4.7 Article

Pet dogs and chicken meat as reservoirs of Campylobacter spp. in Barbados

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 6, 页码 2642-2650

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.43.6.2642-2650.2005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Campylobacter spp. are the second most common pathogen isolated from stools of patients with gastroenteritis in Barbados. The aim of this study was to identify reservoirs of Campylobacter and the likely source(s) of human infection. Fecal specimens from 596 animals and 311 samples of animal food products were analyzed for the presence of Campylobacter spp. by standard culture techniques. Isolates were characterized by conventional phenotypic tests, confirmed by latex agglutination and PCR with genus-specific primers, and identified by the use of species-specific primers. High isolation rates were obtained for chickens (94.2%), pigs (90.5%), dogs (46.9%), cats (37.3%), and wild birds (39.3%). Campylobacter was also recovered from monkeys (17.1%) and sheep (4.2%) but not from cows. Chicken meat was frequently contaminated with Campylobacter (58.4%), but its recovery from other animal food products was rare. Campylobacter jejuni was the most commonly identified species in humans (63.6%), chickens (86.6%), dogs (51.5%), and chicken meat (79.8%). Porcine isolates were predominantly C. coli (98.4%), while cats harbored mainly C. upsaliensis and C. helveticus. Wild birds alone carried urease-positive thermophilic campylobacters. C. jejuni and C. coli isolates from different sources were compared with isolates from humans by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA typing with the primers OPA 11 and HLWL 85. Genotyping revealed similarities between isolates from chicken meat and those from humans and could not distinguish between two clinical isolates and four canine strains. Our results suggest that dogs are significant reservoirs of Campylobacter and contribute to human enteric infections and that chicken meat is a likely vehicle for the transmission of campylobacters to humans.

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

4.7
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