Cargando…

Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from swine farms using different antimicrobials and management systems

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The emerging of antimicrobial-resistant foodborne bacteria is a serious public health concern worldwide. This study was conducted to determine the association between farm management systems and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli isolated from conventional swin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ketkhao, Pramualchai, Thongratsakul, Sukanya, Poolperm, Pariwat, Poolkhet, Chaithep, Amavisit, Patamabhorn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Veterinary World 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8076459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33935415
http://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.689-695
_version_ 1783684684464521216
author Ketkhao, Pramualchai
Thongratsakul, Sukanya
Poolperm, Pariwat
Poolkhet, Chaithep
Amavisit, Patamabhorn
author_facet Ketkhao, Pramualchai
Thongratsakul, Sukanya
Poolperm, Pariwat
Poolkhet, Chaithep
Amavisit, Patamabhorn
author_sort Ketkhao, Pramualchai
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIM: The emerging of antimicrobial-resistant foodborne bacteria is a serious public health concern worldwide. This study was conducted to determine the association between farm management systems and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli isolated from conventional swine farms and natural farms. E. coli isolates were evaluated for the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 17 antimicrobials, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing enzymes, and plasmid-mediated colistin-resistant genes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fecal swabs were longitudinally collected from healthy pigs at three stages comprising nursery pigs, fattening pigs, and finishers, in addition to their environments. High-generation antimicrobials, including carbapenem, were selected for the MIC test. DNA samples of colistin-resistant isolates were amplified for mcr-1 and mcr-2 genes. Farm management and antimicrobial applications were evaluated using questionnaires. RESULTS: The detection rate of ESBL-producing E. coli was 17%. The highest resistance rates were observed with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (53.9%) and colistin (48.5%). All isolates were susceptible to carbapenem. Two large intensive farms that used colistin-supplemented feed showed the highest colistin resistance rates of 84.6% and 58.1%. Another intensive farm that did not use colistin showed a low colistin resistance rate of 14.3%. In contrast, a small natural farm that was free from antimicrobials showed a relatively high resistance rate of 41.8%. The majority of colistin-resistant isolates had MIC values of 8 mg/mL (49%) and ≥16 mg/mL (48%). The genes mcr-1 and mcr-2 were detected at rates of 64% and 38%, respectively, among the colistin-resistant E. coli. CONCLUSION: Commensal E. coli were relatively sensitive to the antimicrobials used for treating critical human infections. Colistin use was the primary driver for the occurrence of colistin resistance in swine farms having similar conventional management systems. In the natural farm, cross-contamination could just occur through the environment if farm biosecurity is not set up carefully, thus indicating the significance of farm biosecurity risk even in an antimicrobial-free farm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8076459
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Veterinary World
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80764592021-04-30 Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from swine farms using different antimicrobials and management systems Ketkhao, Pramualchai Thongratsakul, Sukanya Poolperm, Pariwat Poolkhet, Chaithep Amavisit, Patamabhorn Vet World Research Article BACKGROUND AND AIM: The emerging of antimicrobial-resistant foodborne bacteria is a serious public health concern worldwide. This study was conducted to determine the association between farm management systems and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli isolated from conventional swine farms and natural farms. E. coli isolates were evaluated for the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 17 antimicrobials, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing enzymes, and plasmid-mediated colistin-resistant genes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fecal swabs were longitudinally collected from healthy pigs at three stages comprising nursery pigs, fattening pigs, and finishers, in addition to their environments. High-generation antimicrobials, including carbapenem, were selected for the MIC test. DNA samples of colistin-resistant isolates were amplified for mcr-1 and mcr-2 genes. Farm management and antimicrobial applications were evaluated using questionnaires. RESULTS: The detection rate of ESBL-producing E. coli was 17%. The highest resistance rates were observed with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (53.9%) and colistin (48.5%). All isolates were susceptible to carbapenem. Two large intensive farms that used colistin-supplemented feed showed the highest colistin resistance rates of 84.6% and 58.1%. Another intensive farm that did not use colistin showed a low colistin resistance rate of 14.3%. In contrast, a small natural farm that was free from antimicrobials showed a relatively high resistance rate of 41.8%. The majority of colistin-resistant isolates had MIC values of 8 mg/mL (49%) and ≥16 mg/mL (48%). The genes mcr-1 and mcr-2 were detected at rates of 64% and 38%, respectively, among the colistin-resistant E. coli. CONCLUSION: Commensal E. coli were relatively sensitive to the antimicrobials used for treating critical human infections. Colistin use was the primary driver for the occurrence of colistin resistance in swine farms having similar conventional management systems. In the natural farm, cross-contamination could just occur through the environment if farm biosecurity is not set up carefully, thus indicating the significance of farm biosecurity risk even in an antimicrobial-free farm. Veterinary World 2021-03 2021-03-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8076459/ /pubmed/33935415 http://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.689-695 Text en Copyright: © Ketkhao, et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ketkhao, Pramualchai
Thongratsakul, Sukanya
Poolperm, Pariwat
Poolkhet, Chaithep
Amavisit, Patamabhorn
Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from swine farms using different antimicrobials and management systems
title Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from swine farms using different antimicrobials and management systems
title_full Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from swine farms using different antimicrobials and management systems
title_fullStr Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from swine farms using different antimicrobials and management systems
title_full_unstemmed Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from swine farms using different antimicrobials and management systems
title_short Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from swine farms using different antimicrobials and management systems
title_sort antimicrobial resistance profiles of escherichia coli from swine farms using different antimicrobials and management systems
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8076459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33935415
http://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.689-695
work_keys_str_mv AT ketkhaopramualchai antimicrobialresistanceprofilesofescherichiacolifromswinefarmsusingdifferentantimicrobialsandmanagementsystems
AT thongratsakulsukanya antimicrobialresistanceprofilesofescherichiacolifromswinefarmsusingdifferentantimicrobialsandmanagementsystems
AT poolpermpariwat antimicrobialresistanceprofilesofescherichiacolifromswinefarmsusingdifferentantimicrobialsandmanagementsystems
AT poolkhetchaithep antimicrobialresistanceprofilesofescherichiacolifromswinefarmsusingdifferentantimicrobialsandmanagementsystems
AT amavisitpatamabhorn antimicrobialresistanceprofilesofescherichiacolifromswinefarmsusingdifferentantimicrobialsandmanagementsystems