| Literature DB >> 31694551 |
John Bosco Kalule1, Anthony M Smith2,3, Mjikisile Vulindhlu4, Nomsa P Tau2, Mark P Nicol5, Karen H Keddy3, Lourens Robberts5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In light of rampant childhood diarrhoea, this study investigated bacterial pathogens from human and non-human sources in an urban informal settlement. Meat from informal abattoirs (n = 85), river water (n = 64), and diarrheic stool (n = 66) were collected between September 2015 and May 2016. A duplex real-time PCR, gel-based PCR, and CHROMagar™STEC were used to screen Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) for diarrheic E. coli. Standard methods were used to screen for other selected food and waterborne bacterial pathogens.Entities:
Keywords: Antibiograms; Diarrhoea; Foodborne pathogens; Informal settlement
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31694551 PMCID: PMC6836408 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-019-1620-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1Showing the location of the informal settlement, the Nyanga clinic, and the Lotus River. The black arrows indicate the areas where the meat samples were collected. This image was created using Arc GIS version 10.5
Primers and probes for the duplex real-time PCR assay
| Primer/probe | 5́ Dye | Sequence | 3́ Dye | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAAGAGCGATGTTACGGT | [ | |||
| AATTCTTCCTACACGAACAGA | [ | |||
| CTGGGGAAGGTTGAGTAGCG | Fluorescein | [ | ||
| CALFluor 610 | CCTGCCTGACTATCATGGACA | 3′ phosphor | [ | |
| GGGACCACATCGGTGT | [ | |||
| CGGGCACTGATATATGTGTAA | [ | |||
| CTGTGGATATACGAGGGCTTGATGTC | Fluorescein | [ | ||
| stx2r-probe | CAL Fluor 610 | ATCAGGCGCGTTTTGACCATCT | 3′ phosphor | [ |
Primers for amplification of diarrheic E. coli virulence genes by conventional PCR
| Target genes | Primers | Primer sequence | Product size | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A |
| TCAATGCAGTTCCGTTATCAGTT | 482 bp | [ | |
| GTAAAGTCCGTTACCCCAACCTG | |||||
|
| GGAAGTCAAATTCATGGGGGTAT | 298 bp | [ | ||
| GGAATCAGACGCAGACTGGTAGT | |||||
|
| CAGTTAATGTGGTGGCGAAGG | 348 bp | [ | ||
| CACCAGACAATGTAACCGCTG | |||||
|
| ATCCTATTCCCGGGAGTTTACG | 584 bp | [ | ||
| GCGTCATCGTATACACAGGAGC | |||||
| B |
| ATTTTTCTTTCTGTATTGTCTT | 190 bp | [ | |
| CACCCGGTACAAGCAGGATT | |||||
|
| GGCGACAGATTATACCGTGC | 440 bp | [ | ||
| CGGTCTCTATATTCCCTGTT | |||||
| C |
| CTCGGCACGTTTTAATAGTCTGG | 933 bp | [ | |
| GTGGAGAGCTGAAGTTTCTCTGC | |||||
|
| CTGGCGAAAGACTGTATCAT | 630 bp | [ | ||
| CAATGTATAGAAATCCGCTGTT | |||||
|
| CAGGTCATCCGGTCAGTCGG | 212 bp | [ | ||
| CAATGCCACGTACAACCGGC | |||||
Positive control strains used to test for diarrheic E. coli
| Reference control strain | Virulence genes |
|---|---|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of enrolled participants
| Characteristics | Occurrence or duration | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 30 (45, 95% CI = 34–57) |
| Female | 36 (55, 95% CI = 43–66) | |
| Age range (months) | 2–36 | |
| Mean duration of diarrhoea (±SD) days | 2 (1.5) | |
| Blood in stool (%) | 3 (4.5, 95% CI = 1.6–13) | |
| Vomiting (%) | 13 (19.7, 95% CI = 12–31) | |
| Fever (> 38 °C) (%) | 11 (16.7, 95% CI = 10–27) | |
| Weakness and dehydration (%) | 30 (45.5, 95% CI = 34–57) | |
| Cough (%) | 6 (9.1, 95% CI = 4–18) | |
| Belly pain (%) | 3 (4.5, 95% CI = 1.6–13) | |
| Cases on antibiotic therapy (%) | 1(1.5, 95% CI = 0.3–8) | |
Prevalence of food and waterborne pathogens in human and non-human sources in Nyanga
| Isolates | Pathogens isolated per sample type n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Stool (n = 66) | Meat (n = 85) | Water (n = 64) | |
|
| 11 (17) | – | 3 (5) |
|
| 7 (9) | 1 (1) | 11 (17) |
|
| 4 (6) | 4 (5) | – |
|
| 3 (5) | 6 (7) | – |
|
| 2 (3) | 3 (3) | 4 (6) |
|
| – | – | 6 (9) |
Diarrheic E. coli isolated on CHROMagar™STEC versus corresponding PCR target genes detected in the respective sample type enrichment
| PCR targets | Stool (66) | Meat (85) | Water (64) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolates | Genes | Isolates | Genes | Isolates | Genes | |
| EaggEC / | 2 (3) | 9 (14) | – | – | 1 (2) | – |
| DAEC/ | 8 (12) | 23 (35) | 2 (2) | 6 (7) | 2 (3) | 24 (38) |
| STEC/ | 1 (2) | 4 (6) | 17 (20) | 1 (2) | 19 (30) | |
| STEC/ | – | 2 (3) | – | 4 (5) | – | – |
| EIEC/ | 1 (2) | 4 (6) | – | – | – | 5 (8) |
| ETEC/ | – | 5 (8) | 1 (1) | – | 21 (33) | |
| O157/ | – | 1 (2) | 5 (6) | – | 9 (14) | |
| O111/ | – | 1 (2) | – | – | 5 (8) | |
| EPEC/ | – | – | 1 (1) | 6 (7) | – | – |
Fig. 2Electrophoresis gel image for PCR product following multiplex PCR ampification for aat, ipa, and daaC. Lanes 1 and 17 contained the 1 kb ladder (GeneRuler™ DNA molecular weight ladder -ThermoFisher Scientific Inc., MA, USA). Lanes 2–32 contained samples except for lanes 14 (positive control for aat),18 (positive control for ipa), 19 (negative control), 32 (positive control for daaC). Samples in lanes 9, 10, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 29 were positive for daaC. The sample in lane 30 was positive for ipa. The rest of the samples were negative for aat, ipa, and daaC. The gel image was captured using the E-Gel GelCapture Software (version 1.7)
Distribution of bacterial pathogens in the different meat types from the informal meat trade in Nyanga
| Type (n) | Number of samples with virulence gene/ bacterial pathogen (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| DEC | |
| Raw beef (17) | 1 (6) | – | 1 (6) | 2 (12) | 2 (12) |
| Raw mutton (9) | 1 (11) | – | 1 (11) | – | |
| Raw pork (22) | – | – | – | 1 (5) | |
| Raw chicken (11) | 3 (27) | 5 (45) | – | – | – |
| Roast beef (26) | – | – | – | – | |
| Roast Pork (8) | – | – | – | – | |
| Roast Chicken (3) | – | – | – | – | |
| Total | 4 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
DEC = Diarrheic E. coli,” – “means that the pathogen was not isolated
Fig. 3Mean faecal coliform counts (CFU/ml) for four water collection points along the Lotus River (LR13, LR14, LR 15, and LR 16), monthly average rainfall (mm), and average daily minimum temperatures (°C) between July 2015 and April 2016. The Figure was developed using the Microsoft Office Excel 365 ProPlus, version 1902
Sources, pathotypes, serotypes, and resistance profiles of diarrheic E. coli in Nyanga
| Isolate Number | Source | Pathotype | Serotype | Resistance profile |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 777 | Mutton | DAEC | Non-Typeable | AMP AMC CXM CXA |
| LR16 | Water | DAEC | O101 | AMP |
| NY29 | Child | STEC | O106 | AMP |
| 789 | Beef | EPEC | Non-Typeable | – |
| NY3.2 | Child | DAEC | Non-Typeable | – |
| NY1.2 | Child | DAEC | O153 | AMP AMC CXM CXA FOX CTX |
| NY50 | Child | EPEC | O49 | – |
| 767 | Water | DAEC | Non-Typeable | AMP AMC TZP |
| NY1.1 | Child | DAEC | O153 | AMP AMC CXM CXA FOX CTX |
| NY13.1 | Child | EaggEC | Non-Typeable | – |
| NY43 | Child | EaggEC | O143 | – |
| NY58 | Child | DAEC | Non-Typeable | – |
| 710 | Water | STEC | Non-Typeable | – |
| NY4 | Child | EIEC | Non-Typeable | – |
| E101.1 | Water | EaggEC | Non-Typeable | – |
| NY60 | Child | DAEC | Non-Typeable | AMP |
| NY28 | Child | DAEC | Non-Typeable | AMP |
| E33.1 | Child | DAEC | Non-Typeable | – |
| E34.1 | Child | DAEC | Non-Typeable | – |
| PK-STEC | Pork | DAEC | Non-Typeable | – |
Expert interpretation rules embedded in the WHONET software were used to classify as resistant or susceptible. AMP = ampicillin, AMC = amoxicillin-clavulanate, CTX = cefotaxime, TZP = tazobactam-piperacillin, CXM = cefuroxime, CXA = cefuroxime axetil, FOX = cefoxitin
Percentage non-susceptible per specimen type for Salmonella, Shigella, Plesiomonas, Vibrio, and Aeromonas
| Antibiotic | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meat (n = 4) | Stool ( | Water (n = 4) | Stool (n = 11) | Water ( | Stool (n = 6) | Meat ( | Stool ( | Water (n = 4) | Water (n = 6) | |
| AMP | – | – | 3 (75) | 7 (64) | 11 (100) | 6 (100) | 3 (100) | 2 (100) | – | – |
| AMC | – | – | 3 (75) | 7 (64) | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| CXM | 4 (100) | 1 (25) | – | 6 (55) | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| CXA | 1 (25) | – | 1 (25) | 6 (55) | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| FOX | 4 (100) | 1 (25) | – | 8 (73) | 2 (18) | – | – | – | – | 6 (100) |
| CAZ | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (17) | – | – | – | – |
| ETP | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 (100) | 2 (100) | – | 6 (100) |
| AMK | 4 (100) | – | – | 7 (64) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (17) |
| GEN | 1 (25) | 1 (25) | – | 7 (64) | 2 (18) | – | – | – | – | – |
| CIP | 4 (100) | 4 (100) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| TGC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 (100) | – | – |
| SXT | 4 (100) | 4 (100) | 4 (100) | 11 (100) | 11 (100) | 6 (100) | 3 (100) | 2 (100) | 4 (100) | 6 (100) |
*NT = Not Tested for. Campylobacter from water, stool, and the meat was all susceptible to ciprofloxacin and thus not included in this table. Expert interpretation rules embedded in the WHONET software were used to classify as resistant or susceptible. The CLSI clinical guidelines and breakpoints were used to analyse the data sets. AMP = ampicillin, AMC = amoxicillin-clavulanate, CXM = cefuroxime, CXA = cefuroxime axetil, FOX = cefoxitin, AMK = amikacin, GEN = gentamicin, CIP = ciprofloxacin, SXT = trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole, NIT = nitrofurantoin