* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Resistance gene naming and numbering: is it a
Oncogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis wikipedia , lookup
Non-coding DNA wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics in learning and memory wikipedia , lookup
Human genome wikipedia , lookup
Essential gene wikipedia , lookup
Transposable element wikipedia , lookup
Copy-number variation wikipedia , lookup
Polycomb Group Proteins and Cancer wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases wikipedia , lookup
Metagenomics wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of diabetes Type 2 wikipedia , lookup
Genetically modified crops wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
Pathogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Vectors in gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Ridge (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Minimal genome wikipedia , lookup
Gene desert wikipedia , lookup
Genome editing wikipedia , lookup
Biology and consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Point mutation wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup
Gene nomenclature wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Therapeutic gene modulation wikipedia , lookup
Helitron (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71: 569 – 571 doi:10.1093/jac/dkv351 Advance Access publication 28 October 2015 Resistance gene naming and numbering: is it a new gene or not? Ruth M. Hall1* and Stefan Schwarz2 1 School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, 2006 New South Wales, Australia; 2 Institute of Farm Animal Genetics, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Höltystr. 10, 31535 Neustadt-Mariensee, Germany *Corresponding author. Tel: +61-2-9351-3465; E-mail: [email protected] In the genomic era, studying the epidemiology of individual antibiotic resistance genes and resistance gene discovery are open to all. However, the identification and naming of resistance genes is not currently understandable by all owing to a plethora of competing nomenclature systems, many of which do not comply with the basic rules of bacterial gene nomenclature. Change is needed urgently. Here, we make a case for the resistance research community to begin this process by agreeing on an answer to the question of when a new gene number should be assigned. This cut-off is of necessity arbitrary and we suggest a threshold value of ≥2% difference in the sequences of the DNA, predicted protein or both as a realistic boundary for assigning a new gene number. This proposal can be a starting point for agreement or debate followed by renumbering of the affected gene families. Introduction For quite some time now, the pace of discovery of new resistance genes has been high and the need for gene nomenclature and numbering systems that are clear to all and comply with the basic rules of bacterial gene nomenclature is increasing. Unfortunately, in the past there has been little agreement on how this might be achieved.1 As interest in antibiotic resistance increases and large numbers of genome sequences are being analysed for the presence of resistance genes, the many different systems used currently are causing confusion. Hence, the need for rationalization and agreement on a more consistent central ground is more pressing than ever. One important area that needs to be addressed and rationalized is that the rules developed for naming and numbering differ substantially and this is the aspect we address here. The problem Currently, different systems are used for the classification of genes conferring resistance to particular antibiotics, e.g. sulphonamides, trimethoprim, b-lactams, tetracyclines or phenicols. Some systems do not have published rules and some, with or without published rules, are not in agreement with nomenclature rules that are accepted by the broader bacterial genetics community. To date, nomenclature systems have been proposed and published for b-lactam resistance genes,2 – 6 tetracycline resistance genes,7 macrolide, lincosamide and streptogramin resistance genes,8 qnr genes,9 mec genes10 and genes encoding 16S rRNA methylases conferring extensive aminoglycoside resistance.11 However, these nomenclatures are not consistent with each other in the rules used either to name or to number genes. This situation arose because informal networks, composed of leading scientists in their respective field, each developed their own nomenclature systems and the specifics of different fields have unfortunately driven the direction of the system developed. Consequently, there are disparate and essentially incompatible views on a number of nomenclature issues such as how a gene name is composed and when and how a new number should be used for two resistance genes that differ in their DNA sequence. The boundary used to define a new gene is essentially arbitrary. However, currently, it ranges from a single base pair difference when it also involves a difference in the amino acid encoded to a .20% difference at the amino acid level. Neither of these positions is suitable for use in the genomic era and a more realistic threshold value is needed. Moreover, polymorphisms in the gene sequence can occur without necessarily changing the sequence of the encoded product and non-identical DNA sequences can encode the same product. At one end of the spectrum, for genes conferring resistance to b-lactam family antibiotics, genes are named after their protein product instead of using conventional bacterial gene nomenclature and a single base pair change leading to a single amino acid substitution is currently viewed as sufficient to assign a new gene number.2 – 6 However, single amino acid substitutions do not necessarily lead to a difference in the substrate profile that is clinically relevant or to changes in the pI of the protein. The approach of assigning a new number when a single base pair change alters a single amino acid serves to make closely related genes appear to be different from one another. In addition, this system is vulnerable to sequence errors, as a single error in an early sequence has since been identified and corrected making oxa1 and oxa30 (also called blaOXA-30) identical12 and blaOXA-24 was found to be identical to blaOXA-40.13 At the other end of the spectrum, nomenclature proposals for genes that confer resistance to tetracyclines or macrolides, # The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] 569 Leading article lincosamides and streptogramins have declared a .20% difference in the protein identity as the value for assignment of a designation (a letter or number) indicating a new gene.7,8 Using a .20% amino acid difference as the threshold serves to make different genes, that in some cases cannot be detected with a single PCR assay and are in different contexts,14,15 appear to be the same. This threshold is from a time when hybridization was often used to identify resistance genes, as sequencing was more difficult. Two genes whose products differ by .20% would usually provide even greater variation in their DNA sequences and enough to permit distinct probes to be designed.8 However, the days of hybridization as a tool for resistance gene identification have long since passed and these nomenclature systems need to be revisited in the light of current practice, which readily yields DNA sequences resulting in PCR detection methods. Three further published systems each have their own rules. The qnr gene nomenclature system uses both of the aforementioned approaches with genes/proteins sharing ≥70% identity being assigned to a ‘family’ and a single amino acid difference allowing a new ‘allele’ number to be assigned.9 In the case of mec genes, an identity of ≥70% defines ‘allotypes’ of mec designated mecA, mecB or mecC. Numbers are assigned to members of each allotype that differ by .5%.10 Nomenclature for 16S RNA methylases causing extensive aminoglycoside resistance is complex.11 A gene whose product has either an amino acid identity of ,50% with the closest known 16S rRNA methylase or has been confirmed to methylate a new residue of 16S rRNA may receive a brand new gene designation, i.e. a different set of letters. A gene whose product exhibits between 50% and 95% amino acid identity with the closest known 16S rRNA methylase gene will be assigned a new alphabetical letter according to the existing gene name of the closest gene. Finally, a variant number is assigned to sequences with a difference of ,5%.11 a separation timescale measured in millions of years,16,17 and that a 20% difference in the protein sequence is likely to reflect an even larger difference at the DNA level, this value seems far too large. On the other hand, a single base pair difference seems far too small, as reported differences have previously been traced to sequencing errors. In the interests of moving this debate into the public arena, we propose that a threshold of ≥2% difference in the DNA or protein sequences or both be agreed as the point at which a new gene number is assigned and that this threshold should apply to all resistance gene families. This would reduce future complications caused by sequencing errors, past or present, and allow a simple designation system for genes that are distinct within the 20% difference range. Sequences with ,2% difference at either the DNA or amino acid level or both, which can provide useful epidemiological markers, can be named as variants of an existing numbered gene using a variety of systems. For example, variants can be assigned an additional number, e.g. oxa1-1, oxa1-2 etc., in which case oxa30 might have been oxa1-1, creating far less confusion when the error was detected. For proteins, the standard biochemical nomenclature for substitutions, which uses the single letter codes for the amino acids coupled with a number corresponding to the position of the substitution in the protein sequence (e.g. G172H), is simple and effective. A similar system could be used for genes. A proposal This study was supported by internal funding from the University of Sydney and from the Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut. Some simple rules should be followed. First of these is that experimental confirmation that the gene in question confers the appropriate resistance phenotype is essential. This would be seen as an increase in the MIC (or a reduction in the zone diameter) of the respective antimicrobial agent(s) when the gene is present relative to the value in an identical genetic background when it is absent. Second, variation in genes that are intrinsic to a particular species, such as the blaSHV gene found in all Klebsiella pneumoniae and the blaOXA-51-like gene found in Acinetobacter baumannii, should not be assigned numbers when they are in their original chromosomal location as this variation is simply equivalent to that seen in the loci used for MLST. A name should be assigned to each of these genes using standard bacterial gene nomenclature, e.g. ampC for genes encoding AmpC-type b-lactamases. The genes become named resistance genes only if they have been mobilized and are now part of a mobile element or found in another species. Other basic requirements are: (i) only full-length sequences should be assigned gene numbers; (ii) only naturally occurring variants, not those created in vitro by mutation, should be numbered; and (iii) variations in promoter sequences, which alter the level of gene expression, should not be considered. Taking into account the fact that 20% divergence in DNA sequence is at the upper end of differences between corresponding Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica genes, which occurred over 570 Acknowledgements We thank the many people who have drawn these problems to our attention and requested changes. Funding Transparency declarations None to declare. References 1 Hall R, Partridge S. Unambiguous numbering of antibiotic resistance genes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47: 3998. 2 Bush K, Jacoby G. Nomenclature of TEM b-lactamases. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 39: 1– 3. 3 Jacoby GA, Bush K. b-Lactamase nomenclature. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 6220. 4 Jacoby GA. b-Lactamase nomenclature. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 1123– 9. 5 Lee SH, Jeong SH. Nomenclature of GES-type extended-spectrum b-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49: 2148 –50. 6 Leflon-Guibout V, Heym B, Nicolas-Chanoine M. Updated sequence information and proposed nomenclature for blaTEM genes and their promoters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 3232 –4. 7 Levy SB, McMurry LM, Barbosa TM et al. Nomenclature for new tetracycline resistance determinants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 1523– 4. Leading article 8 Roberts MC, Sutcliffe J, Courvalin P et al. Nomenclature for macrolide and macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance determinants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 2823– 30. 9 Jacoby G, Cattoir V, Hooper D et al. qnr gene nomenclature. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52: 2297 –9. 10 Ito T, Hiramatsu K, Tomasz A et al. Guidelines for reporting novel mecA gene homologues. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56: 4997– 9. 11 Doi Y, Wachino J, Arakawa Y. Nomenclature of plasmid-mediated 16S rRNA methylases responsible for panaminoglycoside resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52: 2287– 8. 12 Boyd D, Mulvey MR. OXA-1 is OXA-30 is OXA-1. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 58: 224–5. 13 Evans BA, Amyes SG. OXA b-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev 2014; 27: 241–63. JAC 14 Li J, Li B, Wendlandt S et al. Identification of a novel vga(E) gene variant that confers resistance to pleuromutilins, lincosamides and streptogramin A antibiotics in staphylococci of porcine origin. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69: 919–23. 15 Wendlandt S, Heß S, Li J et al. Detection of the macrolide-lincosamidestreptogramin B resistance gene erm(44) and a novel erm(44) variant in staphylococci from aquatic environments. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2015; 91: pii: fiv090. 16 Ochman H, Wilson AC. Evolution in bacteria: evidence for a universal substitution rate in cellular genomes. J Mol Evol 1987; 26: 74– 86. 17 Okoro CK, Kingsley RA, Quail MA et al. High-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism analysis distinguishes recrudescence and reinfection in recurrent invasive nontyphoidal Salmonella Typhimurium disease. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54: 955–63. 571