Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier Sponsored Documents logoLink to Elsevier Sponsored Documents
. 2020 Jan;107:106756. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106756

Antimicrobial residues, non-typhoidal Salmonella, Vibrio spp. and associated microbiological hazards in retail shrimps purchased in Ho Chi Minh city (Vietnam)

Nguyen Thi Phuong Yen a, Nguyen Thi Nhung a, Nguyen Thi Bich Van a, Nguyen Van Cuong a, Le Tran Tien Chau a, Huynh Ngoc Trinh a, Chu Van Tuat b, Nguyen Dong Tu c, Nguyen Phu Huong Lan d, James Campbell a,e, Guy Thwaites a,e, Stephen Baker a,e, Juan Carrique-Mas a,e,∗
PMCID: PMC6894321  PMID: 31902975

Abstract

We investigated antimicrobial residues, non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS), Vibrio spp. and their associated antimicrobial resistance (AMR), in shrimps locally purchased in Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam). In addition, we investigated the relationship between AMR in NTS, Vibrio spp. and antimicrobial residue in the same sample. A total of 40 samples of shrimp heads/shells from different retail sources was cultured using ISO 6579–1:2017 (NTS) and ISO/TS 21872–1:2007 (Vibrio spp.). Phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility was investigated using Vitek (NTS, 34 antimicrobials) and disk diffusion (Vibrio spp., 12 antimicrobials). A total of 9 (22.5%) samples contained antimicrobial residue, including tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, sulfonamides and macrolides (in 7.5%, 7.5%, 2.5% and 2.5% of samples, respectively). Shrimp samples from supermarkets had a higher prevalence of antimicrobial residue than those purchased in street markets (50% vs. 13.3%) (p = 0.049). A total of 30 (75%) samples were contaminated with NTS. All samples contained Vibrio spp., with V. parahaemolyticus being most common (87.5% samples). A total of 58.9% NTS isolates were multidrug resistant. With regards to the highest priority, critically important antimicrobials, the highest resistance corresponded to quinolones (14.4–47.8%), followed by 3rd and 4th generation cephalosporins (3.3–7.8%). Vibrio spp. isolates were characterised by their high resistance against ampicillin (82.7%) and 3rd generation cephalosporins (8.3–16.5%). Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL) activity was detected in 28.1% V. parahaemolyticus isolates. Half of ESBL-positive V. parahaemolyticus strains harboured blaCTX-M1. We found an association between the presence of residues and the number of resistances for NTS (p = 0.075) and Vibrio spp. isolates (p = 0.093) from the same sample. These findings suggest that the presence of residues may contribute to the selection of AMR in foodborne pathogens in shrimps. Authorities should strengthen policies aiming at restricting inappropriate antimicrobial usage in shrimp farming, and step up monitoring of antimicrobial residues and food-borne pathogens at retail in Vietnam.

Keywords: Shrimp, Non-typhoidal Salmonella, Vibrio, Residues, Antimicrobial resistance, Vietnam

Highlights

  • •

    Highest prevalence of antimicrobial residues found in shrimps from supermarkets.

  • •

    75% samples were contaminated with non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS).

  • •

    Isolates from samples with antimicrobial residues had highest prevalence of phenotypic resistance.

  • •

    Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase activity detected in 28.1% V. parahaemolyticus isolates.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest threats to our society (O'Neill, 2016). Among other sources, humans may acquire AMR bacterial infections or AMR-encoding genes through the consumption of contaminated food, including fish and shellfish (Cabello et al., 2013, Likotrafiti et al., 2018). In recent years shrimp farming has rapidly increased, reaching a global production of 3.2 million metric tons in 2017, much of it taking place in Asia (Anon., 2018). This increase is happening in a context of rapid globalization of markets, as well as the threat of climate change (Lauria et al., 2018). Antimicrobials are widely used in shrimp and aquaculture production, both to treat and prevent diseases (Henriksson et al., 2018). Contamination of aquaculture food products with antimicrobial residues represents a potential health hazard to the consumer due to food poisoning, the development of allergy problems, changes of the intestinal flora, as well as the emergence and subsequent spread of antimicrobial resistance (Okocha, Olatoye, & Adedeji, 2018).

Non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) and certain Vibrio spp. are major microbiological hazards associated with shrimp and seafood consumption (Baker-Austin et al., 2018, Tusevljak et al., 2012). Vibrio parahaemolyticus is the leading cause of seafood-borne bacterial gastroenteritis in the world. Both its thermostable direct hemolysin (tdh) and tdh-related hemolysin (trh) are considered major virulence factors of this micro-organism (Raghunath, 2015). In the late 1990s’, V. parahaemolyticus was implicated in a large outbreak of enteric disease in central Vietnam, with 523 cases reported (Chowdhury et al., 2004).

NTS is a major cause of gastroenteritis worldwide (Majowicz et al., 2010). In Vietnam, NTS is recognised as a major cause of pediatric diarrhoea (Thompson et al., 2012). There is also evidence of an increase in the incidence of severe invasive infections in hospitalised patients associated due to this organism (Lan et al., 2016, Nga et al., 2012).

The Vietnamese shrimp industry has experienced a considerably expansion over recent years, with most of its production being aimed the export market (mostly to the USA, Europe and Japan). In 2017, shrimp exports made up about half of the total Vietnam seafood exports, with sales worth 3.8 billion US$ (Hong, Hien, Thu, & Lebailly, 2017).

Shrimp exports are regularly screened for their microbiological safety by the companies themselves. However, little is known about the microbiological safety of shrimps available for domestic consumption. Therefore, the aims of this study were: (1) to investigate major foodborne hazards associated with shrimps from local retail sites in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam, such as antimicrobial residues, NTS and Vibrio spp.; and (2) to characterise the AMR profile of these organisms, including the presence of Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBL) and colistin resistance. In addition we investigated the relationship between the presence of AMR in the two bacterial species and antimicrobial residues in the same batches, which to our knowledge has not been previously investigated.

2. Methods

2.1. Sample collection and identification

Batches of shrimps (250–300 g each) were purchased from 40 different retail sites located in 10 districts of HCMC (Vietnam) from March to June 2018. In order to maximize the diversity of sources, from each district three street markets and one supermarket were selected. From each retail site, one batch of live or dead shrimps (chilled, not frozen) was purchased. Shrimps were collected into a clean plastic bag, and were transported to the laboratory within 2 h in an ice-containing box. Five representative specimens per batch were weighted using precision scales. Shrimp species were identified based on their morphological features. Using a pair of sterile scissors, the heads, legs and exoskeleton were separated from the muscle tissue, and were subsequently pooled (shell mix). Muscle tissue samples were investigated for the presence of antimicrobial residues, and the shell mixes were investigated for NTS and Vibrio spp.

2.2. Antimicrobial residue analyses

Shrimp muscle tissue samples were investigated for antimicrobial residues using a hierarchical approach. Firstly, they were screened using PremiTest (R-Biopharm AG, Germany), an assay based on the inhibition growth of Bacillus stearothermophilus spores. Positive or inconclusive result samples were then examined for the presence of macrolides, amphenicols, tetracyclines, β-lactams and sulfonamides antimicrobial classes, as well as for the presence of chloramphenicol, streptomycin and gentamicin/neomycin using a Charm II analyzer 7600 (Charm Sciences, USA) (Gaudin, Juhel-Gaugain, Moretain, & Sanders, 2008). Samples that tested positive by Charm II were then confirmed for specific antimicrobials within each class by Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). In addition, PremiTest-positive samples were investigated for quinolones by LC-MS/MS. (See Table A with the list of antimicrobials investigated by LC-MS/MS).

2.3. Isolation of NTS and vibrio spp.

The shrimp shell mixes were investigated for NTS using a modified ISO 6579–1:2017 method. Briefly, from each sample 25 g of homogenized shell mix was pre-enriched in 225 mL buffered peptone water (BPW, Oxoid, UK) at 37 °C for 18 h. A loop of pre-enrichment media was then inoculated on Modified Semi-solid Rappaport-Vassiliadis (MSRV, Oxoid, UK), and incubated at 41.5 °C for 24 h. and positive growth was further inoculated on chromogenic Rambach agar (CHROMagar, France) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h (Carrique-Mas, Barnes, McLaren, & Davies, 2009). Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) (Bruker, Germany) was used to investigate the species identity of three suspected (pink) isolates from each culture. NTS isolates were further classified as either group B, C, D, E or ‘others’ according to the Kauffmann-White scheme using relevant poly-O antiserum (Grimont P.A. & Weill, 2007). Shrimp shell mixes (25 g) were also investigated for the presence of Vibrio spp. using a modification of the ISO/TS 21872–1:2007 method. Briefly, the steps were: (1) 25 g of the shell mix was suspended in 225 mL of alkaline saline peptone water (ASPW) at 41.5 °C for 24 h; (2) a loop of enrichment was cultured on thiosulfate citrate bile and sucrose agar (TCBS, Oxoid, UK) at 37 °C for 24 h. Four suspected Vibrio spp. isolates from each sample were confirmed by MALDI-TOF.

2.4. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

All confirmed NTS isolates were tested for their antimicrobial susceptibility against a panel of 34 antimicrobials belonging to 11 classes by Vitek (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) (Livermorea et al., 2002) (33 antimicrobials), as well as by Etest (BioMérieux, France) (colistin). All Vibrio spp. isolates were tested using the disk diffusion method for 12 antimicrobials representative of eight classes (Oxoid, UK). The full list of antimicrobials investigated is displayed in Tables C4 and C5. NTS and Vibrio spp. isolates were classified as susceptible, intermediate or resistant according to CLSI guidelines (M100-S27 for NTS, M45-A2 for Vibrio spp.) (Anon, 2010, Anon, 2017a). A strain was defined as ‘multidrug resistant’ (MDR) if it was fully resistant to antimicrobials belonging to at least three different classes. The potential production of ESBLs was investigated by the ‘comparative disk diffusion method’, using cefotaxime and ceftazidime disks alone, as well as in combination with clavulanate (Anon., 2017a). Antimicrobial susceptibility results were sorted according to the WHO list of antimicrobials of human health importance (Anon., 2017b).

2.5. Determination of serovar identity of NTS

NTS isolates were further classified as belonging to either group B, C, D, E or ‘others’ according to the Kauffmann-White scheme using poly-O antiserum (Grimont P.A. & Weill, 2007). From each sample, one isolate representative of each a serogroup-antimicrobial susceptibility testing result pattern was investigated by Multi-Locus Sequence Typing (MLST). The MLST scheme followed is based on seven loci aroC, dnaN, hemD, hisD, purE, sucA and thrA (Yun et al., 2015).

2.6. Investigation of tdh and trh genes of vibrio spp. by PCR

The presence of genes encoding a thermostable direct hemolysin (tdh) and a tdh-related hemolysin gene (trh) was investigated by PCR in all Vibrio spp. isolates (Tada et al., 1992). Positive and negative control isolates were used. The positive control isolates originated from confirmed human cases.

2.7. Investigation of ESBL and plasmid mediated colistin resistance-encoding genes by PCR

The presence of blaCTX-M(1, 2, 8, 9 and 25), blaTEM, blaSHV, and blaOXA genes (all encoding extended-spectrum β-lactamases) was investigated by multiplex PCR (Dallenne, Da Costa, Decre, Favier, & Arlet, 2010) in all NTS and Vibrio spp. isolates that tested positive phenotypically for ESBL. The presence of plasmid-mediated genes (mcr-1 to mcr-5) among phenotypic colistin-resistant isolates was investigated by multiplex PCR (Rebelo et al., 2018).

2.8. Statistical analyses

We investigated 40 shrimp batches with the aim of determining the prevalence of residues, based on an expected prevalence of 8%, a 95% level of confidence and an 8% relative precision. We expected to obtain 50 NTS isolates from these batches. This sample size (50) allowed determining a prevalence of MDR of ∼27% (based on published data) with a 95% level of confidence and a 9% relative precision. The prevalence of contamination and resistance across variables was compared using chi-square tests. The level of agreement between presence of residues and presence of intermediate (or resistant) isolates in each shrimp batch sample was investigated using the kappa statistic.

3. Results

3.1. Shrimp samples

The 40 batches investigated included specimens of five shrimp species: white leg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) (30) (22.5 g weight; 16.2 ± Standard Deviation (SD) 1.2 cm length), giant tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) (5) (22.0 g; 15.4 ± SD 1.4 cm), banana shrimp (Penaeus merguiensis) (3) (17.3 g, 12.5 ± SD 1.6 cm), greasy-back shrimp (Metapenaeus ensis) (1) (11.5 g; 11.5 ± SD 1.4 cm), and giant prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) (34.3 g; 16.6 ± SD 1.1 cm). The descriptive data for the samples investigated, and the prevalence of PremiTest, NTS and Vibrio spp. sample positivity results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Description, prevalence of residues, NTS and Vibrio spp. among 40 shrimp batches purchased in HCMC.

Variable No. samples No. (%) positive
PremiTest NTS (%) Vibrio species
V. parahaemolyticus V. navarrensis V. alginolyticus V. cholerae non-O1 V. vulnificus V. fluvialis
Type of retail site
 Supermarket 10 5 (50.0%) 6 (60.0%) 9 (90.0%) 7 (70.0%) 4 (40%) 6 (60.0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 (0%)
 Street market 30 4 (13.3%) 24 (80.0%) 26 (86.7%) 17 (56.7%) 17 (56.7%) 9 (30.0%) 7 (23.3%) 4 (13.3%)
Shrimp species
 White leg shrimp 30 8 (26.7%) 22 (73.3%) 26 (86.7%) 15 (50.0%) 16 (53.3%) 12 (40.0%) 7 (23.3%) 4 (13.3%)
 Giant tiger shrimp 5 1 (20.0%) 3 (60.0%) 4 (80.0%) 5 (100%) 2 (40.0%) 2 (40.0%) 1 (20.0%) 0 (0%)
 Other species 5 0 (0%) 5 (100%) 5 (100%) 4 (80%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%)
Condition
 Alive 17 3 (17.6%) 12 (70.6%) 16 (94.1%) 8 (47.1%) 11 (64.7%) 4 (23.5%) 5 (29.4%) 4 (23.5%)
 Dead 23 6 (26.1%) 18 (78.3%) 19 (82.6%) 16 (69.6%) 10 (43.5%) 11 (47.8%) 4 (17.4%) 0 (0%)
Retail price (per kg)
 ≤170 k VNDa 22 6 (27.3%) 14 (63.6%) 18 (81.8%) 14 (63.6%) 12 (54.5%) 9 (40.9%) 5 (22.7%) 1 (4.5%)
 >170 k VND 18 3 (16.7%) 16 (88.9%) 17 (94.4%) 10 (55.6%) 9 (50%) 6 (33.3%) 4 (22.2%) 3 (16.7%)
Total 40 9 (22.5%) 30 (75.0%) 35 (87.5%) 24 (60.0%) 21 (52.5%) 15 (37.5%) 9 (22.5%) 4 (10.0%)
Open in a new tab
a

VND=Vietnam Dong (1USD = 23 kVND).

3.2. Antimicrobial residues

Antimicrobial residues were detected in 9/40 (22.5%) samples by PremiTest. Shrimp samples from supermarkets had a higher prevalence of antimicrobial residues than those purchased in street markets (50% vs. 13.3%) (χ2 = 3.871, p = 0.049). Four of the nine PremiTest-positive samples were positive by Charm II, whereas the remaining five tested negative (Table 2). Tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and macrolides were detected by Charm II in 7.5%, 2.5%, and 2.5% of samples, respectively. Antimicrobials identified by LC-MS/MS included two tetracycline antimicrobials (tetracycline and oxytetracycline) and two fluoroquinolone antimicrobials (ciprofloxacin and flumequine). The Charm II macrolide-positive sample tested negative for both tylosin and erythromycin by LC-MS/MS. Two samples contained antimicrobial residues above the maximum residue limits (MRL) according to Vietnamese regulations (one contained tetracycline and sulfamethoxazole; another oxytetracycline, and ciprofloxacin). Oxytetracycline and flumequine were also found in two other samples although at concentrations below the MRL (43.7 μg/kg and 41.2 μg/kg, respectively).

Table 2.

Results of antimicrobial residue testing by Charm II and LC-MS/MS among 9 shrimp samples that tested positive by PremiTest.

Sample ID Description Charm II (antimicrobial class) LC-MS/MS (antimicrobial) Concentration of antimicrobial active ingredient (μg/kg) MRL (μg/kg)
1 White leg shrimp, dead Tetracyclines Tetracycline 590.7 100
Sulfonamides Sulfamethoxazole 157.6 100
Flumequinea 38.5 200
2 White leg shrimp, dead Tetracyclines Oxytetracycline 122.2 100
Ciprofloxacin* 30 Not allowed
3 White leg shrimp, dead Macrolides ND – –
Flumequinea 41.2 200
4 White leg shrimp, dead Tetracyclines Oxytetracycline 43.7 100
5 White leg shrimp, dead ND ND – –
6 White leg shrimp, live ND ND – –
7 White leg shrimp, live ND ND – –
8 White leg shrimp, live ND ND – –
9 Tiger shrimp, dead ND ND – –
Open in a new tab
a

Highest priority, critically important antimicrobial; ND=Not detected; MRL = Maximum Residue Limits according to Vietnamese regulation.

3.3. Prevalence of contamination with NTS serovars and vibrio spp.

A total of 90 NTS isolates were recovered from 30/40 (75%) shrimp batches (Table 1). The prevalence of NTS among samples purchased in street markets was higher than that from supermarket samples, although this difference was not significant (80% vs. 60%; χ2 = 0.711; p = 0.399). There was lower probability of recovering NTS from PremiTest-positive samples than from PremiTest-negative samples (5/9 vs. 25/31), although this difference was not significant (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.190). MLST was performed on 62 isolates with a unique serogroup-antimicrobial susceptibility pattern. The remaining 28 isolates were assigned to serovar based on MLST results of isolates recovered from the same sample and with the same serogroup-AST pattern. A total of 28 MLST sequence types (ST) corresponding to 25 NTS serovars were identified. One NTS strain (Group B) could not be assigned to ST, and therefore its serovar identity was not determined (Table B). The most prevalent serovars identified were Braenderup (present in 20% samples), Anatum (16.7% samples), Saintpaul (13.3% samples), Rissen and Litchfield (10% samples each). All (100%) samples were positive for Vibrio species, yielding 133 isolates. Among six Vibrio species, V. parahaemolyticus was the most common species (87.5% samples), followed by V. navarrensis (60%), V. alginolyticus (52.5%), V. cholerae non-O1 (37.5%), V. vulnificus (22.5%) and V. fluvialis (10%) (Table 1).

3.4. Antimicrobial susceptibility among NTSisolates

Among highest priority-critically important antimicrobial classes, the highest prevalence of resistance corresponded to quinolones (nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) (range 14.4–47.8%), followed by 3rd and 4th generation cephalosporins (cefixime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime and ceftriazone) (3.3–7.8%). Among high priority-critically important antimicrobials, resistance was highest against aminoglycosides (16.7% gentamicin and 7.8% tobramycin), monobactams (7.8% aztreonam), and glycylcyclines (3.3% tigecycline) (Fig. 1, Table C). A total of 58.9% isolates were MDR. The highest prevalence of MDR corresponded to Group B isolates (76.2%; 95% CI 58.0–94.4%), followed by Group D (75.0; 95% CI 32.6–100%) and Group C (51.4%; 95% 35.2–67.5%). Seven isolates (7.8%) (from 3 samples) were identified as ESBL-positive. They were identified as serovars Infantis (3), Give (3) and Braenderup (1). The isolates identified as Infantis and Give (three of each, from two different samples) had identical antimicrobial susceptibility profile.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Phenotypic resistance of NTS isolates by group. Pale bars indicate the percent of isolates showing intermediate resistance; dark bars indicate percent of isolates with full resistance. 95% binomial confidence intervals have been drawn around the percentage of resistant plus intermediate resistant isolates.

3.5. Antimicrobial resistance of vibrio spp. isolates

Results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 133 of Vibrio spp. against 12 antimicrobial drugs are shown in Fig. 2 and in Table D. The highest prevalence of resistance corresponded to ampicillin (82.7%), followed by co-trimoxazole (18.8%) and 3rd generation cephalosporins (16.5% cefotaxime; , 8.3% ceftazidime). All (100%) V. parahemolyticus and V. alginolyticus isolates were fully resistant to ampicillin. The prevalence of resistance against amoxicillin-clavulanic, penems, aminoglycosides, tetracyclines, quinolones and phenicols was <11.3% in all cases. A total of 18/64 (28.1%) V. parahaemolyticus were ESBL producers; however none (0%) of the 69 non-V. parahaemolyticus strains were ESBL producers. Overall, 18 of 133 (13.5%) Vibrio spp. isolates were MDR, but this percent was 28.1% among V. parahemolyticus, and 0% among other Vibrio species.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Phenotypic resistance of Vibrio spp. isolates. Pale bars indicate the percent of isolates showing intermediate resistance; dark bars indicate percent of isolates with full resistance. 95% binomial confidence intervals have been drawn around the percentage of resistant plus intermediate resistant isolates.

3.6. Detection of toxin-encoding genes

None of the 133 Vibro spp. isolates tested positive for either the tdh or trh genes.

3.7. Detection of ESBL genes in NTS and vibrio spp. isolates

The phenotypically ESBL-positive serovar Branderup isolate tested negative for all ESBL genes investigated. All three serovar Infantis isolates (from the same sample) were positive for blaCTX-M9. The three serovar Give isolates tested positive for both blaCTX-M1 and blaTEM. Interestingly, all isolates were fully susceptible to cefepime and cefoxitin. A total of 9/18 (50%) ESBL-positive V. parahaemolyticus strains were positive for blaCTX-M1. In addition, one of these isolates tested positive to the blaTEM gene.

3.8. Relationship between residues, and AMR in NTS and vibrio spp. isolates

NTS isolates from shrimp samples that tested positive to PremiTest (n = 15) were resistant to a median of 10 antimicrobials [IQR 3–13], whereas NTS isolates from samples testing negative (n = 75) were resistant to 5 antimicrobials [IQR 0–9] (Wilcoxon test W = 724.5, p = 0.075). Vibrio spp. isolates from PremiTest-positive samples (n = 29) were resistant to a median of 1 [IQR 1–4] antimicrobial, compared with 1 [IQR 1–2] among Vibrio spp. from PremiTest-negative samples (n = 104) (Wilcoxon = 1792; p = 0.093) (Fig. 3). We found fair agreement between presence of residue (PremiTest) and presence of co-trimoxazole and ciprofloxacin resistant NTS from the same sample (kappa values 0.265 and 0.365; p ≤ 0.016). We also found a fair agreement between presence of a quinolone residue and ciprofloxacin resistance in Vibrio spp. isolates from the same sample (kappa = 0.383; p = 0.005). In addition, there was a moderate agreement between samples that contained ESBL-positive Vibrio spp. and ESBL-positive NTS isolates (kappa = 0.515, p < 0.001) (Table D). However, in neither of the two samples that contained both phenotypically ESBL-positive NTS and Vibrio spp. we could demonstrate the presence of the same genes: in one sample V. parahaemolyticus was positive for both blaTEM and blaCTX-M1, whereas no ESBL genes were detected in the NTS isolate; in the other, NTS harboured the blaCTX-M9, wheras V. parahaemolyticus tested negative for all ESBL genes.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Number of phenotypic resistances among NTS and Vibrio spp. isolates from PremiTest-positive and PremiTest-negative shrimp samples.

