Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22571927›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2012

Selective pressure of antibiotic pollution on bacteria of importance to public health.

Alfredo Tello, Brian Austin, Trevor C Telfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Collective fluctuations underlying nanobody inhibitory activity targetingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Molecular characterization of ESBL-producingFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Imipenem/Cilastatin in Embolization: From Antibiotic to Therapeutic Agent.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alfredo TelloInstitute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom. alfredotello@gmail.com
Brian Austin
Trevor C Telfer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany bacteria of clinical importance survive and may grow in different environments. Antibiotic pollution may exert on them a selective pressure leading to an increase in the prevalence of resistance.

objectivesIn this study we sought to determine whether environmental concentrations of antibiotics and concentrations representing action limits used in environmental risk assessment may exert a selective pressure on clinically relevant bacteria in the environment.

methodsWe used bacterial inhibition as an assessment end point to link antibiotic selective pressures to the prevalence of resistance in bacterial populations. Species sensitivity distributions were derived for three antibiotics by fitting log-logistic models to end points calculated from minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distributions based on worldwide data collated by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). To place bacteria represented in these distributions in a broader context, we performed a brief phylogenetic analysis. The potentially affected fraction of bacterial genera at measured environmental concentrations of antibiotics and environmental risk assessment action limits was used as a proxy for antibiotic selective pressure. Measured environmental concentrations and environmental risk assessment action limits were also directly compared to wild-type cut-off values.

resultsThe potentially affected fraction of bacterial genera estimated based on antibiotic concentrations measured in water environments is ≤ 7%. We estimated that measured environmental concentrations in river sediments, swine feces lagoons, liquid manure, and farmed soil inhibit wild-type populations in up to 60%, 92%, 100%, and 30% of bacterial genera, respectively. At concentrations used as action limits in environmental risk assessment, erythromycin and ciprofloxacin were estimated to inhibit wild-type populations in up to 25% and 76% of bacterial genera.

conclusionsMeasured environmental concentrations of antibiotics, as well as concentrations representing environmental risk assessment action limits, are high enough to exert a selective pressure on clinically relevant bacteria that may lead to an increase in the prevalence of resistance.

Indexed as

Public HealthBacteriaEnvironmental PollutantsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhylogenyEnvironmental Pollutants

Identifiers

PMID22571927
PMCPMC3440082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.