Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Staphylococcus aureus in the Meat Supply Chain: Detection Methods, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Virulence Factors

Written By

Valeria Velasco, Mario Quezada-Aguiluz and Helia Bello-Toledo

Submitted: October 30th, 2018 Reviewed: March 4th, 2019 Published: April 26th, 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.85620

Chapter metrics overview

1,320 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) can cause a wide variety of infections in humans, such as skin and soft tissue infections, bacteremia, pneumonia, and food poisoning. This pathogen could be carried on the nares, skin, and hair of animals and humans, representing a serious problem at the hospital and the community level as well as in the food industry. The pathogenicity of S. aureus is given by bacterial structures and extracellular products, among which are toxins, which could cause staphylococcal diseases transmitted by food (SFD). S. aureus has the ability to develop resistance to antimicrobials (AMR), highlighting methicillin-resistant strains (MRSA), which have resistance to all beta-lactam antibiotics, except to the fifth-generation cephalosporins. Methicillin resistance is primarily mediated by three mechanisms: production of an altered penicillin-binding protein PBP2’ (or PBP2a), encoded by the mecA gene; high production of β-lactamase in borderline oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (BORSA); and mutations in the native PBPs, called modified S. aureus (MODSA). Emerging strains have been isolated from meat-producing animals and retail meat, such as MRSA, MRSA ST398 (associated with livestock), multidrug-resistant (MDR) S. aureus, and enterotoxin-producing S. aureus. Therefore, there is a risk of contamination of meat and meat products during the different processing stages of the meat supply chain.


  • meat-producing animals
  • raw meat
  • antimicrobial resistance (AMR)
  • methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)
  • livestock-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus (LA-MRSA)
  • multidrug-resistant (MDR)
  • enterotoxins
  • mecA gene

1. Introduction

In animal production, the emergence and the spread of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens have been associated with the misuse or overuse of antibiotics [1]. Those pathogens or the genes associated with antimicrobial resistance (AMR) could enter into the food supply chain through the food-producing animals and food handlers [2] and be transmitted to humans, threatening the effective treatments of infectious diseases [3].

Staphylococcus aureushas the ability to develop resistance to many commonly used antimicrobials. The first resistant S. aureusstrains were isolated 2 years after the introduction of penicillin; in this case the mechanism of resistance was the production of the enzyme β-lactamase. Subsequently, in 1959, the antibiotic methicillin was introduced, and the first strain of methicillin-resistant S. aureus(MRSA) was clinically identified in 1960 [4]. These strains are resistant to penicillins, cephalosporins, and all β-lactam antibiotics, except ceftaroline and ceftobiprol.

Methicillin resistance is caused primarily by three mechanisms. The classical mechanism implies the production of an altered penicillin-binding protein, PBP2’ (also called PBP2a), which is encoded by the mecAgene. This protein has a lower affinity for β-lactam antibiotics, resulting in normal cross-linking of peptidoglycan strands during bacterial cell wall synthesis [5]. Currently, new mecAgene homologs have been described, such as mecB, mecC, and mecD, which may not be detected by conventional methods [6, 7, 8]. The borderline oxacillin-resistant S. aureus: (BORSA) is other mechanism in which the resistance to oxacillin is mediated by an increase of the β-lactamase production. The third mechanism is exhibited by modified S. aureus(MODSA), in which the resistance to methicillin is a consequence of modifications in their native PBPs, apparently by accumulation of mutations in the transpeptidase domains [9].

Different clones of MRSA have been recognized, such as health care-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) [10], community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) [11], and livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA) [12].

This pathogen can cause different diseases, such as skin and soft tissue infections, bacteremia, pneumonia, and food poisoning [13, 14].

Staphylococcus aureuscan colonize the nares, skin, and hair of animals and humans [15]. The transmission can occur either through direct contact with infected animals or humans or with asymptomatic carriers [16]. In addition, MRSA strains have been isolated from different animals, such as pigs, cattle, and poultry [1, 17, 18] and from retail raw meat [19, 20]. In recent years, raw meat has been considered as an important means by which people who have no contact with livestock can be colonized with S. aureusfrom animals, therefore, act as a vehicle of transmission of this bacteria [21].

Moreover, multidrug-resistant (MDR) S. aureusstrains have been detected in animals and meat [20, 22, 23], and MRSA serotype (ST) 398 has been detected primarily in pigs associated also with infections in humans [12, 24].

The food poisoning is caused by eating foods contaminated with heat-stable enterotoxins produced by Staphylococcus aureus. Enterotoxin-producing S. aureusstrains have been isolated from different food samples [23, 25, 26].

Therefore, the ability of S. aureusto colonize humans and animals and the detection of MRSA, MDR, enterotoxin-producing, and other emerging S. aureusstrains in meat-producing animals and retail meat have increased the concern about the spread of those strains into the food supply chain [23, 26, 27]. At present, the international trade of products of animal origin is an important aspect to consider in the global dissemination of this pathogen. Thus, the countries have different regulations that tend to achieve a high level of food safety, in order to protect the health of consumers [28].

The aim of this chapter is to provide information about the detection, prevalence, characteristics, molecular typing, antimicrobial susceptibility, and the mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus aureusstrains isolated from the meat supply chain.


2. Methods of detection and identification of Staphylococcus aureusand methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) in animals and meat

Different culture methods have been used to detect S. aureus, and although conventional microbiological procedures are laborious, they are still considered standard methods for the detection and confirmation of the presence of S. aureus.

The test API® Staph has been shown to be a reliable method for phenotypic characterization, as other methods have had a lower precision [29]. In addition, the biochemical identification of S. aureususing the Sensititre™ automated system had a 100% agreement with the PCR technique by the detection of the 16S rRNA-encoding gene [20], using two selective enrichment steps preceding plating in selective agars, which seems to enhance the detection rate of MRSA [27].

According to Kateete et al. [30], there is no only phenotypic test (including the coagulase test) that can guarantee reliable results in the identification of Staphylococcus aureus.

In the past decades, methodologies, such as phage typing and genotyping were used. However, these techniques have disadvantages since they are time-consuming and can only be performed in specialized laboratories by trained professionals. Nowadays, more simple and precise techniques are being used, such as the detection by PCR technique, which has been used as the “gold standard” method to identify pathogens. Staphylococcus aureuscould be confirmed by the detection of the nucgene, which encodes a species-specific extracellular thermostable nuclease protein of S. aureus. Brakstad et al. [31] demonstrated that the detection of the nucgene allows the identification of 100% of the isolates of S. aureus, using less than 0.69 pg. of chromosomal DNA or 10 bacterial CFU cells. In the study carried out by Velasco et al. [23], an agreement of 75% between the biochemical test API®Staph and the PCR technique (detection of nucgene) was determined in confirmation of S. aureus. A higher agreement could be reached considering a criterion of a higher probability of detection in API®Staph test.

In relation to the detection and identification of MRSA, there are different methods that have been used, mainly, in clinical laboratories. Among these tests one can mention the determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) (dilution in agar or dilution in broth and Etest), oxacillin detection agar (OSA) [32, 33, 34], and detection of the protein PBP2’ by the latex agglutination test [32, 35, 36]. This last test has an accuracy as high as the PCR method and greater than susceptibility testing method to confirm MRSA [37]. Currently, cefoxitin, a potent inducer of the mecAgene regulatory system, is used for the detection of heterogeneous MRSA populations [38]. Rostami et al. [39] compared the sensitivity and specificity of phenotypic reactions with the molecular detection of methicillin resistance. For the cefoxitin disk diffusion test, 100% sensitivity and specificity was obtained. In contrast, the disk oxacillin was 91.7 and 92.8%, respectively. The authors conclude that in the absence of molecular techniques, the cefoxitin disk is the best detector of MRSA, in accordance with the recommendation given by the CLSI [38].

The isolation and identification of S. aureusand MRSA, including selective enrichment and plating, followed by confirmation using biochemical testing and/or PCR assays, require 3–7 days approximately [20, 27, 40]. Therefore, the development of a rapid method for detection has become an important need in the microbiological analysis of samples especially when there is a potential risk of exposure for humans.

Real-time PCR technology has been used as an alternative to culture methods for the rapid detection of S. aureusand MRSA. However, most studies have been applied in clinical samples, and a few studies have used real-time PCR for the detection of MRSA in animals [35, 41] and meat [27, 36, 42].

The real-time PCR assay carried out by Velasco et al. [43] used a primary and a secondary enrichment of samples from meat-producing animals and retail raw meat in order to detect S. aureusand MRSA.

Table 1 shows the agreement between the detection of S. aureusobtained by real-time PCR using primary and secondary enrichments compared with a conventional culture/PCR method.

Comparison within each sample typeNo. samplesNo. positive by culture/PCR methodNo. (%) of samples*kappastatistic
Positive agreement (sensitivity)Negative agreement (specificity)Total agreement
Real-time PCR first enrichment
Animals773232 (100.0)34 (75.6)66 (85.7)0.72
Meat1125852 (89.7)42 (77.8)94 (83.9)0.68
Deli meat4554 (80.0)40 (100.0)44 (97.8)0.88
Real-time PCR second enrichment
Animals773232 (100.0)36 (80.0)68 (88.3)0.77
Meat1125852 (89.7)46 (85.2)98 (87.5)0.75
Deli meat4555 (100.0)26 (65.0)31 (68.9)0.29

Table 1.

Raw agreement indices among conventional culture/PCR method and real-time PCR assay, with two-step enrichment procedure for the detection of S. aureusfrom animals and retail meat.

Positive agreement: number positive as the denominator. Negative agreement: number negative as the denominator. Total agreement: the sum of the positive and negative agreement divided by the total sample size within each sample type

Data from Velasco et al. [43].

The kappa statistic for detection of S. aureususing the primary enrichment in real-time PCR was 0.68–0.88 (Table 1), which indicates a good agreement (substantial to almost perfect agreement) with the conventional culture/PCR method. Using the secondary enrichment and real-time PCR, the kappa statistic for detection of S. aureuswas 0.29–0.77, resulting in a fair agreement when deli meat was tested. This is due to the significantly higher recovery of S. aureusfrom the secondary enrichment samples by real-time PCR. This observation suggests that small concentration of S. aureuscould be missed when the primary enrichment alone is used in real-time PCR and that the recovery of potentially injured or nonviable strains appears to be enhanced when a secondary enrichment is used. Therefore, including a secondary selective enrichment step could improve the odds of detection of S. aureus.

The total agreement on the detection of the mecAgene between the real-time PCR using primary and secondary enrichment compared with a conventional culture/PCR method ranged from 86.7 to 98.7%. The kappa statistic for both enrichments in real-time PCR was 0–0.49. The k = 0 indicates no agreement beyond that expected by chance, because the real-time PCR assay detected the mecAgene probably from bacteria other than S. aureus. This may be due to the fact that either coagulase-negative staphylococci or non-S. aureusspecies can also carry the mecAgene [44, 45, 46]. In this study, the DNA extraction was carried out from selective enrichments, which could contain DNA from other species that may carry the mecAgene.

The real-time PCR assay can decrease the total time for detection of S. aureusand the presence of the mecAgene in animal and meat samples. Using the two-step selective enrichment, the total time was <2 days by the real-time PCR method, compared with a total time of 6–7 days using the conventional/culture method. However, the presence of MRSA should be confirmed by a phenotypic and genetic method.

2.1 Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureusstrains in the meat supply chain

Figure 1 shows the prevalence of S. aureusin the pork meat supply in a study carried out in Chile [23]. The overall prevalence of S. aureuswas 33.9%, with a higher prevalence on carcasses (56.5%) than pigs and pork meat (P ≤ 0.05).

Figure 1.

Prevalence ofS. aureusin the meat supply chain in Chile. Data from Velasco et al. [23].

The type of production system, natural or conventional, did not affect the prevalence (P > 0.05). A higher prevalence of S. aureusmight be expected in conventional pig production system than natural pig-farming system, due to a higher risk of spread of microorganisms between pigs by direct contact when animals are confined in a limited indoor area [47]. In addition, naturally raised pigs spend time outdoor and have access to larger pen areas, which can reduce infection intensity [48].

A higher prevalence of S. aureuswas found in pigs sampled at farms (40.6%) than in pigs sampled at slaughterhouses (23.3%) (P ≤ 0.05). It might be thought that the prevalence of S. aureusin animals could be higher in slaughterhouses due to the risk of transmission during transportation or in resting pens, where animals from different herds could have contact [1, 49, 50]. In this study, nasal and skin swabs were taken after the stunning; however, live animals were rinsed by shower to remove external solid waste before the entrance to the process, which could reduce the impurities in the skin.

As expected, non-packaged meat was more contaminated (43.1%) than packaged meat (5.3%) (P ≤ 0.05), since non-packaged meat is more exposed to bacterial contamination, during processing and commercialization in meat counter at supermarkets and retail stores.

A higher prevalence of S. aureusin pigs and pork meat has been determined in other studies, with values ranging from 45 to 65% [20, 51, 52]. However, Tanih et al. [53] detected a prevalence of S. aureusin carcasses around 13.0%, which is much lower than the prevalence found in this study.

In addition, the mecAgene and the protein PBP2’ were not detected in any sample from the pork meat supply. However, three mecA-negative S. aureusstrains exhibited resistance to oxacillin and/or cefoxitin and were also negative for the mecCgene. Those strains were isolated from a skin, a carcass, and a packaged meat sample.

