BACKGROUND: The origins and virulence potential of meat product-associated Escherichia coli are undefined. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-seven E. coli isolates (145 resistant and 142 susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, nalidixic acid, and/or ceftiofur), recovered by the United States National Antimicrobial Monitoring System from retail beef, pork, chicken, and turkey products (from Oregon, Tennessee, Georgia, and Maryland, 2002-2004) underwent polymerase chain reaction testing for phylogenetic groupings and 59 virulence-associated genes. RESULTS: However analyzed, resistant and susceptible isolates differed minimally according to the assessed characteristics. In contrast, the 4 meat types differed greatly for multiple individual traits and aggregate virulence scores. Poultry isolates exhibited virulence genes associated with avian pathogenic E. coli; beef isolates exhibited traits associated with E. coli from diseased cattle. Overall, 20% of isolates qualified as extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli, with poultry isolates exhibiting significantly higher virulence scores than beef and pork isolates (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Within this systematically collected, geographically distributed sample of recent retail meat isolates, the carriage of extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli virulence genes in antimicrobial-resistant and antimicrobial-susceptible E. coli appeared similar, whereas isolates from different types of meat differed, consistent with on-farm acquisition of resistance within host species-specific E. coli populations. A substantial minority of meat-source E. coli (whether susceptible or resistant) may represent potential human pathogens.
BACKGROUND: The origins and virulence potential of meat product-associated Escherichia coli are undefined. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-seven E. coli isolates (145 resistant and 142 susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, nalidixic acid, and/or ceftiofur), recovered by the United States National Antimicrobial Monitoring System from retail beef, pork, chicken, and turkey products (from Oregon, Tennessee, Georgia, and Maryland, 2002-2004) underwent polymerase chain reaction testing for phylogenetic groupings and 59 virulence-associated genes. RESULTS: However analyzed, resistant and susceptible isolates differed minimally according to the assessed characteristics. In contrast, the 4 meat types differed greatly for multiple individual traits and aggregate virulence scores. Poultry isolates exhibited virulence genes associated with avian pathogenic E. coli; beef isolates exhibited traits associated with E. coli from diseased cattle. Overall, 20% of isolates qualified as extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli, with poultry isolates exhibiting significantly higher virulence scores than beef and pork isolates (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Within this systematically collected, geographically distributed sample of recent retail meat isolates, the carriage of extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli virulence genes in antimicrobial-resistant and antimicrobial-susceptible E. coli appeared similar, whereas isolates from different types of meat differed, consistent with on-farm acquisition of resistance within host species-specific E. coli populations. A substantial minority of meat-source E. coli (whether susceptible or resistant) may represent potential human pathogens.
Authors: James R Johnson; Stephen B Porter; Brian Johnston; Paul Thuras; Sarah Clock; Michael Crupain; Urvashi Rangan Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Timothy J Johnson; Catherine M Logue; James R Johnson; Michael A Kuskowski; Julie S Sherwood; H John Barnes; Chitrita DebRoy; Yvonne M Wannemuehler; Mana Obata-Yasuoka; Lodewijk Spanjaard; Lisa K Nolan Journal: Foodborne Pathog Dis Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 3.171
Authors: S Zhao; K Blickenstaff; S Bodeis-Jones; S A Gaines; E Tong; P F McDermott Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Azucena Mora; Alexandra Herrera; Rosalia Mamani; Cecilia López; María Pilar Alonso; Jesús E Blanco; Miguel Blanco; Ghizlane Dahbi; Fernando García-Garrote; Julia María Pita; Amparo Coira; María Isabel Bernárdez; Jorge Blanco Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2010-09-03 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Natalie M Mitchell; James R Johnson; Brian Johnston; Roy Curtiss; Melha Mellata Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: David C Love; Meghan F Davis; Anna Bassett; Andrew Gunther; Keeve E Nachman Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 9.031