Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Tannin Extracts, Leonardite and Tributyrin Supplementation on Diarrhoea Incidence and Gut Microbiota of Weaned Piglets
Previous Article in Journal
The Patterns and Causes of Dermatitis in Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Mammalian Wildlife
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multidrug-Resistant Campylobacer jejuni on Swine Processing at a Slaughterhouse in Eastern Spain
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/ani11061692
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Multidrug-Resistant Phenotypes of Escherichia coli Isolates in Wild Canarian Egyptian Vultures (Neophron percnopterus majorensis)

by
Alejandro Suárez-Pérez
1,2,
Juan Alberto Corbera
2,3,*,
Margarita González-Martín
3,4 and
María Teresa Tejedor-Junco
3,4
1
Wildlife Animal Rescue Centre, Cabildo de Tenerife, 38291 La Laguna, Spain
2
Department of Animal Pathology, Animal Production and Food Hygiene and Technology, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC), 35413 Arucas, Spain
3
Research Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences, ULPGC, 35016 Las Palmas, Spain
4
Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC), 35413 Arucas, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(6), 1692; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061692
Submission received: 5 May 2021 / Revised: 1 June 2021 / Accepted: 4 June 2021 / Published: 6 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Animal Infectious Diseases Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria: A One-Health Issue)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Increasing antimicrobial resistance is a global problem for both human and animal health. Escherichia coli is frequently used as a “sentinel” for antimicrobial resistance and as an indicator of faecal contamination of the environment. This study is a characterisation of the antimicrobial resistance phenotypes of E. coli isolates obtained from cloacal samples of Canarian Egyptian vultures. A total of 65 chickens and 38 adult and immature birds were studied. Antimicrobial susceptibility to 16 antibiotics of 12 different categories was determined in 103 E. coli isolates. We found a 39.8% prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) E. coli. Almost all MDR phenotypes found included resistance to tetracycline, an antibiotic widely used in veterinary medicine. Resistance has also been found to chloramphenicol (13 MDR phenotypes), imipenem (5 MDR phenotypes) and others. Wild birds can act as reservoirs and disseminators of MDR E. coli, transferring them via faeces to the environment, feed or water. Our results highlight the need to minimise exposure of wild birds to antimicrobials from human activities to avoid the spread of antimicrobial resistance.

Abstract

The presence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Escherichia coli in cloacal samples from Canarian Egyptian vultures was investigated. Samples were obtained from chicks (n = 65) and from adults and immature birds (n = 38). Antimicrobial susceptibility to 16 antibiotics included in 12 different categories was determined for 103 E. coli isolates. MDR was defined as acquired non-susceptibility to at least one agent in three or more antimicrobial categories. Forty-seven different resistance phenotypes were detected: 31 MDR (41 isolates) and 16 non-MDR (62 isolates). One isolate was resistant to all 12 antimicrobial categories and 2 phenotypes included resistance to 9 antimicrobial categories. Imipenem resistance was included in five MDR phenotypes, corresponding to five different isolates. Statistically significant differences in prevalence of MDR-phenotypes were found between chicks in nests and the rest of the animals, probably due to the shorter exposure time of chicks to antimicrobials. The main risk derived from MDR bacteria in scavengers is that it threatens the treatment of wild animals in rescue centres and could be transferred to other animals in the facilities. In addition to this, it could pose a health risk to veterinarians or other staff involved in wildlife protection programmes.