In a study carried out in Fargo, ND, USA [20], the overall prevalence of S. aureuswas 37.2%. A prevalence of 34.7% was obtained in animals, with the highest proportion in pigs (50.0%) and sheep (40.6%) (P ≤ 0.05). A total of 47.6% of raw meat samples were contaminated with S. aureus, with the highest prevalence in chicken (67.6%) and pork (49.3%) (P ≤ 0.05). In deli meat, a prevalence of 13.0% of S. aureuswas determined (Figure 2). Five pork samples (7.0%) were positive for MRSA.

Figure 2.

Prevalence ofS. aureusin the meat-producing animals and retail raw meat in North Dakota. Data from Buyukcangaz et al. [20].

Other studies have detected a higher prevalence of S. aureusin sheep (57%) and cattle (14%) [54]; however, the prevalence in pigs has been reported to vary widely (6–57%) [55, 56]. The recovery of S. aureusin meat in this study was higher than previous studies (39.2 and 14.4%) [26, 51]. The prevalence of S. aureusin ham was 19%, which was considerably lower than the prevalence reported by Atanassova et al. [57].

In this study, MRSA was not detected in animals; however, a prevalence of MRSA in swine ranging from 6 to 71% has been detected previously [55, 58]. In pork meat, the prevalence of MRSA has also been reported to be less than 10% in other studies [27, 51, 52].


3. Characterization of Staphylococcus aureusisolated from the meat supply chain

3.1 Molecular characterization of Staphylococcus aureusstrains in meat-producing animals and retail meat

Different molecular techniques have been used for typing S. aureusstrains, such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) based on macro-restriction patterns of genomic DNA, multilocus sequence typing (MLST) that determines the allelic profile of seven housekeeping genes, and spa typing based on the sequencing of the polymorphic X region of the gene encoding the protein A. A greater discriminatory power has been found with PFGE than MLST, spa typing, and SCCmectyping [59]. However, a combination of two typing methods may be most accurate for strain differentiation [60]. Conversely, it is not possible to obtain a macro-restriction pattern for ST398 strains by PFGE using the restriction enzyme SmaI, since the DNA of those strains cannot be digested with SmaI, maybe due to the methylation of the SmaI-recognition site caused by a methylation enzyme [61]. There is a Cfr9I PFGE, a new tool for studying non-typeable ST398 strains, which use Cfr9I: a neoschizomer of the SmaIenzyme [62] and specific PCRs for detection of S. aureusST398 [63]. Restriction patterns with the same number of bands represent the same strain, patterns that differ up to three fragments represent strains that are closely related, and isolates that differ at four to six bands may have the same genetic lineage [64]. Nonetheless, BioNumerics software (applied maths) allows restriction patterns of PFGE images to be normalized and to be compared within and between local laboratories with high reproducibility. The band position tolerance and optimization must be set at 1.0 and 0.5%, respectively, and a similarity coefficient of 80% to define the clusters [65].

Different clones of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus(MSSA) and MRSA have been detected in humans, animals, and meat. The most common clones that cause CA-MRSA infections have been identified as USA300 and USA400 and those causing HA-MRSA infections as USA100 and USA200 [66]. Some sequence types (ST) of S. aureusstrains have been determined, such as ST5, ST8, ST22, ST36, and ST45, among others, associated to HA-MRSA [67], ST30 and ST80 associated to CA-MRSA [68], and ST398 linked with animals [69, 70].

The SCCmectyping is based on the genetic characteristics of a mobile genetic element called staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec(SCCmec) that carries the mecAgene. The emergence of MRSA is due to the acquisition of the SCCmecelement into the chromosome of MSSA strains. SCCmecelements are highly diverse and have been classified into types and subtypes as shown in Table 2 [4, 71, 72].

SCCmectypemecgene complexStructure of mecgene complexccrgene complexccr genes
IClass BIS1272-△mecR1-mecA-IS431Type 1ccrA1, ccrB1
IIClass AmecI-mecR1-mecA-IS431Type 2ccrA2, ccrB2
IIIClass AmecI-mecR1-mecA-IS431Type 3ccrA3, ccrB3
IVClass BIS1272-△mecR1-mecA-IS431Type 2ccrA2, ccrB2
VClass C2IS431-mecA-△mecR1-IS431Type 5ccrC1
VIClass BIS1272-△mecR1-mecA-IS431Type 4ccrA4, ccrB4
VIIClass C1IS431-mecA-△mecR1-IS431Type 5ccrC1
VIIIClass AmecI-mecR1-mecA-IS431Type 4ccrA4, ccrB4
IXClass C2IS431-mecA-△mecR1-IS431Type 1ccrA1, ccrB1
XClass C1IS431-mecA-△mecR1-IS431Type 7ccrA1, ccrB6
XIClass EblaZ-mecA-mecR1-mecIType 8ccrA1, ccrB3
XIIClass C2IS431-mecA-△mecR1-IS431Type 9ccrA1, ccrC2
XIIIClass AIS431-mecI-mecR1-mecA-IS431Type 9ccrC2

Table 2.

Genetic structure of the different SCCmectypes described in Staphylococcus aureus.

Adapted from Aguayo-Reyes et al. [4], Wu et al. [71], and Baig et al. [72].

The SmaImacro-restriction fragment profiles of some S. aureusstrains isolated from the pork chain supply in Chile are shown in Figure 3. The S. aureusstrains were genetically diverse, identifying only two clusters: ST1 from meat and carcass and ST433 from natural raised pigs. Genetic diversity among S. aureusstrains of swine origin could suggest different source of contamination at different stages of the pork chain supply.

Figure 3.

Dendrogram showing the genetic similarity and sequence types (ST) ofS. aureusisolates from pork production chain in Chile.

In the study carried out by Buyukcangaz et al. [20], five pork samples were positive for MRSA, of which three were ST398 and two were ST5. The most common clones in sheep were ST398 and ST133, in pigs and pork both ST398 and ST9, and in chicken ST5. The clustering of isolates obtained by PFGE agreed well with the MLST types, i.e., the identical restriction patterns or patterns that differed at two to six bands had an identical ST. A total of 34 S. aureusisolated from animals (sheep and pigs) and from pork meat, which were ST398, could not be restricted with SmaIor XmaIduring PFGE analysis. The high prevalence of ST398 indicates a potential risk for humans to acquire this emerging sequence type which has potential for causing infection. The MRSA isolates had the same MLST allelic profile and indistinguishable PFGE patterns than two MSSA strains, all obtained from pork. The close genetic similarity of the MRSA and MSSA isolates may be due to the acquisition of mecAgene by horizontal transfer of SCCmecfrom MRSA strains to MSSA lineages [1, 22, 73, 74].

In addition, contamination of meat with S. aureusstrains from animals and humans could occur during slaughtering or processing. In fact, the genetic relatedness between S. aureusstrains ST9 from pigs and pork meat may suggest the possible contamination of meat during slaughtering [20], and the genetic similarity between clones isolated from humans and meat suggests the spread of S. aureusinto the food chain supply [75].

3.2 Antimicrobial resistance in Staphylococcus aureusfrom meat-producing animals and meat

Methicillin and other β-lactam antibiotics affect the cell wall synthesis in gram-positive bacteria inhibiting the last stage of the peptidoglycan synthesis called transpeptidation. During the transpeptidation the linkage between N-acetylmuramic acid and the cell wall takes place, catalyzed by transpeptidases and carboxypeptidases, called penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs). These proteins are able to bind penicillin in their active sites through a covalent bond between a serine and the β-lactam ring, resulting in the inhibition of the transpeptidation [76].

Methicillin resistance in S. aureusis primarily mediated by the production of an altered penicillin-binding protein, PBP2’ (also called PBP2a), encoded by the mecAgene, which is carried on the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec(SCCmec). This protein has a lower affinity for β-lactam antibiotics, resulting in a normal cross-linking of peptidoglycan strands during cell wall synthesis [77].

Some studies have isolated S. aureusstrains from humans and livestock that are phenotypically resistant to methicillin, but they do not harbor the mecAgene. The phenotypic methicillin resistance has been associated with variations of the mecAgene, such as the mecALGA251renamed as mecC[7, 78], the mecBgene [6], and others that are not as well-known [75]. The mecCgene is located on the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mectype XI (SSCmecXI) and exhibits 70% sequence homology with the mecAgene [7, 79, 80]. Additionally, MRSA lacking the mecgenes (MRLM) may have uncommon phenotypes, such as the β-lactamase hyperproduction (BHP), which partially hydrolyzes the β-lactam ring, usually known as borderline oxacillin-resistant S. aureus(BORSA), with an intermediate resistance level to oxacillin [81]. Different nucleotide mutations in pbpgenes, the pbp4 promoter, and genes involved in penicillin-binding protein 4 overproduction have also been associated with MRLM, called as modified S. aureus(MODSA) [9, 81, 82].

In March 2017, Schwendener et al. [83] reported a new mecgene called mecD, which confers resistance to all β-lactams antibiotics, including anti-MRSA cephalosporins, ceftobiprole, and ceftaroline. The gene was found in strains of Macrococcus caseolyticusisolated from bovines and canines. Alarmingly, the mecDgene was in an island of resistance associated with a site-specific integrase, which implies a risk of transmission by horizontal gene transfer to other species.

Other S. aureusstrains with significant importance have also been detected in the meat supply chain, such as multidrug-resistant (MDR) S. aureus, which exhibit resistance to at least three classes of antibiotics [22].

Another mechanism of resistance to β-lactam antibiotics is the production of the enzyme β-lactamase, which hydrolyses the β-lactam ring resulting in the inactivation of the antibiotic. This enzyme is encoded by blaZgene located in a transposon element within a plasmid [84].

Table 3 shows the resistance profiles of S. aureusstrains isolated from the pork meat supply chain in Chile. A total of 16 profiles were observed, including 8 profiles of MDR (resistance to at least three classes of antibiotics) [26]. The most MDRS. aureusstrains were isolated from pigs. Rubin et al. [85] determined a significant higher resistance to penicillin, erythromycin, and tetracycline in S. aureusof swine origin than other type of animals.

Antimicrobial resistance profile*No. of subclasses resistant toNo. (%) of all S. aureusisolates with the specific profile
Animal N = 28Carcass N = 12Meat N = 15
PEN-KAN-ERY-TET41 (3.6)1 (8.3)
PEN-ERY-CIP-TET410 (35.7)1 (8.3)
PEN-KAN-ERY31 (3.6)
PEN-ERY-CIP31 (3.6)
PEN-GEN-QDA31 (8.3)
PEN-ERY-QDA31 (6.7)
PEN-ERY21 (3.6)2 (13.3)
PEN-CIP21 (3.6)1 (6.7)
PEN-QDA21 (6.7)
PEN-TET21 (3.6)
KAN-ERY21 (6.7)
OXA-PEN-CEF11 (8.3)
PEN11 (3.6)7 (58.3)7 (46.6)
Susceptible to all tested07 (25.0)1 (8.3)1 (6.7)

Table 3.

Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Staphylococcus aureusstrains isolated from the meat chain supply in Chile.

OXA, oxacillin; PEN, penicillin; CEF, cefoxitin; GEN, gentamicin; KAN, kanamycin; ERY, erythromycin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; QUI/DAL, quinupristin/dalfopristin; TET, tetracycline [38].

The less effective antibiotic was penicillin. The low effectiveness of penicillin could be due to the enzyme penicillinase that hydrolyzes the β-lactam ring and inactivates the drug [5].

Two S. aureusstrains were both oxacillin- and cefoxitin-resistant, and one S. aureusstrain exhibited only cefoxitin resistance. However, those strains were mecA- and PBP2’-negative. Currently, the cefoxitin disk diffusion method is used to detect methicillin resistance [38]; it is easier to interpret and has a higher sensitivity [86]. Those strains did not harbor the mecCgene; therefore, they could carry other variations of the mecAgene that are not as well-known [75, 78, 82] or could present uncommon phenotypes such as BORSA [81, 87]. Therefore, the whole genome sequencing is always necessary to understand the mechanism of resistance.

The use of antimicrobial agents in pigs is an important risk factor for increasing the prevalence of MRSA, promoting the selective pressure, and enhancing the emerging and the spread of MRSA [88]. In Holland, a high prevalence of MRSA was detected in pigs, with a resistance to different antibiotics, suggesting the spread of MRSA strains within animals in the slaughterhouses [1].

Table 4 shows the antimicrobial resistance profiles of the 133 S. aureusstrains isolated from animals and retail meat in the study of Buyukcangaz et al. [20]. The most common resistance profiles in isolates were penicillin-tetracycline and penicillin-tetracycline-erythromycin, in animals and raw meat, respectively. Most of the S. aureusstrains isolated from animals exhibited resistance to the same antimicrobials reported by other authors [89, 90]. Other authors have also determined a higher occurrence of resistance to penicillin, tetracycline, and erythromycin in S. aureusstrains isolated from retail meat and different food samples [26, 91]. Penicillin resistance has been reported to spread rapidly among S. aureusstrains being facilitated by plasmids and is the most frequently reported resistance detected in foodborne S. aureus[26].

