4.1 Article

Carriage of Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Antimicrobial-Resistant, Nonspecific Escherichia coli by Waterfowl Species Collected from Three Sources in Southern Ontario, Canada

期刊

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 917-922

出版社

WILDLIFE DISEASE ASSOC, INC
DOI: 10.7589/2018-12-288

关键词

Antimicrobial resistance; Enterobacteriaceae; epidemiology; public health; wild birds; zoonoses

资金

  1. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Food Safety Research Program
  2. University of Guelph
  3. Ontario Veterinary College

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild birds are considered a potential source of zoonotic pathogens. We report on the occurrence of Campylobacter, Salmonella, and antimicrobial-resistant, nonspecific Escherichia coli in ducks, grebes, and swans obtained by convenience while conducting related research with Canada Geese (Branta canadensis). Samples were obtained in southern Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2015 from hunter-caught birds, birds submitted for postmortem diagnosis, and fresh feces from live birds in parks. A secondary objective was to characterize Campylobacter genotypes using comparative genomic fingerprinting. Salmonella and E. coli isolates were tested for susceptibility to 15 antimicrobials using the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance test panel. A total of 71 samples were collected from 15 different waterfowl species. We detected Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli in 17, 3, and 84% of samples, respectively. Ten unique Campylobacter subtypes were identified, some of which had been identified previously in water, poultry, waterfowl, and human clinical cases. Both Salmonella isolates were pansusceptible and 15% of E. coli isolates were resistant to at least one antimicrobial, including resistance to antimicrobials of highest importance to human health. Source attribution studies should examine the role of waterfowl in the dissemination of these pathogens.

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

4.1
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