Abstract
This study aimed to determine the antibiotic susceptibility of seven antibiotics, (Amoxicillin (AX), Ampicillin (AM), Chloramphenicol (C), Ciprofloxacin (CIP), Doxycycline (DO), Gentamicin (CN) and Neomycin (N)) on some common microorganisms that cause food poisoning. Furthermore, we aimed to compare three types of culture media in assessing antibiotics susceptibility. A sensitivity test was carried out using six bacterial isolates: Micrococcus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa. These bacterial isolates were identified at the Food Microbiology Division, Public Health Laboratory using three culture media: Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA), Antibiotic Assay Medium A (AAM), and nutrient agar (NA). The results showed that all of these media are suitable to test antibiotic sensitivity. Bacterial sensitivity and resistance between these media (P≤0.01) were recorded, with significant differences found at the tested probability level.
Keywords: Antibiotic, culture media, sensitivity test, food poisoning
ABBREVIATIONS: CLSI – Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, MRSA– Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, PSP – Pancreatic stone protein.
INTRODUCTION
Food poisoning, also known as foodborne illness, is caused by eating contaminated food. Bacterial and parasite infections and their toxins are the most common types of food poisoning, resulting from contaminated food, poor food hygiene, or neglect of health safety practices by restaurant workers [1–3]. Escherichia coli O157:H7 is the most dangerous contamination of red meat and its products. There is a high rate of infections in rural areas as a result of direct contact between the carcass and its skin or feces contaminated with bacteria during the slaughtering and skinning process, and the transmission of infection from one carcass contaminated with this bacteria from meat to other carcasses, as well as contamination of cutting, chopping and manufacturing devices [4]. An antibiotic sensitivity test measures how sensitive bacteria are to different antibiotics. Therefore, the antibiotic sensitivity test offers important and useful information regarding the antibiotics that must be effective against microbes [5]. Susceptibility testing allows researchers to adjust the antibiotic approach, moving from experimental treatment to direct diagnosis based on the organism's experience, knowledge, and affection, and at last, to antibiotic selection [6]. Sensitivity testing is performed in a microbiology laboratory, where culture for detecting bacterial growth is applied, and the zone of inhibition is determined [7–8]. This study aimed to assess three types of culture media in detecting bacterial sensitivity.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The liquid medium nutrient broth (NB) was prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions to activate and grow six bacterial isolates (Micrococcus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp.) These microorganisms are among the common causes of diseases to which humans and animals are exposed. Consequently, test bacteria were taken from food sources obtained from the Food Microbiology Division, Central Public Health Laboratory. These microorganisms were contaminants that cause spoilage of some foods, including raw milk, pasteurized milk cheeses, and meat products diagnosed at the Food Microbiology Division, Central Public Health Laboratory. Four pure colonies with the same morphological characteristics of these test bacteria were grown on Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA), Antibiotic Assay Medium A (AAM), and nutrient agar (NA) medium supplied by Himedia (India) and transferred separately, and then incubated at a temperature of 35–37°C in test tubes containing 4–5 ml of NB medium for 18 hours. The turbidity of the bacterial growth was compared to that of a standard turbidity constant solution (McFarland's solution) by reading the optical density using a spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 450 nm after dipping a sterile swab into the standardized bacteria mix. Streaking methods were used to obtain single isolates (pure culture). The inoculation plates dried out within 5 minutes. The antibiotic discs were then placed using sterile forceps on an agar surface. Plates were incubated at 37°C for 18–24 hr. The inhibition zone was determined using a ruler for each disc [9, 10]. The antibiotic concentration and the classification in the diameter of the inhibition zones according to Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) are shown in Table 1 [11].
Table 1.
Antibiotic concentration and inhibition zone diameter (Mm) testing standards for bacteria according to CLSI [11].
| Antibiotics | Concentration μg | Resistant | Intermediate | Susceptible |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amoxicillin (AX) | 30 μg | ≤18 | 14–17 | ≥13 |
| Gentamicin (CN) | 10 μg | ≤12 | 13–14 | ≥15 |
| Neomycin (N) | 30 μg | ≤17 | 13–16 | ≥12 |
| Chloramphenicol | 30 μg | ≤18 | 13–17 | ≥12 |
| Doxycycline (DO) | 30 μg | ≤14 | 11–13 | ≥10 |
| Ampicillin (AM) | 10 μg | ≤13 | 14–16 | ≥17 |
Statistical analysis
Data was analyzed using SAS 2011 (Statistical Analysis System). The Chi-Square test was used to compare the percentages (probability 0.05 and 0.01) [12].
RESULTS
The grades of the compassion test of bacterial isolates for each antibiotic were shown on each of the following media: MHA, AAM, and NA. Cultures were represented by the following microorganisms:
1. Micrococcus spp.
All isolates were hypersensitive to Neomycin (100%), Gentamicin (100%), Amoxicillin (100%) and Ampicillin (100%). Most isolates showed moderate susceptibility to Chloramphenicol (50%), Doxycycline (100%), and Ciprofloxacin (100%). This result is similar in all media (Tables 2, 3 and 4).
Table 2.
Antibiotic sensitivity test for some bacterial isolate using Mueller Hinton Agar.
| Antibiotics | Bacteria species | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micrococcus (4) | S. aureus (4) | Salmonella (4) | E. coli (4) | P. aeruginosa (4) | Proteus mirabilis (4) | |||||||
| S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | |
| Amoxicillin (AX) 25 μg | 100 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 75 | 25 | 75 | 25 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 100 |
| Gentamicin (CN) 10 μg | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 75 | 25 | 75 |
| Neomycin (N) 30 μg | 100 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 75 | 25 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 0 |
| Chloramphenicol (C) 30 μg | 50 | 50 | 75 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 75 | 25 | 50 | 50 |
| Doxycycline (DO) 30 μg | 100 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 25 | 75 |
| Ampicillin (AM) 10 μg | 100 | 0 | 25 | 75 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 25 | 75 | 0 | 100 |
| Ciprofloxacin (CIP) 5 μg | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 100 | 0 |
| Chi-Square (χ2) | 10.50** | 15.47** | 16.02** | 15.85** | 11.73** | 16.14** | ||||||
– P≤0.01; 4 – Four well isolated colonies of the same morphological type.
Table 3.
Antibiotic sensitivity test for some bacterial isolate using Antibiotic Assay Medium A.
| AAntibiotics | Bacteria species | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micrococcus (4) | S. aureus (4) | Salmonella (4) | E. coli (4) | P. aeruginosa (4) | Proteus mirabilis (4) | |||||||
| S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | |
| Amoxicillin (AX) | 0 | 100 | 75 | 25 | 25 | 75 | 75 | 25 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 100 |
| Gentamicin (CN) | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 75 | 100 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 25 | 75 |
| Ampicillin (AM) | 0 | 100 | 25 | 75 | 25 | 75 | 0 | 100 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| Neomycin (N) | 0 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 75 | 25 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 0 |
| Chloramphenicol (C) | 50 | 50 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 25 | 75 | 50 | 50 |
| Doxycycline (DO) | 0 | 100 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 25 | 75 |
| Ciprofloxacin (CIP) | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 75 | 100 | 0 |
| Chi-Square (χ2) | 10.50** | 15.47** | 16.02** | 15.85** | 11.73** | 16.14** | ||||||
– P≤0.01; 4 – Four well isolated colonies of the same morphological type.
Table 4.
Antibiotics sensitivity test for some bacterial isolate using nutrient agar.
| AAntibiotics | Bacteria species | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micrococcus (4) | S. aureus (4) | Salmonella (4) | E. coli (4) | P. aeruginosa (4) | Proteus mirabilis (4) | |||||||
| S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | S. % | R. % | |
| Amoxicillin (AX) | 0 | 100 | 75 | 25 | 25 | 75 | 75 | 25 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 100 |
| Gentamicin (CN) | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 75 | 100 | 0 | 75 | 25 | 25 | 75 |
| Neomycin (N) | 0 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 75 | 25 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 0 |
| Chloramphenicol (C) | 50 | 50 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 25 | 75 | 50 | 50 |
| Ampicillin (AM) | 0 | 100 | 25 | 75 | 25 | 75 | 0 | 100 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 100 |
| Doxycycline (DO) | 0 | 100 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 25 | 75 |
| Ciprofloxacin (CIP) | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 25 | 75 | 100 | 0 |
| Chi-Square (χ2) | 10.50** | 15.47** | 16.02** | 15.85** | 11.73** | 16.14** | ||||||
– P≤0.01; 4 – Four well isolated colonies of the same morphological type.
2. Staphylococcus aureus
Most S. aureus isolates were sensitive to Amoxicillin (75%), Chloramphenicol (75%), Doxycycline (75%), and Gentamicin (100%). In addition, all S. aureus isolates were sensitive to Ciprofloxacin (100%) and showed moderate susceptibility to Neomycin (50%), but all isolates showed resistance to Ampicillin (Tables 2, 3 and 4).
3. Salmonella spp.
Most isolates were sensitive to Ampicillin (75%), Amoxicillin (75%), and Gentamicin (75%). All isolates were susceptible to Ciprofloxacin (100%), Chloramphenicol (100%), and Doxycycline (100%). Most isolates showed moderate susceptibility to Neomycin (50%) (Tables 2, 3 and 4).
4. Escherichia coli
All isolates remained sensitive to Ciprofloxacin (100%), Doxycycline (100%) and Gentamicin (100%). Most isolates were sensitive to Amoxicillin (75%), and Neomycin (75%) and showed moderate susceptibility to Chloramphenicol (50%). However, most isolates showed resistance to Ampicillin (100%) (Tables 2, 3 and 4).
5. Pseudomonas aeruginosa
All isolates were sensitive to Ciprofloxacin (75%), Chloramphenicol (75%). Most isolates showed moderate susceptibility to Amoxicillin (50%), Neomycin (50%), and Doxycycline (50%). Most isolates showed resistance to Ampicillin (25%) and Gentamicin (25%) (Tables 2, 3 and 4).
6. Proteus mirabilis
All isolates were sensitive to Ciprofloxacin (100%) and Neomycin (100%), and most isolates showed moderate susceptibility to Chloramphenicol (50%). However, most isolates showed resistance to Doxycycline (25%), Gentamicin (25%). Additionally, all isolates showed resistance to Ampicillin (100%) and Amoxicillin (100%) (Tables 2, 3 and 4).
DISCUSSIONS
Our results showed non-significant differences in bacterial sensitivity and resistance against different antibiotics in MHA, AAM, and NA. All these media can be used for antibiotic sensitivity tests and give satisfactory results. These results agree with those obtained by Coban [13], who recorded that AAM can be successfully used for antibiotic susceptibility tests in addition to MHA. The reason is that the emergence of bacterial strains in most cases develops multiple resistances to different types of antibiotics due to their misuse in treating various diseases.
These results were in agreement with Donkor et al. [14] who found that most S. aureus isolates were sensitive to Gentamicin and Chloramphenicol, while E. coli isolates were sensitive to Tetracycline. Moreover, most S. aureus isolates were sensitive to Ampicillin and Chloramphenicol because the excessive use of antibiotics has led to antibiotic resistance, and bacteria are known to be multi-resistant due to successive mutations [15].
Our result was in agreement with Bekele et al. [16] who found that Gentamicin was the most efficient antibiotic, while Amoxicillin and Tetracycline were less efficient. Our results were in agreement with the findings of others [16]. For example, Sabike et al. [17] found that the bacterial isolates used in their study were less sensitive to Ampicillin and Amoxicillin, while bacteria were sensitive to Gentamicin. A study by Vuotto et al. [18] recorded that Gentamicin was the best active medication of the 12 antibiotics tested in vitro.
