1887
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.

Biology of Hand-to-Hand Bacterial Transmission

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • Authors: Rosa del Campo1,2, Laura Martínez-García3,4, Ana María Sánchez-Díaz5,6, Fernando Baquero7,8
  • Editors: Fernando Baquero9, Emilio Bouza10, J.A. Gutiérrez-Fuentes11, Teresa M. Coque12
  • VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain; 2: Red Española de Investigación en Patología Infecciosa (REIPI), Madrid, Spain; 3: Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain; 4: Red Española de Investigación en Patología Infecciosa (REIPI), Madrid, Spain; 5: Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain; 6: Red Española de Investigación en Patología Infecciosa (REIPI), Madrid, Spain; 7: Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain; 8: CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain; 9: Hospital Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain; 10: Hospital Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain; 11: Complutensis University, Madrid, Spain; 12: Hospital Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain
  • Source: microbiolspec January 2019 vol. 7 no. 1 doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.MTBP-0011-2016
  • Received 07 March 2018 Accepted 10 July 2018 Published 18 January 2019
  • Rosa del Campo, [email protected]
image of Biology of Hand-to-Hand Bacterial Transmission
    Preview this microbiology spectrum article:
    Zoom in
    Zoomout

    Biology of Hand-to-Hand Bacterial Transmission, Page 1 of 2

    | /docserver/preview/fulltext/microbiolspec/7/1/MTBP-0011-2016-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/microbiolspec/7/1/MTBP-0011-2016-2.gif
  • Abstract:

    Numerous studies have demonstrated that adequate hand hygiene among hospital staff is the best measure to prevent hand-to-hand bacterial transmission. The skin microbiome is conditioned by the individual physiological characteristics and anatomical microenvironments. Furthermore, it is important to separate the autochthonous resident microbiota from the transitory microbiota that we can acquire after interactions with contaminated surfaces. Two players participate in the hand-to-hand bacterial transmission process: the bacteria and the person. The particularities of the bacteria have been extensively studied, identifying some genera or species with higher transmission efficiency, particularly those linked to nosocomial infections and outbreaks. However, the human factor remains unstudied, and intrapersonal particularities in bacterial transmission have not been yet explored. Herein we summarize the current knowledge on hand-to-hand bacterial transmission, as well as unpublished results regarding interindividual and interindividual transmission efficiency differences. We designed a simple test based on four sequential steps of finger-to-finger contact in the same person artificially inoculated with a precise bacterial inoculum. Individuals can be grouped into one of three observed transmission categories: high, medium, and poor finger-to-finger transmitters. Categorization is relevant to predicting the ultimate success of a human transmission chain, particularly for the poor transmitters, who have the ability to cut the transmission chain. Our model allowed us to analyze transmission rate differences among five bacterial species and clones that cause nosocomial infections, from which we detected that Gram-positive microorganisms were more successfully transmitted than Gram-negative.

  • Keywords: Skin; Individual Differences; Bacterial Transmission Efficiency

  • Citation: del Campo R, Martínez-García L, Sánchez-Díaz A, Baquero F. 2019. Biology of Hand-to-Hand Bacterial Transmission. Microbiol Spectrum 7(1):MTBP-0011-2016. doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.MTBP-0011-2016.

References

1. Lane HJ, Blum N, Fee E. 2010. Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809–1894) and Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818–1865): preventing the transmission of puerperal fever. Am J Public Health 100:1008–1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.185363. [PubMed]
2. Holmes OW. 1855. Puerperal Fever as a Private Pestilence. Ticknor and Fields, Boston, MA.
3. Loudon I. 2005. Semmelweis and his thesis. J R Soc Med 98:555.
4. Stewardson A, Allegranzi B, Sax H, Kilpatrick C, Pittet D. 2011. Back to the future: rising to the Semmelweis challenge in hand hygiene. Future Microbiol 6:855–876. http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/fmb.11.66. [PubMed]
5. Monnet DL, Sprenger M. 2012. Hand hygiene practices in healthcare: measure and improve. Euro Surveill 17:20166. http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/ese.17.18.20166-en. [PubMed]
6. Miranda CM, Navarrete TL. 2008. Semmelweis and his outstanding contribution to medicine: washing hands saves lives. Rev Chilena Infectol 25:54–57. (In Spanish.)
7. Bauer J. 1963. The tragic fate of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis. Calif Med 98:264–266. [PubMed]
8. Dunn PM. 2005. Ignaz Semmelweis of Budapest and the prevention of puerperal fever. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal 90:345–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.062901. [PubMed]
9. Raju TN. 1999. Ignác Semmelweis and the etiology of fetal and neonatal sepsis. J Perinatol 19:307–310. [PubMed]
10. Tan SY, Brown J. 2006. Ignac Philipp Semmelweis (1818–1865): handwashing saves lives. Singapore Med J 47:6–7. [PubMed]
11. Wyklicky H, Skopec M. 1983. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, the prophet of bacteriology. Infect Control 4:367–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0195941700059762. [PubMed]
12. Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Sax H, Dharan S, Pessoa-Silva CL, Donaldson L, Boyce JM, WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge, World Alliance for Patient Safety. 2006. Evidence-based model for hand transmission during patient care and the role of improved practices. Lancet Infect Dis 6:641–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70600-4.
13. World Health Organization. 2009. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44102/1/9789241597906_eng.pdf.
14. Erasmus V, Daha TJ, Brug H, Richardus JH, Behrendt MD, Vos MC, van Beeck EF. 2010. Systematic review of studies on compliance with hand hygiene guidelines in hospital care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31:283–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/650451. [PubMed]
15. Girou E, Loyeau S, Legrand P, Oppein F, Brun-Buisson C. 2002. Efficacy of handrubbing with alcohol based solution versus standard handwashing with antiseptic soap: randomised clinical trial. BMJ 325:362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7360.362. [PubMed]
16. Edmonds SL, Macinga DR, Mays-Suko P, Duley C, Rutter J, Jarvis WR, Arbogast JW. 2012. Comparative efficacy of commercially available alcohol-based hand rubs and World Health Organization-recommended hand rubs: formulation matters. Am J Infect Control 40:521–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2011.08.016. [PubMed]
17. Baquero F, Patrón C, Cantón R, Martínez Ferrer M. 1991. Laboratory and in-vitro testing of skin antiseptics: a prediction for in-vivo activity? J Hosp Infect 18(Suppl B) :5–11.
18. Zapka C, Leff J, Henley J, Tittl J, De Nardo E, Butler M, Griggs R, Fierer N, Edmonds-Wilson S. 2017. Comparison of standard culture-based method to culture-independent method for evaluation of hygiene effects on the hand microbiome. mBio 8:e00093-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00093-17. [PubMed]
19. Vandegrift R, Bateman AC, Siemens KN, Nguyen M, Wilson HE, Green JL, Van Den Wymelenberg KG, Hickey RJ. 2017. Cleanliness in context: reconciling hygiene with a modern microbial perspective. Microbiome 5:76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-017-0294-2. [PubMed]
20. Trick WE, Vernon MO, Hayes RA, Nathan C, Rice TW, Peterson BJ, Segreti J, Welbel SF, Solomon SL, Weinstein RA. 2003. Impact of ring wearing on hand contamination and comparison of hand hygiene agents in a hospital. Clin Infect Dis 36:1383–1390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/374852. [PubMed]
21. Foddai AC, Grant IR, Dean M. 2016. Efficacy of instant hand sanitizers against foodborne pathogens compared with hand washing with soap and water in food preparation settings: a systematic review. J Food Prot 79:1040–1054. http://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-492. [PubMed]
22. Drake DR, Brogden KA, Dawson DV, Wertz PW. 2008. Thematic review series: skin lipids. Antimicrobial lipids at the skin surface. J Lipid Res 49:4–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1194/jlr.R700016-JLR200. [PubMed]
23. Plichta JK, Droho S, Curtis BJ, Patel P, Gamelli RL, Radek KA. 2014. Local burn injury impairs epithelial permeability and antimicrobial peptide barrier function in distal unburned skin. Crit Care Med 42:e420–e431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000309. [PubMed]
24. Marples RR, Towers AG. 1979. A laboratory model for the investigation of contact transfer of micro-organisms. J Hyg (Lond) 82:237–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022172400025651.
25. Patrick DR, Findon G, Miller TE. 1997. Residual moisture determines the level of touch-contact-associated bacterial transfer following hand washing. Epidemiol Infect 119:319–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268897008261. [PubMed]
26. Sattar SA, Springthorpe S, Mani S, Gallant M, Nair RC, Scott E, Kain J. 2001. Transfer of bacteria from fabrics to hands and other fabrics: development and application of a quantitative method using Staphylococcus aureus as a model. J Appl Microbiol 90:962–970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01347.x. [PubMed]
27. Grice EA, Segre JA. 2011. The skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 9:244–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2537. [PubMed]
28. Zeeuwen PL, Boekhorst J, van den Bogaard EH, de Koning HD, van de Kerkhof PM, Saulnier DM, van Swam II, van Hijum SA, Kleerebezem M, Schalkwijk J, Timmerman HM. 2012. Microbiome dynamics of human epidermis following skin barrier disruption. Genome Biol 13:R101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/gb-2012-13-11-r101. [PubMed]
29. Fierer N, Hamady M, Lauber CL, Knight R. 2008. The influence of sex, handedness, and washing on the diversity of hand surface bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:17994–17999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0807920105. [PubMed]
30. Schommer NN, Gallo RL. 2013. Structure and function of the human skin microbiome. Trends Microbiol 21:660–668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2013.10.001. [PubMed]
31. Leung MH, Wilkins D, Lee PK. 2015. Insights into the pan-microbiome: skin microbial communities of Chinese individuals differ from other racial groups. Sci Rep 5:11845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep11845. [PubMed]
32. Lee M, Jung Y, Kim E, Lee HK. 2017. Comparison of skin properties in individuals living in cities at two different altitudes: an investigation of the environmental effect on skin. J Cosmet Dermatol 16:26–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocd.12270. [PubMed]
33. Kong HH, Segre JA. 2012. Skin microbiome: looking back to move forward. J Invest Dermatol 132:933–939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/jid.2011.417. [PubMed]
34. Edmonds-Wilson SL, Nurinova NI, Zapka CA, Fierer N, Wilson M. 2015. Review of human hand microbiome research. J Dermatol Sci 80:3–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdermsci.2015.07.006. [PubMed]
35. Jumaa PA. 2005. Hand hygiene: simple and complex. Int J Infect Dis 9:3–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2004.05.005. [PubMed]
36. Cogen AL, Nizet V, Gallo RL. 2008. Skin microbiota: a source of disease or defence? Br J Dermatol 158:442–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08437.x. [PubMed]
37. Gunathilake R. 2015. The human epidermal antimicrobial barrier: current knowledge, clinical relevance and therapeutic implications. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov 10:84–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1574891X10666150623093446. [PubMed]
38. Elias PM. 2007. The skin barrier as an innate immune element. Semin Immunopathol 29:3–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00281-007-0060-9. [PubMed]
39. Feingold KR. 2007. Thematic review series: skin lipids. The role of epidermal lipids in cutaneous permeability barrier homeostasis. J Lipid Res 48:2531–2546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1194/jlr.R700013-JLR200. [PubMed]
40. Feng Z, Jia X, Adams MD, Ghosh SK, Bonomo RA, Weinberg A. 2014. Epithelial innate immune response to Acinetobacter baumannii challenge. Infect Immun 82:4458–4465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.01897-14. [PubMed]
41. Ryu S, Song PI, Seo CH, Cheong H, Park Y. 2014. Colonization and infection of the skin by S. aureus: immune system evasion and the response to cationic antimicrobial peptides. Int J Mol Sci 15:8753–8772. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms15058753. [PubMed]
42. Ovaere P, Lippens S, Vandenabeele P, Declercq W. 2009. The emerging roles of serine protease cascades in the epidermis. Trends Biochem Sci 34:453–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2009.08.001. [PubMed]
43. Larocque M, Carver S, Bertrand A, McGeer A, McLeod S, Borgundvaag B. 2016. Acquisition of bacteria on health care workers’ hands after contact with patient privacy curtains. Am J Infect Control 44:1385–1386. [PubMed]
44. Baker KA, Han IY, Bailey J, Johnson L, Jones E, Knight A, MacNaughton M, Marvin P, Nolan K, Martinez-Dawson R, Dawson PL. 2015. Bacterial transfer from hands while eating popcorn. Food Nutr Sci 6:1333–1338. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/fns.2015.615139.
45. Gedik H, Voss TA, Voss A. 2013. Money and transmission of bacteria. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2:22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-2-22. [PubMed]
46. Angelakis E, Azhar EI, Bibi F, Yasir M, Al-Ghamdi AK, Ashshi AM, Elshemi AG, Raoult D. 2014. Paper money and coins as potential vectors of transmissible disease. Future Microbiol 9:249–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/fmb.13.161. [PubMed]
47. Pal S, Juyal D, Adekhandi S, Sharma M, Prakash R, Sharma N, Rana A, Parihar A. 2015. Mobile phones: reservoirs for the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Adv Biomed Res 4:144 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.161553. [PubMed]
48. Mackintosh CA, Hoffman PN. 1984. An extended model for transfer of micro-organisms via the hands: differences between organisms and the effect of alcohol disinfection. J Hyg (Lond) 92:345–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022172400064561.
49. Bellissimo-Rodrigues F, Pires D, Soule H, Gayet-Ageron A, Pittet D. 2017. Assessing the likelihood of hand-to-hand cross-transmission of bacteria: an experimental study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 38:553–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.9. [PubMed]
50. del Campo R, Sánchez-Díaz AM, Zamora J, Torres C, Cintas LM, Franco E, Cantón R, Baquero F. 2014. Individual variability in finger-to-finger transmission efficiency of Enterococcus faecium clones. MicrobiologyOpen 3:128–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.156. [PubMed]
51. Ying S, Zeng DN, Chi L, Tan Y, Galzote C, Cardona C, Lax S, Gilbert J, Quan ZX. 2015. The influence of age and gender on skin-associated microbial communities in urban and rural human populations. PLoS One 10:e0141842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141842. [PubMed]
52. Baquero F. 2015. Causes and interventions: need of a multiparametric analysis of microbial ecobiology. Environ Microbiol Rep 7:13–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12242. [PubMed]
53. Rupec RA, Boneberger S, Ruzicka T. 2010. What is really in control of skin immunity: lymphocytes, dendritic cells, or keratinocytes? facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol 28:62–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2009.04.004. [PubMed]
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/microbiolspec/10.1128/microbiolspec.MTBP-0011-2016
2019-01-18
2019-10-21

Abstract:

Numerous studies have demonstrated that adequate hand hygiene among hospital staff is the best measure to prevent hand-to-hand bacterial transmission. The skin microbiome is conditioned by the individual physiological characteristics and anatomical microenvironments. Furthermore, it is important to separate the autochthonous resident microbiota from the transitory microbiota that we can acquire after interactions with contaminated surfaces. Two players participate in the hand-to-hand bacterial transmission process: the bacteria and the person. The particularities of the bacteria have been extensively studied, identifying some genera or species with higher transmission efficiency, particularly those linked to nosocomial infections and outbreaks. However, the human factor remains unstudied, and intrapersonal particularities in bacterial transmission have not been yet explored. Herein we summarize the current knowledge on hand-to-hand bacterial transmission, as well as unpublished results regarding interindividual and interindividual transmission efficiency differences. We designed a simple test based on four sequential steps of finger-to-finger contact in the same person artificially inoculated with a precise bacterial inoculum. Individuals can be grouped into one of three observed transmission categories: high, medium, and poor finger-to-finger transmitters. Categorization is relevant to predicting the ultimate success of a human transmission chain, particularly for the poor transmitters, who have the ability to cut the transmission chain. Our model allowed us to analyze transmission rate differences among five bacterial species and clones that cause nosocomial infections, from which we detected that Gram-positive microorganisms were more successfully transmitted than Gram-negative.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1

Schematic representation of the intraindividual finger-to-finger transmission efficiency test, which employs a total of four fingers of the same individual. The remaining bacteria on the finger surface are recovered after the contact between fingers and immediately plated on M- agar plates, which are counted after 24 to 48 h.

Source: microbiolspec January 2019 vol. 7 no. 1 doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.MTBP-0011-2016
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2

The transmission chain process was explored using three volunteers—high, medium, and poor transmitters—and the foodborne L50 clone. All six possible combinations of the three volunteers were assayed.

Source: microbiolspec January 2019 vol. 7 no. 1 doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.MTBP-0011-2016
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3

Differences in the transmission efficiency of five bacterial species using one volunteer per transmission category. The transmission pattern was repeated for the three individuals.

Source: microbiolspec January 2019 vol. 7 no. 1 doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.MTBP-0011-2016
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error