4.3 Article

Virulence traits of avian pathogenic (APEC) and fecal (AFEC) E-coli isolated from broiler chickens in Algeria

期刊

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 547-553

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-017-1467-5

关键词

E. coli; APEC; AFEC; Avian colibacillosis; Virulence factors; Antibiotics; Algeria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC) is the etiologic agent of avian colibacillosis, the most common disease responsible for chicken morbidity in the world. Although multiple virulence-associated factors were identified, their prevalence in Algeria is still poorly known. In the present research, 92 avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC) isolates were recovered from broilers with clinical signs and lesions of colibacillosis. In addition, 32 E. coli isolates collected from feces of healthy birds (AFEC) were included for comparison. All isolates were investigated by PCR for the presence of a total of 11 virulence-associated genes described for avian pathogenic (iroN, ompT, hlyF, iss, iutA, and fimC) and diarrheagenic E. coli (eae, stx, elt/est, ipaH, and aggR). The sensitivity of 39 APEC isolates to 16 antibiotics was also determined using antimicrobial pretreated microplates. Here, we report that 98% of the examined isolates host at least one of the tested virulence factors. The most prevalent genes in APEC were iutA (90.6%), ompT (86.9%), and iss (85.8%); whereas, iutA (78.1%), fimC (78.1%), and iroN (68.7%) were the highest prevalent genes in AFEC. Our data showed that none of the AFEC isolates harbor any of the tested diarrheagenic genes. Moreover, only elt/est (5.4%), stx (2.1%), and ipaH (2.1%) genes were carried by APEC isolates. We further established that ceftazodime, ceftiofur, mequindox, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and meropenem were the most efficient antibiotics against the analyzed APEC isolates. Overall, our findings provide more insights about APEC and AFEC virulence potential in Algeria which could participate in the fight against colibacillosis.

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

4.3
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