Burkholderia species in human infections in Mexico: Identification of B. cepacia, B. contaminans, B. multivorans, B. vietnamiensis,B. pseudomallei and a new Burkholderia species

Abstract

Background

Burkholderia sensu stricto is comprised mainly of opportunistic pathogens. This group is widely distributed in the environment but is especially important in clinical settings. In Mexico, few species have been correctly identified among patients, most often B. cepacia is described.

Methodology/Principal findings

In this study, approximately 90 strains identified as B. cepacia with the VITEK2 system were isolated from two medical centers in Mexico City and analyzed by MLSA, BOX-PCR and genome analysis. The initial identification of B. cepacia was confirmed for many strains, but B. contaminans, B. multivorans and B. vietnamiensis were also identified among clinical strains for the first time in hospitals in Mexico. Additionally, the presence of B. pseudomallei was confirmed, and a novel species within the B. cepacia complex was documented. Several strains misidentified as B. cepacia actually belong to the genera Pseudomonas, Stenotrophomonas and Providencia.

Conclusions/Significance

The presence of different Burkholderia species in Mexico was confirmed. Correct identification of Burkholderia species is important to provide accurate treatment for immunosuppressed patients.

Introduction

Burkholderia sensu stricto contains the Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) and Burkholderia pseudomallei group. The Bcc includes 24 validly published bacterial species names (LPSN, List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature, lpsn.dsmz.de) and two additional species not yet validly published, B. paludis and B. servocepacia [1,2]. The Bcc are opportunistic pathogens causing pneumonia in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and chronic granulomatous disease [3]. The Bcc are also found in soil, sediment, water, rhizosphere, plant nodules, flowers, or seeds [4], all of which can act as a reservoir for potential infections for immunosuppressed patients. The distribution of Bcc is worldwide, and species such as B. cenocepacia are the most prevalent in CF patients [5]. B. contaminans is an emerging CF pathogen, having been found in Argentina, Spain, United Kingdom, Portugal and Ireland [6]. In México, few Bcc species, including B. cepacia, B. cenocepacia and non-identified Bcc strains at the species level, have been isolated from urinary tract, hemocultures, chronic granulomatous disease lung biopsy, catheter and clinical gel [7,8,9,10,11,12].

B. pseudomallei is the causative agent of melioidosis, a potentially fatal disease for humans in many tropical and subtropical countries [13,14,15,16]. This bacterium is found in soil and fresh surface water. Cases of melioidosis have been detected in a number of countries [17]. In North America, the highest incidence of melioidosis is predicted in Mexico, with 550 cases per 100,000 people each year [18]. Yet, these events are not reported, and melioidosis has been described in only a few cases [17,19]. B. pseudomallei has been isolated from pediatric patients with pneumonia in Mexico, but melioidosis was not diagnosed at any time [12]. We recently related environmental B. pseudomallei to two fatal cases of melioidosis in Sonora, Mexico [20]. Although Sonora is not tropical (located in northwest Mexico), the presence of B. pseudomallei in stressful conditions has been documented previously [21], including in desert regions [22].

Greater awareness of Burkholderia spp. in Mexico and more effective tools to correctly detect these species may help to provide accurate treatment of infections in clinical settings.

Methods

Bacterial strains and culture conditions

A group of 65 Burkholderia sp. strains was provided by Hospital General Dr. Manuel Gea González (HGMGG). These strains were isolated from different human sources, such as bronchus secretions, expectorations, feces, blood, cervical wounds, cultures from catheters and pharyngeal exudates of patients 1–88 years old between 2009 and 2011 (9 patients from 1 to 8 years old, 5 from 20 to 29 years old, 3 from 34 to 39 years old, 6 from 45 to 50 years old, 6 from 52 to 60 years old, 5 from 62 to 70 years old and 7 from 72 to 88 years old) (Tables 1 and S1). A second group comprised 26 strains isolated in Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez (HIMFG) from children with pneumonia and initially identified as B. cepacia [12]. These strains were included in this study to identify them at the species level (Table 1). The type species B. cepacia ATCC 25416T, B. contaminans LMG 23361T, B. multivorans LMG 13010T, B. vietnamiensis TVV75T and B. cenocepacia J2315T and reference strain B. cenocepacia TAtl-371 were included in the analyses. The strains were regularly kept in LB Petri dishes at room temperature and preserved with 35% glycerol at -70°C.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Burkholderia strain list and BOX pattern isolated from patients at two hospitals in Mexico, City.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541.t001

16S rRNA and atpD gene amplification and phylogenetic analysis

Total DNA was isolated by growing the strains in 5 mL LB and incubating overnight at 30°C with shaking (120 rpm). DNA was obtained using the cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) method according to Moore and Dowhan [23]. The 16S rRNA gene was amplified with primers 27F/1492R [24]. The atpD gene was amplified according to Baldwin et al. [25]. The PCR fragments were sequenced at Macrogen Inc. (https://www.macrogen.com) using the same primers for amplification. The sequences were analyzed and assembled with ChromasPro 2.1.5 (Technelysium Pty Ltd). The 16S rRNA gene sequences were analyzed with BlastN and atpD gene sequences with BlastX at NCBI (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). The sequences were aligned with Clustal Omega (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalo/) and the best-fit model was used to analyze the data with jModelTest 2.1.10 [26,27]. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis was inferred with BEAST 2 (www.beast2.org), performed separately for each gene and with the concatenated sequences. The concatenation of 16S rRNA and atpD genes was carried out with Mesquite 3.51 (https://www.mesquiteproject.org/). The tree was displayed with FigTree v1.4.4 (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/), and the Bayesian posterior probability was included in each node of the phylogenetic tree.

Polymerase chain reaction amplification of the BOX dispersed-repeated motif (BOX-PCR) analysis

All strains were analyzed with BOX-PCR using the BOXA1R primer [28]. Cycling conditions were 95°C for 5 min and then 35 cycles of 95°C for 1 min, 63°C for 1 min and 72°C for 6 min and a final elongation cycle of 10 min at 72°C. The BOX patterns were observed in 1% agarose gels.

Whole-genome sequencing and analysis

Selected strains were grown in 40 mL LB and incubated overnight at 30°C. The total DNA was isolated using the method of Moore and Dowhan [23]. The genome sequence was obtained at Novogene (https://en.novogene.com/) using Illumina Platform PE150 with a 350-bp insert DNA library. For the genome assembly, the quality control analysis was carried out with FastQC to 0.11.9 (https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/), checking for the presence of adapters and length of reads. The clipping and filtering of the information was performed with Trimmomatiq 0.39 [29], keeping only those sequences with phred quality greater than 28. All samples were assembled with an optimized method of on de Bruijn graphs and automatic adjustment of the K value with the SPAdes 3.14 program [30]. Some of the assemblies underwent a cleaning process to remove spurious sequences using Blast 2.9.0 [31] comparing to a Burkholderia genome bank. Metrics such as N50 and misassembles were obtained using QUAST 5.0.2 [32]. Annotation was performed using the standard operating procedure at DOE-JGI Microbial Genome Annotation Pipeline (MGAP v.4). Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) calculations were obtained with JSpeciesWS [33], using ANIm (based on the MUMmer algorithm). The digital DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH) was calculated in silico with the Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator (GGDC 2.1) using the BLAST method [34]. Results were based on recommended formula 2 (identities/HSP length), which is independent of genome length and appropriate for incomplete genomes.

Phylogenomic analysis

A phylogenomic analysis was carried out to determine the relatedness of Burkholderia strains with Burkholderia species using the program up-to-date bacterial core gene (UBCG), which is based in the phylogenetic analysis of 92 core genes, that were previously selected from the analysis of 1429 species available at EzBioCloud (https://www.ezbiocloud.net/), representing 28 phyla, including Burkholderia species [35]. Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) was analyzed with strain 294H and compared to other B. pseudomallei strains. The analysis was performed with maximum parsimony based on core SNPs with Parsnp, a component of the Harvest 1.3 software (https://github.com/marbl/harvest).

Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) analysis

MLST allele sequences were analyzed by BLAST searches using the sequenced genomes with the Bcc and B. pseudomallei PubMLST Databases [36].

Antibiotic susceptibility

All strains were tested with the VITEK2 system for antibiotic susceptibility.

