
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.
Sec. Veterinary and Zoonotic Infection
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1526028
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
To investigate the correlations among antibiotic resistance, virulence gene, phylogenetic group, and genetic diversity, providing essential data for Escherichia coli (E. coli) infection prevention and control in Tibetan pigs. Microdilution and PCR were used to assess antimicrobial susceptibility, phylogenetic groups, antibiotic resistance genes, and virulence genes. Genetic diversity was analyzed using enterobacterial repetitive element sequence-based PCR. EAEC 5-12, a representative strain with multidrug resistance and strong biofilm-forming ability, harboring abundant virulence genes, was selected for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to validate PCR results. The results revealed that 84.43% of the 244 isolated E. coli demonstrated varying resistance rates to 23 antibiotics and were highest for Chloramphenicol (99.59%), Sulfadiazine (96.31%), and Sulfamethoxazole (93.85%). Twenty-five antibiotic resistance genes, including ant (3')-Ia, blaTEM, aac (3')-II, floR, and qnrS, were detected and the detection rates were over 80%. Intl1 and intl2 were positively detected in 90.16% and 15.16% of strains, respectively. BcsA, fimC, and agn43 were the most prevalent (98.77%, 89.75%, and 59.43%, respectively) among 17 detected virulence genes. There existed 106 virulence patterns and the predominant one was agn43/bcsA/fimC, accounting for 17.92% (19/106). Most strains belonged to phylogenetic group A (45.90%), followed by B1 (34.43%), while 29 strains could not be classified into any group. Of the 64 diarrheagenic E. coli (DEC), enteroaggregative E. coli was the most prevalent pathotype (90.63%, 58/64). Biofilm-forming ability results verified that 4.69%, 21.88%, 59.38%, and 14.06% of the DEC were classed as strong, moderate, weak, and absent biofilm producers. Based on the 61.2% similarity, the 64 DEC were categorized into five clusters (I, II, III, IV, and V). 84.38% were classified into cluster II and the three strong biofilm-forming strains were all located in cluster II. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles of EAEC 5-12 confirmed that primarily confer resistance through antibiotic efflux, target alteration, and reduced permeability. These findings will contribute to further understanding the positive correlation between antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity in E. coli from Tibetan pig farms, shedding a light on the rational use of antimicrobial agents and tackling the antibiotic resistance crisis in the Tibetan pig breeding in Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan, China.
Keywords: Tibetan pigs, diarrheagenic Escherichia coli, antibiotic resistance genes, integrase genes, virulence genes
Received: 11 Nov 2024; Accepted: 11 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zhao, Liang, Xia and Chen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Chaoxi Chen, College of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, Southwest Minzu University, Chengdu, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary Material
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.