Next Article in Journal
A Method for Demonstrating the Cytolysin/Hemolysin of Enterococcus faecalis Isolates of Poultry Origin
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Carbon–to–Nitrogen Ratio and Temperature on the Survival of Antibiotic-Resistant and Non-Resistant Escherichia coli During Chicken Manure Anaerobic Digestion
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Poultry
Volume 4
Issue 1
10.3390/poultry4010010
poultry-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

Virulence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Isolates from Poultry in Brazil

by
Caio Júnior Lúcio
1,
Paulo Henrique Caminha Hansen
1,
Josiane Griebeler
1,
Diéssy Kipper
2 and
Vagner Ricardo Lunge
1,2,*
1
Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Lutheran University of Brazil (ULBRA), Canoas 92425-900, RS, Brazil
2
Simbios Biotecnologia, Cachoeirinha 94940-030, RS, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Poultry 2025, 4(1), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4010010
Submission received: 29 November 2024 / Revised: 11 February 2025 / Accepted: 21 February 2025 / Published: 24 February 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Colibacillosis is a chicken disease caused by avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Pathogenicity in birds is determined by the occurrence of bacterial genes encoding virulence factors in APEC strains. Furthermore, APEC and other bacterial infections in commercial poultry farms have been treated with intensive use of antimicrobials for decades. Currently, many APEC strains are no longer susceptible to frequently used antibiotics due to increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) associated with the acquisition and mutation of other specific bacterial genes. The present study aimed to isolate and detect APEC isolates in broiler farms from different poultry-producing regions of Brazil and to determine their AMR profile. A total of 126 E. coli isolates were obtained from necropsied chickens with colibacillosis. All of these E. coli isolates were analyzed with one species-specific qPCR (targeting uspA gene) and five virulence factors genes qPCRs (targeting iroN, hlyF, iutA, iss, and ompT). AMR was determined by disk diffusion method using ten drugs frequently used to treat colibacillosis in Brazilian poultry farms. The results demonstrated that 109 (86.5%) isolates were classified as APEC. AMR was commonly observed in APEC and AFEC isolates, highlighting resistance for amoxicillin (85; 67.4%) and ceftiofur (72; 57.1%). A total of 41 (32.5%) E. coli isolates presented a multidrug resistance (MDR) profile. These results can contribute to implementing more effective colibacillosis prevention and control programs on Brazilian poultry farms.

1. Introduction

Escherichia coli is generally a commensal microorganism in homothermic animals, being present in the intestinal microbiota of mammals and birds [1]. In chickens, enteric colonization by E. coli occurs soon after birth, an important process to help protect the intestine against pathogenic bacteria [2]. However, there are also pathogenic strains of E. coli that infect chickens and cause clinical manifestations, such as pericarditis, airsacculitis, perihepatitis, peritonitis, synovitis, salpingitis, and osteomyelitis. Whenever these diseases are caused by E. coli strains, with identification of this bacterial species, they are called colibacillosis [3,4].
Colibacillosis occurs only in birds infected by avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC) strains. On the contrary, non-pathogenic strains are known as AFEC (avian fecal E. coli) and they are present in healthy chicken enteric tracts [3,5]. Differentiation between APEC and AFEC strains is necessary for routine laboratory diagnostic testing, and it is currently performed by detection of some virulence genes usually hosted in E. coli plasmids and chromosomal DNA. In a pivotal study, 46 potential virulence genes were studied in E. coli isolates from poultry farms. APEC strains usually possess at least five main virulence genes: iroN, hlyF, iutA, iss, and ompT (salmochelin siderophore receptor gene, putative avian hemolysin, aerobactin siderophore receptor gene, episomal enhanced serum survival gene, and outer membrane protease gene, respectively) [5]. Based on this study, PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) assays were developed to detect these five genes for a diagnostic procedure to identify APEC isolates. This method has been previously used in poultry farms worldwide, including Brazil [3,6,7,8].
Antimicrobials have been used as therapeutic agents to treat bacterial infections caused by pathogenic bacteria (such as Salmonella, Clostridium, APEC, etc.) responsible for chicken diseases with high mortality rates and significant production losses in poultry farms worldwide. Ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, streptomycin, sulfamethoxazole, and tetracycline are some of the most used antimicrobials in poultry farming [9]. As a consequence, the frequency of E. coli isolates resistant to different antimicrobials has increased in the last decades. In Brazil, resistance to β-lactams, tetracyclines, quinolones, and sulfonamides has been reported in E. coli isolates from poultry farms [8,10,11,12].
This study aimed to investigate the frequency of APEC isolates and to evaluate E. coli resistance to the most common antimicrobial used in broiler farms from important Brazilian poultry-producing regions in the last years.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling

The E. coli isolates were obtained by convenience sampling in a routine laboratory of an agro-industrial company in Brazil between March 2022 and March 2023. All them were obtained after bacteriological analysis of tissue pools from necropsied chickens (5 to 10 per flock) presenting clinical signs of colibacillosis (pericarditis, airsacculitis, perihepatitis). A total of 126 (14.5%) E. coli isolates were obtained after the analysis of tissues from 870 necropsied chickens in the laboratory. These chicken samples were from 126 different broiler flocks located on commercial poultry farms from three important poultry-producing states in Brazil: Minas Gerais (n = 31), Paraná (n = 55), and Rio Grande do Sul (n = 40) (Figure 1).

