| Literature DB >> 28451946 |
Łukasz Jałowiecki1, Joanna Chojniak1, Elmar Dorgeloh2, Berta Hegedusova2, Helene Ejhed3, Jörgen Magnér3, Grażyna Płaza4.
Abstract
The scope of the study was to apply Phenotype Biolog MicroArray (PM) technology to test the antibiotic sensitivity of the bacterial strains isolated from on-site wastewater treatment facilities. In the first step of the study, the percentage values of resistant bacteria from total heterotrophic bacteria growing on solid media supplemented with various antibiotics were determined. In the untreated wastewater, the average shares of kanamycin-, streptomycin-, and tetracycline-resistant bacteria were 53, 56, and 42%, respectively. Meanwhile, the shares of kanamycin-, streptomycin-, and tetracycline-resistant bacteria in the treated wastewater were 39, 33, and 29%, respectively. To evaluate the antibiotic susceptibility of the bacteria present in the wastewater, using the phenotype microarrays (PMs), the most common isolates from the treated wastewater were chosen: Serratia marcescens ss marcescens, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Stenotrophomonas rhizophila, Microbacterium flavescens, Alcaligenes faecalis ss faecalis, Flavobacterium hydatis, Variovorax paradoxus, Acinetobacter johnsonii, and Aeromonas bestiarum. The strains were classified as multi-antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Most of them were resistant to more than 30 antibiotics from various chemical classes. Phenotype microarrays could be successfully used as an additional tool for evaluation of the multi-antibiotic resistance of environmental bacteria and in preliminary determination of the range of inhibition concentration.Entities:
Keywords: Antibiotic Sensitivity; Culturable Fraction; Phenotype Microarrays; Rifamycin; Total Heterotrophic Bacterium
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28451946 PMCID: PMC5630657 DOI: 10.1007/s12223-017-0516-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Folia Microbiol (Praha) ISSN: 0015-5632 Impact factor: 2.099
Fig. 1The percentage values of resistant bacteria in the tested samples from the three on-site wastewater treatment facilities. Error bars indicate standard deviation for replicates from single sampling events. a The percentage values of bacteria resistant to antibiotics alone: KAN, STR, and TET. b The percentage values of bacteria resistant to the antibiotic mixture: TET + KAN, TET + PEN + STR, KAN + PEN + STR. Abbreviations: KAN kanamycin, STR streptomycin, TET tetracycline, PEN penicillin
Antibiotic susceptibility profile of selected bacteria determined by PM11 and PM12 microarrays
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aminoglycosides | ||||||||||
| Amikacin | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Neomycin | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Gentamicin | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Kanamycin | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Paromomycin | S | R | R | R | S | S | S | R | R | R |
| Sisomicin | S | R | R | R | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Novobiocin | S | S | S | S | S | R | S | R | R | R |
| Tobramycin | S | R | R | R | S | S | R | R | R | R |
| Spectinomycin | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| β-lactams | ||||||||||
| Amoxicillin | R | R | R | R | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Cloxacillin | R | R | R | S | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Nafcillin | R | R | R | S | R | S | R | R | R | R |
| Cefazolin | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Ceftriaxone | R | R | R | R | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Cephalothin | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Penicillin G | R | R | R | S | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Carbenicillin | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Oxacillin | S | R | R | S | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Lincosamides | ||||||||||
| Lincomycin | R | R | R | S | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Synthetic antibiotics | ||||||||||
| Lomefloxacin | S | R | R | R | R | R | S | R | R | R |
| Enoxacin | S | R | R | R | R | S | S | R | R | R |
| Nalidixic acid | S | R | S | S | S | R | S | R | R | R |
| Ofloxacin | S | R | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Glycopeptides | ||||||||||
| Bleomycin | S | R | R | R | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Colistin | S | S | R | R | R | S | R | R | R | R |
| Capreomycin | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Polymyxin B | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Vancomycin | S | R | R | S | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Tetracyclines | ||||||||||
| Chlortetracycline | S | R | R | S | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Minocycline | S | R | R | S | R | R | S | R | R | R |
| Demeclocycline | S | R | R | S | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Tetracycline | S | R | R | R | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Penimepicycline | S | R | R | S | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| Amphenicols | ||||||||||
| Chloramphenicol | R | S | R | S | S | R | R | R | S | R |
| Macrolides | ||||||||||
| Erythromycin | R | R | S | S | S | R | R | R | R | S |
| Spiramycin | R | S | S | S | S | S | R | R | R | R |
| Sulfonamides | ||||||||||
| Sulfamethoxazole | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Sulfathiazole | S | R | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Sulfadiazine | S | R | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Sulfamethazine | R | R | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Rifamycins | ||||||||||
| Rifampicin | S | S | R | S | S | R | R | S | R | R |
S sensitive; R resistant
Fig. 2Number of antibiotics to which selected strains are resistant or sensitive
Fig. 3The scheme of antibiotic sensitivity profile obtained by using the PMs for two antibiotics: enoxacin (1A–4A) and tetracycline (1B–4B). Each antibiotic is presented at four concentrations. The concentrations of enoxacin and tetracycline in the following wells are increased from 0.04 to 4.00 μg/mL and from 0.08 to 8.00 μg/mL, respectively. Antibiotic sensitivity profile displayed in the form of kinetic graphs of the bacteria growth (time versus absorbance). The growth curves (in the individual four wells) show the time course (horizontal axis) of the amount of purple color formed from tetrazolium dye reduction (vertical axis) determined by the Omnilog unit (OU). The graphs were generated by the OmniLog® MicroArrayTM Data Collection Software Release 1.2 (Biolog Inc.)