4.5 Article

A one year study of Escherichia coli O157 in raw beef and lamb products

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 124, Issue 2, Pages 207-213

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268899003581

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Between April 1996 and March 1997 we examined 5093 samples of raw beef and lamb products for the presence of E. coli O157. Samples were purchased from 81 small butchers shops in south Yorkshire. In March 1997 we also examined five samples of dried mint for the presence of E, coli O157. Strains of E. coli O157 were isolated by enrichment culture in modified buffered peptone water followed by immunomagnetic separation and culture of magnetic beads onto cefixime tellurite sorbitol MacConkey agar. Strains were characterized by phage typing, toxin genotyping and plasmid analysis. Strains of E. coli O157 were isolated from 72 (1.4%) of 5093 samples; it was isolated from 36 (1.1%) of 3216 samples of beef products and from 29 (2.9%) samples of lamb products. The highest prevalence was found in lamb sausages and lamb burgers where E. coli O157 was isolated from 3 (4.1%) of 73 and 18 (3.7%) of 484 samples respectively. Strains of E. coli O157 were isolated most frequently during early summer. Strains of E. coli O157 were also isolated from 2 of 5 samples of dried mint although we did not determine how the mint had become contaminated. All isolates of E. coli O157 were Verocytotoxin-producing as determined by both Vero cell assay and DNA hybridization for the genes encoding Verocytotoxin and all were positive for the eaeA gene. A combination of phage typing, toxin genotyping and plasmid profile subdivided the 72 strains of E. coli isolated into 20 different subtypes, of which 18 were indistinguishable from strains isolated previously from cattle and sheep; of these 18 strains, 8 were indistinguishable from strains isolated from human cases of infection during the study period.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available