
Control and prevention strategies are indispensable tools for managing the spread of infectious diseases. This paper examined biological models for the post-vaccination stage of a viral outbreak that integrate two important mitigation tools: social distancing, aimed at reducing the disease transmission rate, and vaccination, which boosts the immune system. Five different scenarios of epidemic progression were considered: (ⅰ) the "no control" scenario, reflecting the natural evolution of a disease without any safety measures in place, (ⅱ) the "reconstructed" scenario, representing real-world data and interventions, (ⅲ) the "social distancing control" scenario covering a broad set of behavioral changes, (ⅳ) the "vaccine control" scenario demonstrating the impact of vaccination on epidemic spread, and (ⅴ) the "both controls concurrently" scenario incorporating social distancing and vaccine controls simultaneously. By comparing these scenarios, we provided a comprehensive analysis of various intervention strategies, offering valuable insights into disease dynamics. Our innovative approach to modeling the cost of control gave rise to a robust computational algorithm for solving optimal control problems associated with different public health regulations. Numerical results were supported by real data for the Delta variant of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.
Citation: Hamed Karami, Pejman Sanaei, Alexandra Smirnova. Balancing mitigation strategies for viral outbreaks[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(12): 7650-7687. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024337
[1] | Noman Zahid, Ali Hassan Sodhro, Usman Rauf Kamboh, Ahmed Alkhayyat, Lei Wang . AI-driven adaptive reliable and sustainable approach for internet of things enabled healthcare system. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(4): 3953-3971. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022182 |
[2] | Hao Yuan, Qiang Chen, Hongbing Li, Die Zeng, Tianwen Wu, Yuning Wang, Wei Zhang . Improved beluga whale optimization algorithm based cluster routing in wireless sensor networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(3): 4587-4625. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024202 |
[3] | Tingting Yang, Yi He . Design of intelligent robots for tourism management service based on green computing. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 4798-4815. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023222 |
[4] | Angel Martin-del Rey . A novel model for malware propagation on wireless sensor networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(3): 3967-3998. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024176 |
[5] | Naila Naz, Muazzam A Khan, Suliman A. Alsuhibany, Muhammad Diyan, Zhiyuan Tan, Muhammad Almas Khan, Jawad Ahmad . Ensemble learning-based IDS for sensors telemetry data in IoT networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(10): 10550-10580. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022493 |
[6] | Haitao Huang, Min Tian, Jie Zhou, Xiang Liu . Reliable task allocation for soil moisture wireless sensor networks using differential evolution adaptive elite butterfly optimization algorithm. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14675-14698. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023656 |
[7] | B. Kiruthika, Shyamala Bharathi P . Intelligent dynamic trust secure attacker detection routing for WSN-IoT networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 4243-4257. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023198 |
[8] | Peng-Yeng Yin, Chih-Chun Tsai, Rong-Fuh Day, Ching-Ying Tung, Bir Bhanu . Ensemble learning of model hyperparameters and spatiotemporal data for calibration of low-cost PM2.5 sensors. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 6858-6873. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019343 |
[9] | Faten S. Alamri, Khalid Haseeb, Tanzila Saba, Jaime Lloret, Jose M. Jimenez . Multimedia IoT-surveillance optimization model using mobile-edge authentic computing. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(11): 19174-19190. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023847 |
[10] | Huanhai Yang, Shue Liu . A prediction model of aquaculture water quality based on multiscale decomposition. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 7561-7579. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021374 |
Control and prevention strategies are indispensable tools for managing the spread of infectious diseases. This paper examined biological models for the post-vaccination stage of a viral outbreak that integrate two important mitigation tools: social distancing, aimed at reducing the disease transmission rate, and vaccination, which boosts the immune system. Five different scenarios of epidemic progression were considered: (ⅰ) the "no control" scenario, reflecting the natural evolution of a disease without any safety measures in place, (ⅱ) the "reconstructed" scenario, representing real-world data and interventions, (ⅲ) the "social distancing control" scenario covering a broad set of behavioral changes, (ⅳ) the "vaccine control" scenario demonstrating the impact of vaccination on epidemic spread, and (ⅴ) the "both controls concurrently" scenario incorporating social distancing and vaccine controls simultaneously. By comparing these scenarios, we provided a comprehensive analysis of various intervention strategies, offering valuable insights into disease dynamics. Our innovative approach to modeling the cost of control gave rise to a robust computational algorithm for solving optimal control problems associated with different public health regulations. Numerical results were supported by real data for the Delta variant of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.
Shigellosis is an acute gastroenteritis infection that leads to approximately 165 million infections and 1.1 million deaths per annum [1]. Most of the deaths are related to children in the age group of less than 5 years old [2]. Shigellosis is caused by facultatively anaerobic, non-motile Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria belonging to the genus Shigella. Shigella infection involves invasion and replication within the colonic epithelium, resulting in severe inflammation and epithelial destruction [3]. There are four groups of Shigella in the genus, which includes Shigella dysenteriae, S. boydii, S. flexneri and S. sonnei. Each group is further classified into serotypes and sub-serotypes based on their lipopolysaccharide O-antigen repeats [3]. Epidemiological studies showed that S. dysenteriae was a dominant cause of large epidemics in the past and is now rarely found while S. boydii is infrequently isolated [4]. On the other hand, S. flexneri and S. sonnei are the major causes for Shigellosis. However, the two Shigella strains show distinct geographic distribution patterns, which relies on the socioeconomic conditions of the area. Specifically, S. sonnei is more tightly linked to countries with higher human development index such as Europe and North America while S. flexneri dominates in the low-income regions such as Africa and some of the Asian countries [3]. With the improvement of socioeconomic conditions, transition of dominant strains from S. flexneri to S. sonnei was also observed [5].
S. flexneri and S. sonnei were earlier susceptible to a spectrum of antibiotics. New drug resistant phenotype normally develops within a decade of their release [3]. However, due to antibiotics abuse, drug or multi-drug resistant (MDR) strains emerge more frequently than ever [6]. In addition, international travellers and unprotected sex between men increase the dissemination of Shigella across countries and lead to potential increase of antibiotic resistance [3]. Historically, Shigella was treated with antibiotic drugs such as sulphonamides, tetracycline, and chloramphenicol successively [7]. Antibiotics such as ampicillin, co-trimoxazole, nalidixic acid, and fluoroquinolones were then introduced for combating the bug due to resistance to former drugs [7]. When fluoroquinolones resistant Shigella strains emerged, stronger drugs like ceftriaxone, pivmecillinam, and azithromycin were used for treating the infection [7]. Thus, MDR Shigella strains present a heavy burden and emerging threats to the society. Common strategies of bacterial antibiotic resistance include but not limited to reduced drug penetration, antibiotics efflux, target modification by mutation and antibiotics hydrolysis [7]. Currently, many shigellosis outbreaks are linked to resistant Shigella strains [7]. Rapid increase and widening of spectrum in antibiotics resistance makes Shigella hard to be adequately controlled by existing prevention and treatment measures [8]. Thus, endeavours have been tried to accelerate the development of Shigella vaccines. Vaccine antigens, Shigella subunit vaccines, live oral Shigella vaccines, and also killed whole-cell oral Shigella vaccines are currently under development [3].
Shigella spp. were evolved from non-pathogenic E. coli ancestors by acquisition of chromosomal pathogenicity islands and a large virulence plasmid while genes related with anti-virulence such as cadA and ompT, bacterial mobility like flagella and fimbriae, and catabolism were lost [9]. Pathogenicity of Shigella virulence mainly involves Type III secretion system (T3SS), adherence, invasion, intracellular mobility and spread, immune system manipulation and evasion, and toxin, etc [10]. Accepted paradigm indicated that increased antibiotic resistance is associated with fitness costs, resulting in reductions in in vivo virulence [11]. However, experimental validation of this accepted paradigm is modest. Recent studies suggested that there may be a complex interplay between bacterial virulence and resistance [12]. It has been observed that enhanced virulence and advent of antibiotic resistance often arise almost simultaneously [12]. In addition, a global sensory-transduction system BfmRS in Acinetobacter baumannii controls both enhanced virulence and resistance [13]. Accordingly, loss of aminoglycoside resistance regulator, AmgRS, was found to enhance aminoglycoside action against bacteria while reducing bacterial virulence [14]. Moreover, an experimental study found that increase in antibiotic resistance might be exacerbated by fitness advantages that enhance virulence in drug-resistant microbes, which was consistently verified in three pathogenic bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii and Vibrio cholerae [15]. Although recent progresses suggested that resistance and virulence might be coupled, genetic linkages between the two factors are still insufficient and largely ignored, which hinders further experimental verification of the relationship.