2.2. Bacteriological Procedures

E. coli isolates were obtained from the necropsied organs (liver and heart) macerated and directly streaked on eosin methylene blue agar (EMB; BD DifcoTM; Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). Plates were incubated at 36 °C for 16 to 24 h. E. coli characteristic colonies were transferred to a tube with brain heart infusion medium (BHI Broth; Merck™, Darmstadt, Germany) plus 10% glycerol and stored in a freezer. To recover the isolates for this study, 100 μL of the stored culture was transferred to a tryptone soy broth (TSB; BD DifcoTM; Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and incubated at 36 °C for 24 h. Subsequently, each E. coli strain was seeded on nutrient agar (BD DifcoTM; Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and incubated at 36 °C for 18 to 24 h. Typical E. coli colonies were used in the next experiments.

2.3. DNA Extraction and E. coli Identification

DNA was extracted from all E. coli isolates as previously described [13]. Briefly, a pick of each typical E. coli colony was suspended in a microtube containing 100 μL of ultrapure water (Nova Biotecnologia, Cotía, Brazil) and heated to a temperature of 100 °C for 10 min, after quickly cooling in a cold block to −20 °C for 5 min and centrifugation at 12,000 rpm for 2 min.
As previously described, E. coli isolate DNA was first analyzed with a species-specific qPCR targeting uspA (universal stress protein A) [14]. Briefly, 4 μL of the extracted DNA was transferred to microplates containing 5 μL of the commercial supermix SsoFastTM EvaGreen® (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA) and 2.5 nM of the two specific primers (For 5′-CGC TGC CAA TCA GTT AAC ACC-3′; Rev 5′-CGT CAA TCC GCC TTG CTT AC-3′). qPCR assays were carried out in a CFX 96TM thermocycler (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA) with the following amplification conditions: 1 cycle of 95 °C for 3 min and 34 cycles of 95 °C for 10 s, 60 °C for 10 s, and 72 °C for 15 s. Ct (Cycle threshold) and Tm (Temperature melting) were analyzed with graphs generated by the Bio-Rad MaestroTM software—version 5.2.008.0222. Negative (water) and positive (DNA of E. coli ATCC®25922TM strain) were included in all runs.

2.4. Virulence Genes Detection by qPCR

Five main E. coli virulence genes (iroN, hlyF, iutA, iss, and ompT) were detected by qPCR (Real-Time PCR) as previously described [5]. All PCRs were carried out in a total volume of 10 μL per reaction with 4 μL of the E. coli DNA previously extracted, 5 μL of the commercial supermix SsoFastTM EvaGreen® (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA), and 1 μL of the primer solution (2.5 nM). All PCRs were also carried out in a CFX 96TM thermocycler (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA) with the following amplification conditions: 1 cycle of 95 °C for 3 min, 40 cycles of 95 °C for 10 s, and 57 °C for 30 s. All results were reported as Ct and Tm graphs generated using the Bio-Rad MaestroTM software—version 5.2.008.0222. DNA from one APEC isolate positive for the five virulence genes was used as a positive control in all assays.
E. coli isolates were classified into APEC according to the presence of three or more virulence genes. In addition, a comparative analysis considering three, four, and five genes, as APEC, was also carried out according to other studies [8,10,15,16].

2.5. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

The antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the isolates was carried out using the Mueller–Hinton agar disk diffusion method (AMH; OxoidTM Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) as previously described [17]. After turbidity of 0.5 on a McFarland scale, each E. coli isolate sample was uniformly spread using a sterile cotton swab. After, antimicrobial discs were placed and lightly pressed on the plate surface. All plates were incubated at 36 °C for 16 to 18 h. The following antimicrobials from the manufacturer Oxoid (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) were used: Amoxicillin (AMX), [10 μg]; Ceftiofur (CEF), [30 μg]; Ciprofloxacin (CIP), [5 μg]; Doxycycline (DO), [30 μg]; Enrofloxacin (ENR), [5 μg]; Florfenicol (FFC), [30 μg]; Gentamicin (GM), [10 μg]; Neomycin (NEO), [10 μg]; Norfloxacin (NX), [10 μg]; and Tetracycline (TE), [30 μg]. All experimental procedures were also carried out with the E. coli ATCC®25922TM reference strain as a control.
The results were evaluated by measuring the diameter of the inhibition zones using a millimeter ruler. The interpretation of the results of most antimicrobials followed the criteria defined by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute—CLSI [17,18]. In the analysis of the results for neomycin and florfenicol, criteria from other two publications were also used [19,20]. The isolates were considered MDR (multidrug resistance) if they were resistant to at least one agent in three or more chemical classes of antimicrobials [21].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the frequencies of virulence factors between isolates classified as APEC and AFEC. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS® Statistics version 25 software was used to test the null hypothesis of equality between gene frequencies (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. APEC and AFEC Isolate Detection

