Cited by 915Agricultural safety and regulationsAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaAntibiotic Use and Resistance

Guidance on the assessment of bacterial susceptibility to antimicrobials of human and veterinary importance

Open access
EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP)·2012·EFSA Journal

Abstract

This Guidance document is intended to provide a method to identify resistance to antimicrobials of human and veterinary importance in bacterial strains intended for use as feed additives. Such tests should be made in a consistent manner using internationally recognised and standardised methods. As a basic requirement, the minimum inhibitory concentration of the antimicrobials should be determined for each of the following substances: ampicillin, vancomycin, gentamicin, kanamycin, streptomycin, erythromycin, clindamycin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol and, in specific cases, tylosine, apramycin, nalidixic acid, sulfonamide and trimethoprim. These antimicrobials are chosen to detect a wide range of determinants for resistance. The cut-off values identified by the FEEDAP Panel should be seen as a pragmatic response intended to introduce consistency in the separation of strains with acquired resistance from susceptible strains. These values are not intended for any purpose other than the assessment of microbial products for the possible presence of antimicrobial resistance. When a bacterial strain demonstrates higher resistance to a specific antimicrobial than the other strains of the same taxonomical unit, the presence of acquired resistance is indicated and additional information is needed on the genetic basis of the antimicrobial resistance. Any bacterial strain carrying an acquired resistance to antimicrobial that is shown to be due to the acquisition of genetic determinant presents the greatest potential for horizontal spread and should not be used as a feed additive.

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.2012.2740

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Antibiotic susceptibility testing of E. coli isolates was performed according to CLSI M07 and resistance was evaluated based on EFSA guidelines.

    “The strains of E. coli not harboring pathogenic genes were tested for their sensitivity to antibiotics according to CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) M07 [65].”

    From Selection, Comparative Genomics, and Potential Probiotic Features of Escherichia coli 5C, a pks-Negative Strain Isolated from Healthy Infant Donor Feces (2026) · cites this paper as [66]

    Section 1.1, “Microbiological cut-off values” (page not provided), gives EFSA criteria for classifying bacterial strains as susceptible or resistant, supporting the general reference to EFSA resistance guidance. It does not establish CLSI M07 as the testing method or provide E. coli-specific cut-off values; the printed citing sentence attributes the CLSI M07 method to this citation. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • MIC values were interpreted according to CLSI or EUCAST guidelines, consistent with EFSA recommendations for standardized MIC determination.

    “MIC values were interpreted according to CLSI or EUCAST guidelines, consistent with EFSA recommendations16 for standardized MIC determination in antimicrobial susceptibility testing.17,18”
  • E. coli 5C is antibiotic-sensitive according to the EFSA panel.

    “(iii) antibiotic-sensitive according to the EFSA panel”

    From Selection, Comparative Genomics, and Potential Probiotic Features of Escherichia coli 5C, a pks-Negative Strain Isolated from Healthy Infant Donor Feces (2026) · cites this paper as [66]

    Section 1.1 defines how the FEEDAP Panel classifies strains as susceptible or resistant using antimicrobial cut-off values. The passages do not assess E. coli 5C specifically; searches for “E. coli 5C” and “Escherichia coli 5C” found no such assessment in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
(FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F.
Corresponding author
EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP)
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-06
Volume
10
Issue
6
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206302370
Cited by
904
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 8
FWCI
54.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EFSA Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • OpenAgrar (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
Keywords
antimicrobial resistance, feed additives, bacterial strain, minimum inhibitory concentration, acquired resistance, ampicillin, vancomycin, gentamicin, kanamycin, streptomycin, erythromycin, clindamycin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol, apramycin, nalidixic acid, sulfonamides, trimethoprim

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