| Literature DB >> 34194507 |
Rita Ohene Larbi1,2, Linda Aurelia Ofori1, Augustina Angelina Sylverken1,3, Matilda Ayim-Akonor2, Kwasi Obiri-Danso1.
Abstract
Globally, resistance to antimicrobial drugs in food animals is on the rise. Escherichia coli of livestock, though commensal in nature, serves as reservoir for antimicrobial resistance genes with the potential of disseminating them. This study sought to examine the antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli in broilers, pigs, and cattle in the Kumasi Metropolis and undertake molecular characterisation of the resistances. Faecal E. coli isolates (n = 48) were obtained from 10 broiler farms, (n = 43) from 15 pig farms, and (n = 42) from cattle from the Kumasi Abattoir using standard bacteriological techniques. The Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method was employed in testing the sensitivities of 133 E. coli isolates to 15 antimicrobials. All 48 isolates from broilers presented no resistance to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and ceftiofur. A 100% resistance to meropenem was observed in pig and cattle isolates. Multidrug resistance (MDR) across animal groups was 95.8% (n = 46), 95.3% (n = 41), and 64.3% (n = 27) for broilers, pigs, and cattle, respectively. Twenty-eight isolates presenting phenotypic resistance to aminopenicillins and cephalosporins were screened for the presence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) genes by PCR. One isolate from poultry and another from cattle tested positive for the blaCTX-M ESBL gene. There were no positives for the blaTEM and blaSHV ESBL genes. Commensal E. coli of food animal origin represents an important reservoir of antimicrobial resistance that transfers resistance to pathogenic and nonpathogenic microbes affecting humans and animals. There is an urgent need to institute routine surveillance for the establishment of the mechanisms and molecular orientation of resistance in these organisms.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34194507 PMCID: PMC8203396 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5158185
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Microbiol
Antimicrobial resistance of faecal E. coli from broilers (n = 48).
| Code | Antimicrobial name | %R | %I | %S |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCY | Tetracycline | 95.7 | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| SSS | Sulfonamides | 95.7 | 0 | 4.3 |
| TMP | Trimethoprim | 93.6 | 0 | 6.4 |
| STR | Streptomycin | 89.4 | 10.6 | 0 |
| AMP | Ampicillin | 80.9 | 4.3 | 14.9 |
| NAL | Nalidixic acid | 61.7 | 14.9 | 23.4 |
| CIP | Ciprofloxacin | 23.4 | 17 | 59.6 |
| AMC | Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid | 0 | 29.8 | 70.2 |
| TIO | Ceftiofur | 0 | 2.1 | 97.9 |
R, resistant; I, intermediate; S, susceptible.
Resistance profiles of broiler faecal E. coli.
| Resistance profile | % isolates ( |
|---|---|
| AMP; STR; TCY; SSS; CIP/NAL; TMP | 25.5 |
| AMP; STR; TCY; SSS; TMP; NAL | 17.0 |
| AMP; STR; AMC; TCY; SSS; TMP; NAL | 10.6 |
| AMP; STR; AMC; TCY; SSS; CIP/NAL; TMP | 10.6 |
| AMP; STR; TCY; SSS; TMP | 10.6 |
| AMP; STR; AMC; TCY; SSS; TMP | 4.3 |
| STR; TCY; SSS; CIP/NAL; TMP | 4.3 |
| STR; TCY; SSS; TMP; NAL | 4.3 |
| STR; TCY | 4.3 |
| AMP; STR; TIO; TCY; SSS; TMP; NAL | 2.1 |
| AMP; STR; AMC; SSS; TMP; NAL | 2.1 |
| AMP; STR; AMC; TCY; SSS | 2.1 |
| STR; TCY; SSS; TMP | 2.1 |
Antimicrobial resistance of faecal E. coli from pigs (n = 43) and cattle (n = 42).
| Code | Antimicrobial name | %R | %I | %S | %R | %I | %S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEM | Meropenem | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| AMP | Ampicillin | 95.3 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 54.8 | 4.8 | 40.5 |
| TCY | Tetracycline | 44.2 | 16.3 | 39.5 | 26.2 | 33.3 | 40.5 |
| CXM | Cefuroxime | 37.2 | 53.5 | 9.3 | 11.9 | 14.3 | 73.8 |
| SXT | Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole | 11.6 | 2.3 | 86 | 9.5 | 0 | 90.5 |
| CHL | Chloramphenicol | 9.3 | 14 | 76.7 | 7.1 | 9.5 | 83.3 |
| GEN | Gentamicin | 7 | 2.3 | 90.7 | 4.8 | 16.7 | 78.6 |
| CTX | Cefotaxime | 7 | 30.2 | 62.8 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 92.9 |
| CIP | Ciprofloxacin | 2.3 | 0 | 97.7 | 2.4 | 0 | 97.6 |
| AMK | Amikacin | 0 | 4.7 | 95.3 | 0 | 7.1 | 92.9 |
| CRO | Ceftriaxone | 0 | 4.7 | 95.3 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
R, resistant; I, intermediate; S, susceptible.
Resistance profiles of pig faecal E. coli.
| Resistance profile | % isolates ( |
|---|---|
| MEM; AMP; CXM | 18.6 |
| MEM; TCY; AMP; CXM | 18.6 |
| MEM; SXT; TCY; CTX; AMP; CXM | 9.3 |
| MEM; TCY; CTX; AMP; CXM; CHL | 9.3 |
| MEM; TCY; CTX; AMP; CXM | 9.3 |
| MEM; TCY; AMP; CXM; CHL | 4.7 |
| MEM; GEN; AMP; CXM | 4.7 |
| MEM; AMP | 4.7 |
| MEM; CTX; AMP; CHL | 2.3 |
| MEM; SXT; AMP; CXM | 2.3 |
| MEM; SXT; TCY; AMP | 2.3 |
| MEM; AMK; AMP; CXM | 2.3 |
| MEM; TCY; GEN; AMP; CXM | 2.3 |
| MEM; CIP; AMP; CXM; CHL | 2.3 |
| MEM; GEN; CTX; CRO; CXM; CHL | 2.3 |
| MEM; TCY; CTX; CRO; AMP; CXM | 2.3 |
| MEM; AMK; TCY; CTX; AMP; CXM; CHL | 2.3 |
Resistance profiles of cattle faecal E. coli.
| Resistance profile | % isolates ( |
|---|---|
| MEM; AMP | 14.3 |
| MEM | 9.5 |
| MEM; CXM | 9.5 |
| MEM; AMP; CXM | 9.5 |
| MEM; TCY; CXM | 7.1 |
| MEM; CXM; CHL | 4.8 |
| MEM; TCY; AMP | 4.8 |
| MEM; CTX; AMP; CXM | 4.8 |
| MEM; TCY | 2.4 |
| MEM; AMP; CHL | 2.4 |
| MEM; CRO; AMP | 2.4 |
| MEM; CTX; CXM | 2.4 |
| MEM; TCY; CTX | 2.4 |
| MEM; AMK; CXM | 2.4 |
| MEM; AMP; CXM; CHL | 2.4 |
| MEM; GEN; AMP; CXM | 2.4 |
| MEM; TCY; AMP; CXM | 2.4 |
| MEM; AMK; AMP; CXM; CHL | 2.4 |
| MEM; AMK; CTX; AMP; CXM | 2.4 |
| MEM; SXT; GEN; CTX; AMP; CHL | 2.4 |
| MEM; SXT; TCY; CTX; AMP; CXM | 2.4 |
| MEM; SXT; TCY; CTX; AMP; CXM; CHL | 2.4 |
| MEM; SXT; TCY; GEN; CTX; AMP; CXM | 2.4 |
Figure 1Comparison of percentage multidrug resistance for the three animal groups. Classes tested are penicillins, quinolones, fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, macrolides, cephalosporins, phenicols, folate pathway inhibitors, and tetracyclines.