All 126 isolates were identified as E. coli according to uspA gene positive results. In the differentiation of APEC and AFEC, 115 (91.3%) isolates were classified as APEC since they presented positive results for three or more virulence genes analyzed. The total number and respective frequency of APEC isolates varied according to the state of the origin of the samples: 30 (96.8%) in Minas Gerais, 34 (85%) in Rio Grande do Sul, and 45 (81.8%) in Paraná (Figure 1).
In an additional separate analysis of the virulence gene frequencies, qPCR results showed that the hlyF and ompT genes were the most frequent ones (89.7%), followed by iroN (84.9%), iss (84.1%), and iutA (80.2%) (Table 1).
All five virulence genes were detected in 76.2% of the isolates (96/126), while none of these same genes were detected in 7.1% of the isolates (9/126). In a comparison of the Brazilian states, Minas Gerais presented the highest positive isolates number for all five genes (30/31; 96.8%). A heat map was created to demonstrate the presence/absence of the five genes in the isolates from the different farms (Figure 2).
In addition, more rigorous criteria to determine APEC were used to evaluate all isolates (occurrence of four or five virulence genes). A total of 103 (81.7%) and 96 (76.2%) E. coli isolates were considered APEC with four and five genes, respectively. In Paraná, 80% (44/55) of the isolates presented four or five, and 70.9% (39/55) had all five genes. In Rio Grande do Sul, 75% (30/40) of the isolates presented four or five, and 70% (28/40) had all five genes. In Minas Gerais, 93.5% (29/31) of the isolates had four and five genes (Table 2).

3.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility

The antimicrobial susceptibility profile of all E. coli isolates demonstrated that 112 (88.9%) were resistant to at least one drug, 99 (78.6%) to at least two drugs, 74 (58.7%) to at least three drugs, 58 (46%) to at least four drugs, 41 (32.5%) to at least five drugs, 19 (15.1%) to at least six drugs, 10 (7.9%) to at least seven drugs, 5 (4%) to at least eight drugs, and 1 (0.8%) to at least nine drugs (Figure 3).
APEC isolates presented high frequency of resistance to amoxicillin (72/109; 66.1%), followed by ceftiofur (62/109; 56.9%), norfloxacin (52/109; 47.7%), tetracycline (37/109; 33.9%), ciprofloxacin (34/109; 31.2%), florfenicol (28/109; 25.7%), doxycycline (26/109; 23.9%), enrofloxacin (25/109; 22.9%), neomycin (16/109; 14.7%), and gentamicin (3/109; 2.8%). In addition, there was also intermediate resistance for six antimicrobials: enrofloxacin (46/109; 42.2%), ciprofloxacin (36/109; 33%), doxycycline (9/109; 8.2%), gentamicin (7/109; 6.4%), ceftiofur (5/109; 4.6%), and amoxicillin (2/109; 1.8%). A total of 32 (29.4%) APEC isolates presented MDR profiles; 40.6% (13/32) were from Paraná, 34.4% (11/32) were from Rio Grande do Sul, and 25% (8/32) were from Minas Gerais. The most frequent MDR patterns observed in APEC were β-lactams + fluoroquinolones + tetracyclines and β-lactams + fluoroquinolones + aminoglycosides + tetracyclines.
AFEC isolates also presented high frequency of resistance to amoxicillin (13/17; 76.5%), followed by ceftiofur (10/17; 58.8%), tetracycline (8/17; 47.1%), norfloxacin (7/17; 41.2%), neomycin and doxycycline (6/17; 35.3%, each), ciprofloxacin and florfenicol (5/17; 29.4%, each), and finally enrofloxacin (4/17; 23.5%). In addition, there was also intermediate resistance for four antimicrobials: ciprofloxacin (5/17; 29.4%), enrofloxacin (4/17; 23.6%), ceftiofur, and amoxicillin (1/17; 5.9%, each). A total of nine (53%) AFEC isolates presented MDR profiles; 66.7% (6/9) were from Paraná and 33.3% (3/9) were from Rio Grande do Sul. The most frequent MDR pattern observed in AFEC was β-lactams + aminoglycosides + tetracyclines.
The overall analysis according to the antimicrobial classes demonstrated a high frequency of resistance to β-lactams (57–68%), fluoroquinolones (23–47%), tetracyclines (25–36%), and amphenicol (26.5%). The resistance to aminoglycosides was below 20%. Noteworthy, all AFEC isolates were susceptible to gentamicin.
The results obtained show similarity in resistance of APEC and AFEC isolates. APEC presented a profile with resistance from none (13/109; 11.9%) to nine (1/109; 0.9%) out of the ten tested antimicrobials (mean = 3.3; median = 3), while AFEC presented a profile with resistance from none (1/17; 5.9%) to seven (3/17; 17.6%) out of the ten tested antimicrobials (mean = 3.8; median = 4). Importantly, AFEC isolates had a higher frequency of MDR (53%) than APEC (29.4%).

