Species composition of certain strains of microorganisms in the development of upper respiratory tract disease in agricultural workers

Introduction. Microbiocenosis is a self-regulating system of relationships between the body and microflora. Ensuring the technological process of agricultural production involves contact with conditionally pathogenic and pathogenic microflora. The spread of antibacterial drug resistance is a matter of concern.

Materials and methods. There was studied the microbiocenosis of the upper respiratory tract in agricultural enterprises: in the absence of inflammatory diseases; the clinical picture of diseases of the ENT organs, and the susceptibility of the isolated strains to antibacterial drugs.

Results. Working conditions of employees correspond to classes 3.1-3.3. Typical representatives are strains of Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Micrococcus, Neisseria, Corynebacterium. The etiological share of S. Aureus, C. Albicans, E. Coli, Kl. Pneumoniae, Ps. Aeruginosa, predominates in the formation of inflammatory diseases. Staphylococcus are most susceptible to Cefotaxime and Sparfloxacin, followed by Cefepime, Levofloxacin and Amikacin. Strains of Kl. pneumoniae are susceptible to Cefotaxime and Sparfloxacin; strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa — to Cefepime and Ceftazidim; C. Albicans and C. crusei — to Amphotericin B and Fluconazole.

Conclusion. The complex industrial factors of agricultural production contributes to the violation of the ratio of microbial associations even against the background of clinical health, which is a risk factor for the development of inflammatory processes. S. Aureus strains; Candida Albicans; Klebsiella Pneumoniae play the leading role. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and E. Coli. The isolates demonstrate multidrug resistance to antimicrobial drugs.

Contribution:
Masyagutova L.M., Gainullina M.K. — concept and design of the study;
Gizatullina L.G. — writing the text; collection and processing of material;
Vlasova N.V., Khairullin R.U. — collection and processing of material;
Rafikova L.A. — writing the text;
Aralbaev Kh.F., Ivanova R.Sh. — statistical processing.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement. The study had no sponsorship.

Received: July 22, 2021 / Accepted: September 28, 2021 / Published: November 30, 2021

1. Bukharin O.V., Perunova N.B. The role of microbiota in the regulation of homeostasis in the human body during infection. Zhurnal mikrobiologii, epidemiologii i immunobiologii. 2020; 97(5): 458–67. https://doi.org/10.36233/0372931120209758 (in Russian)

2. Levy M., Kolodziejczyk A., Thaiss C., Elinav E. Dysbiosis and the immune system. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2017; 17(4): 219–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri.2017.7

3. Nesmeyanova N.N., Sosedova L.M. Resistance of organism of choolchildren living in the cities with developed chemical industry. Vostochno-Sibirskogo nauchnogo tsentra Sibirskogo otdeleniya Rossiyskoy akademii meditsinskikh nauk. 2012; (2-2): 92–4. (in Russian)

4. Frolova A.K., Karamova F.A., Sholomov I.F. Features of airway microbiota in smoking patients: predictors of form factors-resistant microflora. Consilium Medicum. 2015; 17(11): 31–4. (in Russian)

5. Barcik W., Boutin R.C.T., Sokolowska M., Finlay B.B. The role of lung and gut microbiota in the pathology of asthma. Immunity. 2020; 52(2): 241–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.01.007

6. Panzer A.R., Lynch S.V. Influence and effect of the human microbiome in allergy and asthma. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol. 2015; 27(4): 373–80. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0000000000000191

7. Young R.P., Hopkins R.J., Marsland B. The gut-liver-lung axis. modulation of the innate immune response and its possible role in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am. J. Respir. Cell. Mol. Biol. 2016; 54(2): 161–9. https://doi.org/10.1165/rcmb.2015-0250ps

8. Fujimura K.E., Lynch S.V. Microbiota in allergy and asthma and the emerging relationship with the gut microbiome. Cell Host Microbe. 2015; 17(5): 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2015.04.007

9. Beloborodova N.V. Integration of metabolism in man and his microbiome in critical conditions. Obshchaya reanimatologiya. 2012; 8(4): 42. https://doi.org/10.15360/1813-9779-2012-4-42 (in Russian)

10. Lambert G. Stress-induced gastrointestinal barrier dysfunction and its inflammatory effects. J. Anim. Sci. 2009; 87(Suppl. 14): E101–8. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1339

11. Zav’yalov V.P., Chernovskaya T.V., Navolotskaya E.V., Karlyshev A.V., MacIntyre S., Vasiliev A.M., et al. Specific high affinity binding of human interleukin 1 beta by Caf1A usher protein of Yersinia pestis. FEBS Lett. 1995; 371(1): 65–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(95)00878-d

12. Romanova Yu.M., Alekseeva N.V., Stepanova T.V., Razumikhin M.V., Tomova A.S., Shilov I.A., et al. Influence of tumor necrosis factor on the reproduction of vegetative and non-cultivated forms of Salmonella. Zhurnal mikrobiologii, epidemiologii i immunobiologii. 2002; 79(4): 20–5. (in Russian)

13. Wu L., Holbrook C., Zaborina O., Ploplys E., Rocha F., Pelham D., et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosaexpresses a lethal virulence determinant, the PA-I lectin/adhesin, in the intestinal tract of a stressed host: the role of epithelia cell contacts and molecules of the quorum sensing signaling system. Ann. Surg. 2003; 238(5): 754–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000094551.88143.f8

14. Tyulyandina E.V., Godovalov A.P. Study of the effect of leukocytes activated by an interferon inducer on Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Avitsenna. 2016; 1(9): 21–2. (in Russian)

15. Dignard C., Leibler J.H. Recent research on occupational animal exposures and health risks: a narrative review. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2019; (4): 236–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-00253-5

16. Sun J., Liao X.P., D’Souza A.W., Boolchandani M., Li S.H., Cheng K., et al. Environmental remodeling of human gut microbiota and antibiotic resistome in livestock farms. Nat. Commun. 2020; 11(1): 1427. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15222-y

17. Novikova T.A., Danilov A.N., Spirin V.F. The influence of ergonomic factors on the formation of occupational health risk of agricultural machine operators. Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya. 2019; 59(7): 400–5. https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2019-59-7-400-405 (in Russian)

18. Krasovskiy V.O., Gaynullina M.K., Masyagutova L.M., Yanbukhtina G.A., Mel’nik G.V., Idiyatullina E.F. The leading occupational hazards in the working conditions of workers employed rearing ducks. Zdorov’e naseleniya i sreda obitaniya. 2018; 299(2): 7–10. https://doi.org/10.35627/2219-5238/2018-299-2-7-10 (in Russian)

19. Mbareche H., Veillette M., Pilote J., Létourneau V., Duchaine C. Bioaerosols play a major role in the nasopharyngeal microbiota content in agricultural environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16(8): 1375. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081375

20. Masik N., Podolian V., Masik O. Changes intestinal microbiota in different age groups of agricultural workers with chronic non-specific lung disease. Georgian Med. News. 2019; (297): 102–7.

21. Gashaw G.W., Alemu B.Mi., Getachew Y.Y., Mitku M.T. Chronic respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function status in Ethiopian agricultural workers: a comparative study. BMC Pulm. Med. 2020; 20: 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-1120-3