https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8830-1806
Figures
Abstract
Controlling the use of the most critically important antimicrobials (CIAs) in food animals has been identified as one of the key measures required to curb the transmission of antimicrobial resistant bacteria from animals to humans. Expanding the evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of restricting CIA usage for preventing the emergence of resistance to key drugs amongst commensal organisms in animal production would do much to strengthen international efforts to control antimicrobial resistance (AMR). As Australia has strict controls on antimicrobial use in layer hens, and internationally comparatively low levels of poultry disease due to strict national biosecurity measures, we investigated whether these circumstances have resulted in curtailing development of critical forms of AMR. The work comprised a cross-sectional national survey of 62 commercial layer farms with each assessed for AMR in Escherichia coli isolates recovered from faeces. Minimum inhibitory concentration analysis using a panel of 13 antimicrobials was performed on 296 isolates, with those exhibiting phenotypic resistance to fluoroquinolones (a CIA) or multi-class drug resistance (MCR) subjected to whole genome sequencing. Overall, 53.0% of isolates were susceptible to all antimicrobials tested, and all isolates were susceptible to cefoxitin, ceftiofur, ceftriaxone, chloramphenicol and colistin. Resistance was observed for amoxicillin-clavulanate (9.1%), ampicillin (16.2%), ciprofloxacin (2.7%), florfenicol (2.4%), gentamicin (1.0%), streptomycin (4.7%), tetracycline (37.8%) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (9.5%). MCR was observed in 21 isolates (7.0%), with two isolates exhibiting resistance to four antimicrobial classes. Whole genome sequencing revealed that ciprofloxacin-resistant (fluoroquinolone) isolates were devoid of both known chromosomal mutations in the quinolone resistance determinant regions and plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance genes (qnr)—other than in one isolate (ST155) which carried the qnrS gene. Two MCR E. coli isolates with ciprofloxacin-resistance were found to be carrying known resistance genes including aadA1, dfrA1, strA, strB, sul1, sul2, tet(A), blaTEM-1B, qnrS1 and tet(A). Overall, this study found that E. coli from layer hens in Australia have low rates of AMR, likely due to strict control on antimicrobial usage achieved by the sum of regulation and voluntary measures.
Citation: Abraham R, Allison HS, Lee T, Pavic A, Chia R, Hewson K, et al. (2023) A national study confirms that Escherichia coli from Australian commercial layer hens remain susceptible to critically important antimicrobials. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0281848. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281848
Editor: Maria Pia Franciosini, University of Perugia: Universita degli Studi di Perugia, ITALY
Received: February 1, 2023; Accepted: June 20, 2023; Published: July 7, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Abraham et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.
Funding: SA, RA, KH,AP, DJ - Received funding from the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (https://www.agriculture.gov.au/), and Australian Eggs (https://www.australianeggs.org.au/) (IRMA 19178). The funders had an influence on study design in a quality-control context which consisted of interaction with researchers to ensure the scientific validity of the proposed work plan by comparison with standards established by the OIE and major antimicrobial resistance surveillance programs. The funders was not involved in data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Resistance amongst bacteria to high priority, critically important antimicrobials (CIAs)—such as extended-spectrum cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, carbapenems, and colistin—threatens the therapeutic options for treatment of severe infections in humans [1]. Emergence of CIA-resistant bacteria in food-producing animals further exacerbates this risk, either due to bacteria (commensals or pathogens) or genetic determinants being transferred via food, or via environmental pathways to infiltrate human microflora. Globally, there have been increasing reports of CIA-resistant indicator bacteria such as Escherichia coli isolated from food-producing animals. In 2020, the Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme (DANMAP) reported a 16% prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli in broiler chickens [2] while a recent French study reported a 16.5% prevalence of colistin-resistant E. coli in veal calves [3]. Moreover, in 2019 the American National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) reported a 3.5% prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli in pigs which was the highest reported prevalence to date in the United States [4].
The Australian livestock sector is an exception to the trend for increasingly prevalent CIA colonisation of food-animals [5–10]. This favourable antimicrobial resistance (AMR) status has been attributed to Australia’s isolated geographic location, longstanding regulatory constraints on the use of CIAs (such as extended-spectrum cephalosporin, fluoroquinolone and colistin) in food-producing animals [11], and strict quarantine conditions at the national border [12]. Some sectors also achieve avoidance of antimicrobials by virtue of both the limited impact of bacterial disease and the constrained availability of antimicrobials as part of the regulatory process for eliminating chemical residues from animal products. An example of the latter is the commercial layer hen industry where for much of a hen’s existence, they are continuously producing eggs for human consumption and therefore must be minimally exposed to medications, including antimicrobials, that might accumulate residues in eggs.
Eggs from the domestic fowl are one of the most heavily consumed animal products worldwide. In Australia, there has been strong growth in consumer demand for eggs over the past decade. In 2021 it was estimated that on-average 246 eggs were consumed per person annually [13]. This increasing level of egg consumption, has been linked to increases in foodborne illness outbreaks, often associated with sub-optimal handling of eggs in food establishments [14]. Further, the use of poultry manures as fertiliser on horticultural crops can potentially produce other avenues for foodborne illness in humans [15]. To improve the clarity of the AMR risks from the egg industry to the community, surveillance of the AMR status of layer flocks is needed. The most recent survey investigated AMR presence in Salmonella [16], considered in the context of previous data [17], revealed overall low rates of resistance to all tested antimicrobials. However, for the purpose of comparison, and for establishing a baseline description of AMR in the layer hen sector, a comprehensive evaluation of the AMR status of E. coli in layer hens is needed. The objective of this study was to perform a national cross-sectional study to define the AMR carriage among commensal E. coli isolates from commercial layer hens. In addition, genomic characterisation of isolates expressing resistance to CIA were undertaken to support inferences on the epidemiological significance of the findings. We hypothesised that E. coli from Australian layer hens would display low rates of AMR due to longstanding restrictions on antimicrobial use within the Australian livestock sector including special constraints applied to antimicrobial use for Australian layer hens, and the low levels of AMR detected in previous surveys.
Materials and methods
Sample collection and approach
Cloacal swabs (n = 296) were collected from healthy commercial table egg laying chickens on 62 enrolled farms between August 2019 and January 2020. Informed consent to participate in this study was provided verbally by all enrolled farms. Five swabs were collected under veterinary supervision from each production unit, defined by management system (e.g. caged, free-range egg production systems). A commercial entity was eligible for inclusion in this survey if they had at least one commercial egg production unit. Swabs were transported on ice and processed within 24 hours of collection. This work was approved by Murdoch University Ethics committee (Permit number: Cadaver 944).
E. coli isolation
Upon arriving at the laboratory, swabs were vortexed in 10 mL of buffered peptone water followed by direct streaking onto E. coli chromogenic agar (CHROMagar™ ECC, Edwards Australia). All agar plates were incubated at 37°C for 18 hours. One presumptive E. coli colony from each plate was selected based on chromogenic reaction (as detailed by the manufacturer) and sub-cultured onto CHROMagar™ Coli ID agar (Edwards Australia) for purity. E. coli isolation was confirmed using an indole test followed by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (Microflex, Bruker, MA, USA). Confirmed E. coli isolates were frozen at -80°C in 1 mL of Luria-Bertani broth with 20% glycerol.
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing
Prior to antimicrobial susceptibility testing, isolates were recovered onto Columbia sheep blood agar (Edwards Australia) and checked for purity. The susceptibility of the isolates to antimicrobials was determined by broth microdilution according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) ISO 20776 standards [18]. Drug panels were prepared in-house using a customised Freedom EVO genomics platform [19]. Inocula were prepared manually at 0.5 McFarland standard as per CLSI guidelines and dispensed using the Sensititre AIMࡊ Automated Inoculation Delivery System. After incubation at 37°C for 18 hours, images of the assay plates were taken and read using the Sensititreࡊ Vizion ࡊ Digital MIC Viewing System with the minimal inhibitory concentration identified based on CLSI guidelines. E. coli ATCC 25922 was used as the control strain. Susceptibility towards thirteen antimicrobials representing ten classes were assessed and includes beta-lactam (amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and ampicillin), second-generation cephalosporin (cefoxitin), third-generation cephalosporin (ceftiofur and ceftriaxone), phenicol (chloramphenicol and florfenicol), quinolone (ciprofloxacin), polymyxin (colistin), aminoglycoside (gentamicin and streptomycin), tetracycline (tetracycline) and folate pathway inhibitor (trimethorprim/sulfamethoxazole).