Results

Bacterial identification and phylogenetic analysis

The 65 strains isolated from multiple patients at the HGMGG were initially identified as B. cepacia with the VITEK2 system. However, according to the analysis of the 16S gene, only 54 of these strains belonged to the Bcc. The 16S ranges of similarity were 99.6–100% to B. anthina, 99.42–100% to B. territorii and 99.34–99.93% to B. cepacia. By using the same analysis, the rest of the strains (11 of them) were identified as belonging to the genera Pseudomonas (3 strains), Stenotrophomonas (5 strains), and Providencia (3 strains). The selected 26 strains from HIMFG were identified as B. contaminans (99.69–100%), B. lata (99.58–100%), B. arboris (99.64–99.85%), B. vietnamiensis (99.28–99.98%), B. latens (99.06–99.71%), B. cenocepacia (99.06–99.71%), B. puraquae (99.58–99.85%) and B. pseudomallei/B. mallei (99.93%). The 16S rRNA gene phylogenetic analysis of all Burkholderia species (27 currently described Burkholderia species), including those from HGMGG and HIMFG, and the type species of Paraburkholderia unamae used as an external species, showed that the strains were not clearly grouped with any of the species from the Bcc, despite the high similarity found with the 16S rRNA gene analyses, except for a group from HIMFG that was close to B. pseudomallei/B. mallei strains (S1 Fig). Since the phylogenetic analysis with 16S rRNA genes has low taxonomic resolution, which is in line with several reports [37,38,39], a phylogenetic analysis was performed with atpD gene, using the same number of strains. The atpD gene was used because it is one of the genes listed in the PubMLST for the taxonomical analysis of Bcc (https://pubmlst.org/organisms/burkholderia-cepacia-complex). Phylogenetic analysis of the atpD gene gave a better resolution, showing that the strains from HGMGG formed a large cluster, and the strains from HIMFG clustered in few groups but none clearly close to any Burkholderia species (S2 Fig). The concatenation of both 16S rRNA and atpD genes to seek a better resolution and identification of the strains, resulted in a large group containing all strains from HGMGG (Fig 1). Strains 184D and 662D from HIMFG were close to B. vietnamiensis, with similarity of 99.28 and 99.93%, respectively, and 99.2% similar to each other. Other HIMFG strains, such as 500H and 501H, grouped with B. cenocepacia but the 16S rRNA showed more similarity to B. contaminans (99.85%). The strains identified as B. pseudomallei/B. mallei were intermingled with these species (Fig 1). The positioning of the rest of the strains from HIMFG was not clear, showing no association to any particular Burkholderia species.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Phylogenetic analysis of Burkholderia species with 16S rRNA and atpD genes with the Bayesian method and the model GTR+G+I. Paraburkholderia unamae MTl-641T was used as an outgroup.

Bar, the nucleotide differences between the sequences. Bayesian posterior probabilities values shown in branches.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541.g001

BOX-PCR analysis

Since the resolution in the analysis of 16S rRNA and atpD genes was poor in general, the BOX profiles were analyzed visually to determine clonality and to define possible Burkholderia subgroups among the isolates. Twelve BOX patterns were found among the HGMGG and HIMG strains (Table 1); as expected, none of these patterns was shared among the strains from both hospitals. Strains collected from HGMGG displayed four different patterns with pattern I present in the largest number of strains (31 strains). Strains from HIMFG displayed eight different patterns, with pattern VIII present in 10 strains. At least one strain with each BOX pattern was selected for genome sequencing to determine the Burkholderia species they belonged to. The results suggested that many of the isolates were clonal and that an internal outbreak might have happened at HGMGG.

Whole-genome analysis

The genomes of 12 selected strains were analyzed with the ANI and dDDH tools, considering that cutoff values of 95–96 and 70%, respectively, as the delineation of a species [40]. The comparative analyses showed that the strains with BOX patterns I, II, III and IV from HGMGG belonged to B. cepacia, with an ANI value of 97.53–97.60% and a dDDH of 76.50–76.80% (Table 2). The strains obtained from HIMFG with BOX patterns V, VI, VII and VIII were identified as B. contaminans (ANI 98.68–99.98% and dDDH 83.8–87.50%). The BOX pattern IX was recognized as B. multivorans (ANI 99.10% and dDDH 91.70%). Those with BOX pattern X were identified as B. pseudomallei (ANI 99.25% and dDDH 93.7%) and with BOX pattern XI as B. vietnamiensis (ANI 98.46% and dDDH 90.50%). The strain with the BOX pattern XII (strain 500H) was close to B. cenocepacia, but, according to the genome comparative analysis, it belongs to “B. servocepacia” (ANI 97.88% and dDDH 83.00%). However, this bacterial species has not yet been validated, and therefore it is not present in the LPSN.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Identification of Burkholderia strains by genome analyses.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541.t002

The genome sizes of the clinical strains were in the range of 6.5–8.8 Kbp, which is a genome size expected for bacteria in the Burkholderia genus. More genome features are presented in S2 Table. A phylogenomic analysis was performed with concatenating 92 genes with the UBCG pipeline. In this analysis, the type strain and four to five reference strains from each of B. cepacia, B. cenocepacia, B. multivorans, B. contaminans, B. vietnamiensis, B. pseudomallei and “B. servocepacia” species were included. The reference strains were selected on the basis of sharing more than 70% similarity by dDDH to the type strain to avoid using incorrectly classified species. The topology of the tree showed that all strains analyzed in this study were grouped with the respective species (Fig 2) and the strain 500H was clustered with “B. servocepacia” strains.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Phylogenetic tree inferred using up-to-date bacterial core genes (concatenated alignment of 92 core genes).

A total of 91554 nucleotide positions were used. The phylogenetic tree was inferred with the GTR + CAT model. Gene support indices (GSIs) and percentage bootstrap values are given at branching points. Bar, 0.05 substitutions per position. Bayesian posterior probabilities values shown in branches.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541.g002

A dendrogram based on maximum parsimony from analysis of core SNPs for strain 294H was carried out comparing with a number of B. pseudomallei strains that were isolated from patients with melioidosis living in different locations [41]. Since strain 294H had the same BOX pattern with the rest of the B. pseudomallei strains analyzed in this study, this strain was randomly selected for genome sequencing and for SNPs analysis. The result showed that strain 294H clustered with B. pseudomallei strains that were isolated from people living in the US who had a history of travelling to Mexico and other countries in the American continent (Fig 3). Strain 294H was close to a strain isolated from a person with melioidosis living in Illinois, US, who previously had travelled to Mexico. This result shows the presence of the etiologic agent of melioidosis.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 3. Maximum-parsimony phylogenetic analysis of Burkholderia pseudomallei strains based on core single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) using Parsnp, a component of the Harvest 1.3 software (https://github.com/marbl/harvest).

B. pseudomallei 294H, a clinical strain isolated in Mexico City, is shown in red. The tree was rooted to the most ancestral strain 7894 isolated in Ecuador in 1960. Numbers at each node are bootstrap percentages. Scale bar indicates nucleotide substitutions per SNP.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541.g003

MLST analysis

The strains’ genomes were analyzed in the PubMLST Database to determine whether they correspond to a defined sequence type (ST) or they represented a new ST. The B. cepacia strains belonged to a single ST, which was ST 9 (S2 Table). The B. contaminans strains belonged to two established STs, ST 482 and ST 102. The B. vietnamiensis strain belonged to the known ST 596. However, the B. multivorans strains studied here represents a novel ST, which was assigned ST 1867. B. pseudomallei strain 294H also represents a new ST, which was assigned ST 1872 (S2 Table). Since Burkholderia sp. 500H represents a novel species, the ST will be established once the species is proposed. These results showed that new STs were identified in some of the strains in this work.

Antibiotic susceptibility

Analysis with the VITEK2 system showed that all strains were resistant to ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, 87% were sensitive to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, 94% were sensitive to meropenem, 82% were sensitive to levofloxacin and only 28% were sensitive to ceftazidime. These results showed that most of the strains analysed here are susceptible to elective antibiotics, although a small proportion are resistant, underscoring the relevance of defining the antibiotic sensitivity of all Burkholderia isolated in clinical settings.

Discussion

Bcc and B. pseudomallei are widely distributed in the world, but the evidence of their presence in Mexico is scarce, both in clinical settings and in the environment. Identification of these microorganisms at the species level is very problematic. Species from the Bcc can share up to 100% similarity in 16S rRNA gene sequences [39], prompting to the use of more efficient tools, such as MLSA and ultimately genome sequencing.

Our analysis of Burkholderia strains isolated from human infections in two different hospitals in Mexico City showed that the identification system is poor, since all the strains were identified as B. cepacia, but we found that many belong to other Burkholderia species and even other genera. The proper identification of a bacterial species is important to provide the appropriate treatment, which is relevant in Burkholderia species as they are highly resistant to many antibiotics. For example, all strains studied were resistant to ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, but most of the strains were sensitive to meropenem. B. pseudomallei is efficiently treated with ceftazidime, meropenem or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and the B. pseudomallei strains studied here were sensitive to these antibiotics as well. Accurate identification of B. pseudomallei might lead to successful treatment of the patient. Unfortunately, this this did not happen in two fatal cases in northern Mexico; since the melioidosis caused by B. pseudomallei is barely known in Mexico, correct antibiotic treatment was not provided to the children, who died within a few hours after the admission to a hospital [20].

The analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequence showed poor resolution for the position of the Burkholderia strains in the phylogenetic tree. This is expected in this genus and with this gene. But when the atpD gene sequence was added to the analysis, the resolution of the bacterial positioning improved significantly, and the strains from HGMGG and HIMFG formed different clusters. Only the strains from HGMGG clustered with B. cepacia. This species is not typically recognized with highly distribution in clinical settings, as B. cenocepacia and B. multivorans are [5].