In this study, we collected 15 S. flexneri strains from 7 municipal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Jiangsu province. Profiles of resistance to 9 antibiotics, that is, Amoxicillin/Clavulanic acid (AMC), Ceftiophene (CFT), Cefotaxime (CTX), Gentamicin (GEN), Nalidixic acid (NAL), Norfloxacin (NOR), Tetracycline (TBT), and compound Sulfamethoxazole (SMZ), were experimentally verified. All strains were sequenced via next-generation high-throughput sequencing platform, which were then analysed for core-/pan-genomes and phylogenomic relationships. Distribution patterns of virulence factors under 4 categories belonging to 31 functional groups were studied. Differential distribution patterns of virulence factors were observed in sequenced strains by comparing antibiotic sensitive and resistant strains. In addition, abundance of specific groups of virulence factors and extent of resistance were also correlated, which may provide genetic support for the positive relationship between virulence and resistance.
Shigella is currently categorized as class B infectious disease in China. Pathogenic bacteria detected in local hospitals should be reported to the provincial CDC by municipal CDC. Through collaboration with provincial CDC, 15 Shigella flexneri strains from different patients with either diarrhea or dysentery in different hospitals of 7 municipal cities were isolated by using routine biochemical techniques. Resistance profile to 9 antibiotics (AMC, CFT, CTX, GEN, NAL, NOR, TBT and SMZ) as previously described for each strain was provided by CDC based on their routine screening procedures. Isolates of Shigella flexneri were plated on trypticase soya agar (TSA). Picked-up single colony was then inoculated in 5ml trypticase soya broth (TSB) and incubated overnight at 37 °C with shaking rate of 200 rpm. DNA isolation was performed using Easy-DNA™ Kit for genomic DNA isolation (Invitrogen Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA)
Genomes of the 15 Shigella flexneri isolates were sequenced at Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) in Shenzhen, China by using next-generation sequencing platforms. Genomic DNA (1.5 µg) was fragmented in a microTube using M220 Focused Ultrasonicator (Covaris Inc., Woburn, MA, USA), which were then validated by average molecule length using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer instrument (Agilent DNA 1000 Reagents) and quantified by real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR). The qualified libraries were amplified within the flow cell on the cBot instrument for cluster generation (Hiseq 4000 PE Cluster Kit Illumina). The clustered flow cell was loaded onto the Hiseq 4000 Sequencer for paired-end sequencing (Hiseq 4000 SBS Kit, Illumina) with recommended read lengths 100bp or 150bp. Obtained sequences were assessed via FastQC, assembled via SPAdes [16], recorded and reordered via MAUVE [17] based on reference genome S. flexneri 2a str. 301 by following Edwards and Holt's beginner's guide to comparative bacterial genome analysis using next-generation sequence data (Version 2) [18]. For the annotation process, assembled DNA sequences of the new draft genomes from the 15 isolates were run through an automatic annotation pipeline via Prokka (rapid prokaryotic genome annotation), followed by manual curation in some cases [19]. Ten files were generated in the specified output directory, such as FASTA file of translated coding genes (protein), FASTA file of all genomic features (nucleotide), and Genbank file containing sequences and annotations, etc.
Core-/pan-genome analysis was performed by using standalone software Roary [20]. Core genes (99% ≤ strains ≤ 100%), soft core genes (95% ≤ strains < 99%), shell genes (15% ≤ strains < 95%) and cloud genes (0% ≤ strains < 15%) were calculated. Core and unique genes in the genomes were illustrated in Venn diagram. S. flexneri genomes were visualized in circular form genome by comparing to the reference genome S. flexneri 2a str. 301 via standalone software BRIG [21]. Bacterial analysis pipeline from Center for Genomic Epidemiology (https://cge.cbs.dtu.dk/services/cge/index.php) was used to compare the genomes. Only pre-assembled contig files were submitted to the online server. Theoretical distributions of antibiotic resistance genes and virulence genes were identified, together with plasmid sequences. Multilocus sequence type (MLST) was also performed based on seven housekeeping genes adk, fumC, gyrB, icd, mdh, purA, and recA.
A Newick tree for 15 Shigella flexneri strains, together with another 12 Shigella sonnei strains (unpublished data), was generated based on 3052 core genes in each genome by the phylogenomic analysis with default 1000-time bootstrapping tests via FastTree incorporated in software Roary [22]. The tree was then visualized through online webserver interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) [23]. Genome size, number of MDR, and antibiotic resistance profiles for each strain were then added to the tree by using multi-bar and binary templates in iTOL server.
31 groups of bacterial virulence factors that belong to four categories were downloaded from the Virulence Factor Database (VFDB) [24]. These virulence factors were then used to screen Shigella translated CDSs via phmmer command (E-value < 0.00001) in HMMER package [25]. For each group of virulence factors, multiple homologous sequences were found in corresponding proteomes. These homologous sequences were then processed to get rid of redundant sequences. MDR (resistance to more than 1 antibiotics) and sensitive S. flexneri strains (resistance to 0 antibiotics) were compared in terms of the abundance of specific groups of virulence factors via in-house Python scripts.
The total number of non-redundant putative virulence factors in each group for each proteome was calculated. Distinct distribution patterns of virulence factors were observed. Correlation between virulence and resistance were further studied by principal component analysis (PCA), which clustered sensitive and resistant strains separately based on the differences of virulence factors.
15 Shigella flexneri strains with different antibiotic resistance profiles were isolated from 7 cities in Jiangsu province of China. Another 12 strains belonging to S. sonnei were also collected and used here only as a comparison for phylogenomic study. Four serotypes of S. flexneri were experimentally verified, which includes F1a (4 strains), F1b (1 strain), F2a (8 strains), and F2b (2 strains). Sequence type ST245 was identified in these Shigella isolates according to MLST based on seven housekeeping genes. As for antibiotic resistant profiles of the 27 strains, MDR strains ranges from 5 to 9 drug resistance while no or single resistance strains were considered as sensitive. A phylogenomic tree was constructed via core genomes of studies strains, which was incorporated with genome sizes and resistance profiles (Figure 1). Distinct features were observed between the two bacterial strains. A clear genome reduction was identified in sensitive strains when compared with MDR strains (P-value < 0.05). In addition, all S. sonnei strains are sensitive to Norfloxacin (NOR) and more labile toward Amoxicillin/Clavulanic acid (AMC) when compared with S. flexneri.
General features of the 15 S. flexneri genomes are presented in Table 1, which were obtained by integrating genome assembly and annotation results. Genome size ranges from 4.21 Mbps to 4.63 Mbps. The number of predicted protein-encoding open reading frames (ORFs) in the 15 isolates varied from 4160 (S15054) to 4608 (S13028). The total GC content ranges from 50.38% to 50.78% and is relatively consistent among isolates. All strains have a single tmRNA coding gene. The number of ribosome RNA (rRNA) and transfer RNA (tRNA) coding genes among strains varies slightly with no significant difference.
ID | Serotype | BPs# | N50 | Contigs | CG%# | CDS# | tmRNA# | tRNA# | rRNA# |
S13016 | F2a | 4253276 | 24106 | 379 | 50.75 | 4173 | 1 | 80 | 6 |
S13028 | F2b | 4633307 | 28586 | 418 | 50.38 | 4608 | 1 | 79 | 5 |
S13048 | F1a | 4354182 | 30242 | 320 | 50.7 | 4305 | 1 | 81 | 6 |
S13068 | F2b | 4480462 | 30192 | 356 | 50.5 | 4434 | 1 | 81 | 6 |
S13073 | F1a | 4608113 | 29656 | 382 | 50.5 | 4577 | 1 | 79 | 5 |
S13091 | F2a | 4586630 | 28583 | 403 | 50.47 | 4538 | 1 | 81 | 5 |
S13109 | F2a | 4387425 | 22591 | 472 | 50.66 | 4309 | 1 | 78 | 6 |
S13126 | F2a | 4616160 | 19223 | 600 | 50.52 | 4532 | 1 | 81 | 4 |
S14007 | F2a | 4542085 | 29286 | 391 | 50.45 | 4487 | 1 | 77 | 5 |
S14013 | F2a | 4601323 | 29308 | 398 | 50.47 | 4554 | 1 | 80 | 5 |
S14046 | F1a | 4557758 | 29656 | 394 | 50.46 | 4520 | 1 | 81 | 5 |
S14131 | F2a | 4475708 | 29656 | 360 | 50.42 | 4417 | 1 | 79 | 6 |
S15008 | F1a | 4608066 | 30073 | 381 | 50.48 | 4581 | 1 | 80 | 5 |
S15054 | F1b | 4212908 | 31762 | 292 | 50.78 | 4160 | 1 | 79 | 6 |
S15097 | F2a | 4542196 | 30475 | 371 | 50.4 | 4507 | 1 | 79 | 5 |
#BPs: Base pairs; CDS: coding sequences; GC%: Percentage of GC pairs. tmRNA: transfer-messenger RNA gene. tRNA: transfer RNA gene. rRNA: ribosomal RNA gene.
By using progressive Mauve from the Mauve software, we compared the ordered genome assembly of S. flexneri with S. flexneri 2a str. 301 as a reference genome. It seems that the chromosomal alignments of these strains are approximately identical. Additional genomic features of the 15 S. flexneri strains against reference genome S. flexneri 2a str. 301, such as sequence similarity and distribution of GC content were also analyzed and presented in Figure 2, which indicated that S. flexneri genomes are comparatively well reserved among strains.
Core and pan-genome analyses for 15 S. flexneri isolates were determined by Roary through comparison of the translated CDS set, followed by clustering of orthologous proteins and the representatives of each orthologous cluster and strain-specific CDS in the total pan-genome. The total pan-genome for the 15 compared S. flexneri strains encompasses 5626 CDS. Of these, 3742 (66.51% of total CDS) are core conserved genes across all 15 Shigella genomes. A total of 1884 protein CDS (33.49% of the pan-genome total) constitute the accessory fraction, which are unique to each genome. The lowest numbers of specific genes were encoded by S. flexneri strains S13016 and S15054, with 476 and 464, respectively. The highest numbers of specific genes belong to S. flexneri strains S13028 and S13073, with 908 and 883, respectively (Figure 3). Interestingly, the former two strains are completely sensitive to the nine antibiotics while the latter two strains are resistant to all the tested antibiotics. This is consistent with theoretical prediction of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) via Bacterial Analysis Pipeline from Center for Genomic Epidemiology, in which S13016 has no resistance genes and S15054 was found to harbour a single resistance gene sul2 only. In contrast, other MDR strains have abundant ARGs. In addition, MDR S. flexneri strains are commonly equipped with virulence factors such as capU, gad, ipaD, lpfA, pic, sepA, sigA, and virF. In contrast, sensitive strains only have partial set of these genes, that is, gad, lpfA, pic, and sigA. Theoretical analysis found that S13016 has no known plasmid while S15054 harbors plasmid replicons of Col(MG828) and ColRNAI with no known typing. On the other hand, MDR strains have replicon typing IncN, IncI, and IncF except for S13048. For details, please refer to Table S1.
In silico identification of the putative virulence genes were performed on the translated CDSs of all isolated S. flexneri strains. All the putative virulence factors were classified into 4 major categories, that is, adhesion and invasion, secretion system and effectors, toxin, and iron acquisition, which were further divided into 31 functional groups. Distribution patterns of the virulence factors and their abundance in each strain were presented in Table 2. Nine groups of virulence factors are completely missing in all S. flexneri strains, which are β-PFTs (pore-forming toxin), superantigens and superantigen like protein, surface acting enzymes, glucosyltransferase, guanylate adenylate cyclase, deamidase, rRNA N-glycosidase, metalloprotease, intracellular PFTs. Five groups of virulence factors, that is, sortase assembled pili, fibrinogen-binding protein, collagen-binding protein, T7SS, and ADP Ribosyltransferase, are highly conserved and equally distributed in these strains. For the rest of the 17 functional groups, most of them were skewedly distributed in highly resistant strains (MDR = 9) when compared with sensitive strains, especially for Chaperone usher and T3SS. In order to better understand the relationship between resistance and virulence, principal component analysis was performed. Although many factors interfere, an apparent cluster could be observed for sensitive and resistant strains in terms of abundance of functional groups of virulence factors (Figure 4).
Shigella flexneri Strains | S13016 | S15054 | S13048 | S14007 | S14131 | S13068 | S14013 | S14046 | S15008 | S15097 | S13109 | S13028 | S13073 | S13091 | S13126 | |
MDR | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
Adhesion & Invasion | Chaperone usher | 129 | 131 | 135 | 137 | 135 | 134 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 137 | 135 | 138 | 138 | 137 | 135 |
Extracellular nucleation precipitation | 14 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | |
Type 4 pili | 122 | 130 | 125 | 129 | 127 | 135 | 142 | 130 | 140 | 135 | 124 | 138 | 140 | 139 | 129 | |
Flagella | 192 | 192 | 191 | 197 | 198 | 197 | 198 | 197 | 197 | 196 | 192 | 198 | 197 | 197 | 197 | |
Autotransporter | 17 | 13 | 17 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | |
Fibronectin-binding protein | 51 | 45 | 51 | 53 | 53 | 49 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 50 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 53 | |
Other adherence invasion related VFs | 62 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 61 | 57 | 62 | 61 | 61 | 58 | 63 | 61 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |
Secretion system & Effectors | T2SS | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 9 | 13 | 13 | 8 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 9 |
T3SS | 159 | 157 | 161 | 214 | 211 | 213 | 214 | 217 | 218 | 210 | 168 | 218 | 217 | 215 | 212 | |
T4SS | 32 | 33 | 31 | 33 | 32 | 40 | 41 | 35 | 42 | 41 | 32 | 53 | 41 | 41 | 34 | |
T5SS | 18 | 14 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
T6SS | 152 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 154 | 152 | 154 | 153 | 154 | 154 | 152 | 154 | 154 | 154 | 155 | |
Toxin | α-PFTs | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Dnase1 genotoxin | 29 | 27 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 29 | |
MDR | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
Iron acquisition | Siderophore mediated iron uptake | 272 | 259 | 275 | 277 | 277 | 273 | 279 | 277 | 277 | 274 | 275 | 278 | 279 | 279 | 280 |
Heme-mediated iron uptake | 109 | 105 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 106 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | |
Transferrin and lactoferrin mediated iron uptake | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
#Nine groups of virulence factors are not present in all
The gene presence and absence matrix for all S. flexneri strains were produced by Roary. A complete list of total genes for all strains were listed against 15 S. flexneri strains with 0 as absence and 1 as presence (Table S2). Function for translated protein is also annotated except for hypothetical proteins. By using filter function in Excel table, genes that are exclusively associated with resistant strains (12 genes) or sensitive strains (9 genes) were selected and presented in Table 3.
S. flexneri | Gene | Functions | VF Groups |
Resistant strains | aidB_2 | Putative acyl-CoA dehydrogenase | DNase I genotoxin |
bisC | Biotin sulfoxide reductase | - | |
dhfrI | Trimethoprim resistance protein | - | |
flgE | Flagellar hook protein | Flagella | |
tnsA | Transposon Tn7 transposition protein | - | |
tnsB | |||
tnsC | |||
tnsE | |||
wecD_2 | dTDP-fucosamine acetyltransferase | - | |
xerC_4 | Tyrosine recombinase | Chaperone usher pathway | |
xerD_3 | |||
ydiN_1 | Amino acid/amine transport protein | - | |
Sensitive Strains | alkA | DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase | - |
bcsC_1 | Cellulose synthase subunit | - | |
dgcE_1 | Putative diguanylate cyclase | Type IV pill | |
dgcE_2 | |||
dgcE_3 | |||
dnaK_2 | Putative chaperone | Adherence and invasion | |
dnaK_3 | |||
pgrR_3 | HTH-type transcriptional regulator | Siderophore mediated iron uptake | |
ycaM | Inner membrane transporter | - |
#Genes with unknown functions are not included.
