| Literature DB >> 28937656 |
Evariste Bako1, Assèta Kagambèga2,3, Kuan Abdoulaye Traore4, Touwendsida Serge Bagre5, Hadiza Bawa Ibrahim6, Soutongnooma Caroline Bouda7, Isidore Juste Ouindgueta Bonkoungou8, Saidou Kaboré9,10, Cheikna Zongo11, Alfred Sababenejo Traore12, Nicolas Barro13.
Abstract
Cattle farming can promote diarrheal disease transmission through waste, effluents or cattle fecal matter. The study aims to characterize the diarrheagenic Escherichia coli (DEC) isolated from cattle feces, manure in the composting process and slurry, collected from four cattle markets in Ouagadougou. A total of 585 samples (340 cattle feces, 200 slurries and 45 manures in the composting process) were collected from the four cattle markets between May 2015 and May 2016. A multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), namely 16-plex PCR, was used to screen simultaneously the virulence genes specific for shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC) and enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC). DEC was detected in 10.76% of samples. ETEC was the most prevalent (9.91%). STEC and EAEC have been observed with the same rate (0.51%). ETEC were detected in 12.64% of cattle feces, in 6.66% of manure in the composting process and in 5% of slurry. STEC were detected in 0.58% of cattle feces and in 2.22% of manure in the composting process. EAEC was detected only in 1% of slurry and in 2.22% of manure in the composting process. ETEC strains were identified based on estIa gene and/or estIb gene and/or elt gene amplification. Of the 58 ETEC, 10.34% contained astA, 17.24% contained elt, 3.44% contained estIa and 79.31% contained estIb. The two positive EAEC strains contained only the aggR gene, and the third was positive only for the pic gene. The results show that effluent from cattle markets could contribute to the spreading of DEC in the environment in Burkina Faso.Entities:
Keywords: EAEC; ETEC; STEC; cattle fecal matter; cattle market; diarrheal diseases; environment sanitation; manure; public health; slurries
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28937656 PMCID: PMC5664601 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14101100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Map of Ouagadougou with the sampling sites. Source: Google Map.
16-Plex PCR primers and the virulence genes detected.
| Pathotypes | Target Genes | Primer Sequence (5′–3′) | Product Size (bp) | Concentration (µM) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STEC, EPEC | eae-F: TCAATGCAGTTCCGTTATCAGTT | 482 | 0.1 | [ | |
| MP3-escV-F: ATTCTGGCTCTCTTCTTCTTTATGGCTG | 544 | 0.4 | [ | ||
| ent-F: TGGGCTAAAAGAAGACACACTG | 629 | 0.4 | [ | ||
| Typical EPEC | MP3-bfpB-F: GACACCTCATTGCTGAAGTCG | 910 | 0.1 | [ | |
| STEC | hlyEHEC-F: TTCTGGGAAACAGTGACGCACATA | 688 | 0.1 | [ | |
| MP4-stx1A F: CGATGTTACGGTTTGTTACTGTGACAGC | 244 | 0.2 | [ | ||
| MP3-stx2A-F: GTTTTGACCATCTTCGTCTGATTATTGAG | 324 | 0.4 | [ | ||
| EIEC | ipaH-F: GAAAACCCTCCTGGTCCATCAGG | 437 | 0.1 | [ | |
| MP2-invE-F: CGATAGATGGCGAGAAATTATATCCCG | 766 | 0.2 | [ | ||
| EAEC | MP2-aggR-F: ACGCAGAGTTGCCTGATAAAG | 400 | 0.2 | [ | |
| MP2-pic-F: AGCCGTTTCCGCAGAAGCC | 111 | 0.2 | [ | ||
| MP2-astA-F: TGCCATCAACACAGTATATCCG | 102 | 0.4 | [ | ||
| ETEC | MP2-LT-F: GAACAGGAGGTTTCTGCGTTAGGTG | 655 | 0.1 | [ | |
| MP4-STIa-F: CCTCTTTTAGYCAGACARCTGAATCASTTG | 157 | 0.4 | [ | ||
| MP2-STI-F: TGTCTTTTTCACCTTTCGCTC | 171 | 0.2 | [ | ||
| MP2-uidA-F: ATGCCAGTCCAGCGTTTTTGC | 1487 | 0.2 | [ |
STEC, shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli; EPEC, enteropathogenic E. coli; EIEC, enteroinvasive E. coli; EAEC, enteroaggregative E. coli; ETEC, enterotoxigenic E. coli.
Prevalence of Escherichia coli in organic waste products from cattle markets.
| Type of Effluent | ||
|---|---|---|
| Number | % | |
| Manure in the composting process ( | 20 | 44.44 |
| Cattle feces ( | 323 | 95 |
| Slurry ( | 100 | 50 |
| Total ( | 443 | 75.72 |
% = Prevalence of isolation.
Virulence genes detected by 16-plex PCR in Escherichia coli isolates and in the six control strains.
| Virulence Gene | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STEC | + | + | + | - | + | + | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + |
| EPEC | + | + | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| ETEC | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | - | + | + |
| EAEC | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | + | - | - | - | + |
| EIEC | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | + |
| Number of virulence genes detected among | ||||||||||||||||
| STEC | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 |
| ETEC | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6 | 10 | 2 | 46 | 60 |
| EAEC | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | 6 |
+ = positive; - = none; EPEC: enteropathogenic E. coli; STEC: shiga toxin-producing E. coli; EHEC: enterohemorrhagic E. coli; EIEC: enteroinvasive E. coli; EAEC: enteroaggregative E. coli; ETEC: enterotoxigenic E. coli.
Prevalence of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli (DEC) in organic waste products from cattle markets.
| Samples | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cattle Feces | Slurry | Manure in the Composting Process | ||
| Any DEC | 45 (13.23%) | 13 (6.5%) | 5 (11.11%) | 63 (10.76%) |
| STEC only | 2 (0.58%) | 0 | 1 (2.22%) | 3 (0.51%) |
| ETEC only | 43 (12.64%) | 11 (5%) | 3 (6.66%) | 58 (9.91%) |
| EAEC only | 0 | 2 (1%) | 1 (2.22%) | 3 (0.51%) |
0: none; EPEC: enteropathogenic E. coli; STEC: shiga toxin-producing E. coli; EHEC: enterohemorrhagic E. coli; EIEC: enteroinvasive E. coli; EAEC: enteroaggregative E. coli; ETEC: enterotoxigenic E. coli; DEC = diarrheagenic Escherichia coli.
Figure 2Distribution of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli (DEC) in organic waste products from the cattle markets. STEC: shiga toxin-producing E. coli; EAEC: enteroaggregative E. coli; ETEC: enterotoxigenic E. coli.