4. Discussion

E. coli is a commensal bacterial species in the enteric microbiota of different domestic animals, including the main poultry species. However, it can also be an opportunistic pathogen in many hosts. Of even greater concern are the pathogenic strains of E. coli adapted to some hosts (poultry, other livestock, and humans), which cause certain diseases due to a specific arsenal of virulence genes [1]. Colibacillosis is an infectious poultry disease caused by extraintestinal strains of E. coli that leads to a range of clinical manifestations, including respiratory, systemic, and reproductive infections of chickens in egg and meat production [22].
Previous studies have demonstrated that E. coli strains of the APEC pathotype are characterized by harboring some very specific genes that encode bacterial proteins/enzymes necessary for the infectious process in poultry [23,24]. These genes are located on chromosomes or plasmids, such as ColV and ColBM plasmids [25,26]. Five main genes (iroN, hlyF, iutA, iss, and ompT) were further demonstrated in many APEC strains, defining them as minimal predictors to detect an isolate from this pathotype [5]. In the present study, these same five genes were investigated in 126 isolates to classify them as APEC or AFEC. A total of 115 (91.3%) isolates were classified as APEC since they presented positive results for three or more virulence genes analyzed. Even with more rigorous criteria (presence of four and five of these virulence genes to define pathogenicity), most isolates were considered APEC: 103 (81.7%) for four and 96 (76.2%) for five genes. The use of these genes to evaluate pathogenicity in avian E. coli isolates is already well-accepted, but the number of virulence genes to determine the APEC pathotype has been a recurring topic of discussion, and is not fully defined [3,5,8].
Furthermore, hlyF and ompT were the most frequent genes in the analyzed isolates, with 89.7% frequency each. These genes are involved in different virulence mechanisms: hlyF encodes a hemolysin in the production of external membrane vesicles and autophagy, while ompT participates in the exterior protection of the bacterial cell against antimicrobials [27,28]. These two genes were also the most frequent in APEC isolates from other studies with broilers worldwide [29,30,31,32]. In Brazil, there are three studies demonstrating the high prevalence of these genes in APEC isolates that are circulating in poultry flocks since 2015 [3,8,12]. On the other hand, iutA gene had the lowest frequency (80.2%) in comparison with the other four analyzed genes. It is involved in the iron acquisition system (together with iroN), an essential chemical element for APEC invasion and proliferation in the host [31,32,33]. Other studies also showed the absence of iutA in some APEC isolates [3,29,31,32]. The lack of this gene and its protein is compensated by the presence of other genes and metabolic pathways, since iron acquisition systems in bacteria consist of multiple siderophores (aerobactin, salmochelin, yersiniabactin) and transporters to sequester iron from the body fluids [34].
In addition, the same five genes evaluated in this study were also detected in APEC isolates in other previous studies, highlighting their higher frequency than that of other potential virulence genes (e.g., cvaC, pap, sfa, neuc, ast, vat, and ibeA). This is strong evidence that factors encoded by these five main virulence genes, many of them carried by plasmids, are directly associated with the ability to develop colibacillosis in APEC strains [24,25,26,35]. Therefore, the identification of APEC isolates has been based on the evaluation of this “pentaplex panel” of minimal predictors [36,37]. Noteworthy, 86.5% (109/126) samples were identified as APEC and 13.5% (17/126) as AFEC using these criteria. De Carli et al. [3] and Barbieri et al. [10] found a more reduced number of APEC strains (58.7% and 31%, respectively), but Pilati et al. [8] demonstrated a similar frequency (92%) when analyzing chickens from different Brazilian states. This APEC frequency variation in the studies can be related to the different bird tissues sampled, geographic location of the farms, and health and management of the poultry flocks [3,8,10,16,38].
In addition to their pathogenic capacity, many E. coli strains have been characterized by resistance to antibacterials. Some of these agents (such as penicillin, ciprofloxacin, streptomycin, sulfamethoxazole, and tetracycline) have been used to treat infections as well as prophylaxis and metaphylaxis to reduce pathogenic bacteria in poultry flocks [9]. Overall, the present study demonstrated the occurrence of E. coli resistance to antibacterials belonging to the main classes of these antimicrobials already used in poultry practice. Importantly, resistance to β-lactams (57–68%), fluoroquinolones (23–47%), tetracyclines (25–36%), phenicols (26.5%), and aminoglycosides (<20%) in APEC and also in AFEC strains was demonstrated. In addition to our study, high levels of resistance to older drugs widely used in poultry production have been demonstrated in E. coli isolated from poultry flocks, as noted in a recent review [22].
