Abstract
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from dairy animals could pose a public health concern in the population. The study was designed to determine the prevalence of S. aureus and MRSA associated with mastitis among water buffaloes in the central part of Luzon island, the Philippines, and to investigate its associated factors. Three hundred and eighty-four water buffaloes were examined for mastitis using California mastitis test (CMT). Composite milk samples (n = 93) were collected from buffaloes showing positive reaction with CMT. S. aureus was identified from milk samples using biochemical tests. Cefoxitin disk diffusion assay and PCR detecting mecA gene were performed to identify MRSA isolates. Disk diffusion assay was used to investigate the antimicrobial resistance against 9 antibiotics. The prevalence of S. aureus was 41.94% (39/93). MRSA isolates resistant to cefoxitin were at 25.81% (24/93) but only 37.5% (9/24) harbored the mecA gene. All 24 MRSA isolates were resistant to penicillin while the majority were susceptible to clindamycin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamycin, tetracycline, rifampicin, ciprofloxacin and chloramphenicol with intermediate susceptibility to erythromycin. Furthermore, 37.5% of the isolates were found resistant to two or more antibiotics. Animal-level factor associated with MRSA infection was the history of mastitis (OR = 3.18, CI = 1.03–9.79, p = 0.040). Herd-level factors associated with the detection of MRSA in milk included herd size (OR = 4.24, CI = 1.05–17.07, p = 0.042) and the presence of other animals (OR = 0.15, CI = 0.04–0.58, p = 0.006). High prevalence of intramammary infection with S. aureus and MRSA in dairy buffaloes was observed in the region. This finding raises the concern of preventing zoonotic spread of MRSA.
Keywords: Microbiology, Public health, Antibiotic resistance, Staphylococcus, Epidemiology, Veterinary medicine, Mastitis, Water buffalo, MRSA, mecA gene, Risk factor
Microbiology; Public health; Antibiotic resistance; Staphylococcus; Epidemiology; Veterinary medicine; Mastitis; Water buffalo; MRSA; mecA gene; Risk factor
1. Introduction
Staphylococcus aureus is considered as a leading cause of mastitis in cattle and water buffaloes in Asia (Sharma and Maiti, 2010). Treatment of choice for mastitis in dairy farms is the use of antibiotics (Haran et al., 2012).
Emergence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in livestock has been implicated from the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters and for preventive and therapeutic measures (Cuny et al., 2015; Mehndiratta and Bhalla, 2012). One mechanism for methicillin resistance of S. aureus was the acquisition of Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome (SCC) mecA gene that alters the penicillin-binding protein (PBP2) resulting to the loss of affinity to all β-lactam antibiotics (Cuny et al., 2015; Lee, 2003).
In Asia, the prevalence of MRSA in bovine milk ranged from 1.1% in Japan (Hata et al., 2010) to 52.2% in Egypt (Elhaig and Selim, 2015). MRSA prevalence in dairy cows could be attributed to several factors. A study in Brazil showed that lacking of some hygienic measures, such as the use of pre- and post-milking teat dip, gloves and individual towels for milking cows, resulted to higher MRSA prevalence in milk (Guimarães et al. 2017). The studies of Locatelli et al. (2017) and Spohr et al. (2011) revealed a high prevalence of MRSA in dairy herds in close proximity with swine herds. In addition, the type of production system used in a dairy herd could affect MRSA prevalence. This was observed in Germany where a higher MRSA prevalence was reported in bulk tank milk of conventional dairy farms with larger herd size compared to organic dairy farms. Moreover, the higher prevalence of conventional dairy farms could be attributed to increased usage of antibiotics (Tenhagen et al., 2018).
There is also a great concern for treatment of mastitis caused by MRSA due to the fact that MRSA was not only resistant to β-lactams but also exhibited multi-drug resistant patterns to other commonly used antibiotics (Akindolire et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2015; Turkyilmaz et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2015). Moreover, there is an increasing concern on the public health risk of MRSA from livestock, since resistance genes can be spread from food animals to humans by direct contact or through the food chain (Marshall and Levy, 2011).
In the Philippines, dairy water buffaloes from smallholder farmers and cooperatives contribute a major part of the local milk supply (Bulatao, 2018). Thus, there is a need to assess if water buffalo milk does not pose a public health hazard from MRSA. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of intramammary infection (IMI) with MRSA together with their antimicrobial resistance among water buffaloes in the central part of Luzon island, which is the most populous area of water buffalo farms in the Luzon island of the Philippines. Moreover, the potential factors for IMI with MRSA were also determined.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sampling area, sample collection and data collection
The study was set to investigate the dairy water buffaloes in the province of Nueva Ecija located in the central part of Luzon island, the Philippines (Figure 1). The sampling area was composed of 153 smallholder dairy farms (averaged farm size of 2–10 dairy buffaloes) from seven dairy cooperatives and 3 large dairy farms (composed of >30 dairy buffaloes). The sample size was calculated using the formula of Charan and Biswas (2013) where a 50% prevalence rate was used since there is no baseline data for livestock MRSA prevalence in the country. The sample size was 384 dairy buffaloes. Representative animals (around 50% of the total available lactating dairy buffaloes per farm) were randomly selected during the visit.
Figure 1.
Geographical areas showing MRSA cases in dairy buffalo farms in the central part of Luzon island, the Philippines.
Composite milk samples were pooled milk samples coming from four udders of each animal. Milk samples were examined for mastitis using California mastitis test (CMT). Milk samples from animals presenting positive reaction with CMT testing were collected, placed in an ice box, and transferred to the laboratory within 24 h.
A questionnaire was developed to collect animal and herd data from farmers by face-to-face interview. Animal data gathered from the questionnaire included age, parity, stage of lactation, presence of one or more lesions at the udders, history of mastitis, and the use of antibiotic treatment for mastitis. Herd data collected were herd size, type of milking (hand milking VS bucket type), hygienic practice before and after milking, milking mastitic buffaloes last, person treating mastitis, and the presence of other animals in the farm. Based on animal-level and herd-level data, potential risk factors for MRSA mastitis infection were determined.
2.2. Isolation and identification of MRSA
S. aureus was isolated from a milk sample by inoculating 1 mL of milk into 9 mL of Tryptone Soya Broth (HiMedia Laboratories, India) and incubating at 35 °C for 24 h. The incubated broth was streaked on Baird-Parker medium (HiMedia Laboratories, India) with Egg Yolk Tellurite Emulsion (HiMedia Laboratories, India) and incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h. Presumptive S. aureus colonies were gram stained, and further confirmed using catalase test and coagulase test. Disk diffusion assay using a 30μg cefoxitin disk (HiMedia Laboratories, India) following the protocol of Hudzicki (2009) was used to phenotypically identify MRSA. A zone of inhibition ≤21mm was considered resistant for cefoxitin (CLSI, 2015).
2.3. DNA extraction
Cefoxitin resistant isolates were subjected to DNA extraction following the procedure of Zhang et al. (2004) with modifications. MRSA isolates were cultured overnight in Tryptic Soy Agar plate (HiMedia Laboratories, India) and about 3–5 bacterial colonies were picked and suspended in 50μL of DNA Rehydration Solution (Promega, USA) and heated at 95 °C for 10 min. After centrifugation at 20,000 x g for 1 min, 5μL of the supernatant was used as DNA template.
2.4. PCR detection of mecA gene
Phenotypically identified MRSA isolates were further confirmed using multiplex PCR for the detection of 16S rRNA, mecA and nuc genes following the procedure of Ciftci et al. (2009) with modifications (Table 1). A 25 μL PCR mixture containing 5 μL of DNA template, 1x PCR buffer, 25 mM MgCl2, 2.5mM deoxynucleoside triphosphate (dNTP) mix, 1 μL of 10 μM each 16S rRNA primers,0.2 of 10 μM each of mecA primers, 0.4 μL of 10 μM each nuc primers and 5U of Taq DNA polymerase was used. S. aureus ATTC43300 was used as a positive control. The PCR condition included: 94 °C for 5 min of initial denaturation; 30 cycles of 94 °C for 45 s, 57 °C for 45 s and 72 °C for 90 s; and a final extension at 72 °C for 10 min. PCR products were run in 1.0% agarose gel and amplified using electrophoresis at 100 V for 30 min in 0.5x TBE working buffer. The agarose gel was stained using Gelred® (Biotium, CA USA) and visualized under UV light in Fluorchem M Imaging System machine (Protein Simple, USA).
Table 1.
Primers used for multiplex PCR of 16S rDNA, mecA and nuc genes.
| Primers | Sequence | Product size (bp) | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16S rRNA-F | AAC TCT GTT ATT AGG GAA GAA CA | 756 | Ciftci et al. (2009) |
| 16S-rRNA-R | CCA CCT TCC TCC GGT TTG TCA CC | ||
| mecA147-F | GTG AAG ATA TAC CAA GTG ATT | 147 | Zhang et al. (2005) |
| mecA-147-R | ATG CGC TAT AGA TTG AAA GGA T | ||
| nuc-1 | GCG ATT GAT GGT GAT ACG GTT | 279 | Ciftci et al. (2009) |
| nuc-2 | AGC CAA GCC TTG ACG AAC TAA AGC |
2.5. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing
The disk diffusion assay was performed to determine the antimicrobial resistance profile of the MRSA isolates. Isolates were tested against the following antibiotics: clindamycin (2μg), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (1.25/23.75μg), tetracycline (30μg), penicillin G (10 IU), rifampicin (5μg), chloramphenicol (30μg), ciprofloxacin (5μg), gentamicin (10μg) and erythromycin (15μg). Zones of inhibition were read after 16–18 h of incubation at 35 °C. Zones of inhibition were measured and interpreted as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute standard as shown in Table 2 (CLSI, 2015). Multidrug resistance (MDR) was defined as simultaneous resistant to at least two different mechanisms of antimicrobials used in this study.
Table 2.
Interpretation of zone of inhibition to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility (S), intermediate (I) and resistance (R) of MRSA isolates (CLSI, 2015).
| Antimicrobials | Zone of inhibition (mm) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Susceptible | Intermediate | Resistance | |
| Penicillin G | >29 | - | <28 |
| Clindamycin | >21 | 15–20 | <14 |
| Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole | >16 | 11–15 | <10 |
| Tetracycline | >19 | 15–18 | <14 |
| Rifampicin | >20 | 17–19 | <16 |
| Chloramphenicol | >18 | 13–17 | <12 |
| Ciprofloxacin | >21 | 16–20 | <15 |
| Gentamicin | >15 | 13–14 | <12 |
| Erythromycin | >23 | 14–22 | <13 |
2.6. Statistical analysis
For the risk factor analysis, the univariate logistic regression using SPSS 16.0 for Windows was performed to analyze the initial association of animal-level and herd-level factors for MRSA prevalence. All independent variables with p < 0.25 in the univariate logistic regression were included in the multiple logistic regression analysis. The stepwise backward method was used to build a model for the predictor variables for MRSA mastitis infection. The effects of predictor variables were computed by estimating the odds ratios (ORs) at 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
3. Results
3.1. Prevalence of S. aureus and MRSA in mastitic milk
From 384 buffaloes, 93 buffaloes (24.22%) were considered having mastitis based on the reaction with CMT. A total of 39 S. aureus isolates were identified with a prevalence of 41.94% (39/93). Out of 39 identified S. aureus isolates, only 24 (61.54%) were found resistant to cefoxitin and considered to be phenotypic MRSA. The majority of MRSA isolates were found in San Jose followed by Muñoz and Guimba as shown in Figure 1. However, only 9 out of 24 isolates (37.5%) harbored the mecA gene as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
PCR product results of the MRSA multiplex PCR. Lane 1–3: MRSA positive samples; Lane 4: S. aureus ATCC 43300; Lane M: 100 bp DNA ladder. See supplementary material for full image.
3.2. Antimicrobial resistance of MRSA isolates
The 24 MRSA isolates were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing and found that they were all resistant to penicillin. Majority of the isolates were still susceptible to clindamycin (66.67%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (95.83%), tetracycline (83.30%), rifampicin (79.17%), ciprofloxacin (95.83%) and gentamycin (87.50%). Moreover, all isolates were susceptible to chloramphenicol. However, 62.50% of the isolates had intermediate susceptibility to erythromycin as shown in Table 2. Seven antimicrobial resistance profiles were observed from the MRSA isolates. Nine out of 24 (37.50%) MRSA isolates were resistant to two or more antibiotics and considered MDR (Table 3).
Table 3.
Antibiotic resistance of the MRSA isolates from composite milk samples (n = 24).
|
Sample ID |
mecA | Antimicrobialsa |
Resistant Pattern | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PG | CD | SXT | TC | RF | C | CIP | GEN | ERY | |||
| CM1 | + | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM10 | - | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | PG |
| CM15 | - | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM17 | + | R | R | S | R | S | S | S | S | I | PG-CD-TC |
| CM18 | - | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM21 | + | R | S | S | S | S | S | I | S | I | PG |
| CM23 | + | R | I | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM25 | + | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM26 | + | R | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | PG-CD |
| CM32 | + | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM34 | + | R | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | PG-CD |
| CM35 | + | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM40 | - | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM45 | - | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | S | PG |
| CM52 | - | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | PG |
| CM60 | - | R | R | S | R | R | S | S | R | I | PG-CD-TC-RF-GEN |
| CM63 | - | R | S | I | I | I | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM65 | - | R | S | S | S | R | S | S | S | I | PG-RF |
| CM68 | - | R | S | S | S | R | S | S | S | S | PG-RF |
| CM71 | - | R | I | S | S | I | S | S | S | I | PG |
| CM72 | - | R | R | S | S | S | S | S | I | R | PG-CD-ERY |
| CM8 | - | R | S | S | R | S | S | S | S | S | PG-TC |
| CM80 | - | R | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | PG-CD |
| CM89 | - | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | I | PG |
Analysis included the following agents: penicillin G (PG), clindamycin (CD), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT), tetracycline (TC), rifampicin (RF), chloramphenicol (C), ciprofloxacin (CIP), gentamycin (GEN), erythromycin (ERY). Results were indicated as resistant (R), intermediate (I), and susceptible (S).
3.3. Risk factor analysis
The animal-level prevalence of MRSA in dairy buffaloes with mastitis was 25.81% (24/93). From the univariate logistic regression analysis, two variables included parity and the previous history of mastitis were selected for the multivariate analysis (Table 4). From the final logistic regression model, the animal-level factor associated with MRSA infection was having history of mastitis (OR: 3.18, CI: 1.03–9.79, p = 0.040) as shown in Table 5.
Table 4.
Univariate logistic analysis of cow-level risk factors for MRSA in mastitis infected dairy buffaloes.
| Variables | Category | No. of animals examined | MRSA positive animals | Prevalence, % |
p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ≤8yrs >8 yrs |
45 48 |
13 11 |
28.90 22.90 |
0.783 |
| Parity | ≤4 >4 |
57 36 |
17 7 |
29.80 19.40 |
0.088 |
| Stage of lactation | Start Mid-end |
46 47 |
13 11 |
28.30 23.40 |
0.449 |
| Presence of teat lesion | Yes No |
20 73 |
6 18 |
30.00 24.66 |
0.703 |
| Previous history of mastitis | Yes No |
58 35 |
18 6 |
31.03 17.14 |
0.053 |
| Use antibiotic for mastitis | Yes No |
52 41 |
14 10 |
26.92 24.39 |
0.729 |
Table 5.
Animal-level risk factors included in the final logistic regression model for MRSA prevalence in mastitis infected dairy buffaloes.
| Variable | Category | Intercept | S.E. | p-value | OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parity | ≤4 >4 |
0.991 Ref. |
0.555 | 0.074 | 2.70 | 0.91–8.01 |
| Previous history of mastitis | Yes No |
1.156 Ref. |
0.584 | 0.040 | 3.18 | 1.03–9.79 |
| Constant | -1.832 | 1.246 | 0.141 | 0.16 |
The herd-level prevalence of MRSA associated with mastitis in dairy buffaloes was 35.29% (18/51). From the univariate logistic regression analysis, two variables included herd size and presence of other animals were selected for the multivariate analysis (Table 6). The final logistic regression model showed that herd size (OR: 4.24, CI = 1.05–17.07, p = 0.042) and the presence of other animals in the farm (OR = 0.15, CI = 0.04–0.58, p = 0.006) were significantly associated with the MRSA infection in dairy buffalo herd as shown in Table 7.
Table 6.
Univariate logistic regression analysis for herd-level risk factors for MRSA infection in dairy buffaloes.
| Variable | Category | No. of herd examined | MRSA positive herd | Prevalence (%) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Herd size | ≤6 animals >6 animals |
24 27 |
5 13 |
20.83 48.15 |
0.050 |
| Manner of milking cows | Hand-milking Bucket type- milking machine |
47 4 |
16 2 |
34.04 50.00 |
0.514 |
| Follow hygienic practices | Yes No |
51 0 |
18 0 |
35.29 0 |
- |
| Milking mastitic cow last | Yes No |
31 20 |
10 8 |
32.26 40.00 |
0.779 |
| Person treating mastitis | Veterinarian Myself |
48 3 |
17 1 |
35.42 33.33 |
0.964 |
| Presence of other animals | Yes No |
33 18 |
7 11 |
21.21 61.11 |
0.007 |
Table 7.
Final logistic regression model for herd-level risk factors for MRSA infection in dairy buffaloes.
| Variable | Category | Intercept | S.E. | p-value | OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Herd Size | >6 ≤6 |
1.443 Ref. |
0.711 | 0.042 | 4.24 | 1.05–17.07 |
| Presence of other animals | Yes No |
-1.908 Ref. |
0.698 | 0.006 | 0.15 | 0.04–0.58 |
| Constant | 2.670 | 1.023 | 0.009 |
4. Discussion
In Asia, S. aureus is considered as a common cause of mastitis in cattle and water buffaloes (Sharma and Maiti, 2010). The prevalence of S. aureus in milk from cattle and buffaloes reported in Asia could be ranged from 29.0% in China (Zhang et al., 2016) to 54.87% in India (Kumar et al., 2011). S. aureus could be found inside the mammary gland or on teat skin and could be spread from the infected milk or sprays, on milkers’ hands or teat cups (Terefe, 2018). In the current study, most dairy buffaloes were hand-milked, which could be a possible mode of transmission leading to have a high prevalence of S. aureus infection. Moreover, we observed that most water buffaloes were not applied with teat dipping solution after milking. These practices could allow S. aureus to colonize on the teat skin, spread easily throughout the herd and consequently infect into the mammary glands.
The prevalence of MRSA isolated from bovine and buffalo milk previously reported in many countries were generally lower than 50% of isolated S. aureus, which ranged from 15.5% in China (Wang et al., 2015) to 41.05% in Turkey (Buyukcangaz et al., 2013). In contrast, the present study reported a significant higher prevalence of MRSA (61.54%) than what were previously reported. Among these isolated MRSA, only 37.5% harbored the mecA gene. Similar to our finding, a study in China demonstrated that only 19% (11/58) of cefoxitin resistant MRSA isolated from bovine mastitis milk carried mecA gene (Zhang et al., 2016). Another study showed that 34 (15.5%) isolates were phenotypic MRSA, while only 6 were mecA positive (Wang et al., 2015). This finding suggests that mechanisms of methicillin resistance other than the alteration of PBP2 protein by the expression of mecA gene could be considered in our MRSA collection. One possible mechanism is the presence of β-lactamase enzyme which hydrolyzes the β-lactam ring resulting to phenotypic methicillin resistance (Llarrull et al., 2009). Another mechanism is the presence of the novel gene mecC which has 70% homology to mecA and also confers methicillin resistance (García-Álvarez et al., 2011). These mechanisms should be further investigated in the future study.
Other than penicillin, we observed very low rate of antimicrobial resistance among our MRSA collection. However, the majority of our MRSA (62.50%) had intermediate susceptibility to erythromycin. Some previous studies also reported high rate of erythromycin resistance among MRSA which could be ranged from 85.7% in India (Kumar et al., 2011) to 97.1% in China (Wang et al., 2015). Erythromycin is not used for dairy animals in the Philippines. Therefore, our finding suggests the concern of horizontal gene transfer of antimicrobial resistance genes among S. aureus or between different bacterial species such as Coagulase-negative staphylococci which are commensal in both human and animals (Otto, 2013). Furthermore, we found that 37.5% of the isolates were resistant to two or more antibiotics and considered MDR. Although most MRSA isolates in our study were still susceptible to most common antibiotics used for treatment of mastitis in dairy buffaloes, the concern on the presence of MDR strains should not be disregarded because this could pose zoonotic threat through consumption and handling of raw water buffalo milk (Pamuk et al., 2012).
The risk factor associated with the presence of MRSA in dairy buffaloes was having a mastitis history. The odds of having MRSA infection was 3.18 times higher for buffaloes with history of mastitis than those without previous record. Similar finding was also observed by Elemo et al. (2017) whose study showed that having mastitis record was a significant factor for having an antimicrobial resistant S. aureus infection in cows. MRSA can resist to β-lactam antibiotics which are commonly used for mastitis treatment, as a result treatment of mastitis caused by β-lactam resistant S. aureus like MRSA usually has low cure rates (Taponen et al., 2003). Moreover, IMIs from MRSA are likely to be chronic due to the fact that S. aureus can form micro-abscesses and invade into host phagocytic cells within the udders (Craven and Anderson, 1984). As a result, multiple infections can potentially be observed from animals with mastitis caused by MRSA.
We also found that herd size with more than 6 dairy buffaloes was found to have higher risk of MRSA infection compared to the smaller herd size. This finding conforms to the observation of Mekonnen et al. (2017) that S. aureus was more often isolated from large dairy cattle herds. Similarly, Tenhagen et al. (2018) in Germany and Cortimiglia et al. (2016) in Italy also showed that higher MRSA prevalence was observed in examined large dairy cattle herds. A higher risk of MRSA infection in large dairy cattle herds could be because of the possibility of having higher mastitis cases that consequently lead to increase frequency of antibiotic treatments. Furthermore, larger herds tend to have higher chance to import new animals into the farm, leading to a higher risk to introduce MRSA colonized animals to the herds (Tenhagen et al., 2018).
The presence of other animals in the herd was found to have highly negative association with the presence of MRSA. This result is contrary to other studies implicating the presence of other animals to MRSA detection in dairy farms. The presence of pigs in dairy herds was considered as possible source of MRSA because of the isolation of genotypic related MRSA strain from milk and swine herd (Spohr et al., 2011). MRSA transmission in livestock could usually happen in high density farms or where there is close proximity of farms to other livestock (Locatelli et al., 2017). However, the findings of this study conforms with the observations of Cortimiglia et al. (2016) which showed that the presence of any other species of animals in a farm is not positively associated with the prevalence of MRSA in bulk tank milk. One limitation of our study is that MRSA was not determined from other animals presented in the farm; therefore, results could not be confirmed if there is transmission from other animals. Aside from animals, the role of farmers and animal handlers who come into contact with different livestock within the herd could be possibly considered as source of MRSA infection to dairy cows (Pletinckx et al., 2011). However, this vague finding needs to be further investigated to explain the association between the presence of other animals and MRSA infection in dairy buffalo herds.
5. Conclusion
There is a high prevalence of S. aureus and MRSA isolated from milk of dairy water buffaloes having mastitis in the Philippines. Most MRSA isolates were still susceptible to common antibiotics tested in the study although 37.5% of the isolates were considered MDR. The results indicated the zoonotic threat on the presence of MRSA in milk and presence of MDR MRSA. Risk factors like having a mastitis history and herd size should be considered when dealing with MRSA infection in dairy buffaloes. Likewise, other sources of MRSA infection aside from the presence of other animals should also be considered to control MRSA in dairy buffaloes.
Declarations
Author contribution statement
Alona T. Badua: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.
Sukolrat Boonyayatra: Conceived and designed the experiments; Wrote the paper.
Nattakarn Awaiwanont, Claro N. Mingala: Conceived and designed the experiments.
Paula Blanca V. Gaban: Performed the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.
Funding statement
This work was supported by the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai University; the Commission of Higher Education-Foreign Studies Abroad; and the Philippine Carabao Center.
Data availability statement
Data included in article.
Competing interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
No additional information is available for this paper.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang Mai, Thailand, the Philippine Carabao Center and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Philippines, for their support in this research work. Likewise, we would like to thank all the dairy cooperatives and farms who participated in this study.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following is the supplementary data related to this article:
References
- Akindolire M.A., Babalola O.O., Ateba C.N. Detection of antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus aureus from milk: a Public health implication. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2015;12:10254–10275. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120910254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bulatao S.M. Philippines: promoting dairy entrepreneurship through enterprise zones. Food Agric. Organ. 2018 http://www.fao.org/3/i0588e/I0588E09.htm [Google Scholar]
- Buyukcangaz E., Kahya S., Sen A., Intaş K.S., Eyigor A., Temelli S., Carli K.T. MecA gene prevalence in Staphylococcus aureus isolates from dairy cows in Turkey. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2013;7:183–190. [Google Scholar]
- Charan J., Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian J. Psychol. Med. 2013;35:121–126. doi: 10.4103/0253-7176.116232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ciftci A., Findik A., Onuk E.E., Savasan S. Detection of methicillin resistance and slime factor production of Staphylococcus aureus in bovine mastitis. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2009;40:254–261. doi: 10.1590/S1517-83822009000200009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- CLSI . Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2015. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing M100-S25.http://passthrough.fw-notify.net/download/795729/http://file.qums.ac.ir/repository/mmrc/CLSI2015.pdf [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cortimiglia C., Luini M., Bianchini V., Marzagalli L., Vezzoli F., Avisani D., Bertoletti M., Ianzano A., Franco A., Battisti A. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and of methicillin-resistant S. aureus clonal complexes in bulk tank milk from dairy cattle herds in Lombardy region (Northern Italy) Epidemiol. Infect. 2016;144:3046–3051. doi: 10.1017/S0950268816001576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Craven N., Anderson J.C. Phagocytosis of Staphylococcus aureus by bovine mammary gland macrophages and intracellular protection from antibiotic action in vitro and in vivo. J. Dairy Res. 1984;51(4):513–523. doi: 10.1017/s0022029900032830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cuny C., Wieler L.H., Wolfgang W. Livestock-associated MRSA: the impact on humans. Antibiotics (Basel) 2015;4:521–543. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics4040521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Elemo K.K., Sisay T., Shiferaw A., Fato M.A. Prevalence, risk factors and multidrug resistance profile of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis in selected dairy farms in and around Asella town, Arsi Zone, South Eastern Ethiopia. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2017;11:1632–1642. [Google Scholar]
- Elhaig M.M., Selim A. Molecular and bacteriological investigation of subclinical mastitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus agalactiae in domestic bovids from Ismailia, Egypt. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2015;47:271–276. doi: 10.1007/s11250-014-0715-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- García-Álvarez L., Holden M.T., Lindsay H., Webb C.R., Brown D.F., Curran M.D., Walpole E., Brooks K., Pickard D.J., Teale C., Parkhill J., Bentley S.D., Edwards G.F., Girvan E.K., Kearns A.M., Pichon B., Hill R.L., Larsen A.R., Skov R.L., Peacock S.J., Maskell D.J., Holmes M.A. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a novel mecA homologue in human and bovine populations in the UK and Denmark: a descriptive study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2011;11:595–603. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70126-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guimarães F.F., Manzi M.P., Joaquim S.F., Richini-Fereira V.B., Langoni H. Outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-associated mastitis in a closed dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 2017;100:726–730. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haran K.P., Godden S.M., Boxrud D., Jawahir S., Bender J.B., Sreevatsan S. Prevalence and characterization of Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, isolated from bulk tank milk from Minnesota dairy farms. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012;50:688–695. doi: 10.1128/JCM.05214-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hata E., Katsuda K., Kobayashi H., Uchida I., Tanaka K., Eguchi M. Genetic variation among Staphylococcus aureus strains from bovine milk and their relevance to Methicillin-resistant isolates from humans. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010;48:2130–2139. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01940-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hudzicki J. Kirby-Bauer Disk Diffusion Susceptibility Test Protocol. Am. Soc. Microbiol. 2009 http://www.asmscience.org/content/education/protocol/protocol.3189 [Google Scholar]
- Kumar R., Yadav B.R., Singh R.S. Antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity factors in Staphylococcus aureus isolated from mastitic Sahiwal cattle. J. Biosci. 2011;36:175–188. doi: 10.1007/s12038-011-9004-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee J.H. Methicillin (Oxacillin) resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from major food animals and their potential transmission to humans. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003;69:6489–6494. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.11.6489-6494.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Llarrull L.I., Fisher J.F., Mobashery S. Molecular basis and phenotype of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and insights into new-lactams that meet the challenge. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009;53:4051–4063. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00084-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Locatelli C., Cremonesi P., Caprioli A., Carfora V., Ianzano A., Barberio A., Morandi S., Casula A., Castiglioni B., Bronzo V., Moroni P. Occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in dairy cattle herds, related swine farms, and humans in contact with herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2017;100:608–619. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marshall B.M., Levy S.B. Food animals and antimicrobials: impacts on human health. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2011;24:718–733. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00002-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mehndiratta P.L., Bhalla P. Typing of Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a technical review. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2012;30:16–23. doi: 10.4103/0255-0857.93015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mekonnen S.A., Koop G., Melkie S.T., Getahun C.D., Hogeveen H., Lam T.J.G.M. Prevalence of subclinical mastitis and associated risk factors at cow and herd level in dairy farms in North-West Ethiopia. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017;145:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Otto M. Coagulase-negative staphylococci as reservoirs of genes facilitating MRSA infection Staphylococcal commensal species such as Staphylococcus epidermidis are being recognized as important sources of genes promoting MRSA colonization and virulence. Bioessays. 2013;35(1):4–11. doi: 10.1002/bies.201200112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pamuk S., Yildirim Y., Seker E., Gurler Z., Kara R. A survey of the occurrence and properties of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus intermedius in water buffalo milk and dairy products in Turkey. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2012;65:416–422. [Google Scholar]
- Pletinckx L.J., Verhegghe M., Dewulf J., Crombé F., De Bleecker Y., Rasschaert G., Goddeeris B.M., De Man I. Screening of poultry-pig farms for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: sampling methodology and within herd prevalence in broiler flocks and pigs. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2011;11:2133–2137. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2011.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sharma L., Verma A.K., Kumar A., Neha A.R., Nigam R. Incidence and pattern of antibiotic resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from clinical and subclinical mastitis in cattle and buffaloes. Asian J. Anim. Sci. 2015;9:100–110. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma N., Maiti S.K. Incidence, etiology and antibiogram of sub clinical mastitis in cows in Durg, Chhattisgarh. Indian J Vet Res. 2010;19:45–54. [Google Scholar]
- Spohr M., Rau J., Friedrich A., Klittich G., Fetsch A., Guerra B., Hammerl J.A., Tenhagen B.A. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in three dairy herds in southwest Germany. Zoonoses Public Health. 2011;58:252–261. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2010.01344.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taponen S., Jantunen A., Pyorala E., Pyorala S. Efficacy of targeted 5-day combined parenteral and intramammary treatment of clinical mastitis caused by penicillin-susceptible or penicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Acta Vet. Scand. 2003;44(1-2):53–62. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-44-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tenhagen B.A., Alt K., Pfefferkorn B., Wiehle L., Käsbohrer Fetsch A. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in conventional and organic dairy herds in Germany. J. Dairy Sci. 2018;101:3380–3386. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-12939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Terefe S. Review on the current status of bovine mastitis and its risk factors in dairy farms of Ethiopia. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2018;6:5–18. [Google Scholar]
- Turkyilmaz S., Tekbiyik S., Oryasin E., Bozdogan B. Molecular epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance mechanisms of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine milk. Zoonoses Public Health. 2010;57:197–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01257.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wang D., Wang Z., Yan Z., Wu J., Ali T., Li J., Lv Y., Han B. Bovine mastitis Staphylococcus aureus: antibiotic susceptibility profile, resistance genes and molecular typing of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive strains in China. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2015;31:9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2014.12.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang K., McClure J.A., Elsayed S., Louie T., Conly J.M. Novel multiplex PCR assay for characterization and concomitant subtyping of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec types I to V in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005;43(10):5026–5033. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.10.5026-5033.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang K., Sparling J., Chow B.L., Elsayed S., Hussain Z., Church D.L., Gregson D.B., Louie T., Conly J.M. New quadriplex PCR assay for detection of methicillin and mupirocin resistance and simultaneous discrimination of Staphylococcus aureus from coagulase-negative staphylococci. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004;42:4947–4955. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.11.4947-4955.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang L., Li Y., Bao H., Wei R., Zhou Y., Zhang H., Wang R. Population structure and antimicrobial profile of Staphylococcus aureus strains associated with bovine mastitis in China. Microb. Pathog. 2016;97:103–109. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2016.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data included in article.


