Literature DB >> 23837671

The effect of different isolation protocols on detection and molecular characterization of Campylobacter from poultry.

M Ugarte-Ruiz1, T M Wassenaar, S Gómez-Barrero, M C Porrero, N Navarro-Gonzalez, L Domínguez.   

Abstract

We determined whether different methods to isolate Campylobacter (including the ISO standard 10272:2006-1) affected the genotypes detectable from poultry, at three points during slaughter: caecal content, neck skin and meat. Carcasses from 28 independent flocks were thus sampled (subset A). In addition, ten neck skin samples from four flocks, ten caecal samples from ten different flocks and ten unrelated meat samples obtained from local supermarkets were collected (subset B). Campylobacter was isolated using eight different protocols: with and without enrichment using Bolton broth, Preston broth or Campyfood broth (CFB), followed by culture on either modified Charcoal Cefoperazone Deoxycholate Agar (mCCDA) or Campyfood agar (CFA). All obtained isolates were genotyped for flaA-SVR, and over half of the isolates were also typed by MLST. The strain richness, as a measure of number of detected fla-genotypes, obtained from subset A neck skin and caecal samples was higher than that of meat samples. In half of the cases, within a flock, at least one identical fla-genotype was obtained at all three slaughter stages, suggestive of autologous contamination of carcasses. Enrichment reduced the observed richness of isolates, while CFA plates increased richness compared to mCCDA plates, irrespective of inclusion of an enrichment step. Because the isolation protocol used influences both the yield and the fla-genotype richness obtained from poultry, this variable should be taken into account when different studies are being compared.
© 2013 The Society for Applied Microbiology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  flaA typing; food chain; genotypes; isolation method; molecular typing; thermophilic Campylobacter

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23837671     DOI: 10.1111/lam.12130

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lett Appl Microbiol        ISSN: 0266-8254            Impact factor:   2.858


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Genetic Diversity of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli Isolates from Conventional Broiler Flocks and the Impacts of Sampling Strategy and Laboratory Method.

Authors:  A B Vidal; F M Colles; J D Rodgers; N D McCarthy; R H Davies; M C J Maiden; F A Clifton-Hadley
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  ant(6)-I Genes Encoding Aminoglycoside O-Nucleotidyltransferases Are Widely Spread Among Streptomycin Resistant Strains of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli.

Authors:  Lorena Hormeño; María Ugarte-Ruiz; Gonzalo Palomo; Carmen Borge; Diego Florez-Cuadrado; Santiago Vadillo; Segundo Píriz; Lucas Domínguez; Maria J Campos; Alberto Quesada
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 5.  Developments in Rapid Detection Methods for the Detection of Foodborne Campylobacter in the United States.

Authors:  Steven C Ricke; Kristina M Feye; W Evan Chaney; Zhaohao Shi; Hilary Pavlidis; Yichao Yang
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 5.640

6.  "These Aren't the Strains You're Looking for": Recovery Bias of Common Campylobacter jejuni Subtypes in Mixed Cultures.

Authors:  Benjamin M Hetman; Steven K Mutschall; Catherine D Carrillo; James E Thomas; Victor P J Gannon; G Douglas Inglis; Eduardo N Taboada
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 5.640

7.  Population Diversity of Campylobacter jejuni in Poultry and Its Dynamic of Contamination in Chicken Meat.

Authors:  Francesca Marotta; Giuliano Garofolo; Guido Di Donato; Giuseppe Aprea; Ilenia Platone; Silvia Cianciavicchia; Alessandra Alessiani; Elisabetta Di Giannatale
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 3.411

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.  Monitoring of Antimicrobial Resistance to Aminoglycosides and Macrolides in Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni From Healthy Livestock in Spain (2002-2018).

Authors:  Vicente Lopez-Chavarrias; Maria Ugarte-Ruiz; Carmen Barcena; Adolfo Olarra; Maria Garcia; Jose Luis Saez; Cristina de Frutos; Tania Serrano; Iratxe Perez; Miguel Angel Moreno; Lucas Dominguez; Julio Alvarez
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 5.640

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.