Journal of ISSN: 2377-4312JDVAR

Dairy, Veterinary & Animal Research
Research Article
Volume 3 Issue 2 - 2016
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Isolated from Dogs with Recurrent Pyoderma
B Sudhakara Reddy1, K Nalini Kumari2 and S Sivajothi3*
1Teaching Veterinary Clinical Complex, College of Veterinary Science, India
2Department of Veterinary Medicine, College of Veterinary Science, India
3Department of Veterinary Parasitology, College of Veterinary Science, India
Received:October 27, 2015 | Published: March 04, 2016
*Corresponding author: S Sivajothi, College of Veterinary Science, Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Andhra Pradesh, India, Tel: 8712234284; Email:
Citation: Reddy BS, Kumari KN, Sivajothi S (2016) Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Isolated from Dogs with Recurrent Pyoderma. J Dairy Vet Anim Res 3(2): 00073. DOI: 10.15406/jdvar.2016.03.00073

Abstract

Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)has been recently growing problem in small animal clinical practice due to increasing resistance to multiple number of antimicrobials. Present study reports the antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of MRSA isolated from the dogs with recurrent pyoderma. Based on the cultural and biochemical studies 12 isolates were identified as Staphylococci aureus. Methicillin resistant Staphylococci aureus was identified based on the disc diffusion method. Fifty percent of the dogs showed the methicillin resistant Staphylococci aureus isolates which were resistant to almost all the antimicrobials used in the present study. Other fifty percent dogs had methicillin susceptible Staphylococci aureus which were susceptible to amoxicillin with sulbactum, cefpodoxime with clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin, cephalexin, ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, amoxicillin and clavulanic acid, cephadroxil and cefpodoxime. Most of the cultures were resistant to tylosin, lincomycin, erythromycin, azithromycin, gentamicin, amikacin. The alarming antimicrobial resistance and methicillin resistant Staphylococci aureus recorded in dogs with recurrent pyoderma indicative of personal hygiene to the animal owners.

Keywords: S. aureus;Skin infections; Dog; Antibiogram; MRSA

Introduction

Staphylococcus species are the normal skin microflora of different animals and these organisms are responsible for skin infections in the majority of domestic animals [1]. Staphylococcus aureus infection causes mild skin infection to life threatening invasive infections and had the ability to rapidly develop resistance to different antibiotics which are in clinical use [2]. Staphylococci that are resistant to semi-synthetic penicillins such as methicillin and oxacillin are considered to have methicillin resistance. Methicillin resistance is an alarming condition for treatment because it implies resistance not only to beta-lactam antibiotics including cephalosporins, but also to a wide range of antibiotics [3]. MRSA isolates, have been generally isolated from human beings, but increasing numbers of reports have documented the occurrence of MRSA in various animal species also [4]. Previous studies suggested that MRSA can cause infections in dogs and dogs can also act as reservoirs of MRSA [5]. Recurrent pyoderma is an important clinical skin problem in dogs and frequently occurs as a result of uncorrected under lying cause(s) or use of inappropriate antibiotics or improper duration of antibiotic therapy [6]. In recent years, due to increase the number of MRSA has become a therapeutic challenge in veterinary dermatology [7]. Hence, present study was undertaken to ascertain the occurrence of methicillin resistant Staphylococci aureus in dogs with recurrent pyoderma and their susceptibility to various antimicrobials.

Materials and Methods

Present study was conducted at College Hospital of College of Veterinary Science, Tirupati from 2009 to 2011. A total of 50 dogs belong to the different breeds with a history of recurrent skin problems were included in the study (Figure 1). Dogs were examined clinically and diagnosis of recurrent pyoderma was confirmed by cytological examination of the smears made from the skin lesions [8,9]. After confirmation of recurrent pyoderma, pus samples were collected from the pustules aseptically. Samples were inoculated in nutrient broth, mannitol salt agar for the growth of Staphylococcus. Staphylococcus isolates were identified by grams stain, catalase test, coagulase test and mannitol salt agar as per the standard routine procedure [10]. Based on the fermentation of maltose in purple agar, sugar fermentation tests, differentiation of staphylococcus was done [11].

Figure 1: Dog with recurrent deep pyoderma.

Appearance of yellow colour of the media within 24 hours of incubation indicated quick fermentation of maltose which was a characteristic of Staphylococcus aureus [12]. Coagulase positive Staphylococcus aureus isolates were screened for methicillin resistance using Oxacillin disc diffusion test recommended by Jorgensen & Konia et al. [13,14]. Phenotypic methicillin resistance was determined by a disk diffusion method on Mueller-Hinton agar. Suspected sample colonies from blood agar base containing 5% sheep blood incubated at 37°C for 24 h were suspended in sterile saline to a density approximately equal to McFarland Opacity Standard No. 0.5. The bacterial suspension was covered with swab over the Mueller-Hinton agar containing 2% NaCl. The oxacillin (1 μg, Oxd) and cefoxitin discs (30 µg, cx) disks were dispensed on the surface of the media and were incubated aerobically at 35°C for 24 h. The results were recorded as susceptible (≥13 mm), intermediate susceptible (11-12 mm) or resistant (≤10 mm) by measurement of the inhibition zone diameter according to the interpretive standards of NCCLS & Collee et al.[14,15].

The antibiotic sensitivity of the individual isolates was carried out in-vitro by disc diffusion method on Muller Hinton Agar plates with different antibiotic discs i.e., Cephalexin (30 mcg), Cephadroxil (30 mcg), Cefpodoxime (10 mcg), Cefpodoxime and Clavulanic acid (10/5 mcg), Enrofloxacin (10 mcg), Ciprofloxacin (10 mcg), Amoxicillin and Clavulanic acid (10 mcg), Amoxicillin and sulbactum (30/15 mcg), Lincomycin (15 mcg), Co-Trimoxazole (25 mcg), Amikacin (10 mcg), Gentamicin (30 mcg), Erythromycin (10 mcg), Azithromycin (30 mcg), Chloramphenicol (10 mcg) and Tylosine (15 mcg). The sensitivity patterns of isolates to different antibiotic discs were read by measuring the diameter of zone of inhibition in millimeter as per the chart provided by manufacturer and classified as Sensitive, Intermediate and Resistant based on CLSI guidelines [16].

Results and Discussion

Clinical samples collected from the dogs with recurrent pyoderma, showed growth on mannitol salt agar and fermented mannitol in mannitol salt agar (white to yellowish colonies) were preliminarily taken as Staphylococcus aureus (Figure 2).However, further confirmation was done based on isolates which fermented one per cent maltose in purple base agar within 24 hours, tested positive for acetoin production by Barritt method, yielded positive sugar fermentation tests (sucrose, maltose, mannitol, trehalose and lactose) and were resistant to Polymyxin B. Sterile swabs collected from the 50 dogs affected with recurrent pyoderma cases all the dogs had Staphylococcus. Out of 50, 12 showed Staphylococcus aureus (24%).

Figure 2: Growth of Staphylococci on mannitol salt agar.

Out of twelve Staphylococcus aureus isolates six were MRSA and remaining were Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA). Differentiation was done based on the results of oxacillin and cefoxitin disc diffusion tests. For MRSA there is growth of the isolates were noticed surround the oxacillin discs. In case of MSSA, there is no growth of the organisms were noticed surrounded by the oxacillin disc (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Oxacillin disc diffusion test.

Antibiotic sensitivity pattern of isolates of Staphylococci aureus were mentioned in the Table 1. Most of the MSSAisolatesin the study were susceptible to amoxicillin with sulbactum, cefpodoxime with clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin, cephalexin, ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, amoxicillin and clavulanic acid, cephadroxil and cefpodoxime. Most of the cultures were resistant to tylosin, lincomycin, erythromycin, azithromycin, gentamicin, amikacin. Antibiotic sensitivity pattern of the MRSA isolates showed multidrug resistant and were resistant to the most of the anti microbial in the present study (Figure 4). Almost 66.7 to 100 % isolates were resistant to the sixteen anti microbial used in the present work. Resistance to anti microbial like tylosine, chloramphenicol, erythromycin and gentamicin was not effective against recurrent pyoderma. Other antibiotics like cephalexin, cephadroxil, lincomycin, co-trimoxazole, enrofloxacin, ciprofloxacin are regular drugs in dermatology. Due to improper dosage and duration leads to development of the resistant noticed to theses drugs.

 

 

Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (N:6)

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (N:6)

S. No

Name of Chemotherapeutic agent

Sensitive bacteria

Resistant bacteria

Sensitive bacteria

Resistant bacteria

No

Percentage

No

Percentage

No

Percentage

No

Percentage

1.

Cephalexin

5

83.3

1

16.7

0

0

6

100

2

Cephadroxil

4

66.7

2

33.3

0

0

6

100

3

Cefpodoxime

4

66.7

2

33.3

1

16.7

5

83.3

4

Cefpodoxime and Clavulanic acid

6

100

0

0

1

16.7

5

83.3

5

Enrofloxacin

5

83.3

1

16.7

2

33.3

4

66.7

6

Ciprofloxacin

4

66.7

2

33.3

2

33.3

4

66.7

7

Amoxicillin and Clavulanic acid

4

66.7

2

33.3

1

16.7

5

83.3

8

Amoxicillin and sulbactum

6

100

0

0

1

16.7

5

83.3

9

Lincomycin

0

0

6

100

0

0

6

100

10

Co – Trimoxazole

3

50

3

50

0

0

6

100

11

Amikacin

2

33.3

4

66.7

1

16.7

5

83.3

12

Gentamicin

2

33.3

4

66.7

0

0

6

100

13

Erythromycin

0

0

6

100

0

0

6

100

14

Azithromycin

1

16.7

5

83.3

1

16.7

5

83.3

15

Chloramphenicol

4

66.7

2

33.3

0

0

6

100

16

Tylosine

0

0

6

100

0

0

6

100

Table 1: Antibiotic sensitivity pattern of isolates of Staphylococcus aureus in dogs with recurrent pyoderma.

Figure 4: Multiple drug resistant Staphylococci aureus organism while ABST.

Development of Methicillin resistance in Staphylococci aureus is due to the acquisition of mecA gene which encodes new protein (PBP2a) in the bacterial cell wall. The protein (PBP2a) has a very low affinity for β-lactams antibiotics and causes resistance to Methicillin and the other beta-lactams [17]. The Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) recovered from dogs is similar to those affecting humans and dogs have been indicated as potential reservoirs of MRSA [18]. Inter-transmission of MRSA between animals and humans has been reported [19]. The antimicrobial resistance was significantly higher in methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus than methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Staphylococcus species may develop resistance during prolonged therapy with quinolones.

In the present study, MRSA was identified based on the disc diffusion tests. Due to lack of facilities to conduct other tests confirmation was done by disc diffusion tests but, reliable procedure for detecting MRSA is PCR amplification of the mecA gene [20,21]. MRSA is an important cause of human nosocomial and community-acquired infections in worldwide. Dogs are living in close contact with humans and failure to notice and treat the dogs with MRSA can cause recurrent MRSA infection in humans. So, Pets should be treated systemically to avoid development of MRSA. Due to indiscriminate use of medication rendered the routinely used antibiotics completely ineffective in Staphylococcus aureus induced pyoderma.

Conclusion

Presence of multidrug resistant staphylococci isolates form the recurrent pyoderma is a serious problem. Present study suggests bacterial cultures with species identification and antimicrobial susceptibility tests are essential for selection of anti microbial agents in recurrent pyoderma at individual geographical regions.

Acknowledgement

All the authors are thanking full to the authorities of the Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupati for providing the facilities during the study period.

References

  1. Rich M, Roberts L (2004) Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus isolates from companion animals. Vet Rec 154(10): 310-312.
  2. Pantosti A ( 2012) Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusassociated with animal and its relevance to human. J Microbiol 3: 137-139.
  3. Duquette RA, Nuttall TJ (2004) Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus in dog and cats: An emerging problem. J Small Anim Pract 45(12): 591-597.
  4. Kania SA, Williamson NL, Frank LA, Wilkes RP, Jones RD, et al. (2004) Methicillin resistance of staphylococci isolated from the skin of dogs with pyoderma. Am J Vet Res 65(9): 1265-1268.
  5. O’Mahony R, Abbott Y, Leonard FC, Markey BK, Quinn PJ, et al. (2005) Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from animals and veterinary personnel in Ireland. Vet Microbiol 109(3-4): 285-296.
  6. Reddy BS, Kumari KN, Rao VV, Rayulu VC (2014) Efficacy of cefpodoxime with clavulanic acid in the treatment of recurrent pyoderma in dogs. ISRN Veterinary Science, Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014: 467010.
  7. Baptiste KE, Williams K, Williams NJ, Wattret A, Clegg PD, et al. (2005) Methicillin-resistant staphylococci in companion animals. Emerg Infect Dis 11(12): 1942-1943.
  8. Sivajothi S, Reddy BS (2015) Cat affected with sarcoptic mange in YSR District of Andhra Pradesh, India. Comp Clin Pathol 24(5): 1031-1032.
  9. Reddy BS, Sivajothi S (2014) Notoedric mange associated with malassezia in cats. Int J Vet Health Sci Res 2(1): 18-20.
  10. Quinn PJ, Markey BK, Carter ME, Donnelly WJ, Leonard FC (2005) Veterinary Microbiology and Microbial Disease. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, USA, p. 43-48.
  11. Winn W, Allen S, Janda W, Koneman E, Procop G, et al. (2006) Koneman’s Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology. (6th edn) Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, UK, pp. 623-671.
  12. Reddy BS, Kumari KN, Prameela DR, Sivajothi S (2014) Isolation of Bacteria in Dogs with Recurrent Pyoderma in Andhra Pradesh. Research & Reviews: A Journal of Life Sciences 4(3): 24-27.
  13. Jorgensen JH (1991) Mechanisms of methicillin resistance inStaphylococcus aureus and methods for laboratory detection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 12(1): 14-19.
  14. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (2000) Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests (7th edn), Approved Standard M2-A7. NCCLS, Villanova, PA, USA.
  15. Collee JG, Fraser AG, Marmuin BP, Simmons A (1996) Mackie and McCartney's Practical medical microbiology. (14th edn). Churchill Livingstone, New York, USA.
  16. Bauer AW, Kirby WMM, Sherris JC, Jurek M (1966) Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single method. Am J Clin Pathol 45(4): 493-496.
  17. Pantosti A, Sanchini A, Monaco M (2007) Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance inStaphylococcus aureus. Future Microbiol 2(3): 323-334.
  18. Ellington MJ, Hope R, Livermore DM, Kearns AM, Henderson K, et al. (2010) Decline of EMRSA-16 amongst Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureuscausing bacteraemia in the UK between 2001 and 2007. J Antimicrob Chemoth 65(3): 446-448.
  19. Weese JS. Rousseau J (2005) Attempted eradication of Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureuscolonization in horses on two farms. Equine Vet J 37(6): 510-514.
  20. Anand KB, Agrawal P, Kumar S, Kapila K (2009) Comparison of cefoxitin disc diffusion test, oxacillin screen agar, and PCR for mecAgene for detection of MRSA. Indian J Med Microbiol27(1): 27-29.
  21. Velasco D, Del Mar Tomas M, Cartelle M, Becceiro A, Perez A, et al. (2005) Evaluation of different methods for detecting methicillin (oxacillin) resistance inStaphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 55(3): 379-382.
© 2014-2016 MedCrave Group, All rights reserved. No part of this content may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means as per the standard guidelines of fair use.
Creative Commons License Open Access by MedCrave Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://medcraveonline.com
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version | Opera |Privacy Policy