↓ Skip to main content

Swine enteric colibacillosis: diagnosis, therapy and antimicrobial resistance

Overview of attention for article published in Porcine Health Management, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Swine enteric colibacillosis: diagnosis, therapy and antimicrobial resistance
Published in
Porcine Health Management, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40813-017-0063-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Luppi

Abstract

Intestinal infection with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) is an important disease in swine resulting in significant economic losses. Knowledge about the epidemiology, the diagnostic approach and methods of control are of fundamental importance to tackle the disease. The ETEC causing neonatal colibacillosis mostly carry the fimbriae F4 (k88), F5 (k99), F6 (987P) or F41, while the ETEC of post-weaning diarrhoea carry the fimbriae F4 (k88) and F18. These fimbriae adhere to specific receptors on porcine intestinal brush border epithelial cells (enterocytes), starting the process of enteric infection. After this colonization, the bacteria produce one or more enterotoxins inducing diarrhoea, such as the heat stable toxin a (STa), the heat stable toxin b (STb), and the heat labile toxin (LT). A role in the pathogenesis of the disease was demonstrated for these toxins. The diagnosis of enteric colibacillosis is based on the isolation and quantification of the pathogenic E.coli coupled with the demonstration by PCR of the genes encoding for virulence factors (fimbriae and toxins). The diagnostic approach to enteric colibacillosis must consider the differential diagnosis and the potential different causes that can be involved in the outbreak. Among the different methods of control of colibacillosis, the use of antimicrobials is widely practiced and antibiotics are used in two main ways: as prophylactic or metaphylactic treatment to prevent disease and for therapeutic purposes to treat diseased pigs. An accurate diagnosis of enteric colibacillosis needs an appropriate sampling for the isolation and quantification of the ETEC responsible for the outbreak by using semi-quantitative bacteriology. Definitive diagnosis is based on the presence of characteristic lesions and results of bacteriology along with confirmation of appropriate virulence factors to identify the isolated E.coli. It is important to confirm the diagnosis and to perform antimicrobial sensitivity tests because antimicrobial sensitivity varies greatly among E. coli isolates. Growing concern on the increase of antimicrobial resistance force a more rational use of antibiotics and this can be achieved through a correct understanding of the issues related to antibiotic therapy and to the use of antibiotics by both practitioners and farmers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 200 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 16%
Student > Master 30 15%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 44 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 50 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 49 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,787,155
of 12,413,055 outputs
Outputs from Porcine Health Management
#45
of 66 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,977
of 296,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Porcine Health Management
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,413,055 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 66 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.