Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37081217›Full record

ArticleISME communications2023

Swine farm groundwater is a hidden hotspot for antibiotic-resistant pathogenic Acinetobacter.

Fang-Zhou Gao, Liang-Ying He, Xin Chen, Jing-Liang Chen, Xinzhu Yi, Lu-Xi He, Xin-Yi Huang, Zi-Yin Chen, Hong Bai, Min Zhang and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ISME communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Identification and characterization ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

12 authors.

Fang-Zhou GaoSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China.
Liang-Ying HeSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China. liangying.he@m.scnu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-7115-2851
Xin ChenSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China.
Jing-Liang ChenSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China.
Xinzhu YiInstitute of Ecological Science, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Subtropical Biodiversity and Biomonitoring, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, PR China.
Lu-Xi HeSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China.
Xin-Yi HuangSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China.
Zi-Yin ChenSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China.
Hong BaiSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China.
Min ZhangSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China.
You-Sheng LiuSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China.
Guang-Guo YingSCNU Environmental Research Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution and Environmental Safety & MOE Key Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry of Environment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510006, PR China. guangguo.ying@m.scnu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3387-1078

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acinetobacter is present in the livestock environment, but little is known about their antibiotic resistance and pathogenic species in the farm groundwater. Here we investigated antibiotic resistance of Acinetobacter in the swine farm groundwater (JZPG) and residential groundwater (JZG) of a swine farming village, in comparison to a nearby (3.5 km) non-farming village (WTG) using metagenomic and culture-based approaches. Results showed that the abundance of antibiotic resistome in some JZG and all JZPG (~3.4 copies/16S rRNA gene) was higher than that in WTG (~0.7 copies/16S rRNA gene), indicating the influence of farming activities on both groundwater types. Acinetobacter accounted for ~95.7% of the bacteria in JZG and JZPG, but only ~8.0% in WTG. They were potential hosts of ~95.6% of the resistome in farm affected groundwater, which includes 99 ARG subtypes against 23 antibiotic classes. These ARGs were associated with diverse intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms, and the predominant ARGs were tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones resistance genes. Metagenomic binning analysis elucidated that non-baumannii Acinetobacter including A. oleivorans, A. beijerinckii, A. seifertii, A. bereziniae and A. modestus might pose environmental risks because of multidrug resistance, pathogenicity and massive existence in the groundwater. Antibiotic susceptibility tests showed that the isolated strains were resistant to multiple antibiotics including sulfamethoxazole (resistance ratio: 96.2%), levofloxacin (42.5%), gatifloxacin (39.0%), ciprofloxacin (32.6%), tetracycline (32.0%), doxycycline (29.0%) and ampicillin (12.0%) as well as last-resort polymyxin B (31.7%), colistin (24.1%) and tigecycline (4.1%). The findings highlight potential prevalence of groundwater-borne antibiotic-resistant pathogenic Acinetobacter in the livestock environment.

Identifiers

PMID37081217
PMCPMC10119254

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.