Genetic diversity and antimicrobial resistance among isolates of Escherichia coli O157: H7 from feces and hides of super-shedders and low-shedding pen-mates in two commercial beef feedlots

BMC Veterinary Research

Tim A McAllister¹  Chelsey A Agopsowicz²  Kim Stanford² 

[1] Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, Lethbridge, AB, T1J 4B, Canada;Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Agriculture Centre, 100-5401 1st Ave, S, Lethbridge, AB, T1J 4 V6, Canada

关键词: PFGE;    Cattle;    E. coli O157:H7;    Super-shedder;   

Others  :  1119709
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-6148-8-178

 received in 2011-12-22, accepted in 2012-09-24,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Cattle shedding at least 10⁴ CFU Escherichia coli O157:H7/g feces are described as super-shedders and have been shown to increase transmission of E. coli O157:H7 to other cattle in feedlots. This study investigated relationships among fecal isolates from super-shedders (n = 162), perineal hide swab isolates (PS) from super-shedders (n = 137) and fecal isolates from low-shedder (< 10⁴ CFU/g feces) pen-mates (n = 496) using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). A subsample of these fecal isolates (n = 474) was tested for antimicrobial resistance. Isolates of E. coli O157:H7 were obtained from cattle in pens (avg. 181 head) at 2 commercial feedlots in southern Alberta with each steer sampled at entry to the feedlot and prior to slaughter.

Results

Only 1 steer maintained super-shedder status at both samplings, although approximately 30% of super-shedders in sampling 1 had low-shedder status at sampling 2. A total of 85 restriction endonuclease digestion clusters (REPC; 90% or greater similarity) and 86 unique isolates (< 90% similarity) were detected, with the predominant REPC (30% of isolates) being isolated from cattle in all feedlot pens, although it was not associated with shedding status (super- or low-shedder; P = 0.94). Only 2/21 super-shedders had fecal isolates in the same REPC at both samplings. Fecal and PS isolates from individual super-shedders generally belonged to different REPCs, although fecal isolates of E. coli O157:H7 from super- and low-shedders showed greater similarity (P < 0.001) than those from PS. For 77% of super-shedders, PFGE profiles of super-shedder fecal and PS isolates were distinct from all low-shedder fecal isolates collected in the same pen. A low level of antimicrobial resistance (3.7%) was detected and prevalence of antimicrobial resistance did not differ among super- and low-shedder isolates (P = 0.69), although all super-shedder isolates with antimicrobial resistance (n = 3) were resistant to multiple antimicrobials.

Conclusions

Super-shedders did not have increased antimicrobial resistance compared to low-shedder pen mates. Our data demonstrated that PFGE profiles of individual super-shedders varied over time and that only 1/162 steers remained a super-shedder at 2 samplings. In these two commercial feedlots, PFGE subtypes of E. coli O157:H7 from fecal isolates of super- and low-shedders were frequently different as were subtypes of fecal and perineal hide isolates from super-shedders.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Stanford et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Matthews L, McKendrick IJ, Ternet H, Gunn GJ, Synge B, Woolhouse MEJ: Super-shedding cattle and the transmission dynamics of Escherichia coli O157. Epidemiol Infect 2006, 134:131-142.
• [2]Carlson BA, Nightingale KK, Mason GL, Ruby JR, Choat WT, Loneragan GH, Smith GC, Sofos JN, Belk KE: Escherichia coli O157:H7 strains that persist in feedlot cattle are genetically related and demonstrate and enhanced ability to adhere to intestinal epithelial cells. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009, 75:5927-5937.
• [3]Stephens TP, McAllister TA, Stanford K: Perineal swabs reveal the effect of super shedders on the transmission of Escherichia coli O157H7 in commercial feedlots. J Anim Sci 2009, 87:4151-4160.
• [4]Chase-Topping M, Gall D, Low C, Matthews L, Woolhouse M: Super-shedding and the link between human infection and livestock carriage of Escherichia coli O157. Nat Rev Micro 2008, 6:904-912.
• [5]Omisakin F, MacRae M, Odgen ID, Strachan NJC: Concentration and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in cattle feces at slaughter. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003, 69:2444-2447.
• [6]Robinson SE, Brown PE, Wright EJ, Hart CA, French NP: Quantifying within- and between-animal variation and uncertainty associated with counts of Escherichia coli O157 occurring in naturally infected cattle faeces. J R Soc Interface 2009, 6:169-177.
• [7]Ferens WA, Hovde CJ: Escherichia coli O157:H7: animal reservoir and sources of human infection. Foodborne Path Dis 2011, 8:465-487.
• [8]Cobbold RN, Hancock DD, Rice DH, Berg J, Stilborn R, Hovde CJ, Besser TE: Rectoanal junction colonization of feedlot cattle by Escherichia coli O157:H7 and its association with supershedders and excretion dynamics. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007, 73:1563-1568.
• [9]Stanford K, Stephens TP, McAllister TA: Use of model super-shedders to define the role of pen floor and hide contamination in the transmission of Escherichia coli O157:H7. J Anim Sci 2011, 89:237-244.
• [10]Fox JT, Renter DG, Sanderson MW, Nutsch AL, Shi X, Nagaraja TG: Associations between the presence and magnitude of Escherichia coli O157 in feces at harvest and contamination of pre-intervention beef carcasses. J Food Protect. 2008, 71:1761-1767.
• [11]Jacob ME, Renter DG, Nagaraja TG: Animal and truckload-level associations between Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feces and on hides at harvest and contamination of pre-evisceration beef carcasses. J Food Protect 2010, 73:1030-1037.
• [12]Avery SM, Lievana E, Hutchinson ML, Buncic S: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of related Escherichia coli O157 isolates associated with beef cattle and comparison with unrelated isolates from animals, meats and humans. Int J Food Microbiol 2004, 92:161-169.
• [13]Dodd CC, Renter DG, Fox JT, Shi X, Sanderson MW, Nagaraja TG: Genetic relatedness of Escherichia coli O157 isolates from cattle feces and pre-intervention beef carcasses. Foodborne Path Dis 2010, 7:357-365.
• [14]Sargeant JM, Shi X, Sanderson MW, Renter DG, Nagaraja TG: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns of Escherichia coli O157 isolates from Kansas feedlots. Foodborne Path Dis 2006, 3:251-258.
• [15]Lefebvre B, Diarra MS, Giguere K, Roy G, Michaud S, Malouin F: Antibiotic resistance and hypermutability of Escherichia coli from feedlot cattle treated with growth-promoting agents. J Food Protect 2005, 68:2411-2419.
• [16]Van Donkersgoed J, Berg J, Potter A, Hancock D, Besser T, Rice D, LeJeune J, Klashinsky S: Environmental sources and transmission of Escherichia coli O157 in feed lot cattle. Can Vet J 2001, 42:714-720.
• [17]Stanford K, Bach SJ, Marx TH, Jones S, Hansen JR, Wallins GL, Zahiroddini H, McAllister TA: Monitoring Escherichia coli O157:H7 in inoculated and naturally infected feedlot cattle and their environment. J Food Protect 2005, 68:26-33.
• [18]Matthews L, Low JC, Gally DL, Pearce MC, Mellor DJ, Heesterbeek JAP, Chase-Topping M, Naylor SW, Shaw DJ, Reid J, Woolhouse MEJ: Heterogenous shedding of Escherichia coli O157 in cattle and its implications for control. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2006, 103:547-552.
• [19]Tenover FC, Arbeit RD, Goering RV, Mickelsen PA, Murray BE, Pershing DH, Swaminathan B: Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J Clin Microbiol 1995, 33:2233-2239.
• [20]Vali L, Hamouda A, Pearce MC, Knight HI, Evans J, Amyes SGB: Detection of genetic diversity by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis among Escherichia coli O157 isolated from bovine faecal samples by immunomagnetic separation technique. Lett Appl Microbiol 2007, 44:19-23.
• [21]Brun E, Holstad G, Kruse H, Jarp H: Within-sample and between-sample variation of antimicrobial resistance in fecal Escherichia coli isolates from pigs. Microb Drug Resist 2002, 8:385-391.
• [22]Vali L, Wisely KA, Pearce MC, Turner EJ, Knight HI, Smith AW, Amyes SGB: High-level genotypic variation and antibiotic sensitivity among Escherichia coli O157 strains isolated from two Scottish beef cattle farms. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004, 70:5947-5954.
• [23]Prendergast DM, Lendrum L, Pearce R, Ball C, McLernon J, O’Grady D, Scott L, Fanning S, Egan J, Guitierrez M: Verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli O157 in beef and sheep abattoirs in Ireland and characterisation of isolates by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and multi-locus variable number of tandem repeat analysis. Int J Food Microbiol 2011, 144:519-527.
• [24]Rice DH, McMenamin KM, Prichett LC, Hancock DD, Besser TE: Genetic subtyping of Escherichia coli O157 isolates from 41 pacific northwest USA cattle farms. Epidemiol Infect 1999, 122:479-484.
• [25]Arthur TA, Bosilevac JM, Britchta-Harhay DM, Guerin MN, Kalchayanand N, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Koohmaraie M: Transportation and lairage environment effects on prevalence, numbers and diversity of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on hides and carcasses of beef cattle at processing. J Food Protect 2007, 70:280-286.
• [26]Stanford K, Croy D, Bach SJ, Wallins GL, Zahiroddini H, McAllister TA: Ecology of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in commercial dairies in southern Alberta. J Dairy Sci 2005, 88:4441-4451.
• [27]Childs KD, Simpson CA, Warren-Serna W, Bellenger G, Centrella B, Bowling RA, Ruby J, Stefanek J, Vote DJ, Choat T, Scanga JA, Sofos JN, Smith GC, Belk KE: Molecular characterization of Escherichia coli O157:H7 hide contamination routes: feedlot to harvest. J Food Protect. 2006, 69:1240-1247.
• [28]Cooley MB, Carychao D, Nguyen K, Whitehand L, Mandrell R: Effects of environmental stress on stability of tandem repeats in Escherichia coli O157:H7. Appl Environ Microbiol 2010, 76:3398-3400.
• [29]Avery SM, Buncic S: Escherichia coli O157 diversity with respect to survival during drying on concrete. J Food Protect 2003, 66:780-786.
• [30]McGee P, Scott L, Sheridan JJ, Earley B, Leonard N: Horizontal transmission of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during cattle housing. J Food Prot 2004, 67:2651-2656.
• [31]Rao S, Van Donkersgoed J, Bohaychuk V, Besser T, Song X, Wagner B, Hancock D, Renter D, Dargatz D, Morley PS: Antimicrobial drug use and antimicrobial resistance in enteric bacteria among cattle from Alberta feedlots. Foodborne Path Dis 2010, 7:449-457.
• [32]Alexander TW, Inglis GD, Yanke LJ, Topp E, Read RR, Reuter T, McAllister TA: Farm-to-fork characterization of Escherichia coli associated with feedlot cattle with a known history of antimicrobial use. Int J Food Microbiol 2010, 137:40-48.
• [33]Aslam M, Stanford K, McAllister TA: Characterization of antimicrobial resistance and seasonal prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 recovered from commercial feedlots in Alberta Canada. Letts Appl Micro 2010, 50:320-326.
• [34]Sherley M, Gordon DM, Collignon PJ: Evolution of multi-resistance plasmids in Australian clinical isolates of Escherichia coli. Microbiol 2004, 150:1539-1546.
• [35]Singer RS, Ward MP, Maldonado G: Can landscape ecology untangle the complexity of antibiotic resistance? Nat Rev Microbiol 2006, 4:943-952.
• [36]Smith MG, Jordan D, Chapman TA, Chin JJC, Barton MD, Do TN, Fahy VA, Fairbrother JM, Trott DJ: Antimicrobial resistance and virulence gene profiles in multi-drug resistant enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli isolated from pigs with post-weaning diarrhoea. Vet Microbiol 2010, 145:299-307.
• [37]Gannon VP, D’Souza S, Graham T, King RK: Specific identification of Escherichia coli O157:H7 using multiplex PCR assay. Adv Exp Med Biol 1997, 412:81-82.
• [38]Ribot EM, Fair MA, Gautom R, Cameron DN, Hunter SB, Swaminathan B, Barrett TJ: Standardization of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis protocols for the subtyping of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella and Shigella for PulseNet. Foodborne Path Dis 2006, 3:59-66. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/pulsenet/protocols.htm webcite. Accessed June 24, 2011
• [39]Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests; approved standards – Ninth ed. 2006.