Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 31, Number 2—February 2025
Dispatch

Diphtheria Toxin–Producing Corynebacterium ramonii in Inner-City Population, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2019–2023

Christopher F. Lowe1Comments to Author , Gordon Ritchie1, Chiara Crestani, Miguel Imperial, Nancy Matic, Michael Payne, Aleksandra Stefanovic, Diana Whellams, Sylvain Brisse2, and Marc G. Romney2
Author affiliation: Author affiliations: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (C.F. Lowe, G. Ritchie, M. Imperial, N. Matic, M. Payne, A. Stefanovic, D. Whellams, M.G. Romney); St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver (C.F. Lowe, G. Ritchie, N. Matic, M. Payne, A. Stefanovic, M.G. Romney); Institut Pasteur–Université Paris Cité, Paris, France (C. Crestani, S. Brisse); LifeLabs, Vancouver (M. Imperial, D. Whellams); Institut Pasteur National Reference Center for Corynebacteria of the Diphtheriae Complex, Paris (S. Brisse)

Main Article

Figure

Phylogenetic analyses and location of Corynebacterium ramonii and C. ulcerans isolates in study of diphtheria toxin–producing C. ramonii in inner-city population, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2019–2023. Trees were rooted at midpoint. Colored circles indicate sequence type and colored stars indicate diphtheria toxin status. Numbers on lines in the spanning trees indicate number of allelic differences between sequence types; years the specimens were collected are indicated at spanning tree nodes. A) Maximum-likelihood phylogeny (left side) and minimum spanning tree (right side) of 8 C. ramonii isolates from this study (British Columbia) together with 2 isolates, LSPQ-04227 and LSPQ-04228, from Quebec, Canada (1); 2 clusters of infections can be observed, corresponding to ST335 and ST341 isolates. B) Spatial map of C. ramonii isolates from this study, all originating from downtown Vancouver. C) Maximum-likelihood phylogeny (left side) and minimum spanning tree (right side) of 6 C. ulcerans isolates from this study (British Columbia). Scale bars indicates nucleotide substitutions per site. NTTB, nontoxigenic tox gene–bearing; ST, sequence type; Tox+, tox gene and toxin both present.

Figure. Phylogenetic analyses and location of Corynebacterium ramonii and C. ulcerans isolates in study of diphtheria toxin–producing C. ramonii in inner-city population, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2019–2023. Trees were rooted at midpoint. Colored circles indicate sequence type and colored stars indicate diphtheria toxin status. Numbers on lines in the spanning trees indicate number of allelic differences between sequence types; years the specimens were collected are indicated at spanning tree nodes. A) Maximum-likelihood phylogeny (left side) and minimum spanning tree (right side) of 8 C. ramonii isolates from this study (British Columbia) together with 2 isolates, LSPQ-04227 and LSPQ-04228, from Quebec, Canada (1); 2 clusters of infections can be observed, corresponding to ST335 and ST341 isolates. B) Spatial map of C. ramonii isolates from this study, all originating from downtown Vancouver. C) Maximum-likelihood phylogeny (left side) and minimum spanning tree (right side) of 6 C. ulcerans isolates from this study (British Columbia). Scale bars indicates nucleotide substitutions per site. NTTB, nontoxigenic tox gene–bearing; ST, sequence type; Tox+, tox gene and toxin both present.

Main Article

References
  1. Crestani  C, Arcari  G, Landier  A, Passet  V, Garnier  D, Brémont  S, et al. Corynebacterium ramonii sp. nov., a novel toxigenic member of the Corynebacterium diphtheriae species complex. Res Microbiol. 2023;174:104113. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Otshudiema  JO, Acosta  AM, Cassiday  PK, Hadler  SC, Hariri  S, Tiwari  TSP. Respiratory illness caused by Corynebacterium diphtheriae and C. ulcerans, and use of diphtheria antitoxin in the United States, 1996–2018. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:e2799–806. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Moore  LSP, Leslie  A, Meltzer  M, Sandison  A, Efstratiou  A, Sriskandan  S. Corynebacterium ulcerans cutaneous diphtheria. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15:1100–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard  KA, Pacheco  AL, Burdz  T, Wiebe  D. Increase in detection of Corynebacterium diphtheriae in Canada: 2006-2019. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2019;45:296–301. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chorlton  SD, Ritchie  G, Lawson  T, Romney  MG, Lowe  CF. Whole-genome sequencing of Corynebacterium diphtheriae isolates recovered from an inner-city population demonstrates the predominance of a single molecular strain. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58:e01651–19. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dewinter  LM, Bernard  KA, Romney  MG. Human clinical isolates of Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Corynebacterium ulcerans collected in Canada from 1999 to 2003 but not fitting reporting criteria for cases of diphtheria. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:3447–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for antimicrobial dilution and disk susceptibility testing of infrequently isolated or fastidious bacteria; third edition (M45). Wayne (PA): The Institute; 2015.
  8. Kolmogorov  M, Yuan  J, Lin  Y, Pevzner  PA. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:540–6. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gurevich  A, Saveliev  V, Vyahhi  N, Tesler  G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:1072–5. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hennart  M, Crestani  C, Bridel  S, Armatys  N, Brémont  S, Carmi-Leroy  A, et al. A global Corynebacterium diphtheriae genomic framework sheds light on current diphtheria reemergence. Peer Community J. 2023;3:e76. DOIGoogle Scholar
  11. Nguyen  L-T, Schmidt  HA, von Haeseler  A, Minh  BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:268–74. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Tonkin-Hill  G, MacAlasdair  N, Ruis  C, Weimann  A, Horesh  G, Lees  JA, et al. Producing polished prokaryotic pangenomes with the Panaroo pipeline. Genome Biol. 2020;21:180. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Argimón  S, Abudahab  K, Goater  RJE, Fedosejev  A, Bhai  J, Glasner  C, et al. Microreact: visualizing and sharing data for genomic epidemiology and phylogeography. Microb Genom. 2016;2:e000093. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhou  Z, Alikhan  N-F, Sergeant  MJ, Luhmann  N, Vaz  C, Francisco  AP, et al. GrapeTree: visualization of core genomic relationships among 100,000 bacterial pathogens. Genome Res. 2018;28:1395–404. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar

Main Article

1These first authors contributed equally to this article.

2These senior authors contributed equally to this article.

Page created: December 30, 2024
Page updated: January 31, 2025
Page reviewed: January 31, 2025
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external