Back

Genomic surveillance of Clostridioides difficile transmission and virulence in a healthcare setting

Newcomer, E. P.; Fishbein, S.; Zhang, K.; Hink, T.; Reske, K. A.; Cass, C.; Iqbal, Z. H.; Struttman, E. L.; Dubberke, E. R.; Dantas, G.

2023-12-04 infectious diseases
10.1101/2023.09.26.23295023 medRxiv
Show abstract

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea, despite the widespread implementation of contact precautions for patients with CDI. Here, we investigate strain contamination in a hospital setting and genomic determinants of disease outcomes. Across two wards over six months, we selectively cultured C. difficile from patients (n=384) and their environments. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of 146 isolates revealed that most C. difficile isolates were from clade 1 (131/146, 89.7%), while only one isolate of the hypervirulent ST1 was recovered. Of culture-positive admissions (n=79), 19 (24%) of patients were colonized with toxigenic C. difficile on admission to the hospital. We defined 25 strain networks at [&le;] 2 core gene SNPs; 2 of these networks contain strains from different patients. Strain networks were temporally linked (p<0.0001). To understand genomic correlates of disease, we conducted WGS on an additional cohort of C. difficile (n=102 isolates) from the same hospital and confirmed that clade 1 isolates are responsible for most CDI cases. We found that while toxigenic C. difficile isolates are associated with the presence of cdtR, nontoxigenic isolates have an increased abundance of prophages. Our pangenomic analysis of clade 1 isolates suggests that while toxin genes (tcdABER and cdtR) were associated with CDI symptoms, they are dispensable for patient colonization. These data indicate toxigenic and nontoxigenic C. difficile contamination persists in a hospital setting and highlight further investigation into how accessory genomic repertoires contribute to C. difficile colonization and disease.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.