Paenibacillus amylolyticus osteomyelitis in a Poodle dog: case report and literature review

Abstract

Paenibacilli are gram-variable, endospore-forming bacteria that occupy various ecologic niches. These microorganisms have been known to infect humans occasionally at various anatomic sites. However, in humans, as well as in other vertebrate animals, the relationship between disease and isolation of Paenibacillus spp. remains poorly understood. We report here a case of infection in an adult Poodle dog. The animal had nodules in the lungs and multifocal osteolytic expansile bone lesions. From bone, Paenibacillus amylolyticus was recovered by culture and identified by MALDI-TOF mass spectroscopy and 16S rDNA sequencing; pyogranulomatous inflammation was observed in lung and bone specimens. The microorganism was resistant to clindamycin and imipenem. Four-month treatment with amoxicillin–clavulanate resulted in clinical resolution of disease in this dog. Nevertheless, therapy for more prolonged periods should be considered because recurrent infections can occur as a result of the transition of Paenibacillus spores to vegetative cells. Disease caused by a Paenibacillus species has not been reported previously in dogs, to our knowledge.

Rescue ofMycobacterium bovisDNA obtained from cultured strains during official surveillance of animal TB: key steps for robust whole genome sequence data generation

“…The bacterial genera that appear in these samples, all of which have been associated with animal infections or the animal's regular microbiota [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45], suggest that the contamination source is related with the sampled animals and not with posterior contamination introduced by handling of the samples. Of course, if such organisms are present in a high amount in the sampled tissues, and since the decontamination procedure does not eliminate the DNA (as discussed above), they will generate WGS reads.…”

“…Looking to each sample individually (Figure 3D), it becomes evident the presence of reads classified as belonging to other organisms and high percentages of reads that could not be classified in the most recent samples. The genus of the most frequent contaminants in all samples were Homo (human DNA), most likely from cross-contamination in sample manipulation, and other known animal pathogens or regular members of animal's microbiota (i.e., Clostridium, Serratia, Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Rhodococcus, Staphylococcus, Rummeliibacillus, and Mycolicibacter) [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. One aspect that stands out is that the percentage of contamination with Gram-negative pathogens is higher in the WGA samples (average of 6.0%) than in the original (non-amplified) samples (average of 0.3%) from 2019 to 2021.…”

Rescue of Mycobacterium bovis DNA Obtained from Cultured Samples during Official Surveillance of Animal TB: Key Steps for Robust Whole Genome Sequence Data Generation

“…The bacterial genera that appear in these samples, all of which have been associated with animal infections or the animal's regular microbiota [23][24][25][26][27][28][29], suggest that the contamination source is related to the sampled animals and not to posterior contamination introduced by handling the samples. Of course, if such organisms are present in a high amount in the sampled tissues, and since the decontamination procedure does not eliminate the DNA (as discussed above), they will generate WGS reads.…”

“…Looking at each sample individually (Figure 3D), it becomes evident that there are reads classified as belonging to other organisms and high percentages of reads that could not be classified in the most recent samples. The genus of the most frequent contaminants in all samples was Homo (human DNA), most likely from cross-contamination in sample manipulation, and other known animal pathogens or regular members of the animal's microbiota (i.e., Clostridium, Serratia, Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Rhodococcus, Staphylococcus, Rummeliibacillus, and Mycolicibacter) [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. One aspect that stands out is that the percentage of contamination with Gram-negative pathogens is higher in the WGA samples (average of 6.0%) than in the original (non-amplified) samples (average of 0.3%) from 2019 to 2021.…”