AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jackson, C. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ladely, S. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jackson, C. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ladely, S. R.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Jackson, C. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ladely, S. R.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, July 2004, p. 4205-4210, Vol. 70, No. 7
0099-2240/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AEM.70.7.4205-4210.2004

Effects of Tylosin Use on Erythromycin Resistance in Enterococci Isolated from Swine

Charlene R. Jackson,* Paula J. Fedorka-Cray, John B. Barrett, and Scott R. Ladely

Antimicrobial Resistance Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Athens, Georgia 30605

Received 24 November 2003/ Accepted 29 March 2004

The effect of tylosin on erythromycin-resistant enterococci was examined on three farms; farm A used tylosin for growth promotion, farm B used tylosin for treatment of disease, and farm C did not use tylosin for either growth promotion or disease treatment. A total of 1,187 enterococci were isolated from gestation, farrowing, suckling, nursery, and finishing swine from the farms. From a subset of those isolates (n = 662), 59% (124 out of 208), 28% (80 out of 281), and 2% (4 out of 170) were resistant to erythromycin (MIC ≥ 8 µg/ml) from farms A, B, and C, respectively. PCR analysis and Southern blotting revealed that 95% (65 out of 68) of isolates chosen from all three farms for further study were positive for ermB, but all were negative for ermA and ermC. By using Southern blotting, ermB was localized to the chromosome in 56 of the isolates while 9 isolates from farms A and B contained ermB on two similar-sized plasmid bands (12 to 16 kb). Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis revealed that the isolates were genetically diverse and represented a heterogeneous population of enterococci. This study suggests that although there was resistance to a greater number of enterococcal isolates on a farm where tylosin was used as a growth promotant, resistant enterococci also existed on a farm where no antimicrobial agents were used.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: 950 College Station Rd., United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Antimicrobial Resistance Research Unit, Richard B. Russell Research Center, Athens, GA 30605. Phone: (706) 546-3604. Fax: (706) 546-3616. E-mail: cjackson{at}saa.ars.usda.gov.


Applied and Environmental Microbiology, July 2004, p. 4205-4210, Vol. 70, No. 7
0099-2240/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AEM.70.7.4205-4210.2004




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 2004 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.