Next Article in Journal
Distribution and New Records of the Bluntnose Sixgill Shark, Hexanchus griseus (Hexanchiformes: Hexanchidae), from the Tropical Southwestern Atlantic
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Kadsura coccinea L. Fruit Extract on Growth Performance, Meat Quality, Immunity, Antioxidant, Intestinal Morphology and Flora of White-Feathered Broilers
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Marker-Assisted Selection of ABCG2, CD44, SPP1 Genes Contribute to Milk Production Traits of Chinese Holstein
Previous Article in Special Issue
Quercetin Ameliorates Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Duodenal Inflammation through Modulating Autophagy, Programmed Cell Death and Intestinal Mucosal Barrier Function in Chicken Embryos
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/ani13010090
animals-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:
Communication

Prevalence and Persistence of Ceftiofur-Resistant Escherichia coli in A Chicken Layer Breeding Program

by
Meina Liao
1,2,3,†,
Jiaen Wu
1,2,3,†,
Yafei Li
4,
Xiaoqing Lu
1,2,3,
Huizhen Tan
1,2,3,
Shanshan Chen
1,2,3,
Wenqing Huang
1,2,3,
Xinlei Lian
1,2,3,
Jian Sun
1,2,3,
Xiaoping Liao
1,2,3,
Yahong Liu
1,2,3,
Saixiang Feng
5,* and
Rongmin Zhang
1,2,3,*
1
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutics Development and Safety Evaluation, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
2
Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Guangzhou 510642, China
3
National Risk Assessment Laboratory for Antimicrobial Resistance of Animal Original Bacteria, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
4
Institute of Quality Standard and Monitoring Technology for Agro-Products, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China
5
College of Veterinary Medicine, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2023, 13(1), 90; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010090
Submission received: 4 November 2022 / Revised: 15 December 2022 / Accepted: 20 December 2022 / Published: 26 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Application of Antibiotic Alternatives in the Poultry Industry)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

This is a study associated with the prevalence and persistence of ceftiofur, the third-generation cephalosporin antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli in a chicken layer breeding farm. Notably, epidemiological studies in poultry have been primarily focused on single breeding periods and may have underestimated the maintenance of the ceftiofur-resistant Escherichia coli in different breeding periods from layer hens. Our results showed that the detection rates of the ceftiofur-resistant Escherichia coli fluctuated across different breeding periods, and the ST101 ceftiofur-resistant Escherichia coli was the most prevalent and persistent sequence type across the breeding periods. This study contextualized ceftiofur resistance in different breeding periods, monitoring which can have important implications for food animals.

Abstract

We determined the longitudinal persistence of ceftiofur-resistant Escherichia coli from a chicken breeding farm in China. A total of 150 samples were collected from 5 breeding periods in a flock of layer hens, and the prevalence of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli fluctuated across the 5 chicken breeding stages: eggs, 3.33%; growing period, 100%; early laying period, 36.7%; peak laying period, 66.7% and late laying period, 80%. The most prevalent ceftiofur resistance genes were blaCTX-M-55, blaCMY and blaNDM, and ST101 was the most prevalent and persistent sequence type across the breeding periods. Our results indicated that this breeder flock was heavily contaminated by ST101 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli and that its presence should be intensively monitored on chicken farms.