The highest percentage of resistance was observed for amoxicillin (68.9%) when it was compared with the other antimicrobials tested. A previous study reported that 83.3% of the avian E. coli isolates were resistant to amoxicillin, and only 16.7% to the combination of amoxicillin with clavulanate [31]. It is noteworthy that amoxicillin has been used together with clavulanate for general therapeutic purposes, since the combination of these antimicrobials has been much more successful in the treatment of avian infections [10,39,40]. As for the other antibacterials, the percentages of resistance varied from almost 60% (for ceftiofur) to less than 10% (gentamicin). Other studies have also demonstrated that APEC isolates are more susceptible to gentamicin and other antibacterials from this aminoglycosides class [28,41]. More specifically in Brazil, studies showed that less than 25% of isolates from chicken treated with antimicrobials were resistant to gentamicin and neomycin [42,43]. In addition, florfenicol (amphenicol class) also showed a low resistance result of 26.2% in the antimicrobial susceptibility test, a rate similar to other reports [8,11].
This study also reported concerning frequencies of MDR in both APEC (27.5%) and AFEC (53%) strains. Other surveys in poultry farms have shown the occurrence of MDR in APEC strains in Brazil [43] and worldwide [6,30,40,41,44]. High levels of MDR APEC strains are strongly related to specific genes inserted into integrons in the bacteria’s genome [15]. When analyzing the relationship between phenotypic and genotypic resistance, specific plasmid-linked genes are highly related to resistance to various antimicrobials [24,44,45]. In addition, the high percentage of MDR in AFEC isolates is noteworthy. AFEC lives in microbiota with a wide diversity of bacterial species, such as the intestinal tract. In such environments, intense horizontal transfer of mobile genetic elements (plasmids, transposons, insertion sequences) occurs between different bacteria, resulting in the widespread transfer of antibiotic resistance genes too. In fact, commensal E. coli has been used as a sentinel microorganism for monitoring antimicrobial resistance in different animals and in humans [46]. Therefore, it is necessary to continue searching for antibacterial resistance in field E. coli strains, as well as to identify the genetic basis for a high resistance bacterial profile.
It is also important to highlight that the present study was conducted with a convenience sample from a specific agro-industrial company in Southern Brazil. Although E. coli isolates were obtained from poultry farms in different Brazilian states that are relatively distant, the breeds and genetics of the broilers are the same and the management of the flocks is almost similar in all poultry farms, with few changes due to climate variations in the different geographic regions. In addition, only five virulence genes were studied here, and AMR was tested by phenotypic analysis. The advance of the laboratorial methodologies has enabled more complex analyses, with the whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of E. coli isolates, providing much more complete information of virulence and AMR bacterial genes profiles, as already demonstrated [47,48].
Regardless, the data reported here represent an important advance in the knowledge of APEC and AFEC isolates circulating in intensive poultry production flocks in Brazil in recent years. New studies that also include more complete analyses of the genomes of E. coli isolates will be essential for a better understanding of this concerning pathogen that is highly frequent in Brazilian and global poultry farming and present a zoonotic risk for other animals and even humans.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, a high frequency (86.5%) of APEC isolates was detected in Brazilian poultry farms. The frequency of APEC isolates varied slightly according to the state of origin of the samples: 96.8% in Minas Gerais, 85% in Rio Grande do Sul and 81.8% in Paraná. AMR to different antibacterial chemicals, mainly to amoxicillin (67.4%) and ceftiofur (57.1%), was observed in both APEC and AFEC isolates. Furthermore, 32.5% of the E. coli isolates presented a multidrug resistance (MDR) profile. These findings highlight the importance of constant monitoring of this pathogenic microorganism in poultry farms and the need for a rational use of antimicrobials to avoid a further increase in bacterial resistance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.J.L. and V.R.L.; methodology, C.J.L., P.H.C.H. and J.G.; validation, C.J.L., P.H.C.H., D.K. and V.R.L.; writing—original draft preparation C.J.L., P.H.C.H., J.G. and V.R.L.; writing—review and editing, C.J.L., P.H.C.H., D.K., J.G. and V.R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financed by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq; process number 303647/2023-0). C.J.L was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. D.K. and V.R.L. were also financially supported by CNPq (process numbers 351240/2023-3 and 303647/2023-0, respectively).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the staff of Molecular Diagnosis Laboratory of ULBRA for their technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

D.K. is a CNPq scholarship holder and develops research projects at the company Simbios Biotecnologia. V.R.L. is a Professor and also works with R&D at this same company. The other authors declare that the research was carried out in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be considered as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sarowska, J.; Futoma-Koloch, B.; Jama-Kmiecik, A.; Frej-Madrzak, M.; Ksiazczyk, M.; Bugla-Ploskonska, G.; Choroszy-Krol, I. Virulence factors, prevalence and potential transmission of extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from different sources: Recent reports. Gut Pathog. 2019, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Khalid, N.; Bukhari, S.; Ali, W.; Sheikh, A. Comparative Study on the Predominance of Lactobacillus spp. and Escherichia coli in Healthy vs. Colibacillosis Diseased Broilers. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2023, 25, eRBCA-2022-1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. De Carli, S.; Ikuta, N.; Lehmann, F.K.; da Silveira, V.P.; de Melo, P.G.; Fonseca, A.S.; Lunge, V.R. Virulence gene content in Escherichia coli isolates from poultry flocks with clinical signs of colibacillosis in Brazil. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 2635–2640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Matter, L.B.; Barbieri, N.L.; Nordhoff, M.; Ewers, C.; Horn, F. Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli MT78 invades chicken fibroblasts. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 148, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Johnson, T.J.; Wannemuehler, Y.; Doetkott, C.; Johnson, S.J.; Rosenberg, S.C.; Nolan, L.K. Identification of Minimal Predictors of Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli Virulence for Use as a Rapid Diagnostic Tool. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 3987–3996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Thomrongsuwannakij, T.; Blackall, P.J.; Djordjevic, S.P.; Cummins, M.L.; Chansiripornchai, N. A comparison of virulence genes, antimicrobial resistance profiles and genetic diversity of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) isolates from broilers and broiler breeders in Thailand and Australia. Avian Pathol. 2020, 49, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Shin-WooKim, K.; Young, J. Comparative analysis of antimicrobial resistance and genetic characteristics of Escherichia coli from broiler breeder farms in Korea. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 102, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pilati, G.V.T.; Salles, G.B.C.; Savi, B.P.; Dahmer, M.; Muniz, E.C.; Filho, V.B.; Elois, M.A.; Souza, D.S.M.; Fongaro, G. Isolation and Characterization of Escherichia coli from Brazilian Broilers. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Roth, N.; Käsbohrer, A.; Mayrhofer, S.; Zitz, U.; Hofacre, C.; Domig, K.J. The application of antibiotics in broiler production and the resulting antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli: A global overview. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 1791–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Barbieri, N.L.; Pimenta, R.L.; de Melo, D.A.; Nolan, L.K.; de Souza, M.M.S.; Logue, C.M. mcr-1 Identified in Fecal Escherichia coli and Avian Pathogenic E. coli (APEC) from Brazil. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 659613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Soares, B.D.; de Brito, K.C.T.; Grassotti, T.T.; Filho, H.C.K.; de Camargo, T.C.L.; Carvalho, D.; Dorneles, I.C.; Otutumi, L.K.; Cavalli, L.S.; de Brito, B.G. Respiratory microbiota of healthy broilers can act as reservoirs for multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 79, 101700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Oliveira, J.M.; Cardoso, M.F.; Moreira, F.A.; Müller, A. Phenotypic antimicrobial resistance (AMR) of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) from broiler breeder flocks between 2009 and 2018. Avian Pathol. 2022, 51, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Soumet, C.; Ermel, G.; Fach, P.; Colin, P. Evaluation of different DNA extraction procedures for the detection of Salmonella from chicken products by polymerase chain reaction. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1994, 19, 294–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Nyström, T.; Neidhardt, F.C. Cloning, mapping and nucleotide sequencing of a gene encoding a universal stress protein in Escherichia coli. Mol. Microbiol. 1992, 6, 3187–3198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ahmed, A.M.; Shimamoto, T.; Shimamoto, T. Molecular characterization of multidrug-resistant avian pathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from septicemic broilers. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 303, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Pilati, G.V.T.; Cadamuro, R.D.; Filho, V.B.; Dahmer, M.; Elois, M.A.; Savi, B.P.; Salles, G.B.C.; Muniz, E.C.; Fongaro, G. Bacteriophage-Associated Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli Isolated from Brazilian Poultry. Viruses 2023, 15, 1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, M100, 33rd ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Malvern, PA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  18. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated From Animals, VET01S, 3rd ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Malvern, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  19. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs Zone Diameters; European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Växjö, Sweden, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  20. Keyes, K.; Hudson, C.; Maurer, J.J.; Thayer, S.; White, D.G.; Lee, M.D. Detection of florfenicol resistance genes in Escherichia coli isolated from sick chickens. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000, 44, 421–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. 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] [PubMed]
  22. Watts, A.; Wigley, P. Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli: An overview of infection biology, antimicrobial resistance and vaccination. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Solà-Ginés, M.; Cameron-Veas, K.; Badiola, I.; Dolz, R.; Majó, N.; Dahbi, G.; Viso, S.; Mora, A.; Blanco, J.; Piedra-Carrasco, N.; et al. Diversity of Multi-Drug Resistant Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Causing Outbreaks of Colibacillosis in Broilers during 2012 in Spain. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Newman, D.M.; Barbieri, N.L.; de Oliveira, A.L.; Willis, D.; Nolan, L.K.; Logue, C.M. Characterizing avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) from colibacillosis cases, 2018. PeerJ 2021, 4, e11025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Johnson, T.J.; Johnson, S.J.; Nolan, L.K. Complete DNA sequence of a ColBM plasmid from avian pathogenic Escherichia coli suggests that it evolved from closely related ColV virulence plasmids. J. Bacteriol. 2006, 188, 5975–5983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Johnson, T.J.; Siek, K.E.; Johnson, S.J.; Nolan, L.K. DNA sequence of a ColV plasmid and prevalence of selected plasmid-encoded virulence genes among avian Escherichia coli strains. J. Bacteriol. 2006, 188, 745–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hejair, H.M.A.; Ma, J.; Zhu, Y.; Sun, M.; Dong, W.; Zhang, Y.; Pan, Z.; Zhang, W.; Yao, H. Role of outer membrane protein T in pathogenicity of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Res. Vet. Sci. 2017, 115, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Kim, Y.B.; Yoon, M.Y.; Ha, J.S.; Seo, K.W.; Noh, E.B.; Son, S.H.; Lee, Y.J. Molecular characterization of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli from broiler chickens with colibacillosis. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Azam, M.; Mohsin, M.; Johnson, T.J.; Smith, E.A.; Johnson, A.; Umair, M.; Saleemi, M.; Sajjad-Ur-Rahman. Genomic landscape of multi-drug resistant avian pathogenic Escherichia coli recovered from broilers. Vet. Microbiol. 2020, 247, 108766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Subedi, M.; Luitel, H.; Devkota, B.; Bhattarai, R.K.; Phuyal, S.; Panthi, P.; Shrestha, A.; Chaudhary, D.K. Antibiotic resistance pattern and virulence genes content in avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) from broiler chickens in Chitwan, Nepal. BMC Vet. Res. 2018, 14, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Meguenni, N.; Chanteloup, N.; Tourtereau, A.; Ahmed, C.A.; Bounar-Kechih, S.; Schouler, C. Virulence and antibiotic resistance profile of avian Escherichia coli strains isolated from colibacillosis lesions in central of Algeria. Vet. World 2019, 12, 1840–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Li, T.; Castañeda, C.D.; Miotto, J.; McDaniel, C.; Kiess, A.S.; Zhang, L. Effects of in ovo probiotic administration on the incidence of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in broilers and an evaluation on its virulence and antimicrobial resistance properties. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 100903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gao, Q.; Wang, X.; Xu, H.; Xu, Y.; Ling, J.; Zhang, D.; Gao, S.; Liu, X. Roles of iron acquisition systems in virulence of extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli: Salmochelin and aerobactin contribute more to virulence than heme in a chicken infection model. BMC Microbiol. 2012, 12, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kathayat, D.; Lokesh, D.; Ranjit, S.; Rajashekara, G. Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC): An Overview of Virulence and Pathogenesis Factors, Zoonotic Potential, and Control Strategies. Pathogens 2021, 10, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Silveira, F.; Maluta, R.P.; Tiba, M.R.; de Paiva, J.B.; Guastalli, E.A.; da Silveira, W.D. Comparison between avian pathogenic (APEC) and avian faecal (AFEC) Escherichia coli isolated from different regions in Brazil. Vet. J. 2016, 217, 65–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hu, J.; Afayibo, D.J.A.; Zhang, B.; Zhu, H.; Yao, L.; Guo, W.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Wang, D.; Peng, H.; et al. Characteristics, pathogenic mechanism, zoonotic potential, drug resistance, and prevention of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1049391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rodriguez-Siek, K.E.; Giddings, C.W.; Doetkott, C.; Johnson, T.J.; Nolan, L.K. Characterizing the APEC pathotype. Vet. Res. 2005, 36, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kanabata, B.; Menck-Costa, M.F.; Souza, M.; Justino, L.; Rangel, I.G.; Kobayashi, R.K.T.; Nakazato, G.; Baptista, A.A.S. Extend-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Producing Strains of Escherichia coli Isolated from Avian Cellulitis Lesions. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2019, 21, eRBCA-2019-0981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Koga, V.L.; Rodrigues, G.R.; Scandorieiro, S.; Vespero, E.C.; Oba, A.; Brito, B.G.; Brito, K.C.T.; Nakazato, G.; Kobayashi, R.K.T. Evaluation of the Antibiotic Resistance and Virulence of Escherichia coli Strains Isolated from Chicken Carcasses in 2007 and 2013 from Parana, Brazil. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2015, 12, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Mohamed, L.; Ge, Z.; Yuehua, L.; Yubin, G.; Rachid, K.; Mustapha, O.; Junwei, W.; Karine, O. Virulence traits of avian pathogenic (APEC) and fecal (AFEC) E. coli isolated from broiler chickens in Algeria. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2018, 50, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Johar, A.; Al-Thani, N.; Al-Hadidi, S.H.; Dlissi, E.; Mahmoud, M.H.; Eltai, N.O. Antibiotic Resistance and Virulence Gene Patterns Associated with Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) from Broiler Chickens in Qatar. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Barbieri, N.L.; Oliveira, A.L.; Tejkowski, T.M.; Pavanelo, D.B.; Rocha, D.A.; Matter, L.B.; Callegari-Jacques, S.M.; Brito, B.G.; Horn, F. Genotypes and Pathogenicity of Cellulitis Isolates Reveal Traits That Modulate APEC Virulence. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e72322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Barbieri, N.L.; de Oliveira, A.L.; Tejkowski, T.M.; Pavanelo, D.B.; Matter, L.B.; Pinheiro, S.R.; Vaz, T.M.; Nolan, L.K.; Logue, C.M.; de Brito, B.G.; et al. Molecular characterization and clonal relationships among Escherichia coli strains isolated from broiler chickens with colisepticemia. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2015, 12, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kim, J.-H.; Lee, H.-J.; Jeong, O.-M.; Kim, D.-W.; Jeong, J.-Y.; Kwon, Y.-K.; Kang, M.-S. High prevalence and variable fitness of fluoroquinolone-resistant avian pathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from chickens in Korea. Avian Pathol. 2021, 50, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ibrahim, R.A.; Cryer, T.L.; Lafi, S.Q.; Basha, E.A.; Good, L.; Tarazi, Y.H. Identification of Escherichia coli from broiler chickens in Jordan, their antimicrobial resistance, gene characterization and the associated risk factors. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ramos, S.; Silva, V.; Dapkevicius, M.L.E.; Caniça, M.; Tejedor-Junco, M.T.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P. Escherichia coli as Commensal and Pathogenic Bacteria Among Food-Producing Animals: Health Implications of Extended Spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) Production. Animals 2020, 10, 2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Mehat, J.W.; van Vliet, A.H.M.; La Ragione, R.M. The avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) pathotype is comprised of multiple distinct, independent genotypes. Avian Pathol. 2021, 50, 402–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Apostolakos, I.; Laconi, A.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Yapicier, Ö.Ş.; Piccirillo, A. Occurrence of colibacillosis in broilers and its relationship with avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) population structure and molecular characteristics. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 737720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Poultry 04 00010 g001
Figure 1. Map of Brazil demonstrating the different states where the 126 E. coli isolates were obtained. Pie graphs present the frequencies of APEC and AFEC isolates in each state.
Figure 1. Map of Brazil demonstrating the different states where the 126 E. coli isolates were obtained. Pie graphs present the frequencies of APEC and AFEC isolates in each state.
Poultry 04 00010 g001
Poultry 04 00010 g002
Figure 2. Relationship between states, APEC, AFEC and virulence genes of the 126 E. coli isolates. The first column indicates the isolate origin state. The second column shows the classification into APEC (blue) or AFEC (green). Columns 3 to 7 classify the strain according to the presence (black) and absence (white) of the five virulence genes iroN, hlyF, iutA, iss, and ompT.
Figure 2. Relationship between states, APEC, AFEC and virulence genes of the 126 E. coli isolates. The first column indicates the isolate origin state. The second column shows the classification into APEC (blue) or AFEC (green). Columns 3 to 7 classify the strain according to the presence (black) and absence (white) of the five virulence genes iroN, hlyF, iutA, iss, and ompT.
Poultry 04 00010 g002
Poultry 04 00010 g003
Figure 3. Multiple and individual profiles of antimicrobial susceptibility testing in 126 E. coli isolates. The first column indicates the isolate state origin. The second column shows the classification as APEC (blue) or AFEC (green). Columns 3 to 12 represent the antimicrobials tested (AMX = Amoxicillin; CEF = Ceftiofur; CIP = Ciprofloxacin; ENR = Enrofloxacin; NOR = Norfloxacin; GEN = Gentamicin; NEO = Neomycin; FFC = Florfenicol; DOX = Doxycycline; TET = Tetracycline), red is complete resistance, yellow is intermediate resistance, and grey is non-resistant/susceptible. The last column indicates whether the isolate is MDR (black) or non-MDR (white).
Figure 3. Multiple and individual profiles of antimicrobial susceptibility testing in 126 E. coli isolates. The first column indicates the isolate state origin. The second column shows the classification as APEC (blue) or AFEC (green). Columns 3 to 12 represent the antimicrobials tested (AMX = Amoxicillin; CEF = Ceftiofur; CIP = Ciprofloxacin; ENR = Enrofloxacin; NOR = Norfloxacin; GEN = Gentamicin; NEO = Neomycin; FFC = Florfenicol; DOX = Doxycycline; TET = Tetracycline), red is complete resistance, yellow is intermediate resistance, and grey is non-resistant/susceptible. The last column indicates whether the isolate is MDR (black) or non-MDR (white).
Poultry 04 00010 g003
Table 1. Virulence genes detected in the E. coli isolates according to the origin of the samples (Minas Gerais—MG, Paraná—PR, and Rio Grande do Sul—RS).
Table 1. Virulence genes detected in the E. coli isolates according to the origin of the samples (Minas Gerais—MG, Paraná—PR, and Rio Grande do Sul—RS).
GeneMG (n = 31)PR (n = 55)RS (n = 40)Total (n = 126)
n (%)n (%)n (%)n (%)
iroN30 (96.8)44 (80)33 (82.5)107 (84.9)
hlyF29 (93.5)49 (89.1)35 (87.5)113 (89.7)
iutA29 (93.5)44 (80)28 (70)101 (80.2)
iss30 (96.8)45 (81,8)31 (77.5)106 (84.1)
ompT30 (96.8)48 (87.7)35 (87.5)113 (89.7)
Table 2. Virulence gene frequency in APEC and AFEC isolates according to the presence of four and five genes.
Table 2. Virulence gene frequency in APEC and AFEC isolates according to the presence of four and five genes.
GeneAPEC 2 n = 103 n (%)AFEC n = 23
n (%)		p-Value 1APEC 3 n = 96 n (%)AFEC n = 30 n (%)p-Value 1
iroN102 (99.0)5 (21.7)<0.0596 (100)11 (36.7)<0.05
hlyF102 (99.0)11 (47.8)<0.0596 (100)17 (56.7)<0.05
iutA98 (95.1)3 (13.0)<0.0596 (100)5 (16.7)<0.05
iss103 (100)3 (13.0)<0.0596 (100)10 (33.3)<0.05
ompT103 (100)10 (43.5)<0.0596 (100)17 (56.7)<0.05
1 The result is significant at p ≤ 0.05. 2 Minimum parameter of four genes. 3 Minimum parameter of five genes.
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

Lúcio, C.J.; Hansen, P.H.C.; Griebeler, J.; Kipper, D.; Lunge, V.R. Virulence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Isolates from Poultry in Brazil. Poultry 2025, 4, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4010010

AMA Style

Lúcio CJ, Hansen PHC, Griebeler J, Kipper D, Lunge VR. Virulence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Isolates from Poultry in Brazil. Poultry. 2025; 4(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4010010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lúcio, Caio Júnior, Paulo Henrique Caminha Hansen, Josiane Griebeler, Diéssy Kipper, and Vagner Ricardo Lunge. 2025. "Virulence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Isolates from Poultry in Brazil" Poultry 4, no. 1: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4010010

APA Style

Lúcio, C. J., Hansen, P. H. C., Griebeler, J., Kipper, D., & Lunge, V. R. (2025). Virulence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Isolates from Poultry in Brazil. Poultry, 4(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/poultry4010010

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop