| Literature DB >> 29381714 |
Birgit Walther1,2, Katja-Sophia Klein3, Ann-Kristin Barton3, Torsten Semmler4, Charlotte Huber2, Silver Anthony Wolf4, Karsten Tedin1, Roswitha Merle5, Franziska Mitrach6, Sebastian Guenther7,8, Antina Lübke-Becker1, Heidrun Gehlen3.
Abstract
Pathogens frequently associated with multi-drug resistant (MDR) phenotypes, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) and Acinetobacter baumannii isolated from horses admitted to horse clinics, pose a risk for animal patients and personnel in horse clinics. To estimate current rates of colonization, a total of 341 equine patients were screened for carriage of zoonotic indicator pathogens at hospital admission. Horses showing clinical signs associated with colic (n = 233) or open wounds (n = 108) were selected for microbiological examination of nostril swabs, faecal samples and wound swabs taken from the open wound group. The results showed alarming carriage rates of Gram-negative MDR pathogens in equine patients: 10.7% (34 of 318) of validated faecal specimens were positive for ESBL-E (94%: ESBL-producing Escherichia coli), with recorded rates of 10.5% for the colic and 11% for the open wound group. 92.7% of the ESBL-producing E. coli were phenotypically resistant to three or more classes of antimicrobials. A. baumannii was rarely detected (0.9%), and all faecal samples investigated were negative for Salmonella, both directly and after two enrichment steps. Screening results for the equine nostril swabs showed detection rates for ESBL-E of 3.4% among colic patients and 0.9% in the open wound group, with an average rate of 2.6% (9/340) for both indications. For all 41 ESBL-producing E. coli isolated, a broad heterogeneity was revealed using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) patterns and whole genome sequencing (WGS) -analysis. However, a predominance of sequence type complex (STC)10 and STC1250 was observed, including several novel STs. The most common genes associated with ESBL-production were identified as blaCTX-M-1 (31/41; 75.6%) and blaSHV-12 (24.4%). The results of this study reveal a disturbingly large fraction of multi-drug resistant and ESBL-producing E. coli among equine patients, posing a clear threat to established hygiene management systems and work-place safety of veterinary staff in horse clinics.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29381714 PMCID: PMC5790241 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191873
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1PFGE-analysis of ESBL-producing E. coli isolated from specimens obtained from horses at hospital admission.
Dendrogram (percent similarity) showing DNA restriction pattern after digestion with XbaI for 41 E. coli isolated from horses directly at hospital admission. PFGE analysis by use of bionumerics® (unweighted-pair group method using average linkages), dice coefficient, 1.5% tolerance and 0.5% optimization indicated limited clonal relatedness. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing results VITEK®2 system (BioMérieux, Germany) for all ESBL-producing isolates revealed that multi-drug resistance is common. Plain numbers = susceptible-, bold = resistant-, underlined = intermediate phenotype. Abbreviations: Horse ID, individual number for each enrolled equine patient; OW, horse of the open wound group; C, horse of the colic group; IMT ID, strain collection number at IMT; ST, sequence type; AMP, ampicillin; AMC, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid; PIP, piperacillin; CFL, cephalexin; CPD, cefpodoxim; CEF, cephalexin; AN, amikacin; GM, gentamicin; ENR, enrofloxacin; MAR, marbofloxacin; TET, tetracycline; FM, nitrofurantoin; C, chloramphenicol; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.
Results from Gram-negative indicator pathogen screening of equine patients at hospital admission.
| Screening period I & II | Screening period I | Screening period II | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 341 horses | Apr-Oct 2014 (n = 174 horses) | Apr-Oct 2015 (n = 167 horses) | ||||||||||||||||
| Specimens | total (I+II) | colic | open wound | total (I) | colic | open wound | total (II) | colic | open wound | |||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| 340 | 100 | 232 | 100 | 108 | 100 | 173 | 100 | 113 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 167 | 100 | 119 | 100 | 48 | 100 | |
| 9 | 2.6 | 8 | 3.4 | 1 | 0.9 | 4 | 2.3 | 3 | 2.7 | 1 | 1.7 | 5 | 3.0 | 5 | 4.2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.9 | 1 | 0.6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 | 1.5 | 4 | 1.7 | 1 | 0.9 | 2 | 1.2 | 2 | 1.8 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1.8 | 2 | 1.7 | 1 | 2.1 | |
| 318 | 100 | 220 | 100 | 98 | 100 | 166 | 100 | 109 | 100 | 57 | 100 | 152 | 100 | 111 | 100 | 41 | 100 | |
| 34 | 10.7 | 23 | 10.5 | 11 | 11.2 | 19 | 11.4 | 12 | 11.0 | 7 | 12.3 | 15 | 9.9 | 11 | 9.9 | 4 | 9.8 | |
| 4 | 1.3 | 2 | 0.9 | 2 | 2.0 | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.9 | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 2.0 | 1 | 0.9 | 2 | 4.9 | |
| 3 | 0.9 | 3 | 1.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2.0 | 3 | 2.7 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 108 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 48 | 100 | |||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.9 | 1 | 1.7 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.1 | |||||||||||||
Abbreviations: n: number; Enterobacteriaceae_ESBL: extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae sp.; > 1 isolate: specimens positive for more than one ESBL-producing isolate
Fig 2Maximum likelihood tree based on the maximum common genome (MCG).
Maximum likelihood tree showing the relatedness of the strains based on their genome sequences together with their corresponding Sequence Type Complex (STC). The occurrences and distribution of blaCTX-M-1, blaCTX-M-24 and blaSHV-12 in ESBL-producing E. coli obtained from horses at hospital admission is marked with black squares. While a general broad genomic heterogenicity is obvious, two genetic backgrounds are dominating (STC10 and STC1250).
Antibiotic susceptibility testing results for Acinetobacter baumannii isolated from horses.
| Strain ID | AN | CEF* | ENR | GM | IMI | MAR | PIP | TET | TOB | SXT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37247 | ≤2 | ≤0.12 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤0.5 | 8 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤20 | |
| 36994 | ≤2 | ≤0.12 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤0.5 | 8 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤20 | |
| 36853 | ≤2 | ≤0.12 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤0.5 | 8 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤20 | |
| ≤2 | ≤0.12 | ≤1 | ≤0.5 | 8 | ||||||
| 33922 | ≤2 | ≤0.12 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤0.5 | 8 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤20 | |
| 37343 | ≤2 | ≤0.12 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤0.5 | 8 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤20 | |
| 37761 | ≤2 | ≤0.12 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤0.5 | 8 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤20 | |
| 36984 | ≤2 | ≤0.12 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤0.5 | 8 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤20 | |
| 37297 | ≤2 | ≤0.12 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤0.5 | 8 | ≤1 | ≤1 | ≤20 |
Abbreviations: AN = amikacin; CEF = ceftiofur; ENR = enrofloxacin; IMI = imipenem; GM = gentamicin; MAR = marbofloxacin; PIP = piperacilline; SXT = trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; TET = tetracycline; TOB = tobramycin; bold: resistant according to CLSI breakpoints, ceftiofur* MIC for ceftiofur were interpreted as proposed by Klotz et al. 2017 [18] according to breakpoints for 3rd generation cephalosporines set by CLSI for Acinetobacter spp.