Next Article in Journal
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens—Derived Lipopeptide Biosurfactants Inhibit Biofilm Formation and Expression of Biofilm-Related Genes of Staphylococcus aureus
Previous Article in Journal
Resurgence of Chloramphenicol Resistance in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Due to the Acquisition of a Variant Florfenicol Exporter (fexAv)-Mediated Chloramphenicol Resistance in Kuwait Hospitals
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/antibiotics10101251
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-Producing Escherichia coli in Domestic Dogs: Spread, Characterisation and Associated Risk Factors

by
Nicoletta Formenti
1,*,
Andrea Grassi
1,
Giovanni Parisio
1,
Claudia Romeo
2,
Flavia Guarneri
1,
Laura Birbes
1,
Alessandra Pitozzi
1,
Federico Scali
1,
Antonio Marco Maisano
1,
Maria Beatrice Boniotti
1,
Paolo Pasquali
3 and
Giovanni Loris Alborali
1
1
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy
2
Dipartimento di Scienze degli Alimenti e del Farmaco, Università di Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 27/A, 43124 Parma, Italy
3
Dipartimento di Sicurezza Alimentare, Nutrizione e Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Roma, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2021, 10(10), 1251; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101251
Submission received: 9 September 2021 / Revised: 7 October 2021 / Accepted: 14 October 2021 / Published: 15 October 2021
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In veterinary medicine, the issue of antimicrobial resistance was mainly addressed in food-producing animals (although companion animals also deserve attention). Indeed, these species may be reservoir of resistant microorganisms, such as extended-spectrum β-lactamase and AmpC (ESBL/AmpC)-producing bacteria. Dogs in particular may transmit them to close-contact humans. Overall 266 faecal samples of healthy dogs were microbiologically and molecularly analyzed to investigate ESBL/AmpC-producing Escherichia coli and the effects of host and environmental factors on their spread. A prevalence of 25.9% of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli, supported by blaCTX-M (79.7%), blaTEM (47.8%), blaCMY (13%), and blaSHV (5.8%) gene detection, emerged. Dogs frequenting extra-urban environments showed significantly higher odds of being positive to ESBL/AmpC E. coli (30.2%) compared to urban dogs (16.7%) identifying the environment as a risk factor. About 88.4% of isolates were resistant to cephalosporins, 8.7% to cephalosporins and carbapenems, and 2.9% to cephalosporins, carbapenems, and penicillins. ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli expressing blaCMY were significantly more resistant to cefoxitin, cefotaxime/clavulanic acid and ceftazidime/clavulanic acid, highlighting its negative effects. Our results suggest the role of domestic dogs as a maintenance host of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli leading to a constant health monitoring. The recorded resistances to carbapenems implies attention and further investigations.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a ‘one health’ problem since involves a wide range of participants, humans, animals, and the environment [1]. The emergence and the rapid dissemination of antibiotic-resistant bacteria poses substantial risks for human health with global deaths related to AMR predicted to reach 10 million by 2050, more than the current mortality associated with different forms of cancer [2]. Among the most important bacteria that contributes to the complexity of AMR, Enterobacteriaceae producing extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) and plasmid mediated AmpC beta-lactamase (AmpC) emerged as a healthcare problem worldwide in human and veterinary medicine [3] due to their resistances to third and fourth generation cephalosporins and to the majority of β-lactams [4]. These resistant strains can spread both clonally and horizontally among different lineages, even to non-pathogenic bacteria [5], complexly with multiple reservoirs and different transmission routes [3]. For years major attention was given on ESBL/AmpC- producing bacteria in food producing animals [6,7], potentially transmitting to humans through the food chain, although these strains are found also in companion animals [6,8]. In this regard, the related potential zoonotic risk should be emphasized [3] in light of the increased number of people living with pets, mainly dogs, over the last few decades [9]. Indeed, AMR monitoring in companion animals represents a crucial point due to their potential role, especially of dogs, of reservoir of resistant bacteria likely transmitted to humans through frequent or intimate direct or indirect contacts sharing the same environments [9,10,11,12,13]. Although AMR is closely induced by the over-use of antibiotics [14,15], the use of antimicrobials in companion animals has received little attention and remains unregulated unlike the guidelines or legal restrictions active for farm animals in many countries [16]. For example, cephalosporins, whose use in farm animals is restricted or prohibited in some countries, are still widely used in animals despite they are among the critically important classes for use in human medicine [16]. The continued use of cephalosporins/other important molecules in companion animals could induce resistances that may be transmitted to humans. Thus, information on the presence of AMR in the bacterial flora of dogs should be acquired. In particular, attention should be posed to those bacteria well adapted for colonisation of both humans and animals, such as Escherichia coli, as shared environments provide the opportunity for rapid dissemination of these strains from one host to the other [10]. In addition, the human population is more likely to be exposed to bacteria present in the feces of dogs (e.g., owners picking up after their dogs have defecated) [17]. Although a few studies reported the increase of resistance to several antimicrobials in companion animal isolates over time [18], AMR scientific data should be broadened and monitored over the years concerning domestic dogs in light of their close contacts with owners and the related potential risks of AMR transmission.
Here, we carried out an epidemiological investigation of ESBL/AmpC β-lactamase producing Escherichia coli in domestic dogs with different living attitudes in order to evaluate (i) their prevalence, (ii) their phenotypic and molecular antimicrobial resistances, and (iii) the host and environmental factors influencing the spread of these pathogenic bacteria.

