| Literature DB >> 28119905 |
Fatema-Tuz Johura1, Rozina Parveen1, Atiqul Islam1, Abdus Sadique1, Md Niaz Rahim1, Shirajum Monira1, Anisur R Khan2, Sunjukta Ahsan2, Makoto Ohnishi3, Haruo Watanabe3, Subhra Chakraborty4, Christine M George4, Alejandro Cravioto1, Armando Navarro5, Badrul Hasan6, Munirul Alam1.
Abstract
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) are important causes of diarrhea in humans and animals worldwide. Although ruminant animals are the main source of STEC, diarrhea due to this pathotype is very low in Bangladesh where ETEC remains the predominant group associated with childhood diarrhea. In the present study, E. coli strains (n = 35) isolated from Bangladesh livestock (goats, sheep, and cattle) and poultry (chicken and ducks) were analyzed for the presence of major virulence factors, such as Shiga toxins (STX-1 and STX-2), heat-labile toxin, and heat-stable toxins (STa and STb). Multiplex polymerase chain reaction results revealed 23 (66%) E. coli strains to be virulent possessing either sta (n = 5), stx (stx1, n = 8; stx2, n = 2), or both (n = 8) genes in varying combinations. Thirty-four percent (8/23) of strains from livestock were hybrid type that carried both stx (either stx1 or stx2) and ETEC-specific enterotoxin gene sta. Serotyping results revealed that the ETEC strains belonged to five serotypes, namely O36:H5, O174:H-, O152:H8, O109:H51, and O8:H21, while the STEC-producing strains belonged to serotypes O76:H19 (n = 3), O43:H2 (n = 2), O87:H16 (n = 2), OR:H2 (n = 1), O110:H16 (n = 1), and O152:H8 (n = 1). The STEC-ETEC hybrid strains belonged to serotypes O76:H19 (n = 3), O43:H2 (n = 2), O87:H16, OR:H2, and O152:H8. Forty percent (2/5) of the ETEC and 20% (2/10) of the STEC strains were multidrug resistant with the highest drug resistance (50%) being found in the hybrid strains. Molecular fingerprinting determined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and cluster analyses by dendrogram revealed that, genetically, STEC-ETEC hybrid strains were highly heterogeneous. Multidrug-resistant E. coli STEC-ETEC hybrid strains in domesticated animals pose a public health threat for humans in Bangladesh.Entities:
Keywords: PFGE; Shiga-toxin; enterotoxin; hybrid; livestock; multidrug resistant
Year: 2017 PMID: 28119905 PMCID: PMC5221120 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Primer sequences for .
| Primers | Sequence | Annealing temperature (°C) | Size of the amplification product (bp) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCC CCT CTT TTA GTC AGT CAA CTG | 57 | 163 | Ngeleka et al. ( | |
| GCA CAG GCA GGA TTA CAA CAA AGT | ||||
| GCA ATA AGG TTG AGG TGA T | 368 | Lortie et al. ( | ||
| GCC TGC AGT GAG AAA TGG AC | ||||
| TTA CGG CGT TAC TAT CCT CTC TA | 275 | Furrer et al. ( | ||
| GGT CTC GGT CAG ATA TGT GAT TC | ||||
| AGA GCG ATG TTA CGG TTT G | 55 | 388 | Jackson et al. ( | |
| TTG CCC CCA GAG TGG ATG | ||||
| TGG GTT TTT CTT CGG TAT C | 807 | Jackson et al. ( | ||
| GAC ATT CTG GTT GAC TCT CTT |
Serotypes, virulence gene, and drug resistance pattern of .
| No. of isolates | Virulence genes | Serotype | Resistance pattern | Source | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | + | − | − | − | − | O36:H5 | ER, AZMR | Goat |
| 1 | + | − | − | + | − | O43:H2 | ER | Goat |
| 2 | − | − | − | + | − | O43:H2 | ER | Goat |
| 1 | + | − | − | + | − | O43:H2 | ER, AZMR, SR | Goat |
| 1 | − | − | − | + | − | O76:H19 | ER | Goat |
| 1 | + | − | − | + | − | O76:H19 | ER, KFR | Goat |
| 1 | + | − | − | + | − | O76:H19 | Sensitive to all antibiotics | Goat |
| 1 | − | − | − | + | − | O76:H19 | ER | Goat |
| 1 | + | − | − | + | − | O76:H19 | ER, AZMR, SR | Goat |
| 1 | − | − | − | + | − | O76:H19 | ER, AZMR, SR, KFR | Goat |
| 1 | − | − | − | − | + | O87:H16 | ER | Goat |
| 1 | + | − | − | − | + | O87:H16 | ER, SXTR, AZMR | Goat |
| 1 | − | − | − | − | + | O87:H16 | ER, SXTR, AZMR, SR | Goat |
| 1 | + | − | − | − | − | O174:H− | ER, SXTR, AZMR, KFR | Goat |
| 1 | − | − | − | + | − | OR:H2 | ER | Goat |
| 1 | + | − | − | + | − | OR:H2 | ER, CIPR, SXTR, NAR, AZMR, TER, KFR | Goat |
| 2 | − | − | − | − | − | ND | ND | Goat |
| 1 | − | − | − | + | − | O110:H16 | ER | Sheep |
| 1 | + | − | − | − | − | O152:H8 | ER, SR | Sheep |
| 1 | − | − | − | + | − | O152:H8 | Sensitive to all antibiotics | Sheep |
| 1 | + | − | − | + | − | O152:H8 | Sensitive to all antibiotics | Sheep |
| 5 | − | − | − | − | − | ND | ND | Sheep |
| 2 | − | − | − | − | − | ND | ND | Cattle |
| 1 | + | − | − | − | − | O109:H51 | ER, CIPR, SXTR, NAR, AZMR | Chicken |
| 2 | − | − | − | − | − | ND | ND | Chicken |
| 1 | + | − | − | − | − | O8:H21 | ER, AZMR | Duck |
| 1 | − | − | − | − | − | ND | ND | Duck |
E, erythromycin; AZM, azithromycin; S, streptomycin; KF, cephalothin; SXT, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; CIP, ciprofloxacin; NA, nalidixic acid; TE, tetracycline; R, resistant; ND, not done.
Figure 1Percentage of different serotypes of three .
Antibiotic resistance profiles of the toxigenic .
| Pathotype/virulence gene | Type | Antibiotic resistance profile | No. of strains |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterotoxigenic | I | ER, SR | 1 |
| II | ER, AZMR | 2 | |
| III | ER, SXTR, AZMR, KFR | 1 | |
| IV | ER, CIPR, SXTR, NAR, AZMR | 1 | |
| STEC ( | V | ER | 7 |
| VI | ER, AZMR, SR, KFR | 1 | |
| VII | ER, SXTR, AZMR, SR | 1 | |
| Sensitive to all antibiotics | 1 | ||
| STEC–ETEC hybrid ( | V | ER | 1 |
| VIII | ER, KFR | 1 | |
| IX | ER, AZMR, SR | 2 | |
| X | ER, SXTR, AZMR | 1 | |
| XI | ER, CIPR, SXTR, NAR, AZMR, TER, KFR | 1 | |
| Sensitive to all antibiotics | 2 |
E, erythromycin; AZM, azithromycin; S, streptomycin; KF, cephalothin; SXT, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; CIP, ciprofloxacin; NA, nalidixic acid; TE, tetracycline; R, resistant.
Figure 2Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) patterns of . Serotypes, source, and virulence gene content are indicated. The dendrogram was prepared by the BioNeumeric software (Applied Maths) using dice similarity coefficient and unweighted-pair group method employing average linkage of the PFGE images of the E. coli strains. The scale bar at the top (left) indicates similarity coefficient (%).