Next Article in Journal
In Vitro Effect of Three-Antibiotic Combinations plus Potential Antibiofilm Agents against Biofilm-Producing Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare Clinical Isolates
Previous Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Peptide Conjugated on Graphene Oxide-Containing Sulfonated Polyetheretherketone Substrate for Effective Antibacterial Activities against Staphylococcus aureus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/antibiotics12091408
antibiotics-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacteria Isolated from Biofilm in Meat Processing Units

by
Alexandra Ban-Cucerzan
*,
Adriana Morar
*,
Emil Tîrziu
and
Kálmán Imre
Department of Animal Production and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timişoara, 300645 Timișoara, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(9), 1408; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091408
Submission received: 19 July 2023 / Revised: 18 August 2023 / Accepted: 4 September 2023 / Published: 5 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Antibiotics in Animal Health)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to assess the hygiene of pork, beef, and poultry carcasses and to determine the phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility of the bacteria embedded in the biofilm formed on the carcasses kept in cooling chambers for at least three days. The level of hygiene was assessed by determining the total aerobic colony count (TACC) and the Enterobacteriaceae level in different sampling points of the carcasses, along with the detection of E. coli and Pseudomonas spp. embedded in the biofilm. Furthermore, the E. coli and Pseudomonas spp. isolates were tested for antimicrobial resistance profiles. A total of 130 samples collected from pork, beef, and poultry from processing units were analyzed to determine the total aerobic colony count as well as to measure the level of Enterobacteriaceae found on the carcasses. The antimicrobial susceptibility of 44 Escherichia coli and eight Pseudomonas spp. strains isolated from the carcasses were assessed using the Vitek 2 system using two different cards. Overall, the regulatory limits for the TACC were exceeded in 7.6% of the samples, and 65% of the samples exceeded the regulatory limits for Enterobacteriaceae levels. The antimicrobial susceptibility tests of the E. coli isolates analyzed with the AST-GN27 card revealed the highest resistance to be that towards ampicillin (76.1%), followed by cefazolin (71.4%), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (61.9%), nitrofurantoin (52.3%), cefoxitin (47.6%), tetracycline (38.1%), piperacillin, norfloxacin (19%), trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (11.9%), cefotaxime (9.5%), ceftazidime, cefazolin, amikacin, gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin (4.7%). However, all of the isolates were sensitive to piperacillin-tazobactam and imipenem. Thirty-two (61.5%; 95% CI 47.9–73.5) out of fifty-two isolates exhibited multidrug resistance, resulting in the expression of 10 resistance profiles. The findings of this study highlight serious hygienic and sanitary deficiencies within the meat processing units and demonstrate that the resulting meat can harbor Multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas spp., both of which pose a serious public health risk. However, further research with a larger number of samples is required to reach thorough results.

1. Introduction

Irrational antimicrobial usage in farm animals is the main factor in the development of Multidrug-resistant bacteria in meat and meat products [1]. The antimicrobial resistance phenomenon (AMR) is considered a global public health concern, leading to Multidrug-resistant bacteria that can cause life-threatening diseases [2].
The costs of the presence and spread of the MDR bacteria are very high, as it directly affects productivity through prolonged treatments and the need for more expensive and intensive care. Also, standard procedures such as surgery, cancer chemotherapy, or organ transplantation might increase the risk [3].
The European Union’s (EU) Farm to Fork strategy aims to reduce the total antimicrobial usage in farm animals, and in 2021, the EU Member States will achieve an 18% reduction in total sales. The initiative targets a 50% reduction in antimicrobial sales by 2030 [4].
The AMR phenomenon is also enhanced by the capacity to form a biofilm. Biofilms are intricate microbial ecosystems made up of one or more species embedded in an extracellular matrix of different compositions [5,6]. Current research shows that the bacteria embedded in the biofilm are not exposed to the corresponding effective dose of the antimicrobial agent because the biofilm matrix limits drug penetration, resulting in the emergence of MDR. There are numerous foodborne pathogens (e.g., Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica, Staphylococcus aureus, Campylobacter jejuni, Pseudomonas spp., etc.) that can build biofilms. Most of the biofilms are formed in parts of the meat factories that are challenging to effectively sanitize and, over time, can also exhibit resistance to the utilized sanitizers [7,8,9,10,11]. P. aeruginosa is an opportunistic bacteria that may colonize and persist in nearly any environment. The infections pose a serious medical problem because of the easily acquired antimicrobial resistance of the bacteria [12,13].
The formation and quantity of the biofilm can also be influenced by the exposure temperature. Research in this field showed that lower temperatures (22 °C) will influence a higher production of biofilm compared to temperatures above 30 °C. This can be due to the production mechanism of specific components (e.g., aggregative fimbriae of Salmonella spp.) at specific temperatures, which for most of the bacteria are below 30 °C. The ability to form biofilm at low temperatures represents an advantage for the pathogenic bacteria that will persist in the environment and will continue to raise a serious health concern for the food industry [14].
The presence of E. coli is widely tested through European Food Safety Surveillance Programs aimed to assess food hygiene since the bacteria is recognized as an important indicator of fecal contamination [15]. In terms of AMR, E. coli-type bacteria are used as sentinels in humans, as well as animals, since they can survive in a variety of conditions and rapidly acquire antimicrobial resistance that can be passed to other bacteria via plasmid mediation. Furthermore, the MDR E. coli from the meat can represent a contamination source for humans that come into direct contact with uncooked or undercooked meat [1].
Contamination in meat processing can occur during several stages of the processing line. The carcasses in the meat processing units could be contaminated during transport from the slaughterhouse or during handling within the facility [16]. The Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1441/2007 establishes a maximum contamination level of 5.0 log CFU/cm2 for the total aerobic colony count (TACC) and 2.5 log CFU/cm2 for the Enterobacteriaceae isolated from beef carcasses prior to refrigeration, ensuring that the meat is obtained in hygienic conditions [17]. The contamination level of the carcasses in meat processing units should not exceed the established limits, especially due to the fact that the meat has already been subjected to the chilling stage in the slaughterhouse, which restricts bacterial development.
The aim of this study was to assess the hygiene status of pork, beef, and poultry carcasses and to determine the antimicrobial resistance profiles of the bacteria embedded in the biofilm formed on the carcasses. The hygiene status was assessed by determining the total aerobic colony count (TACC) and the Enterobacteriaceae level at different points of the carcasses, along with the detection of E. coli and Pseudomonas spp. embedded in the biofilm. Furthermore, the E. coli and Pseudomonas spp. isolates were tested for antimicrobial resistance profiles, and correlations between similar resistance patterns among the three species were assessed. The current study provides important information regarding the hygiene levels of meat sold in Romania. At the present moment, there are few studies that provide data on the occurrence of MDR E. coli strains in meat and meat products sold in Romania [18,19,20,21,22]; however, most of the studies focused on identifying the MDR in live animals.

