Comparative diversity of microbiomes and Resistomes in beef feedlots, downstream environments and urban sewage influent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Comparative knowledge of microbiomes and resistomes across environmental interfaces between animal production systems and urban settings is lacking. In this study, we executed a comparative analysis of the microbiota and resistomes of metagenomes from cattle feces, catch basin water, manured agricultural soil and urban sewage. Results Metagenomic DNA from composite fecal samples (FC; n = 12) collected from penned cattle at four feedlots in Alberta, Canada, along with water from adjacent catchment basins (CB; n = 13), soil (n = 4) from fields in the vicinity of one of the feedlots and urban sewage influent (SI; n = 6) from two municipalities were subjected to Illumina HiSeq2000 sequencing. Firmicutes exhibited the highest prevalence (40%) in FC, whereas Proteobacteria were most abundant in CB (64%), soil (60%) and SI (83%). Among sample types, SI had the highest diversity of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and metal and biocide resistance (MBR) classes (13 & 15) followed by FC (10 & 8), CB (8 & 4), and soil (6 & 1). The highest antimicrobial resistant (AMR) gene (ARG) abundance was harboured by FC, whereas soil samples had a very small, but unique resistome which did not overlap with FC & CB resistomes. In the beef production system, tetracycline resistance predominated followed by macrolide resistance. The SI resistome harboured β-lactam, macrolide, tetracycline, aminoglycoside, fluoroquinolone and fosfomycin resistance determinants. Metal and biocide resistance accounted for 26% of the SI resistome with a predominance of mercury resistance. Conclusions This study demonstrates an increasing divergence in the nature of the microbiome and resistome as the distance from the feedlot increases. Consistent with antimicrobial use, tetracycline and macrolide resistance genes were predominant in the beef production system. One of the feedlots contributed both conventional (raised with antibiotics) and natural (raised without antibiotics) pens samples. Although natural pen samples exhibited a microbiota composition that was similar to samples from conventional pens, their resistome was less complex. Similarly, the SI resistome was indicative of drug classes used in humans and the greater abundance of mercury resistance may be associated with contamination of municipal water with household and industrial products.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".