Next Article in Journal
Storage-Discharge Relationships under Forest Cover Change in Ethiopian Highlands
Next Article in Special Issue
Release of Antibiotic-Resistance Genes from Hospitals and a Wastewater Treatment Plant in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal
Previous Article in Journal
Automatic Calibration for CE-QUAL-W2 Model Using Improved Global-Best Harmony Search Algorithm
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 13
Issue 16
10.3390/w13162309
water-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

Antibiotic Resistance in Wastewater and Its Impact on a Receiving River: A Case Study of WWTP Brno-Modřice, Czech Republic

by
Iva Buriánková
1,
Peter Kuchta
1,
Anna Molíková
1,
Kateřina Sovová
2,
David Výravský
2,
Martin Rulík
3,
David Novák
4,
Jan Lochman
4 and
Monika Vítězová
1,*
1
Department of Experimental Biology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
T. G. Masaryk Water Research Institute, p.r.i., Brno Branch, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic
3
Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, 783 71 Olomouc, Czech Republic
4
Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2021, 13(16), 2309; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162309
Submission received: 1 July 2021 / Revised: 17 August 2021 / Accepted: 20 August 2021 / Published: 23 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health-Related Water Microbiology and Wastewater-Based Epidemiology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Antibiotic resistance has become a global threat in which the anthropogenically influenced aquatic environment represents not only a reservoir for the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) among humans and animals but also an environment where resistance genes are introduced into natural microbial ecosystems. Wastewater is one of the sources of antibiotic resistance. The aim of this research was the evaluation of wastewater impact on the spread of antibiotic resistance in the water environment. In this study, qPCR was used to detect antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs)—blaCTX-M-15, blaCTX-M-32, ampC, blaTEM, sul1, tetM and mcr-1 and an integron detection primer (intl1). Detection of antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli was used as a complement to the observed qPCR results. Our results show that the process of wastewater treatment significantly reduces the abundances of ARGs and ARB. Nevertheless, treated wastewater affects the ARGs and ARB number in the receiving river.

1. Introduction

Antibiotics are routinely applied both in human and veterinary medicine for the treatment of infectious diseases [1,2,3,4,5]. However, worldwide intensive misuse of antibiotics caused their continuous release into the environment [6,7,8,9,10,11], and the increase of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) [12,13,14]. Large numbers of clinical ARB harbor antibiotic resistant genes (ARGs) and genetic elements which can be further transmitted to and among environment bacteria [15,16,17]. In contrast to many chemical contaminants, bacterial contaminants may persist or even spread in the environment [18]. Increasing exposure of environmental bacteria to antibiotics, ARB and ARGs leads to the rapid development of their resistance and potentially increase in the abundance of resistance genes within the environmental resistance genes pool, aka “the resistome”, consequently propagation of antibiotic resistance genes between bacteria [15,17,19,20]. Hence, the effect of antibiotics and ARGs and ARB that is released by humans into the environments is regarded as an important environmental problem and potential risk for human health [18,21,22] (Figure 1).
The development of resistance to antibiotics has been often perceived to be solely related to the misuse of antibiotics [12,13,23]. Currently, antibiotic resistance epicenters are found also in many environments [24], including hospital effluents, wastewater treatment systems or pharmaceutical effluents [25,26,27]. These sites are peculiar for an enormous number of bacteria coupled with subclinical concentrations of antibiotics, promoting the release of ARB and ARGs into the surrounding environment [28,29,30]. The Proliferation of ARB and ARGs occurs via multiple mechanisms: (i) due to selection pressure exerted by antibiotics even at extremely low (subinhibitory) antibiotic concentrations or (ii) due to attaining resistance by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) from other bacteria [31,32]. Conjugation, transformation and transduction are commonly known HGT processes involved in ARB development [33,34], and consequently the spreading of ARGs in the environment [33,35,36]. Resistance genes are usually coupled with mobile genetic elements (MGEs, mobilome) including transposons and integrons and can be transferred between distantly related bacteria corresponding to different phyla [37,38]. However, currently, we do not know to what extent ARGs occur in both human pathogenic bacteria and natural bacteria originating from the same reservoirs [18,39].
An immense amount of antibiotics is discharged into wastewater due to imperfect human metabolism and disposal of unused antibiotics [3,40,41]. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) receive sewage from various sources, including hospitals and households, representing important sources of antibiotics [4,26,42], as well ARB and ARGs [43,44,45,46,47] for receiving water bodies [10,11,28,29,48,49]. There is a global consensus that wastewaters belong to the main reservoirs of ARGs [49,50,51,52] and sites significant for the proliferation and dissemination of antibiotic resistance [27,53].
Current WWTP technologies are barely able to reduce efficiently or eliminate all microorganisms [54,55,56,57]. Rather, the biological wastewater treatment process offers ideal conditions for both bacterial and ARGs proliferation due to nutrients and optimal temperature and enhanced occurrence of horizontal gene transfer [10,58]. Susceptible bacteria are continually in contact with antibiotics at low, sub-inhibitory concentrations, which may impose selective pressure on ARB [4,59]. Various coselection factors such as non-antimicrobial pharmaceuticals) entering WWTPs are responsible for ARB/ARG proliferation [60,61], promoting gene transfer between ARB and susceptible non-ARB [25,47,62]. As a consequence, WWTP effluents represent the most important path for the dissemination of antibiotic resistance to the water environments [27,28].
Although WWTP effluents usually contain a much lower abundance of ARB and ARGs than raw wastewater, researchers have proved that the discharge of treated wastewater may increase the quantity of both ARB and ARGs in the receiving water bodies [63,64]. Moreover, the river stretches downstream of WWTPs can be enriched also with mobile genetic elements [32,65,66], which represent effective carriers of ARGs (including multi-resistances). However, the mechanisms responsible for the transport, transfer and accumulation of ARGs in river ecosystems remain partially understood. Two hypotheses were proposed to explain these findings: (1) antibiotics released into the environment select the resistant populations, thus increasing the amount of ARGs; (2) ARGs from other sources are routed through runoff processes into the aquatic environment [33]. It is convincing that WWTP effluents may deliver ARGs and mobile elements carrying resistance into downstream aquatic environments [28,29,42,53,67].
Bacteria producing antibiotics occur naturally in the aquatic environment [20,48,66,68,69]; the contact of these environmental bacteria with bacteria from anthropogenic sources provides ideal conditions for the appearance of new resistant strains. Thus, aquatic environments may afford an ideal setting for the exchange of MGEs encoding antibiotic resistance because they are frequently impacted by anthropogenic activities [37,48,70]. Hence, they play an important role in driving the dynamics of antimicrobial resistance in the environment [71]. Upon their entry to the ecosystem, antibiotics may affect the community structure [13] and the activity of environmental microbial populations [72]. Thus, serious worries concerning the potential impacts of antibiotics in the water environment have been already published [19,73,74].
Even though often and abundant presence of both ARB and ARGs in wastewater has attained great interest among scientists and many publications appeared during the last decade [18,25,34,75], there is still a lack of research devoted to this topic in the Czech Republic. Hence, the main objective of this work was to investigate the distribution and characteristics of selected ARB and ARGs in raw and treated wastewater and the removal efficiency of a particular WWTP. In addition, we examined how the discharge of wastewater effluents from the WWTP affects the ARGs and ARB number in the receiving river. Six antibiotic resistance elements which are commonly used as relevant indicators of resistance to various antibiotics classes (e.g., β-lactams, sulfonamides, tetracycline, or colistin) were chosen in our study. These ARGs are commonly found in urban wastewaters and aquatic environments. ARGs encoding a broad spectrum of β-lactamases (genes blaCTX-M and blaTEM) were selected because of their resistance to the basic class of antibiotics used for the treatment of infectious diseases [76]. Gene mcr-1 encodes the resistance to colistin of which the occurrence and prevalence of WWTPs are curious since its detection in treated wastewaters has been proved only sporadically [77,78]. The intl1 gene encoding class 1 integron integrases mediate the capturing of mobile gene cassettes [79]. Moreover, they could be often embedded in promiscuous plasmids and transposons, advancing their lateral transfer [80]. This intl1 gene has been found abundantly both in wastewater and freshwater environments. Some studies suggest that antibiotics like tetracycline, sulfonamides, macrolides, or β-lactams show a significant correlation with the intl1 gene, therefore, it is used as a proxy indicator of anthropogenic pollution [81]. As a complement to ARGs detection, Escherichia coli (EC) was chosen as the model microorganism to study phenotypic antibiotic resistance. EC is one of the indicators of fecal contamination in the water environment, which is well described in terms of acquired antibiotic resistance [18]. In our study, EC was examined for resistance to antibiotics corresponding to the above-mentioned ARGs—ampicillin, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline, and colistin.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling

Sampling was performed monthly from November 2019 to October 2020. Samples were taken from the influent and effluent of Brno-Modřice WWTP, Czech Republic (population equivalent (PE): 530,000, average flow rate: 1950 L/s) and from the river Svratka where the treated wastewater is discharged. It is a mechanical-biological wastewater treatment plant with a nitrification and denitrification stage and phosphorus removal by simultaneous precipitation. The schema of sampling points is found in Figure 2, Table A1.
There were the following categories of samples:
  • Surface water samples;
  • River sediment samples;
  • Raw and treated wastewater samples;
  • Sampling was performed as described by Cacace et al., 2019 [75].
Surface water and river sediment were sampled monthly upstream and downstream of the WWTP at the distance from WWTP approximately 200 m. The water and sediment samples were collected from both the left and right banks and transported in sterile glass bottles or 50 mL plastic falcons (sediment). Sediment samples were taken by hand grab.
The 24h composite samples (flow dependent) of raw and treated wastewater were provided by WWTP staff. Samples of treated wastewater were collected in sterile glass bottles and stored in a fridge during three consecutive days according to Cacace et al., 2019 [75]. Immediately after sampling, the samples were cooled and stored at 5 ± 3 °C until further processed. The analysis was performed within 24 h after sampling.

2.2. Molecular Biology Methods

2.2.1. Sample Processing for PCR Analysis

• Surface Water Samples
Samples were processed according to Cacace et al., 2019 [75]. Briefly, surface water samples from both banks were mixed to form one integrated sample of upstream surface water and one integrated sample of downstream surface water. Three aliquots of 150 mL were filtered through polycarbonate membrane filters (0.22 µm, Isopore Millipore) and the filters were then stored at −20 °C prior to DNA extraction.
• River Sediment Samples
Sediment samples from both banks were mixed to form one integrated sample of upstream sediment and one integrated sample of downstream sediment. DNA isolation followed immediately.
• Raw and Treated Wastewater Samples
Three 150 mL aliquots of treated wastewater and or 50 mL aliquots of raw wastewater samples were filtered through polycarbonate membrane filters (0.22 µm, Isopore Millipore) and the filters were then stored at −20 °C prior to DNA extraction.

2.2.2. DNA Isolation

DNA from water samples was extracted with WaterDNAeasy kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
DNA from sediment samples was extracted as follows: Samples were centrifuged at 4000 RFC for 5 min and then DNA isolation was done with DNeasy PowerSoil Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Isolated DNA was stored at −20 °C prior to qPCR analysis.

2.2.3. Quantitative PCR Analysis

To determine the relative quantity of selected ARGs using qPCR, primers for analysis of ARGs coding for resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics (blaCTX-M-15, blaCTX-M-32, ampC, blaTEM), sulfonamide (sul1), tetracycline (tetM) and polymyxin (mcr-1) were used. In addition, an integron detection primer (intl1), which is responsible for ARGs transfer, and a 16S DNA amplification primer (providing an estimate of the total prokaryotic population in the sample) were used as an internal control. Oligonucleotide sequences and PCR reaction conditions were taken according to Cacace et al., 2019 [75].
qPCR was performed in 20 µL reaction volumes in 96-well plates using LightCycler® Instrument II (Roche, Basel, Switzerland). Each solution contained 10 µL of Luna® Universal qPCR mastermix (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA), 0.45 µL of each forward (F) and reverse (R) (stock concentration 10 mM), 4 µL of water. Finally, 5 µL of template DNA or PCR water (for a negative control) was added. Every reaction ran in triplicate.
Conditions of the reaction programs were as follows: 1 cycle (95 °C, 10 min), 40 cycles (95 °C for 15 s and then 60 °C for 30 s with a single acquisition mode at the end), 1 cycle (95 °C for 15 s then 1 min at 60 °C), 1 cycle (from 60 °C to 95 °C with continuous acquisition mode) for melting curve construction. The detection format was SYBR GREEN I/HRM Dye and data were analyzed via Lightcycler® 480 II. For calculating the relative abundance and changes of the analyzed ARGs, the dCt and ddCt method, respectively, was used [82].

2.3. Cultivation Techniques

2.3.1. Determination of Antibiotic Resistant Escherichia coli (AR-EC)

AR-EC was determined by cultivation on media containing selected antibiotics (ATB) using the modified ISO Standards cultivation method [83]. ATB and their concentrations which were used in this assay are listed below (Table 1). ATBs were chosen to correspond to the selected ARGs. Concentrations of ATBs in the cultivation medium were derived from the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) indicated by EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing).

2.3.2. Surface Water Samples, Wastewater Samples

Undiluted and diluted water samples were filtered through the membrane filters (0.45 μm, GN-6 Metricel® MCE Membrane Disc Filters, Pall, USA), then the filter was placed on ECC ChromoSelect Selective Agar (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) containing ATB. Cultivation for 24 h at 36 ± 0.5 °C followed. After cultivation typical blue colonies were counted as Escherichia coli.

2.3.3. River Sediment Samples

Sediment samples were processed as described by Matějů et al., 2008 [84]. To 10 g of mixed sediment sample, 90 mL saline solution (0.85% NaCl solution) was added. The suspension was homogenized for 15 min. After 5 min in the still position, 1 mL of the suspension was diluted and inoculated on ECC ChromoSelect Selective Agar (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) containing ATB. Cultivation was performed for 24 h at 36 ± 0.5 °C. After cultivation, typical blue colonies were counted as Escherichia coli.