1. Introduction

The increasing prevalence of extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) Gram-negative bacteria in food-producing animals poses a great challenge for animal husbandry and especially the poultry industry [1,2]. Of particular concern is the third-generation cephalosporin, ceftiofur, that was developed strictly for veterinary use [3]. In China, ceftiofur was commonly used in all food animals, including poultry, to control and prevent bacterial infections [4], although its use is restricted to swine and cattle in the European Union [5]. Ceftiofur effectiveness has been compromised by ESBLs, ampicillin class C (AmpC) β-lactamases and carbapenemases [6]. The CTX-M type is currently the predominant cephalosporin-degrading enzyme in Escherichia coli of poultry origin and the CTX-M-55 subtype is the most common [7,8,9,10,11,12]. A previous study implicated CTX-M-55 as the major ESBL gene carried by E. coli (EC) chicken isolates in an epidemic study in four Chinese provinces from 2015–2019 [7]. In a Korean nationwide study, CTX-M-55 was also the most prevalent ESBL-EC across 21 poultry farms, 20 retail stores, 6 slaughterhouses and 111 workers [10]. Meanwhile, blaCTX-M-55 frequently co-occurs with other antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) including mcr, oqxAB, fosA3 and floR that respectively confer resistance to quinolones, fosfomycin and amphenicol [13,14,15]. This high prevalence of ESBL-EC poses a serious threat to the food animal production industry.
Epidemiological studies in poultry have been primarily focused on single breeding periods and may have underestimated disease impacts [11,16]. There are five chicken breeding growth cycles: the brooding (BP), growing (GP), early laying (EL), peak laying (PL) and late laying (LL) periods [17]. There have been few studies that traced persistence of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli across the chicken growth cycle, and these were carried out with broiler chickens. For example, the prevalence of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli displayed an increasing trend across three sampling times within one broiler flock fattening period [18]. A longitudinal monitoring study of ESBL/AmpC-producing and fosfomycin-resistant E. coli in 8 broiler farms indicated the presence of ESBL-EC between days 20 and 25 that then increased in the fattening period at days 36 to 38 [19]. In chicken breeding farms, only a single study has analyzed ARG diversity and abundance in different breeding periods [17]. In nine farms in Guangdong Province, the ranked prevalence of ARG abundance in manure samples was BP > LL > GP > EL> PL [17]. However, the prevalence and persistence of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli was not investigated.
In the current study, we tracked the prevalence and maintenance of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli isolated from different breeding stages of a chicken flock in a Chinese breeder farm and found that ST101 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli was the most prevalent subtype in the chicken farm and persisted throughout layer breeding.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection

Samples (150) from chickens across five breeding periods [17] were collected for this study from a breeder farm in Guangdong province, China, as previously reported [17], In brief, 30 samples per stage were taken from eggs and cloacal swabs from GP, EL, PL and LL. Each cloacal sampling was obtained using a sterile swab that was inserted into the chicken cloaca for at least three seconds (Table S1). Samples were stored at 4 °C prior to analysis and then inoculated within 24 h (see below). The sampling of animals was conducted in accordance with the principles of the South China Agriculture University Animal Ethics Committee (Number: 2019g004).

2.2. Questionnaire

Participants providing samples from chicken farms were invited to answer a questionnaire to indicate the types of antimicrobials that were in use at the time of sample collection.

2.3. Bacterial Isolation and Identification

Each cloacal swab sample was spread on MacConkey plates containing 8.0 mg L−1 ceftiofur as previously described [20,21]. Each egg was massaged with 8 mL of brain heart infusion (BHI) broth in an aseptic plate for one minute and then spread onto MacConkey plates containing 8.0 mg L−1 ceftiofur and incubated for 18 h at 37 °C. One colony per plate was selected for Gram staining and species identification using a 16S rDNA sequence analysis as previously described [22].

2.4. Antibiotics Susceptibility Testing

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the broth microdilution method and minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were interpreted according to guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute veterinary antimicrobial susceptibility testing standard (https://clsi.org/standards/products/veterinary-medicine/documents/vet01s/ and https://clsi.org/standards/products/microbiology/documents/m02/ (accessed on 3 November 2021)). All E. coli isolates were tested for susceptibility to ceftazidime, aztreonam, meropenem, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, colistin and ceftiofur. E. coli ATCC 25922 was used for quality control.

2.5. Molecular Typing of Ceftiofur-Resistant E. coli

Enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus-PCR (ERIC-PCR) was used for sequence typing as described previously [23]. ERIC-PCR patterns were defined using a cut-off of 80% identity between DNA band patterns [24].

2.6. Sequence Assembly and Annotation

One isolate from each unique ERIC-PCR pattern was further selected for whole genome sequencing (WGS). Genomic DNA was purified using a commercial kit (Tiangen, Beijing, China). DNA libraries were constructed using the NEXT Ultra DNA Library Prep kit (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA, USA) and WGS was performed using the Illumina HiSeq 2500 system (Novogene, Guangzhou, China). The draft genome was de novo assembled using SPAdes version 3.9.0 [25]. Multilocus sequencing typing (MLST), plasmid incompatibility (Inc) groups and ARGs were identified using MLSTcheck (https://github.com/sanger-pathogens/mlst_check, accessed on 15 December 2022) and ABRicate (https://github.com/tseemann/abricate, accessed on 12 May 2020), respectively.

