Cluster analysis of resistance combinations in Escherichia coli from different human and animal populations in Germany 2014-2017.
Animals
Anti-Bacterial Agents
/ pharmacology
Cefotaxime
/ pharmacology
Ciprofloxacin
/ pharmacology
Cluster Analysis
Drug Resistance, Bacterial
/ drug effects
Escherichia coli
/ drug effects
Escherichia coli Infections
/ microbiology
Germany
Humans
Microbial Sensitivity Tests
Poultry
/ microbiology
Swine
/ microbiology
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
04
08
2020
accepted:
09
12
2020
entrez:
20
1
2021
pubmed:
21
1
2021
medline:
24
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recent findings on Antibiotic Resistance (AR) have brought renewed attention to the comparison of data on AR from human and animal sectors. This is however a major challenge since the data is not harmonized. This study performs a comparative analysis of data on resistance combinations in Escherichia coli (E. coli) from different routine surveillance and monitoring systems for human and different animal populations in Germany. Data on E. coli isolates were collected between 2014 and 2017 from human clinical isolates, non-clinical animal isolates from food-producing animals and food, and clinical animal isolates from food-producing and companion animals from national routine surveillance and monitoring for AR in Germany. Sixteen possible resistance combinations to four antibiotics-ampicillin, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin and gentamicin-for these populations were used for hierarchical clustering (Euclidian and average distance). All analyses were performed with the software R 3.5.1 (Rstudio 1.1.442). Data of 333,496 E. coli isolates and forty-one different human and animal populations were included in the cluster analysis. Three main clusters were detected. Within these three clusters, all human populations (intensive care unit (ICU), general ward and outpatient care) showed similar relative frequencies of the resistance combinations and clustered together. They demonstrated similarities with clinical isolates from different animal populations and most isolates from pigs from both non-clinical and clinical isolates. Isolates from healthy poultry demonstrated similarities in relative frequencies of resistance combinations and clustered together. However, they clustered separately from the human isolates. All isolates from different animal populations with low relative frequencies of resistance combinations clustered together. They also clustered separately from the human populations. Cluster analysis has been able to demonstrate the linkage among human isolates and isolates from various animal populations based on the resistance combinations. Further analyses based on these findings might support a better one-health approach for AR in Germany.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33471826
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244413
pii: PONE-D-20-24248
pmc: PMC7817003
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Ciprofloxacin
5E8K9I0O4U
Cefotaxime
N2GI8B1GK7
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0244413Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Aug;79(16):4815-20
pubmed: 23747697
Vet Microbiol. 2017 Feb;200:130-137
pubmed: 26654217
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2018 May;61(5):507-514
pubmed: 29589040
Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2019 Jul;16(7):441-450
pubmed: 31194586
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2012 Nov;55(11-12):1370-6
pubmed: 23114435
J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2013 Dec;97(6):1091-103
pubmed: 23205592
Front Microbiol. 2016 Sep 30;7:1549
pubmed: 27746769
Acta Vet Scand. 2012 Jan 26;54:2
pubmed: 22280887
Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2007 Winter;4(4):397-407
pubmed: 18041950
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Feb 1;649:12-20
pubmed: 30170212
Vet Anim Sci. 2016 Aug 12;1-2:9-14
pubmed: 32734018
Reprod Domest Anim. 2017 Aug;52 Suppl 3:21-29
pubmed: 28815847
J Dairy Sci. 2011 Jun;94(6):2680-91
pubmed: 21605737
PLoS One. 2018 May 25;13(5):e0198019
pubmed: 29799852
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 May;79(9):3027-32
pubmed: 23455336
Front Vet Sci. 2018 Oct 23;5:254
pubmed: 30406117
Prev Vet Med. 2019 Nov 1;171:104755
pubmed: 31487554
J Dairy Sci. 2002 Jan;85(1):112-21
pubmed: 11860103
Biol Lett. 2016 Aug;12(8):
pubmed: 27531155
Nat Microbiol. 2018 Aug;3(8):898-908
pubmed: 30038308
PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Mar 19;6(3):e1000715
pubmed: 20333236
Nat Commun. 2019 Jan 8;10(1):80
pubmed: 30622259
Wien Med Wochenschr. 2019 Feb;169(Suppl 1):25-30
pubmed: 30623278
Sci Adv. 2019 Mar 27;5(3):eaau9124
pubmed: 30944853
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35002
pubmed: 22558106
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Jul;18(7):646-55
pubmed: 22519858
Sci Rep. 2019 May 2;9(1):6838
pubmed: 31048728
EFSA J. 2019 Feb 27;17(2):e05598
pubmed: 32626224
Res Vet Sci. 2019 Apr;123:77-83
pubmed: 30594031
EFSA J. 2019 Jun 05;17(6):e05709
pubmed: 32626332
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Feb 11;111(6):2271-6
pubmed: 24469791
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Feb 1;73(2):339-347
pubmed: 29165596
Front Microbiol. 2013 Sep 03;4:258
pubmed: 24027562
Prev Vet Med. 2019 Apr 1;165:52-62
pubmed: 30851928
Zoonoses Public Health. 2008 Sep;55(7):331-41
pubmed: 18667026
Poult Sci. 2019 Apr 1;98(4):1791-1804
pubmed: 30544256
EFSA J. 2020 Mar 03;18(3):e06007
pubmed: 32874244
Front Microbiol. 2019 Oct 01;10:2256
pubmed: 31632372
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 Jan;19(1):56-66
pubmed: 30409683
EFSA J. 2017 Jan 24;15(1):e04666
pubmed: 32625259
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Apr;20(4):O255-66
pubmed: 24131428
Int J Med Microbiol. 2011 Dec;301(8):630-4
pubmed: 21983338
EFSA J. 2017 Jan 27;15(1):e04665
pubmed: 32704309
EFSA J. 2017 Jul 27;15(7):e04872
pubmed: 32625542
Vet Microbiol. 2016 Oct 15;194:55-61
pubmed: 27106522
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2013 Jul-Aug;126(7-8):318-25
pubmed: 23901587