 212 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Parment PA. The role of Serratia marcescens in soft contact lens associated ocular infections. A review. Acta. Ophthalmol. Scand. 75(1), 67–71 (1997).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Bharathi MJ, Ramakrishnan R, Shivakumar C, Meenakshi R, Lionalraj D. Etiology and antibacterial susceptibility pattern of community-acquired bacterial ocular infections in a tertiary eye care hospital in south India. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 58(6), 497–507 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Leck AK, Thomas PA, Hagan M et al. Aetiology of suppurative corneal ulcers in Ghana and south India, and epidemiology of fungal keratitis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 86(11), 1211–1215 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Michelsen CF, Christensen AM, Bojer MS, Høiby N, Ingmer H, Jelsbak L. Staphylococcus aureus alters growth activity, autolysis, and antibiotic tolerance in a human host-adapted Pseudomonas aeruginosa lineage. J. Bacteriol. 196(22), 3903–3911 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Capriotti JA, Pelletier JS, Shah M, Caivano DM, Turay P, Ritterband DC. The etiology of infectious corneal ulceration in Sierra Leone. Int. Ophthalmol. 30(6), 637–640 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Lupo A, Haenni M, Madec JY. Antimicrobial resistance in Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas spp. Microbiol. Spectr. 6(3), 1–16 (2018).
CASGoogle Scholar
27. Eliopoulos GM, Maragakis LL, Perl TM. Acinetobacter baumannii: epidemiology, antimicrobial resistance and treatment options. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46(8), 1254–1263 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Breijyeh Z, Jubeh B, Karaman R. Resistance of Gram-negative bacteria to current antibacterial agents and approaches to resolve it. Molecules 25(6), 1340 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 17, No. 7

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 97 times

History

Received 28 April 2021

Accepted 25 February 2022

Published online 22 March 2022

Published in print May 2022

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fmb-2021-0114

Author contributions

S Mitra – conceptual designing, planning of study protocol, bench work, analysis of data, manuscript writing and statistics. A Mallick – bench work, data collection, review of manuscript. S Priyadarshini – bench work, data collection, review of manuscript.

Acknowledgments

S Basu helped in verifying the validity of the idea and contributed intellectually to this study; R Jayasudha and GS Prashanthi helped the authors understand how to best represent the data in figures; and MH Ali helped the authors understand how to best arrange the data in Excel and the best statistical analysis to apply for this study.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This was an internally funded project from the authors' institute, supported by Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation (HERF). The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

The isolates from the samples used in this study were completely de-identified before proceeding with the experiments. This being a lab-based study, general consent forms from patients were adequate for this study. Institutional Ethics Committee clearance was obtained for this study (IEC code: 2019-015-BHR-30).

PDF download