| Literature DB >> 24795866 |
Alexandre Martínez-Castillo1, Maite Muniesa1.
Abstract
In this review we highlight recent work that has increased our understanding of the distribution of Shiga toxin-converting phages that can be detected as free phage particles, independently of Shiga toxin-producing bacteria (STEC). Stx phages are a quite diverse group of temperate phages that can be found in their prophage state inserted within the STEC chromosome, but can also be found as phages released from the cell after activation of their lytic cycle. They have been detected in extraintestinal environments such as water polluted with feces from humans or animals, food samples or even in stool samples of healthy individuals. The high persistence of phages to several inactivation conditions makes them suitable candidates for the successful mobilization of stx genes, possibly resulting in the genes reaching a new bacterial genomic background by means of transduction, where ultimately they may be expressed, leading to Stx production. Besides the obvious fact that Stx phages circulating between bacteria can be, and probably are, involved in the emergence of new STEC strains, we review here other possible ways in which free Stx phages could interfere with the detection of STEC in a given sample by current laboratory methods and how to avoid such interference.Entities:
Keywords: STEC; Shiga toxin; bacteriophages; environment; transduction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24795866 PMCID: PMC3997033 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2014.00046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 5.293
Occurrence and abundance of free Stx bacteriophages in diverse environments.
| Human wastewater | Spain | – | Positive (I) | 10 PFU.ml−1 | MPN+PCR | Muniesa and Jofre, |
| Human wastewater | Germany, | – | Positive | ≥1 PFU.ml−1 | PCR | Muniesa and Jofre, |
| Austria, | Positive | >0.1PFU.ml−1 | ||||
| France | Positive | ≥10 PFU.ml−1 | ||||
| Ireland | Positive | ≥10 PFU.ml−1 | ||||
| South Africa | Positive | ≥10 PFU.ml−1 | ||||
| New Zaeland | Positive | ≥10 PFU.ml−1 | ||||
| Human wastewater | Japan | – | Positive (I) | – | PCR | Tanji et al., |
| Human wastewater | Spain | – | Positive (I) | 4.24 log10 PFU.ml−1 | Plaque count+PCR | Muniesa et al., |
| Cattle wastewater | Spain | – | Positive (I) | 4.45 log10 PFU.ml−1 | Plaque count+PCR | Muniesa et al., |
| Human wastewater | Germany | Positive (I) | Positive (I) | 0.34 PFU.ml−1 stx1 | Plaque count | Dumke et al., |
| 3.4 PFU.ml−1 stx2 | PCR estimation | |||||
| Human treated waste water | Germany | Negative | Positive (I) | – | Plaque count+PCR | Dumke et al., |
| River water | Germany | Positive (I) | Positive (I) | – | Plaque count+PCR | Dumke et al., |
| Human wastewater | UK | Negative | Positive (I) | 9.41 log10 PFU.ml−1 | Plaque count+PCR | Rooks et al., |
| Human wastewater | UK | Negative | Positive | 2.39 log10 GC.ml−1 | qPCR | Rooks et al., |
| Human wastewater | Spain | – | Positive | 1.37 log10 GC.ml−1 | qPCR | Imamovic et al., |
| Cattle wastewater | Spain | – | Positive | 2.77 log10 GC.ml−1 | qPCR | Imamovic et al., |
| Pig wastewater | Spain | – | Positive | 4.59 log10 GC.ml−1 | qPCR | Imamovic et al., |
| Poultry wastewater | Spain | – | Positive | 1.11 log10 GC.ml−1 | qPCR | Imamovic et al., |
| Cattle feces | Spain | – | Positive | 2.32 log10 GC.g−1 | qPCR | Imamovic et al., |
| Beef | Spain | – | Positive (I) | 4.10 log10 GC.g−1 | qPCR | Imamovic and Muniesa, |
| Salad | Spain | – | Positive (I) | 3.36 log10 GC.g−1 | qPCR | Imamovic and Muniesa, |
| Swine feces | China | Positive (I) | Positive (I) | – | Plaque count+PCR | Yan et al., |
| Wastewater | UK | – | Positive (I) | – | Lysogen isolation | Rooks et al., |
| Human feces | Spain | – | Positive (I) | 4.41 log10 GC.g−1 | qPCR | Martinez-Castillo et al., |
GC, gene copy; PFU, plaque forming unit; MPN, most probable number. (I) those studies reporting infectious Stx phages.
Frequency of STEC isolation by various methods in samples showing positive result for .
| Human stools (healthy slaughterhouse workers) | 90 | 8 | 8.9 | Hong et al., |
| Humans stools (asymptomatic) | 196 | 47 | 24 | Stephan et al., |
| Human stools (volunteers) | 21 | 1 | 4.8 | Urdahl et al., |
| Human stools (hospital) | 150 | 1 | 0.67 | Urdahl et al., |
| Human stools (hospital) | 20 | 10 | 50 | Buchan et al., |
| Children stools (hospital) | 21 | 5 | 24 | Vallières et al., |
| Children stools (hospital) | 19 | 10 | 52.6 | Pradel et al., |
| Cattle feces | 145 | 80 | 55.2 | Fremaux et al., |
| Cattle feces | 154 | 67 | 43.5 | Rogerie et al., |
| Cattle feces | 417 | 18 | 4.3 | Hofer et al., |
| Cattle feces | 330 | 162 | 49.0 | Pradel et al., |
| Bovine hides | 301 | 25 | 8.3 | Monaghan et al., |
| Bovine carcasses | 122 | 5 | 4.1 | Monaghan et al., |
| Bovine carcasses | 77 | 16 | 20.8 | Breum and Boel, |
| Bovine carcasses | 91 | 16 | 17.6 | Rogerie et al., |
| Cattle environment | 179 | 38 | 21.2 | Fremaux et al., |
| Beef meat | 47 | 16 | 34.0 | Pradel et al., |
| Dairy buffalo (feces and milk) | 56 | 20 | 35.7 | Beraldo et al., |
| Milk (bulk) | 32 | 1 | 3.1 | Trevisani et al., |
| Milk (filters) | 68 | 7 | 10.3 | Trevisani et al., |
| Cheese | 60 | 5 | 8.3 | Pradel et al., |
| Healthy pigs feces | 255 | 62 | 24.3 | Meng et al., |
| Swine feces | 484 | 196 | 40.5 | Fratamico et al., |
| Meat products | 36 | 8 | 22.2 | Díaz-Sánchez et al., |
Calculated from the % of positive samples.