ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Genomic and phenotypic diversity among taxonomically ambiguous clinical Corynebacterium isolates.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCorynebacterium is a widespread and abundant bacterial genus on human skin. Occasionally, corynebacteria are isolated from clinical specimens associated with infection. In this study, 56 bacterial isolates were examined. These isolates were obtained from 52 patients with diverse infections such as keratitis, osteitis/osteomyelitis, mastitis, (suspected) foreign body associated infections (spine, prosthetic joint), suspected meningitis, post-operative infections, among others. These isolates were identified as corynebacteria by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry but could not be reliably assigned to a specific species. To resolve this issue, the isolates were genome-sequenced, and species identification was done with different approaches, including digital DNA-DNA hybridization, phylogenomic tree placement and Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) calculations. A subset of 34 strains was further investigated by biochemical characterization and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST).
resultsThe 56 isolates belonged to 28 distinct corynebacterial species. Species identification was particularly ambiguous for 13 isolates as the ANIs were below 95% to the closest identified reference genomes. Two isolates represented potentially novel species, since no close relative could be identified (ANI < 90%). The majority of isolates belonged to the Corynebacterium marquesiae/tuberculostearicum (n = 10) and Corynebacterium kroppenstedtii/parakroppenstedtii (n = 9) complexes. Biochemical tests and AST revealed species- and strain-level variability. AST demonstrated extensive antimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly among C. marquesiae, C. tuberculostearicum, C. lehmanniae, C. hesseae and C. resistens, with resistances observed against penicillin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, and rifampin. Resistance was frequently associated with acquired AMR genes, such as erm(X), tet(W) and genes encoding aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes. Among the tested antibiotics, clindamycin resistance was most common, detected in 23 of 34 tested strains (64.7%).
conclusionsThis study expands our knowledge of Corynebacterium isolates derived from clinical specimens, particularly those differing from well-characterized species. It underscores the extensive geno- and phenotypic variability within most Corynebacterium species and challenges current species boundary definitions. The extensive level of detected AMR may complicate treatment of underlying infections. However, it remains uncertain whether these isolates represent true infectious agents or contaminants derived from the skin of the patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.