Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29728379›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2018

Effects of Ceftiofur and Chlortetracycline on the Resistomes of Feedlot Cattle.

Margaret D Weinroth, H Morgan Scott, Bo Norby, Guy H Loneragan, Noelle R Noyes, Pablo Rovira, Enrique Doster, Xiang Yang, Dale R Woerner, Paul S Morley and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A review of the resistome within the digestive tract of livestock.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Margaret D WeinrothDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
H Morgan ScottDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Bo NorbyDepartment of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Guy H LoneraganDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
Noelle R NoyesDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6149-1008
Pablo RoviraInstituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria, Treinta y Tres, Uruguay.
Enrique DosterDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Xiang YangDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, USA.
Dale R WoernerDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Paul S Morley *Department of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Keith E Belk *Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA keith.belk@colostate.edu.
Colorado State University · USInstituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria · UYMichigan State University · USTexas A&M University · USTexas Tech University · USUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

Veterinary Pre-Doctoral Research Scholars ProgramT32OD012201 · OD · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI VANDEWOUDE, SUE · 2013 to 2019
$795k
NIH HHS T32 OD012201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment of food-producing animals with antimicrobial drugs (AMD) is controversial because of concerns regarding promotion of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). To investigate this concern, resistance genes in metagenomic bovine fecal samples during a clinical trial were analyzed to assess the impacts of treatment on beef feedlot cattle resistomes. Four groups of cattle were exposed, using a 2-by-2 factorial design, to different regimens of antimicrobial treatment. Injections of ceftiofur crystalline-free acid (a third-generation cephalosporin) were used to treat all cattle in treatment pens or only a single animal, and either chlortetracycline was included in the feed of all cattle in a pen or the feed was untreated. On days 0 and 26, respectively, pre- and posttrial fecal samples were collected, and resistance genes were characterized using shotgun metagenomics. Treatment with ceftiofur was not associated with changes to β-lactam resistance genes. However, cattle fed chlortetracycline had a significant increase in relative abundance of tetracycline resistance genes. There was also an increase of an AMR class not administered during the study, which is a possible indicator of coselection of resistance genes. Samples analyzed in this study had previously been evaluated by culture characterization (

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsBacteriaCattleCephalosporinsChlortetracyclineDNA, BacterialDrug Resistance, BacterialEscherichia coliFecesGenes, BacterialMetagenomicsSalmonellaTetracycline ResistanceAnti-Infective AgentsceftiofurCephalosporinsChlortetracyclineDNA, Bacterialantibiotic resistanceantimicrobial agentscattlefeedlotmetagenomicspostantibiotic effect

Identifiers

PMID29728379
PMCPMC6007121
OpenAlexW2801054301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.