1. Introduction

The increase of antimicrobial resistance is a global problem for both human and animal health [1,2]. Antimicrobial resistance has been detected in many wildlife species on all continents, including Antarctica and the Arctic [3,4,5,6,7,8,9], even when wildlife are not treated with these compounds. This supports the possibility of transmission of resistant bacteria between human, livestock and domestic animals, wildlife and the environment, as well as the possible selective pressure exerted by antibiotic residues present in the environment [10,11,12,13,14]. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistant (AMR) bacteria in wildlife can help to understand the extent of the problem and propose possible solutions [15].
Several definitions of multidrug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and pandrug-resistant (PDR) bacteria have been proposed. A joint initiative of the European Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC) and the USA Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created an expert group to standardise the terminology used to describe resistance profiles [16]. After defining the categories of antimicrobials used for the treatment of infections caused by different groups of bacteria, MDR was defined as acquired non-susceptibility to at least one agent in three or more antimicrobial categories, XDR was defined as non-susceptibility to at least one agent in all but two or fewer antimicrobial categories (i.e., bacterial isolates remain susceptible to only one or two categories) and PDR was defined as non-susceptibility to all agents in all antimicrobial categories. For all three definitions, non-susceptibility refers to a resistant, intermediate or non-susceptible result obtained in in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing.
Escherichia coli is frequently used as a “sentinel” of antimicrobial resistance [17] and is an important component of the gastrointestinal microbiota of several animal species (including humans) and is also used as an indicator of faecal contamination of the environment [18]. Despite the commensal nature of E. coli, this species is an opportunistic pathogen and can be involved in human and animal infections. Moreover, it has a strong ability to transfer these resistance genes in vivo to other Gram-negative bacteria such as pathogenic strains of E. coli or Salmonella [4,19]. The most commonly recovered microorganism from raptors with clinical signs of septicaemia or respiratory illness is E. coli [20].
Antibiotics residues in animal carcasses represent a risk for avian scavengers like vultures, that are actively exposed to antibiotics by ingestion of carrion. In Spain, Blanco et al. [21] demonstrated a correlation between the prevalence of MDR E. coli and other species and intensification in animal production. Other publications in our country have also demonstrated the involvement of birds in the spread of antibiotic resistance in the ecosystem [17,22,23].
Wild birds are highly mobile and can act as reservoirs and spreaders of MDR E. coli, transferring them via faeces to the environment, animal feed or water [7,11]. The aim of our work was the analysis of MDR-phenotypes in E. coli isolated from a bird-of-prey endemic to the Canary Islands (Spain): the Canarian Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus majorensis), included in the Spanish Catalogue of Threatened Species under the category “In Danger of Extinction” (Royal Decree 139/2011) [24]. Because the Canarian vulture is a sedentary population, the potential spread of E. coli MDR would be limited to the islands they inhabit. In addition, Canarian Egyptian vultures tend to live in pairs rather than flocks, so the risk of environmental contamination with MDR bacteria is probably lower than the described for geese or gulls [3,25], but could pose a health risk to veterinaries, nature conservation workers or ornithologists [26]. The epidemiologically significant antimicrobial categories proposed for Enterobacteriaceae were applied to the E. coli isolates included in this study [16].
The main objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of MDR-E. coli in faecal samples of Canarian Egyptian vultures of different ages.

2. Material and Methods

Within a long-term monitoring program of Canarian Egyptian vultures (Neophron percnopterus majorensis) [27], cloacal samples were obtained from 142 animals: 30 samples in 2015, 62 in 2016 and 50 in 2017.
All procedures, including the methods of capture and handling of wild vultures, were carried out under the project license approved by The Biodiversity Directorate of the Government of the Canary Islands; the official reference numbers of the committing authority are: 2014/256, 2015/1652 and 2016/1707.
Adult and immature birds were trapped at baited sites using cannon-netting. Chicks were captured during the fledgling stage in the nests. In the vast majority of cases, there was only one vulture chick in each nest. All animals were apparently healthy.
Cloacal swabs (81 from chicks in the nest and 61 from wild adults) were obtained, placed in an Amies blue plastic/viscose gel transport medium (Darmstadt, Germany) and stored at 4 °C until arriving at the Microbiology Laboratory within 24 h.
For the detection of E. coli, samples were cultured on MacConkey agar (BD Difco, Detroit, MI, USA) and incubated overnight at 37 °C. Colonies with typical E. coli characteristics were identified using an automated Vitek® 2 system (bioMérieux, Marcy L’Etoile, France) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were performed by the disc diffusion method according to CLSI methods (CLSI 2015). Antibiotics tested are shown in Table 1. All antimicrobial resistance phenotypes were tested to determine whether they met the definition of multidrug-resistance.
For comparison, antimicrobial resistance results related to animal age, chi-square with the Yates’s continuity correction were calculated. SPSS v. 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to compare data sets. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

Forty-seven different resistance phenotypes were observed (Table 2), including 26 isolates that were pan-susceptible. Sixteen phenotypes included resistance to less than three different categories of antimicrobials and were therefore considered non-MDR. The most frequent non-MDR profile was “AM, SXT” (8 isolates). Thirty-one different MDR phenotypes were found, including resistance to 3 to 12 categories of antimicrobials. The most frequent one was “AM, PIP, TE, and SXT” (6 isolates). One isolate was resistant to 12 antimicrobial categories and 2 phenotypes included resistance to 9 antimicrobial categories.
We tested 12 of 17 proposed categories, therefore, we can describe isolates showing an MDR phenotype. Imipenem, a carbapenem antibiotic classified as “critically important for human medicine” [2] and restricted to hospital use, was tested, and five MDR phenotypes included resistance to this antibiotic. Resistance to imipenem was found in five isolates, showing five different MDR phenotypes.
E. coli was obtained in samples of 65 chicks in nests, and among them, 18 were MDR and 47 non-MDR. Among the remaining animals (38 isolates), 23 were MDR and 15 non-MDR (Table 2). Overall, of the 103 E. coli isolates, 41 (39.8%) were considered MDR and 62 (60.2%) non-MDR.
We found statistically significant differences between chicks and the rest of the animals (χ2 = 9.463; p-value = 0.002), indicating a higher probability of MDR E. coli detection in adults and immature birds than in chicks in nests.

4. Discussion

In a previous manuscript [28], the percentages of resistance to different antibiotics in bacteria isolated from vulture cloacal swabs were analysed. The coincidence of resistance to several antibiotics in the same isolate was not studied, so multidrug resistance phenotypes were not described.
In this work, the antimicrobial resistance phenotypes of E. coli isolates obtained from cloacal samples of Canarian Egyptian vultures were characterised. The definition of multidrug resistance proposed by Magiorakos et al. [16] was applied. Since not all the antimicrobial categories proposed for Magiorakos et al. [16] were included in our study, we cannot confirm the existence of XDR or PDR isolates. Their proposal includes categories such as glycylcyclines, monobactams or antipseudomonal penicillins + β-lactamase inhibitors, which are not commonly used in veterinary therapy for infections due to Enterobacteriaceae.
Stedt et al. [29] compared the presence of MDR E. coli in gulls (Laridae) from nine countries, describing a total of 59 MDR phenotypes, a higher result than ours (31 different MDR-phenotypes). In different areas of Spain, they found prevalence ranging from 28.6 to 45.3%, a similar result to the one found in Canarian Egyptian vultures (39.8%). On the other hand, Sharma et al. [30] found a very high incidence of MDR E. coli in Egyptian vultures fed on carcass dumps in India. These differences could be due to differences in clinical and veterinary use of antimicrobials in both countries. Atterby et al. [25] described an 83% prevalence of MDR E. coli when tested ESBL producing E. coli from Swedish gulls.
Almost all MDR phenotypes found included resistance to TE, which could be related to the frequent use of this antibiotic in veterinary medicine [31]. Chloramphenicol was banned for agricultural use in Europe more than 25 years ago, but 13 MDR phenotypes of resistance to this drug were found.
Five phenotypes included resistance to imipenem. The emergence of carbapenem resistant Enterobacterales is a global health problem. Carbapenems are used in hospital settings as a last-line treatment for severe human infections. In veterinary tertiary care centres, carbapenem is used in selected clinical cases in companion animals [32]. Carbapemenase-producing bacteria have been previously described in wild and domestic animals [32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. It appears that carbapenem-resistant bacteria or carbapenem residues are making their way out of hospitals and environmental reservoirs could be created.
We found a statistically lower probability of MDR-E. coli isolation in chicks in nests compared to all other animals. As we have previously proposed [28], the differences could be due to the fact that chicks in nests have been exposed to resistant bacteria or environmental antimicrobial residues for less time than adult and immature birds.
Many authors suggest that antimicrobial resistance in wildlife bacteria is closely related to resistance in humans and domestic animal strains [10,25,39], but multidrug-resistant bacteria have also been detected in wildlife in remote areas with little if no human contact [5,9].
The likelihood of MDR bacteria being transmitted from wild birds to humans and domestic animals depends on several factors: the rate of colonisation, the intensity of faecal shedding, the survival of MDR bacteria in the environment, the infective dose and the ability to infect human and domestic animals [40]. Faeces from wild birds are shed directly into the environment, potentially exposing human and animal populations to MDR bacteria [41]. Some outbreaks of human or livestock infections associated with the shedding pathogen bacteria by wild birds have been described [42,43].
Not all wild birds pose the same risk for public health, but waterfowl flocks can easily contaminate humans and domestic animal water supplies. In our opinion, scavengers are less likely to do the same.
As suggested by the VKM report in 2018 [44], the risk of transmission of MDR bacteria cannot be estimated either quantitatively or qualitatively with the information available at this time.
In our opinion, the main risk arising from MDR-bacteria in scavengers is that it threatened the treatment of wild animals in rescue centres and could be transferred to other animals in the facilities. In addition, it could pose a health risk to veterinarians or other personnel involved in wildlife protection programmes. We consider that scavengers are a reflection of anthropogenic antimicrobial contamination in the environment and also could acquire MDR bacteria from animal or human sources, but the drivers of MDR resistance are likely to be more complex than just anthropogenic causes [45]. As suggested by Blanco and Bautista [46], supplementary feed for scavengers should be sourced from farms that guarantee the absence of antibiotic residues in the feed.

5. Conclusions

The results of our study provides evidence for the presence of MDR-bacteria in scavengers. Different categories of phenotypes have been found in the chicks in nests and in immature and adult animals. The 39.8% of E. coli isolates were considered MDR. A higher prevalence of MDR E. coli isolates was found in adults and immature birds compared to chicks’ E. coli isolates.
Almost all MDR phenotypes found included resistance to tetracycline, an antibiotic widely used in veterinary medicine. Resistance was also found to chloramphenicol (13 MDR phenotypes), imipenem (5 MDR phenotypes) and other clinically important antibiotics.
Wild birds can act as reservoirs and disseminators of MDR E. coli, transferring them via faeces to the environment, feed or water.
Our results highlight the need to minimise the exposure of wild birds to antimicrobials from human activities to avoid the spread of antimicrobial resistance. The management of this problem requires a “One Health” approach.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.S.-P. and M.T.T.-J.; methodology, A.S.-P., M.T.T.-J., J.A.C. and M.G.-M.; software, J.A.C.; validation, A.S.-P., M.T.T.-J. and J.A.C.; formal analysis, M.G.-M., M.T.T.-J. and J.A.C.; investigation, A.S.-P., M.T.T.-J. and M.G.-M.; resources, J.A.C.; data curation, M.G.-M. and M.T.T.-J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.T.-J. and J.A.C.; writing—review and editing, M.T.T.-J. and J.A.C.; visualisation, M.T.T.-J. and J.A.C.; supervision, M.T.T.-J., A.S.-P. and J.A.C.; project administration, A.S.-P. and M.T.T.-J.; funding acquisition, A.S.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by General Directorate for the Protection of Nature (Government of the Canary Islands) and funds from the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All procedures, including the capture and handling methods for wild vultures, were carried out under the Project License approved by The Biodiversity Directorate of the Government of the Canary Islands; the official reference numbers from the competent authority are: 2014/256, 2015/1652 and 2016/1707.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Mukerji, S.; O’Dea, M.; Barton, M.; Kirkwood, R.; Lee, T.; Abraham, S. Development and transmission of antimicrobial resistance among Gram-negative bacteria in animals and their public health impact. Essays Biochem. 2017, 61, 23–35. [Google Scholar]
  2. WHO. Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS) Report: Early implementation 2020; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. Agnew, A.; Wang, J.; Fanning, S.; Bearhop, S.; McMahon, B.J. Insights into antimicrobial resistance among long distance migratory East Canadian High Arctic light-bellied Brent geese (Branta bernicla hrota). Ir. Vet. J. 2016, 69, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Ahlstrom, C.A.; Bonnedahl, J.; Woksepp, H.; Hernandez, J.; Olsen, B.; Ramey, A.M. Acquisition and dissemination of cephalosporin-resistant E. coli in migratory birds sampled at an Alaska landfill as inferred through genomic analysis. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cerdà-Cuéllar, M.; Moré, E.; Ayats, T.; Aguilera, M.; Muñoz-González, S.; Antilles, N.; Ryan, P.G.; González-Solís, J. Do humans spread zoonotic enteric bacteria in Antarctica? Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 654, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cristóvão, F.; Alonso, C.A.; Igrejas, G.; Sousa, M.; Silva, V.; Pereira, J.E.; Lozano, C.; Cortés-Cortés, G.; Torres, C.; Poeta, P. Clonal diversity of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli isolates in fecal samples of wild animals. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2017, 364, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Dolejska, M.; Papagiannitsis, C.C. Plasmid-mediated resistance is going wild. Plasmid 2018, 99, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Santos, T.; Silva, N.; Igrejas, G.; Rodrigues, P.; Micael, J.; Rodrigues, T.; Resendes, R.; Gonçalves, A.; Marinho, C.; Gonçalves, D.; et al. Dissemination of antibiotic resistant Enterococcus spp. and Escherichia coli from wild birds of Azores Archipelago. Anaerobe 2013, 24, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Sjölund, M.; Bonnedahl, J.; Hernandez, J.; Bengtsson, S.; Cederbrant, G.; Pinhassi, J.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsen, B. Dissemination of multidrug-resistant bacteria into the arctic. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2008, 14, 70–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chandler, J.C.; Anders, J.E.; Blouin, N.A.; Carlson, J.C.; LeJeune, J.T.; Goodridge, L.D.; Wang, B.; Day, L.A.; Mangan, A.M.; Reid, D.A.; et al. The Role of European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in the Dissemination of Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli among Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cole, D.; Drum, D.J.V.; Stallknecht, D.E.; White, D.G.; Lee, M.D.; Ayers, S.; Sobsey, M.; Maurer, J.J. Free-living Canada Geese and antimicrobial resistance. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 935–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Radhouani, H.; Silva, N.; Poeta, P.; Torres, C.; Correia, S.; Igrejas, G. Potential impact of antimicrobial resistance in wildlife, environment, and human health. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Robinson, T.P.; Bu, D.P.; Carrique-Mas, J.; Fèvre, E.M.; Gilbert, M.; Grace, D.; Hay, S.I.; Jiwakanon, J.; Kakkar, M.; Kariuki, S.; et al. Antibiotic resistance is the quintessential One Health issue. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2016, 110, 377–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wang, J.; Ma, Z.B.; Zeng, Z.L.; Yang, X.W.; Huang, Y.; Liu, J.H. The role of wildlife (wild birds) in the global transmission of antimicrobial resistance genes. Zool. Res. 2017, 38, 55–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Dolejska, M.; Literak, I. Wildlife is overlooked in the epidemiology of medically important antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Darwich, L.; Vidal, A.; Seminati, C.; Albamonte, A.; Casado, A.; López, F.; Molina-López, R.A.; Migura-Garcia, L. High prevalence and diversity of extended-spectrum β-lactamase and emergence of OXA-48 producing Enterobacterales in wildlife in Catalonia. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Guenther, S.; Ewers, C.; Wieler, L.H. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases producing E. coli in wildlife, yet another form of environmental pollution? Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Szmolka, A.; Nagy, B. Multidrug resistant commensal Escherichia coli in animals and its impact for public health. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Vidal, A.; Baldomà, L.; Molina-López, R.A.; Martin, M.; Darwich, L. Microbiological diagnosis and antimicrobial sensitivity profiles in diseased free-living raptors. Avian Pathol. 2017, 46, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Blanco, G.; López-Hernández, I.; Morinha, F.; López-Cerero, L. Intensive farming as a source of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents in sedentary and migratory vultures: Implications for local and transboundary spread. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 140356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Alcalá, L.; Alonso, C.A.; Simón, C.; González-Esteban, C.; Orós, J.; Rezusta, A.; Ortega, C.; Torres, C. Wild Birds, Frequent Carriers of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase (ESBL) Producing Escherichia coli of CTX-M and SHV-12 Types. Microb. Ecol. 2016, 72, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Oteo, J.; Menciá, A.; Bautista, V.; Pastor, N.; Lara, N.; González-González, F.; Garciá-Penã, F.J.; Campos, J. Colonization with enterobacteriaceae-producing ESBLs, AmpCs, and OXA-48 in wild avian species, Spain 2015-2016. Microb. Drug Resist. 2018, 24, 932–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino Real Decreto 139/2011, de 4 de febrero, para el desarrollo del Listado de Especies Silvestres en Régimen de Protección Especial y del Catálogo Español de Especies Amenazadas. Available online: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/02/23/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-3582.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  25. Atterby, C.; Börjesson, S.; Ny, S.; Järhult, J.D.; Byfors, S.; Bonnedahl, J. ESBL-producing Escherichia coli in Swedish gulls—A case of environmental pollution from humans? PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0190380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Grzywaczewski, G.; Kowalczyk-Pecka, D.; Cios, S.; Bojar, W.; Junkuszew, A.; Bojar, H.; Kolejko, M. Tawny owl Strix aluco as a potential transmitter of Enterobacteriaceae epidemiologically relevant for forest service workers, nature protection service and ornithologists. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2017, 24, 62–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Badia-Boher, J.A.; Sanz-Aguilar, A.; de la Riva, M.; Gangoso, L.; van Overveld, T.; García-Alfonso, M.; Luzardo, O.P.; Suarez-Pérez, A.; Donázar, J.A. Evaluating European LIFE conservation projects: Improvements in survival of an endangered vulture. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 56, 1210–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Suárez-pérez, A.; Corbera, J.A.; González-Martín, M.; Donázar, J.A.; Rosales, R.S.; Morales, M.; Tejedor-Junco, M.T. Microorganisms resistant to antimicrobials in wild canarian egyptian vultures (Neophron percnopterus majorensis). Animals 2020, 10, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Stedt, J.; Bonnedahl, J.; Hernandez, J.; McMahon, B.J.; Hasan, B.; Olsen, B.; Drobni, M.; Waldenström, J. Antibiotic resistance patterns in Escherichia coli from gulls in nine European countries. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2014, 4, 21565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Sharma, P.; Maherchandani, S.; Shringi, B.N.; Kashyap, S.K.; Sundar, K.S.G. Temporal variations in patterns of Escherichia coli strain diversity and antimicrobial resistance in the migrant Egyptian vulture. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2018, 8, 145059. [Google Scholar]
  31. Marinho, C.M.; Santos, T.; Gonçalves, A.; Poeta, P.; Igrejas, G. A decade-long commitment to antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Portugal. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gentilini, F.; Turba, M.E.; Pasquali, F.; Mion, D.; Romagnoli, N.; Zambon, E.; Terni, D.; Peirano, G.; Pitout, J.D.D.; Parisi, A.; et al. Hospitalized pets as a source of carbapenem-resistance. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ahlstrom, C.A.; Ramey, A.M.; Woksepp, H.; Bonnedahl, J. Repeated detection of carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli in gulls inhabiting Alaska. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Dolejska, M.; Masarikova, M.; Dobiasova, H.; Jamborova, I.; Karpiskova, R.; Havlicek, M.; Carlile, N.; Priddel, D.; Cizek, A.; Literak, I. High prevalence of Salmonella and IMP-4-producing Enterobacteriaceae in the silver gull on Five Islands, Australia. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016, 71, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Guenther, S.; Semmler, T.; Stubbe, A.; Stubbe, M.; Wieler, L.H.; Schaufler, K. Chromosomally encoded ESBL genes in Escherichia coli of ST38 from Mongolian wild birds. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 1310–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Guerra, B.; Fischer, J.; Helmuth, R. An emerging public health problem: Acquired carbapenemase-producing microorganisms are present in food-producing animals, their environment, companion animals and wild birds. Vet. Microbiol. 2014, 171, 290–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Köck, R.; Daniels-Haardt, I.; Becker, K.; Mellmann, A.; Friedrich, A.W.; Mevius, D.; Schwarz, S.; Jurke, A. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in wildlife, food-producing, and companion animals: A systematic review. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 24, 1241–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Vittecoq, M.; Laurens, C.; Brazier, L.; Durand, P.; Elguero, E.; Arnal, A.; Thomas, F.; Aberkane, S.; Renaud, N.; Prugnolle, F.; et al. VIM-1 carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli in gulls from southern France. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 1224–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mukerji, S.; Stegger, M.; Truswell, A.V.; Laird, T.; Jordan, D.; Abraham, R.J.; Harb, A.; Barton, M.; O’Dea, M.; Abraham, S. Resistance to critically important antimicrobials in Australian silver gulls (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae) and evidence of anthropogenic origins. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 2566–2574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Smith, O.M.; Snyder, W.E.; Owen, J.P. Are we overestimating risk of enteric pathogen spillover from wild birds to humans? Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 652–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Guenther, S.; Grobbel, M.; Lübke-Becker, A.; Goedecke, A.; Friedrich, N.D.; Wieler, L.H.; Ewers, C. Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from common European wild bird species. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 144, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kwan, P.S.L.; Xavier, C.; Santovenia, M.; Pruckler, J.; Stroika, S.; Joyce, K.; Gardner, T.; Fields, P.I.; McLaughlin, J.; Tauxe, R.V.; et al. Multilocus sequence typing confirms wild birds as the source of a Campylobacter outbreak associated with the consumption of raw peas. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 4540–4546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Tamamura, Y.; Uchida, I.; Tanaka, K.; Nakano, Y.; Izumiya, H.; Takahashi, T.; Kikuchi, N. A case study on Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium at a dairy farm associated with massive sparrow death. Acta Vet. Scand. 2016, 58, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Nielsen, K.M.; Gjoen, T.; Lunestad, B.T.; Ytrehus, B. Antimicrobial Resistance in Wildlife—Potential for Dissemination; Opinion of the Panel on Microbial Ecology; Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment: Oslo, Norway, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  45. Swift, B.M.C.; Bennett, M.; Waller, K.; Dodd, C.; Murray, A.; Gomes, R.L.; Humphreys, B.; Hobman, J.L.; Jones, M.A.; Whitlock, S.E.; et al. Anthropogenic environmental drivers of antimicrobial resistance in wildlife. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 649, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Blanco, G.; Bautista, L.M. Avian scavengers as bioindicators of antibiotic resistance due to livestock farming intensification. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Antimicrobial categories and antimicrobial agents tested for defining MDR in E. coli isolates (adapted from Magiorakos et al. 2012).
Table 1. Antimicrobial categories and antimicrobial agents tested for defining MDR in E. coli isolates (adapted from Magiorakos et al. 2012).
Antimicrobial Categories (Code)Antimicrobial AgentsAbbreviation and Charge of Disks
Aminoglycosides (A)Amikacin
Gentamicin
Tobramycin		AK (30 µg)
GM (30 µg)
NN (10 µg)
Carbapenems (Ca)ImipenemIPM (10 µg)
Non-extended spectrum cephalosporins: 1st and 2nd generation cephalosporins (1–2 Ce)CephalexinCEP (30 µg)
Extended-spectrum cephalosporins: 3rd and 4th generation cephalosporins (3–4 Ce)CefpodoximeCPD (10 µg)
Fluoroquinolones (Fl)Enrofloxacin
Marbofloxacin		ENO (5 µg)
MAR (5 µg)
Folate pathway inhibitors (Fo)Trimethoprim/
Sulfamethoxazole		SXT
(1.25 µg + 23.75 µg)
Penicillins (Pe)Ampicillin
Piperacillin		AM (10 µg)
PIP (100 µg)
Penicillins + β-lactamase
inhibitors (Pβ)		Amoxicillin/
Clavulanic Acid		AMC
(20 µg + 10 µg),
Phenicols (Ph)ChloramphenicolC (30 µg)
Polymyxins (Po)Polymyxin BPB (300 U)
Tetracyclines (T)TetracyclineTE (30 µg)
Nitrofuranes (N)NitrofurantoinF/M (300 µg)
Table
Table 2. Antimicrobial resistance phenotypes. The antimicrobials have been ordered by their frequency in the isolates and the number of antimicrobial categories. The number of isolates in each group of age is also included.
Table 2. Antimicrobial resistance phenotypes. The antimicrobials have been ordered by their frequency in the isolates and the number of antimicrobial categories. The number of isolates in each group of age is also included.
CAT.FoPeTPeFlFlPh1–2 CePβANACa3–4 CePoANo. of CAT.No. of IsolatesC *A *
ATB.SXTAMTEPIPENOMARCCEPAMCGMF/MNNIPMCPDPBAK
non-MDR AM 1321
AM PIP 11 1
C 1752
ENOMAR 111
SXT 111
TE 133
AM ENO 211
AM ENOMAR 2211
SXTAM PIP 222
SXTAM 288
SXT ENOMAR 211
TE ENOMAR 211
SXT GM 211
SXT PB 211
TE C 2312
SXT TE 2211
SXTAMTEPIP 3624
SXTAMTE 311
SXT TE ENOMAR 311
SXTAM C 31 1
SXTAM C 31 1
MDRSXTAMTEPIPENOMAR AMC 411
AMTE CCEP 41 1
SXTAMTE ENOMAR 41 1
SXTAMTEPIP CEP 41 1
SXTAMTEPIPENOMARC F/M 411
SXTAMTEPIPENOMAR 411
SXTAMTEPIPENOMAR 42 2
SXTAMTEPIPENO 411
SXTAMTEPIP GM NN 41 1
SXTAMTEPIP C 4321
SXTAMTEPIP F/M 41 1
SXTAMTE C 4211
SXT TE C GM 411
SXTAMTEPIP CCEP 51 1
SXTAMTEPIPENO C 51 1
SXTAMTEPIPENOMAR NN 511
SXTAMTEPIP CEPAMC IPM 61 1
SXTAMTE ENOMARC GMF/M 611
SXTAMTEPIPENOMARC GM NN 611
SXTAMTE ENOMARCCEPAMC 711
SXTAMTEPIP CEPAMC IPMCPD 71 1
SXTAMTEPIPENOMARC AMC F/M 71 1
SXTAMTEPIPENOMARCCEPAMC 911
SXTAMTEPIPENO CEPAMC F/M IPMCPD 91 1
SXTAMTEPIPENOMARCCEPAMCGMF/MNNIPMCPDPBAK121 1
SUCEPTIBLE TO ALL ANTIMICROBIALS TESTED1226188
* Distribution of the isolate in the different groups of age (C = Chicks in the nests; A = Adults and immature birds). The abbreviations for families and antibiotics used in Table 2 are the same as those used in Table 1. The color as used for a better visualization of the different phenotypes.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Suárez-Pérez, A.; Corbera, J.A.; González-Martín, M.; Tejedor-Junco, M.T. Multidrug-Resistant Phenotypes of Escherichia coli Isolates in Wild Canarian Egyptian Vultures (Neophron percnopterus majorensis). Animals 2021, 11, 1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061692

AMA Style

Suárez-Pérez A, Corbera JA, González-Martín M, Tejedor-Junco MT. Multidrug-Resistant Phenotypes of Escherichia coli Isolates in Wild Canarian Egyptian Vultures (Neophron percnopterus majorensis). Animals. 2021; 11(6):1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061692

Chicago/Turabian Style

Suárez-Pérez, Alejandro, Juan Alberto Corbera, Margarita González-Martín, and María Teresa Tejedor-Junco. 2021. "Multidrug-Resistant Phenotypes of Escherichia coli Isolates in Wild Canarian Egyptian Vultures (Neophron percnopterus majorensis)" Animals 11, no. 6: 1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061692

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop