4.6 Article

Characterization of Salmonella Frintrop isolated from dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius)

期刊

TRANSBOUNDARY AND EMERGING DISEASES
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 742-746

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13737

关键词

antimicrobial resistance; Campylobacter; dromedary; genetic diversity; PFGE; Salmonella

资金

  1. Fundacion Banco Santander [INDI 17/25, 18/28, 19/32]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study in dromedary camels in Tenerife, Spain found a prevalence of 5.5% for Salmonella, with a single serovar isolated. Genetic analysis showed low diversity, indicating camels may serve as a reservoir for Salmonella transmission. While Campylobacter was not detected in the study, mandatory control measures should be considered for zoonotic pathogens in camels due to their increasing popularity in tourism.
Different studies have reported the prevalence and antibiotic resistance ofSalmonellain dromedary camels and its role in camelid-associated salmonellosis in humans, but little is known about the epidemiology ofCampylobacterin dromedaries. Here, we investigate the prevalence, genetic diversity and antibiotic resistance ofCampylobacterandSalmonellain dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius). A total of 54 individuals were sampled from two different dromedary farms located in Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). While all the samples wereCampylobacter-negative,Salmonellaprevalence was 5.5% (3/54), and the only serovar isolated wasS. Frintrop. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis analysis revealed a low genetic diversity, with all isolates showing a nearly identical pulsotype (similarity >95%). Our results indicate that dromedary camels could not be a risk factor forCampylobacterhuman infection, but seems to be a reservoir forSalmonellatransmission. Since camel riding has become one of the main touristic attractions in several countries, and its popularity has increased considerably in recent years, a mandatory control, especially for zoonotic pathogens such asCampylobacterandSalmonella, should be implemented.

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

4.6
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