Consideration of within-patient diversity highlights transmission pathways and antimicrobial resistance gene variability in vancomycin resistant Enterococcus faecium
=====================================================================================================================================================================

* Martin P McHugh
* Kerry A Pettigrew
* Surabhi Taori
* Thomas J Evans
* Alistair Leanord
* Stephen H Gillespie
* Kate E Templeton
* Matthew TG Holden

## Synopsis

**Background** Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly applied to healthcare-associated vancomycin-resistant *Enterococcus faecium* (VREfm) outbreaks. Within-patient diversity could complicate transmission resolution if single colonies are sequenced from identified cases.

**Objectives** Determine the impact of within-patient diversity on transmission resolution of VREfm

**Methods** Fourteen colonies were collected from VREfm positive rectal screens, single colonies were collected from clinical samples, and Illumina WGS performed. Two isolates were selected for Oxford Nanopore sequencing and hybrid genome assembly to generate lineage-specific reference genomes. Mapping to closely related references was used to identify genetic variations and closely related genomes. A transmission network was inferred for the entire genome set using Phyloscanner.

**Results** In total, 229 isolates from 11 patients were sequenced. Carriage of 2-3 sequence types was detected in 27% of patients. Presence of antimicrobial resistance genes and plasmids was variable within genomes from the same patient and sequence type. We identified two dominant sequence types (ST80 and ST1424), with two putative transmission clusters of two patients within ST80, and a single cluster of six patients within ST1424. We found transmission resolution was impaired using fewer than 14 colonies.

**Conclusions** Patients can carry multiple sequence types of VREfm, and even within related lineages the presence of mobile genetic elements and antimicrobial resistance genes can vary. VREfm within-patient diversity should be considered to ensure accurate resolution of transmission networks.

## INTRODUCTION

*Enterococcus faecium* is a leading nosocomial pathogen causing opportunistic infections mostly in immunocompromised hosts. Antimicrobial resistance is a key concern, particularly against front-line anti Gram-positive agents amoxicillin and vancomycin.1 Vancomycin-resistant *E. faecium* (VREfm) infections lead to increased length of stay, cost an estimated USD200 per case per day, and confer mortality of 23-47%.2–7 In 2020, vancomycin resistance of 45.6% was reported among all *E. faecium* bloodstream isolates in Scotland, among the highest rates in Europe.8

In healthcare institutions asymptomatic intestinal carriage of VREfm can lead to shedding into the environment and transfer to other patients or staff, challenging efforts to limit the incidence of nosocomial infections.9 Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly applied to investigate transmission networks and identify control measures.10,11 Many WGS based analyses of bacterial outbreaks, however, rely on analysing single colony picks from clinical samples assuming that this represents the entire infecting or colonizing population within individual patients.12 It is increasingly recognised that within-patient diversity of bacterial populations can be significant and can influence transmission network resolution.13–19 Several studies have identified that individual patients can carry multiple strains of *E. faecium* concurrently, but few have applied this to transmission resolution.20–24

In this study, we aimed to identify within-patient diversity of VREfm from rectal screening swabs and determine how this impacts transmission inference in a 1-month snapshot on a haematology unit. We designed a sampling strategy to reliably detect within-patient diversity and supplemented short-read and long-read sequencing to generate high-quality reference genomes to identify genomic variants in the isolate collection.

## MATERIALS AND METHODS

### Isolates

Rectal swabs were collected at admission and on all inpatients on the haematology unit developing febrile neutropenia (neutrophils <0.9×109/l or <1.0×109/l and falling after chemotherapy, plus body temperature ≥38°C). Swabs were plated to CHROMID® VRE agar (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France), species identification and vancomycin resistance were confirmed with MALDI-TOF (Microflex instrument, Bruker, Billerica, USA) and VITEK-2 (bioMérieux) with EUCAST breakpoints. All purple colonies from VREfm positive plates were stored at −80°C in a Microbank cryovial (Pro-Lab Diagnostics, Birkenhead, UK). Any VREfm isolated from clinical samples within 60 days of a rectal positive were also stored. Patient metadata was retrieved from electronic records and movements visualised with HAIviz v0.3 ([https://haiviz.beatsonlab.com/](https://haiviz.beatsonlab.com/)). This work was approved by the NHS Scotland BioRepository Network (Ref TR000126) and the University of St Andrews Research Ethics Committee (Ref MD12651).

### Genome Sequencing

Cryovials were re-plated on CHROMID® VRE agar, and fourteen random purple colonies were incubated overnight in 5 ml brain heart infusion broth (Oxoid). Cells were pelleted and DNA extracted using the DNA Mini kit on a QiaSymphony instrument (Qiagen).

Short read libraries were prepared using the Nextera XT kit (Illumina, San Diego, USA) and sequenced with a MiSeq instrument (Illumina) using 300 bp paired-end reads on a 600-cycle v3 reagent kit.

For long read sequencing, isolates VRED06-02 (ST1424) and VRED06-10 (ST80) were selected at random from the first sample with multiple sequence types detected (sample VRED06 from patient P49). Long read libraries were generated with the LSK109 Ligation Sequencing Kit (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Oxford, UK) and sequenced for 8h using an R9.4 flow cell on a GridION sequencer (Oxford Nanopore Technologies) with high accuracy basecalling in MinKNOW v19.12.6 (Oxford Nanopore Technologies).

Sequence data from this study have been deposited in the NCBI under BioProject accession number PRJNA877253 ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA877253](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA877253)).

### Sequence Assembly and Mapping

Short reads were quality trimmed with Trimmomatic v0.32.25 MLSTs were determined with SRST2 v0.2.026 and the *E. faecium* pubMLST database.27 A core alignment was generated by mapping short reads to the reference genome(s) with Snippy v4.6.0 default settings ([https://github.com/tseemann/snippy](https://github.com/tseemann/snippy)) and masking all putative transposases, prophage regions, and recombination blocks. Recombination blocks were identified with Gubbins v2.4.1.28 Non-ACGT bases were converted to N with snippy-clean and a core SNP alignment generated with snp-sites v2.5.1.29 The 130 ST80 genomes mapped to VRED06-10 generated an initial alignment of 2,814,943 bases, 202,738 bases were masked, and the final alignment contained 96 variant sites; the 97 ST1424 genomes mapped to VRED06-02 generated an initial alignment of 2,945,113 bases, 227,540 bases were masked, and 13 variant sites remained. Maximum-likelihood phylogenies were constructed with IQTree v2.0.3 with automatic model selection and 1000 ultrafast bootstraps.30–32 Phylogenies were visualised with iTOL.33 Short read assemblies were generated with Unicycler v0.4.834 and searched for antimicrobial resistance genes using Abricate v1.0.1 ([https://github.com/tseemann/abricate](https://github.com/tseemann/abricate)) with default settings and the ResFinder database.35

Long reads <1000 bp were removed with Nanofilt v2.7.136 and adapters trimmed and chimaeras split with Porechop v0.3.2 ([https://github.com/rrwick/Porechop](https://github.com/rrwick/Porechop)). Reads were split into 12 subsamples and three assemblies made with four different assemblers: Flye v2.8.1, Redbean v2.5, Raven v1.1.10, and Miniasm v0.1.3,37–40 giving 12 assemblies in total. A consensus assembly was generated with Trycycler v0.3.341 and polished with Medaka v0.11.5 ([https://github.com/nanoporetech/medaka](https://github.com/nanoporetech/medaka)) and 2-3 cycles of Pilon v1.23.42 Assembly quality was assessed with assembly-stats v1.0.1 ([https://github.com/sanger-pathogens/assembly-stats](https://github.com/sanger-pathogens/assembly-stats)), Ideel ([https://github.com/phiweger/ideel](https://github.com/phiweger/ideel)), and Busco v4.1.4.43

Polished assemblies were annotated with Prokka v1.14.644 using the Aus0004 reference genome (Accession [CP003351](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=GEN&access_num=CP003351&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom)) with the --proteins option. Abricate identified matches to ResFinder, VirulenceFinder, and PlasmidFinder databases45–48 and putative prophages were identified with PHASTER.49 Plasmid copy numbers were estimated using short reads and Snippy: average depth for each plasmid was divided by the average depth of the chromosome.

Plasmids in the polished assemblies were compared to each other with Mash v2.2.2.50 To detect plasmids, those present in the two polished assemblies were used as references against all short read sets in Snippy and considered present if ≥85% bases were called with <20 SNPs/1000 bp.51

### Transmission Network Inference

All short reads were mapped to the VRED06-10 ST80 reference chromosome with Snippy, the V24 *E. faecium* ST80 genome (Accession [CP036151](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=GEN&access_num=CP036151&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom)) was included as an outgroup. An alignment of 2,814,943 bases was generated and 1,418,409 bases masked as above. A posterior set of phylogenies were generated with MrBayes v3.2.7.52 Two MCMC runs of four coupled chains were run for 5,000,000 generations, sampling every 5000. The final standard deviation of split frequencies was 0.013, the log-likelihood was stable, and the effective sample size of all parameters was >800. A random sample of 100 posterior trees was input to Phyloscanner v1.6.6.53 Sankoff parsimony reconstruction was performed with *k* parameter of 281494.5, equivalent to a within-patient diversity threshold of 10 SNPs as used in other studies.54 A transmission network was constructed in Cytoscape v3.9.055 showing edges with complex or transmission state and >0.5 probability. The role of smaller numbers of colony picks on transmission resolution was investigated by repeating the above with the first 3, 5, and 10 genomes per sample.

### Statistical Analysis

To determine the optimal number of colonies to analyse for within-sample diversity a power calculation was performed as described by Huebner et al:56

![Formula][1]</img> 
Where *q* = 1 – concentration of organisms, ^ = exponentiation operator, *n* = number of colonies sequenced, and *P* = probability of finding one or more variants.

Population variants were considered distinct if they differed by >10 chromosomal SNPs.54 Moradigaravand *et al*20 show rectal VREfm populations harbour minority variants at 20-50% of the total population based on sequencing ∼5 colonies. However, no minor population variants were identified in blood cultures based on sequencing ∼10 colonies.20 For rectal samples, we determined 14 colonies per sample would detect a variant at 20% of the population with 95% confidence, and for blood cultures we sequenced single colonies to identify the sequence type causing invasive disease.

Presence/absence matrices of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes were generated in R v4.0.5 using ggplot2 and patchwork packages.57–59

## RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

### Epidemiological Context

This study was performed over one month in 2017 on an inpatient unit for haematological malignancies, split into two wards (A and B). VREfm rectal screening was performed on all new admissions and any inpatients with febrile episodes to inform patient placement and antimicrobial administration. There was significant overlap between patient stays with some patients moving between the two study wards or to other wards in the hospital (Figure 1). Patients were cohorted or placed in single rooms when colonised with VREfm or other alert pathogens. However, not all rooms had ensuite bathroom facilities so risk of VREfm transmission remained. At the time of the study, surveillance systems in the hospital had not detected any suspected VREfm outbreak within the study population.

