| Literature DB >> 18325258 |
Mussaret B Zaidi1, Juan Jose Calva, Maria Teresa Estrada-Garcia, Veronica Leon, Gabriela Vazquez, Gloria Figueroa, Estela Lopez, Jesus Contreras, Jason Abbott, Shaohua Zhao, Patrick McDermott, Linda Tollefson.
Abstract
Few developing countries have foodborne pathogen surveillance systems, and none of these integrates data from humans, food, and animals. We describe the implementation of a 4-state, integrated food chain surveillance system (IFCS) for Salmonella spp. in Mexico. Significant findings were 1) high rates of meat contamination (21.3%-36.4%), 2) high rates of ceftriaxone-resistant S. Typhimurium in chicken, ill humans, and swine (77.3%, 66.3%, and 40.4% of S. Typhimurium T isolates, respectively), and 3) the emergence of ciprofloxacin resistance in S. Heidelberg (10.4%) and S. Typhimurium (1.7%) from swine. A strong association between Salmonella spp. contamination in beef and asymptomatic Salmonella spp. infection was only observed in the state with the lowest poverty level (Pearson r = 0.91, p<0.001). Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis analysis of 311 S. Typhimurium isolates showed 14 clusters with 102 human, retail meat, and food-animal isolates with indistinguishable patterns. An IFCS is technically and economically feasible in developing countries and can effectively identify major public health priorities.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18325258 PMCID: PMC2570816 DOI: 10.3201/eid1403.071057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Percentage of human, retail meat, and food-animal samples positive for Salmonella spp. detected by an integrated food chain system in Mexico, 2002–2005. Numbers to the right of bars indicate average values, and numbers in parentheses indicate the frequency of positive samples in the states with the lowest and highest prevalence, respectively. The number of specimens examined from each source (n) is shown next to each source heading.
Comparison of socioeconomic indicators and prevalence of retail meat contamination and human Salmonella infection, by state, Mexico, 2002–2005
| Indicator | Yucatan, % | Sonora, % | San Luis Potosi, % | Michoacan, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population >15 y illiterate or with incomplete primary education | 40.1 | 24.0 | 37.1 | 44.0 |
| Households with no toilet or latrine | 24.6 | 7.0 | 14.0 | 15.4 |
| Households with no sewage system | 40.8 | 20.2 | 37 | 24.4 |
| Working population earning <$4 US/d | 23.4 | 6.7 | 16.4 | 13.0 |
| Average prevalence of | 59.1 | 14.2 | 29.7 | 16.0 |
| Average prevalence of | 15.8 | 12.6 | 10.8 | 5.8 |
| Average prevalence of | 11.3 | 4.4 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
Salmonella serovars in ill humans and their relative frequency in asymptomatic children and food animals, Mexico, 2002–2005
| Serovar | % for each serovar relative to the total no. of | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ill humans* (n = 392) | Asymptomatic children (n = 373) | Chicken† (n = 546) | Swine† (n = 1237) | Cattle† (n = 767) | |
| Typhimurium | 22.2 | 6.7 | 4.6 | 10.2 | 6.8 |
| Enteritidis | 14.5 | 3.2 | 11.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Agona | 6.6 | 8.3 | 9.5 | 9.3 | 7.3 |
| Muenchen | 5.1 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 2.5 |
| Oranienburg | 4.1 | 4.3 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Anatum | 3.8 | 8.0 | 4.8 | 13.0 | 17.7 |
| Newport | 3.8 | 5.4 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 2.6 |
| Meleagridis | 3.1 | 6.4 | 5.3 | 11.6 | 13.0 |
| Other | 36.8 | 54.2 | 62.4 | 52.9 | 49.7 |
*Ill humans include 366 isolates from enteric infections and 26 isolates from invasive infections. †Data for food animal intestine and the corresponding retail meat have been combined because serovars were very similar.
Antimicrobial drug resistance in Salmonella isolates from humans, retail meat, and food animals in Mexico, 2002–2005*
| Source | % Resistant† | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMP | CHL | CIP | CRO | GEN | KAN | NAL | STR | SU | SXT | TET | |
| Ill humans (n = 392) | 25.5 | 23.4 | 0.0 | 14.5 | 11.7 | 11.2 | 24.6 | 61.1 | 49.7 | 24.3 | 41.2 |
| Asymptomatic children (n = 373) | 7.8 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 8.6 | 45.9 | 35.4 | 8.0 | 26.1 |
| Chicken‡ (n = 546) | 7.7 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 30.6 | 58.9 | 38.9 | 11.5 | 36.8 |
| Swine‡ (n = 1,237) | 18.3 | 22.9 | 0.6 | 4.2 | 8.4 | 9.0 | 26.0 | 73.1 | 62.1 | 24.2 | 55.3 |
| Cattle‡ (n = 767) | 11.9 | 14.1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 6.6 | 7.2 | 20.8 | 71.6 | 53.1 | 19.2 | 48.8 |
*AMP, ampicillin; CHL, chloramphenicol; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CRO, ceftriaxone; GEN, gentamicin; KAN, kanamycin; NAL, nalidixic acid; STR, streptomycin; SU, sulfisoxazole; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; TET, tetracycline. †Includes resistant and intermediate. ‡Includes isolates from food-animal intestines and the corresponding retail meat.
Antimicrobial drug resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium isolates from humans, retail meat and food animals in Mexico, 2002–2005*
| Source | % Resistant† | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMP | CHL | CIP | CRO | GEN | KAN | NAL | STR | SU | SXT | TET | |
| Ill humans (n = 87) | 79.3 | 80.5 | 0.0 | 66.3 | 44.8 | 33.3 | 55.1 | 97.3 | 91.9 | 71.2 | 88.5 |
| Asymptomatic children (n = 25) | 36.0 | 36.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 12.0 | 73.9 | 60.0 | 24.0 | 44.0 |
| Chicken‡ (n = 22) | 100.0 | 86.4 | 0.0 | 77.3 | 18.2 | 18.1 | 27.2 | 100.0 | 90.9 | 54.5 | 90.9 |
| Swine‡ (n = 127) | 61.9 | 88.9 | 1.7 | 40.4 | 47.6 | 41.3 | 72.2 | 97.2 | 92.9 | 63.5 | 94.4 |
| Cattle‡ (n = 53) | 47.2 | 71.7 | 0.0 | 7.5 | 45.3 | 35.9 | 79.2 | 94.6 | 90.6 | 56.6 | 92.5 |
*AMP, ampicillin; CHL, chloramphenicol; CIP, ciprofloxacin; CRO, ceftriaxone; GEN, gentamicin; KAN, kanamycin; NAL, nalidixic acid; STR, streptomycin; SU, sulfisoxazole; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; TET, tetracycline. †Includes resistant and intermediate. ‡Includes isolates from food-animal intestines and the corresponding retail meat.
Figure 2Selected pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) clusters that represent 102 strains of Salmonella Typhimurium and shared indistinguishable PFGE patterns among humans (H), chicken meat and intestine (C), pork meat and swine intestine (P), and beef meat and cattle intestine (B). Several clusters (C,D, E, and L) were present in more than one state. MI, Michoacan; SLP, San Luis Potosi; SO, Sonora; YU, Yucatan. An expanded version of this figure containing the complete set of PFGE patterns is available from http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/14/3/429-G2.htm.