Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Minireview | Spotlight

The Emergency Medical Service Microbiome

Andrew J. Hudson, Graeme D. Glaister, Hans-Joachim Wieden
Harold L. Drake, Editor
Andrew J. Hudson
aAlberta RNA Research and Training Institute (ARRTI), University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Graeme D. Glaister
aAlberta RNA Research and Training Institute (ARRTI), University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hans-Joachim Wieden
aAlberta RNA Research and Training Institute (ARRTI), University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harold L. Drake
University of Bayreuth
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02098-17
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel are an integral component of the health care framework and function to transport patients from various locations to and between care facilities. In addition to physical injury, EMS personnel are expected to be at high risk to acquire and transmit health care-associated infections (HAIs) in the workplace. However, currently, little is known about EMS biosafety risk factors and the epidemiological contribution of EMS to pathogen transmission within and outside the health care sector. Health care facility microbiomes contain diverse bacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens that cause over 1.7 million HAIs each year in the United States alone. While hospital microbiomes have been relatively well studied, there is scant information about EMS infrastructure and equipment microbiomes or the role(s) they play in HAI transmission between health care facilities. We review recent literature investigating the microbiome of ambulances and other EMS service facilities which consistently identify antibiotic-resistant pathogens causing HAIs, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Our review provides evidence that EMS microbiomes are dynamic and important pathogen reservoirs, and it underscores the need for more widespread and in-depth microbiome studies to elucidate patterns of pathogen transmission. We discuss emerging DNA sequencing technologies and other methods that can be applied to characterize and mitigate EMS biosafety risks in the future. Understanding the complex interplay between EMS and hospital microbiomes will provide key insights into pathogen transmission mechanisms and identify strategies to minimize HAIs and community infection.

INTRODUCTION

Emergency medical service (EMS) personnel are often considered to be the “front lines” of the health care system and serve to transport millions of critically injured and ill patients to and between hospitals and other health care facilities. While performing their duties, EMS personnel often experience a wide variety of dangerous and unpredictable situations that jeopardize their safety and the safety of their patients. In fact, EMS personnel are up to seven times more likely to sustain a physical or mental injury in the workplace than national averages (1, 2). In addition to these risks, EMS personnel are likely routinely subjected to more inconspicuous biohazard risks posed by infectious disease-causing microorganisms (pathogens) via contact with infected patients and their bodily fluids, as well as from the diverse environments visited during shifts (e.g., homes, workplaces, and hospitals).

Health care-associated infections (HAIs) are infections acquired within a health care setting that affect approximately 7% of hospitalized patients in developed countries and up to 19% of patients in developing countries, translating to millions of HAI events each year (3). HAIs may be caused by a variety of bacterial, viral, or fungal pathogens; however, particular attention has been given to pathogens that are highly infectious, display high virulence (capacity to cause disease), or are resistant to common antibiotics. The American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) have deemed that bacteria such as Clostridium difficile, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are of particularly high concern due to their ability to cause serious and difficult-to-treat HAIs (4, 5).

Despite the perceived biohazard risks posed by the EMS environment, many questions regarding EMS biosafety remain largely unaddressed. What is the potential for EMS workers and patients to acquire infection in the workplace? What is the epidemiological contribution of EMS vehicles, equipment, and personnel to the transmittance of HAIs? How can EMS biosafety risks best be mitigated? In this review, we integrate available data on the topic of pathogen presence in EMS vehicles, equipment, and personnel to shed light on the potential for HAI transmission within the EMS environment and between health care facilities. We discuss the efficacy of cleaning practices for mitigating pathogen spread as well as future pathogen detection and monitoring strategies. Our review highlights a need for a more rigorous investigation of pathogen biosafety risks in the EMS sector worldwide, the development of more effective pathogen detection systems, and the implementation of evidence-based industry standards to protect EMS personnel, patients, and the public from pathogen transmission.

EMS pathogen monitoring studies. (i) Study designs and methodologies.To date, approximately 25 published studies have investigated pathogen presence in the EMS sector from 1986 to 2016 within the United States (6–20), Australia (21), the United Kingdom (22), Germany (23–25), Denmark (26, 27), South Korea (28, 29), Saudi Arabia (30), and Thailand (31, 32) (Fig. 1A). Of these studies, most have investigated pathogens within ground ambulances (6, 8–10, 14, 23–25, 29, 30, 32), although several studies examined air ambulances (7, 21), EMS stations (17–19), EMS medical devices (12, 28), uniforms (26), or EMS personnel (11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20) for pathogen colonization (Fig. 1B).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Global studies investigating pathogen prevalence within the EMS sector. (A) The geographic locations of EMS pathogen studies are indicated, with expanded views of the United States (US) and western Europe. (B) Proportion and number of studies investigating pathogen presence for various portions of the EMS sector. (C) Contamination rates for ambulances, EMS facilities, and personnel are indicated, with the frequencies of MRSA and MSSA represented by red bars and gray bars, respectively.

