3.9 Article

Isolation and molecular characterization of Arcobacte butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus from the pork production chain in Brazil

期刊

PESQUISA VETERINARIA BRASILEIRA
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 393-399

出版社

REVISTA PESQUISA VETERINARIA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/1678-5150-PVB-4709

关键词

Arcobacter butzleri; Arcobacter cryaerophilus; swine; slaughterhouse; AFLP; bacterioses

资金

  1. FAPESP - Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo [2007/01636-5, 2010/13650-5, 2010/17043-6]
  2. CAPES - Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arcobacter is an emerging zoonotic pathogen, and the major transmission routes to humans are the handling or consumption of contaminated raw/undercooked food products of animal origin, water and seafood. The isolation and identification of Arcobacter species are not routine in clinical laboratories; therefore, its true incidence in human infections may be underestimated. The present study aimed to isolate and characterize Arcobacter from carcasses and fecal samples collected at swine slaughterhouses and from meat markets in Sao Paulo State, Brazil. The isolates were identified using multiplex-PCR to differentiate the species and analyzed by single-enzyme amplified fragment length polymorphism (SE-AFLP). Arcobacter spp. were isolated from 73.0% of swine carcasses, 4% of fecal samples and 10% of pork samples. A. butzleri was the most prevalent species identified, followed by A. cryaerophilus. Interestingly, the carcasses presented higher frequency of A. butzleri isolation, whereas only A. cryaerophilus was isolated from fecal samples. SE-AFLP enabled the characterization of A. butzleri and A. cryaerophilus into 51 and 63 profiles, respectively. The great genetic heterogeneity observed for both species corroborates previous reports. This study confirms the necessity for a standard isolation protocol and the improvement of molecular tools to further elucidate Arcobacter epidemiology.

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

3.9
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