Tetracyclines and Tetracycline Resistance in Agricultural Soils: Microcosm and Field Studies
- 1.2k Downloads
The influence of the use of antibiotics on the prevalence of resistance genes in the environment is still poorly understood. We studied the diversity of tetracycline and sulfonamide resistance genes as influenced by fertilization with pig manure in soil microcosms and at two field locations. Manure contained a high diversity of resistance genes, regardless of whether it stemmed from a farm operation with low or regular use of antibiotics. In the microcosm soils, the influence of fertilization with manure was clearly shown by an increase in the number of resistance genes in the soil after manuring. Spiking of the tetracycline compounds to the microcosms had only little additional impact on the diversity of resistance genes. Overall, the tetracycline resistance genes tet(T), tet(W), and tet(Z) were ubiquitous in soil and pig slurries, whereas tet(Y), tet(S), tet(C), tet(Q), and tet(H) were introduced to the microcosm soil by manuring. The diversity of tetracycline and sulfonamide [sul(1), sul(2), and sul(3)] resistance genes on a Swiss pasture was very high even before slurry amendment, although manure from intensive farming had not been applied in the previous years. The additional effect of manuring was small, with the tetracycline and sulfonamide resistance diversity staying at high levels for the complete growth season. At an agricultural field site in Germany, the diversity of tetracycline and sulfonamide resistance genes was considerably lower, possibly reflecting regional differences in gene diversity. This study shows that there is a considerable pool of resistance genes in soils. Although it is not possible to conclude whether this diversity is caused by the global spread of resistance genes after 50 years of tetracycline use or is due to the natural background in soil resistance genes, it highlights a role that environmental reservoirs might play in resistance gene capture.
We thank Joanne Chee-Sanford and Vincent Perreten for providing DNA extracts of the positive control strains; Remy Hillekens, Rogier Doornbos, and Karel Wernars for advice and technical assistance; Heinrich Höper (Geological Survey of Lower Saxony, Germany) for experimental setup and sampling of the German field study; and Jan-Dirk van Elsas for critically commenting on the progress of work. The Swiss field study was partly financed by the Swiss National Research Program NRP49 “Antibiotic Resistance” (4049-63282) and the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL).
- 3.American Academy of Microbiology (1999) Antimicrobial Resistance: An Ecological Perspective. American Society for Microbiology. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 4.American Academy of Microbiology (2002) The Role of Antibiotics in Agriculture. American Society for Microbiology. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 9.Brady, MS, White, N, Katz, SE (1993) Resistance development potential of antibiotic/antimicrobial residue levels designated as ‘safe levels.’ J Food Prot 56: 229–233Google Scholar
- 18.FAO/OIE/WHO (2003) First Joint FAO/OIE/WHO Expert Workshop on Non-human Antimicrobial Usage and Antimicrobial Resistance: Scientific Assessment. FAO/OIE/WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 19.FEDESA (1999) Antibiotics for Animals. FEDESA. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- 28.Heuer, H, Krögerrecklenfort, E, Wellington, EMH, Egan, S, van Elsas, JD, van Overbeek, L, Collard, J-M, Guillaume, G, Karagouni, AD, Nikolakopoulou, TL, Smalla, K (2002) Gentamicin resistance genes in environmental bacteria: prevalence and transfer. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 42: 289–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Höper, H, Kues, H, Nau, H, Hamscher, G (2002) Eintrag und Verbleib von Tierarzneimittelwirkstoffen in Böden. Bodenschutz 4: 141–148Google Scholar
- 49.Smit, E, Leeflang, P, Gommans, S, van den Broek, J, van Mil, S, Wernars, K (2001) Diversity and seasonal fluctuations of the dominant members of the bacterial soil community in a wheat field as determined by cultivation and molecular methods. Appl Environ Microbiol 67: 2284–2291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 54.Ungemach, FR (2000) Figures on quantities of antibacterials used for different purposes in the EU-countries and interpretation. Acta Vet Scand 93: 89–98Google Scholar
- 56.WHO (2001) Global Strategy for Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance. Report No. WHO/CDS/CSR/DRS/2001.2a. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar