4.4 Article

Biofilm formation and genetic diversity of Salmonella isolates recovered from clinical, food, poultry and environmental sources

Journal

INFECTION GENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 36, Issue -, Pages 424-433

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.meegid.2015.08.012

Keywords

Salmonella; Genetic diversity; Biofilm formation; PFGE; ERIC PCR; RAPD PCR

Funding

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India [BT/PR15148/GBD/27/339/2011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present study, Salmonella isolates (n = 40) recovered from clinical, food, poultry and environmental sources were characterized for serotype identification, genetic diversity and biofilm formation capability. Serotype identification using multiplex PCR assay revealed six isolates to be Salmonella Typhimurium, 14 as Salmonella Enteritidis, 11 as Salmonella Typhi, and the remaining nine isolates unidentified were considered as other Salmonella spp. Most of the Salmonella isolates (85%) produced biofilm on polystyrene surfaces as assessed by microtitre plate assay. About 67.5% isolates were weak biofilm producers and 17.5% were moderate biofilm producers. There was no significant difference in biofilm-forming ability among the Salmonella isolates recovered from different geographical regions or different sources. Among the genetic methods, Enterobacterial Repetitive Intergenic Consensus (ERIC) PCR revealed greater discriminatory power (DI, 0.943) followed by pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) (DI, 0.899) and random amplification of polymorphic DNA (RAPD) PCR (DI, 0.873). However, composite analysis revealed the highest discrimination index (0.957). Greater discrimination of S. Typhimurium and S. Typhi was achieved using PFGE, while ERIC PCR was better for S. Enteritidis and other Salmonella serotypes. A strong positive correlation (r = 0.992) was observed between biofilm formation trait and clustered Salmonella isolates in composite genetic analysis. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available