Objectives: In 2014 probiotic supplementation (Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium longum subspecies infantis; InfloranⓇ) was introduced as standard of care to prevent necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in extremely preterm infants in Norway. We aimed to evaluate the influence of probiotics and antibiotic therapy on the developing gut microbiota and antibiotic resistome in extremely preterm infants, and to compare with very preterm infants and term infants not given probiotics.Study design: A prospective, observational multicenter study in six tertiary-care neonatal units. We enrolled 76 infants; 31 probiotic-supplemented extremely preterm infants <28 weeks gestation, 35 very preterm infants 28–31 weeks gestation not given probiotics and 10 healthy full-term control infants. Taxonomic composition and collection of antibiotic resistance genes (resistome) in fecal samples, collected at 7 and 28 days and 4 months age, were analyzed using shotgun-metagenome sequencing.Results: Median (IQR) birth weight was 835 (680–945) g and 1,290 (1,150–1,445) g in preterm infants exposed and not exposed to probiotics, respectively. Two extremely preterm infants receiving probiotic developed NEC requiring surgery. At 7 days of age we found higher median relative abundance of Bifidobacterium in probiotic supplemented infants (64.7%) compared to non-supplemented preterm infants (0.0%) and term control infants (43.9%). Lactobacillus was only detected in small amounts in all groups, but the relative abundance increased up to 4 months. Extremely preterm infants receiving probiotics had also much higher antibiotic exposure, still overall microbial diversity and resistome was not different than in more mature infants at 4 weeks and 4 months.Conclusion: Probiotic supplementation may induce colonization resistance and alleviate harmful effects of antibiotics on the gut microbiota and antibiotic resistome.Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02197468. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02197468
ObjectivesStaphylococcus haemolyticus is an emerging cause of nosocomial infections, primarily affecting immunocompromised patients. A comparative genomic analysis was performed on clinical S. haemolyticus isolates to investigate their genetic relationship and explore the coding sequences with respect to antimicrobial resistance determinants and putative hospital adaptation.MethodsWhole-genome sequencing was performed on 134 isolates of S. haemolyticus from geographically diverse origins (Belgium, 2; Germany, 10; Japan, 13; Norway, 54; Spain, 2; Switzerland, 43; UK, 9; USA, 1). Each genome was individually assembled. Protein coding sequences (CDSs) were predicted and homologous genes were categorized into three types: Type I, core genes, homologues present in all strains; Type II, unique core genes, homologues shared by only a subgroup of strains; and Type III, unique genes, strain-specific CDSs. The phylogenetic relationship between the isolates was built from variable sites in the form of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the core genome and used to construct a maximum likelihood phylogeny.ResultsSNPs in the genome core regions divided the isolates into one major group of 126 isolates and one minor group of isolates with highly diverse genomes. The major group was further subdivided into seven clades (A–G), of which four (A–D) encompassed isolates only from Europe. Antimicrobial multiresistance was observed in 77.7% of the collection. High levels of homologous recombination were detected in genes involved in adherence, staphylococcal host adaptation and bacterial cell communication.ConclusionsThe presence of several successful and highly resistant clones underlines the adaptive potential of this opportunistic pathogen.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.