| Literature DB >> 34796436 |
Damini P Khawaskar1, D K Sinha2, Michael V Lalrinzuala1, V Athira3, Manish Kumar3, Lalsangzuala Chhakchhuak1, K Mohanapriya3, I Sophia3, O R Vinodh Kumar1, Pallab Chaudhuri3, B R Singh1, Prasad Thomas4.
Abstract
Neonatal calf mortality is a major concern to livestock sector worldwide. Neonatal calf diarrhoea (NCD), an acute severe condition causes morbidity and mortality in calves. Amongst various pathogens involved in NCD, E. coli is considered as one of the major causes. The study was targeted to characterize E. coli isolates from neonatal calves for diarrhoeagenic Escherichia coli (DEC) types (pathotyping), antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiling and to correlate with epidemiological parameters. From neonates, a total of 113 faecal samples were collected, out of that 308, lactose fermenting colonies were confirmed as E. coli. Pathotypable isolates (12.3%) were represented by STEC (6.1%), EPEC (2.9%), ETEC (1.9%), EAEC (0.9%) and EHEC (0.3%). Occurrence of STEC was more in non-diarrhoeic calves, whereas ETEC was observed more in diarrhoeic calves. EPEC occurrence was observed in both diarrhoeic and non-diarrhoeic calves. Fishers extract test showed no significant association for occurrence of DEC types to type of dairies, health status, species, breed, age and sex of neonatal calves. Two hundred and eighty isolates were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility. The isolates showed maximum resistance towards ampicillin (55.4%) followed by tetracycline (54.3%), while minimum resistance was observed towards meropenem (2.5%). Multidrug resistant E. coli isolates were found to be 139 (49.6%), and Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers were 120 (42.9%). DEC pathotypes like STEC, ETEC, EHEC and EAEC that are also multidrug resistant present in neonatal calves have zoonotic potential and hence are of public health significance.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial susceptibility; Diarrhoeagenic Escherichia coli (DEC); India; Neonatal calves; Pathotype
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34796436 PMCID: PMC8601779 DOI: 10.1007/s11259-021-09857-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Res Commun ISSN: 0165-7380 Impact factor: 2.816
PCR protocols used in the present study. Reaction conditions employed for pathoyping of E. coli (1), Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) detection (2), carbapenem (3) and extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) resistance gene detections (4, 5, 6, 7)
| Sr.no | Initial activation | Denaturation | Annealing | Extension | Elongation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Temperature | 95 °C | 95 °C | 63 °C | 72 °C | 72 °C | |
| Duration | 5 min | 30 s | 1:30 s | 1:30 s | 15 min | ||
| Cycles | 1 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 1 | ||
| 2 | ETEC PCR | Temperature | 94 °C | 94 °C | 57 °C | 72 °C | 72 °C |
| Duration | 4 min | 1 min | 1 min | 1:30 s | 7 min | ||
| Cycles | 1 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 1 | ||
| 3 | Carbapenem Resistance genes (Two multiplex PCR assays) | Temperature | 94 °C | 94 °C | 60 °C | 72 °C | 72 °C |
| Duration | 10 min | 30 s | 40 s | 50 s | 5 min | ||
| Cycles | 1 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 1 | ||
| 4 | AmpC | Temperature | 94 °C | 94 °C | 60 °C | 72 °C | 72 °C |
| Duration | 5 min | 1 min | 1 min | 1 min | 5 min | ||
| Cycles | 1 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 1 | ||
| 5 | TEM | Temperature | 94 °C | 94 °C | 55 °C | 72 °C | 72 °C |
| Duration | 5 min | 1 min | 1 min | 1 min | 7 min | ||
| Cycles | 1 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 1 | ||
| 6 | SHV | Temperature | 94 °C | 94 °C | 60 °C | 72 °C | 72 °C |
| Duration | 5 min | 30 s | 50 s | 50 s | 10 min | ||
| Cycles | 1 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 1 | ||
| 7 | CTX-M | Temperature | 94 °C | 94 °C | 52 °C | 72 °C | 72 °C |
| Duration | 5 min | 25 s | 1 min | 1 min | 6 min | ||
| Cycles | 1 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 1 |
Pathotype associations to health, farm and animal factors. Occurrence of diarrhoeagenic E. coli (DEC) with different factors like health, type of dairy, species and breed, sex, age group of neonatal calves. Statistically no significant difference (p = 15.68, p > 0.1) was observed in occurrence of E. coli pathotypes with different factors like, health, type of dairy, species and breed, sex, and age group of neonatal calves.
| Factors | No. | DEC (%) | STEC (%) | EPEC (%) | ETEC (%) | EAEC (%) | EHEC (%) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | Non-diarrhoeic | 151 | 17 (11.2) | 13 (8.6) | 01 (0.7) | 02 (1.3) | 01(0.7) | 0 | 0.86NS |
| Diarrhoeic | 157 | 21 (13.4) | 06 (3.8) | 08 (5.1) | 04 (2.5) | 02(1.3) | 01(0.6) | ||
| Type of dairy | Organized dairy | 100 | 10 (10.0) | 08 (8.0) | 02 (2.0) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.46NS |
| Unorganized dairy | 208 | 28 (13.5) | 11 (5.3) | 07 (3.4) | 06 (2.9) | 03(1.4) | 01 (0.5) | ||
| Species | Cattle | 176 | 24 (13.6) | 13 (7.4) | 07 (3.4) | 01 (0.6) | 03(1.7) | 0 | 0.49NS |
| Buffalo | 132 | 14 (10.6) | 06 (4.5) | 02 (1.5) | 05 (3.8) | 0 | 01 (0.7) | ||
| Breeds | Cattle Vrindavani | 34 | 03 (8.8) | 03 (8.8) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.60NS |
| Cattle Non-descript | 91 | 12 (13.2) | 02 (2.2) | 07 (7.7) | 0 | 03(3.3) | 0 | ||
| Cattle Crossbred | 51 | 09 (17.6) | 08 (15.7) | 0 | 01(1.9) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Buffalo Murrah | 120 | 13 (10.8) | 06 (5.0) | 02 (1.7) | 05 (4.2) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Buffalo Non- descript | 12 | 01 (8.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 01 (8.3) | ||
| Sex | Male | 162 | 22 (13.6) | 13 (8.0) | 4 (2.5) | 4 (2.5) | 0 | 1 (0.6) | 0.60NS |
| Female | 146 | 16 (10.9) | 06 (4.1) | 05 (3.4) | 02 (1.4) | 03(2.0) | 0 | ||
| Age group | 0-10 days | 67 | 05 (7.5) | 02 (2.9) | 02 (2.9) | 0 | 01(1.5) | 0 | 0.02* |
| 11-20 days | 90 | 19 (21.1) | 10 (11.1) | 05 (5.5) | 02 (2.2) | 02 (2.2) | 0 | ||
| 21-30 days | 151 | 13 (8.6) | 07 (4.6) | 02 (1.3) | 04 (2.6) | 0 | 01(0.7) |
NS- non significant; *- Significant at 95% confidence level
Antimicrobial resistance pattern among E. coli isolates. Antimicrobial resistance pattern with respect to type of dairy, health status and species of neonatal calves
| Antibiotics | Total Number of Resistance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of Dairy | Health Status of neonate | Species of neonatal calves | ||||
| Organized Dairies (%) | Unorganized Dairies (%) | Non-diarrhoeic (%) | Diarrhoeic (%) | Cattle (%) | Buffalo (%) | |
| AMP | 63 (64.3) | 92 (50.5) | 72 (52.2) | 83 (58.4) | 80 (54.0) | 75 (56.8) |
| CAZ | 26 (26.5) | 41 (22.5) | 38 (27.5) | 29 (20.4) | 34 (22.9) | 33 (25) |
| CTX | 44 (44.9) | 74 (40.7) | 60 (43.5) | 58 (40.8) | 64 (43.2) | 54 (40.9) |
| CIP | 42 (42.8) | 57 (31.3) | 44 (31.9) | 55(38.7) | 55 (37.2) | 44 (33.3) |
| COT | 61 (62.2) | 64 (35.2) | 61 (44.2) | 64 (45.1) | 61 (41.2) | 64 (48.5) |
| CPM | 20 (20.4) | 73 (40.1) | 46 (33.3) | 47 (33.1) | 49 (33.1) | 44 (33.3) |
| GEN | 08 (8.2) | 03 (1.6) | 07 (5.1) | 04 (2.8) | 07 (4.7) | 04 (3.0) |
| IPM | 28 (28.6) | 29 (15.9) | 32 (23.2) | 25 (17.6) | 25 (16.9) | 32 (24.2) |
| MRP | 03 (3.1) | 04 (2.2) | 06 (4.3) | 01 (0.7) | 06 (4.0) | 01 (0.8) |
| PI | 07 (7.1) | 30 (16.5) | 20 (14.5) | 17 (11.9) | 14 (9.5) | 23 (17.4) |
| PIT | 01 (1.0) | 14 (7.7) | 11 (7.9) | 04 (2.8) | 10 (6.7) | 05 (3.8) |
| SZ | 63 (64.3) | 61 (33.5) | 61 (44.2) | 63 (44.4) | 60 (40.5) | 64 (48.5) |
| TE | 54 (55.1) | 98 (53.8) | 63 (45.6) | 89 (62.7) | 78 (52.7) | 74 (56.1) |
Antimicrobial resistance among different pathotypes of diarrhoeagenic E. coli (DEC). Antimicrobial resistance observed among isolates belonging to various DEC pathotypes are represented in both number of isolates and in percentage
| Antibiotics | STEC (%) | EPEC (%) | ETEC (%) | EAEC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMP | 06 (31.6) | 05(55.5) | 00 (0) | 03 (100) |
| CAZ | 01 (5.3) | 01 (11.1) | 00 (0) | 02 (66.7) |
| CTX | 05 (26.3) | 03 (33.3) | 00 (0) | 02 (66.7) |
| CIP | 01 (5.3) | 01 (11.1) | 00 (0) | 03 (100) |
| COT | 09 (47.4) | 03 (33.3) | 00 (0) | 03 (100) |
| CPM | 00 (0) | 01 (11.1) | 00 (0) | 02 (66.7) |
| IPM | 01 (5.3) | 00 (0) | 02 (33.3) | 00 (0) |
| MRP | 00 (0) | 00 (0) | 00 (0) | 01 (33.3) |
| PI | 00 (0) | 00 (0) | 00 (0) | 02 (66.7) |
| PIT | 00 (0) | 00 (0) | 00 (0) | 02 (66.7) |
| SZ | 09 (47.4) | 03 (33.3) | 00 (0) | 03 (100) |
| TE | 12 (63.2) | 04 (44.4) | 05 (83.3) | 03 (100) |
Fig. 1ESBL resistance gene presence in E. coli isolates. ESBL resistance genes (six) and number of E. coli isolates are shown in X and Y axis respectively. Figure 1A represents ESBL resistance gene presence and Fig. 1B represents sharing of ESBL resistance genes