Next Article in Journal
ApoE Mimetic Peptide COG1410 Kills Mycobacterium smegmatis via Directly Interfering ClpC’s ATPase Activity
Previous Article in Journal
Sub-MIC Antibiotics Modulate Productions of Outer Membrane Vesicles in Tigecycline-Resistant Escherichia coli
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment and Assay Comparison for Detection of Antimicrobial Residues in Freshwater Aquaculture Fish in Erbil Governorate, Iraq
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/antibiotics13030277
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Multiple Drug Resistant Streptococcus Strains—An Actual Problem in Pig Farms in Western Romania

by
Luminita Costinar
1,
Corina Badea
1,
Adela Marcu
2,
Corina Pascu
1,* and
Viorel Herman
1
1
Department of Infectious Diseases and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I”, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
2
Department of Animal Production Engineering, Faculty of Bioengineering of Animal Recourses, University of Life Science “King Mihai I”, 300645 Timișoara, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2024, 13(3), 277; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13030277
Submission received: 15 February 2024 / Revised: 17 March 2024 / Accepted: 18 March 2024 / Published: 19 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antibiotics Use in Farms, 2nd Volume)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Streptococci are a type of bacteria that can cause severe illnesses in humans and animals. Some typical species like S. suis, or atypical species like S. porcinus and, S. dysgalactiae subsp. dysgalactiae, can cause infections like septicemia, meningitis, endocarditis, arthritis, and septic shock. S. suis is considered a newly emerging zoonotic pathogen. Although human streptococcal infection outbreaks are rare, it is appropriate to review the main streptococcal species isolated in pig farms in western Romania, due to the high degree of antibiotic resistance among most isolates commonly used in human treatment. This study examines the resistance patterns of these isolates over 5 years (2018–2023). The research investigated the antimicrobial susceptibility of 267 strains of Streptococcus spp. isolated from pigs, primarily from lung and brain tissues. This report is the first to describe the distribution of atypical Streptococcus species (SDSE, S. porcinus, S. hyovaginalis, S. pluranimalium, S. canis) in Romania, as well as the antibiotic resistance profile of these potentially zoonotic species. It is important to re-evaluate and consider the high rates of resistance of S. suis to tetracyclines, lincosamides, macrolides, and aminoglycosides, as well as the high recovery rates of S. suis from the lungs and brain when treating swine diseases.

1. Introduction

Streptococci can cause a range of diseases in both humans and animals, from mild to severe. Normally, these bacteria belong to the commensal microflora but can sometimes cause infections as opportunistic pathogens. In 2020, several zoonotic streptococci were identified, including S. suis, S. canis, S. dysgalactiae subsp. dysgalactiae, S. equi subsp. zooepidemicus, S. halichoeri, S. iniae, S. porcinus, and others. Under certain circumstances, these and other streptococcal species can also cause human diseases [1].
Although S. suis is the most important species for the global pig industry, other Streptococcus species may also pose a greater and often underestimated risk to pig health by causing diseases. Streptococcus suis possesses antigens somehow related to Lancefield group D streptococcus. It is considered a facultatively anaerobic, alpha-hemolytic, Gram-positive, nonmotile coccus, displayed in chains of varying lengths. The number of reported human cases due to S. suis has increased significantly in recent years, mainly in China and Southeast Asian countries, especially in Vietnam and Thailand [2].
S. dysgalactiae subsp. equisimilis (SDSE) is a type of bacteria that belongs to the group of beta-hemolytic streptococci. It is typically found in the vaginal secretions and colostrum of sows and is considered to be a part of their commensal microflora. It is a common source of infection in piglets. SDSE can cause septicemia by entering the bloodstream through skin lesions or the tonsils of piglets and can lead to arthritis, meningitis, or endocarditis [3,4,5].
Streptococcus porcinus, a beta-hemolytic streptococci in Lancefield group NG1 (A1, C1), NG2, NG3, E, P, U, or V antigen, was first identified in pigs in 1984 and later detected in bovine milk. This species of streptococci is commonly associated with abortion, endocarditis, and pyogenic infections in pigs. It can colonize the genital and upper respiratory tracts of pigs, sheep, rabbits, dogs, guinea pigs, and cattle, making them a potential reservoir for the bacteria. Although a few cases of S. porcinus infections have been reported in humans, mostly as genitourinary tract infections in women, there is no clear data on the habitat and virulence properties of other streptococcal species such as S. pluranimalium, S. parcorum, S. gallolyticus gallolyticus, and S. plurextorum, which have also been isolated from sick pigs [6,7,8].
Streptococcus pluranimalium is a new species of streptococci found in various animal hosts. S. pluranimalium is associated with subclinical mastitis in dairy cows, reproductive disorders in cattle, valvular endocarditis, and septicemia in birds. It may also cause human infective endocarditis and brain abscesses. However, its pathogenicity mechanisms and virulence factors are still poorly understood. In Romania, this bacterium has not yet been isolated from animals [9,10]. It was first described in 1999 by Devriese et al. [11].
Streptococcus canis is a beta-hemolytic streptococcus and belongs to the G Lancefield group that colonizes the skin, upper respiratory tracts, ears, and reproductive tracts of dogs and cats [11,12]. S. canis is also an important pathogen causing skin infections in these species, as well as genitourinary tract infections, otitis externa, septicemia, pneumonia, endocarditis, septic arthritis, necrotizing fasciitis, etc. [11,12,13].
S. canis is found in various animals, causing bovine mastitis, and is also found in wild animals, such as mink, feral cats, and aquatic mammals [14]. It has been recognized as a zoonotic agent, with more studies reporting its isolation from skin diseases, soft tissue infections, bacteremia, and endocarditis in humans [13,15]. Since its discovery as a zoonotic agent in 1996, human cases of endocarditis, septicemia, cellulitis, and periprosthetic joint infections caused by S. canis have been reported [16,17,18].
This study aimed to provide an overview of the antimicrobial resistance patterns and the distribution of various species of Streptococcus spp. in different types of samples from clinically diseased pigs and from cadavers and to determine the potential pathogenic impact of other species of streptococci than Streptococcus suis.

2. Results

It can be observed from Table 1 and Figure 1 that the lungs (31.46%) are the primary source of streptococci, followed by the CNS-brain (21.72%), genitourinary tract (10.86%), liver, spleen (8.23%), serosal surfaces (7.49%), noses (6.36%), joints (4.86%), raw semen (3.37%), skin (2.99%) and others (2.62%).
Out of the 267 strains of streptococci that were isolated, S. suis was the most found, accounting for 67.79% of the samples, followed by S. dysgalactiae subsp. equisimillis (SDSE) at 14.98%, S. porcinus at 8.98%, S. hyovaginalis at 4.86%, S. pluranimalium at 1.87%, and S. canis at 1.49%. The identification of different species of streptococci was confirmed by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF Biotyper System, Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany).
Among diseased pigs exhibiting nervous manifestations, S. hyovaginalis was detected in 53.84%, SDSE in 27.50%, and S. suis in 22.09% of samples.
All streptococcus species, except S. canis and S. pluranimalium, were found in samples obtained from the lower respiratory tracts and particularly from the lungs. S. suis was isolated mostly from the lungs and brain, and, to a lesser extent, from the surface of the serosa.
During the study, it was found that S. suis was predominantly isolated from the lungs (37.01%) and brain (27.50%), and, to a lesser extent, from the surface of the serosa (9.39%). The samples from the genitourinary tract had the highest proportion of SDSE isolation (32.50%), followed by the brain (27.50%) and lungs (15.00%).
S. porcinus, on the other hand, was mostly isolated from the lungs (33.33%), followed by samples from the genitourinary tract (20.83%) and noses (16.66%).
Most strains S. hyovaginalis were isolated from the brain (53.84%), lungs (23.07%), and noses (15.38%).
Other Streptococcus spp. were isolated from various sources (heart and kidney), including the skin (33.33%), nose, organs, and raw semen (22.22% each). S. suis was the most isolated species.

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns

Out of the 26 antimicrobial substances tested, 13 strains of S. suis displayed resistance to 50% of them (Table 2). Only the data for isolated S. suis have been included in this table. The other streptococcus species isolated showed resistance below 50%. It is evident that there is a high frequency of resistance to some of the microbial agents, particularly in the S. suis strains isolated in the western part of Romania. Resistance is most frequent for lincomycin (95.00%), spectinomycin (94.44%), tylosin (87.50%), and doxycycline (87.23%), tilmicosin (85.71%), kanamycin (84.61%), chlortetracycline (83.67%), erythromycin (72.22%), apramycin (66.66%), trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (65.11%), and colistin (53.24%).
The antimicrobial resistance of zoonotic bacteria in swine-origin streptococci is concerning as it may compromise human infection treatment.
SDSE strains isolated in this study showed resistance to several antibiotics: ampicillin 22.50% (9/40), tylosin 32.50% (13/40), tilmicosin 30.00% (12/40), tulathromycin 25.00% (10/40), doxycycline 75.00% (30/40), chlortetracycline 80.00% (32/40), enrofloxacin 62.50% (25/40), erythromycin 47.50% (19/40).
S. porcinus has shown significant resistance to lincosamides (lincomycin) at a rate of 83.33% (20/24), macrolides (erythromycin) at a rate of 79.16% (19/24), and tetracyclines (doxycycline, chlortetracycline) at a rate of 70.83% (17/24) and 75.00% (18/24), respectively. The frequency of resistance for sulfonamides was 58.33% (14/24), and for streptomycin, it was 37.50% (9/24).
Similarly, S. hyovaginalis showed high resistance to tetracycline at a rate of 92.30% (12/13), chlortetracycline at a rate of 84.61% (11/13), and lincomycin at a rate of 53.84% (7/13).
S. canis and S. plurianimalium had remarkable resistance to amoxicillin–clavulanic acid at 88.88% (8/9), amoxicillin and tetracyclines at 77.77% (7/9), and penicillin at 55.55% (5/9).
After analyzing the data presented in Table 3, it was evident that several resistance patterns have emerged.
Among these isolates, twenty-two can be classified as multiresistant as they are resistant to three families of antibiotics. Seventy-four, ninety-one, and forty strains were resistant to, respectively, four, five, or six families of antibiotics. The most common patterns were found in the tetracyclines, macrolides, aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, and lincosamides groups.

3. Discussion

This retrospective study aimed to gather data on the isolation of streptococci from pig farms and expand the information about the antibiotic resistance of streptococcal species with potential zoonotic transmission. We lacked sufficient information about other diseases and previous antimicrobial treatments used in the pig farms from which the samples were collected. However, we believe that this study should be published because there is no data available on other streptococcal species found in pig farms in Romania with intensive rearing systems. The isolation of species such as S. canis highlights some unknown aspects, and therefore, we consider it important to bring it to attention.
Streptococcus suis is a significant concern in the pig industry and is particularly dangerous to piglets who have recently been weaned. It is an emerging zoonotic agent. It is important to note that S. suis can affect individuals near infected pigs, such as those who work in slaughterhouses or factories that process pork-meat products [19,20,21,22].
In a recent study conducted in Romania by Doma et al. (2021), it was found that the most common cause of pig mortality was S. suis (68–70%), followed by E. coli (30–31%) [23].
Although S. suis usually occurs more often in the upper respiratory tract than in the lower respiratory tract, S. suis has been detected more frequently in lung samples than in nasal swabs [20,24,25]. We noticed the same thing in our study; the highest percentage of strains (37.01%) was isolated from the lung and only 5.14% of the strains were isolated from the noses. S. suis was also detected quite frequently in the brain (20.57%) followed by serosal surfaces (9.71%), parenchymal organs (8.23%), joints (6.28%), the genitourinary tract (5.71%), raw semen (2.85%), and skin (1.14%).
All the strains of S. suis that we isolated in pigs were from the pigs with clinical signs of disease. These pigs were also positive for other pathogens like PRRS (Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome), PCV 2 (Porcine Circovirus 2), Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, and Influenza A. These infections could have resulted in bacterial overgrowth, which may have made it easier for S. suis to invade. In our study, S. suis was the only species that we found in all the sites we examined, which included the CNS, upper and lower respiratory tracts, skin, mucous membranes, joints, serosal surfaces, and raw semen.
After being considered non-pathogenic for many years, SDSE is now recognized as an important bacterial pathogen [26,27]. Recent epidemiological studies have shown an increasing number of invasive infections with SDSE in humans, often among immunocompromised patients and elderly patients with underlying co-morbidities, which suggests that this species is likely to become even more clinically important in the near future [28,29].
In pigs, SDSE can cause septicemia, which can spread to the CNS, lungs, joints, and genitourinary tract. Other researchers have previously described these locations [18,30,31,32].
A previous study Stanton et al. [33] showed that SDSE can produce aggressive skin lesions. In our study, we isolated S. canis and S. pluranimalium, in addition to SDSE, from pig skin.
It is particularly important to elucidate the possibility that SDSE crosses the interspecies barrier between pigs and humans through comprehensive epidemiological approaches [26,34]. Since the strains of streptococci isolated from pigs may be zoonotic pathogens, it is important to study their genotypes and antimicrobial resistance phenotypes to prepare for a potential public health hazard [35,36]. It has been found that SDSE is a significant pathogen in pigs that can cause various health issues such as neurological signs, reproductive and respiratory disorders, and skin lesions. These findings are consistent with those obtained by Oh et al. [4].
In 2020, a study conducted in Korea revealed that SDSE strains from pigs exhibited elevated minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values for macrolides, tetracyclines, and fluoroquinolones. These antibiotics are commonly prescribed to individuals infected with SDSE as a substitute for beta-lactams [4]. Consequently, further research with a more extensive sample of strains is necessary to ascertain the likelihood of SDSE transmission from animals to humans across various populations in Romania.
S. porcinus is the etiological agent of streptococcal lymphadenitis in growing pigs; it also causes throat abscesses, and has sometimes been isolated from pneumonia and sows’ endometritis [37]. However, the isolation of S. porcinus from the lower respiratory tract is still debatable as some authors consider it to be either a primary lung agent or a secondary lung agent [33,35]. In contrast to previous reports, we could not isolate S. porcinus from CNS, skin, liver, spleen, or joints [8,38,39].
In our research, S. porcinus was isolated from the lungs (33.33%), nasal cavities (16.66%), genitourinary tract (20.83%), serosa (12.50%), and raw semen (8.33%), but another study performed in Austria [30] reported isolation from the upper respiratory tract (2.34%) and lungs (6.25%) only.
In our study, S. hyovaginalis was isolated from the lungs of three specimens, from the noses of two specimens, and the CNS in seven specimens, but could not be isolated from genitourinary tract samples. Previous reports have shown that S. hyovaginalis can be isolated exclusively from sow genitourinary tract specimens but did not isolate bacteria from the upper and/or lower respiratory tracts [25].
S. pluranimalium is a species of streptococci whose involvement is less well known in the etiology of some human and animal infections [40]. Thus, some authors describe it as a new human pathogen [10,41,42,43] with major implications for human health, and therefore, we consider it particularly important to know more about the prevalence of this bacterium in pig herds in Romania, as this report is the first in Romania describing the isolation of S. pluranimalium from pigs.
S. pluranimalium and S. canis were not isolated from the CNS, genitourinary tract, lungs, and joints, but were recovered from nasal cavities, skin, raw semen, and parenchymatous organs, which may indicate that they are species that can colonize the skin and apparent mucous membranes and that their presence in raw semen and the liver and spleen may only be accidental contamination.
Originally, in 1986, Streptococcus canis was thought to be a canine and bovine pathogen exclusively but has since been isolated from a range of wild and domestic mammals: cats, rabbits, rats, foxes, mink, raccoons, seals, sea lions, otters, and badgers, as well as humans [25,34,44,45]. Along with other authors, we consider that S. canis may be capable of causing disease in several species, including pigs, making it one of the streptococcal pathogens with the widest host range [1,46,47,48,49]. The main hosts of this streptococcus species appear to be dogs and cats but we recovered from the nasal cavities, skin, and raw semen of pigs. Does the recovery of this species from pigs raise several questions about whether it is a species that can colonize skin and mucous membranes similar to what happens in dogs and cats? Or is it just accidental isolation?
In the context that our samples came from, pig farms with drastic biosecurity measures (no dogs on the farm), we can hypothesize that the transmission vector of S. canis could be humans.
Although in recent years the zoonotic potential of this bacteria has been widely accepted, scientific evidence remains limited [50,51]. In a retrospective study conducted at the University Hospital of Bordeaux between 1997 and 2002, S. canis was confirmed in 1% (n = 80/6404) of all Streptococcus-positive samples sent for culture [45]. Knowledge of the epidemiology of S. canis in both veterinary and human medicine is based on relatively few studies and information, and it is somewhat unclear how and to what extent transmission occurs between different animal species, as well as which risk factors predispose humans to S. canis infection [45,46].
It is also very important to note that more than one Streptococcus spp. isolate was recovered from animals with clinical signs in the pig herds from which the samples were taken. This may support the hypothesis that certain species not known to be primary disease agents are indeed an underestimated health risk for pigs and usually go undetected.
We could not demonstrate a causal association between clinical symptoms and the recovery of different Streptococcus spp.; further experiments and studies on a larger number of samples and information are needed for this purpose.
In Romania, antimicrobials are widely used in the animal husbandry sector, leading to widespread MDR in pig flocks; with this being very well highlighted both in this study and in other studies conducted by other researchers in our country. Thus, S. suis strains showed resistance to 50% (13/26) of the antimicrobial substances tested.
In 2022, the percentage of antimicrobial resistance to S. pneumoniae in humans in Romania was 48.3% according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [52].
High percentages of resistance were observed in our study for protein synthesis inhibitors, such as lincomycin (95.00%), chlortetracycline (83.67%), doxycycline (87.23%), erythromycin (72.22%), tilmicosin (85.71%), tylosin (87.50%), apramycin (66.66%), neomycin (48.83%), kanamycin (84.61%), streptomycin (84.21%), tulathromycin (45.45%), and flumequine (50.00%). These results are consistent with previous reports [23,38].
The results of our study are consistent with previous studies, suggesting S. suis’ susceptibility to cell-wall-synthesis inhibitors, including beta-lactam antibiotics and penicillin (66.17%) [30,53,54,55,56].
The quality and safety of pork in these areas are questionable and it is believed to be the main source of human infection. Some authors suggest that exposure to pigs at work or consuming raw pork products increases the risk of S. suis infection [57,58,59,60,61].
The most common antimicrobials used in the treatment of S. suis infections and for which the percentages of susceptibility are still high are ceftiofur (87.91%), cefquinome (82.14%), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (80.95%), amoxicillin (55.68%), ampicillin (72.72%), enrofloxacin (47.36%), florfenicol (53.48%), and penicillin (66.17%). For the treatment of S. suis infection, beta-lactamase (amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, ceftiofur, cefquinome, ampicillin, and penicillin) and fluoroquinolones (enrofloxacin) are still the medicines of choice.
According to research conducted by O’Dea in Australia [62], a significant proportion of isolates were found to be resistant to both tetracycline (99.30%) and erythromycin (83.80%). The study also observed low levels of resistance to florfenicol (14.90%), penicillin G (8.10%), ampicillin (0.70%), and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (0.70%). Interestingly, none of the isolates were found to be resistant to enrofloxacin. However, the global trend of increasing antimicrobial resistance among streptococcal species is becoming increasingly problematic.
In this study, all isolated strains were resistant to at least one class of antibiotics, and a fairly high percentage were resistant to three or more classes of drugs, which indicated substantial multidrug resistance (MDR).
Since 1980, there has been an increasing resistance of streptococci to antimicrobials commonly used in the pig industry, such as the tetracycline and macrolide group, around the world [50,60,63,64,65].
In Romania, there is currently no systematic collection of data or comparisons on the antimicrobial resistance of S. suis from pig farms to different antimicrobials. However, there are extensive global reports of the high resistance of these bacteria [24,51,64,65,66,67].
Our results also corroborate the results of Yongkiettrakul et al. (2019) [57] and Hernandez-Garcia et al. (2017) [68], who reported that the strains of streptococci isolated in their research became resistant to all classes of antibiotics used in pigs.
In the current context of reducing the use of antimicrobials in animals, the importance of different species of streptococci as zoonotic pathogens is increasing. Streptococci represent a threat to human health due to the lack of effective vaccines on the market; vaccines that could reduce the number of streptococci in pigs and therefore reduce the risk of human disease [69]. More and more frequently, the idea is emerging that, in addition to reducing the use of antibiotics on farms, biosecurity and improved health management must also be considered [70].
Therefore, these atypical Streptococcus spp. isolated from pigs may pose a greater underestimated health risk to pigs but also to humans and should be correctly identified by more complex and sensitive veterinary diagnostic methods.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Clinical Samples

This is a retrospective study based on data collected by the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Timisoara. The data comprises 4783 samples. These samples were collected over five years, from January 2018 to January 2023. Samples were taken from pigs displaying various clinical symptoms such as respiratory problems, nervous disorders, skin lesions, arthritis, pneumonia, genitourinary tract infections, and septicemia. All samples were collected by veterinarians and sent to the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Timisoara—Department of Infectious Diseases and Preventive Medicine for routine diagnostic purposes.
A total of 267 samples of Streptococcus spp. were obtained from pigs of all age categories (sows, gilts, fattening pigs, weaned pigs, and suckling piglets) out of 4783 samples examined (Table 4).
The samples came from 40 pig farms in the western and north-western parts of Romania, from the counties with the highest density of pigs in the country. The farms are intensive, closed systems, which are breeding, farrow-to-finish and fattening farms. Semen samples were taken from a semen center.

4.2. Bacterial Isolation and Identification

In this study, we describe the detection of Streptococcus (S.) suis, S. dysgalactiae subsp. equisimilis (SDSE), S. hyovaginalis, S. porcinus, and other streptococcus species (S. canis, S. pluranimalium) isolated from various types of samples. Antibiotic resistance paternity was also performed for strains of Streptococcus isolates.
Samples were incubated in BHI broth (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK), on Columbia agar with the addition of 5% defibrinated sheep blood (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) and BD Chocolate Agar Columbia (Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany) under aerobic/microaerophilic (5% CO2) conditions at 37 °C for 24–48 h or sometimes up to 72 h.
The isolates with alpha-hemolytic colonies were further identified by conventional biochemical tests and API 20 Strep (bioMerieux SA, Marcy l’Etoile, France). Subsequently, the colonies were confirmed to be Streptococcus spp. by the matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS).
Before susceptibility testing, presumptive Streptococcus spp. strains were identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS, Bruker Daltonik, Bremen, Germany).

MALDI-TOF MS Bacterial Identification

The ethanol/formic acid protocol was used to prepare MALDI-TOF MS samples. The bacterial protein suspension had a volume of 1 μL and was transferred to a MALDI target plate (Bruker, Daltonik, Germany). Then, 1 μL of matrix (10 mg α cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid ml-1 in 50% acetonitrile 2.5% trifluoroacetic acid) was added to the bacterial suspension. Bacterial mass spectra were acquired using the Microflex™ mass spectrometer (Bruker, Daltonik). For MALDI-TOF MS identification, the spectra captured were loaded into MALDI BioTyper™ 3.0 and compared to the manufacturer’s library. Standard Bruker interpretation criteria were applied. Scores ≥ 2.0 were accepted for species assignment, and scores ≥ 1.7 but ≤ 2.0 were used for genus identification [43].

4.3. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

Agar disk diffusion was used to perform susceptibility testing on a total of 267 isolates, following the recommendations given by the CLSI documents M100 (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2023) [71]. Antimicrobial substances were selected based on their interpretative criteria for certain species of Streptococcus spp., as well as their importance for both porcine and human health.
Each strain was subcultured on Columbia blood agar (5% sheep blood) and incubated overnight at a temperature of 37 °C with 5% CO2. Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested using the disc diffusion method on a Mueller–Hinton plate containing 5% sheep blood and according to the standards of Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (VET01-A and VET01-S) [71,72]. To prepare an inoculum for each strain, an initial concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/mL was used to inoculate the Mueller–Hinton plate before the application of antimicrobial discs (BIO-RAD, Marnes-La-Coquette, France). The plates were then incubated for 24 h at 35 °C. After bacterial growth, the inhibition zone diameters were measured.
The reference strain Streptococcus pneumoniae ATCC 49619 was used as a quality control according to CLSI recommendations.
The following antibiotics were used: ß-lactamine (penicillin, ampicillin, amoxicillin); β-lactamine with inhibitors (amoxicillin-clavulanic acid); cephalosporins (ceftiofur, cefquinome); polymyxin (colistin); aminoglycoside (apramycin, kanamycin, gentamicin, neomycin, streptomycin); tetracyclines (chlortetracycline, doxycycline); potentiated sulfonamides (trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole); fluoroquinolones (enrofloxacin, flumequine); amphenicols (florfenicol); macrolides (erythromycin, tilmicosin, tylosin, tulathromycin); lincosamide (lincomycin); lincomycin–spectinomycin and pleuromutiline (tiamulin).
Multidrug resistance (MDR) is defined as resistance to at least one agent from three or more antimicrobial categories, as classified by Magiorakos et al. [73].

5. Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study in Romania on the isolation of streptococcal species other than S. suis from different pig pathologies.
Our results highlight the presence of atypical Streptococcus spp. in pig herds, which may represent a high and underestimated health risk for pigs but also for humans and should be correctly identified by more complex and sensitive veterinary diagnostic methods (MALDI-TOF MS).
We believe that further large-scale studies should investigate the impact of SDSE and S. porcinus on the pathogenesis of reproductive disorders in sows, in particular.
Nearly half of the isolated strains showed resistance to four or more groups of antibiotics.
The use of antibiotics in animals resulted in a selection of resistant bacteria in animals. To what extent antibiotic use and resistance in animals also influence the occurrence of resistance in humans remains an important area of debate. It is desirable that the use of antibiotics continues to decrease, and eventually for it to become a rare occurrence in pig farming. However, this will require additional efforts and a focus on better husbandry, biosecurity, and management. Ultimately, this reduction will lead to a decrease in resistance selection, which will benefit both animal and human health, global food safety, and food security.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.C. and C.P.; methodology, V.H. and C.B.; investigation, C.B.; data curation, C.P. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.C. and C.P.; writing—review and editing, C.P.; visualization, L.C., C.B. and V.H.; supervision, L.C. and. C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research paper is supported by the project “Increasing the impact of excellence research on the capacity for innovation and technology transfer within USV Timisoara” code 6 PFE, submitted in the competition Program 1-Development of the national system of research–development, Subprogram 1.2-Institutional performance, Institutional development projects-Development projects of excellence in RDI.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and the proper procedures of the University Veterinary Clinics of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Timisoara, approved by the Ethics Committee protocol number 34/1.12.2012 of the Romanian Veterinary College.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Fulde, M.; Valentin-Weigand, P. Epidemiology and pathogenicity of zoonotic streptococci. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 2013, 368, 49–81. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dutkiewicz, J.; Zając, V.; Sroka, J.; Wasiński, B.; Cisak, E.; Sawczyn, A.; Kloc, A.; Wójcik-Fatla, A. Streptococcus suis: A re-emerging pathogen associated with occupational exposure to pigs or pork products. Part II—Pathogenesis. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2018, 25, 186–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Itzek, A.; Weißbach, V.; Meintrup, D.; Rieß, B.; van der Linden, M.; Borgmann, S. Epidemiological and Clinical Features of Streptococcus dysgalactiae ssp. equisimilis stG62647 and Other emm Types in Germany. Pathogens 2023, 12, 589. [Google Scholar]
  4. Oh, S.I.; Kim, J.W.; Jung, J.Y.; Chae, M.; Lee, Y.R.; Kim, J.H.; So, B.; Kim, H.Y. Pathologic and molecular characterization of Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. equisimilis infection in neonatal piglets. J. Vet. Sci. 2018, 19, 313–317. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rantala, S. Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. equisimilis bacteremia: An emerging infection. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014, 33, 1303–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Duarte, R.S.; Barros, R.R.; Facklam, R.R.; Teixeira, L.M. Phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of Streptococcus porcinus isolated from human sources. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 4592–4601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Martínez-Bustamante, D.; Pérez-Cárdenas, S.; Arteaga-Treviño, M.; Martínez-Ponce de León, Á.R. Emerging pathogens in the central nervous system: A cerebral abscess by Streptococcus porcinus. Med. Univ. 2014, 16, 177–180. [Google Scholar]
  8. Facklam, R.; Elliott, J.; Pigott, N.; Franklin, A.R. Identification of Streptococcus porcinus from human sources. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995, 33, 385–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Twomey, D.F.; Carson, T.; Foster, G.; Koylass, M.S.; Whatmore, A.M. Phenotypic characterisation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis of veterinary isolates of Streptococcus pluranimalium. Vet. J. 2012, 192, 236–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aryasinghe, L.; Sabbar, S.; Kazim, Y.; Awan, L.M.; Khan, H.K. Streptococcus pluranimalium: A novel human pathogen? Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2014, 5, 1242–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Devriese, L.A.; Hommez, J.; Kilpper-Bälz, R.; Schleifer, K.H. Streptococcus canis sp. nov.: A Species of Group G Streptococci from Animals. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 1986, 36, 422–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Timoney, J.; Velineni, S.; Ulrich, B.; Blanchard, P. Biotypes and scm types of isolates of Streptococcus canis from diseased and healthy cats. Vet. Rec. 2017, 180, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Amsallem, M.; Iung, B.; Bouleti, C.; Armand-Lefevre, L.; Eme, A.L.; Touati, A.; Kirsch, M.; Duval, X.; Vahanian, A. First reported human case of native mitral infective endocarditis caused by Streptococcus canis. Can. J. Cardiol. 2014, 30, 1462.e1–1462.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hariharan, H.; Matthew, V.; Fountain, J.; Snell, A.; Doherty, D.; King, B.; Shemer, E.; Oliveira, S.; Sharma, R.N. Aerobic bacteria from mucous membranes, ear canals, and skin wounds of feral cats in Grenada, and the antimicrobial drug susceptibility of major isolates. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2011, 34, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Whatmore, A.M.; Efstratiou, A.; Pickerill, A.P.; Broughton, K.; Woodard, G.; Sturgeon, D.; George, R.; Dowson, C.G. Genetic relationships between clinical isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus oralis, and Streptococcus mitis: Characterization of “Atypical” pneumococci and organisms allied to S. mitis harboring S. pneumoniae virulence factor-encoding genes. Infect. Immun. 2000, 68, 1374–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bert, F.; Lambert-Zechovsky, N. Septicemia caused by Streptococcus canis in a human. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997, 35, 777–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lederman, Z.; Leskes, H.; Brosh-Nissimov, T. One Health and Streptococcus canis in the Emergency Department: A Case of Cellulitis and Bacteremia in an Immunocompromised Patient Treated with Etanercept. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 58, e129–e132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kasuya, K.; Yoshida, E.; Harada, R.; Hasegawa, M.; Osaka, H.; Kato, M.; Shibahara, T. Systemic Streptococcus dysgalactiae subspecies equisimilis infection in a Yorkshire pig with severe disseminated suppurative meningoencephalomyelitis. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2014, 76, 715–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Huang, K.; Zhang, Q.; Song, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, A.; Xiao, J.; Jin, M. Characterization of Spectinomycin Resistance in Streptococcus suis Leads to Two Novel Insights into Drug Resistance Formation and Dissemination Mechanism. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 6390–6392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Devriese, L.A. Streptococcal ecovars associated with different animal species: Epidemiological significance of serogroups and biotypes. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1991, 71, 478–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Segura, M.; Aragon, V.; Brockmeier, S.L.; Gebhart, C.; Greeff, A.; Kerdsin, A.; O’Dea, M.A.; Okura, M.; Saléry, M.; Schultsz, C.; et al. Update on Streptococcus suis Research and Prevention in the Era of Antimicrobial Restriction: 4th International Workshop on S. suis. Pathogens 2020, 9, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Marois, C.; Le Devendec, L.; Gottschalk, M.; Kobisch, M. Detection and molecular typing of Streptococcus suis in tonsils from live pigs in France. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2007, 71, 14–22. [Google Scholar]
  23. Doma, A.O.; Moruzi, R.F.; Muselin, F.; Dumitrescu, E.; Herman, V.; Oprescu, I.; Cristina, R.T. A Screening of mortality evolution in 49 pig farms in Western Romania. Rev. Rom. Med. Vet. 2021, 31, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gottschalk, M. Streptococci. In Diseases of Swine, 10th ed.; Zimmerman, J., Karriker, L., Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K., Stevenson, G., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 841–855. [Google Scholar]
  25. Devriese, L.A.; Hommez, J.; Pot, B.; Haesebrouck, F. Identification and composition of the streptococcal and enterococcal flora of tonsils, intestines and faeces of pigs. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1994, 77, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kawata, K.; Minakami, T.; Mori, Y.; Katsumi, M.; Kataoka, Y.; Ezawa, A.; Kikuchi, N.; Takahashi, T. rDNA sequence analyses of Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. equisimilis isolates from pigs. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003, 53, 1941–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Costinar, L.; Herman, V.; Pitoiu, E.; Iancu, I.; Degi, J.; Hulea, A.; Pascu, C. Boar Semen Contamination: Identification of Gram-Negative Bacteria and Antimicrobial Resistance Profile. Animals 2022, 12, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hughes, J.M.; Wilson, M.E.; Brandt, C.M.; Spellerberg, B. Human Infections Due to Streptococcus dysgalactiae subspecies equisimilis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009, 49, 766–772. [Google Scholar]
  29. Herman, V.; Faur, B.; Pascu, C.; Costinar, L.; Văduva, I. Characterisation of some Streptococcus suis strains isolated from pigs. Lucr. Şt. Med. Vet. Timiş. 2011, XL, 115–121. [Google Scholar]
  30. Renzhammer, R.; Loncaric, I.; Ladstätter, M.; Pinior, B.; Roch, F.-F.; Spergser, J.; Ladinig, A.; Unterweger, C. Detection of Various Streptococcus spp. and Their Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns in Clinical Specimens from Austrian Swine Stocks. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Pascu, C.; Costinar, L.; Herman, V.; Şerbescu, M. Investigation concerning proliferative enteropathies in swine. Lucr. Şt. Med. Vet. Timiş. 2011, XL, 157–161. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gottschalk, M.; Segura, M. Streptococcosis. In Diseases of Swine, 11th ed.; Zimmerman, J.J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J., Stevenson, G.W., Zhang, J., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 934–950. [Google Scholar]
  33. Staton, G.J.; Scott, C.; Blowey, R. Aggressive skin lesions in pigs. Vet. Rec. 2019, 184, 529–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Numberger, D.; Siebert, U.; Fulde, M.; Valentin-Weigand, P. Streptococcal Infections in Marine Mammals. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Khantasup, K.; Tungwongjulaniam, C.; Theerawat, R.; Lamaisri, T.; Piyalikit, K.; Nuengjamnong, C.; Nuanualsuwan, S. Cross-sectional risk assessment of zoonotic Streptococcus suis in pork and swine blood in Nakhon Sawan Province in northern Thailand. Zoonoses Public Health. 2022, 69, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fotoglidis, A.; Pagourelias, E.; Kyriakou, P.; Vassilikos, V. Endocarditis caused by unusual Streptococcus species (Streptococcus pluranimalium). Hippokratia. 2015, 182. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, Y.; Guo, H.; Bai, Y.; Li, T.; Xu, R.; Sun, T.; Lu, J.; Song, Q. Isolation and characteristics of multi-drug resistant Streptococcus porcinus from the vaginal secretions of sow with endometritis. BMC Vet. Res. 2020, 16, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Costinar, L.; Herman, V.; Iancu, I.; Pascu, C. Phenotypic characterizations and antimicrobials resistance of Salmonella strains isolated from pigs from fattening farms. Rev. Rom. Med. Vet. 2021, 31, 31–34. [Google Scholar]
  39. Turner, G.V.S. A Microbiological study of polyarthritis in slaughter pigs. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 1982, 53, 99–101. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Pan, Y.; An, H.; Fu, T.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, C.; Xiao, G.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, X.; Hu, G. Characterization of Streptococcus pluranimalium from a cattle with mastitis by whole genome sequencing and functional validation. BMC Microbiol. 2018, 12, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pongratz, P.; Ebbers, M.; Geerdes-Fenge, H.; Reisinger, E.C. RE: ‘Streptococcus pluranimalium: A novel human pathogen?’. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2017, 41, 493–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ghazvini, K.; Karbalaei, M.; Kianifar, H.; Keikha, M. The first report of Streptococcus pluranimalium infection from Iran: A case report and literature review. Clin. Case Rep. 2019, 7, 1858–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moreno, L.Z.; Matajira, C.E.C.; Gomes, V.T.M.; Silva, A.P.S.; Mesquita, R.E.; Christ, A.P.G.; Sato, M.I.Z.; Moreno, A.M. Molecular and antimicrobial susceptibility profiling of atypical Streptococcus species from porcine clinical specimens. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2016, 44, 376–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Richards, V.P.; Zadoks, R.N.; Pavinski Bitar, P.D.; Lefébure, T.; Lang, P.; Werner, B.; Tikofsky, L.; Moroni, P.; Stanhope, M.J. Genome characterization and population genetic structure of the zoonotic pathogen, Streptococcus canis. BMC Microbiol. 2012, 12, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Galpérine, T.; Cazorla, C.; Blanchard, E.; Boineau, F.; Ragnaud, J.M.; Neau, D. Streptococcus canis infections in humans: Retrospective study of 54 patients. J. Infect. 2007, 55, 23–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Malisova, B.; Santavy, P.; Loveckova, Y.; Hladky, B.; Kotaskova, I.; Pol, J.; Lonsky, V.; Nemec, P.; Freiberger, T. Human native endocarditis caused by Streptococcus canis—A case report. APMIS 2019, 127, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Pagnossin, D.; Smith, A.; Oravcová, K.; Weir, W. Streptococcus canis, the underdog of the genus. Vet. Microbiol. 2022, 273, 109524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tikofsky, L.; Zadoks, R. Cross-infection between cats and cows: Origin and control of Streptococcus canis mastitis in a dairy herd, J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 2707–2713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Eibl, C.; Baumgartner, M.; Urbantke, V.; Sigmund, M.; Lichtmannsperger, K.; Wittek, T.; Spergser, J. An outbreak of subclinical mastitis in a dairy herd caused by a novel Streptococcus canis sequence type (st55). Animals 2021, 11, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Meekhanon, N.; Kaewmongkol, S.; Phimpraphai, W.; Okura, M.; Osaki, M.; Sekizaki, T.; Takamatsu, D. Potentially hazardous Streptococcus suis strains latent in asymptomatic pigs in a major swine production area of Thailand. J. Med. Microbiol. 2017, 66, 662–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Soares, T.C.S.; Paes, A.C.; Megid, J.; Ribolla, P.E.M. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Streptococcus suis isolated from clinically healthy swine in Brazil. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2015, 74, 279–284. [Google Scholar]
  52. Surveillance Atlas of Infectious Diseases (europa.eu). Available online: https://atlas.ecdc.europa.eu/public/index.aspx?Dataset=27&HealthTopic=4 (accessed on 20 November 2023).
  53. Palmieri, C.; Varaldo, P.E.; Facinelli, B. Streptococcus suis, an Emerging Drug-Resistant Animal and Human Pathogen. Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Reams, R.Y.; Glickman, L.T.; Harrington, D.D.; Thacker, H.L.; Bowersock, T.L. Streptococcus suis infection in swine: A retrospective study of 256 cases. Part II. Clinical signs, gross and microscopic lesions, and coexisting microorganisms. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 1994, 6, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kerdsin, A.; Hatrongjit, R.; Gottschalk, M.; Takeuchi, D.; Hamada, S.; Akeda, Y.; Oishi, K. Emergence of Streptococcus suis serotype 9 infection in humans. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2017, 50, 545–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. O’Sullivan, T.; Friendship, R.; Blackwell, T.; Pearl, D.; McEwen, B.; Carman, S. Microbiological identification and analysis of swine tonsils collected from carcasses at slaughter. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2011, 75, 106–111. [Google Scholar]
  57. Yongkiettrakul, S.; Maneerat, K.; Arechanajan, B.; Malila, Y.; Srimanote, P.; Gottschalk, M.; Visessanguan, W. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Streptococcus suis isolated from diseased pigs, asymptomatic pigs, and human patients in Thailand. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tramontana, A.R.; Graham, M.; Sinickas, V.; Bak, N. An Australian case of Streptococcus suis toxic shock syndrome associated with occupational exposure to animal carcasses. Med. J. Aust. 2008, 188, 538–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Boonyong, N.; Kaewmongkol, S.; Khunbutsri, D.; Satchasataporn, K.; Meekhanon, N. Contamination of Streptococcus suis in pork and edible pig organs in central Thailand. Vet. World 2019, 12, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pui-Yi, C.; Kin, L.L.; To To, C.; Wai, H.Y.; Pui Ha, L.; Kai, M.K. Streptococcus suis in retail markets: How prevalent is it in raw pork? Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 127, 316–320. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kerdsin, A.; Takeuchi, D.; Nuangmek, A.; Akeda, Y.; Gottschalk, M.; Oishi, K. Genotypic Comparison between Streptococcus suis Isolated from Pigs and Humans in Thailand. Pathogens 2020, 9, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. O’Dea, M.A.; Laird, T.; Abraham, R.; Jordan, D.; Lugsomya, K.; Fitt, L.; Gottschalk, M.; Truswell, A.; Abraham, S. Examination of Australian Streptococcus suis isolates from clinically affected pigs in a global context and the genomic characterization of ST1 as a predictor of virulence. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 226, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wertheim, H.F.; Nghia, H.D.; Taylor, W.; Schultsz, C. Streptococcus suis: An emerging human pathogen. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009, 48, 617–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhang, C.; Zhang, Z.; Song, L.; Fan, X.; Wen, F.; Xu, S.; Ning, Y. Antimicrobial Resistance Profile and Genotypic Characteristics of Streptococcus suis Capsular Type 2 Isolated from Clinical Carrier Sows and Diseased Pigs in China. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 284303. [Google Scholar]
