4.7 Article

Dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes and human pathogenic bacteria from a pig feedlot to the surrounding stream and agricultural soils

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 357, 期 -, 页码 53-62

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.05.066

关键词

Antibiotic; Manure; Antibiotic resistance gene; Human pathogenic bacteria; Dissemination

资金

  1. Zhejiang Provincial National Science Foundation of China [LY18B070001]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [21377112]
  3. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0200205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), human pathogenic bacteria (HPB), and antibiotic-resistant HPB (ARHPB) from animal feedlot to nearby environment poses a potentially high risk to environmental ecology and public health. Here, a metagenomic analysis was employed to explore the dissemination of ARGs, HPB, and ARHPB from a pig feedlot to surrounding stream and agricultural soils. In total, not detectable (ND) 1,628.4 mu g/kg of antibiotic residues, 18 types of ARGs, 48 HPB species, and 216 ARB isolates were detected in all samples. Antibiotic residues from pig feedlot mainly migrated into stream sediments and greenhouse soil. The dominant ARGs and HPB species from pig feedlot spread into stream sediments (tetracycline resistance genes, Clostridium difficile, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis), stream water (multidrug resistance (MDR) genes, Shigella flexneri, and Bordetella pertussis), and greenhouse soil (MDR genes, Bacillus andvacis, and Brucella melitensis). It is concerning that 54.4% of 216 ARB isolates from all samples were potential ARHPB species, and genome sequencing and functional annotation of 4 MDR HPB isolates showed 9 ARG types. Our findings revealed the potential migration and dissemination of antibiotic residues, ARGs, HPB, and ARHPB from pig feedlot to surrounding stream and agricultural soils via pig sewage discharge and manure fertilization.

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