Studies vary significantly in their scope and sampling strategies in terms of number (and type) of vehicles examined, the location of sampling areas, the total number of samples collected, and the frequency of sample collection (Tables 1 and 2). For example, some studies examined pathogen persistence at a single time point (8) or over one or more weeks (7), months (21), or an entire year (22). Similarly, some studies had relatively large sample sizes (>50 ambulances and 30 sampling sites), and statistical significance could be determined confidently (10, 14, 24). Meanwhile, other studies examined only one or a few locations (6, 9, 12) or had comparatively small sample sizes (<10 ambulances) (9). These inconsistencies are noteworthy and in some cases make a comparison of results and conclusions challenging.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1

Summary of studies examining microbes in EMS environments

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 2

Locations examined and potential pathogen contamination identified in EMS vehicles

Culturing techniques were employed in all studies to detect bacterial or fungal contamination within EMS environments. Sample collection is typically performed by swiping predicted fomites (objects carrying infectious organisms) using sterile cotton or rayon swabs moistened with sterile saline solution (8, 22, 27, 30). In one study, air samples were collected from ambulance cabins before and during patient runs and filtered prior to culturing (32). Within 24 h, collected samples are streaked on growth medium (e.g., blood agar) and incubated for 24 to 96 h, and the resulting colonies are counted and observed for morphological or biochemical features to determine their identity (8, 10, 16). Notably, depending on the growth media used and the nutritional requirements of the microbes present, only some microbes (including pathogens) can be cultivated (33). While some studies used rich growth media that support the growth of a variety of microbes (22, 24, 32), others employed selective media (e.g., to enrich for MRSA), limiting the scope of detectable microbes (8, 10, 12, 23).

Genomics and epidemiological studies have revealed that pathogen isolates may display substantial genetic diversity, with different strains possessing distinctive genetic profiles that may include additional antimicrobial resistance and/or virulence genes (34). For example, two genetically distinct hospital-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) and community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) strains have been identified, with some CA-MRSA isolates (e.g., USA300) possessing additional toxins and immunomodulating factors that may produce more severe disease (34). Thus, in some studies, PCR (11, 27), pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (13, 18, 20), and/or mass spectrometry techniques (27) were also employed to provide additional strain information and/or determine antibiotic resistance status.

(ii) Pathogen prevalence by geographical location.Regardless of geographical location and selected sampling areas, all studies identified similar environmental (nonpathogenic) bacterial flora (Table 1). Numerous clinically important opportunistic bacterial pathogens were also frequently identified and included S. aureus (MRSA and methicillin-sensitive S. aureus [MSSA]) (8, 10, 16, 23), Enterococcus spp. (26, 27), Klebsiella pneumoniae (6, 29), Bacillus cereus (26), Pseudomonas fluorescens (29), Serratia marcescens (29), Legionella (29), and the fungal pathogen Aspergillus (7) (Table 1). S. aureus was detected in all studies, although the presence of many other pathogens could not be examined in all cases due to the use of selective culturing techniques that precluded their detection.

Interestingly, the frequency of MRSA contamination in ground ambulances correlates with the geographical location of studies (Fig. 1C). For example, U.S.-based studies found 12 to 49% of tested ambulances to have at least one MRSA-contaminated site (8, 10, 14), while German studies reported comparatively lower MRSA contamination rates of ambulances (7 to 9%); also, Danish, Saudi Arabian, and most Asian studies reported no incidences of MRSA (27, 28, 30, 32). Consistent with the study findings, the United States is predicted to have a greater burden of MRSA than some northern European countries (35). This is also in accordance with more stringent controls for the treatment and monitoring of MRSA-infected patients in German ambulances, such as access to MRSA infection status of patients, donning of additional personal protective equipment (e.g., face masks) while transporting MRSA-positive patients, and specialized cleaning of EMS vehicles and equipment posttransport of MRSA-infected patients (23).

Only two studies have specifically investigated air ambulances for pathogen contamination (7, 21). One U.S. study identified several opportunistic pathogens in a rotor wing air ambulance, including Pseudomonas sp., Aspergillus, and E. coli (7). Staphylococcus sp. was also identified (6 out of 7 samples); however, further testing was not performed to confirm the presence of MRSA (7). In contrast, a second Australian study of EMS helicopters detected only MSSA and nonpathogenic skin flora (e.g., Staphylococcus epidermidis) (21). The relatively small sample sizes of the two studies (1 and 2 ambulances tested) leave much room for further investigation; however, the studies indicate that pathogens may also be present within air ambulances. If true, this would be particularly concerning, because air ambulances service a wider geographical area than ground ambulances, and this could increase the range of HAI transmission.

EMS facilities may also be significant pathogen reservoirs. An Arizona study found that approximately 7% (11/160) of sampled sites at an EMS facility tested positive for MRSA (17), and two other studies conducted in Washington also showed similar MRSA contamination frequencies of 4.1% (44/1,060 samples) and 8% (52/653 samples) (18, 19). Strikingly, MRSA isolate typing in one study identified both HA-MRSA and CA-MRSA (USA300) (18). These findings indicate that pathogens may be readily transferred between EMS personnel and fomites, particularly in locations where the perceived risk of infection is lower (e.g., offices) and interventions to prevent pathogen spread (e.g., donning personal protective equipment [PPE] and routine hand washing) are not as frequently observed.

(iii) Pathogen prevalence by sampling location and patient exposure time.In all published reports, more than 50 locations have been examined for the presence of pathogens within or on ambulance vehicles or equipment (Table 2). However, not all sampling locations were examined or available for testing in all studies, making it somewhat difficult to compare contamination frequencies between studies.

Pathogen presence is most often associated with areas of high patient and/or EMS personnel contact, such as stretchers (mattresses and handrails), door handles, EMS worker preparation areas, and steering wheels (Table 2). Commonly handled or touched areas on medical devices, such as blood pressure cuffs (10, 24), cardiac monitors (10), and intravenous (i.v.) equipment (10, 14), also showed elevated levels of MRSA. In one U.S. study, EMS personnel stethoscopes were found to have a high rate of MRSA contamination (32% [16/50]) (12), although other studies from the United States and outside reported lower contamination levels of MRSA (7% [5/71]) (14) or no detectable MRSA (10). Floor areas also showed high bacterial counts; however, no study specifically identified MRSA at this sampling location (Table 2). Ambulance interior walls, ceilings, and insides of cabinets had lower bacterial loads and were not found to host MRSA in any study (Table 2). Finally, one study examining EMS facilities showed high frequencies of MRSA contamination on couches (20% [4/20]) and student desks (10% [1/10]) (17).

