Antibiotic use in salmon aquaculture produces resistant bacteria with potential to transfer resistance to human pathogens
Chile is the world’s second largest producer of farmed
salmon, after Norway. Pathogenic infections are a frequent source of mortality
in intensive salmon aquaculture. As stocking densities increase in an effort to
increase yield, increases in epizootic diseases are often the limiting factor
of productivity. Unlike it Europe where the use of antibiotics in aquaculture
is banned, where vaccination and hygienic animal husbandry are the most used
methods of disease control, Chile’s primary method of disease control is the excessive
use of antimicrobials. The emergence of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens and
new pathogens has stimulated even greater use of antimicrobials.
Antimicrobials are placed within medicated feed.
Antimicrobials in feed that is not consumed, along with unmetabolised antimicrobials
in fish urine and faeces, end up in the surrounding environment, where they select
for resistant bacteria and may also encourage horizontal gene transfer of
antimicrobial-resistance genes (ARG). There is a potential flow of ARG between
environmental bacteria and the pathogens of fish and humans.
To find evidence of these potential effects of excessive
antimicrobial use in aquaculture, this study investigated the antimicrobial resistance
of 200 bacterial species sampled from aquaculture areas and non-aquaculture
areas, searched within them for ARGs, and tested their ability to horizontally
transfer ARGs to the human pathogen E.coli
via conjugation.
They found that of the 200 bacterial isolates, 81% displayed
antimicrobial resistance to at least one of the eight antimicrobials used. Resistance
to the three most commonly used antimicrobials in Chile was 32%, 26% and 53% at
the aquaculture site and 22%, 25% and 45% at the non-aquaculture site. There
was no significant difference in antimicrobial resistance between the sites.
They concluded from this that the effects of aquaculture antimicrobial use are
far reaching (the ‘non-aquaculture site’ was located 8km from the aquaculture
site). I think that without additional
samples from a much further distance from the aquaculture site, it is hard to
say whether there is not just a background level of antimicrobial resistance in
the environment. Specific resistance determinant DNA probes were used to
identify ARGs within the bacterial isolates, 42 ARGs were confirmed in bacteria
from the aquaculture site, whereas only 14 were confirmed in the
non-aquaculture site bacteria. 9 multi-resistant bacteria, 6 from the
aquaculture site and 3 from the non-aquaculture site were tested for the
ability to horizontally transfer ARGs to E.coli,
2 bacteria from the aquaculture site successfully transferred the genes via
conjugation.
Shah, S. Q. A., Cabello, F. C., L'Abée‐Lund, T. M., Tomova, A., Godfrey, H. P., Buschmann, A. H., & Sørum, H. (2014). Antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial resistance genes in marine bacteria from salmon aquaculture and non‐aquaculture sites. Environmental microbiology.
Did they observe any effects on other aquatic organisms in the surrounding area? Do you think that their ability to defend against pathogens will be affected?
ReplyDeleteThey mention that the export of antimicrobials to the environment can lead to the flow of resistance genes to the pathogens of other animals. I guess this wouldn't affect the animal's ability to defend against the pathogens unless they naturally use similar antimicrobials. Though anything that increases the survivability of salmon pathogens could potentially be harmful to other fish species as well.
DeleteThere is also the possibility that the antimicrobial resistant bacteria may be favoured under the selective pressure of antimicrobial pollution of sediments. This may alter marine sediment communities, disrupting cycling process and having wider impacts on wild organisms.
Delete