4.1 Article Data Paper

Prevalence data of diarrheagenic E. coli in the fecal pellets of wild rodents using culture methods and PCR assay

期刊

DATA IN BRIEF
卷 33, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.106439

关键词

Wildlife; Apodemus agrarius; E. coli; Shiga toxin-producing E. coli; Virulence genes

资金

  1. Cooperative Research Program for Agricultural Science & Technology Development Rural Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ0108592016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild animals, such as rodents seem to be competent reservoir of bacteria-borne zoonotic diseases which disseminate in human. We investigated the presence of E. coli, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), and Salmonella in the feces of six category wild rodent species (Apodemus agrarius, A. peninsulae, A. sylvaticus, Micromys minutus, Myodes regulus, and R. norvegicus) captured from different agricultural regions in South Korea. Among them, A. agrarius, which account for 65% of total (N = 52) individuals, are most widely distributed and abundant in various agroecosystems in South Korea. The bacterial identification was performed by cultural and molecular methods. In cultural method, the fecal cultures from 26 individuals formed colonies on E. coli-selective EMB agar media. Of them, the fecal cultures from 18 individuals also produced colonies on the Shiga toxin-producing E. coli-selective CT-SMAC agar media as well as the EMB agar media. In molecular method, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was carried out to detect two virulence genes (stx1 and stx2) of isolated E. coli. The amplified dataset of stx1 and stx2 genes of E. coli were sequenced. In this manuscript, E. coli and STEC were detected but there were no Salmonella species. The wild rodents' data would provide important information on reservoirs of those pathogenic bacteria. (c) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

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