Reference Citation Analysis: Find an Article, Find a Category, Find a Journal, Find a Scholar

For: Vale AP, Cousins C, Tzora A, McCarron MT, Green A, Molloy S, Bainbridge J, Leonard F. MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF FECAL ESCHERICHIA COLI ISOLATED FROM ZOO ANIMALS. J Zoo Wildl Med 2020;50:813-21. [PMID: 31926511 DOI: 10.1638/2018-0152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/25/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open

For:	Vale AP, Cousins C, Tzora A, McCarron MT, Green A, Molloy S, Bainbridge J, Leonard F. MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF FECAL ESCHERICHIA COLI ISOLATED FROM ZOO ANIMALS. J Zoo Wildl Med 2020;50:813-21. [PMID: 31926511 DOI: 10.1638/2018-0152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/25/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open

Number

Cited by Other Article(s)

A Systematic Review on the Link between Animal Welfare and Antimicrobial Use in Captive Animals. Animals (Basel) 2022;12:ani12081025. [PMID: 35454272 PMCID: PMC9032364 DOI: 10.3390/ani12081025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2022] [Revised: 04/08/2022] [Accepted: 04/12/2022] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open

Abstract

Simple Summary

The threat of antimicrobial resistance is a global health concern, and the misuse of medications is often considered a major contributor. Thus, judicious antimicrobial stewardship in captive animal species (i.e., farm, zoo, companion, and laboratory animals) is paramount and should rely on effective strategies for the reduction of antimicrobial use (AMU). Despite the relationship between welfare, health and productivity, the role that animal welfare can play in such a reduction has been poorly investigated, especially with regards to empirical evidence. This systematic review aimed to summarise the available body of research on the link between animal welfare and AMU in captive species. The low number of publications retrieved from the search, with 76% of them published in the last five years, revealed the knowledge gap pertaining this topic. The majority of publications was on farm animals, suggesting a relevance of the topic for this group, with most of the work (82%) looking at the effect of animal welfare on AMU, rather than the opposite. Overall, better animal welfare was found to be associated with lower AMU. Studies were mainly carried out in EU, likely due to its well-known role as being the avant-garde of animal welfare and AMU. Further research is needed to support these findings, especially concerning other captive species beyond farm animals.

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to assess the link between animal welfare and antimicrobial use (AMU) in captive species (i.e., farm, zoo, companion, and laboratory animals) and its effect. Studies empirically examining the effect of welfare on AMU or vice versa were included. Studies in wild animals were excluded. A total of 6610 studies were retrieved from PubMed^® and Web of Science^® in April 2021. Despite finding several papers superficially invoking the link between welfare and AMU, most did not delve into the characteristics of this link, leading to a small number of publications retained (n = 17). The majority (76%) of the publications were published from 2017–2021. Sixteen were on farm animals, and one publication was on laboratory animals. Most of the studies (82%) looked at the effect of animal welfare on AMU. The body of research retained suggests that, in farm animals, better animal welfare often leads to lower AMU, as was hypothesised, and that, generally, poor welfare is associated with higher AMU. Additionally, AMU restrictions in organic systems may prevent animals from receiving treatment when necessary. Limitations of this study include focusing only on empirical research and excluding non-peer reviewed evidence. More research is needed to corroborate these findings, especially on the link between animal welfare and AMU in other captive species.

Collapse

Formenti N, Calò S, Parisio G, Guarneri F, Birbes L, Pitozzi A, Scali F, Tonni M, Guadagno F, Giovannini S, Salogni C, Ianieri A, Bellini S, Pasquali P, Alborali GL. ESBL/AmpC-Producing Escherichia coli in Wild Boar: Epidemiology and Risk Factors. Animals (Basel) 2021;11:ani11071855. [PMID: 34206498 PMCID: PMC8300396 DOI: 10.3390/ani11071855] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2021] [Revised: 06/10/2021] [Accepted: 06/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open

Affiliation(s)

Nicoletta Formenti Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.) Correspondence:
Stefania Calò Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Giovanni Parisio Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Flavia Guarneri Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Laura Birbes Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Alessandra Pitozzi Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Federico Scali Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Matteo Tonni Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Federica Guadagno Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Stefano Giovannini Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Cristian Salogni Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Adriana Ianieri Dipartimento di Scienze degli Alimenti e del Farmaco, Università di Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 27/A, 43124 Parma, Italy;
Silvia Bellini Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)
Paolo Pasquali Dipartimento di Sicurezza Alimentare, Nutrizione e Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Roma, Italy;
Giovanni Loris Alborali Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini”, Via Bianchi 7/9, 25124 Brescia, Italy; (S.C.); (G.P.); (F.G.); (L.B.); (A.P.); (F.S.); (M.T.); (F.G.); (S.G.); (C.S.); (S.B.); (G.L.A.)

Collapse

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE IN ESCHERICHIA COLI AND ENTEROCOCCUS SPP. ISOLATED FROM UNGULATES AT A ZOOLOGICAL COLLECTION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. J Zoo Wildl Med 2021;51:761-770. [PMID: 33480556 DOI: 10.1638/2020-0096] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open

Abstract

Increase of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global threat to health. The AMR profile of bacteria isolated from domesticated animals and free-ranging wildlife has been studied, but there are relatively few studies of bacteria isolated from captive wild animals. Understanding the dynamics of AMR in different populations is key to minimizing emergence of resistance and to preserve the efficacy of antimicrobials. In this study, fecal samples were collected from 17 species of healthy ungulates from a zoological collection in southeast England, which yielded 39 Escherichia coli and 55 Enterococcus spp. isolates for further analysis. Antibiotic sensitivity was investigated using agar disk diffusion. Escherichia coli isolates were resistant to a range of antibiotics, with resistance to ampicillin being the most common (28%). All E. coli isolates were susceptible to apramycin, enrofloxacin, chloramphenicol, and florfenicol. None tested positive for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase or AmpC activity. Seven of 39 (18%) E. coli isolates were resistant to three or more antibiotic classes. The E. coli isolates were further analyzed using multilocus sequence typing, which identified four pairs of identical sequence type isolates and 27 diverse strains. The Enterococcus spp. isolates were resistant to a range of antibiotics, with resistance to cefpodoxime seen in 95% of isolates. All Enterococcus spp. isolates were susceptible to ampicillin, gentamicin, chloramphenicol, and vancomycin. This study identified multidrug-resistant phenotypes in enterobacterial isolates that were like those commonly found in domestic ungulates. There was no apparent spatial clustering of the resistance profiles within the zoo. Review of the medical records of individual animals showed no direct relation to the AMR profiles observed. Observed resistance to antibiotics rarely or never used may have been due to coselection or directly acquired from other sources.

Collapse