| Literature DB >> 28174566 |
Pedro Albuquerque1, Niza Ribeiro2, Alexandre Almeida3, Irena Panschin3, Afonso Porfirio4, Marta Vales4, Francisca Diniz3, Helena Madeira5, Fernando Tavares3.
Abstract
Streptococcus uberis is considered one of the most important pathogens associated with bovine mastitis. While traditionally acknowledged as an environmental pathogen, S. uberis has been shown to adopt a contagious epidemiological pattern in several dairy herds. Since different control strategies are employed depending on the mode of transmission, in-depth studies of S. uberis populations are essential to determine the best practices to control this pathogen. In this work, we optimized and validated a dot blot platform, combined with automatic image analysis, to rapidly assess the population structure of infective S. uberis, and evaluated its efficiency when compared to multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) genotyping. Two dairy herds with prevalent S. uberis infections were followed in a 6 month period, in order to collect and characterize isolates from cows with persistent infections. These herds, located in Portugal (Barcelos and Maia regions), had similar management practices, with the herd from Barcelos being smaller and having a better milking parlor management, since infected cow segregation was immediate. A total of 54 S. uberis isolates were obtained from 24 different cows from the two herds. To overcome operator-dependent analysis of the dot blots and increase the technique's consistency and reliability, the hybridization signals were converted into probability values, with average probabilities higher than 0.5 being considered positive results. These data allowed to confirm the isolates' identity as S. uberis using taxa-specific markers and to determine the presence of virulence- and antibiotic resistance-related genes. In addition, MLSA allowed to disclose the most prevalent S. uberis clonal lineages in both herds. Seven different clusters were identified, with Barcelos showing a high clonal diversity and Maia a dominant lineage infecting most cows, suggesting distinct epidemiological patterns, with S. uberis displaying an environmental or contagious transmission pattern depending on the herd. Overall, this work showed the utility of dot blot and MLSA to characterize population structure and epidemiological patterns of mastitis-causing S. uberis. This approach allowed to disclose prevalent virulence patterns and clonal lineages of S. uberis in two distinct herds, and gain insights on the impact of herd management practices on pathogen population structure.Entities:
Keywords: Streptococcus uberis; bovine mastitis; dot blot; multilocus sequence analysis; population structure
Year: 2017 PMID: 28174566 PMCID: PMC5258699 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
.
| SU57 | 1 | 06-01-2014 | Barcelos | FR | 12,695 | A | I |
| SU91 | 1 | 13-03-2014 | Barcelos | FR | 2417 | A | |
| SU114 | 1 | 09-05-2014 | Barcelos | All | 135 | A | I |
| SU16 | 2 | 18-01-2013 | Barcelos | – | 541 | A | VII |
| SU112 | 2 | 09-05-2014 | Barcelos | All | 302 | B | VI |
| SU52 | 3 | 13-12-2013 | Barcelos | FR | 307 | C | IV |
| SU53 | 3 | 13-12-2013 | Barcelos | FL | 230 | C | |
| SU58 | 3 | 06-01-2014 | Barcelos | FR | 374 | C | |
| SU59 | 3 | 06-01-2014 | Barcelos | FL | 216 | C | IV |
| SU90 | 4 | 13-03-2014 | Barcelos | RR | 5498 | D | IIIa |
| SU113 | 4 | 09-05-2014 | Barcelos | All | 3457 | D | IIIa |
| SU76 | 5 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | FR | 201 | E | II |
| SU80 | 5 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | FR | 142 | E | II |
| SU72 | 6 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | RR | 165 | E | |
| SU73 | 6 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | FL | 1677 | A | IIIb |
| SU89 | 6 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | RL | 1156 | E | II |
| SU70 | 7 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | FR | 295 | E | |
| SU86 | 7 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | FR | 193 | E | |
| SU63 | 8 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | FR | 456 | E | II |
| SU64 | 8 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | RR | 1309 | E | |
| SU65 | 8 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | FL | 223 | E | II |
| SU82 | 8 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | FR | 1742 | E | |
| SU83 | 8 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | RR | 179 | F | II |
| SU67 | 9 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | FR | 321 | E | II |
| SU103 | 9 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 334 | E | II |
| SU40 | 10 | 26-11-2013 | Maia | RR | 1416 | E | II |
| SU62 | 10 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | All | 747 | E | |
| SU79 | 10 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | RR | 731 | E | |
| SU99 | 10 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 385 | E | II |
| SU45 | 11 | 26-11-2013 | Maia | RL | – | G | V |
| SU101 | 11 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 1151 | E | II |
| SU42 | 12 | 26-11-2013 | Maia | FR | 519 | E | II |
| SU43 | 12 | 26-11-2013 | Maia | FL | 372 | E | |
| SU69 | 12 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | FR | 3169 | E | |
| SU85 | 12 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | FR | 2122 | E | II |
| SU49 | 13 | 26-11-2013 | Maia | RL | 173 | E | II |
| SU68 | 13 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | RR | 799 | E | II |
| SU87 | 13 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | RR | 562 | E | II |
| SU88 | 13 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | RL | 1748 | E | |
| SU104 | 13 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 1238 | E | II |
| SU60 | 14 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | RR | 540 | E | II |
| SU61 | 14 | 29-01-2014 | Maia | FL | 14,223 | E | II |
| SU84 | 14 | 25-02-2014 | Maia | FL | 409 | E | |
| SU98 | 14 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 1519 | E | II |
| SU41 | 15 | 26-11-2013 | Maia | RL | 419 | V | |
| SU46 | 16 | 26-11-2013 | Maia | RL | 1696 | IIIb | |
| SU50 | 17 | 26-11-2013 | Maia | FR | 103 | II | |
| SU93 | 18 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 51 | II | |
| SU95 | 19 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 100 | II | |
| SU96 | 20 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 1156 | II | |
| SU97 | 21 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 284 | II | |
| SU107 | 22 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 727 | II | |
| SU109 | 23 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 2410 | II | |
| SU110 | 24 | 09-05-2014 | Maia | All | 661 | II |
Specific quarter from which the isolate was obtained: front right/rear right/front left/rear left (FR/RR/FL/RL). All, composite milk sample;
visible mastitis symptoms.
SCC, somatic cell count (cells/mL).
DNA probes used in this work.
| Taxonomic | U1 | Taxa-specific ( | Almeida et al., |
| U2 | Taxa-specific ( | Almeida et al., | |
| A1 | Taxa-specific ( | Almeida et al., | |
| A2 | Taxa-specific ( | Almeida et al., | |
| Nisin | NU1 | Regulation gene ( | Almeida et al., |
| operon | NU3 | Nisin immunity gene ( | Almeida et al., |
| Virulence related | V1 | Hyaluronic acid operon gene ( | Ward et al., |
| V2 | Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene ( | Reinoso et al., | |
| V3 | Oligopeptide permease gene ( | Smith et al., | |
| V4 | This work | ||
| V6 | Plasminogen activator gene ( | This work | |
| V7 | Hyaluronic acid operon gene ( | Field et al., | |
| Antibiotic resistance | R1 | Erythromycin resistance gene ( | This work |
| R2 | Pirlimycin resistance gene ( | This work | |
| R3 | Tetracycline resistance gene ( | This work |
Average probability values of each dot blot hybridization result being a positive signal.
| SU57 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |||||||||
| SU91 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.02 | |||||||||
| SU114 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |||||||||
| SU16 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.06 | |||||||||
| SU112 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.10 | |||||||||
| SU52 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU53 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |||||||||||
| SU58 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.06 | |||||||||||
| SU59 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.10 | |||||||||||
| SU90 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.03 | ||||||||||
| SU113 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.01 | ||||||||||
| SU76 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.05 | |||||||||||
| SU80 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU72 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.03 | |||||||||||
| SU73 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | |||||||||
| SU89 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.04 | |||||||||||
| SU70 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.21 | |||||||||||
| SU86 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.13 | |||||||||||
| SU63 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.13 | |||||||||||
| SU64 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |||||||||||
| SU65 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | ||||||||||
| SU82 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 0.05 | |||||||||||
| SU83 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.24 | ||||||||||
| SU67 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.09 | |||||||||||
| SU103 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU40 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU62 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |||||||||||
| SU79 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.02 | 0.04 | |||||||||||
| SU99 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.07 | 0.05 | |||||||||||
| SU45 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||
| SU101 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.07 | |||||||||||
| SU42 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |||||||||||
| SU43 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.01 | |||||||||||
| SU69 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU85 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU49 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU68 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU87 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.05 | |||||||||||
| SU88 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU104 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | |||||||||||
| SU60 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | |||||||||||
| SU61 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | |||||||||||
| SU84 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| SU98 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
Probability values higher than 0.5 (considered as positive results) are highlighted in bold.
Figure 1Maximum Likelihood tree based on the concatenated sequences of genes . S. uberis isolates from the Barcelos herd are highlighted in green, and from the Maia herd in yellow.
Figure 2Dot blots using 15 probes and genomic DNA from 44 . The following groups of probes were used: Taxonomic probes (U1, U2, A1, A2); nisin operon (NU1, NU3); virulence factors (V1, V2, V3, V4, V6, V7) and antibiotic resistance (R1, R2, R3). The top grid represents the position of the DNA from each S. uberis isolate in the nylon membrane. C+ DNA used as template for probe labeling; C− TE buffer.