↓ Skip to main content

Effects of ceftiofur treatment on the susceptibility of commensal porcine E.coli – comparison between treated and untreated animals housed in the same stable

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Effects of ceftiofur treatment on the susceptibility of commensal porcine E.coli – comparison between treated and untreated animals housed in the same stable
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12917-015-0578-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Beyer, Sven Baumann, Gesine Scherz, Jessica Stahl, Martin von Bergen, Anika Friese, Uwe Roesler, Manfred Kietzmann, Walther Honscha, Beyer, Anne, Baumann, Sven, Scherz, Gesine, Stahl, Jessica, von Bergen, Martin, Friese, Anika, Roesler, Uwe, Kietzmann, Manfred, Honscha, Walther

Abstract

Healthy farm animals have been found to act as a reservoir of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli (E. coli). Therefore, the objective of the study was to determine the input of antimicrobial active ceftiofur metabolites in the stable via faeces and urine after intramuscular administration of the drug to pigs and the elucidation of the Escherichia coli ESBL resistance pattern of treated and untreated pigs housed in the same barn during therapy. For determination of the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) the method of microdilutionaccording to the recommended procedure of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute was used. Inaddition to that, a qualitative determination was performed by agar dilution. Unsusceptible E. coli speciesselected via agar dilution with cefotaxime were confirmed by MALDI-TOF and ESBL encoding genes wereidentified by PCR. The amounts of ceftiofur measured as desfuroylceftiofur (DFC) in the different probes (plasma, urine, faeces and dust) were analysed by UPLC-MS/MS. In a first experiment two groups of pigs (6 animals per group) were housed in the same barn in two separated boxes. One group (group B) were treated with ceftiofur according to the licence (3 mg/kg administered intramuscularly (i.m.) on three consecutive days, day 1-3). During a second treatment period (day 29-31) an increased rate of ESBL resistant E. coli was detectable in these treated pigs and in the air of the stable. Moreover, the second group of animals (group A) formerly untreated but housed for the whole period in the same stable as the treated animals revealed increased resistance rates during their first treatment (day 45-47) with ceftiofur. In order to investigate the environmental input of ceftiofur during therapy and to simulate oral uptake of ceftiofur residues from the air of the stable a second set of experiments were performed. Pigs (6 animals) were treated with an interval of 2 weeks for 3 days with different doses of ceftiofur (3 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg i.m.) as well as with 3 mg/kg per os) and the renal and biliary excretion of ceftiofur as its active metabolite were measured in comparison to the plasma levels. In addition to that, probes of the sedimentation dust and the air of the stable were analysed for drug residues. The present study shows that treatment of several animals in a stable with ceftiofur influences the resistance pattern of intestinal Escherichia coli of the treated as well as untreated animals housed in the same stable. During therapy with the drug which was administered by injection according to the licence we detected nameable amounts of ceftiofur and its active metabolites in the dust and air of the stable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 13 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 11 20%

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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,430,554
of 7,523,579 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#611
of 1,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,264
of 240,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#24
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,523,579 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,116 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 240,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.