| Literature DB >> 34068153 |
Emi Nishimura1, Masateru Nishiyama2, Kei Nukazawa1, Yoshihiro Suzuki1.
Abstract
Information on the actual existence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in rivers where sewage, urban wastewater, and livestock wastewater do not load is essential to prevent the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in water environments. This study compared the antibiotic resistance profile of Escherichia coli upstream and downstream of human habitation. The survey was conducted in the summer, winter, and spring seasons. Resistance to one or more antibiotics at upstream and downstream sites was on average 18% and 20%, respectively, and no significant difference was observed between the survey sites. The resistance rates at the upstream site (total of 98 isolated strains) to each antibiotic were cefazolin 17%, tetracycline 12%, and ampicillin 8%, in descending order. Conversely, for the downstream site (total of 89 isolated strains), the rates were ampicillin 16%, cefazolin 16%, and tetracycline 1% in descending order. The resistance rate of tetracycline in the downstream site was significantly lower than that of the upstream site. Furthermore, phylogenetic analysis revealed that many strains showed different resistance profiles even in the same cluster of the Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) pattern. Moreover, the resistance profiles differed in the same cluster of the upstream and the downstream sites. In flowing from the upstream to the downstream site, it is plausible that E. coli transmitted or lacked the antibiotic resistance gene.Entities:
Keywords: PFGE similarity; antibiotic-resistant E. coli; multidrug resistance; pristine river; river
Year: 2021 PMID: 34068153 PMCID: PMC8152993 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10050575
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1Sampling sites of pristine upstream and human-impacted downstream at the Kaeda River in southern Japan, with distribution of major land use classifications.
Water qualities and bacterial counts at each site during survey period.
| Parameter | Pristine Upstream | Human-Impacted Downstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29 Jul., 2016 | 26 Dec., 2016 | 6 Apr., 2017 | 29 Jul., 2016 | 26 Dec., 2016 | 6 Apr., 2017 | |
| Water temp (°C) | 21.2 | 11.2 | 12.6 | 28.3 | 12.4 | 14.2 |
| DO (mg/L) | 8.4 | 9.9 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 10 | 9.7 |
| pH (-) | 6.4 | 6.5 | 6.3 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 6.5 |
| EC (μS/cm) | 62 | 110 | 60 | 93 | 98 | 81 |
| Turbidity (kaolin unit) | 1.1 | 0.12 | 0.42 | 1.2 | 0.28 | 1.0 |
| TOC (mg-C/L) | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.46 |
| Total coliform (CFU/100 mL) | (7.8 ± 1.4) * × 102 | (2.2 ± 0.5) × 102 | (3.0 ± 0.2) × 102 | (1.6 ± 0.3) × 103 | (7.2 ± 0.9) × 102 | (8.0 ± 0.4) × 102 |
| (1.8 ± 0.2) × 101 | 2 ± 2 | (1.3 ± 0.1) × 101 | (3.7 ± 1.7) × 101 | (8.0 ± 1.6) × 101 | (4.3 ± 1.9) × 101 | |
| Enterococci (CFU/100 mL) | (3.6 ± 1.7) × 101 | 5 ± 0.1 | 5 ± 0.3 | (5.3 ± 0.4) × 101 | (1.5 ± 0.3) × 101 | 7 ± 4 |
* mean ± SD (standard deviation), n = 3.
Antibiotic resistance rate of E. coli during survey period.
| Sampling Point | Pristine Upstream (98 Isolates) | Human-Impacted Downstream (89 Isolates) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 29 Jul., 2016 | 26 Dec., 2016 | 6 Apr., 2017 | Total | 29 Jul., 2016 | 26 Dec., 2016 | 6 Apr., 2017 | Total |
| Resistance rate (%) | 46 | 4 | 5 | 18 | 31 | 5 | 23 | 23 |
| (Isolates) | (15/33) | (1/22) | (2/41) | (18/98) | (12/39) | (1/19) | (7/31) | (20/89) |
Figure 2Percentages of one to three antibiotics-resistant strains to each site collected from the pristine upstream and human-impacted downstream sites.
Antibiotic susceptibility of E. coli isolates from Kaeda River.
| Group | Antimicrobial Agent | MIC Test Range (μg/mL) | Pristine Upstream (98 Isolates) | Human-Impacted Downstream (89 Isolates) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Susceptible | Intermediate | Rsistant | MIC50 (μg/mL) | MIC90 (μg/mL) | Susceptible | Intermediate | Rsistant | MIC50 (μg/mL) | MIC90 (μg/mL) | |||
| No. Isolates (% Isolates) | No. Isolates (% Isolates) | |||||||||||
| Penicillins | ABPC | 0.25–128 | 89 (91%) | 1 (1%) | 8 (8%) | 2 | 8 | 69 (78%) | 5 (6%) | 15 (16%) | 2 | 64 |
| Cephem | CEZ | 0.0625–32 | 67 (68%) | 14 (14%) | 17 (17%) | 1 | 32 | 58 (65%) | 17 (19%) | 14 (16%) | 1 | 16 |
| CTX | 0.03–16 | 98 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.03 | 0.25 | 89 (100%) | 0 (%) | 0 (%) | 0.03 | 0.125 | |
| Aminoglycosides | GM | 0.125–64 | 98 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 | 2 | 89 (100%) | 0 (%) | 0 (%) | 0.5 | 2 |
| TOB | 0.125–64 | 98 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.5 | 2 | 89 (100%) | 0 (%) | 0 (%) | 0.5 | 2 | |
| Carbapenems | IPM | 0.03–16 | 97 (99%) | 1 (1%) | 0 (0%) | 0.06 | 0.5 | 86 (97%) | 3 (3%) | 0 (%) | 0.06 | 0.25 |
| Fluoroquinolons | CPFX | 0.03–16 | 98 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | — | 0.03 | 86 (97%) | 3 (3%) | 0 (%) | — | 0.03 |
| Tetracyclines | TC | 0.125–64 | 86 (88%) | 0 (0%) | 12 (12%) | 2 | 8 | 88 (99%) | 0 (%) | 1 (1%) | 4 | 8 |
| Chloramphenicols | CP | 0.25–128 | 96 (98%) | 2 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 | 32 | 89 (100%) | 0 (%) | 0 (%) | 1 | 4 |
Patterns of antibiotic resistance profiles.
| Year | Sampling Date | Sampling Point ( | Resistance Profile | Number of Isolates (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 29 Jul. | Upstream | Susceptibility | 18 (55%) |
| (Summer) | ( | TC | 1 (3%) | |
| ABPC-CEZ | 3 (9%) | |||
| CEZ-TC | 7 (21%) | |||
| ABPC-CEZ-TC | 4 (12%) | |||
| Downstream | Susceptibility | 27 (69%) | ||
| ( | ABPC | 6 (15%) | ||
| CEZ | 1 (4%) | |||
| ABPC-CEZ | 4 (10%) | |||
| CEZ-TC | 1 (3%) | |||
| 2016 | 26 Dec. | Upstream | Susceptibility | 23 (96%) |
| (Winter) | ( | ABPC | 1 (4%) | |
| Downstream | Not examined | 18 (95%) | ||
| ( | CEZ | 1 (5%) | ||
| 2017 | 6 Apr. | Upstream | Susceptibility | 39 (95%) |
| (Spring) | ( | CEZ | 1 (2%) | |
| ABPC-CEZ | 1 (2%) | |||
| Down stream | Susceptibility | 24 (77%) | ||
| ( | ABPC | 1 (3%) | ||
| CEZ | 3 (10%) | |||
| ABPC-CEZ | 2 (7%) | |||
| ABPC-CEZ-TC | 1 (3%) |
Figure 3Dendrograms of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis types and antibiotic resistance profiles for E. coli isolates from each sampling site in the Kaeda River. Concerning antibiotic resistance phenotypes: red indicates resistance, yellow indicates intermediate resistance, and white indicates susceptibility. Ampicillin, ABPC; cefazolin, CEZ; cefotaxime CTX; chloramphenicol, CP; ciprofloxacin, CPFX; tetracycline, TC; imipenem, IPM; gentamicin, GM; tobramycin, TOB.