4.7 Article

Multidrug resistant Mannheimia haemolytica isolated from high-risk beef stocker cattle after antimicrobial metaphylaxis and treatment for bovine respiratory disease

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 143-152

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2018.06.005

关键词

Bovine respiratory disease; Mannheimia haemolytica; Antimicrobial resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacterial respiratory pathogens in high-risk stocker cattle has been poorly characterized. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of multidrug resistant (MDR; resistance to >= 3 antimicrobial classes) respiratory pathogens in 50 conventionally managed stocker cattle over 21 days after arrival. Cattle received tildipirosin metaphylaxis on day 0 and were eligible to receive up to 3 additional antimicrobials for bovine respiratory disease (BRD): florfenicol, ceftiofur and enrofloxacin. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected on days 0, 7, 14, and 21 for bacterial culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing using disc diffusion and broth microdilution. Mannheimia haemolytica was isolated from 5 of 48, 27 of 50, 44 of 50, and 40 of 50 cattle on days 0, 7, 14, and 21, respectively. One of 5, 27 of 27, 43 of 44, and 40 of 40 M. haemolytica were MDR on days 0, 7, 14, and 21, respectively. Pasteurella multocida was isolated from 6 of 48 cattle on day 0 and none were MDR; no other pathogens were isolated. Twenty-four cattle required at least one BRD treatment; M. haemolytica was isolated before treatment from 13 of 24 cattle; all were MDR. One hundred-eighteen M. haemolytica isolates were subjected to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE); multiple genotypes were identified. Whole genome sequencing of 33 isolates revealed 14 known AMR genes. Multidrug resistant M. haemolytica can be highly prevalent and genetically diverse in stocker cattle; additional research is necessary to determine factors that influence prevalence and the impact on cattle health.

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