Antimicrobial resistance profile*No. of subclasses resistant toNo. (%) of all S. aureusisolates with the specific profile
Animal (n = 58)Raw meat (n = 69)Deli meat (n = 6)
ERY-PEN-TET-LINC41 (1.7)13 (18.8)
PEN-TET-LINC322 (37.9)1 (1.4)
PEN-LINC-STR31 (1.7)
ERY-PEN-LINC32 (2.9)
ERY-TET-LINC35 (7.2)
PEN-LINC24 (6.9)1 (1.4)1 (16.7)
PEN-TET212 (20.7)2 (2.9)
TET-LINC23 (5.2)
ERY-LINC23 (4.3)
ERY-PEN22 (2.9)
LINC11 (1.7)
PEN13 (5.2)10 (14.5)1 (16.7)
TET13 (5.2)4 (5.8)
ERY11 (16.7)
Susceptible to all tested02 (3.4)22 (31.9)3 (50.0)

Table 4.

Antimicrobial resistance (AR) profiles of Staphylococcus aureusand methicillin-resistant S. aureus(MRSA) isolates from animals and retail meat.

CIP, ciprofloxacin; CHL, chloramphenicol; ERY, erythromycin; GEN, gentamicin; KAN, kanamycin; LINC, lincomycin; QUI/DAL, quinupristin/dalfopristin; PEN, penicillin; STR, streptomycin, TET, tetracycline. Data from Buyukcangaz et al. [20].

The rate of MDR strains was 41.4%, in animals was 51.7%, and in meat 36.2% (n = 25). The MDR isolates were found in pigs, pork, and sheep. MDR isolates from pork were mainly ST398 (60%) and ST9 (30%). All MDR strains from sheep were ST398.

Five pork samples that were MRSA (three ST398 and two ST5) exhibited penicillin resistance and four MDR. In addition, most of the S. aureusisolates susceptible to all antimicrobial agents were obtained from chicken, of which 76% were ST5.

The AMR bacteria in animals have increased over time due to the frequent use of antimicrobial agents at the farm level [1, 89]. Therefore, controlling the use of antibiotics in farming could limit the risk of transmission of AMR pathogens among animals and to humans [90].

3.3 Characteristics of pathogenicity of Staphylococcus aureusstrains in meat-producing animals and meat

S. aureusproduces different virulence factors, including bacterial structures such as capsules and adhesins, and extracellular products, such as enzymes, with activity of coagulase, catalase, hyaluronidase, and toxins such as toxin α, toxin β, toxin leucocidin, enterotoxin, exfoliative toxin, and toxic shock syndrome toxin. These virulence factors contribute to different stages of infection from adhesion of the pathogen to the surface, to invasion, causing toxic effects, tissue damage, and distal disease. The synthesis of these virulence factors is a highly regulated process, which contributes to the production of the different human or animal diseases [92, 93].

The main regulator of virulence gene expression is the agroperon, which functions through a quorum sensing mechanism. The locus is autocatalytic, controlled in a manner dependent on cell density through the production and detection of self-inducing peptides (AIP). The agrlocus has two divergent transcription units, RNAII and RNAIII, controlled by their promoters, P2 and P3, respectively [94]. This locus exerts a negative regulation on the adhesin molecules in the colonization stage of the host during the stationary phase. However, when a high load of the autoinducer peptide (agrD protein) is reached in the post-exponential growth stage, RNAIII is activated and inhibits the expression of adhesion proteins, activating the expression of extracellular enzymes and toxins (α-β hemolysins, lipases, proteases, etc.), virulence factors related to nutrient acquisition, survival and bacterial dissemination [95, 96].

In dairy, one of the main virulence factors is the formation of biofilms, which are structured consortia of bacterial cells that are immersed in a polymeric matrix consisting of polysaccharides, proteins, extracellular DNA (eDNA), lipids, and other macromolecules. The biofilms allow bacteria to adhere to inert or living surfaces, increasing their growth rate and survival in a hostile environment [97].

Enterotoxin-producing S. aureusstrains may cause gastroenteritis and have a significant importance due to its detection in the meat supply chain. Five classical enterotoxins have been found in S. aureus, which are known as SE types (SEA to SEE) encoded by the segenes. However, in recent years, new SEs and SE-like toxins have been detected [26]. Since enterotoxins can resist heat treatment and low pH conditions that can easily destroy the bacteria, it is important to highlight the impact of the expression of enterotoxins by S. aureuson human health [25]. In the study carried out by Velasco et al. [23], only 1 S. aureusstrain of a total of 23 strains isolated from pork meat samples was positive for enterotoxin B (SEB) determined by the reversed passive latex agglutination test and for the sebgene detected by PCR method. The SEB-producing S. aureusstrain was isolated from a meat sample obtained from a butcher store and was non-packaged. Therefore, contamination of meat with foodborne S. aureusmay occur in the meat supply chain, primarily in more exposed food, such as non-packaged meat.


4. Conclusions

Staphylococcus aureusis present in the meat supply chain, and some emerging strains, such as MRSA, MRSA ST398, MRLM, MDR, and enterotoxin-producing S. aureus, have been detected in animals, meat, and humans.

The genetic similarity between S. aureusstrains isolated from humans, animals, and meat suggests the potential risk of contamination of meat during processing or handling, the spread of emerging S. aureusstrains into the food chain, and the potential transmission to humans.

Further research is needed to expand the knowledge and comprehension of the molecular characterization and the different mechanisms of AMR in S. aureus.



The results of the studies showed in this book chapter were supported by the Research Project Fondecyt No. 11140379 (Chile) and the Dean’s Office, College of Agriculture, Food Systems and Natural Resources College, North Dakota State University (Fargo, ND, USA).


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this book chapter.


