Medical Database

Background

Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) are segments of bacterial DNA that confer resistance to antimicrobial agents, arising through spontaneous mutation or acquired via horizontal gene transfer [1,2]. The CDC estimates that antimicrobial-resistant infections cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States [3,4]. Traditional culture-based susceptibility testing remains the diagnostic standard but typically requires 3-5 days, can miss non-culturable or fastidious organisms, and does not reveal the underlying resistance mechanism. Genotypic detection of ARGs (PCR, next-generation sequencing, microarrays, and related molecular methods) provides results in 1–5 hours, can detect resistance genes from non-culturable or low-abundance organisms, and identifies the specific mechanism conferring resistance (e.g., gyrA/parC for fluoroquinolone resistance, mecA for methicillin resistance, blaKPC for carbapenem resistance). Molecular ARG detection alone, however, cannot determine which organism in a polymicrobial specimen carries a given gene an attribution gap that LDS®Rx is designed to close.

LDS®Rx and the ARG-Pathogen Mapping Database

Medical Database has developed LDS®Rx, an interpretation platform for syndromic infectious disease panels and antibiotic stewardship. LDS®Rx incorporates a proprietary ARG-to-pathogen mapping database that links every resistance gene identified by molecular testing to its most likely host organism(s), producing organism-specific resistance reporting for Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), Wound and skin, Gastrointestinal (GI), Respiratory, and Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) syndromic panels. Mappings were built from the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD; ~1,600 catalogued ARGs) [5,6,7], the NCBI / National Library of Medicine Bacterial Antimicrobial Resistance Reference Gene Database (AMRFinderPlus), the EMBL-EBI Antimicrobial Resistance Portal (2020–2025 data), peer-reviewed literature (PubMed / PubMed Central) [8-23], and current CLSI [24] and IDSA (2024) [25] treatment guidelines. Each candidate gene was confirmed to encode a functional resistance mechanism, consolidated into canonical gene families, and mapped to all clinically significant pathogens reported to carry it within each specimen type.

Database Coverage

The LDS®Rx ARG Mapping Database comprises 43 canonical antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and gene families, consolidated from 109 reported resistance gene targets spanning 15 antimicrobial resistance mechanism classes. These genes are mapped to 94 clinically significant pathogens represented across five syndromic testing panels: Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), Wound and Skin, Gastrointestinal (GI), Respiratory, and Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI). Collectively, the database contains 1,853 curated ARG–pathogen linked.

Table 1 details each ARG, its resistance class and mechanism, the antibiotic classes affected, and the number and proportion of database pathogens to which it is mapped. To our knowledge, this remains the first database of its kind, built from peer-reviewed publications and publicly available ARG databases from governmental and private sources, and specifically designed to operate within a clinical molecular diagnostic workflow.

Table 1. Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and gene families in the LDS®Rx mapping database, organized by resistance class, with associated resistance mechanisms, antibiotic classes affected, and the number and percentage of mapped pathogens (n = 94).

Table 2 summarizes ARG and pathogen coverage by syndromic panels. The Wound panel covers the largest pathogen set (51 pathogens, 1,281 associations), followed by GI (44 pathogens, 1,280 associations), UTI (41 pathogens, 1,231 associations), Respiratory (30 pathogens, 630 associations), and STI (20 pathogens, 102 associations). All 43 ARGs are represented in the UTI, Wound, and GI panels; 39 ARGs in the Respiratory panel; and 37 ARGs in the STI panel. Of the 94 total pathogens in the database, 90 (96%) are linked to at least one syndromic panel, and common Enterobacteriaceae such as Escherichia coli carry mappings to 35 of the 43 ARGs (81%), reflecting their broad intrinsic and acquired resistance repertoire.

Table 2. Summary statistics of ARG-pathogen mapping by syndromic diagnostic panel in the LDS®Rx database (94 pathogens, 43 ARGs, 1,853 total associations).

The coverage of genes and drug classes to number of pathogens per syndromic panel is shown in the table 3.

Table 3. ARG-by-syndromic-panel coverage matrix, indicating which of the 43 mapped ARGs are represented (✓) within each panel’s pathogen set, with the total number of panels covered for each gene.

