4.6 Article

Genotypic characterization of bacteria cultured from duck faeces

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 99, Issue 2, Pages 301-309

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02590.x

Keywords

16S rRNA; faecal source indicators; microflora; pathogens; sequencing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To characterize the bacterial composition of mallard duck faeces and determine if novel bacterial species are present that could be utilized as potential indicators of avian faecal contamination. Methods and Results: Combined samples of fresh faeces from four ducks were serially diluted and plated onto six different media selected to allow the growth of a range of organisms at 42 degrees C under three atmospheric conditions: aerobic, microaerophilic and anaerobic. Forty-seven morphologically dissimilar isolates were purified and partial sequencing of the16S rRNA indicated at least 31 bacterial species. Twenty of these could be identified to the species level including pathogenic species of Bacillus, Campylobacter, Clostridium and Streptococcus. Other species identified included: Enterococcus, Escherichia, Megamonas, Cellulosimicrobium, Neisseria, Staphylococcus and Veillonella. Potentially novel species, which could represent bacteria specific to avian fauna included Bacillus, Corynebacterium, Macrococcus and Peptostreptococcus, while four isolates had < 97% similarity to known bacterial species in the available databases. Conclusion: A survey of the natural microflora of the mallard duck and its hybrid with the grey duck identified both bacteria that are potentially human pathogenic and putative novel bacteria species as determined by 16S rRNA sequencing. Significance and Impact of the Study: This study provides further evidence that duck faeces is a potential human health hazard, and has identified bacteria potentially useful for distinguishing duck faeces from other faecal sources.

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