Next Article in Journal
Medical-Grade Honey as an Alternative Treatment for Antibiotics in Non-Healing Wounds—A Prospective Case Series
Next Article in Special Issue
Butyrate, Forskolin, and Lactose Synergistically Enhance Disease Resistance by Inducing the Expression of the Genes Involved in Innate Host Defense and Barrier Function
Previous Article in Journal
Trends in Outpatient Prescribing Patterns for Ocular Topical Anti-Infectives in Six Major Areas of China, 2013–2019
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exudative Epidermitis in Combination with Staphylococcal Pyoderma in Suckling Piglets
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 10
Issue 8
10.3390/antibiotics10080917
antibiotics-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

Molecular Evaluation of Traditional Chicken Farm-Associated Bioaerosols for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Shedding

by
Chi-Wei Tao
1,2,†,
Jung-Sheng Chen
3,
Bing-Mu Hsu
4,*,
Suprokash Koner
4,5,†,
Tung-Che Hung
6,†,
Han-Ming Wu
7 and
Jagat Rathod
8
1
Department of Internal Medicine, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei 112401, Taiwan
2
Department of Environmental Engineering and Health, Yuanpei University of Medical Technology, Hsinchu 611310, Taiwan
3
Department of Medical Research, E-Da Hospital, Kaohsiung 824005, Taiwan
4
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi 621301, Taiwan
5
Department of Biomedical Sciences, National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi 621301, Taiwan
6
Department of Infectious Diseases, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chiayi Christian Hospital, Chiayi 600566, Taiwan
7
Family Medicine Department, Asia University Hospital, Taichung 413505, Taiwan
8
Department of Earth Sciences, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701401, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Antibiotics 2021, 10(8), 917; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080917
Submission received: 13 May 2021 / Revised: 20 July 2021 / Accepted: 26 July 2021 / Published: 28 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Resistance and Antibiotic Alternatives in Livestock)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The outbreak of airborne pathogens, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) through bioaerosol, and their molecular characterization around domestic poultry farming areas, was not completely understood. This imposes risk of a MRSA-associated health threat for the relevant livestock food production units. To address this issue, the present study investigated the role of bioaerosol in transmitting MRSA strains in poultry house settings by combining molecular typing, phylogenetic classification, antibiotic susceptibility, and virulence gene distribution patterns. The present study highlights that all 18 bioaerosol and stool samples collected were MRSA positive, with a unique set of virulence factors. Out of 57 isolated MRSA isolates, 68.4% and 19.3% consisted of SCCmec I and IV elements, respectively, which are commonly linked with hospital-acquired and livestock-associated MRSA strains. It is worth noting that the exfoliative toxin eta and etb genes were carried by 100% and 70.2% of all isolates, respectively. Only 17.5% of strains showed the presence of enterotoxin entC. These MRSA isolates were resistant to chloramphenicol (C), ciprofloxacin (CIP), clindamycin (DA), erythromycin (E), and tetracycline (T), signifying their multi-drug resistance traits. A cluster of phylogenetic analysis described that 80.7% and 15.8% of total isolates belonged to Staphylococcus aureus protein A (spa) type t002 and t548. Whereas 3.5% were reflected as a new spa type. Additionally, as per the chi-squared test score value, these two spa types (t002 and t548) have a distribution correlation with HA-MRSA and LA-MRSA in all the samples (p < 0.005, chi-squared test; degree of freedom = 1). Ultimately, this study highlights the prevalence of MRSA colonization in the conventional poultry farm environment, showing the risk of bioaerosol transmission, which needs epidemiological attention and prevention strategies.

1. Introduction

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a Gram-positive pathogen that could proliferate to a virulent level in the air, and the utmost opportunistic ESKAPE (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.) group of pathogens reported worldwide, including Asia [1]. These pathogens are linked to nosocomial infection, and present in versatile natural environments and domestic livestock farming niches [2,3]. The severity and prevalence of MRSA are highly correlated due to the acquisition of antimicrobial resistance characteristics against various groups of drugs, such as β-lactam [4]. MRSA can cause disease in a healthy individual via animate and inanimate vectors, such as infected persons and livestock carriers, contaminated soil, water, and air (e.g., bioaerosols), or through other direct contact [5]. Bioaerosol transmission has significantly been reported as the most potential transmission mode for spreading infection where these native pathogens could disseminate at a level virulent enough in the air [6,7,8]. Under this transmissive mode, airborne MRSA could spread and dominate around neighboring live-stock settings to pose a serious threat for personnel working in farms and livestock, or both [8,9,10]. This could escalate the possibility of economic loss. Eventually, the risk of MRSA colonization within a livestock-associated food production system is also an emerging biosafety and safe-production challenge [11]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to prioritize the identification of MRSA from the chicken source, to define this occupational and public health concern [12]. Besides that, due to multidrug efflux pump and enzymatic degradation mechanisms, MRSA colonies have shown diverse multidrug resistance properties (MDR), which is the highest therapeutic obstacle to their infection treatment [13].
Due to the presence of a tiny mobile genetic element called mecA in different classes of Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec I to XIV) in the whole genome, this translates to the PBP2a protein (penicillin-binding protein 2a), which defines these Staphylococcal aureus isolates as MRSA strains with methicillin resistance [14,15]. Moreover, widespread virulence factor genes, such as Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) and enterotoxins (entA~E), toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (tsst-1), and exfoliative toxin (eta and etb) could escalate their severity of infection [16]. Broadly, these MRSA strains are categorized into three major epidemiolocal categories, (I) HA-MRSA (hospital-associated MRSA), (II) CA-MRSA (community-associated MRSA), (III) LA-MRSA (livestock-associated MRSA) [10,17]. Briefly, HA-MRSA strains typically carry SCCmec elements I–III, whereas CA-MRSA SCCmec elements are comprised of type IV, V, or VII + PVL genes as genetic signatures [18]. Whether several LA-MRSA strains can convey any of the SCCmec elements’ categorical classes (that are allied with CA-MRSA or HA-MRSA) is still an ongoing investigation [19].
Recently, various molecular characterizations that can differentiate between different types of epidemiologically dominant MRSA strains are being widely used. Among these emerging molecular methods, the S. aureus protein A (spa) encrypting gene typing is a low-cost rapid tool that has the prominent ability to categorize the epidemiology of MRSA [14]. The variable region (X-region) of the spa gene is always targeted for its sequence analysis [20]. MRSA isolates’ profiling through the mecA gene is another commonly used genotyping method known as SCCmec typing. It is specifically used for the detection of nosocomial infections [21]. Furthermore, the virulence factor linked genes identification can provide some explanation on the strain of infection by S. aureus. Cumulatively, all of this information could be vital for the action plan of curbing MRSA spread [22].
Compared to other pathogens, recent reports have suggested a significant transmission of MRSA through the air, which were sampled at a hospital and other health care facilities, animal husbandry units, and domestic waste-water treatment plants [23]. Bioaerosols from traditional and modern farms are known to play a role in the spread of emerging pathogens [24,25]. Although previous reports have shown bioaerosol-based MRSA transmission from the animal husbandry units [26,27,28,29,30,31], there is a lacuna about the characterization of poultry farm bioaerosol-associated MRSA, especially in the case of MRSA-associated risk in traditional farms of Taiwan. Such traditional farms are in close and continuous dynamic interactions with the human population and allow sporadic infection throughout different seasons, and could lead to an outbreak. In this context, this study primarily emphasizes molecular and virulence gene signatures distribution and epidemiology of MRSA strains in the bioaerosol samples around poultry farm area in South-Taiwan. We used SCCmec and spa typing including MDR pattern, and PCR-based virulence genes identification tools to identify unique molecular distribution as well as prevalence of HA-type in the poultry settings of Taiwan.

2. Results

2.1. Odorous Compounds and MRSA Prevalence in the Environment

The anemometer data showed that the frequent direction of wind in pre-and post-winter seasons was from the southeast at the sampling sites (Table 1). Whereas in winter, the direction was from the northwest. The wind speed range around the sampling period was 0.4–2.2 m/s. The concentration range of ammonia and methylamine gas in the chicken shed 1 and 2 (indoor environment) was 2–7 ppm and 5–7 ppm, respectively, and outer exposure area had low concentrations (Supplementary Table S1). The concentration of hydrogen sulfide and mercaptan was below the detection limit at both sites. Furthermore, the total airborne bacteria load range in the chicken shed 1 and 2 indoor areas differed from 1.53 × 103 to 2.63 × 103 CFU/m3 and 1.63 × 103 to 2.65 × 103 CFU/m3, while at the exposure environment, the range was found as 3.04 × 102 to 7.67 × 102 CFU/m3. The positive results of MRSA detection revealed that all collected bioaerosol and fecal samples from the chicken farm area were severely contaminated throughout different time point.

2.2. Distribution of SCCmec Elements and MRSA Grouping

SCCmec typing was performed on 57 MRSA isolates obtained from sampling (Table 2). Among them, 68.4% of isolates possessed SCCmec I, designated as the most dominant SCCmec element. Out of the total, 19.3% and 12.3% of isolates contained SCCmec IV and SCCmec VIII. A total of 39 isolates were linked with HA-MRSA, whereas 11 and 7 strains belonged to LA-MRSA and other MRSA groups, respectively. Out of the 16 isolates from shed 1, 10 were HA-MRSA, carrying only SCCmec elements I. Only one belonged to LA-MRSA having SCCmec IV, and five strains were from other MRSA classes. Chicken shed 2 possessed a total of 12 isolates that were linked with SCCmec I containing HA-MRSA strains, and four isolates had SCCmec elements IV, considered LA-MRSA. Exposure plaza environment samples led to a total of 11 strains having SCCmec I, which were connected with HA-MRSA; four isolates had SCCmec IV of LA-MRSA. For stool samples, a total of 10 MRSA isolates were obtained, out of which six isolated were SCCmec I-linked HA-MRSA, 2-SCCmec IV of LA-MRSA, and 2-SCCmec VII, as other MRSA strains.

2.3. Toxin Genes Profiling of MRSA Isolates

The toxic gene test results of 57 isolated MRSA strains are shown in Table 3. All of the isolated strains possess the exfoliative toxin eta, of which 70.2% (40/57) possessed etb gene, and 17.5% MRSA strains had enterotoxin C (entC). None of the MRSA isolates from stool samples carried the enterotoxin C toxin gene. For the exfoliative toxin gene b (etb) distribution, the highest detection value was found in the chicken shed 1 indoor air samples (87.5%), as well as 70% of stool sample isolates, and 66.7% isolates from outdoor air samples.

2.4. Antimicrobial Susceptibility and MRD Pattern of MRSA Isolates

Antimicrobial susceptibility was assessed using the disk diffusion method. A total of eight antimicrobial agents were checked for all of the isolates. The results are shown in Table 4. All isolated strains were resistant to chloramphenicol (C), ciprofloxacin (CIP), clindamycin (DA), erythromycin (E), and tetracycline (T) (100%). Only 33.3% (19/57) and 12.3% (7/57) were resistant to sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (S/T) and rifampicin (RA, 12.3%), respectively. As per Magiorakos et al. [32], multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDRB) is defined as being non-susceptible to ≥ 1 agent in ≥ 3 antimicrobial categories; therefore, all 57 MRSA isolates were MDR strains. As shown in Table 5, there are 37 isolates had five antimicrobial drugs resistance pattern denoted as C-CIP-DA-E-T. Moreover, 13 isolates with C-CIP-DA-E-T-S/T and one isolate with a C-CIP-DA-E-RA-T resistance profile. Critically, six strains showed seven antimicrobial drugs resistance denoted as C-CIP-DA-E-RA-T-S/T pattern.

2.5. Spa Typing and Phylogenetic Clustering of MRSA Isolates

Spa typing was performed on 57 MRSA isolates; the results are shown in Table 6. Out of 57 MRSA isolates, 46 MRSA strains were nominated as Spa type t002 (80.7%), nine (15.8%) isolates belonged to Spa type t548 strains, and two strains belonged to Spa new type (3.5%). Figure 1 shows a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of 57 isolated MRSA strains based on Spa typing, sampling site and types, SCCmec typing, antibiotic resistance, and toxin genes profiles. Furthermore, the phylogenetic classification of all isolates was divided into three main sub-clusters: t002, t548, and new type. The Spa t002 type group is typically related to HA-MRSA (SCCmec I and VIII), while the Spa t548 type group is primarily related to LA-MRSA (SCCmec IV). According to the chi-squared test of independence, t002, HA-MRSA vs. t548, LA-MRSA has a distribution correlation (p < 0.005, chi-squared test; degree of freedom = 1).

3. Discussion

All nine bioaerosol and nine chicken stool samples were collected from three sampling points (chicken 1, 2, and exposure plaza). The concentration of odor-forming gases (such as ammonia and methylamine) were low in outdoor (exposure plaza) air compared to the chicken sheds’ indoor air. Similarly, the total bacteria count in exposure plaza open air was lower than both chicken sheds’ indoor air counts. The previous study detected ammonia (16.8–66.7 mg/m3) and methylamine (up to 0.82 mg/m3) concentration in the air samples, and 3.2 × 109 CFU/g of total bacteria load in settled dust samples from poultry farm environment [32]. In the present study, the ammonia and methylamine concentrations were in the range of 7–2 ppm and 7–2.5 ppm, respectively. While airborne bacteria were in range of 2.65 × 103–3.04 × 102 CFU/m3, which is comparable to other studies from Asia and Europe [33,34]. Ammonia deteriorates the air quality of animals and poultry farms, where it was detected in the range of 0.7–20 ppm [35]. High ammonia concertation could negatively impact livestock production by increasing the severity of disease [36,37,38,39]. Out of the total bacterial load in the farming air, Liu et al. showed that 5.37% of the total 149 S. aureus isolates from indoor and outdoor bioaerosol samples were identified to be MRSA [29]. Nasal swab sampling in poultry found that 56.8% of flocks were positive for S. aureus, among them 30% were harboring MRSA strains [31]. Likewise, Zhong et al. showed that S. aureus can exist in chicken feces and indoor air samples of chicken farm areas at a significant level, and MRSA isolates were also detected in all air and stool samples, which corroborates with our observations [38].
For instance, throughout Europe and North America, the CC398 is a dominant clonal complex of a MRSA strain carrying predominantly SCCmec element types IV, V, and occasionally NT [40,41]. Especially in poultry farms, CC9 is regularly detected in the LA-MRSA strain, which is found in pig and poultry houses of Asian countries [40,42]. The sequencing data of strain CC9 indicated that highly versatile types of SCCmec elements (III, IV, V, including novel and NT) could exist in their whole genome compared to CC398 [40]. Such genetic diversity of MRSA strains obtained from poultry in Taiwan, which is also uniquely linked to bioaerosol transmission, is studied for the first time in this investigation. SCCmec typing results of this study showed a co-occurrence between SCCmec type I and IV with HA-MRSA and LA-MRSA. The typical genotype classification of S. aureus, such as SCCmec I, is linked with HA-MRSA and SCCmec IV elements linked to CA-MRSA [43]. However, SCCmec type IV and V carrying LA-MRSA lineage are more dominant in the East Asian livestock units [23,40,44]. Recent studies also showed a high prevalence of SCCmec IV in the MRSA isolates from poultry and livestock foods, which supports the present study [44,45]. Our previous report about the Chiayi’s river basin and nearby livestock areas revealed that SCCmec IV and I were distributed as 64.1% and 15.4%, respectively, wherein LA and HA-MRSA were predominant isolates from water samples, whereas CA and HA-MRSA were predominant isolates from hospital and long-term care facilities environments [46,47]. In the present case, SCCmec type I (HA-MRSA) was present in the bioaerosol and stool samples, which could be a future threat to the human population. Likewise, the presence of SCCmec IV containing LA-MRSA could colonize livestock animals. Poultry-associated MRSA strain predominantly belonged to CC398 spa types, other types of clones were also detected in the diverse geographic region [11]. Here, the spa typing and its cluster analysis highlighted that t002 and t548 type strains were linked to SCCmec type I and IV elements, respectively. Such distribution of spa types was reported from swine farm, indicating t002 and t548 spa-type MRSA strains reported from 106 nasal, swabs, and environmental samples [48].
Virulence factors, such as exfoliative toxins (ETs), are epidermolytic in nature. They are serine proteases secreted by S. aureus [49]. Around 10% of the MRSA strains possess eta; however, a report by Marek et al. showed a limited presence [50,51]. ETs could contribute to the exfoliative epidermitis in pig and Staphylococcal scaled-skin syndrome in humans; however, ETs A, B, and D, originating the human S. aureus strain when inoculated in chickens, showed limited or no exfoliative activity [52,53,54]. Our detection results exhibited that 100% of total isolates in this study carried exfoliative toxin eta and 70.2% possess etb. On contrary, for chicken and duck fecal swab and livestock foods, isolated strains were found negative for exfoliative toxin genes [55,56]. Exfoliative toxin genes were reported in mastitis-infected cow milk samples from Bangladesh [57]. Although a limited risk to poultry, since eta and etb were linked to human pathogenic MRSA strains, this study highlights a potential occupational and community health challenge [49,58,59]. Therefore, bioaerosol could play a significant role in the transmission of MRSA from livestock farms to adjacent community settings. A total of 17.5% isolates possess entC that might increase the risk of Staphylococcal scalded skin or toxic shock syndrome or food poisoning issues [60].
It is noteworthy that all MRSA isolates were MRD. They can typically resist chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, erythromycin, and tetracycline. Lu et al. showed that the MRSA isolates from the poultry farm environment can also be multi-drug resistant, which supports present study results [24]. A bioaerosol from livestock farms possess tetracycline and erythromycin resistance S. aureus [30]. Taiwan has amended the veterinary drugs control act that restricts the use of multiple antibiotics in food-producing animals. Most of the antibiotics tested in this study are used for human treatment or only for disease control in livestock; therefore, any resistance to these specific antibiotics can be considered a critical epidemiological risk indicator [61]. Strikingly, all 57 MRSA isolates of this study showed multidrug-resistance ability and their virulent profiling suggest that MRSA colonization in the poultry farms have substantial potential to pose a health risk for both human and nearby livestock via bioaerosol transmission.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Area and Sampling Information

The geographical coordinates of the sampling area were 23°35′11.7″ N 120°29′27.3″ E (Figure 2). Here, two chicken sheds, and in between one open exposure plaza, were targeted for environmental bioaerosol collection via a BioStage air sampler. Three bioaerosol and three chicken stool samples were collected at three different times from each targeted sampling point (between June 2019 and March 2020). A total of 18 environmental and fecal samples were collected for further analysis.