2.4. Data Presentation

Relative abundances of ARGs were calculated by the delta-Ct method and delta-delta Ct method, using data normalization of ARGs copies to 16s rRNA copies, in triplicates from each monthly sample. For data presentation, the standard box plot diagram was used, displaying the median (horizontal line in the box), the lower and upper quartiles (bottom and top box lines), the 10th and 90th percentiles (bottom and top whiskers), and the outliers (circles). Wilcoxon test [85] was used to identify the significant differences in the abundances of ARGs and AR-EC between samples taken upstream and downstream of Brno-Modřice WWTP. Kruskal-Wallis test [86] and Dunn’s test [87] were used to identify the significant differences both in the relative abundance of ARGs and in the relative abundance of AR-EC. Statistical tests were performed in R software (version 3.6.0, www.rproject.org).

3. Results

3.1. Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Culturable Antibiotic Resistant Escherichia coli in Wastewater

Generally, all selected ARGs were detected both in influent and treated effluent of WWTP. Relative abundance (median of normalised expression level) of the ARGs in the influent was in order: intl1 > sul1 > blaTEM > tetM > blaCTX-M-32 > blaCTX-M-15 > mcr-1 > ampC. The values of the relative abundance (obtained from qPCR Ct values) of ARGs in the effluent were significantly lower compared to those values from the influent wastewater, indicating the efficient removal of ARGs during wastewater treatment processes (Figure 3). The removal efficiency of individual ARGs varied, the highest efficiency in ARGs removal was found for mcr-1, while the lowest removal efficiency was observed in the case of ampC (Figure 4).
Resistance rate of Escherichia coli (percentage of culturable AR-EC to the total culturable EC in a sample) ranged from 51.4% (±16.3%) in raw wastewater to 33.7% (±9.7%) in treated wastewater. The resistance rate in the influent was on average 1.5 times higher than that in the effluent. Unlike ARGs, the highest density in the influent wastewater was found for culturable AR-EC bearing resistance to AMP, followed by SXT, TCY, CTX, CAZ and COL. The AR-EC abundance varied from 102 to 104 CFU/mL in the influent wastewater and up to 102 CFU/mL in the effluent water (Figure 5). The absolute abundance of AR-EC was significantly reduced during the wastewater treatment process (Figure 3). On average, the 99.1% (±0.6%), i.e., 2.22 log reduction in the abundance of AR-EC was found. In the influent/effluent ratios of the abundance of culturable AR-EC in wastewater, statistically significant differences were not found (Figure 6).

3.2. Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Antibiotic Resistant Escherichia coli in River Recipient

Generally, the values of relative abundance of ARGs in river water downstream of the Brno-Modřice WWTP were higher than the values measured at the upstream sites of the Svratka River (Figure 7). Most of the detected ARGs showed the positive ratio of downstream to upstream abundance (nWD/nWU), while the negative ratio was found for MCR- 1 and M15 genes (Figure 8). However, no ARGs showed a statistically significant difference between both the upstream and downstream parts of the river.
This suggests that despite a significant reduction in the ARGs during the treatment (Table 2), the river water downstream of WWTP was probably slightly (but not statistically significantly) enriched by ARGs released into the environment by the treated effluent.
The abundance of antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli in the river water downstream of the WWTP was always higher compared to that AR-EC from the upstream part of the river (Figure 9). Escherichia coli resistant to SXT and TCY showed the highest ratio of downstream to upstream abundances (nWD/nWU), while the lowest ratio was found for Escherichia coli resistant to CTX and COL (Figure 10). The abundance of AR-EC in the Svratka River increased on average about 4.5 times from upstream to downstream of the WWTP discharge point to the river (Figure 8), however, statistically significant differences between the abundance of AR-EC upstream and downstream of the WWTP discharge were not found. The resistance rate of Escherichia coli ranged from 20% (±5.6%) in river water upstream of the WWTP to 34% (±7.2%) in the river water downstream of the WWTP.

3.3. Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Resistant Escherichia coli in River Sediments

The values of the relative abundance of ARGs in the surface sediments show much smaller and nonsignificant differences in ARG concentration between upstream and downstream of the WWTP discharge than the values obtained from water samples (Figure 11). Nevertheless, the potential indications of a trace enrichment of the sediments taken below WWTP discharge point were found only in three ARGs (Figure 12).
The absolute abundance of AR-EC was found also to be higher in the river sediments below the WWTP discharge (Figure 13). Higher downstream/upstream ratios were observed for Escherichia coli resistant to TCY and SXT, while the lowest for Escherichia coli resistant to CTX and COL (Figure 14). Nevertheless, compared to the abundance of AR-EC in river water, the ratios between a downstream and upstream part of river sediments reached higher values (Figure 14). The abundance of AR-EC in the Svratka River sediments increased on average about 7.4 times from upstream to downstream of the WWTP discharge point to the river (Figure 14), however, we found no statistically significant differences between the abundance of AR-EC upstream and downstream of the WWTP discharge. Resistance rate of Escherichia coli in the river sediments upstream of the WWTP showed the same value 25% (±7.3%) as samples of the river sediments taken downstream of the WWTP (±7.4%).

4. Discussion

4.1. Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Antibiotic Resistant Escherichia coli in the WWTP