To group the strains and select some of them for genome sequencing, BOX-PCR was used, revealing 12 BOX patterns. One strain from each profile was selected for genome sequencing. The ANI and dDDH results confirmed that the strains from HGMGG belonged to B. cepacia, while the strains from HIMFG were identified as B. contaminans, B. multivorans, B. vietnamiensis and B. pseudomallei. A novel species in the Bcc was also found among the strains from HIMFG. In Mexico, B. cepacia has been found in several hospitals; however, the identification methodology is not always mentioned, and when automated systems, as used in this study, might not accurately identify the strains [7,11]. Although most of the strains from HGMGG were confirmed as B. cepacia, other strains had been mistakenly identified as this species, but belonged to other genera, such as Pseudomonas, Stenotrophomonas, and Providencia. B. cenocepacia and B. multivorans are Bcc species largely distributed in clinical settings, mainly affecting immunosuppressed patients [42,43,44,45,46,47]. In Mexico, B. multivorans strains have not been reported in clinical settings; this is the first report describing this species in Mexico. B. contaminans is considered an emerging CF pathogen in several countries [6], but not in Mexico. B. vietnamiensis strains have been isolated previously in Mexico, but from the environment. A number of these strains were obtained from maize, coffee and sorghum rhizosphere and rhizoplane in different geographic regions of Mexico [48]. B. vietnamiensis has been proposed as a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium (PGPR) [49], but its use in agriculture is ethically incorrect since it is an opportunistic pathogen of the Bcc and has been found in patients with CF [50]. The presence of B. vietnamiensis in Mexican soils may represent a reservoir for the infection with this microorganism in immunosuppressed patients. Scientific and agricultural communities around the world are encouraged to stop proposing the use of Bcc strains as a PGPRs, as they are opportunistic pathogens.

By using genome sequencing, we corroborated the identification of strain 294H as B. pseudomallei [12]. This species is not well known in Mexico as few cases have been detected since 1958 [17]. The disease produced by B. pseudomallei, melioidosis, is present in Mexico, but it is a neglected disease because it is not accurately identified and reported. Recent cases with fatal outcomes [19,20], suggest that greater awareness of this bacterium and the disease is needed to prepare the health care staff to deal with the disease. Since the distribution of B. pseudomallei is worldwide, an increasing interest has emerged in the origin of B. pseudomallei strains. Several methods have been used to explore this origin, such as MLST and SNPs [38]. Some studies using SNPs have shown the association of clinical B. pseudomallei strains with environmental isolates, establishing an epidemiological link to understand the source of infection [51,52,53]. Our analysis with SNPs showed that strain 294H grouped with a strain that was isolated from a melioidosis patient in the US (Illinois) who had travelled to Mexico. Originally, the strain IL2014 formed a group with strains CA2009, MX2013, MX2014 and TX2015, all associated with clinical cases in patients residing in or visited Mexico [41]. However, strain 294H split this group and clustered closely with IL2014. This result show that more studies about the isolation of more B. pseudomallei strains are necessary to understand the origin of melioidosis infections both in Mexico but also in the US, since many US citizens travel for pleasure or work to Mexico. Moreover, since the US seems not endemic of melioidosis and many strains were isolated from people travelling to Mexico [41], our country might be endemic for B. pseudomallei.

All Burkholderia genomes were analyzed in the MLST database to determine whether they belonged to known STs or represented new ones. This database includes more than 100 different microbial species and genera, and it is intended to address several functional questions, such as activities of different variants that lead to key phenotypes. The Bcc PubMLST database functions to study the epidemiology and diversity of Bcc species. The B. cepacia strains from this study belonged to a single type, which was ST 9. This ST does not seem to be widely distributed since the database contains only two strains identified as ST 9: one isolated in Canada in 1997 (abdomen from non-CF patient) and a second isolated in Spain in 2009 (sputum from a CF-patient). The strains identified as B. contaminans were placed within ST 102 and ST 482. These STs are better represented, including 39 strains and 23 strains, respectively. The strains from B. multivorans and B. pseudomallei represented new STs; the former was assigned ST 1867 and the latter as ST 1872. However, the number of STs might be underestimated since not all Bcc species are present in the PubMLST database and the distribution of Bcc in the environment and clinical setting is poorly known in Mexico. However, we believe that the Mexican ST’s might be endemic of Mexico, according to our previous analysis [54], but more studies should be carried out.

Additionally, two strains close to B. cenocepacia were found. By analyzing the genome of strain 500H, which shared the same BOX pattern with strain 501H, we found that it belonged to the novel species “B. servocepacia” [2]. The proposal of “B. servocepacia” was based on a comparison among many B. cenocepacia strains. The result of this analysis showed that B. cenocepacia could be divided in two major groups, and a few other strains might still represent novel species. Therefore, “B. servocepacia” was proposed and strain TAtl-371 was selected as the type strains. However, the species name of “B. servocepacia” has not been validated following the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes [55] and is not listed at the LPSN. Thus, we decided to maintain the name Burkholderia sp.

According to the identification of the strains, and taking into account the hospital of origin, the isolation source of the strains and the age of the person from whom the strains were isolated, it seems that no correlation exists. Only B. cepacia was identified from HGMGG but different species were obtained from HIMFG. The range of age was different in the patients from each hospital, but the isolation source might be important since in HGMGG most of the strains were isolated from bronchus secretions and in HIMFG from pharyngeal exudates.

Considering these results, the potential diversity of Burkholderia species in Mexico is not yet well understood. The distribution of species from the Bcc in Mexico is barely known, both in clinical settings and in the environment. The latter is important as a reservoir for potential infection in immunosuppressed patients which could explain the presence of Bcc and B. pseudomallei in human infections. The correct identification of Burkholderia species might help to provide accurate treatment for immunosuppressed patients.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences from Burkholderia species.

The analysis was performed with the Bayesian method. Bar, the nucleotide differences between the sequences. Bayesian posterior probabilities values shown in branches.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Phylogenetic analysis of atpD gene sequences from Burkholderia species.

The analysis was performed with the Bayesian method. Bar, the nucleotide differences between the sequences. Bayesian posterior probabilities values shown in branches.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541.s002

(TIF)

S1 Table. Burkholderia strain list isolated from patients with different ages at two hospitals in Mexico, City.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541.s003

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Genomic features of Burkholderia strains isolated from human infections in Mexico.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541.s004

(DOCX)

Citation: Meza-Radilla G, Larios-Serrato V, Hernández-Castro R, Ibarra JA, Estrada-de los Santos P (2021) Burkholderia species in human infections in Mexico: Identification of B. cepacia, B. contaminans, B. multivorans, B. vietnamiensis,B. pseudomallei and a new Burkholderia species. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 15(6): e0009541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009541

References

1. Ong KS, Aw YK, Lee LH, Yule CM, Cheow YL, Lee SM. Burkholderia paludis sp. nov., an antibiotic-siderophore producing novel Burkholderia cepacia complex species, isolated from Malaysian tropical peat swamp soil. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:2046, pmid:28066367

2. Wallner A, King E, Ngonkeu EL, Moulin L, Bena G. Genomic analysis of Burkholderia cenocepacia reveal multiple species with differential host-adaptation to plants and humans. BMC Genomics. 2019;20:803, pmid:31684866

3. Mahenthiralingam E, Urban TA, Goldberg JB. The multifarious, multireplicon Burkholderia cepacia complex. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2005;3:144–56, pmid:15643431

4. Rojas-Rojas FU, López-Sánchez D, Meza-Radilla G, Mendez-Canarios A, Ibarra JA, Estrada-de los Santos P. 2019. El controvertido complejo Burkholderia cepacia, un grupo de especies promotoras del crecimiento vegetal y patógenas de plantas, animales y humanos. Rev Arg Microbiol. 2019;51:84–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ram.2018.01.002

5. Mahenthiralingam E, Vandamme P, Campbell ME, Henry DA, Gravelle AM, Wong LT, et al. Infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex genomovars in patients with cystic fibrosis: Virulent transmissible strains of genomovar III can replace Burkholderia multivorans. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:1469–1475. pmid:11588691

6. Depoorter E, De Canck E, Peeters C, Wieme AD, Cnockaert M, Zlosnik JEA, et al. Burkholderia cepacia complex Taxon K: Where to split? Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1594. pmid:32760373

7. Frías-Salcedo JA. Burkholderia cepacia (B. cepacia), a new pathogen in nosocomial infections. Clinical cases. Enf Inf Microbiol. 2008;28:19–23.

8. González-Saldaña N, Hernández-Orozco HG, Castañeda-Narváez JL, Barbosa-Arzate P, Lombardo-Arburto E, Girón-Hernández JA. Brotes de Burkholderia cepacia en el Instituto Nacional de Pediatría. Acta Pediatr. Mex. 2008;29:185–188.

9. Gamboa-Salcedo T, Cardoso-Hernández G, Saucedo-Ramírez OJ, Peña-Alonso YR. Burkholderia and chronic granulomatous disease: a case report. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 2009;66:68–75.

10. Duarte-Raya F, Granados-Ramírez MP. Análisis por estratificación de riesgo de brote de Burkholderia cepacia. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2011;49:141–146 pmid:21703140

11. Gómez-Toscano V, Hernández-Orozco HG, González-Saldaña N, Castañeda-Narváez JL, Rosas-Ruíz A, Sandoval-Medina MC, et al. Bacteremia por B. cepacia ¿Un signo de alarma para la presencia de un brote? Acta Pediatr Mex. 2013;34:16–20.8.

12. Meza-Radilla G, Mendez-Canarios A, Xicohthencatl-Cortes J, Escobedo-Guerra MR, Torres AG, Ibarra JA, et al. Misidentification of Burkholderia pseudomallei and other Burkholderia species from pediatric infections in Mexico. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6:ofz008, pmid:30740470

13. Wuthiekanun V, Mayxay M, Chierakul W, Phetsouvanh R, Cheng AC, White NJ, et al. 2005. Detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei in soil within the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:923–924, pmid:15695707

14. Rolim DB, Cortez FLVD, Queiroz-Souza A, Sampaio-Mirelles I, Almeida de Oliveria DC, Harnett G, et al. Melioidosis, northeastern Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:1458–1460. pmid:16229782

15. Jilani MS, Robayet JA, Mohiuddin M, Hasan MR, Ahsan CR, Haq JA. Burkholderia pseudomallei: its detection in soil and seroprevalence in Bangladesh. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016; 10:e0004301. pmid:26771511

16. Steinmetz I, Wagner GE, Kanyala E, Sawadogo M, Soumeya H, Teferi M, et al. Melioidosis in Africa: time to uncover the true disease load. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2018;3:pii:E62, pmid:30274458

17. Sánchez-Villamil J, Torres AG. Melioidosis in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2018;3:24, pmid:29780897

18. Limmathurotsakul D, Golding N, Dance DA, Messina JP, Pigott DM, Moyes CL, et al. Predicted global distribution of Burkholderia pseudomallei and burden of melioidosis. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:15008, pmid:26877885

19. López-Cruz G, Coronado-García AR, López-Díaz AV, Rodríguez-García J, Reyes-Gomez U, Martinez-Hernandez Y, et al. Fatal melioidosis in an oaxacan child. Int Clin Pathol J. 2019;7:18–20, https//:doi.org/10.15406/icpjl.2019.07.00193

20. Álvarez-Hernández G, Cruz-Loustaunau D, Ibarra JA, Rascon-Alcantar A, Contreras-Soto J, Meza-Radilla G, et al. Description of two fatal cases of melioidosis in Mexican children with acute pneumoniae: case report. BMC Infect Dis. 2021; pmid:33622263

21. Duangurai T, Indrawattana N, Pumirat P. Burkholderia pseudomallei adaptation for survival in stressful conditions. BioMed Res Int. 2018;3039106. pmid:29992136

22. Yip TW, Hewagama S, Mayo M, Price EP, Sarovich DS, Bastian I, et al. Endemic melioidosis in residents of desert region after atypically intense rainfall in central Australia, 2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21:1038–1040, pmid:25988301

23. Moore D, Dowhan D. Preparation and analysis of DNA. In: Ausubel FM, Brent R, Kingston RE, Moore DD, Seidman JG, Smith JA, Struhl K editors. Current protocols in molecular biology. John Willey & Sons, Inc. 2003. pp. 2.0.1–2.2.10.

24. Lane DJ. 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In: Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow Meditors. Nucleic acid techniques in bacterial systematics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1991. pp. 115–147.

25. Baldwin A, Mahenthiralingam E, Thickett KM, Honeybourne D, Maiden MC, Goven JR, et al. Multilocus sequence typing scheme that provides both species and strain differentia.tion of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:4665–4673. pmid:16145124

26. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristic and parallel computing. Nat Meth. 2012;9:772, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2109

27. Guindon S, Gascuel O. A simple, fast and accurate method to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol. 2003;52:696–704. pmid:14530136

28. Versalovic J, Schneider M, de Bruijn FJ, Lupski JR. Genomic fingerprinting of bacteria using repetitive sequence-based polymerase chain reaction. Meth Mol Cell Biol. 1994;5:25–40.

29. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina Sequence Data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–2120, pmid:24695404

30. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, et al. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19:455–477, pmid:22506599

31. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403–410. pmid:2231712

32. Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:1072–1075. pmid:23422339

33. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:19126–31, pmid:19855009

34. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Auch AF, Klenk HP, Göker M. Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;14:60. pmid:23432962

35. Na SI, Kim YO, Yoon SH, Ha SM, Baek I, Chun J. UBCG: Up-to-date bacterial core gene set and pipeline for phylogenomic tree reconstruction. J Microbiol. 2018;56:280–285, pmid:29492869

36. Jolley KA, Bray J, Maiden MCJ. Open-access bacterial population genomics: BIGSdb software, the PubMLST.org website and their applications. Welcome Open Res. 2018;3:1–20. pmid:30345391

37. Furlan JPR, Pitondo-Silva A, Braz VS, Gallo IFL, Stehling EG. Evaluation of different molecular and phenotypic methods for identification of environmental Burkholderia cepacia complex. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019;35(3):39, pmid:30739255

38. Ragupathi NKD, Veeraraghavan B. Accurate identification and epidemiological characterization of Burkholderia cepacia complex: an update. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2019;18(1):7, pmid:30717798

39. Jin Y, Zhou J, Zhou J, Hu M, Zhang Q, Kong N, et al. Genome-based classification of Burkholderia cepacia complex provides new insight into its taxonomic status. Biol Direct. 2020;15:6, pmid:32131884

40. Roselló-Mora R, Amann R. Past and future species definitions for Bacteria and Archaea. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2015;38:209–216, pmid:25747618

41. Gee JE, Gulvik CA, Elrod MG, Batra D, Rowe LA, Sheth M, et al. Phylogeography of Burkholderia pseudomallei isolates, western hemisphere. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23:1133–1138, pmid:28628442

42. Baldwin A, Mahenthiralingam E, Drevinek P, Pope C, Waine DJ, Henry DA, et al. Elucidating global epidemiology of Burkholderia multivorans in cases of cystic fibrosis by multilocus sequence typing. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:290–295, pmid:18032622

43. Coutinho CP, Barreto C, Pereira L, Lito L, Melo-Cristino J, Sá-Correia I. Incidence of Burkholderia contaminans at a cystic fibrosis center with an unusually high representation of Burkholderia cepacia during 15 years of epidemiological surveillance. J Med Microbiol. 2015;64:927–935, pmid:26002942

44. Ibarra L, Degrossi J, Vargas LJ, Barrero P, Vazquez M, Teper A, et al. Incidence of Burkholderia cepacia complex infection in a cystic fibrosis centre in Buenos Aires City, Argentina, from 2004 to 2014. J Cyst Fibros. 2015;14:S74, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-1993(15)30243–5

45. Jordá-Vargas L, Castaneda NC, Centrón D, Degrossi J, d’Aquino M, Valvano MA, et al. Prevalence of indeterminate genetic species of Burkholderia cepacia complex in a cystic fibrosis center in Argentina. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:1151–1152, pmid:18199792

46. Martina P, Bettiol M, Vescina C, Montanaro P, Mannino MC, Prieto CI, et al. Genetic diversity of Burkholderia contaminans isolates from cystic fibrosis patients in Argentina. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015;51:339–44. https//:doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02500-12

47. Medina-Pascual MJ, Valdezate S, Carrasco G, Villalón P, Garrido N, Saéz-Nieto J. Increase in isolation of Burkholderia contaminans from Spanish patients with cystic fibrosis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21:150–156, pmid:25658563

48. Estrada-de los Santos P, Bustillo-Cristales R, Caballero-Mellado J. Burkholderia, a genus rich in plant-associated nitrogen fixers with wide environmental and geographic distribution. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67:2790–2798, pmid:11375196

49. Tran-Van V, Berge O, Ngo-Ke S, Balandreau J, Heulin T. Repeated beneficial effects of rice inoculation with a strain of Burkholderia vietnamiensis on early and late yield components in low fertility sulphate acid soils of Vietnam. Plant Soil. 2000;218:273–284, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014986916913

50. Vicenzi FJ, Pillonetto M, Aguilar PHMSH, Kasuko-Palmeiro J, Riedi CA, Rosario-Filho NA, et al. Polyphasic characterization of Burkholderia cepacia complex species isolated from children with cystic fibrosis. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2016;111:37–42, pmid:26814642

51. Currie BJ, Price EP, Mayo M, Kaestli M, Theobald V, Harrington I, et al. Use of whole-genome sequencing to link Burkholderia pseudomallei from air sampling to mediastinal melioidosis, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21:2052–2054. pmid:26488732

52. Price EP, Sarovich DS, Smith EJ, MacHunter B, Harrington G, Theobald V, et al. Unprecedented melioidosis cases in northern Australia caused by an Asian Burkholderia pseudomallei strain identified by using large-scale comparative genomics. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;82:954–63, pmid:26607593

53. McRobb E, Sarovich DS, Price EP, Kaestli M, Mayo M, Keim P, et al. Tracing melioidosis back to the source: using whole-genome sequencing to investigate an outbreak originating from contaminated domestic water supply. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53:1144–1148, pmid:25631791

54. Castro-González R, Martínez-Aguilar J, Ramírez-Trujillo A, Estrada de los Santos P, Caballero Mellado P. High diversity of culturable Burkholderia species associated with sugarcane. Plant Soil. 2011;345:155–169,

55. Parker CT, Tindall BJ, Garrity GM. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2019;69(1A):S1–S111. pmid:26596770