  1. 1. de Neeling AJ, van den Broek MJM, Spalburg EC, van Santen-Verheuvel MG, Dam-Deisz WDC, Boshuizen HC, et al. High prevalence of methicillin resistantStaphylococcus aureusin pigs. Veterinary Microbiology. 2007;122:366-372
  2. 2. Sáenz Y, Zarazaga M, Brias L, Lantero M, Ruiz-Larrea F, Torres C. Antibiotic resistance inEscherichia coliisolates obtained from animals, foods and humans in Spain. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2001;18:353-358
  3. 3. Smith DL, Harris AD, Johnson JA, Silbergeld EK, Morris JG. Animal antibiotic use has an early but important impact on the emergence of antibiotic resistance in human commensal bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2002;99(9):6434-6439
  4. 4. Aguayo-Reyes A, Quezada-Aguiluz M, Mella S, Riedel G, Opazo-Capurro A, Bello-Toledo H, et al. Bases moleculares de la resistencia a meticilina enStaphylococcus aureus. Revista chilena de infectología. 2018;35(1):7-14
  5. 5. Peacock SJ, Paterson GK. Mechanisms of methicillin resistance inStaphylococcus aureus. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 2015;84:577-601
  6. 6. Tsubakishita S, Kuwahara-Arai K, Baba T, Hiramatsu K. Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec-like element inMacrococcus caseolyticus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2010;54(4):1469-1475
  7. 7. García-Álvarez L, Holden MTG, Lindsay H, Webb CR, Brown DFJ, Curran MD, et al. Meticillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureuswith a novel mecA homologue in human and bovine populations in the UK and Denmark: A descriptive study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2011;11(8):595-603
  8. 8. MacFadyen AC, Fisher EA, Costa B, Cullen C, Paterson GK. Genome analysis of methicillin resistance inMacrococcus caseolyticusfrom dairy cattle in England and Wales. Microbial Genomics. 2018;4:1-8
  9. 9. Angeles Argudín M, Roisin S, Nienhaus L, Dodémont M, De Mendonça R, Nonhoff C, et al. Genetic diversity amongStaphylococcus aureusisolates showing oxacillin and/or cefoxitin resistance not linked to the presence of mec genes. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2018;62(7):1-6
  10. 10. Tiemersma EW, Bronzwaer SLAM, Lyytikäinen O, Degener JE, Schrijnemakers P, Bruinsma N, et al. Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin Europe, 1999-2002. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2004;10:1627-1634
  11. 11. Kennedy AD, Otto M, Braughton KR, Whitney AR, Chen L, Mathema B, et al. Epidemic community-associated methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus: Recent clonal expansion and diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105:1327-1332
  12. 12. Golding GR, Campbell JL, Spreitzer DJ, Veyhl J, Surynicz K, Simor A, et al. A preliminary guideline for the assignment of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusto a Canadian pulsed-field gel electrophoresis epidemic type using spa typing. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology. 2008;19:273-281
  13. 13. Tong SYC, Davis JS, Eichenberger E, Holland TL, Fowler VG.Staphylococcus aureusinfections: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2015;28:603-661
  14. 14. Argudín MÁ, Mendoza MC, Rodicio MR. Food poisoning andStaphylococcus aureusenterotoxins. Toxins. 2010;2:1751-1773
  15. 15. Voss A, Loeffen F, Bakker J, Klaassen C, Wulf M. Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin pig farming. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2005;11(12):1965-1966
  16. 16. (CFSPH) C for FS and PH. Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus AureusMRSA. Iowa State University; 2011. pp. 1-25
  17. 17. Friese A, Schulz J, Zimmermann K, Tenhagen BA, Fetsch A, Hartung J, et al. Occurrence of livestock-associated methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin Turkey and broiler barns and contamination of air and soil surfaces in their vicinity. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2013;79:2759-2766
  18. 18. Nemeghaire S, Argudín MA, Haesebrouck F, Butaye P. Epidemiology and molecular characterization of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusnasal carriage isolates from bovines. BMC Veterinary Research. 2014;10:153
  19. 19. Hanson BM, Dressler AE, Harper AL, Scheibel RP, Wardyn SE, Roberts LK, et al. Prevalence ofStaphylococcus aureusand methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) on retail meat in Iowa. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2011;4:169-174
  20. 20. Buyukcangaz E, Velasco V, Sherwood JS, Stepan RM, Koslofsky RJ, Logue CM. Molecular typing ofStaphylococcus aureusand methicillin-resistantS. aureus(MRSA) isolated from animals and retail meat in North Dakota, United States. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2013;10:608-617
  21. 21. Carrel M, Zhao C, Thapaliya D, Bitterman P, Kates AE, Hanson BM, et al. Assessing the potential for raw meat to influence human colonization withStaphylococcus aureus. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:1-10
  22. 22. Guardabassi L, O’Donoghue M, Moodley A, Ho J, Boost M. Novel lineage of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus, Hong Kong. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2009;15:1998-2000
  23. 23. Velasco V, Vergara JL, Bonilla AM, Muñoz J, Mallea A, Vallejos D, et al. Prevalence and characterization ofStaphylococcus aureusstrains in the pork chain supply in Chile. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2018;15(5):262-268
  24. 24. Pan A, Battisti A, Zoncada A, Bernieri F, Boldini M, Franco A, et al. Community-acquired methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusST398 infection, Italy. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2009;15(5):845-846
  25. 25. Le Loir Y, Baron F, Gautier M.Staphylococcus aureusand food poisoning. Genetics and Molecular Research. 2003;2(1):63-72
  26. 26. Aydin A, Muratoglu K, Sudagidan M, Bostan K, Okuklu B, Harsa S. Prevalence and antibiotic resistance of foodborneStaphylococcus aureusisolates in Turkey. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2011;8:63-69
  27. 27. De Boer E, Zwartkruis-Nahuis JTM, Wit B, Huijsdens XW, De Neeling AJ, Bosch T, et al. Prevalence of MRSA in meat. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2009;134:52-56
  28. 28. Müller A, Seinige D, Jansen W, Klein G, Ehricht R, Monecke S, et al. Variety of antimicrobial resistances and virulence factors inStaphylococcus aureusisolates from meat products legally and illegally introduced to Germany. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167864
  29. 29. Heikens E, Fleer A, Paauw A, Florijn A, Fluit AC. Comparison of genotypic and phenotypic methods for species-level identification of clinical isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2005;43:2286-2290
  30. 30. Kateete DP, Kimani CN, Katabazi FA, Okeng A, Okee MS, Nanteza A, et al. Identification ofStaphylococcus aureus: DNase and mannitol salt agar improve the efficiency of the tube coagulase test. Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials. 2010;9:23
  31. 31. Brakstad OG, Aasbakk K, Maeland JA. Detection ofStaphylococcus aureusby polymerase chain reaction amplification of the nuc gene. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 1992;30:1654-1660
  32. 32. Danial J, Noel M, Templeton KE, Cameron F, Mathewson F, Smith M, et al. Real-time evaluation of an optimized real-time PCR assay versus brilliance chromogenic MRSA agar for the detection of meticillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusfrom clinical specimens. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2011;60:323-328
  33. 33. Kim MH, Lee WI, Kang SY. Detection of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin healthcare workers using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Yonsei Medical Journal. 2013;54(5):1282-1284
