Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Detection of metallo-β-lactamases-encoding genes among clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a tertiary care hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4 and
  • 1
BMC Research Notes201710:718

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-3068-9

  • Received: 9 October 2017
  • Accepted: 5 December 2017
  • Published:

Abstract

Objectives

This study was carried out to determine the prevalence of metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa in imipenem-nonsusceptible isolates and to detect MBL-encoding genes among MBLs-positive isolates.

Results

Metallo-β-lactamases production was detected in 68.6% isolates of P. aeruginosa with reduced susceptibility to imipenem. The bla VIM-2 gene was detected in 75% isolates and bla IMP-1 was detected in 25% isolates. All MBLs-positive isolates were multidrug resistant with a high level of resistance to imipenem (MIC 16 to ≥ 32 µg/ml), meropenem (MIC 16 to ≥ 32 µg/ml), and ceftazidime (MIC 64 to ≥ 512 µg/ml). All MBL-positive isolates were susceptible (MIC ≤ 2 µg/ml) to colistin. We found high prevalence of MBL-producing P. aeruginosa. To our knowledge this is the first report of detection of bla VIM-2 and bla IMP-1 in P. aeruginosa from Nepal. This indicates the need for awareness to prevent the spreading of these resistant isolates in hospital setting.

Keywords

  • Metallo-β-lactamases
  • Imipenem-nonsusceptible
  • bla VIM-2
  • bla IMP-1

Introduction

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a Gram-negative, non-fermentative organism found in diverse environmental settings [1]. It is an opportunistic pathogen, causing serious infection in patients with weakened immune systems [2]. This organism is generally intrinsically resistant to a wide variety of antimicrobial agents as well as it has the capacity to develop resistance by mutation or acquisition of foreign resistance genes against different antibiotic classes [3]. Carbapenem, including imipenem, meropenem and doripenem are often used as a last resort for treatment of infections caused by P. aeruginosa and other Gram-negative bacteria [4, 5]. However, carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa has become prevalent globally [6, 7]. Carbapenem resistance may arise in P. aeruginosa via OprD channel deficiencies, up-regulation of efflux pumps and production of various kinds of carbapenemases, including serine β-lactamases of Ambler classes A and D and metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) of Ambler class B [8].

Among various mechanism of resistance for carbapenem in P. aeruginosa, production of MBLs is of particular concern because of their rapid spread, potent carbapenemase activity, resistance to β-lactamase inhibitors and ability to hydrolyze all β-lactam antibiotics with the exception of aztreonam [9]. Furthermore, MBLs encoding genes are usually located on integrons, the mobile genetic elements that also carry genes encoding for resistance to aminoglycoside and other antibiotics resulting in multidrug resistance (MDR) [10].

Several types of MBLs, such as IMP, VIM, SPM, GIM, AIM, FIM and NDM and their variants have been identified in P. aeruginosa [1113]. Among them, variants of VIM and IMP types such as bla VIM-1, bla VIM-2 , bla IMP-1 and bla IMP-2 are the most commonly found MBL genes in P. aeruginosa and responsible for many nosocomial outbreaks [9].

Although, production of MBLs in clinical isolates is a serious therapeutic problem, so far limited information is available on MBL production in P. aeruginosa clinical isolates from Nepal. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of MBL producing P. aeruginosa and to detect MBL-encoding genes (bla VIM-1, bla VIM-2 , bla IMP-1 and bla IMP-2).

Main text

Methods

Bacterial isolates

Clinical specimens submitted for routine culture and antibiotic susceptibility testing from hospitalized patients during the period of October 2015 to July 2016, at the microbiology laboratory of the Annapurna Neurological Institute and Allied Sciences were processed. P. aeruginosa were isolated and identified based on conventional biochemical test [14]. All P. aeruginosa isolates were screened for reduced susceptibility to imipenem (MIC ≥ 8 µg/ml) by E-test strips.

Confirmation of MBL production and antimicrobial susceptibility testing

All the isolates that showed reduced susceptibility to imipenem were tested for MBL production by the imipenem-EDTA disk diffusion test [15]. Susceptibility testing of the isolates were performed by disk diffusion according to the Guidelines of Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) [16]. The following antimicrobial agents were used: ceftazidime (30 µg), imipenem (10 µg), meropenem (10 µg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg), aztreonam (30 µg), amikacin (30 µg), gentamicin (10 µg), piperacillin (100 µg), piperacillin–tazobactam (100/10 µg) and cefepime (30 µg). MIC of imipenem, meropenem, ceftazidime and colistin were determined by E-test strips (according to manufacturers instruction) and agar dilution method on all MBLs-producing isolates [16]. All the antibiotics and E-test strips were procured from Hi-media, India. P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 was used as a quality control in the susceptibility testing.

Detection of MBL encoding genes by multiplex PCR

Total DNAs of MBL-positive P. aeruginosa isolates were extracted using a boiling method, briefly; 3–5 colonies from an overnight culture grown on Mueller–Hinton agar (Hi-media, India) were transferred to 300 µl of nuclease-free water and boiled at 100 °C for 10 min. After centrifugation at 12,000×g for 5 min, the supernatant was used as a source of template for amplification. Multiplex PCR amplification of MBL genes including bla VIM-1, bla VIM-2, bla IMP-1 and bla IMP-2 were performed (5 Prime/02, Bibby Scientific, UK) [17]. Amplification was carried out with the following thermal cycling conditions: initial denaturation at 95 °C for 5 min and 36 cycles of amplification consisting of 40 s at 94 °C, 40 s at 52 °C, 50 s at 72 °C, with 5 min at 72 °C for the final extension.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa NCTC 13437 producing bla VIM and Escherichia coli NCTC 13476 producing bla IMP kindly provided by Prof. Neil Woodford from Public Health England were used as positive control and P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 were used as negative control.

Results

A total of 98 P. aeruginosa were obtained during the study period. Of the total isolates, only 35 (35.7%) isolates showed reduced susceptibility to imipenem (MIC ≥ 8 µg/ml). Of the 35 isolates with reduced susceptibility to imipenem, 24 (68.6%) were positive for MBL production by the imipenem-EDTA disk diffusion test. Eighteen isolates (75%) were bla VIM-2 positive and 6 (25%) were bla IMP-1 positive. In this study, bla VIM-1 and bla IMP-2 MBL allele were not detected. MBL-positive isolates were from intensive care unit (ICU) 14 (58.4%) and 10 (41.6%) were from general ward patients.

All MBL positive isolates were susceptible (MIC ≤ 2 µg/ml) to colistin and majority of MBL-producing isolates were also susceptible to aztreonam (62.5%), whereas 24 (100%) were resistant to meropenem, piperacillin, ceftazidime and cefepime. All MBL-positive isolates had high resistance rates to ciprofloxacin (75%), amikacin (83.4%) gentamicin (91.7%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (95.8%). Using Magiorakos et al. definitions for multidrug-resistant and panresistant P. aeruginosa [18], all MBL positive isolates were multidrug resistant with a high level of resistant to imipenem (MIC 16 to ≥ 32 µg/ml), meropenem (MIC 16 to ≥ 32 µg/ml), and ceftazidime (MIC 64 to ≥ 512 µg/ml). Characteristics of MBL-producing P. aeruginosa are shown in (Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics of metallo-β-lactamases producing P. aeruginosa

Isolate

Hospital site

Sample

bla VIM-2

bla IMP-1

MICs (µg/ml)

IPM

MRP

CAZ

CL

1

ICU

Sputum

+

16

32

256

1

2

ICU

Sputum

+

64

64

512

1

3

GW

Urine

+

128

128

512

0.5

4

ICU

Sputum

+

128

128

256

2

5

GW

Urine

+

128

256

512

2

6

GW

Urine

+

16

16

512

0.5

7

GW

Sputum

+

256

128

512

2

8

ICU

Pus/wound swab

+

64

64

512

1

9

GW

Urine

+

128

64

64

2

10

GW

Sputum

+

128

64

128

0.25

11

ICU

Tracheal aspirates

+

256

64

128

1

12

ICU

Urine

+

256

64

256

1

13

ICU

Sputum

+

128

64

256

1

14

ICU

Sputum

+

32

32

512

0.25

15

ICU

Pus/wound swab

+

64

32

128

2

16

GW

Urine

+

128

128

256

2

17

ICU

Sputum

+

128

128

512

0.5

18

ICU

Sputum

+

128

128

256

2

19

GW

Pus/wound swab

+

64

64

512

2

20

GW

Urine

+

256

128

128

2

21

GW

Sputum

+

16

32

256

1

22

ICU

Urine

+

128

32

64

1

23

ICU

Tracheal aspirates

+

256

256

512

2

24

ICU

Sputum

+

128

256

256

1

ICU intensive care unit, GW general ward, MIC minimum inhibitory concentration, IPM imipenem, MRP meropenem, CAZ ceftazidime, CL colistin

Discussion

Our study showed that 68.6% (24/35) isolates of P. aeruginosa with reduced susceptibility to imipenem were MBL producers. This finding was higher than those reported in the previous study from Nepal [19], indicating that MBL-producing P. aeruginosa is increasing. High prevalence of MBL producing P. aeruginosa was also detected in India, a neighboring country of Nepal (69.8%) [20], Taiwan (55.1%) [21], and Egypt (68.7%) [22]. The reduced imipenem susceptibilities in MBL-negative isolates might be due to other mechanisms such as deficiency in porin channel combined with production of AmpC β-lactamases [8].

In the present study, bla VIM-2 was the most commonly detectable genes among the different MBL genes analyzed; 75% of MBL-positive isolates carried bla VIM-2. Only 25% of MBL-positive isolates carried bla IMP-1. This finding was supported by result of previous studies from around the world demonstrating bla VIM-2 as the most common MBL genes responsible for reduced susceptibility to imipenem in P. aeruginosa and pose greatest clinical threat [23]. bla VIM-2 gene is associated with many nosocomial outbreaks due to MBL-producing P. aeruginosa [24]. Although, less than VIM-2 type, IMP-1 also have been reported from worldwide [25]. Due to the high mortality rate of infections caused by MBL-producing P. aeruginosa, their presence in hospital setting is of great concern. To evaluate the threat of MBL-producing P. aeruginosa and its associated risk factors, well-designed multicentre epidemiological studies are urgently required.

In this study, all MBL-producing isolates were MDR, leaving the limited treatment option. Based on the in vitro testing; the most effective antibiotic against MBL-producing isolates were colistin (100% susceptible, MIC ≤ 2 µg/ml), followed by aztreonam (62.5% susceptible). The existence of the MBL genes on integrons together with other resistance gene makes the MBL-positive isolates MDR [10]. Due to the limited treatment option (potentially toxic polymyxin B and colistin) for the infections caused by MBL-producing isolates and the mobile nature of MBL, early detection of MBL-producing isolates in hospital setting is necessary to initiate the appropriate infection control procedure to avoid the spread of these multidrug resistant isolates.

Aztreonam is stable against MBLs [10]; however in this study 37.5% of the MBL-producing isolates were resistant to aztreonam, suggesting a possible association with other resistance mechanisms such as AmpC type β-lactamases or ESBLs [1].

Many studies have shown that intensive care unit is the epicenter and the main source of amplification and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance [26], a finding that was also observed in this study among the 24 MBL-positive isolates; 14 (58.4%) were isolated from ICU while 10 (41.6%) were from general ward patients. Since more than 50% of MBL-producing P. aeruginosa isolates have been recovered from ICU, it is highly probable that it might be a clonal spread. Unfortunately, because of some limitations, such as lack of more equipped laboratory, we were not able to do genotypic comparisons of the isolates.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study showed the presence of bla VIM-2 and bla IMP-1 producing P. aeruginosa for the first time in Nepal that underscores the necessity of screening all imipenem-resistant isolates for MBL production and implementation of infection control programs to prevent spread of such organisms.

Limitations

  • The study was unable to determine whether these MBL genes are transferable or not.

  • The study was unable to investigate other MBL-encoding genes such as NDM-1.

  • Due to the lack of laboratory equipment, we could not perform genotypic comparisons of the isolates.

Abbreviations

ATCC: 

American Type Culture Collection

CAZ: 

ceftazidime

CL: 

colistin

EDTA: 

ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

GW: 

general ward

ICU: 

intensive care unit

IPM: 

imipenem

MBL: 

metallo-β-lactamase

MDR: 

multidrug resistance

MIC: 

minimum inhibitory concentration

MRP: 

meropenem

NCTC: 

National Collection of Type Cultures

OPD: 

out patients department

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

MA and PRJ designed the study, collected data, analyzed the data and prepared the manuscript, KT and RA collected data, TK and SS supervised the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This work is a part of Master’s thesis that has been supported by Central Department of Microbiology, Tribhuvan University and Annapurna Neurological Institute and Allied Sciences. We thank the staff of both institutes and Nepal Health research Council for ethical clearance. We also acknowledge Prof. Neil Woodford, Public Health England for providing control strains.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The raw data can be made available to the interested researchers by the authors of this article if requested.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Ethics of approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Review Board of Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC) (Reg. 27/2015). Since the clinical specimens submitted for routine bacteriological testing were processed, consent to participate is not applicable.

Funding

To conduct this study no fund was obtained from any sources.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Central Department of Microbiology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal
(2)
Kathmandu College of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal
(3)
Kantipur College of Medical Sciences, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal
(4)
Annapurna Neurological Institute and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal

References

  1. Lister PD, Wolter DJ, Hanson ND. Antibacterial-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: clinical impact and complex regulation of chromosomally encoded resistance mechanisms. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22:582–610.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Coggan KA, Wolfgang MC. Global regulatory pathways and cross-talk control Pseudomonas aeruginosa environmental lifestyle and virulence phenotype. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2012;14:47–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Strateva T, Yordanov D. Pseudomonas aeruginosa—a phenomenon of bacterial resistance. J Med Microbiol. 2009;58:1133–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Giamarellou H, Poulakou G. Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections: what are the treatment options? Drugs. 2009;69:1879–901.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Riera E, Cabot G, Mulet X, Garcia-Castillo M, del Campo R, Juan C, Canton R, Oliver A. Pseudomonas aeruginosa carbapenem resistance mechanisms in Spain: impact on the activity of imipenem, meropenem and doripenem. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:2022–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Nagao M, Iinuma Y, Igawa J, Saito T, Yamashita K, Kondo T, Matsushima S, Takakura A, Takaori-Kondo A, Ichiyama S. Control of an outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a haematooncology unit. J Hosp Infect. 2011;79:49–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Livermore DM. Has the era of untreatable infections arrived? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64(Suppl 1):i29–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Quale J, Bratu S, Gupta J, Landman D. Interplay of efflux system, ampC, and oprD expression in carbapenem resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50:1633–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornaglia G, Giamarellou H, Rossolini GM. Metallo-beta-lactamases: a last frontier for beta-lactams? Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11:381–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Walsh TR. Clinically significant carbapenemases: an update. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2008;21:367–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gupta V. Metallo-β-lactamases in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2008;17:131–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Pollini S, Maradei S, Pecile P, Olivo G, Luzzaro F, Docquier JD, Rossolini GM. FIM-1, a new acquired metallo β-lactamase from a Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolate from Italy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:410–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Jovcic B, Lepsanovic Z, Suljagic V, Rackov G, Begovic J, Topisirovic L, Kojic M. Emergence of NDM-1 metallo-β-lactamase in Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates from Serbia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55:3929–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Forbes BA, Sahm DF, Weissfeld AS. Bailey and Scott’s diagnostic microbiology. 11th ed. St. Louis: Mosb Inc; 2002. p. 389–97.Google Scholar
  15. Yong D, Lee K, Yum JH, Shin HB, Rossolini GM, Chong Y. Imipenem-EDTA disk method for differentiation of metallo-beta-lactamase-producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:3798–801.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; twenty-fourth informational supplement, M100–S24. Wayne: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2014.Google Scholar
  17. Shibata N, Doi Y, Yamane K, Yagi T, Kurokawa H, Shibayama K, Kato H, Kai K, Arkawa Y. PCR typing of genetic determinants for metallo-β-lactamase and integrase carried by Gram-negative bacteria isolated in Japan, with focus on the class 3 integron. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:5407–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, Harbarth S, Hindler JF, Kahlmeter G, Olsson-Liljequist B, Paterson DL, Rice LB, Stelling J, Struelens MJ, Vatopoulos A, Weber JT, Monnet DL. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:268–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Thapa P, Bhandari D, Shrestha D, Parajuli H, Chaudhary P, Amatya J, Amatya R. A hospital based surveillance of metallo-beta-lactamase producing gram negative bacteria in Nepal by imipenem-EDTA disk method. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:322.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Gupta V, Sidhu S, Chander J. Metallo-β-lactamase producing nonfermentative Gram-negative bacteria: an increasing clinical threat among hospitalized patients. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2012;5:718–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee MF, Peng CF, Hsu HJ, Chen YH. Molecular characterisation of the metallo-β-lactamase genes in imipenem resistant Gram-negative bacteria from a university hospital in southern Taiwan. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;32:475–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Zafer MM, Al-Agamy MH, El-Mahallawy HA, Amin MA, Ashour SED. Dissemination of VIM-2 producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa ST233 at tertiary care hospitals in Egypt. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:122–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Pitout JDD, Revathi G, Chow BL, Kabera B, Kariuki S, Nordmann P, Poirel L. Metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from a large tertiary centre in Kenya. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008;14:755–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Elias J, Schoen C, Heinze G, Valenza G, Gerharz E, Riedmiller H, Vogel U. Nosocomial outbreak of VIM-2 metallo-β-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa associated with retrograde urography. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;16:1494–500.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Maltezou HC. Metallo-β-lactamases in Gram-negative bacteria: introducing the era of pan-resistance? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009;33:405e1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Brusselaers N, Vogelaers D, Blot S. The rising problem of antimicrobial resistance in the intensive care unit. Ann Intensive Care. 2011;1:47.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement