Back

Global genomic epidemiology of multi-carbapenemase Enterobacterales

Lerminiaux, N.; Nagy, D.; Lipworth, S.; The NEKSUS Consortium, ; Shaw, L. P.; Mataseje, L.; Hopkins, K. L.; Chau, K.; Stoesser, N.

2026-10-08 microbiology
10.64898/2026.10.07.757280 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Enterobacterales pathogens that encode multiple carbapenemase genes are an emerging public health threat. The genomic and plasmid context of the multi-carbapenemase producers has not yet been explored at scale. We analysed 1501 publicly-available global genomes that encoded two or more genes from the five prevalent carbapenemase families (IMP, KPC, NDM, OXA-48-like, and VIM). We observed 241 distinct allelic combinations, with NDM/OXA-48-like (25.6%), multiple KPC (25.3%), KPC/NDM (18.8%), and multiple NDM (10.9%) being the most common groups. We found that many genomes were part of high-risk lineages (48.0%). Most genomes carried carbapenemase genes on two plasmids (59.2%) or one plasmid (23.5%), and most genomes encoded different carbapenemase families (56.2%) rather than copies of the same allele (36.2%). We observed multiple mechanisms of multi-carbapenemase evolution including plasmid co-integration, convergence with virulence, and generation of novel allele diversity through duplication. Multi-carbapenemase plasmids had more AMR genes that conferred resistance to more AMR classes compared to plasmids encoding a single carbapenemase. The proportion of cross-class combinations (KPC/NDM and NDM/OXA-48-like) increased significantly over time, with NDM-5/OXA-181 (3.3-fold) and NDM-4/OXA-181 (8.9-fold) combinations enriched. These findings provide valuable insights into the genomic features of multi-carbapenemase Enterobacterales to support the development of effective surveillance programmes.

Matching journals

The top 3 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.