4.2. Sampling Procedure and Environmental Parameters Analysis

For bioaerosol sampling, the BioStage single-stage cascade impactor (SKC Inc., Blandford Forum Dorset, UK) was placed on a 1.2 m high platform to collect air that could simulate the height of average human breathing. The air sampling flow rate was 28.3 L/min and the sampling time was 10 min. A total 283 L volume of air was used at a time to collect bioaerosol samples. Tryptic soy agar (TSA) with 100 mg/mL cycloheximide was inserted into a BioStage sampler to detect the total number of bacteria count in the environment per volume of air sample (meter cube), and a selective CHROMagar™ MRSA (Paris, France) was also placed in the sampler to screen and isolate MRSA from these environments [62]. Simultaneously, for fecal samples, the stool was collected into sterile specimen bottles. The gas detector tube system (Gastec Inc., Fukayanaka, Japan) was used as per the standard operating procedure to analyze the concentration of odor-producing gases, such as ammonia, methylamine, hydrogen sulfide, and mercaptan (https://www.gastec.co.jp/en/instructionmanual/, accessed on 1 June 2019). Wind speed and direction were also measured using an anemoscope (Puxicoo P6-8232, Shenzhen, China).

4.3. Isolation and Selective Cultivation of MRSA Isolates

A total of 1 g of stool sample was taken and added into 9 mL of trypticase soy broth (TSB) with 6.5% NaCl. It was incubated at 37 °C for 16 h. Using a loopful of the TSB enrichment medium, MRSA colonies were isolated on CHROMagar™ MRSA plates (incubated at 37 °C for 24 h). Simultaneously, CHROMagar™ MRSA plates placed in the BioStage sampler system were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. A single pure mauve color colony from CHROMagar™ MRSA was picked for further analysis by transferring it to Brain-Heart Infusion Broth (BHIB) and incubating at 37 ℃ for 24 h. Subsequently, for confirmation, they were transferred to a moderately selective and differential medium of Baird-Parker Agar and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Finally, these pure isolates were grown in BHIB and preserved in 33% glycerol at −20 ℃ for further use. Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC25923, ATCC29213) was used as a positive control in this study.

4.4. DNA Extraction and PCR Detection of MRSA Isolates

For DNA extraction, first, the freshly grown bacterial cells in the BHIB medium were harvested by centrifugation at 10,000× g for 5 min. DNA was extracted by a commercial kit (MagPurix Bacterial DNA Extraction Kit, ZP02006, Taipei, Taiwan) as per their standard protocol. For PCR experiments, the primers and master mix (Fast-RunTM Taq Master Mix with Dye, Springwood, Australia) were mixed with genomic DNA (100–300 μg). The total reaction volume for PCR was 25 μL, and the PCR program conditions of specific detecting genes are described in Supplementary Table S2. Nuc and mecA genes were utilized to confirmation of MRSA strains. Various molecular elements, such as mec, virulence-genes including SCCmec, Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL), enterotoxins (entA~E), toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (tsst-1), and exfoliative toxin (eta and etb) were confirmed by PCR amplification. The PCR-based Staphylococcus aureus Protein A typing (Spa typing) data were analyzed by commercial software (BioNumerics, Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium) for the phylogenetic analysis. the amplicons were confirmed by electrophoresis using 1.5% agarose gel at 110 V for 30 min.

4.5. Antibiotic Susceptibility Tests

The disk diffusion method was used for the antibiotic sensitivity test according to the standard protocol by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [63]. S. aureus strains were grown in cation-adjusted Mueller–Hinton broth (CAMHB) at 35 °C. After adjusting to 0.5 McFarland, the medium was evenly spread on Mueller–Hinton agar (MHA) having various antibiotic disks. Plates were incubated at 35 °C for 18–24 h. A total of 8 drugs were checked and their disk concentrations were: chloramphenicol (C, 30 µg), ciprofloxacin (CIP, 5 µg), clindamycin (DA, 2 µg), erythromycin (E, 15 µg), gentamicin (G, 10 µg), rifampicin (RA, 5 µg), sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (S/T, 23.75/1.75 µg), and tetracycline (T, 30 µg). Multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDRB) were defined as non-susceptible to ≥ 1 agent in ≥ 3 antimicrobial categories as per Magiorakos et al. [64].

4.6. Statistical Analysis

The chi-squared test was performed to prove the statistical significance of the distributional relationship between different isolated MRSA strain spa types with their sampling site, sampling type, SCCmec typing, MRD pattern, and existing toxin gene profile groups.

