| Literature DB >> 26650239 |
Li Bai1, Ruiting Lan2, Xiuli Zhang3, Shenghui Cui4, Jin Xu1, Yunchang Guo1, Fengqin Li1, Ding Zhang3.
Abstract
The prevalence of Salmonella from chicken and pig slaughterhouses in Henan, China and antimicrobial susceptibility of these isolates to antibiotics was determined. From 283 chicken samples and 240 pig samples collected, 128 and 70 Salmonella isolates were recovered with an isolation rate of 45.2 and 29.2% respectively. The predominant serovars in chicken samples were S. enterica serovar Enteritidis, S. enterica serovar Hadar and S. enterica serovar Indiana, while those in pig samples were S. enterica serovar Typhimurium, S. enterica serovar Derby and S. enterica serovar Enteritidis. Resistance to ciprofloxacin was 8.6 and 10.0% for isolates from chickens and pigs respectively, whereas resistance to cefotaxime was 5.5 and 8.6%, respectively. Multidrug resistance (resistance to three or more classes of antimicrobial agent) was markedly higher in pig isolates (57.1%) than in chicken isolates (39.8%). Of particular concern was the detection of ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime co-resistant S. enterica serovar Indiana isolates, which pose risk to public health. All 16 S. enterica serovar Indiana isolates detected were resistant to ciprofloxacin, among which 11 were co-resistant to cefotaxime. The S. enterica serovar Indiana isolates accumulated point mutations in quinolone resistance determination regions of gyrA (S83F/D87G or S83F/D87N) and parC (T57S/S80R). Two plasmid mediated quinolone resistant determinants were found with aac (6')-Ib-cr and oqxAB in 16 and 12 S. enterica serovar Indiana isolates respectively. Cefotaxime-resistance of S. enterica serovar Indiana was associated with the acquisition of a blaCTX-M-65 gene. The potential risk of ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime co-resistant S. enterica serovar Indiana infection is a significant concern due to limited alternative treatment options. Reduction of Salmonella in chicken and pig slaughterhouses, in particular, ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime co-resistant S. enterica serovar Indiana will be an important measure to reduce the public health burden of Salmonella infections.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26650239 PMCID: PMC4674084 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144532
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Prevalence of Salmonella isolates from chicken slaughterhouses and pig slaughterhouses.
| Chickens | Pigs | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hebi | zhoukou | Total | Hebi | Luohe | Total | |||||||
| Seasons | No. of samples | No. of positive samples | No. of samples | No. of positive samples | No. of samples | No. of positive samples | No. of samples | No. of positive samples | No. of samples | No. of positive samples | No. of samples | No. of positive samples |
| Spring | 35 | 15(42.9%) | 38 | 9(23.7%) | 73 | 24(32.9%) | 33 | 8(24.2%) | 36 | 14(38.9%) | 69 | 22(31.9%) |
| Summer | 35 | 12(34.3%) | 35 | 19(54.3%) | 70 | 31(44.3%) | 33 | 15(45.5%) | 24 | 9(37.5%) | 57 | 24(42.1%) |
| Autumn | 36 | 25(69.4%) | 35 | 30(85.7%) | 71 | 55(77.5%) | 33 | 7(21.2%) | 33 | 7(21.2%) | 66 | 14(21.2%) |
| Winter | 35 | 7(20.0%) | 34 | 11(32.4%) | 69 | 18(26.1%) | 21 | 9(42.9%) | 27 | 1(3.7%) | 48 | 10(20.8%) |
| Total | 141 | 59(41.8%) | 142 | 69(48.6%) | 283 | 128(45.2%) | 120 | 39(32.5%) | 120 | 31(25.8%) | 240 | 70(29.2%) |
*Definition of seasons: Spring (March, April, May), Summer (June, July, August), Autumn (September, October, November), Winter (December, January, February)
Serotyping of Salmonella isolates from chicken slaughterhouses and pig slaughterhouses.