2. Results

A total of 69 ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli isolates were microbiologically detected over the overall sampling of 266 (25.9%; 95%CI: 20.6–31.2). The phylogenetic analysis showed the presence of seven E. coli phylo-groups. Specifically, most of the isolates belonged to either phylogenetic group B1 (21/69; 30.4%) or A (19/69; 27.5%). Six samples each were assigned to group B2, C, E, F (8.7% each), while group D was the least represented (5/69; 7.2%).
Statistical analysis showed the effect of the type of environment on the probability of testing positive to ESBL/AmpC E. coli. In particular, dogs frequenting extra urban environments showed significantly higher odds of being positive (OR = 2.23; 95%CI: 1.10–4.53), with a prevalence of 30.2% (95%CI: 23.6–36.8%), compared to 16.7% (8.2–25.1%) of urban dogs. The age class was not associated with the probability of being positive to ESBL/AmpC E. coli (χ22 = 2.71; p = 0.26). Considering only the subset of individuals (n = 189) that frequented extra urban environments, ESBL/AmpC E. coli prevalence in hunting dogs (n = 131) was 32.8% (95%CI: 24.6–41.0%), while it was 24.1% (95%CI: 12.8–35.5%) in non-hunting dogs (n = 58), yielding a non-significant difference (χ21 = 1.44; p = 0.23).
BlaCTX-M was the most detected resistance gene, found in 55 isolates (79.7%) and equally common in all the phylogenetic groups, with a percentage ranging from 66.7% to 100% (Table 1). BlaTEM was found in 33 isolates (47.8%) and was significantly more associated with groups A, C and E (Fisher’s exact test: p = 0.03). Sequence analysis of the amplicons (n = 25, eight cases were non-typeable) revealed the presence of TEM-1 (24/25), TEM-57 (1/25).
BlaCMY and blaSHV were less common, occurring in nine (13%) and four (5.8%) of the isolates: the latter was indeed detected in groups A and B1. Sequence analysis of the amplicons revealed the presence of SHV-12 (4/4). Neither dogs’ age class nor the type of environment influenced the presence of specific resistance genes isolates (all p > 0.5). Regarding the combinations of resistance genes (Table 2), the presence of blaCTX-M alone was the most frequently observed pattern in the 69 isolates, followed by a combination of blaCTX-M and blaTEM. In general, in most cases (38/69) a single resistance gene was present, and only in one isolate did we detect more than two genes (Table 2).
All of the 69 ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolates were resistant to at least one of the ten antimicrobials (AMs) tested by MIC (median: three; range: two to nine). Most of these (61/69; 88.4%) were resistant to AMs belonging to a single AM class, with only six (8.7%) and two (2.9%) isolates showing resistance to two and all the three AM classes, respectively.
Most of the isolates were resistant to cephalosporins, in particular to FOT (69/69; 100%), FEP (60/69; 86.9%), and TAZ (62/69; 89.8%) (Table 3). Resistance to FOX (14/69; 20.3%) and to F/C and T/C was less frequent (17.4% and 18.8%). Resistance to carbapenemase was rare, with eight isolates resistant to ETP (11.6%), one to MERO (1.4%) and none to IMI. Only two isolates were resistant to TRM (2.9%).
Resistance to cefoxitin and both of the cephalosporins/clavulanic acid antimicrobials was associated to the presence of the blaCMY, with isolates expressing blaCMY being more likely of showing resistance to these antimicrobials (Table 4 and Table 5). Resistance to the other antimicrobials was not related to the presence of any of the examined genes (all p > 0.5). None of the genes influenced the number of antimicrobials nor the number of AM classes that isolates were resistant to (all p > 0.05). BlaCMY influenced the number of antimicrobials an isolate was resistant to: isolates with this gene were resistant on average to 0.47 ± 0.23 SE more antimicrobials than isolates without it (χ21 = 4.25; p = 0.044). However, none of the genes influenced the number of wider AM classes that isolates were resistant to (all p > 0.05).
Resistance to the other antimicrobials was not related to the presence of any of the examined genes (all p > 0.5).

3. Discussion

The present study revealed a high prevalence of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli with higher odds of being positive in dogs frequenting extra urban environments, highlighting the role of the environment as a risk factor. Most of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli were resistant to AMs belonging to cephalosporin class, with six and two isolates showing resistance to two (cephalosporins and carbapenems) and to all the three AM classes (cephalosporins, carbapenems and penicillins), respectively. Resistance to FOX, F/C and T/C was positively associated to the presence of blaCMY: ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli expressing blaCMY were more likely to show resistance to these antimicrobials.
The most frequent ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli phylogenetic group was B1 (21/69; 30.4%), followed by A (19/69; 27.5%), B2 (6/69; 8.7%), C (6/69; 8.7%), E (6/69; 8.7%), and F (6/69; 8.7%). This result was consistent with a previous study about fecal ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolated from healthy Labrador retrievers [19] in which group B1 was the most common phylo-group detected (77/187; 41.2%), followed by C (39/187; 20.9%), B2 (31/187; 16.6%), A (16/187; 8.6%) [19]. Our prevalence of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli (25.9%, 69/266) is consistent with Belas et al. [5] (25.2%, 33/131), Benavides et al. [20] (24.4%, 20/82) and Aslantaş and Yilmaz [21] (22.2%, 95/428) while appears higher than van den Bunt et al. [22] (10.6%, 59/555) and Wedley et al. [17] (7.1% of AmpC and 1.9% of ESBL over 581 canine fecal samples). Although the results of our study appear consistent with what already reported in literature, the lack of a standardized diagnostic method makes difficult the comparison of results emerged from different studies. [23]. In particular, some differences in the diagnostic approach should be considered such as the use of commercial or in-house agar or cephalosporin chosen as supplement as well as its amount, which may vary between study protocols (e.g. the concentration of KB disk or the dilution of 1 μg/mL or 2 μg/mL in the supplement).
In this study, the higher prevalence of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli was recorded in domestic dogs that frequent extra-urban environments identifying natural environments as a risk factor. Beside the role of “conductor” in the transmission of pathogenic strains/resistance genes played by environment [24], our result is supported by van den Bunt et al. [22] and Benavides et al. [20] who defined agricultural settings/natural ecosystems as risk factors for ESBL E. coli in dogs assuming a potential exposure to these pathogenic bacteria or AMR genes from other animals (wild or domestic) or from their fecal material. Previous studies reported that another risk factor for the increase in prevalence of these pathogenic bacteria is the consumption of raw meat, even poultry, an event that would be more likely to occur for a hunting dog [17,19,21]. However, in the present study, considering only extra urban dogs, there was no difference in prevalence of ESBL/AmpC E. coli between hunting and not hunting dogs. Thus, the hunting activity cannot be identified as a risk factor in our study. In any case, the high prevalence of AMR bacteria recorded in domestic dogs poses attention to the frequent contacts that usually occur between dogs and humans, particularly owners living in close contacts. Indeed, domestic dogs can play a key role as conductor or intermediary host between environment and humans, and vice-versa. Thus, in addition to risks related to the food chain, those of AMR and of potential antimicrobial treatment failures [25] related to companion animals, particularly dogs, should not be underestimated.
The blaCTX-M was the most frequent (79.7%, 55/69) among AMR genes, as reported previously [5,20]. The findings of TEM-1 (24/25) and SHV-12 (4/4) as the most frequent variants of blaTEM and blaSHV are consistent with previous studies [26,27,28]. Although blaCMY would appear not to have such a high prevalence (13.0%, 9/69), the negative effects of this AMR gene seems to emerge. Indeed, besides the 100% of resistances to cefotaxime (69/69), mainly induced by blaCTX-M [29], ESBL/AmpC E. coli of this study expressing blaCMY were positively associated to resistance to FOX, F/C and T/C. This result is supported by previous studies [29,30] showing that AmpC enzymes are not inhibited by β-lactamase inhibitors, such as clavulanic acid. Moreover, the negative effects of blaCMY emerged also in the increased number of antimicrobials an isolate expressing this gene was resistant to. The choice was to investigate these four AMR genes due to their most frequently detection when ESBL/AmpC E. coli was isolated not only in dogs [5,17,20,21,22] but also in other animal species [31,32,33] as well as in humans [34,35,36]. Concerning our study area, the only data currently available about the presence of these resistant genes in ESBL/AmpC E. coli are those from a study on wild boar and even in that wild species blaCTX-M was the most frequently detected with a prevalence of 12.3% (185/1504) followed by blaTEM (6.98%, 105/1504), blaCMY (0.86%, 13/1504) and blaSHV (0.47%, 7/1504) [37]. In this regard, focusing on the spread of AMR genes in humans, during 1990s, the most ESBLs were mutants of the classical TEM-1, -2 and SHV-1 enzymes [38] and blaTEM was the most frequent isolated among nosocomial strains [39]. From the 2000s the blaCTX-M genes in ESBL E. coli became the dominant enzymes in human populations worldwide [40] and particularly in Italy with recorded prevalence of CTX-M-type between 19.7% (115/583) and 94% (232/247) [36,38,41,42,43]. The findings of 7 ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli resistant to ertapenem and one isolate resistant to both ertapenem and meropenem is consistent to previous studies about E. coli and ESBL-producing E. coli isolated from dogs’ feces [44,45,46,47]. Although to date, carbapenem-resistances are still uncommon in non-human sources and have been recognized only sporadically in domestic animals [44], the fact that carbapenems remain first-line agents for treatments of ESBL/AmpC E. coli infections [48] leads to their extensive use that resulted in increasing resistances [49]. The fact that four of these ESBL/AmpC E. coli that showed resistance to carbapenems expressed blaCTX-M (n = 2) and blaCTX-M + blaTEM (n = 2) while the other four carried blaCMY (n = 3) and blaCMY + blaTEM (n = 1) leads to further molecular investigations about carbapenemase resistance genes since AmpC-producing isolates are susceptible to carbapenems [30] and that a co-occurrence of AMR genes to cephalosporins and carbapenems was reported [46]. In any case, this spread of carbapenemase resistance in domestic dogs, although still limited, combined with the synanthropic role of domestic dogs, should be kept under control and further investigations would be useful in defining the level of spread of these bacteria in humans living in close contact in order to define whether these recorded patterns are of animal or human origin.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sampling

During 2018 and 2019, a total of 266 fecal samples were collected for research purposes from as many healthy dogs of two provinces of North Eastern Italy. A convenience sampling was carried out in collaboration with three veterinarians. Samples were conferred to the Diagnostic Department of IZSLER (Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna) in Brescia (Italy) for the subsequent diagnostic analysis. During sampling, anamnestic information was registered for the research purposes. For 243 individuals the age was available and dogs were grouped into age class 1 “puppies” (≤1 year old; n = 57), age class 2 “adults” (2–10 years old; n = 161) and age class 3 “old” (11–15 years old; n = 25). A total of 77 dogs lived in the city and frequented exclusively urban environment (e.g., green city areas and urban parks). While a total of 189 dogs lived in the countryside and attended extra-urban environments (agricultural and rural areas of agro-sylvo-pastoral interest also near to small creeks). Out of the 189 extra-urban dogs, 131 were hunting dogs. None of the sampled dogs had received any antibiotic treatment in the last six months.

4.2. Isolation and Identification of ESBL/AmpC E. coli

The identification of β-lactamase-producing E. coli was performed through a double synergy diagnostic method. Specifically, 1 g of feces has been diluted in 9 mL (1:10 dilution) of brain heart infusion (BHI) broth supplemented with 1 mg/L cefotaxime for a pre-enrichment phase. After an overnight incubation, a drop of the BHI broth was used to inoculate MacConkey agar supplemented with 1 mg/L cefotaxime [49]. Positive growths were identified as pink to dark-pink colonies (lactose +). A single bacterial colony from each phenotype-positive sample was resuspended in 250 μL of DNase-Rnase free water and DNA was extracted by lysis-boiling (98 °C for 10 min) for further molecular characterization. Identification of E. coli was conducted by a PCR phylogenetic group analysis according to Clermont et al. [50].

4.3. Analysis of Resistance Genes

The detection of resistance genes was performed through a multiplex PCR using specific primers [51] for blaCTX-M, blaTEM and blaSHV and according to Rehman et al. [52] for blaCMY. The PCR amplification was carried out using DreamTaq Green PCR master mix (Thermo scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Briefly, 25 μL of reaction mix contained 12.5 μL DreamTaq Green PCR master mix (2X), 0.25 μL (10 μM) each of forward and reverse primers of blaTEM and blaSHV, 0.75 µL (10 μM) each of forward and reverse primers of blaCTX-M and blaCMY, 2 μL of template DNA and 6.5 μL of nuclease-free water (NFW). The amplification parameters were set as follows: 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 30 cycles at 95 °C for 30 s, 59 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 1 min, and a final extension phase of 72 °C for 7 min. All amplicons found to be positive for blaTEM and blaSHV were sequenced [53]. Sequences were deposited in NCBI GenBank with accession numbers from OK037506 to OK037530 for blaTEM and from OK037531 to OK037534 for blaSHV.

4.4. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

All phenotype-positive E. coli isolates were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined by broth microdilution using commercial plates (EUVSEC2 SensititreTM plates, Trek diagnostics, Thermo Scientific®) (Table 6). Strains were classified as susceptible or resistant based on epidemiological cut-off values (ECOFFs) recommended by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST, www.eucast.org accessed on 8 September 2021), as described in the Decision 2013/652/EU [54,55] (Table 6).

4.5. Statistical Analysis

Risk factors associated to ESBL/AmpC E. coli infection in dogs were assessed through a logistic regression model, analysing the effect of age class (1, 2 or 3) and type of frequented environment (urban/extra urban) on the infection status (infected/not infected). Additionally, on the subset of dogs that frequented extra-urban environments, differences in ESBL/AmpC E. coli prevalence between hunting and non-hunting dogs were assessed through a chi-square test. Through another set of logistic regressions, we analysed whether the same variables had any effect on the presence (present/absent) of the four resistance genes detected by PCR in positive samples. On the positive samples, we also investigated the association among ESBL/AmpC E. coli phylogenetic groups and the presence of the four resistance genes by Fisher’s exact tests. Then, by a set of nine logistic regressions, we examined the relationship between resistance to the nine antimicrobials tested by MIC (resistant/susceptible) and the presence of the four genes, including the phylogenetic group as a covariate. Firth’s penalized maximum likelihood estimation method was applied to reduce the bias for rare events.
Variation in the number of antimicrobials each isolate was resistant to (i.e., from 0 to 9) was analysed through a Poisson regression, including phylogenetic group and the presence of the four genes as explanatory variables. Finally, we examined the effect of these same variables on multidrug resistance (MDR), according to the definition reported by Sweeney et al. [57].
All the analyses were carried out using SAS/STAT 9.4 software (Copyright © 2021, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

5. Conclusions

The high prevalence of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli recorded in this study shows the role that domestic dogs may play in maintaining and transmitting these infections, even potentially to close-contact humans. Natural environments represent a risk factor for the spread of ESBL/AmpC-producing E. coli strains likely because they can act as “collectors of species” being frequented by many domestic and wild animals that can contribute to the cycle and the spread of these strains.
In addition to the high resistance to third and fourth generation cephalosporins, in a few isolates resistance to carbapenems has also been found and this point leads to new studies. Indeed, both ESBL/AmpC- and carbapenemase-producing E. coli should be further monitored, mostly in dogs that live in such close contact with humans. On one hand, molecular analysis of AMR genes should include carbapenemases genes in order to assess their spread and the potential relation to the recorded microbiological resistances of strains. On the other hand, given the recorded molecular and microbiological resistances, the study should carry on including information about the use of antimicrobials in small domestic animals in order to evaluate the potential relations between antimicrobials used and the onset/occurrence of resistances or their modifications during time.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.F., A.G., G.P., C.R., P.P. and G.L.A.; methodology, A.G., G.P., C.R., L.B., A.P., M.B.B. and F.G.; software, G.P. and C.R.; validation, C.R.; formal analysis, C.R.; investigation, G.P., L.B., A.P., F.G., A.G., F.S. and A.M.M.; resources, G.L.A.; data curation, C.R.; writing—original draft preparation, N.F.; writing—review and editing, N.F., C.R., F.S., P.P. and G.L.A.; visualization, N.F. and C.R.; supervision, M.B.B. and G.L.A.; project administration, G.L.A.; funding acquisition, G.L.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this work, as this study was carried out as a part of the routine activity of Diagnostic Section of Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), and all the animal research activities were performed in compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Acknowledgments

We thank Paola Giangrossi and Valeria Manzone for their help with the project activities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Gil-Gil, T.; Laborda, P.; Sanz-García, F.; Hernando-Amado, S.; Blanco, P.; Martínez, J.L. Antimicrobial resistance: A multifaceted problem with multipronged solutions. Microbiologyopen 2019, 8, e945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Wang, S.; Zeng, X.; Yang, Q.; Qiao, S. Antimicrobial Peptides as Potential Alternatives to Antibiotics in Food Animal Industry. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ljungquist, O.; Ljungquist, D.; Myrenås, M.; Rydén, C.; Finn, M.; Bengtsson, B. Evidence of household transfer of ESBL-/pAmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae between humans and dogs—A pilot study. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2016, 6, 31514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Goossens, H.; Grabein, B. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility data for extended-spectrum β-lactamase- and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae from the MYSTIC Program in Europe and the United States (1997–2004). Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2005, 53, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Belas, A.; Salazar, A.S.; da Gama, L.T.; Couto, N.; Pomba, C. Risk factors for faecal colonisation with Escherichia coli producing extended-spectrum and plasmid-mediated AmpC β-lactamases in dogs. Vet. Rec. 2014, 175, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Madec, J.-Y.; Haenni, M. Antimicrobial resistance plasmid reservoir in food and food-producing animals. Plasmid 2018, 99, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oloso, N.O.; Fagbo, S.; Garbati, M.; Olonitola, S.O.; Awosanya, E.J.; Aworh, M.K.; Adamu, H.; Odetokun, I.A.; Fasina, F.O. Antimicrobial Resistance in Food Animals and the Environment in Nigeria: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Saputra, S.; Jordan, D.; Mitchell, T.; Wong, H.S.; Abraham, R.J.; Kidsley, A.; Turnidge, J.; Trott, D.J.; Abraham, S. Antimicrobial resistance in clinical Escherichia coli isolated from companion animals in Australia. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 211, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bourély, C.; Cazeau, G.; Jarrige, N.; Leblond, A.; Madec, J.; Haenni, M.; Gay, E. Antimicrobial resistance patterns of bacteria isolated from dogs with otitis. Epidemiol. Infect. 2019, 147, e121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Johnson, J.R.; Miller, S.; Johnston, B.; Clabots, C.; DebRoy, C. Sharing of Escherichia coli Sequence Type ST131 and Other Multidrug-Resistant and Urovirulent E. coli Strains among Dogs and Cats within a Household. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 3721–3725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Nam, H.-M.; Lee, H.-S.; Byun, J.-W.; Yoon, S.-S.; Jung, S.-C.; Joo, Y.-S.; Lim, S.-K. Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Fecal Escherichia coli Isolates from Stray Pet Dogs and Hospitalized Pet Dogs in Korea. Microb. Drug Resist. 2010, 16, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Wong, C.; Epstein, S.; Westropp, J. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns in Urinary Tract Infections in Dogs (2010–2013). J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2015, 29, 1045–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Bertelloni, F.; Salvadori, C.; Lotti, G.; Cerri, D.; Ebani, V.V. Antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus strains isolated from healthy domestic dogs. Acta Microbiol. Immunol. Hung. 2016, 64, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Schmidt, V.M.; Pinchbeck, G.; McIntyre, K.M.; Nuttall, T.; McEwan, N.J.; Dawson, S.; Williams, N. Routine antibiotic therapy in dogs increases the detection of antimicrobial-resistant faecal Escherichia coli. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 3305–3316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mdegela, R.; Mwakapeje, E.; Rubegwa, B.; Gebeyehu, D.; Niyigena, S.; Msambichaka, V.; Nonga, H.; Antoine-Moussiaux, N.; Fasina, F. Antimicrobial Use, Residues, Resistance and Governance in the Food and Agriculture Sectors, Tanzania. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pedersen, K.; Jensen, H.; Finster, K.; Jensen, V.F.; Heuer, O.E. Occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from diagnostic samples from dogs. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2007, 60, 775–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Wedley, A.L.; Dawson, S.; Maddox, T.W.; Coyne, K.P.; Pinchbeck, G.L.; Clegg, P.; Nuttall, T.; Kirchner, M.; Williams, N.J. Carriage of antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli in dogs: Prevalence, associated risk factors and molecular characteristics. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 199, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Awosile, B.B.; McClure, J.T.; Saab, M.E.; Heider, L.C. Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from cats and dogs from the Atlantic Provinces, Canada from 1994–2013. Can. Vet. J. 2018, 59, 885–893. [Google Scholar]
  19. Schmidt, V.M.; Pinchbeck, G.L.; Nuttall, T.; McEwan, N.; Dawson, S.; Williams, N. Antimicrobial resistance risk factors and characterisation of faecal E. coli isolated from healthy Labrador retrievers in the United Kingdom. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 119, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Benavides, J.; Salgado-Caxito, M.; Opazo-Capurro, A.; Muñoz, P.G.; Piñeiro, A.; Medina, M.O.; Rivas, L.; Munita, J.; Millán, J. ESBL-Producing Escherichia coli Carrying CTX-M Genes Circulating among Livestock, Dogs, and Wild Mammals in Small-Scale Farms of Central Chile. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aslantaş, Ö.; Yilmaz, E.Ş. Prevalence and molecular characterization of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) and plasmidicAmpCb-lactamase (pAmpC) producing Escherichia coli in dogs. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2017, 79, 1024–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Van den Bunt, G.; Fluit, A.C.; Spaninks, M.P.; Timmerman, A.J.; Geurts, Y.; Kant, A.; Scharringa, J.; Mevius, D.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Bonten, M.J.M.; et al. Faecal carriage, risk factors, acquisition and persistence of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in dogs and cats and co-carriage with humans belonging to the same household. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Torres, R.T.; Fernandes, J.; Carvalho, J.; Cunha, M.V.; Caetano, T.; Mendo, S.; Serrano, E.; Fonseca, C. Wild boar as a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 717, 135001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Graham, D.W.; Bergeron, G.; Bourassa, M.W.; Dickson, J.; Gomes, F.; Howe, A.; Kahn, L.H.; Morley, P.S.; Scott, H.M.; Simjee, S.; et al. Complexities in understanding antimicrobial resistance across domesticated animal, human, and environmental systems. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2019, 1441, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, Y.; Fernández, R.; Durán, I.; Molina-López, R.A.; Darwich, L. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Isolated from Cats and Dogs from the Iberian Peninsula. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 621597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stolle, I.; Prenger-Berninghoff, E.; Stamm, I.; Scheufen, S.; Hassdenteufel, E.; Guenther, S.; Bethe, A.; Pfeifer, Y.; Ewers, C. Emergence of OXA-48 carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in dogs. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 2802–2808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Rzewuska, M.; Stefanska, I.; Kizerwetter-Swida, M.; Chrobak-Cmiel, D.; Szczygielska, P.; Lesniak, M.; Binek, M. Characterization of extended-spectrum-beta-lactamases produced by Escherichia coli strains isolated from dogs in Poland. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2015, 64, 285–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Baede, V.O.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Broens, E.M.; Duim, B.; Dohmen, W.; Nijsse, R.; Timmerman, A.J.; Hordijk, J. Longitudinal Study of Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in Household Dogs. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 3117–3124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Phan, M.-D.; Peters, K.M.; Sarkar, S.; Forde, B.M.; Lo, A.W.; Stanton-Cook, M.; Roberts, L.W.; Upton, M.; Beatson, S.A.; Schembri, M.A. Third-generation cephalosporin resistance conferred by a chromosomally encoded blaCMY-23 gene in the Escherichia coli ST131 reference strain EC958. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2015, 70, 1969–1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Manageiro, V.; Ferreira, E.; Pinto, M.; Fonseca, F.; Ferreira, M.; Bonnet, R.; Caniça, M. Two novel CMY-2-type β-lactamases encountered in clinical Escherichia coli isolates. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2015, 14, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Aguirre, L.; Vidal, A.; Seminati, C.; Tello, M.; Redondo, N.; Darwich, L.; Martín, M. Antimicrobial resistance profile and prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL), AmpC beta-lactamases and colistin resistance (mcr) genes in Escherichia coli from swine between 1999 and 2018. Porc. Health Manag. 2020, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Athanasakopoulou, Z.; Reinicke, M.; Diezel, C.; Sofia, M.; Chatzopoulos, D.; Braun, S.; Reissig, A.; Spyrou, V.; Monecke, S.; Ehricht, R.; et al. Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in ESBL-Producing Escherichia coli Isolates from Animals in Greece. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ghodousi, A.; Bonura, C.; Di Noto, A.M.; Mammina, C. Extended-Spectrum ß-Lactamase, AmpC-Producing, and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli in Retail Broiler Chicken Meat, Italy. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2015, 12, 619–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Dorado-García, A.; Smid, J.H.; Van Pelt, W.; Bonten, M.J.M.; Fluit, A.C.; Bunt, G.V.D.; AWagenaar, J.; Hordijk, J.; Dierikx, C.M.; Veldman, K.T.; et al. Molecular relatedness of ESBL/AmpC-producing Escherichia coli from humans, animals, food and the environment: A pooled analysis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ramos, S.; Silva, V.; Dapkevicius, M.D.L.E.; Caniça, M.; Tejedor-Junco, M.T.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P. Escherichia coli as Commensal and Pathogenic Bacteria among Food-Producing Animals: Health Implications of Extended Spectrum β-lactamse (ESBL) Production. Animals 2020, 10, 2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Carattoli, A.; García-Fernández, A.; Varesi, P.; Fortini, D.; Gerardi, S.; Penni, A.; Mancini, C.; Giordano, A. Molecular Epidemiology of Escherichia coli Producing Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases Isolated in Rome, Italy. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Adam, A.M.; Altalhi, T.A.; El-Megharbel, S.M.; Saad, H.A.; Refat, M.S. Using a Modified Polyamidoamine Fluorescent Dendrimer for Capturing Environment Polluting Metal Ions Zn2+, Cd2+, and Hg2+: Synthesis and Characterizations. Crystals 2021, 11, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. 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. 2006, 59, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Mrowiec, P.; Klesiewicz, K.; Małek, M.; Skiba-Kurek, I.; Sowa-Sierant, I.; Skałkowska, M.; Budak, A.; Karczewska, E. Antimicrobial susceptibility and prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in clinical strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from pediatric and adult patients of two Polish hospitals. New Microbiol. 2019, 42, 197–204. [Google Scholar]
  40. González, D.; Gallagher, E.; Zúñiga, T.; Leiva, J.; Vitas, A.I. Prevalence and characterization of β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in healthy human carriers. Int. Microbiol. 2020, 23, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bailey, J.; Pinyon, J.; Anantham, S.; Hall, R.M. Distribution of the blaTEM gene and blaTEM-containing transposons in commensal Escherichia coli. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2011, 66, 745–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Mugnaioli, C.; Luzzaro, F.; De Luca, F.; Brigante, G.; Perilli, M.; Amicosante, G.; Stefani, S.; Toniolo, A.; Rossolini, G.M. CTX-M-Type Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases in Italy: Molecular Epidemiology of an Emerging Countrywide Problem. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 2700–2706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Giufrè, M.; Ricchizzi, E.; Accogli, M.; Barbanti, F.; Monaco, M.; de Araujo, F.P.; Farina, C.; Fazii, P.; Mattei, R.; Sarti, M.; et al. Colonization by multidrug-resistant organisms in long-term care facilities in Italy: A point-prevalence study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 961–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Melo, L.C.; Boisson, M.N.G.; Saras, E.; Médaille, C.; Boulouis, H.-J.; Madec, J.-Y.; Haenni, M. OXA-48-producing ST372 Escherichia coli in a French dog. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 1256–1258. [Google Scholar]
  45. Valat, C.; Drapeau, A.; Beurlet, S.; Bachy, V.; Boulouis, H.-J.; Pin, R.; Cazeau, G.; Madec, J.-Y.; Haenni, M. Pathogenic Escherichia coli in Dogs Reveals the Predominance of ST372 and the Human-Associated ST73 Extra-Intestinal Lineages. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hong, J.S.; Song, W.; Jeong, S.H. Molecular Characteristics of NDM-5-Producing Escherichia coli from a Cat and a Dog in South Korea. Microb. Drug Resist. 2020, 26, 1005–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sotgiu, G.; Are, B.; Pesapane, L.; Palmieri, A.; Muresu, N.; Cossu, A.; Dettori, M.; Azara, A.; Mura, I.; Cocuzza, C.; et al. Nosocomial transmission of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in an Italian university hospital: A molecular epidemiological study. J. Hosp. Infect. 2018, 99, 413–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Isler, B.; Ezure, Y.; Romero, J.L.G.-F.; Harris, P.; Stewart, A.G.; Paterson, D.L. Is Ceftazidime/Avibactam an Option for Serious Infections Due to Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-Producing Enterobacterales ?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 65, 01052-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Van Damme, I.; Garcia-Graells, C.; Biasino, W.; Gowda, T.; Botteldoorn, N.; De Zutter, L. High abundance and diversity of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli in faeces and tonsils of pigs at slaughter. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 208, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Clermont, O.; Christenson, J.K.; Denamur, E.; Gordon, D.M. The Clermont Escherichia coli phylo-typing method revisited: Improvement of specificity and detection of new phylo-groups. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2013, 5, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fang, H.; Ataker, F.; Hedin, G.; Dornbusch, K. Molecular epidemiology of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases among Escherichia coli isolates collected in a Swedish hospital and its associated health care facilities from 2001 to 2006. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 707–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Rehman, M.; Hasted, T.-L.; Persaud-Lachhman, M.G.; Yin, X.; Carrillo, C.; Diarra, M.S. Genome Analysis and Multiplex PCR Method for the Molecular Detection of Coresistance to Cephalosporins and Fosfomycin in Salmonella enterica Serovar Heidelberg. J. Food Prot. 2019, 82, 1938–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Baldo, V.; Salogni, C.; Giovannini, S.; D’Incau, M.; Boniotti, M.B.; Birbes, L.; Pitozzi, A.; Formenti, N.; Grassi, A.; Pasquali, P.; et al. Pathogenicity of Shiga Toxin Type 2e Escherichia coli in Pig Colibacillosis. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 545818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Mo, S.S.; Urdahl, A.M.; Madslien, K.; Sunde, M.; Nesse, L.L.; Slettemeås, J.S.; Norström, M. What does the fox say? Monitoring antimicrobial resistance in the environment using wild red foxes as an indicator. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Garcia-Graells, C.; Berbers, B.; Verhaegen, B.; Vanneste, K.; Marchal, K.; Roosens, N.H.; Botteldoorn, N.; De Keersmaecker, S.C. First detection of a plasmid located carbapenem resistant blaVIM-1 gene in E. coli isolated from meat products at retail in Belgium in 2015. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 324, 108624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). CLSI supplement M100-S29. In Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 29th ed.; CLSI: Wayne, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sweeney, M.T.; Lubbers, B.V.; Schwarz, S.; Watts, J.L. Applying definitions for multidrug resistance, extensive drug resistance and pandrug resistance to clinically significant livestock and companion animal bacterial pathogens. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 1460–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Occurrence of AMR resistance genes in ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolated from dogs’ faecal samples (n = 69) and their association with phylogenetic groups.
Table 1. Occurrence of AMR resistance genes in ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolated from dogs’ faecal samples (n = 69) and their association with phylogenetic groups.
Genes%% by Phylogenetic Groupp-Value
A (n = 19)B1 (n = 21)B2 (n = 6)C (n = 6)D (n = 5)E (n = 6)F (n = 6)
blaCTX-M79.784.266.783.31008066.71000.61
blaTEM47.857.933.333.383.3083.3500.03
blaCMY1310.519.016.702016.700.65
blaSHV5.810.59.5000001.00
Table
Table 2. Combination of AMR genes found in ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolated from dogs’ faecal samples (n = 69).
Table 2. Combination of AMR genes found in ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolated from dogs’ faecal samples (n = 69).
Genes Combinationn%95% CI
blaCTX-M2739.127.3–50.9
blaCTX-M + blaTEM2536.224.6–47.9
blaTEM45.80.1–11.4
blaCMY45.80.1–11.4
blaSHV34.30–9.3
blaCTX-M + blaCMY22.90–7.0
blaTEM + blaCMY22.90–7.0
blaCTX-M + blaTEM + blaSHV11.40–4.3
Table
Table 3. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolated from dogs’ faecal samples (n = 69). Cefepime (FEP), Cefotaxime (FOT), Cefotaxime/clavulanic acid (F/C), Cefoxitin (FOX), Ceftazidime (TAZ), Ceftazidime/clavulanic acid (T/C), Ertapenem (ETP), Imipenem (IMI), Meropenem (MERO), Temocillin (TRM).
Table 3. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolated from dogs’ faecal samples (n = 69). Cefepime (FEP), Cefotaxime (FOT), Cefotaxime/clavulanic acid (F/C), Cefoxitin (FOX), Ceftazidime (TAZ), Ceftazidime/clavulanic acid (T/C), Ertapenem (ETP), Imipenem (IMI), Meropenem (MERO), Temocillin (TRM).
Distribution (%) of MIC Values (mg/L)
Antimicrobial0.0150.030.060.1250.250.51248163264128
FEP 1.45.77.14.34.312.940.022.91.4
FOT 1.4 5.75.77.132.920.027.1
F/C 60.020.01.41.41.44.31.44.32.91.41.4
FOX 11.452.915.78.61.410.0
TAZ 1.410.015.721.410.020.012.94.31.42.9
T/C 54.324.34.3 1.42.94.34.3 2.91.4
ETP61.427.17.11.41.4 1.4
IMI 98.6 1.4
MERO 97.11.4 1.4
TRM 1.4 1.418.665.710.01.4 1.4
Table
Table 4. Resistance to antimicrobials in ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolated from dogs’ feaces (n = 69): percentage of isolates resistant to each of the ten antimicrobials tested by MIC and occurrence of specific genes. Cefepime (FEP), cefotaxime (FOT), cefotaxime/clavulanic acid (F/C), cefoxitin (FOX), ceftazidime (TAZ), ceftazidime/clavulanic acid (T/C), ertapenem (ETP), imipenem (IMI), meropenem (MERO), temocillin (TRM).
Table 4. Resistance to antimicrobials in ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolated from dogs’ feaces (n = 69): percentage of isolates resistant to each of the ten antimicrobials tested by MIC and occurrence of specific genes. Cefepime (FEP), cefotaxime (FOT), cefotaxime/clavulanic acid (F/C), cefoxitin (FOX), ceftazidime (TAZ), ceftazidime/clavulanic acid (T/C), ertapenem (ETP), imipenem (IMI), meropenem (MERO), temocillin (TRM).
Antimicrobial% of Resistant Isolates% of Resistant Isolates with Associated Genes
blaCTX-MblaSHVblaCMYblaTEM
FEP (n = 60)86.9853.38.350.0
FOT (n = 69)10079.75.813.047.8
F/C (n = 13)18.846.1061.530.8
FOX (n = 14)20.342.8057.135.7
TAZ (n = 62)89.979.06.414.546.8
T/C (n = 12)17.441.7066.725.0
ETP (n = 8)11.650.0050.037.5
IMI00000
MERO (n = 1)1.4100000
TRM (n = 2)2.9500500
Table
Table 5. Logistic regression models showing variation in the probability for an ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolate (n = 69) of being resistant to specific antimicrobials in relation to the presence of selected resistance genes. Only models with at least one significant explanatory variable are reported. Cefoxitin (FOX), cefotaxime/clavulanic acid (F/C), and ceftazidime/clavulanic acid (T/C).
Table 5. Logistic regression models showing variation in the probability for an ESBL/AmpC E. coli isolate (n = 69) of being resistant to specific antimicrobials in relation to the presence of selected resistance genes. Only models with at least one significant explanatory variable are reported. Cefoxitin (FOX), cefotaxime/clavulanic acid (F/C), and ceftazidime/clavulanic acid (T/C).
AntimicrobialGeneParameter Estimate ± SEX21p-Value
FOXblaCMY1.15 ± 0.583.870.049
blaCTX-M−1.15 ± 0.603.730.054
blaTEM−0.57 ± 0.481.370.24
blaSHV−1.25 ± 1.081.340.25
F/CblaCMY1.39 ± 0.615.190.023
blaCTX-M−0.75 ± 0.641.380.24
blaTEM−0.56 ± 0.481.390.24
blaSHV−0.81 ± 1.080.560.45
T/CblaCMY1.33 ± 0.614.750.029
blaCTX-M−1.30 ± 0.852.330.13
blaTEM−1.13 ± 0.732.400.12
blaSHV−1.36 ± 1.251.190.28
Table
Table 6. List of antimicrobials (EUVSEC2 SensititreTM plates), the related cut-off values (ECOFFs, EUCAST, www.eucast.org accessed on 8 September 2021) and the range of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC, mg/L) according to CLSI [56].
Table 6. List of antimicrobials (EUVSEC2 SensititreTM plates), the related cut-off values (ECOFFs, EUCAST, www.eucast.org accessed on 8 September 2021) and the range of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC, mg/L) according to CLSI [56].
AntimicrobialInterpretative Thresholds of AMR (mg/L)
ECOFF (R > mg/L) 1		Range of Concentrations (mg/L)
(N° of Wells in Brackets)
Cefepime (FEP)0.250.06–32 (10)
Cefotaxime (FOT)0.250.25–64 (9)
Cefotaxime/clavulanic acid (F/C)0.250.06–64 (11)
Cefoxitin (FOX)80.5–64 (8)
Ceftazidime (TAZ)0.50.25–128 (10)
Ceftazidime/clavulanic acid (T/C)0.50.125–128 (11)
Ertapenem (ETP)0.030.015–2 (8)
Imipenem (IMI)0.50.12–16 (8)
Meropenem (MERO)0.060.03–16 (10)
Temocillin (TRM)160.5–128 (9)
1 EUCAST Clinical Breakpoint Tables. https://eucast.org/mic_distributions_and_ecoffs/, https://www.eucast.org/mic_and_zone_distributions_and_ecoffs/new_and_revised_ecoffs/ (accessed on 8 September 2021).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Formenti, N.; Grassi, A.; Parisio, G.; Romeo, C.; Guarneri, F.; Birbes, L.; Pitozzi, A.; Scali, F.; Maisano, A.M.; Boniotti, M.B.; et al. Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-Producing Escherichia coli in Domestic Dogs: Spread, Characterisation and Associated Risk Factors. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101251

AMA Style

Formenti N, Grassi A, Parisio G, Romeo C, Guarneri F, Birbes L, Pitozzi A, Scali F, Maisano AM, Boniotti MB, et al. Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-Producing Escherichia coli in Domestic Dogs: Spread, Characterisation and Associated Risk Factors. Antibiotics. 2021; 10(10):1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101251

Chicago/Turabian Style

Formenti, Nicoletta, Andrea Grassi, Giovanni Parisio, Claudia Romeo, Flavia Guarneri, Laura Birbes, Alessandra Pitozzi, Federico Scali, Antonio Marco Maisano, Maria Beatrice Boniotti, and et al. 2021. "Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-Producing Escherichia coli in Domestic Dogs: Spread, Characterisation and Associated Risk Factors" Antibiotics 10, no. 10: 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101251

APA Style

Formenti, N., Grassi, A., Parisio, G., Romeo, C., Guarneri, F., Birbes, L., Pitozzi, A., Scali, F., Maisano, A. M., Boniotti, M. B., Pasquali, P., & Alborali, G. L. (2021). Extended-Spectrum-β-Lactamase- and AmpC-Producing Escherichia coli in Domestic Dogs: Spread, Characterisation and Associated Risk Factors. Antibiotics, 10(10), 1251. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101251

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