Mourand G, Paboeuf F, Fleury M A, Jouy E, Bougeard S, Denamur E, Kempf I
ANSES, Laboratoire de Ploufragan-Plouzané, Ploufragan, France.
Université Bretagne Loire, Rennes, France.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 Dec 27;61(1). doi: 10.1128/AAC.01293-16. Print 2017 Jan.
Four trials were conducted to evaluate the impact of Escherichia coli probiotic strain ED1a administration to pigs on the gut carriage or survival in manure of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing E. coli Groups of pigs were orally inoculated with strain E. coli M63 carrying the bla gene (n = 84) or used as a control (n = 26). In the first two trials, 24 of 40 E. coli M63-inoculated pigs were given E. coli ED1a orally for 6 days starting 8 days after oral inoculation. In the third trial, 10 E. coli M63-inoculated pigs were given either E. coli ED1a or probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 for 5 days. In the fourth trial, E. coli ED1a was given to a sow and its 12 piglets, and these 12 piglets plus 12 piglets that had not received E. coli ED1a were then inoculated with E. coli M63. Fecal shedding of cefotaxime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CTX-RE) was studied by culture, and bla genes were quantified by PCR. The persistence of CTX-RE in manure samples from inoculated pigs or manure samples inoculated in vitro with E. coli M63 with or without probiotics was studied. The results showed that E. coli M63 and ED1a were good gut colonizers. The reduction in the level of fecal excretion of CTX-RE in E. coli ED1a-treated pigs compared to that in nontreated pigs was usually less than 1 log CFU and was mainly observed during the probiotic administration period. The results obtained with E. coli Nissle 1917 did not differ significantly from those obtained with E. coli ED1a. CTX-RE survival did not differ significantly in manure samples with or without probiotic treatment. In conclusion, under our experimental conditions, E. coli ED1a and E. coli Nissle 1917 could not durably prevent CTX-RE colonization of the pig gut.
进行了四项试验,以评估给猪施用大肠杆菌益生菌菌株ED1a对产超广谱β-内酰胺酶大肠杆菌在肠道中的携带情况或在粪便中的存活情况的影响。将携带bla基因的大肠杆菌M63菌株口服接种到猪群中(n = 84),或用作对照(n = 26)。在前两项试验中,40头接种大肠杆菌M63的猪中有24头在口服接种后8天开始口服大肠杆菌ED1a,持续6天。在第三项试验中,10头接种大肠杆菌M63的猪分别口服大肠杆菌ED1a或益生菌大肠杆菌Nissle 1917,持续5天。在第四项试验中,给一头母猪及其12头仔猪施用大肠杆菌ED1a,然后将这12头仔猪与12头未接受大肠杆菌ED1a的仔猪一起接种大肠杆菌M63。通过培养研究对头孢噻肟耐药肠杆菌科细菌(CTX-RE)的粪便排出情况,并通过PCR对bla基因进行定量。研究了接种猪的粪便样本或体外接种有或没有益生菌的大肠杆菌M63的粪便样本中CTX-RE的持久性。结果表明,大肠杆菌M63和ED1a都是良好的肠道定植菌。与未处理的猪相比,用大肠杆菌ED1a处理的猪中CTX-RE粪便排泄水平的降低通常小于1 log CFU,并且主要在施用益生菌期间观察到。用大肠杆菌Nissle 1917获得的结果与用大肠杆菌ED1a获得的结果没有显著差异。有或没有益生菌处理的粪便样本中CTX-RE的存活情况没有显著差异。总之,在我们的实验条件下,大肠杆菌ED1a和大肠杆菌Nissle 1917不能持久地预防CTX-RE在猪肠道中的定植。