Literature DB >> 11441854

Detection of Campylobacter spp. in ceca and crops with and without enrichment.

M T Musgrove1, M E Berrang, J A Byrd, N J Stern, N A Cox.   

Abstract

The purpose of this experiment was to determine how sampling method (direct plating or enrichment) affected the rate of Campylobacter spp. isolation from crop and cecal samples. In four separate trials, 32 New York-dressed broiler carcasses were obtained from commercial plants (n = 128). Crops and ceca were removed aseptically, direct plated, and enriched. Samples were direct-plated on Campy-Cefex plates that were incubated at 42 C for 36 to 48 h under a microaerobic atmosphere (5% O2, 10% CO2, 85% N2). After direct plating, samples were enriched in Bolton broth at 37 C for 4 h and 42 C for 20 h under a microaerobic atmosphere before plating onto Campy-Cefex plates. Campylobacter spp. was detected in 95.3% of direct-plated crop samples and 99.2% of enriched crop samples. Campylobacter spp. was detected in 100% of direct-plated cecal samples and 63.3% of enriched cecal samples. All 128 crop and cecal samples were positive for the organism by one or both methods. Mean counts of Campylobacter spp. were 3.6 log10 cfu/g of crop sample and 6.8 log10 cfu/g of cecal sample. For these two sample types, both of which tend to be contaminated with many viable cells, direct plating is sufficient for isolation of Campylobacter. Direct plating also provides an estimate of contamination level. Enrichment of cecal samples resulted in a decreased rate of detection and did not allow estimation of numbers of Campylobacter. The large numbers of non-Campylobacter species that inhabit the intestinal tract may out-compete Campylobacter during enrichment, confounding detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11441854     DOI: 10.1093/ps/80.6.825

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Poult Sci        ISSN: 0032-5791            Impact factor:   3.352


  9 in total

1.  Baseline data from a Belgium-wide survey of Campylobacter species contamination in chicken meat preparations and considerations for a reliable monitoring program.

Authors:  Ihab Habib; Imca Sampers; Mieke Uyttendaele; Dirk Berkvens; Lieven De Zutter
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2008-07-11       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Differentiation of campylobacter populations as demonstrated by flagellin short variable region sequences.

Authors:  Richard J Meinersmann; Robert W Phillips; Kelli L Hiett; Paula Fedorka-Cray
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Virulence, MLST analysis, and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter coli isolated from broiler chickens in Tamil Nadu, India.

Authors:  K Gunasekaran; S Vellapandi; M Ananda Chitra; K Kumaragurubaran
Journal:  Iran J Vet Res       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 1.226

4.  Campylobacter colonization of the Turkey intestine in the context of microbial community development.

Authors:  Alexandra J Scupham
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2009-04-03       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Campylobacter shared between free-ranging cattle and sympatric wild ungulates in a natural environment (NE Spain).

Authors:  N Navarro-Gonzalez; M Ugarte-Ruiz; M C Porrero; L Zamora; G Mentaberre; E Serrano; A Mateos; S Lavín; L Domínguez
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 3.184

6.  Method comparison for enhanced recovery, isolation and qualitative detection of C. jejuni and C. coli from wastewater effluent samples.

Authors:  María Ugarte-Ruiz; Diego Florez-Cuadrado; Trudy M Wassenaar; María Concepción Porrero; Lucas Domínguez
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Campylobacter in broiler slaughter samples assessed by direct count on mCCDA and Campy-Cefex agar.

Authors:  Camila Cristina Gonsalves; Anderlise Borsoi; Gustavo Perdoncini; Laura Beatriz Rodrigues; Vladimir Pinheiro do Nascimento
Journal:  Braz J Microbiol       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 2.476

Review 8.  Campylobacter sp.: Pathogenicity factors and prevention methods-new molecular targets for innovative antivirulence drugs?

Authors:  Vanessa Kreling; Franco H Falcone; Corinna Kehrenberg; Andreas Hensel
Journal:  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Genotypes, Antibiotic Resistance, and ST-8 Genetic Clone in Campylobacter Isolates from Sheep and Goats in Grenada.

Authors:  Diana M Stone; Yogesh Chander; Aschalew Z Bekele; Sagar M Goyal; Harry Hariharan; Keshaw Tiwari; Alfred Chikweto; Ravindra Sharma
Journal:  Vet Med Int       Date:  2014-02-11
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.