  34. 34. Nimmo GR, Bergh H, Nakos J, Whiley D, Marquess J, Huygens F, et al. Replacement of healthcare-associated MRSA by community-associated MRSA in Queensland: Confirmation by genotyping. The Journal of Infection. 2013;67:439-447
  35. 35. Anderson MEC, Weese JS. Evaluation of a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for rapid identification of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusdirectly from nasal swabs in horses. Veterinary Microbiology. 2007;122:185-189
  36. 36. Weese JS, Avery BP, Reid-Smith RJ. Detection and quantification of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) clones in retail meat products. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2010;51:338-342
  37. 37. Sakoulas G, Gold HS, Venkataraman L, Degirolami PC, Eliopoulos GM, Qian Q. Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus: Comparison of susceptibility testing methods and analysis of mecA-positive susceptible strains. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2001;39:3946-3951
  38. 38. CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. M100 CS. 28th ed. Wayne, PA; 2018
  39. 39. Rostami S, Moosavian M, Shoja S, Torabipour M, Farshadzadeh Z. Comparison of mecA gene-based PCR with CLSI cefoxitin and oxacillin disc diffusion methods for detecting methicillin resistance inStaphylococcus aureusclinical isolates. African Journal of Microbiology Research. 2013;7(21):2438-2441
  40. 40. Zhang W, Hao Z, Wang Y, Cao X, Logue CM, Wang B, et al. Molecular characterization of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusstrains from pet animals and veterinary staff in China. Veterinary Journal. 2011;190:e125-e129
  41. 41. Morcillo A, Castro B, Rodríguez-Álvarez C, González JC, Sierra A, Montesinos MI, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin pigs and pig workers in Tenerife, Spain. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2012;9(3):207-210
  42. 42. Waters AE, Contente-Cuomo T, Buchhagen J, Liu CM, Watson L, Pearce K, et al. Multidrug-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin US meat and poultry. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2011;52:1-4
  43. 43. Velasco V, Sherwood JS, Rojas-García PP, Logue CM. Multiplex real-time PCR for detection ofStaphylococcus aureus, mecA and panton-valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes from selective enrichments from animals and retail meat. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97617
  44. 44. Thomas LC, Gidding HF, Ginn AN, Olma T, Iredell J. Development of a real-timeStaphylococcus aureusand MRSA (SAM-) PCR for routine blood culture. Journal of Microbiological Methods. 2007;68:296-302
  45. 45. Ryffel C, Tesch W, Birch-Machin I, Reynolds PE, Barberis-Maino L, Kayser FH, et al. Sequence comparison of mecA genes isolated from methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusandStaphylococcus epidermidis. Gene. 1990;94:137-138
  46. 46. Higashide M, Kuroda M, Ohkawa S, Ohta T. Evaluation of a cefoxitin disk diffusion test for the detection of mecA-positive methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus saprophyticus. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2006;27:500-504
  47. 47. Crombé F, Angeles Argudfn M, Vanderhaeghen W, Hermans K, Haesebrouck F, Butaye P. Transmission dynamics of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin pigs. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2013;4:1-21
  48. 48. Edwards SA. Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Production Science. 2005;94:5-14
  49. 49. Agerso Y, Vigre H, Cavaco LM, Josefsen MH. Comparison of air samples, nasal swabs, ear-skin swabs and environmental dust samples for detection of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) in pig herds. Epidemiology and Infection. 2014;142:1727-1736
  50. 50. O’Connor AM, Gailey J, McKean JD, Hurd HS. Quantity and distribution of salmonella recovered from three swine lairage pens. Journal of Food Protection. 2006;69:1717-1719
  51. 51. Pu S, Han F, Ge B. Isolation and characterization of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusstrains from louisiana retail meats. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2009;75:265-267
  52. 52. O’Brien AM, Hanson BM, Farina SA, Wu JY, Simmering JE, Wardyn SE, et al. MRSA in conventional and alternative retail pork products. PLoS One. 2012;7:e30092
  53. 53. Tanih NF, Sekwadi E, Ndip RN, Bessong PO. Detection of pathogenicEscherichia coliandStaphylococcus aureusfrom cattle and pigs slaughtered in abattoirs in Vhembe District, South Africa. Scientific World Journal. 2015;2015:1-8
  54. 54. Mørk T, Kvitle B, Jørgensen HJ. Reservoirs ofStaphylococcus aureusin meat sheep and dairy cattle. Veterinary Microbiology. 2012;155:81-87
  55. 55. Khalid KA, Zakaria Z, Ooi PT, McOrist S. Low levels of meticillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin pigs in Malaysia. The Veterinary Record. 2009;164:626-627
  56. 56. Lowe BA, Marsh TL, Isaacs-Cosgrove N, Kirkwood RN, Kiupel M, Mulks MH. Microbial communities in the tonsils of healthy pigs. Veterinary Microbiology. 2011;147:346-357
  57. 57. Atanassova V, Meindl A, Ring C. Prevalence ofStaphylococcus aureusand staphylococcal enterotoxins in raw pork and uncooked smoked ham—A comparison of classical culturing detection and RFLP-PCR. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2001;68:105-113
  58. 58. van de Vijver LPL, Tulinski P, Bondt N, Mevius D, Verwer C. Prevalence and molecular characteristics of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) in organic pig herds in the Netherlands. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2014;61:338-345
  59. 59. Rasschaert G, Vanderhaeghen W, Dewaele I, Janež N, Huijsdens X, Butaye P, et al. Comparison of fingerprinting methods for typing methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureussequence type 398. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2009;47(10):3313-3322
  60. 60. Tenover FC, Arbeit R, Archer G, Biddle J, Byrne S, Goering R, et al. Comparison of traditional and molecular methods of typing isolates ofStaphylococcus aureus. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 1994;32(2):407-415
  61. 61. Bens CCPM, Voss A, Klaassen CHW. Presence of a novel DNA methylation enzyme in methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusisolates associated with pig farming leads to uninterpretable results in standard pulsed-field gel electrophoresis analysis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2006;44(5):1875-1876
  62. 62. Argudín MA, Rodicio MR, Guerra B. The emerging methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusST398 clone can easily be typed using the Cfr9I SmaI-neoschizomer. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2010;50(1):127-130
  63. 63. Van Wamel WJB, Hansenová Maňásková S, Fluit AC, Verbrugh H, De Neeling AJ, Van Duijkeren E, et al. Short term micro-evolution and PCR-detection of methicillin- resistant and -susceptibleStaphylococcus aureussequence type 398. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2010;29(1):119-122
  64. 64. Tenover FC, Arbeit RD, Goering RV, Mickelsen PA, Murray BE, Persing DH, et al. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed- field gel electrophoresis: Criteria for bacterial strain typing. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 1995;33(9):2233-2239
  65. 65. Murchan S, Kaufmann ME, Deplano A, De Ryck R, Struelens M, Zinn CE, et al. Harmonization of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis protocols for epidemiological typing of strains of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus: A single approach developed by consensus in 10 European laboratories and its application for tracing the spre. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2003;41(4):1574-1585
