4.6 Article

Genotyping of Campylobacter coli isolated from humans and retail meats using multilocus sequence typing and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 106, Issue 5, Pages 1722-1733

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.04142.x

Keywords

antimicrobial resistance; Campylobacter coli; humans; multilocus sequence typing; pulsed-field gel electrophoresis; retail meats

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To determine the antimicrobial resistant profiles and clonality of Campylobacter coli isolated from clinically ill humans and retail meats. A total of 98 C. coli isolates (20 from humans and 78 from retail meats) were phenotypically characterized. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was done using agar dilution method for ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, erythromycin and doxycycline. Seventy C. coli isolates including humans (n = 20) and retail meats (n = 50) were genotyped by multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Resistance to ciprofloxacin was found in 29% and 15% of isolates from retail meats and humans. We observed 61 PFGE profiles using two enzymes (SmaI, KpnI) with an Index of discrimination of 0.99, whereas MLST generated 37 sequence types. Two clonal complexes were identified with 58 (82%) C. coli isolates clustered in the ST-828 complex. Resistance to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin was identified in C. coli obtained from retail meats and ill humans. PFGE typing of C. coli isolates was more discriminatory than MLST. Grouping of C. coli isolates (82%) by MLST in ST-828 clonal complex indicates a common ancestry. A high frequency of resistance found to ciprofloxacin and erythromycin is concerning from food safety perspective. PFGE using single or double restriction enzymes was found to be more discriminatory than MLST for genotyping C. coli. Overall, the C. coli populations recovered from humans and retail meats were genotypically diverse.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available