Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35524279›Full record

ReviewMicrobiome2022

Antimicrobial resistance in Antarctica: is it still a pristine environment?

K Hwengwere, H Paramel Nair, K A Hughes, L S Peck, M S Clark, C A Walker

Open access · goldAbstract readReviewVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Multidrug-resistantVeterinary world · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Long-term maintenance of aMicrobiology spectrum · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K HwengwereSchool of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK.
H Paramel NairSchool of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK.
K A HughesBritish Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK.
L S PeckBritish Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK.
M S ClarkBritish Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK. mscl@bas.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3442-3824
C A WalkerSchool of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK.
British Antarctic Survey · GBAnglia Ruskin University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the rapid spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly in relation to clinical settings, is causing concern in many regions of the globe, remote, extreme environments, such as Antarctica, are thought to be relatively free from the negative impact of human activities. In fact, Antarctica is often perceived as the last pristine continent on Earth. Such remote regions, which are assumed to have very low levels of AMR due to limited human activity, represent potential model environments to understand the mechanisms and interactions underpinning the early stages of evolution, de novo development, acquisition and transmission of AMR. Antarctica, with its defined zones of human colonisation (centred around scientific research stations) and large populations of migratory birds and animals, also has great potential with regard to mapping and understanding the spread of early-stage zoonotic interactions. However, to date, studies of AMR in Antarctica are limited. Here, we survey the current literature focussing on the following: i) Dissection of human-introduced AMR versus naturally occurring AMR, based on the premise that multiple drug resistance and resistance to synthetic antibiotics not yet found in nature are the results of human contamination ii) The potential role of endemic wildlife in AMR spread There is clear evidence for greater concentrations of AMR around research stations, and although data show reverse zoonosis of the characteristic human gut bacteria to endemic wildlife, AMR within birds and seals appears to be very low, albeit on limited samplings. Furthermore, areas where there is little, to no, human activity still appear to be free from anthropogenically introduced AMR. However, a comprehensive assessment of AMR levels in Antarctica is virtually impossible on current data due to the wide variation in reporting standards and methodologies used and poor geographical coverage. Thus, future studies should engage directly with policymakers to promote the implementation of continent-wide AMR reporting standards. The development of such standards alongside a centralised reporting system would provide baseline data to feedback directly into wastewater treatment policies for the Antarctic Treaty Area to help preserve this relatively pristine environment. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialAnimalsAnimals, WildAntarctic RegionsBacteriaBirdsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAminoglycosidesAnthropogenicEfflux pumpsHorizontal gene transferMetagenomicsSewageWastewater treatmentβ-Lactam

Identifiers

PMID35524279
PMCPMC9072757
OpenAlexW4229046511

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.