Literature DB >> 22985716

An enhanced technique combining pre-enrichment and passive filtration increases the isolation efficiency of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli from water and animal fecal samples.

Cassandra C Jokinen1, Jacqueline M Koot, Catherine D Carrillo, Victor P J Gannon, Claire M Jardine, Steven K Mutschall, Edward Topp, Eduardo N Taboada.   

Abstract

Improved isolation techniques from environmental water and animal samples are vital to understanding Campylobacter epidemiology. In this study, the efficiency of selective enrichment in Bolton Broth (BB) followed by plating on charcoal cefoperazone deoxycholate agar (CCDA) (conventional method) was compared with an approach combining BB enrichment and passive filtration (membrane method) adapted from a method previously developed for testing of broiler meat, in the isolation of thermophilic campylobacters from surface water and animal fecal samples. The conventional method led to recoveries of Campylobacter from 36.7% of the water samples and 78.0% of the fecal samples and similar numbers, 38.3% and 76.0%, respectively, were obtained with the membrane method. To investigate the genetic diversity of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli obtained by these two methods, isolates were analyzed using Comparative Genomic Fingerprinting, a high-resolution subtyping technique. The conventional and membrane methods yielded similar numbers of Campylobacter subtypes from water (25 and 28, respectively) and fecal (15 and 17, respectively) samples. Although there was no significant difference in recovery rates between the conventional and membrane methods, a significant improvement in isolation efficiency was obtained by using the membrane method, with a false-positive rate of 1.6% compared with 30.7% obtained using the conventional method. In conclusion, although the two methods are comparable in sensitivity, the membrane method had higher specificity, making it a cost-effective procedure for the enhanced isolation of C. jejuni and C. coli from water and animal fecal samples. Crown
Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22985716     DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2012.09.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Microbiol Methods        ISSN: 0167-7012            Impact factor:   2.363


  12 in total

1.  Comparative genomic fingerprinting of Campylobacter: application in routine public health surveillance and epidemiological investigations.

Authors:  E Schleihauf; S Mutschall; B Billard; E N Taboada; D Haldane
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 4.434

2.  Environmental monitoring of waterborne Campylobacter: evaluation of the Australian standard and a hybrid extraction-free MPN-PCR method.

Authors:  Rebekah Henry; Christelle Schang; Gayani I Chandrasena; Ana Deletic; Mark Edmunds; Dusan Jovanovic; Peter Kolotelo; Jonathan Schmidt; Richard Williamson; David McCarthy
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 5.640

3.  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

4.  Complete Genome Sequence of Campylobacter jejuni YH001 from Beef Liver, Which Contains a Novel Plasmid.

Authors:  Yiping He; Xianghe Yan; Sue Reed; Yanping Xie; Chin-Yi Chen; Peter Irwin
Journal:  Genome Announc       Date:  2015-02-05

5.  A strain comparison of Campylobacter isolated from retail poultry and human clinical cases in Atlantic Canada.

Authors:  Lisa M Hodges; Catherine D Carrillo; Jacqueline P Upham; Antonela Borza; Mikaela Eisebraun; Robyn Kenwell; Steven K Mutschall; David Haldane; Emily Schleihauf; Eduardo N Taboada
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Characterization and Phylogenetic Analysis of Campylobacter Species Isolated from Paediatric Stool and Water Samples in the Northwest Province, South Africa.

Authors:  Martina O Chukwu; Akebe Luther King Abia; Eunice Ubomba-Jaswa; Lawrence Obi; John Barr Dewar
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  A Gallus gallus Model for Determining Infectivity of Zoonotic Campylobacter.

Authors:  Dennis Lye; Ian Struewing; Theresa M Gruber; Kevin Oshima; Eric N Villegas; Jingrang Lu
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 8.  A systematic review characterizing on-farm sources of Campylobacter spp. for broiler chickens.

Authors:  Agnes Agunos; Lisa Waddell; David Léger; Eduardo Taboada
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Multiplex detection of nine food-borne pathogens by mPCR and capillary electrophoresis after using a universal pre-enrichment medium.

Authors:  Germán Villamizar-Rodríguez; Javier Fernández; Laura Marín; Juan Muñiz; Isabel González; Felipe Lombó
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 5.640

10.  Zoonotic Fecal Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance in Canadian Petting Zoos.

Authors:  Cheyenne C Conrad; Kim Stanford; Claudia Narvaez-Bravo; Norman F Neumann; Krysty Munns; Lisa Tymensen; Cassandra Jokinen; Tim A McAllister
Journal:  Microorganisms       Date:  2018-07-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.