Revealing the comprehensive genomic landscapes of multidrug-resistant Enterobacter hormaechei isolates from cutaneous and soft tissue infections in hospitals of Kolkata and Malda, West Bengal, India
Indrani Sarkar, Soma Sarkar, Debarati Chattopadhay, Uttam Kumar Nath, Surojit Das, Saugata Hazra

TL;DR
This study identifies drug-resistant Enterobacter hormaechei bacteria from skin infections in India, highlighting their resistance genes and public health risks.
Contribution
The study reveals the genomic features of multidrug-resistant Enterobacter hormaechei isolates from cutaneous infections in India.
Findings
Five Enterobacter hormaechei isolates were obtained from pus and wound samples in West Bengal, India.
The isolates contain antimicrobial resistance genes in their chromosomes and predicted plasmids.
Abstract
Here, we report five Enterobacter hormaechei isolated from pus and wound samples of skin and soft tissue infected patients from Kolkata and Malda, West Bengal, India. They were found to contain potent antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes in their chromosome and predicted plasmids, which has implications for their clinical impacts on public health.
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
| Isolate number | Specimen | Genome completeness (%) | Genome | Size of the secondary assembly | GC % | No. of | No. of genes | No. of | No. of genes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECC_004 | Wound | 98.9 | 217.69× | 5,000,420 | 54 | 20 | 4,452 | 4,448 | 4,410 |
| ECC_006 | Abscess | 99.1 | 222.97× | 5,314,759 | 55 | 23 | 4,537 | 4,534 | 4,493 |
| ECC_007 | Abscess | 98.9 | 196.61× | 4,806,680 | 56 | 8 | 4,204 | 4,201 | 4,163 |
| ECC_011 | Wound | 98.6 | 273.3× | 4,883,958 | 55 | 29 | 4,329 | 4,326 | 4,278 |
| ECC_012 | Wound | 98.9 | 263.24× | 5,100,866 | 55 | 28 | 4,567 | 4,563 | 4,529 |
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria · Enterobacteriaceae and Cronobacter Research · Mycobacterium research and diagnosis
ANNOUNCEMENT
The genus Enterobacter (family—Enterobacteriaceae) is generally composed of Gram-negative rods and can be isolated from a range of habitats, i.e., from soil to human (1). Many are nosocomial pathogens with multiple antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes (2). Here, we report the de novo whole-genome sequences of five clinical Enterobacter hormaechei strains, among which three were isolated from wounds (from Kolkata, India) and two were isolated from abscesses (from Malda) (IEC no. VU/IEC/122/2020, Vidyasagar University, India). The isolates were recovered from inpatients admitted to tertiary-care multispecialty hospitals in West Bengal, India and were identified using the automated VITEK2 system (bioMérieux SA, Marcy l’Etoile, France) (3). The isolates were revived from the glycerol-preserved bacterial repository onto Luria-Bertani agar (HiMedia, India) for whole-genome sequencing. The genomic DNA was extracted with the Xploregen Bacterial DNA extraction kit following the standard protocol, and the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform was used for whole-genome sequencing (4). Library preparation was done through the Kapa DNA library kit. It was a paired-end sequencing with 151 bp read length. Quality control was done using FastQC and MultiQC. The de novo primary and secondary assembly was performed using Unicycler (version 2024) and MeduSa (version 2024). BUSCO 5.8.2 (5) was used to calculate the completeness of the genomes. Prokka 1.14.5 (6) was used for gene annotation. ResFinder 4.6.0 (7) and CARD databases 4.0.0 (8) were used for the prediction of AMR genes. Plasmid Finder 2.1 (9) was exploited for the prediction of plasmid sequences from the secondary assembly data. Default parameters were used for all the software and web servers.
The genome sequencing resulted in 7.2, 7.8, and 6.2 M reads for ECC_004, ECC_006, and ECC_007, respectively, and 8.8 M reads for both ECC_011 and ECC_012. The average GC was 55% (Table 1). The chromosomes of these five isolates contained aac(3), aac(7) genes, giving them resistance against gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, dibekacin, netilmicin, sisomicin, and ciprofloxacin antibiotics. Among beta-lactamases (bla), blaOXA was present in all five genomes. The blaNDM was present in all except ECC_011, blaACT was present in all except ECC_006, and blaCTX-M and blaTEM were present in all except ECC_007. Interestingly, blaTEM and blaOXA were predicted in the IncFII_pMET plasmid in ECC_004. ECC_006, ECC_007, ECC_011, and ECC_012 contained col(pHAD28) plasmid which possesses qnrB19, giving them resistance against ciprofloxacin. ECC_006 contained IncR plasmid with blaLAP and blaSHV. The presence of versatile AMR genes located in the chromosome or plasmid predicts that these isolates are co-resistant to anti-infective treatment regimens, such as third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, and fluoroquinolones.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Rahi P, Mühle E, Scandola C, Touak G, Clermont D. 2024. Genome sequence-based identification of Enterobacter strains and description of Enterobacter pasteurii sp. nov. Microbiol Spectr 12:e 0315023. doi:10.1128/spectrum.03150-2338099614 PMC 10783019 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2Djordjevic SP, Jarocki VM, Seemann T, Cummins ML, Watt AE, Drigo B, Wyrsch ER, Reid CJ, Donner E, Howden BP. 2024. Genomic surveillance for antimicrobial resistance - a one health perspective. Nat Rev Genet 25:142–157. doi:10.1038/s 41576-023-00649-y 37749210 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Das S, Mallick A, Barik M, Sarkar S, Saha P. 2024. The emergence of clonally diverse carbapenem‑resistant Enterobacter cloacae complex in West Bengal, India: a dockyard of β‑lactamases periling nosocomial infections. Int Microbiol 27:1023–1033. doi:10.1007/s 10123-023-00451-037985632 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Modi A, Vai S, Caramelli D, Lari M. 2021. The Illumina sequencing protocol and the Nova Seq 6000 system, p 15–42. In Bacterial pangenomics: methods and protocols. Springer US, New York, NY.10.1007/978-1-0716-1099-2_233961215 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5Seppey M, Manni M, Zdobnov EM. 2019. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness, p 227–245. In Gene prediction. Methods in molecular biology. Vol. 1962. Humana, New York, NY.10.1007/978-1-4939-9173-0_1431020564 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 6Seemann T. 2014. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30:2068–2069. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu 15324642063 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 7Bortolaia V, Kaas RS, Ruppe E, Roberts MC, Schwarz S, Cattoir V, Philippon A, Allesoe RL, Rebelo AR, Florensa AF, et al.. 2020. Res Finder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother 75:3491–3500. doi:10.1093/jac/dkaa 34532780112 PMC 7662176 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 8Carattoli A, Hasman H. 2020. Plasmid Finder and In Silico p MLST: identification and typing of plasmid replicons in whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Methods Mol Biol 2075:285–294. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9877-7_2031584170 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
