Next Article in Journal
Isolation and Genomic Analysis of a Case of Staphylococcus argenteus ST2250 Related to Sepsis in Italy
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Oncogenic Viruses in Head and Neck Cancers: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Advancements in Detection Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
A New Dual Fluorescence Method for Rapid Detection of Infectious Bronchitis Virus at Constant Temperature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/microorganisms12071483
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite 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

Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterococcus Isolates from Poultry Farms in the Republic of Serbia (Autonomous Province of Vojvodina)

by
Maja Velhner
1,
Bojana Prunić
1,
Nevenka Aleksić
2,
Dalibor Todorović
1,
Slobodan Knežević
1 and
Dragana Ljubojević Pelić
1,*
1
Scientific Veterinary Institute “Novi Sad”, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
2
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2024, 12(7), 1483; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071483 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 27 June 2024 / Revised: 15 July 2024 / Accepted: 17 July 2024 / Published: 20 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Poultry Pathogens and Poultry Diseases, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Enterococcus species are significant intestinal commensals of animals, including poultry. However, they have emerged as important opportunistic infective agents in both veterinary and human medicine as well as major nosocomial pathogens, owing to their increasing antimicrobial resistance. This research aimed to investigate the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns of Enterococcus spp. isolated from poultry farms in the north of Serbia. A total of 40 samples of overshoes or feces were collected from 40 poultry farms and analyzed for the presence of Enterococcus spp. using PCR or MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry for their identification. The number of isolates was 40 and included 11 isolates from laying hens, 2 isolates from turkeys, 3 from broiler breeders, and 24 from broilers. The Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method was used to test for antibiotic susceptibility in accordance with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and EUCAST guidelines. The results showed that Enterococcus faecalis was isolated from 37.5% farms, and E. faecium from 42.5%. E. hirae was identified in 15% of poultry establishments, and E. durans and E. thialandicus on 2.5%. Notably, resistance to erythromycin, streptomycin, fluoroquinolones, and tetracyclines among the frequently used antibiotics was found. Furthermore, 35% of the isolates had multidrug resistance (MDR). In order to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance in chicken farming and protect the health of the public and animals alike, our findings highlight the critical need for improved surveillance and control measures. To effectively establish a containment strategy for Enterococcus spp. isolated from poultry farms, more research into the processes behind their antibiotic resistance is required.

1. Introduction

Enterococcus spp. are among the most important nosocomial pathogens worldwide [1,2,3]. As harmless commensals, they colonize the intestines of humans and animals, while poultry, in particular, are their permanent reservoirs [4]. Humans may be infected with pathogenic enterococci, but the route of infection is not always known. It is considered that the most common source of pathogenic Enterococcus spp. is food of animal origin, and people can contract the infection when handling poultry meat in slaughterhouses or food factories [5].
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health concern that threatens the effectiveness of antimicrobials used to treat bacterial infections [6]. Recently, it has been determined that the most significant poultry bacteria resistant to antibiotics in the European Union are Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Enterococcus cecorum [7]. Therefore, in many countries, the antimicrobial resistance monitoring of Enterococcus spp. has been initiated, although currently it is not mandatory in the EU [8]. There are several reasons why these bacteria require special attention. Namely, Enterococcus spp. survive in different environments and hosts, owing to their specific resistance phenotypes, virulence and good adaptability, withstanding high temperatures, salinity, and acidic conditions [9]. Enterococci are easily transmitted in chicken flocks and survive well in the environment [10]. The isolates can become pathogenic for chickens and their embryos [8]. Furthermore, in poultry farming, where antimicrobials are commonly used for disease prevention but also for growth promotion [11], Enterococcus spp. have garnered attention as potential reservoirs and vectors for the dissemination of antimicrobial resistance genes [12]. These are perfectly capable of exchanging resistance and virulence genes between themselves and other bacteria [13].
Certain strains, such as Enterococcus cecorum, which are pathogenic for poultry [14], do not typically colonize human guts and seldom cause bacteriemia [15]. However, E. cecorum was isolated from a patient’s pleural fluid and the intestines were thought to be the portals of entry [16].
E. faecalis is an opportunistic pathogen that may cause outbreaks in poultry flocks if they are infected concomitantly with other microorganisms or suffer from immunosuppression. Some clones such as sequence type (ST) 82 may cause amyloid arthropathy in broiler breeders and are considered pathogenic [8,17].
The Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, situated in the north of Serbia, is a significant area for poultry production in the region. Alongside the intensification of poultry farming and the widespread use of antimicrobials, concerns have been raised regarding the emergence and spread of AMR among Enterococcus spp. isolates in poultry production. Understanding the prevalence and patterns of antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus spp. from poultry farms in Vojvodina is crucial for developing strategies aimed to mitigate the risk of AMR transmission within the food chain and to human populations. To the best of our knowledge, based on literature search, this study presents the first investigation into Enterococcus spp. resistance on poultry farms in Serbia. Moreover, there is a lack of data pertaining to the occurrence and antimicrobial resistance of Enterococcus spp. in surrounding countries.
In this work, the presence of Enterococcus spp. in the environment of the poultry farms in two districts in Vojvodina was investigated. The research goals were to reveal antimicrobial resistance phenotype and estimate the risks of antibiotic overuse in primary production farms in Serbia. Furthermore, the data about the levels of antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus spp. will enable the comparison of isolates from different laboratories and, ultimately, from different countries. The results may help enhance therapeutic efficacy, monitor clonal dissemination, and determine the possible role of food contamination with Enterococcus spp. in public health. In addition, the acquired knowledge is essential for the development of targeted interventions and programs to preserve the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy and safeguard public health.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Poultry Farms

The poultry farms investigated in this research are situated in the northern part of Serbia, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. The epizootiological area in our study encompasses two districts: South Backa and Srem (Figure 1). We made sure to include all representative farms from these districts to ensure comprehensive coverage of the region. A total of 40 poultry farms, including 3 broiler breeder farms, 11 layer chicken farms, 24 broiler farms, and 2 turkey farms, were examined for the presence of Enterococcus spp. in the farm environment.
Regarding the type of feed, all farms included in our study used commercial feed formulated according to the age of the birds. This ensured that the nutritional requirements of the birds were met throughout their growth stages. All birds were vaccinated according to specific vaccination programs tailored to their needs. These programs are designed to protect against common diseases and ensure the health and well-being of the poultry. The exact vaccination schedule for each flock and category of poultry is created individually; some of the diseases included in the vaccination program are infectious bronchitis, Gumboro disease, and Newcastle disease. To the best of our knowledge, no growth promoters were administered on any of the farms surveyed. This aligns with current best practices and regulatory standards aimed at promoting safe and sustainable poultry production. All of the farms included in our study are commercial closed poultry farms that adhere to high biosecurity measures. As part of these measures, there are no other animals, such as hogs or cattle, present on or near these farms. This strict biosecurity protocol is implemented to ensure the health and safety of the poultry. All farms are single-age farms.
The samples were overshoes or feces collected during the compulsory monitoring of Salmonella spp. according to the Rulebook on determining measures for early detection, diagnosis, prevention of spread, control, and eradication of poultry infection with certain Salmonella serovars [18], which is almost identical to the respective EU regulations. Also, we used the accompanying Salmonella spp. sampling manual for poultry flocks issued by the Serbian Veterinary Directorate (https://www.vet.minpolj.gov.rs/aktuelnosti/samoneloza%20zivine/98.pdf, accessed on 15 May 2024).
The number of samples collected and analyzed from each farm was one composite environmental sample per farm (feces or overshoes, as described in the manual). This sampling process was conducted strictly in accordance with established regulations to ensure consistency and representativeness.
All samples were collected following standardized procedures to ensure their integrity and reliability. Once collected, the samples were immediately transported to the laboratory under controlled conditions to maintain their quality. All samples were processed the same day for bacteriological analysis according to established protocols.

2.2. Isolation and Identification of Enterococcus spp.

The total number of isolates was 40 and included 11 isolates from laying hens, 2 isolates from turkeys, 3 from broiler breeders, and 24 from broilers. Enterococcus spp. were isolated after inoculation in buffer peptone water upon incubation for 24 h at 37 °C. the next day, 100 μL of inoculated peptone was transferred to Slanetz Bartley medium (Oxoid CM0377B) to obtain single colonies. After incubation for 24–48 h, a single colony of Enterococcus sp. was transferred to Bile Aesculin agar (Oxoid CM0888) to obtain pure culture. In each case, the growth was visible after 24 h of incubation at 37 °C.
The identification of Enterococcus spp. was achieved either by PCR or MALDI-TOF. PCR assays were run with the commercial kit BioLabs (New England BioLabs) in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions using primers recommended by the Danish Technical University (DTU). The sequences of the primers were as follows: E. faecalis E1-5′ATCAAGTACAGTTAGTCTT and E2-5′-ACGATTCAAAGCTAACTG-3′, E. faecium F1-5′-GCAAGGCTTCTTAGAGA-3′ and F2-5′-CATCGTGTAAGCTAACTTC-3′. The cycles for the PCR were as follows: 94 °C for 2 min, and then the master cycler was programmed for 30 cycles at 94 °C for 1 min., 54 °C for 1 min., and 78 °C for 1 min., with the last cycle being 78 °C 10 min [19]. The PCR reaction yielded products of 941 bp for E. faecalis and 550 bp for E. faecium. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry was used for the identification of all isolates that were not possible to identify using PCR.

2.3. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

Antibiotic susceptibility was established by the disk diffusion method. The results were interpreted in compliance with protocols provided by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute CLSI M100 [20] and EUCAST document [21]. The following disks (BioRad, Mames-la-Coquette, France) were used: ampicillin (AMP) 10 μg, ciprofloxacin (CIP) 5 μg, erythromycin (ERY)15 μg, chloramphenicol (CHL) 30 μg, tetracycline (TET) 30 μg, gentamicin (GMN) 30 μg, nitrofurantoin (FTN) 300 μg, fosfomycin (FOS) 200 μg, quinupristin–dalfopristin (QDF) 15 μg, linezolid (LZD) 30 μg, vancomycin (VAN) 30 μg, teicoplanin (TEC) 30 μg, tigecycline (TGC) 15 μg, doxycycline (DOX) 30 μg, moxifloxacin (MXF) 5 μg, norfloxacin (NXN) 10 μg, levofloxacin (LVX) 5 μg, and streptomycin (STR300) 300 μg. Quality control was carried out by determining the inhibition zones in E. coli ATCC 25922 and Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212.
Isolates that demonstrated resistance to three or more antimicrobial drugs from different families were deemed multidrug-resistant (MDR) [22,23].

3. Results

Enterococcus spp. from forty poultry farms were examined and identified. Enterococcus faecalis was isolated from 15 farms (37.5%), while E. faecium was detected in 17 (42.5%). E. hirae was identified in six poultry establishments (15%). One farm each (2.5%) harbored E. durans and E. thialandicus. Out of 40 single isolates per farm, 13 (32.5%) were found to be susceptible to antibiotics while 14 (35%) were multidrug-resistant.
All isolates from broiler breeder farms were identified as E. faecium and were resistant to at least two antibiotics or one or two classes, whereas it was found that there were no MDR isolates present (Table 1 and Table 2).
Among the eleven isolates from the laying hen farms, four were E. faecalis (36.36%), three E. faecium (27.27%), three E. hirae (27.27%), and one E. durans (9.09%). Susceptibility to all examined antimicrobial classes was established for six out of these eleven isolates (54.54%), while one E. faecium (9.09%) showed resistance to one class (tetracyclines) one E. faecalis (9.09%) to two classes, and three isolates (27.27%) were resistant to three or more classes of antimicrobials (Table 1 and Table 2). All MDR isolates were identified as E. faecalis (Table 1). Five isolates from 24 broiler farms (24%) were susceptible to all antimicrobials with two isolates identified as E. faecalis and another three as E. faecium (Table 1). Six isolates from broiler farms (25%)—four E. faecalis, one E. faecium, and one E. hirae—were resistant to two classes of antimicrobials. Eleven isolates from broiler farms were MDR, as presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Both isolates from the turkey farms were identified as E. faecium and both were susceptible to all tested antimicrobials (Table 1).
Fluoroquinolone resistance was verified in 15 isolates (37.5%), all of which also had an MDR status. Only one isolate (number 20) was sensitive to levofloxacin (LVX) even if resistance was detected to CIP, MXF, and NXN. Also, in one isolate from a broiler farm (number 31), resistance was detected to moxifloxacin (MXF), but not to CIP, NXN, or LVX. The most frequent resistance phenotype was to tetracycline, found in 24 out of 40 isolates (60%), followed by doxycycline resistance, detected in 21 isolates (52.5%). Resistance to erythromycin was confirmed in 13 isolates (32.5%) (Table 3).
High-level resistance to streptomycin was present in 11 poultry isolates (27.5%). Resistance to quinupristin–dalfopristin (QDF) in E. faecium was found in only one isolate (No. 16) (2.5%) originating from a flock of broiler chickens. One isolate of E. faecium from a broiler farm (isolate number 16) was MDR to six antibiotic classes. None of the isolates were resistant to vancomycin or linezolid antibiotics.

4. Discussion

This work is the first attempt to determine the occurrence and resistotypes of Enterococcus species in environmental samples from poultry in Serbia. Unexpectedly, antimicrobial resistance was established in 27 isolates (67.5%), while isolates from 14 poultry farms (35%) were multidrug-resistant. Fluoroquinolone (FQ) resistance was also significant, being detected in Enterococcus spp. isolates from 15 poultry farms (37.5%). Such high-level resistance raises concerns about food safety in Serbia. In this study, the resistance against chemically improved fluoroquinolones, which exhibit better anti-bacillar activity against Gram-positive microorganisms, such as moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, and norfloxacin, is pinpointed. Newer drugs, descendants of ciprofloxacin, are important in human medicine due to their quick absorption and distribution to many tissues and body fluids. Therefore, they may be used, with caution, for the treatment of hospital- and community-acquired infections [24]. Fluoroquinolones inhibit bacterial DNA synthesis by acting on target enzymes or by activating multidrug exporters. Double mutations on gyrA and parC genes in Streptococcus pneumoniae induce high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin. The order of mutations depends on the type of FQ used for the therapy in some Gram-positive bacteria. Consequently, it is essential to carefully assess antibiotic resistance in indicator microorganisms such Enterococcus spp. Enrofloxacin (ENR) was removed from the chicken business in the United States in 2005 due to the serious health risks that resistance to ENR posed for humans infected with Campylobacter spp. [25,26]. Likewise, the administration of enrofloxacin in the poultry industry in Serbia has caused resistance to nalidixic acid in Salmonella Infantis isolates [27,28] and in avian pathogenic and commensal Escherichia coli as well [29], but also in Campylobacter isolates from human patients [30]. With this work, it has now been proven that resistance to FQ also occurs in Gram-positive bacteria from poultry origin such as Enterococcus spp.
Enterococcus spp. have become important pathogens in veterinary medicine because of their resistance to vancomycin [31]. In poultry, vancomycin resistance is caused by the misuse of the growth promoter avoparcin, which belongs to glycopeptide antibiotics, chemically similar to vancomycin. However, in this research, resistance to vancomycin was not detected in the collection of isolates from poultry flocks. To the best of our knowledge, avoparcin was not used in Serbia as a feed additive, perhaps due its high price. Therefore, the absence of resistance to vancomycin in Enterococcus from poultry litter was not surprising. However, it is doubtful whether this absence is absolute: monitoring has not been established and there is a fair chance that isolates originating from ceca collected in slaughterhouses may provide different results and that vancomycin resistance will be found.
The Serbian poultry industry depends on the import of breeding flocks and often also layer chickens. Enterococci from these birds may carry vancomycin-resistant genes. The risks of antibiotic therapy in food-producing animals must be carefully considered, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages, because new resistance mechanisms may emerge and some of the infectious clones become well established in different environments all around the globe. Before and after the ban of avoparcin in developed countries, some controversy has arisen regarding the role of medicinal food (a homogeneous mixture of feed and veterinary medicinal products, including antibiotics) in the spread of resistance to glycopeptide antibiotics; however, it was difficult to prove the epidemiological links between enterococci in food animals and isolates from human patients [32]. Similar controversy exists in evaluating the role of virginiamycin feed additive in the development of resistance to the streptogramin antibiotics quinupristin and dalfopristin in E. faecium. The transferable vat genes may support the spread of streptogramin-resistant isolates in farm animals, which could be transferred to humans via contaminated meat and environments. However, streptogramin-resistant E. faecium is well adapted to the cloaca and does not colonize the gut efficiently as it barely survives the gastric barrier [32].
Many isolates in this work were resistant to erythromycin and tetracycline. Such a resistance phenotype is a matter of concern in human medicine [33]. It could be assumed that antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus spp. from the environment can colonize poultry intestines and create a food contamination hazard during processing. The dissemination of such environmental bacteria through contaminated poultry litter is another important issue, especially in developing countries, where the disposal of bedding material from poultry houses is not safe [34]. Interestingly, only isolates from broilers and laying hens proved to be multidrug-resistant. This could be pure coincidence or due to the fact that the breeders and the two turkey flocks were not treated with antibiotics as frequently as broilers and layers. In our study, and in accordance with previous observations, we observed that the differential frequency of treatment among poultry types, such as broilers and turkeys, is influenced by various factors including the specific health challenges and management practices associated with each type.
The genome plasticity of enterococci spp. is characterized by their ability to acquire new genes and genetic elements and the capacity to transfer large amounts of genetic material from one strain to another [13]. These properties have led to the formation of well-established clones in hospital and community settings [2]. It is noteworthy that some E. faecalis isolates from poultry and humans were found to be genetically indistinguishable in several independent studies [8]. It was also discovered that the vanA gene of the vancomycin-resistant E. faecium from poultry, ingested by healthy volunteers, can transfer resistance genes to human commensal E. faecium, causing transient colonization of the intestines [8]. Interestingly, genes encoding resistance to quinupristin/dalfopristin and to erythromycin were also transferable together with the vanA gene from resistant to susceptible E. faecium in the intestines of one out of six healthy volunteers [8,35]. Considering all of the above-mentioned facts, Enterococcus spp. are bacteria of great importance to public health, which require regular control of their resistotype and the study of transmission routes to both humans and animals.
Owing to the possibility of acquiring resistance genes against several antibiotic classes, including glycopeptides, the significance of Enterococcus spp. in human and veterinary medicine has increased over the past few years [8]. These bacteria are intrinsically resistant to low doses of aminoglycosides (gentamicin and streptomycin) and cephalosporines. In addition, E. faecalis is intrinsically resistant to quinupristin/dalfopristin. Data from the European Antimicrobial Susceptibility Surveillance in Animals (EASSA) has shown that, except for erythromycin, tetracycline, and quinupristin/dalfopristin, clinical resistance to antibiotics was not found, or was rare in enterococci originating from cattle, pigs, and poultry. In 2014, a marked decrease in resistance to vancomycin in the EU was observed in comparison to previous reports from 2002 [36]. Similar results were obtained by Rebelo et al. [37]. Also, although resistance to linezolid is on the rise in nosocomial isolates, animals were not yet carriers of Enterococcus spp. with resistance to critical antibiotics [37]. Given that Enterococcus spp. are susceptible to transspecies transmission, antimicrobial resistance surveillance is of global importance.
The main limitation of the present study is the relatively small number of samples. The number of samples in the present study was limited, but we ensured that the sampling methodology was representative of the region under study. The epizootiological area in our study encompasses two districts: South Backa and Srem. We made sure to include all representative farms from these districts to ensure comprehensive coverage of the region.
The inclusion of various types of poultry, including broiler breeders, laying hens, broiler chickens, and turkeys, was intentional to capture a broad spectrum of the poultry farming practices in the region. This diversity provides a more comprehensive understanding of the poultry industry. Regarding the inclusion of turkey farms, it is important to note that turkey farms are quite rare, not only in the specified districts, but also throughout the entire country. We recognize that only two turkey farms were included. However, this reflects the actual distribution and prevalence of turkey farms in the region, where broiler chicken farms are more predominant. The limited number of turkey farms in our sample accurately reflects their scarcity in the region. Thus, it is proportional to the local situation. Future studies will aim to increase the sample size and to cover a larger geographic area of the study and achieve an even more balanced representation of different poultry types.

5. Conclusions

Because meat, meat products, and other foodstuffs can be contaminated with enterococci in addition to poultry litter and manure, it is important to continuously examine these bacteria of human, animal, and environmental origin. The systematic analysis of antimicrobial resistance in various Enterococcus spp. sampled from poultry farms in Serbia may provide insights into the epidemiology and determinants of resistance, which could help researchers to develop adequate strategies for antimicrobial stewardship and public health interventions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.V.; methodology, M.V. and D.T.; formal analysis, D.T., B.P. and S.K.; investigation, M.V. and D.L.P.; data curation, M.V. and D.L.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.V.; writing—review and editing, D.L.P.; visualization and editing, N.A.; supervision, M.V. and D.L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia, grant numbers 451-03-66/2024-03/200031 and 451-03-66/2024-03/200143.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia through Contract No: 451-03-66/2024-03/200031 and 451-03-66/2024-03/200143. The authors wish to thank Sofija Bogdanov for her excellent technical assistance and to Milan Đilas for the MALDI-TOF analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Shepard, B.D.; Gilmore, M.S. Antibiotic-resistant enterococci: The mechanism and dynamics of drug introduction and resistance. Microbes Infect. 2002, 4, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Arias, C.A.; Murray, B.E. The rise of the Enterococcus: Beyond vancomycin resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2012, 10, 266–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Krawczyk, B.; Wityk, P.; Gałęcka, M.; Michalik, M. The many faces of Enterococcus spp.—Commensal, probiotic and opportunistic pathogen. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Osman, K.M.; Badr, J.; Orabi, A.; Elbehiry, A.; Saad, A.; Ibrahim, M.D.S.; Hanafi, M.H. Poultry as a vector for emerging multidrug resistant Enterococcus spp: First report of vancomycin (van) and the chloramphenicol-florfenicol (cat-fex-cfr) resistance genes from pigeon and duck faeces. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 128, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bortolaia, V.; Espinosa-Gongora, C.; Guardabassi, L. Human health risks associated with antimicrobial-resistant enterococci and Staphylococcus aureus on poultry meat. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Salam, M.A.; Al-Amin, M.Y.; Salam, M.T.; Pawar, J.S.; Akhter, N.; Rabaan, A.A.; Alqumber, M.A.A. Antimicrobial Resistance: A Growing Serious Threat for Global Public Health. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Nielsen, S.S.; Bicout, D.J.; Calistri, P.; Canali, E.; Drewe, J.A.; Garin-Bastuji, B.; Gonzales Rojas, J.L.; Gortazar Schmidt, C.; Herskin, M.; Michel, V.; et al. Scientific Opinion on the assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials: Poultry. EFSA J. 2021, 19, 7114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nielsen, S.S.; Bicout, D.J.; Calistri, P.; Canali, E.; Drewe, J.A.; Garin-Bastuji, B.; Gonzales Rojas, J.L.; Gortazar Schmidt, C.; Herskin, M.; Michel, V.; et al. Scientific Opinion on the assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): Antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus faecalis in poultry. EFSA J. 2022, 20, 7127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Van den Berghe, E.; De Winter, T.; De Vuyst, L. Enterocin A production by Enterococcus faecium FAIR-E406 is characterized by a temperature-and pH-dependent switch-off mechanism when growth is limited due to nutrient depletion. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 107, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dolka, B.; Chrobak-Chmiel, D.; Czopowicz, M.; Szeleszczuk, P. Characterization of pathogenic Enterococcus cecorum from different poultry groups: Broiler chickens, layers, turkeys, and waterfowl. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nazeer, N.; Uribe-Diaz, S.; Rodriguez-Lecompte, J.C.; Ahmed, M. Antimicrobial peptides as an alternative to relieve antimicrobial growth promoters in poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 2021, 62, 672–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ribeiro, J.; Silva, V.; Monteiro, A.; Vieira-Pinto, M.; Igrejas, G.; Reis, F.S.; Barros, L.; Poeta, P. Antibiotic resistance among gastrointestinal bacteria in broilers: A review focused on Enterococcus spp. and Escherichia coli. Animals 2023, 13, 1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chajecka-Wierzchowska, W.; Zadernowska, A.; Łaniewska-Trokenheim, Ł. Virulence factors of Enterococcus spp. presented in food. LWT 2017, 75, 670–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jung, A.; Rautenschlein, S. Comprehensive report of an Enterococcus cecorum infection in a broiler flock in Northern Germany. BMC Vet. Res. 2014, 10, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lake, A.; Fields, R.; Guerrero, F.; Almuzaini, Y.; Sundaresh, K.; Staffetti, J. Case of Enterococcus cecorum human bacteremia, United States. Healthc. J. Med. 2020, 1, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Woo, P.C.Y.; Tam, D.M.W.; Lau, S.K.P.; Fung, A.M.Y.; Yuen, K.Y. Enterococcus cecorum empyema thoracis successfully treated with cefotaxime. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 919–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Petersen, A.; Chadfield, M.S.; Christensen, J.P.; Christensen, H.; Bisgaard, M. Characterization of small-colony variants of Enterococcus faecalis isolated from chickens with amyloid arthropathy. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 2686–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rulebook on Determining Measures for Early Detection, Diagnosis, Prevention of Spread, Control and Eradication of Poultry Infection with Certain Salmonella Serovars; Official Gazette of RS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2018; Volume 36. Available online: https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/SlGlasnikPortal/eli/rep/sgrs/ministarstva/pravilnik/2018/36/3 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
  19. Dutka-Malen, S.; Evers, S.; Courvalin, P. Detection of glycopeptide resistance genotypes and identification to the species level of clinically relevant Enterococci by PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995, 33, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, M100, 32nd ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Malvern, PA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  21. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs Zone Diameters; European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Växjö, Sweden, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  22. Schwarz, S.; Silley, P.; Simjee, S.; Woodford, N.; van Duijkeren, E.; Johnson, A.P.; Gaastra, W. Editorial: Assessing the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria obtained from animals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65, 601–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhanel, G.G.; Walkty, A.; Vercaigne, L.; Karlowsky, J.A.; Embil, J.; Gin, A.S.; Hoban, D.J. The new fluoroquinolones: A critical review. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. 1999, 10, 207–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Colligon, P. Fluoroquinolone use in food animals. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 1789–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nelson, J.M.; Chiller, T.M.; Powers, J.H.; Angulo, F.J. Fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter species and the withdrawal of fluoroquinolones from use in poultry: A public health success story. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007, 44, 977–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Jovčić, B.; Novović, K.; Filipić, B.; Velhner, M.; Todorović, D.; Matović, K.; Rašić, Z.; Nikolić, S.; Kiškarolj, F.; Kojić, M. Genomic characteristics of colistin-resistant Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Infantis from poultry farms in the Republic of Serbia. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Velhner, M.; Kozoderović, G.; Grego, E.; Galić, N.; Stojanov, I.; Jelesić, Z.; Kehrenberg, C. Clonal spread of Salmonella enterica serovar Infantis in Serbia: Acquisition of mutations in the topoisomerase genes gyrA and parC leads to increased resistance to fluoroquinolones. Zoononses Public Health 2014, 61, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Velhner, M.; Todorović, D.; Grego, E.; Cerar Kišek, T.; Ljubojević, D.; Cvitković Špik, V.; Pajić, M.; Kozoderović, G. Characterisation of multidrug resistant Escherichia coli from poultry litter and poultry carrying virulence genes for evaluation of poultry farm management practice. Eur. Poult. Sci. 2020, 84, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bulajić, N.; Miljković-Selimović, B.; Tambur, Z.; Kocić, B.; Kalevski, K.; Aleksić, E. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter spp.: A review of the literature. Acta Microbiol. Immunol. Hung. 2022, 69, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Van den Bogaard, A.E.; Stobberingh, E.E. Contamination of animal feed by multiresistant enterococci. Lancet 1999, 354, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hao, H.; Sander, P.; Iqbal, Z.; Wang, Y.; Cheng, G.; Yuan, Z. The risk of some veterinary antimicrobial agents on Public Health associated with antimicrobial resistance and their molecular basis. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ahmadpoor, N.; Ahmadrajabi, R.; Esfahani, S.; Hojabri, Z.; Moshafi, M.H.; Saffari, F. High-level resistance to erythromycin and tetracycline and dissemination of resistance determinants among clinical Enteerococci in Iran. Med. Princ. Pract. 2021, 30, 272–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ljubojević, D.; Puvača, N.; Pelić, M.; Todorović, D.; Pajić, M.; Milanov, D.; Velhner, M. Epidemiological significance of poultry litter for spreading the antibiotic-resistant strains of Escherichia coli. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2016, 72, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lester, C.H.; Frimodt-Møller, N.; Sørensen, T.L.; Monnet, D.L.; Hammerum, A.M. In vivo transfer of the vanA resistance gene from an Enterococcus faecium isolate of animal origin to an E. faecium isolate of human origin in the intestines of human volunteers. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 596–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. de Joung, A.; Simjee, S.; Rose, M.; Moyaert, H.; El Garch, F.; Youala, M.; on behalf of the EASSA study group. Antimicrobial resistance monitoring in commensal enterococci from healthy cattle, pigs and chickens across Europe during 2004–14 (EASSA Study). J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 921–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rebelo, A.; Duarte, B.; Ferreira, C.; Mourão, J.; Ribeiro, S.; Freitas, A.R.; Coque, T.M.; Willems, R.; Corander, J.; Piexel, L.; et al. Enterococcus spp. from chicken meat collected 20 years apart overcome multiple stresses occurring in the poultry production chain: Antibiotics, copper and acids. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2023, 384, 109981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Microorganisms 12 01483 g001
Figure 1. The map of the examined epizootiological areas (South Backa and Srem districts).
Figure 1. The map of the examined epizootiological areas (South Backa and Srem districts).
Microorganisms 12 01483 g001
Table 1. Resistotype of Enterococcus spp. isolates from poultry and turkey farms.
Table 1. Resistotype of Enterococcus spp. isolates from poultry and turkey farms.
No.FarmAge of BirdsResistotypePCR/MALDI IdentificationResistance to
Antibiotic Classes
1Broiler breeder farm21 weeksTET, DOXE. faecium1
2Broiler breeder farm46 weeksCIP, TET, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVXE. faecium2
3Broiler breeder farm60 weeksTET, DOXE. faecium1
4Laying hen farm51 weeks-E. faecium-
5Laying hen farm88 weeks-E. faecium-
6Laying hen farm59 weeks-E. hirae-
7Laying hen farm59 weeks-E. hirae-
8Laying hen farm26 weeksERY, TET, DOXE. faecalis2
9Laying hen farm15 weeksTET, DOXE. faecium1
10Laying hen farm120 weeksCIP, TET, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVX, STR300E. faecalis3
11Laying hen farm135 weeks-E. hirae-
12Laying hen farm14 weeksERY, TET, DOX, STR300E. faecalis3
13Laying hen farm15 weeksERY, TET, DOX, STR300E. faecalis3
14Laying hen farm26 weeks-E. durans-
15Broiler farm4 weeksCIP, TET, MXF, NXN, LVXE. faecium2
16Broiler farm4.5 weeksCIP, ERY, CHL, TET, QDF, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVX, STR300E. faecium6
17Broiler farm5 weeksCIP, ERY, TET, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVX, STR300E. faecalis4
18Broiler farm4 weeksCIP, TET, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVXE. faecalis2
19Broiler farm4 weeksCIP, FTN, MXF, NXN, LVXE. hirae2
20Broiler farm6 weeksCIP, ERY, TET, FTN, DOX, MXF, NXNE. thialandicus4
21Broiler farm5 weeksCIP, TET, FTN, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVXE. hirae3
22Broiler farm5 weeksCIP, FTN, MXF, NXN, LVX, STR300E. hirae3
23Broiler farm4 weeks-E. faecalis-
24Broiler farm5 weeks-E. faecium-
25Broiler farm5 weeksCIP, ERY, TET, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVX, STR300E. faecalis4
26Broiler farm4 weeksERY, TET, FTN, DOXE. faecium3
27Broiler farm2 weeksCIP, ERY, TET, QDF, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVXE. faecalis4
28Broiler farm8 weeks-E. faecalis-
29Broiler farm5 weeksCIP, TET, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVXE. faecalis2
30Broiler farm6 weeksTET, DOXE. faecium1
31Broiler farm6 weeksERY, TET, DOX, STR300, MXFE. faecium4
32Broiler farm5 weeksERY, STR300 E. faecalis2
33Broiler farm5 weeksTET, DOX E. faecalis1
34Broiler farm6 weeksCIP, ERY, TET, DOX, MXF, NXN, LVX, STR300E. faecium4
35Broiler farm1 day-E. faecium-
36Broiler farm4 weeks-E. faecium-
37Broiler farm5 weeksCIP, TET, MXF, NXN, LVX, STR300 E. faecalis3
38Broiler farm4 weeksERY, TETE. faecalis2
39Turkey farm6 weeks-E. faecium-
40Turkey farm16 weeks-E. faecium-
Antibiotic disk abbreviation: ciprofloxacin (CIP), erythromycin (ERY), chloramphenicol (CHL), tetracycline (TET), nitrofurantoin (FTN), quinupristin–dalfopristin (QDF), doxycycline (DOX), moxifloxacin (MXF), norfloxacin (NXN), levofloxacin (LVX), streptomycin (STR300). -—Susceptible.
Table 2. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterococcus spp. isolates from different types of farms.
Table 2. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterococcus spp. isolates from different types of farms.
Type of FarmNumber (percent) of MDR IsolatesPercent of Total SamplesMDR Species (%)
Broiler breeder farm0/3 0/40 -
Laying hen farm3/11 (27.27%)3/40 (7.5%)E. faecalis (100%)
Broiler farm11/24 (45.83%)11/40 (27.5%)E. faecalis (36.36%)
E. faecium (36.36%)
E. hirae (18.18%)
E. thialandicus (9.09%)
Turkey farm0/2 0/40 -
Total14/40 (35%)
Table 3. Antibiotic resistance of Enterococcus spp. isolates.
Table 3. Antibiotic resistance of Enterococcus spp. isolates.
Species (n; % of Isolates) Type of Farm (Number of Resistant Isolates)Antibiotic Resistance (Number of Isolates)
CIPERYCHLTETFTNQDFDOXMXFNXNLVXSTR
E. faecium (10; 25%)Broiler breeder farm (3)1 3 3111
Laying hens farm (1) 1 1
Broiler farm (6)34161154333
E. faecalis (13; 32.5%)Laying hens farm (4)13 4 41113
Broiler farm (9)658 66664
E. hirae (3; 7.5%)Broiler farm (3)3 13 13331
E. thialandicus (1; 2.5%)Broiler farm (1)11 11 111
Total (27; 67.5%) 1513124512116151411
Antibiotic disks abbreviation: ciprofloxacin (CIP), erythromycin (ERY), chloramphenicol (CHL), tetracycline (TET), nitrofurantoin (FTN), quinupristin–dalfopristin (QDF),doxycycline (DOX), moxifloxacin (MXF), norfloxacin (NXN), levofloxacin (LVX), streptomycin (STR). None of the isolates were resistant to ampicillin (AMP), gentamicin (GMN), fosfomycin (FOS), linezolid (LZD), vancomycin (VAN), teicoplanin (TEC), or tigecycline (TGC).
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

Velhner, M.; Prunić, B.; Aleksić, N.; Todorović, D.; Knežević, S.; Ljubojević Pelić, D. Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterococcus Isolates from Poultry Farms in the Republic of Serbia (Autonomous Province of Vojvodina). Microorganisms 2024, 12, 1483. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071483

AMA Style

Velhner M, Prunić B, Aleksić N, Todorović D, Knežević S, Ljubojević Pelić D. Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterococcus Isolates from Poultry Farms in the Republic of Serbia (Autonomous Province of Vojvodina). Microorganisms. 2024; 12(7):1483. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071483

Chicago/Turabian Style

Velhner, Maja, Bojana Prunić, Nevenka Aleksić, Dalibor Todorović, Slobodan Knežević, and Dragana Ljubojević Pelić. 2024. "Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterococcus Isolates from Poultry Farms in the Republic of Serbia (Autonomous Province of Vojvodina)" Microorganisms 12, no. 7: 1483. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071483

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