4.7 Article

Clostridium difficile in broiler chickens sold at market places in Zimbabwe and their antimicrobial susceptibility

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 124, 期 3, 页码 268-270

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.03.020

关键词

urban markets; chickens; Clostridium difficile; toxigenic strains; antimicrobial susceptibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clostridium difficile has been shown to be a nosocomial pathogen associated with diarrhoea and pseudomembranous colitis in hospitalised patients and the infection is believed to be acquired nosocomially. Community-acquired C. difficile-associated diarrhoea has also been reported. Recent studies have shown the occurrence of C. difficile in food animals which may act as a source of infection to humans. The aim of this study was to determine the occurrence of C. difficile in broiler chickens sold at market places in an urban area in Zimbabwe. Faeces of broiler chickens were collected from the cages at the market places and soils were collected from areas around the market places. The chicken faeces and soil samples were cultured for C. difficile. The C. difficile isolates were tested for toxins A or B production as well as for their susceptibility to antimicrobial drugs. C difficile was isolated from 29.0% of 100 chicken faeces samples and 22.0% of 100 soil samples. Some of the C. difficile isolates from chickens (89.7%) and soils (95.5%) were toxigenic. All the isolates were susceptible to metronidazole, vancomycin, doxycycline, chloramphenicol and tetracycline. Over 70% of the isolates were susceptible to erythromycin, co-trimoxazole and ampicillin. They were all resistant to cefotaxime, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin and nalidixic acid. The results of the present study suggest that broiler chickens sold at market places in the urban area are an important source of C difficile, which may infect humans through consumption of chicken meat. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据