The small and closed confines of the ambulance cabin also suggest the potential for airborne pathogen transmission between patient and EMS personnel and vice versa (36). In one study, 106 air samples and 452 surface swabs were taken from 30 ground ambulances in Thailand (32). While no significant differences were observed in the composition of the detected microbe community between the inside and outside of the ambulance, total bacterial and fungal counts increased slightly but significantly (P = 0.005 to 0.030) during patient transport events (32). The increase in total bacterial and fungal counts in air samples was also positively correlated with an increase in surface swab counts (32), suggesting that both ambulance air and surfaces may become contaminated during patient transport events. Relevantly, one German study that examined the relationship between patient occupancy time and MRSA contamination found that 8 out of 91 (9%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 14%) ambulance runs lasting 20 min or less had MRSA contamination after patient delivery (23). Longer ambulance runs (10 to 20 min) did not show significantly greater contamination than shorter runs (<10 min), indicating that pathogen contamination of EMS vehicles was immediate upon patient transfer (23).

(iv) Pathogen colonization of EMS personnel.Six U.S. studies have tested EMS personnel directly for MRSA nasal colonization (Fig. 1C). Four studies report remarkably similar frequencies of EMS personnel colonization by MRSA, at 4.5% (6 out of 134) (15), 4.6% (13/280) (16), 5.5% (6/109) (20), and 6.4% (7/110) (11). The remaining two studies reported comparably lower or higher MRSA colonization frequencies, at 1.9% (1/52) (13) and 22.5% (9/40) (19). Regardless of these differences, most studies report MRSA colonization frequencies for EMS personnel that are approximately three to four times higher than that reported for the general population (1.5%) (37), suggesting that EMS workers are at increased risk for colonization and/or infection by MRSA and possibly by other pathogens (36). Indeed, observational studies indicate that EMS personnel are at greater risk for infection during an epidemic (38) and that pathogen risk exposure may be exacerbated by improper workplace practices or patient handling (31). Moreover, Roberts et al. discovered that several EMS personnel were colonized by MRSA strains that were genetically related to samples collected from EMS facilities and included both HA-MRSA and CA-MRSA (USA300) isolates (18). While further studies are needed, these findings provide preliminary evidence that transmission of pathogens between EMS personnel and environmental fomites does occur and that this may contribute to HAIs (18). Additional studies that investigate EMS personnel colonization in areas outside the United States are needed to determine whether these findings are representative of EMS personnel in other countries.

Cleaning practices and pathogen mitigation strategies.EMS operations vary in their adopted cleaning practices for managing biological hazards but typically use a combination of physical processes and chemical solutions to achieve suitable disinfection (7, 22). Initially, mops, towels, rags, and/or sanitary wipes are used to remove gross (visible) contamination, such as dirt, blood, and other bodily fluids, and this is expected to reduce microbial loads on contaminated surfaces (22, 27). Following this, cleaning solutions and disinfectants are employed to further decontaminate surfaces and may include 10% bleach, 80% ethanol, quaternary ammonium chloride, glutaraldehyde, and other chemical agents (7, 22). Occasionally, fumigation is used as a tertiary treatment for ambulance vehicle decontamination (30).

Despite the array of employed cleaning practices used in EMS operations, very few studies report on the efficacy of cleaning products and procedures for reducing pathogen risk in the EMS workplace. One U.S. study that investigated rotor wing air ambulances examined the effect of the cleaning products Staphene, KleenAseptic, and Virkon on microbial load for seven ambulance sampling locations (7). An initial set of swab samples was collected after removing loose material with a cloth and applying Staphene or KleenAseptic, and a second set was collected after subsequent application of Virkon (7). Initial swab samples (Staphene or KleenAseptic) produced moderate to heavy growth of S. aureus at most sampling locations and occasional light growth of E. coli, Pseudomonas spp., and Gram-negative Bacillus spp. (7). Samples taken after subsequent cleaning with Virkon showed only light growth for one sampling location (stretcher) (7). While the study demonstrates the efficacy of secondary cleaning for reducing microbial load, unfortunately, initial pathogen loads (before cleaning with Staphene or KleenAseptic) were not determined, and the individual contribution of each of the cleaning products cannot be evaluated.

Another study conducted in Saudi Arabia specifically examined the efficacy of 6% hydrogen peroxide fumigation on microbial contamination in ambulance vehicles (30). While not quantitative, the study reports a substantial reduction in viable bacterial contamination after fumigation, including no detectable S. aureus (30). Interestingly however, Bacillus sp. was detected after fumigation at several sampling sites, demonstrating that some bacteria (including possible pathogens, e.g., B. cereus) are resistant to this treatment (30).

Although many of the employed disinfectants are broad spectrum and/or recommended by government regulatory agencies, their efficacy may differ in actual practice. For example, a Welsh study by Nigam and Cutter reported only 8 to 45% reduction in total bacterial contamination following standard cleaning procedures (22). Strikingly, in the same study, some sites showed increased contamination by the opportunistic pathogens S. aureus and Pseudomonas sp. after cleaning, suggesting that the employed cleaning practices were insufficient for decontamination and/or were spreading contamination to new sites within EMS vehicles (22). The practice of effective decontamination procedures may also differ in different EMS operating modes. Brown et al. found that paid-per-call and volunteer services had higher rates of MRSA contamination (91% [10/11 ambulances]) than part-time (57% [4/7]) and full-time (32% [11/34]) services (10). The reason for the discrepancy could not be specifically determined; however, the authors note that full-time personnel were required to clean ambulance interiors at the end of each shift and perform weekly rigorous cleaning, which presumably lowered pathogen loads in ambulance vehicles (10).

Besides ambulance interiors and equipment, EMS worker sanitation is likely an important contributing factor to HAI transmission. Health care uniforms have been implicated as a fomite for HAI transmission in hospitals (39, 40); consequently, one Danish study investigated bacterial colonization rates of 30 EMS personnel uniforms before and after cleaning with detergents containing acetic peroxide (26). Initial prints before washing (n = 90) showed contamination with Bacillus cereus (27%), Clostridium and Enterococcus (2%), and S. aureus (21%); while postwashing, only S. aureus (4%) was detected, revealing a substantial decrease in microbial load (26). The hands of health care workers are also thought to be the most prominent mechanism for the transmission of HAIs (41). Consistent with this concept, Orellana et al. found that EMS workers who did not perform routine hand washing following glove use were approximately 10 times more likely to be colonized by MRSA (95% CI, 2.45 to 43.45 times; P = 0.0012) (16). Thus, as is true for other health care services, implementing mandatory hand washing practices for EMS personnel is likely a simple but effective measure to reduce HAI risks in the EMS environment.

EMS pathogen monitoring for the future.Currently, no study has reported on the prevalence of many other clinically important pathogens in the EMS environment, including high-priority pathogens (e.g., C. difficile and influenza virus). This situation is due in part to limitations of culture-based methods, which are the primary methods utilized for pathogen detection. Culture-based detection can demonstrate viability, antibiotic resistance, and hemolytic capability (indicating a virulent strain); however, culture conditions are biased and permit the detection of only one or a few organisms (16, 21, 23). Culturing methods also have long turnaround times for results (48 to 96 h), limiting the time frame in which microbial contamination may be detected and corrective action can be taken (e.g., decontamination). Finally, extensive biochemical testing, microscopy, and use of selective media for culturing may still misidentify microbes (42) or provide only coarse-grained (genus-level) identification that may include both pathogenic and innocuous species. The development of alternative pathogen detection methods that provide more rapid (<8 h) and comprehensive analysis of resident microbes is therefore needed to effectively identify and mitigate EMS workplace risks.

DNA sequencing provides several advantages over culturing techniques in terms of pathogen detection comprehensiveness. DNA sequencing is often performed on DNA extracted from pure colonies postculturing, followed by targeted (gene-specific) (43) or whole-genome (44) DNA amplification. The sequenced DNA is then matched to databases containing known DNA sequences to identify microbes and reveal additional strain or genotypic information, such as the presence of virulence genes. As DNA sequencing requires only a DNA input, the culturing step may be circumvented by sequencing DNA from environmental samples (45, 46). This removes the constraints of culture bias, enabling the simultaneous detection of a wider variety of bacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens (45–47). Moreover, the additional strain information from sequencing can be used to identify patterns of pathogen spread and/or reservoirs within and outside the health care framework (47). In this regard, high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies, such as Illumina sequencing, Ion Torrent sequencing, SOLiD sequencing, and pyrosequencing, are effective tools. Portable DNA sequencing technologies, such as the MinION device (Oxford Nanopore Technologies), are particularly interesting, as they can allow DNA sequencing to be performed on-site in EMS vehicles and/or facilities, with results being obtained in as little as 6 h (48, 49).

Nevertheless, DNA sequencing methods are not without limitations. Obtaining sufficient starting material from environmental samples is often challenging and typically requires a DNA amplification step to generate enough material for sequencing. PCR is the most widely used DNA amplification technique, which utilizes specific oligonucleotide primers to exponentially amplify one or more gene sequences of interest from a DNA sample (50). The ability of PCR-based methods to detect pathogens from environmental samples depends largely on the target gene(s) chosen for amplification. Sequencing of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA gene sequences is a frequently used strategy for examining bacterial communities (43, 51). However, depending on the PCR primers selected for 16S gene amplification (e.g., primer binding location) and natural variation in 16S gene sequences, only some bacterial sequences will be preferentially amplified, with low-abundance and atypical sequences being the most likely to be excluded (52–54). Nonbacterial microbes are also excluded by 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and their detection requires amplification of alternative genes (e.g., 18S rRNA for eukaryotic organisms) and/or organism-specific gene sequences. Some of the limitations of PCR can be overcome by other DNA amplification methods, such as multiple displacement amplification (MDA), in which randomized primers are used to amplify total DNA from a sample without any prior knowledge of sequence identity (55). MDA enables a less sequence-biased approach to the examination of microbial communities, which can include a wide diversity of microbes (bacteria, protozoans, fungi, and viruses), but it usually requires more sequenced DNA fragments for organism identification and a more challenging downstream analysis of sequence data (55–57). While PCR and MDA can theoretically detect as little as one DNA molecule in a sample, successful amplification depends on multiple factors, including DNA sample quality, quantity, purity, and undesirable off-target amplification or preferential amplification of particular DNA sequences.

Downstream processing of environmental DNA is commonly done through amplicon sequencing, which is the direct analysis of the PCR-amplified DNA (i.e., 16S rRNA gene), providing taxonomical and phylogenetic insight into the diversity of the microbial community present and requiring minimal bioinformatic analysis. The information gained by amplicon sequencing is defined by the preceding PCR and therefore is subject to the limitations and biases described above. Alternatively, shotgun metagenomic sequencing involves the shearing of all collected DNA into small fragments, which are then independently sequenced (50). Therefore, metagenomic sequencing is frequently used to analyze samples where species-level identification, identification of novel genes, and the identification of metabolic pathways within the community are required. However, due to the volume and complexity of the data collected, the metagenomic analysis is computationally intensive, which limits its application in the field (50). In order for DNA sequencing-based pathogen detection to become more widespread, the difficulty of DNA sample collection, preparation, and data analysis needs to be addressed. Additionally, simplified and standardized workflows for sample processing and bioinformatic analysis are needed to make entirely lab-free DNA sequencing economically and practically viable (58).

Paper-based tests, such as lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), are another alternative for on-site identification of pathogens. LFIAs are simple and inexpensive strip tests (e.g., home pregnancy test) that use specific antibodies or nucleic acid probes to detect one or more molecules or organisms in a sample (59, 60). LFIAs have been previously used to rapidly detect foodborne pathogens (61) and a variety of bacterial and viral pathogens (59, 60, 62); however, to our knowledge, they have not been utilized to monitor pathogens in EMS vehicles. If implemented, LFIAs could enable rapid and inexpensive detection of pathogens in EMS environments with turnaround times as low 15 to 30 min for as little as $1.00 per test (60, 62, 63). LFIAs may therefore be practically and feasibly employed for routine pathogen monitoring in EMS vehicles (e.g., between patients) or to evaluate cleaning practices by testing samples taken before and after cleaning.

DNA sequencing and paper-based detection approaches could be combined to create a powerful two-part pathogen detection system. DNA sequencing would first identify target pathogens and other microbes, which would then inform the design of specific and rapid LFIAs. The two-step approach would enable customizable and site-specific monitoring of pathogens in the EMS workplace, with iterative cycles of DNA sequencing providing the opportunity to adapt LFIAs in response to changing biosafety risks.

Conclusions.Although it has been over 30 years since the first published report of pathogens within ambulance vehicles, many questions remain regarding pathogen occupancy within or on EMS vehicles, medical equipment, and personnel. In contrast to several thousands of publications relating to hospital-borne HAIs (found in PubMed), only approximately 25 published studies have investigated pathogen prevalence and the efficacy of cleaning practices within the EMS framework, with many of these being self-reported as “preliminary” or “pilot” studies. Studies investigating pathogen presence in EMS vehicles or facilities have also been limited to developed countries within northern Europe and Asia, as well as in the United States and Australia. Currently, no data on pathogen prevalence in EMS exist from most other developed countries, including Canada and Mexico, whose geographical proximity to the United States may suggest comparably high frequencies of MRSA. Moreover, no data exist on pathogen prevalence in developing countries, and because HAI prevalence may be up to three times higher than in developed countries (3), these should be considered high-priority areas of future investigation.

The issue of insufficient time or resources for adequate ambulance vehicle cleaning is a recurring theme (22, 30), indicating that the search for appropriate protocols, cleaning solutions, and guidelines that balance the needs of patient transport and care with vehicle decontamination is ongoing worldwide. No single disinfection method is expected to eliminate all biological hazards or is suitable for all types of surfaces, and consequently, EMS personnel must select a proper cleaning arsenal that meets the needs of individual EMS operations. Thus, achieving optimal decontamination of EMS vehicles and equipment depends on a complex combination of factors that include (i) the type and extent of pathogen loads present, (ii) access to cleaning materials, and (iii) adequate time to perform cleaning between service calls. Additional programs for EMS personnel that provide comprehensive education regarding important pathogens, their modes of transmissions, and suitable decontamination practices should help reduce biosafety risks in the EMS environment. Moreover, additional technologies that rapidly identify pathogens and quantitate biological loads are needed to establish evidence-based guidelines to reduce the frequency of HAIs within the EMS framework. The development of such technologies and widespread pathogen monitoring programs will help further elucidate biosafety risks in the EMS sector and increase preparedness for managing emerging biological threats, epidemics, and bioterrorism.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We sincerely thank Emily Wilton and Dustin Smith for critical reading of the manuscript.

A.J.H. and G.D.G. are supported by Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (H.-J.W.; Strategic Chairs Program, grant SC60-T2).

