Molecular Typing of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae : Where Do We Stand?

Future MicrobiologyVol. 10, No. 11 EditorialFree AccessMolecular typing of Mycoplasma pneumoniae: where do we stand?Rebecca J Brown, Brad O Spiller & Victoria J ChalkerRebecca J Brown Bacteriology Reference Department, Public Health England, 61 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5EQ, UK Department of Child Health, Cardiff University School of Medicine, University Hospital Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK, Brad O Spiller Department of Child Health, Cardiff University School of Medicine, University Hospital Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK & Victoria J Chalker*Author for correspondence: E-mail Address: vicki.chalker@phe.gov.uk Bacteriology Reference Department, Public Health England, 61 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5EQ, UKPublished Online:30 Oct 2015https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb.15.96AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Keywords: CAPMLSTMLVAMycoplasma pneumoniaeP1 typingWGSMycoplasma pneumoniae is a respiratory bacterial pathogen causing upper and lower respiratory disease in humans of all ages. It is considered a major cause of pneumonia, especially in children of school age and in some cases can result in serious extrapulmonary sequelae. A large increase in reported M. pneumoniae cases was documented in several European countries in 2011 [1]. In England and Wales, seasonal peaks of infection are detected from December to February each year with epidemics at approximately four yearly intervals, lasting 12–15 months [2]. Epidemics are not concurrent worldwide, however, differing countries also report cyclical patterns, as observed in England and Wales, such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Korea and Japan [3,4]. Additionally, in differing countries, seasonal peaks of infection have been observed in either summer or autumn and no definitive factor has been proven to account for seasonal variation or the formation of epidemic peaks.Traditionally, molecular typing was used to characterize epidemic outbreaks of M. pneumoniae, however, it has been postulated that molecular typing of M. pneumoniae is hampered by the genetically homologous nature of the species [5]. Despite this, molecular typing methods have been developed for this organism including: PCR-restriction length polymorphism (RFLP) of the major surface adhesin P1 [5], multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat (VNTR) analysis (MLVA) [6], multilocus sequence typing (MLST) [7] and the recent SNaPshot™ minisequencing assay [8]. The mechanisms driving fluctuations in incidence of M. pneumoniae infections have not been defined. It has been postulated that shifts in proportion of individual strains with specific P1 type or concurrent increased incidence of several strains may result in epidemics or immunity. Additionally, it is believed that the genotype of M. pneumoniae may be changing, generating diverse genetic material in each epidemic with a recent study reporting the detection of polyclonal strains in a single epidemic [9].The initial molecular typing procedure targeted the gene encoding of the major surface adhesin, P1, of M. pneumoniae. RFLP analysis of the p1 gene was the most common genotyping method, enabling separation of M. pneumoniae isolates into two types, type 1 and 2 [5,10]. Studies utilizing the repetitive regions, RepMp2/3 and RepM4 in the p1 gene resulted in the identification of an additional six variants [11–13]. Speculation that a shift in P1 adhesin type may be the cause of epidemics has been disputed with evidence indicating the presence of multiple P1 adhesin types in observed increases of infection [6,9,10]. It was hypothesized that a decline in immunity or an increase of the immunologically naive population may result in the 4-year cycle of epidemic periods [14]. In other geographical locations, it has also been observed that multiple P1 types can be detected during outbreaks, and it has been suggested that although immunological pressure may favor shifts of P1 type, a co-circulation of P1 types appears to be common [15].MLVA has been increasingly used internationally for strain characterization and is based on variation in the copy number of tandem repeated sequences, called VNTRs, found at different loci across the genome. The variation of the copy number of these tandem repeats depends on the isolate tested. Initially, 265 strains were grouped into 26 MLVA types, based on five VNTR loci (Mpn1, Mpn13–16) and additional novel types have since been reported [6,16]. MLVA was documented to be more discriminatory for M. pneumoniae strains than P1 typing, providing an additional level of classification for transmission studies. However, reports of observed instability in the Mpn1 locus has called into question the reliability of the marker. Additionally, inconsistency in nomenclature and identification of repeat regions has led to international standardization of the MLVA and the removal of Mpn1 as a locus [17]. Analysis of the 2010/2011 epidemic in the UK revealed a total of 11 distinct MLVA types present using the original typing method [14], however, reanalysis using international guidelines reduces the MLVA types detected to five distinct types [Unpublished Data]. The discriminatory power of the MLVA method for characterization of M. pneumoniae strains has reduced with the removal of the Mpn1 locus, necessitating either the identification of new loci or alternative typing methods.Initial attempts at developing an MLST scheme for M. pneumoniae were unsuccessful due to low levels of polymorphisms found in the housekeeping genes examined, suggested to be because of the homogeneity of the M. pneumoniae species, and it was concluded that the use of an MLST scheme with housekeeping and structural genes was not useful for molecular typing. However, three housekeeping genes were examined for polymorphisms across 30 isolates of either P1 type 1, 2 or a variant strain and the other genes selected for analysis were examined against a single representative strain from each P1 type [18]. Recently, an MLST scheme was successfully developed to differentiate M. pneumoniae isolates based on sequence polymorphisms in eight housekeeping genes, which improved on existing typing methods for M. pneumoniae [7]. This MLST scheme discriminated between 57 M. pneumoniae isolates with a higher level than both MLVA (with the removal of Mpn1) and P1 typing and it may prove more optimal for epidemiological studies than other existing methods. Population modeling and phylogenetic analysis of concatenated MLST profiles revealed two distinct genetic clades of M. pneumoinae, showing similar topology to phylogenetic data and distinct genetic clustering obtained using genomic sequence analysis. The typing profiles obtained using the MLST method infers representation of the genetic phylogeny, reflecting that M. pneumoniae can be subdivided into two distinct genetic lineages [7]. Nevertheless, this MLST scheme has not yet been applied to localized outbreak or epidemic strain analysis or has not been demonstrated direct on clinical specimens. Recent development of a SNaPshot™ mini sequencing assay has resulted in identification of nine SNP types [8]. This method is rapid and appears to have greater discriminatory ability than MLVA and P1 typing. A direct comparison of MLST and SNaPshot™ minisequencing assay has not been undertaken and both methods may have similar discriminatory abilities. However, MLST resulted in a larger number of defined sequence types.These methods are all PCR-based and do not necessarily require the growth of bacteria, which can be a lengthy process for M. pneumoniae. P1 typing, MLVA and MLST do not limit investigation through the requirement of specialist methodology. However, MLST can be laborious and expensive, with the cost of genomic sequencing reducing and becoming a more attractive option for genetic analysis of strains. Genomic sequencing may allow the concurrent identification of P1 type, MLVA profile and MLST sequence type directly from the genomic sequence as well as providing additional information, such as the presence of antibiotic resistance and toxin markers. Improvements in sequencing technology and the development of methodologies to produce longer sequence reads enables the reliable determination of repeated DNA sequences [19]. This is of importance for species such as Mycoplasma, in which large tracts of repeated sections within AT-rich genomes are common. For genetically homologous species such as M. pneumoniae, the use of genomic sequencing to analyze phylogeny inferred from single nucleotide polymorphism analysis will improve the ability to accurately segregate this species into distinct lineages allowing in-depth epidemiology studies. Due to the fastidious nature of M. pneumoniae and other human Mollicutes, such as Mycoplasma amphoriforme, the use of metagenomic approaches to identify pathogens in studies of human infections [20] will no doubt improve detection of infections caused by Mollicutes, while obviating the need for expensive and laborious culture and typing methods, simultaneously providing additional data such as the detection of mutations known to confer resistance.Financial & competing interests disclosureThe work was supported by Public Health England and Cardiff University. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.References1 Lenglet A, Herrador Z, Magicrakos AP et al. Surveillance status and recent data for Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in the European Union and European economic area, January 2012. Euro. Surveill. 17(5), (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2 Chalker VJ, Stocki T, Mentasti M et al. Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in primary care investigated by real-time PCR in England and Wales. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 30(7), 915–921 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar3 Rasmussen JN, Voldstedlund M, Anderson RL et al. Increased incidence of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections detected by laboratory-based surveillance in Denmark 2010. Euro. Surveill. 15(45), (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Kim EK, Youn YS, Rhim JW et al. Epidemiological comparison of three Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia epidemics in a single hospital over 10years. Korean J. Paediatr. 58(5), 172–177 (2015).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Cousin-Allery A, Charron A, De Barbeyrac B et al. Molecular typing of Mycoplasma pneumoniae strains by PCR-based methods and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Application to French and Danish isolates. Epidemiol. Infect. 124(1), 103–111 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar6 Degrange S, Cazanave C, Charron A, Renaudin H, Bebear C, Bebear CM. Development of multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis for molecular typing of Mycoplasma pneumoniae. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47(4), 914–923 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar7 Brown RJ, Holden MTG, Spiller OB, Chalker VJ. Development of a multi-locus sequence typing scheme for the molecular typing of Mycoplasma pneumoniae. J. Clin. Microbiol. 53(10), 3195–3202 (2015).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar8 Touati A, Blouin Y, Sirand-Pugnet P et al. Molecular epidemiology of Mycoplasma pneumoniae: genotyping using single nucleotide polymorphisms and SNaPshotTM technology. J. Clin. Microbiol. 53(10), 3182–3194 (2015).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar9 Pereyre S, Charron A, Hidalgo-Grass C et al. The spread of Mycoplasma pneumoniae is polyclonal in both an endemic setting in France and in an epidemic setting in Israel. PLOS ONE 7(6), e38585 (2012).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar10 Sasaki T, Kenri T, Okazaki N et al. Epidemiological study of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in japan based on PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism of the p1 cytadhesin gene. J. Clin. Microbiol. 34(2), 447–449 (1996).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar11 Dumke R, Luck PC, Noppen C et al. Culture-independent molecular subtyping of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in clinical samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44(7), 2567–2570 (2006).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar12 Dumke R, Von Baum H, Luck PC, Jacobs E. Subtypes and variants of Mycoplasma pneumoniae: local and temporal changes in Germany 2003–2006 and absence of a correlation between the genotype in the respiratory tract and the occurrence of genotype-specific antibodies in the sera of infected patients. Epidemiol. Infect. 138(12), 1829–1837 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar13 Dorigo-Zetsma JW, Dankert J, Zaat SA. Genotyping of Mycoplasma pneumoniae clinical isolates reveals eight p1 subtypes within two genomic groups. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38(3), 965–970 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar14 Chalker VJ, Stocki T, Mentasti M, Fleming D, Harrison TG. Increased incidence of mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in England and Wales in 2010: multilocus variable number tandem repeat analysis typing and macrolide susceptibility. Euro. Surveill. 16(19), e19865 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar15 Nilsson AC, Bjorkman P, Welinder-Olsson C, Widell A, Persson K. Clinical severity of Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP) infection is associated with bacterial load in oropharyngeal secretions but not with MP genotype. BMC Infect. Dis. 10, 39 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar16 Dumke R, Jacobs E. Culture-independent multi-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA) of Mycoplasma pneumoniae. J. Microbiol. Method. 86(3), 393–396 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar17 Chalker V, Pereyre S, Dumke R et al. International Mycoplasma pneumoniae typing study: the interpretation of Mycoplasma pneumoniae multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis. New Microbes 23(7), 37–40 (2015).Crossref, Google Scholar18 Dumke R, Catrein I, Pirkil E, Herrmann R, Jacobs E. Subtyping of Mycoplasma pneumoniae isolates based on extended genome sequencing and on expression profiles. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 292(7–8), 513–525 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar19 Jain M, Fiddes IT, Miga KH et al. Improved data analysis for the MinION nanopore sequencer. Nature Methods 12, 351–356 (2015).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar20 Ling CL, Oravcova K, Beattie TF et al. Tools for detection of Mycoplasma amphoriforme: a primary respiratory pathogen? J. Clin. Microbiol. 52(4), 1177–1181 (2014).Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByFirst detection and characterization of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae strains in CubaInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 80Multilocus Sequence Typing of Mycoplasma pneumoniae , Japan, 2002–2016Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 24, No. 10Clonal Expansion of Macrolide-Resistant Sequence Type 3 Mycoplasma pneumoniae , South KoreaEmerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 24, No. 8Inter- and intra-strain variability of tandem repeats in Mycoplasma pneumoniae based on next-generation sequencing dataJing Zhang, Xiaohong Song, Marella J Ma, Li Xiao, Tsuyoshi Kenri, Hongmei Sun, Travis Ptacek, Shaoli Li, Ken B Waites, T Prescott Atkinson, Keigo Shibayama, Kevin Dybvig & Yanmei Feng12 October 2016 | Future Microbiology, Vol. 12, No. 2 Vol. 10, No. 11 STAY CONNECTED Metrics History Published online 30 October 2015 Published in print November 2015 Information© Future Medicine LtdKeywordsCAPMLSTMLVA Mycoplasma pneumoniae P1 typingWGSFinancial & competing interests disclosureThe work was supported by Public Health England and Cardiff University. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download