| Literature DB >> 36147637 |
Laiba Shafique1,2, Amjad Islam Aqib3, Qin Liang4, Chaobin Qin2, Muhammad Muddassir Ali5, Memoona Adil5, Zaeem Sarwar6, Arslan Saleem7, Muhammad Ajmal8, Alveena Khan9, Hongping Pan2, Kuiqing Cui1,2, Qingyou Liu1,2.
Abstract
Staphylococcus aureus is emerging as a ubiquitous multidrug-resistant pathogen circulating among animals, humans, and their environment. The current study focused on molecular epidemiology and evidence-based treatment against S. aureus from bovine endometritis. For this study, n = 304 cattle were screened for endometritis using ultrasonography while presenting case history, and clinical signs were also considered. S. aureus was isolated from endometritis-positive uterine samples which were further put to molecular identification, phylogenetic analysis, susceptibility to antibiotics, and testing of novel drug combinations in both in vitro and field trials. The findings of the study revealed 78.20% of bovine endometritis samples positive for S. aureus, while nuc gene-based genotyping of S. aureus thermal nuclease (SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3) showed close relatedness with S. aureus thermal nuclease of Bos taurus. Drug combinations showed 5.00 to 188.88% rise in zones of inhibitions (ZOI) for drugs used in combination compared to the drugs used alone. Gentamicin in combination with amoxicillin and enrofloxacin with metronidazol showed synergistic interactions in an in vitro trial. Co-amoxiclav with gentamicin, gentamicin with enrofloxacin, and metronidazole with enrofloxacin showed 100%, 80%, and 60% efficacy in treating clinical cases in field trials, respectively. As a result, the study came to the conclusion the higher prevalence of endometritis-based S. aureus, genetic host shifts, narrow options for single drugs, and need for novel drug combinations to treat clinical cases.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36147637 PMCID: PMC9489358 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6240711
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Tracking burden of (a) S. aureus from endometritis and (b) MRSA from different dairy farms (each circle is showing one dairy farm). In the second map (b) there are 9 farms as one farm in the first map (a) did not show S. aureus.
Figure 2Clinical identification of animals having endometritis through (a, b) ultrasonography and (c) abnormal secretions. (a) EL = endometrial lining; E = endometritis in the form of swelling of the lining; PM = pus material; (b) EL = endometrial lining; E = endometritis in the form of an inflamed wall; (c) red arrows point out pus material from uterine material.
Figure 3Molecular identification of S. aureus. M = marker 1000 bp; +VE = positive control wells 1–8 samples.
Figure 4Molecular identification of methicillin-resistant S. aureus. M = marker leader 1000 bp, 1–9 wells were samples at 310 bp; positive control = +ve; negative control = −ve.
The prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
| Farm name | Prevalence of endometritis |
| MRSA (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of animals screened | Endometritis positive | Prevalence | Confidence interval |
|
| Confidence interval | MRSA positive | MRSA | Confidence interval | |
| (A) | (B) | ( | -95% | (C) | ( | -95% | (D) | ( | -95% | |
| (A) | 27 | 9 | 33.33 | 18.64-52.17 | 5 | 55.55 | 26.67-81.13 | 2 | 40 | 11.76–76.93 |
| (B) | 27 | 8 | 29.63 | 15.85–48.48 | 8 | 100 | 67.56–100 | 1 | 12.5 | 2.24–47.09 |
| (C) | 18 | 8 | 44.44 | 24.56–66.28 | 4 | 50 | 21.52–78.48 | 0 | 0 | — |
| (D) | 34 | 14 | 41.18 | 26.37–57.78 | 14 | 100 | 78.47–100 | 6 | 42.86 | 21.38–67.41 |
| (E) | 54 | 26 | 48.15 | 35.4–61.15 | 24 | 92.31 | 75.86–97.87 | 7 | 29.17 | 14.92–49.17 |
| (F) | 12 | 5 | 41.67 | 19.33–68.05 | 3 | 60 | 23.07–88.24 | 1 | 33.33 | 6.15–79.23 |
| (G) | 28 | 13 | 46.43 | 29.53–64.19 | 10 | 76.92 | 49.74–91.82 | 1 | 10 | 1.79–40.41 |
| (H) | 48 | 26 | 54.17 | 40.29–67.43 | 20 | 76.92 | 57.95–88.96 | 6 | 30 | 14.55–5.19 |
| (I) | 38 | 16 | 42.10 | 27.86–57.81 | 16 | 100 | 80.64–100 | 4 | 25 | 10.98–4.15 |
| (J) | 18 | 8 | 44.44 | 24.56–66.28 | 0 | 0 | 0.00–32.44 | 0 | 0 | — |
|
| 304 | 133 |
| 104 | 78.20 | 28 | 26.92 | |||
Risk factors associated with methicillin-resistant S. aureus isolated from bovine endometritis.
