The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli Isolates from Swine and Wild Small Mammals in the Proximity of Swine Farms and in Natural Environments in Ontario, Canada
Open accessAbstract
Wild animals not normally exposed to antimicrobial agents can acquire antimicrobial agent-resistant bacteria through contact with humans and domestic animals and through the environment. In this study we assessed the frequency of antimicrobial resistance in generic Escherichia coli isolates from wild small mammals (mice, voles, and shrews) and the effect of their habitat (farm or natural area) on antimicrobial resistance. Additionally, we compared the types and frequency of antimicrobial resistance in E. coli isolates from swine on the same farms from which wild small mammals were collected. Animals residing in the vicinity of farms were five times more likely to carry E. coli isolates with tetracycline resistance determinants than animals living in natural areas; resistance to tetracycline was also the most frequently observed resistance in isolates recovered from swine (83%). Our results suggest that E. coli isolates from wild small mammals living on farms have higher rates of resistance and are more frequently multiresistant than E. coli isolates from environments, such as natural areas, that are less impacted by human and agricultural activities. No Salmonella isolates were recovered from any of the wild small mammal feces. This study suggests that close proximity to food animal agriculture increases the likelihood that E. coli isolates from wild animals are resistant to some antimicrobials, possibly due to exposure to resistant E. coli isolates from livestock, to the resistance genes of these isolates, or to antimicrobials through contact with animal feed.
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
Roberts, M. C. (1996) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00251.x · Cited by 689
Cited by
Water and sanitation: an essential battlefront in the war on antimicrobial resistance
Bürgmann, H., Frigon, D., H Gaze, W., M Manaia, C., Pruden, A., Singer, A. C., F Smets, B., & Zhang, T. (2018) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1093/femsec/fiy101 · Cited by 182
Mo, S. S., Urdahl, A. M., Madslien, K., Sunde, M., Nesse, L. L., Slettemeås, J. S., & Norström, M. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198019 · Cited by 52
Foxes As a Potential Wildlife Reservoir for mecA -Positive Staphylococci
Carson, M., Meredith, A. L., Shaw, D. J., Giotis, E. S., Lloyd, D. H., & Loeffler, A. (2012) · Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases · doi:10.1089/vbz.2011.0825 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Kozak, G. K., Boerlin, P., Janecko, N., Reid-Smith, R. J., & Jardine, C.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 559-566
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2117664027
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli Isolates from Swine and Wild Small Mammals in the Proximity of Swine Farms and in Natural Environments in Ontario, Canada. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.01821-08
- The paper
- Kozak, G. K., Boerlin, P., Janecko, N., Reid-Smith, R. J., & Jardine, C. (2009). Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli Isolates from Swine and Wild Small Mammals in the Proximity of Swine Farms and in Natural Environments in Ontario, Canada. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01821-08
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.