The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 2 October 2017.
    • Accepted 1 December 2017.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 8 December 2017.
  • Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Maguire BJ,
    2. O'Meara PF,
    3. Brightwell RF,
    4. O'Neill BJ,
    5. Fitzgerald GJ
    . 2014. Occupational injury risk among Australian paramedics: an analysis of national data. Med J Aust 200:477–480. doi:10.5694/mja13.10941.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Roberts MH,
    2. Sim MR,
    3. Black O,
    4. Smith P
    . 2015. Occupational injury risk among ambulance officers and paramedics compared with other healthcare workers in Victoria, Australia: analysis of workers' compensation claims from 2003 to 2012. Occup Environ Med 72:489–495. doi:10.1136/oemed-2014-102574.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). 2011. Report on the burden of endemic health care-associated infection worldwide. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/80135/1/9789241501507_eng.pdf.
  4. 4.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2013. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013 (report CS239559-B). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/index.html.
  5. 5.↵
    Public Health Agency of Canada. 2013. The Chief Public Health Officer's report on the state of public health in Canada, 2013–infectious disease–the never-ending threat. Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/migration/phac-aspc/cphorsphc-respcacsp/2013/assets/pdf/2013-eng.pdf.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Cameron J,
    2. Reese W,
    3. Tayal V,
    4. Clark R,
    5. Kelso D,
    6. Gonzales E,
    7. Garnett A,
    8. Ornato J
    . 1986. Bacterial contamination of ambulance oxygen humidifier water reservoirs: a potential source of pulmonary infection. Ann Emerg Med 15:1300–1302. doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(86)80614-X.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Galtelli M,
    2. Deschamp C,
    3. Rogers J
    . 2006. An assesment of the prevalence of pathogenic microorganisms in the rotor wing ambulance: one program's findings. Air Med J 25:81–84. doi:10.1016/j.amj.2005.12.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Roline CE,
    2. Crumpecker C,
    3. Dunn TM
    . 2007. Can methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus be found in an ambulance fleet? Prehosp Emerg Care 11:241–244. doi:10.1080/10903120701205125.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Alves DW,
    2. Bissell RA
    . 2008. Bacterial pathogens in ambulance: results of unannounced sample collection. Prehosp Emerg Care 12:218–224. doi:10.1080/10903120801906721.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Brown R,
    2. Minnon J,
    3. Schneider S,
    4. Vaughn J
    . 2010. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in ambulances in Southern Maine. Prehosp Emerg Care 14:176–181. doi:10.3109/10903120903564480.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Amiry A,
    2. Bissell RA,
    3. Maguire BJ,
    4. Alves DW
    . 2013. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization prevalence among emergency medical services personnel. Prehosp Disaster Med 28:348–352. doi:10.1017/S1049023X13003476.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Merlin MA,
    2. Wong ML,
    3. Pryor PW,
    4. Rynn K,
    5. Marques-Baptista A,
    6. Perritt R,
    7. Stanescu CG,
    8. Fallon T
    . 2009. Preliminary reports: prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on the stethoscopes of emergency medical services providers. Prehosp Emerg Care 13:71–74. doi:10.1080/10903120802471972.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Elie-Turenne MC,
    2. Fernandes H,
    3. Mediavilla JR,
    4. Rosenthal M,
    5. Mathema B,
    6. Singh A,
    7. Cohen TR,
    8. Pawar KA,
    9. Shahidi H,
    10. Kreiswirth BN,
    11. Deitch EA
    . 2010. Prevalence and characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus colonization among healthcare professionals in an urban teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31:574–580. doi:10.1086/652525.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Rago JV,
    2. Keith L,
    3. Makarovaite V,
    4. Patel E,
    5. Pomeroy M,
    6. Yasmine C
    . 2012. Detection and analysis of Staphylococcus aureus isolates found in ambulances in the Chicago metropolitan area. Am J Infect Control 40:201–205. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2011.08.021.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Miramonti C,
    2. Rinkle JA,
    3. Iden S,
    4. Lincoln J,
    5. Huffman G,
    6. Riddell E,
    7. Kozak MA
    . 2013. The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among out-of-hospital care providers and emergency medical technician students. Prehosp Emerg Care 17:73–77. doi:10.3109/10903127.2012.717169.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Orellana RC,
    2. Hoet AE,
    3. Bell C,
    4. Kelley C,
    5. Lu B,
    6. Anderson SE,
    7. Stevenson KB
    . 2016. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Ohio EMS providers: a statewide cross-sectional study. Prehosp Emerg Care 20:184–190. doi:10.3109/10903127.2015.1076098.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sexton JD,
    2. Reynolds KA
    . 2010. Exposure of emergency medical responders to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Infect Control 38:368–373. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2010.01.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Roberts MC,
    2. Soge OO,
    3. No D,
    4. Beck NK,
    5. Meschke JS
    . 2011. Isolation and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from fire stations in two northwest fire districts. Am J Infect Control 39:382–389. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2010.09.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Roberts MC,
    2. No DB
    . 2014. Environment surface sampling in 33 Washington State fire stations for methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Infect Control 42:591–596. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2014.02.019.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Elliot MJ,
    2. Kellum MT,
    3. Tenover FC,
    4. Pettriess RL
    . 2002. Nasal carriage of methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among paramedics in the Sedgwick County emergency medical service in Wichita, Kansas. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 23:60–61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Makiela S,
    2. Taylor-Robinson AW,
    3. Weber A,
    4. Maguire BJ
    . 2016. A preliminary assessment of contamination of emergency service helicopters with MRSA and multi-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Emerg Med Open Access 6:1–6. doi:10.4172/2165-7548.1000304.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Nigam Y,
    2. Cutter J
