Skip to content
1887

Journal of Medical Microbiology logo Journal of Medical Microbiology

Volume 73, Issue 1

Commercial farmed swine harbour a variety of pathogenic bacteria and antimicrobial resistance genes Open Access

Abstract

The northern region of Thailand serves as a crucial area for swine production, contributing to the Thai community food supply. Previous studies have highlighted the presence of foodborne bacterial pathogens originating from swine farms in this region, posing a threat to both human and animal health.

Multiple swine bacterial pathogens have been studied at a species level, but the distribution and co-occurrence of bacterial pathogens in agricultural swine has not been well established.

Our study employed the intestinal scraping technique to directly examine the bacterial micro-organisms interacting with the swine host.

We used shotgun metagenomic sequencing to analyse the bacterial pathogens inhabiting the caecal microbiome of swine from five commercial farms in northern Thailand.

A variety of pathogenic and opportunistic bacteria were identified, including , , and the genus. From a One Health perspective, these species are important foodborne and opportunistic pathogens in both humans and agricultural animals, making swine a critical pathogen reservoir that can cause illness in humans, especially farm workers. Additionally, the swine caecal microbiome contains commensal bacteria such as , and , which are associated with normal physiology and feed utilization in healthy swine. Antimicrobial resistance genes were also detected in all samples, specifically conferring resistance to tetracycline and aminoglycosides, which have historically been used extensively in swine farming.

The findings further support the need for improved sanitation standards in swine farms, and additional monitoring of agricultural animals and farm workers to reduce contamination and improved produce safety for human consumption.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): antimicrobial resistance (AMR) , caecal microbiome , commercial swine farming , shotgun metagenomics and swine
© 2024 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001787
2024-01-17
2025-03-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/73/1/jmm001787.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001787&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Padungtod P, Kadohira M, Hill G. Livestock production and foodborne diseases from food animals in Thailand. J Vet Med Sci 2008; 70:873–879 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Tantasuparuk W, Kunavongkrit A. Pig production in Thailand. Country Report 2014
     [Google Scholar]
  3. The Swine Raisers Association of Thailand Livestock pig production and market trend 2023; 2023 https://www.swinethailand.com/17369771/livestock-pig-production-and-market-trend-2023 accessed 6 February 2023
  4. Department of Livestock and Development Number of farmers and animal populations 2022; 2023 https://ict.dld.go.th/webnew/images/stories/stat_web/yearly/ 2565/province/T5-1-Pig.pdf accessed 6 February 2023
  5. Patchanee P, Tanamai P, Tadee P, Hitchings MD, Calland JK et al. Whole-genome characterisation of multidrug resistant monophasic variants of Salmonella typhimurium from pig production in Thailand. PeerJ 2020; 8:e9700 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Xiao L, Estellé J, Kiilerich P, Ramayo-Caldas Y, Xia Z et al. A reference gene catalogue of the pig gut microbiome. Nat Microbiol 2016; 1:1–6 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Guevarra RB, Hong SH, Cho JH, Kim B-R, Shin J et al. The dynamics of the piglet gut microbiome during the weaning transition in association with health and nutrition. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2018; 9:1–9 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Looft T, Allen HK, Cantarel BL, Levine UY, Bayles DO et al. Bacteria, phages and pigs: the effects of in-feed antibiotics on the microbiome at different gut locations. ISME J 2014; 8:1566–1576 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Quan J, Wu Z, Ye Y, Peng L, Wu J et al. Metagenomic characterization of intestinal regions in pigs with contrasting feed efficiency. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:32 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Hugenholtz P, Goebel BM, Pace NR. Impact of culture-independent studies on the emerging phylogenetic view of bacterial diversity. J Bacteriol 1998; 180:4765–4774 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen L, Xu Y, Chen X, Fang C, Zhao L et al. The maturing development of gut microbiota in commercial piglets during the weaning transition. Front Microbiol 2017; 8:1688 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Duarte ASR, Röder T, Van Gompel L, Petersen TN, Hansen RB et al. Metagenomics-based approach to source-attribution of antimicrobial resistance determinants - identification of reservoir resistome signatures. Front Microbiol 2021; 11:601407 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Kim H, Cho JH, Song M, Cho JH, Kim S et al. Evaluating the prevalence of foodborne pathogens in livestock using metagenomics approach. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2021; 31:1701–1708 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. World Organization for Animal Health One Health; 2023 https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/global-initiatives/one-health/ accessed 6 February 2023
  15. Zou A, Nadeau K, Xiong X, Wang PW, Copeland JK et al. Systematic profiling of the chicken gut microbiome reveals dietary supplementation with antibiotics alters expression of multiple microbial pathways with minimal impact on community structure. Microbiome 2022; 10:1–29 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Strachan CR, Yu XA, Neubauer V, Mueller AJ, Wagner M et al. Differential carbon utilization enables co-existence of recently speciated Campylobacteraceae in the cow rumen epithelial microbiome. Nat Microbiol 2023; 8:1–12 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Apiwatsiri P, Pupa P, Sirichokchatchawan W, Sawaswong V, Nimsamer P et al. Metagenomic analysis of the gut microbiota in piglets either challenged or not with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli reveals beneficial effects of probiotics on microbiome composition, resistome, digestive function and oxidative stress responses. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0269959 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Tunsagool P, Mhuantong W, Tangphatsornruang S, Am-In N, Chuanchuen R et al. Metagenomics of antimicrobial and heavy metal resistance in the cecal microbiome of fattening pigs raised without antibiotics. Appl Environ Microbiol 2021; 87:e02684-20 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Yang H, Huang X, Fang S, Xin W, Huang L et al. Uncovering the composition of microbial community structure and metagenomics among three gut locations in pigs with distinct fatness. Sci Rep 2016; 6:27427 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Burrough ER, Arruda BL, Plummer PJ. Comparison of the luminal and mucosa-associated microbiota in the colon of pigs with and without swine dysentery. Front Vet Sci 2017; 4:139 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gaio D, DeMaere MZ, Anantanawat K, Eamens GJ, Falconer L et al. Phylogenetic diversity analysis of shotgun metagenomic reads describes gut microbiome development and treatment effects in the post-weaned pig. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0270372 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Ingala MR, Simmons NB, Wultsch C, Krampis K, Speer KA et al. Comparing microbiome sampling methods in a wild mammal: fecal and intestinal samples record different signals of host ecology, evolution. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:803 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Andrews S, Krueger F, Segonds-Pichon A, Biggins L, Krueger C et al. FastQC. A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data 2010 p 370
