4.6 Article

Characterization of antibiotic resistance in commensal bacteria from an aquaculture ecosystem

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00914

关键词

antibiotic resistance; aquaculture ecosystem; multiple risk factors; commensal bacteria

资金

  1. Ohio Soybean Council [60031678]
  2. U.S.-UK Global Innovation Initiative Award by Institute of International Education
  3. U.S. Department of State [60043259]
  4. Chinese Scholarship Council
  5. [OHOA1006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the study was to improve the understanding of antibiotic resistance (AR) ecology through characterization of antibiotic-resistant commensal isolates associated with an aquaculture production system. A total of 4767 isolates non-susceptible to sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (Sul/Tri), tetracycline (Tet), erythromycin (Erm), or cefotaxime (Ctx), originated from fish, feed, and environmental samples of an aquaculture farm with no known history of antibiotic applications were examined. Close to 80% of the isolates exhibited multi-drug resistance in media containing the corresponding antibiotics, and representative AR genes were detected in various isolates by PCR, with feed isolates had the highest positive rate detected. Identified AR gene carriers involved 18 bacterial genera. Selected AR genes led to acquired resistance in other bacteria by transformation. The AR traits in many isolates were stable in the absence of selective pressure. AR-rich feed and possibly environmental factors may contribute to AR in the aquaculture ecosystem. For minimum inhibitory concentration test, brain heart infusion medium was found more suitable for majority of the bacteria examined than cation-adjusted Mueller Hinton broth, with latter being the recommended medium for clinical isolates by standard protocol. The data indicated a need to update the methodology due to genetic diversity of microbiota for better understanding of the AR ecology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据