4.4 Article

Antibiotic Resistance and Virulence Factors among Enterococci Isolated from Chourico, a Traditional Portuguese Dry Fermented Sausage

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 74, 期 3, 页码 465-469

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-309

关键词

-

资金

  1. Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, Assessment and Improvement of Safety of Traditional Dry Sausages from Producers to Consumers-TRADISAUSAGE, project [QLKI CT-2002-02240]
  2. Centro de Investigacao Interdisciplinar em Sanidade Animal from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lisbon, Portugal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enterococci are ubiquitous microorganisms, found as part of the normal intestinal microbiota of many animals. They can be present in food products, for example, the Portuguese dry fermented sausage chourico. Twenty enterococci were isolated from chourico in two processing units; after identification and typification by conventional-molecular methods, the isolates were screened for virulence factors and antibiotic resistance. Identification allocated all enterococci to the species Enterococcus faecalis, and PCR fingerprinting demonstrated that each isolate was specific to the processing unit and chourico from which it was recovered. Regarding the screening for virulence factors, I strain produced cytolysin and 4 were gelatinase positive, but none produced lipase. The ace gene was detected in I enterococci, ebpABC and efaA(fs). in 16 isolates each, esp in 3, fsrB in 5, gelE in 7, and cylA in I. A multiresistant phenotype was observed in 8 isolates, 6 belonging to factory A. The antibiotic resistance gene ere(B) was detected in 9 enterococci, whereas the genes tet(M), aac(6')-le-aph(2 ''), and vanA were detected in 8 isolates each. As some of the E. faecalis chourico isolates present a multiresistant profile and harbor virulence and/or resistance genes, to assess further the safety of Portuguese dry sausages, a larger number of products and processing units must by analyzed.

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

4.4
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