Antimicrobial Resistance Potential of Microbes Isolated from Fish Ponds in Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
ABSTRACT Aquacultures are practised in different water confinements which include plastic ponds, concrete and earthen and are known to harbour pathogens. In aquaculture (fish rearing) the use of antibiotics is on the increase where they are used as disease eradicators and as growth promoters. This study sought to investigate the antibiotic resistance potential of bacteria isolated from fish ponds in Ikorodu, Lagos State. A total number of ten water samples were collected from five different sampling points at depth 1.5m within the ponds, close to the outlets and at the outlets from the cat-fish and tilapia-fish ponds. These were serially diluted and inoculated and the pure isolates were subjected to antibiotics sensitivity testing using Kirby- Bauer’s disc diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration methods. Pure isolates which were found to show multiple resistances to antibiotics were characterized based on their morphology and biochemical characteristics. The isolates were further identified by molecular analysis using 16SrRNA gene detection and sequencing. The Antibiotic susceptibility test showed that the isolates were resistant to ceftazidime, cefuroxime, nitrofurantoin, ampicillin, amoxycillin, clavulanate. gentamicin, ciprofloxacin and all the isolates were susceptible to Ofloxacin. The molecular analysis revealed that the organisms which showed multiple resistances to antibiotics were Azotobacter chroococcum, Escherichia Coli, Proteus mirabilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In conclusion this study has revealed the need for good management of aquaculture facilities in order to avoid zoonotic diseases; also monitoring of antibiotics usage in fish ponds should be given high priority to avoid resistant genes from being transferred to other bacteria of human clinical significance.
Article activity feed
-
The reviewers have highlighted major concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments. The reviewers raise concerns regarding the scientific rigour and experimental design of the work.
-
Comments to Author
Further clarification is required to confirm the authors carried out the experiment, especially the molecular study due to: • The accession numbers stated in the manuscript are not the authors. • The gel pictures contradicted the authors claims. Please explain the gel picture that is supposed to have one well having 11 which are numbered as 9 wells. • Justify the duplication of the same gel picture in four places labelled as Figs 1a to 1d. • Provide further explanation of the sequence spectra. • The primer used for PCR returned 3506 bp when blasted using NCBI primer blast tool whereas the authors claim it is 430bp on the gel pictures. Please explain this difference. Please provide all the raw data used for this study and include a letter from Epoch Life Science (USA) where Sanger sequencing was carried …
Comments to Author
Further clarification is required to confirm the authors carried out the experiment, especially the molecular study due to: • The accession numbers stated in the manuscript are not the authors. • The gel pictures contradicted the authors claims. Please explain the gel picture that is supposed to have one well having 11 which are numbered as 9 wells. • Justify the duplication of the same gel picture in four places labelled as Figs 1a to 1d. • Provide further explanation of the sequence spectra. • The primer used for PCR returned 3506 bp when blasted using NCBI primer blast tool whereas the authors claim it is 430bp on the gel pictures. Please explain this difference. Please provide all the raw data used for this study and include a letter from Epoch Life Science (USA) where Sanger sequencing was carried out.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Not at all
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
Yes: There is discrepancy in the experiments.
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
No: The question is not applicable to the manuscript.
-
Comments to Author
The authors investigated the Antimicrobial Resistance Potential of Microbes Isolated from Fish Ponds in Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria, antibiotic susceptibility tests and PCR detection were performed on bacteria isolated from fish waters. Introduction: Line 57: there are writing issues like "faith and" has to write "faith, and". Please check the entire text for the same mistakes. The introduction is too wordy with some unnecessary data not related to the title of the study which has to remove (like lines 59- 63 speak on nutritious elements of fish products). Line 85: bacterial name has to write in the complete format when uses first (E. coli). Please use the short format after the first appearance in all parts of the text for all bacterial names. Methods Line 138- 161: no reference for used …
Comments to Author
The authors investigated the Antimicrobial Resistance Potential of Microbes Isolated from Fish Ponds in Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria, antibiotic susceptibility tests and PCR detection were performed on bacteria isolated from fish waters. Introduction: Line 57: there are writing issues like "faith and" has to write "faith, and". Please check the entire text for the same mistakes. The introduction is too wordy with some unnecessary data not related to the title of the study which has to remove (like lines 59- 63 speak on nutritious elements of fish products). Line 85: bacterial name has to write in the complete format when uses first (E. coli). Please use the short format after the first appearance in all parts of the text for all bacterial names. Methods Line 138- 161: no reference for used methods. For example: If you use MIC which guideline is your reference? please cite the appropriate reference that you used. Table 2 is not necessary and easily can merge with Table 1. Table 3 and Table 4 will be better comparable if merged with each other. Why the sequencing results are illustrated in the text? They did not discuss this in this article. They can move to supplementary data files if authors insist to show them. Discussion The whole discussion needs to revise for comparing the results of the study with other studies in other parts of the country and the world.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Not at all
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
