| Literature DB >> 31118039 |
Rekaz A Ibrahim1, Tillie L Cryer2, Shawkat Q Lafi3, Ehab-Abu Basha4, Liam Good2, Yaser H Tarazi4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) is the principle cause of colibacillosis affecting poultry. The main challenge to the poultry industry is antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of multidrug resistant bacteria that threaten the safety of the food chain. Risk factors associated with emergence of antimicrobial resistance among avian pathogenic E. coli were correlated with the inappropriate use of antimicrobials along with inadequate hygienic practices, which encourages the selection pressure of antimicrobial resistant APEC. The aim of this study was to isolate, identify, serogroup and genotype APEC from broilers, assess their antibiotic resistance profile, expressed genes and the associated risk factors.Entities:
Keywords: APEC; Antimicrobial Resistance; Broiler chickens; Colibacillosis; Jordan; Risk factors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31118039 PMCID: PMC6530146 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-019-1901-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Products of PCR for the detection of 16 s rRNA gene on 1.5% EB-stained agarose gel amplified from APEC isolates from broilers, where L 100 bp DNA ladder; −ve is negative control; +ve is positive control E. coli ATCC 25922; lane 1–16: E. coli isolates
Distribution of E. coli serotypes isolated from broiler chicken farms in north Jordan
| O-serotypes | No. of isolates (percent %) | Geographical distribution of the serotypes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irbid | Jarash | Mafraq | Ajlune | ||
| O1 | 40 (14. 9) | 14 | 9 | 7 | 10 |
| O2 | 34 (12.6) | 13 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| O9 | 8 (3.00) | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| O18 | 4 (1.5) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| O25 | 12 (4.5) | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| O26 | 2 (0.7) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| O78 | 64 (23.8) | 23 | 16 | 11 | 14 |
| O111 | 3 (1.00) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| O114 | 9 (3.3) | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| O119 | 11 (4) | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| O127 | 2 (0.7) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Untypeable | 54 (20) | 18 | 17 | 2 | 17 |
| Rough | 26 (9.7) | 8 | 7 | 5 | 6 |
| Total | 269 (100) | 95 | 65 | 45 | 64 |
Fig. 2a PCR Products for detection of virulence genes tsh gene 642 bp, iss gene 762 bp, kpsIII gene 392 bp, kpsII gene 272 bp, iuc gene 541 bp, ksp gene 153 bp. b PCR Products for detection of virulence genes vat gene 981 bp, iucD gene 714 bp, irp2 gene 413 bp, cvi gene 1181 bp, astA gene 116 bp
Frequency of antimicrobial resistance among APEC isolates from broiler chickens by disc diffusion method
| Antimicrobials (abbreviation) | Disc content (μg) | Disc diffusion interpretive criteriaa (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | S | Number ( % )of resistant isolates | ||
| β – lactams | ||||
| Amoxicillin (AX) | 25 | <14 | ≥14 | 251 (93.3%) |
| Azetronem (ATM) | 30 | ≤21 | ≥26 | 15 (5.6%) |
| Imipenem (IPM) | 10 | ≤16 | ≥22 | 0 (0%) |
| β – lactamase inhibitors | ||||
| amoxicillin – clavulanic acid (AML) | 20/10 | <19 | ≥19 | 190 (70.6%) |
| Tetracyclines | ||||
| Doxycycline (DO) | 30 | ≤10 | ≥ 14 | 248 (92.2%) |
| Oxytetracyclin (OT) | 30 | ≤11 | ≥15 | 148 (55%) |
| Chlortetracycline (CHL) | 10 | ≤13 | ≥17 | 201 (74.7%) |
| Sulfonamides | ||||
| Sulphamethoxazole-trimethoprim (SXT) | 23.75/1.25 | ≤11 | ≥14 | 257 (95.5%) |
| Fluoroquinolones | ||||
| Enrofloxacin (ENR) | 5 | ≤15 | ≥21 | 227 (84.4%) |
| Ciprofloxacin (CIP) | 5 | ≤24 | ≥26 | 172 (63.9%) |
| Aminoglycosides | ||||
| Spectinomycin (SH) | 25 | ≤11 | ≥15 | 248 (92.2%) |
| Gentamicin (CN) | 10 | ≤14 | ≥17 | 154 (57.2%) |
| Apramycin (APR) | 15 | ≤12 | ≥15 | 147 (54.6%) |
| Cephalosporin | ||||
| Cephalexin (CL) | 30 | <14 | ≥14 | 236 (87.7%) |
| Ceftazidime (CZC) | 30 | ≤19 | ≥22 | 20 (7.4%) |
| Ceftriaxone (CRO) | 30 | ≤22 | ≥25 | 13 (4.8%) |
| Cefepime (FEP) | 30 | ≤24 | ≥27 | 9 (3.3%) |
| Phosphoric acid derivatives | ||||
| Fosfomycin (FOS) | 50 | <24 | ≥24 | 80 (30%) |
| Phenicol | ||||
| Florfenicol (FFC) | 30 | ≤10 | ≥21 | 252 (93.7%) |
aInterpretive criteria: depends on reference strain E. coli ATCC 25922, demonstrated in CLSI 2012, supplement M100-S22, Vol.32, No.3, Table 2A
Minimal inhibitory concentration test results for 269 APEC isolates, CLSI (2012)
| Antimicrobials Agents | Number & (%) of APEC isolates | MICa interpretive criteriac | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rb | I | S | R | I | S | |
| Ceftriaxone | 15 (5.5) | 8 (2.97) | 245 (91) | ≥4 | 2 | ≤1 |
| Ceftazidime | 21 (7.8) | 5 (1.85) | 243 (90.3) | ≥16 | 8 | ≤4 |
| Gentamicin | 160 (59.4) | 42 (15.6) | 67 (24.9) | ≥16 | 8 | ≤4 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 178 (66) | 11 (4) | 80 (29.7) | ≥4 | 2 | ≤1 |
| Cephalexin | 238 (88.4) | 26 (9.66) | 5 (1.85) | ≤16 | 8 | ≥3 |
| Doxycycline | 251 (93.3) | 3 (1.1) | 15 (5.57) | ≤16 | 8 | ≥4 |
| Amoxicillin | 254 (94.4) | 15 (5.57) | 0 (0) | ≤32 | 16 | ≥8 |
| Florfenicol | 258 (95.9) | 11 (4) | 0 (0) | ≤8 | 4 | ≥2 |
a MIC: minimal inhibitory concentration of E. coli ATCC 25922, b R: resistant, I: intermediate resistance, S: sensitive. c The MIC interpretive criteria of E. coli ATCC 25922 for Ceftriaxone, Ceftazidime, Gentamicin and Doxycycline is the same value as of breakpoint published by CLSI document M100-S26. CLSI 2017, M100, 27th ed., for ciprofloxacin. For amoxicillin and cephalexin according to EUCAST Clinical Breakpoint Tables v. 8.1, valid from 2018 to 05-15, for Florfenicol according to NCCLS document M7-A3, 1999
Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance genes in 269 APEC isolates from broiler chickens in Jordan
| Antimicrobial resistance genes | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Prevalence (%) | 211 (78.4) | 82 (30.5) | 261 (97) | 195 (72.4) | 190 (70.6) | 5 (1.8) | 199 (72.9) | 166 (61.7) |
Fig. 3PCR products for detection of TetA gene 210 bp, TetB gene 659 bp and Int1 gene 280 bp on 1.5% EB-stained agarose gel amplified from APEC isolated from broilers, where L 100 bp DNA ladder; −ve is negative control; 1–17 lanes; E. coli isolates
Fig. 4PCR products for detection of sul2 gene 249 bp, sul1 gene 417 bp, cat gene 623 bp, bla SHV gene 885 bp and bla TEM 1150 bp, on 1.5% EB-stained agarose gel amplified from APEC isolated from broilers, where L 100 bp DNA ladder; −ve is negative control; 1–12 lanes; E. coli isolates
Potential risk factors for the presence of multidrug resistant APEC isolates in broiler farms
| Variables (risk factors) | Coding | Description | Resistance status | X2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No* | % | R** | S | |||
| Geographical location of the farm | ||||||
| Plain | 0 | 16 | 19 | 9 | 7 | 0.977 |
| Mountain | 1 | 53 | 63.1 | 31 | 22 | |
| Desert | 2 | 15 | 17.9 | 9 | 6 | |
| Poultry house directiona | ||||||
| South to north | 0 | 57 | 67.9 | 22 | 35 | 0.00 |
| East to west | 1 | 27 | 32.1 | 27 | 0 | |
| Distance from the high way and noisea | ||||||
| On the high way | 0 | 40 | 47.6 | 31 | 9 | 0.001 |
| Far from the high way | 1 | 44 | 52.4 | 18 | 26 | |
| Type of ventilation system | ||||||
| Natural | 0 | 83 | 98.8 | 49 | 34 | 0.234b |
| Mechanical | 1 | 1 | 1.2 | 0 | 1 | .417 |
| Number of houses in the farm | ||||||
| One | 0 | 36 | 42.9 | 21 | 15 | 1.0 |
| Multiple | 1 | 48 | 57.1 | 28 | 20 | |
| Distance in relation to other poultry farmsa | ||||||
| Isolated | 0 | 32 | 38.1 | 7 | 25 | 0.00 |
| Very close | 1 | 52 | 61.9 | 42 | 10 | |
| Presence of wild birds and rodents in the farm | ||||||
| No | 0 | 1 | 1.2 | 0 | 1 | 0.234b |
| Yes | 1 | 83 | 98.8 | 49 | 34 | .417 |
| Application of pest control program | ||||||
| No | 0 | 12 | 14.3 | 8 | 4 | 0.527 |
| Yes | 1 | 72 | 85.7 | 41 | 31 | |
| Frequency of litre discard | ||||||
| Daily | 0 | 29 | 34.5 | 19 | 10 | 0.332 |
| Weekly | 1 | 55 | 65.5 | 30 | 25 | |
| Presentation of feed material | ||||||
| Grounded | 0 | 7 | 8.7 | 2 | 5 | 0.095b |
| Pellets | 1 | 77 | 91.7 | 47 | 30 | 0.122 |
| Water sourcea | ||||||
| Municipalities | 0 | 64 | 76.2 | 31 | 33 | 0.001 |
| Artesian wells | 1 | 20 | 23.8 | 18 | 2 | |
| Water tanks type | ||||||
| Cement | 0 | 10 | 11.9 | 6 | 4 | 0.909b |
| Metallic | 1 | 74 | 88.1 | 43 | 31 | 1.000 |
| Frequency of water tanks cleaning | ||||||
| Monthly | 0 | 9 | 10.7 | 4 | 5 | 0.011b |
| When needed | 1 | 15 | 17.9 | 13 | 2 | |
| Between cycles | 2 | 55 | 65.5 | 27 | 28 | |
| Weekly | 3 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 0 | |
| Frequency of water tanks disinfecting | ||||||
| Monthly | 0 | 9 | 10.7 | 4 | 5 | 0.007b |
| When needed | 1 | 19 | 22.6 | 16 | 3 | |
| Between cycles | 2 | 51 | 60.7 | 24 | 27 | |
| Weekly | 3 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 0 | |
| Type of disinfectants used | ||||||
| One type | 0 | 58 | 69 | 35 | 23 | 0.576 |
| Mixed types | 1 | 26 | 31 | 14 | 12 | |
| Disinfect farm entrance for visitors and vehicles | ||||||
| No | 0 | 49 | 58.3 | 26 | 23 | 0.246 |
| Yes | 1 | 35 | 41.7 | 23 | 12 | |
| Workers wear protective cloth when handling birdsa | ||||||
| No | 0 | 56 | 77.4 | 49 | 16 | 0.00 |
| Yes | 1 | 19 | 22.6 | 0 | 19 | |
| Restricted entrance against unauthorized traffica | ||||||
| No | 0 | 13 | 15.5 | 12 | 1 | 0.006 |
| Yes | 1 | 71 | 84.5 | 37 | 34 | |
| Number of workers in the farm | ||||||
| One | 0 | 66 | 78.6 | 38 | 28 | 0.787 |
| More than one | 1 | 18 | 21.4 | 11 | 7 | |
| Use antibiotic for disease preventiona | ||||||
| No | 0 | 51 | 60.7 | 26 | 25 | 0.089 |
| Yes | 1 | 33 | 39.3 | 23 | 10 | |
| Use antibiotic as growth promotiona | ||||||
| No | 0 | 67 | 79.8 | 36 | 31 | 0.089 |
| Yes | 1 | 17 | 20.2 | 13 | 4 | |
| Get prescription before use antimicrobialsa | ||||||
| No | 0 | 8 | 9.5 | 7 | 1 | 0.079b |
| Yes | 1 | 76 | 90.5 | 42 | 34 | 0.131 |
| Perform necropsy before prescribing antibiotics | ||||||
| No | 0 | 34 | 40.5 | 21 | 13 | 0.599 |
| Yes | 1 | 50 | 59.5 | 28 | 22 | |
| Information source about antibioticsa | ||||||
| Veterinarian | 0 | 47 | 56 | 24 | 23 | 0.021 |
| Drug store | 1 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 4 | |
| Other (neighbours,training) | 2 | 32 | 38.1 | 24 | 8 | |
| Keep antibiotics in the farm | ||||||
| No | 0 | 2 | 2.4 | 0 | 2 | 0.090b |
| Yes | 1 | 82 | 97.6 | 49 | 33 | 0.171 |
| Perform antibiotic sensitivity before treatment | ||||||
| No | 0 | 47 | 56 | 28 | 19 | 0.795 |
| Yes | 1 | 37 | 44 | 21 | 16 | |
| Frequency of antibiotics use during the cycle (~ 6 weeks) | ||||||
| Less than five times | 0 | 24 | 28.6 | 15 | 9 | 0.624 |
| Five or more times | 1 | 60 | 71.4 | 34 | 26 | |
| Frequency of vet visits to the farm | ||||||
| Once weekly | 0 | 46 | 54.8 | 28 | 18 | 0.170b |
| When needed | 1 | 31 | 36.9 | 15 | 16 | |
| Never | 2 | 7 | 8.3 | 6 | 1 | |
* No: number of farms, **R: resistant farms (n = 49), S: sensitive farms (n = 35), ***X2 p- value: chi- square value for potential risk factors and resistant status of the farm, a: statistically significant at P ≤ 0.25 (two-sided), b: fisher exact test was performed instead of X2 when variables had expected count less than 5 in one or more cells
Final logistic regression model for risk factors associated with multidrug resistance APEC isolates
| Variables | b | S.E. | wald | Df | Sig. | OR | 95% C.I. for OR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Use of antimicrobials as growth promoters | ||||||||
| No | 1.492 | .854 | 3.053 | 1 | .081 | 4.446 | .834 | 23.700 |
| Yes | ||||||||
| Water source | ||||||||
| Municipalities | 2.895 | 1.019 | 8.067 | 1 | .005 | 18.090 | 2.453 | 133.400 |
| Artesian wells | ||||||||
| Distance in relation to other farms | ||||||||
| Isolated | 3.169 | .735 | 18.608 | 1 | .000 | 23.774 | 5.635 | 100.312 |
| Very close | ||||||||
| Get prescription before antibiotic treatment | ||||||||
| No | 2.599 | 1.482 | 3.073 | 1 | .080 | 13.448 | .736 | 245.780 |
| Yes | ||||||||
| Constant | −2.492- | .688 | 13.136 | 1 | .000 | .083 | ||
Hosmer and Lameshow test X2 3.31 sig .507
Antimicrobial agents used in the MIC with their potency and dilution solvent
| Antibiotics | Potency(μg) | Dilution solvent (10 ml) | Wight (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gentamicin | 618 | Distilled water | 323.62 |
| Amoxicillin | 998 | Saturated NaHCO3 | 200.4 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 998 | 1 ml acetic acid+ 9 ml DW | 200.2 |
| Ceftazidime hydrate | 983 | Distilled water | 203 |
| Cephalexin | 1000 | 1 M NH4OH | 347.4 |
| Ceftriaxone | 1000 | Distilled water | 661.6 |
| Florfenicol | 990 | Distilled water | 479.0 |
| Doxycycline | 980 | Distilled water | 204.08 |
PCR target genes, primer sequence, PCR product size and annealing temperature
| Target gene | Primer sequence | PCR product | Annealing |
|---|---|---|---|
| tetA | tetAF GCT ACA TCC TGC TTG CCT TC | 210 | 55 |
| tetracycline | tetAR CAT AGA TCG CCG TGA AGA GG | ||
| tetB | tetBF TTG GTT AGG GGC AAG TT1 T TG | 659 | 55 |
| tetracycline | tetBR GTA ATG GGC CAA TAA CAC CG | ||
| blaTEM | TEMF ATT CTT GAA GAC GAA AGG GC | 1150 | 60 |
| beta lactams | TEMR A CG CTC AGT GGA ACG AAA AC | ||
| blaSHV | SHVF CAC TCA AGG ATG TAT TGT G | 885 | 60 |
| beta lactams | SHVR TTA GCG TTG CCA GTG CTC G | ||
| sul1 sulphonamide | sul1F CTT CGA TGA GAG CCG GCG GC | 417 | 68 |
| sul1R GCA AGG CGG AAA CCC GCG CC | |||
| sul2 sulphonamide | sul2F AGG GGG CAG ATG TGA TCG AC | 249 | 58 |
| sul2R GCA GAT TTC GCC AAT TG | |||
| Cat1 chloramphenicol | catF CCT GCC ACT CAT CGC AGT | 623 | 55 |
| catR CCA CCG TTG ATA TAT CCC | |||
| int1 integrons | int1F CCT CCC GCA CGA TGA TC | 280 | 55 |
| int1R TCC ACG CAT CGT CAG GC |