In-vitro antibiotic resistance phenotypes of respiratory and enteric bacterial isolates from weaned dairy heifers in California

PLoS One. 2021 Nov 24;16(11):e0260292. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260292. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Antimicrobial drug (AMD) use for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) continues to be concerning for development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in respiratory and enteric bacteria of cattle. This study aimed to provide data regarding AMR in respiratory isolates, and identify relationships between respiratory and enteric AMD susceptibility, in weaned dairy heifers. A cross-sectional study was performed between June of 2019 and February 2020, on 6 calf rearing facilities in California. Deep nasopharyngeal and rectal swabs were collected from 341 weaned heifers and submitted for selective bacterial culture and AMR testing. Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni were selectively isolated from respiratory samples; Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. were selectively isolated from rectal swabs. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined for selected isolates against 19 AMD. The proportion of resistant isolates was calculated using Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (respiratory) or USDA NARMS (enteric) breakpoints; when no applicable breakpoint was available, the distribution of MIC was described and compared. Association between AMR in a calf's respiratory isolate and a higher or lower MIC of the matched enteric isolates was determined. More than 50% of P. multocida isolates were resistant to each of 7 AMD commonly used to treat BRD (florfenicol, gamithromycin, tildipirosin, tilmicosin, danofloxacin, enrofloxacin and tetracycline). Resistance in respiratory isolates was only associated with higher matched enteric MIC for gamithromycin and tulathromycin. Multidrug resistance was reported in >70% of P. multocida and M. haemolytica isolates. Antimicrobial resistance, including multidrug resistance, in respiratory isolates appears to be widespread in weaned dairy heifers; this finding has not previously been reported and raises concern for the future efficacy of AMD used to treat respiratory diseases in weaned dairy heifers. Enteric bacterial MIC appear to have limited direct association with respiratory isolate AMR classification.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / pharmacology
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / therapeutic use*
  • Bacteria / drug effects
  • Bacteria / isolation & purification*
  • Bacterial Infections / drug therapy
  • Bacterial Infections / epidemiology
  • Bacterial Infections / microbiology
  • Bacterial Infections / veterinary*
  • Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex / drug therapy*
  • Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex / epidemiology
  • Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex / microbiology*
  • California / epidemiology
  • Cattle
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Drug Resistance, Bacterial
  • Female
  • Microbial Sensitivity Tests
  • Weaning

Substances

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents

Grants and funding

SD, SA, JW, DW, KC, HF, GM, MH, MC all contributed to the funding proposal that resulted in funding granted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). This project was financially funded by contract standard agreement 18-0376. The website for the CDFA is: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Agency participation was limited to discussion of organisms to be selected for study, and ultimate approval of the final study proposal. The CDFA did not contribute to preparation of the manuscript, with exception of CDFA review of language specifically addressing the CDFA (in the acknowledgements section of the manuscript) and language regarding data confidentiality and availability. The authors received no specific funding for this work. Salaries for study personnel were not supported by this funding. One author, GM, has a commercial affiliation with a veterinary practice; this veterinary practice was financially compensated for GM’s participation in the study, however the veterinary practice had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation. The specific roles of all authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.