Roosmarijn E C Luiken1, Liese Van Gompel2, Alex Bossers3, Patrick Munk4, Philip Joosten5, Rasmus Borup Hansen6, Berith E Knudsen4, Silvia García-Cobos7, Jeroen Dewulf5, Frank M Aarestrup4, Jaap A Wagenaar8, Lidwien A M Smit2, Dik J Mevius8, Dick J J Heederik2, Heike Schmitt9. 1. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 2, 3584 CM Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: r.e.c.luiken@uu.nl. 2. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 2, 3584 CM Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 2, 3584 CM Utrecht, the Netherlands; Wageningen Bioveterinary Research, Houtribweg 39, 8221 RA Lelystad, the Netherlands. 4. Section for Genomic Epidemiology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kemitorvet 204, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark. 5. Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke, Belgium. 6. Intomics A/S, Lottenborgvej 26, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark. 7. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands. 8. Wageningen Bioveterinary Research, Houtribweg 39, 8221 RA Lelystad, the Netherlands; Dept. Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, 3584 CL Utrecht, the Netherlands. 9. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 2, 3584 CM Utrecht, the Netherlands; Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721MA Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Livestock farms are a reservoir of antimicrobial resistant bacteria from feces. Airborne dust-bound bacteria can spread across the barn and to the outdoor environment. Therefore, exposure to farm dust may be of concern for animals, farmers and neighboring residents. Although dust is a potential route of transmission, little is known about the resistome and bacterial microbiome of farm dust. OBJECTIVES: We describe the resistome and bacterial microbiome of pig and poultry farm dust and their relation with animal feces resistomes and bacterial microbiomes, and on-farm antimicrobial usage (AMU). In addition, the relation between dust and farmers' stool resistomes was explored. METHODS: In the EFFORT-study, resistomes and bacterial microbiomes of indoor farm dust collected on Electrostatic Dust fall Collectors (EDCs), and animal feces of 35 conventional broiler and 44 farrow-to-finish pig farms from nine European countries were determined by shotgun metagenomic analysis. The analysis also included 79 stool samples from farmers working or living at 12 broiler and 19 pig farms and 46 human controls. Relative abundance of and variation in resistome and bacterial composition of farm dust was described and compared to animal feces and farmers' stool. RESULTS: The farm dust resistome contained a large variety of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs); more than the animal fecal resistome. For both poultry and pigs, composition of dust resistomes finds (partly) its origin in animal feces as dust resistomes correlated significantly with fecal resistomes. The dust bacterial microbiome also correlated significantly with the dust resistome composition. A positive association between AMU in animals on the farm and the total abundance of the dust resistome was found. Occupational exposure to pig farm dust or animal feces may contribute to farmers' resistomes, however no major shifts in farmers resistome towards feces or dust resistomes were found in this study. CONCLUSION: Poultry and pig farm dust resistomes are rich and abundant and associated with the fecal resistome of the animals and the dust bacterial microbiome.
BACKGROUND: Livestock farms are a reservoir of antimicrobial resistant bacteria from feces. Airborne dust-bound bacteria can spread across the barn and to the outdoor environment. Therefore, exposure to farm dust may be of concern for animals, farmers and neighboring residents. Although dust is a potential route of transmission, little is known about the resistome and bacterial microbiome of farm dust. OBJECTIVES: We describe the resistome and bacterial microbiome of pig and poultry farm dust and their relation with animal feces resistomes and bacterial microbiomes, and on-farm antimicrobial usage (AMU). In addition, the relation between dust and farmers' stool resistomes was explored. METHODS: In the EFFORT-study, resistomes and bacterial microbiomes of indoor farm dust collected on Electrostatic Dust fall Collectors (EDCs), and animal feces of 35 conventional broiler and 44 farrow-to-finish pig farms from nine European countries were determined by shotgun metagenomic analysis. The analysis also included 79 stool samples from farmers working or living at 12 broiler and 19 pig farms and 46 human controls. Relative abundance of and variation in resistome and bacterial composition of farm dust was described and compared to animal feces and farmers' stool. RESULTS: The farm dust resistome contained a large variety of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs); more than the animal fecal resistome. For both poultry and pigs, composition of dust resistomes finds (partly) its origin in animal feces as dust resistomes correlated significantly with fecal resistomes. The dust bacterial microbiome also correlated significantly with the dust resistome composition. A positive association between AMU in animals on the farm and the total abundance of the dust resistome was found. Occupational exposure to pig farm dust or animal feces may contribute to farmers' resistomes, however no major shifts in farmers resistome towards feces or dust resistomes were found in this study. CONCLUSION: Poultry and pig farm dust resistomes are rich and abundant and associated with the fecal resistome of the animals and the dust bacterial microbiome.
Authors: Adeola Salawu-Rotimi; Pedro H Lebre; Heleen Cornelia Vos; Wolfgang Fister; Nikolaus Kuhn; Frank D Eckardt; Don A Cowan Journal: Microb Ecol Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 4.552
Authors: Rachel Gilroy; Anuradha Ravi; Maria Getino; Isabella Pursley; Daniel L Horton; Nabil-Fareed Alikhan; Dave Baker; Karim Gharbi; Neil Hall; Mick Watson; Evelien M Adriaenssens; Ebenezer Foster-Nyarko; Sheikh Jarju; Arss Secka; Martin Antonio; Aharon Oren; Roy R Chaudhuri; Roberto La Ragione; Falk Hildebrand; Mark J Pallen Journal: PeerJ Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Dongsheng Yang; Dick J J Heederik; Peter Scherpenisse; Liese Van Gompel; Roosmarijn E C Luiken; Katharina Wadepohl; Magdalena Skarżyńska; Eri Van Heijnsbergen; Inge M Wouters; Gerdit D Greve; Betty G M Jongerius-Gortemaker; Monique Tersteeg-Zijderveld; Lützen Portengen; Katharina Juraschek; Jennie Fischer; Magdalena Zając; Dariusz Wasyl; Jaap A Wagenaar; Dik J Mevius; Lidwien A M Smit; Heike Schmitt Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 5.758
Authors: Kirsty T T Kwok; Myrna M T de Rooij; Aniek B Messink; Inge M Wouters; Lidwien A M Smit; Matthew Cotten; Dick J J Heederik; Marion P G Koopmans; My V T Phan Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Oscar Mencía-Ares; Raúl Cabrera-Rubio; José Francisco Cobo-Díaz; Avelino Álvarez-Ordóñez; Manuel Gómez-García; Héctor Puente; Paul D Cotter; Fiona Crispie; Ana Carvajal; Pedro Rubio; Héctor Argüello Journal: Microbiome Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 14.650
Authors: Konstantinos Koutsoumanis; Ana Allende; Avelino Álvarez-Ordóñez; Declan Bolton; Sara Bover-Cid; Marianne Chemaly; Robert Davies; Alessandra De Cesare; Lieve Herman; Friederike Hilbert; Roland Lindqvist; Maarten Nauta; Giuseppe Ru; Marion Simmons; Panagiotis Skandamis; Elisabetta Suffredini; Héctor Argüello; Thomas Berendonk; Lina Maria Cavaco; William Gaze; Heike Schmitt; Ed Topp; Beatriz Guerra; Ernesto Liébana; Pietro Stella; Luisa Peixe Journal: EFSA J Date: 2021-06-17
Authors: Yugal R Bindari; Robert J Moore; Thi Thu Hao Van; Matthew Hilliar; Shu-Biao Wu; Stephen W Walkden-Brown; Priscilla F Gerber Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 3.240