Dominique Pontier

Although antibiotic resistance is a major issue for both human and animal health, very few studies have investigated the role of the bacterial host spectrum in its dissemination within natural ecosystems. Here, we assessed the prevalence of methicillin resistance among Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates from humans, non-human primates (NHPs), micromammals and bats in a primatology center located in southeast Gabon, and evaluated the plausibility of four main predictions regarding the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this ecosystem. MRSA strain prevalence was much higher in exposed species (i.e., humans and NHPs which receive antibiotic treatment) than in unexposed species (micromammals and bats), and in NHP species living in enclosures than those in captivity—supporting the assumption that antibiotic pressure is a risk factor in the acquisition of MRSA that is reinforced by the irregularity of drug treatment. In the two unexposed groups of species, resistance prevalence was high in the generalist strains that infect humans or NHPs, supporting the hypothesis that MRSA strains diffuse to wild species through interspecific transmission of a generalist strain. Strikingly, the generalist strains that were not found in humans showed a higher proportion of MRSA strains than specialist strains, suggesting that generalist strains present a greater potential for the acquisition of antibiotic resistance than specialist strains. The host spectrum is thus a major component of the issue of antibiotic resistance in ecosystems where humans apply strong antibiotic pressure.

In biomedical research, population differences are of central interest. Variations in the frequency and severity of diseases and in treatment effects among human subpopulation groups are common in many medical conditions. Unfortunately, the practices in terms of subpopulation labeling do not exhibit the level of rigor one would expect in biomedical research, especially when studying multifactorial diseases such as cancer or atherosclerosis. The reporting of population differences in clinical research is characterized by large disparities in practices, and fraught with methodological issues and inconsistencies. The actual designations such as “Black” or “Asian” refer to broad and heterogeneous groups, with a great discrepancy among countries. Moreover, the use of obsolete concepts such as “Caucasian” is unfortunate and imprecise. The use of adequate labeling to reflect the scientific hypothesis needs to be promoted. Furthermore, the use of “race/ethnicity” as a unique cause of human heterogeneity may distract from investigating other factors related to a medical condition, particularly if this label is employed as a proxy for cultural habits, diet, or environmental exposure. In addition, the wide range of opinions among researchers does not facilitate the attempts made for resolving this heterogeneity in labeling. “Race,” “ethnicity,” “ancestry,” “geographical origin,” and other similar concepts are saturated with meanings. Even if the feasibility of a global consensus on labeling seems difficult, geneticists, sociologists, anthropologists, and ethicists should help develop policies and practices for the biomedical field.