Therapeutic administration of enrofloxacin in mice does not select for fluoroquinolone resistance in <i>Campylobacter jejuni</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enrofloxacin is registered for therapeutic use in beef cattle to treat bovine respiratory disease in Canada. A murine model was used to experimentally examine the impact of therapeutic administration of enrofloxacin on fluoroquinolone resistance development in Campylobacter jejuni. Administration of enrofloxacin to mice via subcutaneous injection or per os routes resulted in equivalent levels of bioactive enrofloxacin within the intestine, but bioactivity was short-lived (<48 h after cessation). Enrofloxacin administration did not affect densities of total bacteria, Firmicutes, or Bacteroidetes in digesta and had modest impacts on densities of Enterobacteriaceae. All mice inoculated with C. jejuni NCTC 11168 became persistently colonized by the bacterium. Enrofloxacin reduced C. jejuni cell densities within the cecal and colonic digesta for all treatments, and densities shed in feces as a function of antibiotic duration. None of the C. jejuni isolates recovered from mice after administration of enrofloxacin (n = 260) developed resistance to ciprofloxacin regardless of method or duration of administration. Furthermore, only modest shifts in the minimum inhibitory concentration of the isolates by treatment were noted. The study findings indicate that the risk posed by short-term subcutaneous administration of enrofloxacin for the development of fluoroquinolone resistance in mammals is low.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".