Advertisement
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
1. Kil DY, Stein HH. Invited review: management and feeding strategies to ameliorate the impact of removing antibiotic growth promoters from diets fed to weanling pigs. Can J Anim Sci 2010; 90: 447–460.
-
2. Coates ME, Fuller R, Harrison GF, et al. A comparison of the growth of chicks in the Gustafsson germ-free apparatus and in a conventional environment, with and without dietary supplements of penicillin. Br J Nutr 1963; 17: 141–150.
-
3. Gaskins HR, Collier CT, Anderson DB. Antibiotics as growth promotants: mode of action. Anim Biotechnol 2002; 13: 29–42.
-
4. Cromwell GL. Antimicrobial and promicrobial agents. In: Lewis AJ, Southern LL, eds. Swine nutrition. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press, 2001; 401–426.
-
5. Dawson KA, Langlois BE, Stahly TS, et al. Antibiotic resistance in anaerobic and coliform bacteria from the intestinal tract of swine fed therapeutic and subtherapeutic concentrations of chlortetracycline. J Anim Sci 1984; 58: 123–131.
-
6. Bager F, Madsen M, Christensen J, et al. Avoparcin used as a growth promoter is associated with the occurrence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium on Danish poultry and pig farms. Prev Vet Med 1997; 31: 95–112.
-
7. FDA. Available at: www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm042451.htm. Accessed Mar 3, 2013.
-
8. Casewell M, Friis C, Marco E, et al. The European ban on growth-promoting antibiotics and emerging consequences for human and animal health. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52: 159–161.
-
9. Hurd HS, Brudvig J, Dickson J, et al. Swine health impact on carcass contamination and human foodborne risk. Public Health Rep 2008; 123: 343–351.
-
10. Hurd HS, Yaeger MJ, Brudvig JM, et al. Lesion severity at processing as a predictor of Salmonella contamination of swine carcasses. Am J Vet Res 2012; 73: 91–97.
-
11. Singer RS, Cox LA Jr, Dickson JS, et al. Modeling the relationship between food animal health and human foodborne illness. Prev Vet Med 2007; 79: 186–203.
-
12. Dewey CE, Cox BD, Straw BE, et al. Use of antimicrobials in swine feeds in the United States. Swine Health Prod 1999; 7: 19–25.
-
13. Giguere S, Prescott JF, Baggot JD. Antimicrobial therapy in veterinary medicine. 4th ed. Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006; 195–197.
-
14. Stone JJ, Clay SA, Zhu Z, et al. Effect of antimicrobial compounds tylosin and chlortetracycline during batch anaerobic swine manure digestion. Water Res 2009; 43: 4740–4750.
-
15. Shryock TR, Elliott RA, Bennett TH, et al. Effect of tylosin on an experimental Salmonella infection in pigs. Swine Health Prod 1998; 6: 211–216.
-
16. Danzeisen JL, Kim HB, Isaacson RE, et al. Modulations of the chicken cecal microbiome and metagenome in response to anticoccidial and growth promoter treatment. PLoS One 2011; 6: e27949.
-
17. Kim HB, Borewicz K, White BA, et al. Microbial shifts in the swine distal gut in response to the treatment with antimicrobial growth promoter, tylosin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012; 109: 15485–15490.
-
18. Petersen HH, Nielsen JP, Heegaard PM. Application of acute phase protein measurements in veterinary clinical chemistry. Vet Res 2004; 35: 163–187.
-
19. Chen HH, Lin JH, Fung HP, et al. Serum acute phase proteins and swine health status. Can J Vet Res 2003; 67: 283–290.
-
20. Davies PR, Turkson PK, Funk JA, et al. Comparison of methods for isolating Salmonella bacteria from faeces of naturally infected pigs. J Appl Microbiol 2000; 89: 169–177.
-
21. Singer RS, Cooke CL, Maddox CW, et al. Use of pooled samples for the detection of Salmonella in feces by polymerase chain reaction. J Vet Diagn Invest 2006; 18: 319–325.
-
22. Johnson JR, Stell AL. Extended virulence genotypes of Escherichia coli strains from patients with urosepsis in relation to phylogeny and host compromise. J Infect Dis 2000; 181: 261–272.
-
23. Chiu CH, Ou JT. Rapid identification of Salmonella serovars in feces by specific detection of virulence genes, invA and spvC, by an enrichment broth culture-multiplex PCR combination assay. J Clin Microbiol 1996; 2619–2622.
-
24. Ribot EM, Fair MA, Gautom R, et al. Standardization of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis protocols for the subtyping of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Shigella for PulseNet. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2006; 3: 59–67.
-
25. Hunter SB, Vauterin P, Lambert-Fair MA, et al. Establishment of a universal size standard strain for use with the PulseNet standardized pulsed-field gel electrophoresis protocols: converting the national databases to the new size standard. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 1045–1050.
-
26. Gaul SB, Wedel S, Erdman MM, et al. Use of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of conserved XbaI fragments for identification of swine Salmonella serotypes. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45: 472–476.
-
27. Burton PJ, Thornsberry C, Cheung Yee Y, et al. Interpretive criteria for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of ceftiofur against bacteria associated with swine respiratory disease. J Vet Diagn Invest 1996; 8: 464–468.
-
28. Doran G, NiChulain M, DeLappe N, et al. Interpreting streptomycin susceptibility test results for Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006; 27: 538–540.
-
29. CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; twenty-first informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S21. Wayne, Pa: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2011.
-
30. Rajic A, McFall ME, Deckert AE, et al. Antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella isolated from finishing swine and the environment of 60 Alberta swine farms. Vet Microbiol 2004; 104: 189–196.
-
31. Pan W. Akaike's information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 2001; 57: 120–125.
-
32. Briggs CE, Fratamico PM. Molecular characterization of an antibiotic resistance gene cluster of Salmonella typhimurium DT104. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 846–849.
-
33. Visek WJ. The mode of growth promotion by antibiotics. J Anim Sci 1978; 46: 1447–1469.
-
34. Roura E, Homedes J, Klasing KC. Prevention of immunologic stress contributes to the growth-permitting ability of dietary antibiotics in chicks. J Nutr 1992; 122: 2383–2390.
-
35. Anderson DB, McCracken VJ, Aminov RI, et al. Gut microbiology and growth-promoting antibiotics in swine. Pig News Inform 1999; 20:115N–122N.
-
36. Dibner JJ, Richards JD. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: history and mode of action. Poult Sci 2005; 84: 634–643.
-
37. Burger W, Fennert EM, Pohle M, et al. C-reactive protein—a characteristic feature of health control in swine. Zentralbl Veterinarmed A 1992; 39: 635–638.
-
38. Heegaard PM, Klausen J, Nielsen JP, et al. The porcine acute phase response to infection with Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae. Haptoglobin, C-reactive protein, major acute phase protein and serum amyloid A protein are sensitive indicators of infection. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol 1998; 119: 365–373.
-
39. Sorensen NS, Tegtmeier C, Andresen LO, et al. The porcine acute phase protein response to acute clinical and subclinical experimental infection with Streptococcus suis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2006; 113: 157–168.
-
40. Baggesen DL, Wingstrand A, Carstensen B, et al. Effects of the antimicrobial growth promoter tylosin on subclinical infection of pigs with Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium. Am J Vet Res 1999; 60: 1201–1206.
-
41. Wagner BA, Straw BE, Fedorka-Cray PJ, et al. Effect of antimicrobial dosage regimen on Salmonella and Escherichia coli isolates from feeder swine. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008; 74: 1731–1739.
-
42. Jacks TM, Frazier E, Judith FR, et al. Effect of efrotomycin in feed on the quantity, duration, and prevalence of shedding and antibacterial susceptibility of Salmonella typhimurium in experimentally infected swine. Am J Vet Res 1988; 49: 1832–1835.
-
43. Letellier A, Messier S, Lessard L, et al. Assessment of various treatments to reduce carriage of Salmonella in swine. Can J Vet Res 2000; 64: 27–31.
-
44. Ebner PD, Mathew AG. Effects of antibiotic regimens on the fecal shedding patterns of pigs infected with Salmonella typhimurium. J Food Prot 2000; 63: 709–714.
-
45. Delsol AA, Anjum M, Woodward MJ, et al. The effect of chlortetracycline treatment and its subsequent withdrawal on multiresistant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 and commensal Escherichia coli in the pig. J Appl Microbiol 2003; 95: 1226–1234.
-
46. Denagamage T, O'Connor A, Sargeant J, et al. The association between sub-therapeutic antibiotics and Salmonella Typhimurium in market-weight swine: a systematic review and summation of evidence from 1950 to 2007. Zoonoses Public Health 2010; 57: e14–e22.
-
47. Boerlin P, Wissing A, Aarestrup FM, et al. Antimicrobial growth promoter ban and resistance to macrolides and vancomycin in enterococci from pigs. J Clin Microbiol 2001; 39: 4193–4195.
-
48. Aarestrup FM, Seyfarth AM, Emborg HD, et al. Effect of abolishment of the use of antimicrobial agents for growth promotion on occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci from food animals in Denmark. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 2054–2059.
Advertisement
Effects of tylosin administration on C-reactive protein concentration and carriage of Salmonella enterica in pigs
Abstract
Objective—To evaluate the effects of tylosin on C-reactive protein concentration, carriage of Salmonella enterica, and antimicrobial resistance genes in commercial pigs.
Animals—120 pigs on 2 commercial farms.
Procedures—A cohort of sixty 10-week-old pigs in 4 pens/farm (15 pigs/pen) was randomly selected. Equal numbers of pigs were given feed containing tylosin (40 μg/g of feed) for 0, 6, or 12 weeks. C-reactive protein concentrations were measured, microbial culture for S enterica in feces was performed, and antimicrobial resistance genes in feces were quantified.
Results—No significant associations were detected between C-reactive protein concentration or S enterica status and tylosin treatment. During the 12 weeks of tylosin administration, increased levels of 6 antimicrobial resistance genes did not occur.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Treatment of pigs with tylosin did not affect C-reactive protein concentration or reduce carriage or load of S enterica. There was no evidence that pigs receiving tylosin had increased carriage of the 6 antimicrobial resistance genes measured.
Impact for Human Medicine—S enterica is a public health concern. Use of the antimicrobial growth promoter tylosin did not pose a public health risk by means of increased carriage of S enterica.
Contributor Notes
Dr. Kim's present address is the Department of Animal Resources Science Dankook University Dandaero119, Chenan 330-714, South Korea.
This manuscript represents a portion of a thesis submitted by Dr. Kim to the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree.
Supported by USDA/NRI grant No. 2007-35212-18046 and Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship granted to Dr. Kim by the University of Minnesota.
Presented in abstract form at the 92nd Annual Conference of Research Workers in Animal Diseases, Chicago, December 2011.
Powered by PubFactory