Clinical Significance

Polymicrobial infections are common in clinical practice for example, 10-15% of polymicrobial infections occurs in outpatient UTI cases and is substantially more frequent in catheter-associated UTIs, diabetic patients, and long-term care residents [26,27] making accurate ARG-to-organism attribution essential for appropriate therapy selection. Similarly, wound infections are frequently polymicrobial, and high polymicrobial bacterial loads can delay wound closure and accelerate the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains [28,29]. Multidrug resistance (MDR) rates among common uropathogens are substantial (E. coli ~74%, K. pneumoniae ~49%, overall uropathogens ~71%) [30], underscoring the clinical stakes of resistance reporting. LDS®Rx applies a “no ARG without a confirmed pathogen” policy, reporting a resistance gene only when a corresponding pathogen is detected in the same specimen, reducing the risk of misattributed resistance signals. A 2025 systematic review found that combining antimicrobial stewardship programs with rapid molecular diagnostics reduced time-to-appropriate-therapy, length of stay, and mortality compared with stewardship or rapid diagnostics alone [31,32,33].

These findings align with the global surveillance picture: the WHO’s 2025 Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) report documented over 23 million resistant infection episodes across 104 countries, with roughly 1 in 6 laboratory-confirmed bacterial infections showing resistance to commonly used antibiotics. In the U.S., CDC’s Antibiotic Resistance Laboratory Network (ARLN) and the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) increasingly require resistance-gene surveillance reporting [4,34]. Within this landscape, LDS®Rx occupies a distinct niche relative to large research repositories such as CARD (~1,600 catalogued ARGs) [35,36]: rather than serving as a general reference catalog, LDS®Rx operationalizes ARG-pathogen mapping directly into clinical syndromic panel workflows, functioning as a genotypic equivalent of a phenotypic antibiogram with a turnaround measured in hours rather than the 48–72 hours required for culture-based susceptibility testing [37].

Limitations and Future Directions

The current mapping reflects literature and database curation through 2025 and will require periodic updates as new resistance mechanisms and gene variants are described. Source databases are weighted toward data from high-income countries, which may limit applicability to regions with different resistance epidemiology. Because ARG mapping is genotypic, discordance between detected genes and observed phenotypic susceptibility can occur (e.g., silent or nonexpressed genes) [38,39]; LDS®Rx reporting should be interpreted alongside clinical context and, where available, phenotypic susceptibility results. Future development will incorporate machine-learning-based genotype-to-phenotype prediction and extend mapping to additional specimen types, including blood, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

Conclusion

The expanded LDS®Rx ARG-to-pathogen mapping database now covering 43 canonical resistance genes across 94 pathogens and 1,853 documented associations spanning 15 resistance mechanism classes represents a significant advance in translating molecular resistance data into actionable, organism-specific clinical guidance. By linking genotypic resistance findings directly to syndromic panel results, LDS®Rx supports a new standard of precision in antibiotic stewardship and infection management for the laboratories and clinicians it serves.

References

1. Munita JM, Arias CA. Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance. Microbiol Spectr. 2016 Apr;4(2):10.1128

2. Galgano M, et al. 2025. Acquired bacterial resistance to antibiotics and resistance genes: from past to future. Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 Feb 21;14(3):222.

3. GBD 2019 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. 2022. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet 399:629–655.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019. US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, Atlanta, GA.

5. Alcock BP, et al. 2023. CARD 2023: expanded curation, support for machine learning, and resistome prediction at the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database. Nucleic Acids Res 51:D690–D699.

6. Alcock BP, et al. 2020. CARD 2020: antibiotic resistome surveillance with the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res 48:D517–D525.

7. McArthur AG, et al. 2013. The comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:3348–3357.

8. Kerek Á, et al. 2026. Antibiotic resistance genes in Escherichia coli: literature review. Crit Rev Microbiol 52:1– 35.

9. Arabzadeh B, Ahmadi Z, Ranjbar R. 2022. Molecular characterization of antibiotic resistance and genetic diversity of Klebsiella pneumoniae strains. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2022:2156726.

10. Pan T, Li Q. 2025. Mobile genetic elements in Klebsiella pneumoniae. J Bacteriol 207:e00012-25.

11. Elfadadny A, et al. 2024. Antimicrobial resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: navigating clinical impacts, current resistance trends, and innovations in breaking therapies. Front Microbiol 15:1374466.

12. Rozwandowicz M, et al. 2018. Plasmids carrying antimicrobial resistance genes in Enterobacteriaceae. J Antimicrob Chemother 73:1121–1137.