| Parameter | Categories | Total | Positive | % age |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calving history | Dystocia | 81 | 18 | 22.22 | 0.879 |
| Abortion | 4 | 1 | 25 | ||
| Eutocia | 48 | 9 | 18.75 | ||
|
| |||||
| Milk yield/day | 10–20 | 38 | 8 | 21.05 | 0.956 |
| 21–30 | 56 | 12 | 21.42 | ||
| 31–40 | 26 | 6 | 23.07 | ||
| 41–50 | 13 | 2 | 15.38 | ||
|
| |||||
| Days in milk | 1–100 | 86 | 19 | 22.09 | 0.919 |
| 101–200 | 32 | 6 | 18.75 | ||
| 201–300 | 15 | 3 | 20 | ||
|
| |||||
| Parity | 1–3 | 76 | 21 | 27.63 | 0.032 |
| 4–6 | 57 | 7 | 12.28 | ||
|
| |||||
| Feeding regime | Silage+concentrate | 43 | 10 | 23.25 | 0.832 |
| Silage+hay+concentrate | 56 | 12 | 21.42 | ||
| Silage+concentrate+fresh fodder | 34 | 6 | 17.64 | ||
|
| |||||
| Treatment approach | Single antibiotic | 85 | 18 | 21.17 | 0.835 |
| Combination | 48 | 10 | 20.83 | ||
Figure 5Phylogenetic tree of S. aureus Nuc gene (nucleotide sequences). An analysis has been performed among different source samples of S. aureus Nuc gene from different countries with our isolated sequenced samples. The branch length (numbers) is representing the nucleotide substitutions per 100 nucleotide sites.
Figure 6(a) Protein structure (exonic region) of S. aureus. (b) Alignment of S. aureus thermal nuclease protein (S. aureus-1, S. aureus-2, S. aureus-3, and reference sequence). (c) Protein motifs of S. aureus. (d) Protein-protein interaction of S. aureus protein (S. aureus-1 protein, S. aureus-2 protein, and S. aureus-3 protein).
Figure 7Antibiogram of S. aureus isolates. FA = fusidic acid; Enro = enrofloxacin; Cip = ciprofloxacin; TS = trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole; Levo = levofloxacin; Chlor = chloramphenicol; Van = vancomycin; Gent = gentamicin; Line = linezolid.
Comparison of zones of inhibition against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates using the well diffusion method for antimicrobial drugs alone and/or in combination.
| Drugs | Patterns used (alone/combination) | Mean ± Std. (mm) | % variation [(combination-alone)/(alone×100)] |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-amoxiclav | Alone | 15 ± 1.414 | 0.299 | |
| C+E | 12.5 ± 4.949 | -16.67 | ||
| C+M | 11.5 ± 0.707 | -23.33 | ||
| C+G | 10.5 ± 2.121 | -30 | ||
| C+O | 9.5 ± 0.707 | -36.67 | ||
| C+A | 10.5 ± 2.121 | -30 | ||
| C+S | 9.0 ± 1.414 | -40 | ||
|
| ||||
| Enrofloxacin | Alone | 6.0 ± 0 | 0.082 | |
| E+M | 5.5 ± 0.707 | -8.33 | ||
| E+G | 4.5 ± 0.707 | -25 | ||
| E+O | 7.5 ± 0.707 | 25 | ||
| C+E | 12.5 ± 4.949 | 108.33 | ||
| E+A | 10.0 ± 2.828 | 66.66 | ||
| E+S | 9.0 ± 1.414 | 33.33 | ||
|
| ||||
| Metronidazole | Alone | 6.0 ± 1.414 | 0.025 | |
| M+G | 8.5 ± 0.707 | 41.67 | ||
| M+O | 8.5 ± 0.707 | 41.67 | ||
| C+M | 11.5 ± 0.707 | 91.67 | ||
| E+M | 5.5 ± 0.707 | -8.33 | ||
| M+A | 8.0 ± 1.414 | 33.33 | ||
| M+S | 7.5 ± 2.121 | 25 | ||
|
| ||||
| Oxytetracycline | Alone | 4.5 ± 0.707 | 0.093 | |
| C+O | 9.5 ± 0.707 | 111.11 | ||
| M+O | 8.5 ± 0.707 | 88.89 | ||
| E+O | 7.5 ± 0.707 | 66.67 | ||
| G+O | 9.5 ± 0.707 | 111.11 | ||
| O+A | 10.5 ± 3.535 | 133.33 | ||
| O+S | 13.0 ± 4.242 | 188.88 | ||
|
| ||||
| Gentamicin | Alone | 10 ± 2.828 | 0.034 | |
| G+O | 9.5 ± 0.707 | -5 | ||
| C+G | 10.5 ± 2.121 | 5 | ||
| E+G | 4.5 ± 0.707 | -55 | ||
| M+G | 8.5 ± 0.707 | -15 | ||
| G+A | 16.0 ± 2.828 | 60 | ||
| G+S | 13.0 ± 4.242 | 30 | ||
|
| ||||
| Amoxicillin | Alone | 7.5 ± 2.121 | 0.199 | |
| A+S | 13.5 ± 4.949 | 80 | ||
| C+A | 10.52 ± 2.12 | 40.27 | ||
| M+A | 8.0 ± 1.414 | 6.67 | ||
| O+A | 10.5 ± 3.535 | 40 | ||
| E+A | 10.0 ± 2.828 | 33.33 | ||
| G+A | 16.0 ± 2.828 | 113.33 | ||
|
| ||||
| Streptomycin | Alone | 9.5 ± 0.707 | 0.402 | |
| A+S | 13.5 ± 4.949 | 42.10 | ||
| C+S | 9.0 ± 1.414 | -5.26 | ||
| M+S | 7.5 ± 2.121 | -21.05 | ||
| O+S | 13.0 ± 4.242 | 36.84 | ||
| E+S | 9.0 ± 1.414 | -5.26 | ||
| G+S | 13.0 ± 4.242 | 36.84 | ||
M = metronidazole; O = oxytetracycline; A = amoxicillin; S = streptomycin; G = gentamicin; C=co-amoxiclav; E = enrofloxacin.
Synergy testing of drugs against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
| Combinations | MIC AB | MIC A | FIC A | MIC BA | MIC B | FIC B | FICI | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| amoxi+co-amoxiclav | 5.86 | 11.72 | 0.5 | 1.95 | 5.86 | 0.33 | 0.83 | Additive |
| amoxi+metro | 15.62 | 11.72 | 1.33 | 250 | 375 | 0.67 | 2 | Indifferent |
| amoxi+enro | 4.56 | 11.72 | 0.39 | 0.98 | 1.95 | 0.5 | 0.89 | Additive |
| amoxi+strepto | 3.91 | 11.72 | 0.33 | 7.81 | 15.62 | 0.5 | 0.83 | Additive |
| amoxi+genta | 2.93 | 11.72 | 0.25 | 0.98 | 3.91 | 0.25 | 0.5 | Synergistic |
| amoxi+oxy | 23.44 | 11.72 | 2 | 31.25 | 15.62 | 2 | 4 | Antagonistic |
| co-amoxiclav+metro | 4.56 | 5.86 | 0.78 | 125 | 375 | 0.33 | 1.11 | Indifferent |
| co-amoxiclav+enro | 2.93 | 5.86 | 0.5 | 0.49 | 1.95 | 0.25 | 0.75 | Additive |
| co-amoxiclav+strepto | 3.91 | 5.86 | 0.67 | 7.81 | 15.62 | 0.5 | 1.17 | Indifferent |
| co-amoxiclav+genta | 2.93 | 5.86 | 0.5 | 1.95 | 3.91 | 0.5 | 1 | Additive |
| co-amoxiclav+oxy | 15.62 | 5.86 | 2.67 | 62.5 | 15.62 | 4 | 6.67 | Antagonistic |
| metro+enro | 31.25 | 375 | 0.08 | 0.49 | 1.95 | 0.25 | 0.33 | Synergistic |
| metro+strepto | 125 | 375 | 0.33 | 15.62 | 15.62 | 1 | 1.33 | Indifferent |
| metro+genta | 187.5 | 375 | 0.5 | 1.95 | 3.91 | 0.5 | 1 | Indifferent |
| metro+oxy | 500 | 375 | 1.33 | 62.5 | 15.62 | 4 | 5.33 | Antagonistic |
| enro+strepto | 3.91 | 1.95 | 2 | 7.81 | 15.62 | 0.5 | 2.5 | Indifferent |
| enro+genta | 0.49 | 1.95 | 0.25 | 1.95 | 3.91 | 0.5 | 0.75 | Additive |
| enro+oxy | 7.81 | 1.95 | 4 | 7.81 | 15.62 | 0.5 | 4.5 | Antagonistic |
| strepto+genta | 5.86 | 15.62 | 0.37 | 4.56 | 3.91 | 1.17 | 1.55 | Indifferent |
| strepto+oxy | 20.51 | 15.62 | 1.31 | 18.23 | 15.62 | 1.17 | 2.48 | Indifferent |
| genta+oxy | 7.81 | 3.91 | 2 | 20.51 | 15.62 | 1.31 | 3.31 | Indifferent |
co-amoxiclav = co-amoxiclav; enro = enrofloxacin; metro = metronidazole; genta = gentamicin; oxy = oxytetracycline; amoxi = amoxicillin; strepto = streptomycin.
Figure 8Parameters of successful treatment and post treatment successful pregnancy: (a) normal endometrial lining (EL), (b) normal uterine secretions—clear string formed without any pus material, and (c) pregnancy established in animals as evident by developing.