Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance is a major global public health problem, which develops when pathogens acquire antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs), primarily through genetic recombination between commensal and pathogenic microbes. The resistome is a collection of all ARGs. In microorganisms, the primary method of ARG acquisition is horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Thus, understanding and identifying HGTs, can provide insight into the mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance transmission and dissemination. The use of high-throughput sequencing technologies has made the analysis of ARG sequences feasible and accessible. In particular, the metagenomic approach has facilitated the identification of community-based antimicrobial resistance. This approach is useful, as it allows access to the genomic data in an environmental sample without the need to isolate and culture microorganisms prior to analysis. Here, we aimed to reflect on the challenges of analyzing metagenomic data in the three main approaches for studying antimicrobial resistance: (i) analysis of microbial diversity, (ii) functional gene analysis, and (iii) searching the most complete and pertinent resistome databases.
Introduction
Bacterial resistance, which is closely associated with the use of antimicrobial agents, is considered one of the most persistent global public health problems (Enne and Bennett, 2010; Giedraitienė et al., 2011). However, it is not a new phenomenon. Resistance to penicillin developed in the 1940s, immediately after the large-scale use of the antibiotic. Healthcare was the first field to face challenges created by the indiscriminate use of antibiotics. However, medicine is not alone, and the fields of agriculture, livestock farming, and aquaculture are also being affected by the increasing, continued use of antibiotics, which drives the selection of resistant bacterial populations in environments and contributes to antimicrobial resistance (Barbosa and Levy, 2000; Van Boeckel et al., 2015; von Wintersdorff et al., 2016).
Antimicrobial resistance (Table 1) develops when pathogens acquire antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs). The acquisition of ARGs primarily occurs through genetic recombination between commensal and pathogenic microbes and is associated with the conjugation mechanism of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) (Brown and Wright, 2016; Munita and Arias, 2016). Resistance is a mechanism naturally used by bacteria, whether induced or not induced. However, the large-scale use of antibiotics drives the rapid development of highly antimicrobial-resistant strains. Antibiotic resistance spreads through genetic material exchange, primarily between bacteria of the same genus, and, at a minor frequency, between phyla (von Wintersdorff et al., 2016; Wybouw et al., 2016), resulting in the development of potentially harmful bacteria.
TABLE 1
| Chemical class | Target | Action | Genes | Gene localization | Reference(s) |
| Sulfonamides* | Folate synthesis | Bacteriostatic | sulI, sulII | P, T | Xu et al., 2018 |
| β-Lactams | Cell-wall synthesis | Bactericidal | ampC, blaTEM, qnrS, tetW | P,C | Ferro et al., 2017; Pandey and Cascella, 2020 |
| Amphenicols | Protein synthesis | Bacteriostatic Bactericidal | fexA, cat, cmlA, floR, cfr, fex | P, T, C | Rahal and Simberkoff, 1979; Kehrenberg and Schwarz, 2006; He et al., 2016 |
| Aminoglycosides | Protein synthesis | Bactericidal | rmtA, rmtB, armA, gar | P | |
| Tetracyclines | Protein synthesis | Bacteriostatic Bactericidal | tet* | P, T | Rahal and Simberkoff, 1979; Roberts, 2005 |
| Macrolides | Protein synthesis | Bacteriostatic | erm*, carA, ole*, smrB, tlrC, vgaA, vgaB, lmrA, mefA, msr*, lsaA, lsaB, ereA, ereB, vgbA, vgbB, inuA, inuB, vat*, mph* | P, T | Kanfer et al., 1998; Roberts, 2005 |
| Glycopeptides | Cell-wall synthesis | Bactericidal | van* | P | Binda et al., 2014; Lebreton and Cattoir, 2019 |
| Oxazolidinones | Protein synthesis | Bacteriostatic | optrA, cfr | P, C | Diekema and Jones, 2001; Wang et al., 2015 |
| Ansamycins | RNA synthesis | Bactericidal | rpoB | P | Floss and Yu, 2005 |
| Quinolones | DNA synthesis | Bactericidal | qnr | P | Heeb et al., 2011; Hernández et al., 2011 |
| Streptogramins | Protein synthesis | Bactericidal | erm*, carA, ole*, smrB, tlrC, vgaA, vgaB, lmrA, mefA, msr*, lsaA, lsaB, ereA, ereB, vgbA, vgbB, inuA, inuB, vat*, mph* | P, T | Roberts, 2005 |
| Lipopeptides | Protein synthesis | Bactericidal | mprF, yycG, rpoB, rpoC, cls2, pgsA, agrA, prs, pnpA | P, C | Montero et al., 2008; Gómez Casanova et al., 2017 |
| Lincosamides | Protein synthesis | Bacteriostatic | erm*, carA, ole*, smrB, tlrC, vgaA, vgaB, lmrA, mefA, msr*, lsaA, lsaB, ereA, ereB, vgbA, vgbB, inuA, inuB, vat*, mph* | P, T | Tenson et al., 2003; Roberts, 2005 |
| Phenicols | Protein synthesis | Bacteriostatic Bactericidal | fexA, cat, cmlA, floR, cfr, fex | P, T, C | Kehrenberg and Schwarz, 2006; He et al., 2016 |
| Pyrimidines | DNA synthesis | Bactericidal | dfrK, dfrD, dhfrI, dhfrX | P | Sundstrom and Skold, 1990; Parsons et al., 1991; Charpentier and Courvalin, 1997; Petersen et al., 2000; Masters et al., 2003; Kadlec and Schwarz, 2009 |
| Sulfonamides | DNA Synthesis | Bactericidal | sul(1-4) | P, T | Connor, 1998; Razavi et al., 2017 |
| Rifamycins | RNA Synthesis | Bactericidal | rpoB | P | Floss and Yu, 2005 |
| Lipopeptides | Protein Synthesis | Bactericidal | mprF, yycG, rpoB, rpoC, cls2, pgsA, agrA, prs, pnpA, pmrHFIJKLM, pagP, phoP | P, C | Thorne and Alder, 2002; Montero et al., 2008; Gómez Casanova et al., 2017 |
| Cationic peptides | DNA synthesis, RNA synthesis, Protein synthesis, Cell-wall synthesis | Bactericidal | pmrHFIJKLM, pagP, phoP | C | Devine and Hancock, 2002; Hale and Hancock, 2007 |
Resistance mechanisms, antibiotic resistance genes, and gene localization.
P, plasmid; C, chromosome; T, transposon; *Tet gene family, *Erm gene family, *cat gene family, *fex gene family, *ole gene family, *msr gene family, *vat gene family, *mph gene family, *Van gene family.
Although numerous recent and ongoing research efforts have addressed bacterial virulence and multi-resistance mechanisms, the processes governing bacterial fitness, competition, dissemination, and adaptability remain poorly understood. Little is known about the diversity, distribution, and origin of resistance genes, especially those of most environmental bacteria that cannot be cultured under laboratory conditions (Schmieder and Edwards, 2012). The development, acquisition, and dissemination of ARGs are critical aspects of antimicrobial resistance, and the microbial community as a whole contributes to the generation of the antimicrobial resistome, rather than an individual ARG source organism (Bello-López et al., 2019; De, 2019). Therefore, understanding and identifying HGTs among pathogenic and non-pathogenic species may aid the determination of the mechanisms underlying resistance transmission and dissemination. The use of high-throughput sequencing technologies has made ARG sequence analyses feasible and accessible. Metagenomics, in particular, has facilitated the analysis of antimicrobial resistance in communities.
The term metagenomics, first used by Handelsman et al. (1998), originates from conventional microbial genomics and reflects the fact that pure cultures are not required for sequencing. The metagenomics approach is used to analyze the genomic data of environmental samples without the need to first isolate and culture microorganisms (Roh and Villatte, 2008; Cowan et al., 2015). Metagenomic analysis enables the prediction of new taxa (phyla, orders, genera, and candidate species) and genome reconstruction of organisms that cannot be cultured in vitro. The definition of community structures allows a deeper understanding of the relationships between individual components of a community and their dynamics in response to the selective pressure of a space-time parameter (Alves et al., 2018). Therefore, the metagenomic analysis of taxonomic (structural) assignment facilitates better identification of microbial communities, the discovery of new microbial metabolic capacities, and the inference of microbial functions in microbiomes where they inhabit (Simmons et al., 2014; Eloe-Fadrosh et al., 2016). Thus, sequence-based functional metagenomics is a powerful tool, widely used to discover resistance genes and identify and understand resistance mechanisms (Pehrsson et al., 2013; Xing et al., 2020). The robust structural and functional aspects of metagenomic data aid the study of antibacterial resistance.
A series of pipelines and reviews have focused on describing the best platforms for metagenomic statistical analyses and benchmarking metrics (Bengtsson-Palme et al., 2017; Quince et al., 2017; Boolchandani et al., 2019; Tamames and Puente-Sánchez, 2019; Ye et al., 2019), but this is not our goal. In this review, we have focused on the three main approaches used for metagenomic analysis of antimicrobial resistance: (i) analysis of microbial diversity, (ii) functional gene analysis, and (iii) searching the most complete and relevant resistome databases available. We will also comment on the challenges related to analyzing metagenomic data.
Metagenomic Analysis of Resistance Genes
For several years, pathogenic bacteria have been the focus of antibiotic resistance research. This line of research has facilitated the identification of critical mechanisms that mediate bacterial antibiotic resistance. Among the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, the four most important are (McManus, 1997; Munita and Arias, 2016): (i) enzymatic modification or destruction of the antibiotic, which usually involves the overproduction of enzymes that inactivate the antibiotic (e.g., β-lactamases and aminoglycosides kinases), (ii) alteration of the antibiotic target molecule to reduce its binding capacity, (iii) modification of metabolic pathways and regulatory networks to circumvent the effect of the antibiotic, and (iv) reduction of the intracellular accumulation of the antibiotic by decreasing cellular permeability to it or activating efflux mechanisms to export the harmful molecule.
However, an increasing number of resistance studies have provided new insight into microbial pathogenicity by analyzing the ARGs of both pathogenic and non-pathogenic bacteria (Beceiro et al., 2013; Roberts, 2017). This work raised interest in the genomes of non-pathogenic organisms based on the knowledge that comparative genomic analysis might aid the elucidation of gene associations relevant to antimicrobial resistance and indicate the presence or absence of ARGs. Mass sequencing and complete genome analysis have contributed to important advances in our understanding of bacterial resistance, genes that confer this resistance, and other phenotypes of interest. Moreover, data obtained from genomic analyses have revealed the remarkable genetic plasticity of bacteria, which enables them to respond to a wide variety of threats, including antibiotics. However, to understand the functioning of sets of genes that can acquire antibiotic resistance in resistomes, metagenomic methods are increasingly being used (Ghosh et al., 2013; Costa et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020). Metagenomic approaches can be function- or sequence-based (Schloss and Handelsman, 2003). In sequence-based methods, multiple sequence reads are generated and analyzed using sequence analysis software.
The most comprehensive approach for metagenome sequencing is complete genome sequencing; this approach allows the study of the structural and functional diversities of a microbial community by identifying genes and metabolic pathways and reconstructing almost complete bacterial genomes (Chen and Pachter, 2005; De, 2019). The main advantage of this approach is its sensitivity, as it allows the detection of a greater abundance of species and identification of potential ARGs.
Complete metagenomic sequencing, since it was implemented, has had a tremendous impact on the study of structural and functional microbial diversities in environmental and clinical samples and has been an alternative to rRNA sequencing (Escobar-Zepeda et al., 2018). Alternatively, functional metagenomics employ different approaches to study genes of interest, including gene cloning and sequencing and biochemical analysis (Ngara and Zhang, 2018; Tamames et al., 2019). Functional metagenomics are mostly used for the identification of resistance genes.
However, some challenges affect the quality of metagenomic analysis, with the first being low sensitivity in detecting minority populations that harbor resistance genes, which has proved to be an obstacle at the time of analysis (Lynch and Neufeld, 2015). The second is the low specificity in identifying allelic variants, which can have substantial impact, as different variants can impart different phenotypic susceptibilities (Forslund et al., 2013). To overcome these challenges, metagenomic analyses must employ both sequence- and function-based approaches, including functional gene annotation (Chistoserdovai, 2010; Lam et al., 2015) in the analysis pipeline, and heterologous expression of identified genes (Tripathi and Nailwal, 2020).
Taxonomic Assignment
Horizontal gene transfer is a common method of genetic transfer between species of the same genus or with similar characteristics (Soucy et al., 2015). Thus, studying taxonomic assignments of resistome elements is fundamental for identifying bacteria that shape a resistome. Indeed, the microbial community composition or relative abundance of sampled organisms can be inferred through the taxonomic assignment analysis of resistome elements (Ruppé et al., 2019; Rice et al., 2020). Identifying the bacterial community composition can be accomplished via two distinct approaches: (i) direct measurement of raw data, which does not require the assembly of contigs and (ii) the assembly of contigs for subsequent composition inference. Both strategies have weaknesses and strengths (Mathe, 2002).
Taxonomic classification without the assembly of contigs is a faster approach, with a lower computational cost and no assembly problems (Rodríguez-Brazzarola et al., 2018). However, the quality and length of sequences are important during taxonomic assignment analysis, and poor-quality or short sequences, which are common in the non-assembly based approach, tend to generate matches with low statistical significance (Breitwieser et al., 2019; Ye et al., 2019).
Contrarily, the length of contigs is an advantage for taxonomic classification using contig assembly. Thus, this approach predominantly makes use of databases (Rodríguez-Brazzarola et al., 2018). Moreover, in some cases, contig assembly may enable partial genome reconstruction of a previously unknown organism. However, chimeric contig formation is possible owing to sample heterogeneity, which can be related to sample origin, and sample and sequence quality. All these features are closely linked to assembly quality, which influences classification quality.
In ARG analyses, genome assembly can help differentiate between bacteria in terms of conserved regions like ribosomes, possible HGT regions, and several classes of transposable elements. This is because the reduced size of gene sequences directly impacts gene annotation transfer and studies of biological mechanisms associated with resistance. Thus, taxonomic assignment by contig assembly tends to better facilitate the identification and understanding of resistance mechanisms, such as the understanding of microbiota structural relationship roles in resistome studies. However, it is important to emphasize that researchers must be aware of the type of sample being worked with, if the sample is too heterogeneous and if there is sufficient computational power to analyze the amount of data collected. Even for good-quality, long sequences, taxonomic classification without assembly could be a more appropriate approach from a computational point of view, depending on the dataset and the computational power available (Rodríguez-Brazzarola et al., 2018).
Notably, studying the taxonomic assignments of resistome elements using high-throughput sequencing goes beyond identifying ARGs in host-pathogen relations and can be used to study resistomes in environmental samples, such as those from water reservoirs (Ekwanzala et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2020), hospitals (MetaSUB Consortium et al., 2020), livestock wastewater and feces (Jia S. et al., 2017), human feces (Karkman et al., 2019), soil (Chen et al., 2017), air (Yang et al., 2018; Li et al., 2021), and biogeographical and biogeochemical processes (Quinn et al., 2014; Kuang et al., 2016; Roose-Amsaleg and Laverman, 2016; Liu et al., 2018).
Functional Characterization and Databases
Studying taxonomic signatures enables a better understanding of the relationships between the members of a microbial community. Alternatively, functional metagenomic approach aims to identify functions within the community via the discovery of new enzymes, groups of biosynthetic genes, and ARGs. The functional annotation of a metagenome is similar to its genomic annotation, such that predicted gene sequences are compared to existing sequences in annotated databases (Dong and Strous, 2019). Thus, the high-throughput sequencing of microbial community genomes is a powerful tool to generate information about gene functions, metabolic pathways, and microbial genome evolution (Zhang et al., 2011).
There is a wide range of databases and tools to classify the taxonomic profile of a community and performing functional analyses; thus, the choice of reference database can have important implications for the quality of information obtained. There are three important points regarding sequence- and function-based analyses. First, functional analysis provides an opportunity to perform various sub-analyses, depending on the sequencing depth, including functional category, protein family, gene ontology, protein–protein interaction, pathway, and subsystem analysis. Second, for both types of analysis methods, researchers can work with assembled or non-assembled data. Finally, there are tools, usually open source tools, such as QIIME (Caporaso et al., 2010), Mothur (Schloss et al., 2009), and MEGAN (Huson et al., 2007), that perform both types of analysis.
Genomic annotation employs sequence comparison with similarity-based search tools, such as BLAST+, which was developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) (Altschul et al., 1997). DIAMOND (Buchfink et al., 2015) performs pairwise sequence alignment for protein and translated DNA searches, which are designed for the high performance analysis of large sequence data; it has the advantage of being fast and is, therefore, attractive for the annotation of huge volumes of metagenomic data. USEARCH (Edgar, 2010) offers search and grouping algorithms that are faster than BLAST. RAPSearch2 (Zhao et al., 2012) is similar to BLAST, in that it uses flexible-length seeds on a reduced amino acid alphabet of ten symbols with the differential. Tools, such as BLAST, offer their own dataset (NR and RefSeq are most used), whereas others offer only alignment options, requiring the use of a third-party dataset (nr/nt, RefSeq, Env_NR, and UniProt). In both cases, it is necessary to download datasets separately or create one’s own local dataset. These tools use their databases for annotation or allow the user to employ a third-party database.
Although there are good database options and tools for comprehensive metagenomic analyses, continuous improvement for the detection and characterization of genetic elements is necessary, as it is important for understanding resistance acquisition over time and evolutionary dynamics. Thus, resistome databases must be constantly updated to include newly identified variant sequences, inserts, and deletions to improve our understanding of these variations in context of resistance (Danko et al., 2019). Moreover, the use of a non-specific or generalist database could generate inherent database bias for the target niche or organism. The choice of an appropriate database for sequence annotation is essential. This choice should be based on the type of data and ecosystem studied. We have highlighted below, the most frequently cited specialist databases for ARGs that allow metagenomic data input (Table 2), including ResFinder, Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD), MEGARes, ARG-database, and Resfams.
TABLE 2
| Name | DC | Website | Citation PubMed/Scholar | Reference(s) |
| RAC | yes | http://www2.chi.unsw.edu.au/rac | 14/56 | Tsafnat et al., 2011 |
| MvirDB | Yes | http://mvirdb.llnl.gov/ | 93/195 | Zhou et al., 2007 |
| ARDB | Yes | http://ardb.cbcb.umd.edu/ | 385/872 | Liu and Pop, 2009 |
| ResFinder | No | https://cge.cbs.dtu.dk/services/ResFinder/ | 1,176/2,234 | Zankari et al., 2013 |
| CARD | No | https://card.mcmaster.ca/home | 441/955 | McArthur et al., 2013 |
| MEGARes | No | https://megares.meglab.org/ | 70/145 | Doster et al., 2019 |
| ARG-database | No | https://smile.hku.hk/SARGs | 34/106 | Yang et al., 2016 |
| Resfams | No | http://www.dantaslab.org/resfams | 273/388 | Floss and Yu, 2005 |
Bioinformatic resources for studying ARGs identified using targeted metagenomics.
ARG, Antimicrobial resistance gene; DC, Discontinued.
ResFinder is one of the oldest databases that keeps its sequences up to date. It extracts information from other databases, such as the Lahey1 database and ARDB (both now defunct). ResFinder also sources information from published literature, including reviews (Zankari et al., 2013). It uses the BLAST algorithm to assess sequence similarity. Fully- or draft-assembled sequences from different platforms, genomes or metagenomes, and long or short reads can be used as inputs for ResFinder.
Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database is based on the core components of antimicrobial resistance, including genes and proteins, and utilizes published literature and controlled terminology to robustly investigate data. It is the most commonly used database in metagenomic projects. In addition to having a curated database (Jia B. et al., 2017), it includes resistome data that were computationally predicted in continuation of the ARDB project, which is now defunct.
MEGARes, a database of approximately 8,000 manually curated resistance genes with hierarchical statistical analysis, was published in 2016 and updated in 2019 (Doster et al., 2019). It relies on a specific Galaxy pipeline, although it offers the alternative option of downloading the entire database for integration with custom pipelines. The MEGARes dataset comprises several sources, including the curated CARD database (Doster et al., 2019).
Antimicrobial resistance gene-database is hierarchically structured (ARG type-subtype-reference sequence). Its first version integrated ARGs from ARDB and CARD, and redundant sequences were removed. When it was updated in 2018 (Yin et al., 2018), proteins from the NCBI-NR database were added, thereby tripling the number of sequences in the first version. Based on a specific Galaxy pipeline, the latest version also offers the option to download the database, allowing the integration of the available data with a custom analysis pipeline.
Resfams is organized by ontology with a curated database of protein families and associated profile hidden Markov models (HMMs) and protein sequences from the CARD database, the Lactamase Engineering Database, and Jacoby and Bush’s collection of curated beta-lactamase proteins. It was designed to quantitatively understand the relationship between human and environmental resistomes, with an analysis of over 6000 microbial genomes. It was last updated in 2018 (Gibson et al., 2015).
Although the databases fully complement one another and are often redundant, they continue to be cited as having individual specificities for particular datasets, which hinders recommendations. Given the importance of studies on microbial resistance and the quality of data obtained, it is essential that a platform-independent dataset be available for the antibiotic resistance research community. In one sequence database (DNA/Protein/raw data sequences), INSDC (International Nucleotide Sequence Database), initiatives for the unification and integration have already been implemented. INSDC is a standardization and unification initiative among the main sequence databases (DDBJ, EMBL-EBI, and NCBI), making the data of these databases effectively interchangeable (Karsch-Mizrachi et al., 2018). This type of integration initiative eliminates developer and researcher concerns regarding the “best” dataset for a sample and focuses on the importance and applicability of the analyses and outputs.
Conclusion
Metagenomics is a promising tool for identifying and understanding antibiotic resistance mechanisms, using sequence- and function-based approaches. Notably, however, various analyses of antimicrobial resistance are strongly related to other aspects of the research being carried out, such as mutations, pathogens, metabolic pathways, and gene expression. Reviews analyzing antimicrobial resistance addressing these aspects are strongly recommended.
The most important considerations in a metagenomic resistome study are understanding the nature of the dataset being analyzed and the support that is available for its analysis. If one takes into account the large quantity of data and the complexity of the biological mechanisms involved in antibiotic resistance, it may be preferable to adopt reductionist approaches to decrease bias and increase the objectivity of analyses. It is important to emphasize that the costs of algorithms, computers, and analytical tools are decreasing; in silico predictions based on machine learning are thus becoming more common and have the potential to predict resistance outside databases. This will allow for the development of high-throughput data analysis approaches and the answering more complex questions regarding antimicrobial resistance.
Statements
Author contributions
SA and VA wrote the manuscript, as well as guided and reviewed the work. JP revised the writing and formulated the tables. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work was supported by the Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa da Universidade Federal do Para – PROPESP/UFPA. JP received grant-aided support by the Brazilian Federal Agency for the scientific research fellowship from FAPESPA.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the Paraense Amazon Foundation for Research Support (FAPESPA) and Pós-graduação em Ciência da Informação for the intermediation of financial support.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AltschulS. F.MaddenT. L.SchäfferA. A.ZhangJ.ZhangZ.MillerW.et al (1997). Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs.Nucleic Acids Res.253389–3402.
