4.3 Article

Genetic diversity of Escherichia coli recovered from the oral cavity of beef cattle and their relatedness to faecal E-coli

期刊

LETTERS IN APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 523-527

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2004.01620.x

关键词

cattle; Escherichia coli; genetic diversity; oral cavity; RAPD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To determine the genetic diversity of generic Escherichia coli recovered from the oral cavities of beef cattle and their relatedness to E. coli isolated from the faeces of cattle during pasture grazing and feedlot finishing. Methods and Results: A total of 484 E. coli (248 oral and 236 faecal isolates) were obtained from eight beef cattle after 1 and 5 months of grazing on pasture and after 1 and 5 months in a feedlot. The random amplification of polymorphic DNA (RAPD) method was used to genetically characterize these isolates. The RAPD patterns showed that ca 60% of E. coli recovered from the oral cavities and faeces during pasture and feedlot shared a close genetic relatedness. A number of E. coli with unique RAPD types were also found either in the oral cavities or faeces. Most of the E. coli RAPD types recovered from the oral cavities were shared among animals, but there were also RAPD types which were unique to individual animals. The E. coli populations of the oral cavities were genetically diverse and changed over time. Conclusions: This study indicates that there are large numbers of E. coli carried in the oral cavities of beef cattle and those E. coli are closely related to strains found in the faeces. The oral cavities of cattle harbour a genetically diverse E. coli population. Significance and Impact of the Study: The oral cavity may be an important reservoir of enteric pathogens which may transfer to meat during carcass dressing. A better understanding of the molecular ecology of E. coli in cattle would assist the design of approaches to control pathogenic strains during beef production and processing.

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

4.3
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