| Literature DB >> 23785356 |
Flor Y Ramírez Castillo1, Francisco J Avelar González, Philippe Garneau, Francisco Márquez Díaz, Alma L Guerrero Barrera, Josée Harel.
Abstract
Contamination of surface waters in developing countries is a great concern. Treated and untreated wastewaters have been discharged into rivers and streams, leading to possible waterborne infection outbreaks and may represent a significant dissemination mechanism of antibiotic resistance genes. In this study, the water quality of San Pedro River, the main river and pluvial collector of the Aguascalientes State, Mexico was assessed. Thirty sample locations were tested throughout the River. The main physicochemical parameters of water were evaluated. Results showed high levels of fecal pollution as well as inorganic and organic matter abundant enough to support the heterotrophic growth of microorganisms. These results indicate poor water quality in samples from different locations. One hundred and fifty Escherichia coli were collected and screened by PCR for several virulence genes. Isolates were classified as either pathogenic (n = 91) or commensal (n = 59). The disc diffusion method was used to determine antimicrobial susceptibility to 13 antibiotics. Fifty-two percent of the isolates were resistant to at least one antimicrobial agent and 30.6% were multi-resistant. Eighteen E. coli strains were quinolone resistant of which 16 were multi-resistant. Plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance (PMQR) genes were detected in 12 isolates. Mutations at the Ser-83→Leu and/or Asp-87→Asn in the gyrA gene were detected as well as mutations at the Ser-80→Ile in parC. An E. coli microarray (Maxivirulence V 3.1) was used to characterize the virulence and antimicrobial resistance genes profiles of the fluoroquinolone-resistant isolates. Antimicrobial resistance genes such as bla TEM, sulI, sulII, dhfrIX, aph3 (strA), and tet (B) as well as integrons were found in fluoroquinolone (FQ) resistance E. coli strains. The presence of potential pathogenic E. coli and antibiotic resistance in San Pedro River such as FQ resistant E. coli could pose a potential threat to human and animal health.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic resistance; fluoroquinolone; pathogenic Escherichia coli; virulence factors; water quality
Year: 2013 PMID: 23785356 PMCID: PMC3683621 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Diagram of sample locations along the San Pedro River. Chicalote, Morcinique, and San Francisco Creek are the main tributaries of the San Pedro River.
Location and main sources of pollution of the 30 sampling locations studied.
| 1 | San Pedro River. Las Animas. | Urban runoff | UR |
| 2 | San Pedro River. FREASA | Slaughterhouse | S |
| 3 | San Pedro River. FREASA-PT. | Wastewater treatment plant effluent | WWTP-E |
| 4 | San Pedro River. San Antonio de los Horcones. | Open space | OS |
| 5 | San Pedro River. Rastro municipal de Jesus Maria. | Slaughterhouse | S |
| 6 | San Pedro River. Los Ramiez-Los Vasquez. | Human sewage + wastewater discharge | UR |
| 7 | Chicalote Creek. Jaltomate. | Urban runoff | UR |
| 8 | Chicalote Creek. El Becerro II. | Agricultural + farm | F |
| 9 | Chicalote Creek. El Becerro I. | Agricultural + farm | F |
| 10 | Chicalote Creek. Cañada Honda I. | Urban runoff | UR |
| 11 | Chicalote Creek. Cañada Honda II. | Open space | OS |
| 12 | Chicalote Creek. Loretito. | Open Space | OS |
| 13 | San Pedro-Chicalote River. Confluencia PIVA-Chicalote-Gomez Portugal. | Urban runoff + agricultural + wastewater + industrial sewage | IS |
| 14 | Chicalote Creek. Gomez Portugal - Area oeste. | Urban runoff + agricultural + wastewater | UR |
| 15 | Chicalote Creek. Gomez Portugal. | Agricultural + slaughterhouse | S |
| 16 | Chicalote Creek. Reserva Brandy. | Urban runoff + agricultural | AR |
| 17 | San Pedro-Chicalote River. Confluencia PIVA-Chicalote. | Urban runoff + agricultural + wastewater + industrial sewage + slaughterhouses | IS |
| 18 | Chicalote Creek. La Florida I. | Agricultural + farm | F |
| 19 | Chicalote Creek. La Florida II. | Agricultural + farm | F |
| 20 | San Pedro River-Chicalote Creek. | Open space | OS |
| 21 | San Pedro River. Paso Blanco. | Agricultural | AR |
| 22 | San Pedro River. Tepetate-San Miguelito. | Open space | OS |
| 23 | San Pedro River. Canal interceptor. | Urban runoff + wastewater discharge + industrial sewage | IS |
| 24 | San Pedro River. Puente Curtidores. | Urban runoff + wastewater discharge | UR |
| 25 | Morcinique Creek. Los Arquitos. | Urban runoff + agricultural + wastewater | UR |
| 26 | Morcinique. Los Negritos primera seccion. | Slaughterhouse | S |
| 27 | San Pedro River-Morcinique Creek. Aguascalientes Lopez Portillo. | Urban runoff | UR |
| 28 | San Pedro River-San Francisco Creek. | Open space | OS |
| 29 | San Pedro River-San Francisco Creek. Puente Bonaterra. | Industrial sewage | IS |
| 30 | San Pedro River. Fatima. | Agricultural + farm + human sewage | F |
Main source of pollution of location was determined based on the presence of discharge nearby and the type of land activity.
AR, agriculturally impaired; F, farm; IS, industrial sewage; OS, open spaces; S, slaughterhouse; UR, urban runoff; WWTP-E, wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Oligonucleotides used in this study.
| uidA-forward | ATGTGCTGTGCCTGAACC | 450 | This study. | |
| uidA-reverse | ATTGTTTGCCTCCCTGCTG | |||
| VTcom-forward | GAGCGAAATAATTTATATGTG | 518 | Toma et al., | |
| VTcom-reverse | TGATGATGGCAATTCAGTAT | |||
| East-forward | ATGCCATCAACACAGTATAT | 110 | Vila et al., | |
| East-reverse | GCGAGTGACGGCTTTGTAGT | |||
| AafAf | AAATTAATTCCGGCATGG | 518 | Huang et al., | |
| AafAr | ATGTATTTTTAGAGGTTGAC | |||
| aggRks1 | GTATACACAAAAGAAGGAAGC | 254 | Aranda et al., | |
| aggRksa2 | ACAGAATCGTCAGCATCAGC | |||
| AL65 | TTAATAGCACCCGGTACAAGCAGG | 147 | Toma et al., | |
| Al125 | CCTGACTCTTCAAAAGAGAAAATTAC | |||
| LTL | TCTCTATGTGCATACGGAGC | 322 | Toma et al., | |
| LTR | CCATACTGATTGCCGCAAT | |||
| IpaIII | GTTCCTTGACCGCCTTTCCGATACCGTC | 619 | Toma et al., | |
| IpaIV | GCCGGTCAGCCACCCTCTGAGAGTAC | |||
| BFP1 | AATGGTGCTTGCGCTTGCTGC | 326 | Aranda et al., | |
| BFP2 | GCCGCTTTATCCAACCTGGTA | |||
| eae1 | CTGAACGGCGATTACGCGAA | 880 | Aranda et al., | |
| eae3 | CGAGACGATACGATCCAG | |||
| papC-forward | GACGGCTGTACTGCAGGGTGTGGCG | 350 | Blanco et al., | |
| papC-reverse | ATATCCTTTCTGCAGGGATGCAATA | |||
| SfaSf | GTGGATACGACGATTACTGTG | 240 | Johnson and Stell, | |
| SfaSr | CCGCCAGCATTCCCTGTATTC | |||
| Afaf | GGCAGAGGGCCGGCAACAGGC | 592 | Johnson and Stell, | |
| Afar | CCCGTAACGCGCCAGCATCTC | |||
| FyuAf | TGATTAACCCCGCGACGGGAA | 880 | Johnson and Stell, | |
| FyuAr | CGCAGTAGGCACGATGTTGTA | |||
| KpsMIIf | GCGCATTTGCTGATACTGTTG | 272 | Johnson and Stell, | |
| KpsMIIr | CATCCAGACGATAAGCATGAGCA | |||
| gyrA11753 | GTATAACGCATTGCCGC | 251 | Wang et al., | |
| gyrA12004 | TGCCAGATGTCCGAGAT | |||
| EC-PAR-A | CTGAATGCCAGCGCCAAATT | 189 | Deguchi et al., | |
| EC-PAR-B | GCGAACGATTTCGGATCGTC | |||
| qnrA-forward | TCAGCAAGAGGATTTCTCA | 605 | Maynard et al., | |
| qnrA-reverse | GGCAGCACTATTACTCCCA | |||
| qnrB-forward | GATCGTGAAAGCCAGAAAGG | 469 | Robicsek et al., | |
| qnrB-reverse | ACGATGCCTGGTAGTTGTCC | |||
| qnrS-forward | ACGACATTCGTCAACTGCAA | 417 | Robicsek et al., | |
| qnrS-reverse | TAAATTGGCACCCTGTAGGC | |||
| aac-forward | TTGCGATGCTCTATGAGTGGCTA | 482 | Park et al., | |
| aac-reverse | CTCGAATGCCTGGCGTGTTT | |||
PCR control strains used in this study.
| ETEC H10407 | |
| EHEC EDL933 | |
| EPEC 2349/69 | |
| EAEC O42 | |
| J53pMG252 | |
| J53pMG298 | |
| J53pMG306 | |
Figure 2Spatial variation of physico-chemical parameters from sampling locations on the San Pedro River. Permissible maximum limits are shown in dotted lines. pH values between 6.5 and 8.5 units are considered as good quality in potable water (NOM-127-SSA1-1994). Conductivity values above 2000 μS/cm are exceeding the permissible limits. Nitrogen values above 40 mg/L are exceeding the permissible limits. Phosphorus levels rating higher than 20 mg/L is considered as poor water quality. Total solid suspended has a permissible value of 120 mg/L. Dissolved oxygen concentration limits are between 5.5 and 8.0 mg/L (Gúzman-Colis et al., 2011). BOD and COD concentrations limits are 150 and 100 mg/L respectively according to Mexican norms NOM-003-ECOL-1997 and NOM-001-ECOL-1996.
Figure 3Box and whiskers plot of results of microbiological analyses of San Pedro River in thirty sample location. Bacterial counts values are shown in a log10 scale, (A) mesophilic microorganisms (B) total and fecal coliforms. Permissible maximum limits are shown in dotted lines. Total and fecal coliform density rating above 1000 MPN/100 mL and 240 MPN/100 mL are considered as poor water quality according to Mexican norms NOM-003-ECOL-1997 and NOM-001-ECOL-1996.
Figure 4Antimicrobial resistance (%) of . A total of 150 isolates were characterized by antimicrobial susceptibility assay. aAm, ampicillin; Cb, carbenicillin; Cl, chloramphenicol; Pef, pefloxacin; Lev, levofloxacin; Sxt, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; G, gentamicin; Net, netilmicin; Ak, amikacin; Cf, Cephalotine; Ctx, cephatoxim; Cro, ceftriaxone; Nf, nitrofuratoin.
Figure 5Antimicrobial resistant, multidrug resistant, and potentially pathogenic . aWWTP-E, wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Figure A1Diagram showing the highest levels of pollution, highest counts of the pathotype, and antimicrobial resistant bacteria of the sample locations studied.
Association between antimicrobial resistance phenotypes of .
| Quinolones | Pefloxacin | ++ | ||||||
| Levofloxacin | − | + | ||||||
| Sulfonamides | Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole | ++ | ++ | ++ | ||||
| Beta-lactams | Ampicillin | ++ | +++ | ++ | − | |||
| Carbenicillin | ++ | ++ | − | + | + | |||
| Nitrofurans | Nitrofuratoin | + | + | − | − | − | +++ | |
| Cephalotine | − | +++ | ++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | ||
| Cephalosporin | Cephatoxim | − | − | − | + | − | − | |
| Ceftriaxone | ++ | − | − | − | ++ | − | + | |
Only the antimicrobial multi-resistant phenotypes that exhibited an association with another phenotype at the p < 0.05 level are shown. The levels of significance of the association as assessed by the chi-square exact test were as follows: –, p > 0.05; +, 0.05 ≥ p ≥ 0.01; ++, 0.01 ≥ p ≥ 0.001; +++, 0.001 ≥ p.
Antimicrobial resistance found in potentially pathogenic and commensal .
| Aminoglycosides | Gentamicin | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Netilmicin | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | |
| Amikacin | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (3) | |
| Phenicols | Chloramphenicol | 3 (30) | 3 (33) | 16 (24) | 1 (20) | 10 (17) |
| Quinolones | Pefloxacin | 1 (10) | 1 (11) | 3 (4) | 0 (0) | 7 (12) |
| Levofloxacin | 1 (10) | 1 (11) | 3 (4) | 1 (20) | 0 (0) | |
| Sulfonamides | Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole | 3 (30) | 3 (33) | 22 (33) | 0 (0) | 14 (24) |
| Beta-lactams | Ampicillin | 6 (60) | 4 (44) | 29 (43) | 1 (20) | 17 (29) |
| Carbenicillin | 5 (50) | 3 (33) | 19 (28) | 1 (20) | 12 (20) | |
| Nitrofurans | Nitrofuratoin | 1 (10) | 0 (0) | 5 (7) | 1 (20) | 3 (5) |
| Cephalosporins | Cephalotine | 2 (20) | 1 (11) | 12 (18) | 0 (0) | 7 (12) |
| Cephatoxim | 1 (10) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Ceftriaxone | 1 (10) | 0 (0) | 2 (3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
Percentages were calculated as follows: number of isolates with resistance phenotype/total number of E. coli isolates per pathotype per 100.
EPEC, enteropathogenic E. coli. ETEC, enterotoxigenic E. coli. EAEC, enteroaggregative E. coli. Incomplete ExPEC, incomplete extra-intestinal pathogen E. coli.
Summary of the pathotype, antimicrobial resistance patterns, QRDR mutation and presence of .
| 16C | AmCbClSxtLevPef | R | R | S83→L, D87→N | S80→I | Incomplete ExPEC | ||
| 18A | AmCfCtxCroLevPefStx | R | R | S83→L, D87→N | S80→I | InPEC | ||
| 18C | AmCfCtxCroLevPefStx | R | R | S83→L | None | InPEC | ||
| 17A | AmGLevSxt | R | S | S83→L, D87→N | S80→I | None | InPEC | |
| 17D | AmCbGLev | R | S | S83→L, D87→N | S80→I | None | InPEC | |
| 17E | AmCbLev | R | S | None | None | None | Incomplete ExPEC | |
| 24A | AmCbClCfPefSxt | S | R | S83→L, D87→N | S80→I | Commensal | ||
| 16D | AmCbClPefSxt | S | R | S83→L, D87→N | S80→I | Commensal | ||
| 24C | AmCbClPefSxt | S | R | S83→L, D87→N | S80→I | None | Commensal | |
| 24E | AmCbClPefSxt | S | R | S83→L, D87→N | S80→I | None | Commensal | |
| 1A | CfNfPef | S | R | S83→L, D87→N | None | Commensal | ||
| 22E | Pef | S | R | None | None | ND | Commensal | |
| 3A | AmClStxPef | S | I | None | None | InPEC | ||
| 2E | AmClStxPef | S | I | S83→L, D87→N | None | None | Class 1 and 2 integron. | Commensal |
| 29A | AmCbNfSxtPef | S | I | None | S80→I | InPEC | ||
| 20A | AmPef | S | I | None | None | Commensal | ||
| 29E | AmCfCbSxtPef | S | I | None | None | InPEC | ||
| 25A | AmCbPef | S | I | S83→L | None | Transposon | Commensal | |
Multi-drug resistance (MDR) phenotype, Am, ampicillin; Cb, carbenicillin; Cl, chloramphenicol; Pef, pefloxacin; Lev, levofloxacin; Sxt, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; G, gentamicin; Net, netilmicin; Ak, amikacin; Cf, Cephalotine; Ctx, cephatoxim; Cro, ceftriaxone; Nf, nitrofuratoin. ND, not determined.
R, resistant; I, intermediate resistance; S, susceptible.
InPEC, intestinal E. coli; ExPEC, extraintestinal E. coli.