Roberto Montes de JIMENEZ OCA, Maria Andrea SOTO CERRILLO, Mohamed Zidan Mohamed SALEM, Mona Mohamed Mohamed Yasseen ELGHANDOUR, Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed SALEM, Ahmed Eid KHOLIF

Detection of sensitive and mutant ruminal bacteria isolates from sheep, cattle, and bufalo using 14 therapeutic antibiotics

In the present study, sensitive and mutant colonies of some ruminal bacterial species isolated from sheep, cattle, and bufalowere detected. We counted and considered mutant colonies the bacterial colonies grown in the clear inhibition zone in the Kirby Bauerdisk difusion susceptibility test. Detected mutant colonies were higher in bufalo than in cattle and sheep. Duricef and metronidazolecaused no mutations in any species. Te others formed mutant colonies, where roxithromycin = polymyxin = chloramphenicol =gentamicin < erythromycin < vancomycin < piperacillin = cefotaxime < streptomycin < cefoperazone < ciprofoxacin < amikacin.Sheep had the highest number of sensitive isolates, and the number of sensitive isolates was dramatically lower in cattle and bufalo.Tere were no sensitive isolates with the antibiotic metronidazole, and there was a low number of sensitive isolates with duricef. Teother antibiotics had more sensitive isolates (gentamicin = ciprofoxacin = amikacin > streptomycin = piperacillin > erythromycin >vancomycin = cefoperazone = cefotaxime > roxithromycin > polymyxin > chloramphenicol). Te number of sensitive isolates of thediferent ruminant species for all the antibiotics was highest in bufalo, followed by cattle and then sheep (P < 0.05). We could concludethat subtherapeutic antibiotic use in ruminant feeding may lead to the formation of antibiotic-resistant mutant colonies, making theirsubtherapeutic efect nonexistent.

PDF

___

1. Hartung J, Kietzmann M. Use of antibiotics in animal production. In: Proceedings of the Max Rubner Conference 2012, Antibiotics in the Food Chain. Karlsruhe, Germany: MRI; 2012. pp. 56.
2. Landers TF, Cohen B, Wittum TE, Larson EL. A review of antibiotic use in food animals: perspective, policy, and potential. Public Health Rep 2012; 127: 422.
3. Fisher MJP, Scott R. Evaluating and controlling pharmaceutical emissions from dairy farms: a critical frst step in developing a preventative management approach. J Cleaner Prod 2008; 16: 14371446.
4. Russell JB, Houlihan AJ. Ionophore resistance of ruminal bacteria and its potential impact on human health. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2003; 27: 6574.
5. Rychlik JL, Russell JB. Te adaptation and resistance of Clostridium aminophilum F to the butyrivibriocin-like substance of Butyrivibrio fbrisolvens JL5 and monensin. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2002; 209: 9398.
6. Newbold CJ, Rode LM. Dietary additives to control methanogenesis in the rumen. International Congress Series 2006; 1293: 138147.
7. Salem AZM, Gohar YM, Lopez S, Ronquillo MG, Cerrillo MA. Sensitivity of ruminal bacterial isolates of sheep, cattle and bufalo to 13 therapeutic antibiotics. Afr J Microbiol Res 2012; 6: 4727 4733.
8. Ofcial Journal of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Additives for Use in Animal Nutrition, 2013. pp. L268/29L268/43.
9. Levinson W, Jawetz E. Review of Medical Microbiology and Immunology. New York, NY, USA: Lange Medical Book/McGraw- Hill; 2000.
10. Peach KC, Bray WM, Winslow D, Linington PF, Linington RG. Mechanism of action-based classifcation of antibiotics using high-content bacterial image analysis. Mol Biosyst 2013; 9: 1837 1848.
11. Merck & Co. Tioglycolate broth. In: Merck Microbiology Culture Media Manual. Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA: Merck; 1982. p. 161.
12. National Institutes of Health Circular: Culture Media for the Sterility Test, 2nd rev. Bethesda, MD, USA: National Institutes of Health; 1946.
13. Moolman GJJ, Wyk MV. Kirby-Bauer disc difusion susceptibility testing as a screening procedure for cephalosporin resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae - correlation with the E-test. South Afr J Epidemiol Infect 2004; 19: 5559.
14. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw- Hill International; 1980.
15. SAS. SAS/STAT Users Guide (Version 8). Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.; 1999.
16. Van Soest PJ. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Cornell University Press; 1994.
17. McCuddin ZP, Carlson SA, Rasmussen MA, Franklin SK. Klebsiella to Salmonella gene transfer within rumen protozoa: implications for antibiotic resistance and rumen defaunation. Vet Microbiol 2006; 114: 275284.
18. Sengupta N, Alam SI, Kumar RB, Singh L. Diversity and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of cultivable anaerobic bacteria from soil and sewage samples of India. Infect Genet Evol 2011; 11: 6477.
19. Russell JB, Strobel HJ. Mini review: Efect of ionophores on ruminal fermentation. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989; 55: 16.
20. Fulghum RS, Baldwin BB, Williams PP. Antibiotic susceptibility of anaerobic ruminal bacteria. Appl Microbiol 1968; 16: 301 307.
21. Costa SS, Viveiros M, Amaral L, Couto I. Multidrug efux pumps in Staphylococcus aureus: an update. Open Microbiol 2013; 7: 5971.
22. Callaway TR, Russell JB. Selection of a highly monensin- resistant Prevotella bryantii sub-population with altered outer membrane characteristics. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999; 65: 47534759.
23. Roberts IS. Te biochemistry and genetics of capsular polysaccharide production in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 1996; 50: 285315.
24. Nagaraja TG, Taylor MB. Susceptibility and resistance of ruminal bacteria to antimicrobial feed additives. Appl Environ Microbiol 1987; 53: 16201625.