SELfies and CELLfies: Whole Genome Sequencing and Annotation of Five Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Isolated from the Surfaces of Smartphones, An Inquiry Based Laboratory Exercise in a Genomics Undergraduate Course at the Rochester Institute of Technology

Abstract

Are touchscreen devices a public health risk for the transmission of pathogenic bacteria, especially those that are resistant to antibiotics? To investigate this, we embarked on a project aimed at isolating and identifying bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics from the screens of smartphones. Touchscreen devices have become ubiquitous in society, and it is important to evaluate the potential risks they pose towards public health, especially as it pertains to the harboring and transmission of pathogenic bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. Sixteen bacteria were initially isolated of which five were unique (four Staphylococcus species and one Micrococcus species). The genomes of the five unique isolates were subsequently sequenced and annotated. The genomes were analyzed using in silico tools to predict the synthesis of antibiotics and secondary metabolites using the anti biotics and S econdary M etabolite A nalysis SH ell (antiSMASH) tool in addition to the presence of gene clusters that denote resistance to antibiotics using the R esistance G ene I dentifier (RGI) tool. In vivo analysis was also done to assess resistance/susceptibility to four antibiotics that are commonly used in a research laboratory setting. The data presented in this manuscript is the result of a semester-long inquiry based laboratory exercise in the genomics course (BIOL340) in the Thomas H. Gosnell School of Life Sciences/College of Science at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Bacterial contamination of healthcare workers’ mobile phones in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Various bacteria, including skin flora and pathogenic bacteria, have been identified on the surface of mobile phones [3,10]. In high-income countries, 75-96% of healthcare workers' mobile phones were found to be colonized with bacteria [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and Micrococcus were the most commonly recovered bacteria, followed by methicillinsensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas species [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].…”

“…In high-income countries, 75-96% of healthcare workers' mobile phones were found to be colonized with bacteria [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and Micrococcus were the most commonly recovered bacteria, followed by methicillinsensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas species [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. In low-and middle-income countries' healthcare settings, bacterial contamination rates of mobile phones used by healthcare workers ranged from 42% to 100%.…”

Bacterial contamination of Healthcare workers’ mobile phones in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A variety of bacteria, including skin flora and pathogenic bacteria, have been identified on the surface of mobile phones [10,11]. In HICs, bacterial infections on healthcare personnel's mobile phones range from 75 to 96% [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and Micrococcus were the most commonly recovered bacteria, followed by methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas species [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

“…In HICs, bacterial infections on healthcare personnel's mobile phones range from 75 to 96% [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and Micrococcus were the most commonly recovered bacteria, followed by methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas species [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. In low-and middle-income countries' healthcare settings, bacterial contamination rates of mobile phones used by healthcare personnel ranged from 42% to 100%.…”