15 newly isolated and completely sequenced S. flexneri strains were thoroughly analysed in terms of distributions of virulence factors. Although classical thoughts support that virulence and resistance are negatively related, more evidence suggested that virulence and resistance could be enhanced simultaneously [11],[12],[15]. Initial phylogenomic analysis separated sensitive and resistant strains into different clusters (Figure 1), which reflected the intrinsic differences of evolutionary pathways between the two groups. Genome sizes of sensitive and resistant groups also show apparent difference, that is, smaller genomes (4167 CDSs on average) associated with sensitive strains and larger genome (4490 CDSs on average) linked to resistant strains. Similarly, another study focusing on sensitive and resistant E. coli isolates also found that more antibiotic sensitive Sudanese strain have smaller genome size while the genome of the resistant Chinese strain is larger [26]. Physically, it is rather difficult for bacteria to develop genetic systems with small genomes. In fact, it has been observed that multidrug resistance phenotype is a function of genome size based on comparative analysis of 22 bacterial species, which is also known as the ‘size matters’ hypothesis [27].
Core-/pan-genome analysis identified that S. flexneri strains have different number of unique genes except for the 3742 shared core genes, which reflects the heterogeneity within the same strains. In addition, the two sensitive strains, S13106 and S15054, have the lowest number of unique genes (476 and 464) while bacteria with the highest number of unique genes (908 and 993) are two most resistant strains, S13028 and S13073 (Figure 3). Specific genes in these strains could reflect bacterial characteristics and dynamics, leading to a better understanding of epidemiological features of S. flexneri [28]. Insights into these genes are out of the scope of this study and will be explored for future studies.
As for the distribution patterns of functional groups of virulence factors in S. flexneri strains, specific patterns were observed, which may provide evidence to support the positive correlation between increased virulence and enhanced antibiotic resistance. It was clear and consistent that nine groups of virulence factors are not present, and another five groups of virulence factors are equally distributed in all S. flexneri strains. Among the 17 virulence factors that are differentially distributed in the studied strains, chaperon usher, type 4 pili, flagella, T3SS, T6SS, siderophore mediated iron uptake, and heme-mediated iron uptake are abundantly present in the genomes of all strains. As for these seven groups of virulence factors, T3SS shows most distinct differences between sensitive strains (158 VFs) and resistant strains (207 VFs) on average. As previously reported, T3SS is a group of specialized protein export systems utilized by bacteria to effectively exploit eukaryotic hosts and contributes to bacterial adherence, invasion, and manipulation of the host's intracellular trafficking and immune systems [10]. Thus, in the multi-resistant Shigella strains, high number of virulence factors in T3SS groups could be very likely to occur at the same time. In fact, virulence mechanisms functioning to overcome host defence systems and antibiotic resistance are necessary for bacteria to survive antimicrobial treatments. Their collaborative work facilitates the MDR S. flexneri strains to adapt to and survive in competitive and demanding environments [29]. In addition, principal component analysis incorporating antibiotic resistance profile and 17 functional groups of virulence factors also showed that sensitive strain S. flexneri strain S15054 is isolated from other strains and most closely related to another sensitive strain S13016. All other resistant strains were all closely clustered together. Thus, from statistical point of view, it was also shown that virulence and antibiotic resistance are closely and positively correlated [12]. However, it should be notified that the spread of the two low resistant isolates in Figure 4 is a bit large. More S. flexneri strains should be included in future to further validate the claim.
Unique genes associated with sensitive and resistant strains were also identified based on the gene presence and absence table generated by core-/pan-genome analysis. It was found that all multi-drug resistant S. flexneri strains uniquely harbors four Tn7 transposon genes (tnsA, tnsB, tnsC, tnsE) and a trimethoprim resistance protein, which reflects that these strains are probably and comparatively more plastic and versatile at genome level and are more capable of acquiring resistance [30]. On the other hand, sensitive strains uniquely have type IV pill related genes (dgcE_1, dgcE_2, dgcE_3), genes involved in adherence and invasion (dnaK_2, dnaK_3), and the HTH-type transcriptional regulator gene pgrR_3 that is responsible for iron uptake. All these features emphasize that sensitive strains are more likely have specialized tools to exploit cells for reproduction. Studies confirmed that bacterial strains acquiring antibiotic resistance have a lower growth rate and are less transmissible than their susceptible counterparts [31].
Except for the interplay between virulence and resistance, several studies also proposed that antibiotic resistance is linked with bacterial intracellular and environmental persistence. In specificity, antibiotic-resistant strains such as Escherichia coli have been reported to survive longer in macrophages [32]. Further study confirmed that resistance to antibiotics and to immune system are interconnected [33]. Moreover, Vogwill et al. showed that survival of antibiotic and environmental stressors is positively correlated while specific mechanisms are unrelated in Pseudomonas strains [34]. Thus, survival and resistance could have potential interactions in bacteria. However, it was also reported that antibiotic-resistant fecal enterococci did not survive longer than antibiotic sensitive strains [35]. The possession of the antibiotic resistance plasmids in E. coli did not promote bacterial survival under starvation conditions, neither [36]. Considering the controversial conclusions, it would also be interesting to investigate this relationship via theoretical analysis, which could provide more insights into this issue and support for experimental studies in future.
15 newly sequenced S. flexneri genomes isolated from clinical samples were assembled, annotated and compared by following several standardized genome analysis pipelines [16],[19],[20]. We then identified strain-specific differences in the gain and loss of putative virulence factors in this preliminary study. In addition, abundance of certain functional groups of virulence factors is positively correlated with the extent of antibiotic resistance based on the comparison of the highly resistant and susceptible strains. Several groups of virulence factors were highlighted due to their tight relationships with strong resistant phenotypes, such as chaperone usher and T3SS, etc. Although virulence and resistance develop on different timescales and share no much common mechanisms, they may share some common characteristics [29]. Thus, antibiotic resistance and virulence are likely to have synergistic effects toward efficiently exploiting host cells in order to reproduce and transmit extensively. However, association between virulence and resistance is an increasing problem and the answer to this question is becoming more beneficial for pathogenic bacteria [29]. This study provides a starting point to address the question of how virulence and antibiotic resistance may interplay in Shigella flexneri by looking into the subtle classification of virulence factors into 31 functional groups. Although the result would be much more convincing if we can incorporate other Shigella flexneri genomes from the public database (1121 sub-strains in PATRIC database version 3.5.39) into the study, antibiotic resistance and susceptibility phenotype data for these strains are largely missing, which greatly hinders the understanding of the interactions between the two factors. Thus, in further studies, more antibiotic resistance phenotypes should be deposited into database, together with virulence phenotypes and genomic data. In addition, fitness costs should also be incorporated to tackle the intriguing relationship among virulence, stress resistance, and antibiotic resistance from the bioinformatics point of view.
[1] |
W. Wu, Y. Yang, G. Sun, Recent insights into antibiotic resistance in Helicobacter pylori eradication, Gastroenterol. Res. Pract., 2012 (2012), 723183. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/723183 doi: 10.1155/2012/723183
![]() |
[2] |
M. Wierup, The control of microbial diseases in animals: alternatives to the use of antibiotics, Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents, 14 (2000), 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-8579(00)00143-6 doi: 10.1016/S0924-8579(00)00143-6
![]() |
[3] |
R. C. Waite, Y. Velleman, G. Woods, A. Chitty, M. C. Freeman, Integration of water, sanitation and hygiene for the control of neglected tropical diseases: a review of progress and the way forward, Int. Health, 8 (2015), i22–i27. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihw003 doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihw003
![]() |
[4] |
A. Hinman, Eradication of vaccine-preventable diseases, Annu. Rev. Public Health, 20 (1999), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.20.1.211 doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.20.1.211
![]() |
[5] | S. Barrett, Eradication versus control: the economics of global infectious disease policies, Bull. World Health Organ., 82 (2004), 683–688. |
[6] |
P. Aaby, C. S. Benn, Stopping live vaccines after disease eradication may increase mortality, Vaccine, 38 (2020), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.034 doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.034
![]() |
[7] | N. L. Stepan, Eradication: Ridding the World of Diseases Forever?, Reaktion Books, 2013. |
[8] | W. R. Dowdle, The principles of disease elimination and eradication, Bull. World Health Organ., 76 (1998), 22–25. |
[9] |
B. Beović, The issue of antimicrobial resistance in human medicine, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 112 (2006), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.05.001 doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.05.001
![]() |
[10] |
D. S. Schneider, J. S. Ayres, Two ways to survive infection: what resistance and tolerance can teach us about treating infectious diseases, Nat. Rev. Immunol., 8 (2008), 889–895. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri2393 doi: 10.1038/nri2393
![]() |
[11] |
B. Spellberg, R. Guidos, D. Gilbert, J. Bradley, H. W. Boucher, W. M. Scheld, et al., The epidemic of antibiotic-resistant infections: a call to action for the medical community from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, Clin. Infect. Dis., 46 (2008), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1086/524891 doi: 10.1086/524891
![]() |
[12] |
G. J. Armelagos, P. J. Brown, B. Turner, Evolutionary, historical and political economic perspectives on health and disease, Social Sci. Med., 61 (2005), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.066 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.066
![]() |
[13] |
C. J. Neiderud, How urbanization affects the epidemiology of emerging infectious diseases, Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol., 5 (2015), 27060. https://doi.org/10.3402/iee.v5.27060 doi: 10.3402/iee.v5.27060
![]() |
[14] |
R. Reyes, R. Ahn, K. Thurber, T. F. Burke, Urbanization and infectious diseases: general principles, historical perspectives, and contemporary challenges, Challenges Infect. Dis., (2013), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4496-1_4 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4496-1_4
![]() |
[15] |
I. Frost, T. P. Van Boeckel, J. Pires, J. Craig, R. Laxminarayan, Global geographic trends in antimicrobial resistance: the role of international travel, J. Travel Med., 26 (2019), taz036. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taz036 doi: 10.1093/jtm/taz036
![]() |
[16] |
A. C. Steere, J. Coburn, L. Glickstein, The emergence of Lyme disease, J. Clin. Invest., 113 (2004), 1093–1101. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI200421681 doi: 10.1172/JCI200421681
![]() |
[17] | G. Dehner, Legionnaires' disease: Building a better world for you, Environ. Hist., 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/emy046 |
[18] |
P. M. Schlievert, T. J. Tripp, M. L. Peterson, Reemergence of staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, during the 2000–2003 surveillance period, J. Clin. Microbiol., 42 (2004), 2875–2876. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.42.6.2875–2876.2004 doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.6.2875–2876.2004
![]() |
[19] |
W. M. Lee, J. E. Polson, D. S. Carney, B. Sahin, M. Gale Jr, Reemergence of hepatitis C virus after 8.5 years in a patient with hypogammaglobulinemia: evidence for an occult viral reservoir, J. Infect. Dis., 192 (2005), 1088–1092. https://doi.org/10.1086/432917 doi: 10.1086/432917
![]() |
[20] |
S. Sridhar, S. K. P. Lau, P. C. Y. Woo, Hepatitis E: A disease of reemerging importance, J. Formosan Med. Assoc., 114 (2015), 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2015.02.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2015.02.003
![]() |
[21] |
M. Pal, K. P. Gutama, Hantavirus disease: An emerging and re-emerging viral disease of public health concern, Am. J. Infect. Dis., 12 (2024), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajidm-12-1-4 doi: 10.12691/ajidm-12-1-4
![]() |
[22] |
M. T. P. Gilbert, A. Rambaut, G. Wlasiuk, T. J. Spira, A. E. Pitchenik, M. Worobey, The emergence of HIV/AIDS in the Americas and beyond, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104 (2007), 18566–18570. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.070532910 doi: 10.1073/pnas.070532910
![]() |
[23] |
T. W. Chun, R. T. Davey Jr, D. Engel, H. C. Lane, A. S. Fauci, Re-emergence of HIV after stopping therapy, Nature, 401 (1999), 874–875. https://doi.org/10.1038/44755 doi: 10.1038/44755
![]() |
[24] |
R. E. Baker, A. S. Mahmud, I. F. Miller, M. Rajeev, F. Rasambainarivo, B. L. Rice, et al., Infectious disease in an era of global change, Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 20 (2022), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-021-00639-z doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00639-z
![]() |
[25] |
H. Liao, C. J. Lyon, B. Ying, T. Hu, Climate change, its impact on emerging infectious diseases and new technologies to combat the challenge, Emerging Microbes Infect., 13 (2024), 2356143. https://doi:10.1080/22221751.2024.2356143 doi: 10.1080/22221751.2024.2356143
![]() |
[26] |
S. P. Luby, J. Davis, R. R. Brown, S. M. Gorelick, T. H. F. Wong, Broad approaches to cholera control in Asia: Water, sanitation and handwashing, Vaccine, 38 (2020), A110–A117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.084 doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.084
![]() |
[27] |
G. Chowell, H. Nishiura, Transmission dynamics and control of Ebola virus disease (EVD): a review, BMC Med., 12 (2014), 196. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0196-0 doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0196-0
![]() |
[28] | G. Ledder, Mathematical Modeling for Epidemiology and Ecology, Springer Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics and Technology, Springer International Publishing, 2023. |
[29] |
H. W. Hethcote, The mathematics of infectious diseases, SIAM Rev., 42 (2000), 599–653. https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614450037190 doi: 10.1137/S003614450037190
![]() |
[30] |
E. G. Nepomuceno, M. L. C. Peixoto, M. J. Lacerda, A. S. L. O. Campanharo, R. H. C. Takahashi, L. A. Aguirre, Application of optimal control of infectious diseases in a model-free scenario, SN Comput. Sci., 2 (2021), 405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00794-3 doi: 10.1007/s42979-021-00794-3
![]() |
[31] |
O. Sharomi, T. Malik, Optimal control in epidemiology, Ann. Oper. Res., 251 (2017), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1834-4 doi: 10.1007/s10479-015-1834-4
![]() |
[32] |
T. K. Kar, S. Jana, A theoretical study on mathematical modelling of an infectious disease with application of optimal control, Biosystems, 111 (2013), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2012.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2012.10.003
![]() |
[33] | S. Lenhart, J. T. Workman, Optimal Control Applied to Biological Models, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011418 |
[34] |
S. S. Musa, S. Qureshi, S. Zhao, A. Yusuf, U. T. Mustapha, D. He, Mathematical modeling of COVID-19 epidemic with effect of awareness programs, Infect. Dis. Modell., 11 (2021), 448–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2021.01.012 doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2021.01.012
![]() |
[35] |
H. Gaff, E. Schaefer, Optimal control applied to vaccination and treatment strategies for various epidemiological models, Math. Biosci. Eng., 6 (2009), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2009.6.469 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.469
![]() |
[36] |
F. Lin, K. Muthuraman, M. Lawley, An optimal control theory approach to non-pharmaceutical interventions, BMC Infect. Dis., 10 (2010), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-10-32 doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-32
![]() |
[37] | D. Huremović, Psychiatry of Pandemics: a Mental Health Response to Infection Outbreak, Springer, (2019), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15346-5_8 |
[38] |
S. Guerstein, V. Romeo-Aznar, M. Dekel, O. Miron, N. Davidovitch, R. Puzis, et al., The interplay between vaccination and social distancing strategies affects COVID-19 population-level outcomes, PLoS Comput. Biol., 17 (2021), e1009319. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009319 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009319
![]() |
[39] |
R. Katz, A. Vaught, S. J. Simmens, Local decision making for implementing social distancing in response to outbreaks, Public Health Rep., 134 (2019), 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354918819755 doi: 10.1177/0033354918819755
![]() |
[40] |
G. Ledder, S. Manzoni, An optimal control problem for resource utilisation by microorganisms, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., 55 (2024), 547–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2023.2254314 doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2023.2254314
![]() |
[41] |
A. Keimer, L. Pflug, Modeling infectious diseases using integro-differential equations: optimal control strategies for policy decisions and applications in COVID-19, Res Gate, 10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10845.44000 doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10845.44000
![]() |
[42] |
J. Mondal, S. Khajanchi, P. Samui, Impact of media awareness in mitigating the spread of an infectious disease with application to optimal control, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 137 (2022), 983. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03156-x doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03156-x
![]() |
[43] | A. Rachah, A mathematical model with isolation for the dynamics of Ebola virus, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1132 (2018), 012058. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1132/1/012058 |
[44] |
M. D. Ahmad, M. Usman, A. Khan, M. Imran, Optimal control analysis of Ebola disease with control strategies of quarantine and vaccination, Infect. Dis. Poverty, 5 (2016), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-016-0161-6 doi: 10.1186/s40249-016-0161-6
![]() |
[45] |
E. Bonyah, K. Badu, S. K. Asiedu-Addo, Optimal control application to an Ebola model, Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed., 6 (2016), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apjtb.2016.01.012 doi: 10.1016/j.apjtb.2016.01.012
![]() |
[46] | I. Area, F. Ndairou, J. J. Nieto, C. J. Silva, D. F. M. Torres, Ebola model and optimal control with vaccination constraints, preprint, arXiv: 1703.01368. |
[47] |
G. Chowell, B. Cazelles, H. Broutin, C. V. Munayco, The influence of geographic and climate factors on the timing of dengue epidemics in Perú, 1994–2008, BMC Infect. Dis., 11 (2011), 164. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-11-164 doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-11-164
![]() |
[48] |
J. H. Arias-Castro, H. J. Martinez-Romero, O. Vasilieva, Biological and chemical control of mosquito population by optimal control approach, Games, 11 (2020), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/g11040062 doi: 10.3390/g11040062
![]() |
[49] |
F. B. Agusto, M. A. Khan, Optimal control strategies for dengue transmission in Pakistan, Math. Biosci., 305 (2018), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2018.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2018.09.007
![]() |
[50] |
M. A. L. Caetano, T. Yoneyama, Optimal and sub-optimal control in Dengue epidemics, Optim. Control. Appl. Methods, 22 (2001), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/oca.683 doi: 10.1002/oca.683
![]() |
[51] |
K. P. Wijaya, T. Götz, E. Soewono, An optimal control model of mosquito reduction management in a dengue endemic region, Int. J. Biomath., 7 (2014), 1450056. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524514500569 doi: 10.1142/S1793524514500569
![]() |
[52] |
L. Lin, Y. Liu, X. Tang, D. He, The disease severity and clinical outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, Front. Public Health, 9 (2021), 775224. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.775224 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.775224
![]() |
[53] | H. R. Sayarshad, An optimal control policy for COVID-19 pandemic until a vaccine deployment, MedRxiv, (2020), 2020-09. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.26.20202325 |
[54] |
G. A. Salcedo-Varela, F. Peñuñuri, D. González-Sánchez, S. Díaz-Infante, Synchronizing lockdown and vaccination policies for COVID-19: An optimal control approach based on piecewise constant strategies, Optim. Control. Appl. Methods, 45 (2024), 523–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/oca.3032 doi: 10.1002/oca.3032
![]() |
[55] |
A. Rachah, Optimal control strategies for assessing the impact of medical masks on COVID-19 dynamics: global perspectives and societal well-being, Open J. Social Sci., 12 (2024), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2024.123022 doi: 10.4236/jss.2024.123022
![]() |
[56] |
H. Bohloli, H. R. Jamshidi, A. Ebraze, F. Rabbani Khah, Combining government, non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination in optimal control COVID-19, Int. J. Healthcare Manage., 16 (2023), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/20479700.2022.2071803 doi: 10.1080/20479700.2022.2071803
![]() |
[57] |
L. Mari, R. Casagrandi, E. Bertuzzo, D. Pasetto, S. Miccoli, A. Rinaldo, et al., The epidemicity index of recurrent SARS-CoV-2 infections, Nat. Commun., 12 (2021), 2752. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22878-7 doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22878-7
![]() |
[58] |
J. C. Lemaitre, D. Pasetto, M. Zanon, E. Bertuzzo, L. Mari, S. Miccoli, et al., Optimal control of the spatial allocation of COVID-19 vaccines: Italy as a case study, PLoS Comput. Biol., 18 (2022), e1010237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010237 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010237
![]() |
[59] |
D. Louz, H. E. Bergmans, B. P. Loos, R. C. Hoeben, Emergence of viral diseases: mathematical modeling as a tool for infection control, policy and decision making, Crit. Rev. Microbiol., 36 (2010), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408411003604619 doi: 10.3109/10408411003604619
![]() |
[60] |
E. Jung, S. Iwami, Y. Takeuchi, T. Jo, Optimal control strategy for prevention of avian influenza pandemic, J. Theor. Biol., 260 (2009), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.05.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.05.031
![]() |
[61] |
S. Lee, G. Chowell, C. Castillo-Chávez, Optimal control for pandemic influenza: the role of limited antiviral treatment and isolation, J. Theor. Biol., 265 (2010), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.04.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.04.003
![]() |
[62] |
K. O. Okosun, R. Ouifki, N. Marcus, Optimal control strategies and cost-effectiveness analysis of a malaria model, BioSystems, 111 (2013), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2012.09.008 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2012.09.008
![]() |
[63] |
W. Valega-Mackenzie, K. Ríos-Soto, S. Lenhart, Optimal control applied to Zika virus epidemics in Colombia and Puerto Rico, J. Theor. Biol., 575 (2023), 111647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2023.111647 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2023.111647
![]() |
[64] |
H. R. Joshi, Optimal control of an HIV immunology model, Optim. Control. Appl. Methods, 23 (2002), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/oca.710 doi: 10.1002/oca.710
![]() |
[65] |
S. Lee, G. Chowell, Exploring optimal control strategies in seasonally varying flu-like epidemics, J. Theor. Biol., 412 (2017), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.09.023 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.09.023
![]() |
[66] |
U. Ledzewicz, H. Maurer, H. Schättler, Bang-bang optimal controls for a mathematical model of chemo-and immunotherapy in cancer, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. - Ser. B, 29 (2024), 1481–1500. https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdsb.2023141 doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2023141
![]() |
[67] |
G. Giordano, F. Blanchini, R. Bruno, P. Colaneri, A. Di Filippo, A. Di Matteo, et al., Modelling the COVID-19 epidemic and implementation of population-wide interventions in Italy, Nat. Med., 26 (2020), 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7 doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7
![]() |
[68] |
J. M. Read, J. R. E. Bridgen, D. A. T. Cummings, A. Ho, C. P. Jewell, Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV (COVID-19): early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic size estimates, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 376 (2021), 20200265. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0265 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0265
![]() |
[69] | R. Dandekar, G. Barbastathis, Quantifying the effect of quarantine control in COVID-19 infectious spread using machine learning, MedRxiv, (2020), 2020-04. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.03.20052084 |
[70] | D. Zou, L. Wang, P. Xu, J. Chen, W. Zhang, Q. Gu, Epidemic model guided machine learning for COVID-19 forecasts in the United States, MedRxiv, (2020), 2020-05. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.24.20111989 |
[71] |
J. T. Wu, K. Leung, G. M. Leung, Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study, Lancet, 395 (2020), 689–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30260-9 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30260-9
![]() |
[72] |
Z. Yang, Z. Zeng, K. Wang, S. S. Wong, W. Liang, M. Zanin, et al., Modified SEIR and AI prediction of the epidemics trend of COVID-19 in China under public health interventions, J. Thoracic Dis., 12 (2020), 165. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2020.02.64 doi: 10.21037/jtd.2020.02.64
![]() |
[73] |
A. Scherer, A. McLean, Mathematical models of vaccination, Br. Med. Bull., 62 (2002), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/62.1.187 doi: 10.1093/bmb/62.1.187
![]() |
[74] |
B. Tang, X. Wang, Q. Li, N. L. Bragazzi, S. Tang, Y. Xiao, et al., Estimation of the transmission risk of the 2019-nCoV and its implication for public health interventions, J. Clin. Med., 9 (2020), 462. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020462 doi: 10.3390/jcm9020462
![]() |
[75] |
C. Tsay, F. Lejarza, M. A. Stadtherr, M. Baldea, Modeling, state estimation, and optimal control for the US COVID-19 outbreak, Sci. Rep., 10 (2020), 10711. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67459-8 doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67459-8
![]() |
[76] | R. Luo, A. D. Herrera-Reyes, Y. Kim, S. Rogowski, D. White, A. Smirnova, Estimation of time-dependent transmission rate for COVID-19 SVIRD model using predictor–corrector algorithm, in Mathematical Modeling for Women's Health: Collaborative Workshop for Women in Mathematical Biology, (2024), 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58516-6 |
[77] |
A. Smirnova, M. Baroonian, Reconstruction of incidence reporting rate for SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant of COVID-19 pandemic in the US, Infect. Dis. Modell., 9 (2024), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2023.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2023.12.001
![]() |
[78] | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State over Time (ARCHIVED). Available from: https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/United-States-COVID-19-Cases-and-Deaths-by-State-o/9mfq-cb36. |
[79] | CDC, Trends in Number of COVID-19 Vaccinations in the US, 2022. Available from: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-trends. |
[80] |
E. P. Esteban, L. Almodovar-Abreu, Assessing the impact of vaccination in a COVID-19 compartmental model, Inf. Med. Unlocked, 27 (2021), 100795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2021.100795 doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2021.100795
![]() |
[81] |
M. Dashtbali, M. Mirzaie, A compartmental model that predicts the effect of social distancing and vaccination on controlling COVID-19, Sci. Rep., 11 (2021), 8191. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86873-0 doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86873-0
![]() |
[82] | A. Smirnova, M. Baroonian, X. Ye, Optimal epidemic control with nonmedical and medical interventions, Mathematics, 12 (2024), 2811. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/18/2811 |
[83] | L. S. Pontryagin, Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes, Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203749319 |
[84] |
A. Smirnova, X. Ye, On optimal control at the onset of a new viral outbreak, Infect. Dis. Modell., 9 (2024), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2024.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2024.05.006
![]() |
[85] |
N. Tuncer, A. Timsina, M. Nuno, G. Chowell, M. Martcheva, Parameter identifiability and optimal control of a SARS-CoV-2 model early in the pandemic, J. Biol. Dyn., 16 (2022), 412–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2022.2078899 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2022.2078899
![]() |
[86] |
M. L. Diagne, F. B. Agusto, H. Rwezaura, J. M. Tchuenche, S. Lenhart, Optimal control of an epidemic model with treatment in the presence of media coverage, Sci. Afr., 24 (2024), e02138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02138 doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02138
![]() |
[87] |
E. Howerton, K. Dahlin, C. J. Edholm, L. Fox, M. Reynolds, B. Hollingsworth, et al., The effect of governance structures on optimal control of two-patch epidemic models, J. Math. Biol., 87 (2023), 74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-023-02001-8 doi: 10.1007/s00285-023-02001-8
![]() |
[88] | U. Ledzewicz, H. Schättler, On optimal singular controls for a general SIR-model with vaccination and treatment, in Conference Publications, 2011 (2011), 981–990. https://doi.org/10.3934/proc.2011.2011.981 |
[89] |
P. E. Parham, J. Waldock, G. K. Christophides, D. Hemming, F. Agusto, K. J. Evans, et al., Climate, environmental and socio-economic change: weighing up the balance in vector-borne disease transmission, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 370 (2015), 20130551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0551 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0551
![]() |
[90] |
J. A. Patz, P. Daszak, G. M. Tabor, A. A. Aguirre, M. Pearl, J. Epstein, et al., Unhealthy landscapes: policy recommendations on land use change and infectious disease emergence, Environ. Health Perspect., 112 (2004), 1092–1098. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.68 doi: 10.1289/ehp.68
![]() |
1. | Lingjun Zhan, Jie Wang, Liang Wang, Chuan Qin, The correlation of drug resistance and virulence in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 2020, 2, 25900536, 18, 10.1016/j.bsheal.2020.02.004 | |
2. | Abolfazl Hajialibeigi, Jafar Amani, Seyed Latif Mousavi Gargari, Identification and evaluation of novel vaccine candidates against Shigella flexneri through reverse vaccinology approach, 2021, 105, 0175-7598, 1159, 10.1007/s00253-020-11054-4 | |
3. | Mónica F. Torrez Lamberti, Lucrecia C. Terán, Fabián E. Lopez, María de las Mercedes Pescaretti, Mónica A. Delgado, Genomic and proteomic characterization of two strains of Shigella flexneri 2 isolated from infants’ stool samples in Argentina, 2022, 23, 1471-2164, 10.1186/s12864-022-08711-5 | |
4. | Wei Liu, Jia-Wei Tang, Jing-Yi Mou, Jing-Wen Lyu, Yu-Wei Di, Ya-Long Liao, Yan-Fei Luo, Zheng-Kang Li, Xiang Wu, Liang Wang, Rapid discrimination of Shigella spp. and Escherichia coli via label-free surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy coupled with machine learning algorithms, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1101357 | |
5. | Poonam Daswani, Vigneshwaran Muthuraman, Ragini Macaden, Mary Dias, Tannaz Birdi, Effect of Psidium guajava (guava) L. Leaf Decoction on Antibiotic-resistant Clinical Diarrhoeagenic Isolates of Shigella spp., 2020, 8, 2345-3362, 122, 10.34172/ijep.2020.26 | |
6. | Mohammad Shahnaij, Mohammed Badrul Amin, M. Mozammel Hoque, Abdus Salam Mondol, Kazi Jewel Rana, Ishrat J. Azmi, Kaisar A. Talukder, Conrad W. Mullineaux, Characterization of Shigella flexneri Serotype 6 Strains Isolated from Bangladesh and Identification of a New Phylogenetic Cluster, 2023, 0021-9193, 10.1128/jb.00406-22 | |
7. | Marija Miljkovic, Sonia Lozano, Isabel Castellote, Cristina de Cózar, Ana I. Villegas-Moreno, Pablo Gamallo, Dolores Jimenez-Alfaro Martinez, Elena Fernández-Álvaro, Lluis Ballell, George A. Garcia, Paul M. Dunman, Novel inhibitors that target bacterial virulence identified via HTS against intra-macrophage survival of Shigella flexneri , 2023, 8, 2379-5042, 10.1128/msphere.00154-23 | |
8. | Li-Yan Zhang, Benshun Tian, Yuan-Hong Huang, Bin Gu, Pei Ju, Yanfei Luo, Jiawei Tang, Liang Wang, Classification and prediction of Klebsiella pneumoniae strains with different MLST allelic profiles via SERS spectral analysis, 2023, 11, 2167-8359, e16161, 10.7717/peerj.16161 | |
9. | Elizabeth A. Rucks, Type III Secretion in Chlamydia, 2023, 87, 1092-2172, 10.1128/mmbr.00034-23 | |
10. | Khalifa Binkhamis, Sarah Alangari, Fatema Juma, Sahar Althawadi, Ahmed A. Al-Qahtani, Marie Fe F. Bohol, Fatimah S. Alshahrani, Fawzia Alotaibi, Shigella flexneri Outbreak at a Rehabilitation Center: First Report from Saudi Arabia, 2025, 13, 2227-9032, 971, 10.3390/healthcare13090971 |
ID | Serotype | BPs# | N50 | Contigs | CG%# | CDS# | tmRNA# | tRNA# | rRNA# |
S13016 | F2a | 4253276 | 24106 | 379 | 50.75 | 4173 | 1 | 80 | 6 |
S13028 | F2b | 4633307 | 28586 | 418 | 50.38 | 4608 | 1 | 79 | 5 |
S13048 | F1a | 4354182 | 30242 | 320 | 50.7 | 4305 | 1 | 81 | 6 |
S13068 | F2b | 4480462 | 30192 | 356 | 50.5 | 4434 | 1 | 81 | 6 |
S13073 | F1a | 4608113 | 29656 | 382 | 50.5 | 4577 | 1 | 79 | 5 |
S13091 | F2a | 4586630 | 28583 | 403 | 50.47 | 4538 | 1 | 81 | 5 |
S13109 | F2a | 4387425 | 22591 | 472 | 50.66 | 4309 | 1 | 78 | 6 |
S13126 | F2a | 4616160 | 19223 | 600 | 50.52 | 4532 | 1 | 81 | 4 |
S14007 | F2a | 4542085 | 29286 | 391 | 50.45 | 4487 | 1 | 77 | 5 |
S14013 | F2a | 4601323 | 29308 | 398 | 50.47 | 4554 | 1 | 80 | 5 |
S14046 | F1a | 4557758 | 29656 | 394 | 50.46 | 4520 | 1 | 81 | 5 |
S14131 | F2a | 4475708 | 29656 | 360 | 50.42 | 4417 | 1 | 79 | 6 |
S15008 | F1a | 4608066 | 30073 | 381 | 50.48 | 4581 | 1 | 80 | 5 |
S15054 | F1b | 4212908 | 31762 | 292 | 50.78 | 4160 | 1 | 79 | 6 |
S15097 | F2a | 4542196 | 30475 | 371 | 50.4 | 4507 | 1 | 79 | 5 |
#BPs: Base pairs; CDS: coding sequences; GC%: Percentage of GC pairs. tmRNA: transfer-messenger RNA gene. tRNA: transfer RNA gene. rRNA: ribosomal RNA gene.
Shigella flexneri Strains | S13016 | S15054 | S13048 | S14007 | S14131 | S13068 | S14013 | S14046 | S15008 | S15097 | S13109 | S13028 | S13073 | S13091 | S13126 | |
MDR | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
Adhesion & Invasion | Chaperone usher | 129 | 131 | 135 | 137 | 135 | 134 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 137 | 135 | 138 | 138 | 137 | 135 |
Extracellular nucleation precipitation | 14 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | |
Type 4 pili | 122 | 130 | 125 | 129 | 127 | 135 | 142 | 130 | 140 | 135 | 124 | 138 | 140 | 139 | 129 | |
Flagella | 192 | 192 | 191 | 197 | 198 | 197 | 198 | 197 | 197 | 196 | 192 | 198 | 197 | 197 | 197 | |
Autotransporter | 17 | 13 | 17 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | |
Fibronectin-binding protein | 51 | 45 | 51 | 53 | 53 | 49 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 50 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 53 | |
Other adherence invasion related VFs | 62 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 61 | 57 | 62 | 61 | 61 | 58 | 63 | 61 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |
Secretion system & Effectors | T2SS | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 9 | 13 | 13 | 8 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 9 |
T3SS | 159 | 157 | 161 | 214 | 211 | 213 | 214 | 217 | 218 | 210 | 168 | 218 | 217 | 215 | 212 | |
T4SS | 32 | 33 | 31 | 33 | 32 | 40 | 41 | 35 | 42 | 41 | 32 | 53 | 41 | 41 | 34 | |
T5SS | 18 | 14 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
T6SS | 152 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 154 | 152 | 154 | 153 | 154 | 154 | 152 | 154 | 154 | 154 | 155 | |
Toxin | α-PFTs | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Dnase1 genotoxin | 29 | 27 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 29 | |
MDR | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
Iron acquisition | Siderophore mediated iron uptake | 272 | 259 | 275 | 277 | 277 | 273 | 279 | 277 | 277 | 274 | 275 | 278 | 279 | 279 | 280 |
Heme-mediated iron uptake | 109 | 105 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 106 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | |
Transferrin and lactoferrin mediated iron uptake | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
#Nine groups of virulence factors are not present in all
S. flexneri | Gene | Functions | VF Groups |
Resistant strains | aidB_2 | Putative acyl-CoA dehydrogenase | DNase I genotoxin |
bisC | Biotin sulfoxide reductase | - | |
dhfrI | Trimethoprim resistance protein | - | |
flgE | Flagellar hook protein | Flagella | |
tnsA | Transposon Tn7 transposition protein | - | |
tnsB | |||
tnsC | |||
tnsE | |||
wecD_2 | dTDP-fucosamine acetyltransferase | - | |
xerC_4 | Tyrosine recombinase | Chaperone usher pathway | |
xerD_3 | |||
ydiN_1 | Amino acid/amine transport protein | - | |
Sensitive Strains | alkA | DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase | - |
bcsC_1 | Cellulose synthase subunit | - | |
dgcE_1 | Putative diguanylate cyclase | Type IV pill | |
dgcE_2 | |||
dgcE_3 | |||
dnaK_2 | Putative chaperone | Adherence and invasion | |
dnaK_3 | |||
pgrR_3 | HTH-type transcriptional regulator | Siderophore mediated iron uptake | |
ycaM | Inner membrane transporter | - |
#Genes with unknown functions are not included.
ID | Serotype | BPs# | N50 | Contigs | CG%# | CDS# | tmRNA# | tRNA# | rRNA# |
S13016 | F2a | 4253276 | 24106 | 379 | 50.75 | 4173 | 1 | 80 | 6 |
S13028 | F2b | 4633307 | 28586 | 418 | 50.38 | 4608 | 1 | 79 | 5 |
S13048 | F1a | 4354182 | 30242 | 320 | 50.7 | 4305 | 1 | 81 | 6 |
S13068 | F2b | 4480462 | 30192 | 356 | 50.5 | 4434 | 1 | 81 | 6 |
S13073 | F1a | 4608113 | 29656 | 382 | 50.5 | 4577 | 1 | 79 | 5 |
S13091 | F2a | 4586630 | 28583 | 403 | 50.47 | 4538 | 1 | 81 | 5 |
S13109 | F2a | 4387425 | 22591 | 472 | 50.66 | 4309 | 1 | 78 | 6 |
S13126 | F2a | 4616160 | 19223 | 600 | 50.52 | 4532 | 1 | 81 | 4 |
S14007 | F2a | 4542085 | 29286 | 391 | 50.45 | 4487 | 1 | 77 | 5 |
S14013 | F2a | 4601323 | 29308 | 398 | 50.47 | 4554 | 1 | 80 | 5 |
S14046 | F1a | 4557758 | 29656 | 394 | 50.46 | 4520 | 1 | 81 | 5 |
S14131 | F2a | 4475708 | 29656 | 360 | 50.42 | 4417 | 1 | 79 | 6 |
S15008 | F1a | 4608066 | 30073 | 381 | 50.48 | 4581 | 1 | 80 | 5 |
S15054 | F1b | 4212908 | 31762 | 292 | 50.78 | 4160 | 1 | 79 | 6 |
S15097 | F2a | 4542196 | 30475 | 371 | 50.4 | 4507 | 1 | 79 | 5 |
Shigella flexneri Strains | S13016 | S15054 | S13048 | S14007 | S14131 | S13068 | S14013 | S14046 | S15008 | S15097 | S13109 | S13028 | S13073 | S13091 | S13126 | |
MDR | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
Adhesion & Invasion | Chaperone usher | 129 | 131 | 135 | 137 | 135 | 134 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 137 | 135 | 138 | 138 | 137 | 135 |
Extracellular nucleation precipitation | 14 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | |
Type 4 pili | 122 | 130 | 125 | 129 | 127 | 135 | 142 | 130 | 140 | 135 | 124 | 138 | 140 | 139 | 129 | |
Flagella | 192 | 192 | 191 | 197 | 198 | 197 | 198 | 197 | 197 | 196 | 192 | 198 | 197 | 197 | 197 | |
Autotransporter | 17 | 13 | 17 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | |
Fibronectin-binding protein | 51 | 45 | 51 | 53 | 53 | 49 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 50 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 53 | |
Other adherence invasion related VFs | 62 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 61 | 57 | 62 | 61 | 61 | 58 | 63 | 61 | 61 | 61 | 60 | |
Secretion system & Effectors | T2SS | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 9 | 13 | 13 | 8 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 9 |
T3SS | 159 | 157 | 161 | 214 | 211 | 213 | 214 | 217 | 218 | 210 | 168 | 218 | 217 | 215 | 212 | |
T4SS | 32 | 33 | 31 | 33 | 32 | 40 | 41 | 35 | 42 | 41 | 32 | 53 | 41 | 41 | 34 | |
T5SS | 18 | 14 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
T6SS | 152 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 154 | 152 | 154 | 153 | 154 | 154 | 152 | 154 | 154 | 154 | 155 | |
Toxin | α-PFTs | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Dnase1 genotoxin | 29 | 27 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 29 | |
MDR | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
Iron acquisition | Siderophore mediated iron uptake | 272 | 259 | 275 | 277 | 277 | 273 | 279 | 277 | 277 | 274 | 275 | 278 | 279 | 279 | 280 |
Heme-mediated iron uptake | 109 | 105 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 106 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | 108 | |
Transferrin and lactoferrin mediated iron uptake | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
S. flexneri | Gene | Functions | VF Groups |
Resistant strains | aidB_2 | Putative acyl-CoA dehydrogenase | DNase I genotoxin |
bisC | Biotin sulfoxide reductase | - | |
dhfrI | Trimethoprim resistance protein | - | |
flgE | Flagellar hook protein | Flagella | |
tnsA | Transposon Tn7 transposition protein | - | |
tnsB | |||
tnsC | |||
tnsE | |||
wecD_2 | dTDP-fucosamine acetyltransferase | - | |
xerC_4 | Tyrosine recombinase | Chaperone usher pathway | |
xerD_3 | |||
ydiN_1 | Amino acid/amine transport protein | - | |
Sensitive Strains | alkA | DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase | - |
bcsC_1 | Cellulose synthase subunit | - | |
dgcE_1 | Putative diguanylate cyclase | Type IV pill | |
dgcE_2 | |||
dgcE_3 | |||
dnaK_2 | Putative chaperone | Adherence and invasion | |
dnaK_3 | |||
pgrR_3 | HTH-type transcriptional regulator | Siderophore mediated iron uptake | |
ycaM | Inner membrane transporter | - |