Publication: Antimicrobial Resistance in Swine Fecal Specimens Across Different Farm Management Systems
Issued Date
2020-06-17
Resource Type
ISSN
1664302X
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85087162789
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Frontiers in Microbiology. Vol.11, (2020)
Suggested Citation
Suporn Pholwat, Tawat Pongpan, Rattapha Chinli, Elizabeth T. Rogawski McQuade, Iyarit Thaipisuttikul, Parntep Ratanakorn, Jie Liu, Mami Taniuchi, Eric R. Houpt, Suporn Foongladda Antimicrobial Resistance in Swine Fecal Specimens Across Different Farm Management Systems. Frontiers in Microbiology. Vol.11, (2020). doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.01238 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/57964
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Antimicrobial Resistance in Swine Fecal Specimens Across Different Farm Management Systems
Abstract
© Copyright © 2020 Pholwat, Pongpan, Chinli, Rogawski McQuade, Thaipisuttikul, Ratanakorn, Liu, Taniuchi, Houpt and Foongladda. Antimicrobial use in agricultural animals is known to be associated with increases in antimicrobial resistance. Most prior studies have utilized culture and susceptibility testing of select organisms to document these phenomena. In this study we aimed to detect 66 antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes for 10 antimicrobial agent classes directly in swine fecal samples using our previously developed antimicrobial resistance TaqMan array card (AMR-TAC) across three different swine farm management systems. This included 38 extensive antimicrobial use (both in treatment and feed), 30 limited antimicrobial use (treatment only), and 30 no antimicrobial use farms. The number of resistance genes detected in extensive antimicrobial use farms was higher than in limited and no antimicrobial use farms (28.2 genes ± 4.2 vs. 24.0 genes ± 4.1 and 22.8 genes ± 3.6, respectively, p < 0.05). A principal component analysis and hierarchical clustering of the AMR gene data showed the extensive use farm samples were disparate from the limited and no antimicrobial use farms. The prevalence of resistance genes in extensive use farms was significantly higher than the other farm categories for 18 resistance genes including blaSHV, blaCTX–M1 group, blaCTX–M9 group, blaVEB, blaCMY2–LAT, aac(6′)-lb-cr, qnrB1, gyrA83L-E. coli, armA, rmtB, aac(3)-IIa, mphA, 23S rRNA 2075G-Campylobacter spp., mcr-1, catA1, floR, dfrA5-14, and dfrA17. These genotypic findings were supported by phenotypic susceptibility results on fecal E. coli isolates. To examine the timing of AMR gene abundance in swine farms, we also performed a longitudinal study in pigs. The results showed that AMR prevalence occurred both early, presumably from mothers, as well as after weaning, presumably from the environment. In summary, detection of AMR genes directly in fecal samples can be used to qualitatively and quantitatively monitor AMR in swine farms.