4.4 Article

Prevalence, Enumeration, and Antimicrobial Agent Resistance of Clostridium difficile in Cattle at Harvest in the United States

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 74, 期 10, 页码 1618-1624

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-141

关键词

-

资金

  1. Beef Checkoff
  2. state and federal funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess the potential for food contamination with Clostridium difficile from food animals, we conducted a cross-sectional fecal prevalence study in 944 randomly selected cattle harvested at seven commercial meat processing plants, representing four distant regions (median distance of 1,500 km) of the United States. In all, 944 animals were sampled in the summer of 2008. C. difficile was isolated from 1.8% (17 of 944) of cattle, with median fecal shedding concentration of 2.2 log CFU/g (range = 1.6 to 4.8, 95% confidence interval = 1.6, 4.3). Toxigenic C. difficile isolates were recovered from only four (0.4%) cattle. One of these isolates was emerging PCR ribotype 078/toxinotype V. The remaining toxigenic isolates were toxinotype 0, one of which was an isolate with resistance to linezolid, clindamycin, and moxifloxacin (by the E-test). All isolates were susceptible to vancomycin, metronidazole, and tigecycline, but the MICs against linezolid were as high as the highest reported values for human-derived isolates. The source of the linezolid-clindamycin-moxifioxacin resistance in a toxigenic C. difficile isolate from cattle is uncertain. However, since the use of these three antimicrobial agents in cattle is not allowed in North America, it is possible that resistance originated from an environmental source, from other species where those antimicrobial agents are used, or transferred from other intestinal bacteria. This study confirms that commercial cattle can carry epidemiologically relevant C. difficile strains at the time of harvest, but the prevalence at the time they enter the food chain is low.

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