| Literature DB >> 30488592 |
Mohammad Shah Jalal1, Md Zohorul Islam1,2, Avijit Dutta1, Pangkaj Kumar Dhar1, Avijit Das1, Mohammad Mahbub Hasan1, Himel Barua1, Paritosh Kumar Biswas1,3, Abdul Ahad1.
Abstract
Irrawaddy squirrel (Callosciurus pygerythrus) may play an important role in the transmission of zoonotic bacteria, but little is known about the carriage of zoonotic bacteria in this common frugivorous rodent in Bangladesh. We aimed to investigate the presence of common zoonotic bacterial pathogens in Irrawaddy squirrel in the southeast part of Bangladesh. A total of 27 rectal and 27 oro-nasal swabs were collected from 27 healthy wild Irrawaddy squirrels. Four common zoonotic bacteria were isolated following routine laboratory procedures, and were identified based on colony morphology, and biochemical and staining properties. The pathogenic potential of the identified bacteria was confirmed by detection of virulence genes by PCR. All isolates were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility test against seven antibiotics from six generic groups which are commonly used in human and veterinary medicine in Bangladesh. The prevalence of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Yersinia spp. and Staphylococcus spp. was 44.4% (95% CI, 32.0-57.6), 13% (95% CI, 6.1-24.7), 44.4% (95% CI, 32.0-57.6), and 72.2% (95% CI, 59.0-82.5), respectively. We identified potential zoonotic virulence genes in all of these four bacterial species. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing revealed the presence of several multidrug resistant bacterial strains in squirrels. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report in Bangladesh of the detection of antibiotic resistant zoonotic bacteria in Irrawaddy squirrels. The findings underpin the role of Irrawaddy squirrel as a source of pathogenic antibiotic resistant bacteria, consequently, fruit rejected because of squirrel consumption and squirrel-bites deserve more concern than previously.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990PCRzzm321990; Irrawaddy squirrel; antibiotic resistance; zoonotic bacteria
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30488592 PMCID: PMC6556763 DOI: 10.1002/vms3.138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Med Sci ISSN: 2053-1095
Sequences of primers used to detect species‐specific pathogenic gene(s) in Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Yersinia spp. and Staphylococcus spp
| Organism | Target Gene | Primer Sequence | Annealing Temp (°C) | Amplicon (bp) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| 58 | 165 | DesRosiers |
|
| |||||
|
|
| 58 | 614 | DesRosiers | |
|
| |||||
|
|
| 58 | 779 | Islam | |
|
| |||||
|
|
| 59 | 881 | Oswald | |
|
| |||||
|
| – |
| 60 | 429 | Aabo |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| 55 | 478 | Hinnebusch & Schwan |
|
| |||||
|
|
| 57 | 351 | Thoerner | |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| 50 | 1279 | Signas |
|
|
Temp, temperature; °C, degree centigrade; bp, base pair; F, Forward primer; R, Reverse primer.
Relationship between different categorical variables and prevalence of bacteria identified, based on colony morphology, staining and biochemical properties
| Variables | Categories |
| Proportionate Prevalence | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| PP (95% CI) |
| PP (95% CI) |
| PP (95% CI) |
| PP (95% CI) |
| |||
| Season | May, 2016 | 8 | 37.5 (13.5–69.6) | 0.533 | 0.0 (0.0–37.2) | 0.352 | 0.0 (0.0–37.2) | 0.016 | 12.5 (0.1–49.2) | 0.000 |
| Oct–Nov, 2016 | 14 | 57.1 (32.6–78.7) | 21.4 (6.8–48.3) | 42.9 (21.3–67.5) | 50.0 (26.8–73.2) | |||||
| April, 2017 | 32 | 40.6 (25.5–57.8) | 12.5 (4.4–28.7) | 56.2 (39.3–71.9) | 100 (87.3–100) | |||||
| Sex | M | 30 | 43.3 (27.4–60.8) | 0.854 | 13.3 (4.7–30.4) | 0.928 | 46.7 (30.2–63.9) | 0.713 | 83.3 (66.0–93.1) | 0.083 |
| F | 24 | 45.8 (27.9–64.9) | 12.5 (3.5–31.8) | 41.7 (24.4–61.2) | 62.5 (42.6–78.9) | |||||
| Sample | ON | 27 | 11.1 (3.0–28.9) | 0.000 | 0.0 (0.0–14.8) | 0.005 | 33.3 (18.5–52.3) | 0.100 | 74.1 (55.1–87.1) | 1.000 |
| R | 27 | 77.8 (58.9–89.7) | 25.9 (12.9–44.9) | 55.6 (37.3–72.4) | 74.1 (55.1–87.1) | |||||
| Total | 54 | 44.4 (32.0–57.6) | 13.0 (6.1–24.7) | 44.4 (32.0–57.6) | 72.2 (59.0–82.5) | |||||
*, significant P‐value; ON, Oro‐nasal swab; R, rectal swab; M, male squirrel; F, female squirrel; %, percentage; N, number of samples; PP, prevalence; P, probability value; CI, confidence interval.
Presence of virulence genes in isolated bacteria
| Organism |
| Target genes | Positive samples | Proportion | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 24 |
| 0 | 0.0 | 0.0–16.3 |
|
| 0 | 0.0 | 0.0–16.3 | ||
|
| 8 | 33.3 | 17.8–53.4 | ||
|
| 1 | 4.2 | 0.01–21.8 | ||
|
| 7 |
| 2 | 28.6 | 7.6–64.8 |
|
| 24 |
| 1 | 4.2 | 0.01–21.8 |
|
| 2 | 8.3 | 1.2–27.0 | ||
|
| 39 |
| 1 | 2.6 | 0.01–20.6 |
N, No. of culturally and biochemically positive samples; CI, Confidence interval.
*ST is a genus‐specific DNA fragment of Salmonella.
One sample carried both eae and stx2 genes.
Figure 1Antibiotic resistance pattern (expressed in percentage) of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus spp. and Yersinia spp., isolated from Irrawaddy Squirrel, against AML, amoxicillin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CL, cephalexin; CN, gentamycin; CT, colistin sulphate; SXT, sulphamethoxazole‐ trimethoprim; TE, tetracycline.
Bivariate relationship between different categorical variables and AMR of bacteria. E. coli, rectal swab and area‐1 were used as reference value for organisms, sample type and location, respectively, to determine the association of these categorical variables with the resistance of bacteria to different antibiotics
| Categories | Antimicrobials | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SXT | CT | AML | TE | CIP | CL | CN | ||||||||
| OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| |
| (A) Organisms | ||||||||||||||
|
| Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||||||
|
| 0.6 (0.0–6.6) | 0.642 | 4.8 (0.4–65.8) | 0.240 | 2.1 (0.3–15.3) | 0.448 | 0.5 (0.1–3.3) | 0.448 | 4.8 (0.3–65.8) | 0.240 | 1.0 | NA | 1.0 | NA |
|
| 1.4 (0.3–8.5) | 0.659 | 14 (1.4–141.5) | 0.025 | 4.7 (0.7–30.3) | 0.102 | 1.4 (0.3–6.4) | 0.695 | 5.3 (0.5–56.2) | 0.164 | 0.1 (0.0–1.4) | 0.090 | 0.3 (0.0–1.9) | 0.197 |
|
| 2.1 (0.4–11.5) | 0.399 | 14 (1.4–141.5) | 0.025 | 1.9 (0.4–9.6) | 0.423 | 0.7 (0.1–3.5) | 0.692 | 1.0 (0.1–17.9) | 1.000 | 0.5 (0.0–5.8) | 0.547 | 1.0 | NA |
| (B) Sample type | ||||||||||||||
| R | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||||||
| ON | 0.5 (0.1–2.0) | 0.302 | 1.6 (0.4–5.4) | 0.487 | 0.4 (0.1–1.4) | 0.157 | 2.2 (0.6–7.6) | 0.206 | 4.1 (0.8–20.1) | 0.083 | 0.2 (0.0–1.3) | 0.083 | 3 (0.6–15.5) | 0.190 |
| (C) Location | ||||||||||||||
| Area 1 | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||||||
| Area 2 | 1.0 (0.3–4.1) | 0.975 | 0.9 (0.3–3.4) | 0.908 | 1.9 (0.4–8.4) | 0.384 | 0.4 (0.1–1.5) | 0.184 | 0.3 (0.0–2.5) | 0.250 | 0.7 (0.1–3.3) | 0.634 | 0.3 (0.0–3.1) | 0.332 |
*, Significant P‐value; ON, oro‐nasal swab; OR, odd ratio; NA, not applicable; R, rectal swab; P, probability value; Ref, reference value.