5. Conclusions

This pilot study was carried out with different time-specific sampling at two traditional chicken farm sheds and an exposure plaza in South Taiwan, highlighting that all of the bioaerosols collected contained MRSA strains, wherein the total airborne bacterial load was comparatively higher inside the chicken shed environment. Isolated MRSA strains were able to resist multiple antibiotics, such as chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin (CIP), clindamycin (DA), erythromycin (E), and tetracycline (T), underpinning their MDR characteristics. This study found a high prevalence of exfoliative toxin genes, eta and etb, in the MRSA isolated strains. The SCCmec element profiling showed the predominant occurrence of SCCmec I-associated among 68.4% HA-MRSA strains, while only SCCmec IV elements were prevalent in 19.3% LA-MRSA isolates. Phytogenic classification by spa typing revealed that 46 and 9 MRSA isolates were Spa type t002 and t548 strains, respectively. Two isolates were categorized as the new spa-type. Additionally, t002 and t548 spa types were positively correlated with hospital and livestock allied MRSA infections. Ultimately, multidrug resistant HA-MRSA and LA-MRSA dominance in these samples have enough potential to impose epidemiological risk via bioaerosol transmission through unhygienic poultry practices.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics10080917/s1, Table S1, Summarization of environmental monitoring background data with bacterial load and MRSA prevalence in collected bioaerosol and stool samples; Table S2, The PCR detecting conditions for strain identification, Spa typing, SCCmec typing, and enterotoxin characteristics. References [65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-W.T., B.-M.H. and J.-S.C.; methodology, S.K. and T.-C.H.; software, S.K., H.-M.W. and J.-S.C.; validation, C.-W.T., B.-M.H. and J.-S.C.; formal analysis, S.K. and H.-M.W.; investigation, C.-W.T., T.-C.H. and J.-S.C.; technical resources, S.K., H.-M.W. and J.R.; data curation, C.-W.T., T.-C.H. and J.-S.C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-W.T., S.K., T.-C.H. and J.-S.C.; writing—review and editing, B.-M.H.; visualization, S.K. and T.-C.H.; supervision, J.R. and J.-S.C.; project administration, B.-M.H.; funding acquisition, C.-W.T., B.-M.H. and T.-C.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST 108-2116-M-194-005 and 108-2811-M-194-507), Cheng Hsin General Hospital (CHGH108-01 and CHGH109-(N)01) and Asia University Hospital (grant no. 10951003). This research was also supported by Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital-National Chung Cheng University Joint Research Program (CYCH-CCU Joint Research Program).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhen, X.; Lundborg, C.S.; Sun, X.; Hu, X.; Dong, H. Economic burden of antibiotic resistance in ESKAPE organisms: A systematic review. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2019, 8, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Chen, C.-J.; Huang, Y.-C. New epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus infection in Asia. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014, 20, 605–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Craft, K.; Nguyen, J.; Berg, L.; Townsend, S. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): Antibiotic-Resistance and the Biofilm Phenotype. MedChemComm 2019, 10, 1231–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Papadopoulos, P.; Papadopoulos, T.; Angelidis, A.; Boukouvala, E.; Zdragas, A.; Papa, A.; Hadjichristodoulou, C.; Sergelidis, D. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) along the production chain of dairy products in north-western Greece. Food Microbiol. 2018, 69, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Huijbers, P.; Blaak, H.; De Jong, M.; Graat, E.; Vandenbroucke-Grauls, C.; de Roda Husman, A.M. Role of the Environment in the Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistance to Humans: A Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 11993–12004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chao, C.; Wan, M.-P.; Morawska, L.; Johnson, G.; Ristovski, Z.; Hargreaves, M.; Mengersen, K.; Steve, C.; Li, Y.; Xie, X.; et al. Characterization of expiration air jets and droplet size distributions immediately at the mouth opening. J. Aerosol. Sci. 2009, 40, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Lindsley, W.; Blachere, F.; Thewlis, R.; Vishnu, A.; Davis, K.; Cao, G.; Palmer, J.; Clark, K.; Fisher, M.; Khakoo, R.; et al. Measurements of Airborne Influenza Virus in Aerosol Particles from Human Coughs. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e15100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Klous, G.; Anke, H.; Heederik, D.J.; Coutinho, R.A. Human–livestock contacts and their relationship to transmission of zoonotic pathogens, a systematic review of literature. One Health 2016, 2, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Garcia Graells, C.; Antoine, J.; Larsen, J.; Catry, B.; Skov, R.; Denis, O. Livestock veterinarians at high risk of acquiring methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398. Epidemiol. Infect. 2011, 140, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Rosen, K.; Rösler, U.; Merle, R.; Friese, A. Persistent and Transient Airborne MRSA Colonization of Piglets in a Newly Established Animal Model. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Chon, J.; Sung, K.; Khan, S. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Food- Producing and Companion Animals and Food Products. Front. Staphylococcus aureus 2017, 8, 47–102. [Google Scholar]
  12. Grema, H. Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): A Review. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2015, 3, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Vanamala, K.; Tatiparti, K.; Bhise, K.; Sau, S.; Scheetz, M.; Rybak, M.; Andes, D.; Iyer, A. Novel approaches for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Using nanoparticles to overcome multidrug resistance. Drug Discov. Today 2020, 26, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hashemizadeh, Z.; Hadi, N.; Mohebi, S.; Kalantar-Neyestanaki, D.; Bazargani, A. Characterization of SCCmec, spa types and Multi Drug Resistant of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates among inpatients and outpatients in a referral hospital in Shiraz, Iran. BMC Res. Notes 2019, 12, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Sousa, M.; Nuno, S.; Borges, V.; Gomes, P.; Vieira, L.; Caniça, M.; Torres, C.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P. MRSA CC398 recovered from wild boar harboring new SCCmec type IV J3 variant. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 722, 137845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Goudarzi, M.; Seyedjavadi, S.; Nasiri, M.J.; Goudarzi, H.; Nia, R.; Dabiri, H. Molecular characteristics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains isolated from patients with bacteremia based on MLST, SCCmec, spa, and agr locus types analysis. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 104, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kang, K.M.; Park, J.H.; Kim, S.H.; Yang, S.J. Potential role of host defense antimicrobial peptide resistance in increased virulence of health care-associated MRSA strains of sequence type (ST) 5 versus livestock-associated and community-associated MRSA strains of ST72. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2019, 62, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Alkharsah, K.; Rehman, S.; Alkhamis, F.; Alnimr, A.; Diab, A.; Al-Ali, A. Comparative and molecular analysis of MRSA isolates from infection sites and carrier colonization sites. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2018, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Boswihi, S.; Udo, E.; Mathew, B.; Noronha, B.; Lis Verghese, T.; Tappa, S. Livestock-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Patients Admitted to Kuwait Hospitals in 2016–2017. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Deurenberg, R.; Stobberingh, E. The evolution of Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Genet Evol 8:747-763. Infect. Genet. Evol. J. Mol. Epidemiol. Evol. Genet. Infect. Dis. 2008, 8, 747–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Darban-Sarokhalil, D.; Khoramrooz, S.S.; Marashifard, M.; Malek Hosseini, S.A.A.; Parhizgari, N.; Yazdanpanah, M.; Gharibpour, F.; Mirzaii, M.; Sharifi, B.; Haeili, M. Molecular characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from southwest of Iran using spa and SCCmec typing methods. Microb. Pathog. 2016, 98, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Jiang, B.; Yin, S.; You, B.; Gong, Y.; Huang, G.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Chen, J.; Yuan, Z.-Q.; et al. Antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes profiling of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates in a burn center: A 5-year study. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 114, 176–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kozajda, A.; Jeżak, K.; Kapsa, A. Airborne Staphylococcus aureus in different environments—A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 34741–34753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lu, Y.; Lu, Q.; Cheng, Y.; Wen, G.; Luo, Q.; Shao, H.; Zhang, T. High concentration of coagulase-negative staphylococci carriage among bioaerosols of henhouses in Central China. BMC Microbiol. 2020, 20, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Wu, J.; Zhu, Y.-S.; Guo, C.; Xia, Y.; Guo, Z.-M.; Li, Q.-L.; Lu, J.-H. A Comparative Study of Associated Microbiota between Pig Farm and Pig Slaughterhouse in Guangdong, China. Curr. Microbiol. 2020, 77, 3310–3320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Karwowska, E. Microbiological air contamination in farming environment. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2005, 14, 445–449. [Google Scholar]
  27. Alvarado, C.; Gandara, A.; Flores, C.; Perez, H.; Green, C.; Hurd, W.; Gibbs, S. Seasonal Changes in Airborne Fungi and Bacteria at a Dairy Cattle Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation in the Southwest United States. J. Environ. Health 2009, 71, 40–44. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lin, J.; Yeh, K.-S.; Liu, H.-T.; Lin, J.-H. Staphylococcus aureus Isolated from Pork and Chicken Carcasses in Taiwan: Prevalence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility. J. Food Prot. 2009, 72, 608–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Liu, D.; Chai, T.; Xia, X.; Gao, Y.; Cai, Y.; Li, X.; Miao, Z.; Sun, L.; Hao, H.; Rösler, U.; et al. Formation and transmission of Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA) aerosols carrying antibiotic-resistant genes in a poultry farming environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 426, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chen, M.; Tianlei, Q.; Sun, Y.; Song, Y.; Wang, X.; Gao, M. Diversity of tetracycline- and erythromycin-resistant bacteria in aerosols and manures from four types of animal farms in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 24213–24222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Benrabia, I.; Taha Mossadak, H.; Shehata, A.; Neubauer, H.; Wareth, G. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) in Poultry Species in Algeria: Long-Term Study on Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Skóra, J.; Matusiak, K.; Wojewódzki, P.; Nowak, A.; Sulyok, M.; Ligocka, A.; Okrasa, M.; Hermann, J.; Gutarowska, B. Evaluation of Microbiological and Chemical Contaminants in Poultry Farms. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Radon, K.; Danuser, B.; Iversen, M.; Monsó, E.; Weber, C.; Hartung, J.; Donham, K.; Palmgren, U.; Nowak, D. Air contaminants in different European farming environments. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. AAEM 2002, 9, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  34. Yang, W.; Guo, M.; Liu, G.; Yu, G.; Wang, P.; Wang, H. Detection and analysis of fine particulate matter and microbial aerosol in chicken houses in Shandong Province, China. Poult. Sci. 2017, 97, 995–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Van der Heyden, C.; Demeyer, P.; Volcke, E. Mitigating emissions from pig and poultry housing facilities through air scrubbers and biofilters: State-of-the-art and perspectives. Biosyst. Eng. 2015, 134, 74–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Quarles, C.; Fagerberg, D. Evaluation of Ammonia Stress and Coccidiosis on Broiler Performance. Poult. Sci. 1979, 58, 465–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Beker, A.; Vanhooser, S.; Swartzlander, J.; Teeter, R. Atmospheric Ammonia Concentration Effects on Broiler Growth and Performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2004, 13, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhong, Z.; Duan, H.; Miao, Z.; Li, X.; Yao, M.; Yuan, W.; Wang, W.; Li, Q.; Zucker, B.A.; Schlenker, G. REP-PCR tracking of the origin and spread of airborne Staphylococcus aureus in and around chicken house. Indoor Air 2009, 19, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gałęcki, R.; Dąbrowski, M.; Bakuła, T.; Obremski, K.; Nowak, A.; Gutarowska, B. The Influence of the Mineral-Microbial Preparation on Ammonia Concentration and Productivity in Laying Hens Houses. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Butaye, P.; Argudín, M.Á.; Smith, T. Livestock-Associated MRSA and Its Current Evolution. Curr. Clin. Microbiol. Rep. 2016, 3, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Van Alen, S.; Kaspar, U.; Idelevich, E.A.; Kock, R.; Becker, K. Increase of zinc resistance in German human derived livestock-associated MRSA between 2000 and 2014. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 214, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Köck, R.; Daniels-Haardt, I.; Becker, K.; Mellmann, A.; Friedrich, A.; Mevius, D.; Schwarz, S.; Jurke, A. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in wildlife, food-producing and companion animals—A systematic review. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 24, 1241–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Stefani, S.; Chung, D.R.; Lindsay, J.; Friedrich, A.; Kearns, A.; Westh, H.; Mackenzie, F. Meticillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): Global epidemiology and harmonisation of typing methods. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2012, 39, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wu, S.; Huang, J.; Zhang, F.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Pang, R.; Zeng, H.; Yang, X.; Chen, M.; Wang, J.; et al. Prevalence and Characterization of Food-Related Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in China. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Nemeghaire, S.; Roelandt, S.; Argudín, M.Á.; Haesebrouck, F.; Butaye, P. Characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from healthy carrier chickens. Avian Pathol. 2013, 42, 342–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tsai, H.-C.; Tao, C.-W.; Hsu, B.-M.; Yang, Y.-Y.; Tseng, Y.-C.; Huang, T.-Y.; Huang, s.-W.; Kuo, Y.-J.; Chen, J.S. Multidrug-resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from a subtropical river contaminated by nearby livestock industries. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 200, 110724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hsu, B.M.; Chen, J.S.; Lin, I.C.; Hsu, G.J.; Koner, S.; Hussain, B.; Huang, S.W.; Tsai, H.C. Molecular and Anti-Microbial Resistance (AMR) Profiling of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from Hospital and Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCF) Environment. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Frana, T.; Beahm, A.; Hanson, B.; Kinyon, J.; Layman, L.; Karriker, L.; Ramirez, A.; Smith, T. Isolation and Characterization of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus from Pork Farms and Visiting Veterinary Students. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e53738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Bukowski, M.; Wladyka, B.; Dubin, G. Exfoliative Toxins of Staphylococcus aureus. Toxins 2010, 2, 1148–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Sila, J.; Sauer, P.; Kolar, M. Comparison of the prevalence of genes coding for enterotoxins, exfoliatins, Panton-Valentine leukocidin and TSST-1 between methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible isolates of Staphylococcus Aureus at the University Hospital in Olomouc. Biomed. Pap. Med. Fac. Univ. Palacký Olomouc Czechoslov. 2009, 153, 215–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Marek, A.; Pyzik, E.; Stepien-Pysniak, D.; Urban-Chmiel, R.; Jarosz, L.S. Association Between the Methicillin Resistance of Staphylococcus aureus Isolated from Slaughter Poultry, Their Toxin Gene Profiles and Prophage Patterns. Curr. Microbiol. 2018, 75, 1256–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Sato, H.; Matsumori, Y.; Tanabe, T.; Saito, H.; Shimizu, A.; Kawano, J. A new type of staphylococcal toxin from a Staphylococcus aureus strain isolated from a horse with plegmon. Infect. Immun. 1994, 62, 3780–3785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Yamaguchi, T.; Nishifuji, K.; Sasaki, M.; Fudaba, Y.; Aepfelbacher, M.; Takata, T.; Ohara, M.; Komatsuzawa, H.; Amagai, M.; Sugai, M. Identification of the Staphylococcus aureus etd Pathogenicity Island Which Encodes a Novel Exfoliative Toxin, ETD, and EDIN-B. Infect. Immun. 2002, 70, 5835–5845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Szafraniec, G.; Szeleszczuk, P.; Dolka, B. A Review of Current Knowledge on Staphylococcus agnetis in Poultry. Animals 2020, 10, 1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, B.; Sun, H.; Pan, Y.; Zhai, Y.; Cai, T.; Yuan, X.; Gao, Y.; He, D.; Liu, J.; Yuan, L.; et al. Prevalence, resistance pattern, and molecular characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from healthy animals and sick populations in Henan Province, China. Gut Pathog. 2018, 10, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, H.; Andersen, P.S.; Stegger, M.; Sieber, R.N.; Ingmer, H.; Staubrand, N.; Dalsgaard, A.; Leisner, J.J. Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Gene Profiles of Methicillin-Resistant and -Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus From Food Products in Denmark. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hoque, M.; Das, Z.; Rahman, A.; Haider, M.G.; Islam, M. Molecular characterization of Staphylococcus aureus strains in bovine mastitis milk in Bangladesh. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med. 2018, 6, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Becker, K.; Friedrich, A.; Lubritz, G.; Weilert, M.; Peters, G.; Eiff, C. Prevalence of Genes Encoding Pyrogenic Toxin Superantigens and Exfoliative Toxins among Strains of Staphylococcus aureus Isolated from Blood and Nasal Specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003, 41, 1434–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Oliveira, D.; Borges, A.; Simões, M. Staphylococcus aureus Toxins and Their Molecular Activity in Infectious Diseases. Toxins 2018, 10, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Ababaf, S.; Ghasemian, A.; Motamedi, H.; Nojoomi, F. Prevalence of enterotoxins B and C in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from Southwest of Iran. Immunopathol. Persa 2018, 4, e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lauderdale, T.-L.; Shiau, Y.-R.; Wang, H.-Y.; Lai, J.-F.; Huang, I.W.; Chen, P.-C.; Chen, H.-Y.; Lai, S.-S.; Liu, Y.-F.; Ho, M. Effect of banning vancomycin analogue avoparcin on vancomycin-resistant enterococci in chicken farms in Taiwan: Brief report. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 9, 819–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Den, W.; Chen, C.H. Airborne and Surface-Bound Microbial Contamination in Two Intensive Care Units of a Medical Center in Central Taiwan. Aerosol. Air Qual. Res. 2013, 13, 1060–1069. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jorgensen, J. New Consensus Guidelines from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Infrequently Isolated or Fastidious Bacteria. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007, 44, 280–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Magiorakos, A.-P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Kahlmeter, G.; Liljequist, B.; Paterson, D.L.; et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2011, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Brakstad, O.G.; Aasbakk, K.; Maeland, J.A. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus by polymerase chain reaction amplification of the nuc gene. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1992, 30, 1654–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Sakoulas, G.; Gold, H.S.; Venkataraman, L.; DeGirolami, P.C.; Eliopoulos, G.M.; Qian, Q. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Comparison of Susceptibility Testing Methods and Analysis of mecA-Positive Susceptible Strains. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 3946–3951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Oliveira, D.C.; Lencastre, H.n.d. Multiplex PCR strategy for rapid identification of structural types and variants of the mec element in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002, 46, 2155–2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Zhang, K.; McClure, J.-A.; Elsayed, S.; Louie, T.; Conly, J.M. Novel Multiplex PCR Assay for Characterization and Concomitant Subtyping of Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome mec Types I to V in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 5026–5033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Chen, L.; Mediavilla, J.R.; Oliveira, D.C.; Willey, B.M.; de Lencastre, H.; Kreiswirth, B.N. Multiplex Real-Time PCR for Rapid Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome mec Typing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 3692–3706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Bhowmik, D.; Das, B.J.; Pandey, P.; Chetri, S.; Chanda, D.D.; Bhattacharjee, A. An array of multiplex PCR assays for detection of staphylococcal chromosomal cassette mec (SCCmec) types among staphylococcal isolates. J. Microbiol. Methods 2019, 166, 105733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Asghar, A.H. Molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from tertiary care hospitals. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2014, 30, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Fooladi, A.A.I.; Ashrafi, E.; Tazandareh, S.G.; Koosha, R.Z.; Rad, H.S.; Amin, M.; Soori, M.; Larki, R.A.; Choopani, A.; Hosseini, H.M. The distribution of pathogenic and toxigenic genes among MRSA and MSSA clinical isolates. Microb. Pathog. 2015, 81, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Antibiotics 10 00917 g001 550
Figure 1. Genetic diversity of MRSA isolates by Spa typing combined with MDR pattern, SCCmec typing and toxin profile.
Figure 1. Genetic diversity of MRSA isolates by Spa typing combined with MDR pattern, SCCmec typing and toxin profile.
Antibiotics 10 00917 g001
Antibiotics 10 00917 g002 550
Figure 2. The location map of sampling sites.
Figure 2. The location map of sampling sites.
Antibiotics 10 00917 g002
Table
Table 1. MRSA prevalence and odorous compounds detection results.
Table 1. MRSA prevalence and odorous compounds detection results.
SamplingSamplingWind SpeedWindBioStageMRSAMRSA
PeriodSites(m/s)Direction(CFU/m3)AirStool
1st (June 2019)Chicken shed 1N/Asoutheast2.63 × 103++
Chicken shed 2N/Asoutheast1.63 × 103++
Exposure plazaN/Asoutheast3.04 × 102++
2nd (December 2019)Chicken shed 10.4–0.6northwest2.36 × 103++
Chicken shed 20.4–0.6northwest2.65 × 103++
Exposure plaza0.4–0.6northwest6.86 × 102++
3rd (March 2020)Chicken shed 11.9–2.2northwest1.53 × 103++
Chicken shed 21.9–2.0north1.81 × 103++
Exposure plaza1.0–1.2west7.67 × 102++
(N/A = not applicable) (m/s = meter/second).
Table
Table 2. SCCmec PCR typing results of the 57 MRSA isolate.
Table 2. SCCmec PCR typing results of the 57 MRSA isolate.
Sampling SitesSCCmec
I		SCCmec
II		SCCmec
III		SCCmec
IV		SCCmec
V		SCCmec
VIII		PVLHA-MRSA
(I, II, III)		CA-MRSA
(IV + PVL,
V + PVL)		LA-MRSA
(IV, V)		Others
Chicken shed 1
(n = 16)		10 (62.5%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (6.3%)0 (0%)5 (31.25%)0 (0%)10 (62.5%)0 (0%)1 (6.3%)5 (31.25%)
Chicken shed 2
(n = 16)		12 (75%)0 (0%)0 (0%)4 (25%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)12 (75%)0 (0%)4 (25%)0 (0%)
Exposure plaza
(n = 15)		11 (73.3%)0 (0%)0 (0%)4 (26.7%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)11 (73.3%)0 (0%)4 (26.7%)0 (0%)
Stool
(n = 10)		6 (60%)0 (0%)0 (0%)2 (20%)0 (0%)2 (20%)0 (0%)6 (60%)0 (0%)2 (20%)2 (20%)
Total MRSA isolates
(n = 57)		39 (68.4%)0 (0%)0 (0%)11 (19.3%)0 (0%)7 (12.3%)0 (0%)39 (68.4%)0 (0%)11 (19.3%)7 (12.3%)
Table
Table 3. Toxin genes PCR detecting results of the 57 MRSA isolates.
Table 3. Toxin genes PCR detecting results of the 57 MRSA isolates.
Sampling SitesentAentBentCentDentEetaetbtsst-1
Chicken shed 1 (n = 16)0 (0%)0 (0%)5 (31.25%)0 (0%)0 (0%)16 (100%)14 (87.5%)0 (0%)
Chicken shed 2 (n = 16)0 (0%)0 (0%)2 (12.5%)0 (0%)0 (0%)16 (100%)9 (56.25%)0 (0%)
Exposure plaza (n = 15) 0 (0%)0 (0%)3 (20%)0 (0%)0 (0%)15 (100%)10 (66.7%)0 (0%)
Stool (n = 10)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)10 (100%)7 (70%)0 (0%)
Total MRSA isolates (n = 57)0 (0%)0 (0%)10 (17.5%)0 (0%)0 (0%)57 (100%)40 (70.2%)0 (0%)
Table
Table 4. Antimicrobial susceptibility results of the 57 MRSA isolates.
Table 4. Antimicrobial susceptibility results of the 57 MRSA isolates.
Sampling SitesCCIPDAEGRAS/TTMDR
Chicken shed 1
(n = 16)		16 (100%)16 (100%)16 (100%)16 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)6 (37.5%)16 (100%)16 (100%)
Chicken shed 2
(n = 16)		16 (100%)16 (100%)16 (100%)16 (100%)0 (0%)2 (12.5%)5 (31.2%)16 (100%)16 (100%)
Exposure plaza
(n = 15)		15 (100%)15 (100%)15 (100%)15 (100%)0 (0%)4 (26.7%)6 (40%)15 (100%)15 (100%)
Stool
(n = 10)		10 (100%)10 (100%)10 (100%)10 (100%)0 (0%)1 (10%)2 (20%)10 (100%)10 (100%)
Total MRSA isolates
(n = 57)		57 (100%)57 (100%)57 (100%)57 (100%)0 (0%)7 (12.3%)19 (33.3%)57 (100%)57 (100%)
C: chloramphenicol; CIP: ciprofloxacin; DA: clindamycin; E: erythromycin; G: gentamicin; RA: rifampicin; S/T: sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim; T: tetracycline; MDR: multidrug resistance.
Table
Table 5. MDR pattern profile results of the 57 MRSA isolates.
Table 5. MDR pattern profile results of the 57 MRSA isolates.
Sampling SitesChicken
Shed 1		Chicken
Shed 2		Exposure
Plaza		StoolTotal
MDR Isolates
C-CIP-DA-E-RA-T-S/T (7 antimicrobial drugs)02316
C-CIP-DA-E-T-S/T (6 antimicrobial drugs)633114
C-CIP-DA-E-RA-T (6 antimicrobial drugs)0010
C-CIP-DA-E-T (5 antimicrobial drugs)10118837
Total MDR isolates1616151057
C: chloramphenicol; CIP: ciprofloxacin; DA: clindamycin; E: erythromycin; RA: rifampicin; S/T: sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim; T: tetracycline; MDR: multidrug resistance.
Table
Table 6. Spa typing results of the 57 MRSA isolates.
Table 6. Spa typing results of the 57 MRSA isolates.
Sampling Sitest002t548New Type
Chicken shed 1
(n = 16)		14 (87.5%)2 (12.5%)0 (0%)
Chicken shed 2
(n = 16)		13 (81.25%)3 (18.75%)0 (0%)
Exposure plaza
(n = 15)		11 (73.3%)4 (26.7%)0 (0%)
Stool
(n = 10)		8 (80%)0 (0%)2 (20%)
Total MRSA isolates
(n = 57)		46 (80.7%)9 (15.8%)2 (3.5%)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tao, C.-W.; Chen, J.-S.; Hsu, B.-M.; Koner, S.; Hung, T.-C.; Wu, H.-M.; Rathod, J. Molecular Evaluation of Traditional Chicken Farm-Associated Bioaerosols for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Shedding. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 917. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080917

AMA Style

Tao C-W, Chen J-S, Hsu B-M, Koner S, Hung T-C, Wu H-M, Rathod J. Molecular Evaluation of Traditional Chicken Farm-Associated Bioaerosols for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Shedding. Antibiotics. 2021; 10(8):917. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080917

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tao, Chi-Wei, Jung-Sheng Chen, Bing-Mu Hsu, Suprokash Koner, Tung-Che Hung, Han-Ming Wu, and Jagat Rathod. 2021. "Molecular Evaluation of Traditional Chicken Farm-Associated Bioaerosols for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Shedding" Antibiotics 10, no. 8: 917. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080917

APA Style

Tao, C. -W., Chen, J. -S., Hsu, B. -M., Koner, S., Hung, T. -C., Wu, H. -M., & Rathod, J. (2021). Molecular Evaluation of Traditional Chicken Farm-Associated Bioaerosols for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Shedding. Antibiotics, 10(8), 917. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10080917

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