The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Antimicrobial resistance in wildlife
Abstract
Summary: The spread of antimicrobial resistance is of major concern for human health and leads to growing economic costs. While it is increasingly hypothesized that wildlife could play an important role in antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria dynamics, empirical data remain scarce. The present work builds on a systematic review of the available data in order to highlight the main information we have and to suggest research pathways that should be followed if we aim to fill the gaps in our current knowledge. To achieve this goal, we address four questions: (i) Which resistant bacteria are the most frequently observed in wildlife? (ii) How are resistant bacteria exchanged between wildlife and the other hosts involved? (iii) In which habitats are those resistant bacteria found? (iv) Are resistances associated with certain ecological traits of the host? Synthesis and applications. We highlight the strong link existing between the impact of human activities on natural habitats and the carriage of antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria by wildlife. Furthermore, we underline that omnivorous, anthropophilic and carnivorous species are at high risk of being carriers and potentially spreaders of antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria. Identifying among those groups key sentinel species may be of particular interest to implement ecosystem contamination surveillance. Finally, we discuss possible exchange routes for antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria between humans and wildlife. Considering that water is of major importance in those exchanges, a critical way to control antimicrobial resistance spread may be to limit aquatic environment contamination by antimicrobial‐resistant bacteria and antibiotics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes
Ley, R. E., Hamady, M., Lozupone, C., Turnbaugh, P. J., Ramey, R. R., Bircher, J. S., Schlegel, M. L., Tucker, T. A., Schrenzel, M. D., Knight, R., et al. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1155725 · Cited by 3,747
Rizzo, L., Manaia, C., Merlin, C., Schwartz, T., Dagot, C., Ploy, M. C., Michael, I., & Fatta-Kassinos, D. (2013) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.032 · Cited by 2,493
Diet Drives Convergence in Gut Microbiome Functions Across Mammalian Phylogeny and Within Humans
Muegge, B. D., Kuczynski, J., Knights, D., Clemente, J. C., González, A., Fontana, L., Henrissat, B., Knight, R., & Gordon, J. I. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1198719 · Cited by 1,988
Antibiotic resistance gene spread due to manure application on agricultural fields
Heuer, H., Schmitt, H., & Smalla, K. (2011) · Current Opinion in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.mib.2011.04.009 · Cited by 985
Melsen, W. G., Bootsma, M. C. J., Rovers, M. M., & Bonten, M. J. M. (2014) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12494 · Cited by 776 · cited 1×
“Indeed, considering recent discussions on this issue in the literature (e.g. Kriston 2013; Melsen et al. 2014), we felt that in our case discussing the results of primary studies would be more useful than relying on a meta-analysis, which would summarize data that we consider highly inhomogeneous.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Vittecoq, M., Godreuil, S., Prugnolle, F., Durand, P., Brazier, L., Renaud, N., Arnal, A., Aberkane, S., Jean‐Pierre, H., Gauthier‐Clerc, M., Thomas, F., & Renaud, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-02-22
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 519-529
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W2282135458
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 7.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.