BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a serious concern. Although the widespread use of antimicrobials in livestock has exacerbated the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARG) in farm environments, little is known about whether antimicrobial use affects distribution of ARG in livestock systems. This study compared the distribution of microbiomes and resistomes (collections of ARG) across different farm sectors in dairy herds that differed in their use of antimicrobials. Feces from heifers, non-lactating, and lactating cows, manure storage, and soil from three conventional (antimicrobials used to treat cows) and three organic (no antimicrobials used for at least four years) farms in Pennsylvania were sampled. Samples were extracted for genomic DNA, processed, sequenced on the Illumina NextSeq platform, and analyzed for microbial community and resistome profiles using established procedures. RESULTS: Microbial communities and resistome profiles clustered by sample type across all farms. Overall, abundance and diversity of ARG in feces was significantly higher in conventional herds compared to organic herds. The ARG conferring resistance to betalactams, macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin (MLS), and tetracyclines were significantly higher in fecal samples of dairy cows from conventional herds compared to organic herds. Regardless of farm type, all manure storage samples had greater diversity (albeit low abundance) of ARG conferring resistance to aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, MLS, multidrug resistance, and phenicol. All soil samples had lower abundance of ARG compared to feces, manure, and lagoon samples and were comprised of ARG conferring resistance to aminoglycosides, glycopeptides, and multi-drug resistance. The distribution of ARG is likely driven by the composition of microbiota in the respective sample types. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial use on farms significantly influenced specific groups of ARG in feces but not in manure storage or soil samples.
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a serious concern. Although the widespread use of antimicrobials in livestock has exacerbated the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARG) in farm environments, little is known about whether antimicrobial use affects distribution of ARG in livestock systems. This study compared the distribution of microbiomes and resistomes (collections of ARG) across different farm sectors in dairy herds that differed in their use of antimicrobials. Feces from heifers, non-lactating, and lactating cows, manure storage, and soil from three conventional (antimicrobials used to treat cows) and three organic (no antimicrobials used for at least four years) farms in Pennsylvania were sampled. Samples were extracted for genomic DNA, processed, sequenced on the Illumina NextSeq platform, and analyzed for microbial community and resistome profiles using established procedures. RESULTS: Microbial communities and resistome profiles clustered by sample type across all farms. Overall, abundance and diversity of ARG in feces was significantly higher in conventional herds compared to organic herds. The ARG conferring resistance to betalactams, macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin (MLS), and tetracyclines were significantly higher in fecal samples of dairy cows from conventional herds compared to organic herds. Regardless of farm type, all manure storage samples had greater diversity (albeit low abundance) of ARG conferring resistance to aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, MLS, multidrug resistance, and phenicol. All soil samples had lower abundance of ARG compared to feces, manure, and lagoon samples and were comprised of ARG conferring resistance to aminoglycosides, glycopeptides, and multi-drug resistance. The distribution of ARG is likely driven by the composition of microbiota in the respective sample types. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial use on farms significantly influenced specific groups of ARG in feces but not in manure storage or soil samples.
Authors: Thomas P Van Boeckel; Charles Brower; Marius Gilbert; Bryan T Grenfell; Simon A Levin; Timothy P Robinson; Aude Teillant; Ramanan Laxminarayan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Lisa Scott; Paula Menzies; Richard J Reid-Smith; Brent P Avery; Scott A McEwen; Catherine S Moon; Olaf Berke Journal: Can J Vet Res Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 1.310
Authors: Yong-Guan Zhu; Timothy A Johnson; Jian-Qiang Su; Min Qiao; Guang-Xia Guo; Robert D Stedtfeld; Syed A Hashsham; James M Tiedje Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Manal AbuOun; Heather M O'Connor; Emma J Stubberfield; Javier Nunez-Garcia; Ellie Sayers; Derick W Crook; Richard P Smith; Muna F Anjum Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Noelle R Noyes; Xiang Yang; Lyndsey M Linke; Roberta J Magnuson; Shaun R Cook; Rahat Zaheer; Hua Yang; Dale R Woerner; Ifigenia Geornaras; Jessica A McArt; Sheryl P Gow; Jaime Ruiz; Kenneth L Jones; Christina A Boucher; Tim A McAllister; Keith E Belk; Paul S Morley Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 4.379