| Literature DB >> 25011427 |
Stéphanie Nemeghaire1, M Angeles Argudín, Freddy Haesebrouck, Patrick Butaye.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus is a common bacterium usually found on skin and mucous membranes of warm blooded animals. Resistance in S. aureus has been increasingly reported though depending on the clonal lineage. Indeed, while hospital acquired (HA)-methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA) are typically multi-resistant, community associated (CA)-MRSA are by large more susceptible to many antibiotics. Although S. aureus isolated from animals are often susceptible to most antibiotics, multi-resistant livestock associated (LA)-MRSA have been recovered from bovine mastitis.In this study, we investigated the prevalence and types of MRSA present in the nose of healthy bovines of different age groups and rearing practices. Since no validated methods for MRSA isolation from nasal swabs were available, we compared two isolation methods. Molecular characterization was performed by means of spa-typing, MLST, SCCmec typing and microarray analysis for the detection of antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25011427 PMCID: PMC4103977 DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Total number of MRSA isolates corresponding to the different genotypes recovered and separated by farm types
| DF | 9.93 | [4.99 - 14.9] | 0 | 2 | 12 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 3 |
| VF | 46.15 | [36.6 - 55.7] | 1 | 0 | 18 | 16 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| BF | 10.16 | [5.83 - 14.5] | 0 | 0 | 48 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 11 | 7 | 0 |
| Total | 18.75 | [15.1 - 22.4] | 1 | 2 | 78 | 64 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 46 | 11 | 16 | 6 |
BF, Beef farm; DF, dairy farm; MLST, Multi locus sequence typing; NT, non-typeable; VF, veal farm.
Comparison of the number of methicillin-resistant isolates detected using Double Broth Enrichment Method (DBEM) or Single Broth Enrichment Method (SBEM)
| | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBEM | Positive | 25 | 9 | 34 |
| Negative | 9 | 63 | 72 | |
| Total | 34 | 72 | 106 | |
Comparison of the test evaluation of both isolation methods
| Apparent prevalence | 32.1 | 32.1 | 23.2 | 41.0 |
| True prevalence | 40.6 | 40.6 | 31.2 | 49.9 |
| Sensitivity | 79.1 | 79.1 | 66.9 | 91.2 |
| Specificity | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Predictive value positive | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Predictive value negative | 87.5 | 87.5 | 79.9 | 95.1 |
CI, Confidence interval; DBEM, Double broth enrichment method; SBEM, Single broth enrichment method.
Figure 1Clustering of performed using Based Upon Repeat Pattern (BURP) algorithm.
MIC distribution in methicillin-resistant isolates from bovines
| CHL | | | | | | | | | 4.9 | 46.9 | 35.8 | 2.5 | 8.6 | 1.2 | | | 12.3 |
| CIP | | | | | 18.5 | 27.2 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 11.1 | 28.4 | | | | | | 16.0 |
| CLI | | | | 12.3 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 84.0 | | | | | | | 86.4 |
| ERY | | | | | 3.7 | 7.4 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 81.5 | | | | | | 86.4 |
| FOX | | | | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 18.5 | 77.8 | | | | | 100.0 |
| FUS | | | | | | 72.8 | 12.3 | 2.5 | 9.9 | 2.5 | | | | | | | 27.2 |
| GEN | | | | | | | 22.2 | 1.2 | 3.7 | 7.4 | 21.0 | 44.4 | | | | | 76.5 |
| KAN | | | | | | | | | 16.0 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 9.9 | 65.4 | | | 80.2 |
| LZD | | | | | | | 23.5 | 75.3 | 1.2 | 0.0 | | | | | | | 0.0 |
| MUP | | | | | | 86.4 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.2 | | 9.9 |
| PEN | | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 8.6 | 90.1 | | | | | | | | 100.0 |
| RIF | 86.4 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 9.9 | | | | | | | | | | 12.3 |
| SMX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 70.4 | 3.7 | 11.1 | 14.8 | 25.9 |
| STR | | | | | | | | | 14.8 | 22.2 | 4.9 | 9.9 | 48.1 | | | | 58.0 |
| SYN | | | | | | 32.1 | 44.4 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 6.2 | | | | | | | 23.5 |
| TET | | | | | | 2.5 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 95.1 | | | | | 96.3 |
| TIA | | | | | | 75.3 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.3 | | | | | | | 17.3 |
| TMP | | | | | | | | 4.9 | 3.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 88.9 | | | | 95.1 |
| VAN | 87.7 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||||||||
CHL, chloramphenicol; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CLI, clindamycin; ERY, erythromycin; FOX, cefoxitin FUS, fusidic acid; GEN, gentamicin; KAN, kanamycin; LZD, linezolid; MIC, minimal inhibitory concentration; MUP, mupirocin; PEN, penicillin; R, resistance; RIF, rifampicin; SMX, sulfamethoxazole; STR, streptomycin; SYN, quinupristin/dalfopristin; TET, tetracyclin; TIA, tiamulin; TMP, trimethoprim; VAN,vancomycin.
Empty boxes indicate the concentration values that were not tested. Values in grey boxes indicate MIC higher than the concentration tested.
The bold lines indicate epidemiological cut-off values for S. aureus. MIC values were interpreted using the EUCAST clinical breakpoints/epidemiological cut-offs [1].