4.7 Article

Prevalence of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli from pigs at slaughter in the UK in 2013

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 69, Issue 11, Pages 2947-2950

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dku258

Keywords

cephalosporins; resistance; CTX-M; SHV; ESBLs

Funding

  1. Defra
  2. FSA
  3. BPEX
  4. VMD
  5. PHE of the OZ0150 consortium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To determine the prevalence and types of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli occurring in pigs at slaughter in the UK in 2013. Caecal samples from 637 pigs, sampled via a UK-wide monitoring programme in 2013, were enriched overnight in buffered peptone water, before plating to CHROMagar CTX and Oxoid Brilliance ESBL agar. Presumptive ESBL-producing E. coli from both media were tested for ESBL phenotype using MAST ES beta L ID discs. Isolates with an ESBL phenotype were examined for the presence of bla(CTX-M,) bla(OXA), bla(SHV) and bla(TEM) genes using a multiplex PCR. All bla(CTX-M) and bla(SHV) genes identified by PCR were sequenced. A total of 23.4% (95% CI 19.2-27.6) of pigs were positive for ESBL-producing E. coli; 22% (95% CI 17.8-26.1) of the pigs carried E. coli producing CTX-M enzymes [comprising enzyme types 1 (18.7% of pigs), 3 (0.2%), 14 (0.5%), 15 (1.4%), 27 (0.5%), 32 (0.5%) and 55 (0.3%)] and 2.2% (95% CI 0.8-3.6) of the pigs carried E. coli producing SHV-12. Five pigs carried both CTX-M- and SHV-12-producing E. coli as different isolates. There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two medium types in terms of the proportions of each CTX-M enzyme type isolated. In this UK study, 23.4% of pigs were found to be positive for ESBL-producing E. coli using selective culture media. The use of two different commercially available ESBL isolation media was found to improve the detection of ESBL-producing E. coli.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available