13. Elfadadny A, et al. 2016. Antibiotic resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: mechanisms and clinical implications. BMJ 352:h6420.

14. Munita JM, Bayer AS, Arias CA. 2015. Evolving resistance among Gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 61(Suppl 2):S48–S57.

15. Rajput P, Nahar KS, Rahman KM. 2024. Evaluation of antibiotic resistance mechanisms in Gram-positive bacteria. Antibiotics (Basel) 13:1197.

16. Satapoomin N, Dulyayangkul P, Avison MB. 2022. Klebsiella pneumoniae mutants resistant to ceftazidimeavibactam plus aztreonam, imipenem-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, and cefepime-taniborbactam. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 66:e02179-21.

17. Hollenbeck BL, Rice LB. 2012. Intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms in Enterococcus. Virulence 3:421– 433.

18. Lu Z, et al. 2025. Resistance to last-resort antibiotics in enterococci. FEMS Microbiol Rev 49:fuaf057.

19. Brdová D, Ruml T, Viktorová J. 2024. Mechanism of staphylococcal resistance to clinically relevant antibiotics. Drug Resist Updat 77:101147.

20. Foster TJ. 2017. Antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus: current status and future prospects. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41:430–449.

21. Li G, et al. 2025. Exploring drug resistance genes in Acinetobacter baumannii using metagenomic next-generation sequencing. Front Microbiol 16:1669208.

22. Chapartegui-González I, et al. 2021. Antimicrobial resistance determinants in genomes and plasmids from Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates. Antibiotics (Basel) 10:753.

23. Habibi N, et al. 2025. Genomic characterization and identification of multiple drug resistance genes in clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii through whole genome sequencing. Mol Biol Rep 52:233.

24. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2024. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically, M07, 14th ed. CLSI, Wayne, PA.

25. Tamma PD, et al. 2024. Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024 guidance on the treatment of antimicrobialresistant Gram-negative infections. Clin Infect Dis ciae403.

26. Kline KA, Lewis AL. 2016. Gram-positive uropathogens, polymicrobial urinary tract infection, and the emerging microbiota of the urinary tract. Microbiol Spectr 4:10.1128/microbiolspec.UTI-0012-2012.

27. Zhao M, et al. 2024. Comparison of polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing with conventional urine culture for the diagnosis of urinary tract infections: a meta-analysis. Open Med (Wars) 19:20240921.

28. Sandmann S et al. Research article network analysis of polymicrobial chronic wound infections in Masanga, Sierra Leone. BMC Infect Dis. 2023 Apr 18;23(1):250. doi: 10.1186/s12879-023-08204-0.

29. Bowler PG, Duerden BI, Armstrong DG. 2001. Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management. Clin Microbiol Rev 14:244–269.

30. Chowdhury SS, Tahsin P, Xu Y, Mosaddek ASM, Muhamadali H, Goodacre R. 2024. Trends in antimicrobial resistance of uropathogens isolated from urinary tract infections in a tertiary care hospital in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Antibiotics (Basel) 13:925.

31. Timbrook TT, et al. 2017. The effect of molecular rapid diagnostic testing on clinical outcomes in bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 64:15–23.

32. Pardo J, et al. 2016. Clinical and economic impact of antimicrobial stewardship interventions with the FilmArray blood culture identification panel. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 84:159–164.

33. Messacar K, et al. 2017. Clinical impact and provider acceptability of real-time antimicrobial stewardship decision support for rapid diagnostics in children with positive blood culture results. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 6:267– 274.

34. World Health Organization. 2025. Global antibiotic resistance surveillance report 2025: WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS). World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

35. Liu B, Pop M. 2009. ARDB—Antibiotic Resistance Genes Database. Nucleic Acids Res 37:D443–D447.

36. Zhang Z, et al. 2022. Assessment of global health risk of antibiotic resistance genes. Nat Commun 13:1553.

37. Simner PJ, et al. 2021. What’s new in antibiograms? Updating CLSI M39 guidance with current trends. J Clin Microbiol 60:e02210-21.

38. Yee R, Dien Bard J, Simner PJ. 2020. The genotype-to-phenotype dilemma: how should laboratories approach discordant susceptibility results? J Clin Microbiol 59:e00138-20.

39. Sood A, Ray P, Angrup A. 2021. Phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial resistance in clinical anaerobic isolates from India. JAC Antimicrob Resist 3:dlab044.