4.6 Article

Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in cattle in Finland and antimicrobial susceptibilities of bovine Campylobacter jejuni strains

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 10, 页码 3232-3238

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02579-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in Finnish cattle at slaughter and carcass contamination after slaughter. During the period January to December 2003, bovine rectal fecal samples (n = 952) and carcass surface samples (n = 948) from 12 out of 15 Finnish slaughterhouses were examined. In total, campylobacters were detected in 31.1% of fecal samples and in 3.5% of carcass surface samples. Campylobacter jejuni was isolated from 19.5%, Campylobacter coli from 2.2%, and presumptive Campylobacter hyointestinalis from 10.8% of fecal samples. Campylobacters were detected in 4.4% and 37.4% of the fecal samples examined both by direct culture and by enrichment (n = 730), respectively, suggesting a low level of campylobacters in the intestinal content. A slightly increasing trend was observed in the overall prevalence of campylobacters towards the end of summer and autumn. Seventeen different serotypes were detected among the fecal C. jejuni isolates using a set of 25 commercial antisera for serotyping heat-stable antigens (Penner) of C. jejuni by passive hemagglutination. The predominant serotypes, Pen2 and Pen4-complex, were isolated from 52% of the fecal samples. Subtyping by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (SmaI) yielded 56 and 20 subtypes out of 330 fecal and 70 carcass C. jejuni isolates, respectively. MICs of ampicillin, enrofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid, and oxytetracycline for 187 C. jejuni isolates were determined using a commercial broth microdilution method. Sixteen (9%) of the isolates were resistant to at least one of the antimicrobials tested. Resistance to nalidixic acid was most commonly detected (6%). No multiresistance was observed.

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