Genes detected as recently transferred are known to be disproportionately A+T rich; therefore, the lower G+C content of many erm genes found in pathogens implies quite recent horizontal gene transfer and dissemination of MK-2206 mouse low G+C content resistance genes among pathogens. Within the clade of the Firmicutes, bacteria whose erm G+C content compared favorably with that of chromosomal DNA are marked with asterisks after the names of the bacteria in Fig. 4. The consistent G+C content of both erm and chromosomal DNA implies either the presence of intrinsic erm genes or that gene transfer occurred long

ago. Among these bacteria, Bacillus [Erm(D) and Erm(34)] are common inhabitants of soil, where they were exposed to antibiotics produced by other organisms. It is probable that environmental antibiotic pressure maintained the presence of functional erm genes. Recent investigations revealed Selleck Y-27632 that soil bacteria are a reservoir of antibiotic-resistance genes, which introduces the new concept of an

‘antibiotic resistome’ (Riesenfeld et al., 2004; D’Costa et al., 2006; Aminov and Mackie, 2007; Wright, 2007). In addition, the aquatic environment is also a possible antibiotic-resistance gene reservoir (Aminov and Mackie, 2007), congruent with the recognition of new classes of Erm methylases in several marine inhabitants such as a halotolerant bacillus-related O. iheyensis and two actinomycetes: S. tropica and S. arenicola. All erm genes that show

frequent, recent gene transfer are related by self-transferable plasmids or transposons, such as erm(B), erm(C), erm(F), erm(G), and erm(X) (Table 1). These mobile genetic elements are responsible for the dissemination of resistance genes through pathogenic bacteria that were once susceptible to antibiotics. In addition to horizontal gene transfer, gene duplication also contributes to the phylogenetic anomalies in the Erm clade of the Actinobacteria. The occurrence of two different erm genes from the same organism on different evolutionary branches is evidence of gene duplication, for example, erm(S) and erm(N) from S. fradiae, erm(O) and erm(Z) from S. ambofaciens, and erm(30) and Idoxuridine erm(31) from S. venezuelae. However, these examples do not fully explain the phylogenetic anomalies within the Erm clade of the Actinobacteria. The tree suggests other paralog segregation within the Actinobacteria, supported by several reports that certain Erm methylases show unusual resistance phenotypes that do not fall into either the monomethylase (type I) or the dimethylase (type II) category. For example, Erm(38) in Mycobacterium smegmatis and Erm(39) in Mycobacterium fortuitum confer macrolide–licosamide resistance rather than MLSB resistance (Nash, 2003; Nash et al.