MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388085921 · doi:10.1186/s40168-023-01662-3

Microbial hitchhikers harbouring antimicrobial-resistance genes in the riverine plastisphere

2023· article· en· W4388085921 on OpenAlexaff
Vinko Zadjelovic, Robyn Wright, Chiara Borsetto, Jeannelle Quartey, Tyler N. Cairns, Morgan G. I. Langille, Elizabeth M. H. Wellington, Joseph A. Christie‐Oleza

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiome · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersEuropean Social FundAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsBiologyMicrobiologyResistomeVirulenceAntibiotic resistanceMicrobiomeMetagenomicsAntimicrobialBiofilmShigellaTetracyclineAcinetobacterPseudomonas aeruginosaAntibioticsSalmonellaBacteriaIntegronGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The widespread nature of plastic pollution has given rise to wide scientific and social concern regarding the capacity of these materials to serve as vectors for pathogenic bacteria and reservoirs for Antimicrobial Resistance Genes (ARG). In- and ex-situ incubations were used to characterise the riverine plastisphere taxonomically and functionally in order to determine whether antibiotics within the water influenced the ARG profiles in these microbiomes and how these compared to those on natural surfaces such as wood and their planktonic counterparts. RESULTS: We show that plastics support a taxonomically distinct microbiome containing potential pathogens and ARGs. While the plastisphere was similar to those biofilms that grew on wood, they were distinct from the surrounding water microbiome. Hence, whilst potential opportunistic pathogens (i.e. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter and Aeromonas) and ARG subtypes (i.e. those that confer resistance to macrolides/lincosamides, rifamycin, sulfonamides, disinfecting agents and glycopeptides) were predominant in all surface-related microbiomes, especially on weathered plastics, a completely different set of potential pathogens (i.e. Escherichia, Salmonella, Klebsiella and Streptococcus) and ARGs (i.e. aminoglycosides, tetracycline, aminocoumarin, fluoroquinolones, nitroimidazole, oxazolidinone and fosfomycin) dominated in the planktonic compartment. Our genome-centric analysis allowed the assembly of 215 Metagenome Assembled Genomes (MAGs), linking ARGs and other virulence-related genes to their host. Interestingly, a MAG belonging to Escherichia -that clearly predominated in water- harboured more ARGs and virulence factors than any other MAG, emphasising the potential virulent nature of these pathogenic-related groups. Finally, ex-situ incubations using environmentally-relevant concentrations of antibiotics increased the prevalence of their corresponding ARGs, but different riverine compartments -including plastispheres- were affected differently by each antibiotic. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide insights into the capacity of the riverine plastisphere to harbour a distinct set of potentially pathogenic bacteria and function as a reservoir of ARGs. The environmental impact that plastics pose if they act as a reservoir for either pathogenic bacteria or ARGs is aggravated by the persistence of plastics in the environment due to their recalcitrance and buoyancy. Nevertheless, the high similarities with microbiomes growing on natural co-occurring materials and even more worrisome microbiome observed in the surrounding water highlights the urgent need to integrate the analysis of all environmental compartments when assessing risks and exposure to pathogens and ARGs in anthropogenically-impacted ecosystems. Video Abstract.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiomeSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207