Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the antibiotic resistance profiles and the phenotypic and genotypic activities of extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC, and carbapenemases in bacteria isolated from water samples collected from the Kızılırmak River.

Methods: Water samples were collected aseptically from 10 different sites along the Kızılırmak River. Bacteria isolated by membrane filtration and identified using conventional methods were tested for antibiotic susceptibility by the disk diffusion method. The phenotypic and genotypic activities of ESBLs, AmpC, and carbapenemases in bacteria belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae family were determined using phenotypic methods and conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR), respectively.

Results: The identified isolates included 2 Escherichia coli, 6 Klebsiella aerogenes, 10 Aeromonas hydrophila, and 2 Mannheimia haemolytica. Among the 8 Enterobacteriaceae isolates, resistance rates were highest for cefoxitin, amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, and ampicillin (100% each), followed by cefotaxime (12.5%). Resistance to ciprofloxacin and ceftazidime was detected in 10% of A. hydrophila isolates, whereas 100% of M. haemolytica isolates were resistant to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, nalidixic acid, and tetracycline. Phenotypically, 100% resistance to cefoxitin and, consequently, 100% AmpC activity were detected, whereas 100% susceptibility to meropenem and no carbapenemase activity were observed. According to the rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) procedure, no ESBL activity was detected in E. coli isolates, whereas 5 K. aerogenes isolates were positive for ESBL activity by the combination disk test (83.3%). Genotypically, the ESBL genes TEM and CTX-M-9 were detected at 100%, CTX-M-1 and OXA-1 at 87.5%, and SHV at 75%; the AmpC-associated FOX gene was detected at 87.5%. No carbapenemase genes (NDM, KPC, VIM, IMP, or OXA-48) were detected, consistent with the phenotypic findings.

Conclusion: The high levels of antibiotic resistance observed in bacteria isolated from the Kızılırmak River suggest that the river ecosystem may serve as a significant reservoir of resistant bacteria. Considering human, animal, and environmental interactions within the One Health framework, ongoing monitoring of environmental antimicrobial resistance and implementation of control measures are warranted. The preserved susceptibility to carbapenems was an important favorable finding.

Volume 39, Issue 3 Volume 39, Issue 2 Volume 39, Isssue 1 Volume 38, Issue 4 Volume 38, Issue 3 Volume 38, Issue 2 Volume 38, Issue 1 Volume 37, Issue 4 Volume 37, Issue 3 Volume 37, Issue 2 Volume 37, Issue 1 Volume 36, Issue 4 Volume 36, Supplement 1 Volume 36, Issue 3 Volume 36, Issue 2 Volume 36, Issue 1 Volume 35, Issue 4 Volume 35, Issue 3 Volume 35, Issue 2 Volume 35, Issue 1 Volume 34, Issue 3 Volume 34, Issue 2 Volume 34, Issue 1 Volume 33, Issue 3 Volume 33, Issue 2 Volume 33, Issue 1 Volume 32, Issue 3 Volume 32, Supplement 1 Volume 32, Supplement 2 Volume 32, Issue 2 Volume 32, Issue 1 Volume 31, Issue 3 Volume 31, Issue 2 Volume 31, Supplement 1 Volume 31, Issue 1 Volume 30, Issue 3 Volume 30, Issue 2 Volume 30, Supplement 1 Volume 30, Issue 1 Volume 29, Issue 3 Volume 29, Issue 2 Volume 29, Issue 1 Volume 28, Supplement 1 Volume 28, Issue 3 Volume 28, Issue 2 Volume 28, Issue 1 Volume 27, Supplement 1 Volume 27, Issue 3 Volume 27, Issue 2 Volume 27, Issue 1 Volume 26, Issue 3 Volume 26, Supplement 1 Volume 26, Issue 2 Volume 26, Issue 1 Volume 25, Issue 3 Volume 25, Issue 2 Volume 25, Issue 1 Volume 24, Issue 3 Volume 24, Issue 2 Volume 24, Issue 1 Volume 23, Issue 3 Volume 23, Issue 2 Volume 23, Issue 1 Volume 22, Issue 3 Volume 22, Issue 2 Volume 22, Issue 1 Volume 21, Issue 3 Volume 21, Supplement 2 Volume 21, Supplement 1 Volume 21, Issue 2 Volume 21, Issue 1 Volume 20, Issue 3 Volume 20, Supplement 2 Volume 20, Issue 2 Volume 20, Issue 1 Volume 20, Supplement 1 Volume 19, Issue 3 Volume 19, Issue 2 Volume 19, Issue 1 Volume 18, Issue 3 Volume 18, Supplement 1 Volume 18, Issue 2 Volume 18, Issue 1 Volume 17, Issue 3 Volume 17, Issue 2 Volume 17, Issue 1 Volume 16, Issue 3 Volume 16, Issue 2 Volume 16, Issue 1 Volume 1, Supplement 1 Volume 15, Issue 3 Volume 15, Issue 2 Volume 15, Issue 1 Volume 14, Issue 3 Volume 14, Issue 2 Volume 14, Issue 1 Volume 13, Issue 3 Volume 13, Issue 2 Volume 13, Supplement 1 Volume 13, Issue 1 Volume 12, Issue 3 Volume 12, Issue 2 Volume 12, Issue 1 Volume 11, Issue 3 Volume 11, Issue 2 Volume 11, Supplement 1 Volume 11, Issue 1 Volume 10, Issue 3 Volume 10, Issue 2 Volume 10, Issue 1 Volume 9, Issue 3 Volume 9, Issue 2 Volume 9, Issue 1 Volume 8, Issue 3 Volume 8, Issue 2 Volume 8, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 3 Volume 7, Issue 1 Volume 7, Issue 2 Volume 7, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 3 Volume 5, Issue 1 Volume 5, Issue 2 Volume 5, Issue 3 Volume 6, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 1 Volume 3, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 1 Volume 4, Issue 2 Volume 1, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 1 Volume 2, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 3 Volume 1, Issue 1