Skip to content

Advertisement

Gut Pathogens

Open Access

Occurrence of Salmonella enterica and Escherichia coli in raw chicken and beef meat in northern Egypt and dissemination of their antibiotic resistance markers

Gut Pathogens20179:57

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-017-0206-9

Received: 23 June 2017

Accepted: 10 October 2017

Published: 18 October 2017

Abstract

Background

The global incidence of foodborne infections and antibiotic resistance is recently increased and considered of public health concern. Currently, scarcely information is available on foodborne infections and ESBL associated with poultry and beef meat in Egypt.

Methods

In total, 180 chicken and beef meat samples as well as internal organs were collected from different districts in northern Egypt. The samples were investigated for the prevalence and antibiotic resistance of Salmonella enterica serovars and Escherichia coli. All isolates were investigated for harbouring class 1 and class 2 integrons.

Results

Out of 180 investigated samples 15 S. enterica (8.3%) and 21 E. coli (11.7%) were isolated and identified. S. enterica isolates were typed as 9 S. Typhimurium (60.0%), 3 S. Paratyphi A (20.0%), 2 S. Enteritidis (13.3%) and 1 S. Kentucky (6.7%). Twenty-one E. coli isolates were serotyped into O1, O18, O20, O78, O103, O119, O126, O145, O146 and O158. The phenotypic antibiotic resistance profiles of S. enterica serovars to ampicillin, cefotaxime, cefpodoxime, trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole and tetracycline were 86.7, 80.0, 60.0, 53.3 and 40.0%, respectively. Isolated E. coli were resistant to tetracycline (80.9%), ampicillin (71.4%), streptomycin, trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole (61.9% for each) and cefotaxime (33.3%). The dissemination of genes coding for ESBL and AmpC β-lactamase in S. enterica isolates included bla CTX-M (73.3%), bla TEM (73.3%) and bla CMY (13.3%). In E. coli isolates bla TEM, bla CTX-M and bla OXA were identified in 52.4, 42.9 and 14.3%, respectively. The plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance genes identified in S. enterica were qnrA (33.3%), qnrB (20.0%) and qnrS (6.7%) while qnrA and qnrB were detected in 33.3% of E. coli isolates. Class 1 integron was detected in 13.3% of S. enterica and in 14.3% of E. coli isolates. Class 2 integron as well as the colistin resistance gene mcr-1 was not found in any of E. coli or S. enterica isolates.

Conclusions

This study showed high prevalence of S. enterica and E. coli as foodborne pathogens in raw chicken and beef meat in Nile Delta, Egypt. The emergence of antimicrobial resistance in S. enterica and E. coli isolates is of public health concern in Egypt. Molecular biological investigation elucidated the presence of genes associated with antibiotic resistance as well as class 1 integron in S. enterica and E. coli.

Keywords

Salmonella Escherichia coli Antibiotic resistanceIntegronEgypt

Background

In spite of the improved technology and hygienic practices in developed countries at all stages of poultry and beef meat production, foodborne infections remain as a continuous threat to human and animal health. Escherichia (E.) coli and S. enterica serovars are the dominant members of Enterobacteriaceae causing foodborne infections. The expansion of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is also an emerging public health hazard due to the compromised efficacy in the treatment of infectious diseases [1].

The continuous exposure of bacterial strains by β-lactams has led to dynamic and massive production and mutation of β-lactamases [2]. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) are derived from point mutations in the bla TEM-1 and bla SHV-1 β-lactamase genes, which cannot hydrolyse cephamycins and are inhibited by clavulanic acid [3], while ampicillin class C β-lactamase (AmpC) enzymes are active on cephamycins as well as oxyiminocephalosporins and monobactams [4]. ESBLs are mostly located on mobile genetic elements (plasmids or integrons), which can facilitate their mobility from bacterial species to others by horizontal gene transfer [5].

In Egypt, Salmonella isolates from chicken meat and organs showed high resistance to different antibiotic classes [68] where also, ESBL-producing E. coli were isolated from retail chicken meat and dairy products in Egypt [9, 10].

Quinolones considered as drugs of choice for treatment of human infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria. However, resistance to quinolones has been emerged over the time due to misuse and/or overdose of drugs in human and veterinary practice [11]. Plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance (PMQR) represented by quinolone resistance (qnr) genes is widely distributed among bacteria [1214].

Integrons are genetic elements able to capture individual antibiotic resistance genes including β-lactamases encoding genes and stimulate their transcription and expression [15]. The capture and spread of antibiotic resistance determinants by integrons stimulates the rapid evolution of multidrug resistances (MDR) among Gram-negative bacteria [16]. Among five main integron classes, integrons 1 and 2 are most frequent in Gram-negative bacteria. More than 70 different antibiotic resistance genes have been characterized within integrons [16].

Colistin as antimicrobial substance was used against Gram-negative bacteria. Its usage has been limited due to its systemic toxicity but it was re-introduced as a last-line option in treatment of human infections [17, 18].

This study aimed to discuss the prevalence, serotyping, antibiotic resistance and characterization of resistance-associated genes in S. enterica serovars and E. coli isolated from beef and poultry meat products in the Nile Delta, Egypt.

Methods

Sampling, isolation and identification of bacteria

One hundred and eighty samples were randomly collected aseptically (90 chicken and 90 beef meat and organs) from slaughterhouses and markets in four districts in northern Egypt (Dakahlia, Damietta, Kafr El-Sheikh and Gharbia governorates). Briefly, 30 samples of freshly slaughtered chickens and 30 samples of native frozen chickens from restaurants and supermarkets (each 15 from breast and from thigh muscles and skin) were taken. Thirty samples of organs (gizzard and liver) were collected from freshly slaughtered chickens. In addition, 30 beef meat samples of freshly slaughtered carcasses (neck, brisket, flank and rump muscles) were obtained from slaughterhouses. Thirty samples from locally frozen beef meat, collected from supermarkets and restaurants and 30 samples from organs (liver, spleen and heart) from freshly slaughtered animals were used in this study (Tables 1, 2).
Table 1

Sources, number of S. enterica isolates and results of their serovar identification

Serovar

Poultry

Beef

(Poultry + beef)

n (%)

Fresh meat

(n = 30)

Frozen meat

(n = 30)

Fresh organs

(n = 30)

Total

n (%)

Fresh meat

(n = 30)

Frozen meat

(n = 30)

Fresh organs

(n = 30)

Total

n (%)

S. Typhimurium

2

0

1

3 (3.3)

3

1

2

6 (6.7)

9 (60.0)

S. Paratyphi A

0

1

1

2 (6.7)

0

0

1

1 (3.3)

3 (20.0)

S. Enteritidis

1

0

0

1 (3.3)

1

0

0

1 (3.3)

2 (13.3)

S. Kentucky

1

0

0

1 (3.3)

0

0

0

0 (0)

1 (6.7)

Total

4

1

2

7 (7.8)

4

1

3

8 (8.8)

15 (100)

Table 2

Sources, number of E. coli isolates and results of their serogroup identification

Serogroup

Fresh poultry meat

(n = 30)

Frozen poultry meat

(n = 30)

Fresh poultry organs

(n = 30)

Fresh beef meat

(n = 30)

Frozen beef meat

(n = 30)

Fresh beef organs

(n = 30)

Total number of isolates

% of E. coli isolates

O1

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

9.5

O18

2

1

1

0

0

0

4

19

O20

1

1

2

9.5

O78

1

0

0

1

1

1

4

19

O103

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

4.8

O119

1

1

2

9.5

O126

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

9.5

O145

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

4.8

O146

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

4.8

O158

0

0

0

1

1

0

2

9.5

Total

6

3

4

3

4

1

21

100

Ten grams of each meat and organ sample were incised using sterile scalpel and forceps, transported immediately to the laboratory in ice bags, then transferred into sterile homogenizer flask containing 45 ml of nutrient broth (Oxoid, Manchester, UK). The mixture was allowed to stand for 15 min at room temperature. From each sample, 1 ml was added to 9 ml of buffered peptone water (Oxoid) for E. coli cultivation and 9 ml of Rappaport–Vassiliadis broth (Oxoid) for S. enterica isolation. After aerobic incubation at 37 °C overnight, a loopful from Rappaport–Vassiliadis broth was streaked on xylose lysine deoxycholate (XLD) agar (Oxoid) and from buffered peptone water on eosin methylene blue (EMB) agar (Oxoid). The inoculated plates were incubated aerobically at 37 °C for 18–24 h. Suspected colonies were identified biochemically using API 20E (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France).

All biochemically confirmed Salmonella isolates were serotyped on the basis of somatic (O) and flagellar (H) antigens by slide agglutination test using commercial antisera (SIFIN, Berlin, Germany) following Kauffman–White scheme [19]. Serological identification of E. coli was carried out using slide agglutination method using commercial antisera (SIFIN). The serotyping was carried out at the Serology Unit, Animal Health Research Institute, Dokki, Egypt, and the Bacteriology Laboratory, Central Laboratories of Ministry of Health, Cairo, Egypt.

DNA extraction and purification

The identified bacterial cultures were cultivated in Luria–Bertani (LB) broth (Oxoid) at 37 °C overnight. DNA was extracted and purified using DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kits (Qiagen, Manchester, UK) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Molecular identification of S. enterica serovars and E. coli

The isolated strains were further identified as S. enterica and E. coli using PCR assays. The amplification targets and primers (Eurofins, Yokohama, Japan) are listed in Table 3. All phenotypically identified S. enterica serovars were tested for harbouring ompC gene. Isolated E. coli were confirmed by species-specific PCR targeting the 16S rRNA genes and resulting in a 585 bp amplicon. PCR assays used in this study resulted in Salmonella, S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium specific products of 204, 304 and 401 bp length, respectively.
Table 3

PCR primers, their sequences and amplification targets used in this study

Primer

Sequence (5′–3′)

Amplicon size (bp)

Amplification target

References

E. coli, Salmonella enterica and Salmonella serovar identification

 ECO-f

GAC CTC GGT TTA GTT CAC AGA

585

E. coli

[67]

 ECO-r

CAC ACG CTG ACG CTG ACC A

 OMPCF

ATC GCT GAC TTA TGC AAT CG

204

Salmonella genus

[68]

 OMPCR

CGG GTT GCG TTA TAG GTC TG

 ENTF

TGT GTT TTA TCT GAT GCA AGA GG

304

S. Enteritidis

[68]

 ENTR

TGA ACT ACG TTC GTT CTT CTG G

 TYPHF

TTG TTC ACT TTT TAC CCC TGA A

401

S. Typhimurium

[68]

 TYPHR

CCC TGA CAG CCG TTA GAT ATT

β-Lactamases

 TEM-F

ATA AAA TTC TTG AAG ACG AAA

1080

bla TEM

[69]

 TEM-R

GAC AGT TAC CAA TGC TTA ATC

 OXA-F

TCA ACT TTC AAG ATC GCA

591

bla OXA

[69]

 OXA-R

GTG TGT TTA GAA TGG TGA

 OXA-F-2

ATT AAG CCC TTT ACC AAA CCA

 

Whole bla OXA

[69]

 OXA-R-2

AAG GGT TGG GCG ATT TTG CCA

 OXA-23-F

GAT CGG ATT GGA GAA CCA GA

501

bla OXA-23

[25]

 OXA-23-R

ATT TCT GAC CGC ATT TCC AT

 CTX-M-F

CGC TTT GCG ATG TGC AG

550

bla CTX-M

[69]

 CTX-M-R

ACC GCG ATA TCG TTG GT

 CTX-M-F2

CCA GAA TAA GGA ATC CCA TG

 

Whole bla CTX-M

[69]

 CTX-M-R2

GCC GTC TAA GGC GAT AAA C

 CMY-F

GAC AGC CTC TTT CTC CAC A

1007

bla CMY

[69]

 CMY-R

TGG AAC GAA GGC TAC GTA

 CMY-F2

ACG GAA CTG ATT TCA TGA TG

 

Whole bla CMY

[69]

 CMY-R2

GAA AGG AGG CCC AAT ATC CT

 SHV-F

TTA TCT CCC TGT TAG CCA CC

795

bla SHV

[69]

 SHV-R

GAT TTG CTG ATT TCG CTC GG

Integrons

 5′-CS

GGC ATC CAA GCA GCA AG

152

Class 1 integron

[69]

 3′-CS

AAG CAG ACT TGA CCT GA

 hep74

CGG GAT CCC GGA CGG CAT GCA CGA TTT GTA

491

Class 2 integron

[69]

 hep51

GAT GCC ATC GCA AGT ACG AG

Plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance gene

 qnrA-F

ATT TCT CAC GCC AGG ATT TG

516

qnrA

[69]

 qnrA-R

GAT CGG CAA AGG TTA GGT CA

 qnrB-F

GAT CGT GAA AGC CAG AAA GG

469

qnrB

[69]

 qnrB-R

ACG ATG CCT GGT AGT TGT CC

 qnrS-F

ACG ACA TTC GTC AAC TGC AA

417

qnrS

[69]

 qnrS-R

TAA ATT GGC ACC CTG TAG GC

Plasmid-mediated colistin resistance gene

 CLR5-F

CGG TCA GTC CGT TTG TTC

308

mcr-1

[24]

 CLR5-R

CTT GGT CGG TCT GTA GGG

The PCR protocol consisted of the following steps: (i) an initial denaturation step of 2 min at 95 °C; (ii) 30 cycles with 1 cycle consisting of 1 min at 95 °C, 1 min at 57 °C, and 2 min at 72 °C; and (iii) a final elongation step of 5 min at 72 °C.

Five-microliter aliquots of reaction mixture were run in electrophoreses using 1.5% agarose gels (Nippon Gene, Tokyo, Japan) and visualized under UV light after ethidium bromide staining.

Determination of antimicrobial susceptibility profiles

The antimicrobial susceptibility was determined using the Kirby–Bauer disc diffusion test [20]. Briefly, one colony picked up, streaked on Mueller–Hinton blood agar (Oxoid) and incubated at 37 °C overnight. Bacterial colonies were suspended in 0.9% NaCl to obtain a McFarland turbidity of 0.5 (Dr. Lange, photometer CADAS 30, Berlin, Germany) containing 1–2  × 108 colony-forming units (CFU)/ml of E. coli strain ATCC 25922. Three hundred μl of the suspension were spread onto the surface of a Mueller–Hinton agar plate (Oxoid) using a sterile swab. The antimicrobial discs (Oxoid) of thirteen clinically used antibiotics, which are used in the Egyptian poultry and cattle farms (Tables 4, 5) were distributed onto the surface of the Mueller–Hinton agar plates using a multi-disc dispenser (Oxoid). The plates were incubated at 37 °C overnight. The diameters of inhibition zones were measured using sliding calipers and interpreted using standard break points according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [21].
Table 4

Breakpoint values of antimicrobial agents according to CLSI, 2011 and phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of 15 S. enterica isolates used in this study

Antibiotic class

Antimicrobial agent

Conc. (μg)

Zone diameter (mm)

S. Typhimurium (9)

S. Enteritidis (2)

S. Kentucky (1)

S. Paratyphi A (3)

Total Salmonella (15)

R

I

S

R

I

S

R

I

S

R

I

S

R

I

S

R

I

S

Penicillin

Amoxycillin–clavulanic acid

20

≤ 13

14–17

≥ 18

5

4

2

1

2

1

8 (53%)

7 (47%)

Ampicillin

10

≤ 13

14–16

≥ 17

7

2

2

1

3

13 (87%)

2 (13%)

Cephalosporin

Cefotaxime

30

≤ 22

23–25

≥ 26

7

1

1

2

1

3

12 (80%)

2 (13%)

1 (7%)

Cefpodoxime

20

≤ 17

18–20

≥ 21

7

2

1

1

1

1

2

9 (60%)

6 (40%)

Ceftazidime

30

≤ 17

18–20

≥ 21

3

5

1

2

1

1

2

4 (26%)

10 (67%)

1 (7%)

Ceftriaxone

30

≤ 19

20–22

≥ 23

3

6

2

1

2

1

5 (33%)

10 (67%)

Miscellaneous

Chloramphenicol

30

≤ 12

13–17

≥ 18

5

4

2

1

1

2

7 (47%)

8 (53%)

Colistin

10

≤ 11

12–13

≥ 14

9

2

1

3

15 (100%)

Fluoroquinolone

Ciprofloxacin

5

≤ 15

16–20

≥ 21

3

6

1

1

1

3

5 (33%)

10 (67%)

Enrofloxacin

5

≤ 17

18–20

≥ 21

1

7

1

1

1

1

2

1

1 (7%)

11 (73%)

3 (20%)

Nalidixic acid

30

≤ 13

14–18

≥ 19

3

6

1

1

1

3

5 (33%)

10 (67%)

Aminoglycoside

Streptomycin

10

≤ 11

12–14

≥ 15

2

7

1

1

1

2

1

4 (26%)

10 (67%)

1 (7%)

Tetracycline

Tetracycline

30

≤ 11

12–14

≥ 15

3

6

2

1

3

6 (40%)

9 (60%)

Sulphonamide

Trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole

25

≤ 4

3

≥ 2

4

2

3

1

1

1

2

1

8 (53%)

4 (26%)

3 (20%)

S sensitive, I intermediate, R resistant

Table 5

Breakpoint values of antimicrobial agents according to CLSI, 2011 and phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of E. coli isolates used in this study

Antibiotic class

Antimicrobial agent

Conc. (μg)

Zone diameter (9)

E. coli (21)

Resistance rate

Poultry (15)

Beef (6)

Total (21)

Poultry

Beef

Total

R

I

S

R

I

S

R

I

S

R

I

S

%

%

%

Penicillin

Amoxycillin–clavulanic acid

20

≤ 13

14–17

≥ 18

10

4

1

3

3

13

7

1

66.7

50.0

61.9

Ampicillin

10

≤ 13

14–16

≥ 17

12

2

1

3

3

15

5

1

80.0

50.0

71.4

Cephalosporin

Cefotaxime

30

≤ 22

23–25

≥ 26

6

7

2

1

3

2

7

10

4

40.0

16.7

33.3

Cefpodoxime

20

≤ 17

18–20

≥ 21

3

12

2

4

5

16

20.0

33.3

23.8

Ceftazidime

30

≤ 17

18–20

≥ 21

5

9

1

6

5

15

1

33.3

0

23.8

Ceftriaxone

30

≤ 19

20–22

≥ 23

3

5

7

1

3

2

4

8

9

20.0

16.7

19.0

Miscellaneous

Chloramphenicol

30

≤ 12

13–17

≥ 18

3

9

3

1

1

4

4

10

7

20.0

16.7

19.0

Colistin

10

≤ 11

12–13

≥ 14

1

14

6

1

20

Fluoroquinolone

Ciprofloxacin

5

≤ 15

16–20

≥ 21

4

3

8

2

2

2

6

5

10

26.7

33.3

28.6

Enrofloxacin

5

≤ 17

18–20

≥ 21

2

5

8

1

4

1

3

9

9

13.3

16.7

14.3

Nalidixic acid

30

≤ 13

14–18

≥ 19

5

12

3

1

2

3

6

14

6

33.3

16.7

28.6

Aminoglycoside

Streptomycin

10

≤ 11

12–14

≥ 15

9

5

1

4

2

13

7

1

60.0

66.7

61.9

Tetracycline

Tetracycline

30

≤ 11

12–14

≥ 15

12

3

5

1

17

4

80.0

83.3

81.0

Sulphonamide

Trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole

25

≤ 4

3

≥ 2

10

2

3

3

3

17

2

6

66.7

50.0

81.0

S sensitive, I intermediate, R resistant

The antimicrobial susceptibility of colistin was determined by disc diffusion susceptibility testing using colistin discs (Oxoid) containing 10 μg. The disc zone diameters was interpreted according to previous report [22].

Molecular detection of antimicrobial resistance associated genes

Escherichia coli and S. enterica isolates were tested for β-lactamase-encoding genes bla TEM, bla SHV, bla CTX-M, bla OXA and bla CMY by PCR using universal primers for the corresponding gene families (Table 3) as described previously [23]. PCR amplification was also used for screening of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance genes qnrA, qnrB and qnrS.

For detection of variants of bla TEM, bla SHV, bla CTX-M, bla OXA and bla CMY amplified PCR fragments were purified from agarose gels using Nucleospin Gel Extraction Kit (Macherey–Nagel, Düren, Germany). The products were sequenced and the sequencing results were analyzed using BLAST (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast.cgi).

Colistin resistance associated gene mcr-1was identified using a PCR assay (Table 3) as described by Liu et al. [24]. PCR for detection of carbapenemases blaOXA-23 gene was performed using OXA-23-F and OXA-23-R (Table 3). PCR reaction and conditions were performed according to Braun et al. [25].

Detection and sequencing of class 1 and class 2 integrons

PCR assays for detection of class 1 and class 2 integrons were performed using primers given in Table 3 and yielded PCR fragments that were purified from agarose gels using Nucleospin Gel Extraction Kit (Macherey–Nagel, Düren, Germany). The products were sequenced in Genome Centre, Gifu University, Japan. The sequencing results were analyzed using BLAST (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast.cgi).

Results

Out of 180 examined samples 15 S. enterica (8.3%) (7 from poultry and 8 from beef) (Table 1) as well as 21 E. coli (11.7%) (15 from poultry and 6 from beef) (Table 2) were isolated and identified using bacteriological methods and biochemical characterization.

Serological characterization of S. enterica and E. coli

Fifteen isolated S. enterica were typed as 9 S. enterica serovar Typhimurium (60.0%; 3 from chicken and 6 from beef), 3 S. enterica Paratyphi A (20.0%; 2 from chickens and 1 from beef), 2 S. enterica serovar Enteritidis (13.3%; 1 from chicken and 1 from beef) and 1 S. enterica serovar Kentucky (6.7%) from chicken sample (Table 1).

Twenty-one E. coli isolates were characterized as 4 O18 (19.0%) and 4 O78 (19.0%) serotypes. Other serotypes are given in Table 2.

Molecular identification of Salmonella serovars

All 15 recovered S. enterica serovars harboured ompC gene, which confirms Salmonella genus. Nine S. enterica serovar Typhimurium (60.0%) and two S. enterica serovar Enteritidis (13.3%) were identified by means of serovar-specific bands using PCR (Table 3). Four other isolates could not be typed with PCR method (26.7%).

Determination of antimicrobial susceptibility profiles

The results of determination of antimicrobial resistance of S. enterica and E. coli isolates to thirteen antibiotics are given in Tables 4 and 5. Most of the S. enterica isolates showed resistance to ampicillin (87.0%) and cefotaxime (80.0%) and all were susceptible to chloramphenicol, colistin and ciprofloxacin. Resistance to other antibiotics was shown in Table 4.

Seven isolates of S. enterica serovar Typhimurium were resistant to ampicillin, cefotaxime and cefpodoxime (77.8%), while 6 isolates (66.7%) were highly sensitive to ciprofloxacin. Resistance to other antibiotics was weaker developed.

Both S. enterica serovar Enteritidis isolates were resistant to ampicillin, cefotaxime and tetracycline. Additionally, one isolate showed resistance to streptomycin, nalidixic acid, trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole and streptomycin.

In addition to the entire resistance to ampicillin and cefotaxime, majority of the S. enterica serovar Paratyphi A isolates were resistant to amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, ceftriaxone and trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole.

Salmonella enterica serovar Kentucky isolate showed no pronounced susceptibility to any of the tested antibiotics and was resistant to six of them (Table 4). Seven out of 15 S. enterica serovars (46.7%) revealed phenotypic multidrug resistance exhibiting by resistance to three or more classes of antibiotics (Table 4).

Escherichia coli isolates showed resistance to tetracycline, ampicillin, streptomycin, trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole and amoxicillin–clavulanic acid with 80.9, 71.4, 61.9, 61.9 and 61.9%, respectively. Ten (47.6%), 9 (42.8%) and 9 (42.8%) isolates were susceptible to ciprofloxacin, enrofloxacin and ceftriaxone, respectively. All tested isolates were susceptible to colistin. Thirteen E. coli isolates (61.9%) were characterized as multidrug resistant (Table 5).

The multidrug resistance of isolated Salmonella and E. coli was shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Table 6

Phenotypic resistance and resistance determinants found in S. enterica isolates in this study

Source

Serovar

Resistance phenotype

Resistance genes/class 1 integrons

Poultry

 Fresh poultry meat

Typhimurium

CPD, CTX, NAL

bla CTX-M-1, qnrA, qnrB, qnrS

 Fresh poultry meat

Typhimurium

AMC, AMP, CPD

bla TEM-1

 Fresh poultry meat

Enteritidis

AMP, CTX, TET

bla CTX-M-1, bla TEM-1

 Fresh poultry meat

Kentucky

AMC, AMP, NAL, STR, TET, T/S

bla TEM-1, qnrA

 Fresh poultry organs (liver)

Typhimurium

AMC, AMP, CPD, CRO, CTX, NAL, T/S

bla CTX-M-1, bla TEM-1, qnrA, dfrA15, dfrA17

 Fresh poultry organs (liver)

Paratyphi A

AMC, AMP, CAZ CRO, CTX, T/S

bla CTX-M-14, bla TEM-1

 Frozen poultry meat

Paratyphi A

AMC, AMP, CRO, CTX, T/S

bla CTX-M-14, bla TEM-1

Beef

 Fresh beef meat

Typhimurium

AMP, CAZ, CTX

bla CTX-M-1

 Fresh beef meat

Typhimurium

AMP, CAZ, CRO, CTX

bla CTX-M-1

 Fresh beef meat

Typhimurium

AMC, CPD, CTX, TET, T/S

bla CTX-M-3, bla TEM-1

 Fresh beef meat

Enteritidis

AMP, CPD, CTX, NAL, STR, TET, T/S

bla CMY-2, bla CTX-M-1, bla TEM-1, qnrA, qnrB

 Fresh beef organs (spleen)

Typhimurium

AMP, CPD, CTX, STR,TET, T/S

bla CTX-M-14, bla TEM-1

 Fresh beef organs (liver)

Typhimurium

AMC, AMP, CPD

 Fresh beef organs (liver)

Paratyphi A

AMP, CPD, CTX

bla TEM1

 Frozen beef meat

Typhimurium

AMC, AMP, CAZ, CPD, CRO, CTX, ENR, NAL, STR, TET, T/S

bla CMY-2, bla CTX-M-1, bla TEM1, qnrA, qnrB, aadA2

AMC amoxycillin–clavulanic acid, AMP ampicillin, CAZ ceftazidime, CPD cefpodoxime, CRO chloramphenicol, CTX cefotaxime, ENR enrofloxacin, NAL nalidixic acid, STR streptomycin, TET tetracycline, T/S trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole

Table 7

Phenotypic resistance and resistance determinants found in E. coli isolates in this study

Source

E. coli serotype

Resistance phenotype

Resistance genes/class 1 integron

Poultry

 Fresh poultry meat

O1

STR, TET

 Fresh poultry meat

O18

AMP, CIP, CPD, NAL, STR, TET, T/S

qnrA, qnrB

 Fresh poultry meat

O18

AMC, AMP, CHL, CIP, CRO, CTX, NAL, STR, TET, T/S

bla CTX-M-1, bla OXA-1, qnrA, qnrB

 Fresh poultry meat

O78

AMC, AMP, CAZ, TET, T/S

bla CTX-M-1, bla TEM-1

 Fresh poultry meat

O119

AMC, AMP, CAZ, CTX, STR, TET, T/S

bla CTX-M-14, bla TEM-104

 Fresh poultry meat

O20

AMC, AMP, CPD, TET, T/S

bla CTX-M1, bla OXA-1, bla TEM-1

 Fresh poultry organs (liver)

O18

AMC, AMP, CAZ, CHL, CIP, CRO, CTX, ENR, NAL, STR, TET, T/S

bla CTX-M-1, bla TEM-104,qnrA, qnrB, dfrA1-orf

 Fresh poultry organs (liver)

O126

AMP, CTX, STR

bla CTX-M-1

 Fresh poultry organs (gizzard)

O20

AMC, AMP, STR, T/S

bla TEM-1

 Fresh poultry organs (liver)

O145

CAZ, TET

 Frozen poultry meat

O1

CTX, NAL, TET

qnrA, qnrB

 Frozen poultry meat

O18

AMC, AMP, STR, TET, T/S

bla OXA-1, bla TEM-1

 Frozen poultry

078

AMC, AMP, CPD

 

 Frozen poultry meat

O146

AMC, AMP, TET, T/S

bla TEM-1

 Frozen organ poultry

078

AMC, AMP, CAZ, CHL, CIP, CRO, CTX, ENR, NAL, STR, TET, T/S

bla CTX-M-14,bla TEM-1, qnrA, qnrB, dfrA15

Beef

 Fresh beef meat

O119

CPD

 Fresh beef meat

O158

CPD, TET

 Fresh beef organs (liver)

O78

AMC, AMP, CHL, CIP, CRO, CTX, ENR, NAL, STR, TET, T/S

bla CTX-M-1, bla TEM-104, qnrA, qnrB, dfrA1, dfrA1-orf

 Frozen beef meat

O103

STR, TET

bla CTX-M-1

 Frozen beef meat

O126

AMC, AMP, CIP, STR, TET, T/S

bla TEM-1, qnrA, qnrB

 Frozen beef meat

O158

AMC, AMP, STR, TET, T/S

bla TEM-1

AMC amoxycillin–clavulanic acid, AMP ampicillin, CAZ ceftazidime, CPD cefpodoxime, CRO chloramphenicol, CTX cefotaxime, ENR enrofloxacin, NAL nalidixic acid, STR streptomycin, TET tetracycline, T/S trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole

Molecular detection of resistance-associated genes

Six of 8 screened resistance-associated genes were detected in S. enterica serovars by PCR (Table 6). Eleven (73.3%) isolates harboured bla CTX-M gene (1, 3 and 14) associated with cefotaxime resistance and 11 (73.3%) isolates harboured bla TEM-1 gene associated with penicillin and narrow spectrum β-lactamase resistance. Five (33.3%) isolates harboured quinolone resistance gene A (qnrA), while 3 (20.0%), 2 (13.3%) and 1 (6.7%) of S. enterica serovars possessed qnrB, bla CMY and qnrS genes, respectively. bla OXA associated with resistance to ampicillin and cephalothin and bla SHV associated with plasmid-mediated ampicillin resistance were not found in any isolate.

In E. coli isolates, 5 of 8 screened resistance-associated genes were detected by PCR (Table 7). Eleven (52.4%) out of 21 isolates harboured bla TEM (1 and 104), while bla CTX-M (1 and 14) was detected in 9 isolates (42.9%). Seven isolates (33.3%) carried qnrA and qnrB and in three isolates (14.3%) bla OXA-1 was detected. Genes bla CMY, bla SHV and qnrS were not detected in any of the E. coli isolates.

Plasmid-mediated colistin resistance gene mcr-1 and carbapenemase resistance gene blaOXA-23 were not identified neither in S. enterica nor in E. coli isolates using PCR assay.

Integron gene cassettes and DNA sequencing

Class 1 integron was detected in two isolates of S. Typhimurium using PCR (Table 6). The inserted gene cassettes identified three types of antimicrobial resistance genes associated with class 1 integron: dihydrofolate reductase types (dfrA15 and dfrA17) which confer resistance to trimethoprim, and aminoglycoside adenyltransferase type aadA2 that confers resistance to streptomycin and spectinomycin.

Three E. coli isolates of serotypes O18, O78 and O78 were harbouring class 1 integron (Table 7). The inserted gene cassettes identified three types of class 1 integron. The identified antimicrobial resistance genes were dihydrofolate reductase types; dfrA1, dfrA15 and dfrA1-orf which confer resistance to trimethoprim.

All S. enterica and E. coli isolates were negative for class 2 integrons.

Discussion

Salmonellosis and Salmonella infections considered as critical threats to human and animal health. In this study, the prevalence of S. enterica serovars in chicken and beef meat was 8.3%, which was considerably lower than incidence rates that reported in Ethiopia (12.0% in raw meat) [26], Canary islands (16.5% in chicken meat) [27], Northwestern Spain (17.9% in chicken) [28], Ethiopia (17.9% in chicken and giblets) [29], and Egypt (10.0% in poultry meat) [7]. On the other hand, it was higher than reported previously in meat products in Egypt (6.6%) and in ground beef in the United States (4.2%) [30, 31].

In total, S. enterica serovar Typhimurium was the dominant serovar. These results were in accordance with previous study from chicken products in Cambodia and Thailand [32]. Controversially, S. enterica serovar Enteritidis was the dominant serotype in imported frozen poultry samples from Brazil to Canary Islands and in chicken carcasses in Spain [27, 28]. Salmonella enterica serovar Kentucky was frequently detected in samples coming from US to Canary Islands [27].

Prevalence of E. coli in chicken meat and organs was 16.7% which was lower than in Nigeria (43.4%) in frozen poultry meat [33] but higher than in Korea (4.9% in poultry meat) [34]. Prevalence of E. coli in beef meat was 6.7%, while in Korea and Iran were found 4.1 and 29.0%, respectively [34, 35].

In this study, 19.0% of E. coli isolates typed as O78 was mainly from poultry products, while in China, O78 was identified in 60.0% of E. coli isolated from chicken and ducks [36]. E. coli type O158 identified in 9.5% only in beef meat while O158 detected in 22.7% of food isolates in Chile [37].

Bacterial antimicrobial resistance is a global emerging problem of public health concern.

In the current study, a high percentage of S. enterica serovars were resistant to ampicillin and cefotaxime. The resistance to other antimicrobial agents was variable while all isolates were sensitive to chloramphenicol and ciprofloxacin. The results were in a partial accordance with results of previous reports stating that all S. enterica isolated from chicken meat and beef were sensitive to ciprofloxacin [38]. 72.4% of Salmonella isolates in Thai meat products were resistant to ampicillin while 71.0% of isolates in Cambodian meat products were resistant to sulfamethoxazole [32]. Controversially, S. enterica isolated from animals and food of animal origin in Italy were highly resistant to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin and tetracycline [39] and all Salmonella isolated from beef in Tunisia were susceptible to amoxicillin and clavulanic acid [40].

In total, 46.7% of S. enterica serovars showed multidrug resistance, which was higher than resistance of Salmonella isolated from raw chicken (31.0%) in Pennsylvania during [41]. Less multidrug resistant S. enterica isolates (6.0%) were identified in cattle hides and carcasses in the US [42].

The results of this study showed that the antimicrobial resistance of E. coli isolated from poultry was higher than from beef to the most of tested antibiotics. The high resistance to tetracycline, ampicillin, amoxycillin–clavulanic acid, trimethoprim/sulphamethoxazole and streptomycin in this study was in agreement with previous reports conducted in Egypt [10, 43] and Algeria [44]. While in Spain, most of E. coli isolated from diarrhoeic and healthy lambs were highly resistant to tetracycline and streptomycin but show lower resistance to ampicillin [45]. Most of E. coli isolates in this study were sensitive to enrofloxacin, chloramphenicol and ceftriaxone which is in agreement with previous results in Spain [45].

In this study, 61.9% of E. coli isolates were multidrug resistant. Similar results reported previously in Ghana and US [23, 46].

Most of the phenotypically antibiotic resistant S. enterica serovars carried antibiotic resistance marker genes associated with β-lactams and quinolones.

The β-lactamase encoding gene bla TEM conferring resistance to penicillins and first-generation cephalosporins was detected in 73.3% of S. enterica serovars and in 76.9% of ampicillin-resistant isolates which is significantly high in comparison to 57.3% (bla TEM-1) in S. enterica isolated from retail chickens in China [47]. Another β-lactamase encoding gene bla CMY-2, an AmpC beta-lactamase gene that confers resistance to a wide variety of β-lactam antibiotics detected in 13.3% of isolates. In contrast, in 4.7% of S. enterica serovars Typhimurium and Enteritidis originated from diseased broilers in Egypt bla CMY-2 was identified [48] and all resistant S. enterica serovar Typhimurium isolated from retail meat in US were harbouring bla CMY [49]. The same gene could not be detected previously in any S. enterica serovar Typhimurium isolated from chicken meat in Egypt [8].

bla CTX-M could be identified in 73.3% of isolated S. enterica serovars. In 24.0 and 18.8% of different Salmonella serovars isolated from retail chicken carcasses in China, bla CTX-M-15 and bla CTX-M-3 were detected, respectively [47].

The bla SHV is responsible for the plasmid-mediated ampicillin resistance and β-lactamase encoding genes bla OXA conferring resistance to ampicillin and cephalothin not detected in any of S. enterica serovars in this study. This result was in accordance with a result for S. enterica serovar Typhimurium isolated from chicken meat in Egypt [8]. In contrast, 30.2% of ESBL-producing Salmonella isolated from raw chicken carcasses in China were harbouring bla OXA-1 [47].

Although none of S. enterica serovars were phenotypically resistant to ciprofloxacin, qnrA, qnrB and qnrS genes were detected in 33.3, 20.0 and 6.7%, respectively in all S. enterica serovars and in 100, 60.0 and 20.0%, respectively in S. enterica resistant to nalidixic acid. A different result showed that 1.16% of nalidixic acid-resistant S. enterica serovars isolated from animal products in Tunisia carried qnr gene [50]. In other studies in China qnrA, qnrB and qnrS genes detected with low percentage in S. enterica serovar Enteritidis isolated from retail raw poultry [51, 52].

The bla TEM gene was detected in 52.3% of all isolated E. coli and in 73.3% of ampicillin-resistant isolates. Other studies detected bla TEM in 97.1 and 75.0% of E. coli isolates from lambs in Spain and meat products in Cambodia, respectively [32, 45]. In China, bla TEM was identified in 7.8% of ESBL-producing E. coli recovered from meat products [53].

The β-lactamase encoding gene bla CMY was not found in any of the isolated E. coli. In contrast, bla CMY-2 was detected in 89.0% E. coli isolated from poultry meat in Denmark [54] and in 12.5% of ESBL-producing E. coli isolated from meat products in Cambodia [32].

The bla CTX-M detected in 42.9% of E. coli isolated in this study. In Ghana 50.0% of ESBL-producing E. coli isolates from meat harboured bla CTX-M [46] while these β-lactamase encoding genes bla CTX-M-15 and bla CTX-M-9 were detected rarely (1.6%) in E. coli isolates from meat products in China [53].

The bla SHV gene was not found in any of the E. coli isolates. Controversially, previous studies detected bla SHV in 9.4, 5.3 and 2.0% in meat products in China, broiler chickens and chicken carcasses in Iran, respectively [53, 55, 56].

bla OXA-1 was detected in 14.3% of the E. coli isolates which is in contrast with previous report conducted in retail meat in US where the gene could not be identified [23].

The most common carbapenemase types were blaOXA-23 and blaOXA-48 accounting for 47% of all identified carbapenemase genes [25, 57]. In this study, blaOXA-23 was not identified in all isolated strains.

In isolated E. coli, qnrA and qnrB detected in 33.3% of isolates, all nalidixic acid and/or ciprofloxacin resistant isolates harboured both genes. While qnrB and qnrS were identified in 10.4% of nalidixic acid resistant E. coli isolated from Algerian retail chicken meat [44] and in 10.0% of E. coli isolates obtained from bovine carcasses in Mexico [58]. In contrast, qnrA, qrnB and qrnS genes could not be identified in enrofloxacin-resistant E. coli strains from poultry in Mexico [59].

The presence of genetic elements such as integrons and transposons are often associated with multi-resistant phenotypes among Salmonella isolates [60]. In this study, class 1 integron detected in 13.3% of S. enterica serovars. The identified gene cassettes were dfrA15, dfrA17 and aadA2. In previous studies, class 1 integron identified in 90.0% of multi-drug resistant Salmonella isolates from retail chicken meat in Japan and the identified genes cassettes were dfrA1, dfrA7, aadA1, aadB, and catB3 [61, 62]. The gene cassettes of class 1 integron which detected in Salmonella spp. isolated from poultry meat in Egypt were harbouring aac (3)-Id, aadA2, aadA4, aadA7, sat, dfrA15, lnuF and estX resistance genes [7]. In a study conducted in Portugal, 75.0% of S. enterica isolated from different sources including food products had one or two class 1 integrons [63].

The identified gene cassettes of class 1 integron dfrA1, dfrA15 and dfrA1-orf which confer resistance to trimethoprim were identified in 14.3% of E. coli isolated in this study. This is in agreement with E. coli isolates from retail chickens in Japan [62] and in 1.9 and 11.4% of isolates from Thai and Cambodian meat samples obtained from slaughterhouses and fresh markets and the most common gene cassette was dfrA12-aadA2 [32].

Class 2 integrons were not detected in all isolates of this study which is in contrast to 5.6% positive samples in Egypt [10].

In this study, mcr-1 gene associated with colistin resistance was neither detected in S. enterica nor E. coli isolates. This result was in agreement with the result reported by Doumith et al. [64] who investigated 24,000 isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from food and humans including S. enterica and E. coli and found only 15 mcr-1 positive isolates. Recently, Quesada et al. identified the gene mcr-1 in nine S. enterica and E. coli isolates from poultry and swine for the first time in Spain [65]. Jayol et al. found the mcr-1 in 13% of E. coli and S. enterica [66]. Considering the frequent use of colistin in animal production and the importance of this antimicrobial for the control of multi-resistant Gram-negative nosocomial infections in humans, monitoring the dissemination of resistance to colistin is mandatory.

In conclusion, the results of this study showed high prevalence of S. enterica and E. coli as foodborne pathogens isolated from poultry and beef meat in Egypt. The emergence of antimicrobial resistance of S. enterica and E. coli isolates is of public concerns in Egypt. Significant resistance was detected to penicillin, cephalosporins, tetracycline and sulphonamides. Dissemination of ESBL and AmpC-β-lactamase resistance-associated genes in S. enterica and E. coli was determined. Presence of class 1 integron in S. enterica and E. coli and genes associated with antibiotic resistance was also confirmed. Class 2 integron was not detected in any isolate. Further work should be performed to characterize S. enterica and E. coli isolates of animal and human origin from the same region sharing the same resistance markers in order to highlight potential horizontal gene transfer by these zoonotic organisms.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

AAM participated in the conception and design of the study. AAM performed the farm and laboratory work. AAM, HH, HE, HT, HN and HMH analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript and contributed to manuscript discussion. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank technical assistants at Kafrelsheikh University for their excellent technical assistance. The authors thank Animal Health Research Institute, Mansoura Laboratory for its great effort in sample collection and preparation.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data

All the data supporting the results presented in the main manuscript.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent for participate

This study was carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations of the, Egyptian Network of Research Ethics Committees (ENREC) which complies with the international laws and regulation regarding ethical considerations in research.

Funding

This study was done without any specific funding.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Institute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Jena, Germany
(2)
Bacteriology department, Animal Health Research Institute (AHRI), Mansoura branch, Mansoura, Egypt
(3)
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
(4)
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
(5)
Institute of Poultry Diseases, Free University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

References

  1. Helmy Y, El-Adawy H, Abdelwhab E. A comprehensive review of common bacterial, parasitic and viral zoonoses at the human–animal interface in Egypt. Pathogens. 2017;6:33.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Pitout J, Laupland K. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: an emerging public-health concern. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:159–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bush K, Jacoby GA. Updated functional classification of β-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:969–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Jacoby GA. AmpC β-lactamases. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009;22:161–82.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Pfeifer Y, Cullik A, Witte W. Resistance to cephalosporins and carbapenems in Gram-negative bacterial pathogens. Int J Med Microbiol. 2010;300:371–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Abd-Elghany SM, Sallam KI, Abd-Elkhalek A, Tamura T. Occurrence, genetic characterization and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella isolated from chicken meat and giblets. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143:997–1003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gharieb RM, Tartor YH, Khedr MH. Non-typhoidal Salmonella in poultry meat and diarrhoeic patients: prevalence, antibiogram, virulotyping, molecular detection and sequencing of class I integrons in multidrug resistant strains. Gut Pathog. 2015;7:15–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Ahmed HA, El-Hofy FI, Shafik SM, Abdelrahman MA, Elsaid GA. Characterization of virulence-associated genes, antimicrobial resistance genes, and class 1 integrons in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium isolates from chicken meat and humans in Egypt. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2016;13:281–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Abdallah HM, Reuland EA, Wintermans BB, Al Naiemi N, Koek A, Abdelwahab AM, et al. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases and/or carbapenemases-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolated from retail chicken meat in Zagazig, Egypt. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0136052.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Ahmed AM, Shimamoto T. Molecular analysis of multidrug resistance in Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157:H7 isolated from meat and dairy products. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015;193:68–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Andriole VT. The quinolones: past, present, and future. Clin Infect Dis. 2005113-19.Google Scholar
  12. Flach CF, Boulund F, Kristiansson E, Larsson DJ. Functional verification of computationally predicted qnr genes. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2013;12:34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Guan X, Xue X, Liu Y, Wang J, Wang Y, Wang K, et al. Plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance—current knowledge and future perspectives. J Int Med Res. 2013;41:20–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Robicsek A, Jacoby GA, Hooper DC. The worldwide emergence of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6:629–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanau-Bercot B, Podglajen I, Casin I, Collatz E. An intrinsic control element for translational initiation in class 1 integrons. Mol Microbiol. 2002;44:119–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rowe-Magnus DA, Guerout AM, Mazel D. Bacterial resistance evolution by recruitment of super-integron gene cassettes. Mol Microbiol. 2002;43:1657–69.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Tzouvelekis L, Markogiannakis A, Piperaki E, Souli M, Daikos G. Treating infections caused by carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;20:862–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Sun S, Negrea A, Rhen M, Andersson D. Genetic analysis of colistin resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:2298–305.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Popoff MY, Bockemuhl J, Gheesling LL. Supplement 2002 (no. 46) to the Kauffmann–White scheme. Res Microbiol. 2004;155:568–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bauer AW, Kirby WM, Sherris JC, Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966;45:493–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; twenty-first informational supplement: CLSI document M100-S21. CLSI. 2011;31:42–51.Google Scholar
  22. Maalej S, Meziou M, Rhimi F, Hammami A. Comparison of disc diffusion, Etest and agar dilution for susceptibility testing of colistin against Enterobacteriaceae. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2011;53:546–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhao S, Blickenstaff K, Bodeis-Jones S, Gaines SA, Tong E, McDermott PF. Comparison of the prevalences and antimicrobial resistances of Escherichia coli isolates from different retail meats in the United States, 2002 to 2008. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:1701–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu Y, Wang Y, Walsh T, Yi LX, Zhang R, Spencer J, et al. Emergence of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: a microbiological and molecular biological study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:161–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Braun S, Monecke S, Thurmer A, Ruppelt A, Makarewicz O, Pletz M, et al. Rapid identification of carbapenemase genes in gram-negative bacteria with an oligonucleotide microarray-based assay. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e102232.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Ejo M, Garedew L, Alebachew Z, Worku W. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella isolated from animal-origin food items in Gondar, Ethiopia. Biomed Res Int. 2016;4290506:15–20.Google Scholar
  27. Hernandez T, Sierra A, Rodriguez-Alvarez C, Torres A, Arevalo MP, Calvo M, et al. Salmonella enterica serotypes isolated from imported frozen chicken meat in the Canary islands. J Food Prot. 2005;68:2702–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Capita R, Alonso-Calleja C, Prieto M. Prevalence of Salmonella enterica serovars and genovars from chicken carcasses in slaughterhouses in Spain. J Appl Microbiol. 2007;103:1366–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tibaijuka B, Molla B, Hildebrandt G, Kleer J. Occurrence of Salmonellae in retail raw chicken products in Ethiopia. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2003;116:55–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ahmed AM, Shimamoto T. Isolation and molecular characterization of Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Shigella spp. from meat and dairy products in Egypt. Int J Food Microbiol. 2014;169:M405–10.Google Scholar
  31. Bosilevac JM, Guerini MN, Kalchayanand N, Koohmaraie M. Prevalence and characterization of salmonellae in commercial ground beef in the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:1892–900.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Trongjit S, Angkititrakul S, Tuttle RE, Poungseree J, Padungtod P, Chuanchuen R. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica isolated from broiler chickens, pigs and meat products in Thailand-Cambodia border provinces. Microbiol Immunol. 2017;61:23–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Adeyanju GT, Ishola O. Salmonella and Escherichia coli contamination of poultry meat from a processing plant and retail markets in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Springerplus. 2014;3:139.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee GY, Jang HI, Hwang IG, Rhee MS. Prevalence and classification of pathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from fresh beef, poultry, and pork in Korea. Int J Food Microbiol. 2009;134:196–200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Momtaz H, Dehkordi FS, Hosseini MJ, Sarshar M, Heidari M. Serogroups, virulence genes and antibiotic resistance in Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from diarrheic and non-diarrheic pediatric patients in Iran. Gut Pathog. 2013;5:1757–4749.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang S, Meng Q, Dai J, Han X, Han Y, Ding C, et al. Development of an allele-specific PCR assay for simultaneous sero-typing of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli predominant O1, O2, O18 and O78 strains. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e96904.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Alexandre M, Prado V, Ulloa MT, Arellano C, Rios M. Detection of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli in meat foods using DNA probes, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and polymerase chain reaction. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2001;48:321–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Larkin C, Poppe C, McNab B, McEwen B, Mahdi A, Odumeru J. Antibiotic resistance of Salmonella isolated from hog, beef, and chicken carcass samples from provincially inspected abattoirs in Ontario. J Food Prot. 2004;67:448–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Perugini AG, Carullo MR, Esposito A, Caligiuri V, Capuano F, Galiero G, et al. Characterization of antimicrobial resistant Salmonella enterica serovars Enteritidis and Typhimurium isolates from animal and food in Southern Italy. Vet Res Commun. 2010;34:387–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Oueslati W, Rjeibi MR, Mhadhbi M, Jbeli M, Zrelli S, Ettriqui A. Prevalence, virulence and antibiotic susceptibility of Salmonella spp. strains, isolated from beef in Greater Tunis (Tunisia). Meat Sci. 2016;119:154–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. M’Ikanatha NM, Sandt CH, Localio AR, Tewari D, Rankin SC, Whichard JM, et al. Multidrug-resistant Salmonella isolates from retail chicken meat compared with human clinical isolates. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;7:929–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Brichta-Harhay DM, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, Kalchayanand N, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, et al. Diversity of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica strains associated with cattle at harvest in the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:1783–96.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Ahmed AM, Shimamoto T, Shimamoto T. Molecular characterization of multidrug-resistant avian pathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from septicemic broilers. Int J Med Microbiol. 2013;303:475–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Laarem M, Barguigua A, Nayme K, Akila A, Zerouali K, El Mdaghri N, et al. Occurrence of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance and virulence genes in avian Escherichia coli isolates from Algeria. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2017;11:143–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Medina A, Horcajo P, Jurado S, De la Fuente R, Ruiz-Santa-Quiteria JA, Dominguez-Bernal G, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of antimicrobial resistance in enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli and atypical enteropathogenic E. coli strains from ruminants. J Vet Diagn Investig. 2011;23:91–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Rasmussen MM, Opintan JA, Frimodt-Moller N, Styrishave B. Beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli isolates in imported and locally produced chicken meat from Ghana. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0139706.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Qiao J, Zhang Q, Alali WQ, Wang J, Meng L, Xiao Y, et al. Characterization of extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs)-producing Salmonella in retail raw chicken carcasses. Int J Food Microbiol. 2017;248:72–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ahmed AM, Shimamoto T. Genetic analysis of multiple antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolated from diseased broilers in Egypt. Microbiol Immunol. 2012;56:254–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Folster JP, Tolar B, Pecic G, Sheehan D, Rickert R, Hise K, et al. Characterization of blaCMY plasmids and their possible role in source attribution of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium infections. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2014;11:301–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Al-Gallas N, Abbassi MS, Gharbi B, Manai M, Ben Fayala MN, Bichihi R, et al. Occurrence of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance determinants and rmtB gene in Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis and Typhimurium isolated from food-animal products in Tunisia. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2013;10:813–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang Y, Yang B, Wu Y, Zhang Z, Meng X, Xi M, et al. Molecular characterization of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis on retail raw poultry in six provinces and two National cities in China. Food Microbiol. 2015;46:74–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang Z, Meng X, Wang Y, Xia X, Wang X, Xi M, et al. Presence of qnr, aac(6′)-Ib, qepA, oqxAB, and mutations in gyrase and topoisomerase in nalidixic acid-resistant Salmonella isolates recovered from retail chicken carcasses. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2014;11:698–705.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Li L, Ye L, Kromann S, Meng H. Occurrence of extended-spectrum B-lactamases, plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance, and disinfectant resistance genes in Escherichia coli isolated from ready-to-eat meat products. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2017;14:109–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Hansen KH, Bortolaia V, Nielsen CA, Nielsen JB, Schonning K, Agerso Y, et al. Host-specific patterns of genetic diversity among IncI1-Igamma and IncK plasmids encoding CMY-2 B-lactamase in Escherichia coli isolates from humans, poultry meat, poultry, and dogs in Denmark. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:4705–14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Jafari RA, Motamedi H, Maleki E, Ghanbarpour R, Mayahi M. Phylogenetic typing and detection of extended-spectrum B-lactamases in Escherichia coli isolates from broiler chickens in Ahvaz, Iran. Vet Res Forum. 2016;7:227–33.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Bagheri M, Ghanbarpour R, Alizade H. Shiga toxin and beta-lactamases genes in Escherichia coli phylotypes isolated from carcasses of broiler chickens slaughtered in Iran. Int J Food Microbiol. 2014;177:16–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kaase M. Carbapenemases in gram-negative bacteria. Current data and trends of resistance resulting from the work of national reference centres. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz. 2012;55:1401–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. de Oca SAM, Talavera-Rojas M, Soriano-Vargas E, Barba-Leon J, Vazquez-Navarrete J. Determination of extended spectrum β-lactamases/AmpC B-lactamases and plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance in Escherichia coli isolates obtained from bovine carcasses in Mexico. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2015;47:975–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Del Rio-Avila C, Rosario C, Arroyo-Escalante S, Carrillo-Casas EM, Diaz-Aparicio E, Suarez-Guemes F, et al. Characterisation of quinolone-resistant Escherichia coli of 1997 and 2005 isolates from poultry in Mexico. Br Poult Sci. 2016;57:494–500.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Guerra B, Soto S, Helmuth R, Mendoza MC. Characterization of a self-transferable plasmid from Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium clinical isolates carrying two integron-borne gene cassettes together with virulence and drug resistance genes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:2977–81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Ahmed AM, Ishida Y, Shimamoto T. Molecular characterization of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolated from animals in Japan. J Appl Microbiol. 2009;106:402–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Ahmed AM, Shimabukuro H, Shimamoto T. Isolation and molecular characterization of multidrug-resistant strains of Escherichia coli and Salmonella from retail chicken meat in Japan. J Food Sci. 2009;74:1750–3841.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Antunes P, Machado J, Peixe L. Characterization of antimicrobial resistance and class 1 and 2 integrons in Salmonella enterica isolates from different sources in Portugal. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;58:297–304.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Doumith M, Godbole G, Ashton P, Larkin L, Dallman T, Day M, et al. Detection of the plasmid-mediated mcr-1 gene conferring colistin resistance in human and food isolates of Salmonella enterica and Escherichia coli in England and Wales. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71:2300–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Quesada A, Ugarte-Ruiz M, Iglesias M, Porrero M, Martinez R, Florez-Cuadrado D, et al. Detection of plasmid mediated colistin resistance (MCR-1) in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica isolated from poultry and swine in Spain. Res Vet Sci. 2016;105:134–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Jayol A, Nordmann P, Lehours P, Poirel L, Dubois V. Comparison of methods for detection of plasmid-mediated and chromosomally encoded colistin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017;S1198-743X:30291–4.Google Scholar
  67. Seidavi A, Mirhosseini SZ, Shivazad M, Chamani M, Sadeghi AA, Pourseify R. Detection and investigation of Escherichia coli in contents of duodenum, jejunum, ileum and cecum of broilers at different ages by PCR. Asia-Pac J Mol Biol Biotechnol. 2010;18:321–6.Google Scholar
  68. Alvarez J, Sota M, Vivanco AB, Perales I, Cisterna R, Rementeria A, et al. Development of a multiplex PCR technique for detection and epidemiological typing of Salmonella in human clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:1734–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Ahmed AM, Motoi Y, Sato M, Maruyama A, Watanabe H, Fukumoto Y, et al. Zoo animals as reservoirs of gram-negative bacteria harboring integrons and antimicrobial resistance genes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:6686–90.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement