| Literature DB >> 35267294 |
Thida Kong-Ngoen1, Sirijan Santajit2,3, Witawat Tunyong1, Pornpan Pumirat1, Nitat Sookrung4, Wanpen Chaicumpa5, Nitaya Indrawattana1.
Abstract
Nontyphoidal-Salmonella bacteria cause foodborne gastroenteritis that may lead to fatal bacteremia, osteomyelitis, and meningitis if not treated properly. The emergence of multidrug-resistant Salmonella strains is a global public health threat. Regular monitoring of genotypes and phenotypes of Salmonella isolated from humans, animals, foods, and environments is mandatory for effective reduction and control of this food-borne pathogen. In this study, antimicrobial-resistant and virulent genotypes and phenotypes of Salmonella isolated from retail food samples in Bangkok, Thailand, were investigated. From 252 raw food samples, 58 Salmonella strains that belonged only to serotype Enteritidis were isolated. Disc diffusion method showed that all isolates were still sensitive to amikacin and carbapenems. More than 30% of the isolates were resistant to ampicillin, tetracycline, and ciprofloxacin. Twenty isolates resist at least three antibiotic classes. Minimum inhibitory concentration tests showed that 12.07% of the isolates produced extended-spectrum β-Lactamase. Polymerase chain reaction indicated that 32.76, 81.03, 39.66, and 5.17% of the isolates carried blaTEM-1, tetA, sul2, and dfrA7, respectively. All isolates were positive for invasion-associated genes. Effective prevention and control of Salmonella (as well as other food-borne pathogens) is possible by increasing public awareness and applying food hygienic practices. Active and well harmonised "One Health" co-operation is required to effectively control food-borne zoonosis.Entities:
Keywords: Salmonella Enteritidis; food-borne salmonellosis; invasion genes bacterial virulence; multi-drug resistance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35267294 PMCID: PMC8909193 DOI: 10.3390/foods11050661
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
PCR primers used for amplification of different drug resistance-associated and virulence genes.
| Gene Name | Oligonucleotide Sequence (5′-3′) | Product Size (bp) | Annealing Temperature (°C) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forward: ACAGTGCTCGTTTACGACCTGAAT | 244 | 60 | [ | |
| Forward: CGTGAAGGGATTATCGCAGT | 296 | 56 | [ | |
|
| Forward: TTGGGTGCACGAGTGGGT | 504 | 56 | [ |
|
| Forward: ATAACCACCCAGTCACGC | 631 | 52 | [ |
| Forward: CGGCATCGTCAACATAACC | 405 | 60 | [ | |
| Forward: GCTACATCCTGCTTGCCTTC | 210 | 52 | [ | |
| Forward: CTTGAGAGCCTTCAACCCAG | 418 | 52 | [ | |
| Forward: GGTAATGGCCCTGATATCCC | 265 | 50 | [ |
Serotypes, antibiotic resistance profiles, virulence genes, and drug resistance-associated genes of Salmonella Enteritidis isolates of this study.
| Source | Antibiotic-Resistant Profile | Virulence Gene | Drug Resistance Associated Gene | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| Sal1 | pork | AMP, TE, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal2 | pork | AMP, TE, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal3 | pork | AMP and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | + |
| Sal4 | pork | AMP, CTX, CRO, FEP, GN, and TE |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal5 | pork | AMP, CTX, CRO, FEP, GN, and TE |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal6 | pork | AMP, TE, CIP, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | + |
| Sal7 | pork | AMP, CTX, CRO, FEP, GN, and TE |
| + | + | − | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal8 | pork | AMP and TE |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal9 | pork | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal10 | pork | AMP, CTX, CRO, FEP, GN, and TE |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal11 | pork | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal12 | pork | AMP and TE |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal13 | pork | AMP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal14 | pork | AMP, TE, CIP, and SXT |
| + | + | − | − | + | − | − | − |
| Sal15 | pork | AMP, CTX, CRO, FEP, GN, and TE |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal16 | pork | AMP, SAM, CAZ, CTX, CRO, FEP, GN, and TE |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal17 | chicken | AMP, SAM, TE, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | − | − |
| Sal18 | chicken | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal20 | chicken | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal21 | chicken | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal22 | chicken | − |
| + | + | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal23 | chicken | CIP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal24 | chicken | CIP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal25 | chicken | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal26 | chicken | TE and CIP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal27 | chicken | CIP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal28 | chicken | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal29 | chicken | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal30 | chicken | AMP, TE, CIP, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | − | − |
| Sal31 | chicken | AMP, TE, CIP, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | − | − |
| Sal32 | chicken | TE |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal33 | chicken | CIP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal34 | chicken | TE and CIP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal35 | chicken | TE and CIP |
| + | + | − | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal36 | chicken | AMP, TE, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | − | − |
| Sal37 | chicken | TE |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal38 | chicken | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | |
| Sal39 | chicken | AMP, TE, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal40 | chicken | AMP, SAM, TE, and CIP |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal42 | chicken | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal43 | chicken | TE |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal44 | chicken | GN, TE, CIP, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal45 | chicken | CIP and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | + |
| Sal46 | chicken | AMP, TE, and SXT |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | − | − |
| Sal47 | chicken | AMP and CIP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal48 | chicken | − |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal50 | chicken | AMP, TE, and CIP |
| + | + | − | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal52 | chicken | TE |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal53 | chicken | TE and CIP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal54 | chicken | CIP |
| + | + | + | − | − | − | + | − |
| Sal55 | chicken | AMP and TE |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − |
| Sal56 | chicken | AMP, CTX, CRO, FEP, GN, TE, and CIP |
| + | + | + | − | + | − | − | − |
| Sal57 | beef | − |
| + | + | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal58 | beef | − |
| + | + | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal59 | beef | − |
| + | + | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal60 | beef | − |
| + | + | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal62 | beef | − |
| + | + | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sal63 | beef | − |
| + | + | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Number of isolates (%) | 58 (100) | 58 (100) | 0 (0) | 19 (32.76) | 0 (0) | 23 (39.66) | 3 (5.17) | ||||
+ represent as “present “; − represent as “not present”.
Figure 1Molecular detection of virulence and drug-resistance associated genes of Salmonella isolates using PCR methods. Lane M: 100 bp plus DNA ladder; Lane 1: the representative invA amplicon; Lane 2: the representative hilA amplicon; Lane 3: the representative tetA amplicon; Lane 4: the representative blaTEM-1 amplicon; Lane 5: the representative sul2 amplicon; Lane 6: the representative dfrA7 amplicon, and Lane 7: negative control.
The antibiotic resistance phenotypes of the Salmonella isolates.
| Antimicrobial Agent | Number of Isolates Tested | Anti-Biogram Phenotypes of | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitive | Intermediate | Resistant | ||
|
| ||||
| ampicillin (AMP) | 58 | 32 (55.17) | 0 (0) | 26 (44.83) |
|
| ||||
| ampicillin/sulbactam (SAM) | 58 | 49 (84.49) | 6 (10.34) | 3 (5.17) |
| piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP) | 58 | 56 (96.55) | 2 (3.45) | 0 (0) |
|
| ||||
| cefepime (FEP) | 58 | 51 (87.93) | 0 (0) | 7 (12.07) |
| cefotaxime (CTX) | 58 | 47 (81.03) | 4 (6.90) | 7 (12.07) |
| ceftazidime (CAZ) | 58 | 52 (89.66) | 5 (8.62) | 1 (1.72) |
| ceftriaxone (CRO) | 58 | 51 (87.93) | 0 (0) | 7 (12.07) |
|
| ||||
| gentamicin (GN) | 58 | 51 (87.93) | 0 (0) | 7 (12.07) |
| amikacin (AK) | 58 | 58 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
|
| ||||
| ertapenem (ERT) | 58 | 58 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| meropenem (MEM) | 58 | 46 (79.11) | 12 (20.89) | 0 (0) |
| imipenem (IPM) | 58 | 54 (93.10) | 4 (6.90) | 0 (0) |
|
| ||||
| tetracycline (TE) | 58 | 26 (44.83) | 0 (0) | 32 (55.17) |
|
| ||||
| ciprofloxacin (CIP) | 58 | 4 (6.90) | 34 (58.62) | 20 (34.48) |
|
| ||||
| trimethoprime/sulfamethoxazole (SXT) | 58 | 46 (79.31) | 0 (0) | 12 (20.69) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ceftazidime | 58 | 7 (12.07) | 51 (87.93) | |
| cefotaxime | 58 | 7 (12.07) | 51 (87.93) | |
Figure 2Heatmap of percent distribution for drug-resistant phenotypes and genotypes of S. Enteritidis isolates that were present in at least one isolate with antibiotic-resistant phenotype. The colored strip depicts the percentage of genes associated with a particular antibiotic-resistant phenotype. Created using GraphPad Prism version 9 (La Jolla, CA, USA).
Figure 3Microscopic appearance of Giemsa’s stained CaCo-2 cells: (A) before (B,C) and after infecting with the representative Salmonella Enteritidis isolate no. 44 (Sal44). Bacteria are predominantly seen in the CaCo-2 cells’ cytoplasm (original magnification 200× and 400×, respectively).