Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38501800›Full record

ArticlemSystems2024

The European livestock resistome.

Patrick Munk, Dongsheng Yang, Timo Röder, Leonie Maier, Thomas Nordahl Petersen, Ana Sofia Ribeiro Duarte, Philip T L C Clausen, Christian Brinch, Liese Van Gompel, Roosmarijn Luiken and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mSystems, 2024. 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
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Exposure and health risks of livestock air resistomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. EAVLD 2024 - 7Italian journal of food safety · 2024
    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

18 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Patrick MunkNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8813-4019
Dongsheng YangInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Utrecht.
Timo RöderNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Leonie MaierSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Max Born Crescent, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Thomas Nordahl PetersenNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Ana Sofia Ribeiro DuarteNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Philip T L C ClausenNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8197-7520
Christian BrinchNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5074-7183
Liese Van GompelInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Utrecht.
Roosmarijn LuikenInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Utrecht.
Jaap A WagenaarDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Utrecht.
Heike SchmittInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Utrecht.
Dick J J HeederikInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Utrecht.
Dik J MeviusDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Utrecht.
Lidwien A M SmitInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Utrecht.
EFFORT Consortium
Alex BossersInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Utrecht.ORCID 0000-0002-6586-717X
Frank M AarestrupNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7116-2723
Utrecht University · NLTechnical University of Denmark · DKAgence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail · FRUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

European Community 7th Framework Programme 613754Novo Nordisk Foundation NNF16OC0021856
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metagenomic sequencing has proven to be a powerful tool in the monitoring of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Here, we provide a comparative analysis of the resistome from pigs, poultry, veal calves, turkey, and rainbow trout, for a total of 538 herds across nine European countries. We calculated the effects of per-farm management practices and antimicrobial usage (AMU) on the resistome in pigs, broilers, and veal calves. We also provide an in-depth study of the associations between bacterial diversity, resistome diversity, and AMR abundances as well as co-occurrence analysis of bacterial taxa and antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) and the universality of the latter. The resistomes of veal calves and pigs clustered together, as did those of avian origin, while the rainbow trout resistome was different. Moreover, we identified clear core resistomes for each specific food-producing animal species. We identified positive associations between bacterial alpha diversity and both resistome alpha diversity and abundance. Network analyses revealed very few taxa-ARG associations in pigs but a large number for the avian species. Using updated reference databases and optimized bioinformatics, previously reported significant associations between AMU, biosecurity, and AMR in pig and poultry farms were validated. AMU is an important driver for AMR; however, our integrated analyses suggest that factors contributing to increased bacterial diversity might also be associated with higher AMR load. We also found that dispersal limitations of ARGs are shaping livestock resistomes, and future efforts to fight AMR should continue to emphasize biosecurity measures.IMPORTANCEUnderstanding the occurrence, diversity, and drivers for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is important to focus future control efforts. So far, almost all attempts to limit AMR in livestock have addressed antimicrobial consumption. We here performed an integrated analysis of the resistomes of five important farmed animal populations across Europe finding that the resistome and AMR levels are also shaped by factors related to bacterial diversity, as well as dispersal limitations. Thus, future studies and interventions aimed at reducing AMR should not only address antimicrobial usage but also consider other epidemiological and ecological factors.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsLivestockAnimalsBacteriaCattleChickensDrug Resistance, BacterialSwineAnti-Infective Agentsantimicrobial resistancediversitylivestockmetagenomicsresistome

Identifiers

PMID38501800
PMCPMC11019871
OpenAlexW4392953789

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.