| Literature DB >> 26543856 |
Avelino Alvarez-Ordóñez1, Dara Leong1, Ciara A Morgan2, Colin Hill2, Cormac G M Gahan2, Kieran Jordan1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the occurrence of L. ivanovii in foods and food processing environments in Ireland, to track persistence, and to characterize the disease causing potential of the isolated strains. A total of 2,006 samples (432 food samples and 1,574 environmental swabs) were collected between March 2013 and March 2014 from 48 food business operators (FBOs) belonging to different production sectors (dairy, fish, meat, and fresh-cut vegetable). Six of the forty-eight FBOs had samples positive for L. ivanovii on at least one sampling occasion. L. ivanovii was present in fifteen samples (fourteen environmental samples and one food sample). All but one of those positive samples derived from the dairy sector, where L. ivanovii prevalence was 1.7%. Six distinguishable pulsotypes were obtained by PFGE analysis, with one pulsotype being persistent in the environment of a dairy food business. Sequence analysis of the sigB gene showed that fourteen isolates belonged to L. ivanovii subsp. londoniensis, while only one isolate was L. ivanovii subsp. ivanovii. Cell invasion assays demonstrated that the majority of L. ivanovii strains were comparable to L. monocytogenes EGDe in their ability to invade CACO-2 epithelial cells whilst four isolates had significantly higher invasion efficiencies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26543856 PMCID: PMC4620271 DOI: 10.1155/2015/350526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Occurrence and pulsed field gel electrophoresis characterisation of isolates from L. ivanovii positive samples, listed according to processing facility, sampling month, sample type, and pulsotype, for example, T1. Empty white boxes indicate no L. ivanovii detected in submitted samples. “—” indicates nonsubmission of samples during that sampling month.
| Facility number | % positives | March 13 | May 13 | July 13 | September 13 | November 13 | January 14 | March 14 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environment | Foods | Environment | Foods | Environment | Foods | Environment | Foods | Environment | Foods | Environment | Foods | Environment | Foods | ||
| Dairy | |||||||||||||||
| 1 | 13.1 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| 2 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 3 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 5 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 6 | 2.4 | T5 | — | — | |||||||||||
| 7 | 0 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||
| 8 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 9 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 10 | 4 | T2 | T4 | ||||||||||||
| 11 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||
| 12 | 4.5 | T1 | T1 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||
| 13 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 14 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 15 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||
| 16 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 17 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||
| 18 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| Meat | |||||||||||||||
| 19 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||
| 20 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 21 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 22 | 1.8 | T6 | |||||||||||||
| 23 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||
| 24 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||
| 25 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||
| 26 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| 27 | 0 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||
| 28 | 0 | — | — | ||||||||||||
| 29 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||
| 30 | 0 | — | — | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| Seafood | |||||||||||||||
| 31 | 0 | — | — | ||||||||||||
| 32 | 0 | — | — | ||||||||||||
| 33 | 0 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||
| 34 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 35 | 0 | — | — | ||||||||||||
| 36 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 37 | 12.5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | T4 | — | — | — | — | |
| 38 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| Vegetable | |||||||||||||||
| 39 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 40 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||
| 41 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 42 | 0 | — | — | ||||||||||||
| 43 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 44 | 0 | — | — | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| Miscellaneous | |||||||||||||||
| 45 | 0 | ||||||||||||||
| 46 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||
| 47 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||
| 48 | 0 | — | — | ||||||||||||
*Pulsotypes which persist in a single facility (isolated at least 6 months apart) are in bold.
Figure 1Dendrogram of PFGE pulsotypes of Listeria ivanovii isolates obtained from food and processing environment samples from the Republic of Ireland analyzed from March 2013 to March 2014.
Figure 2Phylogenetic tree (based on the sequence of the sigB gene) for the reference L. ivanovii subsp. ivanovii and L. ivanovii subsp. londoniensis strains and representatives of the six L. ivanovii pulsotypes found in the current study.
Figure 3Amplification plot for hly (A) and actA (B) in L. ivanovii following the rt-PCR methodology described by Rodríguez-Lázaro et al. [22] and Oravcová et al. [23], respectively.
Figure 4Invasive potential of wild-type L. ivanovii isolates in a CACO-2 epithelial cell assay. The strains were incubated with CACO-2 cells in vitro for one hour and levels of bacterial invasion were subsequently measured. For comparison, invasive (EGDe) and noninvasive (PMSC1) strains of L. monocytogenes were also examined. Data represents % invasion efficacy (relative to Listeria numbers initially added per well). Statistical significance was determined using one-way ANOVA and the Dunnett post hoc test with all strains compared to L. monocytogenes EGDe (* P < 0.05). All strains displayed statistically higher (P < 0.05) levels of invasion efficiency relative to the PMSC1 strain.