| Literature DB >> 32082542 |
Elvira Ramovic1, Gillian Madigan1, Shannon McDonnell1, Denise Griffin1, Elaine Bracken1, Eadaoin NiGhallchoir1, Emma Quinless1, Aoife Galligan1, John Egan1, Deirdre M Prendergast1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dairy and beef cattle can be reservoirs of many pathogens, including Salmonella and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP), the causative agent of Johne's disease (JD). Farm environments may provide potential entry points for the transmission of infectious agents into the food chain. Antibiotics are used to treat a wide variety of infections on farms, and administration of antimicrobial agents to cattle is considered to be a driving factor for antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Control of JD and AMR are priority for animal health initiatives in Ireland. A national JD pilot programme was introduced by Animal Health Ireland in 2014, while the national action plan launched by Department of Health and Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine introduced in 2017 aims to improve the surveillance of AMR. The current investigation was undertaken as a pilot study to determine the proportion of herds positive for MAP, Salmonella species (Salmonella spp), commensal Escherichia coli (E. coli), Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) AmpC β-lactamase and carbapenemase-producing E. coli from 157 environmental faecal samples in Irish farms.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance; E. coli; ESBL; MAP; Salmonella
Year: 2020 PMID: 32082542 PMCID: PMC7024553 DOI: 10.1186/s13620-020-0156-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ir Vet J ISSN: 0368-0762 Impact factor: 2.146
Environmental screening results of dairy and beef herds using culture and direct PCR assays
| Province | Herd Type Dairy / Beef | Number of positive herds by Culture / PCR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dairya | Beefb | ||
| Munster | 37/29 | 2/6 | 0/3 |
| Leinster | 18/12 | 0/0 | 0/1 |
| Connacht | 9/15 | 0/1 | 0/1 |
| Ulster | 14/19 | 2/3 | 0/0 |
| Totalc | 78/75 | 4/10 | 0/5 |
aThree herds were recorded negative on both culture and PCR
bOne herd was recorded positive on both culture and PCR
cAdditional four herds were screened with unknown geographical location
AMR profile of 111 commensal E. coli isolated from farm environmental samples
| AMR Profile | Number of Isolates |
|---|---|
| Fully susceptible | 101 |
| Ampa, Chlb, Smxc, Tetd | 4 |
| Amp, Smx, Tet | 4 |
| Amp, Chl, Cipe, Nalf | 1 |
| Smx, Tet | 1 |
aAmpicillin
bChloramphenicol
cSulphamethoxazole
dTetracycline
eCiprofloxacin
fNalidixic acid
AMR profile of 27 presumptive ESBL AmpC β-lactamase E. coli isolated from farm environmental samples
| AMR profile EUVSEC | EUVSEC 2 | Final Interpretationa | Number of Isolates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amp Ctx Caz Cip Nal Smx Tet Tmp | Fep Ctx Caz | Presumptive ESBL | 1 |
| Amp Ctx Caz | Fep Ctx Fox Caz | Presumptive ESBL | 1 |
| Amp Ctx Caz Chl Cip Nal Smx Tet Tmp | Fep Ctx Caz | Presumptive ESBL | 3 |
| Amp Ctx Caz Cip Nal Smx Tet Tmp | Fep Ctx Caz | Presumptive ESBL | 1 |
| Amp Ctx Caz Chl Cip Nal Smx Tmp | Fep Ctx Caz | Presumptive ESBL | 2 |
| Amp Ctx Caz | Ctx Caz | Presumptive ESBL | 1 |
| Amp Ctx Caz | Fep Ctx Fox Caz Etp | Presumptive ESBL + pAmpC | 1 |
| Amp Ctx Caz | Fep Ctx Fox Caz | Presumptive ESBL + pAmpC | 1 |
| Amp Ctx Caz Chl Cip Nal Smx Tet Tmp | Fep Ctx Fox Caz | Presumptive ESBL + pAmpC | 1 |
| Amp Ctx Caz | Ctx Fox Caz | Presumptive pAmpC | 1 |
| Amp Ctx Caz Chl Cip Gen Nal Smx Tet Tmp | Ctx Fox Caz | Presumptive pAmpC | 1 |
| Amp Ctx Caz Chl Cip Gen Nal Smx Tmp | Ctx Fox Caz | Presumptive pAmpC | 2 |
| Amp Ctx Caz Chl Cip Nal Smx Tet Tmp | Ctx Fox Caz | Presumptive pAmpC | 3 |
| Amp Ctx Caz Smx Tet | Ctx Fox Caz | Presumptive pAmpC | 8 |
aInterpretation based on EFSA recommendations