Tag: MSCs

Last week, I published 13 (!!) papers in the EFSA Journal on how to assess concentrations of antibiotics that could select for antibiotic resistance in animal feed (1-13). Or, well, you could also look at it as that the EFSA Biohaz panel that I have been a part of for more than two years published our final 13-part report.

Regardless of how you view it, this set of papers have two main takeaways:

1. We present a method to establish Predicted Minimal Selective Concentrations (PMSCs) for antibiotics. This method uses a combination of Dan Andersson’s approach to MSCs (14) and the method I published with Joakim Larsson around five years ago to establish predicted no-effect concentrations (PNECs) for antibiotics based on MIC data (15). The combination is a powerful (but very cautious) tool to estimate minimal selective concentrations for antibiotics (1), and we have subsequently applied this method to animal feed contamination with antibiotics, but…
2. There is way too little data to establish PMSCs for most antibiotics with any certainty. Really, the lack of data is so bad that for many of the antibiotic classes we could not make a reasonable assessment. Thus the main conclusion might be that we need a lot more data on how low concentrations of antibiotics that select for antibiotic resistance, both in laboratory systems and in more realistic settings.

References

1. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 1: Methodology, general data gaps and uncertainties. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6852 [Paper link]
2. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 2: Aminoglycosides/aminocyclitols: apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6853 [Paper link]
3. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 3: Amprolium. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6854 [Paper link]
4. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 4: ß-Lactams: amoxicillin and penicillin. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6855 [Paper link]
5. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 5: Lincosamides: lincomycin. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6856 [Paper link]
6. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 6: Macrolides: tilmicosin, tylosin and tylvalosin. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6858 [Paper link]
7. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 7: Amphenicols: florfenicol and thiamphenicol. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6859 [Paper link]
8. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 8: Pleuromutilins: tiamulin and valnemulin. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6860 [Paper link]
9. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 9: Polymyxins: colistin. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6861 [Paper link]
10. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 10: Quinolones: flumequine and oxolinic acid. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6862 [Paper link]
11. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 11: Sulfonamides. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6863 [Paper link]
12. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 12: Tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, and doxycycline. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6864[Paper link]
13. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)*, Allende A, Koutsoumanis K, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, Davies R, De Cesare A, Herman L, Hilbert F, Lindqvist R, Nauta M, Ru G, Simmons M, Skandamis P, Suffredini E, Andersson DI, Bampidis V, Bengtsson-Palme J, Bouchard D, Ferran A, Kouba M, López Puente S, López-Alonso M, Saxmose Nielsen S, Pechová A, Petkova M, Girault S, Broglia A, Guerra B, Lorenzo Innocenti M, Liébana E, López-Gálvez G, Manini P, Stella P, Peixe L: Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 13: Trimethoprim. EFSA Journal, 19, 10 (2021). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6865 [Paper link]
14. Gullberg E, Cao S, Berg OG, Ilbäck C, Sandegren L, Hughes D, et al.: Selection of resistant bacteria at very low antibiotic concentrations. PLoS Pathogens 7, e1002158 (2011). doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002158
15. Bengtsson-Palme J, Larsson DGJ: Concentrations of antibiotics predicted to select for resistant bacteria: Proposed limits for environmental regulation. Environment International, 86, 140-149 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.015 [Paper link]

My colleagues in Gothenburg have published a new paper in Environment International, in which I was involved in the bioinformatics analyses. In the paper, for which Nadine Kraupner did the lion’s share of the work, we establish minimal selective concentrations (MSCs) for resistance to the antibiotic ciprofloxacin in Escherichia coli grown in complex microbial communities (1). We also determine the community responses at the taxonomic and resistance gene levels. Nadine has made use of Sara Lundström’s aquarium system (2) to grow biofilms in the exposure of sublethal levels of antibiotics. Using the system, we find that 1 μg/L ciprofloxacin selects for the resistance gene qnrD, while 10 μg/L ciprofloxacin is required to detect changes of phenotypic resistance. In short, the different endpoints studied (and their corresponding MSCs) were:

• CFU counts from test tubes, grown on R2A plates with 2 mg/L ciprofloxain – MSC = 5 μg/L
• CFU counts from aquaria, grown on R2A plates with 0.25 or 2 mg/L ciprofloxain – MSC = 10 μg/L
• Chromosomal resistance mutations – MSC ~ 10 μg/L
• Increased resistance gene abundances, metagenomics – MSC range: 1 μg/L
• Changes to taxonomic diversity – 1 µg/L
• Changes to taxonomic community composition – MSC ~ 1-10 μg/L

We have previously reported a predicted no-effect concentration for resistance of 0.064 µg/L for ciprofloxacin (3), which corresponds fairly well with the MSCs determined experimentally here, being around a factor of ten off. However, we cannot exclude that in other experimental systems, the selective effects of ciprofloxacin could be even lower and thus the predicted PNEC may still be relevant. The selective concentrations we report for ciprofloxacin are close to those that have been reported in sewage treatment plants (3-5), suggesting the possibility for weak selection of resistance. Several recent reports have underscored the need to populate the this far conceptual models for resistance development in the environment with actual numbers (6-10). Determining selective concentrations for different antibiotics in actual community settings is an important step on the road towards building accurate quantitative models for resistance emergence and propagation.

References

1. Kraupner N, Ebmeyer S, Bengtsson-Palme J, Fick J, Kristiansson E, Flach C-F, Larsson DGJ: Selective concentration for ciprofloxacin in Escherichia coli grown in complex aquatic bacterial biofilms. Environment International, 116, 255–268 (2018). doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.029 [Paper link]
2. Lundström SV, Östman M, Bengtsson-Palme J, Rutgersson C, Thoudal M, Sircar T, Blanck H, Eriksson KM, Tysklind M, Flach C-F, Larsson DGJ: Minimal selective concentrations of tetracycline in complex aquatic bacterial biofilms. Science of the Total Environment, 553, 587–595 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.103 [Paper link]
3. Bengtsson-Palme J, Larsson DGJ: Concentrations of antibiotics predicted to select for resistant bacteria: Proposed limits for environmental regulation. Environment International, 86, 140-149 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.015
4. Michael I, Rizzo L, McArdell CS, Manaia CM, Merlin C, Schwartz T, Dagot C, Fatta-Kassinos D: Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for the release of antibiotics in the environment: a review. Water Research, 47, 957–995 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.11.027
5. Bengtsson-Palme J, Hammarén R, Pal C, Östman M, Björlenius B, Flach C-F, Kristiansson E, Fick J, Tysklind M, Larsson DGJ: Elucidating selection processes for antibiotic resistance in sewage treatment plants using metagenomics. Science of the Total Environment, 572, 697–712 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.228
6. Ågerstrand M, Berg C, Björlenius B, Breitholtz M, Brunstrom B, Fick J, Gunnarsson L, Larsson DGJ, Sumpter JP, Tysklind M, Rudén C: Improving environmental risk assessment of human pharmaceuticals. Environmental Science and Technology (2015). doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00302
7. Bengtsson-Palme J, Kristiansson E, Larsson DGJ: Environmental factors influencing the development and spread of antibiotic resistance. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 42, 1, 68–80 (2018). doi: 10.1093/femsre/fux053
8. Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance: JPIAMR Workshop on Environmental Dimensions of AMR: Summary and recommendations. JPIAMR (2017). [Link]
9. Angers A, Petrillo P, Patak, A, Querci M, Van den Eede G: The Role and Implementation of Next-Generation Sequencing Technologies in the Coordinated Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance. JRC Conference and Workshop Report, EUR 28619 (2017). doi: 10.2760/745099
10. Larsson DGJ, Andremont A, Bengtsson-Palme J, Brandt KK, de Roda Husman AM, Fagerstedt P, Fick J, Flach C-F, Gaze WH, Kuroda M, Kvint K, Laxminarayan R, Manaia CM, Nielsen KM, Ploy M-C, Segovia C, Simonet P, Smalla K, Snape J, Topp E, van Hengel A, Verner-Jeffreys DW, Virta MPJ, Wellington EM, Wernersson A-S: Critical knowledge gaps and research needs related to the environmental dimensions of antibiotic resistance. Environment International, in press (2018). doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.041

Recently, Le Page et al. published a paper in Environmental International (1), partially building on the predicted no-effect concentrations for resistance selection for 111 antibiotics that me and Joakim Larsson published around two years ago (2). In their paper, the authors stress that discharge limits for antibiotics need to consider their potency to affect both environmental and human health, which we believe is a very reasonable standpoint, and to which we agree. However, we do not agree on the authors’ claim that cyanobacteria would often be more sensitive to antibiotics than the most sensitive human-associated bacteria (1). Importantly, we also think that it is a bit unclear from the paper which protection goals are considered. Are the authors mainly concerned with protecting microbial diversity in ecosystems, protecting ecosystem functions and services, or protecting from risks for resistance selection? This is important because it influence why one would want to mitigate, and therefore who would perform which actions. To elaborate a little on our standpoints, we wrote a short correspondence piece to Environment International, which is now published (3). (It has been online for a few days, but without a few last-minute changes we did to the proof, and hence I’m only posting about it now when the final version is online.) There is indeed an urgent need for discharge limits for antibiotics, particularly for industrial sources (4) and such limits would have tremendous value in regulation efforts, and in development of environmental criteria within public procurement and generic exchange programs (5). Importantly, while we are all for taking ecotoxicological data into account when doing risk assessment, we think that there should be solid scientific ground for mitigations and that regulations need to consider the benefits versus the costs, which is what we want to convey in our response to Le Page et al.

References

1. Le Page G, Gunnarsson L, Snape J, Tyler CR: Integrating human and environmental health in antibiotic risk assessment: a critical analysis of protection goals, species sensitivity and antimicrobial resistance. Environment International, in press (2017). doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.09.013
2. Bengtsson-Palme J, Larsson DGJ: Concentrations of antibiotics predicted to select for resistant bacteria: Proposed limits for environmental regulation. Environment International, 86, 140–149 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.015
3. Bengtsson-Palme J, Larsson DGJ: Protection goals must guide risk assessment for antibiotics. Environment International, in press (2017). doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.10.019
4. Bengtsson-Palme J, Larsson DGJ: Time to limit antibiotic pollution. The Medicine Maker, 0416, 302, 17–18 (2016). [Paper link]
5. Bengtsson-Palme J, Gunnarsson L, Larsson DGJ: Can branding and price of pharmaceuticals guide informed choices towards improved pollution control during manufacturing? Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 137–146 (2018). doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.247

After a long wait (1) Sara Lundström’s paper establishing minimal selective concentrations (MSCs) for the antibiotic tetracycline in complex microbial communities (2), of which I am a co-author, has gone online. Personally, I think this paper is among the finest work I have been involved in; a lot of good science have gone into this publication. Risk assessment and management of antibiotics pollution is in great need of scientific data to underpin mitigation efforts (3). This paper describes a method to determine the minimal selective concentrations of antibiotics, and investigates different endpoints for measuring those MSCs. The method involves a testing system highly relevant for aquatic communities, in which bacteria are allowed to form biofilms in aquaria under controlled antibiotic exposure. Using the system, we find that 1 μg/L tetracycline selects for the resistance genes tetA and tetG, while 10 μg/L tetracycline is required to detect changes of phenotypic resistance. In short, the different endpoints studied (and their corresponding MSCs) were:

• CFU counts on R2A plates with 20 μg/mL tetracycline – MSC = 10 μg/L
• MIC range – MSC ~ 10-100 μg/L
• PICT, leucine uptake after short-term TC challenge – MSC ~ 100 μg/L
• Increased resistance gene abundances, metagenomics – MSC range: 0.1-10 μg/L
• Increased resistance gene abundances, qPCR (tetA and tetG) – MSC ≤ 1 μg/L
• Changes to taxonomic diversity – no significant changes detected
• Changes to taxonomic community composition – MSC ~ 1-10 μg/L

This study confirms that the estimated PNECs we reported recently (4) correspond well to experimentally determined MSCs, at least for tetracycline. Importantly, the selective concentrations we report for tetracycline overlap with those that have been reported in sewage treatment plants (5). We also see that tetracycline not only selects for tetracycline resistance genes, but also resistance genes against other classes of antibiotics, including sulfonamides, beta-lactams and aminoglycosides. Finally, the approach we describe can be used for improved in risk assessment for (also other) antibiotics, and to refine the emission limits we suggested in a recent paper based on theoretical calculations (4).

References and notes

1. Okay, seriously: how can a journal’s production team return the proofs for a paper within 24 hours of acceptance, and then wait literally five weeks before putting the final proofs online? Nothing against STOTEN, but I honestly wonder what was going on beyond the scenes here.
2. Lundström SV, Östman M, Bengtsson-Palme J, Rutgersson C, Thoudal M, Sircar T, Blanck H, Eriksson KM, Tysklind M, Flach C-F, Larsson DGJ: Minimal selective concentrations of tetracycline in complex aquatic bacterial biofilms. Science of the Total Environment, 553, 587–595 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.103 [Paper link]
3. Ågerstrand M, Berg C, Björlenius B, Breitholtz M, Brunstrom B, Fick J, Gunnarsson L, Larsson DGJ, Sumpter JP, Tysklind M, Rudén C: Improving environmental risk assessment of human pharmaceuticals. Environmental Science and Technology (2015). doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00302
4. Bengtsson-Palme J, Larsson DGJ: Concentrations of antibiotics predicted to select for resistant bacteria: Proposed limits for environmental regulation. Environment International, 86, 140-149 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.015
5. Michael I, Rizzo L, McArdell CS, Manaia CM, Merlin C, Schwartz T, Dagot C, Fatta-Kassinos D: Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for the release of antibiotics in the environment: a review. Water Research, 47, 957–995 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.11.027

Yesterday was an intensive day for typesetters apparently, since they put two of my papers online on the same day. This second paper was published in Environment International, and focuses on predicting minimal selective concentrations for all antibiotics present in the EUCAST database (1).

Today (well, up until yesterday at least), we have virtually no knowledge of which environmental concentrations that can exert a selection pressure for antibiotic resistant bacteria. However, experimentally determining minimal selective concentrations (MSCs) in complex ecosystems would involve immense efforts if done for all antibiotics. Therefore, efforts to theoretically determine MSCs for different antibiotics have been suggested (2,3). In this paper we therefore estimate upper boundaries for selective concentrations for all antibiotics in the EUCAST database, based on the assumption that selective concentrations a priori must be lower than those completely inhibiting growth. Data on Minimal Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) were obtained for 122 antibiotics and antibiotics combinations, the lowest observed MICs were identified for each of those across all tested species, and to compensate for limited species coverage, we adjusted the lowest MICs for the number of tested species. We finally assessed Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNECs) for resistance selection using an assessment factor of 10 to account for the differences between MICs and MSCs. Since we found that the link between taxonomic similarity between species and lowest MIC was weak, we have not compensated for the taxonomic diversity that each antibiotic was tested against – only for limited number of species tested. In most cases, our PNECs for selection of resistance were below available PNECs for ecotoxicological effects retrieved from FASS. Also, concentrations predicted to be selective have, for some antibiotics, been detected in regular sewage treatment plants (4), and are greatly exceeded in environments polluted by pharmaceutical pollution (5-7), often with drastic consequences in terms of resistance gene enrichments (8-10). This is a central issue since in principle a transfer event of a novel resistance determinant from an environmental bacteria to an (opportunistic) human pathogen only need to occur once to become a clinical problem (11). Once established, the gene could then spread through human activities, such as trade and travel (7,13). Importantly, this paper:

• Provides upper boundaries for selective concentrations (MSCs) for 111 antibiotics
• Predicts no effect concentrations (PNECs) for resistance selection
• Can guide implementation of compound-specific emission limits based on the provided concentrations

The paper is available under open access here. We hope, and believe, that the data will be of great use in environmental risk assessments, in efforts by industries, regulatory agencies or purchasers of medicines to define acceptable environmental emissions of antibiotics, in the implementation of environmental monitoring programs, for directing mitigations, and for prioritizing future studies on environmental antibiotic resistance.

References:

1. Bengtsson-Palme J, Larsson DGJ: Concentrations of antibiotics predicted to select for resistant bacteria: Proposed limits for environmental regulation. Environment International, 86, 140-149 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.015 [Paper link]
2. Ågerstrand M, Berg C, Björlenius B, Breitholtz M, Brunstrom B, Fick J, Gunnarsson L, Larsson DGJ, Sumpter JP, Tysklind M, Rudén C: Improving environmental risk assessment of human pharmaceuticals. Environmental Science and Technology (2015). doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00302
3. Tello A, Austin B, Telfer TC: Selective pressure of antibiotic pollution on bacteria of importance to public health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 1100–1106 (2012). doi:10.1289/ehp.1104650
4. Michael I, Rizzo L, McArdell CS, Manaia CM, Merlin C, Schwartz T, Dagot C, Fatta-Kassinos D: Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for the release of antibiotics in the environment: a review. Water Research, 47, 957–995 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.11.027
5. Larsson DGJ, de Pedro C, Paxeus N: Effluent from drug manufactures contains extremely high levels of pharmaceuticals. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 148, 751–755 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.07.008
6. Fick J, Söderström H, Lindberg RH, Phan C, Tysklind M, Larsson DGJ: Contamination of surface, ground, and drinking water from pharmaceutical production. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28, 2522–2527 (2009). doi:10.1897/09-073.1
7. Larsson DGJ: Pollution from drug manufacturing: review and perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Series B Biological Sciences, 369 (2014). doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0571
8. Bengtsson-Palme J, Boulund F, Fick J, Kristiansson E, Larsson DGJ: Shotgun metagenomics reveals a wide array of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile elements in a polluted lake in India. Frontiers in Microbiology, Volume 5, Issue 648 (2014). doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00648 [Paper link]
9. Kristiansson E, Fick J, Janzon A, Grabic R, Rutgersson C, Weijdegård B, Söderström H, Larsson DGJ: Pyrosequencing of antibiotic-contaminated river sediments reveals high levels of resistance and gene transfer elements. PLoS ONE, Volume 6, e17038 (2011). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017038.
10. Marathe NP, Regina VR, Walujkar SA, Charan SS, Moore ERB, Larsson DGJ, Shouche YS: A Treatment Plant Receiving Waste Water from Multiple Bulk Drug Manufacturers Is a Reservoir for Highly Multi-Drug Resistant Integron-Bearing Bacteria. PLoS ONE, Volume 8, e77310 (2013). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077310
11. Bengtsson-Palme J, Larsson DGJ: Antibiotic resistance genes in the environment: prioritizing risks. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 13, 369 (2015). doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3399-c1 [Paper link]
12. Bengtsson-Palme J, Angelin M, Huss M, Kjellqvist S, Kristiansson E, Palmgren H, Larsson DGJ, Johansson A: The human gut microbiome as a transporter of antibiotic resistance genes between continents. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 59, 10, 6551-6560 (2015). doi: 10.1128/AAC.00933-15 [Paper link]