3.9 Review

Escherichia coli from animal reservoirs as a potential source of human extraintestinal pathogenic E-coli

Journal

FEMS IMMUNOLOGY AND MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 1-10

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2011.00797.x

Keywords

Escherichia coli; extraintestinal infection; urinary tract infection; septicaemia; molecular epidemiology; zoonosis

Funding

  1. Ministere de l'Agriculture, des Pecheries et de l'Alimentation du Quebec (MAPAQ)
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. NSERC
  4. Fondation Armand Frappier

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC) are an important cause of urinary tract infections, neonatal meningitis and septicaemia in humans. Animals are recognized as a reservoir for human intestinal pathogenic E. coli, but whether animals are a source for human ExPEC is still a matter of debate. Pathologies caused by ExPEC are reported for many farm animals, especially for poultry, in which colibacillosis is responsible for huge losses within broiler chickens. Cases are also reported for companion animals. Commensal E. coli strains potentially carrying virulence factors involved in the development of human pathologies also colonize the intestinal tract of animals. This review focuses on the recent evidence of the zoonotic potential of ExPEC from animal origin and their potential direct or indirect transmission from animals to humans. As antimicrobials are commonly used for livestock production, infections due to antimicrobial-resistant ExPEC transferred from animals to humans could be even more difficult to treat. These findings, combined with the economic impact of ExPEC in the animal production industry, demonstrate the need for adapted measures to limit the prevalence of ExPEC in animal reservoirs while reducing the use of antimicrobials as much as possible.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available