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J 2011; 17:10–12 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Danecek P, Bonfield JK, Liddle J, Marshall J, Ohan V et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. Gigascience 2021; 10:giab008 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 2012; 9:357–359 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res 2017; 27:824–834 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kang DD, Li F, Kirton E, Thomas A, Egan R et al. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ 2019; 7:e7359 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhu W, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M. Ab initio gene identification in metagenomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 38:e132 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fu L, Niu B, Zhu Z, Wu S, Li W. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 2012; 28:3150–3152 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol 2019; 20:1–13 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lu J, Breitwieser FP, Thielen P, Salzberg SL. Bracken: estimating species abundance in metagenomics data. PeerJ Comput Sci 2017; 3:e104 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Team R. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA; 2020 http://www. rstudio. com
  34. Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Morishima K. BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences. J Mol Biol 2016; 428:726–731 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Alcock BP, Raphenya AR, Lau TTY, Tsang KK, Bouchard M et al. CARD 2020: antibiotic resistome surveillance with the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res 2020; 48:D517–D525 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Seemann T. ABRicate: mass screening of contigs for antibiotic resistance genes. San Francisco, CA; 2016 https://github.com/tseemann/abricate
  37. Prasertbun R, Mori H, Pintong A-R, Sanyanusin S, Popruk S et al. Zoonotic potential of enterocytozoon genotypes in humans and pigs in Thailand. Vet Parasitol 2017; 233:73–79 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Thathaisong U, Siripattanapipong S, Inpankaew T, Leelayoova S, Mungthin M. High prevalence of Cryptosporidium infection caused by C. scrofarum and C. suis among pigs in Thailand. Parasitol Int 2020; 77:102122 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Chen C, Zhou Y, Fu H, Xiong X, Fang S et al. Expanded catalog of microbial genes and metagenome-assembled genomes from the pig gut microbiome. Nat Commun 2021; 12:1106 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Tan Z, Yang T, Wang Y, Xing K, Zhang F et al. Metagenomic analysis of cecal microbiome identified microbiota and functional capacities associated with feed efficiency in landrace finishing pigs. Front Microbiol 2017; 8:1546 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim K, Song M, Liu Y, Ji P. Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli infection of weaned pigs: Intestinal challenges and nutritional intervention to enhance disease resistance. Front Immunol 2022; 13:4370 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. McNally A, Oren Y, Kelly D, Pascoe B, Dunn S et al. Combined analysis of variation in core, accessory and regulatory genome regions provides a super-resolution view into the evolution of bacterial populations. PLoS Genet 2016; 12:e1006280 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Tiwari SK, van der Putten BCL, Fuchs TM, Vinh TN, Bootsma M et al. Genome-wide association reveals host-specific genomic traits in Escherichia coli. BMC Biol 2023; 21:76 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Tseng M, Fratamico PM, Manning SD, Funk JA. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in swine: the public health perspective. Anim Health Res Rev 2014; 15:63–75 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Love DC, Tharavichitkul P, Arjkumpa O, Imanishi M, Hinjoy S et al. Antimicrobial use and multidrug-resistant Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus faecalis in swine from Northern Thailand. Thai J Vet Med 2015; 45:43–53 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Nuangmek A, Rojanasthien S, Yamsakul P, Tadee P, Eiamsam-ang T et al. Perspectives on antimicrobial use in pig and layer farms in Thailand: legislation, policy, regulations and potential. Vet Integr Sci 2021; 19:1–21
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Myllykoski J, Nevas M, Lindström M, Korkeala H. The detection and prevalence of Clostridium botulinum in pig intestinal samples. Int J Food Microbiol 2006; 110:172–177 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Salem N, Salem L, Saber S, Ismail G, Bluth MH. Corynebacterium urealyticum: a comprehensive review of an understated organism. Infect Drug Resist 2015; 8:129–145 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Song T, Li H, Li B, Yang J, Sardar MF et al. Distribution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in aerobic composting of swine manure with different antibiotics. Environ Sci Eur 2021; 33:1–13 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Xu Y, Li H, Shi R, Lv J, Li B et al. Antibiotic resistance genes in different animal manures and their derived organic fertilizer. Environ Sci Eur 2020; 32:1–10 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Anukool U, O’Neill CE, Butr-Indr B, Hawkey PM, Gaze WH et al. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pigs from Thailand. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2011; 38:86–87 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Price LB, Stegger M, Hasman H, Aziz M, Larsen J et al. Staphylococcus aureus CC398: host adaptation and emergence of methicillin resistance in livestock. mBio 2012; 3:e00305-11 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Ward MJ, Gibbons CL, McAdam PR, van Bunnik BAD, Girvan EK et al. Time-scaled evolutionary analysis of the transmission and antibiotic resistance dynamics of Staphylococcus aureus clonal complex 398. Appl Environ Microbiol 2014; 80:7275–7282 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Murray S, Pascoe B, Méric G, Mageiros L, Yahara K et al. Recombination-Mediated Host Adaptation by Avian Staphylococcus aureus. Genome Biol Evol 2017; 9:830–842 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Islam MZ, Johannesen TB, Lilje B, Urth TR, Larsen AR et al. Investigation of the human nasal microbiome in persons with long- and short-term exposure to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and other bacteria from the pig farm environment. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0232456 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Haenen D, Zhang J, Souza da Silva C, Bosch G, van der Meer IM et al. A diet high in resistant starch modulates microbiota composition, SCFA concentrations, and gene expression in pig intestine. J Nutr 2013; 143:274–283 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Yang F, Hou C, Zeng X, Qiao S. The use of lactic acid bacteria as a probiotic in swine diets. Pathogens 2015; 4:34–45 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Chater KF. Recent advances in understanding Streptomyces. F1000Res 2016; 5:2795 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Angelakis E, Merhej V, Raoult D. Related actions of probiotics and antibiotics on gut microbiota and weight modification. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13:889–899 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Malinen E, Krogius-Kurikka L, Lyra A, Nikkilä J, Jääskeläinen A et al. Association of symptoms with gastrointestinal microbiota in irritable bowel syndrome. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16:4532–4540 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Walker AW, Ince J, Duncan SH, Webster LM, Holtrop G et al. Dominant and diet-responsive groups of bacteria within the human colonic microbiota. ISME J 2011; 5:220–230 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Yang Z, Liao SF. Physiological effects of dietary amino acids on gut health and functions of swine. Front Vet Sci 2019; 6:169 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Davidson AL, Dassa E, Orelle C, Chen J. Structure, function, and evolution of bacterial ATP-binding cassette systems. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2008; 72:317–364 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Sonnenburg ED, Sonnenburg JL, Manchester JK, Hansen EE, Chiang HC et al. A hybrid two-component system protein of A prominent human gut symbiont couples glycan sensing in vivo to carbohydrate metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006; 103:8834–8839 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Bin P, Tang Z, Liu S, Chen S, Xia Y et al. Intestinal microbiota mediates Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli-induced diarrhea in piglets. BMC Vet Res 2018; 14:1–13 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Balouiri M, Sadiki M, Ibnsouda SK. Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: a review. J Pharm Anal 2016; 6:71–79 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Gweon HS, Shaw LP, Swann J, De Maio N, AbuOun M et al. The impact of sequencing depth on the inferred taxonomic composition and AMR gene content of metagenomic samples. Environ Microbiome 2019; 14:1–15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Smith RP, May HE, AbuOun M, Stubberfield E, Gilson D et al. A longitudinal study reveals persistence of antimicrobial resistance on livestock farms is not due to antimicrobial usage alone. Front Microbiol 2023; 14:700 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Lekagul A, Tangcharoensathien V, Yeung S. Patterns of antibiotic use in global pig production: a systematic review. Vet Anim Sci 2019; 7:100058 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Harada K, Asai T. Role of antimicrobial selective pressure and secondary factors on antimicrobial resistance prevalence in Escherichia coli from food-producing animals in Japan. J Biomed Biotechnol 2010; 2010:180682 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Kittiwan N, Calland JK, Mourkas E, Hitchings MD, Murray S et al. Genetic diversity and variation in antimicrobial-resistance determinants of non-serotype 2 Streptococcus suis isolates from healthy pigs. Microb Genom 2022; 8:000882 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Witte W. Selective pressure by antibiotic use in livestock. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2000; 16:19–24 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Mourkas E, Florez-Cuadrado D, Pascoe B, Calland JK, Bayliss SC et al. Gene pool transmission of multidrug resistance among Campylobacter from livestock, sewage and human disease. Environ Microbiol 2019; 21:4597–4613 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Johnson TA, Stedtfeld RD, Wang Q, Cole JR, Hashsham SA et al. Clusters of antibiotic resistance genes enriched together stay together in swine agriculture. mBio 2016; 7:e02214-15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Vinayamohan PG, Pellissery AJ, Venkitanarayanan K. Role of horizontal gene transfer in the dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in food animal production. Curr Opin Food Sci 2022; 47:100882 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Mourkas E, Yahara K, Bayliss SC, Calland JK, Johansson H et al. Host ecology regulates interspecies recombination in bacteria of the genus Campylobacter. Elife 2022; 11:e73552 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Lekagul A, Tangcharoensathien V, Liverani M, Mills A, Rushton J et al. Understanding antibiotic use for pig farming in Thailand: a qualitative study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2021; 10:1–11 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Lima T, Domingues S, Da Silva GJ. Manure as a potential hotspot for antibiotic resistance dissemination by horizontal gene transfer events. Vet Sci 2020; 7:110 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Kelly J, Daly K, Moran AW, Ryan S, Bravo D et al. Composition and diversity of mucosa-associated microbiota along the entire length of the pig gastrointestinal tract; dietary influences. Environ Microbiol 2017; 19:1425–1438 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Liu S, Moon CD, Zheng N, Huws S, Zhao S et al. Opportunities and challenges of using metagenomic data to bring uncultured microbes into cultivation. Microbiome 2022; 10:76 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Schloss PD, Handelsman J. Metagenomics for studying unculturable microorganisms: cutting the Gordian knot. Genome Biol 2005; 6:1–4 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Fachrul M, Méric G, Inouye M, Pamp SJ, Salim A. Assessing and removing the effect of unwanted technical variations in microbiome data. Sci Rep 2022; 12:22236 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhu Q, Huang S, Gonzalez A, McGrath I, McDonald D et al. Phylogeny-aware analysis of metagenome community ecology based on matched reference genomes while bypassing taxonomy. mSystems 2022; 7:e0016722 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001787
Loading
Commercial farmed swine harbour a variety of pathogenic bacteria and antimicrobial resistance genes
J. Med. Microbiol. 73, 001787 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001787
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001787
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001787
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error