| Literature DB >> 35324837 |
Heba A Ahmed1, Rasha M El Bayomi2, Rehab I Hamed3, Rasha A Mohsen4, Fatma A El-Gohary5, Ahmed A Hefny6, Eman Elkhawaga7, Hala M N Tolba8.
Abstract
In this study, we determined the prevalence and toxin types of antibiotic-resistant Clostridium perfringens in chicken, pigeons, camels, and humans. We investigated the inhibitory effects of AgNPs on biofilm formation ability of the isolates and the genetic relatedness of the isolates from various sources determined using RAPD-PCR. Fifty isolates were identified using PCR, and all the isolates were of type A. The cpe and cpb2 genes were detected in 12% and 56% of the isolates, respectively. The effect of AgNPs on biofilm production of six representative isolates indicated that at the highest concentration of AgNPs (100 µg/mL), the inhibition percentages were 80.8-82.8%. The RAPD-PCR patterns of the 50 C. perfringens isolates from various sources revealed 33 profiles and four clusters, and the discriminatory power of RAPD-PCR was high. Multidrug-resistant C. perfringens isolates are predominant in the study area. The inhibition of biofilm formation by C. perfringens isolates was dose-dependent, and RAPD-PCR is a promising method for studying the genetic relatedness between the isolates from various sources. This is the first report of AgNPs' anti-biofilm activity against C. perfringens from chickens, pigeons, camels, and humans, to the best of our knowledge.Entities:
Keywords: Clostridium perfringens; RAPD-PCR genotyping; biofilm inhibition; silver nanoparticles; toxinotyping
Year: 2022 PMID: 35324837 PMCID: PMC8949260 DOI: 10.3390/vetsci9030109
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Sci ISSN: 2306-7381
Figure 1Multifocal pale foci of mucosal necrosis and the lumen of intestine filled with gas bubbles in broiler Hubbard chicken (A,B). Jejunum filled with thick, brownish watery exudate in cobb broiler chicken (C,D).
Proportion and count of Clostridium perfringens isolates in chickens, pigeons, camels, and human samples.
| Species | Type of Sample | Number Examined | Number Positive | Genotyping | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
|
| Intestinal content | 50 | 10 (20%) | 10 | 0 | 9 (90%) |
| Meat | 50 | 5 (10%) | 5 | 0 | 2 (40%) | |
|
| Intestinal content | 30 | 20 (66.7%) | 20 | 0 | 4 (20%) |
|
| Diarrheic feces | 50 | 9 (18%) | 9 | 3 (33.3%) | 7 (77.8%) |
| Meat | 50 | 2 (4%) | 2 | 1 (50%) | 2 (100%) | |
|
| Diarrheic stool | 100 | 4 (4%) | 4 | 2 (50%) | 4 (100%) |
cpa+, cpe+ and cpb2+ are calculated from the number positive.
Figure 2Heat map representation of virulence, biofilm, and antimicrobial resistance profiles of C. perfringens isolates recovered from chicken, pigeon, camels, and human consumers. CT: chicken intestine, CM: chicken meat, PT: pigeon intestine, CF: camel feces, CA: camel meat, HU: human stool, M: moderate, S: strong, W: weak, MAR: multiple antibiotic resistance. Penicillin (PEN), ampicillin (AMP), amoxicillin (AMX), ampicillin-sulbactam (SAM), clindamycin (CLI), metronidazole (MTZ), imipenem (IPM), meropenem (MEM), chloramphenicol (CHL), tetracycline (TET), cefotaxime (CTX), cefoxitin (FOX), and ceftriaxone (CRO). R: resistant, S: sensitive.
Antibiotic susceptibility of 50 Clostridium perfringens isolates from chicken, pigeons, camels, and human sources.
| Antibiotic Class | Antimicrobial Agent (Abbreviation) | S | R |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Penicillin (PEN) | 9 (18%) | 41 (82%) |
| Ampicillin (AMP) | 37 (74%) | 13 (26%) | |
|
| Amoxicillin (AMX) | 37 (74%) | 13 (26%) |
| Ampicillin-sulbactam (SAM) | 37 (74%) | 13 (26%) | |
|
| Clindamycin (CLI) | 3 (6%) | 47 (94%) |
|
| Metronidazole (MTZ) | 43 (86%) | 7 (14%) |
|
| Vancomycin (VAN) | 50 (100%) | 0 |
|
| Imipenem (IPM) | 25 (50%) | 25 (50%) |
| Meropenem (MEM) | 22 (44%) | 28 (56%) | |
|
| Chloramphenicole (CHL) | 3 (6%) | 47 (94%) |
|
| Tetracycline (TET) | 27 (54%) | 23 (46%) |
|
| Cefotaxime (CTX) | 7 (14%) | 43 (86%) |
| Cefoxitin (FOX) | 7 (14%) | 43 (86%) | |
| Ceftriaxone (CRO) | 7 (14%) | 43 (86%) |
Toxin type, biofilm category, and antimicrobial resistance profiles of 50 Clostridium perfringens isolates from chicken, pigeons, camels, and human sources.
| ID | Source | Virulence Profile | Biofilm Category | Resistance Pattern | MAR Index | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| CT1 | CT | + | - | + | W | PEN | - |
| CT4 | CT | + | - | + | W | PEN | - |
| CT7 | CT | + | - | + | W | PEN-MEM | - |
| CT11 | CT | + | - | + | S | PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-MTZ-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO * | 0.9 |
| CT13 | CT | + | - | + | S | PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO * | 0.8 |
| CT18 | CT | + | - | + | M | PEN-IPM-MEM-CLI-MTZ-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.6 |
| CT21 | CT | + | - | + | M | MEM-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| CT25 | CT | + | - | + | M | PEN-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.5 |
| CT29 | CT | + | - | + | M | PEN-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.6 |
| CT48 | CT | + | - | - | M | CLI-CHL | - |
| CM7 | CM | + | - | - | M | PEN-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.5 |
| CM13 | CM | + | - | + | M | CLI-CLI-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.3 |
| CM18 | CM | + | - | - | S | PEN-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-MTZ-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO * | 0.7 |
| CM25 | CM | + | - | + | M | PEN-IPM-CLI-CHL | 0.28 |
| CM48 | CM | + | - | - | M | TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 04 |
| PT1 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.5 |
| PT2 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.5 |
| PT3 | PT | + | - | + | M | PEN-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| PT4 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| PT5 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.6 |
| PT6 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| PT8 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| PT11 | PT | + | - | - | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.8 |
| PT12 | PT | + | - | + | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.8 |
| PT14 | PT | + | - | - | M | TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| PT15 | PT | + | - | + | M | CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.3 |
| PT16 | PT | + | - | + | M | CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.3 |
| PT20 | PT | + | - | - | M | CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.3 |
| PT21 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| PT22 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| PT26 | PT | + | - | - | M | IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.57 |
| PT27 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-CLI-CHL | 0.2 |
| PT28 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-IPM-MEM-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.57 |
| PT29 | PT | + | - | - | M | PEN-MEM-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.5 |
| PT30 | PT | + | - | - | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.8 |
| CF8 | CF | + | - | + | M | PEN-CLI-CHL | 0.2 |
| CF13 | CF | + | - | - | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-MTZ-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.9 |
| CF16 | CF | + | - | - | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.8 |
| CF17 | CF | + | - | + | M | PEN-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| CF18 | CF | + | - | + | M | PEN-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.4 |
| CF21 | CF | + | + | + | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.8 |
| CF22 | CF | + | - | + | M | PEN-IPM-MEM-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.57 |
| CF28 | CF | + | + | + | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.8 |
| CF31 | CF | + | + | + | M | PEN-IPM-MEM-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.57 |
| CA38 | CA | + | - | + | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-MTZ-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.9 |
| CA49 | CA | + | + | + | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.8 |
| HU11 | HU | + | - | + | M | PEN-IPM-MEM-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.57 |
| HU19 | HU | + | + | + | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-MTZ-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.9 |
| HU38 | HU | + | - | + | M | PEN-IPM-MEM-CLI-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO | 0.57 |
| HU47 | HU | + | + | + | S | (PEN-AMP-AMX-SAM-IPM-MEM-TET-CLI-MTZ-CHL-CTX-FOX-CRO) * | 0.9 |
CT: chicken intestine, CM: chicken meat, PT: pigeon intestine, CF: camel feces, CA: camel meat, HU: human stool, M: moderate, S: strong, W: weak, MAR: multiple antibiotic resistance. Penicillin (PEN), ampicillin (AMP), amoxicillin (AMX), ampicillin-sulbactam (SAM), clindamycin (CLI), metronidazole (MTZ), imipenem (IPM), meropenem (MEM), chloramphenicol (CHL), tetracycline (TET), cefotaxime (CTX), cefoxitin (FOX), and ceftriaxone (CRO). * XDR isolates (extensively resistant isolates).
Qualitative estimation of color intensity of biofilm formation by tube method in absence and presence of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) at different concentrations on Clostridium perfringens isolates.
| Isolate | Positive Control | Negative Control | AgNP Concentrations (µg/mL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 50 | 75 | 100 | |||
|
| ++++ | - | +++ | ++ | + | - |
|
| ++++ | - | +++ | ++ | + | - |
|
| ++++ | - | +++ | + | - | - |
|
| ++++ | - | +++ | ++ | + | - |
|
| ++++ | - | +++ | ++ | + | - |
|
| ++++ | - | +++ | ++ | + | - |
CT: chicken intestine, CM: chicken meat, PT: pigeon intestine, CF: camel feces, CA: camel meat, HU: human stool.
Figure 3Percent inhibition of biofilm formation by various concentrations of AgNPs against Clostridium perfringens. The absorbance was measured at 620 nm for the quantification of biofilm formation. CT: chicken intestine, CM: chicken meat, PT: pigeon intestine, CF: camel feces, CA: camel meat, HU: human stool.
Figure 4Dendrogram showing the relatedness of C. perfringens isolated from different sources as determined by RAPD-PCR fingerprinting using the SPSS computer software program. (CT: chicken intestine, CM: chicken meat, PT: pigeon intestine, CF: camel feces, CA: camel meat, HU: human stool).