Comparative Studies of Antimicrobial Resistance in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> Isolates from Broiler Chickens with and without Use of Enrofloxacin
This study investigated the effect of enrofloxacin (ENR) administration on the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of <i>E. coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> isolated from broiler chickens under field conditions. The isolation rate of <i...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-06-01
|
| Series: | Foods |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/11/2239 |
| _version_ | 1797597581117751296 |
|---|---|
| author | Ke Shang Ji-Hyuk Kim Jong-Yeol Park Yu-Ri Choi Sang-Won Kim Se-Yeoun Cha Hyung-Kwan Jang Bai Wei Min Kang |
| author_facet | Ke Shang Ji-Hyuk Kim Jong-Yeol Park Yu-Ri Choi Sang-Won Kim Se-Yeoun Cha Hyung-Kwan Jang Bai Wei Min Kang |
| author_sort | Ke Shang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study investigated the effect of enrofloxacin (ENR) administration on the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of <i>E. coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> isolated from broiler chickens under field conditions. The isolation rate of <i>Salmonella</i> was significantly lower (<i>p</i> < 0.05) on farms that administered ENR (6.4%) than on farms that did not (11.6%). The <i>Campylobacter</i> isolation rate was significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) in farms that administered ENR (6.7%) than in farms that did not (3.3%). The ratio of resistance to ENR was significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) in <i>E. coli</i> isolates from farms that used ENR (88.1%) than farms that did not (78.0%). The respective ratio of resistance to ampicillin (40.5% vs. 17.9%), chloramphenicol (38.0% vs. 12.5%), tetracycline (63.3% vs. 23.2%), and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (48.1% vs. 28.6%) and the ratio of intermediate resistance to ENR (67.1% vs. 48.2%) were significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) in <i>Salmonella</i> isolates from the farms that used ENR than farms that did not. In conclusion, the use of ENR at broiler farms was an important factor in decreasing the prevalence of <i>Salmonella</i> but not <i>Campylobacter</i> and caused ENR resistance among <i>E. coli</i> and <i>Salmonella</i> but not <i>Campylobacter</i>. Exposure to ENR could have a co-selective effect on antimicrobial resistance in enteric bacteria in the field. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T03:07:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8cd769a65ade46e3b445555611453876 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2304-8158 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T03:07:44Z |
| publishDate | 2023-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Foods |
| spelling | doaj.art-8cd769a65ade46e3b4455556114538762023-11-18T07:52:09ZengMDPI AGFoods2304-81582023-06-011211223910.3390/foods12112239Comparative Studies of Antimicrobial Resistance in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> Isolates from Broiler Chickens with and without Use of EnrofloxacinKe Shang0Ji-Hyuk Kim1Jong-Yeol Park2Yu-Ri Choi3Sang-Won Kim4Se-Yeoun Cha5Hyung-Kwan Jang6Bai Wei7Min Kang8College of Animal Science and Technology, Luoyang Key Laboratory of Live Carrier Biomaterial and Animal Disease Prevention and Control, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471000, ChinaDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Kongju National University, Yesan 32439, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Avian Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine and Center for Avian Disease, Jeonbuk National University, Iksan 54596, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Avian Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine and Center for Avian Disease, Jeonbuk National University, Iksan 54596, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Avian Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine and Center for Avian Disease, Jeonbuk National University, Iksan 54596, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Avian Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine and Center for Avian Disease, Jeonbuk National University, Iksan 54596, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Avian Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine and Center for Avian Disease, Jeonbuk National University, Iksan 54596, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Avian Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine and Center for Avian Disease, Jeonbuk National University, Iksan 54596, Republic of KoreaDepartment of Avian Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine and Center for Avian Disease, Jeonbuk National University, Iksan 54596, Republic of KoreaThis study investigated the effect of enrofloxacin (ENR) administration on the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of <i>E. coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> isolated from broiler chickens under field conditions. The isolation rate of <i>Salmonella</i> was significantly lower (<i>p</i> < 0.05) on farms that administered ENR (6.4%) than on farms that did not (11.6%). The <i>Campylobacter</i> isolation rate was significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) in farms that administered ENR (6.7%) than in farms that did not (3.3%). The ratio of resistance to ENR was significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) in <i>E. coli</i> isolates from farms that used ENR (88.1%) than farms that did not (78.0%). The respective ratio of resistance to ampicillin (40.5% vs. 17.9%), chloramphenicol (38.0% vs. 12.5%), tetracycline (63.3% vs. 23.2%), and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (48.1% vs. 28.6%) and the ratio of intermediate resistance to ENR (67.1% vs. 48.2%) were significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) in <i>Salmonella</i> isolates from the farms that used ENR than farms that did not. In conclusion, the use of ENR at broiler farms was an important factor in decreasing the prevalence of <i>Salmonella</i> but not <i>Campylobacter</i> and caused ENR resistance among <i>E. coli</i> and <i>Salmonella</i> but not <i>Campylobacter</i>. Exposure to ENR could have a co-selective effect on antimicrobial resistance in enteric bacteria in the field.https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/11/2239<i>E. coli</i><i>Salmonella</i><i>Campylobacter</i>enrofloxacinantimicrobial resistancebroiler chicken |
| spellingShingle | Ke Shang Ji-Hyuk Kim Jong-Yeol Park Yu-Ri Choi Sang-Won Kim Se-Yeoun Cha Hyung-Kwan Jang Bai Wei Min Kang Comparative Studies of Antimicrobial Resistance in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> Isolates from Broiler Chickens with and without Use of Enrofloxacin Foods <i>E. coli</i> <i>Salmonella</i> <i>Campylobacter</i> enrofloxacin antimicrobial resistance broiler chicken |
| title | Comparative Studies of Antimicrobial Resistance in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> Isolates from Broiler Chickens with and without Use of Enrofloxacin |
| title_full | Comparative Studies of Antimicrobial Resistance in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> Isolates from Broiler Chickens with and without Use of Enrofloxacin |
| title_fullStr | Comparative Studies of Antimicrobial Resistance in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> Isolates from Broiler Chickens with and without Use of Enrofloxacin |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Studies of Antimicrobial Resistance in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> Isolates from Broiler Chickens with and without Use of Enrofloxacin |
| title_short | Comparative Studies of Antimicrobial Resistance in <i>Escherichia coli</i>, <i>Salmonella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> Isolates from Broiler Chickens with and without Use of Enrofloxacin |
| title_sort | comparative studies of antimicrobial resistance in i escherichia coli i i salmonella i and i campylobacter i isolates from broiler chickens with and without use of enrofloxacin |
| topic | <i>E. coli</i> <i>Salmonella</i> <i>Campylobacter</i> enrofloxacin antimicrobial resistance broiler chicken |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/11/2239 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT keshang comparativestudiesofantimicrobialresistanceiniescherichiacoliiisalmonellaiandicampylobacteriisolatesfrombroilerchickenswithandwithoutuseofenrofloxacin AT jihyukkim comparativestudiesofantimicrobialresistanceiniescherichiacoliiisalmonellaiandicampylobacteriisolatesfrombroilerchickenswithandwithoutuseofenrofloxacin AT jongyeolpark comparativestudiesofantimicrobialresistanceiniescherichiacoliiisalmonellaiandicampylobacteriisolatesfrombroilerchickenswithandwithoutuseofenrofloxacin AT yurichoi comparativestudiesofantimicrobialresistanceiniescherichiacoliiisalmonellaiandicampylobacteriisolatesfrombroilerchickenswithandwithoutuseofenrofloxacin AT sangwonkim comparativestudiesofantimicrobialresistanceiniescherichiacoliiisalmonellaiandicampylobacteriisolatesfrombroilerchickenswithandwithoutuseofenrofloxacin AT seyeouncha comparativestudiesofantimicrobialresistanceiniescherichiacoliiisalmonellaiandicampylobacteriisolatesfrombroilerchickenswithandwithoutuseofenrofloxacin AT hyungkwanjang comparativestudiesofantimicrobialresistanceiniescherichiacoliiisalmonellaiandicampylobacteriisolatesfrombroilerchickenswithandwithoutuseofenrofloxacin AT baiwei comparativestudiesofantimicrobialresistanceiniescherichiacoliiisalmonellaiandicampylobacteriisolatesfrombroilerchickenswithandwithoutuseofenrofloxacin AT minkang comparativestudiesofantimicrobialresistanceiniescherichiacoliiisalmonellaiandicampylobacteriisolatesfrombroilerchickenswithandwithoutuseofenrofloxacin |