Ceftiofur formulation differentially affects the intestinal drug concentration, resistance of fecal Escherichia coli, and the microbiome of steers

Autoři: Derek M. Foster aff001;  Megan E. Jacob aff001;  Kyle A. Farmer aff001;  Benjamin J. Callahan aff001;  Casey M. Theriot aff001;  Sophia Kathariou aff002;  Natalia Cernicchiaro aff003;  Timo Prange aff004;  Mark G. Papich aff005
Působiště autorů: Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America aff001;  Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America aff002;  Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States of America aff003;  Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America aff004;  Department of Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223378


Antimicrobial drug concentrations in the gastrointestinal tract likely drive antimicrobial resistance in enteric bacteria. Our objective was to determine the concentration of ceftiofur and its metabolites in the gastrointestinal tract of steers treated with ceftiofur crystalline-free acid (CCFA) or ceftiofur hydrochloride (CHCL), determine the effect of these drugs on the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of fecal Escherichia coli, and evaluate shifts in the microbiome. Steers were administered either a single dose (6.6 mg/kg) of CCFA or 2.2 mg/kg of CHCL every 24 hours for 3 days. Ceftiofur and its metabolites were measured in the plasma, interstitium, ileum and colon. The concentration and MIC of fecal E. coli and the fecal microbiota composition were assessed after treatment. The maximum concentration of ceftiofur was higher in all sampled locations of steers treated with CHCL. Measurable drug persisted longer in the intestine of CCFA-treated steers. There was a significant decrease in E. coli concentration (P = 0.002) within 24 hours that persisted for 2 weeks after CCFA treatment. In CHCL-treated steers, the mean MIC of ceftiofur in E. coli peaked at 48 hours (mean MIC = 20.45 ug/ml, 95% CI = 10.29–40.63 ug/ml), and in CCFA-treated steers, mean MIC peaked at 96 hours (mean MIC = 10.68 ug/ml, 95% CI = 5.47–20.85 ug/ml). Shifts in the microbiome of steers in both groups were due to reductions in Firmicutes and increases in Bacteroidetes. CCFA leads to prolonged, low intestinal drug concentrations, and is associated with decreased E. coli concentration, an increased MIC of ceftiofur in E. coli at specific time points, and shifts in the fecal microbiota. CHCL led to higher intestinal drug concentrations over a shorter duration. Effects on E. coli concentration and the microbiome were smaller in this group, but the increase in the MIC of ceftiofur in fecal E. coli was similar.

Klíčová slova:

Antimicrobial resistance – Cattle – Colon – Gastrointestinal tract – Ileum – Livestock care – Microbiome


1. National Animal Health Monitoring System. Beef Feedlot. Unites States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2011.

2. USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH. Dairy 2007:Part II: Changes in the U.S. Dairy Cattle Industry, 1991–2007.

3. USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH–NAHMS. Dairy 2014:Milk Quality, Milking Procedures, and Mastitis on U.S. Dairies, 2014.

4. Pereira RV, Siler JD, Ng JC, Davis MA, Grohn YT, Warnick LD. Effect of on-farm use of antimicrobial drugs on resistance in fecal Escherichia coli of preweaned dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97: 7644–7654. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8521 25306279

5. Hoelzer K, Wong N, Thomas J, Talkington K, Jungman E, Coukell A. Antimicrobial drug use in food-producing animals and associated human health risks: what, and how strong, is the evidence? BMC Vet Res. 2017;13: 211. doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1131-3 28676125

6. Chambers L, Yang Y, Littier H, Ray P, Zhang T, Pruden A, et al. Metagenomic Analysis of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Dairy Cow Feces following Therapeutic Administration of Third Generation Cephalosporin. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0133764. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133764 26258869

7. Pereira RV, Siler JD, Ng JC, Davis MA, Grohn YT, Warnick LD. Effect of on-farm use of antimicrobial drugs on resistance in fecal Escherichia coli of preweaned dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97: 7644–7654. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8521 25306279

8. Mann S, Siler JD, Jordan D, Warnick LD. Antimicrobial susceptibility of fecal Escherichia coli isolates in dairy cows following systemic treatment with ceftiofur or penicillin. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2011;8: 861–867. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2010.0751 21381922

9. Alali WQ, Scott HM, Norby B, Gebreyes W, Loneragan GH. Quantification of the bla(CMY-2) in feces from beef feedlot cattle administered three different doses of ceftiofur in a longitudinal controlled field trial. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2009;6: 917–924. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2009.0271 19622032

10. Kanwar N, Scott HM, Norby B, Loneragan GH, Vinasco J, McGowan M, et al. Effects of ceftiofur and chlortetracycline treatment strategies on antimicrobial susceptibility and on tet(A), tet(B), and bla CMY-2 resistance genes among E. coli isolated from the feces of feedlot cattle. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e80575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080575 24260423

11. Kanwar N, Scott HM, Norby B, Loneragan GH, Vinasco J, Cottell JL, et al. Impact of treatment strategies on cephalosporin and tetracycline resistance gene quantities in the bovine fecal metagenome. Sci Rep. 2014;4: 5100. doi: 10.1038/srep05100 24872333

12. Schmidt JW, Griffin D, Kuehn LA, Brichta-Harhay DM. Influence of therapeutic ceftiofur treatments of feedlot cattle on fecal and hide prevalences of commensal Escherichia coli resistant to expanded-spectrum cephalosporins, and molecular characterization of resistant isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79: 2273–2283. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03592-12 23354706

13. Boyer TC, Singer RS. Quantitative measurement of blaCMY-2 in a longitudinal observational study of dairy cattle treated with ceftiofur. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2012;9: 1022–1027. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2012.1198 22985052

14. Ferguson KM, Jacob ME, Theriot CM, Callahan BJ, Prange T, Papich MG, et al. Dosing Regimen of Enrofloxacin Impacts Intestinal Pharmacokinetics and the Fecal Microbiota in Steers. Front Microbiol. 2018;9: 2190. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02190 30283418

15. Foster DM, Jacob ME, Warren CD, Papich MG. Pharmacokinetics of enrofloxacin and ceftiofur in plasma, interstitial fluid, and gastrointestinal tract of calves after subcutaneous injection, and bactericidal impacts on representative enteric bacteria. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2016;39: 62–71. doi: 10.1111/jvp.12236 25989138

16. Warren CD, Prange T, Campbell NB, Gerard MP, Martin LG, Jacob ME, et al. Implantation of an ultrafiltration device in the ileum and spiral colon of steers to continuously collect intestinal fluid. Research in veterinary science. 2014;97: 611–615. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2014.10.012 25468800

17. McKellar Q, Gibson I, Monteiro A, Bregante M. Pharmacokinetics of enrofloxacin and danofloxacin in plasma, inflammatory exudate, and bronchial secretions of calves following subcutaneous administration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43: 1988–1992. 10428924

18. TerHune TN, Skogerboe TL, Shostrom VK, Weigel DJ. Comparison of pharmacokinetics of danofloxacin and enrofloxacin in calves challenged with Mannheimia haemolytica. Am J Vet Res. 2005;66: 342–349. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.342 15757137

19. Davis JL, Foster DM, Papich MG. Pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of enrofloxacin and its active metabolite ciprofloxacin in calves. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2007;30: 564–571. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2007.00914.x 17991225

20. Gorden PJ, Kleinhenz MD, Wulf LW, Rajewski SJ, Wang C, Gehring R, et al. Comparative plasma and interstitial fluid pharmacokinetics of flunixin meglumine and ceftiofur hydrochloride following individual and co-administration in dairy cows. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2018;41: 76–82. doi: 10.1111/jvp.12437 28731206

21. Jaglan PS, Cox BL, Arnold TS, Kubicek MF, Stuart DJ, Gilbertson TJ. Liquid chromatographic determination of desfuroylceftiofur metabolite of ceftiofur as residue in cattle plasma. J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1990;73: 26–30. 2312509

22. Foster DM, Martin LG, Papich MG. Comparison of Active Drug Concentrations in the Pulmonary Epithelial Lining Fluid and Interstitial Fluid of Calves Injected with Enrofloxacin, Florfenicol, Ceftiofur, or Tulathromycin. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0149100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149100 26872361

23. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated From Animals; Approved Standard—Fourth Edition. Wayne, PA: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, CLSI; 2018.

24. Seekatz AM, Theriot CM, Molloy CT, Wozniak KL, Bergin IL, Young VB. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Eliminates Clostridium difficile in a Murine Model of Relapsing Disease. Infect Immun. 2015;83: 3838–3846. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00459-15 26169276

25. Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highlander SK, Schloss PD. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79: 5112–5120. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01043-13 23793624

26. Quail MA, Kozarewa I, Smith F, Scally A, Stephens PJ, Durbin R, et al. A large genome center's improvements to the Illumina sequencing system. Nat Methods. 2008;5: 1005–1010. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1270 19034268

27. Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13: 581–583. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869 27214047

28. Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Holmes SP. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 2017;11: 2639–2643. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.119 28731476

29. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41: 590. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219 23193283

30. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73: 5261–5267. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00062-07 17586664

31. Holm Sture. A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics. 1979;6: 65–70. doi: 10.2307/4615733

32. Šidák Z. Rectangular Confidence Regions for the Means of Multivariate Normal Distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1967;62: 626–633. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1967.10482935

33. Tukey JW. The Collected Works of John W. Tukey VIII. Multiple Comparisons: 1948–1933. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1953.

34. Kramer Clyde Young. Extension of Multiple Range Tests to Group Means with Unequal Numbers of Replications. Biometrics. 1956;12: 307–310. doi: 10.2307/3001469

35. Woodrow JS, Caldwell M, Cox S, Hines M, Credille BC. Comparative plasma pharmacokinetics of ceftiofur sodium and ceftiofur crystalline-free acid in neonatal calves. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2016;39: 271–276. doi: 10.1111/jvp.12275 26542633

36. Washburn K, Johnson R, Clarke CR, Anderson K, Lucas M, Bryson W, et al. Penetration of ceftiofur into sterile vs. Mannheimia haemolytica-infected tissue chambers in beef calves after subcutaneous administration of ceftiofur crystalline free acid sterile suspension in the ear pinna. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2005;28: 247–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2005.00642.x 15953197

37. Clarke CR. Tissue-chamber modeling systems—applications in veterinary medicine. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 1989;12: 349–368. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2885.1989.tb00686.x 2693748

38. Volkova VV, Cazer CL, Gröhn YT. Models of antimicrobial pressure on intestinal bacteria of the treated host populations. Epidemiol Infect. 2017;145: 2081–2094. doi: 10.1017/S095026881700084X 28462738

39. Lowrance TC, Loneragan GH, Kunze DJ, Platt TM, Ives SE, Scott HM, et al. Changes in antimicrobial susceptibility in a population of Escherichia coli isolated from feedlot cattle administered ceftiofur crystalline-free acid. Am J Vet Res. 2007;68: 501–507. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.68.5.501 17472449

40. Wagner RD, Johnson SJ, Cerniglia CE, Erickson BD. Bovine intestinal bacteria inactivate and degrade ceftiofur and ceftriaxone with multiple beta-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55: 4990–4998. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00008-11 21876048

41. Singer RS, Patterson SK, Wallace RL. Effects of therapeutic ceftiofur administration to dairy cattle on Escherichia coli dynamics in the intestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74: 6956–6962. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01241-08 18820057

42. Muñoz-Vargas L, Opiyo SO, Digianantonio R, Williams ML, Wijeratne A, Habing G. Fecal microbiome of periparturient dairy cattle and associations with the onset of Salmonella shedding. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0196171. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196171 29750790

43. Cunha CS, Marcondes MI, Veloso CM, Mantovani HC, Pereira LGR, Tomich TR, et al. Compositional and structural dynamics of the ruminal microbiota in dairy heifers and its relationship to methane production. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2019;99: 210–218. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.9162 29851082

44. Li J, Hao H, Cheng G, Liu C, Ahmed S, Shabbir MAB, et al. Microbial Shifts in the Intestinal Microbiota of Salmonella Infected Chickens in Response to Enrofloxacin. Front Microbiol. 2017;8: 1711. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01711 28943868

45. Food and Drug Administration, (FDA), Rockville, MD: U S Department of Health and Human Services. NARMS Now.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10
Nejčtenější tento týden