| Literature DB >> 31288484 |
Medelin Ocejo1, Beatriz Oporto1, Ana Hurtado2.
Abstract
A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2014-2016 in 301 ruminant herds to estimate C. jejuni and C. coli&nbsp;prevalence, and investigate their susceptibility to antimicrobials. Risk of shedding C. jejuni was higher in cattle than sheep (81.2% vs. 45.2%; ORadj = 5.22, p < 0.001), whereas risk of shedding C. coli was higher in sheep than in cattle (19.1% vs. 11.3%; ORadj = 1.71, p = 0.128). Susceptibility to six antimicrobials was determined by broth microdilution using European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) epidemiological cut-off values. C. coli exhibited higher resistance&nbsp;(94.1%, 32/34) than C. jejuni (65.1%, 71/109), and resistance was more widespread in isolates from dairy cattle than beef cattle or sheep. Compared to results obtained 10-years earlier (2003-2005) in a similar survey, an increase in fluoroquinolone-resistance was observed in C. jejuni from beef cattle (32.0% to 61.9%; OR = 3.45, p = 0.020), and a decrease in tetracycline-resistance in C. jejuni from dairy cattle (75.0% to 43.2%; OR = 0.25, p = 0.026). Resistance to macrolides remained stable at low rates and restricted to C. coli from dairy cattle, with all macrolide-resistant C. coli showing a pattern of pan-resistance. Presence of the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated to quinolone and macrolide resistance was confirmed in all phenotypically resistant isolates. The increase in fluoroquinolone resistance is worrisome but susceptibility to macrolides is reassuring.Entities:
Keywords: Campylobacter coli; Campylobacter jejuni; Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC); Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP).; antimicrobial resistance (AMR); cattle; sheep
Year: 2019 PMID: 31288484 PMCID: PMC6789816 DOI: 10.3390/pathogens8030098
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pathogens ISSN: 2076-0817
Figure 1Prevalence of Campylobacter-positive herds/flocks in each host. The error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals (*, p ≤ 0.05; ***, p ≤ 0.001).
Microbiological resistance (percentage) and distribution of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for the 109 C. jejuni and 34 C. coli isolates.
| Antimicrobial Class | Antimicrobial Agent | % Resistance | No. of Isolates at the Indicated MIC (mg/L) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOTAL | Beef Cattle | Dairy Cattle | Sheep | 0.064 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 | |||
| Aminoglycoside | Gentamicin |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3 | 12 | 87 | 7 | |||||||||
|
| 11.8 | 0.0 | 44.4 | 0.0 | 15 | 11 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||
| Aminoglycoside | Streptomycin |
| 3.7 | 4.8 | 2.7 | 3.3 | 1 | 17 | 84 | 3 | 4 | ||||||||
|
| 67.7 | 60.0 | 88.9 | 60.0 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 17 | ||||||||||
| Macrolide | Erythromycin |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 109 | ||||||||||||
|
| 8.8 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 31 | 3 | |||||||||||||
| Quinolone | Nalidixic acid |
| 60.6 | 61.9 | 67.6 | 50.0 | 1 | 31 | 11 | 6 | 60 | ||||||||
|
| 64.7 | 80.0 | 77.8 | 55.0 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 19 | |||||||||||
| (Fluoro)Quinolone | Ciprofloxacin |
| 60.6 | 61.9 | 67.6 | 50.0 | 43 | 1 | 41 | 24 | |||||||||
|
| 64.7 | 80.0 | 77.8 | 55.0 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 7 | ||||||||||
| Tetracycline | Tetracycline |
| 38.5 | 42.9 | 43.2 | 26.7 | 67 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 23 | 9 | |||||||
|
| 76.5 | 80.0 | 88.9 | 70.0 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 21 | |||||||||||
White fields denote range of dilutions tested for each antimicrobial agent. MICs above the range are given as the concentration closest to the range. MICs equal to or lower than the lowest concentration tested are given as the lowest tested concentration. Vertical lines indicate European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) epidemiological cut-off values.
Figure 2Proportion of isolates resistant to each antimicrobial agent tested: (A) C. jejuni; (B) C. coli. GEN, gentamicin; STR, streptomycin; TET, tetracycline; CIP, ciprofloxacin; NAL, nalidixic acid; ERY, erythromycin; SUS, susceptible to all six antimicrobials.
Odds ratio (OR) of association between resistance to each antimicrobial and Campylobacter species for each host, determined with simple logistic regression analysis using C. jejuni as reference.
| AMR a | Sheep | Cattle | Beef Cattle | Dairy Cattle | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR |
| OR |
| OR |
| OR |
| |
| CIP/NAL | 1.22 (0.39–3.80) | 0.729 | 2.01 (0.52–7.82) | 0.312 | 2.46 (0.25–24.02) | 0.438 | 1.68 (0.30–9.34) | 0.553 |
| ERY b | NA | NA | NA | NA | ||||
| TET | 6.42 (1.83–22.46) | 0.004 | 7.94 (1.67–37.86) | 0.005 | 5.33 (0.55–51.88) | 0.149 | 10.50 (1.19–92.72) | 0.034 |
| GEN b | NA | NA | NA | NA | ||||
| STR | 43.5 (4.89–386.74) | 0.001 | 92.89 (16.62–519.09) | <0.001 | 30.00 (3.06–294.56) | 0.004 | 288.00 (16.23–5108.64) | <0.001 |
| MDR | 12.43 (1.36–113.41) | 0.025 | 46.60 (9.30–223.47) | <0.001 | 30.00 (3.06–294.56) | 0.004 | 72.00 (6.39–811.79) | 0.001 |
a CIP, ciprofloxacin; NAL, nalidixic acid; ERY, erythromycin; TET, tetracycline; GEN, gentamicin; STR, streptomycin; MDR, multidrug resistance pattern, defined as resistance to three or more classes of antimicrobial agents. b All C. jejuni were susceptible and therefore associations cannot be calculated (NA, non-applicable). p < 0.05 are considered significant.
Figure 3Distribution of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) patterns according to Campylobacter species and host. Percentage of each AMR pattern was calculated for each Campylobacter species in each host, and numbers beside the bars represent the number of isolates. CIP, ciprofloxacin; ERY, erythromycin; GEN, gentamicin; NAL, nalidixic acid; STR, streptomycin; TET, tetracycline.
Figure 4Distribution of isolates resistant to 1–4 classes of antimicrobial agents according to Campylobacter species and host.
Primers and probes used to detect point mutations associated to macrolide (A2075G mutation in the 23S rRNA genes) and quinolone (C257T in the gyrA gene, Thr-86-Ile) resistance in C. jejuni and C. coli, and gyrA sequencing.
| Target | Name | Sequences (5’ → 3’) | C | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| gyrCj-Fw | GGGTGCTGTTATAGGTCGTTATCA | 900 | [ | |
| gyrCj-Rv | TTGAGCCATTCTAACCAAAGCAT | 900 | ||
| Probe-gyrCj-S | HEX–CAT[+G]GAGAT[+A][+ | 150 | ||
| Probe-gyrCj-R | FAM–CATGGAGATA | 150 | ||
| gyrCc-Fw | GAAGTGCATATAAAAAATCTGCTCGTA | 400 | This study | |
| gyrCc-Rv | TGCCATTCTTACTAAGGCATCGT | 400 | ||
| Probe-gyrCc-S | FAM–AACAGCA | 150 | ||
| Probe-gyrCc-R | VIC–AACAGCA | 150 | ||
| 23S rRNA A2075G | 23S-Fw | CAGTGAAATTGTAGTGGAGGTGAAA | 900 | [ |
| 23S-Rv | TTCTTATCCAAATAGCAGTGTCAAGCT | 900 | ||
| Probe-23S-S | HEX–CGGGGTC[+T][+ | 100 | ||
| Probe-23S-R | FAM–CGGGGTC[+T][+ | 200 | ||
| GZgyrACcoli3F | TATGAGCGTTATTATCGGTC | 400 | [ | |
| GZgyrACcoli4R | GTCCATCTACAAGCTCGTTA | 400 |
Locked nucleic acids (LNA) are indicated by a + symbol and in brackets; SNPs are underlined.