FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / J Microbiol / Identification and methicillin resistance of coagulase-negat...
Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea)2012; 50(3); 444-451; doi: 10.1007/s12275-012-1550-6

Identification and methicillin resistance of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from nasal cavity of healthy horses.

Abstract: The aim of this study was an analysis of the staphylococcal flora of the nasal cavity of 42 healthy horses from 4 farms, along with species identification of CoNS isolates and determination of resistance to 18 antimicrobial agents, particularly phenotypic and genotypic methicillin resistance. From the 81 swabs, 87 staphylococci were isolated. All isolates possessed the gap gene but the coa gene was not detected in any of these isolates. Using PCR-RFLP of the gap gene, 82.8% of CoNS were identified: S. equorum (14.9%), S. warneri (14.9%), S. sciuri (12.6%), S. vitulinus (12.6%), S. xylosus (11.5%), S. felis (5.7%), S. haemolyticus (3.4%), S. simulans (3.4%), S. capitis (1.1%), S. chromogenes (1.1%), and S. cohnii subsp. urealyticus (1.1%). To our knowledge, this was the first isolation of S. felis from a horse. The species identity of the remaining Staphylococcus spp. isolates (17.2%) could not be determined from the gap gene PCR-RFLP analysis and 16S rRNA gene sequencing data. Based on 16S-23S intergenic transcribed spacer PCR, 11 different ITS-PCR profiles were identified for the 87 analyzed isolates. Results of API Staph were consistent with molecular identification of 17 (19.5%) isolates. Resistance was detected to only 1 or 2 of the 18 antimicrobial agents tested in the 17.2% CoNS isolates, including 6.9% MRCoNS. The mecA gene was detected in each of the 5 (5.7%) phenotypically cefoxitin-resistant isolates and in 12 (13.8%) isolates susceptible to cefoxitin. In total, from 12 horses (28.6%), 17 (19.5%) MRCoNS were isolated. The highest percentage of MRCoNS was noted among S. sciuri isolates (100%).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2012-06-30 PubMed ID: 22752908DOI: 10.1007/s12275-012-1550-6Google 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
  • 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 aimed to analyze the type of staphylococci present in the nasal cavity of healthy horses, identify the resistance of CoNS isolates to multiple antimicrobial agents, and identify their resistance to methicillin.

Sampling and Identification Results

  • The researchers took samples from the nasal cavity of 42 healthy horses across 4 farms.
  • From 81 nasal swabs, the researchers discovered 87 types of staphylococci.
  • Every isolate possessed the gap gene, however, none possessed the coa gene.
  • Through the use of PCR-RFLP of the gap gene, it was determined that 82.8% of CoNS were identified with various species. For instance, 14.9% were identified as S. equorum, and an equal percentage as S. warneri.
  • The research also led to the first-ever identification of S. felis in a horse, which accounted for 5.7% of the isolates.

Undetermined Isolates

  • The species of 17.2% of remaining Staphylococcus isolates could not be determined through gap gene PCR-RFLP analysis or 16S rRNA gene sequencing data. These were designated as ‘unknown’.

Methicillin Resistance

  • Resistance to 1 or 2 of the 18 antimicrobial agents was found in 17.2% of the CoNS isolates.
  • Out of these, 6.9% were MRCoNS or Methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci.
  • The mecA gene, a factor in methicillin resistance, was found in 5 (or 5.7%) isolates which also showed resistance to cefoxitin (a cephamycin antibiotic). It was also seen in 12 (or 13.8%) of the isolates that were susceptible to cefoxitin.
  • In total, 17 MRCoNS were isolated from 12 horses, representing 28.6% of the horse population and 19.5% of the identified isolates.
  • Among all species identified, S. sciuri had the highest percentage of MRCoNS at 100%.

Cite This Article

APA
Karakulska J, Fijałkowski K, Nawrotek P, Pobucewicz A, Poszumski F, Czernomysy-Furowicz D. (2012). Identification and methicillin resistance of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from nasal cavity of healthy horses. J Microbiol, 50(3), 444-451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12275-012-1550-6

Publication

Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea)
ISSN: 1976-3794
NlmUniqueID: 9703165
Country: Korea (South)
Language: English
Volume: 50
Issue: 3
Pages: 444-451

Researcher Affiliations

Karakulska, Jolanta
  • Department of Immunology, Microbiology and Physiological Chemistry Faculty of Biotechnology and Animal Husbandry West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin, Poland Doktora Judyma 24, 71-466, Szczecin, Poland.
Fijałkowski, Karol
    Nawrotek, Paweł
      Pobucewicz, Anna
        Poszumski, Filip
          Czernomysy-Furowicz, Danuta

            MeSH Terms

            • Animals
            • Anti-Bacterial Agents / pharmacology
            • Cluster Analysis
            • Coagulase / genetics
            • DNA, Bacterial / chemistry
            • DNA, Bacterial / genetics
            • DNA, Ribosomal / chemistry
            • DNA, Ribosomal / genetics
            • DNA, Ribosomal Spacer / chemistry
            • DNA, Ribosomal Spacer / genetics
            • Genes, Bacterial
            • Genotype
            • Horses
            • Methicillin Resistance
            • Microbial Sensitivity Tests
            • Molecular Sequence Data
            • Molecular Typing
            • Nasal Cavity / microbiology
            • Phylogeny
            • Polymerase Chain Reaction
            • Polymorphism, Restriction Fragment Length
            • RNA, Ribosomal, 16S / genetics
            • Sequence Analysis, DNA
            • Staphylococcus / classification
            • Staphylococcus / drug effects
            • Staphylococcus / genetics
            • Staphylococcus / isolation & purification
            • Staphylococcus haemolyticus

            References

            This article includes 32 references
            1. J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Mar;43(3):1149-57
              pubmed: 15750076
            2. J Clin Microbiol. 2005 May;43(5):2286-90
              pubmed: 15872257
            3. J Vet Med Sci. 2002 Sep;64(9):821-7
              pubmed: 12399608
            4. J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1019-25
              pubmed: 18174295
            5. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 Mar;17(3):461-7
              pubmed: 18050950
            6. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Oct;54(10):4352-9
              pubmed: 20679504
            7. Can J Vet Res. 2005 Oct;69(4):260-4
              pubmed: 16479723
            8. Vet Microbiol. 2010 Aug 26;144(3-4):347-52
              pubmed: 20167442
            9. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008 Dec 19;377(3):752-6
              pubmed: 18926798
            10. J Med Microbiol. 2006 May;55(Pt 5):523-528
              pubmed: 16585638
            11. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1998 Oct;27(4):224-8
              pubmed: 9812400
            12. Vet Microbiol. 2009 Jun 12;137(3-4):397-401
              pubmed: 19251386
            13. Vet Microbiol. 2009 May 12;136(3-4):300-5
              pubmed: 19110383
            14. Microbiology (Reading). 1996 Jan;142 ( Pt 1):3-16
              pubmed: 8581168
            15. J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Dec;38(12):4351-5
              pubmed: 11101563
            16. Am J Vet Res. 2000 Nov;61(11):1451-5
              pubmed: 11108196
            17. J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Oct;41(10):4740-4
              pubmed: 14532213
            18. Can Vet J. 2008 Aug;49(8):797-9
              pubmed: 18978975
            19. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Dec;11(12):1942-4
              pubmed: 16485485
            20. J Microbiol Methods. 2007 Sep;70(3):542-9
              pubmed: 17681623
            21. J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Nov;42(11):4988-95
              pubmed: 15528685
            22. J Clin Microbiol. 1995 May;33(5):1150-3
              pubmed: 7615720
            23. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2010 Jan;22(1):77-82
              pubmed: 20093688
            24. BMC Vet Res. 2011 Jan 27;7:6
              pubmed: 21272304
            25. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1998 Jul;48 Pt 3:1049-55
              pubmed: 9734063
            26. J Dairy Sci. 1991 Jun;74(6):1855-9
              pubmed: 1894794
            27. Biochemistry. 2007 Jul 10;46(27):8050-7
              pubmed: 17567045
            28. Vet Microbiol. 2006 Mar 10;113(1-2):131-6
              pubmed: 16303264
            29. Vet Microbiol. 2007 Apr 15;121(3-4):307-15
              pubmed: 17270365
            30. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002 Jul;46(7):2155-61
              pubmed: 12069968
            31. J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Sep;39(9):3099-103
              pubmed: 11526135
            32. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jan 1;30(1):416-7
              pubmed: 11752353
            Subscribe to our newsletter
            Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.