SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2014 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 5

Detection of sensitive and mutant ruminal bacteria isolates from sheep, cattle, and bufalo using 14 therapeutic antibiotics

Roberto Montes de JIMENEZ OCA
Maria Andrea SOTO CERRILLO
Mohamed Zidan Mohamed SALEM
Mona Mohamed Mohamed Yasseen ELGHANDOUR
Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed SALEM
Ahmed Eid KHOLIF
Pages
514–519
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We could concludethat subtherapeutic antibiotic use in ruminant feeding may lead to the formation of antibiotic-resistant mutant colonies, making theirsubtherapeutic efect nonexistent.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the present study, sensitive and mutant colonies of some ruminal bacterial species isolated from sheep, cattle, and bufalowere detected.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Te number of sensitive isolates of thediferent ruminant species for all the antibiotics was highest in bufalo, followed by cattle and then sheep (P < 0.05).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We could concludethat subtherapeutic antibiotic use in ruminant feeding may lead to the formation of antibiotic-resistant mutant colonies, making theirsubtherapeutic efect nonexistent.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In the present study, sensitive and mutant colonies of some ruminal bacterial species isolated from sheep, cattle, and bufalowere detected. We counted and considered mutant colonies the bacterial colonies grown in the clear inhibition zone in the Kirby Bauerdisk difusion susceptibility test. Detected mutant colonies were higher in bufalo than in cattle and sheep. Duricef and metronidazolecaused no mutations in any species. Te others formed mutant colonies, where roxithromycin = polymyxin = chloramphenicol =gentamicin streptomycin = piperacillin > erythromycin >vancomycin = cefoperazone = cefotaxime > roxithromycin > polymyxin > chloramphenicol). Te number of sensitive isolates of thediferent ruminant species for all the antibiotics was highest in bufalo, followed by cattle and then sheep (P < 0.05). We could concludethat subtherapeutic antibiotic use in ruminant feeding may lead to the formation of antibiotic-resistant mutant colonies, making theirsubtherapeutic efect nonexistent.

🔖

Cite This Article

OCA, R. M. D. J., CERRILLO, M. A. S., SALEM, M. Z. M., ELGHANDOUR, M. M. M. Y., SALEM, A. Z. M., KHOLIF, A. E. (2022). Detection of sensitive and mutant ruminal bacteria isolates from sheep, cattle, and bufalo using 14 therapeutic antibiotics. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 5, 514–519. https://ajindex.com/articles/615270

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Hartung J, Kietzmann M. Use of antibiotics in animal production. In: Proceedings of the Max Rubner Conference 2012, Antibiotics in the Food Chain. Karlsruhe, Germany: MRI; 2012. pp. 5–6
  2. Landers TF, Cohen B, Wittum TE, Larson EL. A review of antibiotic use in food animals: perspective, policy, and potential. Public Health Rep 2012; 127: 4–22
  3. Fisher MJP, Scott R. Evaluating and controlling pharmaceutical emissions from dairy farms: a critical frst step in developing a preventative management approach. J Cleaner Prod 2008; 16: 1437–1446
  4. Russell JB, Houlihan AJ. Ionophore resistance of ruminal bacteria and its potential impact on human health. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2003; 27: 65–74
  5. Rychlik JL, Russell JB. Te adaptation and resistance of Clostridium aminophilum F to the butyrivibriocin-like substance of Butyrivibrio fbrisolvens JL5 and monensin. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2002; 209: 93–98
  6. Newbold CJ, Rode LM. Dietary additives to control methanogenesis in the rumen. International Congress Series 2006; 1293: 138–147
  7. Salem AZM, Gohar YM, Lopez S, Ronquillo MG, Cerrillo MA. Sensitivity of ruminal bacterial isolates of sheep, cattle and bufalo to 13 therapeutic antibiotics. Afr J Microbiol Res 2012; 6: 4727– 4733
  8. Ofcial Journal of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Additives for Use in Animal Nutrition, 2013. pp. L268/29–L268/43
  9. Levinson W, Jawetz E. Review of Medical Microbiology and Immunology. New York, NY, USA: Lange Medical Book/McGraw- Hill; 2000
  10. Peach KC, Bray WM, Winslow D, Linington PF, Linington RG. Mechanism of action-based classifcation of antibiotics using high-content bacterial image analysis. Mol Biosyst 2013; 9: 1837– 1848
  11. Merck & Co. Tioglycolate broth. In: Merck Microbiology Culture Media Manual. Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA: Merck; 1982. p. 161
  12. National Institutes of Health Circular: Culture Media for the Sterility Test, 2nd rev. Bethesda, MD, USA: National Institutes of Health; 1946
  13. Moolman GJJ, Wyk MV. Kirby-Bauer disc difusion susceptibility testing as a screening procedure for cephalosporin resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae - correlation with the E-test. South Afr J Epidemiol Infect 2004; 19: 55–59
  14. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw- Hill International; 1980
  15. SAS. SAS/STAT User’s Guide (Version 8). Cary, NC, USA: SAS I