Next Article in Journal
Replication Compartments—The Great Survival Strategy for Epstein–Barr Virus Lytic Replication
Previous Article in Journal
Suppressive Effect of Soil Microbiomes Associated with Tropical Fruit Trees on Meloidogyne enterolobii
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pathogenic Potential and Control of Chryseobacterium Species from Clinical, Fish, Food and Environmental Sources

1
Department of Microbiology and Biochemistry, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
2
Ministry of Health, Food and Drugs Control Laboratory, Lusaka 10100, Zambia
3
Department of Animal Science, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
4
Department of Food Science and Technology, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Bellville 7535, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2022, 10(5), 895; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10050895
Submission received: 21 December 2021 / Revised: 10 February 2022 / Accepted: 10 February 2022 / Published: 25 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Impact of Chryseobacterium Species on Human Health and Well-Being)

Abstract

:
Chryseobacterium species are isolated and taxonomically evaluated from a wide range of sources. While C. gleum and C. indologenes have been implicated in human disease, the potential pathogenicity of numerous other species have not been investigated. The aims were therefore to evaluate 37 Chryseobacterium species and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica from environmental, food, fish, water and clinical sources for production of haemolysis, growth at 37 °C, and production of virulence enzymes. The control of these strains were investigated by determination of antimicrobial and disinfectant resistance. All the species produced α- or β-haemolysis. In terms of growth at 37 °C and production of virulence enzymes, C. soldanellicola (environmental), C. oranimense (food) and C. koreense (natural mineral water) could be potential human pathogens. Chryseobacterium piscium might be pathogenic to fish. Trimethoprim could be the most effective antimicrobial for the treatment of a Chryseobacterium species infection, while the disinfectants that contain poly-dimethyl ammonium chloride or benzalkonium chloride could be regarded as the most effective for decontamination of surfaces contaminated with Chryseobacterium species.

1. Introduction

Chryseobacterium is a genus that is evolving rapidly and currently consists of 120 validly published species [1]. It belonged to the family Flavobacteriacea [2] until recently, when it was allocated into the novel family Weeksellaceae [3].
The species of Chryseobacterium occurs widely in environmental, food, and water sources, and some have been isolated from the clinical environment, humans, and animals, with others that have been implicated in causing disease in fish and humans [4]. In food, they are generally regarded as spoilage bacteria because most are psychrotolerant and produce proteolytic enzymes [5,6,7], while some produce biogenic amines [8]. Many species of Chryseobacterium are also known to be resistant to several antimicrobials [9].
However, apart from antibiotic resistance, the pathogenicity of most of the Chryseobacterium species has not been well studied. There are different pathogenic characteristics that may be used to assess the pathogenic potential of microorganisms. These include screening for haemolytic activity, determining the virulence enzymes that the organism produces [10,11] and checking for its resistance/sensitivity to antimicrobials.
To the authors’ best knowledge, no study yet has investigated ways in controlling the growth of Chryseobacterium species isolated from environmental and food sources. Hence, methods of eliminating them from surfaces and/or utensils and/or wounds should be understood and correctly applied to prevent further transmission. Disinfectants may be used as a way of decontamination. However, for the effectiveness of the disinfectant to be enhanced, the correct concentration should be applied; otherwise, a disinfectant that is bactericidal may be converted into a bacteriostatic disinfectant at lower concentrations [12].
The aims of this study were therefore to determine the virulence characteristics of Chryseobacterium species from food and environmental sources and to compare their characteristics to Chryseobacterium species that are pathogenic to humans and fish by assessing the ability to haemolyse blood cells, produce virulence enzymes and to being resistant to antimicrobials and disinfectants. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study performed on the pathogenic potential of food, water and environmentally isolated members of the genus Chryseobacterium.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Strains Used and Resuscitation of Cultures

All the strains used were type strains obtained from culture collections as indicated in Table 1, and they were maintained in a freeze-dried form. The strains were chosen on the basis of being isolated from food, water and the environment. Human pathogenic (C. gleum, C. indologenes) and fish pathogenic (C. balustinum, C. scophthalmum) strains were included to act as reference strains for the determination of the pathogenic characteristics in this study. Elizabethkingia meningoseptica was also included since it was formerly associated with the genus as (C. meningosepticum) and is a human pathogen [13].
The strains were resuscitated in 10 mL nutrient broth (Oxoid CM0001) and incubated at 25 °C for 48 h. Purity of the strains was checked by streaking on nutrient agar (Oxoid CM0003) and by incubating at 25 °C for 48 h. Pure single colonies were streaked on nutrient agar slants which were used as the working cultures after an incubation period of 48 h at 25 °C. The nutrient agar slants were stored at 4 °C. Sub-culturing of the working cultures was performed every 7–8 weeks.

2.2. Preparation of Cell Cultures for Determination of Pathogenic Characteristics

For the preparation of cell cultures for determination of haemolysis, growth at 37 °C and enzyme production, the cultures were standardised by streaking from the nutrient agar slants on nutrient agar and incubation at 25 °C for 48 h. Growth from the agar plates was suspended in 9 mL of sterile 0.1 mol/L phosphate buffer until a density comparable to McFarland 1 standard (Difco 0691326). The transmittance was checked (BiologTM, Anatech Instruments, Johannesburg, South Africa) and standardised at 81 ± 3%. For confirmation, serial dilutions (1:10) were also prepared for each of the strains from 10−1 to 10−8, although plating on nutrient agar was only performed from the 10−4 to 10−8 dilutions in order to obtain a target population equivalent to 6 log CFU/mL.

2.3. Qualitative and Quantitative Enzyme Production

Ten microlitres of each standardised species suspension was spotted (10 μL) on media containing the substrate to detect the type of haemolysis, growth at 37 °C, or the production of a specific enzyme. Each inoculum was spotted in triplicate on two plates to give a total of six data points. Incubation was at 25 °C for 72 h since all the strains in this study were able to grow at this temperature. Qualitative (present/absent) as well as quantitative (Z-scores) analyses were performed.
Haemolysis production was performed according to Buxton [14] on pre-poured 5% sheep blood agar (Selecta Media 510131). The production of virulence enzymes was performed according to Edberg et al. [10] and Pavlov et al. [11] as follows: protease production on brain heart infusion (Oxoid CM1135) agar containing 3% (w/v) skim milk powder (Difco); lipase production on trypticase soy agar (Oxoid CM0129) supplemented with 1% (v/v) Tween 80 (Merck); DNase production on DNase agar (Oxoid CM321) supplemented with 0.1 g/L toluidine blue O; hyaluronidase production on brain–heart infusion medium (Oxoid CM1135) supplemented with 2 mg/mL of hyaluronic acid (Sigma) and 5% (v/v) bovine albumin fraction V (Sigma); chondroitinase production on brain–heart infusion medium supplemented with 4 mg/mL of chondroitin sulphate A from bovine trachea (Sigma) and 5% (v/v) bovine albumin fraction V (Sigma); lecithinase production on nutrient agar supplemented with 50% (v/v) egg yolk emulsion (Oxoid); fibrinolysin production on nutrient agar supplemented with 280 mg/L of fibrinogen type III from human plasma (Sigma F3879); elastase production on nutrient agar with a 1% (w/v) suspension of elastin from bovine neck ligament (Sigma); gelatinase production was performed according to MacFaddin [15] with some modifications. Nutrient broth (Oxoid CM67; 500 mL) was supplemented with 5.5 g of agar (Oxoid LP0011) and boiled until the agar was completely dissolved. The medium was allowed to cool slightly before 2 g of gelatin (Merck 260 31 00 EM) was added. The medium was allowed to stand for 5 min followed by autoclaving at 121 °C for 5 min. Incubation was for 5 days at 25 °C before being flooded with 5–10 mL of Frazier’s Reagent (12 g mercuric chloride + 80 mL distilled water + 16 mL concentrated HCl). Clear zones around the inoculated test organism were indicative of a positive result (presence of enzyme).

2.4. Antimicrobial Resistance/Susceptibility

The antimicrobial resistance patterns of the test organisms were determined using the Kirby–Bauer Disk Diffusion method as prescribed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [48]. The different classes of antimicrobials used were cell wall synthesis inhibitors (ampicillin 10 μg, amoxicillin 10 μg, vancomycin 30 μg, cephalothin 30 μg), protein synthesis inhibitors (neomycin 30 μg, tetracycline 30 μg, oxytetracycline 30 μg), a 30 S ribosomal subunit inhibitor (streptomycin 25 μg), a 50 S ribosomal subunit inhibitor (chloramphenicol 30 μg) and a folic acid synthesis inhibitor (trimethoprim 2.5 μg). These antimicrobials were supplied by ThermoFisher (Johannesburg, South Africa).
Bacterial suspensions of each species were prepared with densities equal to a MacFarland 1 standard in phosphate buffer as indicated above. The suspensions were streaked with cotton swabs on two Mueller–Hinton agar (Oxoid CM337) plates per strain. Antimicrobial disks were placed in triplicate onto the inoculated plates, resulting in six data points per strain. The plates were incubated for 48 h at 25 °C. The diameters of the zones of clearance around each disk were measured and analysed according to the performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing using Enterobacteriaceae to interpret the results, since Chryseobacterium does not have specific criteria in CLSI [48]. The classification of resistance and susceptibility to an antimicrobial was as follows: resistance (R), intermediate (I) and susceptible (S) (all values in mm): ampicillin and amoxicillin (R ≤ 13; I 14–16; S ≥ 17); vancomycin, and cephalothin (R ≤ 14; I 15–17; S ≥ 18); neomycin, tetracycline, oxytetracycline and streptomycin (R ≤ 11; I 12–14; S ≥15); chloramphenicol (R ≤ 12; I 13–17; S ≥ 18) and trimethoprim (R ≤ 10; I 11–15; S ≥ 16).

2.5. Disinfectant Resistance/Susceptibility

Fourteen of the 38 strains in this study were chosen for the disinfectant resistance study based on being reference strains that are isolated from all types of sources in this study and based on the virulence characteristics in this study (indicated with an asterisk in Table 1). The four disinfectants tested against the 14 Chryseobacterium species are commercially available. The active ingredient of disinfectant 1 was chloroxylenol, disinfectant 2 was benzalkonium chloride, disinfectant 3 was chlorhexidine gluconate (cetrimide) and disinfectant 4 was poly-dimethyl ammonium chloride. Disinfectants 1 and 3 are marketed for use on wounds in diluted form and disinfectants 2 and 4 for the cleaning of surfaces (clinical and food processing).
The Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) method was used for determination of resistance of the test organisms to disinfectants. A two-fold dilution range was prepared for each disinfectant to be tested. The initial concentration prepared was 1% (v/v), and the concentration was halved until another four concentrations of 0.5%, 0.25%, 0.125% and 0.0625% were obtained. Into each dilution was added a 100 µL of test organisms from a broth culture which was not older than 24 h. The dilutions were then left for 20 min (contact time). After 20 min, a 100 µL of each dilution was added to 5 mL of nutrient broth and incubated at 25 ºC for 72 h. At the same time, both a positive control (test organism) and a negative control (disinfectant) were prepared and incubated. The last tube of nutrient broth not to show growth was regarded as the minimum inhibitory concentration of the disinfectant for that particular test organism. However, this was the case only if the positive control showed growth while the negative control showed no growth.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The data obtained from the determination of enzyme activity of the Chryseobacterium species was standardised using Z-scores which were calculated as: Z = colony diameter (mm)/(colony diameter (mm) + zone size (mm)). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on all the data using the Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison test at α = 0.05 [49] to determine any significant differences in treatment means.

3. Results

3.1. Qualitative and Quantitative Enzyme Production

The qualitative (absence/presence) and quantitative (Z-score) analysis of enzyme production are indicated in Table 2. The determination of hyaluronidase and chondroitinase activity were performed only qualitatively, as the zones of clearance were washed off by the acetic acid which formed a non-degradable substrate that precipitated as a conjugate with the albumin making it difficult to measure the zones. Lecithinase activity was also only qualitatively determined as the colonies spread over the plates.
In this study, all 38 strains tested showed capability to break down the haemoglobin of red blood cells, which was the first most important indicator of its potentially pathogenic characteristics [11]. Seventy-six percent (29/38) of the species in this study showed α-haemolysis, while the rest showed β-haemolysis (Table 2). Of the human clinically isolated and diseased fish isolates, C. balustinum (fish), C. gleum (human), C. indologenes (human) and C. scophthalmum (fish) showed α-haemolysis, while E. meningoseptica (human) showed β-haemolysis. Alpha-haemolysis, was indicative of a partial break down of red blood cells, and it left a greenish colour caused by the presence of biliverdin, a by-product of the breakdown of haemoglobin [10]. Beta-haemolysis was indicative of complete breakdown of the haemoglobin and red blood cells, leaving a clear zone around the bacterial growth. None of the species tested showed γ-haemolysis, which is indicative of no haemolysis [10].
The ability of an organism to grow at 37 °C may be indicative that the organism can survive and grow in the human body at a temperature of 37 °C and may, therefore, cause disease. In this study, 23/38 Chryseobacterium strains were able to grow at 37 °C. However, the absence of this characteristic (Table 2) in C. balustinum, C. carnipullorum, C. formosense, C. gregarium, C. hispanicum, C. indoltheticum, C. jeonii, C. joostei, C. luteum, C. piscium, C. scophthalmum, C. shigense, C. soli, C. ureilyticum and C. vrystaatense, is not indicative that they are not pathogenic. They might not be pathogenic to humans, but they may still cause disease or spoilage in animals, fish and plants. This was the case with C. balustinum [22] and C. scophthalmum [28], which were isolated from diseased fish.
Lecithinase was produced by 55% (21/38) of the strains evaluated in this study. Lecithinase (phospholipolytic) production is used as an indicator of food toxicity. The phospholipid lecithin is one of the main components of cell membranes and can be degraded by lecithinase to produce a diglyceride and phosphorylcholine, causing toxicity. Lecithinase can damage reproductive tract tissues and cause haemolysis and membrane disruption, leading to cell lysis [50]. The majority of the environmental and human pathogenic strains (C. gleum, C. indologenes and E. meningoseptica) in this study showed this characteristic, indicating their ability to cause pathogenic symptoms in humans and plants. However, the fish pathogens, C. balustinum, C. hominis and C. scophthalmum; the food isolates, C. bovis, C. joostei, C. shigense and C. vrystaatense; and the water isolates, C. aquaticum and C. koreense (Table 2) will not be able to produce lecithinase toxicity in food and water sources.
Hyaluronidase was produced by all the strains evaluated in this study except for C. balustinum and C. piscium. Hyaluronidase degrades hyaluronic acid, which is present in tissues throughout the body, including the bones and joints. The ability of bacteria to degrade hyaluronic acid is regarded as a virulence factor, enabling penetration of hyaluronidase-producing organisms into tissues rich in hyaluronic acid, creating an advantage for establishing growth of these organisms into the body [51]. All the human opportunistic pathogens, environmental, water and food isolates in this study could therefore cause harm to human tissue. Only two fish isolates, C. balustinum and C. piscium, did not show this characteristic.
Chondroitinase was produced by 87% (33/38) of the strains evaluated with only C. balustinum, C. formosense, C. hispanicum, C. jeonii and C. piscium not having this characteristic (Table 2). Bacterial chondroitinase may be associated with bacterial pathogenicity by catalysing the hydrolysis of chondroitin sulphate, a constituent of the extracellular matrix of cartilage, and may increase tissue permeability to invade the cartilage tissue [52]. It may also degrade animal residue in nature and may serve in addition as a tool in medical and biochemical studies on connective tissues [53]. The majority of the human and fish pathogens and environmental, food and water isolates in this study showed this characteristic.
None of the strains evaluated in this study produced fibrinolysin, which indicated that they do not have the capability to act as fibrinolytic or thrombolytic agents that convert plasminogen to plasmin and lyse blood clots by breaking down the fibrin contained in the clot [54].
In order for a microorganism to be considered pathogenic or virulent, it should produce at least two or more extracellular enzymes [11]. All the species tested in this study produced at least two enzymes, except for C. balustinum and C. piscium. Both these species were isolated from diseased fish (Table 1), which might indicate that these two species use other mechanisms to cause disease in fish and will not be pathogenic to humans. Therefore, there was an increased possibility for C. aquafrigidense, C. carnipullorum, C. daecheongense, C. daeguense, C. defluvii, C. flavum, C. gleum, C. gregarium, C. indologenes, “C. massiliense”, C. oranimense, C. taenense, C. taichungense, C. taiwanense and C. wanjuense to be pathogenic by possessing 89% (8/9) of enzymes (Table 2) from groups that supply nutrients for their survival in the host (e.g., proteases and lipases) and those that aid the organisms to enter the host and pass through its tissue (DNase and elastase) [10,11]. Chryseobacterium gleum and C. indologenes, which have been reported by many authors [55,56] to be common strains of clinical interest, were found to contain all the virulence factors evaluated in this study, except for fibrinolysin production, while E. meningoseptica, which causes meningitis in humans [47] produced 7/9 enzymes evaluated in this study. One of the fish pathogens in this study, C. scophthalmum, only produced gelatinase and DNase, enzymes that aid in entering of the host and passing through the tissues [10,11].
C. carnipullorum which was isolated from a food source [24], C. gambrini which was isolated from the steel surface of a beer bottling plant [35] and C. soldanellicola which was isolated from the roots of sand dune plants [40] produced 8/9, 7/9 and 7/9, respectively, of the enzymes tested. This might be indicative that these species might be pathogenic to humans, although C. carnipullorum did not have the ability to grow at 37 °C. The presence of the amount of different enzymes might also indicate that these species play a role in the spoilage of food or the breaking down of complex carbohydrates in sand for root growth stimulation.
The quantitative enzyme production results indicated that the opportunistic human pathogens, C. gleum, C. indologenes and E. meningoseptica, produced proteases as a pathogenic characteristic, while the fish pathogens in this study rather produced elastase (C. balustinum and C. scophthalmum), gelatinase (C. piscium and C. scophthalmum) and DNase (C. scophthalmum). Chryseobacterium soldanellicola, the environmentally isolated strain in this study, produced all of the enzymes with the best production for protease, gelatinase and elastase.
Chryseobacterium gleum had a significantly (p < 0.001) higher protease production (0.378) than C. indologenes (0.632) and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica (0.916). Chryseobacterium soldanellicola had the second highest protease production, which was significantly (p < 0.001) higher than the pathogens C. indologenes and E. meningoseptica. Proteases hydrolyse the peptide bond present in the polypeptide chain of amino acids [57]. The species evaluated in this study, however, did not use lipase to produce disease in humans or fish and do not play a major role in the environment or food spoilage since their Z-score values were lower than 0.500 (Table 2).
In this study, C. molle was able to produce gelatinase, which is in accordance with the fact that it was isolated from the biofilm of a conveyer belt in a beer bottling plant [35]. Bacterial growth as a biofilm on solid surfaces is strongly associated with the development of human infections. Some bacteria, e.g., Enterococcus faecalis, control biofilm development through the production of gelatinase [58]. All of the organisms, with high levels of gelatinase production, as shown in Table 2, were isolated from either food or environmental sources. The ability of these organisms to produce gelatinases in these sources may be an indication of their survival strategies and may possibly play a role in the spoilage potential in food sources.
Chryseobacterium scophthalmum, a fish pathogen, and C. gleum, a human pathogen, had the significantly (p < 0.001) highest DNase production activities compared to C. oranimense (0.393), C. gregarium (0.421) and C. koreense (0.475) (Table 2). DNases play an important role in DNA utilization, nutrient cycling, the attachment and stability of the biofilm matrix and are well known for being able to break up biofilms [59]. The DNase production activities exhibited by C. scophthalmum and C. gleum could be indicative that this enzyme is used to cause disease.
Elastase was produced by the biggest number of species evaluated in this study (11/38), but none of them produced Z-scores lower than 0.400 (Table 2). Chryseobacterium daecheongense, C. daeguense, C. defluvii, C. gleum, C. indologenes, C. luteum, “C. massiliense”, C. oranimense, C. soldanellicola, C. taenense and C. wanjuense produced elastases (Z-scores of < 0.500) capable of solubilizing fibrous elastin and may play a pathologic role in pulmonary emphysema, cystic fibrosis, infections, inflammation and atherosclerosis [60].
The Chryseobacterium species that produced more than two enzymes with high enzyme production (Z-scores < 0.5) were C. gleum and C. soldanellicola (Table 2). Since C. soldanellicola was isolated from the roots of sand dune plants, it is speculated that the high production capabilities of this organism help with the survival of the sand dune plants in breaking down material in order for the plants to survive. It might also indicate that this species might be pathogenic in humans.

3.2. Antimicrobial Resistance/Susceptibility

Chryseobacterium aquafrigidense, C. bovis, C. gambrini and C. taichungense were susceptible to all ten antimicrobials evaluated, as they had zone sizes of 50 mm (Table 3). Most Chryseobacterium species are known to be resistant to a wide range of antimicrobials [9]. In this study, C. gleum, C. indologenes, C. joostei, C. daecheongense, C. daeguense, C. shigense, C. soldanellicola, C. soli, C. ureilyticum, C. vrystaatense, C. wanjuense and E. meningoseptica were resistant to most of the antimicrobials evaluated. The findings in this study were also in agreement with those of other authors [61,62]. In this study, C. indologenes (isolated from soil, water and the clinical environment) and C. joostei (isolated from raw milk) were resistant to most (8/10) of the antimicrobials. Resistance to antimicrobials will make treatment of infections caused by these organisms difficult.
Of the Chryseobacterium species, 58% (22/38) were resistant to cephalothin, neomycin and chloramphenicol, 53% (20/38) were resistant to amoxicillin while 50% (19/38) were resistant to ampicillin (Table 4). Conversely, 87% (33/38) of the species were susceptible to trimethoprim, 82% (31/38) were susceptible to oxytetracycline, 76% (29/38) were susceptible to vancomycin, 74% (28/38) were susceptible to tetracycline and 55% (21/38) were susceptible to streptomycin.
Therefore, the class of antimicrobials that was more effective at suppressing the survival of Chryseobacterium strains were the folic acid synthesis inhibitors (trimethoprim) with the protein synthesis inhibitors (oxytetracycline and tetracycline) and the cell wall synthesis inhibitors class (vancomycin) in second and third places, respectively. This finding was consistent with the findings of other authors [63] who reported trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole as one of the most active agents against C. indologenes, which is one of the currently known opportunistic pathogens.

