| Literature DB >> 23734204 |
Francois Roux1, Emma Sproston, Ovidiu Rotariu, Marion Macrae, Samuel K Sheppard, Paul Bessell, Alison Smith-Palmer, John Cowden, Martin C J Maiden, Ken J Forbes, Norval J C Strachan.
Abstract
There has been little research on the determinants of Campylobacter coli infection, despite its contributing up to 10% of human Campylobacter infections. A case-control and two case-case study methods explored the aetiology of C. coli over a one year period across Scotland. The case-control multivariate model found an increased risk of C. coli infection in people older than 19 years (O.R. = 3.352), and during the summer months (O.R. = 2.596), while residing in an urban area decreased the risk (O.R. = 0.546). The first case-case study compared C. coli and C. jejuni cases and also showed a higher risk of C. coli during the summer (O.R. = 1.313) and in people older than 19 years (O.R. = 0.791). Living in an urban area was associated with a reduced risk of infection (O.R. = 0.769). Multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) indicated that sheep and chicken C. coli sequence types (STs) were most frequently found in humans whilst those from cattle and pigs were rarer. MLST diversity was high in isolates from pigs and chicken, intermediate in human isolates, and low in ruminant isolates. The second case-case study used MLST data to ascribe putative sources of infection to the cases. The putative source for 40% of cases was chicken, with 60% acquired from other sources (ruminants 54% and pigs 6%). The case-case analysis also showed that female gender was a risk factor (O.R. = 1.940), which may be explained by females being more likely to prepare poultry in the home. These findings indicate differences between the aetiology of C. coli and C. jejuni infections: this should be taken into account by public health professionals when developing strategies to reduce the burden of human campylobacteriosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23734204 PMCID: PMC3667194 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Results of the logistic regression for the case-control study.
| Factors | Unit | O.R. | C.I. (95%) | P-value |
| (A) Univariate | ||||
| Age | child | 1 | – | – |
| adult | 3.346 | 2.234–5.013 | 0.000*† | |
| Gender | male | 1 | – | – |
| female | 0.878 | 0.678–1.137 | 0.323 | |
| Season | rest of year | 1 | – | – |
| summer | 2.531 | 1.935–3.311 | 0.000*† | |
| Location | rural | 1 | – | – |
| urban | 0.573 | 0.437–0.751 | 0.000*† | |
| Carstairs | affluent | 1 | – | – |
| deprived | 0.654 | 0.502–0.851 | 0.002*† | |
| cattle density | low density | 1 | – | – |
| high density | 0.985 | 0.880–1.103 | 0.796 | |
| pig density | low density | 1 | – | – |
| high density | 1.167 | 1.050–1.298 | 0.004*† | |
| poultry density | low density | 1 | – | – |
| high density | 1.034 | 0.924–1.157 | 0.557 | |
| sheep density | low density | 1 | – | – |
| high density | 1.023 | 0.911–1.149 | 0.701 | |
| (B) Multivariate | ||||
| age | child | 1 | – | – |
| adult | 3.352 | 2.221–5.059 | 0.000* | |
| season | rest of year | 1 | – | – |
| summer | 2.596 | 1.969–3.423 | 0.000* | |
| location | rural | 1 | – | – |
| urban | 0.546 | 0.411–0.724 | 0.000* |
(A) Odd ratios and their associated p-value for all the selected cases in the univariate models. Factors with P<0.05 are considered as significant (*). Factors with a P<0.25 are entered in the multivariate model (†).
(B) Odd ratios and P-values for the final multivariate model. Previous steps, consisting in removing one by one the factors with the highest P-value at each step, are not shown. The program used to execute the analysis gave P = 0.0000 for the overall model fit equal to 0.0000.
Animals are grouped into four density groups (see File S1) and the odds ratio indicates the relative amount by which the odds of the outcome changes when the value of the predictor value is increased by 1.0 unit.
Results of the logistic regression for the case-case studies.
|
| Chicken (cases) versus non chicken (controls) | ||||||||
| Factors | Reference | O.R. | C.I. (95%) | P-value | O.R. | C.I. (95%) | P-value | ||
| (A)Univariate | |||||||||
| age | child | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | ||
| adult | 1.696 | 1.147–2.506 | 0.008*† | 0.816 | 0.371–1.795 | 0.614 | |||
| gender | male | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | ||
| female | 1.091 | 0.862–1.382 | 0.469 | 1.940 | 1.205–3.125 | 0.006*† | |||
| season | rest of year | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | ||
| summer | 1.285 | 1.014–1.628 | 0.038*† | 1.362 | 0.850–2.182 | 0.200† | |||
| location | rural | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | ||
| urban | 0.793 | 0.622–1.010 | 0.060† | 1.143 | 0.705–1.853 | 0.589 | |||
| Carstairs | affluent | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | ||
| deprived | 1.021 | 0.801–1.301 | 0.866 | 0.830 | 0.510–1.350 | 0.452 | |||
| cattle density | low density | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | ||
| high density | 0.962 | 0.867–1.069 | 0.473 | 1.056 | 0.860–1.296 | 0.604 | |||
| pig density | low density | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | ||
| high density | 0.975 | 0.888–1.071 | 0.597 | 1.107 | 0.918–1.336 | 0.287 | |||
| poultry density | low density | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | ||
| high density | 0.969 | 0.876–1.071 | 0.533 | 0.999 | 0.816–1.222 | 0.991 | |||
| sheep density | low density | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | ||
| high density | 1.026 | 0.921–1.144 | 0.643 | 1.017 | 0.827–1.251 | 0.874 | |||
| (B) Multivariate | |||||||||
| gender | child | 1 | – | – | gender | male | 1 | – | – |
| adult | 1.791 | 1.209–2.653 | 0.004* | female | 1.940 | 1.205–3.125 | 0.006* | ||
| season | rest of year | 1 | – | – | |||||
| summer | 1.313 | 1.035–1.665 | 0.025* | ||||||
| location | rural | 1 | – | – | |||||
| urban | 0.769 | 0.603–0.981 | 0.034* | ||||||
(A) Odd ratios and their associated P–value for all the selected cases in the univariate models. Factors with P<0.05 are considered as significant (*). Factors with a P<0.25 are entered in the multivariate model (†).
(B) Odd ratios and p-values for the final multivariate models. Previous steps, consisting in removing one by one the factors with the highest p-Value at each step, are not shown. The program used to execute the analysis gave P = 0.0060 for the overall model fit for the chicken versus non chicken case-case study, and P = 0.0006 for the C. coli versus C. jejuni case-case study. Because gender is the only factor kept at the end of the multivariate model in the chicken versus non chicken study, odd ratio and P-Value are the same as in the univariate gender model.
Animals are grouped into four density groups (see File S1) and the odds ratio indicates the relative amount by which the odds of the outcome changes when the value of the predictor value is increased by 1.0 unit.
Figure 1A, ClonalFrame tree of C. coli by host (brown – cattle, green – sheep, pink – pigs, yellow – chicken and red – human clinical.
B, probabilistic assignment of the host of human C. coli infections using structure attribution model (four equal sized columns would be expected in the absence of any genetic differentiation by host). C, Simpson’s index of diversity by host.