Isolation and Identification
In the present study, 44 Gram- negative bacteria were isolated
viz., 30
E. coli, 11
K. pneumoniae and three
P. aeruginosa, from a total of 100 samples collected from skin and urogenital tract infections in dogs. Apart from these, other isolates obtained were
Staphylococcus spp. (53) and
Bacillus spp. (2). The isolates which produced irregular, cream, shiny and smooth colonies in BHIA, lactose fermenting colonies on Mac Conkey agar, distinctive metallic green sheen on eosin methylene blue agar, positive for catalase, indole production, methyl red test and negative for VP, citrate utilization, oxidase test urease test and TSI test respectively were confirmed as
E. coli. The isolates which produced, large mucoid viscous colonies in BHIA, lactose fermenting colonies on Mac Conkey agar, positive for catalase, VP, citrate utilization, urease test and TSI test and are negative for oxidase, indole production and MR test were confirmed as
K. pneumonia. The isolates which produced large, opaque, irregular colonies with fruity odour and fluorescent greenish colour on BHIA agar with positive results for catalase test, oxidase test, citrate utilization test and negative results for indole production test, methyl red test and VP test were confirmed as
P. aeruginosa. Similar results were obtained by
Shakya et al., (2017) and
Shetty (2017) who documented these pathogens predominantly from dogs with skin and urogenital tract infections.
All the Gram-negative isolates were subjected to ABST employing 12 common antibiotics belonging to beta-lactam and non-beta lactam groups. Multidrug resistance could be observed among 28
E. coli, 11
K. pnuemoniae and three
P. aeruginosa isolates.
This is in accordance with
Magiorakos et al., (2017) and
Koulenti et al., (2018) who reported that the spread of MDR bacteria is an ever-growing concern, particularly among Gram- negative bacterial spp. because of their intrinsic resistance and the various mechanisms through which they acquire and spread resistance characteristics. They pointed that the most common mechanism for the spread of MDR in Gram-negative bacilli could be attributed to the presence of plasmids harbouring antibiotic resistance genes.
Phenotypic confirmation for ESBL production
Among the 44 Gram- negative bacilli isolated, 30
E. coli, 11
K. pneumoniae and three
P. aeruginosa showed positive results for ESBL production. The results are similar to the findings of
Bradford (2001) and
Paterson et al., (2003) who documented an alarming increase in ESBL producers among Gram-negative bacteria, showing resistance to a wide range of cephalosporins, the mainstay drug in the therapy of clinical infections in both human and veterinary sector.
Screening for carbapenem resistance
On screening the ESBL producers for carbapenem resistance, ten
E. coli isolates, three
K. pneumoniae and one
P. aeruginosa showed resistance to at least one of the three carbapenems employed in the study. Similar observations were made by
Datta and Wattal (2010),
Livermore (2012) and
Meletis (2016). Above results indicated a rise in ESBL producers among companion animals like dogs with activity against carbapenems also, the last sort drugs in treatment of infections against ESBL producing Gram- negative bacilli. This creates an impending crisis in the treatment of clinical infections in human since these MDR, ESBL producing bacterial spp. showing resistance to carbapenem could transfer their resistance genes to other sensitive bacterial species causing infections in animals
/ humans and even to commensals.
Confirmatory test for carbapenemase
The most predominant mechanism of carabpenem resistance among Gram- negative bacilli is the presence of carbpenemase enzymes which are divided into three classes which includes Class A enzymes (eg: KPC types), class B enzymes or MBL (
eg: VIM, IPM, NDM types) and class D enzymes or oxacillinases (
eg: OXA types)
(Ahmed-Bentley et al., 2013). The predominant carbapenemase among them were reported to be KPC and NDM
(Cadjoe and Donkor, 2018). Hence, the phenotypic confirmation tests to detect the presence of these enzymes were also carried out.
On phenotypic confirmation for KPC employing ertapenem-boronic acid MIC strip method, all the isolates showed negative results. This indicated that their resistance might be attributed to the presence of MBL or oxacillinase enzymes or mechanisms other than the presence of carbapenemase like the extrusion by efflux pumps, permeability alterations and to a lesser extent alteration in penicillin binding proteins. On confirmation for MBL using imipenam-EDTA combined disc test, eight
E. coli isolates and one
P. aeruginosa showed positive results and two
E. coli and three
K. pneumoniae isolates didn’t reveal the presence of MBL.
Bartolini et al., (2014) reported that NDM and KPC were the predominant cause for carbepenem resistance among Gram-negative bacteria and reported it as a worldwide emerging crisis
(Diene and Rolain, 2014). In the present study, among the fourteen isolates, nine turned out to be positive for MBL. Any isolate positive for KPC couldn’t be observed and no tests have been conducted to detect the presence of oxacillinase enzymes. The phenotypic confirmatory tests should always be reinforced by carrying out genotypic characterisation specific for KPC and NDM genes.