![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F1)

Figure 1 
Patient timeline. Each row denotes the location of a patient during admission, blocks denote hospital stay, circles denote VREfm cultures, stars denote bloodstream isolates, dotted lines indicate the start and end of prospective collection of screening isolates for this study. This study was undertaken mainly within Wards A and B, although patients were moved to different wards within the hospital during their stay and were often admitted through the assessment unit.

### Results of VREfm Screening

In total, 45 rectal swabs from 27 patients were screened for VREfm. Of these, 18 samples from 13 patients were VREfm positive (Table 1). Three (23.1%) colonised patients developed VREfm bacteraemia 9, 24, or 46 days after being identified as VREfm carriers. We applied our sampling strategy to 16 rectal screens generating 224 isolates from 11 patients, and five blood cultures (five isolates) from two patients yielding a total of 229 isolates. Two rectal swabs and one blood culture were not available for further study. Most patients were female, the median age was 66 years, and a range of primary diagnoses were present (Table 1). Most colonised patients had received antibiotics in the preceding six months and 30% had received vancomycin (Table 1).

View this table:
[Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/T1)

Table 1 Characteristics of patients with rectal VREfm colonisation (n = 13)

### Simultaneous carriage of multiple VREfm strains

*In silico* MLST typing using short reads from all 229 genomes showed ST80 (n=130), ST1424 (n=97), ST789 (n=1), and ST1659 (n=1) from the hospital-associated clade A160 were present (Table 2). Multiple STs were detected in three (27%) samples. Sample VRED06 from patient P49 contained 10 (71.4%) ST80, three (21.4%) ST1424, and one (7.1%) ST789 isolate; sample VRED07 from P14 contained 10 (71.4%) ST1424 and four (28.6%) ST80 isolates; sample VRED11 from P50 contained 13 (92.9%) ST1424 and one (7.1%) ST1659 isolate. A further rectal swab sample from P49 collected two days after VRED06 contained only ST1424, and a blood culture collected nine days later also contained ST1424. P9 had three rectal swab samples collected over 11 days and had positive blood cultures one month later, all samples contained ST80 only. Our finding of multiple strains in 27% of patients is in line with recent studies showing up to half of patients carry 2-4 different *E. faecium* strains, and within-patient diversity varies over time.20,24,61,62

View this table:
[Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/T2)

Table 2 MLST Sequence Types Detected

### Genomic population structure of VREfm suggests recent transmission events

The chromosomes of the two strain-specific genome assemblies (Table S1) were used as references for short-read mapping within each sequence type. Within-patient diversity was low when genomes of the same sequence type were compared, generally differing by zero SNPs and a maximum pairwise difference of 3 SNPs (Table 2). Similarly, insertions, deletions, and plasmids were usually shared in genomes from the same patient. However, the presence of DEL3 (12 bp non-coding deletion) and DEL4 (11 bp deletion in a solute binding protein) were variable within 24 ST80 genomes from P20 with 0-2 differentiating SNPs (Figure 2). In genomes from P9 p1_VRED06-10 and p3_VRED06-10 were variably detected despite most genomes having no differentiating SNPs (Figure 2). Where multiple samples from the same patient were collected over time we found low (0-3 SNPs) accumulation of SNPs and no pattern in the prevalence of other genomic variants. Estimates of diversification rates in *E. faecium* from single colony sampling of national isolate collections suggest 7 mutations per year,63 other studies of longitudinal within-patient diversification have estimated higher rates of 12.6 – 128 mutations per year.20,22,23 The low SNP diversity identified in our one-month collection of carriage isolates is in keeping with these estimated mutation rates.

![Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F2)

Figure 2 
Phylogeny of ST80 isolates showing structured population with three patient specific clusters and two clusters indicating putative patient-patient transmission of VREfm. All ST80 isolates (n=130) mapped to VRED06-10 chromosome and phylogeny built on SNP sites (n=96) after removal of putative transposable and recombinant regions. Tree unrooted.

The ST80 genomes formed a well-structured population with five clear clusters each separated by >10 SNPs (Figure 2). Clustered genomes differed by 0-2 SNPs and were mostly from individual patients although two clusters included genomes from two different patients (patients P7 and P33, and P2 and P9). All the reference plasmids were detected in the P7 and P33 genomes and there were two insertions detected in three genomes. There was variation in detection of p1\_VRED06-10 and p3\_VRED06-10 plasmids within P9 genomes, although in P2 genomes all plasmids were detected.

Mapping of the ST1424 genomes showed a much more homogeneous population than in ST80 (Figure 3). Of the 97 ST1424 genomes, 69 had no SNPs and the remaining 28 had 1-2 SNPs differentiating them from the rest of the collection. The SNPs that were detected did not lead to any clear clustering of genomes, except for the 14 genomes from P6 which all carried a SNP in a penicillin-binding protein which differentiated them from the other ST1424 genomes. Two of the P6 genomes had further independent SNPs (one each) and another genome had lost p1\_VRED06-02. No insertions were detected in the ST1424 collection, and of the six deletions found five were only in genomes from P49. p6\_VRED06-02 was not detected in 14 P24, 14 P50, and two P49 genomes, while p1_VRED06-02 was note detected in five genomes from three patients.

![Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F3)

Figure 3 
Unrooted phylogeny of ST1424 genomes showing homogeneous population suggestive of recent transmission outbreak. ST1424 genomes (n=97) mapped to VRED06-02 chromosome and phylogeny built on SNP sites (n=13) after removal of putative transposable and recombinant regions. Tree unrooted.

### Analysis of multiple VREfm colonies supports transmission resolution

A transmission network was constructed considering the phylogenetic placement of all 14 colony picks in each sample (Figure 4). The network supports transmission of ST80 between P2 and P9, and between P7 and P33, with P20 not linked to transmission. Epidemiological data supports transmission from P33 to P7 on Ward B, as P33 screened negative early in their admission and then screened positive six days after P7 (Figure 1, Figure 4). P9 and P2 screened positive on the same day - no shared rooms or bed spaces were identified as this was P2’s first day on Ward B so it is unclear where or when transmission may have occurred (Figure 1, Figure S1). P20 had two admissions during the study period, was negative at the end of first admission then screened positive on re-admission suggesting they may have become colonised outside of the hospital.

![Figure 4](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F4)

Figure 4 
Phyloscanner transmission network. Each patient is represented by a node coloured by detection of the two outbreak STs. Edge thickness corresponds to fraction of Phyloscanner trees with given relationship, relationship fraction is printed alongside each edge, and edge colour based on type of relationship (orange, direct transmission; blue, transmission but direction unclear).

All ST1424 patients clustered together with P34 strongly linked to all patients and likely direct transmission to P6 (Figure 4). P34 was the first ST1424 identified on Ward B, P49 was positive six days later (having been negative earlier in admission), P14 was positive two days after that, and P24 was positive 9 days subsequently (Figure 1). P14 and P49 had ST1424 and ST80 in carriage samples, we did not identify sharing of the ST80 lineages in these patients suggesting there was no direct transmission between these two patients. On Ward A, P50 screened positive with ST1424 and ST1659 on day two of admission and P6 screened positive for ST1424 on day six. The ST1424 populations in P6 and P50 may derive from different hosts with P6 genomes all having a single SNP and P50 genomes having multiple different SNPs and lack the p6_VRED06-02 plasmid (Figures 3 and 4). P34 and P50 shared time on Ward A early in the study before either were known to be VREfm positive, but there is very limited overlap in time between P34 and P6 while both were in different wards (Figure 1). None of the patients with ST1424 shared a room or used a bed space previously used by an identified ST1424-positive carrier during their stay (Figure S1).

Analysing less than 14 colonies per sample produced fewer transmission links and lower confidence (Table S2, Figure S2). Sequencing more than 14 colonies would improve the detection of minor variants while increasing costs and turnaround time. There was low within-patient diversity in most patients in our study so this approach may not be required in every case. Alternatively, strain-resolved metagenomics directly on clinical samples or sweeps of selective culture growth may be more feasible.64–66 Further work is required to determine the optimum sampling strategy to support infection prevention and control investigations in healthcare settings.

### Plasmids were mostly ST-specific

VRED06-02 (ST1424 reference) contained seven plasmids, and VRED06-10 (ST80 reference) contained five plasmids. Plasmids in the two genomes were generally distinct, suggesting limited sharing between STs within P49 (Table S3).

We sought to identify carriage of similar plasmids in the entire collection by short read mapping (Table S4). Most plasmids were ST-specific with few examples of ST1424 genomes carrying plasmids from the ST80 reference, and *vice versa*. However, all ST80 genomes from P7 and P33 carried p7\_VRED06-02 from ST1424, and almost all genomes appeared to carry p4_VRED06-10. We believe the hits against the ST1424 genomes are due to cross-mapping of reads from the related p4_VRED06-02 (Table S3). P7_VRED06-02 is unrelated to others in the collection (Table S3), but no close links to any ST1424-positive patients were identified for P7 and P33 (Figure 4).

### AMR gene load differs between closely related genomes

We next sought to determine the variability of AMR genes within the collection (Table 3 and Figure 5). In total 13 AMR genes were detected with three (*aac(6’)-Ii*, *msr(C)*, and *vanA*) present in all genomes, two (*aph(3’)-III* and *erm(B)*) in all but one genome, four (*ant(9)-Ia*, *dfrG*, *erm(A)*, and *tet(M)*) only in ST1424 or ST1659 genomes, two genes (*ant(6)-Ia* and *tet(S)*) found only in ST80 and ST789 genomes, and *tet(L)* found in a single ST1659 genome. The aminoglycoside resistance gene *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)* was variably present, found in 69.9% of all genomes.

![Figure 5](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/F5)

Figure 5 
Detection of antimicrobial resistance genes. Panels represent different patients; resistance genes are plotted on the y-axis and isolates on the x-axis. Presence of a gene is represented by a filled square and coloured based on the MLST of the genome.

View this table:
[Table 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/27/2022.09.23.22279632/T3)

Table 3 Presence of AMR Genes

Tetracycline resistance gene *tet(M)* was identified on the chromosome of VRED06-02 as part of Tn*6944* (Figure S3A). *tet(M)* was identified in 62.2% of ST1424 and ST1659 genomes, excision of Tn*6944* may be responsible for this variable presence. We identified variable within-patient presence of *tet(M)* and no other tetracycline resistance genes (Figure 5), phenotypic susceptibility pattern would therefore differ based on which colony was picked. However, tetracyclines are not generally used for treatment of enterococcal human infections so the clinical impact may be limited. Similar variable presence of the vancomycin resistance element within patients has been described elsewhere and could lead to inappropriate use of vancomycin when the patient harbours a resistant subpopulation.20,21,67,68 Our study only included vancomycin resistant isolates, so cannot resolve the potential role of variable vancomycin resistance carriage within patients or in transmission networks. Gain and loss of vancomycin resistance has been described in regional networks over periods of years63.

*aac(6’)-aph(2’’)* was present on p1\_VRED06-02 (ST80) and p1_VRED06-10 (ST1424). *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)* was not detected in any ST80 genomes that were p1_VRED06-02 negative, although only 39.8% (n=43) of genomes that carried this plasmid also carried *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)*. In p1_VRED06-02, two copies of *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)* were surrounded by insertion sequences IS*256*, IS*1216*, and IS*3,* providing multiple mechanisms of excision. In ST1424 *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)* was detected in 97.8% (n=90) genomes with p1_VRED06-10. In p1_VRED06-10, *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)* was surrounded by two copies of IS*256* similarly to Tn*6218*, although the transposition machinery was missing (Figure S3B).69 Another four ST1424 genomes carried *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)* but not p1_VRED06-10 (Table 3 and Figure 5). Short read assemblies could not resolve the environment of *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)*, but in three cases *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)* co-located with an IS*3* gene suggesting mobilisation to another transposable element. The impact on phenotype is unclear – all genomes carried *aac(6’)-Ii* and *aph(3’)-III* which together confer high-level resistance to the clinically relevant aminoglycosides amikacin and gentamicin, so the loss of *aac(6’)-aph(2’’)* may be more efficient for the cell without an overt change in antibiotic susceptibility. Both Tn*6994* and Tn*6218* were first characterised in *C. difficile*, highlighting transmission of AMR elements between nosocomial pathogens as recently described.70

The tetracycline resistance gene *tet(L)* was identified in a single ST1659 genome, the gene was co-located with *tet(M)* on a 30 kb contig that was similar to Tn*6248* from *E. faecium* over ∼19 kb (Figure S3C).

We recognise some limitations. Around 60% of *E. faecium* carriers can be linked to nosocomial transmission from other patients or reservoirs in the hospital environment.61,71–74 Our study did not include environmental samples, and although patients were mostly located in individual rooms bathroom facilities were shared posing a significant environmental reservoir for VREfm. Also, we relied on direct plating to solid VREfm screening agar for inclusion in our study.

Previous studies have shown a sensitivity of 58-96% for this approach, rising to 97-100% with a pre-enrichment step.75–77

A proactive sequence-based surveillance approach should avoid large infection outbreaks, and reduce ward closure costs and the clinical impact of invasive disease.78–81 In our setting, an outbreak of VREfm was suspected 3 weeks after the study collection period when P9 and P49 developed bloodstream infection concurrently but this was many weeks after VREfm transmission had likely occurred (Figure 1 and Figure 4). Due to our study’s retrospective nature, we could not use the findings from sequencing to directly influence patient care.

To conclude, by taking account of within-patient diversity in VREfm carriage populations we identified transmission links between patients that could supplement efforts to control transmission within hospitals. We also show that diversity exists not just at the level of SNPs – AMR gene presence/absence, indels, and plasmid presence all vary within and between patients. Accounting for within-patient diversity is important for resolving VREfm transmission using WGS-based investigations.

## Supporting information

Table S1 [[supplements/279632_file02.xlsx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary file [[supplements/279632_file03.docx]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

Sequence data have been uploaded to the NCBI under BioProject PRJNA877253

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA877253](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA877253) 

## FUNDING

This work was funded by the Chief Scientist Office (Scotland) through the Scottish Healthcare Associated Infection Prevention Institute (Reference SIRN/10).

## TRANSPARENCY DELCARATIONS

The authors declare no competing interests.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank all staff at the Department for Medical Microbiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh for supporting this study. The authors acknowledge the Research/Scientific Computing teams at The James Hutton Institute and NIAB for providing computational resources and technical support for the “UK’s Crop Diversity Bioinformatics HPC” (BBSRC grant BB/S019669/1), use of which has contributed to the results reported within this paper. Bioinformatics and Computational Biology analyses were further supported by the University of St Andrews Bioinformatics Unit which is funded by a Wellcome Trust ISSF award [grant 105621/Z/14/Z].

## Footnotes

*   Reduction in word count. Various minor additions to aid comprehension

*   Received September 23, 2022.
*   Revision received April 27, 2023.
*   Accepted April 27, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## REFERENCES

1.  1.Arias CA, Murray BE. The rise of the Enterococcus: beyond vancomycin resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol 2012; 10: 266–78.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrmicro2761&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22421879&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

2.  2.WHO. WHO publishes list of bacteria for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. 2017. Available at: [https://www.who.int/news/item/27-02-2017-who-publishes-list-of-bacteria-for-which-new-antibiotics-are-urgently-needed](https://www.who.int/news/item/27-02-2017-who-publishes-list-of-bacteria-for-which-new-antibiotics-are-urgently-needed). Accessed April 26, 2022.
    
    

3.  3.CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2019. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2019.
    
    

4.  4.Ong DSY, Bonten MJM, Safdari K, et al. Epidemiology, management, and risk-adjusted mortality of ICU-acquired enterococcal bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61: 1413–20.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/civ560&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26179013&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

5.  5.Billington EO, Phang SH, Gregson DB, et al. Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes for Enterococcus spp. Blood Stream Infections: A Population-Based Study. Int J Infect Dis 2014; 26: 76–82.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijid.2014.02.012&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24813873&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

6.  6.Dik JWH, Dinkelacker AG, Vemer P, et al. Cost-analysis of seven nosocomial outbreaks in an academic hospital. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: 1–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0162755&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27019106&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

7.  7.Lloyd-Smith P, Younger J, Lloyd-Smith E, Green H, Leung V, Romney MG. Economic analysis of vancomycin-resistant enterococci at a Canadian hospital: Assessing attributable cost and length of stay. J Hosp Infect 2013; 85: 54–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhin.2013.06.016&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23920443&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

8.  8.ARHAI Scotland. Scottish One Health Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance in 2020. ARHAI Scotland; 2021.
    
