Next Article in Journal
Seroepidemiological Analysis of Canine Leptospira Species Infections in Changchun, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Estimating the Prevalence of Foodborne Pathogen Campylobacter jejuni in Chicken and Its Control via Sorghum Extracts
Previous Article in Journal
The Potential of Probiotics as Ingestible Adjuvants and Immune Modulators for Antiviral Immunity and Management of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/pathogens12070929
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genomic Characterization of Fecal Escherichia coli Isolates with Reduced Susceptibility to Beta-Lactam Antimicrobials from Wild Hogs and Coyotes

by
Babafela Awosile
1,*,
Jason Fritzler
1,
Gizem Levent
1,
Md. Kaisar Rahman
1,
Samuel Ajulo
1,
Ian Daniel
1,2,
Yamima Tasnim
1 and
Sumon Sarkar
1
1
School of Veterinary Medicine, Texas Tech University, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA
2
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, School of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2023, 12(7), 929; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070929
Submission received: 20 June 2023 / Revised: 8 July 2023 / Accepted: 9 July 2023 / Published: 11 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Surveillance and Control of Foodborne Pathogens)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study was carried out to determine the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes and mobile genetic elements of 16 Escherichia coli isolates—with reduced susceptibility to ceftazidime and imipenem—that were recovered from the fecal samples of coyotes and wild hogs from West Texas, USA. Whole-genome sequencing data analyses revealed distinct isolates with a unique sequence type and serotype designation. Among 16 isolates, 4 isolates were multidrug resistant, and 5 isolates harbored at least 1 beta-lactamase gene (blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M-55, or blaCTX-M-27) that confers resistance to beta-lactam antimicrobials. Several isolates carried genes conferring resistance to tetracyclines (tet(A), tet(B), and tet(C)), aminoglycosides (aac(3)-IId, ant(3″)-Ia, aph(3′)-Ia, aph(3″)-lb, aadA5, and aph(6)-ld), sulfonamides (sul1, sul2, and sul3), amphenicol (floR), trimethoprim (dfrA1 and dfrA17), and macrolide, lincosamide, and streptogramin B (MLSB) agents (Inu(F), erm(B), and mph(A)). Nine isolates showed chromosomal mutations in the promoter region G of ampC beta-lactamase gene, while three isolates showed mutations in gyrA, parC, and parE quinolone resistance-determining regions, which confer resistance to quinolones. We also detected seven incompatibility plasmid groups, with incF being the most common. Different types of virulence genes were detected, including those that enhance bacterial fitness and pathogenicity. One blaCMY-2 positive isolate (O8:H28) from a wild hog was also a Shiga toxin-producing E. coli and was a carrier of the stx2A virulence toxin subtype. We report the detection of blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M-55, and blaCTX-M-27 beta-lactamase genes in E. coli from coyotes for the first time. This study demonstrates the importance of wildlife as reservoirs of important multi-drug-resistant bacteria and provides information for future comparative genomic analysis with the limited literature on antimicrobial resistance dynamics in wildlife such as coyotes.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial-resistant genes (ARGs) have created one of the most significant global threats to the environment, industry, public, and animal health—antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Enterobacterales, whose unprecedented emergence in the past several years has been reported, has become a rapidly growing concern across the One Health (OH) paradigms of infectious disease [1,2,3]. Bacterial pathogens that colonize the gastrointestinal tract of humans and animal hosts must overcome the deleterious mechanisms of antimicrobial actions for survival. As such, enteric pathogens respond to synthetic antimicrobials and host antimicrobial peptide defenses (AMPDs) by developing countermeasures against microbicidal molecules [4]. More specifically, bacteria may lose or gain plasmid-located resistant alleles or mobile genetic elements (MGEs) when adapting drug evasion tactics [5].
As a commensal bacterial species, E. coli colonizes the gastrointestinal tract of mammalian and avian hosts and is a highly ubiquitous environmental microbe [6]. However, E. coli still remains an important cause of bacterial infection in both susceptible humans and warm-blooded animals, resulting in diarrhea, uremic hemolytic syndrome (UHS), and urinary tract infections (UTIs), amongst other diseases [7,8,9,10]. E. coli is one of the most well-studied gastrointestinal bacteria [10], and due to its commensal nature and widespread presence in the gastrointestinal tract, E. coli serves as a valuable indicator bacteria for AMR [6,11]. In addition, the E. coli genome has a high plasticity, harboring and transferring mobile genetic elements such as plasmids and transposons, which improves its adaptability and survival in different hosts and environments, one of which is the propagation of AMR by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) [12,13]. This highly versatile E. coli genome and proclivity of propagating resistance through HGT has compounded the AMR conundrum, especially in its association with the emergence and dissemination of extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL), a clinically important AMR of huge public health concern [12,13,14]. ESBLs are a group of enzymes that are responsible for the hydrolysis of penicillins, broad-spectrum cephalosporins, and monobactams, with many of these enzymes belonging to SHV, TEM, and CTX-M types [15,16]. Particularly, for E coli, CTX-M enzymes are the most prevalent and are also the most common ESBL globally [16]. Studies have revealed that E coli β-lactamase-mediated resistance is majorly commanded by capture, acquisition, and dissemination of mobile genetic elements (MGEs) by HGT among commensals and opportunistic pathogens [1,15,17,18]. Researchers have also shown that these MGE-mediated AMR mechanisms in E. coli are also common for tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and streptomycin resistance [19,20,21].
Even though the food animal resistome is considered the most significant contributor to the AMR menace [22], the wildlife reservoir has recently gained profound scientific attention. Wildlife exposure to clinically used antimicrobial therapeutics is a rare occurrence; however, wild animals can acquire AMR bacteria through contact with and proximity to humans, domestic animals, and the environment (water contaminated with coliform bacteria acts as a crucial vector) [23]. Lee, et al. [24] reported that cohabitation of wild and domestic animals (cattle, coyotes, and feral hogs) exerts a profound shift in AMR resistance while concurrently shaping the microbiota at the wildlife–livestock interface. In addition, Carroll, et al. [25] found that isolates from wild birds and certain groups of wild mammals were dominated by blaTEM, strA, tet(A), and tet(B) -resistant genes and multi-drug-resistant plasmids. The recent expansion of human populations and accelerated invasion of wild areas portends that transfer of harmful resistant bacteria is likely a predicament to stay [26]. In a previous study, we explored the fecal microbiomes of coyotes (Canis latrans) and wild hogs (Sus scrofa) in West Texas, USA. Our results from the functional microbiota profiles of coyotes and wild hogs revealed that fecal microbiota may contribute to the increasing or decreasing risk of some infectious and metabolic diseases in humans [27]. In addition, other studies have provided strong evidence of the possible widespread prevalence of AMR genes in wild animal species [19,20,21]. We postulate that public health and healthcare delivery systems will continue to face the expanding spectrum of AMR pathogens of burgeoning incidence and distribution. Comprehensive reviews on ARGs in the human–livestock–wildlife interface and possible mitigation strategies are strongly encouraged, from a One Health perspective. AMR bacteria in wild species pose a severe risk to public health, food safety, and veterinary medicine. However, we have only a rudimentary understanding of wildlife AMR communities and resistant gene sharing patterns with domestic animals, livestock, and humans. To address this knowledge gap, this study sought to characterize AMR genes and MGEs of 16 Escherichia coli isolates with reduced susceptibility to ceftazidime and imipenem that were recovered from the fecal samples of coyotes and wild hogs from West Texas.

2. Materials and Methods

Fecal samples of coyotes (n = 9) and wild hogs (n = 7) were acquired opportunistically during postmortem examination from the USDA-Wildlife Services, Texas A&M Agri-life in West Texas, USA. Approximately 50 g of feces was collected from each carcass, placed in an airtight sterile sample container, and transported to the lab the same day of collection at 4 °C. The samples were then placed in 50 mL sterile centrifuge tubes and stored at 4 °C until further microbiological analysis.
Escherichia coli isolation and identification was done following the standard microbiological procedure as previously described [28]. An initial pre-enrichment was carried out in buffered peptone water (BPW) in a 1:9 ratio. We used MacConkey agar (Thermo Scientific™ Oxoid™ CM0007, Hants, UK) supplemented with 1 ug/mL of ceftazidime pentahydrate, 95% (Thermo Fisher Scientific J66460-06, Waltham, MA, USA) for selective isolation of presumptive ESBL-E. coli isolates. Plates were then incubated for 18–24 h at 35 ± 1 °C. Presumptive ESBL-E. coli colonies were sub-cultured and purified on fresh MacConkey agar without ceftazidime and then further purified on Tryptic soy agar (Thermo Scientific™ RemelTM R455002, Waltham, MA, USA). Escherichia coli isolates were further confirmed using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF, Schimandzu Co., Kyoto, Japan). All the isolates were frozen in Brucella broth (Thermo Scientific™ RemelTM R452662, MA, USA) with 15% glycerol at −80 °C for further genomic and laboratory analyses.
DNA Extraction, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS), and Bioinformatics
Genomic DNA of E. coli isolates was extracted using the InstaGene™ Matrix following the manufacturer’s guidelines (Bio-Rad, Montreal, Canada). DNA samples were further quantified using a NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, USA). The DNA samples were stored at −20 °C until further processing. We performed the WGS on the Illumina MiSeq platform with 2 × 301 paired end runs after library preparation with the Illumina Nextera XT DNA Library preparation kit at the Texas Tech University Genomic Center, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Bioinformatics analyses were mainly performed using TTU High Performance Computing Center sources. Genomic assemblies were performed using SPAdes 3.15.5 [29]. Sequences were further analyzed and queried using ABRicate v.0.8.7 (https://github.com/tseemann/abricate, accessed on 23 March 2023) and databases of interest for antibiotic resistance, plasmid, virulence genes, sequence types, and antigenic profiles. These include ResFinder (acquired AMR genes) [30], VirulenceFinder (virulence genes for E. coli) [31], EcOH (E. coli serotypes) [32], and PlasmidFinder (plasmid types) [33], databases accessed on June 2023, quality parameters of minimum alignment coverage of 95% and minimum sequence identity of 90%. In addition, the Center for Genomic Epidemiology (CGE) platform (Available online: https://www.genomicepidemiology.org/, accessed on 23 March 2023) was used to determine the seven-gene legacy MLST (multilocus sequence type), using MLST 2.0 [34] and chromosomal point mutations [35] conferring antibiotic resistance using ResFinder.
Raw sequence FASTQ data for this project are available in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Sequence Read Archive (SRA), Bioproject PRJNA978936.

3. Results

Antimicrobial resistance genes, virulence, and mobile genetic element characteristics of the 16 E. coli isolates are presented in Table 1. All the 16 E. coli isolates were distinct isolates with unrelated sequence types and distinct serotypes. All the isolates were carriers of the mdf(A) resistance gene (16/16). Five isolates contained three beta-lactamase genes that confer resistance to beta-lactam antimicrobials, with two isolates positive for blaCMY-2 (one coyote and a hog), another two isolates positive for blaCTX-M-55 (from two coyotes), and one isolate positive for blaCTX-M-27 (from a coyote). Five isolates were carriers of resistance gene determinants that confer antimicrobial resistance to tetracyclines, with two isolates positive for tet(A) and two isolates positive for tet(B) and tet(C) each. Eleven isolates (11/16) were positive for aminoglycoside resistance genes including aac(3)-IId (2/16), aadA5 (2/16), ant(3″)-Ia (2/16), aph(3′)-Ia (1/16), aph(3″)-lb (2/16), and aph(6)-ld (2/16). Other resistance genes carried by some isolates were sul2 (3/16), sul1 (1/16), and sul3 (1/16) for sulfonamide resistance; floR (4/16) for amphenicol resistance; dfrA1 (1/16) and dfrA17 (2/16) for trimethoprim resistance; and Inu(F) (1/16), erm(B) (1/16), and mph(A) (1/16) for resistance to macrolide, lincosamide, streptogramin B (MLSB) agents. Ten isolates showed chromosomal mutations in the promoter region G of ampC beta-lactamase, with mutation in the amino acid G > A. Additional chromosomal mutations in ampC beta-lactamase include promoter region P with change in amino acid C > T (7/16) and R25H cgc > cac (1/16). Three (3/16) isolates showed chromosomal mutations in gyrA (3/16), parC (2/16), and parE (1/16) quinolone resistance-determining regions, which confer resistance to quinolones. We also observed some mobile genetic elements such as insertion sequences and plasmids (Table 1). Some incompatibility plasmid groups observed among the 16 isolates were IncB, IncF, IncN, IncH, IncX, IncI, IncY, incK, and ColRNAI and P0111 plasmids. IncF (13/16) was the most common plasmid groups among the isolates. Different types of virulence genes were detected, including those that enhance adhesion and invasion ability of strains such as fimH, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD, and fdec, amongst several others (Table 1), along with Shiga toxin- (stx2A) and enterotoxin-producing genes (astA, eltIIAB-c3, and cdt-IIB). One blaCMY-2 positive E. coli isolated from a wild hog was Shiga toxin-producing E. coli and was a carrier of the stx2A virulence toxin subtype. The same Shiga toxin-producing isolate has an IncX4 plasmid (position in the contig—4885-5596) and blaCMY-2 (10047-8902) on the same contig.

