Table 1.
Traditional Antibiotics/Antibacterial Agents | ATCC 25922 | V10-13-A02-002-008 | V17-13-S02-002-009 | V03-13-A01-002-003 | V03-13-A03-002-009 | V16-13-S01-002-002 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pig Feces | Chicken Feces | Cattle Feces | Chicken Feces | Cattle Carcass | ||
AMX | 1 (S) | 256 (R) | 128 (R) | 16 (R) | 256 (R) | 4 (S) |
AMP | 2 (S) | 512 (R) | 256 (R) | 64 (R) | 512 (R) | 8 (S) |
CEF | 1 (S) | 128 (R) | 64 (R) | 1 (S) | 64 (R) | 1 (I) |
CEFO | 0.125 (S) | 64 (R) | 32 (R) | 1 (S) | 32 (R) | 1 (S) |
ERY | 128 (R) | 512 (R) | 1024 (R) | 16 (R) | 512 (R) | 64 (R) |
FLOR | 8 (I) | 64 (R) | 64 (R) | 2 (S) | 32 (R) | 1 (S) |
NOR | 0.5 (S) | 16 (R) | 4 (R) | 0.50 (S) | 8 (R) | 0.50 (S) |
MAR | 0.25 (S) | 1 (I) | 2 (R) | 0.50 (S) | 1 (I) | 0.25 (S) |
THIA | 256 (R) | 512 (R) | 512 (R) | 128 (R) | 512 (R) | 256 (R) |
PENG | 16 (I) | 1024 (R) | 256 (R) | 32 (R) | >1024 (R) | 32 (R) |
EPI | >1024 | >1024 | >1024 | >1024 | >1024 | >1024 |
EPIG | 1024 | 512 | 512 | 256 | 512 | 512 |
EPGC | 512 | 1024 | 512 | 512 | 512 | 512 |
GA | 1024 | 1024 | 1024 | 256 | 512 | 256 |
HAMA | 2048 | 512 | 1024 | 1024 | 1024 | 1024 |
Antibacterial sensitivity status of these clinically isolated Escherichia coli strains were determined by interpreting the MIC break-point values of these traditional antibiotics reported by various organizations and the MIC results of these traditional antibiotics obtained in this study against those isolated Escherichia coli strains [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Three independent experiments (n = 3) were performed. In each experiment triplicate samples were assayed for each sample group. AMP, ampicillin; AMX, amoxicillin; CEF, ceftiofur; CEFO, cefotaxime; EPGC, epigallocatechin; EPI, epicatechin; EPIG, epicatechin gallate; ERY, erythromycin; FLOR, florfenicol; GA, gallic acid; HAMA, hamamelitannin; I, intermediate resistance; MAR, marbofloxacin; NOR, norfloxacin; PENG, penicillin G; R, resistant; S, susceptible; THIA, thiamphenicol.