E Coli O157h7 Uv Light Beef Liver
Foods. 2020 Sep; 9(ix): 1190.
Prevalence of Multidrug-Resistant Foodborne Pathogens and Indicator Bacteria from Edible Offal and Muscle Meats in Nashville, Tennessee
Agnes Kilonzo-Nthenge
iiSection of Man Sciences, Tennessee State University, 3500 John A. Merritt Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37209, USA
Received 2020 Jul 21; Accepted 2020 Aug 22.
Abstract
This study investigated the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in retail edible offal and musculus meats in Nashville, Tennessee. A total of 348 retail meats (160 edible offal and 188 muscle) were analyzed for Salmonella enterica serovar, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, E. coli O157:H7, and enterococci. Bacteria was identified using biochemical and PCR methods. Salmonella enterica serovar (4.4% and 4.3%), Campylobacter (ane.9% and ane.1%), Eastward. coli (79.4% and 89.iv%), and enterococci (88.ane% and 95.7%) was detected in offal and muscle meats, respectively. Chicken liver (ix.7%) was virtually frequently contaminated with Salmonella enterica serovar, followed by basis craven (6.9%) and chicken wings (iv.2%). No Salmonella enterica serovar was detected in beef liver, beef tripe, and ground beef. The prevalence of Campylobacter was 6.nine%, 2.3%, and 1.iv% in beef liver, ground beef, and ground chicken, respectively. None of the meats were positive for Due east. coli O157:H7. Resistance of isolates was significantly (p < 0.05) highest in erythromycin (98.3%; 99.1%), followed by tetracycline (94%; 98.three%), vancomycin (88.8%; 92.2%) as compared to chloramphenicol (43.1%; 53.ix%), amoxicillin/clavulanic (43.5%; 45.7%), and ciprofloxacin (45.7%; 55.7%) in offal and muscle meats, respectively. Imipenem showed the lowest resistance (0%; 0.9%). A total of 41 multidrug-resistant patterns were displayed. Edible offal could be a source of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Keywords: antimicrobial resistance, edible offal, musculus meat
1. Introduction
American'due south food demographics keep to suit every bit a upshot of an expanding U.Southward. population of immigrants [1]. Immigrants maintain their nutrient traditions in the United States, permitting them to go on with their civilisation, structure, and identity. Western civilization including food option has been influenced past engaging in cultural festivities and activities of immigrants. In that location is also a long-standing impact of immigration on American cuisine. Several edible offal including fried chopped liver, giblet gravy, liver mush, and gandinga in the U.Due south. are expert examples of dishes which have emerged and embraced as a result of immigration. Edible offal, every bit well every bit muscle meats, are consumed for their nutritional benefits [ii]. However, undercooked meats are one of the leading origins of foodborne diseases [3]. Meats are frequently contaminated with zoonotic pathogens all through production, processing, distribution, and retail processing [4].
Salmonella enterica serovar, Campylobacter, Due east. coli O157:H7 among others are the most shared foodborne pathogens of beast origin [5]. Escherichia coli and enterococci are also mutual in meat products and reverberate the microbial quality of the environment [6]. Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Enterococcus faecium are habitants of the environment and animal guts; all associated with gastrointestinal infections and also a measure out of fecal contamination [seven,viii]. Edible offal spoil fast owing to their functional structures and are often tainted with pathogenic bacteria [9]. Some parts of the world prepare slightly cooked offal dishes, a practice that may cause foodborne illnesses. Campylobacteriosis was reported in New Zealand and the U.Southward. due to consumption of undercooked liver [10]. Frequently restaurants serve undercooked liver to retain nutritional benefits, which could cause disease as liver tissue may be contaminated with Campylobacter [eleven] and other foodborne pathogens. Organs including liver and tripe should be prepared at a minimum internal temperature of 160 °F (71.one °C).
Antimicrobial resistance in food animals is a major concern due to the potential dissemination of resistant bacteria to humans via the food concatenation [12]. According to Mcewen and Fedorka-Cray [xiii], antimicrobial-resistant leaner may leak and contaminate meat during slaughtering and could transfer to humans through food. Bosilevac et al. [fourteen] report that meats are a cradle and vehicle for dispersion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans. Since edible offal has received considerable focus due to its nutritious qualities [fifteen], it is essential to evaluate their microbiological quality. Therefore, this study assessed the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria from retailed offal and muscle meats in Nashville, Tennessee. Nashville is a city with an influx of immigrants and notably, some chain retail stores accept offal sections to adapt individuals embracing offal-based dishes. Again, Nashville is in the southern U.Southward., as well accommodating apply in traditional southern foods.
2. Materials and Methods
2.i. Sample Collection and Preparation
A full of 160 edible offal (chicken liver = 72; beef liver = 44; and beef tripe = 44) and 188 muscle meats (craven fly = 72; basis chicken = 72; and ground beef = 44) were purchased from three retail stores in Nashville, over half-dozen months from August 2017 to January 2018. Meats per sample type were purchased in duplicates at each selected store and identified as MSA (n = 2), MSB (n = 2), and MSC (due north = 2) to keep their confidentiality. In full, meat samples were purchased from 6 stores. The number of meat samples purchased each week was dependent on availability at the time of drove. All meats were acquired before the acknowledged appointment, labeled with store identification letter, and date of drove. Meats were transported in iceboxes to the laboratory and processed within 2 h of drove. From each meat sample, 3 sub-samples were prepared and processed for bacterial isolation and identification. Concisely, 25 thou of each sub-sample were aseptically placed in a sterile stomacher bag (Fisher scientific, Pittsburgh, PA U.s.) into which 225 mL sterile buffered peptone h2o (BPW) (Oxoid, Solon, OH, U.s.a.) was added. The mixture was homogenized (Stomacher® 400 Circulator, Seward, Norfolk, UK) at 230 rpm for 2 min. Prevalence of Salmonella enterica serovar, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli O157:H7, generic Escherichia coli, and enterococci were evaluated from all homogenized samples.
2.one.1. Detection of Salmonella Enterica serovar
For pre-enrichment, the homogenized mixture was incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. Approximately 1 and 0.1 mL of each pre-enriched sample was added to 10 mL of Tetrathionate (TT) broth (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and Rappaport-Vassiliadis (RV) goop (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ, U.s.a.), respectively. The TT and RV enrichment cultures were incubated at 37 °C and 42 °C, respectively for 24 h. After enrichment, 10 μL of each sample was streaked in duplicates onto xylose lysine Tergitol 4 (XLT-4; Oxoid) and CHROMagar Salmonella (CAS) agar (Oxoid) plates. After incubation at 37 °C for 24 h, colonies that were blood-red to xanthous with black centers on XLT-4 or mauve (rose to purple) on CAS plates were identified as presumptive Salmonella enterica serovar. Oxidase and Salmonella enterica serovar agglutination tests (FT0203; Oxoid) were additionally used for further identification of Salmonella enterica serovar. All presumptive isolates were tested biochemically by using API 20E strips (bioMérieux, Hazelwood, MO, United states). Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, Klebsiella pneumoniae and pneumoniae ATCC 35657 were used equally quality strains. Three colonies per plate were selected for API biochemical testing. The isolates with >90% confidence level identification were confirmed by PCR.
two.1.2. Detection of Campylobacter spp.
For each meat sample, 1 mL of the homogenized mixture was enriched in 9 mL of sterile Bolton Broth (CM 0983; Oxoid, Solon, OH, Us) with CCDA Lysed Horse Claret (SR0048C; Oxoid, Solon, OH, Us) and a selective supplement (SR0183E; Oxoid, Solon, OH, USA). CampyGen (CN0025A; Oxoid, Solon, OH, USA) was introduced to provide microaerophilic conditions desirable for Campylobacter isolation. Later on incubation at 42 °C for 48 h, a loop (10 µL) of each enriched sample was streaked in duplicates onto Campylobacter blood-costless agar (CM 0739; Oxoid, Solon, OH, USA) with CCDA selective supplement (SR155E; Oxoid, Solon, OH, USA). Afterward incubation at 42 °C for 48 h, plates were examined for morphologically typical of Campylobacter colonies (greyish, ofttimes with a metallic sheen, flat, and moist with a tendency to spread). Presumptive Campylobacter colonies were confirmed by Gram staining, oxidase, and catalase tests. The presumed isolates were further subjected to standard phenotypic tests using the API CAMPY system (bioMérieux, Hazelwood, MO, USA) and Campylobacter confirm latex Kit (Scimedx, Denville, NJ, USA).
two.1.3. Detection of Generic Escherichia coli and Escherichia coli O157:H7
Homogenized samples were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C for pre-enrichment. Approximately, 50 mL of each pre-enriched sample was mixed with 50 mL of double-strength MacConkey broth (Oxoid, Solon, OH, USA) and incubated at 35 °C ± 2 °C for 24 h. After incubation, a loop (10 µL) of each sample was streaked in duplicates onto Eosin-Methylene Blue (EMB) agar plates (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) for Escherichia coli and Sorbitol MacConkey agar (CM0813; Oxoid, Solon, OH, U.s.) supplemented with cefixime (50 ng/mL) and potassium tellurite (25 mg/mL) supplement (SR0172E; Oxoid, Solon, OH, USA) for Escherichia coli O157:H7. Consequently, inoculated plates were then incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Isolates with a typical Escherichia coli morphology and bluish/black with a dark-green metallic sheen on EMB were identified as presumptive Escherichia coli. Escherichia coli colonies were randomly selected and confirmed using the API 20E identification arrangement (bioMerieux, Hazelwood, MO, U.s.a.). Colorless, round, and entire edge colonies with brown centers on the Sorbitol MacConkey agar were identified every bit presumptive Escherichia coli O157:H7. Colonies were further screened for the presence of the O157 antigen past Escherichia coli O157 latex test kit (DR0620M, Oxoid, Solon, OH, United states). Presumptive colonies were inoculated onto nutrient agar plates and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h further investigations.
ii.1.4. Detection of Enterococcus spp.
Each homogenized sample (one mL) was enriched in 9 mL of sterile Enterococcosel Broth (EB) (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Side by side, x µL of Enterococcosel goop from positive samples (black) was streaked onto Enterococcosel Agar (EA) plates and incubated at 37 °C for 24 to 48 h. Colonies translucent with brownish-black to blackness zones on Enterococcosel Agar were identified as Enterococcus spp. The phenotypic test for presumptive enterococci isolates was based on morphology and biochemical traits: catalase testing, gram-positive, bile-esculin, and L-pyrrolidonyl-β-naphthylamide activeness. In addition, isolates were subjected to the API 20 Strep (bioMérieux, Hazelwood, MO, United states) and results were interpreted using the API web software (version 4.0, bioMe'rieux, Hazelwood, MO, Us).
ii.two. Bacterial DNA Training and Bacteria Confirmation
Salmonella enterica serovar, Escherichia coli O157:H7, generic Escherichia coli, and enterococci isolates were cultivated overnight at 37 °C in tryptic soy broth (TSB; Difco BD). Campylobacter isolates were cultivated in Bolton Broth supplemented with 5% Lysed Equus caballus Blood (Oxoid SR0048C) and selective supplement (Oxoid SR0183E). Plates were then incubated at 42 °C for 48 h under previous described micro-aerobic atmospheric condition. DNA was extracted from overnight cultures (>5 × 106 cells) using the PureLink Genomic DNA Mini Kit (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY, USA). Deoxyribonucleic acid concentrations and integrity were adamant by using a NanoDrop 2000 (Thermo Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and agarose gel electrophoresis, respectively. A PCR Core Kit (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) was used in this study. Each reaction mixture (25 µL) contained 125 ng of Deoxyribonucleic acid template, 0.5 µM each forward and opposite primers, 400 µM deoxynucleoside triphosphates, three mM MgCl2, two.five µL of 10x PCR buffer, and two.5 U Taq Deoxyribonucleic acid polymerase. The sequences of primer pair used for targeting Salmonella enterica serovar target gene (ompC) was v′-ATCGCTGACTTATGCAATCG-3 and 5′-CGGGTTGCGTTATAGGTCTG-3′ [xvi], whereas the primer pair used for targeting Campylobacter spp. (16SrRNA) was 5′-ATCT AATGGCTTAACCATTAAAC-3′ and v′-GGACGGTAACTAGTTTAGTATT-3′ [17]. Escherichia coli O157:H7 (rfbE) primer pair was v′- CAGGTGAAGG TGGAATGGTTGTC-three′ and five′- TTAGAATTGAGACCATCCAATAAG-3′ [18], for Escherichia coli (uidA) the primer pair was 5′-TGGTAATTACCGACGAAAACGGC-3′ and v′-TGGTAATT ACCGACGAAAACGGC-iii′ [19], and Enterococcus spp. (Tuf) was 5′-TACTGACAAACCATTCATGATG-iii′and 5′AACTTCGTCACCAACGCG AAC-3 [20]. PCR was performed by using a GeneAmp PCR system 2700 thermal cycler (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Consequently, the PCR products were electrophoresed in agarose gel stained with 0.5 µg/mL of ethidium bromide (Sigma-Aldrich, Madrid, Spain) and photographed nether UV light.
ii.3. Antibiotic Resistant Profiles
Antimicrobial susceptibility was performed in accordance with the standard Kirby disk improvidence method recommended past the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, 2016). Antimicrobial disks (BD) used, with forcefulness in parentheses were: amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (AMC; 20/ten µg), cefotaxime (CTX; 30 µg), ceftazidime (CAZ; 30 µg), ceftriaxone (CRO; 30 µg), chloramphenicol (CHL; 30 µg), ciprofloxacin (CIP; 5 µg), erythromycin (ERY; fifteen µg), imipenem (IPM; 10 µg), tetracycline (TET; 5 µg), and vancomycin (VAN; thirty µg). A full of 231 bacteria isolates were tested confronting selected antimicrobials. Briefly, Salmonella enterica serovar, Escherichia coli, and enterococci overnight cultures were adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard and spread evenly on Mueller-Hinton (MH) agar plates (Difco, BD). Antibiotic susceptibility disks were and so placed on MH plates and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. For Campylobacter, MH broths cultured at 42 °C for 48 h were plated on MH agar supplemented with 5% Lysed Horse Blood. MH plates were then incubated in a microaerophilic atmosphere for 48 h at 42 °C. The zones of inhibition were interpreted according to CLSI guidelines [21]. Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 and Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 were used as quality control organisms. Reference standard bacterial strains were tested meantime as controls.
2.4. Statistical Assay
The data was captured in Microsoft Excel® (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, U.s.) United states of america) and analyzed using the assay of variance of SAS for Windows (version 6.12; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and chi-foursquare test. The antibiotic resistance values were expressed equally percentages and statistical significance was set at p-values of less than 0.05.
3. Results and Discussion
3.ane. Pathogenic Leaner: Salmonella enterica serovar and Campylobacter spp.
Salmonella enterica serovar and Campylobacter spp. were recovered from edible offal and muscle meats as displayed in Table 1. The prevalence of Salmonella enterica serovar at nine.7% was significantly (p < 0.05) high equally compared to other offal meats, notably none was recovered from beef liver and beef trips. Salmonella enterica serovar was also nowadays in chicken wings (4.two%) and ground chicken (6.9%). There was no significant divergence of Salmonella enterica serovar found in ground beefiness. Still, no significant (p > 0.05) differences in the occurrence of this pathogen between edible offal (four.4%) and muscle meats (4.three%).
Tabular array 1
Prevalence (%) of pathogenic and indicator leaner in retail edible offal and muscle meats.
| Bacterial Species A | No. (%) of Edible Offal B | No. (%) of Muscle Meat B | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CL (n = 72) | BL (n = 44) | BT (n = 44) | Total (n = 160) | CW (due north = 72) | GC (north = 72) | GB (n = 44) | Full (n = 188) | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar | seven (9.7) ay | 0 (0.0) cy | 0 (0.0) cy | 7 (4.4) aby | three (iv.ii) aby | 5 (iv.two) aby | 0 (0.0) cy | eight (iv.3) aby |
| Campylobacter | 0 (0.0) past | three (half-dozen.9) ay | 0 (0.0) by | 3 (1.9) aby | 0 (0.0) by | 1 (one.four) aby | 1 (two.iii) aby | 2 (1.1) aby |
| Escherichia coli | 67 (93.1) ax | 28 (63.6) bx | 32 (72.7) abx | 127 (79.four) abx | 67 (93.1) ax | 68 (94.four) ax | 33 (75.0) abx | 168 (89.4) ax |
| enterococci | 70 (97.2) ax | 36 (81.8) bx | 35 (79.5) bx | 141 (88.ane) bx | 72 (100.0) ax | 72 (100.0) ax | 36 (81.8) bx | 180 (95.7) ax |
In a previous study, the prevalence of Salmonella in retail chicken and footing turkey was reported at ix.one% and v.v%, respectively [22]. In addition, Erickson [23] documented a lower (2%) prevalence of Salmonella in basis turkey. However, Phan et al. [24] observed a college Salmonella prevalence (21.0%) in chicken meat. Co-ordinate to Wideman et al. [25], the prevalence of Salmonella-contaminated poultry products has dropped significantly due to major and improved alterations in handling of poultry in processing plants. Although none of the beefiness liver, beef tripe, and ground beef samples were positive for Salmonella enterica serovar in our report, this pathogen has been detected at a rate of iii.8% and 2.4% in beef from retail stores and federally inspected establishments, respectively [26]. Murakami et al. [27] also reported 1.5% Salmonella enterica serovar occurrence on cattle offal in Fukuoka, Japan.
In our study, the presence of Salmonella enterica serovar in both edible offal and musculus meats was confirmed by PCR (Figure 1).
Representative PCR results of Salmonella enterica serovar (ompC) isolated from the edible offal and muscle meat. Lane Yard: 100 bp Deoxyribonucleic acid mark; lane ane–ii: positive control; lane 3: negative control; and lane 4–12: positive samples.
More often than not, equally displayed in this study and Zhang et al. [28] investigation, Salmonella enterica serovar is frequently plant in poultry meats and less in bovine meats. Painter et al. [29] stated that 10–29% of salmonellosis infections in the U.S. are associated with poultry. Salmonella enterica serovar is a significant foodborne pathogen in raw meats, by and large in chicken products, and will go along to exist a challenge in food chain [thirty].
Depression Campylobacter frequency was observed in ground beef (2.3%) and the ground chicken (i.4%) equally shown in Table 1. Overall, no meaning difference was observed in Campylobacter occurrence between edible offal and muscle meats. However, specifically beefiness liver (6.9%) showed a significantly college prevalence (p < 0.05) than ground chicken (one.four%) and basis beef (two.3%). Trokhymchuk et al. [31] reported a higher Campylobacter charge per unit (16.ii%) in retail ground beef than in our report (2.3%). Our results also show 6.9% of Campylobacter on the beefiness liver, relatively in understanding with Enokimoto et al. [32] study that displayed a 5% prevalence. Nonetheless, other studies have reported college Campylobacter occurrences of 78% [33] and 69% [34]. The elevated Campylobacter incidence in retail beef liver might be due to cantankerous-contamination since they are recovered from several cows and clustered together [33]. Ghafir et al. [35] besides suggested that the raised level of Campylobacter recovery from liver may exist due to elevated moisture content, which provides protection to the foodborne pathogen. The risk of Campylobacter in beef liver could also be magnified by preparing lightly to evade charring and undesired taste [35]. According to Vipham et al. [36], retail ground beefiness storage environment could too favor Campylobacter survival. In the current study, Campylobacter spp. on edible offal and muscle meats was confirmed as displayed in Effigy ii.
Representative PCR results of Campylobacter (16SrRNA) isolated from the edible offal and muscle meat. Lane Yard: 100 bp DNA marker; lane 1: positive control; lane ii: negative control; and lane 3–nine: samples (lane 3–7: positive samples; lane 8–9: negative sample).
Although there accept been improvements in handling practices, retail meat and liver products may be tainted with Campylobacter at the butchery [37]. Campylobacter has the potential to survive severe environments through utilizing multiple survival mechanisms [38]; hence, potential for hereafter outbreaks owing to the inclination for undercooked liver [39] and other meat products. It is also documented that Campylobacteriosis outbreaks take been linked to contaminated retail liver products worldwide [40,41]. In our written report, there were no Escherichia coli O157:H7 positive edible offal or muscle meats (Figure 3).
Representative PCR results of E. coli O157:H7 (rfbE) isolated from the edible offal and muscle meat. Lane M: 100 bp DNA marking; lane 1–2: positive control; lane 3: negative command; and lane four–17: samples. All samples were negative for E. coli O157:H7.
3.two. Indicator Bacteria: Escherichia coli and enterococci
Escherichia coli and enterococci were observed in all edible offal and muscle meats as displayed in Table i. Overall, muscle meats presented significantly (p < 0.05) higher Escherichia coli occurrence (89.4%) than in edible offal (79.4%) (Tabular array i). Our findings are supported by the Food Authorisation reporting a higher occurrence of Escherichia coli in beefiness cuts than beef offal [42]. In reference to edible offal, the frequency of Escherichia coli was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in chicken liver (93.1%) as compared to beefiness tripe (72.7%), and beef liver (63.vi%). However, in another report, Escherichia coli was isolated at xl% from beef liver [43]. From the statistical analysis, information technology can be concluded that prevalence levels of Escherichia coli were not significantly (p > 0.05) unlike in the ground craven (94.iv%) and chicken wings (93.i%).
Chicken wings and ground chicken presented the highest enterococci (100%), followed by chicken liver (97.two%), beef liver, ground beef (81.8%), and beefiness tripe (79.5%). Ground beef, beefiness tripe, and beef liver showed significantly (p < 0.05) lower enterococci prevalence than in craven liver, chicken wing, and basis craven (Tabular array ane). The occurrence of enterococci in retailed offal and muscle meats is a wellness concern as it is the third primary source of nosocomial infections in the United States [44]. Improper handling practices of enterococci contaminated meat may upshot to nosocomial infection. Escherichia coli and enterococci incidence in foods is reflected as an indicator of fecal contagion and occurrence of pathogenic bacteria in the interrelated food items [45]. Effigy four and Figure 5 are PCR confirmations of Escherichia coli and enterococci occurrence in both edible offal and muscle meats, respectively.
Representative PCR results of E. coli (uidA) isolated from the edible offal and musculus meat. Lane M: 100 bp DNA marker; lane 1: positive control; lane 2: negative command; and lane 3–xviii: samples; (lane three–eight and lane 10–eighteen: positive samples; lane ix: negative sample).
Representative PCR results of enterococci (Tuf) isolated from the edible offal and muscle meat. Lane M: 100 bp Dna marker; lane 1: positive command; lane 2: negative command; and lane 3–18: positive samples.
iii.3. Antimicrobial Drug Resistance in Pathogenic Leaner
Detailed presentations of antimicrobial-resistant leaner in edible offal and muscle meats are shown in Tabular array 2. Phenotypic screening of antimicrobial resistance amongst pathogenic bacteria in our report revealed resistance to essential antimicrobials in man medicine [46]. Salmonella enterica serovar recovered from edible offal and musculus meats demonstrated resistance to at least 6 and viii antibiotics, respectively. Salmonella enterica serovar recovered from muscle and offal meats was multidrug-resistant (MDR). Salmonella enterica serovar significantly (p < 0.05) showed high resistance to vancomycin (100% and 100%), erythromycin (100% and 100%), and tetracycline (85.seven% and 100%) as compared to chloramphenicol (71.iv% and 62.five%), ceftriaxone (57.ane% and 62.v%), and cefotaxime (42.9% and 62.v%) in edible offal and musculus meats, respectively.
Table 2
Prevalence of antibiotic resistant leaner from the edible offal and muscle meats.
| Bacterial Species A | Isolates (northward = 116) | No. (%) of Bacteria Isolates in the Edible Offal Resistant to Antimicrobial Agents B | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMC | CTX | CAZ | CRO | CHL | CIP | ERY | IPM | TET | VAN | ||
| Offal meats | |||||||||||
| Salmonella enterica serovar | 7 | 0 (0.0) c | 3 (42.9) ab | 0 (0.0) c | 4 (57.1) ab | five (71.four) a | 0 (0.0) c | 7 (100) a | 0 (0.0)c | half-dozen (85.7) a | seven (100) a |
| Campylobacter | three | 0 (0) a | three (100) a | 0 (0) a | three (100) a | 0 (0) a | iii (100) a | 3 (100) a | 0 (0) a | one (33.3) a | 3 (100) a |
| Escherichia coli | 53 | 53 (100) a | 39 (73.6) ab | ix (17) c | 39 (73.6) ab | 36 (67.nine) ab | 18 (34) bc | 53 (100) a | 0 (0) c | 53 (100) a | 53 (100) a |
| Enterococci | 53 | 0 (0) c | 51 (96.two) a | 51 (96) a | 52 (98) a | nine (17) bc | 32 (60) ab | 51 (96.2) a | 0 (0) c | 49 (92.5) a | xl (75.five) ab |
| Total | 116 | 53 (46) bc | 96 (83) ab | lx (52) bc | 98 (84.5) ab | fifty (43.1) bc | 53 (46) bc | 114 (98.3) a | 0 (0) c | 109 (94) a | 103 (88.viii) ab |
| Muscle meats | |||||||||||
| Salmonella enterica serovar | eight | 2 (25) bc | 5 (62.5) ab | 2 (25) bc | 5 (62.v) ab | five (62.5) ab | 0 (0.0) c | eight (100) a | 0 (0) c | 8 (100) a | viii (100) a |
| Campylobacter | 2 | 0 (0)a | 2 (100) a | 0 (0) a | two (100) a | 2 (100) a | 1 (fifty) a | 2 (100) a | 0 (0) a | 0 (0) a | 2 (100) a |
| Escherichia coli | 51 | 47 (92.two) a | 26 (51) ab | 9 (17.7) c | 28 (55) ab | 28 (55) ab | 14 (26) bc | 51 (100) a | 1 (2) c | 51 (100) a | 51 (100) a |
| Enterococci | 54 | i (1.9) c | fifty (92.6) a | 49 (90.7) a | 51 (94.4) a | 27 (50) ab | 49 (xc.7) a | 53 (98.1) a | 0 (0) c | 54 (100) a | 45 (83.3) a |
| Full | 115 | 50 (43.5) bc | 83 (71.2) b | lx (52.two) bc | 86 (74.8) b | 62 (53.ix) bc | 64 (55.7) bc | 114 (99.ane) a | 1 (0.9) c | 113 (98.3) a | 106 (92.two) a |
Our findings are in understanding with previous a study [47] that documented Salmonella resistance to erythromycin, tetracycline, and amoxicillin/clavulanic acrid in retail meats. Resistance to ceftriaxone and cefotaxime was as well exhibited past Salmonella enterica serovar isolates (n = 7) in our written report. Hence, a concern since these drugs are commencement line therapy for salmonellosis and an option to treat antimicrobial resistant Salmonella in human being medicine. Resistance to ciprofloxacin and imipenem was not observed among Salmonella isolates. In a previous report, 92 people in 29 states in the U.S. were infected with MDR Salmonella enterica serovar traced to raw craven products [48]. The occurrence of Salmonella enterica serovar resistance to clinically important drugs is a claiming; it could translate to the constricted option of Salmonellosis treatment. Salmonella gastroenteritis is typically a self-limiting disease; all the same, antibiotics are suggested for patients at a greater threat for invasive diseases [49].
No significant (p > 0.05) departure in antimicrobial resistance was observed in Campylobacter (Tabular array 2) isolates (n = 3) in all antibiotics tested in this report. Campylobacter showed high resistance to cefotaxime (100%), ceftriaxone (100%), erythromycin (100%), and vancomycin (100%). Our results are in understanding with Ge et al. [l] study that noted resistance to tetracycline (82%), erythromycin (54%), and ciprofloxacin (35%) amidst Campylobacter isolates from retail chicken. Campylobacter resistance for other antibiotics was noted to tetracycline (33.3% and 0%) and ciprofloxacin (100% and 50%) for offal and musculus meats, respectively. Inquiry has revealed a major link between Campylobacter strains presenting resistance to tetracycline and ciprofloxacin [51].
Resistance to erythromycin and ciprofloxacin is a major health business organization since these drugs are used in the treatment of Campylobacter infections [52]. The upsurge prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter in retail poultry meat was also reported in Denmark [53] Spain, Frg, Italia, Kingdom of the netherlands, and Austria [54]. Nisar et al. [55] also documented Campylobacter resistance to ciprofloxacin. None of the Campylobacter isolates in this study were resistant to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, ceftazidime, and imipenem. To avert antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter in edible offal and other meats from infecting consumers, chefs and other nutrient preparers must adhere to basic nutrient hygiene practices while handling and preparing meats. Suzuki and Yamamoto [56] reported that Campylobacter is frequently associated with the handling and consumption of meat products, especially raw poultry.
3.4. Antimicrobial Drug Resistance in Escherichia coli and Enterococci
Antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli from edible offal and muscle meats was observed to clinically important antimicrobials, notably amoxicillin/clavulanic (100% and 92.2%), ceftriaxone (73.vi% and 54.9%), and ciprofloxacin (34% and 27.v%), respectively. Escherichia coli resistance to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was significantly (p < 0.05) higher as compared to ceftriaxone resistance in edible offal and muscle meats (Table 2). Escherichia coli resistance to fluoroquinolones is agonizing, especially ciprofloxacin is important for treating Escherichia coli infections in both humans and animals [57]. Escherichia coli from edible offal and musculus meats significantly (p < 0.05) presented high levels of resistance to erythromycin (100% and 100%), tetracycline (100% and 100%), and vancomycin (100% and 100%) as compared to ciprofloxacin (34% and 27.5%), and ceftazidime (17% and 17.seven%), respectively. Notably, only one Escherichia coli isolate from muscle meat was resistant to imipenem.
Our findings suggest that antibody-resistant Escherichia coli was prevalent in retail beef liver. This is a health take chances since edible offal is oftentimes undercooked to preserve nutrient content [58]. Epidemiological records take indicated food poisoning linked to Escherichia coli O157:H7 from beefiness liver in Nihon [59]. Our findings prove that edible offal is contaminated with antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, therefore information technology is essential for consumers to attach to food safety practices while preparing offal dishes. The presence of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli on meats is an impending claiming in infectious diseases. Escherichia coli capability to survive and reach resistance in the guts of animals has been labeled as a sentinel organism in antimicrobial resistance surveillance programs [60].
Overall, enterococci from edible offal and muscle meats significantly (p < 0.05) exhibited high resistance to ceftriaxone (98.one% and 94.4%), cefotaxime (96.ii% and 90.6%), and ceftazidime (96.ii% and 90.7%) as compared to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (0% and 1.nine%), respectively (Tabular array two). enterococci from edible offal and muscle meats too demonstrated resistance to ciprofloxacin (60.4% and ninety.vii%) and vancomycin (75.5% and 83.three%), respectively. Ciprofloxacin and vancomycin are antimicrobials of great importance in human medicine [61]. According to Klare et al. [62] and from a medical angle, vancomycin is an essential therapeutic drug against multidrug-resistant enterococci. Despite the fact enterococci are reflected equally opportunist pathogens, our findings reflect them as potential reservoirs of antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, it is a wellness risk for the occurrence of multidrug-resistant enterococci in retail offal and muscle meats. Jackson et al. [63] written report that enterococci is a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance genes and has the potential to transfer these genes to other bacteria in the surroundings. According to Carvalho et al. [64], Escherichia coli and enterococci are reservoirs of antimicrobial-resistant genes that could be disseminated to pathogenic bacteria in the surroundings. Information technology is essential to place focused effective control measures at decreasing enterococcus in retail meats, since it is a leading cause of nosocomial infections [65]. Agglutination test displayed higher prevalence of both pathogenic and indicator bacteria than PCR method.
iii.5. Multidrug Resistant Patterns of Pathogenic and Indicator Bacteria
In our report, both pathogenic and indicator bacteria were MDR. According to Nguyen et al. [66], MDR isolate displays resistance to three or more classes of antibiotics. A total of 41 multidrug-resistant profiles were presented amid pathogenic and indicator bacteria from retail offal and musculus meats (Tabular array 3). Salmonella from offal and muscle meats displayed AMC-CTX-CRO-CHL-ERY-TET-VAN (0; 1), CTX-CAZ-CRO-CHL-ERY-TET-VAN (0; one) and CTX-CRO-CHL-ERY-TET-VAN (two; 2) resistance patterns, respectively (number of isolates in parenthesis). CTX-CRO-CHL-ERY-TET-VAN and ERY-TET-VAN were the nearly prevalent (p < 0.05) antimicrobial resistance patterns in Salmonella (Tabular array iii). According to our results, it is clear that both edible and muscle meats are potential sources of MDR Salmonella. MDR Salmonella is an emerging public health claiming worldwide and has repetitively been reported in nutrient animals, a consequential exposure to humans through the food chain [66].
Table 3
Multidrug resistance patterns of pathogenic and indicator bacteria in edible offal and muscle meat.
| Bacterial Species A | Antibiotic Resistance Profiles B | No. (%) of Edible Offal Isolates C (n = 116) | No. (%) of Muscle Meat Isolates C (n = 115) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salmonella enterica serovar (n = 15) | AMC, CTX, CRO, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | one (0.ix) c |
| AMC, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | 1 (0.9) c | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | 1 (0.9) c | |
| CTX, CAZ, ERY, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | 1 (0.9) c | |
| CTX, CRO, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | 2 (1.seven) bc | ii (1.7) bc | |
| CTX, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | 1 (0.9) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CRO, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | 1 (0.9) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| ERY, TET, VAN | 2 (1.7) bc | 2 (1.7) bc | |
| ERY, VAN | 1 (0.9) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| Campylobacter (n = v) | CTX, CRO, CHL, ERY, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | ane (0.9) c |
| CRO, CHL, ERY, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | 1 (0.ix) c | |
| CRO, ERY, VAN | 1 (0.9) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CIP, ERY, VAN | 1 (0.9) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| ERY, VAN | 1 (0.9) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| E. coli (n = 104) | AMC, CTX, CRO, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | one (0.9) c | 0 (0.0) c |
| AMC, CTX, ERY, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | 1 (0.ix) c | |
| AMC, CAZ, CRO, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | ii (one,7) bc | 2 (1.7) bc | |
| AMC, CAZ, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | 9 (7.eight) bx | ii (1.7) bcy | |
| AMC, CRO, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | five (4.iii) bc | 1 (0.9) c | |
| AMC, CHL, CIP, ERY, TET, VAN | one (0.9) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| AMC, CHL, ERY, TET, VAN | 23 (19.8) ax | 15 (thirteen.0) aby | |
| AMC, ERY, IPM, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | 1 (0.ix) c | |
| AMC, ERY, TET, VAN | 12 (10.three) aby | 25 (21.vii) ax | |
| ERY, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | 4 (three.5) bc | |
| Enterococci (n = 107) | AMC, CTX, CRO, ERY, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | i (0.9) c |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, CIP, ERY, TET, VAN | 1 (0.9) c | five (iv.3) bc | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, CHL, CIP, TET | 0 (0.0) c | 2 (1.7) bc | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, CIP, ERY, TET | 2 (1.vii) bc | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, CIP, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) bc | 2 (1.vii) bc | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, ERY, TET, VAN | 6 (5.2) b | 8 (7.0) b | |
| CTX, CAZ, CHL, CIP, ERY, TET | 0 (0.0) c | 2 (1.7) bc | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, CIP, TET | one (0.ix) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, ERY, TET | x (eight.vi) bx | 9 (7.eight) by | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, TET, VAN | two (1.seven) bc | 7 (6.1) b | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, ERY | 2 (one.7) bc | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, TET | 15 (12.ix) abx | vi (5.2) by | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO, VAN | iii (2.6) bc | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CTX, CAZ, ERY, TET | 2 (1.7) bc | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CTX, CAZ, CRO | 0 (0.0) c | 3 (2.6) bc | |
| CTX, CAZ, CIP | two (1.seven) bc | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CAZ, CRO, ERY, TET, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | 1 (0.9) c | |
| CAZ, CRO, ERY, TET | 2 (ane.vii) bc | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CAZ, ERY, TET, VAN | 1 (0.ix) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CAZ, CRO, TET | 0 (0.0) c | 1 (0.9) c | |
| CAZ, CRO | 0 (0.0) c | 3 (2.6) bc | |
| CAZ, TET | 2 (1.seven) bc | 0 (0.0) c | |
| CHL, TET, VAN | one (0.9) c | 0 (0.0) c | |
| ERY, TET, VAN | 1 (0.9) c | 2 (i.7) bc | |
| ERY, VAN | 0 (0.0) c | 2 (1.7) bc |
Unlike drug resistance patterns including CTX-CRO-CHL-ERY-VAN (0; 1), CRO-CHL-ERY-VAN (0; 1) were also recorded for Campylobacter from offal and muscle meats, respectively. Our results displayed MDR Campylobacter isolates, a concern and challenge in campylobacteriosis management [67]. None of the antimicrobial resistance patterns were predominant (p > 0.05) over other patterns among Campylobacter isolates (Table 3).
Overall, Escherichia coli displayed 10 multidrug resistance patterns. AMC-CHL-ERY-TET-VAN (23; fifteen), AMC-ERY-TET-VAN (12; 25) were the common phenotypes displayed past Escherichia coli on offal and musculus meats, respectively. Other Escherichia coli patterns included AMC-CAZ-CHL-ERY-TET-VAN (9; 2) and AMC-CRO-CHL-ERY-TET-VAN (1; 1) in offal and muscle meats, respectively. AMC-CHL-ERY-TET-VAN was the most meaning (p < 0.05) antimicrobial resistance pattern amidst Escherichia coli isolates from edible offal. On the other paw, Escherichia coli from muscle meat displayed AMC-ERY-TET-VAN design which was significantly dominant (p < 0.05) compared to other patterns (Table 3). The rise of MDR Eastward. coli is agonizing, especially strains causing urinary tract infections [68].
Our findings reveal that Enterococci exhibited the about (n = 22) multidrug-resistant patterns. CTX- CAZ-CRO-CHL-CIP-TET (0; 2), CTX-CAZ- CHL- CIP- ERY- TET (0; ii), CTX-CAZ-CRO-TET (xv; 6), CTX-CAZ-CRO-ERY-TET (10; 9), and CTX-CAZ-CRO-ERY-TET-VAN (6; 8) patterns were displayed for enterococci from offal and muscle meats, respectively. Among enterococci isolates, CTX-CAZ-CRO-TET was observed equally the most significant (p < 0.05) antimicrobial resistance pattern in edible offal and CTX-CAZ-CRO-ERY-TET-VAN for muscle meats. Enterococci infections are a business concern to public wellness owing to the struggle in controlling them with antimicrobials. According to Weiner et al., [69], vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are utmost baffling to treat, as some showroom resistance to all accessible antimicrobials used in medical practice. Chloramphenicol resistance was common as indicated past resistance patterns (Table 3) and according to Whichard et al. [70], chloramphenicol is a unique drug that can be applied to monitor and predict multidrug resistance of foodborne pathogens from animals and retail meats. To forbid foodborne illnesses, consumers must embrace hygienic practices, which include recommended storage and cooking temperatures for all meat types [71]. The findings of our study may help in tracking the emergence of new resistance patterns among pathogenic and indicter organisms in edible offal and likewise in other meats.
four. Conclusions
This written report demonstrated that certain isolates of Salmonella enterica serovar, Campylobacter spp., Escherichia coli, and enterococci from edible offal equally well every bit muscle meats were resistant to "critically of import antimicrobials (AMC, CTX, CAZ, CRO, CIP, ERY, IPM, and VAN)" or "highly important antimicrobials (CHL and TET)" used in human medicine [72]. The presence of multidrug-resistant pathogenic and indicator leaner in edible offal suggests periodic monitoring of these meats. Our data reinforced the need to ameliorate recognize the office of retail edible offal and muscle meats as sources of MDR leaner. This data is desirable for improving the food safety of multifariousness meats which are of import in southern cuisine and increasing in popularity in several cities as a result of immigrants' influence.
Acknowledgments
Nosotros acknowledge Poultry Scientific discipline Association (PSA) for the use of the abstruse number: 698P presented at the 2019 Almanac Meeting Montréal, QC, Canada, 15–18 July 2019.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.Fifty. and A.One thousand.-N.; methodology, S.L., A.K.-N., Due south.N.Due north., and B.P.; validation, S.L.; formal analysis, Southward.50. and A.Grand.-N.; investigation, S.50. and A.Chiliad.-N.; resource, A.Chiliad.-N.; writing—original draft preparation, South.L.; writing—review and editing, South.L., A.K.-N., M.Due north., and A.I.1000.; visualization, Due south.Fifty. and A.K.-N.; supervision, A.One thousand.-N.; project administration, A.Thou.-Northward.; and funding acquisition, A.Thousand.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This enquiry was funded by United States Department of Agriculture/National Institute of Nutrient and Agriculture. Grant No. 2015-38821-24343.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no function in the blueprint of the written report; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
i. Alao B.O., Falowo A.B., Chulayo A., Muchenje V. The potential of animal by-products in food systems: Production, prospects, and challenges. Sustainability. 2017;9:1089. doi: 10.3390/su9071089. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
two. Seong P.Northward., Kang Thou.H., Park K.K., Cho Due south.H., Kang S.Thou., Park B.Y., Moon Southward.S., Van Ba H. Characterization of Hanwoo bovine by-products by means of yield, physicochemical, and nutritional compositions. Korean J. Food Sci. An. 2014;34:434. doi: ten.5851/kosfa.2014.34.4.434. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Podpečan B., Pengov A., Vadnjal S. The source of contamination of footing meat for production of meat products with bacteria Staphylococcus aureus. Slov. Vet. Res. 2007;44:25–30. [Google Scholar]
4. Jribi H., Sellami H., Mariam S., Smaoui S., Ghorbel A., Hachicha S., Benejat L., Messadi-Akrout F., Mégraud F., Gdoura R. Isolation and Identification of Campylobacter spp. from Poultry and Poultry By-Products in Tunisia by Conventional Civilization Method and Multiplex Real-Fourth dimension PCR. J. Food Prot. 2017;80:1623–1627. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-321. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Dhama Thousand., Rajagunalan S., Tiwari R., Verma A., Singh S. Food-borne pathogens of poultry having public health significance. Poult. World. 2013;xvi:8–12. [Google Scholar]
6. Chotinantakul K., Chansiw Northward., Okada S. Antimicrobial resistance of Enterococcus spp. isolated from Thai fermented pork in Chiang Rai Province, Thailand. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2018;12:143–148. doi: x.1016/j.jgar.2017.09.021. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Mellata Thou. Human and avian extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli: Infections, zoonotic risks, and antibiotic resistance trends. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2013;x:916–932. doi: x.1089/fpd.2013.1533. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
eight. Tyson Yard.H., Nyirabahizi E., Crarey Due east., Kabera C., Lam C., Rice-Trujillo C., McDermott P.F., Tate H. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Enterococci isolated from retail meats in the United States, 2002 to 2014. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018;84 doi: x.1128/AEM.01902-17. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Abdalrahman L.Southward., Wells H., Fakhr M.K. Staphylococcus aureus is more prevalent in retail beef livers than in pork and other beef cuts. Pathogens. 2015;iv:182–198. doi: x.3390/pathogens4020182. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Lanier W.A., Hale K.R., Allen 50., White P., Bachert J., Dewey-Mattia D., Geissler A. Craven Liver–Associated Disease Outbreaks, United States, 2000–2015—Identifying Opportunities for Prevention. The Council of Land and Territorial Epidemiologists; Atlanta, Georgia: 2017. [Google Scholar]
12. Topp E. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada'south inquiry programme on antimicrobial resistance. Can. Commun. Dis. Rep. 2017;43:224–227. doi: 10.14745/ccdr.v43i11a03. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xiii. McEwen S.A., Fedorka-Cray P.J. Antimicrobial use and resistance in animals', Clinical infectious diseases: An official publication of the Infectious Diseases. Soc. Am. 2017;34:S93–S106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Bosilevac J.G., Gassem M.A., Al Sheddy I.A., Almaiman Southward.A., Al-Mohizea I.S., Alowaimer A., Koohmaraie M. Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella in camels, cattle, goats, and sheep harvested for meat in Riyadh. J. Food Prot. 2015;78:89–96. doi: x.4315/0362-028X.JFP-xiv-176. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Toldrá F., Aristoy K.C., Mora L., Reig Yard. Innovations in value-addition of edible meat past-products. Meat Sci. 2012;92:290–296. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Alvarez J., Sota M., Vivanco A.B., Perales I., Cisterna R., Rementeria A., Garaizar J. Development of a multiplex PCR technique for detection and epidemiological typing of Salmonella in man clinical samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004;42:1734–1738. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.4.1734-1738.2004. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Rahimi E., Ameri M. Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Campylobacter spp. isolated from raw chicken, turkey, quail, partridge, and ostrich meat in Iran. Food Control. 2011;22:1165–1170. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.01.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Bai J., Shi Ten., Nagaraja T. A multiplex PCR procedure for the detection of half dozen major virulence genes in Escherichia coli O157: H7. J. Microbiol. Methods. 2010;82:85–89. doi: x.1016/j.mimet.2010.05.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Tantawiwat South., Tansuphasiri U., Wongwit W., Wongchotigul V., Kitayaporn D. Development of multiplex PCR for the detection of total coliform leaner for Escherichia coli and Clostridium perfringens in drinking water. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health. 2005;36:162–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
twenty. Iweriebor B.C., Obi L.C., Okoh A.I. Virulence and antimicrobial resistance factors of Enterococcus spp. isolated from fecal samples from piggery farms in Eastern Cape, South Africa. BMC Microbiol. 2015;xv:136. doi: ten.1186/s12866-015-0468-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Plant (CLSI) Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 26th ed. CLSI; Wayne, PA, USA: 2016. CLSI Supplement M100S. [Google Scholar]
22. FDA . NARMS Integrated Report: 2014-The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System: Enteric Leaner. FDA; White Oak, MD, USA: 2016. [Google Scholar]
23. Erickson A.K., Murray D.L., Ruesch L.A., Thomas M., Lau Z., Scaria J. Genotypic and Phenotypic Characterization of Salmonella Isolated from Fresh Ground Meats Obtained from Retail Grocery Stores in the Brookings, South Dakota, Surface area. J. Nutrient Prot. 2018;81:1526–1534. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-eighteen-076. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Phan T.T., Khai L.T.L., Ogasawara Northward., Tam N.T., Okatani A.T., Akiba M., Hayashidani H. Contamination of Salmonella in retail meats and shrimps in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. J. Food Prot. 2005;68:1077–1080. doi: x.4315/0362-028X-68.5.1077. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Wideman N., Bailey Grand., Bilgili S.F., Thippareddi H., Wang 50., Bratcher C., Sanchez-Plata M., Singh M. Evaluating best practices for Campylobacter and Salmonella reduction in poultry processing plants. Poult. Sci. 2016;95:306–315. doi: ten.3382/ps/pev328. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Samadpour Thou., Barbour Chiliad.W., Nguyen T., Cao T.M., Cadet F., Depavia G.A., Mazengia Eastward., Yang P., Alfi D., Lopes M., et al. Incidence of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes in retail fresh ground beef, sprouts, and mushrooms. J. Food Prot. 2006;69:441–443. doi: ten.4315/0362-028X-69.2.441. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Murakami K., Noda T., Onozuka D., Sera N. Salmonella in liquid eggs and other foods in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. Int. J. Microbiol. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/463095. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Zhang L., Fu Y., Xiong Z., Ma Y., Wei Y., Qu X., Zhang H., Zhang J., Liao 1000. Highly-prevalent multidrug-resistant Salmonella from craven and pork meat at retail markets in Guangdong, China. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2104. doi: x.3389/fmicb.2018.02104. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Painter J.A., Hoekstra R.Grand., Ayers T., Tauxe R.5., Braden C.R., Angulo F.J., Griffin P.K. Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to food bolt by using outbreak data, United States, 1998–2008. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2013;19:407. doi: 10.3201/eid1903.111866. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
thirty. Henchion G., McCarthy Thousand., Resconi 5.C., Troy D. Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Sci. 2014;98:561–568. doi: x.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Trokhymchuk A., Waldner C., Chaban B., Gow Southward., Colina J.E. Prevalence and multifariousness of Campylobacter species in Saskatchewan retail ground beef. J. Food Prot. 2014;77:2106–2110. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-xiv-247. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Enokimoto M., Kubo M., Bozono Y., Mieno Y., Misawa Due north. Enumeration and identification of Campylobacter species in the liver and bile of slaughtered cattle. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007;118:259–263. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.07.057. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Noormohamed A., Fakhr M. A higher prevalence rate of Campylobacter in retail beef livers compared to other beef and pork meat cuts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2013;10:2058–2068. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10052058. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Strachan N., MacRae Chiliad., Thomson A., Rotariu O., Ogden I., Forbes Thousand. Source attribution, prevalence, and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. from retail liver. Int. J. Nutrient Microbiol. 2012;153:234–236. doi: x.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.x.033. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Ghafir Y., Communist china B., Dierick M., De Zutter L., Daube G. A seven-year survey of Campylobacter contamination in meat at unlike production stages in Belgium. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007;116:111–120. doi: x.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.12.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Vipham J.L., Brashears M.Thou., Loneragan G.H., Echeverry A., Brooks J.C., Chaney Due west.E., Miller Thousand.F. Salmonella and Campylobacter baseline in retail footing beef and whole-muscle cuts purchased during 2010 in the The states. J. Food Prot. 2012;75:2110–2115. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-077. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Zbrun M.V., Olivero C., Romero-Scharpen A., Rossler Eastward., Soto Fifty.P., Astesana D.M., Blajman J.E., Berisvil A., Signorini M.Fifty., Frizzo L.S. Antimicrobial resistance in thermotolerant Campylobacter isolated from different stages of the poultry meat supply chain in Argentine republic. Food Control. 2015;57:136–141. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.03.045. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Bolton D.J. Campylobacter virulence and survival factors. Food Microbiol. 2015;48:99–108. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.11.017. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Jones A.K., Rigby D., Burton M., Millman C., Williams Due north.J., Jones T.R., Wigley P., O'Brien S.J., Cross P., ENIGMA Consortium Restaurant cooking trends and increased risk for Campylobacter infection. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2016;22:1208. doi: 10.3201/eid2207.151775. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
twoscore. Scott M.K., Geissler A., Poissant T., DeBess E., Melius B., Eckmann Thou., Salehi East., Cieslak P.R. Notes from the field: Campylobacteriosis outbreak associated with consuming undercooked chicken liver pâté-Ohio and Oregon, December 2013–January 2014. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2015;64:399. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Lahti Due east., Löfdahl Thousand., Ågren J., Hansson I., Olsson Engvall E. Confirmation of a campylobacteriosis outbreak associated with chicken liver pâté using PFGE and WGS. Zoonoses Public Health. 2017;64:14–20. doi: 10.1111/zph.12272. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Faten S.H., Amani Chiliad.Due south., Mervat S.H., Gaafar M.H. Enterobacteriaceae in edible offal. J. Ben Vet Med. 2013;25:77–87. [Google Scholar]
44. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) organisation report, information summary from Jan 1992–June 2001, issued August 2001. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2001;29:404–421. doi: 10.1067/mic.2001.119952. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Shar A.H., Kazi Y.F., Kanhar Northward.A., Soomro I.H., Zia S.M., Ghumro P.B. Drinking water quality in Rohri city, Sindh, Pakistan. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010;nine:7102–7107. [Google Scholar]
46. World Health Organization . Critically Important Antimicrobials for Man Medicine-5th Revision. WHO Press; Geneva, Switzerland: 2016. [Google Scholar]
47. Thung T.Y., Radu S., Mahyudin N.A., Rukayadi Y., Zakaria Z., Mazlan N., Tan B.H., Lee Eastward., Yeoh S.L., Chin Y.Z., et al. Prevalence, virulence genes, and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Salmonella serovars from retail beef in Selangor, Malaysia. Front Microbiol. 2018;eight:2697. doi: x.3389/fmicb.2017.02697. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Foods that Sickened People in Outbreaks with a Unmarried Known Source, 2009–2016. [(accessed on 25 June 2020)]; Available online: https://world wide web.cdc.gov/foodsafety/cdc-and-nutrient-safety.html
l. Ge B., White D.Grand., McDermott P.F., Girard W., Zhao S., Hubert South., Meng J. Prevalence and Antimicrobial. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003;69:3005–3007. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.v.3005-3007.2003. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Carev M., Kovačić A., Novak A., Tonkić Thousand., Jerončić A. Campylobacter jejuni strains co-resistant to tetracycline and ciprofloxacin in patients with gastroenteritis in Croatia. Infect. Dis. 2017;49:268–276. doi: 10.1080/23744235.2016.1258487. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Wieczorek One thousand., Osek J. Antimicrobial resistance mechanisms amidst Campylobacter. Biomed. Res. Int. 2013 doi: x.1155/2013/340605. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Andersen Due south.R., Saadbye P., Shukri N.M., Rosenquist H., Nielsen N.L., Boel J. Antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter jejuni isolated from raw poultry meat at retail level in Denmark. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006;107:250–255. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.04.029. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Maćkiw E., Korsak D., Rzewuska K., Tomczuk K., Rożynek E. Antibody resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from food in Poland. Nutrient Control. 2012;23:297–301. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.08.022. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Nisar M., Mushtaq M.H., Shehzad W., Hussain A., Muhammad J., Nagaraja K.V., Goyal S.Thou. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns of Campylobacter spp. isolated from retail meat in Lahore, Pakistan. Food Command. 2017;eighty:327–332. doi: x.1016/j.foodcont.2017.03.048. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Suzuki H., Yamamoto S. Campylobacter contamination in retail poultry meats and past-products in the world: A literature survey. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2009;71:255–261. doi: x.1292/jvms.71.255. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Karczmarczyk M., Martins Grand., Quinn T., Leonard N., Fanning S. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli isolates from nutrient-producing animals. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011;77:7113–7120. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00600-11. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
58. Little C., Richardson J., Owen R., De Pinna E., Threlfall E. Campylobacter and Salmonella in raw cherry meats in the U.k.: Prevalence, characterization, and antimicrobial resistance pattern, 2003–2005. Food Microbiol. 2008;25:538–543. doi: x.1016/j.fm.2008.01.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
59. Ohtsuka K., Tanaka Thousand., Ohtsuka T., Takatori One thousand., Hara-Kudo Y. Comparing of detection methods for Escherichia coli O157 in beefiness livers and carcasses. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2010;vii:1563–1567. doi: ten.1089/fpd.2010.0585. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
60. Chantziaras I., Boyen F., Callens B., Dewulf J. Correlation between veterinary antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in food-producing animals: A report on seven countries. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014;69:827–834. doi: ten.1093/jac/dkt443. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
61. Aslam M., Diarra M.S., Checkley S., Bohaychuk V., Masson Fifty. Characterization of antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes in Enterococcus spp. isolated from retail meats in Alberta, Canada. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012;156:222–230. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.03.026. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
62. Klare I., Konstabel C., Badstübner D., Werner Grand., Witte W. Occurrence and spread of antibiotic resistances in Enterococcus faecium. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003;88:269–290. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(03)00190-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
63. Jackson C.R., Fedorka-Cray P.J., Barrett J.B., Hiott 50.Thou., Woodley T.A. Prevalence of streptogramin resistance in enterococci from animals: Identification of vatD from fauna sources in the United states of america. Int. J. Antimicrob. 2007;30:60–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.03.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Carvalho I., del Campo R., Sousa Yard., Silva N., Carrola J., Marinho C., Santos T., Carvalho S., Nóvoa G., Quaresma M., et al. Antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. isolated from Miranda donkey (Equus asinus): An old problem from a new source with a dissimilar approach. J. Med. Microbiol. 2017;66:191–202. doi: ten.1099/jmm.0.000423. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
65. Arias C.A., Murray B.E. The rise of the Enterococcus: Across vancomycin resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2012;x:266. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2761. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Nguyen D.T.A., Kanki Grand., Do Nguyen P., Le H.T., Ngo P.T., Tran D.N.Chiliad., Le N.H., Van Dang C., Kawai T., Kawahara R., et al. Prevalence, antibiotic resistance, and extended-spectrum and AmpC β-lactamase productivity of Salmonella isolates from raw meat and seafood samples in Ho Chi Minh Metropolis, Vietnam. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016;236:115–122. doi: x.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.07.017. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Chatre P., Haenni G., Meunier D., Botrel Thou.-A., Calavas D., Madec J.-Y. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from cattle betwixt 2002 and 2006 in France. J. Food Prot. 2010;73:825–831. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-73.five.825. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
68. Ramírez-Castillo F.Y., Moreno-Flores A.C., Avelar-González F.J., Márquez-Díaz F., Harel J., Guerrero-Barrera A.L. An evaluation of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli isolates in urinary tract infections from Aguascalientes, Mexico: Cross-sectional report. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2018;17:34–35. doi: 10.1186/s12941-018-0286-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Weiner Fifty.1000., Webb A.K., Limbago B., Dudeck M.A., Patel J., Kallen A.J., Edwards J.R., Sievert D.G. Antimicrobial-Resistant Pathogens Associated with Healthcare-Associated Infections: Summary of Data Reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention, 2011–2014. Infect. Dis. Contrl. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37:1288–1301. doi: 10.1017/ice.2016.174. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
lxx. Whichard J.M., Medalla F., Hoekstra R.M., Mcdermott P.F., Joyce M., Chiller T., Barrett T.J., White D.G. Evaluation of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes for predicting multidrug-resistant Salmonella recovered from retail meats and humans in the United states. J. Nutrient Prot. 2010;73:445–451. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-73.3.445. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
71. Eyý A., Arslan S. Prevalence of Escherichia coli in retail poultry meat, footing beef, and beef. Med. Weter. 2012;68:238. [Google Scholar]
72. Earth Health Organisation (WHO) Critically Important Antimicrobials for Human being Medicine. 5th ed. WHO Press; Geneva, Switzerland: 2016. WHO Advisory Group on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance (AGISAR) [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from Foods are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7555593/
0 Response to "E Coli O157h7 Uv Light Beef Liver"
Post a Comment