| Literature DB >> 27821054 |
Kamelia M Osman1, Ahmed Samir2, Usama H Abo-Shama3, Essam H Mohamed4, Ahmed Orabi2, Tara Zolnikov5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the foodborne pathogens is Listeria monocytogenes, which causes serious invasive illness in elderly and immunocompromised patients, pregnant women, newborns and infants ranking second after salmonellosis because of its high case fatality rate. Listerial cow mastitis marked by abnormal milk, increased cell counts and reduced production has not been reported. Therefore, apparently healthy cows can be reservoirs of L. monocytogenes. A number of 203 udder milk samples from apparently healthy animals (buffalo, n = 100; cow, n = 103) were collected and tested for Listeria. Isolated colonies on the PALCAM agar were Listeria species confirmed according to their biochemical and the Christie-Atkins-Munch-Petersen (CAMP) reactions. The Listeria species pathogenicity of was tested by phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase C, DL-alanine-β-naphthylamide HCl, Dalanine-p-nitroanilide tests, chick embryo, mice inoculation tests, Vero cell cytotoxicity and biofilm formation. The virulence-associated genes, hlyA, plcB, actA and iap associated with Listeria were molecularly assayed.Entities:
Keywords: Antibiotic resistance; Biofilm formation; Buffalo; Cow; Listeria species; Virulence genes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27821054 PMCID: PMC5100219 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-016-0880-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Pathogenicity profiles of Listeria species isolated from buffalo and cow milk
| Source of milk samples |
| Serotype | Pathogenicity profile | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAMP (+/-) with S/R | PI-PLC | DLABN | DAPN | Anton’s eye test | Mice lethality | Chick-embryo lethality | Vero cell ingestion assay | Biofilm | ||||
| Microtiter plate assay | Christensen’s tube | |||||||||||
| (ATCC 7494) |
| 4 | +/- | + | - | - | + | + | + | ++ | Strong (O.D. = 0.158) | Strong |
| Buffalo |
| 1 | +/+ | + | - | - | + | + | + | ++ | Strong (O.D. = 0.148) | Moderate |
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.167) | Strong | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.144) | Moderate | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.157) | Moderate | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.145) | Weak | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.141) | Weak | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Weak (O.D. = 0.0995) | Moderate | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.134) | Moderate | ||
| Cow |
| 4 | +/- | + | - | - | + | + | + | ++ | Strong (O.D. = 0.123) | Strong |
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.125) | Strong | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Weak (O.D. = 0.074) | Moderate | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Very Strong (O.D. = 0.231) | Moderate | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.128) | Moderate | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.121) | Moderate | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.117) | Moderate | ||
|
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | Strong (O.D. = 0.173) | Weak | ||
CAMP Christie, Atkins, Munch-Petersen test, S/R Staphylococcus aureus/Rhodococcus equi, PI-PLC phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase C, DLABN DL-alanine-b-naphthylamide HCl, DAPN D-alanine-p-nitroanilide, O.D. Optical Density, O.D. 595 < 0.1 = Weak; O.D. 595 ≤ 0.1 = Strong; O.D. 595 > 1 = Very Strong
A comparative layout of the diversity in listerial species isolated from buffaloes and cows and their antibiotic resistance phenotype in relation to their affinity to biofilm formation and virulence genes
CTM Christensen’s tube method, MPA Microtiter plate assay, resistant, susceptible, Zone diameter, ≤ 18 mm, Resistant; ≥ 25 mm Susceptible
Antibiotic resistance phenotype combination patterns of different Listeria species in cow and buffalo animals
| Source of milk |
| Number of | Patterns of antibiotic combinations | Number of combination patterns | Number of antibiotics | Number of antibiotic classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cow | ||||||
|
| 2 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/flumequine/neomycin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/chloramphenicol/lincomycin/clindamycin/trimethoprim-sulfamathoxazole | 5 | 10/28 | 7 | |
|
| 1 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/flumequine/pefloxacin/neomycin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/lincomycin/clindamycin/ | 14/28 | 10 | ||
|
| 3 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/ofloxacin/flumequine/neomycin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/lincomycin/clindamycin/chloramphenicol/tetracycline/rifampicin/erythromycin/bacitracin | 14/28 | 10 | ||
|
| 2 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/ofloxacin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/lincomycin/clindamycin/chloramphenicol/erythromycin | 9/28 | 6 | ||
|
| 1 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/lincomycin/clindamycin/chloramphenicol/erythromycin | 8/28 | 6 | ||
| Buffalo | ||||||
|
| 1 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/flumequine/neomycin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/lincomycin/clindamycin/chloramphenicol | 5 | 9/28 | 6 | |
|
| 1 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/pefloxacin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/lincomycin/clindamycin/chloramphenicol/erythromycin/bacitracin | 10/28 | 7 | ||
|
| 2 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/lincomycin/clindamycin/chloramphenicol/rifampicin/erythromycin/trimethoprim-sulfamathoxazole | 10/28 | 7 | ||
|
| 2 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/lincomycin/clindamycin/chloramphenicol/tetracycline/erythromycin | 9/28 | 6 | ||
|
| 2 | cloxacillin/oxacillin/flumequine/neomycin/cefotaxime/cephalothin/lincomycin/clindamycin/chloramphenicol/tetracycline/erythromycin | 11/28 | 8 | ||