FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Biofilm Production by Critical Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogen...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2023; 13(8); doi: 10.3390/ani13081342

Biofilm Production by Critical Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogens from an Equine Wound.

Abstract: As in human medicine, in veterinary medicine, chronic wounds are often related to polymicrobial infections and the presence of a biofilm, which compromises the effectiveness of therapeutic approaches. In this study, a Lusitano mare presented a 21-day-old chronic wound that was only being treated with an antiseptic. A swab sample was collected, and three isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and one of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were isolated. S. aureus did not show resistance to a panel of antibiotics. However, the P. aeruginosa isolate showed a resistance profile to carbapenems and fluoroquinolones, which may suggest a cross-resistance between antiseptic and antibiotics, given that no antibiotic therapy was applied to the wound or the mare in the previous year. Further experiments were conducted to assess the ability of the isolates to form biofilms, and to ascertain their susceptibility to gentamicin. The results demonstrated that the isolates produced biofilms. Gentamicin at the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and 10× MIC caused biofilm removal between 59.3% and 85.7%, with the highest removal percentage being obtained for the P. aeruginosa isolate (at 10× MIC concentration). This study reveals that an equine wound was colonized by antibiotic resistant bacteria, and that all the wound colonizers could form biofilms, demonstrating the relevance of an adequate diagnosis and treatment when there is a suspicion of a biofilm-infected wound. It also highlights the possibility of resistance transmission between animals, animals and humans, or animals and the environment.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-04-13 PubMed ID: 37106905PubMed Central: PMC10135353DOI: 10.3390/ani13081342Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Case Reports
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research study explores the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in an equine wound and their ability to form biofilms which obstructs effective administration of therapeutic treatments. The study further investigates the efficacy of gentamicin in removing the identified biofilms.

Study and Results

  • The research was conducted on a Lusitano mare suffering from a 21-day-old chronic wound, which was previously treated only with an antiseptic. The wound was a real-life manifestation of how veterinary medicine often combats chronic wounds, which are usually linked to polymicrobial infections and biofilms.
  • Investigation commenced with a swab sample collected from the wound. The sample tested positive for Gram-positive bacteria, Staphylococcus spp., and Gram-negative bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa. While the Staphylococcus spp. were found to be susceptible to antibiotics, Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed resistance to a spectrum of antibiotics, namely carbapenems and fluoroquinolones.
  • This resistance was a notable finding as the mare had not been exposed to any form of antibiotic therapy in the previous year. This discovery suggests the possibility of cross-resistance between antiseptics and antibiotics.
  • Further assessments were carried out to examine the capacity of these identified bacteria to form biofilms and to determine their susceptibility to the antibiotic gentamicin.

Key Findings

  • The tests confirmed that the bacterial isolates from the equine wound were capable of producing biofilms. Biofilms complicate therapeutic interventions as they shield bacteria and make them more resistant to treatments.
  • The study further revealed that gentamicin, at minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and beyond, could effectively weaken and remove biofilms. The performance was most notable against biofilms produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa at 10x MIC concentration. It achieved biofilm removal between 59.3% and 85.7%.

Conclusion

  • The study concludes that the identified wound of the mare was colonized by antibiotic-resistant bacteria capable of forming biofilms. This highlights the significance of proper diagnosis and treatment when a biofilm-infected wound is suspected.
  • It also raises important implications about the transfer of resistance among animals, between animals and humans, and between animals and the environment.

Cite This Article

APA
Afonso AC, Sousa M, Pinto AR, Cotovio M, Simões M, Saavedra MJ. (2023). Biofilm Production by Critical Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogens from an Equine Wound. Animals (Basel), 13(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13081342

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 8

Researcher Affiliations

Afonso, Ana C
  • LEPABE-Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.
  • ALiCE-Associate Laboratory in Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.
  • CITAB-Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences and Inov4Agro, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal.
Sousa, Mariana
  • LEPABE-Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.
  • ALiCE-Associate Laboratory in Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.
Pinto, Ana Rita
  • CITAB-Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences and Inov4Agro, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal.
Cotovio, Mário
  • Department of Veterinary Sciences-Antimicrobials, Biocides & Biofilms Unit, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal.
  • CECAV-Veterinary and Animal Research Centre and Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Science (AL4AnimalS), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal.
Simões, Manuel
  • LEPABE-Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.
  • ALiCE-Associate Laboratory in Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.
Saavedra, Maria José
  • CITAB-Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences and Inov4Agro, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal.
  • Department of Veterinary Sciences-Antimicrobials, Biocides & Biofilms Unit, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal.
  • CECAV-Veterinary and Animal Research Centre and Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Science (AL4AnimalS), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal.

Grant Funding

  • (2020.04773.BD) / FCT grant
  • UIDB/AGR/04033/2020 (CITAB) / FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC); Germirrad-POCI-01-0247-FEDER-072237, funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020
  • UIDB/CVT/00772/2020 (CECAV) / FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC); Germirrad-POCI-01-0247-FEDER-072237, funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020
  • LA/P/0045/2020 (ALiCE) / FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC); Germirrad-POCI-01-0247-FEDER-072237, funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020
  • UIDB/00511/2020 (LEPABE) / FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC); Germirrad-POCI-01-0247-FEDER-072237, funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

This article includes 43 references
  1. Bowden A, Boynova P, Brennan M.L, England G.C.W, Mair T.S, Furness W.A, Freeman S.L, Burford J.H. Retrospective Case Series to Identify the Most Common Conditions Seen “out-of-Hours” by First-Opinion Equine Veterinary Practitioners.. Vet. Rec. 2020;187:404.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.105880pubmed: 32719083google scholar: lookup
  2. Wilmink J.M, Ladefoged S, Jongbloets A, Vernooij J.C.M. The Evaluation of the Effect of Probiotics on the Healing of Equine Distal Limb Wounds.. PLoS ONE 2020;15:e0236761.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236761pmc: PMC7390451pubmed: 32726347google scholar: lookup
  3. da Fontoura Pereira R.C, De La Côrte F.D, Brass K.E, da Silva Azevedo M, Gallio M, Cantarelli C, Dau S.L, Cezar A.S, Inkelmann M.A. Evaluation of Three Methods of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Treatment of Equine Distal Limb Skin Wounds.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2019;72:1–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.10.009pubmed: 30929771google scholar: lookup
  4. Helal I.E, Al-Abbadi H.A, El-Daharawy M.H, Ahmed M.F. Enhancement of Chronic Wound Healing with Maltodextrin/Ascorbic Acid Gel: A Clinical Evaluation of Distal Limb Wounds in Horses.. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2022;64:997–1007.
    doi: 10.5187/jast.2022.e52pmc: PMC9574608pubmed: 36287738google scholar: lookup
  5. Knottenbelt D.C. Equine Wound Management: Are There Significant Differences in Healing at Different Sites on the Body?. Vet. Dermatol. 1997;8:273–290.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.1997.tb00273.xpubmed: 34645017google scholar: lookup
  6. Afonso A.C, Oliveira D, Saavedra M.J, Borges A, Simões M. Biofilms in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Impact, Risk Factors and Control Strategies.. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021;22:8278.
    doi: 10.3390/ijms22158278pmc: PMC8347492pubmed: 34361044google scholar: lookup
  7. James G.A, Swogger E, Wolcott R, Pulcini E.D, Secor P, Sestrich J, Costerton J.W, Stewart P.S. Biofilms in Chronic Wounds.. Wound Repair Regen. 2008;16:37–44.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00321.xpubmed: 18086294google scholar: lookup
  8. Bowler P.G, Duerden B.I. Wound Microbiology and Associated Approaches to Wound Management.. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2001;14:244–269.
    doi: 10.1128/CMR.14.2.244-269.2001pmc: PMC88973pubmed: 11292638google scholar: lookup
  9. Westgate S.J, Percival S.L, Knottenbelt D.C, Clegg P.D, Cochrane C.A. Microbiology of Equine Wounds and Evidence of Bacterial Biofilms.. Vet. Microbiol. 2011;150:152–159.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.01.003pubmed: 21273008google scholar: lookup
  10. Freeman K, Woods E, Welsby S, Percival S.L, Cochrane C.A. Biofilm Evidence and the Microbial Diversity of Horse Wounds.. Can. J. Microbiol. 2009;55:197–202.
    doi: 10.1139/W08-115pubmed: 19295652google scholar: lookup
  11. Van Hecke L.L, Hermans K, Haspeslagh M, Chiers K, Pint E, Boyen F, Martens A.M. A Quantitative Swab Is a Good Non-Invasive Alternative to a Quantitative Biopsy for Quantifying Bacterial Load in Wounds Healing by Second Intention in Horses.. Vet. J. 2017;225:63–68.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.06.004pubmed: 28720301google scholar: lookup
  12. Zhao G, Usui M.L, Lippman S.I, James G.A, Stewart P.S, Fleckman P, Olerud J.E. Biofilms and Inflammation in Chronic Wounds.. Adv. Wound Care. 2013;2:389–399.
    doi: 10.1089/wound.2012.0381pmc: PMC3763221pubmed: 24527355google scholar: lookup
  13. Donlan R.M, Costerton J.W. Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms.. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2002;15:167–193.
    doi: 10.1128/CMR.15.2.167-193.2002pmc: PMC118068pubmed: 11932229google scholar: lookup
  14. Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton J.W, Stoodley P. Bacterial Biofilms: From the Natural Environment to Infectious Diseases.. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004;2:95–108.
    doi: 10.1038/nrmicro821pubmed: 15040259google scholar: lookup
  15. Yin W, Wang Y, Liu L, He J. Biofilms: The Microbial “Protective Clothing” in Extreme Environments.. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019;20:3423.
    doi: 10.3390/ijms20143423pmc: PMC6679078pubmed: 31336824google scholar: lookup
  16. Mah T.F. Biofilm-Specific Antibiotic Resistance.. Future Microbiol. 2012;7:1061–1072.
    doi: 10.2217/fmb.12.76pubmed: 22953707google scholar: lookup
  17. Muloi D, Ward M.J, Pedersen A.B, Fèvre E.M, Woolhouse M.E.J, Van Bunnik B.A.D. Are Food Animals Responsible for Transfer of Antimicrobial-Resistant Escherichia coli or Their Resistance Determinants to Human Populations? A Systematic Review.. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2018;15:467–474.
    doi: 10.1089/fpd.2017.2411pmc: PMC6103250pubmed: 29708778google scholar: lookup
  18. Belas A, Menezes J, Gama L.T, Pomba C. Sharing of Clinically Important Antimicrobial Resistance Genes by Companion Animals and Their Human Household Members.. Microb. Drug Resist. 2020;26:1174–1185.
    doi: 10.1089/mdr.2019.0380pubmed: 32354251google scholar: lookup
  19. Joosten P, Ceccarelli D, Odent E, Sarrazin S, Graveland H, Van Gompel L, Battisti A, Caprioli A, Franco A, Wagenaar J.A. Antimicrobial Usage and Resistance in Companion Animals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Three European Countries.. Antibiotics 2020;9:87.
    doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9020087pmc: PMC7175148pubmed: 32079072google scholar: lookup
  20. Wada Y, Irekeola A.A, Engku Nur Syafirah E.A.R, Yusof W, Huey L.L, Muhammad S.L, Harun A, Yean C.Y, Zaidah A.R. Prevalence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in Companion Animals: The First Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.. Antibiotics 2021;10:138.
    doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10020138pmc: PMC7911405pubmed: 33572528google scholar: lookup
  21. Stepanović S, Vuković D, Dakić I, Savić B, Švabić-Vlahović M. A Modified Microtiter-Plate Test for Quantification of Staphylococcal Biofilm Formation.. J. Microbiol. Methods. 2000;40:175–179.
    doi: 10.1016/S0167-7012(00)00122-6pubmed: 10699673google scholar: lookup
  22. Simões L, Simões M, Vieira M. Influence of the Diversity of Bacterial Isolates from Drinking Water on Resistance of Biofilms to Disinfection.. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010;76:6673–6679.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.00872-10pmc: PMC2950458pubmed: 20693444google scholar: lookup
  23. Simões L, Simões M, Vieira M. Biofilm Interactions between Distinct Bacterial Genera Isolated from Drinking Water.. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007;73:6192–6200.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.00837-07pmc: PMC2075010pubmed: 17675433google scholar: lookup
  24. Monte J, Abreu A.C, Borges A, Simões L.C, Simões M. Antimicrobial Activity of Selected Phytochemicals against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus and Their Biofilms.. Pathogens 2014;3:473–498.
    doi: 10.3390/pathogens3020473pmc: PMC4243457pubmed: 25437810google scholar: lookup
  25. Lemos M, Borges A, Teodósio J, Araújo P, Mergulhão F, Melo L, Simões M. The Effects of Ferulic and Salicylic Acids on Bacillus cereus and Pseudomonas fluorescens Single- and Dual-Species Biofilms.. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2014;86:42–51.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2013.06.011google scholar: lookup
  26. Lux C.N. Wound Healing in Animals: A Review of Physiology and Clinical Evaluation.. Vet. Dermatol. 2022;33:91-e27.
    doi: 10.1111/vde.13032pubmed: 34704298google scholar: lookup
  27. Tacconelli E, Carrara E, Savoldi A, Harbarth S, Mendelson M, Monnet D.L, Pulcini C, Kahlmeter G, Kluytmans J, Carmeli Y. Discovery, Research, and Development of New Antibiotics: The WHO Priority List of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and Tuberculosis.. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2018;18:318–327.
    doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30753-3pubmed: 29276051google scholar: lookup
  28. Kali A, Stephen S, Umadevi S. Laboratory Evaluation of Phenotypic Detection Methods of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus.. Biomed. J. 2014;37:411–414.
    doi: 10.4103/2319-4170.132907pubmed: 25179712google scholar: lookup
  29. Bugg T.D.H. Bacterial Peptidoglycan Biosynthesis and Its Inhibition.. Compreh. Nat. Prod. Chem. 1999;3:241–294.
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-091283-7.00080-1google scholar: lookup
  30. . Categorisation of Antibiotics Used in Animals Promotes Responsible Use to Protect Public and Animal Health.. .
  31. Meletis G. Carbapenem Resistance: Overview of the Problem and Future Perspectives.. Ther. Adv. Infect. Dis. 2016;3:15–21.
    doi: 10.1177/2049936115621709pmc: PMC4735501pubmed: 26862399google scholar: lookup
  32. Wand M.E, Bock L.J, Bonney L.C, Sutton J.M. Mechanisms of Increased Resistance to Chlorhexidine and Cross-Resistance to Colistin Following Exposure of Klebsiella pneumoniae Clinical Isolates to Chlorhexidine.. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016;61:e01162-16.
    doi: 10.1128/AAC.01162-16pmc: PMC5192135pubmed: 27799211google scholar: lookup
  33. Wu D, Lu R, Chen Y, Qiu J, Deng C, Tan Q. Study of Cross-Resistance Mediated by Antibiotics, Chlorhexidine and Rhizoma Coptidis in Staphylococcus aureus.. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2016;7:61–66.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jgar.2016.07.011pubmed: 27639138google scholar: lookup
  34. Laumen J.G.E, Van Dijck C, Manoharan-Basil S.S, Abdellati S, De Baetselier I, Cuylaerts V, De Block T, Van den Bossche D, Xavier B.B, Malhotra-Kumar S. Sub-Inhibitory Concentrations of Chlorhexidine Induce Resistance to Chlorhexidine and Decrease Antibiotic Susceptibility in Neisseria gonorrhoeae.. Front. Microbiol. 2021;12:776909.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.776909pmc: PMC8660576pubmed: 34899659google scholar: lookup
  35. Balcázar J.L, Subirats J, Borrego C.M. The Role of Biofilms as Environmental Reservoirs of Antibiotic Resistance.. Front. Microbiol. 2015;6:1216.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01216pmc: PMC4628128pubmed: 26583011google scholar: lookup
  36. Muhammad M.H, Idris A.L, Fan X, Guo Y, Yu Y, Jin X, Qiu J, Guan X, Huang T. Beyond Risk: Bacterial Biofilms and Their Regulating Approaches.. Front. Microbiol. 2020;11:928.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00928pmc: PMC7253578pubmed: 32508772google scholar: lookup
  37. Castro J, Lima Â, Sousa L.G.V, Rosca A.S, Muzny C.A, Cerca N. Crystal Violet Staining Alone Is Not Adequate to Assess Synergism or Antagonism in Multi-Species Biofilms of Bacteria Associated with Bacterial Vaginosis.. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022;11:795797.
    doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.795797pmc: PMC8766793pubmed: 35071046google scholar: lookup
  38. . EMA Gentamicin.. .
  39. Van Laar T.A, Chen T, You T, Leung K.P. Sublethal Concentrations of Carbapenems Alter Cell Morphology and Genomic Expression of Klebsiella pneumoniae Biofilms.. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015;59:1707–1717.
    doi: 10.1128/AAC.04581-14pmc: PMC4325768pubmed: 25583711google scholar: lookup
  40. Thieme L, Hartung A, Tramm K, Klinger-Strobel M, Jandt K.D, Makarewicz O, Pletz M.W. MBEC Versus MBIC: The Lack of Differentiation between Biofilm Reducing and Inhibitory Effects as a Current Problem in Biofilm Methodology.. Biol. Proced. Online. 2019;21:18.
    doi: 10.1186/s12575-019-0106-0pmc: PMC6743098pubmed: 31528123google scholar: lookup
  41. Abdullahi U.F, Igwenagu E, Mu’azu A, Aliyu S, Umar M.I. Intrigues of Biofilm: A Perspective in Veterinary Medicine.. Vet. World. 2016;9:12–18.
    doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.12-18pmc: PMC4819343pubmed: 27051178google scholar: lookup
  42. Hrynyshyn A, Simões M, Borges A. Biofilms in Surgical Site Infections: Recent Advances and Novel Prevention and Eradication Strategies.. Antibiotics 2022;11:69.
    doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11010069pmc: PMC8773207pubmed: 35052946google scholar: lookup
  43. Yan J, Bassler B.L. Surviving as a Community: Antibiotic Tolerance and Persistence in Bacterial Biofilms.. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;26:15–21.
    doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2019.06.002pmc: PMC6629468pubmed: 31295420google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.