4.7 Article

Genotyping of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from milk and dairy products in South Italy

期刊

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 141-146

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2016.10.020

关键词

MRSA; Enterotoxins; PVL; Biofilm; Food safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a pathogen emerging in hospitals as well as community and livestock. MRSA is a significant and costly public health concern because it may enter the human food chain and contaminate milk and dairy products causing foodborne illness. This study aimed to determine the occurrence and the characteristics of MRSA isolated from 3760 samples of milk and dairy products in a previous survey conducted in southern Italy during 2008-2014. Overall out of 484 S. aureus strains isolated, 40 (8.3%) were MRSA and were characterized by spa-typing, Multi-Locus Sequence Typing, SCCmec typing, Staphylococcal enterotoxins (SEs) genes, Panton-Valentine Leukocidin (PVL) genes and ability to form biofilm. The most frequently recovered STs were ST152 (t355-67.5%), followed by ST398 (t899, t108-25%), ST1 (t127-5%) and ST5 (t688-2.5%). All isolates harboured the SCCmec type V (92.5%) or IVa (25%). In one isolate (2.5%), ST398/t899, the SCCmec resulted not detected. Three isolates (7.5%) carried one or more enterotoxin encoding genes (one strain had seg, sei, sem, sen and seo genes; two strains had seh gene). The 50% of isolated strains harboured PVL-encoding genes. Molecular analysis for icaA and icaD genes showed: 72.5% icaA and icaD positive, 25% only icaD gene and one icaA and icaD negative. The detection of MRSA in food of animal origin is a potential health hazard, thus it is necessary monitoring of food producing animals and improving hygiene standards in food practices in order to reduce the microbiological risk to minimum. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

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