4.7 Article

Diversity, abundance, and persistence of antibiotic resistance genes in various types of animal manure following industrial composting

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 344, 期 -, 页码 716-722

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.11.020

关键词

Animal species; Antibiotic resistance gene; Industrial composting; Mobile genetic element

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41671474, 41601531]
  2. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [201303094]
  3. 948 Project of Chinese Ministry of Agriculture [2015-Z37]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aerobic composting is used widely for animal manure recycling, and it may reduce the amount of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) that enter the environment. We sampled three types of animal (bovine, chicken, and pig) manure and the corresponding composts from 12 large-scale farms, and tested multiple ARGs and mobile genetic elements (MGEs) by high-throughput qPCR. A total of 109 ARGs were detected in the manure and compost samples, thereby demonstrating that both are important ARG reservoirs. The diversity and abundance of ARGs were significantly higher in chicken and pig manure than bovine manure, but industrial composting was more efficient at reducing the ARGs in chicken manure than pig and bovine manure. Composting universally reduced some ARGs, but inconsistently influenced other ARGs from different types of animal manures. Network analysis detected the widespread co-occurrence of ARGs and MGEs. floR, ermF, catB3, aac(6')-lb(akaaacA4), and aadA were identified as suitable indicator genes for estimating the total abundance of ARGs. Our results suggest that different animal species had significant effects on the diversity, abundance, and persistence of ARGs, where the abundance of transposons, heavy metal concentration, total nitrogen level, and the dosage and duration of exposure to antibiotics may explain these differences. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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