Next Article in Journal
The Impact of the SARS-Cov2 Pandemic on a Persuasive Educational Antimicrobial Stewardship Program in a University Hospital in Southern Italy: A Pre-Post Study
Next Article in Special Issue
New Perspective of Origanum vulgare L. and Satureja montana L. Essential Oils as Bovine Mastitis Treatment Alternatives
Previous Article in Journal
First Global Report of Plasmid-Mediated mcr-1 and Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli from Sheep in Portugal
Previous Article in Special Issue
Genomic Features of Salmonella enterica Subspecies houtenae Serotype 45:g,z51:- Isolated from Multiple Abdominal Abscesses of an African Fat-Tailed Gecko, United States, 2020
 
 
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 11
10.3390/antibiotics10111404
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Antimicrobial Drug-Resistant Salmonella in Urban Cats: Is There an Actual Risk to Public Health?

by
János Dégi
1,*,
Kálmán Imre
1,*,
Viorel Herman
1,
Iulia Bucur
1,
Isidora Radulov
2,
Oana-Cătălina Petrec
1 and
Romeo Teodor Cristina
1
1
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Banat’s University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Timișoara, Calea Aradului 119, 300645 Timișoara, Romania
2
Faculty of Agriculture, Banat’s University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Timișoara, Calea Aradului 119, 300645 Timișoara, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2021, 10(11), 1404; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10111404
Submission received: 8 October 2021 / Revised: 4 November 2021 / Accepted: 11 November 2021 / Published: 16 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Resistance and Treatment in Companion, Food and Exotic Animals)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present study was undertaken to investigate the presence of Salmonella spp. in the faeces of client-owned cats in urban areas and to evaluate the risk that is posed to public health. Fresh faecal samples were collected directly from the rectums from 53 diarrhoeic and 32 non-diarrhoeic cats. The samples were individually screened for the presence of Salmonella spp. using standard methods and, in the case of positive findings, the resulting typical colonies were then biochemically confirmed using the VITEK®2 automated system. Subsequently, all of the Salmonella spp. isolates were molecularly tested for the presence of the invA gene. All of the isolates were serotyped using the slide agglutination technique according to the White–Kauffmann–Le Minor scheme. The phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility profile of the isolated strains was obtained from the VITEK®2 system using specific cards from the Gram-negative bacteria. A total of 16 of the samples (18.82%) tested positive for Salmonella spp. according to conventional and molecular testing methods. Serotyping of the Salmonella isolates showed the presence of three serotypes, namely S. enteritidis (n = 9; 56.3%), S. typhimurium (n = 4; 25%), and S. kentucky (n = 3; 18.8%). All of the tested strains showed strong resistance towards cefazolin, cefepime, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone. Additionally, resistance (listed in descending order of strength) was observed to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (11/16; 68.8%), ampicillin (10/16; 62.5%), ampicillin/sulbactam (9/16; 56.3%), gentamicin (9/16; 56.3%), nitrofurantoin (8/16; 50.0%), and amikacin (5/16; 31.3%). No resistance was expressed against ciprofloxacin, ertapenem, imipenem, levofloxacin, piperacillin/tazobactam, and tobramycin. The results of this study highlight a substantial public health issue and medical concern, especially in vulnerable people, such as children, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals.

1. Introduction

The need to treat cats that have infectious diarrhoea is a common problem for veterinarians. However, the role of enteropathogenic bacteria in this disease is poorly understood. It is not uncommon to find Salmonella spp. as culprits in feline diarrhoea, but their clinical evidence in cats is obscured by the fact that these bacteria are considered common to the indigenous intestinal microflora in many other animals [1]. Likewise, there are other zoonotic pathogenic agents in cats (e.g., Clostridium perfringens type A, Clostridium difficile, Campylobacter upsaliensis, C. helveticus, and C. jejuni) that may be responsible for conditions ranging from mild diarrhoea to fatal necroheamorrhagic enteritis [1,2,3,4]. Despite mounting concerns about other pathogens in recent years, Salmonella remains among the leading causes of food-borne disease worldwide [5,6].
Salmonellosis involves a broad spectrum of diseases in humans and animals; it is able to manifest as acute gastrointestinal enteritis, bacteriemia, and extra-intestinally localised infections involving many organs [7]. In humans, infections caused by Salmonella spp. are associated with severe food-borne illnesses, especially in the case of acute gastroenteritis, which is caused by consuming contaminated water and food products [8,9].
Cats and dogs are the most widely kept pet animals. However, the Salmonella carriage status of these animals is largely unknown, and the posed risk to the owner’s health is unclear [10,11]. In particular, cats that can freely roam outside and can scavenge or hunt for food of unknown quality are potential candidates for Salmonella spp. carriage [10]. Subclinical infections in carrier animals can lead to the transmission of the bacterium to humans, which is a much more critical concern [12,13].
The increased popularity of high-protein raw meat-based diets (RMBDs) demonstrates the growing preference for higher protein quantity and quotient in pets’ diets. Uncooked animal products, such as skeletal muscle, fat, internal organs, cartilage, bones (from ruminants, pigs, poultry, horses, game, or fish), unpasteurised milk, and uncooked eggs are included in these diets [14]. The macronutrient profiles of these diets differ from those of commercial pet foods, with RMBDs containing higher protein and fat content. As a result of the potential for pathogen contamination, RMBD diets are not generally recommended by most major veterinary and public health organisations [15]. However, they are becoming increasingly popular. The GI microbiomes and metabolisms of animals fed RMBDs are different from those fed extruded, heat-processed foods, and this has been shown in numerous studies [16,17,18,19]. Feeding raw foods may increase the risk of exposure to potentially pathogenic bacteria for companion animals and human subjects. During infection, pathogenic bacteria compete with and displace the commensal species, resulting in the dysbiosis of the microbial population and gastrointestinal upset [17].
Year by year, the increased multidrug resistance of zoonotic pathogens, including Salmonella, is recognised as one of the most important public health concerns in all geographic regions. This phenomenon is strongly related to the misused and prolonged antibiotic treatments prescribed in human and veterinary medicine [20,21,22].
During the last decade, and under the guidance of the One Health approach, significant signs of progress have been made in the monitoring of the occurrence rate and antimicrobial susceptibility level of Salmonella isolates that have been detected within the food chain [23,24,25,26]. However, no information is available concerning cats’ Salmonella carriage status, and that of other pets and livestock in general, in Romania. Thus, this study aimed to provide data on Salmonella strains’ occurrence and their antimicrobial susceptibility profiles in client-owned cats living in urban areas, and to evaluate the risk posed to public health in Timișoara, one of the major urban settlements in western Romania.
Overall, the collaboration between veterinary and medical professionals and widespread, cooperative efforts to enhance health education are helping to reduce the risks of food-borne and zoonotic infections and supporting the achievement of the goals outlined in the One Health approach [27]. In addition to these concerted efforts, the risk factors require frequent re-evaluation due to the close human–animal bonds shared with pet animals, the changed human–companion animal bond, the many evolving recommendations regarding responsible pet ownership (including standard hygiene practices, responsible breeding, feeding, housing requirements, and mental stimulation), and the physical challenges concerning the biology of animals [28].

2. Results

Overall, a total of 16 out of the 85 investigated cat faecal samples (18.82%) tested positive for Salmonella spp. Using conventional techniques, all of the identified Salmonella strains were successfully amplified within PCR reactions that targeted the invA gene (~284 bp). In the present study, the highest transmission rate of infection was recorded in the 3 to 6 years of age category (8.23%). The Salmonella carriage status of cats, organised according to their sex and age group, is summarily presented in Table 1. No statistically significant associations (p < 0.05) were found between the infection status and any of these epidemiological factors. In agreement with the obtained results, there have been no reports in similar studies on the influence of gender on the prevalence of Salmonella strains isolated from cats. However, other studies have shown that younger and older animals are more likely to acquire pathogens after exposure, including Salmonella, which can result in a severe infection [29].
Table 2 presents the results of species identification using the ID-GNB card. Accordingly, the identified serotypes were categorised into several confidence levels: excellent, very good, acceptable, good, low, unidentified, and error. In this regard, three serovars were identified: S. enteritidis (9/16; 56.3%), S. typhimurium (4/16; 25%), and S. kentucky (3/16; 18.8%).
Previously conducted studies highlight that several Salmonella serovars have been identified in cats, the appearances of which have been found to vary according to their geographic region. Generally, these studies’ results have noted that the serovars which are more commonly found in cat faeces tend to be the same as those found in humans [30,31]. In this study, a total of three serovars were identified, and they correspond to those that have been most frequently reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in humans within European countries [31]. Salmonellosis is a major zoonosis, for which there have been numerous historical reports that indicate the transmission of the pathogen through food, farm animals, and from pets [12,13]. In this regard, multiple cases have been published describing infections with the same transmission route, between humans and animals, at the household level [13]. The transmission route remained unclear in many cases, but the transmission modalities from food to animals or humans, or between humans and animals, have been frequently documented. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the risk factors that increase the likelihood of an infection.
The evidence of somatic (O) and flagellar (H) antigen results from the slide agglutination technique that was performed on the isolated Salmonella strains is summarised in Table 3.
In the present investigation, a positive association (p < 0.005) was found between the diets of cats consuming raw food, especially raw meat, and the presence of Salmonella spp. in their faecal samples (Table 4). Study results from tests on cat food for the presence of Salmonella spp. have underlined that, over time, the occurrence of Salmonella spp. in marketed dry diets has decreased considerably, most likely due to better controls within the manufacturing processes [32].
The survey results demonstrated that Salmonella-positive faecal samples from the outdoor cats accounted for 50% of all positive results (8/16). According to the results published in the scientific literature, outdoor cats are more likely to test positive for Salmonella spp. bacteria [33]. In a study conducted by Thomas et al. [34], the diversity and seasonality of the Salmonella serotype in urban and rural cats were investigated. The study results showed that urban cats had a higher prevalence of salmonellosis than rural cats.
Other factors that can increase the spread of Salmonella infections include improper food handling and faster growth of the bacteria during the summer season. These were considered the primary risk factors in the aforementioned study. Similarly, the change in owners’ culinary preferences resulting in increased consumption of grilled meat during summer can subsequently increase the consumption of uncooked meat, favouring the spread of the infection.
All 16 of the isolated Salmonella strains were found to be resistant to at least three antimicrobial agents. The isolated strains showed many resistances; in particular, many were resistant towards cefazolin, cefepime, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone (Table 5). In addition, resistance was observed (listed in descending order of strength) towards other antimicrobials, including trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (11/16), ampicillin (10/16), ampicillin/sulbactam (9/16), gentamicin (9/16) nitrofurantoin (8/16), and amikacin (5/16). There was no resistance found to the following antimicrobials: ciprofloxacin, ertapenem, imipenem, levofloxacin, piperacillin/tazobactam and tobramycin.
The year-by-year increase in the antimicrobial resistance phenomenon in the zoonotic bacteria, including Salmonella, within the human–animal food chain is considered a severe public health concern. However, the susceptibility of Salmonella to antimicrobial drugs can vastly vary among countries and between regions [20,21,22].
For veterinarians and cat owners alike, the diagnosis of diarrhoea is frustrating as it can be caused by extra-intestinal diseases or gastrointestinal diseases (for example, dietary causes, gastrointestinal infection, inflammation, or neoplasia) [35]. Feline salmonellosis is traditionally diagnosed using the isolation of a Salmonella spp. strain in conjunction with observation of the relevant clinical signs and an assessment of the potential risk factors. This is because the presence of Salmonella bacteria in the cat may not be sufficient for a salmonellosis diagnosis when observed on its own [36]. Salmonellosis is suspected in our study based on the culture results, the clinical symptoms, and the discovery of Salmonella spp. DNA in the cats’ faeces.

3. Discussion

Our study agrees with the conclusions of many previous investigations [29,37,38]. Some factors must also be considered when analysing the prevalence of Salmonella isolates in different regions; these factors include pet hospital management, the reproductive status of the animal, the sampling method used, the season in which the sampling took place, and the method used for the isolation of the bacteria [39]. According to Wei et al. [33], cats had a prevalence of 1.77 per cent for Salmonella spp. isolates. Salmonella kentucky (n = 11), Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica (n = 8), Salmonella indiana (n = 5), and Salmonella typhimurium (n = 4) were the most frequent serotypes to be isolated from cats’ samples. According to a study published by Reimschuessel et al. [29], the prevalence of Salmonella-positive dogs and cats has declined in recent decades. Our study also indicates that raw food consumption is a significant risk factor for Salmonella infection. It is worth noting that nearly half of the animals that tested positive for Salmonella were otherwise asymptomatic (i.e., they were non-diarrhoeic).
The occurrence rate of Salmonella isolates in cats has been established in many other studies that were carried out in numerous geographic regions. The most prevalent species found in this study, adjacent Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium, have also been reported in previous studies presented by Van Immerseel et al. [10] and Guardabassi et al., [40] and, more recently, by Reimschuessel et al. [29] and Wei et al. [33].
Salmonellosis is uncommon in cats; however, no data or research estimating feline salmonellosis or large-scale epidemiological studies examining Salmonella risk factors are available. [41]. Wild birds were implicated in a Salmonella typhimurium infection outbreak in cats and humans, during which salmonellosis was thought to have been transferred from cats to humans [42].
In the case of the S. typhimurium strain, pets may serve as foci of the nosocomial transmission of Salmonella between animals and humans if the appropriate precautions are not followed [43]. Salmonellosis is most commonly found latently in dogs and cats [44]. Different pathogen counts, the host immune status, health complication occurrences, and different disease unit forms lead to different clinical findings.
In the present study, antibiotics that are used to treat infections in humans and pets were found to face high levels of resistance from some isolated strains of Salmonella; this raises the possibility that humans could become infected with multidrug-resistant Salmonella through contact with cats. As a valuable class of antibiotics for treating various human and animal infections, fluoroquinolones are particularly effective against salmonellosis. To keep fluoroquinolones as effective as possible, it is important to use them carefully, regularly check for antibiotic residues in food, and provide comprehensive monitoring for the emergence of bacterial resistance in both animals and humans [45]. Carbapenems (ertapenem and imipenem), known as the “last resort” antibiotics for use in cases that have required drug resistance monitoring, are required to establish any possible links between reservoirs of bacteria and to limit the bidirectional transfer of the encoding genes between Salmonella spp. and other commensal or pathogenic bacteria. S. enterica has a clinical impact as a nosocomial pathogen in humans and the frequency with which it is found to have a resistance to both of the carbapenems is modest compared to other Enterobacteriaceae [46]. Nonetheless, there have been numerous serovars derived from human clinical samples, including S. typhimurium and S. kentucky, that have been found to produce carbapenemase. S. typhimurium and S. kentucky, two other pathogens with high levels of multidrug resistance (MDR), are linked to the spread of virulent clones [46]. Human infections in the European Union have been linked to these three serovars more often than any other geographic group [47].
The diarrhoea caused by Salmonella spp. in cats is frequently difficult to distinguish from diarrhoea caused by other bacteria. The disease manifests itself in mild to severe gastroenteritis, depending on the individual. It is challenging to diagnose bacteria-associated diarrhoea in cats because there is no objective guidance for faecal testing, and identical isolation ratios for the presumed bacterial enteropathogens have been discovered in populations of animals both with and without diarrhoea [36].
According to results of several of the studies from the scientific literature [36,48], the prevalence of Salmonella spp. in cats varies and is similar in diarrhoeic and non-diarrhoeic cats, with shedding rates ranging from 0 to 8.6% in diarrhoeic cats and from 0 to 14% in non-diarrhoeic cats.
Raw food diets for cats are becoming increasingly popular, and there are various options available to cat owners who want to change their feeding practices. When eating a raw diet, there is a genuine risk of contracting well-known bacteria such as Salmonella [41]. The most common sources of Salmonella spp. for indoor cats are considered to be the raw meat provided to them and some processed foods, whereas outdoor cats are at risk of infection from scavenging and hunting rodents and birds, exposure to reptiles, and environmental contamination [41,49].
The dangers of raw feeding are real, especially if pet owners cannot prepare complete, balanced, and safe meals for their animals, or if they do not purchase and store raw meals properly. Raw food is well known to pose a significant risk of infectious disease to the pet, the pet’s environment, and the pet’s owner [50]. Further studies investigating the microbiological safety of raw foods used in the feeding of cats in the investigated region are still necessary for an objective evaluation of the risk that is posed.

4. Conclusions

The results of the present study demonstrate that the client-owned cats that were included in this analysis may be considered an important Salmonella reservoir in the investigated region, potentially excreting the pathogen through their faeces and contaminating the environment. Additionally, both cats with diarrhoea and clinically healthy ones could threaten public health, especially the health of children and immunocompromised people. Following good hygiene practices and minimising the transmission risk of zoonotic infections are recommended. Furthermore, the worrying multidrug resistance of the isolated strains identified in this study highlights the urgent need for the implementation of efficient antimicrobial stewardship programs, due to the ongoing need to protect both human and animal health.

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Sample Collection

Between April and September 2019, a total of 85 faecal samples derived from client-owned cats originating from Timișoara Municipality, western Romania, were collected and screened in order to estimate the prevalence of drug-resistant Salmonella spp. The enrolled animals had presented for veterinary services at the University Veterinary Clinics of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Timișoara.
All sampling protocols were followed in accordance with the relevant national guidelines and regulations. The collection of the faecal specimens was performed with the consent of the pets’ owners, according to the code of the Romanian Veterinary College (protocol numbers 34/1.12.2012) and the procedures of the University Veterinary Clinics of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Timisoara.
A common procedure was established to recruit the diarrhoeic and the non-diarrhoeic cats to the study. The diarrhoeic cats (n = 53) were presented by the owner to the veterinarian with a current gastrointestinal disorder. The faecal consistency was determined, based on a faecal scoring system where a score of 1 was considered very firm, a score of 2 was considered well-formed, a score of 3 was considered soft formed, and a score of 4 was considered watery [51]. Fresh faecal samples from apparently clinically healthy, non-diarrhoeic cats (n = 32) were obtained from animals belonging to veterinary students, during different deworming or immunisation actions. The faecal samples were collected in sterile plastic containers directly from the rectum or as a consequence of spontaneous emission. The harvested specimens were stored in refrigerated boxes and transported to the laboratory in the shortest time possible. During sampling, the owners provided information about the cats’ ages (≤3 yr, from 3 to 6 yr, or older than 6 yr), gender (male or female), breed (Persian, Russian Blue, Siamese, British Shorthair, American Shorthair, Burmese, Maine Coon, or European mix), lifestyle (indoor, outdoor, or partial outdoor), and type of diet (commercial or raw meat diet). Detailed information about these data is presented in Table 1 and Table 4.

5.2. Bacterial Isolation

Salmonella spp. bacteria were isolated using conventional methods and following the protocols recommended by Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 [52], and according to the International Standard Organization (ISO) 6579:2002 standard, revised by ISO 6579-1:2017 [53]. The samples were processed on the day of sampling in the Bacterial Diseases Diagnostic Laboratory (B.6.a), of the Department of Infectious Diseases and Preventive Medicine, located in the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Timișoara.
Firstly, 25 g of each collected sample was homogenised with 10 mL of selenite cystine broth (BBL Selenite-F Broth, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for 5 min. The mixture was then incubated at 35 °C in an aerobic atmosphere for 24 h. Next, one millilitre from each of the pre-enriched samples, after the incubation period, was added to 10 mL of Rappaport Vassiliadis broth (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), and mixed for 2 min, then subsequently incubated in an aerobic atmosphere for 24 h at 42 °C. After incubation, the tube content was stirred and inoculated into the MacConkey agar plates (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) with a bacteriological inoculation loop. The inoculated MacConkey agar plates were incubated at 35 °C in an aerobic atmosphere for 24 h. After this stage, presumptive Salmonella spp. colonies with a characteristic morphology on the XLD agar (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) media were tested for their biochemical characteristics, including xylose fermentation, lysine decarboxylation, and production of hydrogen sulphide. The plates were further incubated at 37 °C in an aerobic atmosphere for 24 h.
Salmonella species were identified with the VITEK®2 automated compact system (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) using the AST–Gram-negative specific bacteria card, which is designed for the automated identification of most clinically significant fermenting and nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli [54].

5.3. Molecular Analyses

All biochemically identified Salmonella strains were directly subjected to molecular analysis. Bacterial genomic DNA was isolated from the strains cultivated on selenite cystine broth media (BBL Selenite-F Broth, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) using a PureLink™ Genomic DNA Mini Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), according to the manufacturer’s specifications. The extracted DNA quantity and quality was determined using a NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (NanoDrop® Technologies, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) by measuring the absorbance at 260 nm. The strains were then molecularly tested for the presence of the Salmonella-specific invA gene (~284 bp) by using a conventional polymerase chain reaction, as was previously described by Lampel et al. (2000). Specific forward (5′ GTG AAA TTA TCG CCA CGT TCG GGC AA-3′) and reverse (5′ TCA TCG CAC CGT CAAAGG AAC C-3′) primers were used [55]. The PCR conditions consisted of an initial denaturation at 95 °C for 5 min, followed by 32 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 1 min, annealing at 55 °C for 1 min, extension at 72 °C for 1 min, and a final extension at 72 °C for 10 min, using the My Cycler (BioRad®, Dubai, United Arab Emirates) thermocycler. All PCR amplicons were visualised on ethidium bromide-stained 2.5% agarose gel under UV light using a gel documentation system (UV transilluminator–2035-2, Bio Olympics USA). The strain Salmonella enterica serovar, ATCC 13076, was used as positive control. The negative control consisted of sterile deionised water.

5.4. Serotyping by Slide Agglutination (Kauffmann–White–Le Minor Scheme)

Serotyping of the Salmonella isolates was achieved in a pure culture based on the evidence of somatic (O) and flagellar (H) antigens through reactions with specific antisera [56]. In this regard, the BD Difco Salmonella O and BD Difco Salmonella H antisera (Becton Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) were used, in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

5.5. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

The antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the isolated Salmonella strains was performed using the VITEK®2 testing system and the AST GN67 card (bioMérieux. Marcy l’Etoile, France).
The tested antimicrobials were: amikacin (AN; MIC range 16–64 μg/mL), ampicillin (AM; MIC range 8–32 μg/mL), ampicillin/sulbactam (SAM; MIC range 8/4–32/16 μg/mL), cefazolin (CZ; MIC range 2–8 μg/mL), cefepime (FEP; MIC range 2–16 μg/mL), ceftazidime (CAZ; MIC range 4–16 μg/mL), ceftriaxone (CRO; MIC range 1–4 μg/mL), ciprofloxacin (CIP; MIC range 0.06–1 μg/mL), ertapenem (ETP; MIC range 0.5–2 μg/mL), gentamicin (GM; MIC range 4–16 μg/mL), imipenem (IPM; MIC range 1–4 μg/mL), levofloxacin (LEV; MIC range 0.12–2 μg/mL), nitrofurantoin (FT; MIC range 32–128 μg/mL), piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP; MIC range 16/4–128/4 μg/mL), tobramycin (TM; MIC range 4–16 μg/mL), and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (SXT; MIC range 2/32–4/76 μg/mL). The obtained results were automatically processed by the system, and the isolates were categorised as susceptible, resistant, or intermediate. The isolates resistant to three or more classes of antimicrobials were classified as multidrug resistant.

5.6. Statistical Analysis

The obtained results were statistically interpreted using the SPSS statistical analysis software package, version 21.0. A nonparametric Pearson’s chi-squared (χ2) test was used in order to find any possible associations between the Salmonella infection status and the recorded epidemiological data. Differences were established as statistically significant when p-value  ≤  0.05.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, J.D. and K.I.; methodology, K.I. and J.D.; software, V.H., R.T.C. and J.D.; validation, R.T.C., I.R. and K.I.; formal analysis, J.D. and K.I.; investigation V.H., I.B., O.-C.P., K.I. and J.D.; resources, R.T.C., J.D., I.R. and V.H.; data curation J.D., K.I., I.B. and I.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.D. and K.I.; writing—review and editing, K.I., J.D., R.T.C. and I.R.; visualisation and supervision R.T.C. and K.I.; project administration and funding acquisition, J.D. and V.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was financed by the CNFIS-FDI-2021-0309 project assigned to the Banat’s University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine from Timisoara through the Institutional Development Fund of the National Council for Financing in Higher Education 2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Banat’s University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine from Timisoara (protocol code 57 of 19.07.2019).

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are included within the article.

Acknowledgments

The present research was carried out within the Project 7 PCCDI/2018/ Subprogram 1.2-Institutional performance/Complex Projects accomplished in CDI consortia, Romania/2018–2020. One part of this research was supported by COST Action CA18217—European Network for Optimization of Veterinary Antimicrobial Treatment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Silva, R.O.; Lobato, F.C. Clostridium perfringens: A review of enteric diseases in dogs, cats and wild animals. Anaerobe 2015, 33, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Álvarez-Pérez, S.; Blanco, J.L.; Harmanus, C.; Kuijper, E.J.; García, M.E. Prevalence and characteristics of Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium difficile in dogs and cats attended in diverse veterinary clinics from the Madrid region. Anaerobe 2017, 48, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Samir, A.; Abdel-Moein, K.A.; Zaher, H.M. Molecular Detection of Toxigenic Clostridioides difficile among Diarrheic Dogs and Cats: A Mounting Public Health Concern. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Thépault, A.; Rose, V.; Queguiner, M.; Chemaly, M.; Rivoal, K. Dogs and Cats: Reservoirs for Highly Diverse Campylobacter jejuni and a Potential Source of Human Exposure. Animals 2020, 10, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vajda, Á.; Ózsvári, L.; Szakos, D.; Kasza, G. Estimation of the Impact of Foodborne Salmonellosis on Consumer Well-Being in Hungary. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chlebicz, A.; Śliżewska, K. Campylobacteriosis, Salmonellosis, Yersiniosis, and Listeriosis as Zoonotic Foodborne Diseases: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Adesiji, Y.O.; Deekshit, V.K.; Karunasagar, I. Antimicrobial-resistant genes associated with Salmonella spp. isolated from human, poultry, and seafood sources. Food Sci. Nutr. 2014, 2, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Garganom, V.; Gambino, D.; Migliore, S.; Vitale, M.; Sciortino, S.; Costa, A.; Vicari, D. Can Human Handling Increase the Presence of Multidrug Resistance (MDR) in Salmonella spp. Isolated from Food Sources? Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, I.C.; Wu, R.; Hu, C.W.; Wu, K.M.; Chen, Z.W.; Chou, C.H. Comparison of Conventional Molecular and Whole-Genome Sequencing Methods for Differentiating Salmonella enterica serovar Schwarzengrund Isolates Obtained from Food and Animal Sources. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Van Immerseel, F.; Pasmans, F.; De Buck, J.; Rychlik, I.; Hradecka, H.; Collard, J.M.; Wildemauwe, C.; Heyndrickx, M.; Ducatelle, R.; Haesebrouck, F. Cats as a risk for transmission of antimicrobial drug-resistant Salmonella. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 2169–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hoelzer, K.; Moreno Switt, A.I.; Wiedmann, M. Animal contact as a source of human non-typhoidal salmonellosis. Vet. Res. 2011, 42, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Abdel-Moein, K.A.; Ahmed, S. Occurrence of extended spectrum β–lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae among pet dogs and cats: An emerging public health threat outside health care facilities. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2014, 42, 796–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Damborg, P.; Broens, E.M.; Chomel, B.B.; Guenther, S.; Pasmans, F.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Weese, J.S.; Wieler, L.H.; Windahl, U.; Vanrompay, D.; et al. Bacterial Zoonoses Transmitted by Household Pets: State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives for Targeted Research and Policy Actions. J. Comp. Pathol. 2016, 155 (Suppl. S1), S27–S40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M.; Heikkilä, T.; Pernu, N.; Kovanen, S.; Hielm-Björkman, A.; Kivistö, R. Raw Meat-Based Diets in Dogs and Cats. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Wernimont, S.M.; Radosevich, J.; Jackson, M.I.; Ephraim, E.; Badri, D.V.; MacLeay, J.M.; Jewell, D.E.; Suchodolski, J.S. The Effects of Nutrition on the Gastrointestinal Microbiome of Cats and Dogs: Impact on Health and Disease. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kerr, K.R.; Vester Boler, B.M.; Morris, C.L.; Liu, K.J.; Swanson, K.S. Apparent total tract energy and macronutrient digestibility and fecal fermentative end-product concentrations of domestic cats fed extruded, raw beef-based, and cooked beef-based diets. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Kerr, K.R.; Dowd, S.E.; Swanson, K.S. Salmonellosis impacts the proportions of faecal microbial populations in domestic cats fed 1-3-d-old chicks. J. Nutr. Sci. 2014, 3, e30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Herstad, K.; Gajardo, K.; Bakke, A.M.; Moe, L.; Ludvigsen, J.; Rudi, K.; Rud, I.; Sekelja, M.; Skancke, E. A diet change from dry food to beef induces reversible changes on the faecal microbiota in healthy, adult client-owned dogs. BMC Vet. Res. 2017, 13, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Butowski, C.F.; Thomas, D.G.; Young, W.; Cave, N.J.; McKenzie, C.M.; Rosendale, D.I.; Bermingham, E.N. Addition of plant dietary fibre to a raw red meat high protein, high fat diet, alters the faecal bacteriome and organic acid profiles of the domestic cat (Felis catus). PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. De Vito, D.; Monno, R.; Nuccio, F.; Legretto, M.; Oliva, M.; Coscia, M.F.; Dionisi, A.M.; Calia, C.; Capolongo, C.; Pazzani, C. Diffusion and Persistence of Multidrug Resistant Salmonella Typhimurium Strains Phage Type DT120 in Southern Italy. BioMed Res. Int. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kuehn, B. Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella. JAMA 2019, 322, 1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mthembu, T.P.; Zishiri, O.T.; El Zowalaty, M.E. Molecular Detection of Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella Isolated from Livestock Production Systems in South Africa. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 3537–3548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Morar, A.; Sala, C.; Imre, K. Occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella isolates recovered from the pig slaughter process in Romania. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries 2015, 9, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Tîrziu, E.; Lazăr, R.; Sala, C.; Nichita, I.; Morar, A.; Şereş, M.; Imre, K. Salmonella in raw chicken meat from the Romanian seaside: Frequency of isolation and antibiotic resistance. J. Food Prot. 2015, 78, 1003–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Imre, K.; Herman, V.; Morar, A. Scientific achievements in the study of the occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of major food-borne pathogenic bacteria in foods and food processing environments in Romania: Review of the last decade. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 5134764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Tîrziu, E.; Bărbălan, G.; Morar, A.; Herman, V.; Cristina, R.T.; Imre, K. Occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of Salmonella spp. in raw and ready-to-eat foods and Campylobacter spp. in retail raw chicken meat in Transylvania, Romania. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2020, 17, 479–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Van der Maaten, T.S.; Turner, D.; Van Tilburg, J.; Vaarten, J. Benefits and risks for people and livestock of keeping companion animals: Searching for a healthy balance. J. Comp. Pathol. 2016, 155, S8–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Overgaauw, P.A.M.; Vinke, C.M.; Hagen, M.A.E.V.; Lipman, L.J.A. A One Health Perspective on the Human-Companion Animal Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 27, 3789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Reimschuessel, R.; Grabenstein, M.; Guag, J.; Nemser, S.M.; Song, K.; Qiu, J.; Clothier, K.A.; Byrne, B.A.; Marks, S.L.; Cadmus, K.; et al. Multilaboratory Survey To Evaluate Salmonella Prevalence in Diarrheic and Nondiarrheic Dogs and Cats in the United States between 2012 and 2014. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 1350–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Sanchez-Vargas, F.M.; Abu-El-Haija, M.A.; Gomez-Duarte, O.G. Salmonella infections: An update on epidemiology, management, and prevention. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2011, 9, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Enteric Disease Surveillance: Salmonella Annual Report. 2016. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nationalsurveillance/pdfs/2016-Salmonella-report-508.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  32. Hellgren, J.; Hästö, L.S.; Wikström, C.; Fernström, L.L.; Hansson, I. Occurrence of Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium and Enterobacteriaceae in raw meat-based diets for dogs. Vet. Rec. 2019, 184, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wei, L.; Yang, C.; Shao, W.; Sun, T.; Wang, J.; Zhou, Z.; Chen, C.; Zhu, A.; Pan, Z. Prevalence and Drug Resistance of Salmonella in Dogs and Cats in Xuzhou, China. J. Vet. Res. 2020, 64, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Thomas, J.; Slawson, R.; Taylor, W. Salmonella serotype diversity and seasonality in urban and rural streams. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 114, 907–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Paris, J.K.; Wills, S.; Balzer, H.J.; Shaw, D.J.; Gunn-Moore, D.A. Enteropathogen co-infection in UK cats with diarrhoea. BMC Vet. Res. 2014, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Marks, S.L.; Rankin, S.C.; Byrne, B.A.; Weese, J.S. Enteropathogenic bacteria in dogs and cats: Diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment, and control. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2011, 25, 1195–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jay-Russell, M.T.; Hake, A.F.; Bengson, Y.; Thiptara, A.; Nguyen, T. Prevalence and characterization of Escherichia coli and Salmonella strains isolated from stray dog and coyote feces in a major leafy greens production region at the United States-Mexico border. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tupler, T.; Levy, J.K.; Sabshin, S.J.; Tucker, S.J.; Greiner, E.C.; Leutenegger, C.M. Enteropathogens identified in dogs entering a Florida animal shelter with normal feces or diarrhea. JAVMA 2012, 241, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Seepersadsingh, N.; Adesiyun, A.A.; Seebaransingh, R. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella spp. in non-diarrhoeic dogs in Trinidad. J. Vet. Med. B Infect. Dis. Vet. Public Health 2004, 51, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Guardabassi, L.; Schwarz, S.; Lloyd, D.H. Pet animals as reservoirs of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria: Review. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2004, 54, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Giacometti, F.; Magarotto, J.; Serraino, A. Highly suspected cases of salmonellosis in two cats fed with a commercial raw meat-based diet: Health risks to animals and zoonotic implications. BMC Vet. Res. 2017, 13, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tauni, M.A.; Osterlund, A. Outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium in cats and humans associated with infection in wild birds. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2000, 41, 339–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wright, J.G.; Tengelsen, L.A.; Smith, K.E.; Bender, J.B.; Frank, R.K.; Grendon, J.H.; Rice, D.H.; Thiessen, A.M.; Gilbertson, C.J.; Sivapalasingam, S.; et al. Multidrug-resistant Salmonella typhimurium in four animal facilities. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 1235–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Kozak, M.; Horosova, K.; Lasanda, V.; Bilek, J.; Kyselova, J. Do dogs and cats present a risk of transmission of salmonellosis to humans? Bratisl. Lek. Listy 2003, 104, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Cuypers, W.L.; Jacobs, J.; Wong, V.; Klemm, E.J.; Deborggraeve, S.; Van Puyvelde, S. Fluoroquinolone resistance in Salmonella: Insights by whole-genome sequencing. Microb. Genom. 2018, 4, e000195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Fernández, J.; Guerra, B.; Rodicio, M.R. Resistance to Carbapenems in Non-Typhoidal Salmonella enterica Serovars from Humans, Animals and Food. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Hugas, M.; Beloeil, P. Controlling Salmonella along the food chain in the European Union—Progress over the last ten years. Eurosurveillance 2014, 19, 20804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Sabshin, S.J.; Levy, J.K.; Tupler, T.; Tucker, S.J.; Greiner, E.C.; Leutenegger, C.M. Enteropathogens identified in cats entering a Florida animal shelter with normal feces or diarrhea. JAVMA 2012, 241, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Finley, R.; Reid-Smith, R.; Weese, J.S. Human health implications of Salmonella-contaminated natural pet treats and raw pet food. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2006, 42, 686–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Freeman, L.M.; Chandler, M.L.; Hamper, B.A.; Weeth, L.P. Current knowledge about the risks and benefits of raw meat–based diets for dogs and cats. JAVMA 2013, 243, 1549–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Queen, E.V.; Marks, S.L.; Farver, T.B. Prevalence of selected bacterial and parasitic agents in feces from diarrheic and healthy control cats from Northern California. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2012, 26, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. The Commission Of The European Communities. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs. EC: Special edition in Romanian. 2005. Chapter 13. Volume 51, pp. 141–166. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/2073/oj (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  53. International Organization for Standardization. 2002, ISO 6579:2002—Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs—Horizontal method for the detection of Salmonella spp. (revised by ISO 6579-1:2017); ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  54. O’Hara, C.M.; Miller, J.M. Evaluation of the VITEK®2 ID-GNB assay for identification of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae and other nonenteric gram-negative bacilli and comparison with the Vitek GNI+ card. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003, 41, 2096–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Lampel, K.A.; Orlandi, P.A.; Kornegay, L. Improved template preparation for PCR-based assay for detection of food-borne bacterial pathogens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 4539–4542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Wattiau, P.; Boland, C.; Bertrand, S. Methodologies for Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica subtyping: Gold standards and alternatives. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 7877–7885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Distribution of the isolated Salmonella strains according to age and gender.
Table 1. Distribution of the isolated Salmonella strains according to age and gender.
ParametersNo. of Faecal Samples CollectedPositive Coproculture from
Salmonella spp.
nn%
Age (years)
≤32855.88
from 3 to 65378.23
>62544.71
Total851618.82
Gender
Female4767.05
Male381011.77
Total851618.82
Table
Table 2. Results showing Salmonella spp. identification and their probability level from the VITEK®2 ID-GNB identification card (bioMérieux. Marcy l’Etoile, France).
Table 2. Results showing Salmonella spp. identification and their probability level from the VITEK®2 ID-GNB identification card (bioMérieux. Marcy l’Etoile, France).
Identified StrainsNo. (%) of Strains Identified at the Following Probability Level
N (%)ExcellentVery GoodAcceptableGoodLowUnidentifiedError
Salmonella enteritidis9 (56.25%)72-----
Salmonella typhimurium4 (25.00%)13
Salmonella kentucky3 (18.75%)21
Total16106-----
Table
Table 3. Somatic and flagellar antigen distribution within the 16 isolated Salmonella strains.
Table 3. Somatic and flagellar antigen distribution within the 16 isolated Salmonella strains.
SerotypesO-AntigensH-AntigensNumber of Isolates
Salmonella enteritidis1, 9, 12f, g, m, p 1,79
Salmonella typhimurium1, 4, 5, 12I, 1, 24
Salmonella kentucky8, 20I, z63
Table
Table 4. Distribution of cat Salmonella spp. positive faecal samples, according to diet, habitat, and clinical aspects.
Table 4. Distribution of cat Salmonella spp. positive faecal samples, according to diet, habitat, and clinical aspects.
Laboratory ResultNutritionHabitatClinical Signs
Commercial FoodRaw Meat DietOutdoorIndoorPartial OutdoorDiarrhoeicNon-Diarrhoeic
DryWet
211846255465332
Total samples858585
Positive Salmonella spp. samples1 (6.25%)5 (31.25%)10 (62.50%)8 (50.00%)6 (37.50%)2 (12.5%)9 (56.25%)7 (43.75%)
Total161616
Table
Table 5. Antimicrobial drug resistance profile of the isolated cat-origin Salmonella strains.
Table 5. Antimicrobial drug resistance profile of the isolated cat-origin Salmonella strains.
No.AntibioticsSalmonella Serotype
Salmonella typhimurium
(n = 4)		Salmonella enteritidis
(n = 9)		Salmonella kentucky
(n = 3)
1.amikacin (AN)041
2.ampicillin (AM)082
3.ampicillin/sulbactam (SAM)081
4.cefazolin (CZ)493
5.cefepime (FEP)493
6.ceftazidime (CAZ)493
7.ceftriaxone (CRO)493
8.gentamicin (GM)441
9.nitrofurantoin (FT)053
10.trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (SXT)371
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dégi, J.; Imre, K.; Herman, V.; Bucur, I.; Radulov, I.; Petrec, O.-C.; Cristina, R.T. Antimicrobial Drug-Resistant Salmonella in Urban Cats: Is There an Actual Risk to Public Health? Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1404. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10111404

AMA Style

Dégi J, Imre K, Herman V, Bucur I, Radulov I, Petrec O-C, Cristina RT. Antimicrobial Drug-Resistant Salmonella in Urban Cats: Is There an Actual Risk to Public Health? Antibiotics. 2021; 10(11):1404. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10111404

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dégi, János, Kálmán Imre, Viorel Herman, Iulia Bucur, Isidora Radulov, Oana-Cătălina Petrec, and Romeo Teodor Cristina. 2021. "Antimicrobial Drug-Resistant Salmonella in Urban Cats: Is There an Actual Risk to Public Health?" Antibiotics 10, no. 11: 1404. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10111404

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