Evidence Hub

Comprehensive in silico genomics analysis of global trends and host-specific emergence of aminoglycoside resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: a One-Health perspective

El-Sehrawy AAMA, Jasim SA, Jasim HF, Nematov O, Baig MR, Smerat A, Iqbal MS, Basunduwah TS et al.

BMC microbiology, 2026

Abstract

Background: Aminoglycosides remain clinically valuable against Staphylococcus aureus. Aminoglycoside resistance in S. aureus represents a critical One Health concern and is primarily driven by aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes (AMEs), which are frequently plasmid-encoded. Although regional studies have provided valuable insights, the global epidemiology of aminoglycoside resistance determinants remains poorly characterized because comprehensive data integrating human, animal, and environmental reservoirs are still lacking. This study addresses this gap by analyzing over 110,000 S. aureus genomes (2000-2025) to map the global resistome, quantify temporal and host-specific trends, and assess the association between genetic determinants and phenotypic resistance.

Methods: We performed a retrospective One Health meta-analysis of 110,309 S. aureus genomes collected between 2000 and 2025 from 128 countries. Genomes were quality-filtered and aminoglycoside resistance determinants were identified using NCBI AMRFinderPlus (v4.0.23). Multilocus sequence typing and host-source harmonization (Human, Animal, Environment, Unknown) enabled clonal and reservoir stratification. Temporal trends in gene prevalence and resistance burden were modeled with robust regression. Geographic and host-associated structuring of key genes was assessed via χ2 and enrichment tests. Machine-learning models (elastic-net, random forests, XGBoost) were benchmarked for minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free