The Impact of In-Water vs. In-Feed Chlortetracycline and Tiamulin Administration in Piglets on the Fecal Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella

V. Ishengoma, R. Amachawadi, M. Tokach, Qing Kang, R. Goodband, J. DeRouchey, Jason Woodworth, T. Nagaraja
{"title":"The Impact of In-Water vs. In-Feed Chlortetracycline and Tiamulin Administration in Piglets on the Fecal Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella","authors":"V. Ishengoma, R. Amachawadi, M. Tokach, Qing Kang, R. Goodband, J. DeRouchey, Jason Woodworth, T. Nagaraja","doi":"10.3390/applmicrobiol4010020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in bacteria is a growing public health concern in the US and around the world threatening the continual use of antimicrobials. In pigs, the oral route, either in-feed or in-water, is by far the most common route of administration of antimicrobials. Because the distribution of the antibiotic in the gut and the dosages are different, the impact of in-feed vs. in-water administration of antibiotics on the prevalence of pathogens, such as Salmonella, and the development of AMR are likely to be different. Therefore, a study was conducted to compare in-feed vs. in-water administrations of chlortetracycline (CTC) and/or tiamulin on the fecal prevalence and AMR profiles of Salmonella in nursery piglets. A total of 1296 weaned piglets, housed in 48 pens (27 piglets per pen), were assigned randomly to six treatment groups: Control (no antibiotic), in-feed CTC, in-water CTC, in-feed tiamulin, in-water tiamulin, or in-feed CTC and tiamulin. Fecal samples (n = 1440) were collected randomly from five piglets from each pen during the pre-treatment (days 7, 0), treatment (days 7, 14), and post-treatment (days 21, 28) phases. Salmonella enterica isolation and identification were completed by culture and PCR methods. The microbroth dilution method with SensititreTM (ThermoFisher Scientific, Lenexa, KS, USA) plates was used to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance of Salmonella strains. The susceptibility and resistance were interpreted based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. The overall prevalence of Salmonella was 3.0% (43/1440). All isolates belonged to Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhimurium. Salmonella isolates were susceptible to azithromycin and resistant (100%) to ampicillin, streptomycin, sulfisoxazole, tiamulin, and tetracycline. Neither antibiotic, CTC or tiamulin, nor the route of administration, in-feed or in-water, had an effect (p > 0.05) on the occurrence of resistant Salmonella in the feces of piglets.","PeriodicalId":502845,"journal":{"name":"Applied Microbiology","volume":"348 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol4010020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in bacteria is a growing public health concern in the US and around the world threatening the continual use of antimicrobials. In pigs, the oral route, either in-feed or in-water, is by far the most common route of administration of antimicrobials. Because the distribution of the antibiotic in the gut and the dosages are different, the impact of in-feed vs. in-water administration of antibiotics on the prevalence of pathogens, such as Salmonella, and the development of AMR are likely to be different. Therefore, a study was conducted to compare in-feed vs. in-water administrations of chlortetracycline (CTC) and/or tiamulin on the fecal prevalence and AMR profiles of Salmonella in nursery piglets. A total of 1296 weaned piglets, housed in 48 pens (27 piglets per pen), were assigned randomly to six treatment groups: Control (no antibiotic), in-feed CTC, in-water CTC, in-feed tiamulin, in-water tiamulin, or in-feed CTC and tiamulin. Fecal samples (n = 1440) were collected randomly from five piglets from each pen during the pre-treatment (days 7, 0), treatment (days 7, 14), and post-treatment (days 21, 28) phases. Salmonella enterica isolation and identification were completed by culture and PCR methods. The microbroth dilution method with SensititreTM (ThermoFisher Scientific, Lenexa, KS, USA) plates was used to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance of Salmonella strains. The susceptibility and resistance were interpreted based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. The overall prevalence of Salmonella was 3.0% (43/1440). All isolates belonged to Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhimurium. Salmonella isolates were susceptible to azithromycin and resistant (100%) to ampicillin, streptomycin, sulfisoxazole, tiamulin, and tetracycline. Neither antibiotic, CTC or tiamulin, nor the route of administration, in-feed or in-water, had an effect (p > 0.05) on the occurrence of resistant Salmonella in the feces of piglets.
仔猪饮水与喂食金霉素和噻嘧啶对沙门氏菌粪便流行率和抗菌药耐药性的影响
细菌中的抗菌素耐药性(AMR)是美国和全世界日益严重的公共卫生问题,威胁着抗菌素的持续使用。在猪的饲养中,口服途径(饲料或饮水)是迄今为止最常见的抗菌药给药途径。由于抗生素在肠道中的分布和剂量不同,饲料中和饮水中使用抗生素对沙门氏菌等病原体的流行和 AMR 的发展可能会产生不同的影响。因此,我们开展了一项研究,以比较饲料中添加金霉素(CTC)和/或替莫林与饮水中添加金霉素和/或替莫林对保育仔猪粪便中沙门氏菌流行率和 AMR 图谱的影响。共有 1296 头断奶仔猪被随机分配到六个处理组,每组 48 个猪栏(每个猪栏 27 头仔猪):对照组(不使用抗生素)、饲喂四氯化碳组、水中四氯化碳组、饲喂替莫林组、水中替莫林组或饲喂四氯化碳和替莫林组。在治疗前(第 7 天,第 0 天)、治疗中(第 7 天,第 14 天)和治疗后(第 21 天,第 28 天)阶段,从每个猪栏随机收集 5 头仔猪的粪便样本(n = 1440)。通过培养和 PCR 方法完成了肠炎沙门氏菌的分离和鉴定。采用 SensititreTM(ThermoFisher Scientific,Lenexa,KS,USA)平板微流稀释法测定沙门氏菌菌株的抗菌药敏感性和耐药性。药敏性和耐药性是根据临床和实验室标准研究所的指南解释的。沙门氏菌的总体流行率为 3.0%(43/1440)。所有分离菌株均属于伤寒沙门氏菌肠亚种。分离出的沙门氏菌对阿奇霉素敏感,对氨苄西林、链霉素、磺胺异恶唑、替米考星和四环素耐药(100%)。无论是抗生素、四氯化碳或替氨霉素,还是给药途径(喂食或饮水),对仔猪粪便中耐药沙门氏菌的出现都没有影响(p > 0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信