Literature DB >> 26842400

Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in wild birds on Danish livestock farms.

Birthe Hald1,2, Marianne Nielsine Skov3,4, Eva Møller Nielsen5,6, Carsten Rahbek7,8,9, Jesper Johannes Madsen10, Michael Wainø11,12, Mariann Chriél13,14, Steen Nordentoft15,16, Dorte Lau Baggesen17,18, Mogens Madsen19,20.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reducing the occurrence of campylobacteriosis is a food safety issue of high priority, as in recent years it has been the most commonly reported zoonosis in the EU. Livestock farms are of particular interest, since cattle, swine and poultry are common reservoirs of Campylobacter spp. The farm environment provides attractive foraging and breeding habitats for some bird species reported to carry thermophilic Campylobacter spp. We investigated the Campylobacter spp. carriage rates in 52 wild bird species present on 12 Danish farms, sampled during a winter and a summer season, in order to study the factors influencing the prevalence in wild birds according to their ecological guild. In total, 1607 individual wild bird cloacal swab samples and 386 livestock manure samples were cultured for Campylobacter spp. according to the Nordic Committee on Food Analysis method NMKL 119.
RESULTS: The highest Campylobacter spp. prevalence was seen in 110 out of 178 thrushes (61.8 %), of which the majority were Common Blackbird (Turdus merula), and in 131 out of 616 sparrows (21.3 %), a guild made up of House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) and Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus). In general, birds feeding on a diet of animal or mixed animal and vegetable origin, foraging on the ground and vegetation in close proximity to livestock stables were more likely to carry Campylobacter spp. in both summer (P < 0.001) and winter (P < 0.001) than birds foraging further away from the farm or in the air. Age, fat score, gender, and migration range were not found to be associated with Campylobacter spp. carriage. A correlation was found between the prevalence (%) of C. jejuni in wild birds and the proportions (%) of C. jejuni in both manure on cattle farms (R(2) = 0.92) and poultry farms (R(2) = 0.54), and between the prevalence (%) of C. coli in wild birds and the proportions (%) of C. coli in manure on pig farms (R(2) = 0.62).
CONCLUSIONS: The ecological guild of wild birds influences the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. through the behavioural patterns of the birds. More specifically, wild birds eating food of animal or mixed animal and vegetable origin and foraging on the ground close to livestock were more likely to carry Campylobacter spp. than those foraging further away or hunting in the air. These findings suggest that wild birds may play a role in sustaining the epidemiology of Campylobacter spp. on farms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26842400      PMCID: PMC4739333          DOI: 10.1186/s13028-016-0192-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Vet Scand        ISSN: 0044-605X            Impact factor:   1.695


Background

Human campylobacteriosis has been the most commonly reported zoonosis in the European Union (EU) since 2005, with 214,779 confirmed cases in 2013 according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [1]. The disease burden was calculated at 35,000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per year and the annual cost in the EU at around €2.4 billion [2]. The global number of DALYs was calculated to be 7,541,000 per year [3]. The cause of campylobacteriosis is Campylobacter spp. (primarily C. jejuni and C. coli)—a Gram-negative, spiral, microaerophilic bacterium and a common commensal inhabitant of the intestinal microflora of food production animals such as cattle, pigs and poultry [4]. It is estimated that 50–80 % of Campylobacter spp. strains infecting humans originate from the chicken reservoir, 20–30 % from the cattle reservoir and a small proportion from other reservoirs including wild animals [5]. As a consequence, the entire meat production chain and end products may be contaminated with C. jejuni or C. coli. In the EU, the pathways to humans are mainly through food, though environmental transmission and direct animal contact are also possible [6]. Therefore, reducing the occurrence of campylobacteriosis in the EU is a food safety issue of high priority, yet one which presents challenges [7]. According to a recent and extensive systematic review of 95 published studies of Campylobacter spp. sources around broiler farms [8], several wild animals (including wild birds) are known to be carriers. However, only a small number of the reviewed studies had a primary focus on wild birds living in close proximity to the farms. On a broiler farm in Athens GA, USA, 10 % (of 124) wild birds—mainly House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) and Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)—carried C. jejuni [9]. Colles et al. [10] found C. jejuni in 50.2 % of droppings from 331 Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) and Greylag Goose (Anser anser), and in 29.9 % of 954 Common Starling on a free-range broiler farm. Concerning cattle farms, a study in central Iowa, USA sampled 188 wild birds on dairy cattle, sheep and goat farms and found Campylobacter spp. in 4.8 % [11]. During the past decade, source attribution studies including multilocus sequence typing (MLST) have been conducted to compare the similarity of C. jejuni strains from wild birds with those from chicken and cattle [10-15] and with isolates from human disease [10, 12, 13, 15–17]. The overall conclusion is that the vast majority of C. jejuni strains are highly host specific. However, the studies also all identified a small proportion of strains with genotypes overlapping wild birds, farm animals [10-15] and human disease isolates [10, 13, 15–17]. Several studies on Campylobacter spp. carriage rates in wild birds in urban areas report a prevalence from 0–90 % [18-24]. Although it would appear that wild birds living in cities (mainly sparrows, pigeons, doves and starlings) have low carriage rates [19, 20, 22], French et al. [16] suggested that wild birds in city parks could contribute to campylobacteriosis in preschool children. The overall highest reported carriage rates have been found in gulls and crows foraging on refuse dumps in urban areas of Norway, Sweden, England, Japan, Spain and USA [18–21, 23–25]. Some of the large discrepancies in wild bird Campylobacter spp. prevalence between different studies may be attributed to host taxonomy or differences in the ecological guilds present. Bird ecological guilds are groupings of birds that exploit environmental resources in a similar way [26, 27]. The significance of different ecological guilds on the carriage rates of Campylobacter spp. was shown in a study of 1794 birds (the majority of which were migratory), sampled at Ottenby Bird Observatory on the island Oeland, Sweden [28]. The highest prevalence of Campylobacter spp. was found among ground-foraging guilds of short-distance migratory birds wintering in Europe. The aim of our study was to estimate the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in farm related wild bird species. Additionally, to investigate an association between Campylobacter spp. contaminated farm environments and wild birds around cattle, pig and poultry farms by performing an analysis of factors associated with Campylobacter spp. carriage of the wild birds.

Methods

Study design and selection of farms

The study covered four cattle farms, four slaughter pig farms, and four free-range poultry farms in Denmark, together with the wild bird populations living inside production buildings or within a 100 m radius from the farms. The study was conducted during January and February (winter) and during August and September (summer) in 2001. Two farms were sampled per week, and visited every weekday in order to get as many wild bird samples as possible. The cattle and pig farms were initially selected for a project investigating the occurrence of Salmonella in wildlife near Danish cattle and pig farms during 2001 and 2002 [29], while the poultry farms were included in this study only. The sampling schemes for Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella were conducted simultaneously in 2001.

Sampling

Wild birds

Birds were caught and ringed following the EURING system (http://www.euring.org/) by licensed ringers with mist-nets, traps, or by hand, thus ensuring that each bird was only sampled once per sampling event. The birds were released again after sampling. To ensure that a sufficient number of birds were caught during the winter months, several feeding places were established at each herd, using sterilised birdseed. We sampled as many birds as possible, and data on the estimated age, fat score, gender and exact place of capture were noted. Cloacal swab samples were obtained from the wild birds, using slim aluminum cotton swabs (DANSU, Ganløse, Denmark) and placed in Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) transport medium (DIFCO, Sparks, MD, USA) containing 5 % (v/v) calf blood (National Veterinary Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark) and 0.5 % agar (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK).

Production animals

To detect Campylobacter spp. in cattle and pig herds, manure was collected at numerous places in the livestock facilities or among herds in pasture, and mixed into approximately twenty 200 ml containers (Dispatch Container Nunc, Life Technologies, Nærum, Denmark) per herd in each sampling round (i.e. 5–10 manure samples per container equalling 150–180 ml of manure) in order to obtain a representative measure of the within-herd Campylobacter spp. status. In order to sample poultry flocks, material from the litter surface was collected on a pair of boot socks whilst walking through the flock’s resting house [30].

Bacteriological examination and species characterisation

All samples were transported to the laboratory on the sampling day at ambient temperature, refrigerated overnight between 2 and 4 °C, and Campylobacter spp. cultivation was initiated the following day. For the number of samples tested, see Table 1.
Table 1

Campylobacter spp. prevalence and species distribution

Origin of sampleNumber of samplesTotal number (%) positiveNumber of C. jejuni (%)Number of C. coli (%)Number of other C. spp. (%)
Winter
Cattle farms
 Wild birds26836 (13.4)22 (8.2)13 (4.9)1 (0.4)
 Cattle manure8136 (44.4)32 (39.5)2 (2.5)2 (2.5)
Pig farms
 Wild birds28864 (22.2)33 (11.5)27 (9.4)4 (1.4)
 Pig manure8172 (88.9)0 (0.0)69 (85.2)3 (3.7)
Poultry farms
 Wild birds15016 (10.7)10 (6.7)6 (4.0)0 (0.0)
 Poultry manure81 (12.5)1 (12.5)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Summer
Cattle farms
 Wild birds25338 (15.0)36 (14.2)0 (0.0)2 (0.8)
 Cattle manure8355 (66.3)54 (65.1)0 (0.0)1 (1.2)
Pig farms
 Wild birds33069 (20.9)68 (20.6)1 (0.3)0 (0.0)
 Pig manure8354 (65.1)4 (4.8)50 (60.2)0 (0.0)
Poultry farms
 Wild birds31873 (23.0)70 (22.0)1 (0.3)2 (0.6)
 Poultry manure5045 (90.0)41 (82.0)4 (8.0)0 (0.0)

The number of samples tested for Campylobacter spp., the total number and percentage of positive samples, and the numbers of C. jejuni, C. coli and other Campylobacter spp. positive samples isolated in wild birds and in livestock manure on each farm type in winter and summer

Campylobacter spp. prevalence and species distribution The number of samples tested for Campylobacter spp., the total number and percentage of positive samples, and the numbers of C. jejuni, C. coli and other Campylobacter spp. positive samples isolated in wild birds and in livestock manure on each farm type in winter and summer

Cloacal swabs

Campylobacter spp. were isolated by streaking a swab with the faecal material directly on to modified Charcoal Cefoperazone Deoxycholate Agar (mCCDA) (CM0739, SR0155) (Oxoid) [31], and the plates were incubated under microaerobic conditions (6 % O2, 6 % CO2, in 88 % N2) at 42 °C for 48 h. Campylobacter spp.-like colonies were purified on blood agar and identified to species level using standard procedures including tests for hippurate and indoxyl acetate hydrolysis, catalase production and susceptibility to cephalotin and nalidixic acid according to NMKL 119 [32]. Campylobacter spp. isolates were identified as C. jejuni, C. coli, C. lari, C. upsaliensis, C. hyointestinalis or Campylobacter spp.

Manure

The manure was diluted to 1 g per 9 ml of buffered peptone water (CM1049, Oxoid), and 10 µl of the suspended material was streaked on mCCDA and incubated as described above.

Boot socks

Each pair of boot socks was placed in a stomacher bag, and after being diluted in 1:10 w/w in buffered peptone water (CM1049, Oxoid), faeces were released by gentle manipulation and 10 µl of the suspension was spread on mCCDA and incubated as described above.

Data analysis

The dependent variable was defined as a positive isolation of Campylobacter spp. from a wild bird. Descriptive statistics were performed using bivariate analysis [33] on Campylobacter spp. positive samples from wild birds. The association between independent variables was assessed using the Chi square test with a statistical significance threshold of P < 0.05. The evaluation of a possible association between Campylobacter spp. positive samples in the wild birds and in the herd was carried out separately for the two seasons (winter and summer). Six potential factors associated with Campylobacter spp. carriage were included: (1) age (old, young); (2) herd type (cattle, pig, poultry); (3) proximity (in stable, around stable); (4) ecological guild with ≥10 samples (i.e. aerial insectivorous, foliage-gleaners, insectivorous seedeaters, open-land insectivorous, tit-like birds, sparrows, passerine seedeaters, terrestrial and low fly-catching feeders and thrushes); (5) fat score (0–8) [34], and (6) gender (male, female, not determined). Based on the characteristic behaviour patterns of each ecological guild, the following five factors were selected: (1) feed (animal, mix, vegetable); (2) forage area (aerial, ground, vegetation); (3) proximity to stables (in stable, around stable); (4) contact with slurry (no, yes), and (5) migration range (long, medium, short, partial, none). This analysis included only the summer sampling, as more guilds were present, and the birds exhibited a wider range of behavioural patterns during the summer season than in winter. Multivariate analyses [33] were carried out in all sampled wild birds organised in an ecological guild structure based on Gotellia et al. [27], using SAS Enterprise guide ver. 3.0.2. The logistic regression analyses were carried out using SAS PROC GENMOD. The modelling procedure assumed a binomial distribution and used logit as the link function. Goodness of fit was assessed by likelihood ratio statistics. The model was adjusted for overdispersion using the PSCALE option. In the analysis, non-significant variables were removed using stepwise backwards elimination. Statistical significance of the covariates was assessed using the likelihood ratio test based on P  ≤  0.05. The odds ratio (OR) and the 95 % confidence interval were reported for statistically significant variables. In order to evaluate the impact of different herd types and season on the C. jejuni and C. coli carriage rates, sparrows (n = 616) were selected for the analysis, since this guild of non-migratory wild birds was the only one to be caught in a sufficient number on all farms during both winter and summer sampling. Correlation coefficients (R2) were calculated between the prevalence (%) of C. jejuni and C. coli in sparrows and the proportions (%) C. jejuni and C. coli in manure from each of the three herd types.

Results

Campylobacter spp. prevalence in sampled wild birds

In total, 1607 wild birds were sampled. The overall Campylobacter spp. carriage rate was significantly lower in winter (15.9 %, 112 positive samples out of a total of 706) than in summer (20.0 %, 180 positive samples out of a total of 901; OR = 1.32, 1.02–1.71, P = 0.03). For the species of Campylobacter spp. detected in each farm type, and the carriage rate among wild birds in winter and summer, see Table 1. For the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in each bird species, see Table 2 and grouped in ecological guilds , see Table 3.
Table 2

The prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in wild birds and the allocation of bird species to ecological guild

Ecological guildsSpeciesCommon nameNumber tested W/SNumber positive W/S% Campylobacter positive W/S
Aerial insectivorous Delichon urbicum Common house martin0/830/00.0/0.0
Delichon urbicum (brood)Common house martin, brood0/20/00.0/0.0
Hirundu rustica Barn swallow0/1280/100.0/7.8
Hirundu rustica (brood)Barn swallow, brood0/210/40.0/19.0
Bud-browser and seedeaters Pyrrhula pyrrhula Eurasian bullfinch1/50/00.0/0.0
Columbids Columba livia domesticus Feral pigeon3/31/033.3/0.0
Columba palumbus Common wood pigeon0/10/00.0/0.0
Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove2/30/00.0/0.0
Flycatcher Muscicapa striata Spotted flycatcher0/20/10.0/50.0
Foliage-gleaners Fringilla coelebs Common chaffinch26/20/00.0/0.0
Hippolais icterina Icterine warbler0/10/00.0/0.0
Phylloscopus collybita Common chiffchaff0/120/00.0/0.0
Phylloscopus trochilus Willow warbler0/180/30.0/16.7
Sylvia atricapilla Eurasian blackcap0/90/20.0/22.2
Sylvia borin Garden warbler0/90/00.0/0.0
Sylvia communis Common whitethroat0/440/50.0/11.4
Sylvia curruca Lesser whitethroat0/90/30.0/33.3
Gallinaceous birds Phasianus colchicus Common pheasant1/00/00.0/0.0
Gulls Larus canus Mew gull2/00/00.0/0.0
Insectivorous seedeaters Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer2/190/30.0/15.8
Emberiza calandra Corn bunting0/30/10.0/33.3
Marshwarblers Acrocephalus palustris Marsh warbler0/50/00.0/0.0
Acrocephalus scirpaceus Eurasian reed warbler0/10/00.0/0.0
Omnivorous corvidae Corvus frugilegus Rook2/00/00.0/0.0
Open-land insectivorous Alauda arvensis Eurasian skylark0/10/00.0/0.0
Anthus trivialis Tree pipit0/10/00.0/0.0
Motacilla alba White wagtail0/70/40.0/57.1
Motacilla alba (brood)White wagtail, brood0/10/10.0/100.0
Passerine seedeaters Carduelis cannabina Common linnet0/50/00.0/0.0
Carduelis carduelis European goldfinch0/30/00.0/0.0
Carduelis chloris European greenfinch70/200/10.0/5.0
Carduelis flammea Common redpoll3/00/00.0/0.0
Scolopacids Tringa ochropus Green sandpiper0/10/00.0/0.0
Sparrows Passer domesticus House sparrow214/15238/5117.8/33.6
Passer montanus Eurasian tree sparrow81/1691/411.2/24.3
Stream specialist Motacilla cinerea Grey wagtail0/10/00.0/0.0
Terrestrial and low fly-catching feeders Erithacus rubecula European robin25/40/00.0/0.0
Luscinia luscinia Thrush nightingale0/10/00.0/0.0
Oenanthe oenanthe Northern wheatear0/10/00.0/0.0
Phoenicurus phoenicurus Common redstart0/30/00.0/0.0
Prunella modularis Dunnock9/94/244.4/22.2
Saxicola rubetra Whinchat0/30/00.0/0.0
Troglodytes troglodytes Eurasian wren16/180/00.0/0.0
Thrushes Turdus merula Common blackbird119/5563/4452.9/80.0
Turdus pilaris Fieldfare3/03/0100/0.0
Turdus viscivorus Mistle thrush1/00/00.0/0.0
Tit-like birds Certhia brachydactyla Short-toed treecreeper1/00/00.0/0.0
Certhia familiaris Eurasian treecreeper0/10/00.0/0.0
Cyanistes caeruleus Eurasian blue tit30/150/00.0/0.0
Lophophanes cristatus European crested tit1/00/00.0/0.0
Parus major Great tit86/432/12.3/2.3
Poecile palustris Marsh tit5/30/00.0/0.0
Regulus regulus Goldcrest1/00/00.0/0.0
Sitta europaea Eurasian nuthatch1/00/00.0/0.0
No guild Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing1/00/00.0/0.0
Sturnus vulgaris Common starling0/40/30.0/75.0

The species and number of birds tested for Campylobacter spp., and the prevalence in each bird species in winter (W) and summer (S)

Table 3

Campylobacter spp. prevalence in ecological guilds

GuildWinterSummer
Number of samplesPrevalence (%)OR (95 % CI)Number of samplesPrevalence (%)OR (95 % CI)
Aerial insectivorous2346.00.2 (0.1–0.3)
Foliage-gleaners260.0NAa 10412.50.4 (0.2–0.7)
Insectivorous seedeaters2218.20.6 (0.2–1,7)
Open-land insectivorous1050.02.5 (0.7–8.8)
Passerine seedeaters730.0NA283.60.1 (0.01–0.7)
Sparrows29513.21.0 (reference)32128.71.0 (reference)
Terrestrial and low fly catching feeders508.00.6 (0.2–1.7)395.10.1 (0.03–0.6)
Thrushes12353.77.6 (4.6–12.4)5580.09.9 (4.9–20.1)
Tit-like birds1251.60.1 (0.03–0.5)621.60.04 (0.01–0.3)
Total692875

The odds-ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) from the multivariate analysis of Campylobacter spp. prevalence in ecological guilds with ≥10 birds sampled in winter and summer, with sparrows used as a reference

aNot applicable due to zero positive samples

The prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in wild birds and the allocation of bird species to ecological guild The species and number of birds tested for Campylobacter spp., and the prevalence in each bird species in winter (W) and summer (S) Campylobacter spp. prevalence in ecological guilds The odds-ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) from the multivariate analysis of Campylobacter spp. prevalence in ecological guilds with ≥10 birds sampled in winter and summer, with sparrows used as a reference aNot applicable due to zero positive samples The Campylobacter spp. carriage rates varied considerably between ecological guilds. The highest prevalence was found within two guilds: thrushes with 61.8 % (110/178) positive samples and sparrows with 21.3 % (131/616) positive samples (Table 2). Combined, these guilds were responsible for 82.5 % (241 out of 292) of the positive wild bird samples. The main bird species of these two guilds were the Common Blackbird (Turdus merula; n = 174), House Sparrow (n = 366) and Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus; n = 250). They were also the most frequently sampled wild birds on the farms. Other birds that were frequently present were the Barn Swallow (Hirundu rustica; n = 128), Great Tit (Parus major; n = 129), European Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris; n = 90) and Common House Martin (Delichon urbica; n = 83), all of which had a low Campylobacter spp. prevalence (Table 2).

Factors associated with Campylobacter spp. carriage in wild birds

Analysis of the six selected risk factors for Campylobacter spp. carriage in wild birds (age, herd type, proximity, ecological guild, fat score and gender) revealed that the ecological guild was significantly associated with Campylobacter spp. carriage during both winter and summer (Table 3). Thrushes and open-land insectivorous birds were more likely to carry Campylobacter spp. than sparrows (used as a reference guild), whereas all other guilds had lower odds than sparrows. In general, herd type, fat score, gender and age were not significantly associated with Campylobacter spp. prevalence in wild birds (all sampled birds). Proximity was significant in summer (see proximity to stables in Table 4) but not in winter (data not shown).
Table 4

Factors associated with Campylobacter spp. carriage and specific bird behaviour during summer

FactorOdds Ratio (95 % CI)
Feed
 Animal origin8.0 (4.3–15.0)
 Mixed animal and vegetable origin22.6 (7.4–68.6)
 Vegetable origin1.0 (reference)
Forage area
 In the air0.03 (0.0–0.1)
 On the ground1.03 (0.4–2.8)
 In the vegetation1.0 (reference)
Proximity to stables
 In or at stables42.72 (14.2–128.5)
 Around stables1.0 (reference)
Factors associated with Campylobacter spp. carriage and specific bird behaviour during summer

Patterns of behaviour in summer

Concerning the impact of particular patterns of behaviour in summer (i.e. feed, forage area, proximity to stables, contact with slurry and migration range), there was significantly increased odds for Campylobacter spp. carriage in birds eating food of animal or mixed animal and vegetable origin foraging on the ground and in vegetation close to the production buildings (Table 4). No association was found between Campylobacter spp. carriage and contact with slurry or migration range (data not shown).

Herd type and Campylobacter species distribution

C. jejuni was the most commonly isolated Campylobacter species in wild birds on all farm types, comprising 78.3 % (58 out of 74) of wild bird isolates on cattle farms, 75.9 % (101 out of 133) on pig farms and 89.9 % (80 out of 89) on poultry farms (Table 1). The remaining isolates were almost entirely C. coli, of which 46 out of 48 isolates were found at the winter sampling. Looking at the proportions of Campylobacter species in herd manure and the prevalence in wild birds at each of the 12 individual farms revealed a strong correlation between the prevalence of C. jejuni in both wild birds and the proportions in manure on cattle farms (R2 = 0.92), and a moderate correlation on poultry farms (R2 = 0.54). Likewise, a moderate correlation was found between C. coli in both wild birds and in pig manure (R2 = 0.62; Fig. 1). In contrast, no correlation was seen between C. coli in wild birds and in manure on cattle and poultry farms, or between C. jejuni in wild birds and in manure in pig herds (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Correlation between the prevalence (%) of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli in sparrows and the proportions (%) of C. jejuni and C. coli in manure from cattle, pig and poultry herds. The prevalence, proportion and correlation coefficients (R2) on the regression lines are shown in red (poultry farms), blue (cattle farms) and green (pig farms) circles (C. jejuni) and triangles (C. coli)

Correlation between the prevalence (%) of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli in sparrows and the proportions (%) of C. jejuni and C. coli in manure from cattle, pig and poultry herds. The prevalence, proportion and correlation coefficients (R2) on the regression lines are shown in red (poultry farms), blue (cattle farms) and green (pig farms) circles (C. jejuni) and triangles (C. coli)

Discussion

A seasonal peak in the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in wild birds was observed in summer. This was also found in a study of farm related Common Starling in the UK [12], and a study of Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus) in Sweden [23]. The underlying causes of seasonality in the epidemiology of Campylobacter spp. are not fully understood. However, seasonality is also a recognised factor in the pattern of Campylobacter spp. infections in poultry [2], and in the occurrence of human campylobacteriosis [1]. The vast majority (82.5 %) of Campylobacter spp. in wild birds in our study was isolated from thrushes and sparrows (Tables 2, 3), representing some of the most common wild bird species in Denmark (i.e. Common Blackbird, House Sparrow and Eurasian Tree Sparrow). The Campylobacter spp. carriage rates of the farm-related wild birds were found to be closely associated with the ecological guild (Table 3). Studies from Sweden [28] and Italy [35] have reported results for ecological guilds sampled at bird stations. The Swedish study found the highest Campylobacter spp. prevalence in wagtails, Common Starling and thrushes [28], in agreement with the results presented here. Common bird species such as the European Greenfinch, European Robin (Erithacus rubecula), Great Tit and Common Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs) showed low Campylobacter spp. prevalence in both the Swedish study and the present study (Table 2). Our analysis identified feeding habit, forage area and proximity to stables as factors significantly associated with the carriage of Campylobacter spp. in wild birds (Table 4). This is in line with the results of the Italian study [35], where feeding habit was considered an important factor, and carnivorous birds foraging on the ground showed the highest prevalence of Campylobacter spp. A Japanese study [20] examined the correlation between the crop and actual stomach content and the prevalence of C. jejuni, and found a negative correlation between vegetable stomach content and C. jejuni colonisation. Several other studies have reported that omnivorous birds such as crows and gulls foraging close to areas with human garbage and sewage have a particular risk of high carriage rates [19, 20, 24, 25]. We found a correlation between the prevalence of C. jejuni in wild birds and proportions in both manure on cattle and poultry farms, and between C. coli in wild birds and pig manure (Fig. 1). However, this correlation can only account for part of the Campylobacter spp. epidemiology on the farms, since some of the C. jejuni and C. coli detected in the wild birds (i.e. the C. jejuni in birds on pig farms and the C. coli in birds on the cattle farms) could not be explained by the correlation to farm manure (Fig. 1, Table 1). It is likely that bird-to-bird transmission, or sources not included in this study were responsible for the observed Campylobacter spp. It is also possible that the farm animals and the wild birds both acquired Campylobacter spp. from the same sources, but became colonised by different species adapted to their specific gut environments. An interesting aspect for further research would be to investigate why the isolation rate of C. coli in the wild birds during the summer sampling was so low on all farms, and why the proportion of C. coli in the pig manure was also lower in summer (60.2 %) than in winter (85.2 %; Table 1). Our study showed that in summer, sparrows caught at poultry or pig farms were more likely to carry Campylobacter spp. than sparrows caught at cattle farms. The reason for this remains speculative, though the majority of cows were at pasture during the summer months, thus potentially resulting in minimal contact with the sparrows close to the farm buildings. Further investigation should be performed in order to evaluate this. We anticipated that wild birds and livestock occupying very close living space might share strains locally and that this might be a key point to understand the epidemiology of Campylobacter spp. in wild birds on livestock farms. We realise however, that our study suffers from an inferior resolution depth, as we summarised our results at the Campylobacter species level and not the genotype level. We may therefore have emphasised farm factors over strain factors, which were not measured. More recent studies using MLST have shown a large degree of host specificity [12, 17, 36, 37] and minimal overlap in MLST profiles of Campylobacter spp. from wild birds and from poultry, cattle and humans. There was a greater similarity between the level of C. jejuni found in Common Starling in Sweden and Common Starling in the UK, than there was between C. jejuni from Swedish Common Starling and their Swedish environment [37]. This segregation between the Campylobacter spp. strains in wild birds and the livestock reservoir is supported by a host attribution study [38] investigating the host association in seven housekeeping loci in 2732 published C. jejuni isolates from a number of sources including chicken, farm ruminants, and wild birds (passerine birds, ducks and geese). The main finding was that phylogenetically distinct C. jejuni lineages were associated with distinct wild birds, whereas in the farm environment, phylogenetically distant farm animals shared several C. jejuni lineages. Likewise, a possible adaptation of certain clonal complexes to flocks of barnacle geese in Finland has been found in a recent study [39]. Some studies note that wild birds may have a minor role in transmitting pathogenic C. jejuni strains to cattle [11, 13, 15] and to humans [10, 13, 15, 16, 39], whereas others found no evidence of transmission [12]. A recent study [40] found wild bird C. jejuni strains to be a consistent source of human disease in the UK, suggesting the existence of some more obscure epidemiological pathways between the wild bird reservoir and humans. From 2003 to 2013, the burden of campylobacteriosis cases attributed to wild birds was estimated at 10,000 per year in the UK. Therefore, it appears that the development of methods to control the transmission of Campylobacter spp. between livestock, humans, and wild birds requires better elucidation and understanding of the dynamics of transmission.

Conclusions

Based on the findings in this study, we conclude that the carriage of C. jejuni and C. coli in wild birds on livestock farms is correlated to the proximity to stables, feeding habits and forage areas on the ground and in vegetation. Birds with forage areas further away from livestock buildings or in the air, carried less Campylobacter spp. These findings suggest that wild birds may play a role in sustaining the epidemiology of Campylobacter spp. on farms, although this study is not able to elucidate the direction of the transmission, and further studies including genotyping are required.
  31 in total

1.  Occurrence and molecular analysis of Campylobacter in wildlife on livestock farms.

Authors:  Rachel Sippy; Claudette M J Sandoval-Green; Orhan Sahin; Paul Plummer; W Sue Fairbanks; Qijing Zhang; Julie A Blanchong
Journal:  Vet Microbiol       Date:  2011-12-29       Impact factor: 3.293

2.  Influence of refuse sites on the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella serovars in seagulls.

Authors:  Raül Ramos; Marta Cerdà-Cuéllar; Francisco Ramírez; Lluís Jover; Xavier Ruiz
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-03-05       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Macroecological signals of species interactions in the Danish avifauna.

Authors:  Nicholas J Gotelli; Gary R Graves; Carsten Rahbek
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Preventing Campylobacter at the source: why is it so difficult?

Authors:  Jaap A Wagenaar; Nigel P French; Arie H Havelaar
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  Niche segregation and genetic structure of Campylobacter jejuni populations from wild and agricultural host species.

Authors:  Samuel K Sheppard; Frances M Colles; Noel D McCarthy; Norval J C Strachan; Iain D Ogden; Ken J Forbes; John F Dallas; Martin C J Maiden
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 6.185

6.  Multilocus sequence types of environmental Campylobacter jejuni isolates and their similarities to those of human, poultry and bovine C. jejuni isolates.

Authors:  C P A de Haan; K Lampén; J Corander; M-L Hänninen
Journal:  Zoonoses Public Health       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 2.702

7.  Poultry culling and Campylobacteriosis reduction among humans, the Netherlands.

Authors:  Ingrid H M Friesema; Arie H Havelaar; Paul P Westra; Jaap A Wagenaar; Wilfrid van Pelt
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 6.883

8.  Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

Authors:  Christopher J L Murray; Theo Vos; Rafael Lozano; Mohsen Naghavi; Abraham D Flaxman; Catherine Michaud; Majid Ezzati; Kenji Shibuya; Joshua A Salomon; Safa Abdalla; Victor Aboyans; Jerry Abraham; Ilana Ackerman; Rakesh Aggarwal; Stephanie Y Ahn; Mohammed K Ali; Miriam Alvarado; H Ross Anderson; Laurie M Anderson; Kathryn G Andrews; Charles Atkinson; Larry M Baddour; Adil N Bahalim; Suzanne Barker-Collo; Lope H Barrero; David H Bartels; Maria-Gloria Basáñez; Amanda Baxter; Michelle L Bell; Emelia J Benjamin; Derrick Bennett; Eduardo Bernabé; Kavi Bhalla; Bishal Bhandari; Boris Bikbov; Aref Bin Abdulhak; Gretchen Birbeck; James A Black; Hannah Blencowe; Jed D Blore; Fiona Blyth; Ian Bolliger; Audrey Bonaventure; Soufiane Boufous; Rupert Bourne; Michel Boussinesq; Tasanee Braithwaite; Carol Brayne; Lisa Bridgett; Simon Brooker; Peter Brooks; Traolach S Brugha; Claire Bryan-Hancock; Chiara Bucello; Rachelle Buchbinder; Geoffrey Buckle; Christine M Budke; Michael Burch; Peter Burney; Roy Burstein; Bianca Calabria; Benjamin Campbell; Charles E Canter; Hélène Carabin; Jonathan Carapetis; Loreto Carmona; Claudia Cella; Fiona Charlson; Honglei Chen; Andrew Tai-Ann Cheng; David Chou; Sumeet S Chugh; Luc E Coffeng; Steven D Colan; Samantha Colquhoun; K Ellicott Colson; John Condon; Myles D Connor; Leslie T Cooper; Matthew Corriere; Monica Cortinovis; Karen Courville de Vaccaro; William Couser; Benjamin C Cowie; Michael H Criqui; Marita Cross; Kaustubh C Dabhadkar; Manu Dahiya; Nabila Dahodwala; James Damsere-Derry; Goodarz Danaei; Adrian Davis; Diego De Leo; Louisa Degenhardt; Robert Dellavalle; Allyne Delossantos; Julie Denenberg; Sarah Derrett; Don C Des Jarlais; Samath D Dharmaratne; Mukesh Dherani; Cesar Diaz-Torne; Helen Dolk; E Ray Dorsey; Tim Driscoll; Herbert Duber; Beth Ebel; Karen Edmond; Alexis Elbaz; Suad Eltahir Ali; Holly Erskine; Patricia J Erwin; Patricia Espindola; Stalin E Ewoigbokhan; Farshad Farzadfar; Valery Feigin; David T Felson; Alize Ferrari; Cleusa P Ferri; Eric M Fèvre; Mariel M Finucane; Seth Flaxman; Louise Flood; Kyle Foreman; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Marlene Fransen; Michael K Freeman; Belinda J Gabbe; Sherine E Gabriel; Emmanuela Gakidou; Hammad A Ganatra; Bianca Garcia; Flavio Gaspari; Richard F Gillum; Gerhard Gmel; Diego Gonzalez-Medina; Richard Gosselin; Rebecca Grainger; Bridget Grant; Justina Groeger; Francis Guillemin; David Gunnell; Ramyani Gupta; Juanita Haagsma; Holly Hagan; Yara A Halasa; Wayne Hall; Diana Haring; Josep Maria Haro; James E Harrison; Rasmus Havmoeller; Roderick J Hay; Hideki Higashi; Catherine Hill; Bruno Hoen; Howard Hoffman; Peter J Hotez; Damian Hoy; John J Huang; Sydney E Ibeanusi; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Spencer L James; Deborah Jarvis; Rashmi Jasrasaria; Sudha Jayaraman; Nicole Johns; Jost B Jonas; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Nicholas Kassebaum; Norito Kawakami; Andre Keren; Jon-Paul Khoo; Charles H King; Lisa Marie Knowlton; Olive Kobusingye; Adofo Koranteng; Rita Krishnamurthi; Francine Laden; Ratilal Lalloo; Laura L Laslett; Tim Lathlean; Janet L Leasher; Yong Yi Lee; James Leigh; Daphna Levinson; Stephen S Lim; Elizabeth Limb; John Kent Lin; Michael Lipnick; Steven E Lipshultz; Wei Liu; Maria Loane; Summer Lockett Ohno; Ronan Lyons; Jacqueline Mabweijano; Michael F MacIntyre; Reza Malekzadeh; Leslie Mallinger; Sivabalan Manivannan; Wagner Marcenes; Lyn March; David J Margolis; Guy B Marks; Robin Marks; Akira Matsumori; Richard Matzopoulos; Bongani M Mayosi; John H McAnulty; Mary M McDermott; Neil McGill; John McGrath; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Michele Meltzer; George A Mensah; Tony R Merriman; Ana-Claire Meyer; Valeria Miglioli; Matthew Miller; Ted R Miller; Philip B Mitchell; Charles Mock; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Terrie E Moffitt; Ali A Mokdad; Lorenzo Monasta; Marcella Montico; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Andrew Moran; Lidia Morawska; Rintaro Mori; Michele E Murdoch; Michael K Mwaniki; Kovin Naidoo; M Nathan Nair; Luigi Naldi; K M Venkat Narayan; Paul K Nelson; Robert G Nelson; Michael C Nevitt; Charles R Newton; Sandra Nolte; Paul Norman; Rosana Norman; Martin O'Donnell; Simon O'Hanlon; Casey Olives; Saad B Omer; Katrina Ortblad; Richard Osborne; Doruk Ozgediz; Andrew Page; Bishnu Pahari; Jeyaraj Durai Pandian; Andrea Panozo Rivero; Scott B Patten; Neil Pearce; Rogelio Perez Padilla; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Norberto Perico; Konrad Pesudovs; David Phillips; Michael R Phillips; Kelsey Pierce; Sébastien Pion; Guilherme V Polanczyk; Suzanne Polinder; C Arden Pope; Svetlana Popova; Esteban Porrini; Farshad Pourmalek; Martin Prince; Rachel L Pullan; Kapa D Ramaiah; Dharani Ranganathan; Homie Razavi; Mathilda Regan; Jürgen T Rehm; David B Rein; Guiseppe Remuzzi; Kathryn Richardson; Frederick P Rivara; Thomas Roberts; Carolyn Robinson; Felipe Rodriguez De Leòn; Luca Ronfani; Robin Room; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Lesley Rushton; Ralph L Sacco; Sukanta Saha; Uchechukwu Sampson; Lidia Sanchez-Riera; Ella Sanman; David C Schwebel; James Graham Scott; Maria Segui-Gomez; Saeid Shahraz; Donald S Shepard; Hwashin Shin; Rupak Shivakoti; David Singh; Gitanjali M Singh; Jasvinder A Singh; Jessica Singleton; David A Sleet; Karen Sliwa; Emma Smith; Jennifer L Smith; Nicolas J C Stapelberg; Andrew Steer; Timothy Steiner; Wilma A Stolk; Lars Jacob Stovner; Christopher Sudfeld; Sana Syed; Giorgio Tamburlini; Mohammad Tavakkoli; Hugh R Taylor; Jennifer A Taylor; William J Taylor; Bernadette Thomas; W Murray Thomson; George D Thurston; Imad M Tleyjeh; Marcello Tonelli; Jeffrey A Towbin; Thomas Truelsen; Miltiadis K Tsilimbaris; Clotilde Ubeda; Eduardo A Undurraga; Marieke J van der Werf; Jim van Os; Monica S Vavilala; N Venketasubramanian; Mengru Wang; Wenzhi Wang; Kerrianne Watt; David J Weatherall; Martin A Weinstock; Robert Weintraub; Marc G Weisskopf; Myrna M Weissman; Richard A White; Harvey Whiteford; Natasha Wiebe; Steven T Wiersma; James D Wilkinson; Hywel C Williams; Sean R M Williams; Emma Witt; Frederick Wolfe; Anthony D Woolf; Sarah Wulf; Pon-Hsiu Yeh; Anita K M Zaidi; Zhi-Jie Zheng; David Zonies; Alan D Lopez; Mohammad A AlMazroa; Ziad A Memish
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Marked host specificity and lack of phylogeographic population structure of Campylobacter jejuni in wild birds.

Authors:  Petra Griekspoor; Frances M Colles; Noel D McCarthy; Philip M Hansbro; Chris Ashhurst-Smith; Björn Olsen; Dennis Hasselquist; Martin C J Maiden; Jonas Waldenström
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 6.185

Review 10.  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

View more
  17 in total

1.  Prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in captive wildlife species of India.

Authors:  A A Prince Milton; R K Agarwal; G B Priya; M Saminathan; M Aravind; A Reddy; C K Athira; T P Ramees; K Dhama; A K Sharma; A Kumar
Journal:  Iran J Vet Res       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 1.376

2.  Campylobacter in wintering great tits Parus major in Poland.

Authors:  Piotr Tryjanowski; Jacek J Nowakowski; Piotr Indykiewicz; Małgorzata Andrzejewska; Dorota Śpica; Rafał Sandecki; Cezary Mitrus; Artur Goławski; Beata Dulisz; Joanna Dziarska; Tomasz Janiszewski; Piotr Minias; Stanisław Świtek; Marcin Tobolka; Radosław Włodarczyk; Bernadeta Szczepańska; Jacek J Klawe
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2019-12-29       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Evaluation of high-resolution melt curve analysis for rapid differentiation of Campylobacter hepaticus from other species in birds.

Authors:  Petrina Young; Pol Tarce; Sadhana Adhikary; Joanne Connolly; Tim Crawshaw; Seyed A Ghorashi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Differential Distribution of Salmonella Serovars and Campylobacter spp. Isolates in Free-Living Crows and Broiler Chickens in Aomori, Japan.

Authors:  Masashi Okamura; Miyuki Kaneko; Shinjiro Ojima; Hiroki Sano; Junji Shindo; Hiroaki Shirafuji; Satomi Yamamoto; Taishi Tanabe; Yasuhiro Yoshikawa; Dong-Liang Hu
Journal:  Microbes Environ       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 2.912

Review 5.  Campylobacteriosis, Salmonellosis, Yersiniosis, and Listeriosis as Zoonotic Foodborne Diseases: A Review.

Authors:  Agnieszka Chlebicz; Katarzyna Śliżewska
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Ruminant and chicken: important sources of campylobacteriosis in France despite a variation of source attribution in 2009 and 2015.

Authors:  Amandine Thépault; Valérie Rose; Ségolène Quesne; Typhaine Poezevara; Véronique Béven; Edouard Hirchaud; Fabrice Touzain; Pierrick Lucas; Guillaume Méric; Leonardos Mageiros; Samuel K Sheppard; Marianne Chemaly; Katell Rivoal
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 7.  Are we overestimating risk of enteric pathogen spillover from wild birds to humans?

Authors:  Olivia M Smith; William E Snyder; Jeb P Owen
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2020-01-31

8.  Determinants of sporadic Campylobacter infections in Denmark: a nationwide case-control study among children and young adults.

Authors:  Katrin Gaardbo Kuhn; Eva Møller Nielsen; Kåre Mølbak; Steen Ethelberg
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 4.790

9.  Exposure to Anthropogenic Areas May Influence Colonization by Zoonotic Microorganisms in Scavenging Birds.

Authors:  Guillermo María Wiemeyer; Pablo Ignacio Plaza; Carla Paola Bustos; Alejandra Jimena Muñoz; Sergio Agustín Lambertucci
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  A Rapid Culture Method for the Detection of Campylobacter from Water Environments.

Authors:  Nicol Strakova; Kristyna Korena; Tereza Gelbicova; Pavel Kulich; Renata Karpiskova
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-05       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.