The most abundant genes in Brno-Modřice WWTP were the class 1 integron integrase gene intl1, the sul1 gene coding for sulfonamide resistance, blaTEM and tetM. These genes intl1 and sul1 have been detected in wastewater treatment plants and in surface waters receiving treated effluents [80,88]. Our finding confirms the results of many published studies [46,47,56,75].
The use of biological treatment processes (activated sludge) to treat antibiotic–containing wastewater raises the question whether use of ARGs and ARB might be multiplied during these processes [27,42,71]. Generally, higher antibiotic residues in WWTPs may significantly affect the fate of ARGs in effluents from WWTP. However, some ARGs showed positive correlations with a residual concentration of antibiotics, but some negative or no significant correlations [89,90]. Hence, the high antibiotic residues in treated wastewater may influence the proliferation and fate of ARGs and ARB in the effluents and consequently their fate in the receiving river. In this study, however, the concentration of neither antibiotic was measured in raw wastewater, nor in WWTP effluent, so we cannot evaluate the potential significance of the antibiotics on the abundance of both ARGs and ARB in the effluent of a Brno-Modřice WWTP.
Nevertheless, our results indicate that the relative abundances of ARGs and the absolute abundance of AR-EC were efficiently reduced during the treatment processes in Brno-Modřice WWTP. This finding is congruent with other studies investigating the fate of ARGs through wastewater treatment [28,56]. Moreover, no proliferation of ARGs or significant augmentation in the resistance rate of Escherichia coli was observed during sewage treatment processes. The causes for the increased abundance of ARGs and ARB are not well understood [91].
Although one man expects close relationships between ARGs and AR-EC concentrations [92], it is rather difficult to determine this relationship in real wastewater samples. The main reason is the fact that some ARGs may occur either as intracellular elements inside the bacterial cells (i.e., as a part of intracellular DNA), while some of them as free extracellular DNA. Since the method we used for the detection of ARGs in our samples was based on filtration and extraction of bacterial cell DNA, we have no idea about how much proportion of free ARGs occurred in the surrounding wastewater. Previous unpublished experiments of our colleagues suggest that the ratio of extracellular DNA to intracellular DNA may vary from 1:4 up to 1:12 depending on the type of water (clear natural water vs treated wastewater) or the time of sampling, for instance.
In the case of ARGs, it appears that tetM exhibited higher removal efficiency, while the reduction of sul1 was lower [56]. In this study, the highest efficiency in ARGs removal was found for mcr-1 gene. This ARG, located on highly mobile plasmids, has been reported in numerous papers regarding pig farms and slaughterhouses [93,94], while the rare occurrence of mcr-1 in freshwaters [95,96] might be explained by the relatively high removal efficiency during WWTP processes. Nevertheless, this ARG is able to survive the sewage water treatment process and potentially be persistent also in river recipients [97]. Our data support this suggestion, in spite of the fact that mcr-1 evinced the lowest relative abundance of all observed ARGs both in river water and sediments.
The absolute abundance of E. coli resistant to the different antibiotics was significantly reduced in WWTP Brno-Modřice too. This result is also in agreement with that found in other studies [98,99]. On the other hand, the percentage of AR-EC (resistance rate) was reduced throughout the treatment process, while some studies observed invariable or enhanced percentages of AR-EC in WWTP effluents in comparison to the WWTP influents [99,100,101].
The removal efficiency of ARGs by primary treatment processes is reported to be negligible, however, it seems that most ARGs could be reduced effectively by the activated sludge process [56]. Brno-Modřice WWTP employs traditional treatment processes of primary sedimentation and biological treatment, hence we can attribute the high removal efficiency of both AR-EC and ARGs to these various treatment processes. Nevertheless, there is still up to 102 CFU/mL AR-EC (i.e., 0.9% of AR-EC found in influent) and a trace amount of ARGs in the WWPT effluent. For instance, we found that the absolute abundances of AR-EC in the effluent were much higher than those measured at the upstream sites in the Svratka River. As a consequence, the abundance of AR-EC in the Svratka River increased on average about 4.5 times from upstream to the downstream site of the WWTP, suggesting that despite the reduction of total AR-EC during the wastewater treatment process, the discharge of effluents from WWTP contaminated with ARGs and AR-EC poses a high risk of dissemination of those elements into the environment, besides other things because of large amount discharged into the river recipient per day [27,28,63,64].

4.2. Effect of WWTP Effluent on River Downstream Environment

Despite the significant reduction of ARG and AR-EC abundances, Brno-Modřice WWTP treated effluents contain still abundances of ARGs and AR-EC that are higher in both the relative and absolute abundances than those measured in the receiving river. Consequently, the abundance of both ARGs and AR-EC increased, at least in the case of some genes significantly downstream of the WWTP discharge into the Svratka River. Our observations agree with previously published reports that WWTPs can promote and provide conducive conditions for the establishment and spreading of ARB in the receiving river environment [71,102,103].
We found the increased concentration of ARGs and ARB in both the river water and sediment collected downstream of the WWTP discharge point. While detection of ARGs and ARB in river compartments downstream of the WWTP discharge point has been rather expected, the detectable levels of all analyzed ARGs and ARB found in the upstream samples suggest that some antibiotic resistance may naturally occur also in the river environment. Several factors may be responsible for the maintenance of this background resistance in the samples collected at the upstream site, including agricultural runoff and soil leaching [104]. In the case of the Svratka River, we assume that the ARGs and ARB found upstream of Brno-Modřice WWTP discharge point become most likely from a University Hospital WWTP effluent.
ARGs and ARB have been reported to be ubiquitous both in river water and sediments or biofilms downstream of WWTPs [29,68,104,105]. The ARGs in the water and sediment can persist far downstream of the WWTPs [104], even until 20 km downstream from the WWTP effluent discharge point [30], suggesting that some ARGs may persist in the river environment. In our study, genes intl1 and sul1 were found to be the most abundant in river water and sediments. Despite both genes being efficiently removed during wastewater treatment, their relative abundance in the WWTP effluent remained still too high, causing their spread into the river environment. This observation is consistent with previous studies [29,46,104]. The sul1 abundance was also the highest in groundwater samples [29]. Sediments may serve as a pool of both the ARB and ARGs [68]. Our findings support this hypothesis, particularly concerning the behavior of AR-EC. In comparison with the abundance of AR-EC in river water, the downstream/upstream ratios of abundance in river sediments showed higher values, suggesting that the sediments were more enriched by AR-EC than surface water. Although the values of ARGs found in the effluent are richer compared to river water, about 250 m downstream, the difference between the abundance above and below the WWTP discharge was no longer significant.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our data, in congruence with other published studies, show that WWTP effluents may be a source of ARGs and ARB, whenever the wastewater effluent is discharged into a river. Persistence and enrichment of both ARGs and ARB in river water and, namely in river sediments downstream of the WWTP suggest that these antibiotic elements are disseminated and can potentially spread further in aquatic environments, although ARGs amount downstream appears to be reduced spontaneously by natural processes. In the future, we recommend studying river water, sediments and hyporheic interstitial water simultaneously at several distances downstream of the WWTP discharge points to evaluate properly the fate of the antibiotic resistance in the river environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.B. and K.S.; Methodology, I.B. and K.S.; Software, D.V., D.N., P.K. and A.M.; Validation, I.B., K.S. and J.L.; Formal Analysis, D.V., I.B. and P.K.; Data Curation, I.B. and K.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, M.R., I.B. and K.S.; Writing—Review and Editing, I.B., M.R., A.M., M.V. Visualization, D.V.; Supervision, M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported from institutional funds for the development of the research organization TGM WRI, p.r.I., within the framework of the internal grant No. 3600.52.20/2020. Acknowledgments belong to the company Brněnské vodárny a kanalizace, a.s. for enabling data collection for the employees of the Brno-Modřice WWTP for collecting samples, pleasant cooperation and, finally, for help (rescue mission, respectively) in the field.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Table of sampling points with GPS coordinates.
Table A1. Table of sampling points with GPS coordinates.
Sampling PointBankGPS
Svratka-upstream left49.1262797N, 16.6270903E
Svratka-upstream right49.1262658N, 16.6267364E
Svratka-downstream left49.1225339N, 16.6268811E
Svratka-downstream right49.1225411N, 16.6265378E
WWTP outflow 49.1244719N, 16.6269778E

