When diseased calves were examined clinically, it was discovered that they had varying degrees of profuse watery diarrhoea as well as varying degrees of dehydration, which could be seen in their decreased skin elasticity, sunken eyes and inability to stand. The
E. coli strains were diverse and varied, with several different virulence factors. The presence of a large molecular weight plasmid harbouring several genes involved in disease was the cause of the heterogeneity. This plasmid contributes to the pathotypes heterogeneity by facilitating the acquisition or deletion of virulence genes. Variation in resistance and sensitivity per cent has been found in various reports
. Following a bacterial analysis, A total 64
E. coli isolates were detected and identified from 137 diarrheic samples via biochemical and molecular assays employing PCR targeting the
E. coli specific 16s rRNA gene (Plate 1).
Walid et al., (2020) and
Mousa and Abo Shama (2021) also used 16S rRNA to confirm the
E. coli genotypically. Over all,
Escherichia coli (
E. coli) appeared to be an important causative agent either alone or in combination with other bacteria in the etiology of calf diarrhea and were isolated with the highest frequency from diarrhoeic calves in our study. In accordance with our findings, numerous researchers have also reported a significant prevalence of
E. coli strains in cases of infectious diarrhea in calves.
(Nguyen et al., 2011 and
Shahrani et al., 2014).
The results of Antibiotic sensitivity test of
E. coli isolates showed variable percentage of sensitivity and resistance to the different antibiotics Fig 3. The result of antibiotic sensitivity of 64 isolated strains of
E. coli to 15 antimicrobial drugs are presented in Fig 4. The highest sensitivity was attributed towards antibiotic gentamycin (68.75%) followed by sulfadiazine and co-trimoxazole (39.06), ciprofloxacin (32.81%), Azithromycin (31.25%), Tetracycline (25%), Nitrofurantoin (21.87%), Aztreonam and streptomycin (20.31), cefotaxime (12.5%), Ceftizidime plus clav (7.81%), ceftriaxone (6.25%), enrofloxacin (4.687%), Ampicillin (3.125%) and colistin (0%). In present study gentamycin showed the highest sensitivity
. In accordance with our findings, numerous scientists have also reported a sensitivity to gentamycin The
Hemashenpagam et al., (2008) recorded 75% and
Kirkan et al., (2018) recorded 89% which is very close to our percent. Whereas lower sensitivity
viz. 62.5%, 60.2% was recorded by
Abdeen et al., (2019) and
Cengiz and Adiguzel (2020), respectively.
The highest resistance was recorded against ampicillin (87.5%), ceftriaxone (82.813%), ceftazidime plus clav (81.25%), colistin (76.56%), enrofloxacin (75%), Azethromycin (68.75%), cefotaxime (67.18%), tetracycline (62.5%), aztreonam (57.81%), sulphadiazine (48.438%), Nitrofurantoin (46.875%), co-trimoxazole (43.75%), streptomycin (37.5%), ciprofloxacin (29.688%) and gentamycin (12.5%).
E. coli showed variable percent of resistance against Ampicillin by many researchers viz.
Hemashenpagam et al., (2008) (66.66%),
Abdeen et al., (2019) (81.25%),
Manjushree et al., (2019) (84%),
Adeladlew et al., (2020) (100%) and
Sobhy et al., (2020) (54.5%). In contrast of present finding
Kadam (2018) (60%),
Sumedha et al., (2019) (66%),
Srivani et al., (2020) (100%),
Algammal et al., (2020) (78.5%) and
Merera et al., (2020) (73.85%) reported higher sensitivity against Ampicillin. To compare the phenotypic resistance the isolates were subjected to detection of six different antibiotic resistance gene belonging to 4 different antibiotic groups presented in Table 2. There is the variation in the expression of the AMR genes in the
E. coli. The detection rate of AMR gene
blaTEM was highest 90% and that of
aadA was the lowest (0%). The other AMR genes
blaCTX-M, blaSHV, sul1and
tetA showing 50%, 20%, 50% and 30% (Plate 2-6). Similarly, many scientists studied the AMR gens in isolated
E. coli.
Jiang and Zhang (2013),
El Bably et al., (2016) and
Abdeen et al., (2019) detected
blaTEM gene in 84.6%, 80% and 100%, isolates respectively, which is in close agreement with the present research and, however lower percent of
blaTEM gene was detected by
Algammal et al., (2020) and
Khawaskar et al., (2022) reported 21.5% and 8.3% respectively.
El Bably et al., (2016) and
Yue et al., (2021) reported the
blaSHV gene in 33.3% and 18.5%, respectively which is close to the present detection level.
Abdeen et al., (2019), Khawaskar et al., (2022) reported lower per cent of
blaCTX-M 31.25% and 28.3%, respectively. However, Esmaeel and Naseer (2017) reported gene in 80%, higher as compared to the present findings.
Abdulgayeid et al., (2015) and
El Bably et al., (2016) reported 60% and 50% isolates to be positive for
sul1 gene, respectively which is very similar to the present findings but higher percent of
sul1 gene 74%, 81.25% and 100%, was recorded by
Jiang and Zhang (2013),
Abdeen et al., (2019) and
El sayed et al., (2020), respectively. In contrast to present finding very higher percentage was
tetA gene reported by
Abdeen et al., (2019), Abdulgayeid et al., (2015), El
Bably et al., (2016), Yue et al., (2021) and
El sayed et al., (2020) reported 93.75%, 100%, 50%, 96.3% and 100%, respectively. In contrast to findings of present study
Jiang and Zhang (2013) and
Yue et al., (2021) reported 73.3% and 70.4%
aadA gene in isolated
E. coli. A great variation in gene detection percentage in
E. coli was reported by different scientists. These differences might be partly explained by differences in geographic location, the complexity of the healthcare institutions involved, the exposure to healthcare environments, the usage of antibiotics and antibiotic stewardship practices.