Contaminantes bacterianos y perfil de susceptibilidad del semen porcino en centros de recogida em Brasil

Contenido principal del artículo

Autores

Paulo E. Bennemann http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5460-3101 Sergio A. Machado http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0630-5783 Lilian K. Girardini http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2891-7756 Karina Sonálio Alexandre A. Tonin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4236-8976

Resumen

Objectivo: Evaluar el perfil microbiológico de siete centros de recogida de semen porcino (CRSP) en el sur de Brasil, así como evaluar la susceptibilidad antimicrobiana a la mayoría de los microorganismos encontrados en los CRSP. Material y métodos: El análisis bacteriológico se realizó en muestras del sistema de purificación de agua, diluyentes de semen, semen crudo y almacenado, bancos de laboratorio y otras superficies de trabajo. Resultados: El crecimiento de una población bacteriana mixta se observó en muestras de agua de todas las CRSP excepto una. Aproximadamente el 85% de la CRSP tenía contaminación significativa en sus superficies de trabajo con al menos un contaminante bacteriano. Un total de 86% de muestras de semen crudo fueron contaminadas con una o más bacterias diferentes, mientras que el 100% de CRSP proporcionaron muestras contaminadas. La susceptibilidad bacteriana a agentes antimicrobianos varió en más del 80% para gentamicina, neomicina y ceftiofur a 40% o menos para penicilina y lincomicina. Conclusiones: La identificación de los puntos críticos proporciona el apoyo necesario para idear mejores estrategias para minimizar la contaminación en CRSP. Además, la evaluación del nivel de resistencia a los antimicrobianos ofrece información precisa para formular protocolos antibacterianos más eficientes que tengan en cuenta el uso racional de los antibióticos.

Palabras clave:

Detalles del artículo

Referencias

1. Bortolozzo FP, Menegat MB, Mellagi APG, Bernardi ML, Wentz I. New artificial insemination technologies for swine. Reprod Dom Anim. 2015; 50(Suppl. 2):80-84.

2. Riesenbeck A. Review on international trade with boar semen. Rep Domestic Anim. 2011; 46(Suppl. 2):1-3.

3. Morrell JM. Antimicrobials in boar semen extenders – A risk / Benefits analysis. J Antimicrob. 2016; 2(1):107-108.

4. Althouse GC. Sanitary Procedures for the Production of Extended Semen. Reprod Dom Anim. 2008; 43:374-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2008.01187.x

5. Althouse GC, Pierdon MS, Lu KG. Thermotemporal dynamics of contaminant bacteria and antimicrobials in extended porcine semen. Theriogenol. 2008; 70:1317-1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.07.010

6. Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Sepúlveda L, Torner E, Pinart E, et al. Effects of different concentrations of enterotoxigenic and verotoxigenic E. coli on boar sperm quality. Anim Reprod Sci. 2011; 127: 176-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2011.07.018

7. Schultze M, Ammon C, Rudiger K, Jung M, Grobbel M. Analysis of hygienic critical points in boar semen production. Theriogenology. 2015; 83:430-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.10.004


8. Schulze M, Grobbel M, Muller KM, Junkes C, Dathe M, Rudiger KR, Jung M. Challenges and limits using antimicrobial peptides in boar semen preservation. Reprod Dom Anim. 2015; 50(Suppl 2):5-10.

9. Grossfeld R, Peralta W, Weitze K, Waberski D. Antibiotic-free hypothermic storage of boar semen in Androstar +5 extender results in similar fertility results compared to semen stored at 17°C in extender with antibiotic content. Anim Reprod Sci. 2016; 169:125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2016.03.071

10. Schulze M, Ammon C, Rüdiger K, Kung M, Grobblel M. Analysis of hygienic critical control points in boar semen production. Theriogenol. 2015; 83(3):430-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.10.004

11. Gaczarzewicz D, Udala J, Piasecka M, Blaszczyk B, Stankiewicz T. Bacterial contamination of boar semen and its relationship to sperm quality preserved in commercial extender containing gentamicin sulfate. Polish J Vet Sci. 2016; 19(3):451–459. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjvs-2016-0057

12. Markey B, Leonard F, Archambault M, Cullinane A, Maguire D. Clinical Veterinary Microbiology, 2013; 2 ed. MOSBY Elsevier, p. 27-49; 920 pp.

13. CLSI. Developtment of In Vitro Susceptibility Testing Criteria and Quality Control Parameters. 5th Ed. CLSI guideline 23. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2018.

14. Althouse GC. Sanitary procedures for the production of extended semen. Reprod Dom Anim. 2008; 43:374-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2008.01187.x

15. Rodriguez AL, Soom AV, Arsenakis I, Maes D. Boar management and semen handling factors affect the quality of boar extended semen. Porcine Health Management. 2017; 3:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-017-0062-5

16. Payne BJ, Clark S, Maddox C, Ness A. Achromobacter xylosoxidans in extended semen causes reproductive failure in artificially inseminated sows and gilts. J Swine Health Prod. 2008; 16(6):316-322.

17. Gary E Ritchie. Water for Pharmaceutical Purposes USP 24/NF. 2000; 30(5):1744. URL available in: http://www.pharmacopeia.cn/v29240/usp29nf24s0_c1231.html

18. Bresciani C, Cabassi CS, Morini G, Taddei S, Bigliardi E, Di Lanni F, Sabboni A, Parmigiani E. Boar semen bacterial contamination in Italy and antibiotic efficacy in a modified extender. Ital J Anim Sci. 2014; 13:3082. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2014.3082

19. Tremblay YDN, Hathroubi S, Jacques M. Les biofilms bactériens: leur importance en santé animale et en santé publique. Canadian J Vet Res. 2014; 78(2): 110-116.

20. Fuster-Valls N, Hernández-Herrero M, Marín-de-Mateo M, Rodríguez-Jerez JJ. Effect of different environmental conditions on the bacteria survival on stainless steel surfaces. Food Cont. 2008; 19:308-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.04.013

21. Rode TM, Langsrud S, Holck A, Moretro T. Different patterns of biofilm formation in Staphylococcus aureus under food-related stress conditions. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007; 116:372-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.02.017

22. De Souza EL, Meira QG, Barbosa IM, Athayde AJAA, Conceição ML, Siqueira-Junior JP. Biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus from food contact surfaces in a meat-based broth and sensitivity to sanitizers. Braz J Microbiol. 2014; 45(1):67-75. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-83822014000100010

23. Úbeda JL, Ausejo R, Dahmani Y, Falceto MV, Usan A, Malo C, Perez-Martinez FC. Adverse effects of members of the Enterobacteriaceae family on boar sperm quality. Theriogenol. 2013; 80:565-570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.05.022

24. Mazurova J, Kukla R, Rozkot M, Lustykova A, Slehova E, Sleha R, Lipensky J, Opletal L. Use of natural substances for boar semen decontamination. Vet Med. 2015; 60:235–247. https://doi.org/10.17221/8175-VETMED

25. Korpimäki T, Kurittu J, Karp M. Surprisingly fast disappearance of β-lactam selection pressure in cultivation as detected with novel biosensing approaches. J Microbiol Met. 2003; 53(1):37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7012(02)00213-0

26. Goldberg AMG, Argenti LE, Faccin JE, Linck L, Santi M, Bernardi ML, Cardoso, MRI; Wentz, I; Bortolozzo, FP. Risk factors for bacterial contamination during boar semen collection. Res Vet Sci. 2013; 95:362–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.06.022

27. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), Performance Standard for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; TwentyFourty Informational Supplement. CLSI document M100-S24. Wayne, PA, USA; 2014.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.