Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30373569›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2018

Identification and antibiotic susceptibility of lactobacilli isolated from turkeys.

Marta Dec, Anna Nowaczek, Dagmara Stępień-Pyśniak, Jacek Wawrzykowski, Renata Urban-Chmiel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Susceptibility ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  9. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles of CommensalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Effects ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in microbiomes · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Virulence Profiles and Antibiotic Susceptibility ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Marta DecDepartment of Veterinary Prevention and Avian Diseases, Institute of Biological Bases of Animal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 12, 20-033, Lublin, Poland. marta.dec@up.lublin.pl.ORCID 0000-0002-5456-9652
Anna NowaczekDepartment of Veterinary Prevention and Avian Diseases, Institute of Biological Bases of Animal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 12, 20-033, Lublin, Poland.
Dagmara Stępień-PyśniakDepartment of Veterinary Prevention and Avian Diseases, Institute of Biological Bases of Animal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 12, 20-033, Lublin, Poland.
Jacek WawrzykowskiDepartment of Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 12, 20-033, Lublin, Poland.
Renata Urban-ChmielDepartment of Veterinary Prevention and Avian Diseases, Institute of Biological Bases of Animal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 12, 20-033, Lublin, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to identify Lactobacillus isolates derived from turkeys from six Polish farms and to characterize their phenotypic and genotypic antibiotic resistance profiles.

resultsAmong 62 isolates identified by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and restriction analysis of 16S rDNA, the dominant species was L. salivarius (35%), followed by L. crispatus (21%), L. ingluviei (14.5%) and L. johnsonii (10%). A high prevalence of resistance to tetracycline (68% resistant isolates), lincomycin (64.5%) and enrofloxacin (60%) among the lactobacilli tested was observed. Fewer than 50% isolates were resistant to ampicillin (47%), erythromycin (45%), streptomycin (31%), chloramphenicol (29%) and gentamicin (10%). As many as 64,5% of the isolates showed multidrug resistance. High MIC values for ampicillin (≥64 μg/ml) were usually accompanied by elevated MICs for cephalosporins (≥16 μg/ml) and high MICs for tiamulin, i.e. ≥32 μg/ml, were noted in most of the turkey lactobacilli (61%). The occurrence of resistance genes was associated with phenotypic resistance, with the exception of five phenotypically susceptible isolates that contained the tetM, tetL, ermC, ermB or cat genes. The most frequently identified were ermB (45% isolates), tetL (40%), tetW (37%) and tetM (29%), and the occurrence of lnuA (18%), cat (10%), ermC (6%), ant(6)-Ia (5%) and aadE (5%) was less frequent. The mechanism of ampicillin resistance has not been elucidated, but the results of nitrocefin test confirmed that it is not involved in the production of beta-lactamases.

conclusionsThe high rate of antibiotic resistance observed in this study indicates the need to implement the principles of rational use of antibiotics in poultry. The presence of transmissible resistant genes in lactobacilli may contribute to the development of antibiotic resistant pathogenic strains that pose a threat to both poultry and consumers. The results of these studies may be useful for committees providing guidance on antibiotic susceptibility of microorganisms in order to revise and supplement current microbiological cut-offs values within the genus Lactobacillus.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialErythromycinFarmsGenotypeGentamicinsLactobacillusLivestockMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPolandPoultryRNA, Ribosomal, 16STetracyclineTurkeysAnti-Bacterial AgentsErythromycinGentamicinsRNA, Ribosomal, 16STetracyclineantibiotic susceptibilityLactobacilluspoultryresistance genes

Identifiers

PMID30373569
PMCPMC6206647

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.