    

9.  9.Zhou X, Willems RJL, Friedrich AW, Rossen JWA, Bathoorn E. Enterococcus faecium: from microbiological insights to practical recommendations for infection control and diagnostics. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2020; 9: 130.
    
    

10. 10.Quainoo S, Coolen JPM, van Hijum SAFT, et al. Whole-Genome Sequencing of Bacterial Pathogens: the Future of Nosocomial Outbreak Analysis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2017; 30: 1015–63.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiY21yIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjMwLzQvMTAxNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA0LzI3LzIwMjIuMDkuMjMuMjIyNzk2MzIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

11. 11.Pinholt M, Larner-Svensson H, Littauer P, et al. Multiple hospital outbreaks of vanA Enterococcus faecium in Denmark, 2012-13, investigated by WGS, MLST and PFGE. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015; 70: 1–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dku458&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25516562&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

12. 12.Croucher NJ, Didelot X. The application of genomics to tracing bacterial pathogen transmission. Curr Opin Microbiol 2015; 23: 62–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.mib.2014.11.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25461574&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

13. 13.Bryant JM, Grogono DM, Greaves D, et al. Whole-genome sequencing to identify transmission of Mycobacterium abscessus between patients with cystic fibrosis: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet 2013; 381: 1551–60.
    
    

14. 14.Worby CJ, Lipsitch M, Hanage WP. Within-Host Bacterial Diversity Hinders Accurate Reconstruction of Transmission Networks from Genomic Distance Data. PLoS Comput Biol 2014; 10: e1003549.
    
    

15. 15.Snitkin ES, Zelazny AM, Thomas PJ, et al. Tracking a Hospital Outbreak of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae with Whole-Genome Sequencing. Sci Transl Med 2012; 4: 148ra116.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTE6InNjaXRyYW5zbWVkIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE0OiI0LzE0OC8xNDhyYTExNiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA0LzI3LzIwMjIuMDkuMjMuMjIyNzk2MzIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

16. 16.Hall MD, Holden MT, Srisomang P, et al. Improved characterisation of MRSA transmission using within-host bacterial sequence diversity. eLife 2019; 8: e46402.
    
    

17. 17.Harris SR, Cartwright EJ, Török ME, et al. Whole-genome sequencing for analysis of an outbreak of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a descriptive study. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13: 130–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70268-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23158674&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000313921900030&link_type=ISI) 

18. 18.Okoro CK, Kingsley RA, Quail MA, et al. High-Resolution Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Analysis Distinguishes Recrudescence and Reinfection in Recurrent Invasive Nontyphoidal Salmonella Typhimurium Disease. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54: 955–63.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/cir1032&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22318974&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

19. 19.Paterson GK, Harrison EM, Murray GGR, et al. Capturing the cloud of diversity reveals complexity and heterogeneity of MRSA carriage, infection and transmission. Nat Commun 2015; 6.
    
    

20. 20.Moradigaravand D, Gouliouris T, Blane B, et al. Within-host evolution of Enterococcus faecium during longitudinal carriage and transition to bloodstream infection in immunocompromised patients. Genome Med 2017; 9: 119.
    
    

21. 21.1.  Carroll KC
    
    Raven KE, Gouliouris T, Parkhill J, Peacock SJ. Genome-Based Analysis of Enterococcus faecium Bacteremia Associated with Recurrent and Mixed-Strain Infection Carroll KC, ed. J Clin Microbiol 2018; 56: e01520-17.
    
    

22. 22.Dubin KA, Mathur D, McKenney PT, et al. Diversification and evolution of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium during intestinal domination. Infect Immun 2019; 87: e00102–19.
    
    

23. 23.Bayjanov JR, Baan J, Rogers MRC, Troelstra A, Willems RJL, van Schaik W. Enterococcus faecium genome dynamics during long-term asymptomatic patient gut colonization. Microb Genomics 2019; 5.
    
    

24. 24.Both A, Kruse F, Mirwald N, et al. Population dynamics in colonizing vancomycin-resistant E. faecium isolated from immunosuppressed patients. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2022; 28: 267–73.
    
    

25. 25.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinforma Oxf Engl 2014; 30: 2114–20.
    
    

26. 26.Inouye M, Dashnow H, Raven L-A, et al. SRST2: Rapid genomic surveillance for public health and hospital microbiology labs. Genome Med 2014; 6: 1–16.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13073-014-0100-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24433494&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

27. 27.Jolley KA, Bray JE, Maiden MCJ. Open-access bacterial population genomics: BIGSdb software, the PubMLST.org website and their applications. Wellcome Open Res 2018; 3.
    
    

28. 28.Croucher NJ, Page AJ, Connor TR, et al. Rapid phylogenetic analysis of large samples of recombinant bacterial whole genome sequences using Gubbins. Nucleic Acids Res 2015; 43: e15.
    
    

29. 29.Page AJ, Taylor B, Delaney AJ, et al. SNP-sites: Rapid efficient extraction of SNPs from multi-FASTA alignments. Microb Genomics 2016; 2: e000056.
    
    

30. 30.Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, et al. IQ-TREE 2: New Models and Efficient Methods for Phylogenetic Inference in the Genomic Era. Mol Biol Evol 2020; 37: 1530–4.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/molbev/msaa015&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32556291&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

31. 31.Hoang DT, Chernomor O, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ, Vinh LS. UFBoot2: Improving the Ultrafast Bootstrap Approximation. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35: 518–22.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/molbev/msx281&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29077904&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

32. 32.Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods 2017; 14: 587–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nmeth.4285&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28481363&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

33. 33.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 2021; 49: W293–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/NAR/GKAB301&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

34. 34.Wick RR, Judd LM, Gorrie CL, Holt KE. Unicycler: Resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Comput Biol 2017; 13: e1005595.
    
    

35. 35.Zankari E, Hasman H, Kaas RS, et al. Genotyping using whole-genome sequencing is a realistic alternative to surveillance based on phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68: 771–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dks496&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23233485&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000316841600006&link_type=ISI) 

36. 36.De Coster W, D’Hert S, Schultz DT, Cruts M, Van Broeckhoven C. NanoPack: visualizing and processing long-read sequencing data. Bioinformatics 2018; 34: 2666–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/bty149&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29547981&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

37. 37.Kolmogorov M, Yuan J, Lin Y, Pevzner PA. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol 2019; 37: 540–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41587-019-0072-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30936562&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

38. 38.Ruan J, Li H. Fast and accurate long-read assembly with wtdbg2. Nat Methods 2020; 17: 155–8.
    
    

39. 39.Vaser R, Šikić M. Time- and memory-efficient genome assembly with Raven. Nat Comput Sci 2021; 1: 332–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s43588-021-00073-4&link_type=DOI) 

40. 40.Li H. Minimap and miniasm: fast mapping and de novo assembly for noisy long sequences. Bioinformatics 2016; 32: 2103–10.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btw152&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27153593&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

41. 41.Wick RR, Judd LM, Cerdeira LT, et al. Trycycler: consensus long-read assemblies for bacterial genomes. Genome Biol 2021; 22: 266.
    
    

42. 42. Bruce J Walker,  Thomas Abeel,  Terrance Shea, et al. Pilon: An Integrated Tool for Comprehensive Microbial Variant Detection and Genome Assembly Improvement | PLOS ONE. PLOS ONE 2014; 9: e112963.
    
    

43. 43.Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics 2015; 31: 3210–2.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26059717&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

44. 44.Seemann T. Prokka: Rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30: 2068– 9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24642063&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000339814300017&link_type=ISI) 

45. 45.Bortolaia V,  Kaas Rs, Ruppe E, et al. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother 2020; 75: 3491–500.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/JAC/DKAA345&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

46. 46.Zankari E, Allesøe R, Joensen KG, Cavaco LM, Lund O, Aarestrup FM. PointFinder: a novel web tool for WGS-based detection of antimicrobial resistance associated with chromosomal point mutations in bacterial pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72: 2764–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkx217&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29091202&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

47. 47. Joensen Kg, Scheutz F, Lund O, et al. Real-time whole-genome sequencing for routine typing, surveillance, and outbreak detection of verotoxigenic Escherichia coli. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52.
    
    

48. 48.Carattoli A, Zankari E, Garciá-Fernández A, et al. In Silico detection and typing of plasmids using plasmidfinder and plasmid multilocus sequence typing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58: 3895–903.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWFjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjU4LzcvMzg5NSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA0LzI3LzIwMjIuMDkuMjMuMjIyNzk2MzIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

49. 49.Arndt D, Grant JR, Marcu A, et al. PHASTER: a better, faster version of the PHAST phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res 2016: 1–6.
    
    

50. 50.Ondov BD, Treangen TJ, Melsted P, et al. Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using MinHash. Genome Biol 2016; 17: 132.
    
    

51. 51.Pinholt M, Bayliss SC, Gumpert H, et al. WGS of 1058 Enterococcus faecium from Copenhagen, Denmark, reveals rapid clonal expansion of vancomycin-resistant clone ST80 combined with widespread dissemination of a vanA-containing plasmid and acquisition of a heterogeneous accessory genome. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019; 74: 1776–85.
    
    

52. 52.Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, et al. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference and Model Choice Across a Large Model Space. Syst Biol 2012; 61: 539–42.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/sysbio/sys029&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22357727&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

53. 53.Wymant C, Hall M, Ratmann O, et al. PHYLOSCANNER: Inferring Transmission from Within- and Between-Host Pathogen Genetic Diversity. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35: 719–33.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/molbev/msx304&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29186559&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

54. 54.Higgs C, Sherry NL, Seemann T, et al. Optimising genomic approaches for identifying vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium transmission in healthcare settings. Nat Commun 2022; 13: 509.
    
    

55. 55.Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, et al. Cytoscape: A Software Environment for Integrated Models of Biomolecular Interaction Networks. Genome Res 2003; 13: 2498–504.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiZ2Vub21lIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIxMy8xMS8yNDk4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDQvMjcvMjAyMi4wOS4yMy4yMjI3OTYzMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

56. 56.Huebner RE, Dagan R, Porath N, Wasas AD, T M, Klugman KP. Lack of Utility of Serotyping Multiple Colonies for Detection of Simultaneous Nasopharyngeal Carriage of Different Pneumococcal Serotypes. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19: 1017–20.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00006454-200010000-00019&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11055610&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000090070100018&link_type=ISI) 

57. 57.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. Available at: [https://www.R-project.org/](https://www.R-project.org/).
    
    

58. 58.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. Available at: [https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org](https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org).
    
    

59. 59.Pedersen TL. patchwork: The Composer of Plots. 2020. Available at: [https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork).
    
    

60. 60.Lebreton F, Schaik W van, McGuire AM, et al. Emergence of Epidemic Multidrug-Resistant Enterococcus faecium from Animal and Commensal Strains. mBio 2013; 4: e00534–13.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1128/mBio.00534-13&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23963180&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

61. 61.Gouliouris T, Coll F, Ludden C, et al. Quantifying acquisition and transmission of Enterococcus faecium using genomic surveillance. Nat Microbiol 2021; 6: 103–11.
    
    

62. 62.Brodrick HJ, Raven KE, Harrison EM, et al. Whole-genome sequencing reveals transmission of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in a healthcare network. Genome Med 2016; 8: 4.
    
    

63. 63.Raven KE, Gouliouris T, Brodrick H, et al. Complex Routes of Nosocomial Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Transmission Revealed by Genome Sequencing. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 64: 886–93.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciw872&link_type=DOI) 

64. 64.Mäklin T, Kallonen T, David S, et al. High-resolution sweep metagenomics using fast probabilistic inference. Wellcome Open Res 2021; 5.
    
    

65. 65.Anyansi C, Straub TJ, Manson AL, Earl AM, Abeel T. Computational Methods for Strain-Level Microbial Detection in Colony and Metagenome Sequencing Data. Front Microbiol 2020; 11.
    
    

66. 66.Mu A, Kwong JC, Isles NS, et al. Reconstruction of the Genomes of Drug-Resistant Pathogens for Outbreak Investigation through Metagenomic Sequencing. mSphere 2019; 4: e00529–18.
    
    

67. 67.Xanthopoulou K, Wille J, Zweigner J, et al. Characterization of a vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolate and a vancomycin-susceptible E. faecium isolate from the same blood culture. J Antimicrob Chemother 2020; 76: 883–6.
    
    

68. 68.Cárdenas AM, Andreacchio KA, Edelstein PH. Prevalence and detection of mixed-population enterococcal bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52: 2604–8.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjUyLzcvMjYwNCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA0LzI3LzIwMjIuMDkuMjMuMjIyNzk2MzIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

69. 69.Dingle KE, Elliott B, Robinson E, et al. Evolutionary History of the Clostridium difficile Pathogenicity Locus. Genome Biol Evol 2014; 6: 36–52.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/gbe/evt204&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24336451&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 

70. 70.Smith AB, Jenior ML, Keenan O, et al. Enterococci enhance Clostridioides difficile pathogenesis. Nature 2022; 611: 780–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-022-05438-x&link_type=DOI) 

71. 71.Lee AS, White E, Monahan LG, Jensen SO, Chan R, van Hal SJ. Defining the Role of the Environment in the Emergence and Persistence of vanA Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in an Intensive Care Unit: A Molecular Epidemiological Study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018: 1–8.
    
    

72. 72.Ford CD, Lopansri BK, Gazdik MA, et al. Room contamination, patient colonization pressure, and the risk of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus colonization on a unit dedicated to the treatment of hematologic malignancies and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Am J Infect Control 2016; 44: 1110–5.
    
    

73. 73.McDermott H, Skally M, O’Rourke J, Humphreys H, Fitzgerald-Hughes D. Near-patient environmental contamination of an intensive care unit with Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) and Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase–Producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) before and after the introduction of chlorhexidine bathing for patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018: 1–2.
    
    

74. 74.Bonten MJM, Hayden MK, Nathan C, et al. Epidemiology of colonisation of patients and environment with vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Lancet 1996; 348: 1615–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(96)02331-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8961991&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996VX87600010&link_type=ISI) 

75. 75.Gouliouris T, Blane B, Brodrick HJ, et al. Comparison of two chromogenic media for the detection of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal carriage by nursing home residents. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2016; 85: 409–12.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2016.04.026&link_type=DOI) 

76. 76.D’Agata EMC, Gautam S, Green WK, Tang Y-W. High rate of false-negative results of the rectal swab culture method in detection of gastrointestinal colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 167–72.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/338234&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11740703&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F27%2F2022.09.23.22279632.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000172722900010&link_type=ISI) 

77. 77.Linfield RY, Campeau S, Injean P, et al. Practical methods for effective vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) surveillance: experience in a liver transplant surgical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018; 39: 1178–82.
    
    

78. 78.Gordon LG, Elliott TM, Forde B, et al. Budget impact analysis of routinely using whole-genomic sequencing of six multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens in Queensland, Australia. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e041968.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvMi9lMDQxOTY4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDQvMjcvMjAyMi4wOS4yMy4yMjI3OTYzMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

79. 79.Torok E, Brodrick H, Khokhar F, et al. Prospective Surveillance and Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing Detects Two Unsuspected Outbreaks of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a UK Teaching Hospital. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017; 4: S43–4.
    
    

80. 80.Sherry NL, Gorrie CL, Kwong JC, et al. Multi-site implementation of whole genome sequencing for hospital infection control: A prospective genomic epidemiological analysis. Lancet Reg Health - West Pac 2022; 23: 100446.
    
    

81. 81.Forde BM, Bergh H, Cuddihy T, et al. Clinical Implementation of Routine Whole-genome Sequencing for Hospital Infection Control of Multi-drug Resistant Pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2023; 76: e1277–84.

 [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif