- Brief communication
- Open access
- Published:
Antimicrobial resistance among indicator Enterococcus faecium and Escherichia coli in Swedish pig farms
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica volume 66, Article number: 34 (2024)
Abstract
Monitoring the use of antimicrobials and the emergence of resistance in animals and people is important for the control of antimicrobial resistance, and for establishing sustainable and effective disease management practices. In this study, we used Enterococcus spp. and Escherichia coli as indicator species to investigate antimicrobial susceptibility patterns and how these change over time, on ten Swedish pig farms. Indoor environmental sock sampling was performed once a month during the entire production cycle of one batch of pigs on each farm, resulting in 60 samples collected in total. Selective culture for E. coli and Enterococcus spp. resulted in 122 isolates of E. coli, 74 isolates of E. faecium, but no isolates of E. faecalis. Microdilution was used to determine minimum inhibitory concentrations for twelve antimicrobial substances in E. coli and fifteen substances in E. faecium. The overall prevalence of resistance was low. Among the E. coli isolates, the proportions non-wild type (resistant, NWT) isolates were as follows: azithromycin and amikacin 1% (n = 1), trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole 2% (n = 3), ampicillin 6% (n = 7) and tetracycline 9% (n = 11). Among the E. faecium isolates, the NWT proportions were: teicoplanin, linezolid and gentamicin 1% (n = 1), daptomycin 3% (n = 2), erythromycin 26% (n = 19), tetracycline 27% (n = 20), quinupristin/dalfopristin 58% (n = 42). The resistance patterns differed between the farms, likely due to different antimicrobial use, biosecurity measures and source of the animals. The NWT prevalence among E. coli decreased over time, whereas no similar trend could be observed in E. faecium. The results of the current study illustrate the complex factors affecting the antimicrobial resistance patterns observed on each farm, indicating that specific practices and risk factors have an impact on the prevalence and type of antimicrobial resistance. Further studies of the farm environments in combination with antimicrobial use and other risk factor data are needed to elucidate the multifaceted drivers of antimicrobial resistance development on livestock farms.
Findings
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a serious health threat for animals and humans that requires urgent actions [1]. The consequences of AMR for animals are similar to those for humans e.g., treatment failures leading to suffering and decreased welfare, increased mortality, and reduced productivity with major impact on livelihoods and global food security [2]. Monitoring the use of antimicrobials and the emergence of resistance in animals and people is important for the control of AMR, and for establishing sustainable and effective disease management practices. The overall aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of AMR in selected Swedish pig farms using two indicator bacteria, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. Specific objectives were to (i) investigate if AMR differed between the farms, (ii) how AMR changed over time, and (iii) to assess the differences in the temporal dynamics of the resistance patterns between the two indicator species.
The material used in this study originated from environmental sock samples (boot swabs) obtained in 2023 from ten farrow-to-finish pig farms located at a maximum two hours driving distance from Uppsala. Sock samples have proven to be efficient for obtaining a representative picture of the bacteria that are present in a pig herd [3]. One group of pigs from each farm was selected for the 6 month study, with monthly visits throughout the entire production cycle. A total of 60 samples were collected, one pooled sample per herd and sampling occasion. The method is described here in brief, for more details see Additional file 1. For each sampling occasion, samples were kept cold and immediately transported to the laboratory at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Upon arrival at the laboratory, material was extracted from the sock samples by immersing them in sterile buffered peptone water. The samples were then processed in a stomacher, followed by centrifugation for sample concentration. Finally, they were preserved in 86% glycerol and stored at −80 °C for long-term storage. The thawed sample eluate was inoculated onto selective agar plates, MacConkey agar for detection of E. coli, and Slanetz and Bartley (SlaBa) for detection of Enterococcus spp. From each sample, two isolates with typical morphology were selected and Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionizaton–Time-of-Flight (MALDI-TOF) was used to confirm the identification of the isolates. Microdilution using Sensititre™ (ThermoFisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) panels was used to determine minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) for twelve antimicrobial substances in E. coli and fifteen substances in Enterococcus spp. Epidemiological cut-off values for the MIC, as determined by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) [4] were used to classify isolates as belonging to the wild-type drug-susceptible population or the non-wild type (NWT) population and likely to be resistant to the tested drug. Data analysis and descriptive statistics were done in Microsoft® Excel and data visualization was performed with R (v4.3.1) [5] using package ggplot2 (v3.4.4) [6].
From the 60 samples, 122 isolates of E. coli, 74 isolates of E. faecium, but no isolates of E. faecalis, were identified and further analysed. The proportions of NWT (resistant) E. coli were as follows: azithromycin and amikacin 1% (n = 1), trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole 2% (n = 3), ampicillin 6% (n = 7) and tetracycline 9% (n = 11) (Fig. 1). Among the E. faecium isolates, the NWT (resistant) proportions were: teicoplanin, linezolid and gentamicin 1% (n = 1), daptomycin 3% (n = 2), erythromycin 26% (n = 19), tetracycline 27% (n = 20), quinupristin/dalfopristin 58% (n = 42) (Fig. 2). A majority of the E. faecium isolates classified as NWT (resistant) to quinupristin/dalfopristin, tetracycline and erythromycin had MIC values just above the epidemiological cutoff. Among the E. coli isolates, AMR decreased over time (Fig. 3A), while no such trend could be observed in the E. faecium isolates (Fig. 3B). The AMR patterns for each farm were different for both bacteria (Fig. 4). All farms except farm 7 had E. coli isolates that exhibited resistance to either ampicillin or tetracycline, or both, at some point during the production cycle (Fig. 4A). From farms 7, 8, 9 and 10, there were also isolates that were NWT (resistant) to at least one of the following substances: azithromycin, amikacin, trimethoprim or sulfamethoxazole. All farms yielded E. faecium isolates NWT (resistant) to quinupristin/dalfopristin. In addition, all farms except farm 3 had isolates with resistance to tetracycline at some point in the production cycle (Fig. 4B).
The results demonstrated differences in AMR patterns between the investigated pig farms, likely due to variation in antimicrobial use and other risk factors between farms, as previously reported [7]. The overall prevalence of AMR in E. coli was low, which is in line with previous published research in Sweden [7, 8]. A study from New Zealand presented similar findings as the current study with E. coli being susceptible for ciprofloxacin, but NWT (resistant) for ampicillin and tetracycline [9]. In contrast, a study in Spanish pig herds demonstrated much higher proportions of NWT E. coli, for most antibiotics tested [10]. The overall prevalence of AMR in E. faecium was higher compared to E. coli, this was also similar to the New Zealand study [9]. The higher AMR prevalence in E. faecium could partly be explained by this species exhibiting intrinsic low susceptibility to certain antimicrobials, e.g., quinupristin [11]. All E. faecium isolates in the current study were susceptible to ampicillin, and vancomycin, while resistance to erythromycin was seen on nearly all farms. Similar prevalence of resistance to erythromycin and tetracycline in E. faecium have previously been reported in Estonia [12], but higher prevalence has been shown in southern Europe (Portugal [13] and Spain [10, 14]). The current study also showed that AMR in E. coli decreased during the lifespan of the pigs, which is in line with previous research [15, 16]. This result reflects common practices of antimicrobial use, where most treatments in pig production in Sweden are administered to piglets [7].
The initial plan was to isolate both E. faecium and E. faecalis. However, most samples yielded no colonies of E. faecalis, despite a repeated attempt to isolate these from the stored frozen samples. This may be due to the sampling methodology, while individual fecal sampling or rectal swabs might have made detection of E. faecalis isolates more feasible. However, other European studies have also shown a higher prevalence of E. faecium than E. faecalis in faecal samples from pig farms [10, 16, 17]. The predominant isolation of E. faecium can be explained by its presence in typical fecal microbiota and its tendency to survive longer than other enterococci on dry material [18]. In addition, the microdilution method, with subsequent two-fold dilution steps may yield a one-step deviation in MIC results [4]. This is particularly of note when considering results that are just above or below cutoff, such as the quinupristin/dalfopristin resistance observed in our E. faecium isolates. However, this would only have had a small effect on the results of this study, as most MIC results leading to classification of an isolate as NWT (resistant) were above the cutoff by more than one step.
In conclusion, the overall prevalence of AMR in E. coli was low among the tested pig herds, while a higher prevalence of AMR was observed in E. faecium. Furthermore, the AMR prevalence differed between farms and decreased with age among E. coli. The results of the current study emphasize the complex factors leading to the specific AMR pattern observed on a specific farm. Further studies of entire farm environments in combination with data on antimicrobial use and other risk factors are needed to elucidate the multifaceted drivers of AMR development.
Availability of data and materials
All data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Change history
13 August 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-024-00758-6
References
World Health Organisation: Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance 2015. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/193736/9789241509763_eng.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
World Organisation for Animal Health: Antimicrobial Resistance 2023. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/global-initiatives/antimicrobial-resistance/. Accessed 18 Mar 2024.
Pedersen KS, Okholm E, Johansen M, Angen Ø, Jorsal SE, Nielsen JP, et al. Clinical utility and performance of sock sampling in weaner pig diarrhoea. Prev Vet Med. 2015;120:313–20.
EUCAST. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: MIC and Zone Diameter Distributions and ECOFFs 2020. https://www.eucast.org/mic_and_zone_distributions_and_ecoffs. Accessed 18 March 2024.
R Core Team (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ Accessed 18 March 2024.
Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for gata analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016.
Sjölund M, Backhans A, Greko C, Emanuelson U, Lindberg A. Antimicrobial usage in 60 Swedish farrow-to-finish pig herds. Prev Vet Med. 2015;121:257–64.
Österberg J, Wingstrand A, Nygaard Jensen A, Kerouanton A, Cibin V, Barco L, et al. Antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli from pigs in organic and conventional farming in four European countries. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0157049.
Nulsen M, Mor M, Lawton D. Antibiotic resistance among indicator bacteria isolated from healthy pigs in New Zealand. N Z Vet J. 2008;56:29–35.
Mencía-Ares O, Argüello H, Puente H, Gómez-García M, Manzanilla EG, Álvarez-Ordóñez A, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in commensal Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. is influenced by production system, antimicrobial use, and biosecurity measures on Spanish pig farms. Porcine Health Manag. 2021;7(1):12.
Hollenbeck BL, Rice LB. Intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms in enterococcus. Virulence. 2012;3:421–33.
Aasmäe B, Häkkinen L, Kaart T, Kalmus P. Antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. isolated from estonian cattle and swine from 2010 to 2015. Acta Vet Scand. 2019;61:5.
Gião J, Leão C, Albuquerque T, Clemente L, Amaro A. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Enterococcus isolates from cattle and pigs in Portugal: linezolid resistance genes optrA and poxtA. Antibiotics. 2022;11:615.
de Jong A, Simjee S, Rose M, Moyaert H, El Garch F, Youala M. EASSA study group. antimicrobial resistance monitoring in commensal enterococci from healthy cattle, pigs and chickens across Europe during 2004–14 (EASSA Study). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74:921–30.
Gaire TN, Scott HM, Noyes NR, Ericsson AC, Tokach MD, Menegat MB, et al. Age influences the temporal dynamics of microbiome and antimicrobial resistance genes among fecal bacteria in a cohort of production pigs. Anim Microbiome. 2023;5:2.
Gaire TN, Scott HM, Sellers L, Nagaraja TG, Volkova VV. Age dependence of antimicrobial resistance among fecal bacteria in animals: a scoping review. Front Vet Sci. 2021;7: 622495.
Grudlewska-Buda K, Skowron K, Bauza-Kaszewska J, Budzyńska A, Wiktorczyk-Kapischke N, Wilk M, et al. Assessment of antibiotic resistance and biofilm formation of Enterococcus species isolated from different pig farm environments in Poland. BMC Microbiol. 2023;23:89.
Liu M, Kemper N, Volkmann N, Schulz J. Resistance of Enterococcus spp. in dust from farm animal houses: a retrospective study. Front Microbiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.03074.
Acknowledgements
We kindly acknowledge all farmers who participated in the study.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Ivar & Elsa Sandberg’s Foundation kindly supported this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ER, VL, and SSL designed the study. LA performed the laboratory work, ER, VL, SSL and LA analysed the data, ER, VL and SSL drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The project followed all national and international codes of conduct regarding legal and ethical aspects in research. No ethical approval was required as no personal or sensitive data, and no samples from humans or animals were collected.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original version of this article was revised: Figures 1 and 2 should be corrected. Unclear symbols instead of data were published in Figures 1 and 2.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Ladyhina, V., Sternberg-Lewerin, S., Andersson, L. et al. Antimicrobial resistance among indicator Enterococcus faecium and Escherichia coli in Swedish pig farms. Acta Vet Scand 66, 34 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-024-00756-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-024-00756-8