4.5 Article

Epidemiological investigations on the possible risk of distribution of zoonotic bacteria through apparently healthy homing pigeons

期刊

AVIAN PATHOLOGY
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 397-407

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03079457.2013.822468

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinically healthy homing pigeons may serve as an unnoticed reservoir for zoonotic bacteria. Hence, healthy pigeons from 172 different racing pigeon lofts were examined for Salmonella serovars, Campylobacter spp. and Chlamydophila (Chlamydia) psittaci. Two samplings were performed during the racing season in summer (1242 adult and 1164 juvenile pigeons) and two during winter (1074 adult pigeons). Each sampling was accompanied by a questionnaire to identify risk factors for positive lofts. Between 0.9 and 3.7%, 13.1 and 23.7%, and 12.8 and 42.6% of lofts were tested positive by cultural methods or polymerase chain reaction for Salmonella Typhimurium var. Copenhagen, Campylobacter jejuni and C. psittaci, respectively. The detection rate of C. psittaci was twice as high in samples from juvenile pigeons (29.1%) compared with samples from adult pigeons (15.0%, P <0.001). No other influence of age or season was detected. For the first time, pigeon-derived C. jejuni isolates (n=15) were characterized for their ability to invade human enterocytes in vitro. All isolates were invasive with an invasion index between 0.4 and 34.1 (human reference strain: average 11.3). Of 50 C. jejuni isolates tested for antimicrobial susceptibility, 46.0% were resistant to ciprofloxacin. All isolates were sensitive to erythromycin and tetracycline. The analysis of risk factors in association with the infection status of lofts for C. jejuni and C. psittaci suggested that biosecurity measures reduce the risk of infection. This study indicated a zoonotic potential of pigeon-derived C. jejuni. However, clinically healthy homing pigeons pose only a low risk for transmission of the investigated pathogens 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

4.5
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