Logotipo do repositório

Antimicrobial Resistance in Chicken Meat: Comparing Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus from Conventional and Antibiotic-Free Productions

dc.contributor.authorCerqueira-Cézar, Camila Koutsodontis [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorda Cruz Encide Sampaio, Aryele Nunes [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorCaron, Evelyn Fernanda Flores [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDellaqua, Thaisy Tino [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorRibeiro, Lucas Franco Miranda [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorTadielo, Leonardo Ereno [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorde Figueiredo Pantoja, José Carlos [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorViana, Gustavo Guimarães Fernandes [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorRossi, Gabriel Augusto Marques
dc.contributor.authorSpanu, Carlo
dc.contributor.authorPossebon, Fábio Sossai [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Juliano Gonçalves [UNESP]
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-17T17:54:41Z
dc.date.issued2025-09-23
dc.description.abstractChicken meat production is a critical component of the global protein supply, significantly influenced by rearing advancements, including the use of antimicrobial agents. However, the pervasive use of antibiotics has raised concerns regarding the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This study examined the prevalence and AMR profiles of <i>Salmonella</i> spp., <i>Escherichia coli</i>, and <i>Enterococcus</i> spp. in chicken meat from conventional and antibiotic-free (ABF) production chains. A total of 284 samples were analyzed for <i>Salmonella</i> spp. and <i>E. coli</i>, while 164 samples were tested for <i>Enterococcus</i> spp. From that, 143 were from conventional production chains and 141 were from ABF chains. The results indicated a 10.9% prevalence of <i>Salmonella</i> spp., 22.1% for <i>E. coli</i>, and 93.9% for <i>Enterococcus</i> spp. Regarding production chains, the conventional chain had 18.2% of the isolates for <i>Salmonella</i> spp., 20.3% for <i>E. coli</i>, and 91.6% for <i>Enterococcus</i> spp., while the ABF chain had 3.5% of the isolates for <i>Salmonella</i> spp., 24.1% for <i>E. coli</i>, and 96.3% for <i>Enterococcus</i> spp. In terms of AMR, 86.1% of the <i>Salmonella</i> spp. isolates that underwent the disk diffusion test were resistant to at least one antibiotic tested, 95.1% of <i>E. coli</i>, and 88.4% of <i>Enterococcus</i> spp. Notably, carbapenem resistance was detected in <i>Salmonella</i> spp., with 2.3% of isolates being resistant to imipenem, while resistance to vancomycin and linezolid was detected in <i>Enterococcus</i> spp., all of which are critically important antimicrobials. Comparisons between these production chains revealed significant differences in antibiotic resistance patterns in <i>Salmonella</i> spp. for two antibiotics, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and nitrofurantoin, while no differences were observed in <i>E. coli</i>. For <i>Enterococcus</i> spp., resistance varied for three antibiotics: streptomycin, penicillin, and tetracycline. For all other antibiotics tested, the resistance profiles were consistent across both conventional and ABF production chains. Multidrug resistance (MDR) was observed in 90.7% of <i>Salmonella</i> spp. isolates, 42.9% of <i>E. coli</i> isolates, and 12.0% of <i>Enterococcus</i> spp. isolates. Statistically significant differences were noted in MDR prevalence between production chains, with conventional production systems exhibiting higher levels of MDR isolates compared to ABF systems. These findings underscore the need for targeted AMR control strategies that consider the complexity of resistance dynamics across production systems.
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Animal Production and Preventive Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science (FMVZ), São Paulo State University (UNESP), Prof. Dr. Walter Mauricio Correa Street, Botucatu 18618-681, SP, Brazil;, camila.cezar@unesp.br, (C.K.C.-C.);, aryele.sampaio@unesp.br, (A.N.d.C.E.S.);, evelyn.fernanda@unesp.br, (E.F.F.C.);, lucas.franco@unesp.br, (L.F.M.R.);, leonardoerenotadielo@gmail.com, (L.E.T.);, jose.pantoja@unesp.br, (J.C.d.F.P.);, gustavo.zero98@gmail.com, (G.G.F.V.);, fabio.possebon@unesp.br, (F.S.P.)
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Structural and Functional Biology, Institute of Biosciences, São Paulo State University, Botucatu 18618-970, SP, Brazil;, thaisy.dellaqua@unesp.br
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University Vila Velha (UVV), Av. Comissário José Dantas de Melo, n.21, Vila Velha 29102-920, ES, Brazil;, gabriel.rossi@uvv.br
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sassari (UNISS), 07100 Sassari, Italy;, cspanu@uniss.it
dc.description.affiliationInstitute for Biotechnology, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Tecomarias av, Botucatu 18607-440, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Animal Production and Preventive Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science (FMVZ), São Paulo State University (UNESP), Prof. Dr. Walter Mauricio Correa Street, Botucatu 18618-681, SP, Brazil;, camila.cezar@unesp.br, (C.K.C.-C.);, aryele.sampaio@unesp.br, (A.N.d.C.E.S.);, evelyn.fernanda@unesp.br, (E.F.F.C.);, lucas.franco@unesp.br, (L.F.M.R.);, leonardoerenotadielo@gmail.com, (L.E.T.);, jose.pantoja@unesp.br, (J.C.d.F.P.);, gustavo.zero98@gmail.com, (G.G.F.V.);, fabio.possebon@unesp.br, (F.S.P.)
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Structural and Functional Biology, Institute of Biosciences, São Paulo State University, Botucatu 18618-970, SP, Brazil;, thaisy.dellaqua@unesp.br
dc.description.affiliationUnespInstitute for Biotechnology, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Tecomarias av, Botucatu 18607-440, SP, Brazil
dc.identifierhttps://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1193205421
dc.identifier.dimensionspub.1193205421
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/microorganisms13102227
dc.identifier.issn2076-2607
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-1222-6544
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-4656-893X
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-7879-6534
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-4731-849X
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-7967-7628
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-9065-1277
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-0118-6164
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-8713-7506
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC12566091
dc.identifier.pmid41156688
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11449/322229
dc.publisherMDPI
dc.relation.ispartofMicroorganisms; n. 10; v. 13; p. 2227
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso abertopt
dc.rights.sourceRightsoa_all
dc.rights.sourceRightsgold
dc.sourceDimensions
dc.titleAntimicrobial Resistance in Chicken Meat: Comparing Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus from Conventional and Antibiotic-Free Productions
dc.typeArtigopt
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication9ca5a87b-0c83-43fa-b290-6f8a4202bf99
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationab63624f-c491-4ac7-bd2c-767f17ac838d
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery9ca5a87b-0c83-43fa-b290-6f8a4202bf99
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Botucatupt
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Instituto de Biociências, Botucatu
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Instituto de Biotecnologia, Botucatu

Arquivos

Pacote original

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
microorganisms-13-02227-v3.pdf
Tamanho:
581,1 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format