Antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus isolated from western Canadian cow-calf herds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Data on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in cow-calf herds is limited and there have been no Canadian studies examining AMR in Enterococcus in cow-calf herds. Enterococcus is a ubiquitous Gram-positive indicator of AMR for enteric organisms that is also important in human health. The objective of this study was to describe AMR in specific Enterococcus species of interest from cow-calf herds; highlighting differences in AMR among isolates from cows and calves and samples collected in the spring and fall. Isolates (n = 1505) were examined from 349 calves and 385 cows from 39 herds in the spring of 2021 and 413 calves from 39 herds and 358 cows from 36 herds in the fall of 2021. Enterococcus species were identified using Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time-Of-Flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was completed based on a prioritization scheme for importance to human health and using the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) Gram positive Sensititre broth microdilution panel. Results Resistance was observed to at least one antimicrobial in 86% (630/734) of isolates from the spring and 84% (644/771) of isolates from the fall. The most common types of resistance across all species were: lincomycin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, daptomycin, ciprofloxacin, and tetracycline. However, the proportion of isolates with AMR varied substantially based on species. Multiclass resistance, defined as resistance to ≥3 antimicrobial classes after excluding intrinsic resistance, was highest in isolates from calves in the spring (6.9%) (24/349) and cows in the fall (6.7%) (24/357). Differences in resistance were seen between cows and calves in the spring and fall as well as across seasons, with no differences seen between cows and calves in the fall. Conclusions While most Enterococcus isolates were resistant to at least one antimicrobial, questions remain regarding species differences in intrinsic resistance and the accuracy of certain antimicrobial breakpoints for specific Enterococcus spp. As a result, some species-specific AMR profiles should be interpreted with caution. Despite these constraints, Enterococcus species are important indicator organisms for AMR and resulting data can be used to inform stewardship initiatives.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.781 | 0.032 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".