| Literature DB >> 36212611 |
Alidehou Jerrold Agbankpe1, Sylvain D Kougblenou2, Tamegnon Victorien Dougnon1, Alida Oussou1, Elodie Gbotche1, Charles Hornel Koudokpon1, Brice Boris Legba1, Lamine Baba-Moussa3, Honore Sourou Bankole1.
Abstract
Campylobacter food-borne infections are a serious public health problem. In Benin, there is a proliferation of pork consumption in several forms. This study aims to determine the prevalence and the antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni strains isolated from pig guts, pig feces, and surface swabs from the cutting tables in southern Benin. For this purpose, 200 samples of pig guts, 40 samples of swabs from the cutting table surface, and 8 samples of pig feces were collected and subjected to bacteriological examination. The method used for the identification of bacteria was microbiological culture combined with molecular identification by PCR. The identified strains were then subjected to antibiotic susceptibility testing according to the methodology recommended by the EUCAST. Antibiotic profiles were compared between strains isolated from pig guts, pig feces, and cutting table surfaces on the one hand and among the different sampling sites on the other hand. The results obtained show that 47.6% of the samples analyzed were contaminated by Campylobacter spp. Molecular identification revealed 34.7% of Campylobacter coli and 9.3% of Campylobacter jejuni. The study of antimicrobial susceptibility showed resistance to ciprofloxacin, 44% to ampicillin, 23.9% to erythromycin, 11% to gentamicin, and 10.1% to amoxicillin + clavulanic acid. In total, 90.8% of the isolated Campylobacter strains were multidrug resistant. The use of antimicrobials in livestock production systems has increased considerably, which could explain, at least partially, the prevalence of Campylobacter and the resistance of strains to antibiotics. To limit the risk of Campylobacter food-borne infections, it is therefore important to include Campylobacter in the list of pathogens to be tested during sanitary quality control of meat and meat products in Benin.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36212611 PMCID: PMC9536969 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5120678
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Microbiol
Figure 1Map of southern Benin showing the study area and the central Cotonou slaughterhouse.
Distribution of samples according to their nature and origin.
| Origin of the samples | Type of samples | Number of site(s) sampled | Number of samples taken per site | Sample size taken | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central slaughterhouse | Pig guts | 5 | 8 | 40 | 56 |
| ETD | 1 | 8 | 8 | ||
| Feces | 1 | 8 | 8 | ||
|
| |||||
| Adjarra | Pig guts | 8 | 5 | 40 | 48 |
| ETD | 8 | 1 | 8 | ||
|
| |||||
| Akpro-Missérété | Pig guts | 8 | 5 | 40 | 48 |
| ETD | 8 | 1 | 8 | ||
|
| |||||
| Cotonou | Pig guts | 8 | 5 | 40 | 48 |
| ETD | 8 | 1 | 8 | ||
|
| |||||
| Porto-Novo | Pig guts | 8 | 5 | 40 | 48 |
| ETD | 8 | 1 | 8 | ||
| Total | 248 | ||||
ETD: cutting table surface swabbing.
Contamination rate of samples according to sampling locations.
| Sampling locations | Sample contamination results; | Total sample size | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pig guts; | Cutting table swabbing; | Feces; | Total | ||||||
| − | + | − | + | − | + | − | + | ||
| Cotonou central slaughterhouse | 25 (62.5) | 15 (37.5) | 4 (50.0) | 4 (50.0) | 2 (25.0) | 6 (75.0) | 31 (55.4) | 25 (44.6) | 56 |
| Adjarra | 21 (52.5) | 19 (47.5) | 2 (25.0) | 6 (75.0) | — | — | 23 (48.0) | 25 (52.0) | 48 |
| Akpro-Missérété | 20 (50.0) | 20 (50.0) | 3 (37.5) | 5 (62.5) | — | — | 23 (48.0) | 25 (52.0) | 48 |
| Cotonou | 24 (60.0) | 16 (40.0) | 5 (62.5) | 3 (37.5) | — | — | 29 (60.4) | 19 (39.6) | 48 |
| Porto-Novo | 21 (52.5) | 19 (47.5) | 3 (37.5) | 5 (62.5) | — | — | 24 (50.0) | 24 (50.0) | 48 |
| Total | 111 (55.5) | 89 (44.5) | 17 (42.5) | 23 (57.5) | 2 (25.0) | 6 (75.0) | 130 (52.4) | 118 (47.6) | 248 |
(−): culture-negative specimens; (+): culture-positive specimens; n: effective.
Phenotypic and molecular identification of isolated Campylobacter species.
| Samples |
| Identification of isolated | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenotypic identification | Molecular identification | ||||
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Pig guts | 200 | 67 (33.5) | 14 (7.0) | 66 (33.0) | 14 (7.0) |
| Cutting table swabs | 40 | 17 (42.5) | 6 (15.0) | 16 (40.0) | 7 (17.5) |
| Feces | 08 | 5 (62.5) | 1 (12.5) | 4 (50.0) | 2 (25.0) |
| Total | 248 | 89 (35.9) | 21 (8.5) | 86 (34.7) | 23 (9.3) |
Figure 2Distribution of the resistance of Campylobacter strains identified according to the sampling locations. AMC: amoxicillin + clavulanic acid; AMP: ampicillin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; E: erythromycin; TE: tetracycline; GM: gentamicin.
Distribution of C. coli and C. jejuni according to samples and sampling locations.
| Sampling locations |
| Samples, n (%) | Total, | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pig guts | Cutting table swabs | Feces | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Central slaughterhouse | 56 | 11 (19.6) | 2 (3.6) | 2 (3.6) | 2 (3.6) | 4 (7.1) | 2 (3.6) | 17 (30.4) | 6 (10.7) |
| Adjarra | 48 | 15 (31.3) | 3 (6.3) | 4 (8.3) | 2 (4.2) | — | — | 19 (39.6) | 5 (10.4) |
| Akpro-Missérété | 48 | 14 (29.2) | 4 (8.3) | 4 (8.3) | 1 (2.1) | — | — | 18 (37.5) | 5 (10.4) |
| Cotonou | 48 | 12 (25.0) | 2 (4.2) | 2 (4.2) | 1 (2.1) | — | — | 14 (29.2) | 3 (6.3) |
| Porto-Novo | 48 | 14 (29.2) | 3 (6.3) | 4 (8.3) | 1 (2.1) | — | — | 18 (37.5) | 4 (8.3) |
Percentages of resistance of C. coli and C. jejuni strains to antibiotics according to samples.
| Classes of antibiotics | Antibiotics used | Number of strains identified, | Samples | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pig guts, | Cutting table swabs, | Feces, | |||||||||
|
|
| Total |
|
| Total |
|
| Total | |||
|
| AMC | 11 (10.1) | 6 (75.0) | 2 (25.0) | 8 (10.0) | — | 1 (100.0) | 1 (4.3) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) | 2 |
| AMP | 48 (44.0) | 27 (75.0) | 9 (25.0) | 36 (45.0) | 5 (55.6) | 4 (44.4) | 9 (39.1) | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | 3 | |
|
| |||||||||||
| Fluoroquinolones | CIP | 71 (65.1) | 44 (83.0) | 9 (17.0) | 53 (66.3) | 9 (64.3) | 5 (35.7) | 14 (60.9) | 3 (75.0) | 1 (25.0) | 4 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Macrolides | E | 26 (23.9) | 8 (57.1) | 6 (42.9) | 14 (17.5) | 3 (33.3) | 6 (66.7) | 9 (39.1) | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | 3 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Tétracycline | TE | 84 (77.1) | 52 (86.7) | 8 (13.3) | 60 (75.0) | 12 (66.7) | 6 (33.3) | 18 (78.3) | 4 (66.7) | 2 (33.3) | 6 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Aminoglycosides | GM | 12 (11.0) | 6 (75.0) | 2 (25.0) | 8 (10.0) | — | 2 (100.0) | 2 (8.7) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) | 2 |
AMC: amoxicillin + clavulanic acid; AMP: ampicillin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; E: erythromycin; TE: tetracycline; GM: gentamicin; significant difference between the percentages of erythromycin resistance of strains isolated from the different types of samples (p = 0.00012; p = 0.0248).
Profiles of multidrug-resistant strains identified according to samples and Campylobacter species identified.
| Number of antibiotics from different classes | Resistance profiles | All strains identified, | Samples |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pig guts, | Cutting table swabbing, | Feces, |
|
| |||
| 3 | AMP-CIP-TE | 22 (20.2) | 16 (20.0) | 4 (17.4) | 2 (33.3) | 18 (20.9) | 4 (17.4) |
| AMP-E-TE | 9 (8.3) | 5 (6.3) | 2 (8.7) | 2 (33.3) | 5 (5.8) | 4 (17.4) | |
| AMP-CIP-E | 9 (8.3) | 5 (6.3) | 3 (13.0) | 1 (16.7) | 5 (5.8) | 4 (17.4) | |
| CIP-TE-GM | 8 (7.3) | 5 (6.3) | 1 (4.3) | 2 (33.3) | 5 (5.8) | 3 (13.1) | |
| AMC-CIP-TE | 3 (2.8) | 2 (2.5) | — | 1 (16.7) | 3 (3.5) | — | |
| CIP-E-TE | 13 (11.9) | 8 (10.0) | 4 (17.4) | 1 (16.7) | 7 (8.1) | 6 (26.1) | |
| AMP-CIP-GM | 6 (5.5) | 5 (6.3) | — | 1 (16.7) | 4 (4.7) | 2 (8.7) | |
| AMP-TE-GM | 6 (5.5) | 5 (6.3) | — | 1 (16.7) | 5 (5.8) | 1 (4.3) | |
| AMC-AMP-CIP | 3 (2.8) | 3 (3.7) | — | — | 3 (3.5) | — | |
| AMC-AMP-E | 2 (1.8) | 1 (1.3) | — | 1 (16.7) | — | 2 (8.7) | |
|
| |||||||
| 4 | AMP-CIP-E-TE | 7 (6.4) | 4 (5.0) | 2 (8.7) | 1 (16.7) | 5 (5.8) | 2 (8.7) |
| AMC-AMP-E-TE | 1 (0.9) | — | — | 1 (16.7) | — | 1 (4.3) | |
| AMP-CIP-TE-GM | 5 (4.6) | 4 (5.0) | — | 1 (16.7) | 4 (4.7) | 1 (4.3) | |
| AMC-E-TE-GM | 1 (0.9) | — | 1 (4.3) | — | — | 1 (4.3) | |
| CIP-E-TE-GM | 2 (1.8) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (4.3) | — | 1 (1.2) | 1 (4.3) | |
|
| |||||||
| 5 | AMC-AMP-CIP-TE-GM | 1 (0.9) | 1 (1.3) | — | — | 1 (1.2) | — |
| AMP-CIP-E-TE-GM | 1 (0.9) | 1 (1.3) | — | — | 1 (1.2) | — | |
|
| |||||||
| Total | 99 (90.8) | 66 (60.6) | 18 (78.3) | 15 | 67 (77.9) | 32 | |
AMC: amoxicillin + clavulanic acid; AMP: ampicillin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; E: erythromycin; TE: tetracycline; GM: gentamicin.