Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Behind-The-Scenes Encounters and Interactive Presentations on the Welfare of Captive Servals (Leptailurus serval)
Next Article in Special Issue
Fallow Deer (Dama dama) as a Reservoir of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC)
Previous Article in Journal
A Detailed Study of Rainbow Trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) Intestine Revealed That Digestive and Absorptive Functions Are Not Linearly Distributed along Its Length
Previous Article in Special Issue
Identification and Genetic Characterization of a Novel Respirovirus in Alpine Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra rupicapra)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 10
Issue 4
10.3390/ani10040744
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pathotypes and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Escherichia Coli Isolated from Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in Tuscany

by
Fabrizio Bertelloni
*,
Giovanni Cilia
,
Samantha Bogi
,
Valentina Virginia Ebani
,
Luca Turini
,
Roberta Nuvoloni
,
Domenico Cerri
,
Filippo Fratini
and
Barbara Turchi
Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2020, 10(4), 744; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040744
Submission received: 29 January 2020 / Revised: 14 April 2020 / Accepted: 21 April 2020 / Published: 24 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wild Animals' Infectious Disease: The Wild–Domestic–Human Interface)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In recent years, in geographic areas such as Central Italy, the wild boar population has greatly increased. Although wildlife represents a fundamental resource for ecosystems and biodiversity, wild animals could act as reservoirs for different pathogens, representing an issue for human and domestic animal health. This investigation reports the presence and circulation of pathogenic and antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli in wild boar hunted in Tuscany (Italy). Different pathotypes, responsible for human and animal diseases, were detected. Furthermore, resistance to commonly used antibiotics was detected in a large percentage of isolates. Considering the possibility of contact between wild boars, domestic animals, and humans, active monitoring of pathogens is essential for epidemiological purposes.

Abstract

Wild boar are among the most widespread wild mammals in Europe. Although this species can act as a reservoir for different pathogens, data about its role as a carrier of pathogenic and antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli are still scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of antimicrobial-resistant and pathogenic Escherichia coli in wild boar in the Tuscany region of Italy. During the hunting season of 2018–2019, E. coli was isolated from 175 of 200 animals and subjected to antimicrobial resistance tests and PCR for detection of resistance and virulence factor genes. The highest resistance rates were against cephalothin (94.3%), amoxicillin–clavulanic acid (87.4%), ampicillin (68.6%), and tetracycline (44.6%). The most detected resistance genes were blaCMY-2 (54.3%), sul1 (38.9%), sul2 (30.9%), and tetG (24.6%). Concerning genes encoding virulence factors, 55 of 175 isolates (31.4%) were negative for all tested genes. The most detected genes were hlyA (47.4%), astA (29.1%), stx2 (24.6%), eaeA (17.1%), and stx1 (11.4%). E. coli was classified as Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) (21.7%), enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) (6.3%), enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC) (5.1%), and atypical enteropathogenic E. coli (aEPEC) (3.4%). Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), and typical enteropathogenic E. coli (tEPEC) were not detected. Our results show that wild boars could carry pathogenic and antimicrobial-resistant E. coli, representing a possible reservoir of domestic animal and human pathogens.

1. Introduction

Wild boar (Sus scrofa) is one of the most common wild mammals in the world. In Europe, it is widespread almost throughout the entire continent, and in recent years its population has constantly increased [1]. There are many occasions of interactions between wild boars and humans. Hunting activities, especially in areas where many wild boar are killed every year, such as Central Italy, represent one of the most common causes of interactions not only with humans, but also with hunting dogs [2]. At the same time, in recent years, these animals have been more often spotted in urban and peri-urban zones [3]. Likewise, wild boar frequently come into contact with domestic animals, especially where extensive or semi-extensive breeding is adopted [4,5,6,7].
Escherichia coli is a commensal bacterium living in the intestines of animals and humans, but some strains have acquired specific virulence characteristics that allow them to cause several diseases [8,9]. Pathogenic E. coli is currently classified into eight pathotypes responsible for gastrointestinal infections. Based on the presence of virulence genes and pathogenic mechanisms, they are distinguished as enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) or verocytotoxin-producing E. coli (VTEC), enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC), enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC or EAggEC), enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), diffusely adherent E. coli (DAEC), and adherent invasive E. coli (AIEC) [9,10,11,12,13]. Commensal and pathogenic strains may also represent a serious hazard with regard to their antimicrobial resistance. Indeed, resistance to the main antibiotic classes among E. coli strains frequently occurs worldwide, with different strains even exhibiting multidrug resistance. Circulation of these bacteria among animals could cause infections that are difficult to treat, but could also represent an important risk for human health [14,15]. Recent data indicate that in Europe, commensal E. coli among domestic animals resulted in resistance, especially to tetracycline, sulfamethoxazole, ampicillin, and trimethoprim. Furthermore, multidrug resistance to three or more antimicrobial classes was recorded in 34.9% and 27.7% of isolates from pig and calves, respectively [16].
Domestic and wild animals could play important roles as reservoirs for some of these serotypes, in particular EPEC, STEC, EHEC, ETEC, and EAEC [10,11]. Despite the great importance of E. coli-related diseases in both human and animal health, epidemiological information on the pathotype distribution in wild boar is still scarce; furthermore, most of the studies are mainly focused on STEC and EHEC. In Europe, many studies were conducted in the Iberian Peninsula, where in Spain, three investigations reported a prevalence of STEC in wild boar of 8.0%, 8.4%, and 3.3% [17,18,19]. Furthermore, one of these studies described the presence of EPEC isolates in three subjects [19]. More recently, a study conducted in Portugal showed 4.8% positivity for STEC in wild boar [20]. In Poland, 28.2% and 30.9% STEC and EPEC, respectively, were isolated from rectal swabs of wild boar [21]. In Italy, a recent investigation carried out on different wild animals identified one EPEC and one EHEC isolate from a small number of wild boar [22]. On the other hand, no positive samples among wild boar were detected for EHEC in a survey carried out in Sweden [23].
A more conspicuous number of studies focused on the antimicrobial resistance of E. coli isolated from wild boar. Indeed, in recent years, interest in the role of this particular wild animal in the maintenance and diffusion of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria increased [24]. Two surveys carried out in Spain revealed low levels of resistance (7.5% and 12.7%), especially to sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline, and ampicillin [25,26]. A study conducted in Portugal showed a higher prevalence of resistant E. coli from wild boar. In particular, 25% of isolates showed resistance to ampicillin, tetracycline, co-trimoxazole, and streptomycin [27]. Moreover, other research conducted in the same country revealed 10.4% positivity of wild boar to extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) E. coli, associated with resistance to other antimicrobials [28]. In eastern Europe (Serbia, Poland, Czech Republic), recent works revealed the circulation of resistant, multidrug-resistant, ESBL, and cephalosporin-resistant E. coli among wild boar, even if in small ratios [29,30,31]. Several studies in Europe reported data about antimicrobial resistance in E. coli from wild boar. In particular, carbapenemase-producing E. coli were described in Algeria, showing resistance to amoxicillin, amoxicillin–clavulanate, tobramycin, ertapenem, and meropenem [32]. In Brazil, low antimicrobial resistance prevalence was detected, especially to amoxicillin–clavulanic acid (10%), cephalothin (7%), and enrofloxacin (5%) [33]. On the other hand, an investigation carried out in Australia showed moderate resistance to sulfadimethoxine (50.4%) and florfenicol (27.0%), but a low circulation of multidrug-resistant strains (1.7%) [34]. In Italy, information about the antimicrobial resistance of wild boar E. coli is limited. Resistance to ampicillin, amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, and streptomycin was recorded in a survey conducted in Central Italy, but only a limited number of samples from wild boar were analyzed [22]. Other authors examined higher numbers of animals, but their work focused only on ESBL, revealing the presence of ESBL-producing E. coli in 0.9% of samples [35].
Although in Italy wild boar is the most widespread wild animal, little information is available about the occurrence of pathogenic and antimicrobial-resistant E. coli. The aim of this study was to characterize E. coli isolates from hunted wild boar in Central Italy in order to identify their pathotypes and antimicrobial resistance profiles.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling and E. coli Isolation

During the hunting season of 2018–2019 (from November to January), 200 wild boar rectal swabs were collected from the provinces of Pisa, Livorno, Siena, and Grosseto, located in Tuscany, central Italy. All animals included in the study were hunted during the authorized hunting season, following regional hunting law (Regolamento di attuazione della legge regionale 12 gennaio 1994, N. 3 D.P.G.R. 48/R/2017). Sampling was performed just before slaughtering procedures, and within 4 h after collection, swabs were transported to the infectious disease laboratory of the Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa. During sampling, the hunting area, sex, and age of each animal were recorded. In particular, age was evaluated after assessing the degree of tooth eruption and wear of teeth of the lower jaw [36]. Swabs were used to inoculate Buffered Peptone Water (Oxoid, Milan, Italy) at 37 °C for 24 h. A loopful from each broth culture was then streaked on Triptone Bile X-glucoronide (TBX) Agar (Oxoid) and incubated at 42 °C for 24 h. From each plate, one single, isolated blue colony was selected, subcultured on tryptone soy agar (TSA) and checked for purity. Pure cultures were grown in Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth (Oxoid) at 37 °C for 24 h and, after glycerol addition, frozen at −80 °C.

2.2. Detection of Virulence Genes and Determination of Pathotypes

DNA was extracted from fresh bacterial cultures by using the commercial Tissue Genomic DNA Extraction Kit (Fisher Molecular Biology, Trevose, PA, USA), following the manufacturer’s guidelines. Two multiplex PCRs were performed, using primers (Supplementary Materials Table S1) and protocols previously described for detection of the following genes: escV, ent, eaeA, bfpB, stx1, stx2, hlyA, saa, invE, astA, aggR, pic, elt, estIa, and estIb [37,38]. Pathotypes were determined in accordance with previously reported guidelines [38].

2.3. Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance

In accordance with European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) recommendations (EUCAST disk diffusion method for anti-microbial susceptibility testing version 6.0), the disc diffusion method was employed to determine resistance to the following antimicrobials: ampicillin (AM, 10 mg), amoxicillin–clavulanic acid (AMC, 20–10 mg), cefoxitin (FOX, 30 mg), cephalothin (KF, 30 mg), cefotaxime (CTX, 30 mg), chloramphenicol (C, 30 mg), tetracycline (TE, 30 mg), trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (SXT, 19:1, 25 mg), enrofloxacin (ENR, 10 mg), gentamicin (CN, 10 mg), streptomycin (S, 10 mg), imipenem (IPM, 10 mg), and aztreonam (ATM, 30 mg) (Kairosafe Srl, Trieste, Italy). Antimicrobial resistance test was performed on Mueller–Hinton agar plates incubated at 35 °C for 16–20 h and interpreted according to breakpoints provided by EUCAST or CLSI (The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) [39,40].

2.4. Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes

The presence of blaCMY2 (resistance to β-lactam antibiotics), aadA1 and strA-strB (resistance to streptomycin), tetA, tetB, and tetG (resistance to tetracycline), and sul1, sul2, and sul3 (resistance to sulfonamide) genes was evaluated by single endpoint PCRs using primers and protocols previously described (Supplementary Materials Table S2) [41,42,43,44,45].

3. Results

3.1. E. coli Isolation

A total of 175 E. coli pure cultures were obtained from the 200 tested animals; 76 from males and 99 from females. Regarding age, 68, 26 and 81 isolates were from young, sub-adult and adult wild boar, respectively. In all, 67 positive samples were collected in Grosseto, 53 in Pisa, 45 in Siena and 10 in Livorno.

3.2. Detection of Virulence Genes and Determination of Pathotypes

A total of 69.1% isolates presented at least one virulence gene. The most detected genes were hylA (47.4%), astA (29.1%), sxt2 (24.6%), eaeA (17.1%), and stx1 (11.4%). A low percentage of E. coli cultures were positive to pic (6.9%), escV (4.6%) aggR (3.4%), and saa (1.7%) genes. None of the tested isolates carried the genes ent, bfpB, invE, elt, estIa, or estIb (Table 1). No statistical differences were recorded in relation to sex, age and province of sampling, except for pic, which was mostly detected in isolates from Siena and stx1, mainly present in E. coli from sub-adult wild boar.
Based on virulence gene detection, each isolate was classified as a specific pathotype. Specifically, 38/175 isolates were EHEC, 13/175 were STEC, 10/175 were EAEC, and 8/175 were atypical enteropathogenic E. coli (aEPEC). Moreover, 16/175 isolates showed an unspecific profile common to two or three pathotypes (Table 2). Lastly, 38/175 E. coli could not be classified, because they showed only hylA or astA virulence genes. No statistical differences were observed in the distribution of pathotypes in relation to sex, age and sampling area.
Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) (21.7%), enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) (6.3%), enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC) (5.1%) and atypical enteropathogenic E. coli (aEPEC) (3.4%) were found. Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC) and typical enteropathogenic E. coli (tEPEC) were not found.

3.3. Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance

High levels of antimicrobial resistance were detected in E. coli, in particular for β-lactam compounds (Table 3). Indeed, 165/175 isolates were resistant to cephalothin, 152/175 to amoxicillin–clavulanic acid and 120/175 to ampicillin. Many isolates were also resistant to tetracycline (78/175). On the other hand, lower antimicrobial resistance was detected for enrofloxacin and gentamicin (24/175), while low resistance was detected for trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (3/175) and chloramphenicol (1/175). None of the isolates showed resistance to imipenem. No statistical differences were observed in relation to sex, age, and province, except for resistance to amoxicillin–clavulanic acid, while E. coli isolated from adult wild boar more frequently showed resistance to this antibiotic.

3.4. Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes

The gene blaCMY-2 was detected in 95/175 isolates. With regard to tetracycline resistance genes, tetA and tetB were each found in 29/175 isolates, whereas 43/175 of isolates were positive for tetG. In addition, 7/175 E. coli showed both tetA and tetG, 8/175 tetB and tetG, and 1/175 tetA and tetB. Finally, 3/175 isolates harbored all tetracycline resistance genes. Many isolates carried sul genes; in particular, 68/175 showed sul1, 54/175 sul2, and 4/175 sul3. Regarding sulfonamide resistance gene combinations, 22/175 E. coli harbored sul1 and sul2, 2/175 sul2 and sul3, and 1/175 all three genes. The gene aadA1 was detected in 19/175 isolates and strA-strB in 10/175 isolates. None of the isolates were positive for both of these genes.

4. Discussion

In this investigation, the most detected pathotypes were STEC (21.7%) and EHEC (6.3%). Enterohemorrhagic E. coli represents a subgroup of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli harboring the virulence gene eae, commonly associated with enteropathogenic E. coli, responsible for the typical attaching and effacing lesions. These pathogenic E. coli play an important role in human health; indeed, in Europe, STEC infections represent the third highest incidence of zoonosis, with more than 8000 human cases reported in 2018 [46]. STEC outbreaks are generally associated with the consumption of milk or bovine meat [47], as cows are considered the principal reservoir of this bacterium [48]. However, some studies showed circulation of this pathotype in wild animals too [10]. In particular, concerning wild boar, our results are not dissimilar from those of other studies carried out in Europe, where the percentage of positive animals ranged between 3% and 30% [17,18,19,20,21,22]. In the present study, the most detected gene coding for Shiga-like toxins was stx2. This is in line with other investigations conducted in Europe on wild boar [17] and in Italy on wild mammals sharing the same ecosystem [22]. However, it is interesting to note that a study carried out on birds in the same geographic area reported stx1 as the most common gene [49], suggesting a possible clustering of strains in relation to animal species. Of the isolates, 5.7% and 4.6% were EAEC and EPEC, respectively. In both cases, isolates could be classified as “atypical” because they did not present either aggR or bfpB genes. Typical EPEC (tEPEC) are well documented human pathogens, whereas the role of atypical EPEC (aEPEC) in human health remains unclear [50], even if some clinical cases were recently recorded, especially in children [51]. Animals are considered as potential reservoirs for aEPEC [52,53]. Indeed, our results identified wild boar as a possible carrier, with 4.6% positive animals. Regarding EAEC, only typical EAEC harboring aggR genes are considered human pathogens. Generally, animals are not involved in the epidemiology of those strains, they are only carriers of atypical EAEC [54]. This study confirms this hypothesis and shows the circulation of this pathotype among a feral pig population. Interestingly, the aggR gene was detected in six E. coli isolates, but they were not classified as EAEC because they also carried virulence genes common to other pathotypes. Approximately 9% of the isolates harbored genes associated with more than one pathotype, and for this reason, it was not possible to attribute them to a definite category (Table 2). The classification of E. coli, initially linked to clinical or anatomopathological aspects, was simplified and not strict. However, it is likely that a single strain can harbor virulence genes of two different pathotypes. A typical example is EHEC, which can carry virulence genes of EPEC and STEC [8]. Interestingly, in 2011 in Central Europe, a large and severe outbreak of E. coli occurred caused by a strain with genes of both EAEC and STEC [55]. Detection of adherent and invasive Escherichia coli (AIEC) was not a primary goal of this investigation; however, a recent study by Camprubí-Font and colleagues suggested a screening method to distinguish AIEC isolates [56]. Carrying the pic gene and being resistant to ampicillin could represent characteristic traits enabling the identification of this pathotype with an accuracy of 75.5%. In this investigation, a total of six E. coli isolates presented these features (Table S3) and they can probably be classified as a potential AIEC. Although more specific tests are needed to confirm our hypothesis, this finding could help to clarify some epidemiological aspects related to this recently classified pathotype, which could be involved in the complex etiology of Crohn’s disease (CD) [12]. None of the isolates belonged to ETEC or EIEC; which is in line with other investigations. Indeed, these pathotypes are not frequently isolated from asymptomatic animals [10,22,57].
A high level of antimicrobial resistance was recorded for β-lactams and tetracycline. Regarding the former, resistance was found for cephalothin (94.3%), amoxicillin–clavulanic acid (86.9%), and ampicillin (68.6%). Even if these percentages seem uncommon and worrying, in Italy, different authors detected similar levels of resistance among Enterobacteriaceae from wild animals other than wild boar [22,58,59,60,61,62]. Although only a few large-scale studies on wild boar E. coli antimicrobial resistance are so far available, resistance to β-lactams is commonly detected [25,26,27,28]. Almost half of our isolates (44.6%) showed resistance to tetracycline. Resistance to this antimicrobial has been frequently found in pathogens and commensal bacteria from domestic [16,63,64,65,66] and wild [58,60,67] animals. Even if β-lactams and tetracycline belong to different antibiotic classes, there could be some shared considerations. Since both antibiotics are commonly and largely used in humans and in veterinary medicine, high resistance can generally be found in bacteria isolated from humans and animals [16]. Evidence of their extensive and sometimes improper use was documented by detection of these antimicrobials and resistant bacteria in river water, solid waste, and urban gardens [68,69,70]. Furthermore, a recent review of antimicrobial resistance in wildlife highlighted that generally, omnivores carry antimicrobial-resistant bacteria more often than carnivores and herbivores [71]. Wild boar is an omnivorous animal that shares habitats with domestic animals and has recently become a synanthropic or semi-synanthropic species. For these reasons, they frequently come in contact with humans and “accumulate” antimicrobials and/or antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. On the other hand, a low level of resistance was detected for some other antimicrobials, especially quinolones, aminoglycosides, phenicols, and recently introduced β-lactams. These results showed a limited circulation of resistance to these antimicrobials among wild boar, and consequently in the investigated ecosystem.
Our results indicate that the most detected gene was blaCMY-2 (54.3%), which confers resistance to penicillins, extended-spectrum cephalosporins, and aztreonam, but not to carbapenems. The encoded enzymes are poorly inhibited by β-lactamase inhibitors [72]. The frequent detection of this gene could partly explain the high resistance to β-lactams, including associated amoxicillin–clavulanic acid; all but two blaCMY-2 positive E. coli were resistant to one or more of these antibiotics. However, since 45.7% of phenotypically resistant isolates did not harbor blaCMY-2, resistance was probably related to other, not investigated mechanisms. As expected, all blaCMY-2 positive isolates were susceptible to imipenem.
As regards tetracycline-resistance genes, tetG was the most commonly detected (24.6% positive samples), although tetA end tetB are generally more frequently observed in E. coli [73,74,75]. A recent investigation conducted on wild mammals ranging in the same area (fox, wild goat, and wolf) reported that tetA and tetB were more common than tetG [22]. Our results suggest the circulation of different strains and/or resistance genes among different animal species living in the same ecosystem. Interestingly, not all resistant isolates possessed the targeted genes, suggesting the possible circulation of different tetracycline-resistance genes. On the other hand, some tet-positive E. coli did not show phenotypic resistance, highlighting how some isolates cannot express the resistance gene. These conflicting results stress the importance of both phenotypic and genotypic approaches in antimicrobial resistance evaluation.
Sulfonamide resistance genes were widely detected in tested isolates (57.1% of tested E. coli scored positive for at least one gene), such as sul1 (38.9%) and sul2 (30.9%). These antibiotics are frequently used, especially in veterinary medicine, and consequently this result was expected.
Few strains scored positive for aminoglycoside resistance genes, whose presence is not commonly associated with phenotypic resistance. These data confirm a low level of resistance against aminoglycosides in E. coli from wild boar.

5. Conclusions

Wild boar is one of the most important wild animals in Central Italy; indeed, in this geographic area, it reaches a high population density and is one of the most hunted animals, with tens of thousands of animals killed every year. Most surveys have focused on the presence of important zoonotic bacterial or viral diseases in wild boar. However, in Italy, as in Europe, studies concerning the diffusion of E. coli pathotypes in this species are still limited. This is also the case for antimicrobial resistance: few works are currently available, and they generally focus on a small number of specimens or a specific antimicrobial class [22,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,35]. This research highlights that wild boar can act as carriers for different E. coli pathotypes and antimicrobial-resistant strains. This species shares habitats with other wild animals; nevertheless, it could come in contact, directly or indirectly, with domestic animals, especially in areas where extensive or semi-extensive breeding is adopted. Furthermore, in recent years, the scavenging behavior of wild boar pushed them into peri-urban and urban areas, sometimes in cross-contact with humans. Finally, in Italy, hunted animals are frequently used for people’s own consumption, and consequently, post mortem examinations by official veterinary inspectors are not carried out. In addition, evisceration is often done directly by hunters and does not comply with basic hygienic procedures. In this context, the possibility of directly or indirectly spreading pathogenic and antimicrobial-resistant E. coli to humans or animals cannot be ignored.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/4/744/s1: Table S1: Primers employed for detection of virulence genes; Table S2: Primers employed for detection of antimicrobial resistance genes; Table S3: Phenotypic and genotypic profiles of tested E. coli isolates.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.B., F.F. and B.T.; investigation, F.B., G.C., S.B. and L.T.; data curation, F.B.; G.C. and S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, F.B. and B.T.; writing—review and editing, V.V.E., R.N., D.C. and B.T.; supervision, D.C. and F.F.; funding acquisition, F.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Pisa, grant number PRA_2018_56.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Massei, G.; Kindberg, J.; Licoppe, A.; Gačić, D.; Šprem, N.; Kamler, J.; Baubet, E.; Hohmann, U.; Monaco, A.; Ozoliņš, J.; et al. Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Carnevali, L.; Pedrotti, L.; Riga, F.; Toso, S. Banca Dati Ungulati: Status, distribuzione, consistenza, gestione e prelievo venatorio delle popolazioni di Ungulati in Italia. Rapporto 2001–2005. Biol. Conserv. Fauna 2009, 117, 1–168. [Google Scholar]
  3. Castillo-Contreras, R.; Carvalho, J.; Serrano, E.; Mentaberre, G.; Fernández-Aguilar, X.; Colom, A.; González-Crespo, C.; Lavín, S.; López-Olvera, J.R. Urban wild boars prefer fragmented areas with food resources near natural corridors. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 615, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Barth, S.; Geue, L.; Hinsching, A.; Jenckel, M.; Schlosser, J.; Eiden, M.; Pietschmann, J.; Menge, C.; Beer, M.; Groschup, M.; et al. Experimental Evaluation of Faecal Escherichia coli and Hepatitis E Virus as Biological Indicators of Contacts Between Domestic Pigs and Eurasian Wild Boar. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2017, 64, 487–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Barth, S.A.; Blome, S.; Cornelis, D.; Pietschmann, J.; Laval, M.; Maestrini, O.; Geue, L.; Charrier, F.; Etter, E.; Menge, C.; et al. Faecal Escherichia coli as biological indicator of spatial interaction between domestic pigs and wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Corsica. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018, 65, 746–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Barlozzari, G.; Franco, A.; Macrì, G.; Lorenzetti, S.; Maggiori, F.; Dottarelli, S.; Maurelli, M.; Di Giannatale, E.; Tittarelli, M.; Battisti, A.; et al. First report of Brucella suis biovar 2 in a semi free-range pig farm, Italy. Vet. Ital. 2015, 51, 151–154. [Google Scholar]
  7. Meng, X.J.; Lindsay, D.S.; Sriranganathan, N. Wild boars as sources for infectious diseases in livestock and humans. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 2697–2707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kaper, J.B.; Nataro James, P.; Mobley Harry, L.T. Pathogenic Escherichia coli. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 2, 123–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gordon, D.M. The ecology of Escherichia coli. In Escherichia coli: Pathotypes and Principles of Pathogenesis, 2nd ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 3–20. ISBN 9780123970480. [Google Scholar]
  10. Croxen, M.A.; Law, R.J.; Scholz, R.; Keeney, K.M.; Wlodarska, M.; Finlay, B.B. Recent advances in understanding enteric pathogenic Escherichia coli. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 26, 822–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Gomes, T.A.T.; Elias, W.P.; Scaletsky, I.C.A.; Guth, B.E.C.; Rodrigues, J.F.; Piazza, R.M.F.; Ferreira, L.C.S.; Martinez, M.B. Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2016, 47, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Shawki, A.; McCole, D.F. Mechanisms of Intestinal Epithelial Barrier Dysfunction by Adherent-Invasive Escherichia coli. CMGH 2017, 3, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Donnenberg, M.S. Introduction. In Escherichia coli Pathotypes and Principles of Pathogenesis, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013; pp. xvii–xxi. ISBN 9780123970480. [Google Scholar]
  14. Paitan, Y. Current trends in antimicrobial resistance of escherichia coli. In Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; Volume 416, pp. 181–211. [Google Scholar]
  15. Poirel, L.; Madec, J.-Y.; Lupo, A.; Schink, A.-K.; Kieffer, N.; Nordmann, P.; Schwarz, S. Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority); ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017. EFSA J. 2019, 17, 5598. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sánchez, S.; Martínez, R.; García, A.; Vidal, D.; Blanco, J.; Blanco, M.; Blanco, J.E.; Mora, A.; Herrera-León, S.; Echeita, A.; et al. Detection and characterisation of O157:H7 and non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in wild boars. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 143, 420–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mora, A.; López, C.; Dhabi, G.; López-Beceiro, A.M.; Fidalgo, L.E.; Díaz, E.A.; Martínez-Carrasco, C.; Mamani, R.; Herrera, A.; Blanco, J.E.; et al. Seropathotypes, Phylogroups, Stx Subtypes, and Intimin Types of Wildlife-Carried, Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Strains with the Same Characteristics as Human-Pathogenic Isolates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 2578–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Alonso, C.A.; Mora, A.; Díaz, D.; Blanco, M.; González-Barrio, D.; Ruiz-Fons, F.; Simón, C.; Blanco, J.; Torres, C. Occurrence and characterization of stx and/or eae-positive Escherichia coli isolated from wildlife, including a typical EPEC strain from a wild boar. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 207, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dias, D.; Caetano, T.; Torres, R.T.; Fonseca, C.; Mendo, S. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in wild ungulates. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Szczerba-Turek, A.; Socha, P.; Bancerz-Kisiel, A.; Platt-Samoraj, A.; Lipczynska-Ilczuk, K.; Siemionek, J.; Kończyk, K.; Terech-Majewska, E.; Szweda, W. Pathogenic potential to humans of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from wild boars in Poland. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 300, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Turchi, B.; Dec, M.; Bertelloni, F.; Winiarczyk, S.; Gnat, S.; Bresciani, F.; Viviani, F.; Cerri, D.; Fratini, F. Antibiotic susceptibility and virulence factors in Escherichia coli from sympatric wildlife of the apuan alps regional park (Tuscany, Italy). Microb. Drug Resist. 2019, 25, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Sannö, A.; Aspán, A.; Hestvik, G.; Jacobson, M. Presence of Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, Yersinia pseudotuberculosis and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in wild boars. Epidemiol. Infect. 2014, 142, 2542–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Torres, R.T.; Fernandes, J.; Carvalho, J.; Cunha, M.V.; Caetano, T.; Mendo, S.; Serrano, E.; Fonseca, C. Wild boar as a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 717, 135001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Navarro-Gonzalez, N.; Porrero, M.C.; Mentaberre, G.; Serrano, E.; Mateos, A.; Domínguez, L.; Lavín, S. Antimicrobial resistance in indicator Escherichia coli isolates from free-ranging livestock and sympatric wild ungulates in a natural environment (Northeastern Spain). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 6184–6186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Alonso, C.A.; González-Barrio, D.; Ruiz-Fons, F.; Ruiz-Ripa, L.; Torres, C. High frequency of B2 phylogroup among non-clonally related fecal Escherichia coli isolates from wild boars, including the lineage ST131. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2017, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Dias, D.; Torres, R.T.; Kronvall, G.; Fonseca, C.; Mendo, S.; Caetano, T. Assessment of antibiotic resistance of Escherichia coli isolates and screening of Salmonella spp. in wild ungulates from Portugal. Res. Microbiol. 2015, 166, 584–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Poeta, P.; Radhouani, H.; Pinto, L.; Martinho, A.; Rego, V.; Rodrigues, R.; Gonçalves, A.; Rodrigues, J.; Estepa, V.; Torres, C.; et al. Wild boars as reservoirs of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli of different phylogenetic groups. J. Basic Microbiol. 2009, 49, 584–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Velhner, M.; Todorović, D.; Grego, E.; Jovčić, B.; Prunić, B.; Stojanov, I.; Kehrenberg, C. Fluoroquinolone-resistant and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli isolates from free-living wild animals. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 223, 168–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wasyl, D.; Zając, M.; Lalak, A.; Skarżyńska, M.; Samcik, I.; Kwit, R.; Jabłoński, A.; Bocian, Ł.; Woźniakowski, G.; Hoszowski, A.; et al. Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli Isolated from Wild Animals in Poland. Microb. Drug Resist. 2018, 24, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Literak, I.; Dolejska, M.; Radimersky, T.; Klimes, J.; Friedman, M.; Aarestrup, F.M.; Hasman, H.; Cizek, A. Antimicrobial-resistant faecal Escherichia coli in wild mammals in central Europe: Multiresistant Escherichia coli producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in wild boars. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 108, 1702–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bachiri, T.; Bakour, S.; Lalaoui, R.; Belkebla, N.; Allouache, M.; Rolain, J.M.; Touati, A. Occurrence of Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae Isolates in the Wildlife: First Report of OXA-48 in Wild Boars in Algeria. Microb. Drug Resist. 2018, 24, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lessa, S.; Paes, R.; Santoro, P.; Mauro, R.; Vieira-da-Motta, O. Identification and antimicrobial resistance of microflora colonizing feral pig (Sus scrofa) of Brazilian Pantanal. Brazilian J. Microbiol. 2011, 42, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Van Breda, L.K.; Ward, M.P. Evidence of antimicrobial and disinfectant resistance in a remote, isolated wild pig population. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 147, 209–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bonardi, S.; Cabassi, C.S.; Longhi, S.; Pia, F.; Corradi, M.; Gilioli, S.; Scaltriti, E. Detection of Extended- Spectrum Beta-Lactamase producing Escherichia coli from mesenteric lymph nodes of wild boars (Sus scrofa). Ital. J. Food Saf. 2018, 7, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sáez-Royuela, C.; Gomariz, R.P.; Luis Tellería, J. Age Determination of European Wild Boar. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1989, 17, 326–329. [Google Scholar]
  37. Paton, A.W.; Paton, J.C. Direct detection and characterization of shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli by multiplex PCR for stx1, stx2, eae, ehxA, and saa. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002, 40, 271–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Müller, D.; Greune, L.; Heusipp, G.; Karch, H.; Fruth, A.; Tschäpe, H.; Schmidt, M.A. Identification of unconventional intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli isolates expressing intermediate virulence factor profiles by using a novel single-step multiplex PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 3380–3390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing). Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters; Version 9.0; EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing): Växjö, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  40. CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twenty-Fifth Informational Supplement; CLSI Document M100-S25; CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute): Wayne, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Costa, D.; Poeta, P.; Sáenz, Y.; Vinué, L.; Coelho, A.C.; Matos, M.; Rojo-Bezares, B.; Rodrigues, J.; Torres, C. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli isolates recovered from wild animals. Microb. Drug Resist. 2008, 14, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Maynard, C.; Fairbrother, J.M.; Bekal, S.; Sanschagrin, F.; Levesque, R.C.; Brousseau, R.; Masson, L.; Larivière, S.; Harel, J. Antimicrobial resistance genes in enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli O149: K91 isolates obtained over a 23-year period from pigs. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 3214–3221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Kozak, G.K.; Boerlin, P.; Janecko, N.; Reid-Smith, R.J.; Jardine, C. Antimicrobial resistance in escherichia coli isolates from Swine and wild small mammals in the proximity of swine farms and in natural environments in Ontario, Canada. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Tamang, M.D.; Oh, J.Y.; Seol, S.Y.; Kang, H.Y.; Lee, J.C.; Lee, Y.C.; Cho, D.T.; Kim, J. Emergence of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi associated with a class 1 integron carrying the dfrA7 gene cassette in Nepal. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2007, 30, 330–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dahshan, H.; Shahada, F.; Chuma, T.; Moriki, H.; Okamoto, K. Genetic analysis of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serovars Stanley and Typhimurium from cattle. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 145, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority); ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2019, 17, 276. [Google Scholar]
  47. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority); ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2017. EFSA J. 2018, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Persad, A.K.; Lejeune, J.T. Animal Reservoirs of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli. In Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli and Other Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli; American Society of Microbiology: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 231–244. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bertelloni, F.; Lunardo, E.; Rocchigiani, G.; Ceccherelli, R.; Ebani, V. Occurrence of Escherichia coli virulence genes in feces of wild birds from Central Italy. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2019, 12, 142–146. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hu, J.; Torres, A.G. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli: Foe or innocent bystander? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2015, 21, 729–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Zhou, Y.; Zhu, X.; Hou, H.; Lu, Y.; Yu, J.; Mao, L.; Mao, L.; Sun, Z. Characteristics of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli among children under 5 years of age with acute diarrhea: A hospital based study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Arais, L.R.; Barbosa, A.V.; Andrade, J.R.C.; Gomes, T.A.T.; Asensi, M.D.; Aires, C.A.M.; Cerqueira, A.M.F. Zoonotic potential of atypical enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (aEPEC) isolated from puppies with diarrhoea in Brazil. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 227, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Milton, A.A.P.; Agarwal, R.K.; Priya, G.B.; Aravind, M.; Athira, C.K.; Rose, L.; Saminathan, M.; Sharma, A.K.; Kumar, A. Captive wildlife from India as carriers of shiga toxin-producing, enteropathogenic and enterotoxigenic escherichia coli. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2019, 81, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Uber, A.P.; Trabulsi, L.R.; Irino, K.; Beutin, L.; Ghilardi, Ã.N.C.R.; Gomes, T.A.T.; Liberatore, A.M.A.; Castro, A.F.P.; Elias, W.P. Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli from humans and animals differ in major phenotypical traits and virulence genes. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2006, 256, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Navarro-Garcia, F. Escherichia coli O104:H4 Pathogenesis: An Enteroaggregative E. coli/Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli Explosive Cocktail of High Virulence. Microbiol. Spectr. 2014, 2, 533–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Camprubí-Font, C.; Ewers, C.; Lopez-Siles, M.; Martinez-Medina, M. Genetic and phenotypic features to screen for putative adherent-invasive Escherichia coli. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Pasqua, M.; Michelacci, V.; Di Martino, M.L.; Tozzoli, R.; Grossi, M.; Colonna, B.; Morabito, S.; Prosseda, G. The intriguing evolutionary journey of enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC) toward pathogenicity. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Foti, M.; Rinaldo, D.; Guercio, A.; Giacopello, C.; Aleo, A.; De Leo, F.; Fisichella, V.; Mammina, C. Pathogenic microorganisms carried by migratory birds passing through the territory of the island of Ustica, Sicily (Italy). Avian Pathol. 2011, 40, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Foti, M.; Mascetti, A.; Fisichella, V.; Fulco, E.; Orlandella, B.M.; Lo Piccolo, F. Antibiotic resistance assessment in bacteria isolated in migratory Passeriformes transiting through the Metaponto territory (Basilicata, Italy). Avian Res. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Foti, M.; Giacopello, C.; Bottari, T.; Fisichella, V.; Rinaldo, D.; Mammina, C. Antibiotic Resistance of Gram Negatives isolates from loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the central Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 58, 1363–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Gionechetti, F.; Zucca, P.; Gombac, F.; Monti-Bragadin, C.; Lagatolla, C.; Tonin, E.; Edalucci, E.; Vitali, L.A.; Dolzani, L. Characterization of Antimicrobial Resistance and Class 1 Integrons in Enterobacteriaceae Isolated from Mediterranean Herring Gulls (Larus cachinnans). Microb. Drug Resist. 2008, 14, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Giacopello, C.; Foti, M.; Mascetti, A.; Grosso, F.; Ricciardi, D.; Fisichella, V.; Lo Piccolo, F. Antibiotico resistenza in ceppi di Enterobacteriaceae isolati da avifauna europea ricoverata presso un centro di recupero per la fauna selvatica. Vet. Ital. 2016, 52, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Bertelloni, F.; Chemaly, M.; Cerri, D.; Le Gall, F.; Ebani, V.V. Salmonella infection in healthy pet reptiles: Bacteriological isolation and study of some pathogenic characters. Acta Microbiol. Immunol. Hung. 2016, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Bertelloni, F.; Tosi, G.; Massi, P.; Fiorentini, L.; Parigi, M.; Cerri, D.; Ebani, V.V. Some pathogenic characters of paratyphoid Salmonella enterica strains isolated from poultry. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2017, 10, 1161–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bertelloni, F.; Salvadori, C.; Moni, A.; Cerri, D.; Mani, P.; Ebani, V.V. Antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus spp. Isolated from laying hens of backyard poultry flocks. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2015, 22, 665–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Bertelloni, F.; Salvadori, C.; Lotti, G.; Cerri, D.; Ebani, V.V. Antimicrobial resistance in enterococcus strains isolated from healthy domestic dogs. Acta Microbiol. Immunol. Hung. 2017, 64, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Botti, V.; Valérie Navillod, F.; Domenis, L.; Orusa, R.; Pepe, E.; Robetto, S.; Guidetti, C. Salmonella spp. and antibiotic-resistant strains in wild mammals and birds in north-western Italy from 2002 to 2010. Vet. Ital. 2013, 49, 195–202. [Google Scholar]
  68. Proia, L.; Anzil, A.; Subirats, J.; Borrego, C.; Farrè, M.; Llorca, M.; Balcázar, J.L.; Servais, P. Antibiotic resistance along an urban river impacted by treated wastewaters. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 628–629, 453–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, P.; Wu, D.; You, X.; Li, W.; Xie, B. Distribution of antibiotics, metals and antibiotic resistance genes during landfilling process in major municipal solid waste landfills. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 255, 113222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yan, Z.Z.; Chen, Q.L.; Zhang, Y.J.; He, J.Z.; Hu, H.W. Antibiotic resistance in urban green spaces mirrors the pattern of industrial distribution. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vittecoq, M.; Godreuil, S.; Prugnolle, F.; Durand, P.; Brazier, L.; Renaud, N.; Arnal, A.; Aberkane, S.; Jean-Pierre, H.; Gauthier-Clerc, M.; et al. Antimicrobial resistance in wildlife. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 519–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Lupo, A.; Papp-Wallace, K.M.; Sendi, P.; Bonomo, R.A.; Endimiani, A. Non-phenotypic tests to detect and characterize antibiotic resistance mechanisms in Enterobacteriaceae. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2013, 77, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Seifi, S.; Khoshbakht, R. Prevalence of tetracycline resistance determinants in broiler isolated Escherichia coli in Iran. Br. Poult. Sci. 2016, 57, 729–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bryan, A.; Shapir, N.; Sadowsky, M.J. Frequency and Distribution of Tetracycline Resistance Genes in Genetically Diverse, Nonselected, and Nonclinical Escherichia coli Strains Isolated from Diverse Human and Animal Sources. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 2503–2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Ahmed, M.O.; Clegg, P.D.; Williams, N.J.; Baptiste, K.E.; Bennett, M. Antimicrobial resistance in equine faecal Escherichia coli isolates from North West England. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2010, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Number and percentage of isolates positive to virulence genes.
Table 1. Number and percentage of isolates positive to virulence genes.
GenePositive Isolates
No.%
hylA8347.4
astA5129.1
stx24324.6
eaeA3017.1
stx12011.4
pic126.9
escV84.6
aggR63.4
saa31.7
ent00.00
bfpB00.00
invE00.00
elt00.00
estIa00.00
estIb00.00
Table
Table 2. Pathotypes detected among E. coli isolates from wild boar. STEC, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli; EHEC, enterohemorrhagic E. coli; EAEC, enteroaggregative E. coli; aEPEC, atypical enteropathogenic E. coli.
Table 2. Pathotypes detected among E. coli isolates from wild boar. STEC, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli; EHEC, enterohemorrhagic E. coli; EAEC, enteroaggregative E. coli; aEPEC, atypical enteropathogenic E. coli.
PathotypesIsolates
No.%
No virulence genes5430.9
Not classifiable3821.7
STEC3621.7
EHEC136.3
EAEC105.7
aEPEC84.6
EAEC/aEPEC105.7
STEC/EAEC31.7
EHEC/EAEC21.1
EHEC/EAEC/aEPEC10.6
Table
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance in E. coli isolates from wild boar.
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance in E. coli isolates from wild boar.
AntibioticIsolates
SusceptibleIntermediateResistant
No.%No.%No.%
AM5531.400.012068.6
AMC2313.100.015286.9
FOX12370.300.05229.7
KF105.700.016594.3
CTX9453.73318.84827.4
C17499.400.010.6
TE3922.35833.17844.6
SXT17298.300.031.7
ENR12470.92715.42413.7
CN9856.05330.32413.7
S8649.15430.83520.0
IPM16996.663.400.0
ATM13979.400.03620.6
AM, ampicillin; AMC, amoxicillin–clavulanic acid; FOX, cefoxitin; KF, cephalothin; CTX, cefotaxime; C, chloramphenicol; TE, tetracycline; SXT, trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole; ENR, enrofloxacin; CN, gentamicin; S, streptomycin; IPM, imipenem; ATM, aztreonam.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bertelloni, F.; Cilia, G.; Bogi, S.; Ebani, V.V.; Turini, L.; Nuvoloni, R.; Cerri, D.; Fratini, F.; Turchi, B. Pathotypes and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Escherichia Coli Isolated from Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in Tuscany. Animals 2020, 10, 744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040744

AMA Style

Bertelloni F, Cilia G, Bogi S, Ebani VV, Turini L, Nuvoloni R, Cerri D, Fratini F, Turchi B. Pathotypes and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Escherichia Coli Isolated from Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in Tuscany. Animals. 2020; 10(4):744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040744

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bertelloni, Fabrizio, Giovanni Cilia, Samantha Bogi, Valentina Virginia Ebani, Luca Turini, Roberta Nuvoloni, Domenico Cerri, Filippo Fratini, and Barbara Turchi. 2020. "Pathotypes and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Escherichia Coli Isolated from Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in Tuscany" Animals 10, no. 4: 744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040744

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop