Efficacy Profiles of Antimicrobials Evaluated against Staphylococcus Species Isolated from Canine Clinical Specimens
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Source
2.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
2.3. Data Analyses
2.3.1. Correlation Analysis
2.3.2. Principal Components and Factor Analyses
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pantosti, A. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus associated with animals and its relevance to human health. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Frank, D.N.; Feazel, L.M.; Bessesen, M.T.; Price, C.S.; Janoff, E.N.; Pace, N.R. The human nasal microbiota and Staphylococcus aureus. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weese, J.S.; van Duijkeren, E. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in veterinary medicine. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 140, 418–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kawakami, T.; Shibata, S.; Murayama, N.; Nagata, M.; Nishifuji, K.; Iwasaki, T.; Fukata, T. Antimicrobial susceptibility and methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and Staphylococcus schleiferi subsp. coagulans isolated from dogs with pyoderma in Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2010, 72, 1615–1619. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cohn, L.A.; Middleton, J.R. A veterinary perspective on methicillin-resistant staphylococci. J. Vet. Emerg. Crit. Care 2010, 20, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qekwana, D.N.; Oguttu, J.W.; Sithole, F.; Odoi, A. Burden and predictors of Staphylococcus aureus and S. pseudintermedius infections among dogs presented at an academic veterinary hospital in South Africa (2007–2012). PeerJ 2017, 5, e3198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qekwana, D.N.; Sebola, D.; Oguttu, J.W.; Odoi, A. Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Staphylococcus species isolated from cats presented at a veterinary academic hospital in South Africa. BMC Vet. Res. 2017, 13, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Werckenthin, C.; Cardoso, M.; Martel, J.L.; Schwarz, S. Antimicrobial resistance in staphylococci from animals with particular reference to bovine Staphylococcus aureus, porcine Staphylococcus hyicus, and canine Staphylococcus intermedius. Vet. Res. 2001, 32, 341–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hauschild, T.; Wójcik, A. Species distribution and properties of staphylococci from canine dermatitis. Res. Vet. Sci. 2007, 82, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellerin, J.L.; Bourdeau, P.; Sebbag, H.; Person, J.M. Epidemiosurveillance of antimicrobial compound resistance of Staphylococcus intermedius clinical isolates from canine pyodermas. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 1998, 21, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rice, L.B. Mechanisms of Resistance and Clinical Relevance of Resistance to Î2-Lactams, Glycopeptides, and Fluoroquinolones. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2012, 87, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Miller, K.; Dunsmore, C.J.; Fishwick, C.W.G.; Chopra, I. Linezolid and tiamulin cross-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus mediated by point mutations in the peptidyl transferase center. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Locke, J.B.; Finn, J.; Hilgers, M.; Morales, G.; Rahawi, S.; Kedar, G.C.; Picazo, J.J.; Im, W.; Shaw, K.J.; Stein, J.L. Structure-activity relationships of diverse oxazolidinones for linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains possessing the cfr methyltransferase gene or ribosomal mutations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 5337–5343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nicolae Dopcea, G.; Dopcea, I.; Nanu, A.E.; Diguţă, C.F.; Matei, F. Resistance and cross-resistance in Staphylococcus spp. strains following prolonged exposure to different antiseptics. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 21, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Master, R.N.; Clark, R.B.; Karlowsky, J.A.; Ramirez, J.; Bordon, J.M. Analysis of resistance, cross-resistance and antimicrobial combinations for Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from 1997 to 2009. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2011, 38, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohanski, M.A.; DePristo, M.A.; Collins, J.J. Sub-lethal antibiotic treatment leads to multidrug resistance via radical-induced mutagenesis. Mol. Cell 2010, 37, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pál, C.; Papp, B.; Lázár, V. Collateral sensitivity of antibiotic-resistant microbes. Trends Microbiol. 2015, 23, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Seventeenth Informational Supplement; CLSI Document M100-S17; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated From Animals; Approved Standard—Third Edition. CLSI Document M31-A3; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptebility Testing. Nineteenth Informational Supplement; CLSI Document M100-S19; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Twentieth Informational Supplement; CLSI Document M100-S20; CLSI: Annapolis Junction, ML, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Twenty-First Informational Supplement; Approved Standard; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. Clin. Lab. Standars Inst. NCCLS 2012, 32, 76, M02-A11. [Google Scholar]
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated from Animals, 4th ed.; Approved Standard; CLSI document VET01-A; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pearson, E. Mathematical contribution to the theory of evolution. VII. On the correlation of characters not quantitatively measurable. In Philosophical Transactions for the Royal Society of London; 195A; Philosophical Transactions: London, UK, 1900; pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar]
- Bonett, D.; Price, R. Inferential methods for the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. J. Educ. 2005, 30, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padilla, M.A.; Divers, J. A Comparison of Composite Reliability Estimators: Coefficient Omega Confidence Intervals in the Current Literature. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2016, 76, 436–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lowy, F.D. Antimicrobial resistance: The example of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Investig. 2003, 111, 1265–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Foster, T.J. Antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Current status and future prospects. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 41, 430–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Llarrull, L.I.; Fisher, J.F.; Mobashery, S. Molecular basis and phenotype of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and insights into new β-lactams that meet the challenge. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 4051–4063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moreillon, P. The efficacy of amoxycillin/clavulanate (Augmentin®) in the treatment of severe staphylococcal infections. J. Chemother. 1994, 6, 51–57. [Google Scholar]
- Morris, D.O.; Loeffler, A.; Davis, M.F.; Guardabassi, L.; Weese, J.S. Recommendations for approaches to meticillin-resistant staphylococcal infections of small animals: Diagnosis, therapeutic considerations and preventative measures.: Clinical Consensus Guidelines of the World Association for Veterinary Dermatology. Vet. Dermatol. 2017, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frank, L.A.; Loeffler, A. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius: Clinical challenge and treatment options. Vet. Dermatol. 2012, 23, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Group | Drug | Frequency | Percent |
---|---|---|---|
Aminoglycoside | 95 | 9.2 | |
Amikacin | 28 | 7.33 | |
Gentamicin | 30 | 7.85 | |
Kanamycin | 37 | 9.69 | |
β-lactam | |||
Penicillins | |||
Ampicillin | 225 | 58.9 | |
Penicillin | 212 | 55.5 | |
Cephalosporine | Cephalothin | 29 | 7.59 |
Combination | Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid | 48 | 12.57 |
Tetracycline | Doxycycline | 60 | 15.71 |
Fluoroquinolones | |||
Enrofloxacin | 39 | 10.21 | |
Orbifloxacin | 37 | 9.69 | |
Potentiated sulfonamide | Co-trimazoleb | 65 | 17.02 |
Amphenicol | Chloramphenicol | 39 | 11.34 |
Lincosamide | Clindamycin | 143 | 37.43 |
Aminoglycoside-lincosamides | Lincomycin-spectinomycin | 170 | 44.5 |
Macrolide | Tylosin | 40 | 10.47 |
Drug | Ami | Amp | Dox | Enr | Gen | Pen | Sul | Chl | Cep | Kan | Cli | Lin | Orb | Syn | Tyl |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ami | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||
Amp | 0.02 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||
Dox | 0.35 | 0.37 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
Enr | 0.45 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 1.00 | |||||||||||
Gen | 0.79 | 0.37 | 0.50 | 0.68 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
Pen | 0.02 | 0.96 | 0.42 | 0.09 | 0.25 | 1.00 | |||||||||
Sul | 0.27 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.40 | 1.00 | ||||||||
Chl | 0.50 | 0.37 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.48 | 0.55 | 0.41 | 1.00 | |||||||
Cep | 0.60 | 0.35 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.66 | 0.39 | 0.25 | 0.52 | 1.00 | ||||||
Kan | 0.72 | 0.26 | 0.37 | 0.68 | 0.93 | 0.18 | 0.73 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | |||||
Cli | 0.63 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.60 | 0.41 | 0.28 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 1.00 | ||||
Lin | 0.61 | 0.52 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.31 | 0.75 | 0.47 | 0.64 | 0.79 | 1.00 | |||
Orb | 0.56 | 0.30 | 0.32 | 0.91 | 0.70 | 0.26 | 0.59 | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.81 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 1.00 | ||
Syn | 0.38 | 0.63 | 0.29 | 0.47 | 0.69 | 0.57 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.53 | 1.00 | |
Tyl | 0.63 | 0.29 | 0.41 | 0.61 | 0.71 | 0.34 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.72 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.71 | 0.70 | 0.64 | 1.00 |
Eigenvalues of the Correlation Matrix | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Eigenvalue | Difference | Proportion | Cumulative % of Variance Explained | |
1 | 3.479 | 0.870 | 0.387 | 0.387 |
2 | 2.609 | 1.065 | 0.290 | 0.676 |
3 | 1.543 | 0.792 | 0.172 | 0.848 |
4 | 0.752 | 0.488 | 0.084 | 0.931 |
5 | 0.263 | 0.105 | 0.029 | 0.961 |
6 | 0.159 | 0.073 | 0.018 | 0.978 |
7 | 0.086 | 0.009 | 0.010 | 0.988 |
8 | 0.077 | 0.045 | 0.009 | 0.997 |
9 | 0.032 | 0.004 | 1.000 |
Antimicrobial | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Enrofloxacin | 0.859 | −0.146 | 0.027 |
Gentamicin | 0.898 | 0.034 | 0.374 |
Tylosin | 0.801 | 0.560 | 0.440 |
Ampicillin | −0.814 | −0.330 | 0.082 |
Clindamycin | 0.348 | 0.927 | 0.189 |
Lincospectin | 0.077 | 0.848 | −0.118 |
Co-trimazole | 0.424 | −0.693 | 0.043 |
Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid | 0.018 | −0.360 | 0.848 |
Cephalothin | 0.248 | 0.551 | 0.824 |
Item | McDonald’s |
---|---|
Ampicillin | 0.784 |
Enrofloxacin | 0.771 |
Gentamicin | 0.764 |
Cephalothin | 0.764 |
Clindamycin | 0.741 |
Lincospectin | 0.745 |
Orbifloxacin | 0.762 |
Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid | 0.763 |
Tylosin | 0.749 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Qekwana, D.N.; Odoi, A.; Oguttu, J.W. Efficacy Profiles of Antimicrobials Evaluated against Staphylococcus Species Isolated from Canine Clinical Specimens. Animals 2021, 11, 3232. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113232
Qekwana DN, Odoi A, Oguttu JW. Efficacy Profiles of Antimicrobials Evaluated against Staphylococcus Species Isolated from Canine Clinical Specimens. Animals. 2021; 11(11):3232. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113232
Chicago/Turabian StyleQekwana, Daniel Nenene, Agricola Odoi, and James Wabwire Oguttu. 2021. "Efficacy Profiles of Antimicrobials Evaluated against Staphylococcus Species Isolated from Canine Clinical Specimens" Animals 11, no. 11: 3232. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113232