2022
DOI: 10.1111/lam.13717
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multicentre evaluation of a selective isolation protocol for detection of mcr-positive E. coli and Salmonella spp. in food-producing animals and meat

Abstract: This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of a screening protocol to detect and isolate mcr‐positive Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. from animal caecal content and meat samples. We used a multicentre approach involving 12 laboratories from nine European countries. All participants applied the same methodology combining a multiplex PCR performed on DNA extracted from a pre‐enrichment step, followed by a selective culture step on three commercially available chromogenic agar plates. The test pane… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The majority of prevalence studies screened for only a single E. coli isolate per animal, consequently, mcr -positive strains present in the intestinal microbiota of the animal could remain undetected and are named the ‘phantom resistome’ [ 20 ]. In our study, the use of colistin-supplemented media after an enrichment step in the presence of colistin likely increased the identification of mcr -positive E. coli isolates, which is in agreement with previous reports showing the importance of an enrichment step with colistin to detect mcr -positive E. coli [ 21 , 22 ]. Screening performed on ESBL-producing or ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli also contributed here to the identification of higher proportions of mcr -positive E. coli isolates in cattle and also shown by others in France.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The majority of prevalence studies screened for only a single E. coli isolate per animal, consequently, mcr -positive strains present in the intestinal microbiota of the animal could remain undetected and are named the ‘phantom resistome’ [ 20 ]. In our study, the use of colistin-supplemented media after an enrichment step in the presence of colistin likely increased the identification of mcr -positive E. coli isolates, which is in agreement with previous reports showing the importance of an enrichment step with colistin to detect mcr -positive E. coli [ 21 , 22 ]. Screening performed on ESBL-producing or ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli also contributed here to the identification of higher proportions of mcr -positive E. coli isolates in cattle and also shown by others in France.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The lower prevalence compared to our results could be partially explained by the study design, as in the French study no meat samples were included and mcr genes were tested in E. coli obtained on colistin-free media. The observed differences between studies are often influenced by different methodological approaches which include: (i) the use of colistin-supplemented media for selection of resistant isolates with concentration of colistin ranging from 2 to 4 mg/L ( 30 , 32 34 ), (ii) testing mcr genes in all isolates despite their susceptibility profile, or (iii) performing testing in selected isolates based on colistin MIC values. This supports the need to harmonize the surveillance of colistin resistance as we have for ESBL/AmpC/carbapenemases in E. coli ( 35 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The recent multicenter evaluation of selective isolation protocol for detection of mcr -positive E. coli and Salmonella spp. ( 32 ) represents a great step forward toward this harmonization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Positive controls for mcr -1 and mcr -5 were obtained using Salmonella reference strains 12CEB2196SAL [ 15 ] and S12LNR3592 [ 16 ], respectively. These strains belong to the French reference laboratory (Anses, Maisons-Alfort, France).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%