IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0238708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antimicrobial resistance in ovine bacteria: A sheep in wolf’s clothing?

Author

Listed:
  • Nuno Silva
  • Clare J Phythian
  • Carol Currie
  • Riccardo Tassi
  • Keith T Ballingall
  • Giada Magro
  • Tom N McNeilly
  • Ruth N Zadoks

Abstract

Background: To monitor the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), methods for interpretation of susceptibility phenotypes of bacteria are needed. Reference limits to declare resistance are generally based on or dominated by data from human bacterial isolates and may not reflect clinical relevance or wild type (WT) populations in livestock or other hosts. Methods: We compared the observed prevalence of AMR using standard and bespoke interpretations based on clinical breakpoints or epidemiological cut-offs (ECOFF) using gram positive (Staphylococcus aureus) and gram negative (Escherichia coli) bacteria from sheep as exemplars. Isolates were obtained from a cross-sectional study in three lowland sheep flocks in Scotland, and from a longitudinal study in one flock in Norway. S. aureus (n = 101) was predominantly isolated from milk or mammary glands whilst E. coli (n = 103) was mostly isolated from faecal samples. Disc diffusion testing was used to determine inhibition zone diameters, which were interpreted using either clinical breakpoints or ECOFF, which distinguish the bacterial wild type population from bacteria with acquired or mutational resistance to the compound of interest (non-wild type). Standard ECOFF values were considered as well as sheep-specific values calculated from the data using Normalized Resistance Interpretation (NRI) methodology. Results: The prevalence of AMR as measured based on clinical breakpoints was low, e.g. 4.0% for penicillin resistance in S. aureus. Estimation of AMR prevalence based on standard ECOFFs was hampered by lack of relevant reference values. In addition, standard ECOFFS, which are predominantly based on human data, bisected the normal distribution of inhibition zone diameters for several compounds in our analysis of sheep isolates. This contravenes recommendations for ECOFF setting based on NRI methodology and may lead to high apparent AMR prevalence. Using bespoke ECOFF values based on NRI, S. aureus showed non-wild type for less than 4% of isolates across 13 compounds, and ca. 13% non-wild type for amoxicillin and ampicillin, while E. coli showed non-wild type for less than 3% of isolates across 12 compounds, and ca. 13% non-wild type for tetracyclines and sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim. Conclusion: The apparent prevalence of AMR in bacteria isolated from sheep is highly dependent on interpretation criteria. The sheep industry may want to establish bespoke cut-off values for AMR monitoring to avoid the use of cut-offs developed for other host species. The latter could lead to high apparent prevalence of resistance, including to critically important antimicrobial classes such as 4th generation cephalosporins and carbapenems, suggesting an AMR problem that may not actually exist.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuno Silva & Clare J Phythian & Carol Currie & Riccardo Tassi & Keith T Ballingall & Giada Magro & Tom N McNeilly & Ruth N Zadoks, 2020. "Antimicrobial resistance in ovine bacteria: A sheep in wolf’s clothing?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0238708
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238708
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238708&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0238708?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0238708. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.