Skip Navigation

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2007 59(4):775-778; doi:10.1093/jac/dkm024
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miflin, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Blackall, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miflin, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Blackall, P. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from poultry in the South-East Queensland region

Jeanette K. Miflin, Jillian M. Templeton* and P. J. Blackall

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly, Queensland 4105, Australia

Received 19 September 2006; returned 13 November 2006; revised 11 January 2007; accepted 22 January 2007

* Corresponding author. Tel: +61-7-33629520; Fax: +61-7-33629429; E-mail: jillian.templeton{at}dpi.qld.gov.au

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the antimicrobial resistance patterns of 125 Campylobacter jejuni and 27 Campylobacter coli isolates from 39 Queensland broiler farms.

Methods: Two methods, a disc diffusion assay and an agar-based MIC assay, were used. The disc diffusion was performed and interpreted as previously described (Huysmans MB, Turnidge JD. Disc susceptibility testing for thermophilic campylobacters. Pathology 1997; 29: 209–16), whereas the MIC assay was performed according to CLSI (formerly NCCLS) methods and interpreted using DANMAP criteria.

Results: In both assays, no C. jejuni or C. coli isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin or chloramphenicol, no C. coli were resistant to nalidixic acid, and no C. jejuni were resistant to erythromycin. In the MIC assay, no C. jejuni isolate was resistant to nalidixic acid, whereas three isolates (2.4%) were resistant in the disc assay. The highest levels of resistance of the C. jejuni isolates were recorded for tetracycline (19.2% by MIC and 18.4% by disc) and ampicillin (19.2% by MIC and 17.6% by disc). The C. coli isolates gave very similar results (tetracycline resistance 14.8% by both MIC and disc; ampicillin resistance 7.4% by MIC and 14.8% by disc).

Conclusions: This work has shown that the majority of C. jejuni and C. coli isolates were susceptible to the six antibiotics tested by both disc diffusion and MIC methods. Disc diffusion represents a suitable alternative methodology to agar-based MIC methods for poultry Campylobacter isolates.

Keywords: MICs , disc diffusion , multiresistance


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
J. W. Tapsall, E. A. Limnios, D. Murphy, and on behalf of the Australian Gonococcal Surveillanc
Analysis of trends in antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolated in Australia, 1997 2006
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., January 1, 2008; 61(1): 150 - 155.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.