4.4 Article

Prevalence, risk factors, O serogroups, and virulence profiles of Shiga toxin-producing bacteria from cattle production environments

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 68, 期 8, 页码 1556-1565

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-68.8.1556

关键词

-

资金

  1. FDA HHS [FD-U-002168-01-4] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shiga toxin (Stx)-producing bacteria are important human pathogens that have been linked with cattle and associated food products. We recovered Stx-producing bacteria from 27.5% of cattle, 6.8% of water, and 2.3% of wildlife samples from a cattle production area during an 11-month period. Positive samples were found during every month and on 98% of sampling days. We recovered isolates from all cattle operations sampled, and prevalence within operations ranged from approximately 5 to 33%. Cattle prevalence was associated with the presence of Stx-producing bacteria in water and the production group and environment of cattle, with an interaction between production group and environment. Odds of recovering isolates from cattle were highest for groups of adult cows and their unweaned calves in pasture environments. Overall, 49 O serogroups were identified from 527 isolates. Seventy of the isolates contained virulence genes that encoded intimin and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli hemolysin. These were serogroups O111, O157, O109, O103, O145, O172, O84, O26, O108, O117, O126, O159, O5, O69, O74, O98, and O-rough. Our results suggest that the prevalence of Stx-producing bacteria can be relatively high in cattle, and associated factors may not be entirely similar to those reported for serotype O157:H7. Although Stx-producing bacteria were frequently detected, the strains may not be equally pathogenic for humans given the wide variety of serogroups and virulence genes. However, focusing on O157:H7 in food safety and surveillance programs may allow other Stx-producing bacteria, which appear to be widespread in cattle, to go undetected.

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

4.4
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