Abstract
Background:
In this study, we determine the vector competence of Musca domestica with reference to the transmission of susceptible and resistance bacterial strains in hospitals and slaughter house in Sanandaj City, west Iran.
Methods:
Totally 908 houseflies were collected to isolate bacteria from their external body based on standard procedures.Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method on Mueller Hinton agar based on recommendations of CLSI (formerly the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards).
Results:
From collected houseflies, 366 bacteria species were isolated. The most common isolated bacterium at hospitals was Klebsiella pneumoniae 43.3% (n= 90) followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa 37% (n= 77), while that of slaughterhouse was Proteus mirabilis. 29.1% (n= 46) followed by Citrobacter freundii 28.4% (n= 45). Among all the isolates from hospitals, cephalexin, chloramphenicol, ampicillin, and tetracycline, resistance rates were above 32.5% and gentamicin expressed the highest susceptibility among all the isolates from hospitals. It is worth to note that K. pneumoniae showed 61% and 44.5% resistance to cephalexin and chloramphenicol respectively. Similarly, all isolates from slaughterhouse were more than 28% and 30% resistant to cephalexin and chloramphenicol respectively. Surprisingly, among all the isolates, Citrobacter freundii were highly resistant to gentamicin.
Conclusion:
Houseflies collected from hospitals and slaughterhouse may be involved in the spread of drug resistant bacteria and may increase the potential of human exposure to drug resistant bacteria.
Keywords: House fly, bacterium, antibacterial resistance, hospitals, slaughterhouse
Introduction
The common house fly, Musca domestica is a medically-important insect worldwide (Fotedar 2001, Graczyk et al. 2001, Kabkaew et al. 2007). Houseflies have been implicated as vectors or transporters of various human pathogens, including Vibrio cholerae, Enterobacteriaceae pathogens, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas spp. (Olsen 1998, Fotedar 2001, Rajendran and Pandian 2003). Transmission takes place when the fly makes contact with people or their food. As many as 500000 microorganisms may swarm over its body and legs (Thirumalai Vasan et al. 2008).
“Flies can spread diseases because they feed freely on human food and dirty matter alike. The fly picks up disease-causing organisms while crawling and feeding. The diseases that flies can transmit include enteric infections, eye infections, poliomyelitis and certain skin infections.” Thus, houseflies are widely recognized as potential reservoirs and vectors of food borne pathogens (Pandian and Asumtha 2001, Khobdel et al. 2008). It is worth to note that a few studies also indicate that houseflies have been suspected to be reservoirs and vectors for pathogens (Zarin et al. 2007, Barin et al. 2010).
There have been no studies on the carriage of antibiotic-resistant, pathogenic bacteria by M. domestica in hospitals and slaughterhouse in Sanandaj. An increasing frequency of antibiotic resistance has been reported from all over of the world. In this regard, an attempt was made to determine the frequency of resistance and susceptible bacteria isolated from houseflies in Sanandaj, west of Iran.
Materials and Methods
Houseflies were captured by a sterile nylon net from the wards and corridors of the Tohid Hospital, Beassat Hospital, and the slaughterhouse of the city. The collected flies were transferred immediately to the Entomology Laboratory, and identified to species level by morphological characters such as thorax, wings and antenna.
After identification, 1 ml of sterile physiological saline solution was added to each vial, which was shaken vigorously for 1 min with the fly remaining inside. The fly was then removed from the saline, and was checked for bacteria dislodged from the external surfaces of the fly.
Bacterial Counts
Serial dilutions of a subsample of each bacterial suspension were prepared in sterile saline. Each dilution was then inoculated onto two plates of plate-count agar and incubated overnight at 37 °C. Colony forming units (CFU/ ml) were then counted so that the total numbers of bacteria recovered from the external surface of each fly could be estimated. Briefly, houseflies individually were shaken thoroughly in sterile saline solution (2 ml) for 2 min. The suspension was then serially diluted and inoculated on MacConkey agar, and Blood agar. Plates were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. The resulting isolates were characterized morphologically and further identifications were carried out following the methods of Koneman et al. 1992.
Antibiotic susceptibility test was performed by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method on Mueller Hinton agar based on recommendations of CLSI (formerly the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards) (NCCLS, 2003). The following antibiotics were used in this study: erythromycin, streptomycin, ampicillin, tetracycline, kanamycin, chloramphenicol, co-trimoxazole, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, nitrofurantoin, ceftriaxone, and cephalexin which were purchased from Patan Teb Company.
Results
From the 908 houseflies collected from the hospitals and slaughterhouse at Sanandaj, 366 (40.3%) bacterial species were isolated (Table 1).
Table 1.
Bacterial carrying rates for Musca domestica collected from hospitals and slaughter house at Sanandaj
| No. of bacterial species isolated from each fly | Number isolates for habitats | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Hospitals | Slaughter House | Total | |||||
|
| |||||||
| Male | Female | Total | Male | Female | Total | ||
|
| |||||||
| Total positive flies | 61 | 147 | 208 | 56 | 102 | 158 | |
| Total negative flies | 78 | 132 | 210 | 127 | 205 | 332 | |
| Total flies examined | 139 | 279 | 418 | 183 | 307 | 490 | 908 |
The most common bacterium isolated from M. domestica at hospitals was Klebsiella pneumoniae 43.3% (n= 90) followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa 37% (n= 77), while that of slaughterhouse was Proteus mirabilis 29.1 (n= 46) followed by Citrobacter freundii 28.4% (n= 45) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Details of bacteria isolated from House Fly collected from hospitals and Slaughter house at Sanandaj
|
Number isolates for habitats
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | Hospitals | Slaughter house | ||
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | |
| K. pneumoniae | 90 | 43.3 | 23 | 14.5 |
| P. aeruginosa | 77 | 37.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Citrobacter freundii | 12 | 05.7 | 45 | 28.4 |
| E. coli | 19 | 09.1 | 26 | 16.4 |
| Bacillus cereus | 10 | 04.8 | 18 | 11.4 |
| Proteus mirabilis | 0.0 | 0.0 | 46 | 29.1 |
| Total | 208 | 100 | 158 | 100 |
Among all the isolates from hospitals, cephalexin, chloramphenicol, ampicillin, and tetracycline, resistance rates were above 32.5% and gentamicin expressed the highest susceptibility among all the isolates from the hospitals. It is worth to note that K. pneumoniae showed 61% and 44.5% resistance to cephalexin and chloramphenicol, respectively (Table 3).
Table 3.
Antibiotic susceptibility pattern (%) of identified bacteria in hospitals at Sanadaj, Iran
|
Bacteria
|
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antibiotic | K. spp. (90) | P. aeruginosa (77) | E. coli (19) | B. cereus (10) | Proteus mirabilisa (12) | ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| R | I | S | R | I | S | R | I | S | R | I | S | R | I | S | |
| Ery | 46.6 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 39.0 | 36.3 | 24.6 | 26.0 | 42.1 | 31.5 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 20 | 16.0 | 41.6 | 41.6 |
| Strep | 38.8 | 34.4 | 26.6 | 32.5 | 41.5 | 25.9 | 31.0 | 26.3 | 42.1 | 30.0 | 50.0 | 20.0 | 33.0 | 66.6 | 0.0 |
| Amp | 43.3 | 38.8 | 17.7 | 35.0 | 45.4 | 19.4 | 31.0 | 26.3 | 42.1 | 30.0 | 40.0 | 30.0 | 25.0 | 33.3 | 41.6 |
| Tetra | 43.3 | 41.1 | 15.5 | 29.0 | 53.2 | 16.8 | 21.0 | 42.1 | 36.8 | 20.0 | 50.0 | 30.0 | 16.0 | 50.0 | 33.3 |
| Kana | 27.8 | 23.3 | 48.8 | 26.0 | 41.5 | 32.4 | 15.0 | 57.8 | 26.3 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 16.0 | 41.6 | 41.6 |
| Chlo | 44.5 | 46.6 | 08.8 | 32.5 | 23.3 | 44.1 | 31.0 | 42.1 | 26.3 | 20.0 | 70.0 | 10.0 | 16.0 | 58.3 | 25.0 |
| Co-tri | 35.5 | 31.1 | 33.3 | 31.0 | 32.4 | 36.3 | 26.0 | 63.1 | 10.5 | 10.0 | 50.0 | 40.0 | 08.3 | 33.3 | 58.3 |
| Gen | 11.0 | 16.6 | 72.2 | 09.0 | 46.7 | 44.1 | 15.0 | 42.1 | 42.1 | 20.0 | 50.0 | 30.0 | 16.0 | 50.0 | 33.3 |
| Cipro | 15.5 | 22.2 | 62.2 | 14.0 | 49.3 | 36.3 | 15.0 | 63.1 | 21.0 | 10.0 | 60.0 | 30.0 | 08.3 | 58.3 | 33.3 |
| Nitrof | 17.7 | 15.5 | 66.6 | 16.8 | 23.3 | 59.7 | 21.0 | 47.3 | 31.5 | 20.0 | 50.0 | 30.0 | 16.0 | 50.0 | 33.3 |
| Ceftri | 24.4 | 26.6 | 48.8 | 22.0 | 54.5 | 23.3 | 26.0 | 42.1 | 31.5 | 30.0 | 60.0 | 10.0 | 25.0 | 41.6 | 33.3 |
| Cepha | 61.0 | 31.1 | 07.7 | 44.0 | 28.5 | 27.2 | 42.0 | 47.3 | 10.5 | 40.0 | 50.0 | 10.0 | 33.0 | 50.0 | 16.6 |
Erythromycin, Streptomycin, Ampicillin, Tetracycline, Kanamycin, Chloramphenicol, Co-trimoxazole, Gentamicin, Ciprofloxacin, Nitrofurantoin, Ceftriaxone, Cephalexin
(S) = Sensitive, (I) = Intermediate, (R) = Resistant
Similarly, all the isolates from slaughter house were more than 28%, 30% resistance to cephalexin and chloramphenicol respectively (Table 4). Surprisingly, among all isolates, Citrobacter freundii were highly resistant to cephalexin.
Table 4.
Antibiotic susceptibility pattern (%) of identified bacteria at slaughter house in Sanandaj, Iran
|
Bacteria
|
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antibiotic | Klebsiella spp. (23) | Proteus mirabilis (46) | E. coli (26) | Citrobacter freundii (45) | Bacillus cereus (18) | ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| R | I | S | R | I | S | R | I | S | R | I | S | R | I | S | |
| Ery | 21.7 | 43.4 | 34.7 | 15.0 | 43.4 | 41.3 | 19.0 | 61.5 | 19.2 | 15.4 | 17.7 | 66.0 | 11.1 | 33.3 | 55.0 |
| Strep | 26.0 | 30.4 | 43.4 | 15.0 | 52.1 | 32.6 | 23.0 | 69.2 | 07.6 | 24.4 | 22.2 | 53.0 | 11.1 | 22.2 | 66.0 |
| Amp | 21.7 | 26.0 | 43.4 | 17.0 | 60.8 | 21.7 | 27.0 | 46.1 | 23.0 | 20.3 | 17.7 | 62.0 | 22.2 | 27.7 | 50.0 |
| Tetra | 13.0 | 34.7 | 52.1 | 13.0 | 43.4 | 43.4 | 19.0 | 69.2 | 11.5 | 22.2 | 08.8 | 68.0 | 16.6 | 22.2 | 61.0 |
| Kana | 17.0 | 26.0 | 56.5 | 15.0 | 41.3 | 43.4 | 15.0 | 65.3 | 19.2 | 24.4 | 24.4 | 51.0 | 05.5 | 22.2 | 72.0 |
| Chlo | 30.0 | 34.7 | 34.7 | 14.0 | 60.8 | 26.0 | 23.0 | 57.6 | 19.2 | 15.5 | 15.5 | 68.0 | 11.1 | 33.3 | 55.0 |
| Co-tri | 30.0 | 21.7 | 47.8 | 06.5 | 52.1 | 41.3 | 27.0 | 53.8 | 15.3 | 06.6 | 11.1 | 82.0 | 16.6 | 38.8 | 44.0 |
| Gen | 08.6 | 56.5 | 34.7 | 13.0 | 43.4 | 43.4 | 15.0 | 46.1 | 38.4 | 08.8 | 13.3 | 77.0 | 0.0 | 22.2 | 77.0 |
| Cipro | 13.0 | 39.1 | 47.8 | 06.5 | 54.3 | 39.1 | 11.5 | 65.3 | 23.0 | 04.4 | 11.1 | 84.0 | 0.0 | 38.8 | 61.0 |
| Nitrof | 13.0 | 52.1 | 34.7 | 15.0 | 43.4 | 41.3 | 19.0 | 53.8 | 26.9 | 20.0 | 26.6 | 53.0 | 0.0 | 27.7 | 72.0 |
| Ceftri | 21.7 | 34.7 | 43.4 | 19.0 | 39.1 | 41.3 | 23.0 | 57.6 | 19.2 | 17.7 | 22.2 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 44.4 | 55.0 |
| Cepha | 47.0 | 30.4 | 21.7 | 28.0 | 45.6 | 26.0 | 30.0 | 65.3 | 03.8 | 66.0 | 20.0 | 13.3 | 05.5 | 33.3 | 61.0 |
Erythromycin, Streptomycin, Ampicillin, Tetracycline, Kanamycin, Chloramphenicol, Co-trimoxazole, Gentamicin, Ciprofloxacin, Nitrofurantoin, Ceftriaxone, Cephalexin
Discussion
“The biology and ecology of M. domestica make it an ideal mechanical vector of human and animal pathogens. Cattle barns, poultry houses, slaughter houses, and hospitals are sites where house flies can reproduce” (Peter et al. 2007).
Many scientists indicated that the external organs of M. domestica (legs, wings and mouthparts) constituted a large source of bacteria they isolated (Graczyk 1999, Mutsuo et al. 1999). The results of this study indicated that M. domestica could play a great role as a mechanical carrier of bacteria. In this study, most of the bacteria isolated were medically important, including K. pnenumonae, P. aeruginosa, Proteus mirabilis. These findings agree with the results of Vazirianzadeh et al. (2008) in Ahvaz, which showed presence Escherichia coli, P. aeruginosa, and K. pneumonia on the housefly collected from slaughterhouse and zoo.
Our results are in accordance with other reports which highlight the importance of houseflies in carrying various pathogenic bacteria particularly K. pneumoniae being the most important at USA and Iran (Thaddeus et al. 2001, Khalil et al. 1994). The house flies caught in hospitals carried pathogenic bacteria more often than those caught at slaughter house which is in contrast with Sulaiman et al. (2000) study.
One of the most important problems facing global public health today is antimicrobial resistance. The problem is most horrible in developing countries, where the bacterial infections causing human disease are also those in which emerging antibiotic resistance is most evident (Shears 2000, Kalantar et al. 2008).
The resistance patterns of the K. pneumoniae isolated in the present study are shown in Table 3 and 4. The K. pneumoniae isolated from the hospitals houseflies were more resistant to cephalexin as compared to that of isolated from the slaughterhouse. Fotedar et al. (1992) and Sramova et al. (1992) reported similar multiple-resistance to antibiotics, in Klebsiella spp. from houseflies in hospitals environments.
Similarly, the resistance patterns of the P. aeroginosa from hospitals environment houseflies were frequently multiple-resistant, with more than 32% of the isolates each being resistant to erythromycin, streptomycin, ampicillin, and cephalexin. Therefore, houseflies trapped in hospitals may also participate more in the dispersion of antibiotic resistance into the environment. Multiple resistances to antibiotics are common among P. aeruginosa isolated from different clinical sources in Iran (Kalantar et al. 2009).
The present study indicates that housefly M. domestica poses a possible health risk to communities proved that the isolated strains of bacteria were resistant to various antibiotics. It is well-established fact that the resistance to various antimicrobials may be due to presence of some virulence gene, involvement of secretion machinery of multi drug efflux proteins, through mutations in bacterial genome or by gaining additional genes through horizontal gene transfer or by physiology dependent resistance (Mitchell et al. 2004, Rangrez et al. 2006).
In conclusion, we report that houseflies collected in hospitals and slaughterhouse may be involved in the spread of drug resistant bacteria and may increase the potential for human exposure to drug resistant bacteria. It is recommended that suitable steps must be taken to control the flies and monitor the sensitivity pattern of the pathogens transmitted by the houseflies.
Acknowledgments
This work received financial support from Medical University of Kurdistan (Grant number 680). The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
References
- Barin A, Arabkhazaeli F, Rahbari S, Madani S. The housefly, Musca domestica, as a possible mechanical vector of Newcastle disease virus in the laboratory and field. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2010;24(1):88–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2009.00859.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fotedar R. Vector potential of houseflies (Musca domestica) in the transmission of Vibrio cholerae in India. Acta Tropica. 2001;78:31–34. doi: 10.1016/s0001-706x(00)00162-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fotedar R, Banarjee U, Samantray J, Shriniwas S. Vector potential of the hospitals house flies with special reference to Klebsiella species. Epidemiol and Infec. 1992a;109:143–147. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Graczyk T, Cranfield R, Fayer R, Bixler H. House flies (Musca domestica) as transport hosts of Cryptosporidium parvum. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61:500–504. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1999.61.500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Graczyk T, Knight R, Gilman R, Cranfield H. The role of non-biting flies in the epidemiology of human infectious diseases. Microbes and Infection. 2001;3:231–235. doi: 10.1016/s1286-4579(01)01371-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kabkaew L, Manasanant B, Banyong K, Somsak P, Yupha R, Kom S. Comparison between Musca domestica and Chrysomya megacephala as carriers of bacteria in northern Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2007;38(1):38–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kalantar E, Ekrami A. Bacterial infection in burn patients. Indian J Med Res. 2008;127:416. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kalantar E, Motlagh M, Lordnejad H, Reshamansh N. Prevalence of urinary tract pathogens and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in children at 55 hospitals in Iran. Iranian J Clin Infect Dis. 2008;3(3):149–154. [Google Scholar]
- Khalil K, Lindblom G, Mazhar K, Kaijsher B. Flies and water as reservoirs for bacterial enteropathogens in urban and rural areas in and around Lahore, Pakistan. Epidemiol Infect. 1994;113:435–444. doi: 10.1017/s0950268800068448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Khoobdel M, Jonaidi N, Seiedi M. Blowfly and flesh (Diptera: Cyclorrhpha) fauna in Tehran, Iran. J Entomology. 2008;5(3):85–92. [Google Scholar]
- Koneman EW, Allen SD, Janda WM, Schreckenberger PC, Winn WC., Jr . Diagnostic microbiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell J, De-Medina Tali, Yehuda C. Epidemiological interpretation of antibiotic resistance studies: what are we missing? Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2004;2:979–983. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mutsuo Kobayashi, Toshinori Sasaki, Noriko Saito, Kazumichi Tamura, Kenji Suzuki, Haruo Watanabe, Noriaki Agu. Houseflies: not simple mechanical vectors of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61(4):625–629. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1999.61.625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards . Performance standards for antimicrobial disc susceptibility tests. 8th ed. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; Wayne, Pa: 2003. Approved standard M2-A8 2003; [Google Scholar]
- Olsen A. Regulatory action criteria for filth and other extraneous materials. III. Review of flies and food-borne enteric diseases. Regulat Toxicol and Pharmacol. 1998;28:199–211. doi: 10.1006/rtph.1998.1271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pandian R, Asumtha A. Vector competence of Musca domestica Linn.in slum areas. Insect Environment. 2001;7:118–119. [Google Scholar]
- Peter S, Christopher J, Randle W, Moore S, Richard K. Isolation of Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis from Houseflies (Musca domestica) Found in Rooms Containing Salmonella Serovar Enteritidis-Challenged Hens. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(19):6030–6035. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00803-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rajendran J, Pandian R. Microbial flora isolated from an urban population of non-biting vector Musca domestica and their susceptibility to antibiotics. Asian Journal Microbial Biotechnol and Environ Sc. 2003;5:381–385. [Google Scholar]
- Rangrez A, Dayananda K, Atanur S, Joshi R, Patole L, Shouche Y. Detection of Conjugation Related Type Four Secretion Machinery in Aeromonas culicicola. PLoS One. 2006;1(1):115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shears P. Antimicrobial resistance in the tropics. Tropical Doctor. 2000;30:114–116. doi: 10.1177/004947550003000225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sramova H, Daniel M, Absolonova V, Dedicova D, Jedlickova Z, Lhotova H, Petras P, Subertova V. Epidemiological role of arthropods detectable in health facilities. J Hosp Infec. 1992;20:281–292. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(92)90006-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sulaiman S, Othman M, Aziz A. Isolations of enteric pathogens from synanthropic flies trapped in downtown Kuala Lumpur. J Vect Ecolo. 2000;25:90–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thaddeus K, Ronald K, Robert H, Gilman R, Cranfield S. The role of non-biting flies in the epidemiology of human infectious diseases. Micr Infect. 2001;3:231–235. doi: 10.1016/s1286-4579(01)01371-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thirumalai Vasan, Immanual Gilwax, Selvaraj Pandian. Vector competence of Musca domestica Linn. with reference to the virulent strains of Salmonella typhi in bus stands and markets at Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Current Biotica. 2008;2(2):154–160. [Google Scholar]
- Vazirianzadeh B, Setareh S, Mahmoud R, Hajhossien Reza, Manijeh M. Identification of bacteria which possible transmitted by Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in the region of Ahvaz, SW Iran. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2008;1(1):28–31. [Google Scholar]
- Zarrin M, Vazirianzadeh Babak, Solary Setareh Shams, Mahmoudabad Ali Zarei, Rahdar Mahmoud. Isolation Of fungi from housefly (Musca Domestica) in Ahwaz, Iran. Pak J Med Sci. 2007;23(6):917–919. [Google Scholar]