Our results agreed with Farrell et al. [19], who mentioned that the antibiogram analysis of Gentamicin, Ciprofloxacin, Chloramphenicol, Amoxicillin, and Oxytetracycline was each 90% responsive to isolates. Most of the bacterial isolates resistant to Tetracycline were biofilm-producing due to their strong virulence factors in addition to their possession of efflux pumps [20]. Balemi et al., [21] found that Salmonella spp. and S. aureus were susceptible to Aminoglycosides and Oxytetracycline, respectively. Farrell et al. [19] found that S. aureus and Salmonella were Penicillin resistant (61.4% and 38.5%, respectively). Regarding the E. coli resistance of isolates, Ampicillin and Tetracycline were observed in 24.3% of E. coli isolates, 15.6%, and 13.5%. These findings agree with our findings. One of the reasons for the resistance of E. coli bacteria to antibiotics belonging to the quinolone group is a change in the target site and reduction in the permeability of external film of bacteria and its possession of efflux systems that include AcrAB-ToIC, MdfA, YhiV [22].
Our study agrees with Niederstebruch et al. [23], who found that bacterial isolates showed resistance to antibacterial agents, being sensitive to Ciprofloxacin and Gentamicin.
Furthermore, another study found that E. coli and S. aureus were sensitive to Gentamicin, while S. aureus and E. coli resistant to Penicillin [21].
The pathogenic bacteria P. aeruginosa, E. Coli, and Proteus mirabilis are gram-negative bacteria, while S. aureus, Micrococcus spp., and Salmonella spp. are gram positive, which resist the methicillin group (MRSA). The secondary metabolites of pancreatic stone protein (PSP) can inhibit the activities of gram negative bacteria that have lipopolysaccharides (LPS) and play a role in inhibiting beta lactamase enzymes produced by S. aureus [24, 25]. Our results was in accordance with those reported in previous studies in which the most commonly reported species were E. coli, P. aeruginosa. [26].
CONCLUSIONS
This study compared the sensitivity and antibiotic resistance using three culture media against several bacterial isolates that cause common foodborne illness. Future work should focus on the suitable media for bacterial isolates.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Market Research and Consumer Protection Center/University of Baghdad, (MRCPC-22).
Authorship
HSK contributed to the collecting and diagnosis of bacterial isolates. SJM is the corresponding author and contributed to the revision. ATM contributed to the writing, and data analysis of the manuscript. ASF contributed to data collection.
References
- 1.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 1. Vol. 33. Wayne: CLSI; 2013. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 23rd Informational supplement M100-S23; pp. 1–199. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bohaychuk VM, Gensler GE, Borrios PR. 'Microbiological baseline study of beef and pork carcasses from provincially inspected abattoirs in Alberta, Canada. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 2011;52(10):1095–1100. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Boskabadi H, Moradi A, Ramazani A, Zakerihamidi M. Sensitivity and Resistant of the Microorganisms Responsible for Neonatal Sepsis to Antibiotics. Archives of Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2020;15(6):e84710. doi: 10.5812/archcid.84710. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Temelli S, Eyigor A, Anar S. Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in red meat and meat products determined by VIDAS ECPT and Light Cycler PCR. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 2012;36(3):305–310. doi: 10.3906/vet-1107-38. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Nassar MSM, Hazzah WA, Bakr WMK. Evaluation of antibiotic susceptibility test results: how guilty a laboratory could be? Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association. 2019;94:4. doi: 10.1186/s42506-018-0006-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Andersson DI, Hughes D. Microbiological effects of sublethal levels of antibiotics. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2014;12:465–78. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Partridge SR, Kwong SM, Firth N, Jensen SO. Mobile Genetic Elements Associated with Antimicrobial Resistance. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2018;31(4):1–61. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00088-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Giuliano C, Pharm D, Patel CR, Pharm D, Kale-Pradhan PB. A Guide to Bacterial Culture Identification And Results Interpretation. P & T. 2019;44(4):192–200. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Quinn PJ, Markey BK, Leonard FC, Hartigan P, et al. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 2nd Ed. Blackwell Science Ltd; 2011. Veterinary Microbiology and Microbial Diseases. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Howe R, Andrews J. BSAC standardized disc susceptibility testing method (version 11) Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2012;67(12):2783–2784. doi: 10.1093/jac/dks391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute(CLSI) Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests; Approved standard-10th ed. CLSI document M02-A10. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne. 2009;29(1) [Google Scholar]
- 12.SAS (Statistical Analysis System) SAS Version 9.3. Procedure Guide. SAS. Inc, Cary. 2011.
- 13.Coban AY. Blood agar validation for susceptibility testing of isoniazid, Rifampicin, Ethambutol, and streptomycin to Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates. PLOS ONE. 2013;8(2):e55370. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Donkor E, Nortey T, Opintan J, Dayie N, Akyeh M. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella Typhi and Staphylococcus aureus isolates and the effect of some Media on susceptibility testing results. The Internet Journal of Microbiology. 2007;(4):1–6. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gwenzi W, Musiyiwa K, Mangori L. Sources, Behaviour and Health Risks of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Wastewaters: A Hotspot Reservoir. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2018;8:1–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2018.02.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bekele T, Tesfaye A, Sewunet T, Waktola HD. Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern among catheterized patients at Jimma University Teaching Hospital, Jimma, Ethiopia. BMC Research Note. 2015;8:488. doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1497-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sabike II, Fujikawa H, Sakha MZ, Edris AM. Production of Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin A in raw milk at high temperatures. Journal of Food Protection. 2014;77(9):1612–1616. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Vuotto C, Longo F, Balice MP, Donelli G, Varaldo PE. Antibiotic Resistance Related to Biofilm Formation in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Pathogens. 2014;3:743–758. doi: 10.3390/pathogens3030743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Farrell DJ, Mendes RE, Jones RN. Antimicrobial activity of Solithromycin against serotyped macrolide-resistant staphylococcus pnemoniae isolates collected from US medical centers in 2012. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2015;59(4):2432–2434. doi: 10.1128/AAC.04568-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Tokunaga H, Mitsuo K, Ichinose S, Omori A, et al. Salt-inducible multidrug efflux pump protein in the moderately halophilic bacterium Chromohalobacter sp. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2004;(8):4424–4431. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.8.4424-4431.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Balemi A, Gumi B, Amenu K, Girma S, et al. Prevalence of Mastitis and Antibiotic Resistance of Bacterial Isolates from CMT Positive Milk Samples Obtained from Dairy Cows, Camels, and Goats in Two Pastoral Districts in Southern Ethiopia. Animals. 2021;11:1530. doi: 10.3390/ani11061530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.White A, Hughes JM. Critical Importance of a One Health Approach to Antimicrobial Resistance. EcoHealth. 2019;16:404–409. doi: 10.1007/s10393-019-01415-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Niederstebruch N, Sixt D. Standard nutrient agar 1 as a substitute for blood-supplemented Mueller-Hinton agar for antibiograms in developing countries. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2013;32:237–241. doi: 10.1007/s10096-012-1735-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Asagabaldan MA, Ayuningrum D, Kristiana R, Sabdono A, et al. Identification and Antibacterial Activity of Bacteria Isolated from Marine Sponge Haliclona (Reniera (sp against Multi-Drug Resistant Human Pathogen IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2017;55:12–019. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/55/1/012019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Mohammed SJ, Al-Mousawi AD, Abu-Almaaly RA. Investigation of bacterial contaminants in freezers keeping frozen food in local markets. Iraqi Journal of Market Research and Consumer Protection. 2017;9(1):85–91. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Giacopello C, Foti M, Mascetti A. Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Enterobacteriaceae in European Wild Bird Species Admitted in a Wildlife Rescue Centre. Vet. Ital. 2016:139–144. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.327.1374.2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]