| Literature DB >> 30761096 |
Zongbao Liu1,2, Uli Klümper3,4, Lei Shi5, Lei Ye5, Meng Li1.
Abstract
It is well verified that pig farms are an important reservoir and supplier of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). However, little is known about the transmission of ARGs between the breeding environment and subsequently produced pork. This study was conducted to investigate if ARGs and associated host bacteria spread from the breeding environment onto the meat through the food production chain. We thus analyzed the occurrence and abundance of ARGs, as well as comparing both ARG and bacterial community compositions in farm soil, pig feces and pork samples from a large-scale pig farm located in Xiamen, People's Republic of China. Among the 26 target ARGs, genes conferring resistance to sulfonamide, trimethoprim, aminoglycoside, chloramphenicol, macrolide, florfenicol, and tetracycline were observed at high frequency in both the pig breeding environment and pork. The prevalence of ARGs in pork was surprisingly consistent with breeding environments, especially between the pork and feces. The relative abundance of 10 representative ARGs conferring resistance to six classes of antibiotics ranged from 3.01 × 10-1 to 1.55 × 10-6 copies/16S rRNA copies. The ARGs conferring resistance to sulfanilamide (sulI and sulII), aminoglycoside (aadA), and tetracycline [tet(A) and tet(M)] were most highly abundant across most samples. Samples from feces and meat possessed a higher similarity in ARG compositions than samples from the farms soil. Enterobacteriaceae found on the meat samples were further identical with previously isolated multidrug-resistant bacteria from the same pig farm. Our results strongly indicate that ARGs can be potentially spreading from pig breeding environment to meat via the pork industry chain, such as feed supply, pig feeding and pork production.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic resistance genes; bacterial community composition; breeding environment; pig farm; pork
Year: 2019 PMID: 30761096 PMCID: PMC6361818 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Statistics of antibiotic resistance genes in all samples.
| Antimicrobial | No. (%) of samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| resistance | Gene | containing resistance genes | |||
| Soil | Feces | Meat | Total | ||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ||
| Sulfonamide | 27 (100) | 19 (100) | 22 (100) | 68 (100) | |
| 27 (100) | 19 (100) | 22 (100) | 68 (100) | ||
| Trimethoprim | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 6 (31.6) | 5 (22.7) | 11 (16.2) | ||
| 7 (25.9) | 18 (94.7) | 12 (54.5) | 37 (54.4) | ||
| Aminoglycoside | 27 (100) | 19 (100) | 22 (100) | 68 (100) | |
| 6 (22.2) | 0 | 0 | 6 (8.8) | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 27 (100) | 19 (100) | 22 (100) | 68 (100) | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Chloramphenicol | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 27 (100) | 19 (100) | 22 (100) | 68 (100) | ||
| Beta-lactam | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| AmpC’s | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Macrolide | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 23 (85.2) | 18 (94.7) | 22 (100) | 63 (92.6) | ||
| Florfenicol | 27 (100) | 19 (100) | 22 (100) | 68 (100) | |
| Tetracycline | 24 (88.9) | 18 (94.7) | 22 (100) | 64 (94.1) | |
| 14 (51.9) | 19 (100) | 22 (100) | 55 (80.9) | ||
| 27 (100) | 19 (100) | 17 (77.3) | 63 (92.6) | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
FIGURE 1The relative abundance of 10 ARGs in the 40 representative environmental and meat samples.
FIGURE 2The relative average abundance of 10 ARGs in environmental and meat samples.
FIGURE 3NMDS plot showing the ARG composition differences among the 40 representative environmental and meat samples.
FIGURE 4DGGE analysis of bacterial community composition in environmental and meat samples. (A) Farm soil; (B) Swine feces; (C) Swine meat. The denaturant gradient of the gels used for soil, feces, and meat samples were 45∼60%, 40∼55%, and 40∼60%, respectively.
FIGURE 5Neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree of the genes from DGGE of environmental and meat samples. MDR strains were isolated from the same farm in our previous study. M, pig meat; F, pig feces; and W, farm wastewater. The distinct clusters majorly formed by sequences from meat samples were highlighted with green and purple in background. Values on the branches represent the percentage of 1000 bootstrap replicates and bootstrap values over 50% are shown in the tree.