4.3 Article

Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance genes in Listeria monocytogenes isolated from dairy farms

期刊

FOODBORNE PATHOGENS AND DISEASE
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 201-211

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2005.2.201

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antimicrobial resistance of Listeria monocytogenes (n = 38) isolated from the four dairy farms to 15 antimicrobial agents was evaluated. All 38 L. monocytogenes isolates from the four farms evaluated were resistant to more than one antimicrobial in different combinations. All L. monocytogenes isolates evaluated were resistant to cephalosporin C (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] >= 512 mu g/mL), streptomycin (MIC >= 32) and trimethoprim (MIC >= 512). Most L. monocytogenes isolates were resistant to ampicillin (92%, MIC >= 2), rifampicin (84%, MIC >= 4), rifamycin (84%, MIC >= 4), and florfenicol (66%, MIC >= 32) and some were resistant to tetracycline (45%, MIC >= 16), penicillin G (40%, MIC >= 2) and chloramphenicol (32%, MIC >= 32). All L. monocytogenes isolates were susceptible to amoxicillin, erythromycin, gentamicin, kanamycin and vancomycin. Susceptibility of L. monocytogenes to the antimicrobials evaluated was quite consistent among the dairy farms evaluated. However, some variability in antimicrobial susceptibility among dairy farms was noted. Nineteen of 38 L. monocytogenes isolates contained more than one antimicrobial resistance gene sequence. A high frequency of floR (66%) was found in L. monocytogenes followed by penA (37%), strA (34%), tetA (32%), and sulI (16%). Other tetracycline resistance genes (tetB, tetC, tetD, WE, and tetG) and other antimicrobial resistance genes (cmlA, strB, aadA, sulI, vanA, vanB, ampC, ermB, ereA, and ereB) were not found in any of the L. monocytogenes isolates from the four dairy farms. Results of the present study demonstrated that L. monocytogenes isolated from the dairy farm environment were resistant to many antimicrobials and contained one or more antimicrobial resistance genes.

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

4.3
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