  65. Tanaka, D.; Isobe, J.; Watahiki, M.; Nagai, Y.; Katsukawa, C.; Kawahara, R. Genetic features of clinical isolates of Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. equisimilis possessing Lancefield’s group A antigen. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 1526–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Arai, S.; Tohya, M.; Yamada, R.; Osawa, R.; Nomoto, R.; Kawamura, Y.; Sekizaki, T. Development of loop-mediated isothermal amplification to detect Streptococcus suis and its application to retail pork meat in Japan. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 208, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Callens, B.F.; Haesebrouck, F.; Maes, D.; Butaye, P.; Dewulf, J.; Boyen, F. Clinical resistance and decreased susceptibility in Streptococcus suis isolates from clinically healthy fattening pigs. Microb. Drug. Resist. 2013, 19, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hernandez-Garcia, J.; Wang, J.; Restif, O.; Holmes, M.A.; Mather, A.E.; Weinert, L.A.; Wileman, T.M.; Thomson, J.R.; Langford, P.R.; Wren, B.W. Patterns of antimicrobial resistance in Streptococcus suis isolates from pigs with or without streptococcal disease in England between 2009 and 2014. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 207, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Imre, K.; Ban-Cucerzan, A.; Herman, V.; Sallam, K.I.; Cristina, R.T.; Abd-Elghany, S.M.; Morar, D.; Popa, S.A.; Imre, M.; Morar, A. Occurrence, Pathogenic Potential and Antimicrobial Resistance of Escherichia coli Isolated from Raw Milk Cheese Commercialized in Banat Region, Romania. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Dewulf, J.; Joosten, P.; Chatziaras, I.; Bernaerdt, E.; Vanderhaeghen, W.; Postma, M.; Maes, D. Antibiotic use in European pig production: Less is more. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, M100Ed33 33rd Edition. Available online: https://clsi.org/standards/products/microbiology/documents/m100/ (accessed on 14 April 2022).
  72. Krumperman, P.H. Multiple antibiotic resistance indexing of Escherichia coli to identify high-risk sources of fecal contamination of foods. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1983, 46, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Antibiotics 13 00277 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of the Streptococcus spp. isolated from various organs of pigs.
Figure 1. Distribution of the Streptococcus spp. isolated from various organs of pigs.
Antibiotics 13 00277 g001
Table 1. Total number of isolated Streptococcus spp. from different sources.
Table 1. Total number of isolated Streptococcus spp. from different sources.
No. crt.Type of Sample/SourceIsolates
No (%)		Streptococcus Species
S. suisS. dysgalactiae subsp. equisimillisS. porcinusS. hyovaginalisS. pluranimaliumS. canis
1.Brain (CNS)58 (21.72%)40 (22.09%)11 (27.50%)0.007 (53.84%)0.000.00
2.Lung84 (31.46%)67 (37.01%)6 (15.00%)8 (33.33%)3 (23.07%)0.000.00
3.Genitourinary tract29 (10.86%)11 (6.07%)13 (32.50%)5 (20.83%)0.000.000.00
4.Serosal surfaces20 (7.49%)17 (9.39%)0.003 (12.50%)0.000.000.00
5.Noses17 (6.36%)9 (4.97%)0.004 (16.66%)2 (15.38%)0.002 (50.00%)
6.Skin8 (2.99%)2 (1.10%)3 (7.50%)0.000.001 (20.00%) 2 (50.00%)
7.Joint13 (4.86%)11 (6.07%)2 (5.00%)0.000.000.000.00
8.Liver, spleen22 (8.23%)15 (8.28%)5 (12.50%)0.000.002 (40.00%)0.00
9.Raw semen9 (3.37%)5 (2.76%)0.002 (8.33%)0.002 (40.00%)0.00
10.Other
(heart, kidney)		7 (2.62%)4 (2.20%)0.002 (8.33%)1 (7.69%)0.000.00
Total267 (100.00%)181 (67.79%)40 (14.98%)24 (8.98%)13 (4.86%)5 (1.87%) 4 (1.49%)
Table 2. Antimicrobial sensitivity of isolated S. suis strains.
Table 2. Antimicrobial sensitivity of isolated S. suis strains.
Type of ATBDisk ContentTested StrainsSusceptibleResistantIntermediate
% (No.)% (No.)% (No.)
AmoxicillinAML (10 µg)8855.68 (49)20.45 (18)23.86 (21)
AmoxiclavAMC (30 µg)2180.95 (17)0.0019.04 (4)
AmpicillinAMP (10 µg)2272.72 (16)13.63 (3)13.63 (3)
ApramycinAPR (10 µg)219.52 (2)66.66 (14)23.80 (5)
CeftiofurEFT (30 µg)9187.91(80)3.29 (3)8.79 (8)
CefquinomeCEQ (30 µg)2882.14 (23)7.14 (2)13.04 (3)
ColistineCT (10 µg)772.59 (2)53.24 (41)44.15 (34)
ChlortetracyclineCTC (10 µg)492.04 (1)83.67 (41)8.51 (7)
DoxycyclineDO (30 µg)474.25 (2)87.23 (41)8.51 (4)
EnrofloxacinENR (5 µg)9547.36 (45)21.05 (20)31.57 (30)
ErythromycinERY (30 µg)3616.66 (6)72.22 (26)11.11 (4)
FlorfenicolFFC (30 µg)8653.48 (46)31.39 (27)15.11 (13)
FlumequineUBN (30 µg)120.0050.00 (6)50.00 (6)
GentamycinCN (10 µg)4926.53 (13)26.53 (13)46.93 (23)
KanamycinK (10 µg)1315.38 (2)84.61 (11)0.00
LincomycinLCN (15 µg)200.0095.00 (19)5.00 (1)
LincospectinLS (10 µg)1080.00 (8)0.0020.00 (2)
NeomycinN (10 µg)8610.46 (9)48.83 (42)40.69 (35)
PenicillinP (10 UNITS)6866.17 (45)16.17 (11)17.64 (12)
SpectinomycinSPT (100 µg)180.0094.44 (17)5.55 (1)
StreptomycinSTRP (30 µg)190.0084.21 (16)15.78 (3)
TiamulinTIAMU (30 µg)1136.36 (4)45.45 (5)18.18 (2)
TilmicosinTIL (15 µg)70.0085.71 (6)14.28 (1)
Trimethoprim sulfamethoxazoleSXT (10 µg)4325.58 (11)65.11 (28)9.30 (4)
TulathromycinTUL (30 µg)1136.36 (4)45.45 (5)18.18 (2)
TylosinTYL (30 µg)160.0087.5 (14)12.50 (2)
Table 3. The antimicrobial sensitivity patterns of the strains isolated from pigs.
Table 3. The antimicrobial sensitivity patterns of the strains isolated from pigs.
ProfilesAntimicrobial Group with ResistanceNo of Strains
1.ß—lactams, Macrolides18
2.ß-lactams, Tetracyclines9
3.Tetracycline, Lincosamides13
4.ß-lactams, Tetracyclines, Fluoroquinolones7
5.Aminoglycosides, Macrolides, Sulphonamides15
6.ß-lactams, Tetracyclines, Fluoroquinolones, Macrolides15
7.Aminoglycosides, Macrolides, Tetracyclines, Lincosamides9
8.Aminoglycosides, Macrolides, Amphenicols, Sulphonamides5
9.Macrolides, Tetracyclines, Lincosamides, Sulphonamides18
10.Macrolides, Tetracyclines, Lincosamides, Aminoglycosides6
11.Macrolides, Tetracyclines, ß-lactams, Fluoroquinolones21
12.Aminoglycosides, Macrolides, Tetracyclines, Lincosamides, Aminocyclitol8
13.Macrolides, Aminoglycosides, Tetracyclines, ß-lactams with inhibitors, Pleuromutilins42
14.Macrolides, Aminoglycosides, Tetracyclines, Fluoroquinolones, Cephalosporins33
15.Macrolides, Aminoglycosides, Tetracyclines, Fluoroquinolones, Sulphonamides8
16.Macrolides, Aminoglycosides, Tetracyclines, Amphenicols, Sulphonamides, Pleuromutilins22
17.Macrolides, Aminoglycosides, Amphenicols, Sulphonamides, Fluoroquinolones, Lincosamides18
Table 4. Number of Streptococcus spp. strains isolated from each age group.
Table 4. Number of Streptococcus spp. strains isolated from each age group.
Age GroupSuckling PigletsWeaned PigletsFattening PigletsGilts/SowsBoars Total
Sources
Lung1549162284
CNS113943158
Genitourinary tract00029029
Liver, spleen11092022
Serosal surfaces01253020
Noses01151017
Joints2920013
Raw semen000099
Skin043108
Other (heart, kidney)043007
Total29138474112267
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Costinar, L.; Badea, C.; Marcu, A.; Pascu, C.; Herman, V. Multiple Drug Resistant Streptococcus Strains—An Actual Problem in Pig Farms in Western Romania. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13030277

AMA Style

Costinar L, Badea C, Marcu A, Pascu C, Herman V. Multiple Drug Resistant Streptococcus Strains—An Actual Problem in Pig Farms in Western Romania. Antibiotics. 2024; 13(3):277. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13030277

Chicago/Turabian Style

Costinar, Luminita, Corina Badea, Adela Marcu, Corina Pascu, and Viorel Herman. 2024. "Multiple Drug Resistant Streptococcus Strains—An Actual Problem in Pig Farms in Western Romania" Antibiotics 13, no. 3: 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13030277

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop