Assessing Transmission of Antimicrobial-Resistant Escherichia coli in Wild Giraffe Contact Networks

Abstract

There is growing evidence that anthropogenic sources of antibiotics and antimicrobial-resistant bacteria can spill over into natural ecosystems, raising questions about the role wild animals play in the emergence, maintenance, and dispersal of antibiotic resistance genes. In particular, we lack an understanding of how resistance genes circulate within wild animal populations, including whether specific host characteristics, such as social associations, promote interhost transmission of these genes. In this study, we used social network analysis to explore the forces shaping population-level patterns of resistantEscherichia coliin wild giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) and assess the relative importance of social contact for the dissemination of resistantE. colibetween giraffe. Of 195 giraffe sampled, only 5.1% harboredE. coliisolates resistant to one or more tested antibiotics. Whole-genome sequencing on a subset of resistant isolates revealed a number of acquired resistance genes with linkages to mobile genetic elements. However, we found no evidence that the spread of resistance genes among giraffe was facilitated by interhost associations. Giraffe with lower social degree were more likely to harbor resistantE. coli, but this relationship was likely driven by a correlation between an individual’s social connectedness and age. Indeed, resistantE. coliwas most frequently detected in socially isolated neonates, indicating that resistantE. colimay have a selective advantage in the gastrointestinal tracts of neonates compared to other age classes. Taken together, these results suggest that the maintenance of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in wild populations may, in part, be determined by host traits and microbial competition dynamics within the host.IMPORTANCEAntimicrobial resistance represents a significant threat to human health, food security, and the global economy. To fully understand the evolution and dissemination of resistance genes, a complete picture of antimicrobial resistance in all biological compartments, including natural ecosystems, is required. The environment and wild animals may act as reservoirs for anthropogenically derived resistance genes that could be transferrable to clinically relevant bacteria of humans and domestic animals. Our study investigated the possible transmission mechanisms for antimicrobial-resistant bacteria within a wild animal population and, more broadly, contributes to our understanding of how resistance genes are spread and maintained in natural ecosystems.

Prevalence of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases in E. coli of Rats in the Region North East of Gabon

“…Enterobacteriaceae in the gut of humans and animals acquire resistance through the selection pressure of antibiotics and their ability to exchange genetic material [ 9 ]. Thus, the spread of ESBL strains of Enterobacteria in the environment and wildlife has been observed [ 10 – 12 ].…”

Merging Metagenomics and Spatial Epidemiology To Understand the Distribution of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes from Enterobacteriaceae in Wild Owls

“…Specifically, birds in their hatch year were more likely to harbor ARGs conferring resistance to ␤-lactams than adult birds. While this pattern has been observed in both wild and domestic mammals (48)(49)(50), to our knowledge, this is the first report of an age-related distribution of AMR in wild birds. Seasonality was also an important predictor of the presence of ARGs, with birds sampled during warmer months being more likely to harbor at least one ARG than birds sampled during cooler months.…”

A Protocol for the Ethical Assessment of Wild Animal–Visitor Interactions (AVIP) Evaluating Animal Welfare, Education, and Conservation Outcomes

“…In this phase, an exhaustive list of potential biological and physical hazards was created. The list of the zoonotic agents to be included was based on scientific reports of diseases in species involved in AVIs [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ].…”

“… Disease Species Bibliography Tuberculosis Mycobacterium tuberculosis ; M. bovis [ 34 , 35 , 36 ] Brucellosis Brucella spp. [ 37 , 38 , 39 ] Salmonellosis Salmonella enterica [ 40 , 41 ] E. coli infections Escherichia coli [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] Campylobacteriosis Campylobacter spp. [ 46 ] Cryptosporidiosis Cryptosporidium muris [ 47 , 48 ] Listeriosis Listeria monocytogenes [ 49 ] Yersiniosis Yersinaia enterocolitica [ 49 ] Antimicrobial-Resistant bacteria MRSA (methicillin-resistant...…”

“… [ 37 , 38 , 39 ] Salmonellosis Salmonella enterica [ 40 , 41 ] E. coli infections Escherichia coli [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] Campylobacteriosis Campylobacter spp. [ 46 ] Cryptosporidiosis Cryptosporidium muris [ 47 , 48 ] Listeriosis Listeria monocytogenes [ 49 ] Yersiniosis Yersinaia enterocolitica [ 49 ] Antimicrobial-Resistant bacteria MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ), ESBL (Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases) [ 45 , 50 , 51 , 52 ] Dermatophytosis Trichophyton spp. [ 53 ] …”