Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Public Health Microbiology

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Pork Production Shower Facilities

Kerry R. Leedom Larson, Abby L. Harper, Blake M. Hanson, Michael J. Male, Shylo E. Wardyn, Anne E. Dressler, Elizabeth A. Wagstrom, Shaliesh Tendolkar, Daniel J. Diekema, Kelley J. Donham, Tara C. Smith
Kerry R. Leedom Larson
1Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Abby L. Harper
1Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
2Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Blake M. Hanson
2Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
3Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael J. Male
2Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
3Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shylo E. Wardyn
2Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne E. Dressler
2Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth A. Wagstrom
4Center for Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shaliesh Tendolkar
5Department of Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa
6Program of Hospital Epidemiology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
7Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel J. Diekema
5Department of Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa
6Program of Hospital Epidemiology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
7Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kelley J. Donham
1Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tara C. Smith
2Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
3Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: tara-smith@uiowa.edu
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01128-10
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

As methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been found in pigs, we sought to determine if MRSA is present in pork production shower facilities. In two production systems tested, 3% and 26% of shower samples were positive for MRSA. spa types identified included t034, t189, t753, and t1746.

Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) is a novel pathogen associated with cattle, veal calves, horses, pigs, and poultry (11-13, 15, 16, 19, 22-24, 26). To date, multilocus sequence type 398 (ST398) has been most often associated with LA-MRSA. The spa type most commonly associated with ST398 in North America is t034, although up to 24 other associated spa types have been identified in North America and Europe (21).

ST398 nasal carriage has been identified in people with occupational exposure to swine (4, 6, 12, 17, 19, 26). In the U.S., ST398 colonization has been reported in two publications (2, 19), but environmental reservoirs were not examined in those studies. Locker room and athletic facilities are known reservoirs for human MRSA strains (14, 20).

Shower-in, shower-out facilities are common in modern pork production systems. Previous research has suggested that pork production shower facilities do not harbor MRSA (1); however, the presence of MRSA in pigs on those farms was not examined. We sought to determine if MRSA can be cultured from showers within production systems known to harbor pigs that yielded MRSA-positive nasal swabs.

Two conventional swine production systems were selected for this study in Iowa and Illinois. We sampled two wean-to-finish sites with 6,500 pigs each in production system A (PSA). In production system B (PSB), we sampled one 5,200-sow site, two nursery sites consisting of approximately 15,000 pigs at two sites, and one 8,000-animal finisher site.

Swine nasal swabs.

In PSA, prior to shower sampling, pigs at both wean-to-finish sites were sampled (n = 50). In PSB, swine nasal swabs had been previously collected (n = 209) (19). Sampling, bacterial isolation, and molecular typing were conducted as previously described (19). At PSA, no MRSA was detected in swine nasal swab samples from the first site, and 7/25 (28%) of samples were positive for MRSA from the second site. Overall, the prevalence of MRSA in swine at PSA was 7/50 (14%). In PSB, 147/209 (70%) of swine nasal swab samples were positive for MRSA (19). From PSA, two swine nasal samples were chosen for additional molecular testing. Both were negative for the Panton-Valentine leukocidin gene (pvl, a potential virulence gene) (18) and were spa type t1746. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) did not identify an established sequence type. From PSB, swine nasal swab samples had been previously confirmed as ST398 by MLST (19).

Shower swabs.

In 10 showers, we collected 10 samples each using sterile swabs (BD BBL culture swabs with Stuart liquid media; Becton Dickinson and Company) moistened with sterile phosphate-buffered saline. We focused on areas in the showers and changing room that workers contact frequently, because so-called “hand-touch” sites are frequently contaminated with pathogens in hospitals (5). In PSA, we found one positive sample from three showers, for an overall prevalence of 1/30 (3%). The positive sample was taken from clothing hooks on the “dirty” side of the shower changing area, where employees enter the shower area before accessing the rooms holding pigs. The isolate was pvl negative and spa type t034. Previously, spa type t034 has been associated with ST398 in the Ridom SpaServer database (www.ridom.de).

In PSB, we found 18 positive samples from seven showers, for an overall prevalence of 18/70 (26%). MRSA-positive samples were collected from the following sites: shower floor (n = 5), shower drain (n = 3), clean side floor (n = 2), locker handle (n = 2), shower curtain, shower wall, dirty-side floor, light switch, chair, and soap bottle (one each). All isolates were pvl negative. Identified spa types were t034, t1746, t189, and t753. One sample (spa type t189) was identified as ST188. Novel sequence types were identified for four samples (spa types 1746 and 753) (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Characteristics of selected swine nasal swabs and shower swabs

Eight samples were selected for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Five of eight (63%) isolates were resistant to oxacillin, seven (88%) were resistant to tetracycline, and two (25%) were resistant to clindamycin (Table 1). Samples that were susceptible to oxacillin by the broth microdilution test were recultured on MRSA selective plates and were retested with the MRSA latex agglutination test and mecA PCR (3) to ensure that samples were correctly identified as MRSA. Oxacillin-susceptible, mecA-positive MRSA has been previously reported (10, 25).

spa type t1746 was identified in swine nasal swab samples from PSA and from a locker room chair in PSB. Upon further testing, a novel sequence type associated with spa type 1746 was found. spa type t189 was isolated from a shower floor at the sow site at PSB. This spa type has previously been associated with ST188 (7). Our sample was also identified as ST188 by MLST. spa type t753 was isolated from a shower drain at the PSB sow site. A novel ST was identified for this isolate.

At site 5, a finishing location in PSB, we observed that although 50% of swine sampled were colonized with MRSA, no shower samples were positive. Interestingly, this shower was separated from the swine barn, indicating that physical separation from animals or dust may be important. This arrangement may also limit airborne spread, which has been previously documented for S. aureus in and around swine barns (8, 9).

This study had several limitations, including a small sample size. We did not test human workers at the farm. Therefore, we cannot be sure of the relative contributions of MRSA of human versus livestock origin in our positive shower samples. Both production systems tested utilize antimicrobials for prophylactic and therapeutic reasons. We did not test production systems that abstain from antimicrobial use and therefore cannot speculate on antimicrobial use and the finding of MRSA in showers. Further studies are needed to determine whether environmental MRSA reservoirs are associated with an increased risk of colonization and/or infection in pork production workers and to determine the most effective methods of MRSA control in the shower environment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported (in part) by a pilot project research training grant from the Heartland Center for Occupational Health and Safety at the University of Iowa. The Heartland Center, an Education and Research Center, is supported by Training Grant No. T42OH008491 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 10 May 2010.
    • Accepted 25 October 2010.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 19 November 2010.
  • Copyright © 2011, American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Amass, S. F., R. Jolie, J. L. Schneider, and P. Morgan. 2005. A pilot study to determine the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in showers at pork production facilities, gymnasiums, and private residences in Indiana. J. Swine Health Prod. 13:150-151.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Bhat, M., et al. 2009. Staphylococcus aureus ST398, New York City and Dominican Republic. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 15:285-287.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Bosgelmez-Tinaz, G., S. Ulusoy, B. Aridogan, and F. Coskun-Ari. 2006. Evaluation of different methods to detect oxacillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and their clinical laboratory utility. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 25:410-412.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Cui, S., et al. 2009. Isolation and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from swine and workers in China. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 64:680-683.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    Dancer, S. J. 2009. The role of environmental cleaning in the control of hospital-acquired infection. J. Hosp. Infect. 73:378-385.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Denis, O., et al. 2009. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in swine farm personnel, Belgium. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 15:1098-1101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Ghaznavi-Rad, E., et al. 2010. Predominance and emergence of clones of hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Malaysia. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:867-872.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Gibbs, S. G., et al. 2006. Isolation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from the air plume downwind of a swine confined or concentrated animal feeding operation. Environ. Health Perspect. 114:1032-1037.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Green, C. F., S. G. Gibbs, P. M. Tarwater, L. C. Mota, and P. V. Scarpino. 2006. Bacterial plume emanating from the air surrounding swine confinement operations. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 3:9-15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Hososaka, Y., et al. 2007. Characterization of oxacillin-susceptible mecA-positive Staphylococcus aureus: a new type of MRSA. J. Infect. Chemother. 13:79-86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Juhasz-Kaszanyitzky, E., et al. 2007. MRSA transmission between cows and humans. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13:630-632.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Khanna, T., R. Friendship, C. Dewey, and J. S. Weese. 2008. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in pigs and pig farmers. Vet. Microbiol. 128:298-303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Leenders, A. C., M. Janssen, N. H. M. Renders, and M. Pelk. 2007. Pig's MRSA on a poultry farm? Infectieziekten Bull. 18:43-44.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Montgomery, K., T. J. Ryan, A. Krause, and C. Starkey. 2010. Assessment of athletic health care facility surfaces for MRSA in the secondary school setting. J. Environ. Health 72:8-11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Mooji, R., A. Troelstra, J. M. Jenkins, and S. F. T. Thijsen. 2007. MRSA in calves. Infectieziekten Bull. 18:236.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Mulders, M. N., et al. 2010. Prevalence of livestock-associated MRSA in broiler flocks and risk factors for slaughterhouse personnel in The Netherlands. Epidemiol. Infect. 138:743-755.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Neela, V., et al. 2009. Prevalence of ST9 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among pigs and pig handlers in Malaysia. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47:4138-4140.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Rasigade, J. P., et al. 2010. Global distribution and evolution of Panton-Valentine leukocidin-positive methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, 1981-2007. J. Infect. Dis. 201:1589-1597.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    Smith, T. C., et al. 2009. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain ST398 is present in Midwestern U.S. swine and swine workers. PLoS One 4:e4258.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Stanforth, B., A. Krause, C. Starkey, and T. J. Ryan. 2010. Prevalence of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in high school wrestling environments. J. Environ. Health 72:12-16.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Vanderhaeghen, W., K. Hermans, F. Haesebrouck, and P. Butaye. 2010. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in food production animals. Epidemiol. Infect. 138:606-625.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    Voss, A., F. Loeffen, J. Bakker, C. Klaassen, and M. Wulf. 2005. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farming. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11:1965-1966.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.
    Weese, J. S., et al. 2005. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in horses and horse personnel, 2000-2002. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11:430-435.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    Weese, J. S., et al. 2005. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in horses and humans who work with horses. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 226:580-583.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Witte, W., B. Pasemann, and C. Cuny. 2007. Detection of low-level oxacillin resistance in mecA-positive Staphylococcus aureus. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 13:408-412.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    Wulf, M., and A. Voss. 2008. MRSA in livestock animals—an epidemic waiting to happen? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 14:519-521.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Pork Production Shower Facilities
Kerry R. Leedom Larson, Abby L. Harper, Blake M. Hanson, Michael J. Male, Shylo E. Wardyn, Anne E. Dressler, Elizabeth A. Wagstrom, Shaliesh Tendolkar, Daniel J. Diekema, Kelley J. Donham, Tara C. Smith
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jan 2011, 77 (2) 696-698; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01128-10

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Applied and Environmental Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Pork Production Shower Facilities
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Pork Production Shower Facilities
Kerry R. Leedom Larson, Abby L. Harper, Blake M. Hanson, Michael J. Male, Shylo E. Wardyn, Anne E. Dressler, Elizabeth A. Wagstrom, Shaliesh Tendolkar, Daniel J. Diekema, Kelley J. Donham, Tara C. Smith
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jan 2011, 77 (2) 696-698; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01128-10
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Swine nasal swabs.
    • Shower swabs.
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AEM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AppEnvMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

 

Print ISSN: 0099-2240; Online ISSN: 1098-5336