| Literature DB >> 31662159 |
Alison J Cody1,2, Martin Cj Maiden1,2, Norval Jc Strachan3, Noel D McCarthy1,2,4.
Abstract
BackgroundCampylobacter is a leading global cause of bacterial gastroenteritis, motivating research to identify sources of human infection. Population genetic studies have been increasingly applied to this end, mainly using multilocus sequence typing (MLST) data.ObjectivesThis review aimed to summarise approaches and findings of these studies and identify best practice lessons for this form of genomic epidemiology.MethodsWe systematically reviewed publications using MLST data to attribute human disease isolates to source. Publications were from January 2001, when this type of approach began. Searched databases included Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. Information on samples and isolate datasets used, as well as MLST schemes and attribution algorithms employed, was obtained. Main findings were extracted, as well as any results' validation with subsequent correction for identified biases. Meta-analysis is not reported given high levels of heterogeneity.ResultsOf 2,109 studies retrieved worldwide, 25 were included, and poultry, specifically chickens, were identified as principal source of human infection. Ruminants (cattle or sheep) were consistently implicated in a substantial proportion of cases. Data sampling and analytical approaches varied, with five different attribution algorithms used. Validation such as self-attribution of isolates from known sources was reported in five publications. No publication reported adjustment for biases identified by validation.ConclusionsCommon gaps in validation and adjustment highlight opportunities to generate improved estimates in future genomic attribution studies. The consistency of chicken as the main source of human infection, across high income countries, and despite methodological variations, highlights the public health importance of this source.Entities:
Keywords: Campylobacter; MLST; bacterial infections; epidemiology; food-borne infections; molecular methods; source attribution; surveillance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31662159 PMCID: PMC6820127 DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.43.1800696
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Euro Surveill ISSN: 1025-496X
Figure 1Flow diagram of the search strategy used to identify articles for inclusion in the systematic reviewon source attribution of human campylobacteriosis using multilocus sequence typing, since January 2001
Summary of studies reviewed, indicating composition of reference datasets used for attribution analysis of human Campylobacter infections to animal or environmental sources, 2001−2017 (n = 25 studies)
| Paper | Poultry/chicken | Ruminant/cattle/sheep | Environmental/wild bird dataset(s) | Multiple sample types per source | Number of source populations | Years (max) between clinical and reference isolates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Bessell (2012) [ | Chicken | Ruminant | Wild bird | Yes | 3 | NA | 16 |
| Boysen (2014) [ | Poultry | Cattle | NA | Yes | 5 | NA | 1a |
| Cody (2015) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | Wild bird | No | 4 | NA | 14 |
| Di Giannatale (2016) [ | Chicken | Cattle, small ruminant | Wild bird, environmental | Yes | 6 | NA | No data |
| French (2008) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | Wild bird, environmental water | Yes | 5 | NA | 3a |
| Jonas (2015) [ | Chicken | Cattle | NA | Yes | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Kittl (2013) [ | Chicken | NA | NA | Yes | 2 | 2 | 10a |
| Kovac (2018) [ | Poultry | Cattle | Environmental (inc. wild birds) | Yes | 3 | NA | 12a |
| Levesque (2013) [ | Chicken | Cattle | Environmental water, wild bird | No | 4 | NA | 2a |
| Mossong (2016) [ | Poultry | Ruminant | Environmental water | Yes | 4 | 4 | 10 |
| Mughini Gras (2012) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | Environmental (inc. wild birds) | Yes | 5 | 5 | 13 |
| Mughini Gras (2013) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | Environmental (inc. wild birds) | Yes | 5 | 5 | 13 |
| Mullner (2009a) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | Environmental (inc. wild birds) | Yes | 4 | NA | 3a |
| Mullner (2009b) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | Environmental (inc. wild birds) | Yes | 4 | NA | 3a |
| Nohra (2016) [ | Poultry | Ruminant | Environmental water | No | NA | 3 | 5 |
| Rosner (2017) [ | Chicken | Cattle | NA | Yes | 5 | 5 | 10 |
| Roux (2013) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | NA | Yes | NA | 4 | 1a |
| Sears (2011) [ | Poultry | Cattle, sheep | Environmental water | Yes | 4 | NA | 3a |
| Sheppard (2009) [ | Chicken | Ruminant | Environmental (inc. wild birds) | Yes | 3b | 5b | 16 |
| Sheppard (2010) [ | Chicken | Ruminant | Environmental (inc. wild birds) | Yes | NA | 5 | 6 |
| Smid (2013) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | Environmental (inc. wild birds) | Yes | 4 | 4 | 28 |
| Strachan (2009) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | Wild bird | No | 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Strachan (2013) [ | Chicken | Cattle, sheep | Wild bird | No | 5 | 5 | 2a |
| Thépault (2017) [ | Chicken | Ruminant | Environmental water | Yes | 3 | NA | 10 |
| Wilson (2008) [ | Chicken | Cattle and sheep | Wild bird, water, sand | Yes | 8 | NA | 12 |
Inc.: including; NA: not applicable, whereby this species (C. jejuni or C. coli) or possible source was not included in the study.
a Clinical and attribution datasets from same temporal range.
b C. jejuni results expressed for ruminants; C. coli results expressed for cattle and sheep separately.
Figure 2Forest plot of the proportion of Campylobacter jejuni clinical isolates attributed to poultry by different studies, and uncertainty around these estimates