| Literature DB >> 31662889 |
Katrin Bote1, Judith Pöppe1, Susanne Riede2, Gerhard Breves2, Uwe Roesler1.
Abstract
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) is the most-used herbicide worldwide. Many studies in the past have shown that residues of the herbicide can be found in many cultivated plants, including those used as livestock feed. Sensitivity to glyphosate varies with bacteria, particularly those residing in the intestine, where microbiota is exposed to glyphosate residues. Therefore, less susceptible pathogenic isolates could have a distinct advantage compared to more sensitive commensal isolates, probably leading to dysbiosis. To determine whether the ruminal growth and survival of pathogenic Escherichia coli or Salmonella serovar Typhimurium are higher when glyphosate residues are present in the feed, an in vitro fermentation trial with a "Rumen Simulation System" (RUSITEC) and a glyphosate-containing commercial formulation was performed. Colony forming units of E. coli and Salmonella ser. Typhimurium decreased steadily in all fermenters, regardless of the herbicide application. Minimum inhibitory concentrations of the studied Salmonella and E. coli strains did not change, and antibiotic susceptibility varied only slightly but independent of the glyphosate application. Overall, application of the glyphosate-containing formulation in a worst-case concentration of 10 mg/L neither increased the abundance for the tested E. coli and Salmonella strain in the in vitro fermentation system, nor promoted resistance to glyphosate or antibiotics.Entities:
Keywords: RUSITEC; fermentation; glyphosate; glyphosate resistance; microbial community; roundup; rumen simulation system
Year: 2019 PMID: 31662889 PMCID: PMC6798580 DOI: 10.1556/1886.2019.00010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp) ISSN: 2062-509X
Overview of the strains used to infect the RUSITEC fermentation vessels with the inoculum quantity and the used resistances to detect the isolates on our agar plates. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined for isopropylamine glyphosate in the formulation Roundup LB Plus (RU, registration number 024142-00) with and without pH adjustment with NaOH
| Species | MIC RU | MIC RU pH7 | Original host | Selectivity resistances | Inoculum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80 mg/mL | 80 mg/mL | Pig | Nalidixic acid | 8.42E+08 cfu | |
| 40 mg/mL | 80 mg/mL | Cow | Enrofloxacin, cefotaxime | 1.25E+09 cfu |
Figure 1.E. coli in the fermentation vessels measured by standard dilution plating on CHROMagar supplemented with 4 μg/mL enrofloxacin and 2 μg/mL cefotaxime. Control group (CTRL) without any glyphosate compared to the group treated with a worst-case amount of glyphosate in the formulation Roundup LB Plus (10 mg/L, RU). The dotted line represents the theoretical loss of the E. coli due to the wash-out effect of the buffer if bacteria would be in a steady state.
Figure 2.Salmonella ser. Typhimurium in the fermentation vessels measured by standard dilution plating XLD agar. Control group (CTRL) without any glyphosate compared to the group treated with a worst-case amount of glyphosate in the formulation Roundup LB Plus (10 mg/L, RU). The dotted line represents the theoretical loss of the Salmonella due to the wash-out effect of the buffer if bacteria would be in a steady state.
Statistical analysis of the differences between the control vessels and the vessels with 10 mg/L Roundup as a worst-case scenario for each sampling point quantitatively with the t-test. Further, a qualitative analysis with a chi-squared test for E. coli was performed (x: incalculable, because all fermenters are equal). No significant difference between the groups at any sampling point
| Time point | Chi-squared test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Inoculation | x | ||
| P1 | 0,5 h | x | ||
| P2 | 2 h | x | ||
| P3 | 4 h | x | ||
| P4 | 8 h | x | ||
| P5 | 12 h | x | ||
| P6 | 24 h | x | ||
| P7 | 48 h | x | ||
| P8 | 72 h | |||
| P9 | 96 h | |||
| P10 | 120 h | – | x | |
| P11 | 144 h | – | ||
| P12 | 168 h | – | x | |
Control of ruminal metabolism. Means of the treated (RU) and non-treated (CTRL) vessels on each day of the experiment
| Days after inoculation | CTRL | RU | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | Redox potential (mV) | pH | Redox potential (mV) | |
| 0 | 6.66 | –273 | 6.65 | –274 |
| 1 | 6.70 | –281 | 6.64 | –279 |
| 2 | 6.66 | –261 | 6.68 | –278 |
| 3 | 6.67 | –277 | 6.69 | –282 |
| 4 | 6.69 | –279 | 6.74 | –281 |
| 5 | 6.71 | –281 | 6.70 | –272 |
| 6 | 6.66 | –264 | 6.67 | –282 |
| 7 | 6.67 | –265 | 6.63 | –264 |
| Mean | 6.68 | –273 | 6.68 | –276 |
| 6.69 ± 0.025 | 271 ± 10 | 6.68 ± 0.055 | 273 ± 9 | |
Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of isolated bacteria at the time point of the experiment with still solid growth on agar plates in comparison to the ancestral strain. MIC for IPA was tested in Roundup (RU) and RU adjusted to pH 7 (RU pH 7) (F: fermentation vessel)
| F | RU | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample number | Day | MIC RU (mg/mL) | MIC RU pH 7 (mg/mL) | Sample number | Day | MIC RU (mg/mL) | MIC RU pH 7 (mg/mL) | ||
| 1 | – | P8 | 3 | 40 | 80 | P10 | 5 | 80 | 80 |
| 2 | + | P7 | 2 | 40 | 80 | P10 | 5 | 80 | 80 |
| 3 | – | P8 | 3 | 40 | 80 | P10 | 5 | 80 | 80 |
| 4 | + | P7 | 2 | 40 | 80 | P10 | 5 | 80 | 80 |
| 5 | – | P7 | 2 | 40 | 80 | P10 | 5 | 80 | 80 |
| 6 | + | P8 | 3 | 40 | 80 | P10 | 5 | 80 | 80 |
| Ancestor | 40 | 80 | 80 | 80 | |||||
Minimum inhibitory concentrations in μg/mL tested with the VITEK® system and the test card AST N-248 with common relevant antibiotics. Shown in bold are the differences compared to the ancestor strain (R: resistant; S = susceptible)
| Ceftazidime | Cefepime | Aztreonam | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 R | ≥ 64 | 16 R | |
| 16 R | |||
| 16 R | 16 R | ||
| Piperacillin/Tazobactam | Moxifloxacin | ||
| 8 S | 0.5 S | ||
| 0.5 S | |||
| 0.5 S |
Fermenter belonging to the RU treated group.