Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40638611›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Prevalence and risk factors of antimicrobial resistance patterns of Staphylococcus spp. and E. coli in rodents and shrews at human-animal interfaces in Chattogram, Bangladesh.

Md Aftabuddin Rumi, Pronesh Dutta, Monjurul Islam, Md Abu Sayeed, Md Kaisar Rahman, Md Helal Uddin, Shariful Islam, Ricardo J Soares Magalhaes, Jonathan H Epstein, Mohammad Mahmudul Hassan and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Md Aftabuddin RumiFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chattogram, Bangladesh.
Pronesh DuttaInstitute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2090-2007
Monjurul IslamInstitute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Md Abu SayeedInstitute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Md Kaisar RahmanInstitute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7761-9846
Md Helal UddinFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chattogram, Bangladesh.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6140-7937
Shariful IslamInstitute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Ricardo J Soares MagalhaesQueensland Alliance for One Health Sciences, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Australia.
Jonathan H EpsteinOne Health Science, United States of America.
Mohammad Mahmudul HassanFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chattogram, Bangladesh.
Ariful IslamBiosecurity Research Program and Training Centre, Gulbali Institute, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9210-3351

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a significant threat to human and animal health worldwide. Wild rodents and shrews may serve as bioindicators of environmental health. They may serve as a potential source of the transmission of AMR bacterial infections to humans and domestic animals, despite not directly consuming antibiotics. We conducted a cross-sectional study aimed to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with the AMR patterns in Staphylococcus spp. and Escherichia coli (E. coli) isolated from rodents and shrews. We trapped and collected throat and rectal/urine swab samples from 200 wild rodents (n = 115) and house shrews (n = 85) across different locations in Chattogram, Bangladesh. The collected samples were then evaluated for the isolation of both bacterial organisms using culturing and biochemical properties. We performed culture sensitivity (CS) tests of the isolates using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method for 14 antimicrobials. The overall prevalence of Staphylococcus spp. was 26.5% (95% CI: 0.20-0.33; n = 53), and E. coli was 56% (95% CI: 0.49-0.63; n = 112) in the sampled rodents and Asian house shrews. Staphylococcus spp. isolates were 100% resistant to oxacillin, oxytetracycline, metronidazole, and cefixime. Again, E. coli isolates were 100% resistant to metronidazole followed by ampicillin and cefixime (98.0%), sulfamethoxazole + trimethoprim (97.0%), amoxicillin and doxycycline (96.0%), streptomycin (95.0%). Only gentamycin was sensitive against both bacterial isolates. Statistical modeling revealed a higher risk of resistant bacterial infection in rodents from agricultural interfaces compared to other habitats. Rodents and Asian house shrews with poor body condition were more prone to resistant Staphylococcus spp. infection, while rodents were more susceptible to resistant E. coli infection. Our findings indicate a significant prevalence of AMR Staphylococcus spp. and E. coli in urban rodents and house shrews, suggesting their potential role as reservoirs and disseminators of AMR, hence posing a risk to human and animal health.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsRodentiaShrewsStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcusAnimalsBangladeshCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPrevalenceRisk FactorsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID40638611
PMCPMC12244769

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.