2. Results

2.1. Total Aerobic Colony Count Level

Microbiological analysis of 130 samples showed satisfactory TACC levels (<5.0 log CFU/cm2) for 120 (92.3%; 95% CI 86.4–95.7) samples and unsatisfactory levels for a significantly lower (p < 0.001) number of samples, more specifically 10 (88.4%; 95% CI 4.2–13.5) samples (>5.0 log CFU/cm2). Overall, 2 (10%; 95% CI 27.9–30.1) out of 20 sampling points exceeded the daily average for the TACC according to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1441/2007 [17].
The level of TACC on the pork carcasses ranged from 136 ± 2.1 CFU/cm2 to 287,150 ± 1207.5 CFU/cm2, with the highest level of contamination being on the inner thigh area followed by the axillary area and the ventral abdominal area (Figure 1). The lowest contamination level was obtained in the neck area. The overall TACC level for the pork carcasses was established at 3.8 × 104 and was considered unsatisfactory.
The TACC level was increased on the ventral parts of the pork carcasses compared with the dorsal parts. For the dorsal parts, the average TACC level was 1644.6 ± 113.3 CFU/cm2, compared with the ventral parts, where the level was 75,774 ± 10,561.1 CFU/cm2.
For the beef carcasses, the level of contamination ranged from 160.1 ± 54.2 CFU/cm2 to 233,700.4 ± 5290.1 CFU/cm2, with the lowest level of contamination obtained in the ribcage area, and the highest level reported in the ventral thoracoabdominal region, followed by the chest and inner thigh area (Figure 1). The overall TACC values were 3.1 × 104 CFU/cm2 and were considered unsatisfactory.
Similar to the pork carcasses, the TACC level for the beef carcasses was higher on the ventral parts of the carcasses, with an average of 73,083.5 ± 18,115.4 CFU/cm2, in contrast to the dorsal parts, where the level was 2141.3 ± 150.9 CFU/cm2.
The poultry carcasses had the following average contamination level: 177.4 ± 50.3 CFU/cm2 in the axillary region, 340.5 ± 71.1 CFU/cm2 in the back area, and 795.1 ± 224.0 CFU/cm2 in the chest area (Figure 1). The overall TACC level was 4.3 × 102 CFU/cm2 and was considered satisfactory.

2.2. Enterobacteriaceae Level

The Enterobacteriaceae level of contamination was <1.5 log for 45 (34.6%; 95% CI 26.9–43.1) of the samples, while a significantly higher (p < 0.004) number of samples (n = 85) indicated a higher level of Enterobacteriaceae and were classified as unsatisfactory according to Regulation (EC) No 1441/2007 [17] that establishes a limit of <3.0 log CFU/cm2 for pork carcasses and <2.5 CFU/cm2 for beef carcasses. The detailed distribution of TACC and Enterobacteriaceae on meat carcass samples according to the carcass origin (beef, pork, or poultry) is presented in Table 1.
In pork carcasses, the Enterobacteriaceae level exceeded the maximal reference value in five sampling points, namely the inner thigh, the coccygeal area, the ventral abdominal area, the lumbar region, and the sternum.
The Enterobacteriaceae level in beef carcasses exceeded the maximal reference value in three sampling points: the inner thigh, ventral thoracoabdominal region, and gluteal muscle area. In poultry carcasses, all of the sampling points exceeded the regulatory limits.
The microbiological analysis of 130 samples (beef, pork, and poultry) showed that 30.7% were contaminated with E. coli, with a distribution of 60% on pork carcasses and 22.2% on poultry carcasses. These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Overall, 95 (73%; 95% CI 64.8–79.7) of the carcasses revealed values <1 CFU/cm2 of E. coli.
Serratia spp. (S. liquefaciens and S. marcescens) was present in 40 (30.7%; 95% CI 23.4–39.1) samples and had a distribution of 25% on beef carcasses, 37.5% on pork carcasses, and 37.5% on poultry carcasses. These differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Enterobacter spp. (E. cloacae and E. amnigenus) was isolated from 25 (19.23%; 95% CI 13.3–26.8) samples. E. cloacae was isolated from pork (15/20) and beef (5/20) carcasses, and E. amnigenus was isolated only from pork carcasses.
Pseudomonas spp. (P. aeruginosa and P. putida) was isolated from 20 (15.3%; 95% CI 10.1–22.5) samples. P. aeruginosa was isolated from 6/10 pork samples and from 7/10 beef samples, whereas P. putida was isolated from 4/10 pork samples and from 3/10 beef samples.
Pseudomonas spp. on the pork carcasses was isolated from six sampling points, namely the neck area, lumbar area, chest, sternum, ventral abdominal area, and intercostal area, whereas on the beef carcasses, it was isolated from one sampling point (ventral thoracoabdominal area).
No significant differences (p > 0.05) were obtained regarding the contamination level on different origin carcasses. The results regarding the isolated strains and contamination levels are reported in Table 2.