  66. 66. McDougal LK, Steward CD, Killgore GE, Chaitram JM, McAllister SK, Tenover FC. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis typing of oxacillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusisolates from the United States: Establishing a National Database. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2003;41(11):5113-5120
  67. 67. Deurenberg RH, Vink C, Kalenic S, Friedrich AW, Bruggeman CA, Stobberingh EE. The molecular evolution of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2007;13:222-235
  68. 68. Stenhem M, Örtqvist Å, Ringberg H, Larsson L, Olsson-Liljequist B, Hæggman S, et al. Imported methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus, Sweden. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2010;16(2):189-196
  69. 69. Krziwanek K, Metz-Gercek S, Mittermayer H. Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusST398 from human patients, upper Austria. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2009;15(5):766-769
  70. 70. van Belkum A, Melles DC, Peeters JK, van Leeuwen WB, van Duijkeren A, Huijsdens XW, et al. Methicillin- resistant and -susceptibleStaphylococcus aureussequence type 398 in pigs and humans. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2008;14(3):479-483
  71. 71. Wu Z, Li F, Liu D, Xue H, Zhao X. Novel type XII staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec harboring a new cassette chromosome recombinase, CcrC2. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2015;59(12):7597-7601
  72. 72. Baig S, Johannesen TB, Overballe-Petersen S, Larsen J, Larsen AR, Stegger M. Novel SCCmec type XIII (9A) identified in an ST152 methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2018;61:74-76
  73. 73. Enright MC, Day NPJ, Davies CE, Peacock SJ, Spratt BG. Multilocus sequence typing for characterization of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible clones ofStaphylococcus aureus. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2000;38(3):1008-1015
  74. 74. Wielders CLC, Vriens MR, Brisse S, De Graaf-Miltenburg LAM, Troelstra A, Fleer A, et al. Evidence for in-vivo transfer of mecA DNA between strains ofStaphylococcus aureus. Lancet. 2001;357:1674-1675
  75. 75. Velasco V, Buyukcangaz E, Sherwood JS, Stepan RM, Koslofsky RJ, Logue CM. Characterization ofStaphylococcus aureusfrom humans and a comparison with isolates of animal origin, in North Dakota, United States. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140497
  76. 76. Stapleton PD, Taylor PW. Methicillin resistance inStaphylococcus aureus: Mechanisms and modulation. Science Progress. 2002;85:57-72
  77. 77. Alipour F, Ahmadi M, Javadi S. Evaluation of different methods to detect methicillin resistance inStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA). Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2014;7:186-191
  78. 78. Stegger M, Andersen PS, Kearns A, Pichon B, Holmes MA, Edwards G, et al. Rapid detection, differentiation and typing of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusharbouring either mecA or the new mecA homologue mecALGA251. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2012;18:395-400
  79. 79. Ito T, Hiramatsu K, Tomasz A, De Lencastre H, Perreten V, Holden MTG, et al. Guidelines for reporting novel mecA gene homologues. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2012;56(10):4997-4999
  80. 80. Petersen A, Stegger M, Heltberg O, Christensen J, Zeuthen A, Knudsen LK, et al. Epidemiology of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureuscarrying the novel mecC gene in Denmark corroborates a zoonotic reservoir with transmission to humans. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2013;19:E16-E22
  81. 81. Nadarajah J, Lee MJS, Louie L, Jacob L, Simor AE, Louie M, et al. Identification of different clonal complexes and diverse amino acid substitutions in penicillin-binding protein 2 (PBP2) associated with borderline oxacillin resistance in CanadianStaphylococcus aureusisolates. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2006;55:1675-1683
  82. 82. Banerjee R, Gretes M, Harlem C, Basuino L, Chambers HF. A mecA-negative strain of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureuswith high-level ??-lactam resistance contains mutations in three genes. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2010;54(11):4900-4902
  83. 83. Schwendener S, Cotting K, Perreten V. Novel methicillin resistance gene mecD in clinicalMacrococcuscaseolyticus strains from bovine and canine sources. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(43797):1-11
  84. 84. Lowy FD. Antimicrobial resistance: The example ofStaphylococcus aureus. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2003;111(9):1265-1273
  85. 85. Rubin JE, Ball KR, Chirino-Trejo M. Antimicrobial susceptibility ofStaphylococcus aureusandStaphylococcus pseudintermediusisolated from various animals. The Canadian Veterinary Journal. 2011;52(2):153-157
  86. 86. Broekema NM, Van Tam T, Monson TA, Marshall SA, Warshauer DM. Comparison of cefoxitin and oxacillin disk diffusion methods for detection of mecA-mediated resistance inStaphylococcus aureusin a large-scale study. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2009;47(1):217-219
  87. 87. Stefani S, Chung DR, Lindsay JA, Friedrich AW, Kearns AM, Westh H, et al. Meticillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA): Global epidemiology and harmonisation of typing methods. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2012;39:273-282
  88. 88. van Duijkeren E, Ikawaty R, Broekhuizen-Stins MJ, Jansen MD, Spalburg EC, de Neeling AJ, et al. Transmission of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusstrains between different kinds of pig farms. Veterinary Microbiology. 2008;126(4):383-389
  89. 89. Nemati M, Hermans K, Lipinska U, Denis O, Deplano A, Struelens M, et al. Antimicrobial resistance of old and recentStaphylococcus aureusisolates from poultry: First detection of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant strain ST398. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2008;52(10):3817-3819
  90. 90. Huber H, Koller S, Giezendanner N, Stephan R, Zweifel C. Prevalence and characteristics of meticillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin humans in contact with farm animals, in livestock, and in food of animal origin, Switzerland, 2009. Eurosurveillance. 2010;15(16):1-4
  91. 91. Pu S, Wang F, Ge B. Characterization of toxin genes and antimicrobial susceptibility ofStaphylococcus aureusisolates from louisiana retail meats. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2011;8(2):299-306
  92. 92. Lowy FD.Staphylococcus aureusinfections. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1998;339(8):520-532
  93. 93. Foster TJ, Geoghegan JA, Ganesh VK, Höök M. Adhesion, invasion and evasion: The many functions of the surface proteins ofStaphylococcus aureus. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2014;12:49-62
  94. 94. Gomes-Fernandes M, Laabei M, Pagan N, Hidalgo J, Molinos S, Villar Hernandez R, et al. Accessory gene regulator (Agr) functionality inStaphylococcus aureusderived from lower respiratory tract infections. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175552
  95. 95. Robinson DA, Monk AB, Cooper JE, Feil EJ, Enright MC. Evolutionary genetics of the accessory gene regulator (agr) locus in Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Bacteriology. 2005;187(24):8312-8321
  96. 96. Wright JS, Traber KE, Corrigan R, Benson SA, Musser JM, Novick RP. The agr radiation: An early event in the evolution of staphylococci. Journal of Bacteriology. 2005;187(16):5585-5594
  97. 97. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;49:1318-1322

Written By

Valeria Velasco, Mario Quezada-Aguiluz and Helia Bello-Toledo

Submitted: October 30th, 2018 Reviewed: March 4th, 2019 Published: April 26th, 2019