It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the major challenges of the century and should be addressed with a One Health approach. This study aimed to develop a tool that can provide a better understanding of AMR patterns and improve management practices in swine production systems to reduce its spread between farms. We generated similarity networks based on the phenotypic AMR pattern for each farm with information on important bacterial pathogens for swine farming based on the Euclidean distance. We included seven pathogens: Actinobacillus suis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Escherichia coli, Glaesserella parasuis, Pasteurella multocida, Salmonella spp., and Streptococcus suis; and up to seventeen antibiotics from ten classes. A threshold criterion was developed to reduce the density of the networks and generate communities based on their AMR profiles. A total of 479 farms were included in the study although not all bacteria information was available on each farm. We observed significant differences in the morphology, number of nodes and characteristics of pathogen networks, as well as in the number of communities and susceptibility profiles of the pathogens to different antimicrobial drugs. The methodology presented here could be a useful tool to improve health management, biosecurity measures and prioritize interventions to reduce AMR spread in swine farming.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of California, Center for Animal Disease Modeling and Surveillance (CADMS), Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Davis, USA (GRID:grid.27860.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9684); Complutense University of Madrid, Animal Health Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, VISAVET Health Surveillance Centre, Madrid, Spain (GRID:grid.4795.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 7667)
2 Kansas State University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Manhattan, USA (GRID:grid.36567.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 0737 1259)
3 Iowa State University, Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Ames, USA (GRID:grid.34421.30) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7312); Pig Improvement Company (PIC), Hendersonville, USA (GRID:grid.34421.30)
4 Pig Improvement Company (PIC), Hendersonville, USA (GRID:grid.34421.30)
5 Iowa State University, Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Ames, USA (GRID:grid.34421.30) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7312)
6 University of California, Computer Science Department, Davis, USA (GRID:grid.27860.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9684)
7 University of California, Center for Animal Disease Modeling and Surveillance (CADMS), Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Davis, USA (GRID:grid.27860.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9684)