| Chickens | Pigs | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of isolates | No. of isolates | ||||||||||||
| Serovar | Hebi(n = 59) | Zhoukou (n = 69) | Total (n = 128) | Serovar | Hebi(n = 39) | Luohe (n = 31) | Total (n = 70) | ||||||
| Enteritidis | 28 | (47.5%) | 48 | (69.6%) | 76 | (59.4%) | Typhimurium | 15 | (38.5%) | 5 | (16.2%) | 20 | (28.6%) |
| Hadar | 0 | (0.0%) | 15 | (21.7%) | 15 | (11.7%) | Derby | 1 | (2.6%) | 18 | (58.1%) | 19 | (27.1%) |
| Indiana | 11 | (18.6%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 11 | (8.6%) | Enteritidis | 5 | (12.8%) | 1 | (3.2%) | 6 | (8.6%) |
| Typhimurium | 7 | (11.9%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 7 | (5.5%) | Indiana | 5 | (12.8%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 5 | (7.2%) |
| Infantis | 0 | (0.0%) | 5 | (7.2%) | 5 | (3.9%) | Muenster | 5 | (12.8%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 5 | (7.2%) |
| Senftenberg | 3 | (5.1%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 3 | (2.3%) | London | 4 | (10.2%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 4 | (5.7%) |
| Kentucky | 1 | (1.7%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (0.8%) | Agona | 2 | (5.1%) | 1 | (3.2%) | 3 | (4.3%) |
| Untyped | 9 | (15.2%) | 1 | (1.5%) | 10 | (7.8%) | Aberdeen | 1 | (2.6%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (1.4%) |
| Meleagridis | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (3.2%) | 1 | (1.4%) | |||||||
| Chester | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (3.2%) | 1 | (1.4%) | |||||||
| Thompson | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (3.2%) | 1 | (1.4%) | |||||||
| Untyped | 1 | (2.6%) | 3 | (9.7%) | 4 | (5.7%) | |||||||
The top 10 antimicrobial resistance profiles of Salmonella isolates recovered from chicken slaughterhouses in Henan, China.
| Resistant profiles | No. of resistant isolates | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enteritidis | Hadar | Typhimurium | Indiana | Infantis | Other Serovars | Total | |
| AMP-CAZ-CHL-CIP-CTX-GEN-NAL-SXT-TET | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| AMP-CHL-CIP-GEN-NAL-SXT-TET | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| AMP-CHL-GEN-NAL-TET | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| AMP-GEN-NAL-TET | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| AMP-GEN-NAL | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| AMP-NAL-TET | 17 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 |
| NAL-TET | 0 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 11 |
| AMP-NAL | 32 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 |
| NAL | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 22 |
| TET | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
*AMP, ampicillin; CAZ, ceftazidime; CHL, Chloramphenicol; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CTX, cefotaxime; GEN, gentamicin; SXT, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; TET, tetracycline.
The top 10 antimicrobial resistance profiles of Salmonella isolates recovered from pig slaughterhouses in Henan, China.
| Resistant profiles | No. of resistant isolates | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typhimurium | Derby | Indiana | Enteritidis | London | Other Serovars | Total | |
| AMP-CAZ-CHL-CIP-CTX-GEN-NAL-SXT-TET | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| AMP-CHL-GEN-NAL-SXT-TET | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| AMP-CHL-GEN-NAL-TET | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| AMP-CHL-GEN-SXT-TET | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| AMP-CHL-NAL-SXT-TET | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| CHL-NAL-TET | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| AMP-NAL | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| CHL-TET | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| NAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| TET | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
*AMP, ampicillin; CAZ, ceftazidime; CHL, Chloramphenicol; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CTX, cefotaxime; GEN, gentamicin; SXT, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; TET, tetracycline.
Resistance phenotypes of ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime co-resistance Salmonella isolates and none ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime co-resistance Salmonella isolates from chicken and pig slaughterhouses.
|
| No. of resistant isolates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| co-Resistant Isolates (n = 11) | Non co-Resistant Isolates (n = 187) |
| |||
| Ampicillin | 11 | (100.0%) | 107 | (57.2%) | 0.013 |
| Ceftazidime | 11 | (100.0%) | 2 | (1.1%) | <0.001 |
| Chloramphenicol | 11 | (100.0%) | 51 | (27.3%) | <0.001 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 11 | (100.0%) | 7 | (3.7%) | <0.001 |
| Cefotaxime | 11 | (100.0%) | 2 | (1.1%) | <0.001 |
| Gentamicin | 11 | (100.0%) | 44 | (23.5%) | <0.001 |
| Imipenem | 0 | (0.0%) | 0 | (0.0%) | - |
| Nalidixic acid | 11 | (100.0%) | 151 | (80.7%) | 0.228 |
| Tetracycline | 11 | (100.0%) | 96 | (51.3%) | 0.005 |
| Tigecycline | 0 | (0.0%) | 0 | (0.0%) | - |
| Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole | 11 | (100.0%) | 22 | (11.8%) | <0.001 |
* p value were calculated using the chi-square by SPSS version 17.0.
Fig 1Dendrogram of 16 S. enterica serovar Indiana isolates constructed based on XbaI PFGE patterns.
Stains information, pulsotype, mutations in QRDRs, resistance determinants/genes and resistance profiles are shown on the right. * PMQR, Plasmid Mediated Quinolone Resistance. **QRDRs, Quinolone Resistance Determining Regions. ***AMP, ampicillin; CAZ, ceftazidime; CHL, chloramphenicol; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CTX, cefotaxime; GEN, gentamicin; SXT, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; TET, tetracycline.