4. Discussion

This study evidenced a high prevalence of contamination of shrimp samples with antimicrobial residues (22.5%), NTS (75%), and Vibrio spp. (100%). This result is in line with a previous survey of shrimps from local markets in the Red River and Mekong Delta regions of Vietnam (13.0% and 33.3%, respectively) (Pham et al., 2015), but higher than previous results reported from the Vietnamese provinces of HCMC, Thai Binh and Nha Trang (8.8, 1.8 and 3.2%, respectively) (Uchida et al., 2016). However, we were only able to establish the identity of the antimicrobial residue in 4 of 9 samples that tested positive by a bacterial inhibition test. This may be the result of a false-positive result in our screening test, or (more likely) due to the presence of antimicrobial residues not investigated in this study. All antimicrobials confirmed in our samples (tetracyclines, ciprofloxacin, flumequine) are known to be commonly used in Vietnamese aquaculture (Pham et al., 2015), although levels of flumequine (two samples) and oxytetracycline (one sample) where within the legal limits. We found considerable agreement between the screening results by Charm II and the residues detected by LC-MS/MS. The exception was a macrolide-positive sample by Charm that subsequently tested negative for both erythromycin and tylosin. We hypothesize that this may reflect the use of spiramycin, another macrolide antimicrobial known to be used in aquaculture (Sekkim & Kum, 2011) that was not investigated. It is likely that the observed prevalence of residues in shrimp samples reflects the use of antimicrobials late in the production cycle, thought to be common practice in Vietnamese aquaculture (Pham et al., 2015). A surprising finding was the higher prevalence of residues in shrimps procured from supermarkets than from (more informal) street markets. This suggests that intensive production systems (normally associated with the supermarket supply chains) may be associated with a higher levels of antimicrobial usage. This is consistent with a previous study that reported a higher prevalence of residues in shrimp products procured in supermarkets compared with wholesale markets (Uchida et al., 2016). The observed prevalence of contamination with NTS in this study (75%), is higher than in previous studies from Vietnam, China, Thailand and Bangladesh (prevalence levels ranging between 13% and 55%) (Minami et al., 2010, Phan et al., 2005, Pinu et al., 2007, Uddin et al., 2015). A recent study investigating NTS in 25 g meat samples purchased across markets in Vietnam resulted in a comparatively lower prevalence (71.8% in chicken, 70.7% in pork and 62.2% in beef samples) (Nhung et al., 2018). In contrast with the antimicrobial residue results, shrimp samples purchased in street markets had higher prevalence of NTS contamination than shrimps purchased in supermarkets, although this difference was not statistically significant. We hypothesize that this may reflect deficiencies in the cold chain associated with street markets. A study in Thailand reported absence of NTS in shrimps purchased in supermarkets, compared with a 50.2% prevalence among shrimps purchased in street markets (Minami et al., 2010).

We found a considerable serovar diversity (25) of NTS in our samples, with serovars Braenderup, Anatum, Saintpaul and Rissen accounting for 46.7% of all NTS isolates. Most serovars detected in shrimps have been isolated in outbreaks of human disease in different countries. A study from 2004 on 56 human clinical (diarrhoea, fever) in Vietnam identified 12 different serovars (Vo et al., 2006), of which four (Anatum, Albany, Typhimurium and Enteritidis) were detected in our shrimp samples. However, in that study, serovars Typhimurium and Enteritidis accounted for 50% of human cases, whereas in our study they only accounted for 6.6% of all isolates. A more recent study on invasive (bloodstream infection) isolates identified 19 serovars, of which 8 were identified in our study (Lan et al., 2016). Surprisingly, serovar Weltevreden, which was predominant in a previous study on shrimp farms in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam (Uddin et al., 2015) was found only in one sample, and was a pansusceptible strain. A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that NTS contamination of shrimps mainly occurs after harvesting. It has been shown experimentally that seafood is an excellent nutrient media supporting vigorous post-harvest NTS multiplication at ambient temperatures (Kumar, Datta, & Lalitha, 2015). Since no routine diagnostic or surveillance data exists for human salmonellosis, it is not possible to know to what extent shrimps are a significant source of NTS to the community in Vietnam. A total of 58.9% NTS isolates were MDR, a figure higher compared with overall MDR prevalence in isolates from meat in a previous study using the same antimicrobial panel (52.2%) (Nhung et al., 2018). Overall resistance to ciprofloxacin (33.3%) is of great concern, since this antimicrobial is often used to treat enteric infections. We found that 7.8% isolates were ESBL-producers and were fully resistant to at least one of the four 3rd-4th generation cephalosporins investigated. ESBL-producing NTS organisms were identified as belonging to serovars Braenderup (1), Infantis (3), and Give (3). These ESBL-producing isolates were MDR (including quinolone resistance), although were susceptible to carbapenems. The latter is the first choice drug in the treatment of ESBL-producing microorganisms (Zhanel et al., 2007).

All (100%) retail shrimp samples were contaminated with Vibrio spp., being V. parahaemolyticus the most prevalent species (87.5% samples). Other Vibrio species were isolated in 10.0–60.0% samples. These levels of contamination are comparable with studies in northern Vietnam (99.5% prevalence) (Tra et al., 2016) and Malaysia (100%) (Letchumanan, Yin, Lee, & Chan, 2015), although higher than results from Turkey (67%) (Mus, Cetinkaya, & Celik, 2014), confirming that Vibrio spp. organisms are omnipresent in the shrimp farm aquatic environment (Gopal et al., 2005). In addition to V. parahaemolyticus, both V. vulnificus and V. cholerae non-O1 are also known to cause severe human disease (Deshayes et al., 2015). We did not, however, find evidence of any of the two major virulence genes investigated (tdh and trh) in any of the 133 Vibrio spp. isolates. Previous research in Malaysia has shown a low prevalence of tdh (4%) and trh (12%) genes in non-clinical V. parahaemolyticus isolates (Paydar, Teh, & Thong, 2013). In a study on 47 environmental isolates from India, only 4.2% and 2.1% harboured the tdh and trh genes, respectively (Koralage et al., 2012). However there was no evidence of these genes in isolates investigated in northern Vietnam (Tra et al., 2016), Hong Kong (Wong, Liu, Wan, & Chen, 2012), or Sri Lanka (Koralage et al., 2012). In the late 1990s’, V. parahaemolyticus was implicated in a large outbreak of enteric disease in central Vietnam, with 548 cases reported (Tuyet et al., 2002). It was determined in further analyses that the prevailing serovar changed over time (O3:K6 in 1997, O4:K68 in 1998, O1:K25 in 1998–1999), and that 85% clinical isolates harboured either the tdh or trh genes (Chowdhury et al., 2004).

We found that 82.7% of Vibrio spp. isolates were resistant to ampicillin (100% for V. parahaemolyticus and V. alginolyticus). This prevalence was comparable to published resistance levels among V. parahaemolyticus isolates from shrimps in northern Vietnam (87%) and Malaysia (82%) (Letchumanan et al., 2015, Tra et al., 2016). A total of 31.3% V. parahaemolyticus isolates were resistant to third generation cephalosporins and 28.1% were ESBL producers. In about half of those strains, the gene carried was blaCTX-M1. However, in another half the molecular basis for ESBL activity could not be established. Given that these genes are highly mobile, and are often inserted in plasmids and transposons, we hypothesize that V. parahaemolyticus may act as a reservoir of ESBL genes (Canton, Jose, & Galan, 2012). Interestingly we found an association between the presence of ESBL in NTS and V. parahaemolyticus isolated from the same sample.

The study confirmed the association between presence of antimicrobial residues and phenotypic resistance in NTS and Vibrio spp. in the same samples. This may be a reflection of AMR selection during the farming process, or may alternatively reflect post-harvesting contamination. The latter would be likely if the antimicrobial residue in the sample contributed to preferentially select for contamination with more resistant strains.

This study provides evidence of high levels of contamination with antimicrobial residues, NTS and Vibrio spp. among shrimps purchased in retail sites in HCMC. We found a high prevalence of MDR among NTS, with worryingly high levels of quinolone resistance. Although most Vibrio spp. isolates are unlikely to be pathogenic, the high carriage levels of ESBL in V. parahaemolyticus is of concern. We recommend authorities to enforce existing policies aiming at restricting inappropriate antimicrobial usage on shrimp farms, stepping up hygiene conditions during harvesting, transporting and retailing of shrimps, and to establish monitoring of antimicrobial residues, NTS and Vibrio spp. (focused on ESBL and virulence factors) in Vietnam. These findings should encourage the establishment of microbiological surveillance systems focused on health hazards in aquaculture food products, as well as strengthening laboratory capacity to enable comparisons between NTS and Vibrio spp. isolates from shrimps and human cases of disease.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This work has been funded by the Wellcome Trust through an Intermediate Clinical Fellowship awarded to Dr. Juan Carrique-Mas (Grant No.110085/Z/15/Z).

Appendix.

Table A.

Panel of antimicrobial residues tested by LC-MS/MS.

WHO category Antimicrobial class Antimicrobial
Highest priority-critically important Fluoroquinolones Enrofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, flumequine
Macrolides Tylosin, erythromycin
Highly important Tetracyclines Tetracycline, oxytetracycline, chlortetracycline
Sulfonamides Sulfadiazine, sulfamethazine, sulfaquinoxaline, sulfamethoxazole
Open in a new tab

Table B.

Serovar identity of 62 NTS isolates investigated by MLST.

No. Serogroup Serovar Sequence type (ST) Number of isolates
1 B Saintpaul 50 3
B Saintpaul 27 2
2 B Derby 40 4
3 B Paratyphi B 42 2
4 B Typhimurium 36 2
5 B Agona 13 1
6 B Stanley 29 1
7
 B
 Unknown
 Unknown
 1
8 C Braenderup 311 6
C Braenderup 22 3
9 C Rissen 469 6
10 C Bovismorbificans 1499 1
11 C Infantis 32 1
12 C Litchfield 214 3
13 C Ohio 329 1
14 C Albany 292 1
15 C Bareilly 203 1
16 C Kentucky 314 1
17
 C
 Potsdam
 2039
 1
18
 D
 Enteritidis
 11
 4
19 E Anatum 64 8
20 E Give 516 1
E Give 831 1
21 E Senftenberg 14 1
22 E Weltevreden 365 1
23
 E
 London
 155
 1
24 Other Poona 1069 1
25 Other Kedougou 1543 2
26 Other Urbana 512 1
Open in a new tab

Table C.1.

Phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility results for 90 NTS isolates from shrimps, listed by antimicrobial class ranked by their importance according to the WHO classification. The figures correspond to the number of intermediate resistant, followed by the number of fully resistant isolates.

Class and antimicrobial
 Group B (n = 21)
Agona
 Derby
 Paratyphi B
 Saintpaul
 Stanley
 Typhimurium
 Unknown
 Intermediate resistant (%) Fully resistant (%)
No. isolates
 1
 4
 3
 9
 1
 2
 1
Samples (n = 30) (%) 1 (3.3%) 2 (6.7%) 1 (3.3%) 5 (16.7%) 1 (3.3%) 2 (6.7%) 1 (3.3%)
Highest priority-critically important
Cephalosporins (3rd & 4th gen.)
 Cefepime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Cefixime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Cefotaxime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Ceftazidime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Ceftriazone 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Polyymyxins
 Colistin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Quinolones
 Ciprofloxacin 1│0 4│0 2│0 0│9 0│1 1│0 0│1 8(38.1%) 11(52.4%)
 Levofloxacin 1│0 4│0 0│0 3│6 1│0 0│0 0│1 9(42.9%) 7(33.3%)
 Moxifloxacin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│6 1│0 0│0 0│1 1(4.8%) 7(33.3%)
 Nalidixic Acid 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│6 0│0 0│0 0│1 0 (0%) 7(33.3%)
 Ofloxacin 0│1 0│4 0│0 0│9 0│1 0│0 0│1 0 (0%) 16(76.2%)
High priority-critically important
Aminoglycosides
 Amikacin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
 Gentamicin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│6 0│0 0│0 0│1 0 (0%) 7(33.3%)
 Tobramycin 0│0 0│0 0│0 7│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 7(33.3%) 0 (0%)
Carbapenems and other penems
 Ertapenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Imipenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Meropenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Glycylcyclines
 Tigecycline 0│0 0│0 0│0 3│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 3(14.3%) 0(0%)
Monobactams
 Aztreonam 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Penicillins
 Ampicillin 0│1 0│4 0│0 0│9 0│1 0│0 0│1 0(0%) 16(76.2%)
 Piperacillin 0│1 0│4 0│0 0│9 0│1 0│0 0│1 0 (0%) 16(76.2%)
 Ticarcillin 0│1 0│4 0│0 0│9 0│1 0│0 1│0 1(4.8%) 15(71.4%)
Highly important
Amphenicols
 Chloramphenicol 0│0 0│4 0│0 0│9 0│0 0│0 0│1 0(0%) 14(66.7%)
Cephalosporins (1st and 2nd gen.)
 Cefalotin 0│0 1│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 1(4.8%) 0(0%)
 Cefoxitin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 0(0%)
 Cefuroxime 0│0 0│0 0│0 3│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 3(14.3%) 0(0%)
 Cefuroxime Axetil 0│0 0│0 0│0 3│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 3(14.3%) 0(0%)
Tetracyclines
 Minocycline 0│1 0│4 1│0 0│9 0│1 2│0 0│1 3(14.3%) 16(76.2%)
 Tetracycline 0│1 0│4 0│0 0│9 0│1 0│0 1│0 1 (4.8%) 15(71.4%)
Other
Penicillin & β-lactamase inhibitor
 Amoxicillin/Clavulanic Acid 0│0 0│0 0│0 1│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 1(4.8%) 0(0%)
 Piperacillin/Tazobactam 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Folate pathway inhibitors
 Trimethoprim 0│1 0│1 0│0 0│8 0│1 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 11(52.4%)
Folate pathway inhibitors/Sulfonamides
 Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole 0│1 0│1 0│0 0│9 0│1 0│0 0│1 0(0%) 13(61.9%)
Nitrofurantoins
 Nitrofurantoin
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0(0%)
 0(0%)
ESBL (%)
 –
 –
 –
 –
 –
 –
 –
 –
 0(0%)
MDR (%) 1(100%) 4(100%) – 9(100%) 1(100%) – 1(100%) – 16(76.2%)
Open in a new tab

Table C.2.

Class and antimicrobial
 Group C (n = 37)
Albany
 Bareilly
 Bovismor-bificans
 Braenderup
 Infantis
 Kentucky
 Litchfield
 Ohio
 Potsdam
 Rissen
 Intermediate resistant (%) Fully resistant (%)
No. isolates
 1
 1
 3
 13
 3
 1
 3
 2
 1
 9
Samples (n = 30) (%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%) 6 (20%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%) 3 (10%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%) 3 (10%)
Highest priority-critically important
Cephalosporins (3rd & 4th gen.)
 Cefepime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Cefixime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 4(10.8%)
 Cefotaxime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 4(10.8%)
 Ceftazidime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Ceftriazone 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 4(10.8%)
Polyymyxins
 Colistin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 0(0%)
Quinolones
 Ciprofloxacin 1│0 0│1 0│0 2│8 0│3 1│0 1│2 0│0 0│1 4│0 9(24.3%) 15(40.5%)
 Levofloxacin 1│0 1│0 0│0 10│0 3│0 0│0 2│1 0│0 0│1 3│1 20(54.1%) 3(8.1%)
 Moxifloxacin 0│0 0│0 0│0 1│0 0│0 0│0 1│1 0│0 0│1 0│0 2 (5.4%) 2(5.4%)
 Nalidixic Acid 0│1 0│0 0│0 0│2 0│3 0│0 0│1 0│0 0│1 0│0 0(0%) 8(21.6%)
 Ofloxacin 0│1 0│1 0│0 0│10 0│3 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│1 1│3 1(2.7%) 22 (59.5%)
High priority-critically important
Aminoglycosides
 Amikacin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0 (0%)
 Gentamicin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│0 0(0%) 5(13.5%)
 Tobramycin 0│0 1│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 1│0 0│0 1│0 0│0 3(8.1%) 4 (10.8%)
Carbapenems and other penems
 Ertapenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Imipenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Meropenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Glycylcyclines
 Tigecycline 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0 (0%)
Monobactams
 Aztreonam 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 4 (10.8%)
Penicillins
 Ampicillin 0│1 0│1 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│1 0│9 0(0%) 19(51.4%)
 Piperacillin 0│1 0│1 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│1 0│9 0(0%) 19(51.4%)
 Ticarcillin 0│1 0│1 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│1 0│9 0(0%) 19(51.4%)
Highly important
Amphenicols
 Chloramphenicol 0│1 0│1 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│1 1│6 1(2.7%) 16(43.2%)
Cephalosporins (1st and 2nd gen.)
 Cefalotin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 4(10.8%)
 Cefoxitin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 3│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 3(8.1%) 0(0%)
 Cefuroxime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 2│0 2(5.4%) 4(10.8%)
 Cefuroxime Axetil 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 2│0 2(5.4%) 4(10.8%)
Tetracyclines
 Minocycline 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│1 0│9 0(0%) 17(45.9%)
 Tetracycline 0│1 0│0 0│0 0│1 0│3 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│1 0│9 0(0%) 18(48.6%)
Other
Penicillin & β-lactamase inhibitor
 Amoxicillin/Clavulanic Acid 1│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 1(2.7%) 0(0%)
 Piperacillin/Tazobactam 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Folate pathway inhibitors
 Trimethoprim 0│1 0│0 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│9 0(0%) 16(43.2%)
Folate pathway inhibitors/Sulfonamides
 Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole 0│1 0│0 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│1 0│9 0(0%) 17(45.9%)
Nitrofurantoins
 Nitrofurantoin
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 6│1
 0│3
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 6(16.2%)
 4(10.8%)
ESBL (%)
 –
 –
 –
 1 (7.7%)
 3 (100%)
 –
 –
 –
 –
 –
 –
 4(10.8%)
MDR (%) 1(100%) 1 (100%) – 1(7.7%) 3(100%) – 3(100%) – 1(100%) 9(100%) – 19(51.4%)
Open in a new tab

Table C.3.

Class and antimicrobial
 Group E (n = 21)
Anatum
 Give
 London
 Senftenberg
 Weltevreden
 Intermediate resistant (%) Fully resistant (%)
No. isolates
 11
 4
 1
 3
 2
Samples (n = 30) (%) 5 (16.7%) 2 (6.7%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%)
Highest priority-critically important
Cephalosporins (3rd & 4th gen.)
 Cefepime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0 (0%)
 Cefixime 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(14.3%)
 Cefotaxime 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(14.3%)
 Ceftazidime 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(14.3%)
 Ceftriazone 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(14.3%)
Polyymyxins
 Colistin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Quinolones
 Ciprofloxacin 2│0 0│4 0│0 0│0 0│0 2(9.5%) 4 (19%)
 Levofloxacin 0│0 0│4 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 4 (19%)
 Moxifloxacin 0│0 0│4 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 4 (19%)
 Nalidixic Acid 0│0 0│4 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 4 (19%)
 Ofloxacin 0│0 0│4 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 4 (19%)
High priority-critically important
Aminoglycosides
 Amikacin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0 (0%)
 Gentamicin 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(14.3%)
 Tobramycin 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(14.3%)
Carbapenems and other penems
 Ertapenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Imipenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Meropenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Glycylcyclines
 Tigecycline 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(14.3%)
Monobactams
 Aztreonam 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(14.3%)
Penicillins
 Ampicillin 0│7 0│4 0│1 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 12(57.1%)
 Piperacillin 0│7 0│4 0│1 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 12(57.1%)
 Ticarcillin 0│7 0│4 0│1 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 12(57.1%)
Highly important
Amphenicols
 Chloramphenicol 0│3 0│4 0│1 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 8(38.1%)
Cephalosporins (1st and 2nd gen.)
 Cefalotin 0│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 3(14.3%)
 Cefoxitin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 0(0%)
 Cefuroxime 5│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 5(23.8%) 3(14.3%)
 Cefuroxime Axetil 11│0 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 11(52.4%) 3(14.3%)
Tetracyclines
 Minocycline 3│3 0│4 0│1 0│0 0│0 3(14.3%) 8(38.1%)
 Tetracycline 0│10 0│4 0│1 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 15(71.4%)
Other
Penicillin & β-lactamase inhibitor
 Amoxicillin/Clavulanic Acid 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Piperacillin/Tazobactam 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Folate pathway inhibitors
 Trimethoprim 0│9 0│4 0│1 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 14(66.7%)
Folate pathway inhibitors/Sulfonamides
 Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole 0│3 0│4 0│1 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 8(38.1%)
Nitrofurantoins
 Nitrofurantoin
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0(0%)
 0 (0%)
ESBL (%)
3 (75%)
 –
 –
 –
 –
 3(14.3%)
MDR (%) 10(90.9%) 4(100%) 1(100%) – – – 15(71.4%)
Open in a new tab

Table C.4.

Class and antimicrobial
 Other serogroups (N = 11)
Enteritidis
 Kedougou
 Poona
 Urbana
 Intermediate resistant (%) Fully resistant (%)
No. isolates
 4
 2
 3
 2
Samples (n = 30) (%) 2 (6.7%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%)
Highest priority-critically important
Cephalosporins (3rd & 4th gen.)
 Cefepime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Cefixime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Cefotaxime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Ceftazidime 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Ceftriazone 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Polyymyxins
 Colistin 0│1 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 1(9.1%)
Quinolones
 Ciprofloxacin 3│0 1│0 0│0 0│0 4(36.4%) 0 (0%)
 Levofloxacin 3│0 1│0 0│0 0│0 4(36.4%) 0 (0%)
 Moxifloxacin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
 Nalidixic Acid 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 3 (27.3%)
 Ofloxacin 3│0 0│1 0│0 0│0 3 (27.3%) 1 (9.1%)
High priority-critically important
Aminoglycosides
 Amikacin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Gentamicin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Tobramycin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Carbapenems and other penems
 Ertapenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Imipenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Meropenem 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Glycylcyclines
 Tigecycline 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 0(0%)
Monobactams
 Aztreonam 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0 (0%) 0(0%)
Penicillins
 Ampicillin 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(27.3%)
 Piperacillin 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(27.3%)
 Ticarcillin 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(27.3%)
Highly important
Amphenicols
 Chloramphenicol 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0 (0%)
Cephalosporins (1st and 2nd gen.)
 Cefalotin 2│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 2(18.2%) 0(0%)
 Cefoxitin 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
 Cefuroxime 0│0 1│0 0│0 0│0 1 (9.1%) 0(0%)
 Cefuroxime Axetil 2│0 1│0 0│0 0│0 3(27.3%) 0(0%)
Tetracyclines
 Minocycline 0│3 1│0 0│0 0│0 1(9.1%) 3(27.3%)
 Tetracycline 0│3 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 3(27.3%)
Other
Penicillin & β-lactamase inhibitor
 Amoxicillin/Clavulanic Acid 1│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 1(9.1%) 0(0%)
 Piperacillin/Tazobactam 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Folate pathway inhibitors
 Trimethoprim 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Folate pathway inhibitors/Sulfonamides
 Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole 0│0 0│0 0│0 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%)
Nitrofurantoins
 Nitrofurantoin
 0│3
 0│0
 0│0
 0│0
 0(0%)
 3(27.3%)
ESBL (%)
 –
 –
 –
 –
 –
 0(0%)
MDR (%) 3(75%) – – – – 3(27.3%)
Open in a new tab

Table C.5.

Class and antimicrobial Isolates (n = 90) All serovars
 CLSI 2017 breakpoints
No. isolates (N = 90) Intermediate resistant (%) Fully resistant (%)
Sensitive Resistant
Highest priority-critically important
Cephalosporins (3rd & 4th gen.)
 Cefepime 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%) ≤2 ≥16
 Cefixime 0│7 0(0%) 7(7.8%) ≤1 ≥4
 Cefotaxime 0│7 0(0%) 7(7.8%) ≤1 ≥4
 Ceftazidime 0│3 0(0%) 3(3.3%) ≤4 ≥16
 Ceftriazone 0│7 0(0%) 7(7.8%) ≤1 ≥4
Polyymyxins
 Colistin 0│1 0 (0%) 1(1.1%) ≤2 >2
Quinolones
 Ciprofloxacin 23│30 23(25.6%) 30(33.3%) ≤0.06 ≥1
 Levofloxacin 33│14 33(36.7%) 14(15.6%) ≤0.12 ≥2
 Moxifloxacin 3│13 3(3.3%) 13(14.4%) ≤2 ≥8
 Nalidixic Acid 0│22 0(0%) 22(24.4%) ≤16 ≥32
 Ofloxacin 4│43 4(4.4%) 43(47.8%) ≤0.12 ≥2
High priority-critically important
Aminoglycosides
 Amikacin 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%) ≤16 ≥64
 Gentamicin 0│15 0(0%) 15(16.7%) ≤4 ≥16
 Tobramycin 10│7 10(11.1%) 7(7.8%) ≤4 ≥16
Carbapenems and other penems
 Ertapenem 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%) ≤0.5 ≥2
 Imipenem 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%) ≤1 ≥4
 Meropenem 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%) ≤1 ≥4
Glycylcyclines
 Tigecycline 3│3 3(3.3%) 3(3.3%) ≤2 ≥8
Monobactams
 Aztreonam 0│7 0(0%) 7(7.8%) ≤4 ≥16
Penicillins
 Ampicillin 0│50 0(0%) 50(55.6%) ≤8 ≥32
 Piperacillin 0│50 0(0%) 50(55.6%) ≤16 ≥128
 Ticarcillin 1│49 1(1.1%) 49(54.4%) ≤16 ≥128
Highly important
Amphenicols
 Chloramphenicol 1│38 1 (1.1%) 38 (42.2%) ≤8 ≥32
Cephalosporins (1st and 2nd gen.)
 Cefalotin 3│7 3(3.3%) 7(7.8%) ≤8 ≥32
 Cefoxitin 3│0 3(3.3%) 0 (0%) ≤8 ≥32
 Cefuroxime 11│7 11(12.2%) 7(7.8%) ≤8 ≥32
 Cefuroxime Axetil 19│7 19(21.1%) 7(7.8%) ≤4 ≥32
Tetracyclines
 Minocycline 7│44 7(7.8%) 44(48.9%) ≤4 ≥16
 Tetracycline 1│51 1(1.1%) 51(56.7%) ≤4 ≥16
Other
Penicillin & β-lactamase inhibitor
 Amoxicillin/Clavulanic Acid 3│0 3(3.3%) 0(0%) ≤8/4 ≥32/16
 Piperacillin/Tazobactam 0│0 0(0%) 0(0%) ≤16/4 ≥128/4
Folate pathway inhibitors
 Trimethoprim 0│41 0(0%) 41(45.6%) ≤8 ≥16
Folate pathway inhibitors/Sulfonamides
 Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole 0│38 0(0%) 38(42.2%) ≤2/38 ≥4/76
Nitrofurantoins
 Nitrofurantoin
 6│7
 6(6.7%)
 7 (7.8%)
 ≤32
 ≥128
ESBL (%)
 –
 –
 7(7.8%)
 –
 –
MDR (%) – – 53(58.9%) – –
Open in a new tab

Table D.

Phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility results for Vibrio spp. isolates (n = 133). The figures correspond to the number of intermediate resistant, followed by the number of fully resistant isolates.

Class and antimicrobial No. isolates and percent resistant (%) (n = 133 isolates)
Disk
 Zone diameter (mm)
V. parahaemolyticus (n = 64) V. navarrensis (n = 23) V. alginolyticus (n = 21) V. cholerae non-O1 (n = 15) V. vulnificus (n = 6) V. fluvialis (n = 4) Total intermediate resistant (%) Total fully resistant (%) antimicrobial
(μg/mL) Sensitive Resistant
Highest priority-critically important
Cephalosporins (3rd &4th gen.)
 Cefotaxime 3ǀ20 10ǀ2 0ǀ0 8ǀ0 2ǀ0 0ǀ0 23 (17.3%) 22 (16.5%) 30 ≥23 ≤14
 Ceftazidime 3ǀ10 0ǀ0 0ǀ0 1ǀ1 0ǀ0 0ǀ0 4 (3.0%) 11 (8.3%) 30 ≥18 ≤14
Quinolones
 Ciprofloxacin 9ǀ7 0ǀ0 1ǀ0 2ǀ0 1ǀ0 0ǀ0 13 (9.8%) 7 (5.3%) 5 ≥21 ≤15
 Ofloxacin 3ǀ6 0ǀ0 0ǀ0 2ǀ0 0ǀ0 0ǀ0 5 (3.8%) 6 (4.5%) 5 ≥16 ≤12
High priority-critically important
Aminoglycosides
 Amikacin 29ǀ1 1ǀ0 1ǀ0 0ǀ0 1ǀ0 0ǀ0 32 (24.0%) 1 (0.8%) 30 ≥17 ≤14
 Gentamicin 7ǀ0 1ǀ0 1ǀ0 0ǀ0 0ǀ0 0ǀ0 9 (6.8%) 0 (0%) 10 ≥15 ≤12
Carbapenems and other penems
 Imipenem 0ǀ2 0ǀ1 0ǀ0 1ǀ0 0ǀ0 0ǀ0 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.3%) 10 ≥16 ≤13
Penicillins
 Ampicillin 0ǀ64 6ǀ12 0ǀ21 3ǀ8 1ǀ2 0ǀ3 10 (7.5%) 110 (82.7%) 10 ≥17 ≤13
 Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid 1ǀ6 8ǀ4 0ǀ0 3ǀ5 2ǀ0 3ǀ0 17 (12.8%) 15 (11.3%) 20ǀ10 ≥18 ≤13
Highly important
Amphenicols
 Chloramphenicol 3ǀ1 1ǀ0 0ǀ0 1ǀ0 1ǀ0 0ǀ0 6 (4.5%) 1 (0.8%) 30 ≥18 ≤12
Tetracyclines
 Tetracycline 15ǀ7 3ǀ1 0ǀ0 1ǀ1 0ǀ1 0ǀ0 19 (14.3%) 10 (7.5%) 30 ≥19 ≤14
Folate pathway inhibitors & sulfonamides
 Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole
 7ǀ17
 3ǀ3
 1ǀ0
 0ǀ3
 1ǀ2
 1ǀ0
 13 (9.8%)
 25 (18.8%)
 1.25/23.75
 ≥16
 ≤10
ESBL
 18
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 –
 18 (13.5%)
MDR 18 0 0 0 0 0 – 18 (13.5%)
Open in a new tab

References

  1. Anon . 2nd ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2010. M45-A2: Methods for antimicrobial dilution and disk susceptibility testing of infrequently isolated or fastidious bacteria; approved guideline. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anon . Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2017. M100-S27: Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptability testing. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anon . In: WHO list of critically important antimicrobials. WHO, editor. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anon . Shrimp news international. 2018. World farmed shrimp production. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker-Austin C., Oliver J.D., Alamo M., Ali A., Waldor M.K., Qadri F. Vibrio spp. infections. Nature Reviews Disease Primers. 2018;4 doi: 10.1038/s41572-018-0005-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cabello F.C., Godfrey H.P., Tomova A., Ivanova L., Dolz H., Millanao A. Antimicrobial use in aquaculture re-examined: Its relevance to antimicrobial resistance and to animal and human health. Environmental Microbiology. 2013;15(7):1917–1942. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Canton R., Jose M.G.A., Galan J.C. CTX-M enzymes: Origin and diffusion. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2012;3 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carrique-Mas J.J., Barnes S., McLaren I., Davies R. Comparison of three plating media for the isolation of Salmonella from poultry environmental samples in Great Britain using ISO 6579:2002 (Annex D) Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2009;107(6):1976–1983. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04386.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chowdhury A., Ishibashi M., Thiem V.D., Tuyet D.T.N., Van Tung T., Chien B.T. Emergence and serovar transition of Vibrio parahaemolyticus pandemic strains isolated during a diarrhea outbreak in Vietnam between 1997 and 1999. Microbiology and Immunology. 2004;48(4):319–327. doi: 10.1111/j.1348-0421.2004.tb03513.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dallenne C., Da Costa A., Decre D., Favier C., Arlet G. Development of a set of multiplex PCR assays for the detection of genes encoding important beta-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2010;65(3):490–495. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkp498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Deshayes S., Daurel C., Cattoir V., Parienti J.J., Quilici M.L., de la Blanchardiere A. Non-O1, non-O139 Vibrio cholerae bacteraemia: Case report and literature review. SpringerPlus. 2015;4 doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-1346-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gaudin V., Juhel-Gaugain M., Moretain J.P., Sanders P. AFNOR validation of PremiTest, a microbiological-based screening tube-test for the detection of antimicrobial residues in animal muscle tissue. Food Additives & Contaminants Part A-Chemistry Analysis Control Exposure & Risk Assessment. 2008;25(12):1451–1464. doi: 10.1080/02652030802429088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gopal S., Otta S.K., Kumar S., Karunasagar I., Nishibuchi M., Karunasagar I. The occurrence of Vibrio species in tropical shrimp culture environments; implications for food safety. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2005;102(2):151–159. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Grimont P.A., Weill F. 9th ed. WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Salmonella; 2007. Antigenic formulae of the Salmonella serovars.http://www.pasteur.fr/sante/clre/cadrecnr/salmoms/WKLM_2007.pdf [Google Scholar]
  15. Henriksson P.J.G., Rico A., Troell M., Klinger D.H., Buschmann A.H., Saksida S. Unpacking factors influencing antimicrobial use in global aquaculture and their implication for management: A review from a systems perspective. Sustainability Science. 2018;13(4):1105–1120. doi: 10.1007/s11625-017-0511-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hong T., Hien P., Thu T., Lebailly P. Vietnam's fisheries and aquaculture development's policy: Are exports performance targets sustainable? Oceanography and Fisheries. 2017;5(4):1–10. [Google Scholar]
  17. Koralage M.S.G., Alter T., Pichpol D., Strauch E., Zessin K.H., Huehn S. Prevalence and molecular characteristics of Vibrio spp. isolated from preharvest shrimp of the north western province of Sri Lanka. Journal of Food Protection. 2012;75(10):1846–1850. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kumar R., Datta T.K., Lalitha K.V. Salmonella grows vigorously on seafood and expresses its virulence and stress genes at different temperature exposure. BMC Microbiology. 2015;15 doi: 10.1186/s12866-015-0579-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lan N.P.H., Phuong T.L.T., Huu H.N., Thuy L., Mather A.E., Park S.E. Invasive non-typhoidal Salmonella infections in Asia: Clinical observations, disease outcome and dominant serovars from an infectious disease hospital in Vietnam. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2016;10(8):13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lauria V., Das I., Hazra S., Cazcarro I., Arto I., Kay S. Importance of fisheries for food security across three climate change vulnerable deltas. The Science of the Total Environment. 2018;640:1566–1577. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Letchumanan V., Yin W.F., Lee L.H., Chan K.G. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from retail shrimps in Malaysia. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;6:11. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Likotrafiti E., Oniciuc E.A., Prieto M., Santos J.A., Lopez S., Alvarez-Ordonez A. Risk assessment of antimicrobial resistance along the food chain through culture-independent methodologies. Efsa Journal. 2018;16:8. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.e160811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Livermorea D., Struelen M., Amorim J., Baquero F., Bill J., Canton R. Multicentre evaluation of the VITEK 2 Advanced Expert System for interpretive reading of antimicrobial resistance tests. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2002;49:289–300. doi: 10.1093/jac/49.2.289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Majowicz S.E., Musto J., Scallan E., Angulo F.J., Kirk M., O'Brien S.J. The global burden of nontyphoidal Salmonella gastroenteritis. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2010;50(6):882–889. doi: 10.1086/650733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Minami A., Chaicumpa W., Chongsa-Nguan M., Samosornsuk S., Monden S., Takeshi K. Prevalence of foodborne pathogens in open markets and supermarkets in Thailand. Food Control. 2010;21(3):221–226. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mus T.E., Cetinkaya F., Celik U. Occurrence of Vibrio, Salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus in retail fresh fish, mussel and shrimp. Acta Veterinaria Brno. 2014;83(2):75–78. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nga T.V., Parry C.M., Le T., Lan N.P., Diep T.S., Campbell J.I. The decline of typhoid and the rise of non-typhoid salmonellae and fungal infections in a changing HIV landscape: Bloodstream infection trends over 15 years in southern Vietnam. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene. 2012;106(1):26–34. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2011.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Nhung N.T., Van N.T.B., Cuong N.V., Duong T.T.Q., Nhat T.T., Hang T.T.T. Antimicrobial residues and resistance against critically important antimicrobials in non-typhoidal Salmonella from meat sold at wet markets and supermarkets in Vietnam. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2018;266:301–309. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.12.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. O'Neill J. 2016. Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: Final report and recommendations. [Google Scholar]
  30. Okocha R.C., Olatoye I.O., Adedeji O.B. Food safety impacts of antimicrobial use and their residues in aquaculture. Public Health Reviews. 2018;39:22. doi: 10.1186/s40985-018-0099-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Paydar M., Teh C.S.J., Thong K.L. Prevalence and characterisation of potentially virulent Vibrio parahaemolyticus in seafood in Malaysia using conventional methods, PCR and REP-PCR. Food Control. 2013;32(1):13–18. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pham D.K., Chu J., Do N.T., Brose F., Degand G., Delahaut P. Monitoring antibiotic use and residue in freshwater aquaculture for domestic use in Vietnam. EcoHealth. 2015;12(3):480–489. doi: 10.1007/s10393-014-1006-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Phan T.T., Khai L.T., Ogasawara N., Tam N.T., Okatani A.T., Akiba M. Contamination of Salmonella in retail meats and shrimps in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Journal of Food Protection. 2005;68(5):1077–1080. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-68.5.1077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Pinu F.R., Yeasmin S., Bar M.L., Rahman M.M. Microbiological conditions of frozen shrimp in different food market of Dhaka city. Food Science and Technology Research. 2007;13(4):362–365. [Google Scholar]
  35. Raghunath P. Roles of thermostable direct hemolysin (TDH) and TDH-related hemolysin (TRH) in Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;5 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rebelo A.R., Bortolaia V., Kjeldgaard J.S., Pedersen S.K., Leekitcharoenphon P., Hansen I.M. Multiplex PCR for detection of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance determinants, mcr-1, mcr-2, mcr-3, mcr-4 and mcr-5 for surveillance purposes. Euro Surveillance. 2018;23(6):29–39. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.6.17-00672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sekkim S., Kum K. Antibacterial drugs in fish farms: Application and its effects. In: Aral F., editor. Recent Advances in fish farms: IntechOpen. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tada J., Ohashi T., Nishimura N., Shirasaki Y., Ozaki H., Fukushima S. Detection of the thermostable direct hemolysin gene (tdh) and the thermostable direct hemolysin-related hemolysin gene (trh) of Vibrio parahaemolyticus by Polymerase Chain-Reaction. Molecular and Cellular Probes. 1992;6(6):477–487. doi: 10.1016/0890-8508(92)90044-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Thompson C.N., Phan V.T., Le T.P., Pham T.N., Hoang L.P., Ha V. Epidemiological features and risk factors of Salmonella gastroenteritis in children resident in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Epidemiology and Infection. 2012:1–10. doi: 10.1017/S0950268812002014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Tra V.T.T., Meng L., Pichpol D., Pham N.H., Baumann M., Alter T. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Vibrio spp. in retail shrimps in Vietnam. Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift. 2016;129(1–2):48–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tusevljak N., Rajic A., Waddell L., Dutil L., Cernicchiaro N., Greig J. Prevalence of zoonotic bacteria in wild and farmed aquatic species and seafood: A scoping study, systematic review, and meta-analysis of published research. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2012;9(6):487–497. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2011.1063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Tuyet D.T., Thiem V.D., von Seidlein L., Chowdhury A., Park E., Canh D.G. Clinical, epidemiological, and socioeconomic analysis of an outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Khanh Hoa Province, Vietnam. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2002;186(11):1615–1620. doi: 10.1086/345731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Uchida K., Konishi Y., Harada K., Okihashi M., Yamaguchi T., Do M.H. Monitoring of antibiotic residues in aquatic products in urban and rural areas of Vietnam. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2016;64(31):6133–6138. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b00091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Uddin G.M., Larsen M.H., Barco L., Phu T.M., Dalsgaard A. Clonal occurrence of Salmonella weltevreden in cultured shrimp in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Vo A.T.T., van Duijkeren E., Fluit A.C., Heck M., Verbruggen A., Maas H.M.E. Distribution of Salmonella enterica serovars from humans, livestock and meat in Vietnam and the dominance of Salmonella Typhimurium phage type 90. Veterinary Microbiology. 2006;113(1–2):153–158. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.10.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wong M.H.Y., Liu M., Wan H.Y., Chen S. Characterization of extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-producing Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2012;56(7):4026–4028. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00385-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Yun Y.-S., Chae S.-J., Na H.-Y., Chung G.T., Yoo C.-K., Lee D.-Y. Modified method of multilocus sequence typing (MLST) for serotyping in Salmonella species. Journal of Bacteriology and Virology. 2015;45(4):314–318. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhanel G.G., Wiebe R., Dilay L., Thomson K., Rubinstein E., Hoban D.J. Comparative review of the carbapenems. Drugs. 2007;67(7):1027–1052. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200767070-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES