Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 194 of the 194 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scientific Opinion on the public health risks of bacterial strains producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases and/or AmpC β-lactamases in food and food-producing animals: ESBL/AmpC in food-producing animals and foods

Open access
EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)·2011·EFSA Journal

Abstract

The potential contribution of food-producing animals or foods to public health risks by ESBL and/or AmpC-producing bacteria is related to specific plasmid-mediated ESBL and/or AmpC genes encoded by a number of organisms. The predominant ESBL families encountered are CTX-M, TEM, and SHV; the predominant AmpC-family is CMY. The most common genes associated with this resistance in animals are blaCTX-M-1 (the most commonly identified ESBL), and blaCTX-M-14, followed by blaTEM-52 and blaSHV-12. Among the genes encoding AmpC-type β-lactamases, blaCMY-2 is the most common.The bacterial species most commonly identified with these genes are Escherichia coli and non-typhoidal Salmonella. ESBL/AmpC transmission is mainly driven by integrons, insertion sequences, transposons and plasmids, some of which are homologous in isolates from both food-production animals and humans. Cefotaxime is used as the drug of choice for optimum detection of blaESBL and/or blaAmpC genes. The preferred method for isolation of ESBL- and/or AmpC-producers is screening on selective agar preceded by selective enrichment in a broth.The establishment of risk factors for occurrence of ESBL/AmpC-producing bacteria is particularly complicated by the data unavailability or lack of its accuracy. The use of antimicrobials is a risk factor for the selection and spread of resistant clones, resistance genes and plasmids. Since most ESBL- and AmpC-producing strains carry additional resistances to other commonly-used veterinary drugs, generic antimicrobial use is a risk factor for ESBL/AmpC and it is not restricted specifically to the use of cephalosporins. An additional risk factor is extensive trade of animals in EU MS. There are no data on the comparative efficiency of individual control options in reducing public health risks caused by ESBL and/or AmpC-producing bacteria related to food-producing animals. Prioritisation is complex, but it is considered that a highly effective control option would be to stop all uses of cephalosporins/systemically active 3rd/4th generation cephalosporins, or to restrict their use (use only allowed under specific circumstances). As co-resistance is an important issue, it is also of high priority to decrease the total antimicrobial use in animal production in the EU.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2322

Cites

194 of 194 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 194 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
(BIOHAZ), E. P. O. B. H.
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-08
Volume
9
Issue
8
Pages
2322
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4211117974
Cited by
258
References
194
FWCI
8.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Scientific Opinion on the public health risks of bacterial strains producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases and/or AmpC β-lactamases in food and food-producing animals: ESBL/AmpC in food-producing animals and foods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2322
The paper
(BIOHAZ), E. P. O. B. H. (2011). Scientific Opinion on the public health risks of bacterial strains producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases and/or AmpC β-lactamases in food and food-producing animals: ESBL/AmpC in food-producing animals and foods. EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2322

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.