2
AlvesL. de F.WestmannC. A.LovateG. L.de SiqueiraG. M. V.BorelliT. C.GuazzaroniM.-E. (2018). Metagenomic Approaches for Understanding New Concepts in Microbial Science.Int. J. Genom.2018:e2312987. 10.1155/2018/2312987
3
BarbosaT. M.LevyS. B. (2000). The impact of antibiotic use on resistance development and persistence.Drug Resist. Updates3303–311. 10.1054/drup.2000.0167
4
BeceiroA.TomasM.BouG. (2013). Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence: a Successful or Deleterious Association in the Bacterial World?Clin. Microbiol. Rev.26185–230. 10.1128/CMR.00059-12
5
Bello-LópezJ. M.Cabrero-MartínezO. A.Ibáñez-CervantesG.Hernández-CortezC.Pelcastre-RodríguezL. I.Gonzalez-AvilaL. U.et al (2019). Horizontal Gene Transfer and Its Association with Antibiotic Resistance in the Genus Aeromonas spp.Microorganisms7:363. 10.3390/microorganisms7090363
6
Bengtsson-PalmeJ.LarssonD. G. J.KristianssonE. (2017). Using metagenomics to investigate human and environmental resistomes.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.722690–2703. 10.1093/jac/dkx199
7
BindaE.MarinelliF.MarconeG. (2014). Old and New Glycopeptide Antibiotics: Action and Resistance.Antibiotics3572–594. 10.3390/antibiotics3040572
8
BoolchandaniM.D’SouzaA. W.DantasG. (2019). Sequencing-based methods and resources to study antimicrobial resistance.Nat. Rev. Genet.20356–370. 10.1038/s41576-019-0108-4
9
BreitwieserF. P.LuJ.SalzbergS. L. (2019). A review of methods and databases for metagenomic classification and assembly.Brief. Bioinform.201125–1136. 10.1093/bib/bbx120
10
BrownE. D.WrightG. D. (2016). Antibacterial drug discovery in the resistance era.Nature529336–343. 10.1038/nature17042
11
BuchfinkB.XieC.HusonD. H. (2015). Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND.Nat. Methods1259–60. 10.1038/nmeth.3176
12
CaporasoJ. G.KuczynskiJ.StombaughJ.BittingerK.BushmanF. D.CostelloE. K.et al (2010). QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data.Nat. Methods7335–336. 10.1038/nmeth.f.303
13
CharpentierE.CourvalinP. (1997). Emergence of the trimethoprim resistance gene dfrD in Listeria monocytogenes BM4293.Antimicr. Agents Chemother.411134–1136. 10.1128/AAC.41.5.1134
14
ChenK.PachterL. (2005). Bioinformatics for Whole-Genome Shotgun Sequencing of Microbial Communities.PLoS Comp. Biol.1:e24. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010024
15
ChenQ.-L.AnX.-L.ZhuY.-G.SuJ.-Q.GillingsM. R.YeZ.-L.et al (2017). Application of Struvite Alters the Antibiotic Resistome in Soil, Rhizosphere, and Phyllosphere.Environ. Sci. Technol.518149–8157. 10.1021/acs.est.7b01420
16
ChistoserdovaiL. (2010). Functional metagenomics: recent advances and future challenges.Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev.26335–352.
17
ConnorE. E. (1998). Sulfonamide antibiotics.Prim. Care Update OB/GYNS532–35. 10.1016/S1068-607X(97)00121-2
18
CostaP. S.ReisM. P.ÁvilaM. P.LeiteL. R.de AraújoF. M. G.SalimA. C. M.et al (2015). Metagenome of a Microbial Community Inhabiting a Metal-Rich Tropical Stream Sediment.PLoS One10:e0119465. 10.1371/journal.pone.0119465
19
CowanD.RamondJ.-B.MakhalanyaneT.De MaayerP. (2015). Metagenomics of extreme environments.Curr. Opin. Microbiol.2597–102. 10.1016/j.mib.2015.05.005
20
DankoD.BezdanD.AfshinnekooE.AhsanuddinS.BhattacharyaC.ButlerD. J.et al (2019). Global Genetic Cartography of Urban Metagenomes and Anti-Microbial Resistance.Microbiology2019:526. 10.1101/724526
21
DeR. (2019). Metagenomics: aid to combat antimicrobial resistance in diarrhea.Gut. Pathog.1147. 10.1186/s13099-019-0331-8
22
DevineD.HancockR. (2002). Cationic Peptides: Distribution and Mechanisms of Resistance.Curr. Pharmaceut. Design8703–714. 10.2174/1381612023395501
23
DiekemaD. J.JonesR. N. (2001). Oxazolidinone antibiotics.Lancet3581975–1982. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06964-1
24
DongX.StrousM. (2019). An Integrated Pipeline for Annotation and Visualization of Metagenomic Contigs.Front. Genet.10:999. 10.3389/fgene.2019.00999
25
DosterE.LakinS. M.DeanC. J.WolfeC.YoungJ. G.BoucherC.et al (2019). MEGARes 2.0: a database for classification of antimicrobial drug, biocide and metal resistance determinants in metagenomic sequence data.Nucleic Acids Res.48D561–D569. 10.1093/nar/gkz1010
26
EdgarR. C. (2010). Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST.Bioinformatics262460–2461. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461
27
EkwanzalaM. D.DewarJ. B.MombaM. N. B. (2020). Environmental resistome risks of wastewaters and aquatic environments deciphered by shotgun metagenomic assembly.Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety197:110612. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110612
28
Eloe-FadroshE. A.IvanovaN. N.WoykeT.KyrpidesN. C. (2016). Metagenomics uncovers gaps in amplicon-based detection of microbial diversity.Nat. Microbiol.11–4. 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2015.32
29
EnneV. I.BennettP. M. (2010). “Methods to Determine Antibiotic Resistance Gene Silencing,” in Antibiotic Resistance Protocols, edsGillespieS. H.McHughT. D. (Totowa, NJ: Humana Press), 29–44. 10.1007/978-1-60327-279-7_3
30
Escobar-ZepedaA.Godoy-LozanoE. E.RaggiL.SegoviaL.MerinoE.Gutiérrez-RiosR. M.et al (2018). Analysis of sequencing strategies and tools for taxonomic annotation: Defining standards for progressive metagenomics.Sci. Rep.8:12034. 10.1038/s41598-018-30515-5
31
FerroG.GuarinoF.CicatelliA.RizzoL. (2017). β-lactams resistance gene quantification in an antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli water suspension treated by advanced oxidation with UV/H2O2.J. Hazard. Mater.323426–433. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.03.014
32
FlossH. G.YuT.-W. (2005). RifamycinMode of Action, Resistance, and Biosynthesis.Chem. Rev.105621–632. 10.1021/cr030112j
33
ForslundK.SunagawaS.KultimaJ. R.MendeD. R.ArumugamM.TypasA.et al (2013). Country-specific antibiotic use practices impact the human gut resistome.Genome Res.231163–1169. 10.1101/gr.155465.113
34
GhoshT. S.GuptaS. S.NairG. B.MandeS. S. (2013). In Silico Analysis of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in the Gut Microflora of Individuals from Diverse Geographies and Age-Groups.PLoS One8:e83823. 10.1371/journal.pone.0083823
35
GibsonM. K.ForsbergK. J.DantasG. (2015). Improved annotation of antibiotic resistance determinants reveals microbial resistomes cluster by ecology.ISME J.9207–216. 10.1038/ismej.2014.106
36
GiedraitienėA.VitkauskienėA.NaginienėR.PavilonisA. (2011). Antibiotic Resistance Mechanisms of Clinically Important Bacteria.Medicina47:19. 10.3390/medicina47030019
37
Gómez CasanovaN.Siller RuizM.Muñoz BellidoJ. L. (2017). Mechanisms of resistance to daptomycin in Staphylococcus aureus.Rev. Esp. Quimioter.30391–396.