2.3. Identification and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles

The Vitek 2 system identified the 52 chosen colonies as E. coli (n = 44), P. aeruginosa (n = 4), and P. putida (n = 4). Table 3 provides details related to the strains identified with the Vitek 2 system depending on the source of origin.
Table 4 provides information regarding the antimicrobial resistance profile of 42 E. coli strains tested with the AST-GN27 card.
Table 5 provides information regarding the strains (E. coli (n = 2), P. aeruginosa (n = 4), and P. putida (n = 4)) that were tested with the AST-N093 card.
E. coli isolates (n = 42) processed with the AST-GN27 card expressed resistance in descending order to AMP (76.1%), CFZ (71.4%), AMC (61.9%), NIT (52.3%), CXT (47.6%), TET (38.1%), PIP, NOR (19%), STX (11.9%), CTX (9.5%), CAZ, CPM, AMK, GEN, and CIP (4.7%); however, all of the isolates were susceptible to TZP and IMP. Additionally, the remaining E. coli isolates (n = 2), as determined by the AST-N093 card, were resistant to PIP, TIC, TIM, CAZ, CMP, PEF, SXT, and AZM (100%) and susceptible to TZP, IMP, MEM, AMK, GEN, ISP, TOB, CIP, MIN, and COL.
The P. aeruginosa isolates (n = 4) processes with the AST-N093 card expressed resistance to TIM, TIC, and AZM (100%), whereas P. putida strains expressed resistance to TIM, TIC, AZM (100%), and TZP (50%).
Thirty-two (61.5%; 95% CI 47.9–73.5) out of 52 isolates exhibited MDR, resulting in the expression of 10 resistance profiles (Table 6), while two (3%; 95%–CI 1–12) isolates were susceptible to all tested antibiotics. The MDR samples had the following distribution: 18 (34.6%; 95% CI 23.1–48.2) samples were isolated from pork carcasses, 10 (19%; 95% CI 10.8–31.9) from poultry carcasses, and four (7%; 95% CI 3–18.1) from beef carcasses. Three similar patterns of antibiotic resistance were observed: one of the patterns (AMP, AMC, CFZ, CXT, NIT) was identified in all three species (pork, beef, and poultry); one was similar for beef and pork carcasses (AMP, AMC, CFZ, CXT, TET, NIT); and one was similar for pork and poultry carcasses (AMP, PIP, NOR, TET). Statistical differences (p < 0.05) were obtained regarding the distribution of the MDR on the poultry carcasses (n = 45 samples) and (p < 0.007) on the beef carcasses (n = 35 samples). Statistical differences were also obtained regarding similar expression patterns of antimicrobial resistance among the tested isolates and their isolation sources (p < 0.005).

3. Discussions

The average meat consumption (kg/person per month) in Romania in 2020 was 0.3 for beef, 1.3 for pork, 1.6 for poultry, and 1.4 for meat products. The main sources of supply for the population are the local processing units and local stores, which are also supplied by the local processing units [23].
The current study evaluated the hygienic conditions of beef, pork, and poultry carcasses during the storage period in three meat processing units from Timiș County and highlighted serious deficiencies reflected by the high number of samples (65%) that exceeded the acceptable level of Enterobacteriaceae. These high levels of contamination are generally attributed to leakage of intestinal contents, cross-contamination from the hind part of the body, and inappropriate handling and/or storage conditions [24]. The results show that appropriate hygiene measures were not successfully implemented.
The sampling points with excessive Enterobacteriaceae levels reflect the lack of good practices during the slaughtering process and inappropriate transport and storage conditions that would normally reduce the multiplication of the Enterobacteriaceae [15], especially in poultry carcasses, where all of the analyzed samples registered values above the regulatory limit.
Taking into consideration the high level of Enterobacteriaceae that was identified on all the analyzed carcasses, a serious public health risk arises. Although the presence of Salmonella spp. has not been investigated in this study, the high level of Enterobacteriaceae could indicate a dangerous contamination with pathogenic bacteria like Salmonella spp.
The presence of Serratia spp. is detrimental to beef, pork, and poultry meat quality as they can grow inside the package during distribution and can cause rapid spoilage even under low-temperature conditions, a great loss of valuable protein, and hazardous effects on human health [25].
The two identified species, S. liquefaciens and S. marcescens, are considered the most pathogenic species of the genus and can cause infections in immunocompromised individuals. In the present study, 30.7% of the samples (pork, beef, and poultry) were contaminated with Serratia spp. The findings suggest a lack of hygiene during the slaughtering process. Therefore, precautionary measures should be taken to limit the contamination at the slaughterhouse: sterilization of the knife in hot water, excision of the parts with visible contamination, and washing the carcass with drinking water.
The increased level of Pseudomonas spp. contamination of the carcass surface identified in the processing units is the result of contamination during transport and bacterial multiplication at low temperatures. It can also occur when the carcasses are stored for an extended period of time. The use of contaminated raw material in the production process results in highly contaminated products that require heat treatment at higher temperatures and prolonged periods of exposure; in addition, the preservation capacity is greatly reduced [26].
The TACC levels were considered acceptable for 92.3% of the collected samples; the highest level of contamination was identified on the ventral abdominal area of the pork carcasses (5.4 log CFU/cm2). Comparatively, the ventral thoracoabdominal area of beef carcasses had a level of 5.3 log CFU/cm2.
Overall, TACC levels were higher in pork carcasses than in beef and poultry carcasses. The average was 2.6 log CFU/cm2 for poultry carcasses, 4.5 log CFU/cm2 for beef carcasses, and 4.6 log CFU/cm2 for pork carcasses.
In the present study, the analyzed E. coli isolates expressed the highest resistance to ampicillin (AMP) and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (AMC), which are commonly used in our country. The high resistance rates for β-lactam antimicrobial agents among the 44 E. coli isolates are similar to other studies [27,28] and are primarily mediated by β-lactamases, which hydrolyze the β-lactam ring and thus inactivate the antibiotic [29].
The EFSA 2021 report on E. coli antibiotic-resistant strains isolated from pork and beef revealed increasing trends for ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, cefotaxime, and tetracycline resistance [30].
Although cephalosporin resistance is defined as stable and modest in the same publication [30], in the present study, cephalosporin resistance reached up to 57%, and 81% of the MDR patterns contained a cephalosporin component.
The association between tetracycline, ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole, and trimethoprim as the most frequently represented patterns in European countries is mentioned in the EFSA 2021 report [30] and is similar to the patterns shown in the current study.
Although nitrofurantoin resistance is rare due to its ability to have few bacterial targets [31], in the present study, 52.3% of the isolated strains expressed resistance to the antimicrobial agent.
In the current study, some of the isolates (4.7%) expressed resistance to ciprofloxacin, although other studies concluded that ciprofloxacin has the potential to control biofilm formation produced by E. coli and P. aeruginosa, limiting the development of resistant bacteria [32,33].
The analyzed isolates were susceptible to imipenem and meropenem; similar findings were reported in the Czech Republic [34], Italy [1], Belgium [35], and also in the EFSA 2021 report [30].
This susceptibility might be due to the fact that meropenem is also resistant to the majority of beta-lactamases (penicillinases, cephalosporinases, and even metallo-beta-lactamases like NDH-metallo-beta-lactamases), which is another reason it has not been misused. Other studies have identified E. coli isolates that are up to 10% resistant to meropenem in carcasses and up to 22% resistant in food [36].
The common antimicrobial resistance patterns (AMP, AMC, CFZ, CXT, and NIT) expressed by E. coli isolated from pork, beef, and poultry were identified in only one of the processing units. This finding could indicate the formation of a biofilm matrix that contaminates the meat in the processing unit. The antimicrobial resistance profiles identified in the present study suggest that the antibiotics are not used rationally based on an antibiogram, allowing the formation of Multidrug-resistant bacteria that express resistance to up to five classes of antibiotics.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sample Collection and Bacterial Isolation