2.7. Phylogenetic Analysis of Ceftiofur-Resistant E. coli

The molecular phylogeny of the 24 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli we identified was traced using 1145 isolates from the GenBank database to construct a phylogenetic tree using Parsnp software of the Harvest suite [26]. In brief, a total of 774,435 assembled bacterial whole genome sequences were downloaded from the GenBank database as of 7 November 2020 [27]. The ARGs carried by E. coli isolates with isolation information were identified using standalone BLAST analyses against the ResFinder [28]. The E. coli isolates we used from the public database possessed at least one of the ceftiofur resistance genes (CTX-M-55, CMY-2 and NDM-5) that was also present in our 24 study isolates. This analysis resulted in a total of 1145 E. coli isolates that were used for further study (Table S2). The variant call format (VCF) file for the variants identified with Parsnp was then used to determine pair-wise single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) distances between core genomes. To estimate the E. coli population structure, BAPS v6.0 software [29,30] and the module hierBAPS [31] was applied to the data to fit lineages to genome data using nested clustering. BAPS groups were assigned based on SNPs in the core genome of the E. coli strains.

2.8. Data Availability

Genome assemblies of the 24 sequencing strains in this study were deposited in GenBank under BioProject accession number PRJNA857571.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The GP Breeding Stage Is Associated with High Level Ceftiofur Resistance

We obtained 86 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli isolates (57.3%) from our 150 samples and their prevalence varied across the 5 chicken breeding periods. Only a single ceftiofur-resistant E. coli was recovered from egg samples. All GP samples (100%) were positive for ceftiofur-resistant E. coli and the prevalence decreased at EL (36.7%) but then increased in PL (66.7%) and LL (80%) (Table S1). The high GP prevalence was consistent with a prior study of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli that remained at 100% prevalence in broiler chickens from weeks 3–5 [32]. Our results indicated that the high GP prevalence of the ceftiofur-resistant E. coli was most likely associated with the administration of β-lactam antibiotics during this period [33] and this was consistent with the antimicrobials (amoxicillin and ceftiofur) used on the farm (Table S3). All these 86 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli isolates were resistant to ceftiofur and ceftazidime, 78 were also ciprofloxacin-resistant and 85 and 60% were resistant to aztreonam and gentamicin, respectively (Table S4). However, only 11 isolates exhibited resistance or intermediate resistance to meropenem, and most of the isolates remained susceptible to colistin (94.2%). Moreover, higher MICs for aztreonam, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin and ceftiofur were found in the isolates from the GP period than from other breeding stages. These isolates were extremely highly resistant (MIC ≥ 256 mg L−1) to ceftiofur, gentamicin and ciprofloxacin and indicated that the GP period generated the most serious resistance phenotypes.

3.2. Molecular Characterization of Ceftiofur Resistant E. coli

ERIC-PCR was successfully performed on 84 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli (2 failed) resulting in 22 patterns (A to V) (Figure S1). Clonal spread was suggested in isolates that shared a >80% identify for each unique ERIC-PCR pattern. Each pattern was shared by a range of 1–20 isolates and the most common were types R (23.8%; 20/84), E (8.3%; 7/84) and J (8.3%, 7/84). One isolate from each of the 22 unique patterns and the 2 ERIC-PCR failed isolates (24 total) were selected for further WGS (Figure S1 and Table S4). We identified nine known STs including ST101, ST602, ST746, ST7611, ST48, ST206, ST1158, ST1485 and ST354. ST101 predominated, and this was consistent with the frequent identification of ST101 in E. coli isolates from farms, slaughterhouses and food markets [34]. In addition, we identified <35 SNPs in each of the 22 unique ERIC-PCR patterns, suggesting a clonal pattern of spread [35,36,37]. We further identified 9 distinct clones based on the SNP analysis, but 22 clonal relationships using ERIC-PCR, indicating SNP-based analysis could more precisely distinguish the clonal relationships (Figure 1).
In our 24 samples selected for WGS analysis, we found 12 ST101 E. coli isolates harboring ESBLs and these were present in all 4 stages of layer breeding. The other STs were detected discontinuously or continuously in only 2–3 stages. For example, ST354 persisted across three consecutive periods, ST206 for three discontinuous periods while ST602, ST7611, ST48, ST1158 and ST1485 were only observed in two stages each (Figure 1). These data suggested that ST101 E. coli was the predominant and persistent clone during the layer breeding and agreed with our previous study using randomly collected samples from a Chinese poultry production chain [22]. The long-term persistence of ST101 E. coli during layer breeding was likely to be the reason for the high prevalence of ST101 E. coli on the chicken farm. This phenomenon may be associated with an advanced fitness of ST101 E. coli carrying ceftiofur resistance genes in chickens and should be further explored.

3.3. Phylogenetic Analysis with GenBank Ceftiofur-Resistant E. coli

Interestingly, WGS analysis of our isolates indicated only three ARGs that were responsible for the ceftiofur resistance we found: the ESBL blaCTX-M-55, the AmpC blaCMY-2 and the carbapenemase blaNDM-5). We compared the WGS data to E. coli strains in GenBank (as of 7 November 2021) that carried at least 1 of these genes and identified 1145 E. coli strains (Table S2). The core genomes of isolates sharing <35 SNPs were grouped and identified as clonally spread [35,36,37] and one isolate from each group was randomly selected for further study. This resulted in 580 isolates that were selected for phylogenetic tree construction and consisted of 571 GenBank samples and 9 samples from the current study (Table S5).
The 580 E. coli isolates were primarily of human origin and nearly half originated in China. A large ST diversity was also found that was dominated by ST167 (5.5%), ST10 (5.0%), ST48 (4.5%), ST156 (3.8%), ST617 (2.9%), ST410 (2.8%) and ST101 (2.6%). All isolates in the phylogenetic tree were classified into 7 clades sharing a total of 96,249 SNPs. The most prevalent ceftiofur resistance genes were blaCTX-M-55 (57.2%, 332/580), blaNDM-5 (32.9%, 191/580) and blaCMY-2 (5.5%, 32/580) (Figure 2). This pattern was similar to that in the current study, where CTX-M-55 predominated in the 24 E. coli (13/24) we sequenced (Figure 1).
Our study was limiting in that (1) the epidemiology of the long-term persistence of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli had only been investigated in one breeder farm, (2) the questionnaire only investigated the types of antibiotics used in the breeder farm, but the administration of antibiotics in which phase was not obtained and (3) the concentration range of different antimicrobials used in the breeder farm was also not included in the questionnaire. Thus, a larger scale of epidemiology with a more detailed questionnaire should be further explored.

4. Conclusions

We monitored the prevalence and persistence of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli from five stages of layer breeding and found a high prevalence of ceftiofur resistance across the five periods (3.33–100%). In particular, ST101 was the most persistent ST across the four chicken feeding stages and this likely facilitated the high prevalence of these ceftiofur-resistant E. coli on the chicken farm. The long-term persistence of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli across the layer breeding should be further explored.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani13010090/s1, Figure S1: ERIC-PCR dendrogram of the 84 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli isolates. ERIC-PCR patterns with a cut-off at 80% identify were considered to be in the same cluster and are indicated as groups A–V, respectively. The black lines to the left of the fingerprints represent isolates of the same cluster. The circles represent the strains for sequencing analysis. Table S1: the number of samples collected from chickens across five breeding periods. Table S2: the isolates collected from GenBank that possessed at least one of the ceftiofur resistance genes (blaCTX-M-55, blaCMY-2 and blaNDM-5). Table S3: the types of antimicrobials that were in use at the time of sample collection. Table S4: the molecular typing, MLST and MIC of the 84 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli isolates collected in current study. Table S5: background information of the 571 isolates that was selected from the 1145 E. coli isolates based on SNP to construct phylogenetic tree with 9 E. coli isolates in current study.

Author Contributions

Data curation, M.L. and J.W.; formal analysis, Y.L. (Yafei Li) and X.L. (Xiaoqing Lu); investigation, H.T. and S.C.; methodology, R.Z.; project administration, Y.L. (Yafei Li) and J.S.; resources, W.H.; software, X.L. (Xiaoping Liao) and X.L. (Xinlei Lian); writing—original draft, M.L. and J.W.; funding acquisition, X.L. (Xiaoping Liao), Y.L. (Yahong Liu) and J.S.; writing—review & editing, R.Z. and S.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was jointly supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFD1800400), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31730097, 31802243 and 31902323), the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2022A1515011532 and 2020A1515010310) and the Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32121004).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Animal Ethics Committee of South China Agricultural University (Approved No. 2019g004 at 30 May 2019).” for studies involving animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be available with the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Livermore, D.M.; Canton, R.; Gniadkowski, M.; Nordmann, P.; Rossolini, G.M.; Arlet, G.; Ayala, J.; Coque, T.M.; Kern-Zdanowicz, I.; Luzzaro, F.; et al. CTX-M: Changing the face of ESBLs in Europe. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2007, 59, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Bevan, E.R.; Jones, A.M.; Hawkey, P.M. Global epidemiology of CTX-M beta-lactamases: Temporal and geographical shifts in genotype. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 2145–2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Hornish, R.; Katarski, S. Cephalosporins in Veterinary Medicine—Ceftiofur Use in Food Animals. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2002, 2, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, P.; Shen, Z.; Zhang, C.; Song, L.; Wang, B.; Shang, J.; Yue, X.; Qu, Z.; Li, X.; Wu, L.; et al. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance among Escherichia coli from chicken and swine, China, 2008–2015. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 203, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Persoons, D.; Haesebrouck, F.; Smet, A.; Herman, L.; Heyndrickx, M.; Martel, A.; Catry, B.; Berge, A.C.; Butaye, P.; Dewulf, J. Risk factors for ceftiofur resistance in Escherichia coli from Belgian broilers. Epidemiol. Infect. 2011, 139, 765–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hoepers, P.G.; Silva, P.L.; Rossi, D.A.; Valadares Junior, E.C.; Ferreira, B.C.; Zuffo, J.P.; Koerich, P.K.; Fonseca, B.B. The association between extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) and ampicillin C (AmpC) beta-lactamase genes with multidrug resistance in Escherichia coli isolates recovered from turkeys in Brazil. Br. Poult. Sci. 2018, 59, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, Z.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Y.; Xia, L.; Zhao, L.; Guo, C.; Liu, X.; Qin, L.; Hao, Z. High Prevalence and Diversity Characteristics of bla(NDM), mcr, and bla(ESBLs) Harboring Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli From Chicken, Pig, and Cattle in China. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 755545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rocha, F.R.; Pinto, V.P.; Barbosa, F.C. The Spread of CTX-M-Type Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases in Brazil: A Systematic Review. Microb. Drug Resist. 2016, 22, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Shi, X.; Li, Y.; Yang, Y.; Shen, Z.; Cai, C.; Wang, Y.; Walsh, T.R.; Shen, J.; Wu, Y.; Wang, S. High prevalence and persistence of carbapenem and colistin resistance in livestock farm environments in China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 406, 124298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kim, H.; Kim, Y.A.; Seo, Y.H.; Lee, H.; Lee, K. Prevalence and Molecular Epidemiology of Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase (ESBL)-Producing Escherichia coli from Multiple Sectors of Poultry Industry in Korea. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shim, J.B.; Seo, K.W.; Kim, Y.B.; Jeon, H.Y.; Lim, S.K.; Lee, Y.J. Molecular characteristics of extended-spectrum and plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli isolated from commercial layer in Korea. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 949–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ortega-Paredes, D.; de Janon, S.; Villavicencio, F.; Ruales, K.J.; De La Torre, K.; Villacís, J.E.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Matheu, J.; Bravo-Vallejo, C.; Fernández-Moreira, E.; et al. Broiler Farms and Carcasses Are an Important Reservoir of Multi-Drug Resistant Escherichia coli in Ecuador. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 547843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yang, Q.E.; Walsh, T.R.; Liu, B.T.; Zou, M.T.; Deng, H.; Fang, L.X.; Liao, X.P.; Sun, J.; Liu, Y.H. Complete Sequence of the FII Plasmid p42-2, Carrying blaCTX-M-55, oqxAB, fosA3, and floR from Escherichia coli. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 4336–4338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Wu, C.; Wang, Y.; Shi, X.; Wang, S.; Ren, H.; Shen, Z.; Wang, Y.; Lin, J.; Wang, S. Rapid rise of the ESBL and mcr-1 genes in Escherichia coli of chicken origin in China, 2008–2014. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2018, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Nakayama, T.; Le Thi, H.; Thanh, P.N.; Minh, D.T.N.; Hoang, O.N.; Hoai, P.H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Jinnai, M.; Do, P.N.; Van, C.D.; et al. Abundance of colistin-resistant Escherichia coli harbouring mcr-1 and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing E. coli co-harbouring bla(CTX-M-55) or (-65) with bla(TEM) isolates from chicken meat in Vietnam. Arch. Microbiol. 2022, 204, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Seo, K.W.; Shim, J.B.; Lee, Y.J. Emergence of CMY-2-Producing Escherichia coli in Korean Layer Parent Stock. Microb. Drug Resist. 2019, 25, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhu, T.; Chen, T.; Cao, Z.; Zhong, S.; Wen, X.; Mi, J.; Ma, B.; Zou, Y.; Zhang, N.; Liao, X.; et al. Antibiotic resistance genes in layer farms and their correlation with environmental samples. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Laube, H.; Friese, A.; von Salviati, C.; Guerra, B.; Kasbohrer, A.; Kreienbrock, L.; Roesler, U. Longitudinal monitoring of extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase/AmpC-producing Escherichia coli at German broiler chicken fattening farms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 4815–4820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Gazal, L.E.S.; Medeiros, L.P.; Dibo, M.; Nishio, E.K.; Koga, V.L.; Gonçalves, B.C.; Grassotti, T.T.; de Camargo, T.C.L.; Pinheiro, J.J.; Vespero, E.C.; et al. Detection of ESBL/AmpC-Producing and Fosfomycin-Resistant Escherichia coli From Different Sources in Poultry Production in Southern Brazil. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 604544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mezhoud, H.; Chantziaras, I.; Iguer-Ouada, M.; Moula, N.; Garmyn, A.; Martel, A.; Touati, A.; Smet, A.; Haesebrouck, F.; Boyen, F. Presence of antimicrobial resistance in coliform bacteria from hatching broiler eggs with emphasis on ESBL/AmpC-producing bacteria. Avian Pathol. J. WVPA 2016, 45, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ma, J.; Liu, J.H.; Lv, L.; Zong, Z.; Sun, Y.; Zheng, H.; Chen, Z.; Zeng, Z.L. Characterization of extended-spectrum β-lactamase genes found among Escherichia coli isolates from duck and environmental samples obtained on a duck farm. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 3668–3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Wang, Y.; Zhang, R.; Li, J.; Wu, Z.; Yin, W.; Schwarz, S.; Tyrrell, J.M.; Zheng, Y.; Wang, S.; Shen, Z.; et al. Comprehensive resistome analysis reveals the prevalence of NDM and MCR-1 in Chinese poultry production. Nat. Microbiol. 2017, 2, 16260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Versalovic, J.; Koeuth, T.; Lupski, J.R. Distribution of repetitive DNA sequences in eubacteria and application to fingerprinting of bacterial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 1991, 19, 6823–6831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hematzadeh, A.; Haghkhah, M. Biotyping of isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from human infections by RAPD and ERIC-PCR. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D.; et al. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. A J. Comput. Mol. Cell Biol. 2012, 19, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Treangen, T.J.; Ondov, B.D.; Koren, S.; Phillippy, A.M. The Harvest suite for rapid core-genome alignment and visualization of thousands of intraspecific microbial genomes. Genome Biol. 2014, 15, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Zhang, R.M.; Sun, J.; Sun, R.Y.; Wang, M.G.; Cui, C.Y.; Fang, L.X.; Liao, M.N.; Lu, X.Q.; Liu, Y.X.; Liao, X.P.; et al. Source Tracking and Global Distribution of the Tigecycline Non-Susceptible tet(X). Microbiol. Spectr. 2021, 9, e0116421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bortolaia, V.; Kaas, R.S.; Ruppe, E.; Roberts, M.C.; Schwarz, S.; Cattoir, V.; Philippon, A.; Allesoe, R.L.; Rebelo, A.R.; Florensa, A.F.; et al. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 3491–3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Corander, J.; Marttinen, P.; Siren, J.; Tang, J. Enhanced Bayesian modelling in BAPS software for learning genetic structures of populations. BMC Bioinform. 2008, 9, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Tang, J.; Hanage, W.P.; Fraser, C.; Corander, J. Identifying currents in the gene pool for bacterial populations using an integrative approach. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5, e1000455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cheng, L.; Connor, T.R.; Siren, J.; Aanensen, D.M.; Corander, J. Hierarchical and spatially explicit clustering of DNA sequences with BAPS software. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 1224–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Dierikx, C.M.; van der Goot, J.A.; Smith, H.E.; Kant, A.; Mevius, D.J. Presence of ESBL/AmpC-producing Escherichia coli in the broiler production pyramid: A descriptive study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e79005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Chattopadhyay, M.K. Use of antibiotics as feed additives: A burning question. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Hu, Z.; Peng, Z.; Zhang, X.; Li, Z.; Jia, C.; Li, X.; Lv, Y.; Tan, C.; Chen, H.; Wang, X. Prevalence and Molecular Characterization of Antimicrobial-Resistant Escherichia coli in Pig Farms, Slaughterhouses, and Terminal Markets in Henan Province of China. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2021, 18, 733–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chew, K.L.; Octavia, S.; Ng, O.T.; Marimuthu, K.; Venkatachalam, I.; Cheng, B.; Lin, R.T.P.; Teo, J.W.P. Challenge of drug resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Clonal spread of NDM-1-positive ST-308 within a tertiary hospital. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 2220–2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Han, L.; Lu, X.-Q.; Liu, X.-W.; Liao, M.-N.; Sun, R.-Y.; Xie, Y.; Liao, X.-P.; Liu, Y.-H.; Sun, J.; Zhang, R.-M. Molecular Epidemiology of Fosfomycin Resistant E. coli from a Pigeon Farm in China. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, M.G.; Zhang, R.M.; Wang, L.L.; Sun, R.Y.; Bai, S.C.; Han, L.; Fang, L.X.; Sun, J.; Liu, Y.H.; Liao, X.P. Molecular epidemiology of carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli from duck farms in south-east coastal China. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 176, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 13 00090 g001 550
Figure 1. Prevalence, persistence, phylogenetic and genomic characterization analysis of the 24 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli isolates we isolated for this study. The orange and green squares represent positivity for ARGs and plasmid Inc types, respectively. Roman numerals represent the persistence of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli across five stages of chicken breeding: I, egg; II, GP period; III, EL period; IV, PL period; V, LL period. Filled circles represent ceftiofur-resistant E. coli and the heatmap indicates the numbers of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli shared between ERIC-PCR patterns.
Figure 1. Prevalence, persistence, phylogenetic and genomic characterization analysis of the 24 ceftiofur-resistant E. coli isolates we isolated for this study. The orange and green squares represent positivity for ARGs and plasmid Inc types, respectively. Roman numerals represent the persistence of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli across five stages of chicken breeding: I, egg; II, GP period; III, EL period; IV, PL period; V, LL period. Filled circles represent ceftiofur-resistant E. coli and the heatmap indicates the numbers of ceftiofur-resistant E. coli shared between ERIC-PCR patterns.
Animals 13 00090 g001
Animals 13 00090 g002 550
Figure 2. Phylogenetic analysis of the representative ceftiofur-resistant E. coli from this study and GenBank. Origins, countries, prevalence, ceftiofur resistance genes and ST types of the isolates are indicated from the inner to outer ring. Red dots represent the isolates from this study and the blue dot represents the isolates from GenBank that share <35 SNPs with an isolate in this study.
Figure 2. Phylogenetic analysis of the representative ceftiofur-resistant E. coli from this study and GenBank. Origins, countries, prevalence, ceftiofur resistance genes and ST types of the isolates are indicated from the inner to outer ring. Red dots represent the isolates from this study and the blue dot represents the isolates from GenBank that share <35 SNPs with an isolate in this study.
Animals 13 00090 g002
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

Liao, M.; Wu, J.; Li, Y.; Lu, X.; Tan, H.; Chen, S.; Huang, W.; Lian, X.; Sun, J.; Liao, X.; et al. Prevalence and Persistence of Ceftiofur-Resistant Escherichia coli in A Chicken Layer Breeding Program. Animals 2023, 13, 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010090

AMA Style

Liao M, Wu J, Li Y, Lu X, Tan H, Chen S, Huang W, Lian X, Sun J, Liao X, et al. Prevalence and Persistence of Ceftiofur-Resistant Escherichia coli in A Chicken Layer Breeding Program. Animals. 2023; 13(1):90. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010090

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liao, Meina, Jiaen Wu, Yafei Li, Xiaoqing Lu, Huizhen Tan, Shanshan Chen, Wenqing Huang, Xinlei Lian, Jian Sun, Xiaoping Liao, and et al. 2023. "Prevalence and Persistence of Ceftiofur-Resistant Escherichia coli in A Chicken Layer Breeding Program" Animals 13, no. 1: 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010090

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