References

  1. Sarmah, A.K.; Meyer, M.T.; Boxtall, A.B.A. A global perspective on the use, sales, exposure pathways, occurrence, fate, and effects of veterinary antibiotics (VAs) in the environment. Chemosphere 2006, 65, 725–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kemper, N. Veterinary antibiotics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kümmerer, K. Antibiotics in the aquatic environment—A review—Part I. Chemosphere 2009, 75, 417–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kümmerer, K. Antibiotics in the aquatic environment—A review—Part II. Chemosphere 2009, 75, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Manyi-Loh, C.; Mamphweli, S.; Meyer, D.; Okoh, A. Antibiotic use in agriculture and its consequential resistance in environmental sources: Potential public health implications. Molecules 2018, 23, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Walsh, T.R.; Weeks, J.; Livermore, D.M.; Toleman, M.A. Dissemination of NDM-1 positive bacteria in the New Delhi environment and its implications for human health: An environmental point prevalence study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2011, 11, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhou, L.J.; Ying, G.G.; Zhao, J.L.; Yang, J.F.; Wang, L.; Yang, B.; Liu, S. Trends in the occurrence of human and veterinary antibiotics in the sediments of the Yellow River, Hai River and Liao River in northern China. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 1877–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Daghrir, R.; Drogui, P. Tetracycline antibiotics in the environment. A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2003, 11, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, K.; Zhou, J.L. Occurrence and behavior of antibiotics in water and sediments from theHuangpu River, Shanghai, China. Chemosphere 2014, 95, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Manaia, C.M.; Macedo, G.; Fatta-Kassinos, D.; Nunes, O.C. Antibiotic resistance in urban aquatic environments: Can it be controlled? Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 1543–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Xu, Y.; Guo, C.; Liuo, Y.; Lv, J.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, H.; Wang, L.; Xu, J. Occurrence and distribution of antibiotics, antibiotic resistance genes in the urban rivers in Beijing, China. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 213, 833–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Levy, S.B.; Marshall, B. Antibacterial resistance worldwide: Causes, challenges and responses. Nat. Med. 2004, 10, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aminov, R.I.; Mackie, R.I. Evolution and ecology of antibiotic resistance genes. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2007, 271, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Servais, P.; Passerat, J. Antimicrobial resistance of fecal bacteria in waters of the Seine river watershed (France). Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 408, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gaze, W.H.; Zhang, L.; Abdouslam, N.A.; Hawkey, P.M.; Calvo-Bado, L.; Royle, J.; Brown, H.; Davis, S.; Kay, P.; Boxall, A.B.A.; et al. Impacts of anthropogenic activity on the ecology of class 1 integrons and integron-associated genes in the environment. ISME J. 2011, 5, 1253–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Czekalski, N.; Berthold, T.; Caucci, S.; Egli, A.; Bürgmann, H. Increased levels of multiresistant bacteria and resistance genes after wastewater treatment and their dissemination into Lake Geneva, Switzerland. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Finley, R.L.; Collignon, P.; Larsson, D.G.J.; McEwan, S.A.; Xian-Zhi, L.; Gaze, W.H.; Reid-Smith, R.; Timinouni, M.; Graham, D.W.; Topp, E. The scourage of antibiotic resistance: The important role of the environment. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2013, 57, 704–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Berendonk, T.U.; Manaia, C.M.; Merlin, C.; Fatta-Kassinos, D.; Cytryn, E.; Walsh, F.; Bürgmann, H.; Sørum, H.; Norström, M.; Pons, M.N. Tackling antibiotic resistance: The environmental framework. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 13, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Wright, D.G. The antibiotic resistome: The nexus to chemical and genetic diversity. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 5, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vaz-Moreira, I.; Nunes, O.C.; Manaia, C.M. Bacterial diversity and antibiotic resistance in water habitats: Searching the links with the human microbiome. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 38, 761–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Littmann, J.; Buyx, A.; Cars, O. Antibiotic resistance: An ethical challenge. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2015, 46, 359–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rossi-Marshall, E.J.; Kelly, J.J. Antibiotic stewardship should consider environmental fate of antibiotics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 5257–5258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Levy, S.B. The Antibiotic Paradox: How Miracle Drugs Are Destroying the Miracle; Springer US: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 123–127. [Google Scholar]
  24. Aminov, R.I. The role of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance in nature. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 11, 2970–2988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bouki, C.; Venieri, D.; Diamadopoulos, E. Detection and fate of antibiotic bacteria in wastewater treatment plants. A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 91, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Michael, I.; Rizzo, L.; McArdell, C.S.; Manaia, C.M.; Merlin, C.; Schwartz, T.; Dagot, C.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for the release of antibiotics in the environment: A review. Water Res. 2013, 47, 957–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Rizzo, L.; Manaia, C.; Merlin, C.; Schwartz, T.; Dagot, C.; Ploy, M.C.; Michael, I.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes spread into the environment: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 447, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Proia, L.; Anzil, A.; Subirats, J.; Borrego, C.; Farré, M.; Llorca, M.; Balcázar, J.L.; Servais, P. Antibiotic resistance in urban and hospital wastewaters and their impact on a receiving freshwater ecosystem. Chemosphere 2018, 206, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, X.; Zhang, G.; Liu, Y.; Lu, S.; Qin, P.; Guo, X.; Bi, B.; Wang, L.; Xi, B.; Wu, F.; et al. Occurrence and fate of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in typical urban water of Beijing, China. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 246, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sabri, N.A.; Schmitt, H.; Zaan Van der, N.; Gerritsen, H.W.; Zuidema, T.; Rijnaarts, H.H.M.; Langenhoff, A.A.M. Prevalence of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in a wastewater effluent-receiving river in the Netherlands. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 102245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Skippington, E.; Ragan, M. Lateral genetic transfer and the construction of genetic exchange communities. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 35, 707–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Van Hoek, A.H.A.M.; Mevius, D.; Guerra, B.; Mullany, P.; Roberts, A.P.; Aarts, H.J.M. Acquired antibiotic resistance genes: An overview. Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Marti, E.; Variatza, E.; Balcazar, J.L. The role of aquatic ecosystems as reservoirs of antibiotic resistance. Trends Microbiol. 2014, 22, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sharma, V.; Johnson, N.; Cizmas, L.; McDonald, T.J.; Kim, H. A review of the influence of treatment strategies on antibiotic resistant bacteria and antibiotic resistance genes. Chemosphere 2016, 150, 702–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Aminov, R.I. Horizontal gene exchange in environmental microbiota. Front. Microbiol. 2011, 26, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Von Wintersdorff, C.J.; Penders, J.; Van Niekerk, J.M.; Mills, N.D.; Majumder, S.; Van Alphen, L.B.; Paul, H.M.; Savelkoul, H.M.P.; Wolffs, F.G.P. Dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in microbial ecosystems through horizontal gene transfer. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Wellington, E.M.H.; Boxall, A.B.A.; Cross, P.; Feil, E.J.; Gaze, W.H.; Hawkey, P.M.; Johnson-Rollings, A.S.; Jones, D.L.; Lee, M.N.; Otten, W.; et al. The role of the natural environment in the emergence of antibiotic resistance in Gram-negative bacteria. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2013, 13, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stevenson, C.; Hall, J.P.; Harrison, E.; Wood, A.J.; Brockhurst, M.A. Gene mobility promotes the spread of resistance in bacterial populations. ISME J. 2013, 11, 1930–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Wright, D.G. Antibiotic resistance in the environment: A link to the clinic? Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2010, 13, 589–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Martinez, J.L. Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in natural environments. Science 2008, 321, 365–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Manzetti, S.; Ghisi, R. The environmental release and fate of antibiotics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 79, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Karkman, A.; Do, T.T.; Walsh, F.; Virta, M.P.J. Antibiotic-resistance genes in waste water. Trends Microbiol. 2018, 26, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Nagulapally, S.R.; Ahmad, A.; Henry, A.; Marchin, G.L.; Zurek, L.; Bhandari, A. Occurrence of ciprofloxacin-, trimethoprim-, sulfamethoxazole-, and vancomycin-resistant bacteria in a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Water Environ. Res. 2008, 81, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zhang, T.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, X.; Fang, H.H. Tetracycline Resistance Genes and Tetracycline Resistant Lactose-Fermenting Enterobacteriaceae in Activated Sludge of Sewage Treatment Plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 3455–3460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Laht, M.; Karkman, A.; Voolaid, V.; Ritz, C.; Tenson, T.; Virta, M.; Kisand, V. Abundances of tetracycline, sulphonamide and beta-lactam antibiotic resistance genes in conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) with different waste load. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e0103705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Makowska, N.; Koczura, R.; Mokracka, J. Class 1 integrase, sulfonamide and tetracycline resistance genes in wastewater treatment plant and surface water. Chemosphere 2015, 144, 1665–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lee, J.; Jeon, J.H.; Shin, J.; Jang, H.M.; Kim, S.; Song, M.S.; Kim, Y.M. Quantitative and qualitative changes in antibiotic resistance genes after passing through treatment processes in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 605–606, 906–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, X.X.; Zhang, T.; Fang, H.H.P. Antibiotic resistance genes in water environment. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 82, 397–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhou, Z.C.; Feng, W.Q.; Han, Y.; Zheng, J.; Chen, T.; Wei, Y.Y.; Gillings, M.; Zhu, Y.G.; Chen, H. Prevalence and transmission of antibiotic resistance and microbiota between humans and water environments. Environ. Int. 2018, 121, 1155–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Auerbach, E.A.; Seyfried, E.E.; McMahon, K.D. Tetracycline resistance genes in activated sludge wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 2007, 41, 1143–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ghosh, S.; Ramsden, S.J.; LaPara, T.M. The role of anaerobic digestion in controlling the release of tetracycline resistance genes and class 1 integrons from municipal wastewater treatment plants. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 791–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mao, D.; Yu, S.; Rysz, M.; Luo, Y.; Yang, F.; Li, F.; Hou, J.; Mu, Q.; Alvarez, P.J.J. Prevalence and proliferation of antibiotic resistance genes in two municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 2015, 85, 458–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Guo, J.; Li, J.; Chen, H.; Bond, P.L.; Yuan, Z. Metagenomic analysis reveals wastewater treatment plants as hotspots of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements. Water Res. 2017, 123, 468–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Chen, J.; Wei, Y.D.; Liu, Y.S.; Ying, G.G.; Liu, S.S.; He, L.Y.; Su, H.C.; Hu, L.X.; Chen, F.R.; Yang, Y.Q. Removal of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes from domestic sewage by constructed wetlands: Optimization of wetland substrates and hydraulic loading. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 565, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Krzeminski, P.; Tomei, M.C.; Karaolia, P.; Langenhoff, A.; Almeida, C.M.R.; Felis, E. Performance of secondary wastewater treatment methods for the removal of contaminants of emerging concern implicated in crop uptake and antibiotic resistance spread: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 1052–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Wang, J.; Chu, L.; Wojnárovits, L.; Takács, E. Occurrence and fate of antibiotics, antibiotic resistant genes (ARGs) and antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) in municipal wastewater treatment plant: An overview. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 744, 140997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Wang, S.; Ma, X.; Liu, Y.; Du, G.; Li, J. Fate of antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and cell-free antibiotic resistant genes in full-scale membrane bioreactor wastewater treatment plants. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 302, 122825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fondi, M.; Fani, R. The horizontal flow of the plasmid resistome: Clues from inter-generic similarity networks. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 12, 3228–3242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Andersson, D.I.; Hughes, D. Microbiological effects of sublethal levels of antibiotics. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2014, 12, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, Y.; Lu, J.; Mao, L.; Yuan, Z.; Bond, P.; Guo, J. Antiepileptic drug carbamazepine promotes horizontal transfer of plasmid-borne multi-antibiotic resistance genes within and across bacterial genera. ISME 2019, 13, 509–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Birošová, L.; Lépesová, K.; Grabic, R.; Mackul’ak, T. Non-antimicrobial pharmaceuticals can affect the development of antibiotic resistance in hospital wastewater. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 12, 13501–13511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Thakali, O.; Brooks, J.P.; Shahin, S.; Sherchan, S.P.; Haramoto, E. Removal of Antibiotic Resistance Genes at Two Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants of Louisiana, USA. Water 2020, 12, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pruden, A.; Arabi, M.; Storteboom, H.N. Correlation between upstream human activities and riverine antibiotic resistance genes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 11541–11549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jäger, T.; Hembach, N.; Elpers, C.; Wieland, A.; Alexander, J.; Hiller, C. Reduction of antibiotic resistant bacteria during conventional and advanced wastewater treatment, and the disseminated loads released to the environment. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Amos, G.C.A.; Ploumakis, S.; Zhang, L.; Hawkey, P.M.; Gaze, W.H.; Wellington, E.M.H. The widespread dissemination of integrons throughout bacterial communities in a riverine system. ISME J. 2018, 12, 681–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Jiang, H.; Zhou, R.; Zhang, M.; Cheng, Z.; Li, J.; Zhang, G.; Chen, B.; Zou, S.; Yang, Y. Exploring the differences of antibiotic resistance genes profiles between river surface water and sediments using metagenomic approach. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 161, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Berglund, B.; Fick, J.; Lindgren, P.E. Urban wastewater effluent increases antibiotic resistance gene concentrations in a receiving northern European river. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2015, 34, 192–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Heβ, S.; Berendonk, T.U.; Kneis, D. Antibiotic resistant bacteria and resistance genes in the bottom sediment of a small stream and the potential impact of remobilization. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2018, 94, fiy128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Guo, X.P.; Zhao, S.; Chen, Y.R.; Yang, J.; Hou, L.J.; Liu, M.; Yang, Y. Antibiotic resistance genes in sediments of the Yangtze Estuary: From 2007 to 2019. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 744, 140713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Van Elsas, J.D.; Bailey, M.J. The ecology of transfer of mobile genetic elements. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2002, 42, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Taylor, N.G.H.; Verner-Jeffreys, D.W.; Baker-Austin, C. Aquatic systems: Maintaining, mixing and mobilising antimicrobial resistance? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Martinez, J.L. Environmental pollution by antibiotics and by antibiotic resistance determinants. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 2893–2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Allen, H.K.; Donato, J.; Wang, H.H.; Cloud-Hansen, K.A.; Davies, J.; Handelsman, J. Call of the wild: Antibiotic resistance genes in natural environments. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Bush, K.; Courvalin, P.; Dantas, G.; Davies, J.; Eisenstein, B.; Huovinen, P.; Jacoby, A.G.; Kishony, R.; Kreiswirth, B.N.; Kutter, E.; et al. Tackling antibiotic resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 9, 894–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Cacace, D.; Fatta-Kassinos, D.; Manaia, C.M.; Cytryn, E.; Kreuzinger, N.; Rizzo, L. Antibiotic resistance genes in treated wastewater and in the receiving water bodies: A pan-European survey of urban settings. Water Res. 2019, 162, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Graham, D.W.; Knapp, C.W.; Christensen, B.T.; McCluskey, S.; Dolfing, J. Appearance of β-lactam resistance genes in agricultural soils and clinical isolates over the 20th century. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 21550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Liu, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.; Walsh, T.R.; Yi, L.X.; Zhang, R.; Spencer, J.; Doi, Y.; Tian, G.; Dong, B.; Huang, X.; et al. Emergence of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: A microbiological and molecular biological study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Poirel, L.; Kieffer, N.; Liassine, N.; Thanh, D.; Nordmann, P. Plasmid-mediated carbapenem and colistin resistance in a clinical isolate of Escherichia coli. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Michael, C.A.; Gillings, M.R.; Holmes, A.J.; Hughes, L.; Andrew, N.R.; Holley, M.P. Mobile gene casettes: A fundamental resource for bacterial evolution. Am. Nat. 2004, 164, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Gillings, M.; Boucher, Y.; Labbate, M.; Homes, A.J.; Krishnan, S.; Holley, M.; Stokes, H.W. The evolution of class 1 integrons and the rise of antibiotic resistance. J. Bacteriol. 2008, 190, 5095–5100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Gatica, J.; Tripathi, V.; Green, S.; Manaia, C.M.; Berendonk, T.; Cacace, D. High throughput analysis of integron gene casettes in wastewater environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 11825–11836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pfaffl, M.W. A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. ISO 9308-1:2014. Water Quality—Enumeration of Escherichia coli and Coliform Bacteria—Part 1: Membrane Filtration Method for Waters with Low Bacterial Background Flora; Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  84. Matějů, L. Metodický návod pro stanovení indikátorových organismů v bioodpadech, upravených bioodpadech, kalech z čistíren odpadních vod, digestátech, substrátech, kompostech, pomocných růstových prostředcích a podobných matricích. Acta Hyg. Epidemiol. Microbiol. 2018, 1, 1–53. [Google Scholar]
  85. Bauer, D.F. Constructing confidence sets using rank statistics. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1972, 67, 687–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47, 583–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dunn, O.J. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 1964, 6, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nardelli, M.; Scalzo, P.M.; Ramírez, M.S.; Quiroga, M.P.; Cassini, M.H.; Centrón, D. Class 1 integrons in environments with different degrees of urbanization. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Xu, J.; Xu, Y.; Wang, H.; Guo, C.; Qiu, H.; He, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Meng, W. Occurrence of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in a sewage treatment plant and its effluent-receiving river. Chemosphere 2015, 119, 1379–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, J.; Mao, D.; Mu, Q.; Luo, Y. Fate and proliferation of typical antibiotic resistance genes in five full-scale pharmaceutical wastewater treatment plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 526, 366–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Li, R.; Jay, J.A.; Stenstrom, M.K. Fate of antibiotic resistance genes and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in water resource recovery facilities. Water Environ. Res. 2018, 91, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Du, B.; Yang, Q.; Wang, R.; Wang, R.; Wang, Q.; Xin, Y. Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance and the Relationship between the Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Microbial Compositions under Long-Term Exposure to Tetracycline and Sulfamethoxazole. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Kusumoto, M.; Ogura, Y.; Gotoh, Y.; Iwata, T.; Hayashi, T.; Akiba, M. Colistin-resistant mcr-1 -positive pathogenic Escherichia coli in swine, Japan, 2007–2014. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2016, 22, 1315–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Nakayama, T.; Kumeda, Y.; Kawahara, R.; Yamaguchi, T.; Yamamoto, Y. Carriage of colistin-resistant, extended-spectrum b-lactamase-producing Escherichiacoli harboring the mcr-1 resistance gene after short-term international travel toVietnam. Infect. Drug Resist. 2018, 11, 391–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Lekunberri, I.; Balcazar, J.L.; Borrego, C.M. Detection and quantification of the plasmid-mediated mcr-1 gene conferring colistin resistance in wastewater. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2017, 50, 734–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yang, D.; Qiu, Z.; Shen, Z.; Zhao, H.; Jin, M.; Li, H. The occurrence of the colistin resistance gene mcr-1 in the Haihe river (China). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Hembach, N.; Schmid, F.; Alexander, J.; Hiller, C.; Rogall, E.T.; Schwartz, T. Occurrence of the mcr-1 colistin resistance gene and other clinically relevant antibiotic resistance genes in microbial populations at different municipal wastewater treatment plants in Germany. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Lüddeke, F.; Heß, S.; Gallert, C.; Winter, J.; Güde, H.; Löffler, H. Removal of total and antibiotic resistant bacteria in advanced wastewater treatment by ozonation in combination with different filtering techniques. Water Res. 2015, 69, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Osiňska, A.; Korzeniewska, E.; Harnisz, M.; Niestepski, S. The prevalence and characterization of antibiotic-resistant and virulent Escherichia coli strains in the municipal wastewater system and their environmental fate. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 577, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Łuczkiewicz, A.; Jankowska, K.; Fudala-Ksiazek, S.; Olańczuk-Neyman, K. Antimicrobial resistance of fecal indicators in municipal wastewater treatment plant. Water Res. 2010, 44, 5089–5097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Koczura, R.; Mokracka, J.; Jabłońska, L.; Gozdecka, E.; Kubek, M.; Kaznowski, A. Antimicrobial resistance of integron-harboring Escherichia coli isolates from clinical samples, wastewater treatment plant and river water. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 414, 680–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Marcinek, H.; Wirth, R.; Muscholl-Silberhorn, A.; Gauer, M. Enterococcus faecalis gene transfer under natural conditions in municipal sewage water treatment plants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 626–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Kim, S.; Jensen, J.N.; Aga, S.D.; Weber, S.A. Tetracycline as a selector for resistant bacteria in activated sludge. Chemosphere 2007, 66, 1643–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Proia, L.; Schiller, D.; Sanchez-Melsio, A.; Sabater, S.; Borrego, C.M.; Rodriguez-Mozaz, S.; Balcázar, J.L. Occurrence and persistence of antibiotic resistance genes in river biofilms after wastewater inputs in small rivers. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 210, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Oberle, K.; Capdeville, M.J.; Berthe, T.; Budzinski, H.; Petit, F. Evidence for a complex relationship between antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant Escherichia Coli: From medical center patients to a receiving environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 1859–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Water 13 02309 g001 550
Figure 1. The research focused on estimating the efficiency of wastewater treatment at WWTP Brno has shown high efficiency in the elimination of bacteria and ATB resistance genes in wastewater. Even though the removal efficiency is around 99%, the environment is likely to be enriched. However, according to our results, this enrichment is not already statistically significant 200 m downstream and the values are comparable to upstream.
Figure 1. The research focused on estimating the efficiency of wastewater treatment at WWTP Brno has shown high efficiency in the elimination of bacteria and ATB resistance genes in wastewater. Even though the removal efficiency is around 99%, the environment is likely to be enriched. However, according to our results, this enrichment is not already statistically significant 200 m downstream and the values are comparable to upstream.
Water 13 02309 g001
Water 13 02309 g002 550
Figure 2. The schema of sampling sites.
Figure 2. The schema of sampling sites.
Water 13 02309 g002
Water 13 02309 g003 550
Figure 3. Relative abundance obtained from qPCR Ct values (normalized ARGs copies to 16s rRNA copies) of the seven ARGs analyzed in bacteria from the influent and effluent of Brno-Modřice WWTP. Box plots represent the median (horizontal line in the box), the lower and upper quartiles (bottom and top box lines), and the lower and upper 1.5 IQR (bottom and top whiskers). The statistical difference between the influent and effluent was tested by Mann-Whitney test and the significance is marked with * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01.
Figure 3. Relative abundance obtained from qPCR Ct values (normalized ARGs copies to 16s rRNA copies) of the seven ARGs analyzed in bacteria from the influent and effluent of Brno-Modřice WWTP. Box plots represent the median (horizontal line in the box), the lower and upper quartiles (bottom and top box lines), and the lower and upper 1.5 IQR (bottom and top whiskers). The statistical difference between the influent and effluent was tested by Mann-Whitney test and the significance is marked with * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01.
Water 13 02309 g003
Water 13 02309 g004 550
Figure 4. The difference in fold gene expression (normalized ARGs copies to 16s rRNA copies) of the ARGs analyzed between the influent and effluent of Brno-Modřice WWTP. The statistical difference between the groups was tested by the Kruskal-Wallis test and with Dunn’s multiple comparisons, and the significance is marked with * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01 and *** for p < 0.001.
Figure 4. The difference in fold gene expression (normalized ARGs copies to 16s rRNA copies) of the ARGs analyzed between the influent and effluent of Brno-Modřice WWTP. The statistical difference between the groups was tested by the Kruskal-Wallis test and with Dunn’s multiple comparisons, and the significance is marked with * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01 and *** for p < 0.001.
Water 13 02309 g004
Water 13 02309 g005 550
Figure 5. Box plots of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the wastewater entering WWTP and treated effluents from WWTP.
Figure 5. Box plots of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the wastewater entering WWTP and treated effluents from WWTP.
Water 13 02309 g005
Water 13 02309 g006 550
Figure 6. Influent/effluent ratios (nI/nE) of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the wastewater. ● indicate data points located outside whiskers of the Tukey’s boxplot (outliers).
Figure 6. Influent/effluent ratios (nI/nE) of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the wastewater. ● indicate data points located outside whiskers of the Tukey’s boxplot (outliers).
Water 13 02309 g006
Water 13 02309 g007 550
Figure 7. Relative abundance obtained from qPCR Ct values (normalized ARGs copies to 16s rRNA copies) of the seven ARGs analyzed in the surface water taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP analyzed in the surface water taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP. ● indicate data points located outside whiskers of the Tukey’s boxplot (outliers).
Figure 7. Relative abundance obtained from qPCR Ct values (normalized ARGs copies to 16s rRNA copies) of the seven ARGs analyzed in the surface water taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP analyzed in the surface water taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP. ● indicate data points located outside whiskers of the Tukey’s boxplot (outliers).
Water 13 02309 g007
Water 13 02309 g008 550
Figure 8. The difference in normalized fold gene expression level of the ARGs between the surface water taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP.
Figure 8. The difference in normalized fold gene expression level of the ARGs between the surface water taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP.
Water 13 02309 g008
Water 13 02309 g009 550
Figure 9. Box plots of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY), and colistin (COL) measured in the river water.
Figure 9. Box plots of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY), and colistin (COL) measured in the river water.
Water 13 02309 g009
Water 13 02309 g010 550
Figure 10. Downstream/upstream ratios (nWD/nWU) of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the river water.
Figure 10. Downstream/upstream ratios (nWD/nWU) of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the river water.
Water 13 02309 g010
Water 13 02309 g011 550
Figure 11. Normalized expression levels of ARGs in the sediment samples taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP. ● indicate data points located outside whiskers of the Tukey’s boxplot (outliers).
Figure 11. Normalized expression levels of ARGs in the sediment samples taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP. ● indicate data points located outside whiskers of the Tukey’s boxplot (outliers).
Water 13 02309 g011
Water 13 02309 g012 550
Figure 12. Normalized fold gene expression levels of ARGs in the sediment samples taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP. ● indicate data points located outside whiskers of the Tukey’s boxplot (outliers).
Figure 12. Normalized fold gene expression levels of ARGs in the sediment samples taken upstream and downstream of the WWTP. ● indicate data points located outside whiskers of the Tukey’s boxplot (outliers).
Water 13 02309 g012
Water 13 02309 g013 550
Figure 13. Box plots of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the river sediments.
Figure 13. Box plots of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the river sediments.
Water 13 02309 g013
Water 13 02309 g014 550
Figure 14. Downstream/upstream ratios (nSD/nSU) of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the river sediments.
Figure 14. Downstream/upstream ratios (nSD/nSU) of the abundance of culturable Escherichia coli resistant to ampicillin (AMP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefotaxime (CTX), sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TCY) and colistin (COL) measured in the river sediments.
Water 13 02309 g014
Table
Table 1. Antibiotics and their concentrations used in cultivation assays.
Table 1. Antibiotics and their concentrations used in cultivation assays.
ATBMIC (mg/L)
ampicillinAMP8
ceftazidimeCAZ4
cefotaximeCTX2
sulfamethoxazoleSXT512
tetracyclineTCY16
colistinCOL2
Table
Table 2. Estimated ARGs removal efficiency during wastewater treatment in WWTP Brno Modřice.
Table 2. Estimated ARGs removal efficiency during wastewater treatment in WWTP Brno Modřice.
Efficiency
(%)		blaTEMsul1MCR-1M15tetMM32intlampC
Mean99.7699.4699.9999.9699.6199.9598.7376.06
Std. Dev.0.380.720.010.070.550.051.0120.91
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Buriánková, I.; Kuchta, P.; Molíková, A.; Sovová, K.; Výravský, D.; Rulík, M.; Novák, D.; Lochman, J.; Vítězová, M. Antibiotic Resistance in Wastewater and Its Impact on a Receiving River: A Case Study of WWTP Brno-Modřice, Czech Republic. Water 2021, 13, 2309. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162309

AMA Style

Buriánková I, Kuchta P, Molíková A, Sovová K, Výravský D, Rulík M, Novák D, Lochman J, Vítězová M. Antibiotic Resistance in Wastewater and Its Impact on a Receiving River: A Case Study of WWTP Brno-Modřice, Czech Republic. Water. 2021; 13(16):2309. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162309

Chicago/Turabian Style

Buriánková, Iva, Peter Kuchta, Anna Molíková, Kateřina Sovová, David Výravský, Martin Rulík, David Novák, Jan Lochman, and Monika Vítězová. 2021. "Antibiotic Resistance in Wastewater and Its Impact on a Receiving River: A Case Study of WWTP Brno-Modřice, Czech Republic" Water 13, no. 16: 2309. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162309

APA Style

Buriánková, I., Kuchta, P., Molíková, A., Sovová, K., Výravský, D., Rulík, M., Novák, D., Lochman, J., & Vítězová, M. (2021). Antibiotic Resistance in Wastewater and Its Impact on a Receiving River: A Case Study of WWTP Brno-Modřice, Czech Republic. Water, 13(16), 2309. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162309

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