Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Oxford University Press, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 4(77), p. 969-978, 2022

DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkac002

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

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

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

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.