Next Article in Journal
Isolation and Evaluation of Streptomyces melanogenes YBS22 with Potential Application for Biocontrol of Rice Blast Disease
Previous Article in Journal
One Health Perspectives on Food Safety in Minimally Processed Vegetables and Fruits: From Farm to Fork
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Antimicrobial Activity by Marine Nocardiopsis dassonvillei against Foodborne Listeria monocytogenes and Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/microorganisms11122989
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Association between the Presence of Resistance Genes and Sanitiser Resistance of Listeria monocytogenes Isolates Recovered from Different Food-Processing Facilities

by
Yue Cheng
1,
Zeinabossadat Ebrahimzadeh Mousavi
1,2,
Vincenzo Pennone
3,
Daniel Hurley
4 and
Francis Butler
1,*
1
UCD School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, D04 C1P1 Dublin, Ireland
2
Department of Food Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj 77871-31587, Iran
3
Teagasc Food Research Centre Moorepark, Fermoy, P61 C996 Cork, Ireland
4
UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, D04 C1P1 Dublin, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(12), 2989; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122989
Submission received: 3 November 2023 / Revised: 11 December 2023 / Accepted: 12 December 2023 / Published: 15 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue An Update on Listeria monocytogenes 2.0)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sanitisers are widely used in cleaning food-processing facilities, but their continued use may cause an increased resistance of pathogenic bacteria. Several genes have been attributed to the increased sanitiser resistance ability of L. monocytogenes. This study determined the presence of sanitiser resistance genes in Irish-sourced L. monocytogenes isolates and explored the association with phenotypic sanitiser resistance. The presence of three genes associated with sanitiser resistance and a three-gene cassette (mdrL, qacH, emrE, bcrABC) were determined in 150 L. monocytogenes isolates collected from Irish food-processing facilities. A total of 23 isolates contained bcrABC, 42 isolates contained qacH, one isolate contained emrE, and all isolates contained mdrL. Additionally, 47 isolates were selected and grouped according to the number and type of resistance genes, and the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of these isolates for benzalkonium chloride (BAC) was determined experimentally using the broth microdilution method. The BAC resistance of the strain carrying the bcrABC gene cassette was significantly higher than that of strains lacking the gene cassette, and the BAC resistance of the strain carrying the qacH gene was significantly higher than that of strains lacking the qacH gene (p < 0.05). Isolates harbouring both the qacH and bcrABC genes did not show higher BAC resistance. With respect to environmental factors, there was no significant difference in MIC values for isolates recovered from different processing facilities. In summary, this investigation highlights the prevalence of specific sanitiser resistance genes in L. monocytogenes isolates from Irish food-processing settings. While certain genes correlated with increased resistance to benzalkonium chloride, the combination of multiple genes did not necessarily amplify this resistance.

1. Introduction

L. monocytogenes is a bacterial foodborne pathogen that can contaminate food products during or after processing [1]. L. monocytogenes is pathogenic in humans, causing listeriosis, and is associated with other human illnesses such as bacteraemia, encephalitis, and sepsis [2]. Listeriosis outbreaks have occurred worldwide. An outbreak in South Africa from 2017 to 2018 was the largest listeriosis outbreak to date, with more than 1000 laboratory-confirmed cases and a 42% fatality rate. The most-infected were infants and pregnant women [3]. Poor hygiene practices and the inadequate implementation of standard sanitation operating procedures in the food-processing industry have led to listeriosis outbreaks [4]. L. monocytogenes can also be found in difficult-to-clean tools such as slicers, food transport vehicles, and refrigeration units [5]. The foods most commonly identified as vehicles of L. monocytogenes transmission include unpasteurised milk and dairy products, soft cheese varieties, ready-to-eat food, sliced meats, refrigerated smoked seafood, and refrigerated meat spreads [6,7,8,9,10]. In recent years, several novel food vehicles have been implicated in listeriosis outbreaks, such as Enoki mushrooms and packaged salads [11].
The proper cleaning of equipment and processing facilities is of paramount importance to the food industry to control L. monocytogenes that may enter the food chain and cause food outbreaks. In a normal sanitation cycle in the food industry, a cleaning agent is applied and rinsed off with water before a disinfectant is applied. After a specific exposure time, the disinfectant is rinsed off with water [12]. Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) are cationic membrane-active antibacterial agents [13] that are widely used in the food industry and are known to be effective against L. monocytogenes [14]. Benzalkonium chloride (BC) is a commonly used active ingredient in QAC sanitisers. BAC has a broad-spectrum biocidal activity and remains stable for both short- and long-term usage [15].
However, the persistent use of sanitisers may induce the resistance of L. monocytogenes towards QACs as a result of selection or adaptation through regular exposure to sublethal concentrations [16]. According to published research, efflux pumps are an important mechanism for L. monocytogenes resistance to sanitisers [5,17]. Currently, L. monocytogenes have been shown to possess several genetic determinants related to efflux pumps that enhance their tolerance towards QACs [18]. The multidrug efflux pump gene mdrL in L. monocytogenes was one of the first genes that was confirmed to have a relationship with its resistance to QACs [19]. The mdrL gene is located on the chromosome and is present in almost all L. monocytogenes serotypes [20,21]. A resistance cassette, known as bcrABC, has also been reported to be related to the sanitiser resistance of L. monocytogenes. The genes bcrABC are composed of a TetR family transcriptional regulator (bcrA) and two small multidrug resistance genes (bcrB and bcrC), all essential for imparting BAC resistance [22]. In addition, qacH, a gene encoding a small multidrug resistance protein family transporter located at the chromosomally integrated transposon Tn6188, has been reported to provide an increased tolerance of L. monocytogenes strains to BAC [23]. Recently, it was reported [24] that the novel efflux pump gene emrE, located on the LGI1 genomic island, can also increase the tolerance of L. monocytogenes to QACs. It was found that after 1 hour of exposure to BAC (10 μg/mL), the expression of the emrE gene increased 49.6-fold, and the growth of L. monocytogenes lacking the emrE gene in BAC was significantly inhibited.
The objective of this research was to determine the presence of several sanitiser resistance genes in Irish-sourced L. monocytogenes isolates and to explore the association between environment, the presence of resistance genes, and the sanitiser resistance of L. monocytogenes experimentally.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. L. monocytogenes Isolates and Culture Conditions

A total of 150 isolates of L. monocytogenes, collected from Irish food-processing facilities (meat, seafood, vegetables, dairy, and mixed food) and clinical environments, were used in this study. All isolates were provided by Moorepark, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Dublin, Ireland. There were 12 serotypes of L. monocytogenes isolates, including 1/2a, 1/2b, 1/2c, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4d, 4e, and 7. The bacterial cultures were kept in storage at a temperature of −80 °C in tryptone soy broth (TSB, Sigma, Wicklow, Ireland) with 20% (vol/vol) glycerol. When required for use, the cultures were inoculated into Brain Heart Infusion agar (BHI, Sigma, Wicklow, Ireland) plates and grown at 37 °C for 24 h, and afterwards stored at 4 °C until required.

2.2. Occurrence of Resistant QAC Genes in Selected L. monocytogenes Isolates

The resistance genes chosen for this study were mdrL, emrE, qacH, and the three-gene cassette bcrABC (Table 1). The sequences of these four resistance genes were downloaded from GenBank. The whole genome sequences of the 150 isolates were submitted to GenBank and are available through BioProject numbers PRJNA699172, PRJNA714047, and PRJNA698557.

2.3. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Assays

After the genomic analysis, 47 L. monocytogenes isolates were selected from the original 150 isolates to give a range of the sequence type, the number of sanitiser resistant genes present, and the source of isolation for MIC evaluation. The primary criterion for selection is to group strains according to the number and types of resistance genes they carry, and the number of strains in different groups should be as equal as possible. Using BLAST gene alignment results, 3 isolates carrying bcrABC, qacH, and mdrL, 14 isolates carrying bcrABC and mdrL, 13 isolates carrying qacH and mdrL, 1 isolate carrying emrE and mdrL, and 16 isolates carrying only mdrL were selected. Among isolates carrying the same resistance genes, the selection criteria were designed to include isolates from as diverse a range of process environments as possible.
The MIC assay was performed according to the broth microdilution method provided by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [28]. Fifteen isolates were randomly selected pre-experiment to establish the likely range of MIC values. The experimental results showed that the MIC of all isolates was lower than 10 mg/L. Therefore, the serial dilution was changed to a 1–10 mg/L fixed concentration difference (intervals of 1 mg/L).
Benzalkonium chloride (BAC) (Sigma, Wicklow, Ireland) was used as a standard QAC. A concentration range of 1–10 mg/L of BAC (intervals of 1 mg/L) was used for MIC evaluation. Initially, a stock BAC solution with a concentration of 100 mg/L was prepared and maintained in a water bath at 54 °C for 20 min to completely dissolve the BAC. The solution was then diluted with distilled H2O to the desired concentration. The L. monocytogenes isolates were streaked out onto the BHI plates and incubated overnight at 37 °C. Then, 2–3 colonies from the overnight cultures were transferred to 6 mL of Tryptone Saline Diluent (TSD). The absorbance of the medium was recorded using a spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific Orion AQ8000-AquaMate, Waltham, MA, USA) at 625 nm. The optical density (OD) of the samples was further adjusted to 0.08–0.13, which corresponded to approximately 1–2 × 108 CFU/mL. Then, 10 mL of double-strength Tryptic soy broth (dsTSB, Sigma, Wicklow, Ireland) was prepared for all the isolates, and 50 µL of the prepared suspension was inoculated into the double-strength TSB. A total of 100 µL of BAC solution at different concentrations (1–10 mg/L) was subsequently transferred to each well of a 96-well plate, and 100 µL of the double-strength TSB containing the culture was transferred to each well. Cultures of each isolate were performed in triplicate. The plate was then incubated at 37 °C for 24 h and the first concentration at which the isolate did not yield visible bacterial growth was considered as the MIC value.

2.4. Genetic Analysis

The presence of the mdrL, emrE, and qacH genes and the three-gene cassette bcrABC in the genome of the 150 isolates was identified using BLASTN [29]. Multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) was carried out using the mlst tool [30]. The typing standards were traditional PubMLST typing schemes. Parsnp v1.2 [31] was used to align the core genome of the 13 ST121 isolates tested for the MIC in this study. Isolate F2165-17 was randomly chosen as the reference isolate. The core genome phylogeny and multi-alignments were constructed using Parsnp. The qacH gene sequences in the genome of the 13 ST121 isolates tested for the MIC was translated to amino acid sequences using MEGA 11.0.10 [32].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Multiple linear regression was carried out between the MIC values and the presence/absence of the qacH gene and the bcrABC cassette using the R lm function. An interaction term was included in the analysis. The effects of the emrE and mdrL genes were not included in the analysis as there was only one isolate detected with the emrE gene and all isolates contained the mdrL gene. A Chi-square test was carried out using the R Chi-square test function on the MIC values depending on the processing facility type.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Occurrence of Genes Conferring Resistance to QACs in the L. monocytogenes Isolates

Table S1 in the Supplementary Material sets out a full list of all the genes detected in each isolate. All the isolates contained the mdrL gene, 23 isolates (15%) harboured the bcrABC cassette, 40 (27%) isolates harboured the qacH gene, and only one isolate harboured the emrE gene (Table 2). A total of 34 STs were present in the 150 L. monocytogenes isolates. The bcrABC gene cassette was identified in a total of seven STs (ST2, ST5, ST9, ST31, ST204, ST836, and ST132). It was strongly associated with several sequence types (present in 11 out of 13 ST5 isolates; two out of two ST132; five out of five ST836). The qacH gene was identified in a total of four STs (ST2, ST121, ST122, and ST132). It was strongly associated with ST121 (present in all 37 isolates) and with ST132 (present in all two isolates). The emrE gene was only detected in ST9 (present in one out of three ST9 isolates). Two isolates belonging to ST132 and one isolate belonging to ST2 contained the bcrABC gene cassette, the mdrL gene, and the qacH gene.
A study in 2017 of L. monocytogenes isolates found that, among the 101 isolates recovered from Norway meat- and salmon-processing facilities, 22% of the isolates contained the qacH gene and 8% of the isolates contained the bcrABC gene cassette [12]. Compared with that study, the prevalence of bcrABC and qacH found in this study was higher. An important reason for the increased prevalence of resistance genes may be horizontal gene transfer (HGT). During evolution, bacteria can acquire genetic material through HGT, which consists of conjugation (requiring cell-to-cell contact between cells), transduction (phage facilitates the transfer of genetic information), and transformation (uptake of free DNA from the environment). HGT is the primary mechanism for the spread of antibiotic resistance in bacteria [33]. Among the four resistance genes mentioned in this study, the Tn6188 transposon on which the qacH gene is located is related to Tn554 from Staphylococcus aureus and other Tn554-like transposons found in various Firmicutes [23]. The emrE gene shows high similarity and amino acid identity with the drug transporter gene in Desulfitobacterium dehalogenans ATCC 51507 [24]. A study on the bcrABC gene cassette found that pLM80-like plasmids containing bcrABC can spread in different serotypes of L. monocytogenes [22]. Thus, HGT may also be a primary way in which L. monocytogenes acquires sanitiser resistance genes. In addition, environmental selection resulting from the continued use of sanitisers may also be responsible for the increased proportion of L. monocytogenes carrying resistance genes.

3.2. MIC Analysis

3.2.1. Effects of bcrABC and qacH Genes on BAC Resistance of L. monocytogenes

The MIC of the 47 isolates tested varied between 1 and 5 mg/L (Table 3). Figure 1 shows the distribution of the MIC values recorded for the isolates. A previous study [12] reported similar MIC values (2–12 mg/L) for L. monocytogenes isolates recovered from Norwegian meat and salmon production sites. Multiple regression indicated that the presence of either the qacH gene or the bcrABC cassette had a significant (p < 0.001) positive effect on the MIC values. This is indicated in Figure 2 and Figure 3, which show the variation in MIC values depending on presence/absence of the qacH gene or the bcrABC cassette. However, there was a negative interaction effect (p < 0.01) between the presence of the qacH gene and the bcrABC cassette, indicating the possible non-synergistic effect on MIC values arising from the presence of both the qacH gene and the bcrABC cassette in an isolate. This outcome should be viewed with caution due to the small number of isolates containing both the qacH gene and the bcrABC cassette. The three isolates that contained both the qacH gene and the bcrABC cassette had MIC values of 4 mg/L, whereas several of the isolates that contained either only the qacH gene or the bcrABC cassette had higher MIC values. The 3D plot of the MIC values for all the isolates (Figure 4) gives a visual representation of the multiple regression and the interaction. A Norwegian study [12] of 101 L. monocytogenes isolates recovered from meat- and salmon-processing plants also showed increased tolerance to BAC in isolates containing either the qacH gene or the bcrABC cassette (no isolate was found that contained both the qacH gene and the bcrABC cassette). Another work [14] assessed the activity of the mdrL gene-encoded efflux pump in L. monocytogenes, and the authors found that mdrL efflux pump activity was reduced in bcrABC-positive isolates. Hence, they concluded that the higher MIC values recorded for these isolates was caused by the activity of the bcrABC cassette.

3.2.2. Differences in Sensitivity to BAC between Groups of qacH-Positive Isolates

All the ST121 isolates from the 150 isolates tested were qacH-positive. Among the strains selected for MIC testing, 13 isolates were ST121, and so all carried the qacH gene. Of these 13 isolates, the MIC of the isolate coded as 1513 was 1 mg/L, which was much lower than that of the other ST121 isolates tested (3–5 mg/L). The phylogenetic analysis (Figure 5) indicated that isolate 1513 was significantly different compared to the other 12 ST121 isolates. In addition, the amino acid sequence for the qacH gene was identical for the 13 ST121 isolates, except for isolate 1513. Three single-nucleotide differences were found in the sequence of the qacH gene of isolate 1513 (Figure 6). This resulted in the following amino acid differences: Ser/Ala at amino acid positions 60 and 63, and Ile/Leu at amino acid position 94. The same mutation was also found in a previous published study [12]. In addition to the differences at these three positions, that study also found a Cys/Ser difference at amino acid position 42, and the isolates with QacH variants harbouring 42 Ser had a higher tolerance towards BC than those with Cys in this position. Since the mutation at position 42 was not found in the isolates in this study, but the resistance of the strains to BAC still varied, the mutations at the other three positions may be also responsible for the reduced sanitizer resistance of ST121 L. monocytogenes isolate 1513.

3.2.3. Effect of Process Environment on BAC Resistance of L. monocytogenes

The mean MIC values of isolates collected from mixed food-, seafood-, vegetable-, dairy-, and meat-processing facilities were 4 mg/L, 4 mg/L, 3 mg/L, 3 mg/L, and 3 mg/L. The analysis of variance indicated no significant difference in the MIC values of isolates recovered from different processing facilities. However, there were differences in the number of resistance genes carried by L. monocytogenes isolates from the different processing environments (Figure 7). The facilities processing either seafood or mixed products had isolates with considerably more occurrence of the qacH gene and the bcrABC gene cassette. Dairy process facilities were the only locations where the emrE gene was recovered.
Previous work has shown that the continuous exposure of bacteria to sanitisers develops sanitiser adaptability and tolerance [34]. The tolerance-enhancing mechanisms identified so far include phenotypic adaptation, gene mutation, and horizontal gene transfer [17,35]. In a separate study [36], the MIC to benzalkonium chloride of 25 L. monocytogenes isolates increased five-fold following regular exposure. The growth rate of sanitiser-resistant bacteria can be very rapid and will greatly reduce the effect of sanitisers on bacterial growth [37].
In the food production environment, the recommended concentration of QAC sanitisers is between 200 and 1000 mg/L [38], while the highest MIC value detected in this study was only 5 mg/L, which is considerably lower than the recommended working concentration. There were no reported isolates that showed a tolerance higher than 40 mg/L in previous studies on the BAC resistance of L. monocytogenes [12,39]. The question has hence been previously raised as to whether this variation in tolerance level has any practical relevance in the food industry [13]. However, the MIC detection method usually used in studies was cell suspension, in which bacteria are suspended in media and do not form biofilms. The mechanisms of increased tolerance via the formation of biofilms include diffusion limitation, the neutralisation of biocides, and the presence of tolerant dormant cells [40]. It has been reported that L. monocytogenes in biofilms were more tolerant to QACs than in suspension [41]. Therefore, the current experimental results may not fully represent the resistance of L. monocytogenes to sanitisers in food production environments.

4. Conclusions

This study determined the sanitiser resistance of L. monocytogenes isolates recovered from different Irish food-processing environments. All the isolates contained the mdrL gene, 15% harboured the bcrABC cassette, 27% harboured the qacH gene, and only one isolate harboured the emrE gene. The MIC of the isolates tested varied between 1 and 5 mg/L. Multiple regression indicated that the presence of either the qacH gene or the bcrABC cassette had a significant positive effect on the MIC values, though overall, the absolute magnitude of the difference was small. There was no significant difference in the MIC values of isolates recovered from different processing facility types. However, there were differences in the number of resistance genes carried by L. monocytogenes isolates recovered from the different processing environments.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms11122989/s1: Table S1: Full list of genes conferring resistance to QACs in the L. monocytogenes isolates considered in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, and visualization, Y.C. and F.B.; methodology, Y.C. and Z.E.M.; sequencing and bioinformatics, V.P., D.H. and Y.C.; data curation, Y.C. and V.P.; resources, F.B.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.C.; writing—review and editing, F.B., Z.E.M. and D.H.; supervision, project administration, F.B.; funding acquisition, F.B. and Z.E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partly funded by the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine Food’s Institutional Research Funding Program, Project Reference 17/F/244, “Understanding Listeria monocytogrenes growth in food”. This research was also partly funded by Enterprise Ireland and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and innovation Program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Co-funding of regional, national, and international programs. Grant agreement no: 847402.

Data Availability Statement

Additional data presented in this study are available in Table S1.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Olaimat, A.N.; Al-Holy, M.A.; Shahbaz, H.M.; Al-Nabulsi, A.A.; Abu Ghoush, M.H.; Osaili, T.M.; Ayyash, M.M.; Holley, R.A. Emergence of Antibiotic Resistance in Listeria monocytogenes Isolated from Food Products: A Comprehensive Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 1277–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Volokhov, D.; Rasooly, A.; Chumakov, K.; Chizhikov, V. Identification of Listeria Species by Microarray-Based Assay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002, 40, 4720–4728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Allam, M.; Tau, N.; Smouse Shannon, L.; Mtshali Phillip, S.; Mnyameni, F.; Khumalo Zamantungwa, T.H.; Ismail, A.; Govender, N.; Thomas, J.; Smith Anthony, M. Whole-Genome Sequences of Listeria monocytogenes Sequence Type 6 Isolates Associated with a Large Foodborne Outbreak in South Africa, 2017 to 2018. Genome Announc. 2018, 6, e00538-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dufour, C. Application of EC regulation no. 2073/2005 regarding Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods in retail and catering sectors in Europe. Food Control 2011, 22, 1491–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Matereke, L.T.; Okoh, A.I. Listeria monocytogenes Virulence, Antimicrobial Resistance and Environmental Persistence: A Review. Pathogens 2020, 9, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Desai, A.N.; Anyoha, A.; Madoff, L.C.; Lassmann, B. Changing epidemiology of Listeria monocytogenes outbreaks, sporadic cases, and recalls globally: A review of ProMED reports from 1996 to 2018. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 84, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mashak, Z.; Banisharif, F.; Banisharif, G.; Reza Pourian, M.; Eskandari, S.; Seif, A.; Safarpoor Dehkordi, F.; Alavi, I. Prevalence of Listeria species and serotyping of Listeria monocytogenes bacteria isolated from seafood samples. Egypt. J. Vet. Sci. 2021, 52, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Matle, I.; Mbatha Khanyisile, R.; Madoroba, E. A review of Listeria monocytogenes from meat and meat products: Epidemiology, virulence factors, antimicrobial resistance and diagnosis. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2020, 87, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  9. Melero, B.; Stessl, B.; Manso, B.; Wagner, M.; Esteban-Carbonero, Ó.J.; Hernández, M.; Rovira, J.; Rodriguez-Lázaro, D. Listeria monocytogenes colonization in a newly established dairy processing facility. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 289, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, X.; Wang, S.; Chen, X.; Qu, C. Review controlling Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products: An overview of outbreaks, current legislations, challenges, and future prospects. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 116, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Listeria Outbreaks. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/index.html (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  12. Møretrø, T.; Schirmer, B.C.T.; Heir, E.; Fagerlund, A.; Hjemli, P.; Langsrud, S. Tolerance to quaternary ammonium compound disinfectants may enhance growth of Listeria monocytogenes in the food industry. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 241, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gerba Charles, P.; Müller, V. Quaternary Ammonium Biocides: Efficacy in Application. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Minarovičová, J.; Véghová, A.; Mikulášová, M.; Chovanová, R.; Šoltýs, K.; Drahovská, H.; Kaclíková, E. Benzalkonium chloride tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from a meat processing facility is related to presence of plasmid-borne bcrABC cassette. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2018, 111, 1913–1923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kim, M.; Weigand Michael, R.; Oh, S.; Hatt Janet, K.; Krishnan, R.; Tezel, U.; Pavlostathis Spyros, G.; Konstantinidis Konstantinos, T.; Dozois Charles, M. Widely Used Benzalkonium Chloride Disinfectants Can Promote Antibiotic Resistance. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e01201-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Duze, S.T.; Marimani, M.; Patel, M. Tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes to biocides used in food processing environments. Food Microbiol. 2021, 97, 103758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tong, C.; Hu, H.; Chen, G.; Li, Z.; Li, A.; Zhang, J. Disinfectant resistance in bacteria: Mechanisms, spread, and resolution strategies. Environ. Res. 2021, 195, 110897. [Google Scholar]
  18. Romanova, N.A.; Wolffs, P.F.G.; Brovko, L.Y.; Griffiths, M.W. Role of Efflux Pumps in Adaptation and Resistance of Listeria monocytogenes to Benzalkonium Chloride. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 3498. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mereghetti, L.; Quentin, R.; Marquet-Van Der Mee, N.; Audurier, A. Low Sensitivity of Listeria monocytogenes to Quaternary Ammonium Compounds. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 5083. [Google Scholar]
  20. Haubert, L.; Zehetmeyr, M.L.; da Silva, W.P. Resistance to benzalkonium chloride and cadmium chloride in Listeria monocytogenes isolates from food and food-processing environments in southern Brazil. Can. J. Microbiol. 2019, 65, 429–435. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tamburro, M.; Ripabelli, G.; Vitullo, M.; Dallman, T.J.; Pontello, M.; Amar, C.F.L.; Sammarco, M.L. Gene expression in Listeria monocytogenes exposed to sublethal concentration of benzalkonium chloride. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2015, 40, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dutta, V.; Elhanafi, D.; Kathariou, S. Conservation and distribution of the benzalkonium chloride resistance cassette bcrABC in Listeria monocytogenes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 6067–6074. [Google Scholar]
  23. Müller, A.; Rychli, K.; Muhterem-Uyar, M.; Zaiser, A.; Stessl, B.; Guinane, C.M.; Cotter, P.D.; Wagner, M.; Schmitz-Esser, S. Tn6188—A novel transposon in Listeria monocytogenes responsible for tolerance to benzalkonium chloride. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e76835. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kovacevic, J.; Ziegler, J.; Wałecka-Zacharska, E.; Reimer, A.; Kitts, D.D.; Gilmour, M.W. Tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes to quaternary ammonium sanitizers is mediated by a novel efflux pump encoded by emrE. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 939–953. [Google Scholar]
  25. Roedel, A.; Dieckmann, R.; Brendebach, H.; Hammerl, J.A.; Kleta, S.; Noll, M.; Al Dahouk, S.; Vincze, S. Biocide-tolerant Listeria monocytogenes isolates from German food production plants do not show cross-resistance to clinically relevant antibiotics. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e01253-19. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gilmour, M.W.; Graham, M.; Van Domselaar, G.; Tyler, S.; Kent, H.; Trout-Yakel, K.M.; Larios, O.; Allen, V.; Lee, B.; Nadon, C. High-throughput genome sequencing of two Listeria monocytogenes clinical isolates during a large foodborne outbreak. BMC Genom. 2010, 11, 120. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yamamoto, T.; Hara, H.; Tsuchiya, K.; Sakai, S.; Fang, R.; Matsuura, M.; Nomura, T.; Sato, F.; Mitsuyama, M.; Kawamura, I.; et al. Listeria monocytogenes strain-specific impairment of the TetR regulator underlies the drastic increase in cyclic di-AMP secretion and beta interferon-inducing ability. Infect. Immun. 2012, 80, 2323–2332. [Google Scholar]
  28. Schug, A.R.; Bartel, A.; Scholtzek, A.D.; Meurer, M.; Brombach, J.; Hensel, V.; Fanning, S.; Schwarz, S.; Feßler, A.T. Biocide susceptibility testing of bacteria: Development of a broth microdilution method. Vet. Microbiol. 2020, 248, 108791. [Google Scholar]
  29. Camacho, C.; Coulouris, G.; Avagyan, V.; Ma, N.; Papadopoulos, J.; Bealer, K.; Madden, T.L. BLAST+: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform. 2009, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  30. Seemann T, Mlst. Github. Available online: https://github.com/tseemann/mlst (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  31. Treangen, T.J.; Ondov, B.D.; Koren, S.; Phillippy, A.M. The Harvest suite for rapid core-genome alignment and visualization of thousands of intraspecific microbial genomes. Genome Biol. 2014, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tamura, K.; Stecher, G.; Kumar, S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 3022–3027. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kelly, B.G.; Vespermann, A.; Bolton, D.J. The role of horizontal gene transfer in the evolution of selected foodborne bacterial pathogens. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 951–968. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nordholt, N.; Kanaris, O.; Schmidt, S.B.I.; Schreiber, F. Persistence against benzalkonium chloride promotes rapid evolution of tolerance during periodic disinfection. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 6792. [Google Scholar]
  35. Cloete, T.E. Resistance mechanisms of bacteria to antimicrobial compounds. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2003, 51, 277–282. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yu, T.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Ji, S.; Gao, W.; Shi, L. Effect of Benzalkonium Chloride Adaptation on Sensitivity to Antimicrobial Agents and Tolerance to Environmental Stresses in Listeria monocytogenes. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2906. [Google Scholar]
  37. Zhu, Z.; Shan, L.; Zhang, X.; Hu, F.; Zhong, D.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, J. Effects of bacterial community composition and structure in drinking water distribution systems on biofilm formation and chlorine resistance. Chemosphere 2021, 264, 128410. [Google Scholar]
  38. Cruz, C.D.; Fletcher, G.C. Assessing manufacturers’ recommended concentrations of commercial sanitizers on inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 2012, 26, 194–199. [Google Scholar]
  39. Martínez-Suárez, J.V.; Ortiz, S.; López-Alonso, V. Potential Impact of the Resistance to Quaternary Ammonium Disinfectants on the Persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in Food Processing Environments. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 638. [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Acker, H.; Van Dijck, P.; Coenye, T. Molecular mechanisms of antimicrobial tolerance and resistance in bacterial and fungal biofilms. Trends Microbiol. 2014, 22, 326–333. [Google Scholar]
  41. Romanova, N.A.; Gawande, P.V.; Brovko, L.Y.; Griffiths, M.W. Rapid methods to assess sanitizing efficacy of benzalkonium chloride to Listeria monocytogenes biofilms. J. Microbiol. Methods 2007, 71, 231–237. [Google Scholar]
Microorganisms 11 02989 g001
Figure 1. The distribution of MIC values for the 47 isolates analysed in this study.
Figure 1. The distribution of MIC values for the 47 isolates analysed in this study.
Microorganisms 11 02989 g001
Microorganisms 11 02989 g002
Figure 2. The distribution in MIC values for isolates with or without the bcrABC gene cassette.
Figure 2. The distribution in MIC values for isolates with or without the bcrABC gene cassette.
Microorganisms 11 02989 g002
Microorganisms 11 02989 g003
Figure 3. The distribution of MIC values for isolates with or without the qacH gene.
Figure 3. The distribution of MIC values for isolates with or without the qacH gene.
Microorganisms 11 02989 g003
Microorganisms 11 02989 g004
Figure 4. MIC distribution of isolates harbouring either the bcrABC gene cassette or the qacH gene (presence/absence indicated as 1/0. A small random element has been introduced to distinguish individual test results).
Figure 4. MIC distribution of isolates harbouring either the bcrABC gene cassette or the qacH gene (presence/absence indicated as 1/0. A small random element has been introduced to distinguish individual test results).
Microorganisms 11 02989 g004
Microorganisms 11 02989 g005
Figure 5. Phylogenetic tree of 13 ST121 L. monocytogenes isolates tested for MIC.
Figure 5. Phylogenetic tree of 13 ST121 L. monocytogenes isolates tested for MIC.
Microorganisms 11 02989 g005
Microorganisms 11 02989 g006
Figure 6. Amino acid sequences encoded in the qacH gene of 13 ST121 L. monocytogenes isolates (amino acid positions 1–120 are shown). The symbol “*” on the bottom line means there is no difference in the amino acid at this position. The symbol“:” on the bottom line means there is a difference in the amino acid at this position.
Figure 6. Amino acid sequences encoded in the qacH gene of 13 ST121 L. monocytogenes isolates (amino acid positions 1–120 are shown). The symbol “*” on the bottom line means there is no difference in the amino acid at this position. The symbol“:” on the bottom line means there is a difference in the amino acid at this position.
Microorganisms 11 02989 g006
Microorganisms 11 02989 g007
Figure 7. Variation in the percentage of isolates harbouring different resistance genes depending on the process facility.
Figure 7. Variation in the percentage of isolates harbouring different resistance genes depending on the process facility.
Microorganisms 11 02989 g007
Table 1. Overview of QAC resistance genes.
Table 1. Overview of QAC resistance genes.
Resistance
Gene		GenBank
Number		SizeIsolation SourceReference
bcrABCJX023284.11406 bpFood-processing plant[22]
qacHMK944277.1378 bpFood-processing environment[25]
emrECP001602.2324 bpRTE food[26]
mdrLAB671769.11194 bpYoshihiro Asano Ehime University, Ehime, Japan[27]
Table 2. Occurrence of different QAC-resistant genes in the 150 L. monocytogenes isolates.
Table 2. Occurrence of different QAC-resistant genes in the 150 L. monocytogenes isolates.
Resistance GenemdrLbcrABCqacHemrE
Number of isolates15023401
Table 3. MLST profiles, presence of resistance genes, source of isolation, and MIC (BAC) of 47 L. monocytogenes isolates.
Table 3. MLST profiles, presence of resistance genes, source of isolation, and MIC (BAC) of 47 L. monocytogenes isolates.
Isolate No.CCSTResistance GenesSourceMIC (mg/L)
mdrLbcrABCqacHemrE
156422+++−Meat4
138722+−−−Seafood3
218322+−−−Vegetables2
141322+−−−Vegetables3
137433+−−−Meat3
138244+−−−Dairy2
F1524_1655++−−Mixed food4
138655++−−Seafood5
F347_1655++−−Mixed food5
F742_1755++−−Mixed food5
F991_1655++−−Mixed food5
F1857_1555++−−Mixed food5
F2166_1755++−−Mixed food5
F2299_1555++−−Mixed food5
139266+−−−Seafood2
144577+−−−Meat2
188088+−−−Vegetables2
95899++−−Vegetables4
102199+−−+Dairy4
137099+−−−Meat3
13791414+−−−Dairy2
13893131++−−Seafood4
10953737+−−−Mixed food2
10063737+−−−Meat1
2256121121+−+−Vegetables5
1123121121+−+−Seafood4
1373121121+−+−Meat3
1513121121+−+−Seafood1
1989121121+−+−Seafood4
6179121121+−+−Dairy4
F112_17121121+−+−Mixed food3
F347_17121121+−+−Mixed food4
F1230_16121121+−+−Meat4
F1646_17121121+−+−Mixed food4
F2151_17121121+−+−Meat4
F2152_17121121+−+−Meat4
F2165_17121121+−+−Mixed food3
F113_17121132+++−Mixed food4
F1099_17121132+++−Mixed food4
1385155155+−−−Seafood2
1679204204++−−Seafood4
1309204204+−−−Seafood4
2226220220+−−−Vegetables2
1268224224+−−−Dairy2
1306NOVEL836++−−Seafood4
1427NOVEL836++−−Seafood5
1428NOVEL836++−−Seafood5
+ This gene is present in the genetic sequence of this strain. − This gene is not present in the genetic sequence of this strain.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheng, Y.; Mousavi, Z.E.; Pennone, V.; Hurley, D.; Butler, F. Association between the Presence of Resistance Genes and Sanitiser Resistance of Listeria monocytogenes Isolates Recovered from Different Food-Processing Facilities. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2989. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122989

AMA Style

Cheng Y, Mousavi ZE, Pennone V, Hurley D, Butler F. Association between the Presence of Resistance Genes and Sanitiser Resistance of Listeria monocytogenes Isolates Recovered from Different Food-Processing Facilities. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(12):2989. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122989

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheng, Yue, Zeinabossadat Ebrahimzadeh Mousavi, Vincenzo Pennone, Daniel Hurley, and Francis Butler. 2023. "Association between the Presence of Resistance Genes and Sanitiser Resistance of Listeria monocytogenes Isolates Recovered from Different Food-Processing Facilities" Microorganisms 11, no. 12: 2989. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122989

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop