Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/19541
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTello, Alfredoen_UK
dc.contributor.authorAustin, Brianen_UK
dc.contributor.authorTelfer, Trevoren_UK
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-26T03:31:15Z-
dc.date.available2018-04-26T03:31:15Z-
dc.date.issued2012-08en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/19541-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Many bacteria of clinical importance survive and may grow in different environments. Antibiotic pollution may exert on them a selective pressure leading to an increase in the prevalence of resistance. Objectives: In this study we sought to determine whether environmental concentrations of antibiotics and concentrations representing action limits used in environmental risk assessment may exert a selective pressure on clinically relevant bacteria in the environment. Methods: We used bacterial inhibition as an assessment end point to link antibiotic selective pressures to the prevalence of resistance in bacterial populations. Species sensitivity distributions were derived for three antibiotics by fitting log-logistic models to end points calculated from minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distributions based on worldwide data collated by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). To place bacteria represented in these distributions in a broader context, we performed a brief phylogenetic analysis. The potentially affected fraction of bacterial genera at measured environmental concentrations of antibiotics and environmental risk assessment action limits was used as a proxy for antibiotic selective pressure. Measured environmental concentrations and environmental risk assessment action limits were also directly compared to wild-type cut-off values. Results: The potentially affected fraction of bacterial genera estimated based on antibiotic concentrations measured in water environments is ≤ 7%. We estimated that measured environmental concentrations in river sediments, swine feces lagoons, liquid manure, and farmed soil inhibit wild-type populations in up to 60%, 92%, 100%, and 30% of bacterial genera, respectively. At concentrations used as action limits in environmental risk assessment, erythromycin and ciprofloxacin were estimated to inhibit wild-type populations in up to 25% and 76% of bacterial genera. Conclusions: Measured environmental concentrations of antibiotics, as well as concentrations representing environmental risk assessment action limits, are high enough to exert a selective pressure on clinically relevant bacteria that may lead to an increase in the prevalence of resistance.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)en_UK
dc.relationTello A, Austin B & Telfer T (2012) Selective Pressure of Antibiotic Pollution on Bacteria of Importance to Public Health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120 (8), pp. 1100-1106. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104650en_UK
dc.rightsPublisher policy allows this work to be made available in this repository. Published in Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012, 120 (8), pp. 1100-1106 by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). The original publication is available at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104650/#tab2 Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectivesen_UK
dc.subjectantibiotic pollutionen_UK
dc.subjectantibiotic resistanceen_UK
dc.subjectminimum inhibitory concentration distributionsen_UK
dc.subjectrisk assessmenten_UK
dc.subjectspecies sensitivity distributionsen_UK
dc.titleSelective Pressure of Antibiotic Pollution on Bacteria of Importance to Public Healthen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1289/ehp.1104650en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid22571927en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleEnvironmental Health Perspectivesen_UK
dc.citation.issn1552-9924en_UK
dc.citation.issn0091-6765en_UK
dc.citation.volume120en_UK
dc.citation.issue8en_UK
dc.citation.spage1100en_UK
dc.citation.epage1106en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailt.c.telfer@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Stirlingen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Aquacultureen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Aquacultureen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000307260500020en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84864764759en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid886394en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-1613-9026en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2012-08-31en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2014-03-20en_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorTello, Alfredo|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorAustin, Brian|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorTelfer, Trevor|0000-0003-1613-9026en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2014-03-20en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved|2014-03-20|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameEHP 2012.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source0091-6765en_UK
Appears in Collections:Aquaculture Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
EHP 2012.pdfFulltext - Published Version595.97 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.