Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35326805›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Intestinal Exposure to Ceftiofur and Cefquinome after Intramuscular Treatment and the Impact of Ceftiofur on the Pig Fecal Microbiome and Resistome.

Sofie Rutjens, Nick Vereecke, Ward De Spiegelaere, Siska Croubels, Mathias Devreese

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Veterinary world · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sofie RutjensDepartment of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1526-1492
Nick VereeckePathoSense BV, 2500 Lier, Belgium.
Ward De SpiegelaereDepartment of Morphology, Imaging, Orthopedics, Rehabilitation and Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2097-8439
Siska CroubelsDepartment of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6357-3517
Mathias DevreeseDepartment of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2512-4176
Ghent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimization of antimicrobial treatment during a bacterial infection in livestock requires in-depth knowledge of the impact of antimicrobial therapy on the pathogen and commensal microbiota. Once administered antimicrobials and/or their metabolites are excreted either by the kidneys through urine and/or by the intestinal tract through feces, causing antimicrobial pressure and possibly the emergence of resistance in the gastro-intestinal tract. So far, the excretion of ceftiofur and cefquinome in the intestinal tract of pigs has not been described. The objective of this study was to investigate the excretion of ceftiofur and cefquinome in the different segments of the gut and feces after intramuscular administration. Therefore, 16 pigs were treated either with ceftiofur (n = 8) or cefquinome (n = 8), and feces were collected during the entire treatment period. The presence of ceftiofur and desfuroylceftiofuracetamide or cefquinome were quantified via liquid chromatography−tandem mass spectrometry. At the end of the treatment, pigs were euthanized, and samples from the duodenum, jejunum, ileum and cecum were analyzed. In feces, no active antimicrobial residues could be measured, except for one ceftiofur-treated pig. In the gut segments, the concentration of both antimicrobials increased from duodenum toward the ileum, with a maximum in the ileum (187.8 ± 101.7 ng·g−1 ceftiofur-related residues, 57.8 ± 37.5 ng·g−1 cefquinome) and sharply decreased in the cecum (below the limit of quantification for ceftiofur-related residues, 6.4 ± 4.2 ng·g−1 cefquinome). Additionally, long-read Nanopore sequencing and targeted quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) were performed in an attempt to clarify the discrepancy in fecal excretion of ceftiofur-related residues between pigs. In general, there was an increase in Prevotella, Bacteroides and Faecalibacterium and a decrease in Escherichia and Clostridium after ceftiofur administration (q-value < 0.05). The sequencing and qPCR could not provide an explanation for the unexpected excretion of ceftiofur-related residues in one pig out of eight. Overall, this study provides valuable information on the gut excretion of parenteral administered ceftiofur and cefquinome.

Indexed as

cephalosporinsfecal microbiomegut and fecal excretionintramuscular administrationresistomeswineUHPLC-MS/MS

Identifiers

PMID35326805
PMCPMC8944603
OpenAlexW4220821552

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.