| Literature DB >> 25003156 |
Shaohui Wang1, Shuxiao Zhang1, Zhe Liu1, Pingping Liu1, Zixue Shi1, Jianchao Wei1, Donghua Shao1, Beibei Li1, Zhiyong Ma1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the extent of food contamination by enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) O157 in Eastern China.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25003156 PMCID: PMC4066714 DOI: 10.1155/2014/946394
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Primers for detection of virulence genes in EHEC O157 isolates.
| Primers | Sequence (5′→3′) | Annealing temperature/°C | Product size/bp | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| AAGATTGCGCTGAAGCCTTTG | 55 | 497 |
[ |
|
| CATTGGCATCGTGTGGACAG | |||
|
| TGTCGCATAGTGGAACCTCA | 53 | 655 |
[ |
|
| TGCGCACTGAGAAGAAGAGA | |||
|
| CCATGACAACGGACAGCAGTT | 53 | 780 | This study |
|
| CCTGTCAACTGAGCACTTTG | |||
|
| GGTGAAACTGTTGCCGATCT | 50 | 1382 | This study |
|
| TTGCCATTACGGTCATAGGCG | |||
|
| ACGATGTGGTTTATTCTGGA | 50 | 167 | This study |
|
| CTTCACGTCACCATACATAT |
Number of E. coli O157 identified from samples obtained from different sources.
| Source | Number of samples | Number of | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pigs | 500 | 20 | 4% |
| Cattle | 60 | 2 | 3.3% |
| Chicken | 140 | 2 | 1.43% |
| Duck | 100 | 1 | 1% |
|
|
|
|
|
| Pork | 140 | 3 | 2.14% |
| Beef | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Milk | 60 | 1 | 1.67% |
| Chicken | 60 | 1 | 1.67% |
| Duck | 20 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Genotypic and phenotypic characteristics of EHEC O157 isolates.
| Strains | Virulence genes | MLST | Phenotypic group | RAPD type | Biofilm formation | Source | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Gene combinations | ||||||
| ATCC35150 | + | + | + | + | G3 | ST11 | D | R1 | No | ATCC |
| ATCC43889 | + | + | + | + | G3 | ST11 | D | R1 | No | ATCC |
| EHEC06 | − | − | + | − | G2 | ST11 | D | R1 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC07 | + | + | + | + | G3 | ST11 | D | R1 | Moderate | Pork |
| EHEC31 | + | − | − | − | G5 | ST11 | D | R1 | Weak | Pig feces |
| EHEC32 | + | − | − | − | G5 | ST11 | D | R1 | Strong | Pig feces |
| EHEC36 | − | + | − | − | G6 | ST11 | D | R1 | Strong | Pork |
| EHEC37 | + | + | + | + | G3 | ST11 | D | R1 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC38 | + | + | + | + | G3 | ST11 | D | R1 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC39 | + | + | + | + | G3 | ST11 | D | R1 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC41 | + | + | + | + | G3 | ST11 | D | R1 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC40 | − | + | + | + | G4 | ST11 | D | R9 | Strong | Pig feces |
| EHEC05 | − | + | − | + | G7 | ST88 | A | R2 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC46 | − | + | − | − | G6 | ST88 | A | R2 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC47 | − | + | − | + | G7 | ST88 | A | R2 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC09 | − | − | + | − | G2 | ST88 | D | R2 | Strong | Chicken feces |
| EHEC12 | − | − | + | − | G2 | ST88 | D | R2 | Moderate | Chicken |
| EHEC03 | − | − | + | − | G2 | ST641 | D | R3 | No | Chicken feces |
| EHEC25 | − | − | + | − | G2 | ST641 | D | R3 | No | Pork |
| EHEC43 | − | − | − | + | G1 | ST641 | D | R3 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC45 | − | − | − | + | G1 | ST641 | D | R3 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC16 | − | − | − | + | G1 | ST117 | D | R4 | Weak | Cattle feces |
| EHEC18 | − | + | + | + | G4 | ST117 | D | R4 | Weak | Pig feces |
| EHEC30 | − | − | − | + | G1 | ST117 | D | R4 | Weak | Milk |
| EHEC44 | − | − | − | + | G1 | ST10 | A | R10 | No | Pig feces |
| EHEC02 | + | − | − | + | G8 | ST224 | D | R2 | Weak | Pig feces |
| EHEC15 | − | − | + | − | G2 | ST278 | B1 | R2 | No | Cattle feces |
| EHEC28 | − | − | − | − | G9 | ST1114 | B2 | R4 | Moderate | Pig feces |
| EHEC27 | − | − | − | + | G1 | ST1602 | A | R8 | Strong | Pig feces |
| EHEC01 | − | − | + | + | G19 | Unknown | B2 | R5 | Moderate | Pig feces |
| EHEC08 | − | + | + | + | G4 | Unknown | B2 | R6 | Weak | Duck feces |
| EHEC26 | − | − | − | + | G1 | Unknown | D | R7 | Strong | Pig feces |
Figure 1Biofilm formation by EHEC O157 isolates. Biofilm formation by EHEC O157 isolates on polypropylene microtiter plates following incubation for 24 h at 37°C in LB broth without salt (LB-NS). All experiments were repeated at least three times. The columns represent the mean ± standard deviations of the data. Comparisons of the OD values produced by bacterial biofilms to the ODc values were used to classify the strains (non-biofilm producer, weak, moderate, or strong). The cut-off OD (ODc) value was defined as three standard deviations above the mean OD of a blank control. Strains were classified as follows: OD < ODc = no biofilm production; ODc < OD < (2 ODc) = weak biofilm producer; (2 ODc) < OD < (4 ODc) = moderate biofilm producer; and (4 ODc) < OD = strong biofilm producer.