4. Discussion

In this study, we described the genomic characteristics of fecal E. coli isolates recovered from wildlife species in relation to antimicrobial resistance genes, virulence factors, and mobile genetic elements. We found that coyotes and wild hogs harbor E. coli isolates with some important AMR genes and virulence genes including Shiga toxin in their feces. Escherichia coli is a versatile bacterial organism that can exist as harmless gut flora or as harmful strains that can cause serious superbug infections in humans and animals. Therefore, isolation of multi-drug resistant E. coli from the feces of these wildlife species is concerning due to the possibility of environmental contamination and exposure of other domestic animals and humans to multi-drug resistant bacteria from wildlife at the One Health interface.
We detected blaCMY-2 ampC-type beta-lactamase in both coyote and wild hog, and this beta-lactamase gene is considered as one of the most predominant reported cephalosporinases in wildlife [36]. This particular gene is recognized as the most widespread ampC beta-lactamase not only in wild animals but also in domestic animals and human infections caused by enterobacteria [36,37]. Previous studies from Germany [38], Poland [39], Spain [40], Czech Republic [41], and Italy [42] have also reported the presence of blaCMY-2 in E. coli from wild hogs, consistent with this study. On the other hand, we report the detection of blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M-55, and blaCTX-M-27 beta-lactamase genes in coyotes for the first time. The detection of the three beta-lactamases in coyotes as reported in this study is important, as it contributes to the body of knowledge in our better understanding of the beta-lactamase epidemiology across the One Health interface. These three beta-lactamase genes are commonly detected in enterobacteria of food animal origin, therefore, the detection in coyotes may suggest the possibility of transmission of these important resistance genes at the One Health interface. Coyotes are known to frequent livestock and human environments, and they constitute nuisance and carry zoonotic pathogens such as rabies virus. Therefore, coyote population control and management, especially around livestock production and farms, has been established in Texas as a means of minimizing interaction and encroachment of coyotes into human and livestock environments. Research on beta-lactamases in coyotes is limited, and a previous review of cephalosporinases in wildlife on a global scale by Palmeira, Cunha, Carvalho, Ferreira, Fonseca, and Torres [36] did not report any beta-lactamase gene for coyotes. A recent study has reported a prevalence of around 50% of cefotaxime-resistant bacteria in coyotes [24]. However, beta-lactamase genes, including blaCMY-104, blaCMY-59, and blaCMY-157 [43], and non-specific genes, such as blaLEN, blaOXY, and blaSHV [44], have been reported from Poland and the United States, respectively, using the metagenomic framework.
All the E. coli isolates from coyotes and wild hogs carried the mdf(A) resistance gene, which confers resistance to diverse group cationic compounds and multiple antimicrobial classes including chloramphenicol, macrolide, lincosamide, and streptogramin, certain aminoglycosides, and fluoroquinolones [45]. The detection of the mdf(A) gene in this study is consistent with other genomic studies characterizing E. coli isolates from livestock including dairy calves, pigs [46], and poultry [47,48]. Other resistance genes detected in both coyotes and wild hogs have been previously reported from wildlife species, domestic animals, and humans. The tet(A), tet(B), and tet(C) genes, which are the most widespread and dominant resistant genes detected in enterobacteria across the One Health interface [49,50], were found to be responsible for tetracycline resistance. Coyotes and wild hogs have been found to harbor tet genes linked to various types of tetracycline present in the environment. We detected a total of eleven isolates with aminoglycoside resistance genes, and resistance to streptomycin (ant(3″)-Ia, aph(3″)-Ib, aadA5, and aph(6)-Id), gentamicin (aac(3)-IId), and kanamycin (aph(3′)-Ia), which are commonly associated with class 1 integron gene cassettes [50,51]. Other resistance genes that conferred resistance to sulfonamide, amphenicol, trimethoprim, macrolide, lincosamide, and streptogramin B were also observed. Moreover, we detected chromosomal mutations in ampC and QRDR in E. coli in both coyotes and wild hogs. AmpC chromosomal mutations in the amino acids G > A and C > T were the most common in our isolates. This is different from a previous study that reported ampC chromosomal mutation in the amino acids T > A as the most common [52]. Chromosomal mutations were also detected in the QRDR of coyotes, specifically in the gyrA, parC, and parE genes, which confer resistance to critically important fluoroquinolones. This QRDR mutation is consistent with a prior study on E. coli from wildlife sources [53]. The occurrence of these chromosomal mutations in E. coli sourced from wildlife suggests any transmission of these isolates at the One Health interface can pose significant health and therapeutic challenges to both humans and domesticated animals. Several mobile genetic elements, including insertion sequences and plasmids, were detected in both wild hogs and coyotes in this study. Plasmids play a significant role in the acquisition of virulence and antibiotic resistance genes by the bacterial cell [54]. The spread of multidrug-resistant plasmids poses a growing challenge to modern medicine because plasmids play a major role in the epidemic spread of antibiotic resistance genes in bacterial pathogens [55,56]. Our results showed the isolates were carriers of various plasmid incompatibility groups, consistent with other studies [57,58,59,60], where plasmids with narrow and broad host range attributes such as IncB, IncF, IncN, IncH, IncX, IncI, ColRNAI, P0111, and IncY were commonly associated with the dissemination of different antimicrobial resistance genes [61,62].
There was a great diversity of sequence types among the 16 E. coli isolates in this study. Similar to our study, diverse lineages were identified in resistant E. coli in swine and livestock, where ST10 seemed to be the most frequent [63,64], but it was a rarely detected as a clone in humans [65]. However, ST131 in E. coli isolates, which often produces blaCTX-M-15, is typically linked to the carriage and occurrence of infections in humans [66]. Coyotes are a widely distributed species capable of traveling across various types of environments, including rural and urban areas, in search of food. Due to their opportunistic feeding habits, coyotes may encounter a variety of sequence types of E. coli and other microorganisms that could potentially explain the diversity of sequence type observed in this study [24].
In addition, all 16 isolates were distinct serotypes, some of these serotypes belong to serogroups that are associated with clinical diseases and reported outbreaks in humans and animals and may potentially pose a significant threat due to their spillover in the one health interface. Serotypes in serogroup O53, O84, and O19 have been frequently reported as avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC) from previous studies [67,68]. APEC is a sub-pathotype of extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC) [69], and APEC serotypes commonly harbor the iss gene, which increases serum survival and is important for extraintestinal pathogenicity [70]. Similarly, the serotypes O53:H51 and O84:H14 in this study harbored the iss gene, which is important for extraintestinal pathogenicity associated with APEC. Serogroup O1 is commonly linked to cases of human infection, and serogroup O154 has been reported in multidrug-resistant blood stream infections [71,72]. From this study, both serotypes O1:H27 and O154:H10 from the coyote carried the astA virulence gene, this gene is responsible for the production of enteroaggregative heat-stable toxin and secretory diarrhea and commonly associated with enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC), enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC), and diffusely adherent E. coli (DAEC) pathotypes [73], and the iss gene responsible for extraintestinal invasion. Similarly, the astA and iss virulence genes were also found in serotypes O53:H51 and O118:H12 from the coyote and O118:H20 from the wild hogs in this study, however, other serotypes including O103:H21, O98:H41, and O84:14 from wild hogs harbored the iss gene alone without the astA gene. Serogroup O8 was reported as one of the most common Shiga toxin-producing serogroups from food sources in a study in Germany, and some serotypes in this O8 serogroup have also been associated with porcine pathogenic E. coli causing postweaning diarrhea [74,75]. We also observed different virulence genes among the isolates, these virulence genes are important in the pathogenesis of various types of E. coli infections depending on the pathotypes. A blaCMY-2 positive E. coli of serotype O8:H28, isolated from a wild hog, was found to contain Shiga toxin stx2A. This result is similar to a previous report on the distribution of stx genes in domestic and wild animals, as well as humans [76], where stx2 was found most frequently in wild boar and may cause disease in humans and pigs [77]. The acquisition of stx genes and other virulence genes by E. coli strains enables them to cause both intestinal and extra-intestinal infections in humans, including diarrhea and urinary tract infections. The detection of these Shiga toxin genes in a blaCMY-2 positive E. coli isolate from a wild hog in our study further support the importance of wild hogs as a reservoir of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli that causes diarrhea, hemorrhagic colitis, and hemolytic-uremic syndrome in humans [78].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the findings from this study indicate that coyotes and wild hogs in the Texas panhandle region harbor E. coli strains with virulence factors, antimicrobial resistance genes, and mobile genetic elements. Overall, the impact of wildlife on transmitting multidrug-resistant bacteria can have significant implications for human and animal health, as well as environmental health. The environment can become polluted with feces, urine, saliva, or other bodily secretions and can contaminate water sources, soil, vegetation, and other wildlife. This can lead to the emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria in wildlife populations, which can subsequently be transmitted to other animals, including humans, through direct contact, hunting, processing, handling, disposal, contaminated ground or surface water, consumption of contaminated food or water, or environmental exposure. Therefore, inclusion of wildlife as part of integrated monitoring and surveillance, research, and appropriate management strategies is an important strategy to mitigate the spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria among wildlife populations and to minimize the risks of transmission to humans and other animals. Collaborative efforts among veterinary, medical, ecological, and environmental disciplines, following the One Health approach, are crucial for addressing this complex issue effectively. Moreover, the importance of preventative measures among the domesticated animals and humans including responsible antibiotic use in human and veterinary medicine, improved sanitation practices, and public awareness campaigns about the risks of antimicrobial resistance may further contribute to the minimization of resistance development and dissemination across the One Health interface.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.A. and J.F.; methodology, B.A. and J.F.; formal analysis, B.A. and G.L.; investigation, B.A. and M.K.R.; writing—original draft preparation, B.A., M.K.R., S.A., I.D., Y.T. and S.S.; writing—review and editing, B.A., J.F., M.K.R. and G.L.; supervision, B.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Raw sequence FASTQ data for this project are available in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Sequence Read Archive (SRA), Bioproject PRJNA978936.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fisman, D.N.; Laupland, K.B. The ‘One Health’paradigm: Time for infectious diseases clinicians to take note? Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. 2010, 21, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. WHO. WHO Global Strategy for Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  3. Smith, S.; Wang, J.; Fanning, S.; McMahon, B.J. Antimicrobial resistant bacteria in wild mammals and birds: A coincidence or cause for concern? Ir. Vet. J. 2014, 67, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Cole, J.N.; Nizet, V. Bacterial evasion of host antimicrobial peptide defenses. Virulence Mech. Bact. Pathog. 2016, 4, 413–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Matuszewska, M.; Murray, G.G.; Ba, X.; Wood, R.; Holmes, M.A.; Weinert, L.A. Stable antibiotic resistance and rapid human adaptation in livestock-associated MRSA. Elife 2022, 11, e74819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ramos, S.; Silva, V.; Dapkevicius, M.L.E.; Caniça, M.; Tejedor-Junco, M.T.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P. Escherichia coli as Commensal and Pathogenic Bacteria among Food-Producing Animals: Health Implications of Extended Spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) Production. Animals 2020, 10, 2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Havelaar, A.; Van Duynhoven, Y.; Nauta, M.; Bouwknegt, M.; Heuvelink, A.; De Wit, G.; Nieuwenhuizen, M. Disease burden in The Netherlands due to infections with Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157. Epidemiol. Infect. 2004, 132, 467–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Boyer, O.; Niaudet, P. Hemolytic uremic syndrome: New developments in pathogenesis and treatment. Int. J. Nephrol. 2011, 2011, 908407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Robins-Browne, R.M.; Hartland, E.L. Escherichia coli as a cause of diarrhea. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2002, 17, 467–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ronald, A. The etiology of urinary tract infection: Traditional and emerging pathogens. Dis. Mon. 2003, 49, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nyirabahizi, E.; Tyson, G.H.; Dessai, U.; Zhao, S.; Kabera, C.; Crarey, E.; Womack, N.; Crews, M.K.; Strain, E.; Tate, H. Evaluation of Escherichia coli as an indicator for antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella recovered from the same food or animal ceca samples. Food Control 2020, 115, 107280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bajaj, P.; Singh, N.S.; Virdi, J.S. Escherichia coli β-lactamases: What really matters. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Raimondi, S.; Righini, L.; Candeliere, F.; Musmeci, E.; Bonvicini, F.; Gentilomi, G.; Starčič Erjavec, M.; Amaretti, A.; Rossi, M. Antibiotic Resistance, Virulence Factors, Phenotyping, and Genotyping of E. coli Isolated from the Feces of Healthy Subjects. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Schwaber, M.J.; Carmeli, Y. Mortality and delay in effective therapy associated with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase production in Enterobacteriaceae bacteraemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2007, 60, 913–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Peirano, G.; Pitout, J.D. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: Update on molecular epidemiology and treatment options. Drugs 2019, 79, 1529–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rupp, M.E.; Fey, P.D. Extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae: Considerations for diagnosis, prevention and drug treatment. Drugs 2003, 63, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McInnes, R.S.; McCallum, G.E.; Lamberte, L.E.; van Schaik, W. Horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes in the human gut microbiome. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2020, 53, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shapiro, J. Mobile Genetic Elements; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sheykhsaran, E.; Baghi, H.B.; Soroush, M.H.; Ghotaslou, R. An overview of tetracyclines and related resistance mechanisms. Rev. Med. Microbiol. 2019, 30, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Perreten, V.; Boerlin, P. A new sulfonamide resistance gene (sul3) in Escherichia coli is widespread in the pig population of Switzerland. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 1169–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sunde, M.; Norström, M. The genetic background for streptomycin resistance in Escherichia coli influences the distribution of MICs. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2005, 56, 87–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Economou, V.; Gousia, P. Agriculture and food animals as a source of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Infect. Drug Resist. 2015, 8, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Guenther, S.; Ewers, C.; Wieler, L.H. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases producing E. coli in wildlife, yet another form of environmental pollution? Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Lee, S.; Fan, P.; Liu, T.; Yang, A.; Boughton, R.K.; Pepin, K.M.; Miller, R.S.; Jeong, K.C. Transmission of antibiotic resistance at the wildlife-livestock interface. Commun. Biol. 2022, 5, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Carroll, D.; Wang, J.; Fanning, S.; McMahon, B.J. Antimicrobial resistance in wildlife: Implications for public health. Zoonoses Public Health 2015, 62, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lagerstrom, K.M.; Hadly, E.A. The under-investigated wild side of Escherichia coli: Genetic diversity, pathogenicity and antimicrobial resistance in wild animals. Proc. R. Soc. B 2021, 288, 20210399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Awosile, B.; Crasto, C.; Rahman, M.K.; Daniel, I.; Boggan, S.; Steuer, A.; Fritzler, J. Fecal Microbial Diversity of Coyotes and Wild Hogs in Texas Panhandle, USA. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lupindu, A.M. Isolation and characterization of Escherichia coli from animals, humans, and environment. In Escherichia coli-Recent Advances on Physiology, Pathogenesis and Biotechnological Applications; IntechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2017; pp. 187–206. [Google Scholar]
  29. Prjibelski, A.; Antipov, D.; Meleshko, D.; Lapidus, A.; Korobeynikov, A. Using SPAdes de novo assembler. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2020, 70, e102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zankari, E.; Hasman, H.; Cosentino, S.; Vestergaard, M.; Rasmussen, S.; Lund, O.; Aarestrup, F.M.; Larsen, M.V. Identification of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2012, 67, 2640–2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, L.; Zheng, D.; Liu, B.; Yang, J.; Jin, Q. VFDB 2016: Hierarchical and refined dataset for big data analysis–10 years on. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016, 44, D694–D697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ingle, D.J.; Valcanis, M.; Kuzevski, A.; Tauschek, M.; Inouye, M.; Stinear, T.; Levine, M.M.; Robins-Browne, R.M.; Holt, K.E. In silico serotyping of E. coli from short read data identifies limited novel O-loci but extensive diversity of O:H serotype combinations within and between pathogenic lineages. Microb. Genom. 2016, 2, e000064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Carattoli, A.; Zankari, E.; García-Fernández, A.; Voldby Larsen, M.; Lund, O.; Villa, L.; Møller Aarestrup, F.; Hasman, H. In silico detection and typing of plasmids using PlasmidFinder and plasmid multilocus sequence typing. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 3895–3903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Larsen, M.V.; Cosentino, S.; Rasmussen, S.; Friis, C.; Hasman, H.; Marvig, R.L.; Jelsbak, L.; Sicheritz-Pontén, T.; Ussery, D.W.; Aarestrup, F.M. Multilocus sequence typing of total-genome-sequenced bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012, 50, 1355–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Zankari, E.; Allesøe, R.; Joensen, K.G.; Cavaco, L.M.; Lund, O.; Aarestrup, F.M. PointFinder: A novel web tool for WGS-based detection of antimicrobial resistance associated with chromosomal point mutations in bacterial pathogens. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 2764–2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Palmeira, J.D.; Cunha, M.V.; Carvalho, J.; Ferreira, H.; Fonseca, C.; Torres, R.T. Emergence and spread of cephalosporinases in wildlife: A review. Animals 2021, 11, 1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Berg, E.S.; Wester, A.L.; Ahrenfeldt, J.; Mo, S.S.; Slettemeås, J.S.; Steinbakk, M.; Samuelsen, Ø.; Grude, N.; Simonsen, G.S.; Løhr, I.H.; et al. Norwegian patients and retail chicken meat share cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli and IncK/bla(CMY-2) resistance plasmids. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 407.e409–407.e415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Holtmann, A.R.; Meemken, D.; Müller, A.; Seinige, D.; Büttner, K.; Failing, K.; Kehrenberg, C. Wild Boars Carry Extended-Spectrum ß-Lactamase-and AmpC-Producing Escherichia coli. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wasyl, D.; Zając, M.; Lalak, A.; Skarżyńska, M.; Samcik, I.; Kwit, R.; Jabłoński, A.; Bocian, Ł.; Woźniakowski, G.; Hoszowski, A. Antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli isolated from wild animals in Poland. Microb. Drug Resist. 2018, 24, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Darwich, L.; Seminati, C.; López-Olvera, J.R.; Vidal, A.; Aguirre, L.; Cerdá, M.; Garcias, B.; Valldeperes, M.; Castillo-Contreras, R.; Migura-Garcia, L. Detection of beta-lactam-resistant Escherichia coli and toxigenic Clostridioides Difficile strains in wild boars foraging in an Anthropization gradient. Animals 2021, 11, 1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Literak, I.; Dolejska, M.; Radimersky, T.; Klimes, J.; Friedman, M.; Aarestrup, F.M.; Hasman, H.; Cizek, A. Antimicrobial-resistant faecal Escherichia coli in wild mammals in central Europe: Multiresistant Escherichia coli producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in wild boars. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 108, 1702–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Massella, E.; Reid, C.J.; Cummins, M.L.; Anantanawat, K.; Zingali, T.; Serraino, A.; Piva, S.; Giacometti, F.; Djordjevic, S.P. Snapshot study of whole genome sequences of Escherichia coli from healthy companion animals, livestock, wildlife, humans and food in Italy. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. López-Islas, J.; Méndez-Olvera, E.; Reyes, T.; Martínez-Gómez, D. Identification of antimicrobial resistance genes in intestinal content from Coyote (Canis latrans). Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2023, 26, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Worsley-Tonks, K.E.L.; Miller, E.A.; Gehrt, S.D.; McKenzie, S.C.; Travis, D.A.; Johnson, T.J.; Craft, M.E. Characterization of antimicrobial resistance genes in Enterobacteriaceae carried by suburban mesocarnivores and locally owned and stray dogs. Zoonoses Public Health 2020, 67, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Edgar, R.; Bibi, E. MdfA, an Escherichia coli multidrug resistance protein with an extraordinarily broad spectrum of drug recognition. J. Bacteriol. 1997, 179, 2274–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Trongjit, S.; Chuanchuen, R. Whole genome sequencing and characteristics of Escherichia coli with co-existence of ESBL and mcr genes from pigs. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0260011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cufaoglu, G.; Cengiz, G.; Onaran Acar, B.; Yesilkaya, B.; Ayaz, N.D.; Levent, G.; Goncuoglu, M. Antibiotic, heavy metal, and disinfectant resistance in chicken, cattle, and sheep origin E. coli and whole-genome sequencing analysis of a multidrug-resistant E. coli O100: H25 strain. J. Food Saf. 2022, 42, e12995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Carey, A.M.; Capik, S.F.; Giebel, S.; Nickodem, C.; Piñeiro, J.M.; Scott, H.M.; Vinasco, J.; Norman, K.N. Prevalence and Profiles of Antibiotic Resistance Genes mph (A) and qnrB in Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL)-Producing Escherichia coli Isolated from Dairy Calf Feces. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ma, L.; Xia, Y.; Li, B.; Yang, Y.; Li, L.-G.; Tiedje, J.M.; Zhang, T. Metagenomic assembly reveals hosts of antibiotic resistance genes and the shared resistome in pig, chicken, and human feces. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Literak, I.; Dolejska, M.; Rybarikova, J.; Cizek, A.; Strejckova, P.; Vyskocilova, M.; Friedman, M.; Klimes, J. Highly variable patterns of antimicrobial resistance in commensal Escherichia coli isolates from pigs, sympatric rodents, and flies. Microb. Drug Resist. 2009, 15, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Srinivasan, V.; Nam, H.-M.; Sawant, A.A.; Headrick, S.I.; Nguyen, L.T.; Oliver, S.P. Distribution of tetracycline and streptomycin resistance genes and class 1 integrons in Enterobacteriaceae isolated from dairy and nondairy farm soils. Microb. Ecol. 2008, 55, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lewis, J.; Moore, P.; Arnold, D.L.; Lawrance, L. Chromosomal ampC mutations in cefpodoxime-resistant, ESBL-negative uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Br. J. Biomed. Sci. 2015, 72, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Asai, T.; Usui, M.; Sugiyama, M.; Andoh, M. A survey of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli prevalence in wild mammals in Japan using antimicrobial-containing media. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2022, 84, 1645–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Noll, L.W.; Worley, J.N.; Yang, X.; Shridhar, P.B.; Ludwig, J.B.; Shi, X.; Bai, J.; Caragea, D.; Meng, J.; Nagaraja, T. Comparative genomics reveals differences in mobile virulence genes of Escherichia coli O103 pathotypes of bovine fecal origin. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0191362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Carattoli, A. Plasmids and the spread of resistance. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 303, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Von Wintersdorff, C.J.; Penders, J.; Van Niekerk, J.M.; Mills, N.D.; Majumder, S.; Van Alphen, L.B.; Savelkoul, P.H.; Wolffs, P.F. Dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in microbial ecosystems through horizontal gene transfer. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Mollenkopf, D.F.; Weeman, M.F.; Daniels, J.B.; Abley, M.J.; Mathews, J.L.; Gebreyes, W.A.; Wittum, T.E. Variable within-and between-herd diversity of CTX-M cephalosporinase-bearing Escherichia coli isolates from dairy cattle. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 4552–4560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Afema, J.A.; Ahmed, S.; Besser, T.E.; Jones, L.P.; Sischo, W.M.; Davis, M.A. Molecular epidemiology of dairy cattle-associated Escherichia coli carrying bla CTX-M genes in Washington State. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e02430-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Schmidt, J.W.; Griffin, D.; Kuehn, L.A.; Brichta-Harhay, D.M. Influence of therapeutic ceftiofur treatments of feedlot cattle on fecal and hide prevalences of commensal Escherichia coli resistant to expanded-spectrum cephalosporins, and molecular characterization of resistant isolates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 2273–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Hayer, S.S.; Lim, S.; Hong, S.; Elnekave, E.; Johnson, T.; Rovira, A.; Vannucci, F.; Clayton, J.B.; Perez, A.; Alvarez, J. Genetic determinants of resistance to extended-spectrum cephalosporin and fluoroquinolone in Escherichia coli isolated from diseased pigs in the United States. Msphere 2020, 5, e00990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Douarre, P.-E.; Mallet, L.; Radomski, N.; Felten, A.; Mistou, M.-Y. Analysis of COMPASS, a new comprehensive plasmid database revealed prevalence of multireplicon and extensive diversity of IncF plasmids. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Villa, L.; García-Fernández, A.; Fortini, D.; Carattoli, A. Replicon sequence typing of IncF plasmids carrying virulence and resistance determinants. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65, 2518–2529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Day, M.J.; Rodríguez, I.; van Essen-Zandbergen, A.; Dierikx, C.; Kadlec, K.; Schink, A.-K.; Wu, G.; Chattaway, M.A.; DoNascimento, V.; Wain, J. Diversity of STs, plasmids and ESBL genes among Escherichia coli from humans, animals and food in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016, 71, 1178–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Valentin, L.; Sharp, H.; Hille, K.; Seibt, U.; Fischer, J.; Pfeifer, Y.; Michael, G.B.; Nickel, S.; Schmiedel, J.; Falgenhauer, L. Subgrouping of ESBL-producing Escherichia coli from animal and human sources: An approach to quantify the distribution of ESBL types between different reservoirs. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 304, 805–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Valenza, G.; Nickel, S.; Pfeifer, Y.; Eller, C.; Krupa, E.; Lehner-Reindl, V.; Höller, C. Extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli as intestinal colonizers in the German community. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 1228–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Johnson, J.R.; Johnston, B.; Clabots, C.; Kuskowski, M.A.; Castanheira, M. Escherichia coli sequence type ST131 as the major cause of serious multidrug-resistant E. coli infections in the United States. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 51, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Kim, Y.B.; Yoon, M.Y.; Ha, J.S.; Seo, K.W.; Noh, E.B.; Son, S.H.; Lee, Y.J. Molecular characterization of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli from broiler chickens with colibacillosis. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Rosario, C.C.; López, A.C.; Téllez, I.G.; Navarro, O.A.; Anderson, R.C.; Eslava, C.C. Serotyping and virulence genes detection in Escherichia coli isolated from fertile and infertile eggs, dead-in-shell embryos, and chickens with yolk sac infection. Avian Dis. 2004, 48, 791–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Johnson, T.J.; Wannemuehler, Y.M.; Nolan, L.K. Evolution of the iss Gene in Escherichia coli. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 2360–2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Rezatofighi, S.E.; Najafifar, A.; Askari Badouei, M.; Peighambari, S.M.; Soltani, M. An Integrated Perspective on Virulence-Associated Genes (VAGs), Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), and Phylogenetic Clusters of Pathogenic and Non-pathogenic Avian Escherichia coli. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 758124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Santos, A.C.D.M.; Silva, R.M.; Valiatti, T.B.; Santos, F.F.D.; Santos-Neto, J.F.; Cayô, R.; Streling, A.P.; Nodari, C.S.; Gales, A.C.; Nishiyama-Junior, M.Y.; et al. Virulence potential of a multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli strain belonging to the emerging clonal group ST101-B1 isolated from bloodstream infection. bioRxiv 2020, 18, 797928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Delannoy, S.; Beutin, L.; Mariani-Kurkdjian, P.; Fleiss, A.; Bonacorsi, S.; Fach, P. The Escherichia coli Serogroup O1 and O2 Lipopolysaccharides Are Encoded by Multiple O-antigen Gene Clusters. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Pakbin, B.; Brück, W.M.; Rossen, J.W.A. Virulence Factors of Enteric Pathogenic Escherichia coli: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Werber, D.; Beutin, L.; Pichner, R.; Stark, K.; Fruth, A. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serogroups in food and patients, Germany. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2008, 14, 1803–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Vu Khac, H.; Holoda, E.; Pilipcinec, E.; Blanco, M.; Blanco, J.E.; Mora, A.; Dahbi, G.; López, C.; González, E.A.; Blanco, J. Serotypes, virulence genes, and PFGE profiles of Escherichia coli isolated from pigs with postweaning diarrhoea in Slovakia. BMC Vet. Res. 2006, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Ishii, S.; Meyer, K.P.; Sadowsky, M.J. Relationship between phylogenetic groups, genotypic clusters, and virulence gene profiles of Escherichia coli strains from diverse human and animal sources. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 5703–5710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Dias, D.; Caetano, T.; Torres, R.; Fonseca, C.; Mendo, S. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in wild ungulates. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Martin, A.; Beutin, L. Characteristics of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli from meat and milk products of different origins and association with food producing animals as main contamination sources. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 146, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Whole genome sequence characteristics of 16 E. coli isolates based on the host, serotype, 7-gene MLST sequence type, acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, chromosomal mutation, plasmids, insertion sequences, and virulence genes.
Table 1. Whole genome sequence characteristics of 16 E. coli isolates based on the host, serotype, 7-gene MLST sequence type, acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, chromosomal mutation, plasmids, insertion sequences, and virulence genes.
HostSerotypeSequence TypeAntibiotic Resistance GenesChromosomal MutationsPlasmidsInsertion SequencesVirulence Genes
CoyoteO53:H515768noneampC-promoter:g.-28G>A, ampC-promoter:p.R25H cgc -> cacIncFIB(AP001918)IS3, ISEc41, ISEc81, ISSfl7, MITEEc1air, AslA, chuA, csgA, eilA, eltIIAB-c3, fdeC, fimH, hlyE, iss, nlpI, ompT, terC, traT, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O1:H2756mdf(A)ampC-promoter:g.-18G>AColRNAI, IncFII(pCoo)IS100kyp, IS1H, IS30, ISCfr6, ISCro1, ISEc49, ISEsa1, ISSfl8, ISSso4, MITEEc1afaA, afaB, astA, csgA, F17A, F17C, F17D, F17G, fdeC, fimH, fyuA, hha, hlyE, hra, irp2, iss, lpfA, nlpI, ompT, shiA, shiB, terC, tia, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O8:H7196mdf(A)ampC-promoter:g.-18G>A, ampC-promoter:g.-1C>T IS1H, IS3, ISEc1, ISEsa1, MITEEc1csgA, fdeC, fimH, gad, hlyE, lpfA, nlpI, terC, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O100:H948mdf(A)No mutation in AmpCIncFIB(AP001918)IS150, IS186B, IS30, IS30H, ISEc1, ISEc75, ISPrst2, MITEEc1AslA, cdt-IIIB, csgA, espY2, F17A, F17G, fdeC, fimH, gad, hlyE, iss, nlpI, ompT, terC, traT, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O3:H19155aph(3″)-Ib, aph(6)-Id, dfrA1, floR, mdf(A), sul2ampC-promoter:g.-18G>A, ampC-promoter:g.-1C>T, gyrA:p.S83L-tcg -> ttgColRNAI, IncB/O/K/Z, IncFIB(AP001918), IncX1IS100kyp, IS1H, ISCfr6, ISEc38, ISEc8, ISEc83, ISEsa1, ISKpn60, MITEEc1cdt-IIIB, cnf2, csgA, eltIIAB-c4, F17A, F17C, F17D, F17G, fdeC, fimH, hha, hlyE, iucC, iutA, lpfA, nlpI, ompT, terC, traT, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O114:H23224aadA5, aph(3″)-Ib, aph(6)-Id, blaCTX-M-55, dfrA17, floR, mdf(A), sul2, tet(A)ampC-promoter:g.-18G>A, ampC-promoter:g.-1C>T, gyrA:p.S83L-tcg -> ttg, parC:p.S80I- agc -> atc, parE:p.S458A- tcg -> gcg, gyrA:p.D87N- gac -> aacIncX1, p0111IS100kyp, IS150, IS2, ISEc1, ISEc22, ISEc23, ISEc38, ISSen1, MITEEc1csgA, fdeC, fimH, hlyE, lpfA, nlpI, terC, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O118:H1210aac(3)-IId, ant(3″)-Ia, aph(3′)-Ia, blaCTX-M-55, floR, lnu(F), mdf(A), sul3, tet(A)ampC without mutationIncFII, IncHI2, IncHI2A, IncI1, IncNIS186B, IS1F, IS3, IS679, ISEc1, ISEc11, ISEc38, ISEc52, ISEc78, ISKpn18, ISKpn26, MITEEc1anr, AslA, astA, csgA, fdeC, fimH, fyuA, gad, hlyE, irp2, iss, nlpI, shiB, terC, tibC, traJ, traT, yehA, yehB, yehC
O10:H421642aac(3)-IId, aadA5, blaCTX-M-27, dfrA17, erm(B), floR, mdf(A), mph(A), sul1, sul2, tet(B)gyrA:p.S83L-tcg -> ttg, parC:p.S80I- agc -> atc, gyrA:p.D87N- gac -> aac, ampC-promoter:g.-18G>A, ampC-promoter:g.-1C>T, gyrA:p.S83L-tcg -> ttgIncFIA, IncFIB(AP001918), IncYIS100kyp, IS1H, ISCro1, ISEc1, ISEc12, ISEc23, ISEc38, ISEc78, ISEc8, ISSen1, ISSfl8, MITEEc1anr, csgA, F17A, F17C, F17D, F17G, fdeC, fimH, fyuA, hha, hlyE, hra, irp2, lpfA, nlpI, shiA, sitA, terC, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O154:H101122aph(3′)-Ia, blaCMY-2, mdf(A)ampC without mutationIncFIB(AP001918)IS150, IS186B, IS1F, IS1X4, IS3, IS609, IS679, IS911, ISEc14, ISEc23, ISEc38, ISEc39, ISEc83, ISEsa1, ISKpn26, MITEEc1astA, fdeC, fimH, hlyE, iss, nlpI, shiA, terC, tia, traT, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
Wild hogO188:H20unknownmdf(A)ampC no mutationColpVC, IncFIB(AP001918)IS100kyp, ISEc1, ISEc38, MITEEc1air, AslA, astA, chuA, csgA, eilA, espY2, fdeC, fimH, gad, hlyE, iss, nlpI, ompT, pic, terC, traJ, traT, yehB, yehC, yehD
O88:H2558mdf(A)ampC-promoter:g.-28G>A, ampC-promoter:g.-1C>TIncFIB(AP001918), IncFIC(FII)IS100kyp, IS1F, IS1H, IS2, IS30, ISCro1, ISEc11, ISEc38, ISEc8, MITEEc1anr, astA, cdt-IIIB, csgA, eltIIAB-c6, fdeC, fimH, hlyE, hra, lpfA, nlpI, papC, terC, traJ, traT, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O103:H21446mdf(A), tet(C)ampC-promoter:g.-18G>A, ampC-promoter:g.-1C>TIncFIB(AP001918), IncI1IS100kyp, IS1H, IS629, IS91, ISEc12, ISEc38, ISEc83, ISEsa1, ISKpn60, ISSfl8, ISSso6, MITEEc1 cdt-IIIB, cnf2, csgA, F17A, F17C, F17D, F17G, faeC, faeD, faeF, faeH, faeI, faeJ, fdeC, fimH, fyuA, gad, hha, hlyE, hra, irp2, iss, iucC, iutA, lpfA, nlpI, ompT, terC, traT, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O98:H411087mdf(A)ampC-promoter:g.-18G>A, ampC-promoter:g.-1C>TnoneIS100kyp, IS1H, IS609, IS629, ISEc17, ISEc26, ISEc46, ISEc66, ISEc83, ISKpn54, ISKpn60, MITEEc1air, AslA, cdt-IIIB, chuA, cnf2, csgA, eilA, eltIIAB-c1, espY2, F17A, F17C, F17D, F17G, fdeC, fimH, hlyE, iss, iucC, iutA, nlpI, ompT, terC, traT, yehB
O84:14unknownmdf(A)ampC-promoter:g.-18G>A, ampC-promoter:g.-1C>TIncFII, IncYIS1H, IS21, IS30, IS3F, MITEEc1csgA, cvaC, F17A, F17D, fdeC, fimH, gad, hlyE, iss, lpfA, nlpI, ompT, terC, traT, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O8:H284496blaCMY-2, mdf(A)No mutation in ampCIncFIB(AP001918), IncX4IS1H, IS1X4, IS3, IS609, ISCfr6, ISEc84, MITEEc1csgA, ehxA, eltIIAB-a, fdeC, fimH, gad, hlyE, lpfA, nlpI, stx2, stx2a-O8-BMH-17-0027, terC, traT, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
O19: H4216mdf(A)ampC without mutationCol440I, IncFIB(AP001918)IS150, IS186B, IS2, IS5708, ISCfr26, ISEc68, ISEc78, ISEsa1, ISPpu21, ISSen4, MITEEc1anr, clpK1, csgA, fimH, hlyE, nlpI, terC, yehA, yehB, yehC, yehD
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Awosile, B.; Fritzler, J.; Levent, G.; Rahman, M.K.; Ajulo, S.; Daniel, I.; Tasnim, Y.; Sarkar, S. Genomic Characterization of Fecal Escherichia coli Isolates with Reduced Susceptibility to Beta-Lactam Antimicrobials from Wild Hogs and Coyotes. Pathogens 2023, 12, 929. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070929

AMA Style

Awosile B, Fritzler J, Levent G, Rahman MK, Ajulo S, Daniel I, Tasnim Y, Sarkar S. Genomic Characterization of Fecal Escherichia coli Isolates with Reduced Susceptibility to Beta-Lactam Antimicrobials from Wild Hogs and Coyotes. Pathogens. 2023; 12(7):929. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070929

Chicago/Turabian Style

Awosile, Babafela, Jason Fritzler, Gizem Levent, Md. Kaisar Rahman, Samuel Ajulo, Ian Daniel, Yamima Tasnim, and Sumon Sarkar. 2023. "Genomic Characterization of Fecal Escherichia coli Isolates with Reduced Susceptibility to Beta-Lactam Antimicrobials from Wild Hogs and Coyotes" Pathogens 12, no. 7: 929. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070929

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop