Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 12: Tetracyclines: tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, and doxycycline

Low-Level Tetracycline Resistance Gene tet(O)_3 in Campylobacter jejuni

Campylobacter (C.) spp. are the most important foodborne, bacterial, and zoonotic pathogens worldwide. Resistance monitoring of foodborne bacterial pathogens is an important tool to control antimicrobial resistance as a part of the “One Health” approach. The detection and functionality of new resistance genes are of paramount importance in applying more effective screening methods based on whole genome sequencing (WGS). Most tetracycline-resistant C. spp. isolates harbor tet(O), a gene that encodes a ribosomal protection protein. Here we describe tet(O)_3, which has been identified in two food isolates of C. jejuni and is very similar to the tet(O) gene in Streptococcus pneumoniae, having a truncated promoter sequence. This gene confers resistance to tetracycline below 1 mg/L, which is the epidemiological cut-off value. We have analyzed the entire genome of these two isolates, together with a C. jejuni isolate found to have high-level resistance to tetracycline. In contrast to the highly resistant isolate, the promoter of tet(O)_3 is highly responsive to tetracycline, as observed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In addition, the two isolates possess a CRISPR repeat, fluoroquinolone resistance due to the gyrA point mutation C257T, a β-lactamase resistance gene blaOXA-184, a multidrug efflux pump CmeABC and its repressor CmeR, but no plasmid. Low-level antibiotic resistant C. jejuni might therefore have an advantage for surviving in non-host environments.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 4: β-Lactams: amoxicillin and penicillin V

The specific concentrations of amoxicillin and penicillin V in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for amoxicillin, whilst for penicillin V no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 5: Lincosamides: lincomycin

The specific concentrations of lincomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of lincomycin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for lincomycin.

Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 7: Amphenicols: florfenicol and thiamphenicol

The specific concentrations of florfenicol and thiamphenicol in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for florfenicol was estimated. However, due to the lack of data, the calculation of the FARSC for thiamphenicol was not possible until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for florfenicol, whilst for thiamphenicol no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. For florfenicol, it was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC, whereas for thiamphenicol, the recommendation was to generate the data required to fill the gaps which prevented the FARSC calculation.