Next Article in Journal
Enterotoxigenic and Antimicrobic Susceptibility Profile of Staphylococcus aureus Isolates from Fresh Cheese in Croatia
Previous Article in Journal
The Presence of Legionella in Water Used for Car Washing: Implications for Public Health
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/microorganisms11122991
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis Isolated from Healthy Dogs and Cats in South Korea

by
Bo-Youn Moon
1,
Md. Sekendar Ali
1,
Ji-Hyun Choi
1,
Ye-Eun Heo
1,
Yeon-Hee Lee
1,
Hee-Seung Kang
1,
Tae-Sun Kim
2,
Soon-Seek Yoon
1,
Dong-Chan Moon
3,* and
Suk-Kyung Lim
1,*
1
Bacterial Disease Division, Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency, 177 Hyeksin 8-ro, Gimcheon-si 39660, Republic of Korea
2
Public Health and Environment Institute of Gwangju, Gwangju 14502, Republic of Korea
3
Division of Antimicrobial Resistance Research, Centre for Infectious Diseases Research, Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, Cheongju 28159, Republic of Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(12), 2991; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122991
Submission received: 24 November 2023 / Revised: 8 December 2023 / Accepted: 13 December 2023 / Published: 15 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Antimicrobial Agents and Resistance)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Enterococcus spp. are typically found in the gastrointestinal tracts of humans and animals. However, they have the potential to produce opportunistic infections that can be transmitted to humans or other animals, along with acquired antibiotic resistance. In this study, we aimed to investigate the antimicrobial resistance profiles of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolates obtained from companion animal dogs and cats in Korea during 2020–2022. The resistance rates in E. faecalis towards most of the tested antimicrobials were relatively higher than those in E. faecium isolated from dogs and cats. We found relatively higher resistance rates to tetracycline (65.2% vs. 75.2%) and erythromycin (39.5% vs. 49.6%) in E. faecalis isolated from cats compared to those from dogs. However, in E. faecium, the resistance rates towards tetracycline (35.6% vs. 31.5%) and erythromycin (40.3% vs. 35.2%) were comparatively higher for dog isolates than cats. No or very few E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates were found to be resistant to daptomycin, florfenicol, tigecycline, and quinupristin/dalfopristin. Multidrug resistance (MDR) was higher in E. faecalis recovered from cats (44%) and dogs (33.9%) than in E. faecium isolated from cats (24.1%) and dogs (20.5%). Moreover, MDR patterns in E. faecalis isolates from dogs (27.2%) and cats (35.2%) were shown to encompass five or more antimicrobials. However, E. faecium isolates from dogs (at 13.4%) and cats (at 14.8%) were resistant to five or more antimicrobials. Taken together, the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant enterococci in companion animals presents a potential public health concern.

1. Introduction

Enterococcus spp. are Gram-positive opportunistic bacteria generally present in the gastrointestinal tract of humans and animals. They can cause invasive infections in humans, including endocarditis, sepsis, bacteremia, and nosocomial infections of the urinary system and genital tract [1]. Moreover, as commensal bacteria, Enterococcus spp. represent a reservoir for host antimicrobial resistance and are considered a good indicator of the effects of selective pressure on antimicrobial use [2]. They can transmit antibiotic resistance to other pathogenic bacterial species through the horizontal transmission of mobile genetic elements [3]. Additionally, the regular use of antibiotics in humans and animals favors the emergence of enterococci resistance, which is difficult to treat [4].
Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis are the most common members, representing more than 90% of the identified species [5]. Moreover, E. faecium and E. faecalis are known to have high levels of multidrug resistance (MDR), and it has been claimed that they can spread directly from companion animals to humans [6,7]. A previous study found that companion animals treated with antibiotics in an intensive care unit were a source for the zoonotic transmission of MDR Enterococcus [8]. The likelihood of the horizontal transmission of zoonotic infections from animals to their owners is increased because companion animals, such as dogs and cats, live in close proximity to their owners. Preventing the spread of MDR Enterococcus strains between animals or from animals to humans is crucial for both public health and veterinary medicine. Therefore, research into the characteristics of Enterococcus spp. and the potential for the spread of antibiotic resistance is required.
Understanding the antimicrobial resistance profiles of Enterococcus spp. isolated from companion animals provides helpful insight into the extent of resistance in the gut microbiota and into antimicrobial selection for treating infections in humans and animals. The antimicrobial resistance profiles of Enterococcus spp. isolated from dogs and cats have been described in numerous studies from across the globe [9,10,11,12,13]. The resistance characteristics of E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates from companion animals have also been studied in various investigations conducted in South Korea [14,15,16,17,18,19]. However, most of these previous studies were conducted to investigate the antimicrobial resistance of Enterococcus isolates obtained from diseased animals in a few parts of the country over a very short period of time. Thus, we aimed to conduct this nationwide investigation to determine the antimicrobial resistance profiles and patterns of E. faecium and E. faecalis isolated from healthy dogs and cats in Korea between 2020 and 2022.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Isolates

Enterococcus spp. were isolated from feces samples of healthy (with no clinical signs and symptoms of illness) dogs and cats. Sample processing and enterococcal isolation were carried out as described previously [20] using buffered peptone water and Enterococcus agar media (Becton, Dickinson, Sparks, MD, USA). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectroscopy (MALDI-TOF, Biomerieux, Marcy-I’Etoile, France) were used to identify Enterococcus species [21]. A total of 352 E. faecium isolates (298 isolates from dogs and 54 from cats) and 573 E. faecalis isolates (448 isolates from dogs and 125 from cats) were collected from eight laboratories/centers that took part in the Korean Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (KVARMS) during 2020–2022 (Table S1). In general, the isolates were collected in proportion to the number of different cities in South Korea (Table S2). However, the authors do not have information about the history of antimicrobial use in dogs and cats and the number of samples considered for this study.

2.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Assessment

We assessed the antimicrobial susceptibility of the enterococcal isolates via the broth microdilution method using commercial antibiotic-containing plates KRVP2 (Sensittitte, Trek Diagnostics, Cleveland, OH, USA). The tested antimicrobials were ampicillin (1–16 µg/mL), chloramphenicol (2–32 µg/mL), ciprofloxacin (0.25–16 µg/mL), daptomycin (0.5–32 µg/mL), erythromycin (1–64 µg/mL), florfenicol (2–32 µg/mL), gentamicin (128–2048 µg/mL), kanamycin (128–2048 µg/mL), linezolid (0.5–16 µg/mL), quinupristin/dalfopristin (1–32 µg/mL), salinomycin (2–32 µg/mL), streptomycin (128–2048 µg/mL), tetracycline (2–128 µg/mL), tigecycline (0.12–2 µg/mL), tylosin (1–64 µg/mL), and vancomycin (2–32 µg/mL). E. faecalis ATCC 29212 was used as a quality control strain. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values were interpreted based on the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute [22], the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System [23], and the Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Program [24]. The lowest concentrations of antimicrobials at which 50% and 90% of the isolates were inhibited were designated as MIC50 and MIC90, respectively. Multidrug-resistant isolates were defined as those that exhibited resistance to at least three different antimicrobial subclasses [25].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The rates of antimicrobial resistance and Pearson correlation were analyzed using Excel (Microsoft-Excel, 2016, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and Rex Software (Version 3.0.3, ResSoft Inc., Seoul, Republic of Korea), in which the independent samples t-test, Fisher’s exact test, and chi-square test were incorporated. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Antimicrobial Resistance

The resistance rates of E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates to the tested antimicrobials are displayed in Table 1, Tables S7 and S8. Among them, the highest tetracycline resistance (>65%) was observed in the E. faecalis isolates recovered from dogs and cats. Moreover, resistance to tetracycline (34.9 and 67.4%) and erythromycin (39.5 and 41.7%) was high in both E. faecium and E. faecalis, although the resistance rates differed by bacterial species. Resistance to ciprofloxacin (41.8%) and kanamycin (32.5%) was high in E. faecium and E. faecalis, respectively. Ampicillin resistance in E. faecium was observed in both dogs and cats, with levels >15%, but no ampicillin resistance was observed for E. faecalis. Moreover, no or only low resistance to daptomycin, linezolid, tigecycline, and vancomycin was observed in both E. faecium and E. faecalis.
The overall resistance rates toward the tested antimicrobials in both E. faecium and E. faecalis isolated from dogs and cats were not significantly different, except for the rate for chloramphenicol. Resistance to chloramphenicol was markedly higher in cats (31.2%) than in dogs (16.7%) (p < 0.05). In addition, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and kanamycin resistance rates were slightly high in both E. faecium and E. faecalis in cats. The resistance rates of erythromycin (40.3% vs. 35.2%) and tetracycline (35.6% vs. 31.5%) in E. faecium were higher in dog isolates than in cat isolates. It has been observed that E. faecium isolates exhibit relatively low resistance to chloramphenicol (0.0–2.3%), daptomycin (1.7–3.7%), and florfenicol (0.0–1.3%). Indeed, compared to cat isolates, dog isolates showed higher rates of chloramphenicol (0.0% vs. 2.3%) and florfenicol (0.0% vs. 1.3%) resistance. The MIC50 and MIC90 values of the investigated antimicrobials against E. faecium isolates obtained from dogs and cats are presented in Supplementary Tables S3 and S4.
The majority of the E. faecalis isolates obtained from dogs and cats were highly resistant to tetracycline (67.4%), tylosin (41.4%), erythromycin (41.7%), and kanamycin (32.5%). Although there was no significant difference, erythromycin (39.5% vs. 49.6%), gentamicin (17.9 vs. 28%), kanamycin (31.5 vs. 36%), tetracycline (65.2% vs. 75.2%), and tylosin (39.5% vs. 48%) resistance rates were higher in cat isolates compared to dog isolates. In contrast, no resistance to ampicillin, linezolid, quinupristin/dalfopristin, salinomycin, tigecycline, and vancomycin and very low resistance to ciprofloxacin (3.1% vs. 5.6%) and florfenicol (3.1% vs. 8%) were found in dog and cat isolates. The MIC50 and MIC90 values of the investigated antimicrobials against E. faecalis isolates obtained from dogs and cats are presented in Supplementary Tables S5 and S6.
The antimicrobial resistance among the E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates from dogs and cats varied with their ages (Table 2 and Table 3). Overall, the resistance rate in E. faecium from geriatric dogs (≥11 years) was higher compared with those rates obtained from the puppy and juvenile, mature adult, and senior age groups. It was found that 50% of the E. faecium isolates from elderly dogs were resistant to ciprofloxacin. Moreover, the resistance rates toward kanamycin (26.2%), streptomycin (28.6%), and tylosin (26.2%) were significantly higher than those toward other antimicrobials in this age group compared to other age groups. In cats, about 25% of the E. feacium isolates were shown to be resistant to the tested antimicrobials. Overall resistance was similar in the kitten and junior as well as adult groups, although resistance to ampicillin and ciprofloxacin was slightly higher in the junior and adult group (Table 2). In E. faecalis, there was no difference between the age groups of the dogs. Resistance to erythromycin, tetracycline, and tylosin was high in all age groups. In cats, resistance to ciprofloxacin (11.3% vs. 0–5%), florfenicol (15.1% vs. 0–5.0%), and streptomycin (30.2% vs. 16.7–20.0%) in kittens was higher than in other age groups. Furthermore, resistance to chloramphenicol, gentamicin, kanamycin, and tetracycline was much higher in the senior group, although the number of resistant isolates was lower (Table 3).

3.2. Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns

Most E. faecium (76.4%) and E. faecalis (69.8%) isolates were resistant to at least one of the tested antimicrobials (Table 2 and Table 3). In particular, 36.1% of the E. faecalis and 21% of the E. faecium isolates exhibited MDR (Table 1). MDR was higher in E. faecalis recovered from cats (44%) and dogs (33.9%) than in E. faecium isolated from cats (24.1%) and dogs (20.5%). Additionally, E. faecalis isolates from dogs (27.2%) and cats (35.2%) were observed to be resistant to five or more antimicrobials. However, E. faecium from dogs (13.4%) and cats (14.8%) were resistant to five or more antimicrobials.
In total, there were 72 and 71 MDR combination patterns found in the E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates, respectively (Tables S9–S12). E. faecium typically exhibited ciprofloxacin resistance with tetracycline in the dog isolates (10.4%) and cat isolates (7.4%), whereas erythromycin-resistant E. faecium was predominantly found in the dog isolates (20.5%; Table 4). In E. faecalis isolated from dogs (22.5%) and cats (24.8%), tetracycline resistance was commonly observed (Table 5). Moreover, tetracycline resistance with chloramphenicol was found in E. faecalis isolates obtained from dogs (2.5%) and cats (0.8%). Resistance to six antimicrobials, including macrolides (12.8%), was the most prevalent MDR pattern in the E. faecalis specimens isolated from cats (Table 5).

4. Discussion

In this investigation, significant proportions of the E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates recovered from healthy dogs and cats were resistant to one or more antimicrobials. This result could provide a potential strategy for combatting antimicrobial resistance in veterinary and human clinical practice settings.
Enterococcus spp. are frequently shown to be resistant to antimicrobials in companion animals worldwide [26,27]. In this study, a considerable portion of enterococci isolates demonstrated resistance to erythromycin, tetracycline, and tylosin. High erythromycin resistance in E. faecium and E. faecalis isolated from dogs and cats was reported in Korea [15,16,17], China [28], Turkey [29], Belgium [30], Italy [31], and the USA [32], constituting results that concur with our findings. In our study, we found high tetracycline resistance rates in E. faecium (34.9%) and E. faecalis (67.4%) isolates from dogs and cats. A previous study in Denmark showed tetracycline resistance was high in E. faecalis (65%) and E. faecium (60%) isolates from dogs [33]. Moreover, consistent with this investigation, high tylosin resistance (41.4%) was described in E. faecalis isolated from companion animals in Belgium [26] and the USA [34]. Additionally, the ciprofloxacin resistance (41.8%) in E. faecium isolates from dogs and cats was similar to that published in investigations concerning South Korea [18] and Portugal [35].
In this investigation, E. faecium specimens isolated from dogs (2%) and cats (7.7%) exhibited relatively low resistance rates to chloramphenicol and gentamicin. However, the chloramphenicol and gentamicin resistance in E. faecalis specimens isolated from dogs (16.7 and 17.9%) and cats (31.2 and 28%) was higher but still differed from previously published reports. Jackson et al. [34] reported higher chloramphenicol (85%) and gentamicin (79%) resistance in E. faecalis from dog isolates. Nonetheless, the chloramphenicol (5%) and gentamicin (8%) resistance rates were lower in E. faecalis specimens from cat isolates reported in the study by De Graef et al. [36]. Moreover, variable levels of chloramphenicol resistance were found in E. faecium (17–61%) and E. faecalis (9–85%) isolated from dogs and cats in several studies conducted in Asia [16,37] and Europe [38,39]. Despite the fact that chloramphenicol is no longer permitted for use in veterinary practice, the rise of chloramphenicol-resistant Enterococcus may be linked to the use of other phenicols, such as florfenicol, or to co-selection with unrelated antimicrobials [40]. Moreover, the recurrent use of gentamicin in companion animals might contribute to the resistance of this antimicrobial [41].
E. faecium isolates obtained from dogs and cats exhibited comparatively low resistance to the tested aminoglycosides (kanamycin and streptomycin). However, the resistance rates of these antimicrobials were found to be high in E. faecalis isolated from dogs and cats. The E. faecalis isolates from dogs (31.5 and 18.8%) and cats (36 and 24%) were resistant to kanamycin and streptomycin, respectively. Highly varied kanamycin (30–87%) and streptomycin (25–95%) resistance rates have been observed in E. faecium and E. faecalis isolated from companion animals in previous investigations conducted in Korea [17], Portugal [35], Belgium [30], and South Africa [13]. Notwithstanding the fact that enterococci have clinically relevant concentrations, they are the antimicrobials of choice for human enterococcal infections when used with synergic antimicrobials. Consequently, resistance to one or more aminoglycoside antimicrobials might be conferred by aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes acting on various aminoglycoside antimicrobials [42].
Penicillin resistance may limit the range of available treatment options for enterococcal infections [43]. Although no ampicillin resistance was detected in E. faecalis, 17.3% of the E. faecium specimens isolated from cats and dogs showed resistance to this antimicrobial. This result is consistent with previous findings that E. faecium from dog isolates exhibited resistance in the UK (23%) [44] and Egypt (14.3%) [45]. On the contrary, it has been found that E. faecium from companion animals in Denmark (76%) [46] and Italy (56.5%) [39] demonstrated relatively high ampicillin resistance. Ampicillin is one of the most effective β-lactams against Enterococcus, preventing peptidoglycan production [47]. Moreover, the intrinsic tolerance of β-lactamase action in E. faecalis may be linked to specific penicillin-binding proteins such as pbp5, which has a low affinity for ampicillin [48]. Likewise, it has been demonstrated that ampicillin resistance in E. faecalis is conferred by point mutations in the penicillin-binding protein (pbp4) and the overexpression of β-lactamase [49].
We observed high erythromycin (39.5 and 41.7%) and tylosin (14.5 and 41.4%) resistance in E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates from both dogs and cats. Moreover, it was found that there was a gradually increasing tendency toward erythromycin resistance in both of the enterococci strains isolated from dogs and cats throughout the study period. This result is supported by the fact that a significant portion of E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates from companion animals, particularly dogs and cats, in many countries [7,13,30,39,50] showed resistance to erythromycin (26–96%) and tylosin (21–42%). The increased proportion of isolates resistant to macrolides may also be caused by cross-resistance between erythromycin and tylosin. Additionally, previous studies showed that multidrug-resistant E. faecalis from companion animals possesses erm(B) and tlrA genes, suggesting the spread of macrolide resistance genes among the enterococci isolates [39,51].
In this study, the resistance rates toward quinupristin/dalfopristin in E. faecium isolates from dogs and cats were 7.4% and 9.3%, respectively. The incidence of quinupristin/dalfopristin resistance in E. faecium isolated from dogs was much lower than that previously reported in China (38.04%) [28], Italy (78.4%) [52], and the USA (28.6%) [53] but was consistent with that published in Korea (5%) [16]. Although the administration of quinupristin/dalfopristin to animals is not permitted in Korea, the use of streptogramin and virginiamycin that exhibit quinupristin/dalfopristin cross-resistance may be connected to the development of quinupristin/dalfopristin resistance in E. faecium [54]. The incidence of quinupristin/dalfopristin resistance Enterococcus in companion animals has the potential to contribute to the occurrence of human infections through frequent and direct interactions.
In our study, we also tested the antibiotic susceptibility of four antimicrobials: daptomycin, linezolid, tigecycline, and vancomycin. These antimicrobials belong to four distinct classes and are not currently approved for veterinary use in Korea [20]. In accordance with previous studies conducted in Korea [17] and other countries [55,56], the prevalence of daptomycin resistance is low among the enterococci isolates obtained from companion animals. The infrequency of daptomycin resistance among enterococci may be attributed to the emergence of resistance to spontaneous mutations in EF0631 genes [57]. Numerous previous studies have documented tigecycline, vancomycin, and salinomycin resistance in E. faecium and E. faecalis strains obtained from companion animals [52,53,56,58]; however, in our present investigation, all the enterococcal isolates exhibited susceptibility to these antimicrobials. In general, enterococcal isolates demonstrating resistance to clinically significant antimicrobials have the potential to be transmitted directly or indirectly to humans, posing a critical clinical challenge for the treatment of multidrug-resistant infections.
The prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates among dogs and cats with respect to age variation was assessed to elucidate the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, which could help veterinarians in identifying infections and developing treatment strategies and preventive measures for different age groups of companion animals. In our study, it was observed that most of the antimicrobial resistance in the E. faecium isolates from dogs and cats increased with age. The prevalence of resistance in the E. faecium isolates obtained from geriatric dogs (aged ≥11 years) was higher than that isolated from the puppy and juvenile, mature adult, and senior age groups. Additionally, the isolates from the mature group of cats (aged 7–10 years) showed significantly higher rates of resistance to erythromycin, gentamicin, and tetracycline than those from other age groups. The resistance rate toward the tested antimicrobials in E. faecalis was higher in the puppy and juvenile groups compared to the mature adult, senior, and geriatric groups of dogs. Furthermore, it was found that the rate of resistance to the antimicrobials examined was significantly higher in the senior group (aged ≥11 years) of cats compared to the kitten, junior, and mature groups. Consistent with the findings of a previous study, this investigation demonstrated a high prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in isolates obtained from relatively older companion animals [59]. This propensity for antimicrobial resistance in relatively older companion animals might be due to their exposure to more treatment medications throughout their lives [60]. However, previously published reports still showed mixed antimicrobial resistance dynamics in isolates obtained from animals of varying ages [16].
Most of the E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates exhibited resistance to at least one antimicrobial, with several resistance patterns observed in both species. The rates of multidrug resistance (MDR) in the E. faecium (21%) and E. faecalis (36.1%) strains from dogs and cats were found in this study. A previous report showed a similar MDR phenotype observed in E. faecium (33.3%) isolated from companion animals in the USA [53]. However, MDR in E. faecalis isolates obtained from dogs and cats was reported to be higher in China (52.9%) [55] and Korea (71%) [17]. Moreover, MDR in E. faecium (97.9%) was found to be much higher in cats and dogs in a previous study conducted by Ma et al. [55].
In accordance with the findings reported by Miranda et al. [61], it was seen that MDR patterns often encompass the presence of erythromycin, tetracycline, and ciprofloxacin. Moreover, it was found that E. faecalis isolates obtained from dogs (43.3%) and cats (81.5%) exhibited resistance to five or more antimicrobials, consistent with previously published reports from Korea [16], Turkey [41], and the USA [53]. The tendency of Enterococcus spp. to participate in different types of conjugation may be linked to the presence of MDR, leading to the extensive spread of resistance determinants via plasmids [62]. Moreover, the survivability of MDR enterococci may also trigger their widespread clonal and zoonotic transmission, leaving limited options for treating bacterial infections in humans and animals [63].

5. Conclusions

Our study revealed that enterococcal isolates recovered from healthy dogs and cats demonstrated resistance to multiple antimicrobial agents, including those deemed crucial for human health. The prevalence of multidrug-resistant E. faecium and E. faecalis in companion animals is concerning, particularly considering the limited availability of effective antimicrobials for treating enterococcal infections. This resistance can potentially be transmitted to humans as companion animals share a common habitat with humans and are treated for infections using similar medications. Hence, the judicious selection of antimicrobials and the continuous surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in companion animals may play pivotal roles in mitigating the human health risk associated with Enterococcus. In addition, resistance mechanisms and whole-genome sequencing analysis of E. faecium and E. faecalis isolates also remain to be further conducted to address the risk of transmission from dogs and cats to humans.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms11122991/s1, Table S1: Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolates recovered from healthy dogs and cats during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S2: Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolate collection cities in South Korea; Table S3: The MIC50 and MIC90 of the tested antimicrobials against E. faecium (n = 298) isolated from healthy dogs during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S4: The MIC50 and MIC90 of the tested antimicrobials against E. faecium (n = 54) isolated from healthy cats during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S5: The MIC50 and MIC90 of the tested antimicrobials against E. faecalis (n = 448) isolated from healthy dogs during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S6: The MIC50 and MIC90 of the tested antimicrobials against E. faecalis (n =125) isolated from healthy cats during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S7: Antimicrobial resistance rate in Enterococcus faecium isolated from healthy dogs (n = 298) and cats (n = 54) during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S8: Antimicrobial resistance rate in Enterococcus faecalis isolated from healthy dogs (n = 448) and cats (n = 125) during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S9: Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Enterococccus faecium isolated from healthy dogs (n = 298) during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S10: Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Enterococccus faecium isolated from healthy cats (n = 54) during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S11: Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Enterococccus faecalis isolated from healthy dogs (n = 448) during 2020–2022 in South Korea; Table S12: Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Enterococccus faecalis isolated from healthy cats (n = 125) during 2020–2022 in South Korea.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.-K.L. and D.-C.M.; methodology, B.-Y.M., J.-H.C., Y.-H.L., H.-S.K., M.S.A., T.-S.K. and D.-C.M.; software, Y.-E.H. and H.-S.K.; validation, B.-Y.M., D.-C.M. and S.-K.L.; formal analysis, B.-Y.M., M.S.A., S.-K.L., D.-C.M. and Y.-E.H.; investigation, B.-Y.M., S.-K.L., D.-C.M., Y.-H.L. and H.-S.K.; resources, S.-K.L.; data curation, M.S.A., D.-C.M. and S.-K.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.A., B.-Y.M., S.-K.L. and D.-C.M.; writing—review and editing, M.S.A., B.-Y.M., S.-K.L. and D.-C.M.; visualization, M.S.A., B.-Y.M., S.-K.L. and D.-C.M.; supervision, D.-C.M. and S.-K.L.; project administration, S.-K.L., D.-C.M. and S.-S.Y.; funding acquisition, D.-C.M. and S.-K.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (grant no. N-1543081-2017-24-01).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated for this study are contained within the article/Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hammerum, A.M. Enterococci of Animal Origin and Their Significance for Public Health. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 619–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Da Costa, P.M.; Loureiro, L.; Matos, A.J.F. Transfer of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria between Intermingled Ecological Niches: The Interface between Humans, Animals and the Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 278–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hegstad, K.; Mikalsen, T.; Coque, T.M.; Werner, G.; Sundsfjord, A. Mobile Genetic Elements and Their Contribution to the Emergence of Antimicrobial Resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2010, 16, 541–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Aslam, B.; Khurshid, M.; Arshad, M.I.; Muzammil, S.; Rasool, M.; Yasmeen, N.; Shah, T.; Chaudhry, T.H.; Rasool, M.H.; Shahid, A. Antibiotic Resistance: One Health One World Outlook. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Comerlato, C.B.; de Resende, M.C.C.; Caierão, J.; d’Azevedo, P.A. Presence of Virulence Factors in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium Susceptible and Resistant to Vancomycin. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2013, 108, 590–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Buma, R.; Maeda, T.; Kamei, M.; Kourai, H. Pathogenic Bacteria Carried by Companion Animals and Their Susceptibility to Antibacterial Agents. Biocontrol Sci. 2006, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Jackson, C.R.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Davis, J.A.; Barrett, J.B.; Brousse, J.H.; Gustafson, J.; Kucher, M. Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance and Genetic Relatedness among Enterococci Isolated from Dogs and Cats in the United States. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 108, 2171–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ghosh, A.; Dowd, S.E.; Zurek, L. Dogs Leaving the ICU Carry a Very Large Multi-Drug Resistant Enterococcal Population with Capacity for Biofilm Formation and Horizontal Gene Transfer. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e22451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Smoglica, C.; Evangelisti, G.; Fani, C.; Marsilio, F.; Trotta, M.; Messina, F.; Di Francesco, C.E. Antimicrobial Resistance Profile of Bacterial Isolates from Urinary Tract Infections in Companion Animals in Central Italy. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rumi, M.V.; Nuske, E.; Mas, J.; Argüello, A.; Gutkind, G.; Di Conza, J. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacterial Isolates from Companion Animals in Buenos Aires, Argentina: 2011–2017 Retrospective Study. Zoonoses Public Health 2021, 68, 516–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, Y.; Fernández, R.; Durán, I.; Molina-López, R.A.; Darwich, L. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Isolated from Cats and Dogs from the Iberian Peninsula. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 621597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pillay, S.; Zishiri, O.T.; Adeleke, M.A. Prevalence of Virulence Genes in Enterococcus Species Isolated from Companion Animals and Livestock. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2018, 85, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Oguttu, J.W.; Qekwana, D.N.; Odoi, A. Prevalence and Predictors of Antimicrobial Resistance among Enterococcus spp. from Dogs Presented at a Veterinary Teaching Hospital, South Africa. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 7, 589439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kwon, J.; Ko, H.J.; Yang, M.H.; Park, C.; Park, S.C. Antibiotic Resistance and Species Profile of Enterococcus Species in Dogs with Chronic Otitis Externa. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Chung, Y.S.; Kwon, K.H.; Shin, S.; Kim, J.H.; Park, Y.H.; Yoon, J.W. Characterization of Veterinary Hospital-Associated Isolates of Enterococcus Species in Korea. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 24, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bang, K.; An, J.-U.; Kim, W.; Dong, H.-J.; Kim, J.; Cho, S. Antibiotic Resistance Patterns and Genetic Relatedness of Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium Isolated from Military Working Dogs in Korea. J. Vet. Sci. 2017, 18, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kwon, K.H.; Hwang, S.Y.; Moon, B.Y.; Park, Y.K.; Shin, S.; Hwang, C.-Y.; Park, Y.H. Occurrence of Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Genes, and Distribution of Enterococcal Clonal Complex 17 from Animals and Human Beings in Korea. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2012, 24, 924–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jung, W.K.; Shin, S.; Park, Y.K.; Noh, S.M.; Shin, S.R.; Yoo, H.S.; Park, S.C.; Park, Y.H.; Park, K.T. Distribution and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacterial Species in Stray Dogs, Hospital-Admitted Dogs, and Veterinary Staff in South Korea. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020, 184, 105151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jung, W.K.; Shin, S.; Park, Y.K.; Lim, S.-K.; Moon, D.-C.; Park, K.T.; Park, Y.H. Distribution and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacterial Species in Stray Cats, Hospital-Admitted Cats, and Veterinary Staff in South Korea. BMC Vet. Res. 2020, 16, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kim, M.H.; Moon, D.C.; Kim, S.-J.; Mechesso, A.F.; Song, H.-J.; Kang, H.Y.; Choi, J.-H.; Yoon, S.-S.; Lim, S.-K. Nationwide Surveillance on Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis Isolated from Healthy Food Animals in South Korea, 2010 to 2019. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dutka-Malen, S.; Evers, S.; Courvalin, P. Detection of Glycopeptide Resistance Genotypes and Identification to the Species Level of Clinically Relevant Enterococci by PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995, 33, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twenty Seventh Informational Supplement, M100-S25; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  23. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System. NARMS Integrated Report: The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System: Enteric Bacteria; U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Rockville, MD, USA, 2020.
  24. Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Program (DANMAP). Use of Antimicrobial Agents and Occurrence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria from Food Animals, Foods, and Humans in Denmark; National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark: Kemitorvet, Danmark, 2020; ISSN 1600-2032. [Google Scholar]
  25. Magiorakos, A.-P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B. Multidrug-Resistant, Extensively Drug-Resistant and Pandrug-Resistant Bacteria: An International Expert Proposal for Interim Standard Definitions for Acquired Resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Butaye, P.; Devriese, L.A.; Haesebrouck, F. Differences in Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium Strains Isolated from Farm and Pet Animals. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001, 45, 1374–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Guardabassi, L.; Schwarz, S.; Lloyd, D.H. Pet Animals as Reservoirs of Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria: Review. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2004, 54, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Yuan, T.; Liang, B.; Jiang, B.; Sun, S.; Zhou, Y.; Zhu, L.; Liu, J.; Guo, X.; Ji, X.; Sun, Y. Virulence Genes and Antimicrobial Resistance in Enterococcus Strains Isolated from Dogs and Cats in Northeast China. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2023, 85, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Boyar, Y.; Aslantaş, Ö.; Türkyilmaz, S. Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Characteristics in Enterococcus Isolates from Dogs. Kafkas Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg. 2017, 23, 655–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Leener, E.; Decostere, A.; De Graef, E.M.; Moyaert, H.; Haesebrouck, F. Presence and Mechanism of Antimicrobial Resistance among Enterococci from Cats and Dogs. Microb. Drug Resist. 2005, 11, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Bertelloni, F.; Salvadori, C.; Lotti, G.; Cerri, D.; Ebani, V.V. Antimicrobial Resistance in Enterococcus Strains Isolated from Healthy Domestic Dogs. Acta Microbiol. Immunol. Hung. 2017, 64, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Osman, M.; Altier, C.; Cazer, C. Antimicrobial Resistance among Canine Enterococci in the Northeastern United States, 2007–2020. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1025242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Damborg, P.; Sørensen, A.H.; Guardabassi, L. Monitoring of Antimicrobial Resistance in Healthy Dogs: First Report of Canine Ampicillin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Clonal Complex 17. Vet. Microbiol. 2008, 132, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jackson, C.R.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Davis, J.A.; Barrett, J.B.; Frye, J.G. Prevalence, Species Distribution and Antimicrobial Resistance of Enterococci Isolated from Dogs and Cats in the United States. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 107, 1269–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Poeta, P.; Costa, D.; Rodrigues, J.; Torres, C. Antimicrobial Resistance and the Mechanisms Implicated in Faecal Enterococci from Healthy Humans, Poultry and Pets in Portugal. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2006, 27, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. De Graef, E.M.; Decostere, A.; Devriese, L.A.; Haesebrouck, F. Antibiotic Resistance among Fecal Indicator Bacteria from Healthy Individually Owned and Kennel Dogs. Microb. Drug Resist. 2004, 10, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Zhao, J.; Xie, W.; Lin, X.; Baloch, A.R.; Zhang, X. Antimicrobial Resistance in Enterococci Isolates from Pet Dogs in Xi’an, China. Pak. Vet. J. 2012, 32, 462–464. [Google Scholar]
  38. Delgado, M.; Neto, I.; Correia, J.H.D.; Pomba, C. Antimicrobial Resistance and Evaluation of Susceptibility Testing among Pathogenic Enterococci Isolated from Dogs and Cats. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2007, 1, 98–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Iseppi, R.; Messi, P.; Anacarso, I.; Bondi, M.; Sabia, C.; Condò, C.; de Niederhausern, S. Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Traits in Enterococcus Strains Isolated from Dogs and Cats. New Microbiol. 2015, 38, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Torres, C.; Alonso, C.A.; Ruiz-Ripa, L.; León-Sampedro, R.; del Campo, R.; Coque, T.M. Antimicrobial Resistance in Enterococcus Spp. of Animal Origin. In Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria from Livestock and Companion Animals; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 185–227. ISBN 9781683670520. [Google Scholar]
  41. Aslanta, Ö. Investigation of Faecal Carriage of High-Level Gentamicin Resistant Enterococci in Dogs and Cats. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 2022, 77, 27–37. [Google Scholar]
  42. Garneau-Tsodikova, S.; Labby, K.J. Mechanisms of Resistance to Aminoglycoside Antibiotics: Overview and Perspectives. Medchemcomm 2016, 7, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hollenbeck, B.L.; Rice, L.B. Intrinsic and Acquired Resistance Mechanisms in Enterococcus. Virulence 2012, 3, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Damborg, P.; Top, J.; Hendrickx, A.P.A.; Dawson, S.; Willems, R.J.L.; Guardabassi, L. Dogs Are a Reservoir of Ampicillin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Lineages Associated with Human Infections. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 2360–2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Abdel-Moein, K.A.; El-Hariri, M.D.; Wasfy, M.O.; Samir, A. Occurrence of Ampicillin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Carrying Esp Gene in Pet Animals: An Upcoming Threat for Pet Lovers. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2017, 9, 115–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pomba, C.; Rantala, M.; Greko, C.; Baptiste, K.E.; Catry, B.; Van Duijkeren, E.; Mateus, A.; Moreno, M.A.; Pyörälä, S.; Ružauskas, M. Public Health Risk of Antimicrobial Resistance Transfer from Companion Animals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 957–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Munita, J.M.; Arias, C.A. Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance. In Virulence Mechanisms of Bacterial Pathogens; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 481–511. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gawryszewska, I.; Hryniewicz, W.; Sadowy, E. Penicillin Resistance in Enterococcus faecalis: Molecular Determinants and Epidemiology. Polish J. Microbiol. 2012, 61, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rice, L.B.; Desbonnet, C.; Tait-Kamradt, A.; Garcia-Solache, M.; Lonks, J.; Moon, T.M.; D’Andréa, É.D.; Page, R.; Peti, W. Structural and Regulatory Changes in PBP4 Trigger Decreased β-Lactam Susceptibility in Enterococcus faecalis. mBio 2018, 9, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marks, S.L.; Rankin, S.C.; Byrne, B.A.; Weese, J.S. Enteropathogenic Bacteria in Dogs and Cats: Diagnosis, Epidemiology, Treatment, and Control. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2011, 25, 1195–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Min, Y.-H.; Jeong, J.-H.; Choi, Y.-J.; Yun, H.-J.; Lee, K.; Shim, M.-J.; Kwak, J.-H.; Choi, E.-C. Heterogeneity of Macrolide-Lincosamide-Streptogramin B Resistance Phenotypes in Enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 3415–3420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stępień-Pyśniak, D.; Bertelloni, F.; Dec, M.; Cagnoli, G.; Pietras-Ożga, D.; Urban-Chmiel, R.; Ebani, V.V. Characterization and Comparison of Enterococcus Spp. Isolates from Feces of Healthy Dogs and Urine of Dogs with UTIs. Animals 2021, 11, 2845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ghosh, A.; KuKanich, K.; Brown, C.E.; Zurek, L. Resident Cats in Small Animal Veterinary Hospitals Carry Multi-Drug Resistant Enterococci and Are Likely Involved in Cross-Contamination of the Hospital Environment. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 19232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Aarestrup, F.M. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria of Animal Origin. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 1180. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ma, S.; Chen, S.; Lyu, Y.; Huang, W.; Liu, Y.; Dang, X.; An, Q.; Song, Y.; Jiao, Y.; Gong, X. China Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network for Pets (CARPet), 2018 to 2021. One Health Adv. 2023, 1, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Talaga-Ćwiertnia, K.; Bulanda, M. Drug resistance in the genus–current problem in humans and animals. Postęp. Mikrobiol. Microbiol. 2018, 57, 244–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Palmer, K.L.; Daniel, A.; Hardy, C.; Silverman, J.; Gilmore, M.S. Genetic Basis for Daptomycin Resistance in Enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2011, 55, 3345–3356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kim, D.-H.; Kim, J.-H. Efficacy of Tigecycline and Linezolid Against Pan-Drug-Resistant Bacteria Isolated from Companion Dogs in South Korea. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 693506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Gaire, T.N.; Scott, H.M.; Sellers, L.; Nagaraja, T.G.; Volkova, V. V Age Dependence of Antimicrobial Resistance among Fecal Bacteria in Animals: A Scoping Review. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 7, 622495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. McMeekin, C.H.; Hill, K.E.; Gibson, I.R.; Bridges, J.P.; Benschop, J. Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Bacteria Isolated from Canine Urinary Samples Submitted to a New Zealand Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory between 2005–2012. N. Z. Vet. J. 2017, 65, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Miranda, C.; Silva, V.; Igrejas, G.; Poeta, P. Impact of European Pet Antibiotic Use on Enterococci and Staphylococci Antimicrobial Resistance and Human Health. Future Microbiol. 2021, 16, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Palmer, K.L.; Kos, V.N.; Gilmore, M.S. Horizontal Gene Transfer and the Genomics of Enterococcal Antibiotic Resistance. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2010, 13, 632–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Scarafile, G. Antibiotic Resistance: Current Issues and Future Strategies. Rev. Health Care 2016, 7, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Antimicrobial resistance rates in Enterococcus faecium (n = 352) and Enterocoocus faecalis (n = 573) isolated from dogs and cats during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
Table 1. Antimicrobial resistance rates in Enterococcus faecium (n = 352) and Enterocoocus faecalis (n = 573) isolated from dogs and cats during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
AntimicrobialsResistance Rate % (No. of Isolates)
E. faeciumE. faecalis
Dogs
(n = 298)		Cats
(n = 54)		p ValueSubtotal
(n = 352)		Dogs
(n = 448)		Cats
(n = 125)		p ValueSubtotal
(n = 573)
Ampicillin17.8 (53)14.8 (8)0.630117.3 (61)0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)
Chloramphenicol2.3 (7)0 (0)0.15522.0 (7)16.7 (75)31.2 (39)0.046919.9 (114)
Ciprofloxacin41.3 (123)44.4 (24)0.710541.8 (147)3.1 (14)5.6 (7)0.52343.7 (21)
Daptomycin1.7 (5)3.7 (2)0.472.0 (7)0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)
Erythromycin40.3 (120)35.2 (19)0.529639.5 (139)39.5 (177)49.6 (62)0.262141.7 (239)
Florfenicol1.3 (4)0 (0)0.29291.1 (4)3.1 (14)8.0 (10)0.26164.2 (24)
Gentamicin7.4 (22)9.3 (5)0.6857.7 27)17.9 (80)28.0 (35)0.191220.1 (115)
Kanamycin12.1 (36)16.7 (9)0.436812.8 (45)31.5 (141)36.0 (45)0.60232.5 (186)
Linezolid0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)
Quinupristin/dalfopristin7.4 (22)9.3 (5)0.6857.7 (27)NDNDNDND
Salinomycin0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)
Streptomycin15.1 (45)11.1 (6)0.471814.5 (51)18.8 (84)24.0 (30)0.483719.9 (114)
Tetracycline35.6 (106)31.5 (17)0.609734.9 (123)65.2 (292)75.2 (94)0.222767.4 (386)
Tigecycline0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)
Tylosin14.4 (43)14.8 (8)0.952214.5 (51)39.5 (177)48.0 (60)0.347941.4 (237)
Vancomycin0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)ND0 (0)
MDR20.5 (61/298)24.1 (13/54)0.599921.0 (74/352)33.9 (152/448)44.0 (55/125)0.254336.1 (207/573)
p < 0.05 was considered a significant change in the antimicrobial resistance rate. MDR, multidrug resistance; ND, none-defined.
Table 2. Distribution of antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus faecium among different age groups of healthy dogs and cats isolated during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
Table 2. Distribution of antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus faecium among different age groups of healthy dogs and cats isolated during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
AntimicrobialsResistance Rate % (No. of Isolates)
Dogs (n = 298)Cats (n = 54)
1 Year:
Puppy and Juvenile
(n = 66)		2–5 Years: Mature Adult
(n = 88)		6–10 Years: Senior
(n = 102)		≥11 Years: Geriatric
(n = 42)		Subtotal≤1 Year: Kitten
(n = 28)		2–6 Years: Junior and Adults
(n = 22)		7–10 Years: Mature
(n = 4)		Subtotal
Ampicillin16.7 (11)9.1 (8)22.5 (23)26.2 (11)17.8 (53)10.7 (3)18.2 (4)25.0 (1)14.8 (8)
Chloramphenicol3.0 (2)3.4 (3)1.0 (1)2.4 (1)2.3 (7)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Ciprofloxacin48.5 (32)35.2 (31)38.2 (39)50.0 (21)41.3 (123)35.7 (10)54.5 (12)50.0 (2)44.4 (24)
Daptomycin0 (0)1.1 (1)2.9 (3)2.4 (1)1.7 (5)3.6 (1)4.5 (1)0 (0)3.7 (2)
Erythromycin43.9 (29)33 (29)41.2 (42)47.6 (20)40.3 (120)35.7 (10)31.8 (7)50.0 (2) Δ35.2 (19)
Florfenicol3.0 (2)1.1 (1)0 (0)2.4 (1)1.3 (4)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Gentamicin10.6 (7)2.3 (2)6.9 (7)14.3 (6)7.4 (22)7.1 (2)9.1 (2)25.0 (1) Δ9.3 (5)
Kanamycin18.2 (12)2.3 (2) *10.8 (11)26.2 (11) #12.1 (36)14.3 (4)18.2 (4)25.0 (1)16.7 (9)
Linezolid0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Quinupristin/dalfopristin7.6 (5)5.7 (5)6.9 (7)11.9 (5)7.4 (22)14.3 (4)0 (0) †25.0 (1) Δ9.3 (5)
Salinomycin0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Streptomycin15.2 (10)8.0 (7)15.7 (16)28.6 (12) #15.1 (45)10.7 (3)9.1 (2)25.0 (1) Δ11.1 (6)
Tetracycline36.4 (24)27.3 (24)39.2 (40)42.9 (18)35.6 (106)28.6 (8)31.8 (7)50.0 (2) Δ31.5 (17)
Tigecycline0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Tylosin18.2 (12)9.1 (8)11.8 (12)26.2 (11) #14.4 (43)14.3 (4)13.6 (3)25.0 (1)14.8 (8)
Vancomycin0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
MDR24.2 (16)13.6 (12)18.6 (19)33.3 (14) #20.5 (61/298)21.4 (6)27.3 (6)25.0 (1)24.1 (13/54)
* p < 0.05 compared with resistance rates in mature adult dogs; # p < 0.05 compared with resistance rates in geriatric dogs; † p < 0.05 compared with resistance rates in junior and adult cats; Δ p < 0.05 compared with resistance rates in mature cats. MDR, multidrug resistance.
Table 3. Distribution of antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus faecalis isolates among different age groups of healthy dogs and cats isolated during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
Table 3. Distribution of antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus faecalis isolates among different age groups of healthy dogs and cats isolated during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
AntimicrobialsResistance Rate % (No. of Isolates)
Dogs (n = 448)Cats (n = 125)
1 Year: Puppy and Juvenile
(n = 92)		2–5 Years: Mature Adult
(n = 148)		6–10 Years: Senior
(n = 147)		≥11 Years: Geriatric
(n = 59)		Unkn-own
(n = 2)		Subtotal≤1 Year: Kitten
(n = 53)		2–6 Years: Junior and Adults
(n = 45)		7–10 Years: Mature
(n = 20)		≥11 Years: Senior
(n = 6)		Unkn-own
(n = 1)		Subtotal
Ampicillin0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Chloramphenicol17.4 (16)16.2 (24)17.7 (26)15.3 (9)0 (0)16.7 (75)32.1 (17)26.7 (12)30.0 (6)66.7 (4) †0 (0)31.2 (39)
Ciprofloxacin4.3 (4)2.7 (4)2.0 (3)5.1 (3)0 (0)3.1 (14)11.3 (6)0 (0) *5 (1)0 (0) †0 (0)5.6 (7)
Daptomycin0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Erythromycin41.3 (38)38.5 (57)40.1 (59)39.0 (23)0 (0)39.5 (177)43.4 (23)55.6 (25)45.0 (9)66.7 (4) †100.0 (1)49.6 (62)
Florfenicol4.3 (4)1.4 (2)4.1 (6)3.4 (2)0 (0)3.1 (14)15.1 (8)2.2 (1)5.0 (1)0 (0) †0 (0)8.0 (10)
Gentamicin20.7 (19)17.6 (26)15.6 (23)20.3 (12)0 (0)17.9 (80)32.1 (17)24.4 (11)20.0 (4)50.0 (3) †0 (0)28.0 (35)
Kanamycin38 (35)31.1 (46)27.9 (41)32.2 (19)0 (0)31.5 (141)39.6 (21)35.6 (16)20.0 (4) #66.7 (4) †0 (0)36.0 (45)
Linezolid0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Quinupristin/dalfopristinNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
Salinomycin0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Streptomycin19.6 (18)20.9 (31)15.6 (23)20.3 (12)0 (0)18.8 (84)30.2 (16)20.0 (9)20.0 (4)16.7 (1)0 (0)24.0 (30)
Tetracycline68.5 (63)67.6 (100)63.3 (93)59.3 (35)50.0 (1)65.2 (292)66.0 (35)80.0 (36)85.0 (17)100.0 (6) †0 (0)75.2 (94)
Tigecycline0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) †0 (0)0 (0)
Tylosin42.4 (39)37.2 (55)40.8 (60)39.0 (23)0 (0)39.5 (177)43.4 (23)53.3 (24)45.0 (9)66.7 (4) †0 (0)48.0 (60)
Vancomycin0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
MDR38.0 (35)32.4 (48)34.0 (50)32.2 (19)0 (0)33.9 (152/448)45.3 (24)42.2 (19)40.0 (8)66.7 (4) †0 (0)44.0 (55/125)
* p < 0.05 compared with resistance rates in junior and adult cats; # p < 0.05 compared with resistance rates in mature cats. † p < 0.05 compared with resistance rates in senior cats. MDR, multidrug resistance; ND, none-defined.
Table 4. Frequent resistance patterns of Enterococcus faecium specimens isolated from healthy dogs and cats during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
Table 4. Frequent resistance patterns of Enterococcus faecium specimens isolated from healthy dogs and cats during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
No. of AntimicrobialsDog Isolates (n = 298)Cat Isolates (n = 54)
No. of
Isolates (%)		Most Common Pattern (No. of Isolates, %)No. of Isolates (%)Most Common Pattern (No. of Isolates, %)
068 (22.8)–15 (27.8)–
1114 (38.3)ERY (n = 61, 20.5%)19 (35.2)CIP (n = 7, 13.0%)
254 (18.1)CIP TET (n = 31, 10.4%)7 (13.0)CIP TET (n = 4, 7.4%)
313 (4.4)CIP ERY TET (n = 4, 1.3%)3 (5.6)AMP STR TET (n = 1, 1.9%),
CIP ERY SYN (n = 1, 1.9%),
CIP ERY TET (n = 1, 1.9%)
49 (3.0)AMP CIP STR TET (n = 3, 1.0%)2 (3.7)AMP CIP GEN KAN (n = 1, 1.9%),
AMP CIP ERY TYL (n = 1, 1.9%)
57 (2.3)AMP CIP ERY TET TYL (n = 2, 0.7%)
CHL CIP ERY TET TYL (n = 2, 0.7%)
CIP ERY STR TET TYL (n = 2, 0.7%)		2 (3.7)AMP CIP GEN KAN TET (n = 1, 1.9%),
CIP ERY KAN TET TYL (n = 1, 1.9%)
68 (2.7)CIP ERY KAN STR TET TYL (n = 3, 1.0%)3 (5.6)AMP CIP ERY STR TET TYL (n = 1, 1.9%),
CIP ERY KAN STR TET TYL (n = 1, 1.9%),
ERY GEN KAN STR TET TYL (n = 1, 1.9%)
710 (3.4)AMP CIP ERY KAN STR TET TYL (n = 4, 1.3%)1 (1.9)AMP CIP ERY KAN SYN TET TYL (n = 1, 1.9%)
85 (1.7)AMP CIP ERY GEN KAN STR TET TYL (n = 2, 0.7%)––
97 (2.3)AMP CIP ERY GEN KAN SYN STR TET TYL (n = 4, 1.3%)2 (3.7)AMP CIP ERY GEN KAN SYN STR TET TYL (n = 2, 3.7%)
102 (0.7)AMP CIP DAP ERY GEN KAN SYN STR TET TYL (n = 2, 0.7%)––
111 (0.3)AMP CHL CIP ERY FLR GEN KAN SYN STR TET TYL (n = 1, 0.3%)––
AMP, ampicillin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CHL, chloramphenicol; DAP, daptomycin; ERY, erythromycin; FLR, florfenicol; GEN, gentamicin; KAN, kanamycin; SYN, quinupristin/dalfopristin; STR, streptomycin; TET, tetracycline; TYL, tylosin.
Table 5. Frequent resistance patterns of Enterococcus faecalis isolated from healthy dogs and cats during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
Table 5. Frequent resistance patterns of Enterococcus faecalis isolated from healthy dogs and cats during 2020–2022 in South Korea.
No. of
Antimicrobials		Dog Isolates (n = 448)Cat Isolates (n = 125)
No. of Isolates (%)Most Common Pattern (No. of Isolates, %)No. of
Isolates (%)		Most Common Pattern (No. of Isolates, %)
0147 (32.8)–26 (20.8)–
1101 (22.5)TET (n = 101, 22.5%)33 (26.4)TET (n = 31, 24.8%)
222 (4.9)CHL TET (n = 11, 2.5%)3 (2.4)CHL TET (n = 1, 0.8%), CIP TET (n = 1, 0.8%), ERY TET (n = 1, 0.8%)
325 (5.6)ERY TET TYL (n = 20, 4.5%)8 (6.4)ERY TET TYL (n = 6, 4.8%)
431 (6.9)ERY KAN TET TYL (n = 11, 2.5%)11 (8.8)CHL ERY TET TYL (n = 8, 6.4%)
556 (12.5)ERY KAN STR TET TYL (n = 27, 6.0%)10 (8.0)ERY GEN KAN TET TYL (n = 3, 2.4%),
ERY KAN STR TET TYL (n = 3, 2.4%)
640 (8.9)ERY GEN KAN STR TET TYL (n = 18, 4.0%)21 (16.8)CHL ERY GEN KAN TET TYL (n = 8, 6.4%)
ERY GEN KAN STR TET TYL (n = 8, 6.4%
720 (4.5)CHL ERY GEN KAN STR TET TYL (n = 16, 3.6%)6 (4.8)CHL ERY GEN KAN STR TET TYL (n = 6, 4.8%)
84 (0.9)CHL CIP ERY FLR GEN KAN TET TYL (n = 3, 0.7%)6 (4.8)CHL ERY FLR GEN KAN STR TET TYL (n = 4, 3.2%)
92 (0.4)CHL CIP ERY FLR GEN KAN STR TET TYL (n = 2, 0.4%)1 (0.8)CHL CIP ERY FLR GEN KAN STR TET TYL (n = 1, 0.8%)
CIP, ciprofloxacin; CHL, chloramphenicol; ERY, erythromycin; FLR, florfenicol; GEN, gentamicin; KAN, kanamycin; STR, streptomycin; TET, tetracycline; TYL, tylosin.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moon, B.-Y.; Ali, M.S.; Choi, J.-H.; Heo, Y.-E.; Lee, Y.-H.; Kang, H.-S.; Kim, T.-S.; Yoon, S.-S.; Moon, D.-C.; Lim, S.-K. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis Isolated from Healthy Dogs and Cats in South Korea. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2991. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122991

AMA Style

Moon B-Y, Ali MS, Choi J-H, Heo Y-E, Lee Y-H, Kang H-S, Kim T-S, Yoon S-S, Moon D-C, Lim S-K. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis Isolated from Healthy Dogs and Cats in South Korea. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(12):2991. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122991

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moon, Bo-Youn, Md. Sekendar Ali, Ji-Hyun Choi, Ye-Eun Heo, Yeon-Hee Lee, Hee-Seung Kang, Tae-Sun Kim, Soon-Seek Yoon, Dong-Chan Moon, and Suk-Kyung Lim. 2023. "Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis Isolated from Healthy Dogs and Cats in South Korea" Microorganisms 11, no. 12: 2991. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122991

APA Style

Moon, B.-Y., Ali, M. S., Choi, J.-H., Heo, Y.-E., Lee, Y.-H., Kang, H.-S., Kim, T.-S., Yoon, S.-S., Moon, D.-C., & Lim, S.-K. (2023). Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis Isolated from Healthy Dogs and Cats in South Korea. Microorganisms, 11(12), 2991. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11122991

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop
  NODES
admin 5
Association 2
Idea 2
idea 2
innovation 2
INTERN 32
Note 9
Project 2
twitter 1