Interpretation of susceptibility was based on The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) epidemiological cut-off (ECOFF) breakpoints which categorise isolates as wild type or non-wild type [20] and differs from CLSI clinical breakpoints that determines whether isolates are clinically resistant to the antimicrobial used for clinical treatments [21]. ECOFF breakpoints were chosen due to non-wild type isolates having been shown to contain AMR genes even with MIC values below the defined CLSI breakpoint [22]. Therefore, isolates categorised as wild type and non-wild type were classified as susceptible and resistant respectively. Multi-class drug resistance (MCR) was classified by ECOFF for isolates exhibiting non-wild type phenotype to three or more antimicrobial classes (≥ three classes of antimicrobials).
Whole genome sequencing
Whole genomic analysis was undertaken for any E. coli isolates exhibiting resistance to CIAs. DNA extraction was performed on the isolates using the MagMAX Multi-sample DNA extraction kit (ThermoFisher Scientific) as per the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA library preparation was performed using a Celero™ DNA-Seq Library Preparation Kit (NuGen, Tecan) as per the manufacturer’s recommendations and then was sequenced on the Illumina Nextseq platform [23].
Bioinformatics analysis
Sequencing files were assembled using SPAdes denovo assembler (v3.14.0) [24]. Antimicrobial resistance genes were identified using ABRicate (v0.8.7) with default settings. The sequence types (STs) of the sequenced isolates were established by in silico multilocus sequence typing as previously described [23].
Results
Phenotypic antimicrobial resistance
In total, 296 E. coli isolates were recovered from birds on 62 farms. The majority of isolates were susceptible to all antimicrobials tested (n = 157, 53.0%), and all isolates were susceptible to cefoxitin, ceftiofur, ceftriaxone, chloramphenicol and colistin (Fig 1, Table 1). Resistance was observed for amoxicillin-clavulanate (9.1%), ampicillin (16.2%), ciprofloxacin (2.7%), florfenicol (2.4%), gentamicin (1.0%), streptomycin (4.7%), tetracycline (37.8%) and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (9.5%) (Table 1). Of the eight isolates classified as non-wild type for ciprofloxacin (fluoroquinolone, CIA) (Table 1), none were also above the clinical breakpoint of 1 mg/L [21].
The percentage of susceptible isolates is marked in blue and the percentage of resistant isolates is marked in red, unless otherwise indicated by footnotes (Percentage results were rounded to one decimal place). ** Data for this antimicrobial was based on CLSI clinical breakpoints due to the ECOFF breakpoint being below the dilution range.
The percentage of resistance based on ECOFF breakpoints (non-wild type) and clinical breakpoints (clinical resistance) are presented on the right-hand side (Percentage results were rounded to one decimal place). Vertical bars indicate position of ECOFF breakpoint.
Multi-class drug resistance profiles for E. coli
Twenty-one (7.0%) E. coli isolates were identified as being MCR, with seven MCR profiles identified (Table 2). The most common MCR profile was towards beta-lactams, folate pathway inhibitors and tetracyclines (n = 10, 3.4%). Two isolates demonstrated resistance towards four classes of antimicrobials although with different MCR profiles. One (0.3%) had a profile with resistance to aminoglycosides, beta-lactams, folate pathway inhibitors and tetracyclines while the other (0.3%) had a profile with resistance to aminoglycosides, folate pathway inhibitors, quinolones and tetracyclines.
Genomic characterisation of critically important antimicrobial resistant E. coli
Whole genome sequencing was undertaken on all eight E. coli isolates exhibiting phenotypic resistance to fluoroquinolones (CIA), two of which showed MCR phenotypes (Table 3). Quinolone-resistance determining region (QRDR) mutations or AMR genes for fluoroquinolone resistance were only detected in one isolate that carried qnrS1, a known plasmid-mediated quinolone-resistance gene (PMQR) [25]. The two MCR E. coli isolates harbouring phenotypic quinolone resistance belonged to two different sequence types (ST746 and ST155) and carried AMR genes to first-line antimicrobials such as aminoglycosides and tetracyclines. As shown in Table 3, not all phenotypically detected resistance was confirmed by the detection of corresponding AMR genes or mutations.
Discussion
This study demonstrated that there is an overall low level of AMR in E. coli isolated from Australian layer hens compared to other countries [26–31], with more than half of all isolates (53.0%) being susceptible to all tested antimicrobials, and with low levels (2.7%) or absence of resistance to CIAs (fluoroquinolone, extended-spectrum cephalosporin, polymixin). MCR phenotypes were observed only among a small number of E. coli isolates (7.0%), with two isolates exhibiting resistance to four antimicrobial classes. Where phenotypic results suggested resistance, this was not always supported by the presence of known resistance genes, as previously described by other studies [32, 33], except in a single isolate that harboured a known PMQR gene. Overall, the findings are consistent with other recent Australian studies demonstrating low levels of resistance to CIAs among E. coli isolated from Australian livestock [9, 17, 34].
As layer hens are often excluded from national AMR surveillance systems (unlike broiler chickens), there has been a relative paucity of drug susceptibility data for E. coli from this class of livestock. However, comparison of findings from the current study with recent international AMR studies in layer hens shows an overall lower level of E. coli resistance among Australian layer hens compared to other countries. For example, ampicillin-resistant E. coli was only detected among 16.2% of isolates from this current study compared to 97.8%, 83.0%, 81.0%, 54.0% and 49.5% for Bangladesh [30], China [31], Portugal [29], Zambia [28] and Tanzania [27] respectively, while tetracycline-resistant E. coli was found among 37.8% of isolates from this current study compared to 89.7%, 87.3%, 62.0%, 54.3% and 53.6% for Bangladesh [30], China [31], Portugal [29], Zambia [28] and Austria [26] respectively. This also extends to CIA-resistant E. coli where the current study demonstrated low levels or absence of CIA-resistant E. coli among Australian layer hens compared to China [31], Tanzania [27], Austria [26] and Portugal [29]. Examples include the absence of cefoxitin-resistance compared to Austria (56.0%), low levels of ciprofloxacin-resistance (2.7%) compared to Portugal (59.5%), China (45.8%), Tanzania (33.8%) and Zambia (25.4%), and absence of colistin-resistance compared to China (4.9%) and Austria (73.7%). Additionally, the low level of E. coli resistance in layer chickens from this current study was consistent with Australian studies investigating the level of Salmonella resistance among Australian eggs and layer chickens [10, 16, 17].
Some resistance genes encountered in this study were directed against antimicrobials that are not approved for use in Australian layer hens (eg. fluroquinolones). This phenomenon reflects the labile nature of resistance in E. coli populations arising from an acquisition of resistance by gene-transfer and co-selection, adaptations allowing survival in the environment between host colonisation events, and ability to colonise multiple host species of which some are highly mobile and can spread resistance between populations. The findings in this respect are consistent with some other recent studies demonstrating low levels of AMR to high or medium importance antimicrobials among E. coli isolated from Australian cattle and meat chickens [8, 35]. In addition, there is increasing empirical data revealing cross-species transfer of resistant E. coli from humans or other animals such as pigs [36], wild birds [37, 38] and poultry [39] regardless of which antimicrobials the recipient species are exposed to [23]. It is possible that these transmission pathways have resulted in layer hens being exposed to and colonised with resistant bacteria. Another finding that requires explanation is the lack of both chromosomal QRDR mutations and PMQR (qnr) genes among all but one of the ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates. The lack of resistance based on clinical breakpoints indicate either MIC drift or the insensitivity of ECOFF breakpoints to distinguish wild type versus non-wild type phenotypes. Future investigations should consider the prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials of animal health significance: this will ensure One Health approaches to AMR are implemented to avoid unintended animal health consequences from only focusing on antimicrobials of importance to human health. Continued work on minimising flock disease and adopting alternative therapies that do not require antimicrobial use also is required.
In conclusion, this study reveals low rates of overall resistance including the absence of significant resistance to antimicrobials of high importance amongst commensal E. coli isolated from Australian layer hens. This supports similar findings from recent studies of Australian cattle, pigs and meat chickens [8–10, 16, 35, 40]. The low rates are likely due to decades of stringent regulatory control on antimicrobial use, biosecurity measures, and infection prevention practises within the Australian egg industry and livestock [9, 41–45].
Acknowledgments
This project was funded by the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Australian Eggs.
References
- 1.
World Health Organization. Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine 6th revision 2018. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2019.
- 2.
DANMAP. DANMAP 2020—Use of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from food animals, food and humans in Denmark. Denmark: DANMAP; 2020.
- 3. Um MM, Dupouy V, Arpaillange N, Bieche-Terrier C, Auvray F, Oswald E, et al. High fecal prevalence of mcr-positive Escherichia coli in veal calves at slaughter in France. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(8).
- 4.
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. NARMS Now: Integrated Data 2022 [cited 2022 November 23]. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/national-antimicrobial-resistance-monitoring-system/narms-now-integrated-data.
- 5. Abraham S, Groves MD, Trott DJ, Chapman TA, Turner B, Hornitzky M, et al. Salmonella enterica isolated from infections in Australian livestock remain susceptible to critical antimicrobials. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014;43(2):126–30.
- 6. Abraham S, Jordan D, Wong HS, Johnson JR, Toleman MA, Wakeham DL, et al. First detection of extended-spectrum cephalosporin- and fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli in Australian food-producing animals. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2015;3(4):273–7.
- 7. Al-Habsi K, Jordan D, Harb A, Laird T, Yang R, O’Dea M, et al. Salmonella enterica isolates from Western Australian rangeland goats remain susceptible to critically important antimicrobials. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):15326.
- 8. Barlow R, McMillan K, Mellor G, Duffy L, Jordan D, Abraham R, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic assessment of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli from Australian cattle populations at slaughter. J Food Prot. 2022;85(4):563–70.
- 9. Kidsley AK, Abraham S, Bell JM, O’Dea M, Laird TJ, Jordan D, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. isolates from healthy pigs in Australia: Results of a pilot national survey. Front Microbiol. 2018;9(1207).
- 10. Sodagari HR, Mohammed AB, Wang P, O’Dea M, Abraham S, Robertson I, et al. Non-typhoidal Salmonella contamination in egg shells and contents from retail in Western Australia: Serovar diversity, multilocus sequence types, and phenotypic and genomic characterizations of antimicrobial resistance. Int J Food Microbiol. 2019;308:108305.
- 11.
Australian Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on Antimicrobial Resistance (ASTAG). Importance ratings and summary of antimicrobial uses in human and animal health in Australia. Australia: ASTAG; 2018.
- 12. Turner A. Quarantine, exports and animal disease in Australia 1901–2010. Aust Vet J. 2011;89(9):366–71. pmid:21864310
- 13.
Australian Egg Industry. Australian egg industry overview 2022 [cited 2022 June 30]. https://www.australianeggs.org.au/egg-industry.
- 14. Chousalkar K, Gole VC. Salmonellosis acquired from poultry. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2016;29(5):514–9. pmid:27434307
- 15. Chen Z, Jiang X. Microbiological safety of chicken litter or chicken litter-based organic fertilizers: A review. Agriculture. 2014;4(1):1–29.
- 16. Veltman T, Jordan D, McDevitt CA, Bell J, Howden BP, Valcanis M, et al. Absence of high priority critically important antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella sp. isolated from Australian commercial egg layer environments. Int J Food Microbiol. 2021;340:109042.
- 17. Pande VV, Gole VC, McWhorter AR, Abraham S, Chousalkar KK. Antimicrobial resistance of non-typhoidal Salmonella isolates from egg layer flocks and egg shells. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015;203:23–6.
- 18.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. VET08: Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals—Fourth Edition. USA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2018.
- 19. Truswell A, Abraham R, O’Dea M, Lee ZZ, Lee T, Laird T, et al. Robotic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Platform (RASP): A next-generation approach to One Health surveillance of antimicrobial resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021. pmid:33893498
- 20.
The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptiblity Testing. MIC and zone diameter distributions and ECOFFs: The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; 2020 [cited 2020 July 13]. https://www.eucast.org/mic_and_zone_distributions_and_ecoffs.
- 21.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. M100: Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing—Thirtieth Edition. USA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2020.
- 22. Canton R, Morosini MI. Emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance following exposure to antibiotics. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2011;35(5):977–91. pmid:21722146
- 23. Laird TJ, Jordan D, Lee ZZ, O’Dea M, Stegger M, Truswell A, et al. Diversity detected in commensals at host and farm level reveals implications for national antimicrobial resistance surveillance programmes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2022;77(2):400–8. pmid:34791273
- 24. Nurk S, Bankevich A, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Korobeynikov A, Lapidus A, et al. Assembling single-cell genomes and mini-metagenomes from chimeric MDA products. J Comput Biol. 2013;20(10):714–37. pmid:24093227
- 25. Cerquetti M, Garcia-Fernandez A, Giufre M, Fortini D, Accogli M, Graziani C, et al. First report of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance determinant qnrS1 in an Escherichia coli strain of animal origin in Italy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(7):3112–4.
- 26. Hess C, Troxler S, Jandreski-Cvetkovic D, Zloch A, Hess M. Escherichia coli isolated from organic laying hens reveal a high level of antimicrobial resistance despite no antimicrobial treatments. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(4).
- 27. Kiiti RW, Komba EV, Msoffe PL, Mshana SE, Rweyemamu M, Matee MIN. Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli isolated from broiler and layer chickens in Arusha and Mwanza, Tanzania. Int J Microbiol. 2021;2021:6759046.
- 28. Mudenda S, Malama S, Munyeme M, Matafwali SK, Kapila P, Katemangwe P, et al. Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli isolated from laying hens in Zambia: Implications and significance on one health. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2023;5(3):dlad060.
- 29. Pais S, Costa M, Barata AR, Rodrigues L, Afonso IM, Almeida G. Evaluation of Antimicrobial resistance of different phylogroups of Escherichia coli isolates from feces of breeding and laying hens. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;12(1).
- 30. Rahman MM, Husna A, Elshabrawy HA, Alam J, Runa NY, Badruzzaman ATM, et al. Isolation and molecular characterization of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli from chicken meat. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):21999.
- 31. Zou M, Ma PP, Liu WS, Liang X, Li XY, Li YZ, et al. Prevalence and antibiotic resistance characteristics of extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli among healthy chickens from farms and live poultry markets in China. Animals (Basel). 2021;11(4).
- 32. Ellington MJ, Ekelund O, Aarestrup FM, Canton R, Doumith M, Giske C, et al. The role of whole genome sequencing in antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria: Report from the EUCAST Subcommittee. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;23(1):2–22. pmid:27890457
- 33. Bortolaia V, Kaas RS, Ruppe E, Roberts MC, Schwarz S, Cattoir V, et al. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75(12):3491–500. pmid:32780112
- 34. Barlow RS, McMillan KE, Duffy LL, Fegan N, Jordan D, Mellor GE. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella and Escherichia coli from Australian cattle populations at slaughter. J Food Prot. 2015;78(5):912–20.
- 35. Abraham S, O’Dea M, Sahibzada S, Hewson K, Pavic A, Veltman T, et al. Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. isolated from Australian meat chickens remain susceptible to critically important antimicrobial agents. PLoS One. 2019;14(10).
- 36. Sahibzada S, Abraham S, Coombs GW, Pang S, Hernandez-Jover M, Jordan D, et al. Transmission of highly virulent community-associated MRSA ST93 and livestock-associated MRSA ST398 between humans and pigs in Australia. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):5273. pmid:28706213
- 37. Mukerji S, Stegger M, Truswell AV, Laird T, Jordan D, Abraham RJ, et al. Resistance to critically important antimicrobials in Australian silver gulls (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae) and evidence of anthropogenic origins. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(9):2566–74.
- 38. Mukerji S, Gunasekera S, Dunlop JN, Stegger M, Jordan D, Laird T, et al. Implications of foraging and interspecies interactions of birds for carriage of Escherichia coli strains resistant to critically important antimicrobials. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86(20).
- 39. Abraham S, Sahibzada S, Hewson K, Laird T, Abraham R, Pavic A, et al. Emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli among Australian chickens in the absence of fluoroquinolone use. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86(8).
- 40. Abraham R, Sahibzada S, Jordan D, O’Dea M, Hampson DJ, McMillan K, et al. Antimicrobial resistance and genomic relationships of Salmonella enterica from Australian cattle. Int J Food Microbiol. 2022;371:109672.
- 41.
Australian Chicken Meat Federation. National farm biosecurity manual for chicken growers version 2.2 2020 [https://www.farmbiosecurity.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/National-Farm-Biosecurity-Manual-for-Chicken-Growers_May2020.pdf.
- 42.
Australian Eggs Industry. National farm biosecurity technical manual for egg production 2020 [https://www.farmbiosecurity.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/National-Farm-Biosecurity-Technical-Manual-for-Egg-Production_September-2020.pdf.
- 43. Cheng AC, Turnidge J, Collignon P, Looke D, Barton M, Gottlieb T. Control of fluoroquinolone resistance through successful regulation, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(9):1453–60. pmid:22932272
- 44. Gray P, Jenner R, Norris J, Page S, Browning G, Australian Veterinary Association L, et al. Antimicrobial prescribing guidelines for poultry. Aust Vet J. 2021;99(6):181–235. pmid:33782952
- 45. Mukerji S, O’Dea M, Barton M, Kirkwood R, Lee T, Abraham S. Development and transmission of antimicrobial resistance among Gram-negative bacteria in animals and their public health impact. Essays Biochem. 2017;61(1):23–35. pmid:28258227