↓ Skip to main content

What does the fox say? Monitoring antimicrobial resistance in the environment using wild red foxes as an indicator

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What does the fox say? Monitoring antimicrobial resistance in the environment using wild red foxes as an indicator
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0198019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Solveig Sølverød Mo, Anne Margrete Urdahl, Knut Madslien, Marianne Sunde, Live L. Nesse, Jannice Schau Slettemeås, Madelaine Norström

Abstract

The objective of this study was to estimate and compare the occurrence of AMR in wild red foxes in relation to human population densities. Samples from wild red foxes (n = 528) included in the Norwegian monitoring programme on antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from food, feed and animals were included. All samples were divided into three different groups based on population density in the municipality where the foxes were hunted. Of the 528 samples included, 108 (20.5%), 328 (62.1%) and 92 (17.4%) originated from areas with low, medium and high population density, respectively. A single faecal swab was collected from each fox. All samples were plated out on a selective medium for Enterobacteriaceae for culturing followed by inclusion and susceptibility testing of one randomly selected Escherichia coli to assess the overall occurrence of AMR in the Gram-negative bacterial population. Furthermore, the samples were subjected to selective screening for detection of E. coli displaying resistance towards extended-spectrum cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones. In addition, a subset of samples (n = 387) were subjected to selective culturing to detect E. coli resistant to carbapenems and colistin, and enterococci resistant to vancomycin. Of these, 98 (25.3%), 200 (51.7%) and 89 (23.0%) originated from areas with low, medium and high population density, respectively. Overall, the occurrence of AMR in indicator E. coli from wild red foxes originating from areas with different human population densities in Norway was low to moderate (8.8%). The total occurrence of AMR was significantly higher; χ2 (1,N = 336) = 6.53, p = 0.01 in areas with high population density compared to areas with medium population density. Similarly, the occurrence of fluoroquinolone resistant E. coli isolated using selective detection methods was low in areas with low population density and more common in areas with medium or high population density. In conclusion, we found indications that occurrence of AMR in wild red foxes in Norway is associated with human population density. Foxes living in urban areas are more likely to be exposed to AMR bacteria and resistance drivers from food waste, garbage, sewage, waste water and consumption of contaminated prey compared to foxes living in remote areas. The homerange of red fox has been shown to be limited thereby the red fox constitutes a good sentinel for monitoring antimicrobial resistance in the environment. Continuous monitoring on the occurrence of AMR in different wild species, ecological niches and geographical areas can facilitate an increased understanding of the environmental burden of AMR in the environment. Such information is needed to further assess the impact for humans, and enables implementation of possible control measures for AMR in humans, animals and the environment in a true "One Health" approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 33 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 19%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 7%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 36 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,748,845
of 23,075,872 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#22,351
of 196,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,767
of 330,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#447
of 3,282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,075,872 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.