Risk factors for the abundance of antimicrobial resistance genes aph(3')-III, erm(B), sul2 and tet(W) in pig and broiler faeces in nine European countries
- PMID: 35061866
- PMCID: PMC8969523
- DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkac002
Risk factors for the abundance of antimicrobial resistance genes aph(3')-III, erm(B), sul2 and tet(W) in pig and broiler faeces in nine European countries
Erratum in
-
Correction to: Risk factors for the abundance of antimicrobial resistance genes aph(3')-III, erm(B), sul2 and tet(W) in pig and broiler faeces in nine European countries.J Antimicrob Chemother. 2023 Jun 1;78(6):1560. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkad141. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2023. PMID: 37141295 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Abstract
Objectives: The occurrence and zoonotic potential of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in pigs and broilers has been studied intensively in past decades. Here, we describe AMR levels of European pig and broiler farms and determine the potential risk factors.
Methods: We collected faeces from 181 pig farms and 181 broiler farms in nine European countries. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used to quantify the relative abundance of four antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) [aph(3')-III, erm(B), sul2 and tet(W)] in these faeces samples. Information on antimicrobial use (AMU) and other farm characteristics was collected through a questionnaire. A mixed model using country and farm as random effects was performed to evaluate the relationship of AMR with AMU and other farm characteristics. The correlation between individual qPCR data and previously published pooled metagenomic data was evaluated. Variance component analysis was conducted to assess the variance contribution of all factors.
Results: The highest abundance of ARG was for tet(W) in pig faeces and erm(B) in broiler faeces. In addition to the significant positive association between corresponding ARG and AMU levels, we also found on-farm biosecurity measures were associated with relative ARG abundance in both pigs and broilers. Between-country and between-farm variation can partially be explained by AMU. Different ARG targets may have different sample size requirements to represent the overall farm level precisely.
Conclusions: qPCR is an efficient tool for targeted assessment of AMR in livestock-related samples. The AMR variation between samples was mainly contributed to by between-country, between-farm and within-farm differences, and then by on-farm AMU.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Figures





References
-
- Dohmen W, Schmitt H, Bonten Met al. . Air exposure as a possible route for ESBL in pig farmers. Environ Res 2017; 155: 359–64. - PubMed
-
- Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PAet al. . Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. J Clean Prod 2017; 140: 753–65.
-
- Holmes AH, Moore LS, Sundsfjord Aet al. . Understanding the mechanisms and drivers of antimicrobial resistance. Lancet 2016; 387: 176–87. - PubMed
-
- Murphy CP, Carson C, Smith BAet al. . Factors potentially linked with the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in selected bacteria from cattle, chickens and pigs: a scoping review of publications for use in modelling of antimicrobial resistance (IAM. AMR Project). Zoonoses Public Health 2018; 65: 957–71. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous