## 4 Discussion  
Global public health issues include the safety of manufactured food, the transmission of microorganisms, the incidence of foodborne illness, and, in recent years, antimicrobial resistance too. Administering antimicrobial substances to food-producing animals can improve health and increase productivity during intensive animal production. At the same time, it can contribute to the emergence and spread of resistance to these medications [42]. Since January 2022, the European Union has strengthened the rules for fighting against antimicrobial resistance. The new legislation significantly restricts the prophylaxis and metaphylaxis use of antimicrobials. The antimicrobial treatment of animals will be administered only in necessary cases [43]. Poultry meat plays a significant role in people's nutrition, and its production and consumption are increasing rapidly around the globe [1]. In the present study, we compared the antimicrobial resistances of _E. coli_ isolates from broiler chicken cloacal swabs and purchased chicken thigh muscle meat. We found differences in the percentages of resistance, the occurrence of antimicrobial-resistance genes, biofilm formation, and phylogenetic groups of _E. coli_ strains. By antimicrobial susceptibility testing, we found that _E. coli_ isolates from cloacal swabs and meat samples have dominant resistance to ampicillin. Similar to the other studies, most avian _E. coli_ isolates were here found to be highly resistant to ampicillin [44,45]. Ampicillin (AMP) belongs to the semisynthetic \(\beta\)-lactams and is widely used to treat _E. coli_ infections in humans and animals, where it acts on the active replication stage of the bacteria and inhibits the synthesis of the bacterial cell wall. In recent years, the rate of resistance to ampicillin has increased [46]. We also confirmed increased resistance to tetracycline, trimethoprim-sulfonamide, ciprofloxacin, and ampicillin-sulbactam. Based on our results, we can conclude that the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No. of Strain**} & **Phenotypic Resistance** & **Resistance** & **Biofilm Formation** & **Phylogenetic** & **Genotypic Resistance** & **Mobile Genetic** & **Vinulence Factors** \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{_E. coli_ from chicken meat samples} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{1M} & \multirow{3}{*}{AMP, SAM} & Quinolone & \multirow{3}{*}{Non-biofilm} & \multirow{3}{*}{A\({}_{1}\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{_tet_A} & \multirow{3}{*}{–} & _fimA, ccuC_, _int_A \\  & & Resistance & & & & & \\  & & Quinolone & & & & & \\
2M & – & Incompl. & Non-biofilm & A\({}_{1}\) & _tet_A & – & _fimA, ccuC_, _int_A \\  & & Resistance & & & & & \\
3M & – & Incompl. & Non-biofilm & A\({}_{1}\) & _tet_A & – & _fimA, ccuC_, _int_A \\  & & Resistance & & & & & \\
4M & AMP, SAM, & - & Non-biofilm & B\({}_{1}\) & _tet_A, _qnr_A & _Int_I, _Tn_3 & _fimA, itt_A \\  & & CIP, TET, COT & – & Non-biofilm & A\({}_{0}\) & _tet_A & _Int_I, _Tn_3 & _fimA_ \\
5M & AMP, SAM, & - & Non-biofilm & B\({}_{1}\) & _qnr_A & _Tn_3 & _fimA_ \\  & & CIP & - & Non-biofilm & B\({}_{1}\) & _qnr_A & _Tn_3 & _fimA_ \\
7M & AMP, CIP & Penicillineselow & Weak & D\({}_{2}\) & _tet_A, _qnr_A, & & _kpsMT II_, _fimA, ccuC_, _int_A \\
8M & AMP, CIP, TET, & Penicillineselibid & Non-biofilm & D\({}_{2}\) & _tet_B & _Int_I, _Tn_3 & _fimA, itt_A \\  & & Quinolone & & & & & \\
9M & – & Incompl. & Non-biofilm & D\({}_{1}\) & _tet_A, _tet_B & – & _fimA, ccuC_ \\  & & Resistance & & & & & \\
10M & – & Incompl. & Non-biofilm & B\({}_{1}\) & _qnr_A & – & _fimA, ccuC_, _int_A \\  & & Resistance & & & & & \\
11M & AMP, SAM, & CIP, TET, COT & – & Non-biofilm & B\({}_{1}\) & _tet_A, _qnr_A & _Int_I, _Tn_3 & _fimA, itt_A \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._presence of _E. coli_ resistant to several antimicrobials in chicken swab samples and chicken meat has several important implications for health in our country. The presence of resistant _E.