    . 2003. A preliminary investigation into bacterial contamination of Welsh emergency ambulances. Emerg Med J 20:479–482. doi:10.1136/emj.20.5.479.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Eibicht SJ,
    2. Vogel U
    . 2011. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) contamination of ambulance cars after short term transport of MRSA-colonised patients is restricted to the stretcher. J Hosp Infect 78:221–225. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2011.01.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Wepler M,
    2. Stahl W,
    3. Baum Von H,
    4. Wildermuth S,
    5. Dirks B,
    6. Georgieff M,
    7. Hafner S
    . 2015. Prevalence of nosocomial pathogens in German ambulances: the SEKURE study. Emerg Med J 32:409–411. doi:10.1136/emermed-2013-202551.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Lukas R-P,
    2. Keppler P-A,
    3. Brinkrolf P,
    4. Friedrich A,
    5. Van Aken H,
    6. Bohn A
    . 2015. Übertragungsrisiko von MRSA auf kontaktflächen im krankentransport. Der Notarzt 31:234–238. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1552645.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. Vikke HS,
    2. Giebner M
    . 2015. UniStatus—a cross-sectional study on the contamination of uniforms in the Danish ambulance service. BMC Res Notes 8:95. doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1057-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Vikke HS,
    2. Giebner M
    . 2016. POSAiDA: presence of Staphylococcus aureus/MRSA and Enterococcus/VRE in Danish ambulances. A cross-sectional study. BMC Res Notes 9:194. doi:10.1186/s13104-016-1982-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Noh H,
    2. Shin SD,
    3. Kim NJ,
    4. Ro YS,
    5. Oh HS,
    6. Joo SI,
    7. Kim JI,
    8. Ong MEH
    . 2011. Risk stratification-based surveillance of bacterial contamination in metropolitan ambulances. J Korean Med Sci 26:124–130. doi:10.3346/jkms.2011.26.1.124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Yoo S,
    2. You Y,
    3. Kwan KC,
    4. Jeong TO
    . 2012. Bacterial contamination conditions in ambulances and their equipment in South Korea. J Korean Soc Emerg Med 23:1–7.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Alrazeeni D,
    2. Al-Sufi MS
    . 2014. Nosocomial infections in ambulances and effectiveness of ambulance fumigation techniques in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J 35:1354–1360.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Luksamijarulkul P,
    2. Pipitsangjan S,
    3. Vatanasomboon P
    . 2014. Occupational risk toward blood-borne infections among ambulance personnel in a provincial hospital network in Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 45:940–948.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Luksamijarulkul P,
    2. Pipitsangjan S
    . 2015. Microbial air quality and bacterial surface contamination in ambulances during patient services. Oman Med J 30:104–110. doi:10.5001/omj.2015.23.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    1. Wade W
    . 2002. Unculturable bacteria—the uncharacterized organisms that cause oral infections. J R Soc Med 95:81. doi:10.1258/jrsm.95.2.81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Watkins RR,
    2. David MZ,
    3. Salata RA
    . 2012. Current concepts on the virulence mechanisms of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Med Microbiol 61:1179–1193. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.043513-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Grundmann H,
    2. Aires-de-Sousa M,
    3. Boyce J,
    4. Tiemersma E
    . 2006. Emergence and resurgence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as a public-health threat. Lancet 368:874–885. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68853-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    1. Al Amiry A
    . 2015. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an occupational health hazard in the prehospital setting. J Acute Dis 4:274–276. doi:10.1016/j.joad.2015.06.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    1. Gorwitz RJ,
    2. Kruszon-Moran D,
    3. McAllister SK,
    4. McQuillan G,
    5. McDougal LK,
    6. Fosheim GE,
    7. Jensen BJ,
    8. Killgore G,
    9. Tenover FC,
    10. Kuehnert MJ
    . 2008. Changes in the prevalence of nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, 2001–2004. J Infect Dis 197:1226–1234. doi:10.1086/533494.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    1. Ko PC,
    2. Chen W,
    3. Ma MH,
    4. Chiang W,
    5. Su CP,
    6. Huang CH,
    7. Lu TC,
    8. Shih FY,
    9. Lin FY
    . 2004. Emergency medical services utilization during an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the incidence of SARS-associated coronavirus infection among emergency medical technicians. Acad Emerg Med 11:903–911.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Treakle AM,
    2. Thom KA,
    3. Furuno JP,
    4. Strauss SM,
    5. Harris AD,
    6. Perencevich EN
    . 2009. Bacterial contamination of health care workers' white coats. Am J Infect Control 37:101–105. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    1. Wiener-Well Y,
    2. Galuty M,
    3. Rudensky B,
    4. Schlesinger Y,
    5. Attias D,
    6. Yinnon AM
    . 2011. Nursing and physician attire as possible source of nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 39:555–559. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2010.12.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    1. Allegranzi B,
    2. Pittet D
    . 2009. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect 73:305–315. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2009.04.019.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.↵
    1. Kellogg JA,
    2. Bankert DA,
    3. Chaturvedi V
    . 1998. Limitations of the current microbial identification system for identification of clinical yeast isolates. J Clin Microbiol 36:1197–1200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Pace NR,
    2. Stahl DA,
    3. Lane DJ,
    4. Olsen GJ
    . 1986. The analysis of natural microbial populations by ribosomal RNA sequences. Adv Microb Ecol 9:1–55. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-0611-6_1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  44. 44.↵
    1. Lasken RS,
    2. McLean JS
    . 2014. Recent advances in genomic DNA sequencing of microbial species from single cells. Nat Rev Genet 15:577–584. doi:10.1038/nrg3785.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Orgiazzi A,
    2. Dunbar MB,
    3. Panagos P,
    4. de Groot GA,
    5. Lemanceau P
    . 2015. Soil biodiversity and DNA barcodes: Opportunities and challenges. Soil Biol Biochem 80:244–250. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    1. Rinke C,
    2. Schwientek P,
    3. Sczyrba A,
    4. Ivanova NN,
    5. Anderson IJ,
    6. Cheng J-F,
    7. Darling A,
    8. Malfatti S,
    9. Swan BK,
    10. Gies EA,
    11. Dodsworth JA,
    12. Hedlund BP,
    13. Tsiamis G,
    14. Sievert SM,
    15. Liu W-T,
    16. Eisen JA,
    17. Hallam SJ,
    18. Kyrpides NC,
    19. Stepanauskas R,
    20. Rubin EM,
    21. Hugenholtz P,
    22. Woyke T
    . 2013. Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. Nature 499:431–437. doi:10.1038/nature12352.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Gilchrist CA,
    2. Turner SD,
    3. Riley MF,
    4. Petri WA,
    5. Hewlett EL
    . 2015. Whole-genome sequencing in outbreak analysis. Clin Microbiol Rev 28:541–563. doi:10.1128/CMR.00075-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Greninger AL,
    2. Naccache SN,
    3. Federman S,
    4. Yu G,
    5. Mbala P,
    6. Bres V,
    7. Stryke D,
    8. Bouquet J,
    9. Somasekar S,
    10. Linnen JM,
    11. Dodd R,
    12. Mulembakani P,
    13. Schneider BS,
    14. Muyembe-Tamfum J-J,
    15. Stramer SL,
    16. Chiu CY
    . 2015. Rapid metagenomic identification of viral pathogens in clinical samples by real-time nanopore sequencing analysis. Genome Med 7:99. doi:10.1186/s13073-015-0220-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Feng Y,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Ying C,
    4. Wang D,
    5. Du C
    . 2015. Nanopore-based fourth-generation DNA sequencing technology. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 13:4–16. doi:10.1016/j.gpb.2015.01.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Sharpton TJ
    . 2014. An introduction to the analysis of shotgun metagenomic data. Front Plant Sci 5:1–14. doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00209.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    1. Hugenholtz P,
    2. Pace NR
    . 1996. Identifying microbial diversity in the natural environment: a molecular phylogenetic approach. Trends Biotechnol 14:190–197. doi:10.1016/0167-7799(96)10025-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.↵
    1. Hong S,
    2. Bunge J,
    3. Leslin C,
    4. Jeon S,
    5. Epstein SS
    . 2009. Polymerase chain reaction primers miss half of rRNA microbial diversity. ISME J 3:1365–1373. doi:10.1038/ismej.2009.89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.↵
    1. Sharpton TJ,
    2. Riesenfeld SJ,
    3. Kembel SW,
    4. Ladau J,
    5. O'Dwyer JP,
    6. Green JL,
    7. Eisen JA,
    8. Pollard KS
    . 2011. PhylOTU: a high-throughput procedure quantifies microbial community diversity and resolves novel taxa from metagenomic data. PLoS Comput Biol 7:e1001061. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001061.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Logares R,
    2. Sunagawa S,
    3. Salazar G,
    4. Cornejo-Castillo FM,
    5. Ferrera I,
    6. Sarmento H,
    7. Hingamp P,
    8. Ogata H,
    9. de Vargas C,
    10. Lima-Mendez G,
    11. Raes J,
    12. Poulain J,
    13. Jaillon O,
    14. Wincker P,
    15. Kandels-Lewis S,
    16. Karsenti E,
    17. Bork P,
    18. Acinas SG
    . 2014. Metagenomic 16S rDNA Illumina tags are a powerful alternative to amplicon sequencing to explore diversity and structure of microbial communities. Environ Microbiol 16:2659–2671. doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12250.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Lasken RS
    . 2009. Genomic DNA amplification by the multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method. Biochem Soc Trans 37:450–453. doi:10.1042/BST0370450.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Dean FB,
    2. Hosono S,
    3. Fang L,
    4. Wu X,
    5. Faruqi AF,
    6. Bray-Ward P,
    7. Sun Z,
    8. Zong Q,
    9. Du Y,
    10. Du J,
    11. Driscoll M,
    12. Song W,
    13. Kingsmore SF,
    14. Egholm M,
    15. Lasken RS
    . 2002. Comprehensive human genome amplification using multiple displacement amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:5261–5266. doi:10.1073/pnas.082089499.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    1. Dean FB,
    2. Nelson JR,
    3. Giesler TL,
    4. Lasken RS
    . 2001. Rapid amplification of plasmid and phage DNA using Phi29 DNA polymerase and multiply-primed rolling circle amplification. Genome Res 11:1095–1099. doi:10.1101/gr.180501.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    1. Mayo B,
    2. Rachid CT,
    3. Alegria A,
    4. Leite AM,
    5. Peixoto RS,
    6. Delgado S
    . 2014. Impact of next generation sequencing techniques in food microbiology. Curr Genomics 15:293–309. doi:10.2174/1389202915666140616233211.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.↵
    1. Posthuma-Trumpie GA,
    2. Korf J,
    3. van Amerongen A
    . 2009. Lateral flow (immuno)assay: its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A literature survey. Anal Bioanal Chem 393:569–582. doi:10.1007/s00216-008-2287-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. 60.↵
    1. Rohrman BA,
    2. Leautaud V,
    3. Molyneux E,
    4. Richards-Kortum RR
    . 2012. A lateral flow assay for quantitative detection of amplified HIV-1 RNA. PLoS One 7:e45611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045611.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.↵
    1. Shan S,
    2. Lai W,
    3. Xiong Y,
    4. Wei H,
    5. Xu H
    . 2015. Novel strategies to enhance lateral flow immunoassay sensitivity for detecting foodborne pathogens. J Agric Food Chem 63:745–753. doi:10.1021/jf5046415.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    1. Han KN,
    2. Choi J-S,
    3. Kwon J
    . 2016. Three-dimensional paper-based slip device for one-step point-of-care testing. Sci Rep 6:25710. doi:10.1038/srep25710.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.↵
    1. Pardee K,
    2. Green AA,
    3. Ferrante T,
    4. Cameron DE,
    5. Daleykeyser A,
    6. Yin P,
    7. Collins JJ
    . 2014. Paper-based synthetic gene networks. Cell 159:940–954. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
The Emergency Medical Service Microbiome
Andrew J. Hudson, Graeme D. Glaister, Hans-Joachim Wieden
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Feb 2018, 84 (5) e02098-17; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02098-17

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Applied and Environmental Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Emergency Medical Service Microbiome
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The Emergency Medical Service Microbiome
Andrew J. Hudson, Graeme D. Glaister, Hans-Joachim Wieden
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Feb 2018, 84 (5) e02098-17; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02098-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

DNA sequencing
emergency medical services (EMS)
Staphylococcus aureus
health care-associated infection (HAI)
microbiome
pathogens
public health

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AEM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AppEnvMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

 

Print ISSN: 0099-2240; Online ISSN: 1098-5336