| Literature DB >> 29728379 |
Paul S Morley1, Keith E Belk2, Margaret D Weinroth3, H Morgan Scott4, Bo Norby5, Guy H Loneragan6, Noelle R Noyes1, Pablo Rovira7, Enrique Doster1, Xiang Yang8, Dale R Woerner3.
Abstract
Treatment of food-producing animals with antimicrobial drugs (AMD) is controversial because of concerns regarding promotion of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). To investigate this concern, resistance genes in metagenomic bovine fecal samples during a clinical trial were analyzed to assess the impacts of treatment on beef feedlot cattle resistomes. Four groups of cattle were exposed, using a 2-by-2 factorial design, to different regimens of antimicrobial treatment. Injections of ceftiofur crystalline-free acid (a third-generation cephalosporin) were used to treat all cattle in treatment pens or only a single animal, and either chlortetracycline was included in the feed of all cattle in a pen or the feed was untreated. On days 0 and 26, respectively, pre- and posttrial fecal samples were collected, and resistance genes were characterized using shotgun metagenomics. Treatment with ceftiofur was not associated with changes to β-lactam resistance genes. However, cattle fed chlortetracycline had a significant increase in relative abundance of tetracycline resistance genes. There was also an increase of an AMR class not administered during the study, which is a possible indicator of coselection of resistance genes. Samples analyzed in this study had previously been evaluated by culture characterization (Escherichia coli and Salmonella) and quantitative PCR (qPCR) of metagenomic fecal DNA, which allowed comparison of results with this study. In the majority of samples, genes that were selectively enriched through culture and qPCR were not identified through shotgun metagenomic sequencing in this study, suggesting that changes previously documented did not reflect changes affecting the majority of bacterial genetic elements found in the predominant fecal resistome.IMPORTANCE Despite significant concerns about public health implications of AMR in relation to use of AMD in food animals, there are many unknowns about the long- and short-term impact of common uses of AMD for treatment, control, and prevention of disease. Additionally, questions commonly arise regarding how to best measure and quantify AMR genes in relation to public health risks and how to determine which genes are most important. These data provide an introductory view of the utility of using shotgun metagenomic sequencing data as an outcome for clinical trials evaluating the impact of using AMD in food animals.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic resistance; antimicrobial agents; cattle; feedlot; metagenomics; postantibiotic effect
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29728379 PMCID: PMC6007121 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00610-18
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol ISSN: 0099-2240 Impact factor: 4.792
Percentage of raw sequence reads in relation to raw hits to antimicrobial resistance genes by day and chlortetracycline treatment
| Treatment day and CTC use | Estimated percentage of aligned reads |
|---|---|
| 0 | |
| No | 0.077 A |
| Yes | 0.077 A |
| 26 | |
| No | 0.080 A |
| Yes | 0.115 B |
| Mean square error | 0.004 |
Ceftiofur crystalline free-acid (CCFA) effects were also considered as part of an interaction and as a main effect and was found to not have a significant impact on the resistome. Thus, estimates reported here are not separated by CCFA treatment.
CTC, chlortetracycline.
Values are least square means. Values with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).
FIG 1Normalized relative abundances of classes of antimicrobial resistance (combined across treatment day and treatment) treated in a 2-by-2 factorial of chlortetracycline (yes or no) or ceftiofur crystalline-free acid (low exposure, with one animal treated in the pen, or high exposure, with all animals treated in a pen). Each column represents a treatment on day 0 and day 26.
FIG 2Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination plots of resistome composition on day 26 by treatment group (stress = 0.096, R = 0.58, and P = 0.001), chlortetracycline (CTC) treatment (stress = 0.082, R = 0.49, and P = 0.001), and ceftiofur crystalline-free acid (CCFA) treatment (stress = 0.084, R = 0.12, and P = 0.067). Significance of CTC treatment and no CCFA treatment seems to show that CTC treatment was the main driver of treatment group resistome differences.
FIG 3Normalized relative abundance counts per 1,000 copies of the bacterial 16S gene by (a) tetracycline resistance overall as a class and the three mechanisms of tetracycline resistance, (b) tetracycline inactivation enzymes, (c) tetracycline resistance major facilitator superfamily (MFS) efflux pumps, and (d) tetracycline resistance ribosomal protection proteins displayed over day 0 with no animals fed CTC, day 0 with (w/) all animals in the pen fed CTC, day 26 with no animals fed CTC, and day 26 with all animals in the pen fed CTC. The ratio estimates how many tetracycline resistance genes are present per 1,000 bacteria. Within the panels, letters above the bars that differ denote a significant (Bonferroni adjusted P value, <0.05) difference. 1, LSMeans, least square means; 2, CTC, chlortetracycline; 3, MFS, major facilitator superfamily.
Least square means of antibiotic classes of resistance not administered in the study
| Class of resistance | Relative abundance (least square means) by treatment day | SEM | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 26 | ||
| Aminoglycoside | 9.5 A | 17.0 B | 1.4 |
| MLS | 139.8 A | 170.4 A | 14.1 |
| MDR | 0.9 A | 0.4 A | 0.5 |
While other classes of resistance were identified, they were not present at a high enough level to be formally statistically compared. MLS, macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B; MDR, multidrug resistance.
Values were determined per 1,000 copies of the 16S rRNA gene on day 0 and day 26 pooled across all treatment combinations. Means within rows with different letters are significantly different (Bonferroni adjusted P, <0.05).
Primers used for PCRs and identified in shotgun metagenomic samples
| Gene name | Primer name | Sequence | GenBank accession no. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 585F | 5′-CAG ACG CGT CCT GCA ACC ATT AAA-3′ | ||
| 1038R | 5′-TAC GTA GCT GCC AAA TCC ACC AGT-3′ | ||
| 675F | 5′-AGG GAA GCC CGT ACA CGT T-3′ | ||
| 738R | 5′-GCT GGA TTT CAC GCC ATA GG-3′ | ||
| CTX-M(F) | 5′-ATGTGCAGYACCAGTAA-3′ | ||
| CTX-M(R) | 5′-CCGCTGCCGGTYTTATC-3′ | ||
| tet(A)(F) | 5′-GCTACATCCTGCTTGCCTTC-3′ | ||
| tet(A)(R) | 5′-CATAGATCGCCGTGAAGAGG-3′ | ||
| tet(B)(F) | 5′-TTGGTTAGGGGCAAGTTTTG-3′ | ||
| tet(B)(R) | 5′-GTAATGGGCCAATAACACCG-3′ |
Adapted from Kanwar et al. (8).
F, forward; R, reverse.