IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0242195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can the use of older-generation beta-lactam antibiotics in livestock production over-select for beta-lactamases of greatest consequence for human medicine? An in vitro experimental model

Author

Listed:
  • Olanrewaju J Ogunrinu
  • Keri N Norman
  • Javier Vinasco
  • Gizem Levent
  • Sara D Lawhon
  • Virginia R Fajt
  • Victoria V Volkova
  • Tara Gaire
  • Toni L Poole
  • Kenneth J Genovese
  • Thomas E Wittum
  • H Morgan Scott

Abstract

Though carbapenems are not licensed for use in food animals in the U.S., carbapenem resistance among Enterobacteriaceae has been identified in farm animals and their environments. The objective of our study was to determine the extent to which older-generation β-lactam antibiotics approved for use in food animals in the U.S. might differentially select for resistance to antibiotics of critical importance to human health, such as carbapenems. Escherichia coli (E. coli) strains from humans, food animals, or the environment bearing a single β-lactamase gene (n = 20 each) for blaTEM-1, blaCMY-2, and blaCTX-M-* or else blaKPC/IMP/NDM (due to limited availability, often in combination with other bla genes), were identified, along with 20 E. coli strains lacking any known beta-lactamase genes. Baseline estimates of intrinsic bacterial fitness were derived from the population growth curves. Effects of ampicillin (32 μg/mL), ceftriaxone (4 μg/mL) and meropenem (4 μg/mL) on each strain and resistance-group also were assessed. Further, in vitro batch cultures were prepared by mixing equal concentrations of 10 representative E. coli strains (two from each resistance gene group), and each mixture was incubated at 37°C for 24 hours in non-antibiotic cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton II (CAMH-2) broth, ampicillin + CAMH-2 broth (at 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 μg/mL) and ceftiofur + CAMH-2 broth (at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8μg/mL). Relative and absolute abundance of resistance-groups were estimated phenotypically. Line plots of the raw data were generated, and non-linear Gompertz models and multilevel mixed-effect linear regression models were fitted to the data. The observed strain growth rate distributions were significantly different across the groups. AmpC strains (i.e., blaCMY-2) had distinctly less robust (p

Suggested Citation

  • Olanrewaju J Ogunrinu & Keri N Norman & Javier Vinasco & Gizem Levent & Sara D Lawhon & Virginia R Fajt & Victoria V Volkova & Tara Gaire & Toni L Poole & Kenneth J Genovese & Thomas E Wittum & H Morg, 2020. "Can the use of older-generation beta-lactam antibiotics in livestock production over-select for beta-lactamases of greatest consequence for human medicine? An in vitro experimental model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-25, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242195
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242195
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242195&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0242195?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scott, John C., 2016. "From the Editor," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 523-524, September.
    2. Frank Aarestrup, 2012. "Get pigs off antibiotics," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7404), pages 465-466, June.
    3. Scott, John C., 2016. "From the Editor," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 217-218, June.
    4. Scott, John C., 2016. "From the Editor," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 1-2, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ilse Voskamp & Wim Timmermans & Onno Roosenschoon & Remco Kranendonk & Sabine van Rooij & Tim van Hattum & Marjolein Sterk & Bas Pedroli, 2022. "Long-Term Visioning for Landscape-Based Spatial Planning—Experiences from Two Regional Cases in The Netherlands," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Danielle M. Davidov & Kelly K. Gurka & D. Leann Long & Carmen N. Burrell, 2023. "Comparison of Intimate Partner Violence and Correlates at Urgent Care Clinics and an Emergency Department in a Rural Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Belay, Dagim G. & Jensen, Jørgen D., 2020. "‘The scarlet letters’: Information disclosure and self-regulation: Evidence from antibiotic use in Denmark," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Ricarda Maria Schmithausen & Sophia Veronika Schulze-Geisthoevel & Céline Heinemann & Gabriele Bierbaum & Martin Exner & Brigitte Petersen & Julia Steinhoff-Wagner, 2018. "Reservoirs and Transmission Pathways of Resistant Indicator Bacteria in the Biotope Pig Stable and along the Food Chain: A Review from a One Health Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    5. Dagim G. Belay & Jørgen D. Jensen, 2022. "Quantitative input restriction and farmers’ economic performance: Evidence from Denmark's yellow card initiative on antibiotics," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 155-171, February.
    6. Frida Richard Mgonja & Kaswija John Paul, 2023. "Antibiotic Residues in Foods of Animal Origin: Review," Journal of Biology and Life Science, Macrothink Institute, vol. 14(1), pages 65-76, February.
    7. Dagim G. Belay & Tenaw G. Abate & Jørgen Dejgaard Jensen, 2020. "A Montero Auction Mechanism to Regulate Antimicrobial Consumption in Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1448-1467, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242195. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.