Evidence Hub

Systematic review: genotypic and phenotypic resistance of fluoroquinolone-resistant Salmonella in livestock in South America (2020-2024)

Barrientos-Villegas S, García-Álvarez MI, Vidal JL, Gómez-Osorio LM, López-Osorio S, Chaparro-Gutiérrez JJ

Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025

24 participants

Abstract

Objective: To determine the frequency of phenotypic and genotypic resistance to quinolones and fluoroquinolones in Salmonella spp. isolated from production animals (pigs, poultry, cattle) and rodents in South America between 2020 and 2024, with the goal of providing key information on resistance in these countries for public health and food safety.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, using databases such as Scopus, PubMed, SciELO, and Latindex. Studies on Salmonella spp. resistant to quinolones and fluoroquinolones in production animals, meat products, and rodents in South America during 2020-2024 were included.

Results: Of the 83 initial results, 27 studies were selected. 70.4% of the studies were conducted in Brazil. 88% of the studies (n = 24/27) used phenotypic methods, with the disk diffusion technique being the most common. Ciprofloxacin was the most studied antibiotic, with an overall resistance of 32.5%, followed by nalidixic acid (60.6%) and enrofloxacin (23.7%). The average multidrug resistance (MDR) was 62%. 44% of the studies (n = 12/27) employed genotypic methods, with whole genome sequencing (WGS) being the most notable technique. Mutations were reported in parC (58%), gyrA (50%), gyrB (8%), and the presence of qnr genes (75%) and aac(6')-Ib-cr (8%). No studies on rodents were found.

Conclusion: Resistance to quinolones and fluoroquinolones in Salmonella spp. in South America endangers public health and food safety. To…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 24 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free