38
HaleJ. D.HancockR. E. (2007). Alternative mechanisms of action of cationic antimicrobial peptides on bacteria.Expert. Rev. Anti. Infective Ther.5951–959. 10.1586/14787210.5.6.951
39
HandelsmanJ.RondonM. R.BradyS. F.ClardyJ.GoodmanR. M. (1998). Molecular biological access to the chemistry of unknown soil microbes: a new frontier for natural products.Chem. Biol.5R245–R249. 10.1016/S1074-5521(98)90108-9
40
HeT.ShenY.SchwarzS.CaiJ.LvY.LiJ.et al (2016). Genetic environment of the transferable oxazolidinone/phenicol resistance gene optrA in Enterococcus faecalis isolates of human and animal origin.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.711466–1473. 10.1093/jac/dkw016
41
HeebS.FletcherM. P.ChhabraS. R.DiggleS. P.WilliamsP.CámaraM. (2011). Quinolones: from antibiotics to autoinducers.FEMS Microbiol. Rev.35247–274. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2010.00247.x
42
HernándezA.SánchezM. B.MartínezJ. L. (2011). Quinolone Resistance: Much More than Predicted.Front. Microbiol.2:22. 10.3389/fmicb.2011.00022
43
HusonD. H.AuchA. F.QiJ.SchusterS. C. (2007). MEGAN analysis of metagenomic data.Genome Res.17377–386. 10.1101/gr.5969107
44
JiaB.RaphenyaA. R.AlcockB.WaglechnerN.GuoP.TsangK. K.et al (2017). CARD 2017: expansion and model-centric curation of the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database.Nucleic Acids Res.45D566–D573. 10.1093/nar/gkw1004
45
JiaS.ZhangX.-X.MiaoY.ZhaoY.YeL.LiB.et al (2017). Fate of antibiotic resistance genes and their associations with bacterial community in livestock breeding wastewater and its receiving river water.Water Res.124259–268. 10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.061
46
KadlecK.SchwarzS. (2009). Identification of a Novel Trimethoprim Resistance Gene, dfrK, in a Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 Strain and Its Physical Linkage to the Tetracycline Resistance Gene tet(L).Antimicr. Agents Chemother.53776–778. 10.1128/AAC.01128-08
47
KanferI.SkinnerM. F.WalkerR. B. (1998). Analysis of macrolide antibiotics.J. Chromatogr. A812255–286. 10.1016/S0021-9673(98)00276-3
48
KarkmanA.PärnänenK.LarssonD. G. J. (2019). Fecal pollution can explain antibiotic resistance gene abundances in anthropogenically impacted environments.Nat. Commun.10:80. 10.1038/s41467-018-07992-3
49
Karsch-MizrachiI.TakagiT.CochraneG (2018). The international nucleotide sequence database collaboration.Nucleic Acids Res.46D48–D51. 10.1093/nar/gkx1097
50
KehrenbergC.SchwarzS. (2006). Distribution of Florfenicol Resistance Genes fexA and cfr among Chloramphenicol-Resistant Staphylococcus Isolates.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.501156–1163. 10.1128/AAC.50.4.1156-1163.2006
51
KuangJ.HuangL.HeZ.ChenL.HuaZ.JiaP.et al (2016). Predicting taxonomic and functional structure of microbial communities in acid mine drainage.ISME J.101527–1539. 10.1038/ismej.2015.201
52
LamK. N.ChengJ.EngelK.NeufeldJ. D.CharlesT. C. (2015). Current and future resources for functional metagenomics.Front. Microbiol.6:1196. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01196
53
LebretonF.CattoirV. (2019). “Resistance to Glycopeptide Antibiotics,” in Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics – From Molecules to Man, edsBonevB. B.BrownN. M. (New York: Wiley), 51–80. 10.1002/9781119593522.ch3
54
LiX.WuZ.DangC.ZhangM.ZhaoB.ChengZ.et al (2021). A metagenomic-based method to study hospital air dust resistome.Chem. Engin. J.406:126854. 10.1016/j.cej.2020.126854
55
LiuB.PopM. (2009). ARDB–Antibiotic Resistance Genes Database.Nucleic Acids Res.37D443–D447. 10.1093/nar/gkn656
56
LiuL.SuJ.-Q.GuoY.WilkinsonD. M.LiuZ.ZhuY.-G.et al (2018). Large-scale biogeographical patterns of bacterial antibiotic resistome in the waterbodies of China.Environ. Int.117292–299. 10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.023
57
LynchM. D. J.NeufeldJ. D. (2015). Ecology and exploration of the rare biosphere.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.13217–229. 10.1038/nrmicro3400
58
MastersP. A.O’BryanT. A.ZurloJ.MillerD. Q.JoshiN. (2003). Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole Revisited.Arch. Int. Med.163:402. 10.1001/archinte.163.4.402
59
MatheC. (2002). Current methods of gene prediction, their strengths and weaknesses.Nucleic Acids Res.304103–4117. 10.1093/nar/gkf543
60
McArthurA. G.WaglechnerN.NizamF.YanA.AzadM. A.BaylayA. J.et al (2013). The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.573348–3357. 10.1128/AAC.00419-13
61
McManusM. C. (1997). Mechanisms of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents.Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm.541420–1433. 10.1093/ajhp/54.12.1420
62
MetaSUB Consortium, ChngK. R.LiC.BertrandD.NgA. H. Q.KwahJ. S.et al (2020). Cartography of opportunistic pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes in a tertiary hospital environment.Nat. Med.26941–951. 10.1038/s41591-020-0894-4
63
MonteroC. I.StockF.MurrayP. R. (2008). Mechanisms of Resistance to Daptomycin in Enterococcus faecium.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.521167–1170. 10.1128/AAC.00774-07
64
MunitaJ. M.AriasC. A. (2016). Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance.Microbiol. Spectr.4:15. 10.1128/microbiolspec.VMBF-0016-2015
65
NgaraT. R.ZhangH. (2018). Recent Advances in Function-based Metagenomic Screening.Genom. Proteom. Bioinform.16405–415. 10.1016/j.gpb.2018.01.002
66
PandeyN.CascellaM. (2020). Beta Lactam Antibiotics.Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing. Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545311/(accessed on June 23, 2020).
67
ParsonsY.HallR. M.StokesH. W. (1991). A new trimethoprim resistance gene, dhfrX, in the In7 integron of plasmid pDGO100.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.352436–2439. 10.1128/AAC.35.11.2436
68
PehrssonE. C.ForsbergK. J.GibsonM. K.AhmadiS.DantasG. (2013). Novel resistance functions uncovered using functional metagenomic investigations of resistance reservoirs.Front. Microbiol.7:145. 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00145
69
PetersenA.GuardabassiL.DalsgaardA.OlsenJ. E. (2000). Class I integrons containing a dhfrI trimethoprim resistance gene cassette in aquatic Acinetobacter spp.FEMS Microbiol. Lett.18273–76. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2000.tb08876.x
70
QuinceC.WalkerA. W.SimpsonJ. T.LomanN. J.SegataN. (2017). Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis.Nat. Biotechnol.35833–844. 10.1038/nbt.3935
71
QuinnR. A.LimY. W.MaughanH.ConradD.RohwerF.WhitesonK. L. (2014). Biogeochemical Forces Shape the Composition and Physiology of Polymicrobial Communities in the Cystic Fibrosis Lung.mBio5e00956–13. 10.1128/mBio.00956-13
72
RahalJ. J.SimberkoffM. S. (1979). Bactericidal and Bacteriostatic Action of Chloramphenicol Against Meningeal Pathogens.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.1613–18. 10.1128/AAC.16.1.13
73
RazaviM.MaratheN. P.GillingsM. R.FlachC.-F.KristianssonE.Joakim LarssonD. G. (2017). Discovery of the fourth mobile sulfonamide resistance gene.Microbiome5:160. 10.1186/s40168-017-0379-y
74
RiceE. W.WangP.SmithA. L.StadlerL. B. (2020). Determining Hosts of Antibiotic Resistance Genes: A Review of Methodological Advances.Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett.7282–291. 10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00202
75
RobertsM. C. (2005). Update on acquired tetracycline resistance genes.FEMS Microbiol. Lett.245195–203. 10.1016/j.femsle.2005.02.034
76
RobertsM. C. (2017). “Antibiotic-Resistant Environmental Bacteria and Their Role as Reservoirs in Disease,” in Modeling the Transmission and Prevention of Infectious Disease, ed.HurstC. J. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 187–212. 10.1007/978-3-319-60616-3_7
77
Rodríguez-BrazzarolaP.Pérez-WohlfeilE.Díaz-del-PinoS.HolthausenR.TrellesO. (2018). “Analyzing the Differences Between Reads and Contigs When Performing a Taxonomic Assignment Comparison in Metagenomics,” in Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceedsRojasI.OrtuñoF. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 450–460. 10.1007/978-3-319-78723-7_39
78
RohC.VillatteF. (2008). Isolation of a low-temperature adapted lipolytic enzyme from uncultivated micro-organism.J. Appl. Microbiol.105116–123. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03717.x
79
Roose-AmsalegC.LavermanA. M. (2016). Do antibiotics have environmental side-effects? Impact of synthetic antibiotics on biogeochemical processes.Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.234000–4012. 10.1007/s11356-015-4943-3
80
RuppéE.GhozlaneA.TapJ.PonsN.AlvarezA.-S.MaziersN.et al (2019). Prediction of the intestinal resistome by a three-dimensional structure-based method.Nat. Microbiol.4112–123. 10.1038/s41564-018-0292-6
81
SchlossP. D.HandelsmanJ. (2003). Biotechnological prospects from metagenomics.Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.14303–310. 10.1016/S0958-1669(03)00067-3
82
SchlossP. D.WestcottS. L.RyabinT.HallJ. R.HartmannM.HollisterE. B.et al (2009). Introducing mothur: Open-Source, Platform-Independent, Community-Supported Software for Describing and Comparing Microbial Communities.AEM757537–7541. 10.1128/AEM.01541-09
83
SchmiederR.EdwardsR. (2012). Insights into antibiotic resistance through metagenomic approaches.Fut. Microbiol.773–89. 10.2217/fmb.11.135
84
SimmonsC. W.ReddyA. P.D’haeseleerP.KhudyakovJ.BillisK.PatiA.et al (2014). Metatranscriptomic analysis of lignocellulolytic microbial communities involved in high-solids decomposition of rice straw.Biotechnol. Biof.7:495. 10.1186/s13068-014-0180-0
85
SoucyS. M.HuangJ.GogartenJ. P. (2015). Horizontal gene transfer: building the web of life.Nat. Rev. Genet.16472–482. 10.1038/nrg3962
86
SundstromL.SkoldO. (1990). The dhfrI trimethoprim resistance gene of Tn7 can be found at specific sites in other genetic surroundings.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.34642–650. 10.1128/AAC.34.4.642
87
TamamesJ.Puente-SánchezF. (2019). SqueezeMeta, A Highly Portable, Fully Automatic Metagenomic Analysis Pipeline.Front. Microbiol.9:3349. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03349
88
TamamesJ.Cobo-SimónM.Puente-SánchezF. (2019). Assessing the performance of different approaches for functional and taxonomic annotation of metagenomes.BMC Genom.20:960. 10.1186/s12864-019-6289-6
89
TensonT.LovmarM.EhrenbergM. (2003). The Mechanism of Action of Macrolides, Lincosamides and Streptogramin B Reveals the Nascent Peptide Exit Path in the Ribosome.J. Mole. Biol.3301005–1014. 10.1016/S0022-2836(03)00662-4
90
ThorneG. M.AlderJ. (2002). Daptomycin: a novel lipopeptide antibiotic.Clin. Microbiol. Newslett.2433–40. 10.1016/S0196-4399(02)80007-1
91
TripathiL. K.NailwalT. K. (2020). Metagenomics: Applications of functional and structural approaches and meta-omics.Rec. Adv. Microbial. Div.4471–505. 10.1016/B978-0-12-821265-3.00020-7
92
TsafnatG.CoptyJ.PartridgeS. R. (2011). RAC: Repository of Antibiotic resistance Cassettes.Database2011bar054–bar054. 10.1093/database/bar054
93
Van BoeckelT. P.BrowerC.GilbertM.GrenfellB. T.LevinS. A.RobinsonT. P.et al (2015). Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.1125649–5654. 10.1073/pnas.1503141112
94
von WintersdorffC. J. H.PendersJ.van NiekerkJ. M.MillsN. D.MajumderS.van AlphenL. B.et al (2016). Dissemination of Antimicrobial Resistance in Microbial Ecosystems through Horizontal Gene Transfer.Front. Microbiol.7:173. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00173
95
WangS.YanZ.WangP.ZhengX.FanJ. (2020). Comparative metagenomics reveals the microbial diversity and metabolic potentials in the sediments and surrounding seawaters of Qinhuangdao mariculture area.PLoS One15:e0234128. 10.1371/journal.pone.0234128
96
WangY.LvY.CaiJ.SchwarzS.CuiL.HuZ.et al (2015). A novel gene, optrA, that confers transferable resistance to oxazolidinones and phenicols and its presence in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium of human and animal origin.J. Antimicr. Chemother.702182–2190. 10.1093/jac/dkv116
97
WybouwN.PauchetY.HeckelD. G.Van LeeuwenT. (2016). Horizontal Gene Transfer Contributes to the Evolution of Arthropod Herbivory.Genome Biol. Evol.81785–1801. 10.1093/gbe/evw119
98
XingC.ChenJ.ZhengX.ChenL.ChenM.WangL.et al (2020). Functional metagenomic exploration identifies novel prokaryotic copper resistance genes from the soil microbiome.Metallomics12387–395. 10.1039/C9MT00273A
99
XuR.YangZ.-H.WangQ.-P.BaiY.LiuJ.-B.ZhengY.et al (2018). Rapid startup of thermophilic anaerobic digester to remove tetracycline and sulfonamides resistance genes from sewage sludge.Sci. Tot. Environ.612788–798. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.295
100
YangY.JiangX.ChaiB.MaL.LiB.ZhangA.et al (2016). ARGs-OAP: online analysis pipeline for antibiotic resistance genes detection from metagenomic data using an integrated structured ARG-database.Bioinformatics322346–2351. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw136
101
YangY.ZhouR.ChenB.ZhangT.HuL.ZouS. (2018). Characterization of airborne antibiotic resistance genes from typical bioaerosol emission sources in the urban environment using metagenomic approach.Chemosphere213463–471. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.066
102
YeS. H.SiddleK. J.ParkD. J.SabetiP. C. (2019). Benchmarking Metagenomics Tools for Taxonomic Classification.Cell178779–794. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.07.010
103
YinX.JiangX.-T.ChaiB.LiL.YangY.ColeJ. R.et al (2018). ARGs-OAP v2.0 with an expanded SARG database and Hidden Markov Models for enhancement characterization and quantification of antibiotic resistance genes in environmental metagenomes.Bioinformatics342263–2270. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty053
104
YuK.LiP.ChenY.ZhangB.HuangY.HuangF.-Y.et al (2020). Antibiotic resistome associated with microbial communities in an integrated wastewater reclamation system.Water Res.173:115541. 10.1016/j.watres.2020.115541
105
ZankariE.HasmanH.KaasR. S.SeyfarthA. M.AgersoY.LundO.et al (2013). Genotyping using whole-genome sequencing is a realistic alternative to surveillance based on phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.68771–777. 10.1093/jac/dks496
106
ZhangT.ZhangX.-X.YeL. (2011). Plasmid metagenome reveals high levels of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements in activated sludge.PLoS One6:e26041. 10.1371/journal.pone.0026041
107
ZhaoR.YuK.ZhangJ.ZhangG.HuangJ.MaL.et al (2020). Deciphering the mobility and bacterial hosts of antibiotic resistance genes under antibiotic selection pressure by metagenomic assembly and binning approaches.Water Res.186:116318. 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116318
108
ZhaoY.TangH.YeY. (2012). RAPSearch2: a fast and memory-efficient protein similarity search tool for next-generation sequencing data.Bioinformatics28125–126. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr595
109
ZhouC. E.SmithJ.LamM.ZemlaA.DyerM. D.SlezakT. (2007). MvirDB–a microbial database of protein toxins, virulence factors and antibiotic resistance genes for bio-defence applications.Nucleic Acids Res.35D391–D394. 10.1093/nar/gkl791
Summary
Keywords
antimicrobial resistance genes, horizontal gene transfer, metagenomic analysis, resistome, Shotgun metagenome sequencing, database
Citation
de Abreu VAC, Perdigão J and Almeida S (2021) Metagenomic Approaches to Analyze Antimicrobial Resistance: An Overview. Front. Genet. 11:575592. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.575592
Received
23 June 2020
Accepted
04 December 2020
Published
18 January 2021
Volume
11 - 2020
Edited by
Debmalya Barh, Institute of Integrative Omics and Applied Biotechnology (IIOAB), India
Reviewed by
João Marcelo Pereira Alves, University of São Paulo, Brazil; Ranjith Kumavath, Central University of Kerala, India
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 de Abreu, Perdigão and Almeida.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Vinicius A. C. de Abreu, vabreu@ufpa.brSintia Almeida, sintiaalmeida@gmail.com
This article was submitted to Computational Genomics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Genetics
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.