Samples were taken from three meat processing units in Timiș County, Romania. Each was sampled during a single visit. Scrapings and swabs were used to collect samples from the surface of carcasses that had been kept in cooling chambers for at least three days. The aseptically collected samples were each packaged in a polyethylene bag (Sterile Ziploc®, Sklar Instruments, West Chester, PA, USA), labeled with the sampling date and the area, and delivered under refrigeration conditions (4 °C) to the Food Hygiene and Microbiological Risk Assessment Laboratory, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Timisoara [37].
Twenty samples were collected for biofilm screening by scraping the surfaces of the carcasses using sterile surgical blades (SMI, Steinerberg, Belgium) that were subsequently placed in sterile tubes (Deltalabs, Barcelona, Spain).
For the pork carcasses, 10 sampling points were chosen, namely: the masseter muscles, neck area, chest, sternum, intercostal region, axillary region, ventral abdominal area, lumbar region, coccygeal area, and inner thigh area.
For the beef carcasses, seven sampling points were established, namely: the neck area, chest, rib cage area, thoracoabdominal region (dorsal and ventral), inner thigh area, and gluteal muscles area.
For the poultry carcasses, the samples were collected from three sampling points: the chest, axillary region, and back area. The sampling points were adapted from the protocols presented by Barros et al. [38]. The 20 resulting samples were stained with acridine orange (Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany) for one minute, with the dehydrated samples being treated with Hanks modified solution (without D glucose and phenol red) and fixed in ethanol 96% for two minutes before being placed on the slide. A Leica DM 2500 epifluorescent microscope (Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany) with Leica EL 6000 external UV light source was used to visualize the biofilm. The machine was calibrated at a wavelength of 488 nm, and the visualization was performed with 63× and 100× immersion objectives.
Sample collection for the microbiological testing was performed from a surface of 100 cm2, using sterile swabs (Deltalabs, Barcelona, Spain) immersed in physiological peptone solution (PBS, ThermoFisher Scientific, Canada) [38]. The sampling points were identical to the points established for biofilm detection. The number of analyzed carcasses was higher, namely five pork carcasses (50 samples), five beef carcasses (35 samples), and 15 poultry carcasses (45 samples), resulting in a total of 130 swab samples. The sampling protocol was conducted according to ISO 17604/2015 [39].
In the laboratory, the swab samples were immersed in 9 mL of preheated (45 °C) peptone-buffered solution (PBS; pH = 7.5 ± 0.1). Next, serial dilutions of up to 10−3 (1:1000) in sterile 0.5% peptone water were prepared; subsequently, 1 mL from each dilution was transferred into a sterile Petri dish (in duplicate) with specific isolation media.
The total aerobic colony count (TACC) was assessed according to ISO 4833/2003 [40] and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1441/2007 using a PCA culture medium and an incubation period of 72 h at 30 °C [17].
The Enterobacteriaceae level was assessed according to SR ISO 21528-2/2007 [41]. The samples were cultured on VRBG agar (violet, red, bile, and glucose agar; Biokar Diagnostics, Allone, France) at 37 °C for 24 h. Specific red and violet colonies were subjected to oxidase production and glucose fermentation tests.
According to the regulatory standards established by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1441/2007 [17] for Enterobacteriaceae and TACC, the results were categorized into the following three categories: (1) satisfactory (if the daily mean Log is m, an acceptable level of contamination); (2) acceptable (if it is between m and M, a dangerous level of contamination); or (3) unsatisfactory (if the daily mean is M). The m and M corresponded to 3.5 and 5.0 log CFU/cm2 for TACC and to 1.5 and 2.5 log CFU/cm2 for Enterobacteriaceae, respectively.
The identification of E. coli was carried out according to ISO 16649-2/2001 [42] on a chromogenic selective medium consisting of tryptone bile with X-glucuronide (TBX) agar (Oxoid, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK) at 37 °C, for 4 h and then at 43.5 °C for 24 h. Pseudomonas spp. were isolated on Cetrimid agar (Biokar Diagnostics, Allone, France) at a temperature of 37 °C for 18–24 h according to ISO 13720:2010 [43].

4.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

Before each experiment, the strains were streaked on BHI agar (Brain Heart Infusion, Oxoid; Biokar Diagnostics, Allone, France) plates, and they were subsequently incubated at 37 °C for 24 h.
A total of 52 (pork (n = 32), beef (n = 10), and poultry (n = 10)) colonies were chosen for biochemical characterization and antimicrobial testing. Species were determined by using the automated compact system Vitek2 (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) to analyze all of the biochemical characteristics of the isolates. The reference strains P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 and E. coli ATCC 25922 were used as quality controls. The stock cultures were stored at −80 °C in glycerol, and BHI (Brain Heart Infusion, Oxoid; Biokar Diagnostics, Allone, France) and were subsequently incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. The antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of the isolated strains was also determined using the Vitek2 system. In this regard, two different Gram-negative specific cards, namely, AST-GN27 and AST-N093, were applied to monitor the antimicrobial resistance profiles of the isolates. The used cards included a total of 27 antimicrobial substances, from 11 classes, as follows: β-lactams—ampicillin [AMP 2–32 µg/mL], amoxicillin/clavulanic acid [AMC 1–32 µg/mL], piperacillin [PIP 4–128 µg/mL], piperacillin-tazobactam [TZP 1–32 µg/mL], ticarcillin [TIC], ticarcillin/clavulanic acid [TIM]; cephalosporins– cefazolin [CFZ 4–64 µg/mL], cefoxitin [CXT 4–64 µg/mL], cefotaxime [CTX 1–64 µg/mL], ceftazidime [CAZ 1–64 µg/mL], cefepime [CPM 1–64 µg/mL]; carbapenems—imipenem [IPM 0.25–16 µg/mL], meropenem [MEM]; aminoglycosides–amikacin [AMK 2–64 µg/mL], gentamicin [GEN 1–16 µg/mL], isepamicin [ISP], tobramycin [TOB]; fluoroquinolones–ciprofloxacin [CIP 0.25–4 µg/mL], norfloxacin [NOR 6–512 µg/mL], pefloxacin [PEF]; tetracyclines-tetracycline [TET 1–16 µg/mL], minocycline [MIN]; nitrofuran derivative–nitrofurantoin [NIT 0.5–16 µg/mL]; sulfonamides–trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole [SXT 20–320 µg/mL]; monobactams—aztreonam [AZM]; polymyxins—colistin [COL]. The isolates were categorized by the Vitek2 equipment as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant to the tested antimicrobials. The isolates that expressed an intermediate resistance level to a certain drug were considered resistant [44,45]. The multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates were those that proved resistant to at least one antimicrobial agent across three or more antimicrobial classes [44,46].

4.3. Statistical Analysis

Pearson’s chi-square (ꭓ2) test was used to statistically determine distributional variations according to the origin of the sample. For p < 0.05, the findings were considered statistically significant.

5. Conclusions

The current study found that all three meat processing units (for pigs, cattle, and poultry) had identical circumstances for the formation of biofilms. High levels of Enterobacteriaceae and biofilm were present on the carcass after the third day of storage. The isolated bacteria were MDR bacteria, and their presence represents a danger for the consumer, especially if the meat is consumed raw or undercooked. The current study provides background knowledge on the antimicrobial resistance phenotypes of E. coli and P. aeruginosa strains in the screened area. This study reveals the need to find solutions to reduce the development of biofilm on the stored carcasses, along with improving hygienic conditions in the processing units and reducing antimicrobial treatments to prevent the development of MDR bacteria. To better understand the antimicrobial resistance phenomenon of significant foodborne pathogens in Romania, additional studies using molecular tools are still required to look for antibiotic-resistance genes and mobile genetic elements that are responsible for genetic material transfer between the bacteria embedded in the biofilm.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M. and K.I.; Data curation, A.B.-C.; Formal analysis, A.B.-C. and A.M.; Funding acquisition, A.M. and K.I.; Investigation, A.M.; Methodology, A.B.-C. and A.M.; Resources, A.M. and E.T.; Software, A.M.; Supervision, A.M. and K.I.; Validation, A.B.-C., A.M., E.T. and K.I.; Visualization, A.M. and E.T.; Writing—original draft, A.B.-C.; Writing—review and editing, A.M. and K.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is supported by the project “Increasing the impact of excellence research on the capacity for innovation and technology transfer within USAMVB Timișoara” code 6PFE, submitted in the competition Program 1—development of the national system of research—development, Subprogram 1.2—institutional performance, institutional development projects—development projects of excellence in RDI.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We were able to carry out this research with the support of the Interdisciplinary Research Platform belonging to the University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timișoara, where the microbiologic and antimicrobial testing analyses were conducted. The authors are extremely grateful to Florea Tiana for her English editing assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rega, M.; Andriani, L.; Cavallo, S.; Bonilauri, P.; Bonardi, S.; Conter, M.; Carmosino, I.; Bacci, C. Antimicrobial Resistant E. coli in Pork and Wild Boar Meat: A Risk to Consumers. Foods 2022, 11, 3662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Parmanik, A.; Das, S.; Kar, B.; Bose, A.; Dwivedi, G.R.; Pandey, M.M. Current Treatment Strategies Against Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria: A Review. Curr. Microbiol. 2022, 79, 388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. WHO. Antimicrobial Resistance. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance (accessed on 15 November 2022).
  4. European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC). Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/veterinary-regulatory/overview/antimicrobial-resistance/european-surveillance-veterinary-antimicrobial-consumption-esvac (accessed on 5 January 2023).
  5. Asma, S.T.; Imre, K.; Morar, A.; Herman, V.; Acaroz, U.; Mukhtar, H.; Gerlach, R. An overview of biofilm formation–combating strategies and mechanisms of action of antibiofilm agents. Life 2022, 12, 1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ghaly, T.M.; Chow, L.; Asher, A.J.; Waldron, L.S.; Gillings, M.R. Evolution of class 1 integrons: Mobilization and dispersal via foodborne bacteria. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Carrascosa, C.; Raheem, D.; Ramos, F.; Saraiva, A.; Raposo, A. Microbial Biofilms in the Food Industry-A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Chen, X.; Bauermeister, L.J.; Hill, G.N.; Singh, M.; Bilgili, S.F.; McKee, S.R. Efficacy of various antimicrobials on reduction of Salmonella and Campylobacter and quality attributes of ground chicken obtained from poultry parts treated in a postchill decontamination tank. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 1882–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chylkova, T.; Cadena, M.; Ferreiro, A.; Pitesky, M. Susceptibility of Salmonella biofilm and planktonic bacteria to common disinfectant agents used in poultry processing. J. Food Prot. 2017, 80, 1072–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Galie, S.; García-Gutiérrez, C.; Miguélez, E.M.; Villar, C.J.; Lombó, F. Biofilms in the food industry: Health aspects and control methods. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Morente, E.O.; Fernandez-Fuentes, M.A.; Burgos, M.J.G.; Abriouel, H.; Pulido, R.P.; Galvez, A. Biocide tolerance in bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 162, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De la Fuente-Núñez, C.; Reffuveille, F.; Fernández, L.; Hancock, R.E. Bacterial biofilm development as a multicellular adaptation: Antibiotic resistance and new therapeutic strategies. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2013, 16, 580–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Qin, S.; Xiao, W.; Zhou, C.; Pu, Q.; Deng, X.; Lan, L.; Liang, H.; Song, X.; Wu, M. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Pathogenesis, virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, interaction with host, technology advances and emerging therapeutics. Signal Transduct. Target Ther. 2022, 7, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Piras, F.; Fois, F.; Consolati, S.G.; Mazza, R.; Mazzette, R. Influence of temperature, source, and serotype on biofilm formation of Salmonella enterica isolates from pig slaughterhouses. J. Food Prot. 2015, 78, 1875–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Belluco, S.; Barco, L.; Roccato, A.; Ricci, A. Escherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on poultry carcasses along the slaughterline: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Control 2016, 60, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Monger, X.C.; Gilbert, A.A.; Saucier, L.; Vincent, A.T. Antibiotic Resistance: From Pig to Meat. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1441/2007 of 5 December 2007 Amending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:322:0012:0029:EN:PDF (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  18. Dan, S.D.; Tabaran, A.; Mihaiu, L.; Mihaiu, M. Antibiotic susceptibility and prevalence of foodborne pathogens in poultry meat in Romania. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2015, 9, 035–041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Forgaciu, A.; Tabaran, A.; Colobatiu, L.; Mihaiu, R.; Dan, S.D.; Mihaiu, M. Concerning Increase in Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Pathogenic Strains of Salmonella Isolated in Poultry Meat Products. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zaulet, M.; Dumitrache, R.; Tanasuica, R.; Nichita, C.; Kevorkian, S.E.M.; Buburuzan, L. Prevalence of some foodborne pathogens in meat products in Romania. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2016, 21, 11949–11958. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gaspar, C.M.; Cocora, Z.M.; Brudiu, I.; Lazarescu, C.F.; Popovici, R.A.; Tigmeanu, C.V.; Tibru, I. Absorbent food PADS from meat packages–potential source of contamination. Rev. De Chim. 2019, 70, 784–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Imre, K.; Herman, V.; Morar, A. Scientific achievements in the study of the occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of major foodborne pathogenic bacteria in foods and food processing environments in Romania: Review of the last decade. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 5134764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Institutul Național de Statistică. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed on 21 March 2023).
  24. Barco, L.; Belluco, S.; Roccato, A.; Ricci, A. A systematic review of studies on Escherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae on beef carcasses at the slaughterhouse. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 207, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nakamura, A.; Takahashi, H.; Koike, F.; Kuda, T.; Kobayashi, M. Transition of microbial contamination on the surface of carcass during the cattle slaughter process. Food Microbiol. 2023, 112, 104245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Elbehiry, A.; Marzouk, E.; Aldubaib, M.; Moussa, I.; Abalkhail, A.; Ibrahem, M.; Rawway, M. Pseudomonas species prevalence, protein analysis, and antibiotic resistance: An evolving public health challenge. AMB Express 2022, 12, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Brinas, L.; Zarazaga, M.; Sáenz, Y.; Ruiz-Larrea, F.; Torres, C. β-Lactamases in ampicillin-resistant Escherichia coli isolates from foods, humans, and healthy animals. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002, 46, 3156–3163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Zheng, Y.; Chang, J.; Zhang, W.; Lin, J.; Yin, J.; Yin, Y.; Su, Y. Analysis of Escherichia coli Resistance to Ampicillin. Research Square 2023. preprint (Version 1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bush, K.; Bradford, P.A. β-Lactams and β-Lactamase Inhibitors: An Overview. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2016, 6, a025247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union One Health 2021 Zoonoses Report; The European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  31. Giedraitiene, A.; Pereckaite, L.; Bredelyte-Gruodiene, E.; Virgailis, M.; Ciapiene, I.; Tatarunas, V. CTX-M-producing Escherichia coli strains: Resistance to temocillin, fosfomycin, nitrofurantoin and biofilm formation. Future Microbiol. 2022, 17, 789–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Reffuveille, F.; Fuente-Núñez Cde, L.; Fairfull-Smith, K.E.; Hancock, R.E. Potentiation of ciprofloxacin action against Gram-negative bacterial biofilms by a nitroxide. Pathog. Dis. 2015, 73, ftv016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Verderosa, A.D.; de la Fuente-Núñez, C.; Mansour, S.C.; Cao, J.; Lu, T.K.; Hancock, R.E.W. Ciprofloxacin-nitroxide hybrids with potential for biofilm control. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2017, 138, 590–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Pavlickova, S.; Klancnik, A.; Dolezalova, M.; Mozina, S.S.; Holko, I. Antibiotic resistance, virulence factors and biofilm formation ability in Escherichia coli strains isolated from chicken meat and wildlife in the Czech Republic. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2017, 52, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Rasschaert, G.; Van Elst, D.; Colson, L.; Herman, L.; de Carvalho Ferreira, H.C.; Dewulf, J.; Decrop, J.; Meirlaen, J.; Heyndrickx, M.; Daeseleire, E. Antibiotic Residues and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in Pig Slurry Used to Fertilize Agricultural Fields. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Barilli, E.; Vismarra, A.; Villa, Z.; Bonilauri, P.; Bacci, C.E.S.L.E. ESβL E. coli isolated in pig’s chain: Genetic analysis associated to the phenotype and biofilm synthesis evaluation. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 289, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Donlan, R.M.; Costerton, J.W. Biofilms: Survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2002, 15, 167–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Barros, M.A.; Nero, L.A.; Silva, L.C.; d’Ovidio, L.; Monteiro, F.A.; Tamanini, R. Listeria monocytogenes: Occurrence in beef and identification of the main contamination points in processing plants. Meat Sci. 2007, 76, 591–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. ISO 17604:2015; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Carcass Sampling for Microbiological Analysis. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  40. ISO 4833:2003; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Microorganisms—Colony-Count Technique at 30 Degrees C. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
  41. ISO 21528-2:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection and Enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae—Part 2: Colony-Count Technique. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  42. ISO 16649-2:2001; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Beta-Glucuronidase-Positive Escherichia coli—Part 2: Colony-Count Technique at 44 Degrees C Using 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl Beta-D-Glucuronide. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.
  43. ISO 13720:2010; Meat and Meat Products—Enumeration of Presumptive Pseudomonas spp. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  44. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Monnet, D.L. 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]
  45. Morar, A.; Ban-Cucerzan, A.; Herman, V.; Tîrziu, E.; Sallam, K.I.; Abd-Elghany, S.M.; Imre, K. Multidrug Resistant Coagulase-Positive Staphylococcus aureus and Their Enterotoxins Detection in Traditional Cheeses Marketed in Banat Region, Romania. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Imre, K.; Ban-Cucerzan, A.; Herman, V.; Sallam, K.I.; Cristina, R.T.; Abd-Elghany, S.M.; Morar, D.; Popa, S.A.; Imre, M.; Morar, A. Occurrence, Pathogenic Potential and Antimicrobial Resistance of Escherichia coli Isolated from Raw Milk Cheese Commercialized in Banat Region, Romania. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Antibiotics 12 01408 g001
Figure 1. Level of TACC contamination of the investigated carcasses. Legend: TACC—total aerobic colony count, Po—poultry, Ch—chest, IT—inner thigh, TA—thoracoabdominal region, VA—ventral abdominal area, Ax—axillary region, Co—coccygeal area, B—back area.
Figure 1. Level of TACC contamination of the investigated carcasses. Legend: TACC—total aerobic colony count, Po—poultry, Ch—chest, IT—inner thigh, TA—thoracoabdominal region, VA—ventral abdominal area, Ax—axillary region, Co—coccygeal area, B—back area.
Antibiotics 12 01408 g001
Table 1. Meat carcass contamination level assessment using the total aerobic colony count and the Enterobacteriaceae level.
Table 1. Meat carcass contamination level assessment using the total aerobic colony count and the Enterobacteriaceae level.
Origin of CarcassNo. and (%) of Samples with
Different Levels of TACC
(log CFU/cm2)		No. and (%) of Samples with
Different Levels of Enterobacteriaceae
(log CFU/cm2)
Below the
Regulatory Limits		Above the
Regulatory Limits		Below the
Regulatory Limits		Above the Regulatory Limits [17]
<5.0 log CFU/cm2>5.0 log CFU/cm2<1.5 log CFU/cm2>1.5 log <2.5 log
CFU/cm2		>2.5 log CFU/cm2
Beef (n = 35)30 (85.7)5 (14.2)20 (57.1)10 (28.5)5 (14.2)
Pork (n = 50)45 (90)5 (10)25 (50)5 (10)20 (40)
Poultry (n = 45)45 (100)--15 (30)30 (60)
TOTAL (n = 130)120 (92.3)10 (7.6)45 (34.6)30 (23)55 (42.3)
Legend: No—number of samples; n—number of samples according to the origin of the carcass; TACC—total aerobic colony count; CFU—colony forming unit.
Table 2. Isolation of strains and contamination levels of the analyzed meat.
Table 2. Isolation of strains and contamination levels of the analyzed meat.
Origin of CarcassNo. of Samples Containing
E. coli
(%)		Enterobacter
(%)		Serratia
(%)		Pseudomonas
(%)
Beef (n = 35)-5 (14.2)10 (28.5)10 (28.5)
Pork (n = 50)30 (60)20 (40)15 (30)10 (20)
Poultry (n = 45)10 (22.2)-15 (33.3)-
TOTAL (n = 130)40 (30.7)25 (19.2)40 (30.7)20 (15.3)
Legend: n—number of samples according to the origin of the carcass.
Table 3. Identified strains depending on the source of origin using the Vitek 2 system.
Table 3. Identified strains depending on the source of origin using the Vitek 2 system.
Origin of SamplesVitek Card Used
AST-GN27AST-N093
E. coliE. coliP. aeruginosaP. putida
Beef (n = 10)6-22
Pork (n = 32)26222
Poultry (n = 10)10---
TOTAL (n = 52)42244
Legend: n—number of samples according to the origin of the carcass.
Table 4. Antimicrobial susceptibility profile of strains tested with the AST- GN27 card.
Table 4. Antimicrobial susceptibility profile of strains tested with the AST- GN27 card.
AntimicrobialSusceptibility Test Result of 42 E. coli Strains (n/%)
ClassAgentMIC Range µL/mLRS
β-lactamsAMP≥3232 (76.1)10 (23.8)
AMC826 (61.9)16 (38.1)
PIP≥1288 (19)34 (80.9)
TZP≤4-42 (100)
cephalosporinsCFZ≤430 (71.4)12 (28.5)
CXT≤420 (47.6)22 (52.3)
CTX≤14 (9.5)38 (90.4)
CAZ≤12 (4.7)40 (95.2)
CPM≤12 (4.7)40 (95.2)
carbapenemsIMP≤1-42 (100)
aminoglycosidesAMK≤22 (4.7)40 (95.2)
GEN≤12 (4.7)40 (95.2)
fluoroquinolonesCIP≤0.252 (4.7)40 (95.2)
NOR28 (19)34 (80.9)
tetracyclinesTET≥1616 (38.1)26 (61.9)
nitrofuran derivativeNIT≥1622 (52.3)20 (47.6)
sulfonamidesSXT≤205 (11.9)37 (88.1)
Legend: MIC—Minimum inhibitory concentrations, AMP—ampicillin, AMC—amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, PIP—piperacillin, TZP—piperacillin-tazobactam, CFZ—cefazolin, CXT—cefoxitin, CTX—cefotaxime, CAZ—ceftazidime, CPM—cefepime, IMP—imipenem, AMK—amikacin, GEN—gentamicin, CIP—ciprofloxacin, NOR—norfloxacin, TET—tetracycline, NIT—nitrofurantoin, SXT—trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, n = number of strains that expressed susceptibility (S) or resistance (R).
Table 5. Antimicrobial susceptibility profile of strains tested with the AST- N093 card.
Table 5. Antimicrobial susceptibility profile of strains tested with the AST- N093 card.
AntimicrobialSusceptibility Test Result of 10 Strains (n/%)
ClassAgentMIC Range µL/mLP. aeruginosaP. putidaE. coli
RSRSRS
β-lactamsPIP32-4 42-
TZP32 422-2
TIC164-4-2-
TIM164-4-2-
cephalosporinsCAZ4-4 42-
CPM2-4-42-
carbapenemsIMP4-4-4-2
MEM≤0.25-4-4-2
aminoglycosidesAMK8-4-4-2
GEN2-4-4-2
ISP8-4-4-2
TOB≤1-4-4-2
fluoroquinolonesCIP≤0.25-4-4-2
PEF1N.A. N.A. 2-
tetracyclinesMIN4N.A. N.A. -2
sulfonamidesSXT≥320N.A. N.A. 2-
monobactamsAZM164-4-2-
polymyxinsCOL≤0.5-4-4-2
Legend: MIC—Minimum inhibitory concentrations, PIP—piperacillin, TZP—piperacillin-tazobactam, TIC—ticarcillin, TIM—ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, CAZ—ceftazidime, CPM—cefepime, IMP—imipenem, MEM—meropenem, AMK—amikacin, GEN—gentamicin, ISP—isepamicin, TOB—tobramycin, CIP—ciprofloxacin, PEF—pefloxacin, MIN—minocycline, SXT—trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, AZM—aztreonam, COL—colistin, n = number of strains that expressed susceptibility (S) or resistant (R), N.A.—not applicable.
Table 6. Antimicrobial resistance profile of the isolated E. coli.
Table 6. Antimicrobial resistance profile of the isolated E. coli.
Crt. No.OriginNo. of
Isolates		Vitek Card UsedNo. of Classes with
Resistance		Resistance to
Antimicrobial Profile		Classes with Resistance
1.Pork2AST-GN274AMP, AMC, PIP, CFZ, CXT, CTX, CAZ, CPM, NOR, NITβ-lactams, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones,
nitrofuran derivative
2.Pork2AST-N0935TIC, TIM, PIP, CAZ, CPM, PEF, SXT, AZMβ-lactams, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones,
sulfonamides, monobactams
3.Pork2AST-GN274AMP, AMC, CFZ, CXT, CTX, NIT, SXTβ-lactams, cephalosporins,
nitrofuran derivative, sulfonamides
4.Pork2AST-GN275AMP, PIP, CFZ, NOR, TET, SXTβ-lactams, cephalosporins, nitrofuran derivatives, tetracyclines, sulfonamides
5.Pork2AST-GN274AMP, AMC, CFZ, CXT, TET, NITβ-lactams, cephalosporins,
nitrofuran derivative, tetracyclines
6.Beef2
7.Pork2AST-GN273AMP, AMC, CFZ, CXT, AMK, GENβ-lactam, cephalosporins, aminoglycosides
8.Pork4AST-GN273AMP, AMC, CFZ, CXT, NITβ-lactams, cephalosporins,
nitrofuran derivative
9.Beef2
10.Poultry2
11.Poultry2AST-GN273AMP, PIP, CIP, NOR, TETβ-lactams, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines
12.Poultry4AST-GN273AMP, AMC, CFZ, NITβ-lactams, cephalosporins, nitrofuran derivative
13.Pork2AST-GN273AMP, PIP, NOR, TETβ-lactams, nitrofuran derivatives, tetracyclines
14.Poultry2
Legend: Crt—current, No—number of samples, AMP—ampicillin, AMC—amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, PIP—piperacillin, CFZ—cefazolin, CXT—cefoxitin, CTX—cefotaxime, CAZ—ceftazidime, CPM—cefepime, NOR—norfloxacin, NIT—nitrofurantoin, TIC—ticarcillin, TIM—ticarcillin/clavulanic acid, PEF- pefloxacin, SXT—trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, AZM—aztreonam, TET—tetracycline, AMK—amikacin, GEN—gentamicin, CIP—ciprofloxacin.
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

Ban-Cucerzan, A.; Morar, A.; Tîrziu, E.; Imre, K. Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacteria Isolated from Biofilm in Meat Processing Units. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1408. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091408

AMA Style

Ban-Cucerzan A, Morar A, Tîrziu E, Imre K. Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacteria Isolated from Biofilm in Meat Processing Units. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(9):1408. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091408

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ban-Cucerzan, Alexandra, Adriana Morar, Emil Tîrziu, and Kálmán Imre. 2023. "Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacteria Isolated from Biofilm in Meat Processing Units" Antibiotics 12, no. 9: 1408. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091408

APA Style

Ban-Cucerzan, A., Morar, A., Tîrziu, E., & Imre, K. (2023). Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacteria Isolated from Biofilm in Meat Processing Units. Antibiotics, 12(9), 1408. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091408

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