Skip to main content
Download PDF

Four novel Acinetobacter lwoffii strains isolated from the milk of cows in China with subclinical mastitis

BMC Veterinary Research volume 20, Article number: 274 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Acinetobacter lwoffii (A. lwoffii) is a Gram-negative bacteria common in the environment, and it is the normal flora in human respiratory and digestive tracts. The bacteria is a zoonotic and opportunistic pathogen that causes various infections, including nosocomial infections. The aim of this study was to identify A. lwoffii strains isolated from bovine milk with subclinical mastitis in China and get a better understanding of its antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance profile. This is the first study to analyze the drug resistance spectrum and corresponding mechanisms of A. lwoffii isolated in raw milk.

Results

Four A. lwoffii strains were isolated by PCR method. Genetic evolution analysis using the neighbor-joining method showed that the four strains had a high homology with Acinetobacter lwoffii. The strains were resistant to several antibiotics and carried 17 drug-resistance genes across them. Specifically, among 23 antibiotics, the strains were completely susceptible to 6 antibiotics, including doxycycline, erythromycin, polymyxin, clindamycin, imipenem, and meropenem. In addition, the strains showed variable resistance patterns. A total of 17 resistance genes, including plasmid-mediated resistance genes, were detected across the four strains. These genes mediated resistance to 5 classes of antimicrobials, including beta-lactam, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, tetracycline, sulfonamides, and chloramphenicol.

Conclusion

These findings indicated that multi-drug resistant Acinetobacter lwoffii strains exist in raw milk of bovine with subclinical mastitis. Acinetobacter lwoffii are widespread in natural environmental samples, including water, soil, bathtub, soap box, skin, pharynx, conjunctiva, saliva, gastrointestinal tract, and vaginal secretions. The strains carry resistance genes in mobile genetic elements to enhance the spread of these genes. Therefore, more attention should be paid to epidemiological surveillance and drug resistant A. lwoffii.

Peer Review reports

Background

Mastitis is a common disease in dairy cows, which threatens the development of the dairy cattle industry worldwide. The disease causes significant economic losses by reducing milk production and milk quality [1, 2]. Mastitis is caused by many pathogens, and the predisposing factors include a dirty environment, improper feeding and management, hormone disorders, breast defects, and other factors. Bacteria, viruses, and fungi are the main causes of mastitis. The causal microorganisms of mastitis are complex. In general, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Escherichia coli are the main pathogenic bacteria that cause mastitis, followed by Corynebacterium pyogenes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pasteurella and Klebsiella. There are two types of mastitis based on clinical manifestations: clinical mastitis (CM) and subclinical mastitis (SCM). Subclinical mastitis is more prevalent than clinical mastitis, and cow-to-cow transmission is the primary route through which the disease spreads [3]. Subclinical mastitis has a systemic effect on the reproduction capacity of the infected animal [4], and it can be diagnosed based on the presence of inflammatory mediators and specific bacteria in milk and a reduction in milk production [5].

Streptococcus and Staphylococcus are the main bacteria species that cause subclinical mastitis. Recent studies have shown that several bacterial species associated with bovine mastitis, such as environmentally ubiquitous Acinetobacter, Bacillus, Enterobacter, and Enterococcus, are readily isolated from milk samples [6, 7]. These pathogens are developing multiple drug resistance (MDR) to common antimicrobial agents used in mastitis therapy. Acinetobacter are Gram-negative bacillus with 112 Acinetobacter species in this genus. The majority of species are nonpathogenic types readily available in the environmental materials. Members of the Acinetobacter genus easily cause infection in immunocompromised individuals and animals. The most common infections are nosocomial, predominantly respiratory tract infections, septicemia, meningitis, endocarditis, wound and skin infections, and urogenital tract infections. The most common Acinetobacter species that cause infections is Acinetobacter baumannii, followed by Acinetobacter calcoaceticus and Acinetobacter lwoffii [8]. All species are ubiquitous in nature and can easily be isolated from soil, water, food, and sewage [9]. In this study, we isolated 4 A. lwoffii strains from raw milk samples of cows with subclinical mastitis in Jilin Province in China in 2021. The antimicrobial susceptibility, resistance, and the genes conferring the resistance in the isolates were determined.

Results

Identification of strains and genetic evolution analysis

The milk samples from cows with subclinical mastitis were analyzed for the presence of mastitis-related bacteria. Four Acinetobacter strains, including JL1, JL2, JL3, and JL4, were obtained from the analyzed raw milk samples.

A phylogenetic tree constructed using the neighbor-joining method showed that the four strains grouped together in one clade and showed high homology with Acinetobacter lwoffii (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Phylogenetic relationship of 16s rRNA gene between milk Acinetobacter strains and selected reference strains. The tree was constructed using Neighbor-Joining method implemented in MEGA7.0 software with p-distances and 1,000 bootstrap replicates. The samples are labeled with black triangle

Full size image

Antimicrobial susceptibility phenotypes

The susceptibility and resistance profile of the four strains were tested against 23 antibiotics. The antimicrobial susceptibility results showed that the four strains were resistant to multiple drugs (Fig. 2). All the strains were resistant to ampicillin, oxacillin, ceftazidime, cefoxitin, cefazolin, ceftiofur, ciprofloxacin, enrofloxacin, tetracycline, amikacin, streptomycin, gentamicin, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (JL1 and JL3 isolates were resistant to Ampicillin-Oxacillin-Ceftazidime-.

Cefoxitin-Cefazolin-Ceftriaxone-Ceftiofur-Ciprofloxacin-Enrofloxacin-Levofloxacin-Tetracycline-Streptomycin-Kanamycin-Amikacin-Gentamicin-Chloramphenicol-Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, JL2 isolate was resistant to Ampicillin-Oxacillin-Ceftazime-Cefoxitin-Cefazolin-Ceftriax.

one-Ceftiofur-Ciprofloxacin-Enrofloxacin-Tetracycline-Streptomycin-Amikacin-Gentamicin-Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and JL4 isolate was resistant to Ampicillin-Oxacillin-Cefoxitin-Ceftazidime-Cefazolin-C.

eftiofur-Ciprofloxacin-Enrofloxacin-Tetracycline-Streptomycin-Kanamycin-Amikacin-Gentamicin-Chloramphenicol-Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole). However, they were more susceptible to doxycycline, erythromycin, polymyxin, clindamycin, imipenem and meropenem. Notably, the strains displayed multi-drug resistance with variable patterns.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The results of multidrug resistance in isolates

Note: AMP: Ampicillin; OX: Oxacillin; CAZ: Ceftazidime; CFO: Cefoxitin; CFZ: Cefazolin; CRO: Ceftriaxone; TIO: Ceftiofur; CIP: Ciprofloxacin; ENR: Enrofloxacin; LEV: Levofloxacin; TET: Tetracycline; STR: Streptomycin; KAN: Kanamycin; AMK: Amikacin; GEN: Gentamicin; SXT: Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; CLO: Chloramphenicol; DOX: Doxycycline; ERY: Erythromycin; CT: Polymyxin; CC: Clindamycin; IPM: Imipenem; MPM: Meropenem

Full size image

Presence of resistance genes

The distribution of resistance genes across the four strains is shown in Table 1. Two beta-lactamase genes were detected. BlaTEM was detected in all four strains, while blaSHV was detected in two isolates. Among the aminoglycoside resistance genes, 4 aminoglycoside modifying enzyme genes were identified. The aadA1 gene which confers resistance to streptomycin was detected in all 4 isolates. The aac(3’)-IIc gene, which confers resistance to gentamicin, was detected in all 4 isolates. The aph(3’)-VII gene, which causes resistance to kanamycin, was detected in all 4 isolates. The aac(6’)-Ib gene, which causes resistance to kanamycin and amikacin, was detected in all 4 isolates. Only one 16 S rRNA methylase gene rmtB was detected in JL1. Three plasmid-based antibiotic resistance-associated genes were detected. OqxA was present in all four, oqxB was also present in all four, and qnrB was present in two isolates. Among the tetracycline and sulfonamide resistance genes, tet(A), tet(C), and tet(G) were present in four isolates, tet(K) was present in one, sul1 was present in two, while sul2 was present in three isolates. Among the chloramphenicol resistance genes, the cat2 gene was detected in all 4 isolates.

Table 1 The results of resistance genes in isolates
Full size table

Discussion

Mastitis is a common disease in dairy cows, which influence the lactation period and milk production. The quality and shelf life of raw milk and related products will be reduced by the increase of microbiology [10]. Pathogenic bacteria in raw milk could cause serious food safety and even affect human health. Because mastitis is debilitating and painfulit, also touches on animal welfare issues [11]. Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, Streptococcus, Pasteurella, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Corynebacterium, Enhydrobacter, Bacillus, Lactococcus, Lactobacillus, Paenibacillus, Bacteroides, Massilia, Chryseobacterium, Enterococcus, Psychrobacter and Acinetobacter have been previously detected in raw milk of cows with mastitis [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. In this study, 4 Acinetobacter lwoffii strains were detected in raw milk. This study is very important because little is known about the role of foods in the transmission of Acinetobacter spp. No standard protocols for recovering these species from foods exist [20, 21]. Acinetobacter lwoffii is an aerobic, Gram-negative coccobacillus common in the environment and a normal flora in the human respiratory and digestive tract [22]. According to the most recent scientific literature, members of the Acinetobacter genus are the second most common nonfermenting pathogens isolated from clinical samples after Pseudomonas aeruginosa [23]. Acinetobacter strains also colonize animals respiratory and urinary tract, including food animals, fish, chickens, birds, and dogs [24,25,26,27,28]. Acinetobacter is widely distributed in the external environment, such as water, soil, baths, soap boxes and other wet places [29, 30]. The bacterium has strong adhesion and easily adheres to various medical materials, where it may become a storage source of bacterial infections. These bacteria survive on inanimate objects, in dry conditions, in dust, and in moist conditions for several days. A study showed that in raw milk of cows with mastitis, the detection rate of Acinetobacter baumannii was higher than Acinetobacter lwoffii [31]. However, Acinetobacter baumannii is still the most common Acinetobacter species that causes infections. Other prominent species include Acinetobacter ursingii, Acinetobacter parvus and among all, Acinetobacter lwoffii has been increasingly reported. Ribeiro Júnior JC isolated 9 Acinetobacter lwoffii strains from 20 refrigerated raw milk samples [32].

Since bovine mastitis results in huge economic losses, its prevention and treatment have attracted global attention. Antibiotics are the main treatment options for the disease. In recent years, Acinetobacter species have been the most common pathogens associated with opportunistic infections resistant to multiple antibiotic classes. In this study, the A. lwoffii strains isolated were resistant to multiple antibiotics at variable patterns. All the strains were only susceptible to 6 out of the 23 commonly used antibiotics. In a previous study, the Acinetobacter strains detected from milk samples of cows suffering from clinical mastitis were resistant to all the antibiotics tested (oxytetracycline, vancomycin, lincomycin, nitrofurantoin, ceftriaxone-tazobactam, cefotaxime, erythromycin, amoxicillin-sulbactam, and penicillin) [6]. Acinetobacter species isolated by Raylson Pereira de Oliveira showed variable phenotypic resistance to antimicrobials and were completely resistant to ampicillin, penicillin, and vancomycin [31]. Acinetobacter strains which isolated from human milk were resistant to oxacillin, ampicillin, clindamycin, cephalothin, amoxicillin and erythromycin [33]. Acinetobacter species isolated from birds on a free-range farm were resistant to ampicillin, cefazolin, ceftazidime, chloramphenicol, nitrofurantoin, rifampicin and tetracycline which are on the WHO list of essential medicines [34]. The resistance profile of the strains detected in this study has never been reported in the past. The difference in the drug resistance pattern for A. lwoffii is due to the use of different drugs in different regions. The high antimicrobial resistance of A. lwoffii strains may be due to the overuse and abuse of antimicrobials in disease treatment. Acinetobacter baumannii as the important pathogen in healthcare associated infections shows serious multiple-drug resistance [35, 36]. There are not any Acinetobacter baumannii strain isolated from the analyzed milk samples in this study. However, it suggested that other Acinetobacter species isolates may play a role in maintaining severe antibiotic resistance in milk.

There are many reports concerning the resistance mechanism of Acinetobacter lwoffii have been published. In Sofia Mindlin’s study, Acinetobacter lwoffii carried antibiotic-resistant genes (heavy metal resistance) in plasmids [37]. Liang detected a novel plasmid-encoded ANT(3”)-IId in Acinetobacter lwoffi strain isolated from a chick on an animal farm in China [38]. Two β-lactamase-encoding genes, OXA-496 and OXA-537, were for the first time reported in Acinetobacter lwoffii and Acinetobacter schindleri isolates from a chicken farm [39]. In this study, a total of 17 genes that mediate resistance to beta-lactam, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, tetracycline, sulfonamides, and chloramphenicol were detected across the four strains isolated, and some of these genes were carried in the plasmid. In this study, the relationship between the carrying of resistance determinants and the phenotypic resistance profile were not coincident. Some strains having resistance genes while susceptible to the antimicrobial. Maybe the resistance genes were not expressed, so that they did not show resistance to the antimicrobial. Some strains were resistant to antimicrobial without the related resistance genes. It was possible that there were other resistance mechanism. The metabolic abilities of Acinetobacter spp. are often attributed to their plasmid-encoded genes because these genes encode proteins that can degrade organic compounds [40]. Plasmid mediated gene transfer plays an important role in the transmission of antibiotic resistance genes, pathogen degradation pathways and pathogenicity determinants. The transfer of mobile genetic elements such as plasmids, insertion sequences (ISs), transposons and integrons play an important role in the acquisition of resistance determinants or features providing a selective advantage [41]. These transposable elements can move within the bacterial genome. Plasmid-based genes encode numerous features that provide a selective advantage to the bacteria, and they can be transferred horizontally to other bacteria of the same or different species. Therefore, plasmids are believed to play an essential role in the evolutionary events of a given microbial community [42]. Numerous articles have documented the presence of Acinetobacter spp. in raw milk, dairy products, and powdered bovine milk [21]. Acinetobacter spp. are common microbes found throughout nature. Acinetobacter spp. in raw milk may have originated from environmental sources. Also, Acinetobacter spp. can contaminate other animals, people, medical devices, and environmental factors. In addition, Acinetobacter spp. strains that carry plasmid-based resistance genes may transfer these genes to other strains through the horizontal mechanism. Acquisition of plasmids that mediate antibiotic resistance transfers these traits to the recipient bacteria, which seriously threatens effective clinical treatment of diseases caused by such bacteria. The prevalence and mechanisms of antibiotic resistance have been widely reported, but the transfer mechanisms of multi-drug resistant genes are remain unclear. The research of antibiotic resistance gene transfer were good for devising innovative solutions to combat the current antibiotic resistance crisis [43].

The prevalence and mechanisms associated with antibiotic resistance have been widely reported, but the mechanisms of multidrug resistance gene transfer. It is important to continue antibiotic resistance gene transfer to design innovative solutions to combat the current antibiotic resistance crisis.

Conclusion

We isolated 4 A. lwoffii stains from raw milk samples of cows with subclinical mastitis in China. Genetic evolution analysis with the neighbor-joining method showed that the 4 strains displayed a high homology with Acinetobacter lwoffii. The antimicrobial susceptibility test which using Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion and refered to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute results showed that all the strains were multi-drug resistant and were only completely susceptible to 6 of the 23 tested antibiotics. Acinetobacter lwoffii strains, which inhabit the udder of cows, showed considerably variable multi-drug resistance patterns. The antibiotic resistance genes were diverse and varied across the four strains. A total of 17 resistance-associated genes, including plasmid-based genes, were detected. These genes promoted resistance against 5 drug categories, including beta-lactam, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, tetracycline, sulfonamides, and chloramphenicol. Our findings suggest that Acinetobacter lwoffii can contaminate milk, human and animal bodies, medical devices, soil, water, and other environmental features. Thus, keen attention should be paid to the epidemiological surveillance and drug resistance of Acinetobacter lwoffii in the listed sources.

Methods

Sample collection and isolation of bacteria

In 2021, four raw milk samples were collected from cows diagnosed as subclinical mastitis on one farm in Jilin Province in China. The collection was performed aseptically, and the samples were placed in sterile tubes and immediately stored under refrigerated conditions until analysis.

In the laboratory, each milk sample was inoculated on Trypticase Soy Agar plates supplemented with 5% sheep blood and incubated aerobically at 37 °C for 48 h. After bacterial growth, colonies for suspicious pathogens were further sub-cultured for identification. For DNA extraction, 300 µL 1×TE buffer was added to a small proportion of the bacterial colony and transferred to a 1.5 mL centrifugation tube. The tube was hit at 100 °C for 10 min before incubation on ice for 5 min. The mixture was then centrifuged at 17,000 × g for 5 min, and the supernatants were collected and stored at 4 °C till further use. The isolates were identified using PCR by targeting 16s rRNA using universal primers. The quality of the PCR products was analyzed using 1% agarose gel electrophoresis and visualized under UV light. All PCR amplified positive products were sequenced by Kumi Biotechnology (Jilin) Co., Ltd (Jilin, China) and identified using the BLAST program using data in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database.

Genetic evolutionary analysis

The bacterial sequences were aligned using the ClustalW program in MEGA 7.0 software. The phylogenetic trees from evolutionary distances were built using the neighbor-joining method. P-distances for nucleotides were reconstructed using the same software. The referential strains of Acinetobacter were all published strains. The clustering stability of the neighbor-joining tree was evaluated by bootstrap analysis with 1,000 replicates.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

The antimicrobial susceptibility of the isolates was tested using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion antibiotic testing method (K-B method) through microdilution as recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. The susceptibility and resistance tests of the isolates were performed against 23 different antibiotics, including ampicillin (AMP, 10 µg), oxacillin (OX, 1 µg), ceftazidime (CAZ, 30 µg), cefoxitin (CFO, 30 µg), cefazolin (CFZ, 30 µg), ceftriaxone (CRO, 30 µg), ceftiofur (TIO, 30 µg), erythromycin (ERY, 15 µg), ciprofloxacin (CIP, 5 µg), levofloxacin (LEV, 5 µg), enrofloxacin (ENR, 5 µg), clindamycin (CC, 2 µg), chloramphenicol (CLO, 30 µg), tetracycline (TET, 30 µg), doxycycline (DOX, 30 µg), polymyxin (CT, 30 µg), amikacin (AMK, 30 µg), streptomycin (STR, 10 µg), gentamicin (GEN, 10 µg), kanamycin (KAN, 30 µg), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (SXT, 1.25/23.75 µg), imipenem (IPM, 10 µg) and meropenem (MPM, 10 µg). Escherichia coli ATCC 25,922 was the quality control strain.

The bacterial isolates were inoculated in Trypticase Soy Broth and incubated at 37 °C for 6 to 8 h until turbidity developed to 0.5 McFarland’s standard. A small bacterial culture inoculum was spread onto sterile Mueller Hinton agar plates using sterile cotton swabs. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 16 h, and the diameters of growth inhibition zones were recorded.

Detection of resistance genes

The bacterial colonies from an overnight culture were added to 300µL 1×TE buffer, boiled for 10 min, and cooled on ice for 5 min to release DNA. The PCR amplification of beta-lactamase genes (blaCMY−2, blaTEM, blaSHV, blaDHA,and blaCTX−M), aminoglycoside resistance genes (aac(3’)-IIc, aac(3’)-IV, aph(2’)- Ib, aph(3’)-II, aph(3’)-IV, aph(3’)-VII, aadA1, aac(6’)-Ib, rmtA, rmtB, rmtC, rmtD, rmtE, armA, npmA), chloramphenicol resistance genes (cat1, cat2, cmlA, cmlB), tetracycline resistance genes (tet(A), tet(B), tet(C), tet(K), tet(M), tet(G)), sulfonamides resistance genes (sul1, sul2, sul3) and plasmid mediates resistance genes (qnrA, qnrB, qnrC, qnrD, qnrS, qepA, oqxAB) were carried out using primers published article in a previous article [44]. All PCR products were sequenced, and alignments between nucleotides for the sequence data were performed using the BLAST tool to confirm the identity of the isolated bacteria.

Data availability

The datasets of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Castelani L, Arcaro JRP, Braga JEP, Bosso AS, Moura Q, Esposito F, Sauter IP, Cortez M, Lincopan N. Short communication: activity of nisin, lipid bilayer fragments and cationic nisin-lipid nanoparticles against multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus spp. isolated from bovine mastitis. J Dairy Sci. 2019;102(1):678–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bobbo T, Ruegg PL, Stocco G, Fiore E, Gianesella M, Morgante M, Pasotto D, Bittante G, Cecchinato A. Associations between pathogen-specific cases of subclinical mastitis and milk yield, quality, protein composition, and cheese-making traits in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100(6):4868–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoque MN, Das ZC, Talukder AK, Alam MS, Rahman AN. Different screening tests and milk somatic cell count for the prevalence of subclinical bovine mastitis in Bangladesh. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2015;47(1):79–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sinha MK, Thombare NN, Mondal B. Subclinical mastitis in dairy animals: incidence, economics, and predisposing factors. ScientificWorldJournal 2014, 2014:523984.

  5. Sadek K, Saleh E, Ayoub M. Selective, reliable blood and milk bio-markers for diagnosing clinical and subclinical bovine mastitis. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2017;49(2):431–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Awandkar SP, Kulkarni MB, Khode NV. Bacteria from bovine clinical mastitis showed multiple drug resistance. Vet Res Commun. 2022;46(1):147–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Das A, Guha C, Biswas U, Jana PS, Chatterjee A, Samanta I. Detection of emerging antibiotic resistance in bacteria isolated from subclinical mastitis in cattle in West Bengal. Vet World. 2017;10(5):517–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wong D, Nielsen TB, Bonomo RA, Pantapalangkoor P, Luna B, Spellberg B. Clinical and pathophysiological overview of Acinetobacter infections: a Century of challenges. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2017;30(1):409–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bergogne-Bérézin E, Towner KJ. Acinetobacter spp. as nosocomial pathogens: microbiological, clinical, and epidemiological features. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1996;9(2):148–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Murphy SC, Martin NH, Barbano DM, Wiedmann M. Influence of raw milk quality on processed dairy products: how do raw milk quality test results relate to product quality and yield? J Dairy Sci. 2016;99(12):10128–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Halasa T, Huijps K, Østerås O, Hogeveen H. Economic effects of bovine mastitis and mastitis management: a review. Vet Q. 2007;29(1):18–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuehn JS, Gorden PJ, Munro D, Rong R, Dong Q, Plummer PJ, Wang C, Phillips GJ. Bacterial community profiling of milk samples as a means to understand culture-negative bovine clinical mastitis. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61959.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim IS, Hur YK, Kim EJ, Ahn YT, Kim JG, Choi YJ, Huh CS. Comparative analysis of the microbial communities in raw milk produced in different regions of Korea. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2017;30(11):1643–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gupta TB, Brightwell G. Farm level survey of spore-forming bacteria on four dairy farms in the Waikato region of New Zealand. Microbiologyopen 2017, 6(4).

  15. Oikonomou G, Bicalho ML, Meira E, Rossi RE, Foditsch C, Machado VS, Teixeira AG, Santisteban C, Schukken YH, Bicalho RC. Microbiota of cow’s milk; distinguishing healthy, sub-clinically and clinically diseased quarters. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1):e85904.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang R, Huo W, Zhu W, Mao S. Characterization of bacterial community of raw milk from dairy cows during subacute ruminal acidosis challenge by high-throughput sequencing. J Sci Food Agric. 2015;95(5):1072–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gao J, Barkema HW, Zhang L, Liu G, Deng Z, Cai L, Shan R, Zhang S, Zou J, Kastelic JP, et al. Incidence of clinical mastitis and distribution of pathogens on large Chinese dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100(6):4797–806.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Salauddin M, Akter MR, Hossain MK, Nazir K, Noreddin A, El Zowalaty ME. Molecular detection of Multidrug Resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis milk in Bangladesh. Vet Sci 2020, 7(2).

  19. Guo X, Yu Z, Zhao F, Sun Z, Kwok LY, Li S. Both sampling seasonality and geographic origin contribute significantly to variations in raw milk microbiota, but sampling seasonality is the more determining factor. J Dairy Sci. 2021;104(10):10609–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Poretsky R, Rodriguez RL, Luo C, Tsementzi D, Konstantinidis KT. Strengths and limitations of 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing in revealing temporal microbial community dynamics. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(4):e93827.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Khasapane NG, Khumalo ZTH, Kwenda S, Nkhebenyane SJ, Thekisoe O. Characterisation of milk microbiota from subclinical mastitis and apparently healthy dairy cattle in Free State Province, South Africa. Vet Sci 2023, 10(10).

  22. Doughari HJ, Ndakidemi PA, Human IS, Benade S. The ecology, biology and pathogenesis of Acinetobacter spp.: an overview. Microbes Environ. 2011;26(2):101–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gautam V, Singhal L, Ray P. Burkholderia cepacia complex: beyond pseudomonas and acinetobacter. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2011;29(1):4–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cao S, Geng Y, Yu Z, Deng L, Gan W, Wang K, Ou Y, Chen D, Huang X, Zuo Z, et al. Acinetobacter lwoffii, an emerging pathogen for fish in Schizothorax Genus in China. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2018;65(6):1816–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang Y, Wu C, Zhang Q, Qi J, Liu H, Wang Y, He T, Ma L, Lai J, Shen Z, et al. Identification of New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase 1 in Acinetobacter lwoffii of food animal origin. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):e37152.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ledesma MM, Díaz AM, Barberis C, Vay C, Manghi MA, Leoni J, Castro MS, Ferrari A. Identification of Lama glama as reservoirs for Acinetobacter lwoffii. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:278.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Robino P, Bert E, Tramuta C, Cerruti Sola S, Nebbia P. Isolation of Acinetobacter lwoffii from a lovebird (Agapornis roseicollis) with severe respiratory symptoms. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2005;147(6):267–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim JH, Jeon JH, Park KH, Yoon HY, Kim JY. Acute blindness in a dog with Acinetobacter-associated postencephalitic hydrocephalus. J Vet Med Sci. 2017;79(10):1741–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Sun N, Wen YJ, Zhang SQ, Zhu HW, Guo L, Wang FX, Chen Q, Ma HX, Cheng SP. Detection of Multi-drug Resistant Acinetobacter Lwoffii isolated from soil of Mink Farm. Biomed Environ Sci. 2016;29(7):521–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Li W, Zhang D, Huang X, Qin W. Acinetobacter harbinensis sp. nov., isolated from river water. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64(Pt 5):1507–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. de Oliveira RP, Aragão BB, de Melo RPB, da Silva DMS, de Carvalho RG, Juliano MA, Farias MPO, de Lira NSC, Mota RA. Bovine mastitis in northeastern Brazil: occurrence of emergent bacteria and their phenotypic and genotypic profile of antimicrobial resistance. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2022;85:101802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ribeiro Júnior JC, de Oliveira AM, Silva FG, Tamanini R, de Oliveira ALM, Beloti V. The main spoilage-related psychrotrophic bacteria in refrigerated raw milk. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101(1):75–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Huang MS, Cheng CC, Tseng SY, Lin YL, Lo HM, Chen PW. Most commensally bacterial strains in human milk of healthy mothers display multiple antibiotic resistance. Microbiologyopen. 2019;8(1):e00618.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Crippen CS Jr, Sanchez MJR, Szymanski S. Multidrug Resistant Acinetobacter isolates Release Resistance determinants through contact-dependent killing and bacteriophage lysis. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1918.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Fishbain J, Peleg AY. Treatment of Acinetobacter infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(1):79–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Reina R, León-Moya C, Garnacho-Montero J. Treatment of Acinetobacter baumannii severe infections. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2022;46(12):700–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mindlin S, Petrenko A, Kurakov A, Beletsky A, Mardanov A, Petrova M. Resistance of Permafrost and Modern Acinetobacter lwoffii Strains to Heavy Metals and Arsenic Revealed by Genome Analysis. Biomed Res Int 2016, 2016:3970831.

  38. Liang J, Zhou K, Li Q, Dong X, Zhang P, Liu H, Lin H, Zhang X, Lu J, Lin X, et al. Identification and characterization of a Novel Aminoglycoside 3’’-Nucleotidyltransferase, ANT(3’’)-IId, from Acinetobacter lwoffii. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:728216.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mlynarcik P, Bardon J, Htoutou Sedlakova M, Prochazkova P, Kolar M. Identification of novel OXA-134-like β-lactamases in Acinetobacter lwoffii and Acinetobacter schindleri isolated from chicken litter. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2019;163(2):141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Walter T, Klim J, Jurkowski M, Gawor J, Köhling I, Słodownik M, Zielenkiewicz U. Plasmidome of an environmental Acinetobacter lwoffii strain originating from a former gold and arsenic mine. Plasmid. 2020;110:102505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Peleg AY, Seifert H, Paterson DL. Acinetobacter baumannii: emergence of a successful pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008;21(3):538–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Koonin EV, Wolf YI. Genomics of bacteria and archaea: the emerging dynamic view of the prokaryotic world. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36(21):6688–719.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Culp EJ, Waglechner N, Wang W, Fiebig-Comyn AA, Hsu YP, Koteva K, Sychantha D, Coombes BK, Van Nieuwenhze MS, Brun YV, et al. Evolution-guided discovery of antibiotics that inhibit peptidoglycan remodelling. Nature. 2020;578(7796):582–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sun N, Liu JH, Yang F, Lin DC, Li GH, Chen ZL, Zeng ZL. Molecular characterization of the antimicrobial resistance of Riemerella anatipestifer isolated from ducks. Vet Microbiol. 2012;158(3–4):376–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was funded by the Jilin Province Science and Technology Development Plan Project Assignment (20200201108JC) and Jilin Province Science and Technology Research Project of Education Department (JJKH20220401KJ), the Doctoral Foundation of Jilin Agricultural Science and Technology University (20217014).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Qiang Chen and Wensi Zhou contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Animal Science and Technology, Jilin Agricultural Science and Technology University, Jilin, China

    Qiang Chen, Wensi Zhou, Zhihao San, Li Guo, Liming Liu, Cuiqing Zhao & Na Sun

  2. Key Laboratory of Special Animal Epidemic Disease, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Special Economic Animals and Plants, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changchun, China

    Yuening Cheng

  3. Shandong Provincial Center for Animal Disease Control and Prevention, Jinan, China

    Guisheng Wang

Authors
  1. Qiang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wensi Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuening Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guisheng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhihao San
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Li Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Liming Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cuiqing Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Na Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NS and QC designed the study; QC, WZ and YC performed the experiments; LL, ZS and CZ analyzed the data; GW and LG prepared the figures and tables; NS wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Na Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Q., Zhou, W., Cheng, Y. et al. Four novel Acinetobacter lwoffii strains isolated from the milk of cows in China with subclinical mastitis. BMC Vet Res 20, 274 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-024-04119-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-024-04119-3

Keywords

BMC Veterinary Research

ISSN: 1746-6148

Contact us