3.3. Disinfectant Resistance/Susceptibility

The results of the resistance of the 14 Chryseobacterium species against four commercially available disinfectants are given in Table 5. The results are expressed as the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of each disinfectant, meaning that it is the lowest concentration of a disinfectant where the test organism was inhibited (no growth). All positive controls showed growth (no inhibition), and the negative controls did not show any growth (inhibition).
The most effective of the four disinfectants against the Chryseobacterium species evaluated was Disinfectant 4, with poly-dimethyl ammonium chloride as the active ingredient. All 14 species in this study were susceptible to Detergent 4, with MICs of < 0.06% (Table 5). The second most effective disinfectant was Disinfectant 2 with benzalkonium chloride as the active ingredient. Chryseobacterium balustinum, C. formosense, C. indoltheticum, C. piscium, C. scophthalmum, C. soldanellicola, C. taenense and C. taichungense were susceptible to Detergent 2, whereas C. joostei was the most resistant to Detergent 2, with a MIC of 0.50%. Chryseobacterium daecheongense, C. gleum, C. indologenes, C. shigense and C. vrystaatense were moderately resistant, with MICs between 0.25% and 0.13%.
Disinfectant 1 with chloroxylenol as an active ingredient was the third most effective of the tested disinfectants. All 14 strains were moderately susceptible (MICs between 0.13% and 0.25%) to Detergent 1, while C. gleum, C. indologenes, C. joostei, C. piscium, C. scophthalmum and C. vrystaatense were resistant (MICs between 0.50% and 1.00%) (Table 5). Disinfectant 3 (chlorhexidine gluconate and cetrimide as active ingredients) was deemed the least effective of the tested disinfectants.
From these results, it seems as if the Chryseobacterium species were more resistant to the disinfectants used on wounds (Disinfectants 1 and 3) than to the surface disinfectants (Disinfectants 2 and 4). This could be problematic, especially in the case of C. indologenes and C. gleum, which have been previously associated with wound infections [55,56].

4. Conclusions

This study is the first to indicate the potential pathogenic characteristics and control by disinfectants of Chryseobacterium species from environmental, food, fish, water and clinical sources. Most of the species evaluated in this study showed a variety of virulence characteristics. All 38 species evaluated were either able to break down haemoglobin partly or completely. Five out of the six water isolates, only C. oranimense (isolated from raw cow milk) of the nine food isolates, 11/18 environmental isolates and all the five clinical isolates were able to grow at 37 oC, which was an indication that they will be able to grow at the human body temperature of 37 oC. However, this characteristic cannot be used as a single indicator of virulence of an isolate.
When compared to the clinically isolated C. gleum and C. indologenes, the virulence enzyme production indicated that isolates from food sources (C. carnipullorum) and the environment (C. gambrini and C. soldanellicola) produced the highest number of enzymes, 8/9 and 7/9 enzymes, respectively. In this regard, these isolates could be potential human pathogens. The fish isolates, e.g., C. piscium, will not be pathogenic to humans, but when compared to the fish pathogens, C. balustinum and C. scophthalmum might be pathogenic to fish.
Of the 38 isolates, C. indologenes and C. joostei were resistant to most (8/10) of the antimicrobials evaluated. The isolates that were regarded as pathogenic by the amount of enzyme production, C. carnipullorum, C. gambrini and C. soldanellicola, were resistant to 6/10, 0/10 and 4/10 of the antibiotics tested, respectively. This might indicate that the food-isolated C. joostei and C. carnipullorum, when acting as opportunistic pathogens, might prove difficult to treat. The food isolates, C. joostei and C. carnipullorum, could be susceptible to trimethoprim and vancomycin, respectively. The antimicrobials that could be used as treatment for pathogenesis caused by most of the Chryseobacterium species in this study were oxytetracycline and trimethoprim, with >80% of the isolates being susceptible to these antimicrobials.
For the control of Chryseobacterium growth by disinfectants, those containing the active ingredient poly-dimethyl ammonium chloride could serve as the best option for decontamination, followed by those containing the active ingredient benzalkonium chloride.
The implications of this study are that a combination of virulence factors should be used in the evaluation of the pathogenicity of isolates and that all Chryseobacterium isolates from food, especially, should be tested for pathogenicity in the future. The antimicrobials and disinfectants recommended in this study will be able to control the growth of these organisms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, C.J.H.; funding acquisition, C.J.H.; project leadership, C.J.H.; project management, C.J.H.; methodology, C.J.H., A.H. and G.C.; data analysis, C.J.H., A.H., G.C. and E.P.M.; validation, C.J.H.; investigation, E.P.M.; writing—initial draft and revisions, E.P.M.; student supervision, G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting reported results may be requested from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Parte, A.C. LPSN—List of Prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature (bacterio.net), 20 years on. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2018, 68, 1825–1829. Available online: https://lpsn.dsmz.de/genus/chryseobacterium (accessed on 27 April 2020). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Vandamme, P.; Bernardet, J.-F.; Segers, P.; Kersters, K.; Holmes, B. New perspectives in the classification of the flavobacteria: Description of Chryseobacterium gen. nov., Bergeyella gen. nov., and Empedobacter nom. rev. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1994, 44, 827–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. García-López, M.; Meier-Kolthoff, J.P.; Tindall, B.J.; Gronow, S.; Woyke, T.; Kyrpides, N.C.; Hahnke, R.L.; Göker, M. Analysis of 1,000 type-strain genomes improves taxonomic classification of Bacteroidetes. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Hugo, C.; Bernardet, J.-F.; Nicholson, A.; Kämpfer, P. Genus Chryseobacterium. In Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria; Whitman, W.B., Trust, B.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., in association with Bergey’s Manual Trust: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bekker, A.; Steyn, L.; Charimba, G.; Jooste, P.; Hugo, C. Comparison of the growth kinetics and proteolytic activities of Chryseobacterium species and Pseudomonas fluorescens. Can. J. Microbiol. 2015, 61, 977–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Bekker, A.; Jooste, P.; Steyn, L.; Bothma, C.; Hugo, A.; Hugo, C. Lipid breakdown and sensory analysis of milk inoculated with Chryseobacterium joostei or Pseudomonas fluorescens. Int. Dairy J. 2016, 52, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tsôeu, I.; Jooste, P.J.; Charimba, G.; Hugo, C.J. Spoilage potential of a novel group of bacteria isolated from dairy products. South Afr. J. Sci. 2016, 112, 140–147. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mielmann, A.; Hugo, C.J.; Jooste, P.J. The potential of Chryseobacterium species to produce biogenic amines. J. Food Safety 2011, 31, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kirby, J.T.; Sader, H.S.; Walsh, T.R.; Jones, R.N. Antimicrobial susceptibility of a worldwide collection of Chryseobacterium spp.: Report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (1997–2001). J. Clin. Microb. 2004, 42, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Edberg, S.C.; Gallo, P.; Kontnick, C. Analysis of the virulence characteristics of bacteria isolated from bottled, water cooler and tap water. Microbial. Ecol. Health Dis. 1996, 9, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Pavlov, D.; De Wet, C.M.E.; Grabow, W.O.K.; Ehlers, M.M. Potentially pathogenic features of heterotrophic plate count bacteria isolated from treated and untreated drinking water. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 92, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Olowe, O.A.; Olayemi, B.; Eniola, K.I.T.; Adeyeba, O.A. Antibacterial activity of some selected disinfectants regularly used in hospitals. Afr. J. Clin. Exp. Microbiol. 2004, 5, 126–130. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bloch, K.C.; Nadarajah, R.; Jacobs, R. Chryseobacterium meningosepticum: An emerging pathogen among immunocompromised adults. Report of 6 cases and literature review. Medicine 1997, 76, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Buxton, R. Blood agar plates and hemolysis protocols; American Society for Microbiology: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  15. MacFaddin, J.F. Biochemical Tests for Identification of Medical Bacteria, 2nd ed.Williams and Wilkins: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  16. Park, S.C.; Kim, M.S.; Baik, K.S.; Kim, E.M.; Rhee, M.S.; Seong, C.N. Chryseobacterium aquifrigidense sp. nov., isolated from a water-cooling system. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 607–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Kim, K.K.; Lee, K.C.; Oh, H.M.; Lee, J.S. Chryseobacerium aquaticum sp. nov., isolated from a water reservoir. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 533–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Kim, K.K.; Bae, H.S.; Schumann, P.; Lee, S.T. Chryseobacterium daecheongense sp. nov., isolated from freshwater lake sediment. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Yoon, J.H.; Kang, S.J.; Oh, T.K. Chryseobacterium daeguense sp. nov., isolated from wastewater of a textile dye works. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2007, 57, 1355–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Gallego, V.; Garcia, M.T.; Ventosa, A. Chryseobacterium hispanicum sp. nov., isolated from the drinking water distribution system of Sevilla, Spain. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2006, 56, 1589–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kämpfer, P.; Vaneechoutte, M.; Lodders, N.; De Baere, T.; Avesani, V.; Janssens, M.; Busse, H.-J.; Wauters, G. Description of Chryseobacterium anthropi sp. nov. to accommodate clinical isolates biochemically similar to Kaistella koreensis and Chryseobacterium haifense, proposal to reclassify Kaistella koreensis as Chryseobacterium koreense comb. nov. and emended description of the genus Chryseobacterium. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2009, 59, 2421–2428. [Google Scholar]
  22. Vaneechoutte, M.; Kämpfer, P.; de Baere, T.; Avesani, V.; Janssens, M.; Wauters, G. Chryseobacterium hominis sp. nov., to accommodate clinical isolates biochemically similar to CDC groups II-h and II-c. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2007, 57, 2623–2628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hantsis-Zacharov, E.; Senderovich, Y.; Halpern, M. Chryseobacterium bovis sp. nov., isolated from raw cow’s milk. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 1024–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Charimba, G.; Jooste, P.; Albertyn, J.; Hugo, C. Chryseobacterium carnipullorum sp. nov., isolated from raw chicken. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2013, 63, 3243–3249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hugo, C.J.; Segers, P.; Hoste, B.; Vancanneyt, M.; Kersters, K. Chryseobacterium joostei sp. nov., isolated from the dairy environment. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2003, 53, 771–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Hantsis-Zacharov, E.; Shaked, T.; Senderovich, Y.; Halpern, M. Chryseobacterium oranimense sp. nov., a psychrotolerant, proteolytic and lipolytic bacterium isolated from raw cow’s milk. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 2635–2639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. de Beer, H.; Hugo, C.J.; Jooste, P.J.; Vancanneyt, M.; Coenye, T.; Vandamme, P. Chryseobacterium piscium sp. nov., isolated from fish of the South Atlantic Ocean off South Africa. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2006, 56, 1317–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Mudarris, M.; Austin, B.; Segers, P.; Vancanneyt, M.; Hoste, B.; Bernardet, J.F. Flavobacterium scophthalmum sp. nov., a pathogen of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 1994, 44, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Shimomura, K.; Kaji, S.; Hiraishi, A. Chryseobacterium shigense sp. nov., a yellow-pigmented, aerobic bacterium isolated from a lactic acid beverage. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 1903–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. de Beer, H.; Hugo, C.J.; Jooste, P.J.; Willems, A.; Vancanneyt, M.; Coenye, T.; Vandamme, P.A.R. Chryseobacterium vrystaatense sp. nov., isolated from raw chicken in a chicken processing plant. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 2149–2153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Quan, Z.X.; Kim, K.K.; Kim, M.K.; Jin, L.; Lee, S.T. Chryseobacterium caeni sp. nov., isolated from bioreactor sludge. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2007, 57, 141–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Kämpfer, P.; Dreyer, U.; Neef, A.; Dott, W.; Busse, H.-J. Chryseobacterium defluvii sp. nov., isolated from wastewater. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2003, 53, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Zhou, Y.; Dong, J.; Wang, X.; Huang, X.; Zhang, K.Y.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Guo, Y.F.; Lai, R.; Li, W.J. Chryseobacterium flavum sp. nov., isolated from polluted soil. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2007, 57, 1765–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Young, C.C.; Kämpfer, P.; Shen, F.T.; Lai, W.A.; Arun, A.B. Chryseobacterium formosense sp. nov., isolated from the rhizosphere of Lactuca sativa L. (garden lettuce). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 423–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Herzog, P.; Winkler, I.; Wolking, D.; Kämpfer, P.; Lipski, A. Chryseobacterium ureilyticum sp. nov., Chryseobacterium gambrini sp. nov., Chryseobacterium pallidum sp. nov. and Chryseobacterium molle sp. nov., isolated from beer-bottling plants. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Behrendt, U.; Ulrich, A.; Schumann, P. Chryseobacterium gregarium sp. nov., isolated from decaying plant material. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 1069–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Szoboszlay, S.; Atzel, B.; Kukolya, J.; Toth, E.M.; Marialigeti, K.; Schumann, P.; Kriszt, B. Chryseobacterium hungaricum sp. nov., isolated from hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 2748–2754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kämpfer, P.; Lodders, N.; Veneechoutte, M.; Wauters, G. Transfer of Sejongia antarctica, Sejongia jeonii and Sejongia marina to the genus Chryseobacterium as Chryseobacterium ant-arcticum comb. nov., Chryseobacterium jeonii comb. nov. and Chryseobacterium marinum comb. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2009, 59, 2238–2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Behrendt, U.; Ulrich, A.; Sproër, C.; Schumann, P. Chryseobacterium luteum sp. nov., associated with the phyllosphere of grasses. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2007, 57, 1881–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Park, M.S.; Jung, S.R.; Lee, K.H.; Lee, M.S.; Do, J.O.; Kim, S.B.; Bae, K.S. Chryseobacterium soldanellicola sp. nov. and Chryseobacterium taeanense sp. nov., isolated from roots of sand-dune plants. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2006, 56, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Weon, H.Y.; Kim, B.Y.; Yoo, S.H.; Kwon, S.W.; Stackebrandt, E.; Go, S.J. Chryseobacterium soli sp. nov. and Chryseobacterium jejuense sp. nov., isolated from soil samples from Jeju, Korea. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 470–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shen, F.-T.; Kämpfer, P.; Young, C.-C.; Lai, W.-A.; Arun, A.B. Chryseobacterium taichungense sp. nov., isolated from contaminated soil. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 1301–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Tai, C.J.; Kuo, H.P.; Lee, F.L.; Chen, H.K.; Yokota, A.; Lo, C.C. Chryseobacterium taiwanense sp. nov., isolated from soil in Taiwan. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2006, 56, 1771–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Weon, H.Y.; Kim, B.Y.; Yoo, S.H.; Kwon, S.W.; Cho, Y.H.; Go, S.J.; Stackebrandt, E. Chryseobacterium wanjuense sp. nov., isolated from greenhouse soil in Korea. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2006, 56, 1501–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Campbell, S.; Harada, R.M.; Li, Q.X. Chryseobacterium arothri sp. nov., isolated from the kidneys of a puffer fish. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 290–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Greub, G.; La Scola, B.; Raoult, D. Amoebae-resisting bacteria isolated from human nasal swabs by amoebal coculture. Emerg. Inf. Dis. 2004, 10, 470–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kim, K.K.; Kim, M.K.; Lim, J.H.; Park, H.Y.; Lee, S.T. Transfer of Chryseobacterium meningosepticum and Chryseobacterium miricola to Elizabethkingia gen. nov. as Elizabethkingia meningoseptica comb. nov. and Elizabethkingia miricola comb. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 1287–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 17 th Informational Supplement M100-S17. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 27, 1–182. [Google Scholar]
  49. NCSS. Statistical System for Windows; Number Cruncher Statistical Systems: Kaysville, UT, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sharaf, E.F.; El-Sayeda, W.S.; Abosaifa, R.M. Lecithinase-producing bacteria in commercial and home-made foods: Evaluation of toxic properties and identification of potent producers. J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2014, 8, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tyner, H.; Patel, R. Hyaluronidase in clinical isolates of Propionibacterium acnes. Int. J. Bacteriol. 2015, 2015, 218918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Abdul-Gani, M.N.; Laftaah, B.A. Purification and characterization of chondroitinase ABC from Proteus vulgaris, an Iraqi clinically isolate. Curr. Sci. 2017, 113, 2134–2140. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kitamikado, M.; Lee, Y.-Z. Chondroitinase-producing bacteria in natural habitats. Appl. Microbiol. 1975, 29, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thokchom, S.; Joshi, S.R. Screening of fibrinolytic enzymes from lactic acid bacterial isolates associated with traditional fermented soybean foods. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2014, 23, 1601–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cascio, A.; Stassi, G.; Costa, G.B.; Crisafulli, G.; Rulli, I.; Ruggeri, C.; Iaria, C. Chryseobacterium indologenes bacteraemia in a diabetic child. J. Med. Microbiol. 2005, 54, 677–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Kienzle, N.; Muller, M.; Pegg, S. Chryseobacterium in burn wounds. J. Int. Soc. Burn Inj. 2000, 27, 179–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Razzaq, A.; Shamsi, S.; Ali, A.; Ali, Q.; Sajjad, M.; Malik, A.; Ashraf, M. Microbial proteases applications. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Hancock, L.E.; Perego, M. The Enterococcus faecalis fsr two-component system controls biofilm development through production of gelatinase. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 5629–5639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Al-Wahaibi, A.S.M.; Lapinska, E.; Rajarajan, N.; Dobretsov, S.; Upstill-Goddard, R.; Burgess, J.G. Secretion of DNases by marine bacteria: A culture based and bioinformatics approach. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Bieth, J.G. The elastases. J. Soc. Biol. 2001, 195, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Bhagawati, G.; Bhardwaj, A.; Sajikumar, R.; Singh, S.P.; Prajapati, S. Bacteremia by Chryseobacterium indologenes in a patient with lung cancer: A clinical and microbiological investigation. Ind. J. Crit. Care Med. 2019, 23, 157–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chou, D.W.; Wu, S.L.; Lee, C.T.; Tai, F.T.; Yu, W.L. Clinical characteristics, antimicrobial susceptibilities, and outcomes of patients with Chryseobacterium indologenes bacteremia in an Intensive care unit. Japan J. Inf. Dis. 2011, 64, 520–524. [Google Scholar]
  63. Teke, T.A.; Oz, F.N.; Metin, O.; Bayhan, G.I.; Aydin, Z.G.G.; Oguz, M.; Tanir, G. Chryseobacterium indologenes septicemia in an infant. Case Rep. Infect. Dis. 2014, 270521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. Type strains used in the determination of pathogenic characteristics of Chryseobacterium species from food and environmental sources. Strains indicated in bold are the reference pathogenic strains used in this study. * Strains selected for the disinfectant resistance studies.
Table 1. Type strains used in the determination of pathogenic characteristics of Chryseobacterium species from food and environmental sources. Strains indicated in bold are the reference pathogenic strains used in this study. * Strains selected for the disinfectant resistance studies.
Chryseobacterium Strains UsedCulture Collection NumberSource of IsolationReference
Water
C. aquafrigidenseKCTC 12484 TCooled water from an oxygen-producing plant[16]
C. aquaticumKCTC 12483 TWater reservoir[17]
* C. daecheongense DSM 15235 TFreshwater lake sediment[18]
C. daeguenseKCTC 12841 TWastewater of a textile dye works [19]
C. hispanicumKCTC 22104 TDrinking water distribution system[20]
C. koreenseKCTC 12107 TNatural mineral water[21]
Food
* C. balustinumNCTC 11212 TDiseased freshwater fish[22]
C. bovisLMG 24227 TRaw cow milk[23]
C. carnipullorumLMG 26732 TRaw chicken meat[24]
* C. joostei LMG 18212 TRaw milk[25]
C. oranimenseDSM 19055 TRaw cow milk[26]
* C. pisciumCCUG 51923 TMarine fish [27]
* C. scophthalmumLMG 13028 TDiseased turbot fish gills[28]
* C. shigense DSM 17126 TLactic acid beverage[29]
* C. vrystaatense LMG 22846 TRaw chicken meat[30]
Environmental
C. caeniDSM 17710 TBioreactor sludge[31]
C. defluviiDSM 14219 TActivated sludge[32]
C. flavumKCTC 12483 THerbicide polluted soil[33]
* C. formosense CCUG 49271 TRhizosphere of garden lettuce[34]
C. gambriniDSM 18014 TSteel surface of a beer bottling plant[35]
C. gregariumLMG 24052 TDecaying plant material[36]
C. hungaricumDSM 19684 TKerosene contaminated soil[37]
* C. indoltheticum ATCC 27950 TMarine mud[2]
C. jeoniiKCTC 12226 TMoss near penguin habitat[38]
C. luteumLMG 23785 TPhyllosphere of grasses[39]
C. molleDSM 18016 TBiofilm of a conveyor of a beer-bottling plants[35]
* C. soldanellicola CCUG 52904 TRoots of sand-dune plants (Calystegia soldanella)[40]
C. soliDSM 19298 TSoil [41]
* C. taeanense CCUG 52900 TRoots of sand-dune plants (Elymus mollis)[40]
* C. taichungense CCUG 50001 TSoil [42]
C. taiwanenseLMG 23355 TFarmland soil [43]
C. ureilyticumCCUG 18017 TSteel surface of a beer-bottling plant[35]
C. wanjuenseKCTC 22055 TGreenhouse soil cultured with lettuce[44]
Clinical
* C. gleum (Type species)NCTC 11432 THuman vaginal swab[2]
C. hominisDSM 19326 TClinical blood isolates/Kidneys of a pufferfish[45]
“Candidatus C. massilienseCCUG 51329 THuman nasal swab[46]
* C. indologenesLMG 8337 TSoil/water/clinical origin[2]
Elizabethkingia meningosepticaNCTC 10116 TCerebrospinal fluid of premature infant[47]
ATCC, American Type Culture Collection (USA); LMG, Laboratorium voor Microbiologie (Ghent, Belgium); CCUG, Culture Collection, University of Gothenburg (Sweden); DSM, Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen (Germany); KCTC, Korean Collection for Type Cultures (Korea); NCTC, National Collection of Type Cultures (England); T, type strain.
Table 2. Qualitative (absence/presence) analysis of haemolysis, growth at 37 °C, production of lecithinase, hyaluronidase, chondroitinase and fibrinolysin, and quantitative analysis (Z-score values) production of protease, lipase, gelatinase, DNase and elastase of the 37 Chryseobacterium species and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica evaluated in this study. α, alpha haemolysis; β, beta haemolysis; +, present/positive; −, absent/negative; (+), weakly positive; N/A. not applicable. Species in bold are the control strains, isolated from human clinical samples or diseased fish. Highest enzyme production (Z-score < 0.5) is indicated in bold. n = 6.
Table 2. Qualitative (absence/presence) analysis of haemolysis, growth at 37 °C, production of lecithinase, hyaluronidase, chondroitinase and fibrinolysin, and quantitative analysis (Z-score values) production of protease, lipase, gelatinase, DNase and elastase of the 37 Chryseobacterium species and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica evaluated in this study. α, alpha haemolysis; β, beta haemolysis; +, present/positive; −, absent/negative; (+), weakly positive; N/A. not applicable. Species in bold are the control strains, isolated from human clinical samples or diseased fish. Highest enzyme production (Z-score < 0.5) is indicated in bold. n = 6.
Type SpeciesHaemolysisGrowth at 37 °CLecithinaseHyaluronidaseChondroitinaseFibrinolysinProteaseLipaseGelatinaseDNaseElastase
C. aquafrigidenseβ++++0.939 g0.914 cdefgh0.942 hij0.855 fghij0.809 g
C. aquaticumα+++0.909 fg0.937 ghij0.882 h0.886 hijk0.589 ef
C. balustinumα1.000 g1.000 k1.000 j1.000 k0.577 ef
C. bovisα+++0.585 c0.903 bcdefg0.902 hi0.949 jk1.000 h
C. caeniβ+(+)++1.000 g0.948 hij0.922 hi0.901 ijk1.000 h
C. carnipullorumα(+)+(+)1.000 g0.953 ij0.937 hi0.833 fghij0.584 ef
C. daecheongenseα++++0.511 bc0.888 abcd0.912 hi0.868 ghijk0.419 ab
C. daeguenseα++++0.547 bc0.870 ab0.879 h0.713 def0.444 abc
C. defluviiα++++0.751 de0.860 a0.937 hij0.505 bc0.448 abc
C. flavumα++++0.504 abc0.924 efghij0.759 fg0.819 efghij0.506 abcde
C. formosenseβ(+)1.000 g0.957 j0.439 d1.000 k1.000 h
C. gambriniα+(+)+(+)0.529 bc0.936 ghij0.745 f0.729 defg1.000 h
C. gleumα++++0.378 a0.930 fghij0.958 ij0.268 a0.414 a
C. gregariumα+++0.575 bc0.892 abcde0.911 hi0.421 b0.513 cde
C. hispanicumα(+)(+)1.000 g1.000 k1.000 j1.000 k1.000 h
C. hominisβ+++1.000 g0.951 ij0.934 hi0.916 ijk1.000 h
C. hungaricumβ++(+)1.000 g0.947 hij0.931 hi1.000 k1.000 h
C. indologenesα+(+)+(+)0.632 cd0.893 abcde0.917 hi0.687 de0.446 abc
C. indotheticumα++0.507 abc1.000 k0.957 ij0.746 defgh0.659 f
C. jeoniiα(+)(+)1.000 g1.000 k1.000 j1.000 k1.000 h
C. joosteiα(+)(+)1.000 g1.000 k0.432 cd1.000 k0.508 bcde
C. koreenseβ+++1.000 g0.882 abc0.813 g0.475 b1.000 h
C. luteumα(+)(+)1.000 g1.000 k0.375 abc1.000 k0.456 abc
C. massilienseβ++++0.555 bc0.895 abcdef0.907 hi0.779 efghi0.441 abc
C. molleβ+(+)++1.000 g1.000 k0.426 bcd1.000 k1.000 h
C. oranimenseα++++0.941 g0.960 j0.914 hi0.393 ab0.475 abcd
C. pisciumα1.000 g1.000 k0.581 e1.000 k1.000 h
C. scophthalmumα(+)+1.000 g1.000 k0.365 ab0.256 a0.825 g
C. shigenseα(+)+1.000 g1.000 k1.000 j1.000 k0.555 de
C. soldanellicolaα+++0.449 ab0.918 cdefghi0.333 a0.684 de0.423 abc
C. soliα(+)(+)1.000 g1.000 k1.000 j1.000 k0.578 ef
C. taeanenseα++++0.807 ef0.887 abcd0.885 h0.843 fghij0.444 abc
C. taichungenseα+(+)++0.625 cd0.892 abcde0.919 hi0.820 efghij0.502 abcde
C. taiwanenseα++++0.589 c0.897 bcdef0.920 hi0.877 hijk0.560 de
C. ureilyticumα++1.000 g1.000 k1.000 j0.773 defghi0.514 cde
C. vrystaatenseα(+)+1.000 g1.000 k0.478 d1.000 k1.000 h
C. wanjuenseα++++0.613 c0.868 ab0.913 hi0.894 ijk0.478 abcd
E. meningosepticaβ++++0.916 fg0.919 defghi0.910 hi0.635 cd1.000 h
Significance levelN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/Ap < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001
Means with different superscripts in the same column differed significantly (n = 6). N/A, not analysed.
Table 3. Resistance/susceptibility patterns for the 37 Chryseobacterium species and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica used in this study. Values are the zone sizes given in millimetres. Means with different superscripts in the same column differed significantly (n = 6).
Table 3. Resistance/susceptibility patterns for the 37 Chryseobacterium species and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica used in this study. Values are the zone sizes given in millimetres. Means with different superscripts in the same column differed significantly (n = 6).
OrganismAmpicillinAmoxicillinVancomycinCephalothinNeomycinTetracyclineOxytetracyclineStreptomycinChloramphenicolTrimethoprim
C. aquafrigidense50.000 l50.000 j50.000 p50.000 j50.000 m50.000 q50.000 p50.000 r50.000 j50.000 o
C. aquaticum14.320 c15.127 de17.233 cdefg13.713 d10.267 efgh28.377 j24.337 kl13.117 defg25.123 h41.127 mn
C. hominis40.880 jk41.650 i23.903 kl49.030 j15.977 i46.640 p6.170 a26.520 no6.170 a6.170 a
C. balustinum24.663 de24.177 f23.800 kl28.767 h14.623 i32.427 kl30.630 m19.830 m23.287 g38.087 lmn
C. bovis50.000 l50.000 j50.000 p50.000 j50.000 m50.000 q50.000 p50.000 r50.000 j50.000 o
C. caeni50.000 l50.000 j50.000 p50.000 j50.000 m50.000 q50.000 p27.620 p50.000 j50.000 o
C. carnipullorum6.170 a6.170 a21.067 ijk6.170 a6.170 a6.170 a15.397 cde13.410 efgh6.170 a12.230 ab
C. daecheongense6.170 a6.170 a17.910 efgh6.170 a6.170 a6.170 a21.010 hijk12.553 def17.140 f36.843 jklmn
C. daeguense6.170 a6.170 a17.933 efgh6.170 a6.170 a6.170 a22.010 ijkl16.743 ijk10.373 cd39.983 mn
C. defluvii50.000 l50.000 j29.380 m6.170 a40.143 m6.170 a6.170 a39.387 q6.170 a35.993 ijklmn
C. flavum6.170 a6.170 a12.290 a6.170 a10.990 gh11.480 d12.733 bcd6.170 a6.170 a27.770 defgh
C. formosense11.200 bc11.383 bcd21.607 jk11.097 c6.170 a24.580 i22.533 jkl11.237 bcd9.300 bc36.330 ijklmn
C. gambrini50.000 l50.000 j50.000 p50.000 j50.000 m50.000 q50.000 p50.000 r50.000 j50.000 o
C. gleum6.170 a6.170 a18.050 efgh6.170 a9.833 defgh15.627 e15.780 cdef17.107 jk8.277 b32.163 ghijkl
C. gregarium11.627 bc10.170 abc18.933 fghij10.993 c9.327 cdefg28.430 j25.357 l15.197 hij8.257 b30.870 fghijk
C. hispanicum31.670 fg33.950 g16.030 cde25.450 g19.000 j38.600 n33.340 mn30.483 p30.193 i39.037 mn
C. hungaricum37.193 ij39.747 hi33.150 n45.270 i8.397 bcd43.527 o40.567 o13.987 fgh22.477 g37.340 klmn
C. indologenes6.170 a6.170 a18.037 efgh6.170 a6.170 a8.047 ab9.483 ab6.170 a9.533 bcd16.623 bc
C. indotheticum8.787 ab7.607 ab20.183 hij7.778 ab7.378 ab21.887 gh19.067 fghi9.333 b10.830 d25.117 def
C. jeonii32.870 gh35.247 g14.790 abcd26.997 gh18.060 j35.160 m32.063 mn25.133 n26.427 h38.187 lmn
C. joostei6.170 a6.170 a16.207 cdef6.170 a6.170 a9.237 bc10.527 b9.833 bc6.170 a29.673 efghi
C. koreense41.660 k46.433 j34.810 no46.130 i33.533 k47.700 p18.410 efgh50.000 r50.000 j10.907 ab
C. luteum12.953 c12.283 cd13.013 ab9.987 bc10.057 defgh27.283 j22.953 jkl9.783 bc6.170 a34.297 hijklm
C. massiliense28.217 ef50.000 j36.747 o27.307 gh50.000 m43.253 o50.000 p50.000 r50.000 j50.000 o
C. molle36.170 hi37.500 gh20.263 hij18.203 e17.810 j34.150 lm34.493 n19.917 m25.820 h42.747 n
C. oranimense6.170 a6.170 a12.890 abc6.170 a7.770 bc14.430 e16.350 cde11.910 def6.170 a23.410 de
C. piscium13.843 c13.003 cd17.453 cdefg10.210 c8.730 bcde22.293 h20.543 ghij11.717 cde8.540 b22.167 cd
C. scophthalmum11.877 bc9.467 abc19.580 ghij10.030 bc7.990 bc22.727 hi21.187 hijk10.383 bc9.013 bc27.663 defgh
C. shigense6.170 a6.170 a21.247 ijk6.170 a8.610 bcde19.343 f16.420 ef14.473 fgh6.170 a24.947 def
C. soldanellicola8.237 ab6.170 a15.803 bcde9.913 bc11.363 h24.490 i23.397 jkl11.620 cde8.543 b30.313 fghij
C. soli6.170 a6.170 a24.897 l6.170 a14.787 i19.903 fg16.167 def17.747 kl6.170 a26.240 defg
C. taeanense21.187 d17.533 e18.470 efghi22.273 f8.963 bcdef30.830 k30.300 m19.697 lm6.170 a15.527 bc
C. taichungense50.000 l50.000 j50.000 p50.000 j50.000 m50.000 q50.000 p50.000 r50.000 j50.000 o
C. taiwanense50.000 l50.000 j26.007 l50.000 j50.000 m50.000 q50.000 p50.000 r50.000 j50.000 o
C. ureilyticum6.170 a6.170 a16.907 cdefg6.170 a9.917 defgh10.427 cd10.647 b12.573 def6.170 a14.563 b
C. vrystaatense6.170 a6.170 a18.177 efgh6.170 a10.570 fgh17.143 e17.540 efg11.323 bcd6.170 a14.590 b
C. wanjuense6.170 a6.170 a17.540 defgh7.437 a6.170 a23.397 hi25.110 l15.040 ghi8.500 b15.593 bc
E. meningoseptica50.000 l50.000 j24.867 l50.000 j50.000 m9.527 bcd12.610 bc50.000 r13.347 e50.000 o
Significance p < 0.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.001
Table 4. Percentage resistance and susceptibility of Chryseobacterium species and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica to antimicrobials.
Table 4. Percentage resistance and susceptibility of Chryseobacterium species and Elizabethkingia meningoseptica to antimicrobials.
AntimicrobialResistant (%)Intermediate (%)Susceptible (%)
Ampicillin (10 μg)50.00 (19/38)5.26 (2/38)44.74 (17/38)
Amoxicillin (10 μg)52.63 (20/38)2.60 (1/38)44.77 (17/38)
Vancomycin (30 μg)7.89 (3/38)15.79 (6/38)76.32 (29/38)
Cephalothin (30 μg)57.89 (22/38)0.00 (0/38)42.11 (16/38)
Neomycin (30 μg)57.89 (22/38)0.00 (0/38)42.11 (16/38)
Tetracycline (30 μg)21.00 (8/38)5.26 (2/38)73.74 (28/38)
Oxytetracycline (30 μg)13.16 (5/38)5.26 (2/38)81.58 (31/38)
Streptomycin (25 μg)21.00 (8/38)23.68 (9/38)55.32 (21/38)
Chloramphenicol (30 μg)57.89 (22/38)5.26 (2/38)36.85 (14/38)
Trimethoprim (2.5 μg)2.60 (1/38)10.53 (4/38)86.87 (33/38)
Table 5. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) percentages of the four disinfectants against the 14 Chryseobacterium species evaluated in this study.
Table 5. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) percentages of the four disinfectants against the 14 Chryseobacterium species evaluated in this study.
Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (%)
SpeciesDisinfectant 1
(Chloroxylenol)
Disinfectant 2
(Benzalkonium Chloride)
Disinfectant 3
(Chlorhexidine Gluconate)
Disinfectant 4
(Poly-Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride)
C. balustinum0.125 ≤ 0.06250.25≤ 0.0625
C. daecheongense0.250.250.25≤ 0.0625
C. formosense0.125≤ 0.06250.125≤ 0.0625
C. gleum0.250.251.0≤ 0.0625
C. indologenes0.250.1251.0≤ 0.0625
C. indoltheticum0.125≤ 0.0625≤ 0.0625≤ 0.0625
C. joostei0.250.50.5≤ 0.0625
C. piscium0.125≤ 0.06250.5≤ 0.0625
C. scophthalmum0.25≤ 0.06250.5≤ 0.0625
C. shigense0.250.1250.25≤ 0.0625
C. soldanellicola0.25≤ 0.06250.125≤ 0.0625
C. taeanense0.125≤ 0.06250.125≤ 0.0625
C. taichungense0.25≤ 0.06250.125≤ 0.0625
C. vrystaatense0.250.1250.5≤ 0.0625
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mwanza, E.P.; Hugo, A.; Charimba, G.; Hugo, C.J. Pathogenic Potential and Control of Chryseobacterium Species from Clinical, Fish, Food and Environmental Sources. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10050895

AMA Style

Mwanza EP, Hugo A, Charimba G, Hugo CJ. Pathogenic Potential and Control of Chryseobacterium Species from Clinical, Fish, Food and Environmental Sources. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(5):895. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10050895

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mwanza, Elebert Pauline, Arno Hugo, George Charimba, and Celia J. Hugo. 2022. "Pathogenic Potential and Control of Chryseobacterium Species from Clinical, Fish, Food and Environmental Sources" Microorganisms 10, no. 5: 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10050895

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