Review Topical Sections

Methods currently applied to study the prevalence of Clostridioides difficile in foods

  • Received: 25 September 2019 Accepted: 24 February 2020 Published: 28 February 2020
  • Clostridioides difficile is responsible for most cases of antibiotic- and hospital-associated diarrhoea. Several studies have demonstrated the presence of C. difficile in different foods such as meat, raw milk, vegetables and seafood, which supports the hypothesis that foods contaminated with spores may be contributing to the exposure to and transmission of C. difficile.
    Generally, the prevalence of C. difficile in foods is low and there is no standard methodology for its isolation. Available methods have been optimized for stool samples rather than foods.
    In the majority of the studies, a similar base culture medium has been used and different selective and enrichment compounds are further added, which is, sometimes, controversial. Despite the extensive use of cycloserine and cefoxitin, as well as moxalactam and norfloxacin, many authors believe that the use of these selective supplements had an adverse effect on the recovery of C. difficile and only enabled recovery of resistant isolates from food samples. Another example is the use of sodium taurocholate to potentiate the germination of C. difficile spores; there are studies reporting that the addition of this component in the enrichment medium did not exert a beneficial effect on C. difficile recovery. Variations in sample amounts, dilution factors, incubation times, among others, may also affect the recovery of C. difficile from foods.
    Numerous studies have recently emerged, since there is increasing interest in C. difficile as a potentially foodborne pathogen. Thus, the purpose of this review is to summarize the methodologies currently used on the isolation/detection of C. difficile in foods and its subsequent characterization and typing.

    Citation: Joana Barbosa, Ana Campos, Paula Teixeira. Methods currently applied to study the prevalence of Clostridioides difficile in foods[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(1): 102-128. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.102

    Related Papers:

    [1] Ariana Macieira, Helena Albano, Miguel Pinto, Raquel Linheiro, Joana Barbosa, Paula Teixeira . Evaluation of a bacteriocinogenic Lactobacillus plantarum strain on the microbiological characteristics of “Alheira de Vitela”. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 223-236. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.223
    [2] Farzad Rahmati . Identification and characterization of Lactococcus starter strains in milk-based traditional fermented products in the region of Iran. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(1): 12-25. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.1.12
    [3] Laura McKinney, Yuki Kato . Community context of food justice: reflections on a free local produce program in a New Orleans food desert. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2017, 2(2): 183-200. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2017.2.183
    [4] Maria E. Kustyawati, Subeki, Murhadi, Samsul Rizal, Penipuji Astuti . Vitamin B12 production in soybean fermentation for tempeh. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(2): 262-271. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.2.262
    [5] Hortensia Rico, Pilar Falomir . Comparison of the Antibiotic-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Content in Conventional, Organic and Fresh-Cut Vegetables Sold in Valencia (Spain). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(2): 233-244. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.2.233
    [6] Iyabo Olunike Omomowo, Oluwaseun Emmanuel Shittu, Olawale Israel Omomowo, Olusola Nathaniel Majolagbe . Influence of phosphate solubilizing non-toxigenic Aspergillus flavus strains on maize (Zea mays L.) growth parameters and mineral nutrients content. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 408-421. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.408
    [7] Luca Altamore, Marzia Ingrassia, Stefania Chironi, Pietro Columba, Giuseppe Sortino, Ana Vukadin, Simona Bacarella . Pasta experience: Eating with the five senses—a pilot study. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(4): 493-520. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.4.493
    [8] Mohamed-Yousif Ibrahim Mohamed . Campylobacteriosis in North Africa. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(3): 801-821. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024043
    [9] Stephen K. Torkpo, Kwame Offei, Eric Y. Danquah, Yedidya Gafni . Status of cassava mosaic begomoviruses in farmers’ fields in Ghana. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2017, 2(3): 279-289. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2017.3.279
    [10] Jessie Melo, Chaiane Quevedo, Ana Graça, Célia Quintas . Hygienic quality of dehydrated aromatic herbs marketed in Southern Portugal. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(1): 46-53. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.46
  • Clostridioides difficile is responsible for most cases of antibiotic- and hospital-associated diarrhoea. Several studies have demonstrated the presence of C. difficile in different foods such as meat, raw milk, vegetables and seafood, which supports the hypothesis that foods contaminated with spores may be contributing to the exposure to and transmission of C. difficile.
    Generally, the prevalence of C. difficile in foods is low and there is no standard methodology for its isolation. Available methods have been optimized for stool samples rather than foods.
    In the majority of the studies, a similar base culture medium has been used and different selective and enrichment compounds are further added, which is, sometimes, controversial. Despite the extensive use of cycloserine and cefoxitin, as well as moxalactam and norfloxacin, many authors believe that the use of these selective supplements had an adverse effect on the recovery of C. difficile and only enabled recovery of resistant isolates from food samples. Another example is the use of sodium taurocholate to potentiate the germination of C. difficile spores; there are studies reporting that the addition of this component in the enrichment medium did not exert a beneficial effect on C. difficile recovery. Variations in sample amounts, dilution factors, incubation times, among others, may also affect the recovery of C. difficile from foods.
    Numerous studies have recently emerged, since there is increasing interest in C. difficile as a potentially foodborne pathogen. Thus, the purpose of this review is to summarize the methodologies currently used on the isolation/detection of C. difficile in foods and its subsequent characterization and typing.


    Abbreviations: BB: Brucella broth; BHI: Brain Heart Infusion broth; CCEY: selective media with egg yolk emulsion, cefoxitin and cycloserine; CDI: Clostridioides difficile infection; CDMN: C. difficile moxalactam norfloxacin; CDSA: C. difficile selective agar; CFU: Colony forming units; GDH: Glutamate dehydrogenase; MALDI-TOF MS: Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry; MB: Mannitol broth; MLST: Multi-locus sequence typing; MLVA: Multi-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis; PCR: polymerase chain reaction; PFGE: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis; RFLP: Restriction fragment length polymorphism; ST: Sequence type number; TB: Thioglycolate broth; TBHI: Brain heart infusion with 0.1% sodium taurocholate; TCCFB: selective media with cycloserine and cefoxitin; TCM: cooked meat medium with 0.1% sodium taurocholate; TCMN: selective media with cysteine hydrochloride, moxalactam and norfloxacin

    Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile) [1] is a spore-forming human pathogen that is the main cause of antibiotic- and hospital-associated diarrhoea [2]. Colonization of humans by C. difficile spores may promote a toxin-mediated enteric disease designated C. difficile infection (CDI). The production of exotoxins A and B and/or binary toxin is the main factor mediating the pathogenesis of C. difficile disease [3,4]. Toxins A and B are encoded by tcdA and tcdB genes, respectively, located within a region of the chromosome identified as pathogenicity locus or PaLoc [4]. Binary toxin is encoded by two genes (cdtA and cdtB) that are outside the PaLoc region at the site of the binary toxin locus in the genome (CdtLoc) [3].

    There has been a dramatic change in the epidemiology of C. difficile infection in the past decade, with the emergence and spread of new and hypervirulent strains and an increase in the incidence of community-acquired CDI, particularly in populations previously not considered at high risk [5]. Given the absence of clear explanations for such a rapid increase in rates of CDI in recent years, a common vehicle of C. difficile spores dissemination such as via food products may not be excluded. Many studies have demonstrated their presence in four food categories: i) meat, such in ground beef [6], pork meat [7], chicken meat [8,9] and poultry meat [10]; ii) dairy products, e.g. raw milk [11]; iii) vegetables, e.g. raw vegetables [12], leafy greens [13], processed vegetables [14] and lettuce [15,16,17], and iv) seafood, e.g. molluscs [18], shellfish [11,19] and seafood [20]. Contamination of these foods by C. difficile spores may be due to the fact that they are susceptible to faecal contamination. The primary mode of transmission of enteric pathogens occurs via the faecal-oral route [21]. As an enteric pathogen, C. difficile spores can be disseminated ubiquitously in the environment. Bivalve molluscs filter water and accumulate enteric pathogens when raised in polluted waters [22] and C. difficile has been found in seawater [23]. According to Xu et al. [24], C. difficile can survive sewage treatments and can be recovered from biosolids along with an effluent discharge, which could explain its detection in vegetables, since the water, manure, compost and/or biosolids are probably contaminated. Romano et al. [11,25] found that wastewater treatment plant effluents represent a potential for spreading of toxigenic C. difficile strains.

    Clostridioides difficile species comprises several ribotypes [2] and the most commonly identified as a cause of disease in humans have been also found in foods such as retail meat (ribotypes 027 and 078) [26,27,28], raw milk (ribotype 078) [11] and ready-to-eat salads (ribotypes 001,078 and 126) [9,11,12].

    Food additives are used in the food industry to assure safe foods with an extended shelf life. In order to determine the in vitro susceptibility of C. difficile to three food preservatives used in ready-to-eat products—sodium nitrite (E250), sodium nitrate (E251) and sodium metabisulfite (E223)—Lim et al. [29] demonstrated that their use in concentrations complying with the maximum value established by legislation does not prevent the germination of C. difficile spores. Therefore, it is doubtful if the use of these additives is a good barrier to the survival of these microorganisms in food.

    Since there is still no standard methodology for isolation and/or enumeration of C. difficile in foods, different researchers have used different successfully developed methodologies applied for stool samples [30,31,32]. However, differences in methodologies compromise the comparison of data reported in different studies.

    This review attempts to summarize all existing methodologies used for the isolation/detection of C. difficile in foods and its subsequent characterization and typing. The intention of the authors is to draw attention to the need for standard methodologies, without proposing the best methodology, but analysing those already used.

    Since there is no standardized methodology for the isolation/detection of C. difficile from foods, researchers have been using methodologies based on those used in clinical settings to isolate C. difficile from faecal samples.

    Isolation of C. difficile from foods can be influenced by numerous parameters, described below, used for enrichment and/or recovery/isolation and identification. All published studies on the prevalence of C. difficile in foods found so far are listed in Table 1, comprising the food product, its origin, number of samples and amount of sample analyzed, the enrichment culture and/or recovery/isolation culture media used and the percentage of positive samples for C. difficile and toxigenic C. difficile detected.

    Detection following enrichment step was the technique of choice reported in most of the studies listed in Table 1. Direct culture, without previous enrichment step, was conducted as a single technique by the authors of merely four studies [35,53,58,60]. Both culture methods were performed in seven studies [6,9,12,33,38,40,46].

    In the studies of Razmyar et al. [35] and Visser et al. [53], the authors reported a prevalence of 15.3% and 6.3% of C. difficile by direct culture in chicken meat, respectively. Also by direct culture in cooked kidney and flesh, Kouassi et al. [58] reported a prevalence of 12.4% and Al Said and Brazier [60] reported a prevalence of 2.3% by sampling directly from surfaces of raw vegetables. Different percentages are reported by the authors that used both culture methods. While no C. difficile was isolated from poultry and raw meat, respectively, in the studies of Abdel-Glil et al. [33] and Indra et al. [40] nor by direct culture nor by enrichment culture, Weese et al. [6] detected C. difficile from ground beef (12%) and ground pork (12%) by enrichment culture (8.7%), by direct culture (1.7%) and by both enrichment and direct culture (1.7%). Something remarkable about this study was the fact that samples positive by direct culture were negative by enrichment culture. The authors explained these results with the hypothesis of possible low-levels of C. difficile in meat samples and its subsequently non-homogeneous distribution [6]. Mooyottu et al. [38] found a prevalence of 0.7% after analyses of 300 ground meat samples, but the authors did not mention if the only two C. difficile isolates were recovered by detection or direct culture techniques. Meat samples positive for C. difficile reported in the studies of Von Abercron et al. [46], Bakri et al. [12] and Weese et al. [9] were positive only by the enrichment procedure with a prevalence of 2.0, 7.5 and 12.8%, respectively.

    In another study about the prevalence of C. difficile in uncooked ground meat published by Curry et al. [30], the authors performed enumeration of C. difficile by MPN (most-probable-number) but only for all samples that were positive by detection. All 13 meat products positive for C. difficile were negative for recovery by enumeration with low level of spore contamination from < 0.18 to 0.45 spores/g.

    Probably due to the hypothetical low numbers of C. difficile in food, detection with an enrichment step is the most widely used technique in published studies.

    As with any microbiological analysis, random sampling, numbers of food samples and their amount used for bacteriological examination should be as representative as possible, regardless of the technique used (enumeration or detection). Although most protocols are based on testing for C. difficile in stool samples where the pathogen is present at high levels, small amounts of food sample may not reveal the true level of contamination of C. difficile due to its non-homogeneous distribution [6]. Different amounts of food samples have been used to assess the presence of C. difficile, ranging from 70 mg to 50 g [19,27,33,36,38,42,43,46,55]. Moreover, in eight studies with meat products (Table 1), the authors added phosphate-buffered saline to the respective amount of sample and only then transferred a certain volume of that dilution to an enrichment medium, instead of transferring the sample directly [6,9,10,33,34,35,37,39]. All these differences may affect the recovery rates of C. difficile from foods.

    Table 1.  Summary of procedures and main results of published studies on the prevalence of C. difficile in foods.
    Food product Country Sampling Enrichment culture Recover/isolation culture medium % Positive forC. difficile %Toxigenic C.difficile Reference
    N° ofsamples Amount Medium and volume Incubationtime
    Meat
    Poultry meat Egypt 150 1 mL (1 g in 9 mL PBS) (1) TCDMN (9 mL) (2) na 7–10 days (1) CDMN agar (2) CDMN agar (0.1 mL from PBS suspension) (1) 0.0 (2) 0.0 (1) na (2) na [33]
    Poultry meat USA 32 Two pieces in 50 mL PBS A: Weese et al. [9] B:Rodriguez-Palacios et al. [54] C: 10 mL in enrichment broth of procedure B A: 48 h B: 14 days C: 14 days A: CDMN agar B: CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood C: CCFN agar, Brucella agar and TCCFNHB agar A: 3.1 B: 6.3 C: 12.5 100.0 [10]
    Retail chicken Canada 203 1 mL (entire piece in 50 mL PBS) (1) TCDMN (9 mL) (2) na 48 h (1) CDMN agar (2) CDMN agar (0.1 mL from PBS suspension) (1) 12.8 (2) 0.0 100.0 [9]
    Retail chicken meat parts Turkey 310 1 mL (10 g in 10 mL PBS) TCDMN (9 mL) 48–72 h CDMN agar with 7% (v/v) horse blood 8.1 32.0 [34]
    Chicken portions Iran 65 Sample pieces in 50 mL PBS na na A: Columbia agar with 5% (v/v) sheep blood (0.1 mL from PBS suspension) B: CCEY agar (0.1 mL from PBS suspension) 15.3 70.0 [35]
    Raw chicken, beef and pork meat Korea 415 5 g TCDMN (20 mL) 15 days CDMN agar and TSA with 5% (v/v) blood agar 10.8 4.4 [36]
    Beef and chicken meat Turkey 101 1 mL (25 g in 25 mL PBS) TCDMN (9 mL) 48 h CDMN agar 1.98 0.0 [37]
    Ground beef and pork meat, and chicken wings USA 300 50 g (1) TCDMN (50 mL) (2) na 48 h (1) CDMN agar (2) CDMN agar (1 mL from 50 mL TCDMN suspension) 0.7 0.0 [38]
    Retail beef, pork and poultry meat Costa Rica 200 A: 25 g in 225 mL saline solution 0.85% B: 2–3 g A: na B: BHICC (10 mL) A: na B: 22 days A: Pellet after centrifugation of ethanol treated culture in CCF agar (5 days) and FAB (15 days) B: CCF agar 2.0 100.0 [39]
    Retail beef, chicken, pork and turkey meat USA 303 10 g TCDMNHB (50 mL) 10 days CDMN agar 10.2 81.0 [28]
    Raw beef, pork and chicken meat Austria 84 5 g (1) TB (20 mL) (2) na (1) 12 days (2) na (1) CCFN agar (2) CCFN agar (from TB suspension before incubation) 0.0 na [40]
    Retailed raw beef, pork, calf, lamb and chicken meat Netherlands 500 5 g TCDMNHB (20 mL) 10–15 days CDMN agar 1.6 62.5 [41]
    Raw beef, minced pork and chicken samples and traditional sausages Portugal 143 10 g CDMN with 7% (v/v) horse blood (20 mL) 7 days CDMN agar 0.0 na [42]
    Raw ground beef, buffalo, chicken, lamb, pork, turkey and veal meat USA 102 10 g CCMB-TAL (100 mL) 5 days TSA with 5% (v/v) sheep blood 12.7 100.0 [30]
    Retail beef, chicken and pork meat, and hamburger products Brazil 80 2 g TB (10 mL) 7 days CCFHB agar 0.0 na [43]
    Retail ground pork, beef, chicken, turkey, beef and pork sausages USA 40 5 g TCCF (20 mL) 15 days CCFN agar 7.5 100.0 [44]
    Raw beef, pork, chicken, turkey and lamb and processed meat USA 342 55 g TCDMN (50 mL) A: na B: 48 h A: CDMN agar B: CDMN agar (1 mL of treated sample with ethanol) 0.0 na [45]
    Retail ground beef, pork, sheep, poultry, calf, reindeer, hamburger and cooked sausages and hamburger Sweeden 82 25 g (1) CDMN (50 mL) BHI (50 mL) (2) na 10–12 days (1) CDMNHB agar and FAA (2) CDMNHB agar and FAA (from CDMN and BHI suspensions before incubation) (1) 2.0 (2) 0.0 100.0 [46]
    Ground pork and pork chop Canada 393 15 g TCD (50 mL) 7 days Columbia Blood agar 1.8 85.7 [47]
    Raw and ready-to-eat pork Taiwan 127 25 g CCBB-TC (50–60 mL) 7 days CHROMagarTMC. difficile 29.9 23.7 [7]
    Ground beef USA 956 1 g CDMN (9 mL) 15 days CDMN1 agar 0.0 na [48]
    Retail ground beef Canada 60 4–5 g TCDMNHB (20 mL) 10–15 days CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood 20 91.7 [49]
    Hamburgers and hamburgers ingredients Iran 211 5 g TCDMN (25 mL) 5–7 days CDMN agar with 7% (v/v) sheep blood 4.2 100.0 [50]
    Minced beef and pork meat Switzerland 46 10 g A: BHI (20 mL) B: BHI (20 mL and heat shocked) 7 days CCFN agar 0.0 na [51]
    Ground beef and pork meat Austria 100 5 g CDMN (20 mL) 10 days Schöer agar and CDSS agar 3.0 33.3 [52]
    Retail beefa and pork meatb Belgium 133a 107b 10 g TCCF1 (90 mL) 3 days TCCFN agar 2.3a 4.7b 87.5 [27]
    Retail beef and pork Canada 230 1 mL (25 g in 25 mL PBS) (1) TCDMN (9 mL) (2) na 48 h (1) CDMN agar (2) CDMN agar (0.1 mL from PBS suspension) (1) 8.7 (2) 1.7 100.0 [6]
    Retail ground beef and pork meat USA 48 20 g na na CDMN agar (0.1 mL of treated sample with ethanol) 6.3 100.0 [53]
    Ground beefa and pork sausagesb France 105a 59b 5 g TBHICC1 (100mL) 72 h Columbia cysteine agar supplemented with cefoxitin-cycloserine, taurocholate and 5% horse blood 1.9a nab 100.0a nab [54]
    Beef and mutton meat Iran 200 5 g CDMN (25 mL) 7 days CDMN agar 4.0 100.0 [31]
    Retail beef, pork, turkey meat, uncooked pork sausage and chorizo and RTE sausages USA 88 1 g TBHIYEC (10 mL) 72 h TCCFN agar 42.0 100.0 [8]
    Ground beef and turkey meat USA 1231 10g A: TCDMN (90 mL) B: TBHI (90 mL) C: TBHI (90 mL and heat shocked) 1, 3 and 5 days A: Anaerobic Blood Agar B: TCCFA C: TCDMN agar 0.0 na [32]
    Retail ground beef and veal chop Canada 214 2 g A: TCDMN (20 mL) B: TCCF (20 mL) 7 days A: CDMN agar with 7% (v/v) horse blood B: 5% (v/v) defibrinated sheep blood agar 6.1 80.0 [55]
    Raw beef, buffalo, camel, cow, goat and sheep meat Iran 660 5 g TCDMNHB (20 mL) 10–15 days CDMN agar with 7% (v/v) horse blood 2.0 92.3 [56]
    Ground veal USA 50 1 g TBHIYEC (9 mL) 96 h TCCFN agar 6.0 100.0 [57]
    Raw cow, sheep and goat meat Saudi Arabia 600 5 g TCCFN with 5% (v/v) sheep blood 10–15 days TCCFN with 7% (v/v) sheep blood 1.5 88.8 [26]
    Cooked kidney Cooked flesh Ivory Coast 395 10 g in 90 mL BPW na na TSC agar 12.4 x [58]
    Dairy products
    Raw milk Austria 50 5 mL CDMN (20 mL) 10 days CDMN agar with 7% sheep blood 0.0 na [52]
    Raw milk Italy 6 C. difficile isolates 20 mL TBHICC2 (20 mL) 10 days CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood x 100.0 [11]
    Seafood
    Seafood and fish Canada 86 15 g TCDMN without potassium dihydrogen phosphate (50 mL) 7 days Blood agar 4.8 80.0 [20]
    Retail seafood USA 67 70 mg TCDMN (100 mL) 7 days CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) laked horse blood 4.5 100.0 [19]
    Shellfish Italy 6 10 g TCDMN (40 mL) 10 days CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood 66.7 50.0 [23]
    Bivalve molluscs Italy 53 10 g TBHICC2 (40 mL) 10 days CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood 49.1 57.7 [59]
    Shellfish Italy 1 C. difficile isolate 10 g TBHICC2 (40 mL) 10 days CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood x 100.0 [11]
    Bivalve molluscs Italy 925 10 g TBHICC2 (40 mL) 10 days CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood 3.9 52.0 [18]
    Vegetables
    Raw vegetables Wales 300 surface na na TCCFN (contact plates) 2.3 71.4 [60]
    Ready-to-eat salads (baby leaf spinach, organic lettuce and organic mixed leaf salad) Scotland 40 50 g (1) TCDMNHB (20 mL) (2) na 10–15 days (1) CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood (2) CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood (from TCDMNHB suspension before incubation) 7.5 100.0 [12]
    Ready-to-eat raw vegetables France 44 20 g TBHICC2 (75 mL) 72 h TBHICC agar with 5% (v/v) defibrinated horse blood 2.9 100.0 [15]
    Lettuce USA 297 40 g TBHICC2 (40 mL) 10 days CDSA 47.1 26.1 [16]
    Retail root vegetables Australia 300 10 g TBHICCYEC (9 mL) 10 days ChromID C. difficile ≥10.0–30.0 51.2 [61]
    Carrots, eddoes and Ginger Canada 111 Smaller sized TCDMN (50 mL) 7 days Columbia blood agar 4.5 100.0 [14]
    Fresh vegetables USA 125 15 g TCCFC (50 mL) 7 days CCF agar 2.4 100.0 [17]
    Ready-to-eat salads Italy 3 C. difficile isolates 10 g TBHICC2 (40 mL) 10 days CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood x 100.0 [11]
    Raw vegetables Slovenia 154 25 g TBHICCYE (200 mL) 5–7 days CCF agar 18.2 8.7 [62]
    Ready-to-eat salads Iran 106 20 g TCDMN (30 mL) 10–15 days CDMN agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood 5.66 16.7 [13]
    Others
    Ready-to-eat foods Iran 368 5 g TCDMNSB (20 mL) 10–15 days CDMN agar with 7% (v/v) defibrinated sheep blood 1.36 100.0 [63]
    Meals Belgium 188 50 g TCCF1 (150 mL) 3 days CCFN agar 0.53 100.0 [64]
    (1) Detection; (2) Enumeration; na: Not applicable; x: Not available; RTE: Ready-to-eat;
    PBS: Phosphate-buffered saline (NaCl, KCl, Na2HPO4, KH2PO4);
    BPW: Buffered peptone water;
    CD: Proteose peptone (40 g/L), disodium hydrogen phosphate (5 g/L), potassium dihydrogen phosphate (1 g/L), magnesium sulphate (0.1 g/L), sodium chloride (2 g/L) and fructose (6 g/L);
    CDMN: CD supplemented with CDMN selective supplement (cysteine hydrochloride (0.5 g/L), moxalactam (32 mg/L) and norfloxacin (12 mg/L);
    CDMN1: Special peptone (23.0 g/L), starch (1.0 g/L), sodium chloride (5.0 g/L), agar (10.0 g/L), yeast extract (5 g/L), fructose (6 g/L), p-hydroxyphenylacetic acid (1 g/L), L-cysteine HCl (0.5 g/L), hemin (5 mg/L), vitamin K1 (10 mg/L), sodium taurocholate (1.0 g/L), moxalactam (32 mg/L), norfloxacin (12 mg/L) and defibrinated horse blood (5g/L);
    CDMNHB: CDMN supplemented with 5% (v/v) of horse blood;
    TCD: CD with 0.1% (w/v) sodium taurocholate;
    TCDMN: CDMN with 0.1% (w/v) sodium taurocholate;
    TCDMNHB: TCDMN supplemented with 5% (v/v) of horse blood;
    TCDMNSB: TCDMN supplemented with 5% (v/v) of sheep blood;
    BHI: Brain heart infusion from (Solids) (8.0 g/L), peptic digest of animal tissue (5.0 g/L), pancreatic digest of casein (16.0 g/L), sodium chloride (5.0 g/L), glucose (2.0 g/L), disodium hydrogen phosphate (2.5 g/L);
    TBHI: Brain heart infusion with 0.1% (w/v) sodium taurocholate;
    TBHICC1: BHI with D-cycloserine (250 mg/L) and cefoxitin (10 mg/L) and 0.1% (w/v) sodium taurocholate;
    TBHICC2: BHI with D-cycloserine (250 mg/L) and cefoxitin (8mg/L) and 0.1% (w/v) sodium taurocholate;
    TBHIYEC: BHI supplemented with 0.5% (w/v) yeast extract, 0.05% (w/v) DL-cysteine and 0.1% (w/v) taurocholate; TBHICCYE: TBHICC2 supplemented with 0.5% (w/v) yeast extract;
    TBHICCYEC: TBHICC2 supplemented with 0.5% (w/v) yeast extract and 0.05% (w/v) DL-cysteine
    CCF: CD with C. difficile selective supplement (D-cycloserine (250 mg/L) and cefoxitin (8 mg/L);
    CCFN: CCF with neutral red (0.03 g/L);
    TCCFN: CCFN with 0.1% (w/v) sodium taurocholate;
    TCCFNHB: TCCFN with 7% (v/v) horse blood;
    CCFHB: CCF supplemented with 7% (v/v) horse blood;
    TCCF: CCF with 0.1% (w/v) sodium taurocholate;
    TCCF1: CD with C. difficile selective supplement (D-cycloserine (350 mg/L), cefoxitin (4 mg/L) and 0.1% (w/v) sodium taurocholate;
    TCCFC: TCCF supplemented with 0.05% (w/v) L-cysteine;
    CCEY agar: Peptone mix (23.0 g/L), sodium chloride (5.0 g/L), soluble starch (1.0 g/L), agar (12.0 g/L), sodium bicarbonate (0.4 g/L), glucose (1.0 g/L), sodium pyruvate (1.0 g/L), cysteine HCl (0.5 g/L), haemin (0.01 g/L), vitamin K (0.001 g/L), L-arginine (1.0 g/L), soluble pyrophosphate (0.25 g/L), sodium succinate (0.5 g/L), cholic acid (1.0 g/L), p-hydroxyphenylacetic acid (1.0 g/L), egg yolk emulsion (4% v/v), cefoxitin (8 µg/ mL) and cycloserine (250 µg/ mL);
    CCMB-TAL: Cycloserine (500 mg/L), cefotixin (15.5 mg/L), mannitol broth with 0.1% (w/v) taurocholate and 0.5% (w/v) lysozyme;
    Brucella agar: Tryptone (10.0 g/L), peptone (10.0 g/L), yeast extract (2.0 g/L), glucose (1.0 g/L), sodium chloride (5.0 g/L), sodium bisulphite (0.1 g/L) and agar (15.0 g/L);
    CCBB-TC: Brucella broth with cefoxitin (8 µg/mL), cycloserine (250 µg/mL), sodium bicarbonate, D-mannitol, sodium taurocholate, lysozyme, vitamin K1, hemin, thioglycolic acid and L-cysteine;
    Schädler agar: Tryptic soy broth (10.0 g/L), enzymatic digest of casein (2.5 g/L), enzymatic digest of animal tissue (2.5 g/L), yeast extract (5 g/L), dextrose (5g/L), Tris (hydroxymethyl) aminomethane (3 g/L), hemin (0.01 g/L), L-cystine (0.4 g/L) and agar (13.5 g/L);
    TB: Thioglycolate broth (pancreatic digest of casein (15.0 g/L), dextrose (5.0 g/L); yeast extract (5.0 g/L), sodium chloride (2.5 g/L), sodium thioglycolate (0.5 g/L), L-cysteine (0.25 g/L) and agar (0.75 g/L);
    FAA: Fastidious anaerobe agar (peptone (23 g/L), sodium chloride (5 g/L), soluble starch (1 g/L), sodium bicarbonate (0.4 g/L), glucose (1 g/L), sodium pyruvate (1 g/L), L-cysteine HCl·H20 (0.5 g/L), sodium pyrophosphate (0.25 g/L), L-arginine (1 g/L), sodium succinate (0.5 g/L), hemin (0.01 g/L), vitamin K (0.001 g/L) and agar (12 g/L));
    FAB: FAA without agar;
    TSA:Tryptic soy agar (tryptone (17 g/L), soytone (3 g/L), dextrose (2.5 g/L), NaCl (5.0 g/L), K2HPO4 (2.5 g/L), agar (15 g/L));
    TSC agar: Triptose sulphite cycloserine agar (tryptose (15 g/L), peptone from soymeal (5 g/L), yeast extract (5.0 g/L), sodium disulfite (1 g/L), ammonium iron (Ⅲ) citrate (1.0 g/L), cycloserine (0.4 g/L) and agar (12 g/L));
    CDSA: Peptic digest of animal tissue (32.0 g/L), magnesium sulphate (0.1 g/L), monopotassium phosphate (1.0 g/L), disodium phosphate (5.0 g/L), sodium chloride (2.0 g/L), cefoxitin (0.016 g/L), cycloserine (0.25 g/L), growth factors (3.3 g/L), neutral red (0.03 g/L), mannitol (6.0 g/L) and agar (20.0 g/L);
    ChromID C. difficile: Meat peptone (porcine) (8.0 g/L), taurocholate (bovine) (1.0 g/L), yeast extract (3.5 g/L), sodium chloride (6.0 g/L), selective mixture (0.27 g), chromogenic mixture (0.3 g/L), agar (13.0 g/L).
    CHROMagarTMC. difficile: (CHROMagarTM, Paris, France).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    As low numbers of C. difficile are expected in food samples, the use of enrichment broths is indicated.

    The composition of the enrichment broths used for the detection of C. difficile from food samples is often similar to those used for clinical samples, with the same base composition and the same added compounds [6,14,49,56].

    Many studies have in common the culture medium mainly composed of proteose peptone, fructose, disodium phosphate, sodium chloride, potassium dihydrogen phosphate and magnesium sulphate [27,28,65,66,67,68,69]. Lister et al. [70] used different enrichment culture media for isolation of C. difficile from stool samples and detected growth in all the samples enriched in medium containing fructose. According to the authors, fructose is considered the preferred carbon source of C. difficile and therefore may be an essential component of the culture media [70]. Other compounds may be added to the above-mentioned base medium. In several studies, selective agents have been used to inhibit the growth of other microorganisms present in samples being examined [9,15,56]. Supplementation of the medium with cycloserine and cefoxitin, named C. difficile selective supplement, is used to inhibit the growth of most contaminants, present in large numbers in normal faecal microbiota [71] as well as in different foods such as meats and vegetables [15,44]. An alternative is the supplementation of the culture medium with moxalactam and norfloxacin, named C. difficile moxalactam norfloxacin (CDMN) selective supplement [38,48,63], which is composed by 32 mg/L moxalactam, 12 mg/L norfloxacin and also with 0.5 g/L cysteine hydrochloride (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Massachusetts, USA). The function of cysteine hydrochloride is primarily to reduce the redox potential and protect cells against oxidative stress, enabling the growth of C. difficile while moxalactam and norfloxacin act as selective agents able to reduce more contaminating microorganisms than cycloserine or cefoxitin [65]. The authors from 28 studies (Table 1) used the above-mentioned base culture medium supplemented with moxalactam and norfloxacin as enrichment broth against nine studies in which the base culture medium supplemented with cycloserine and cefoxitin was used [11,17,26,27,44,55,60,62,64].

    In addition to the selective agents mentioned above, other components such as lysozyme and bile salts (cholate and its derivatives) could be added to the base culture medium, to increase germination [71]. According to Warriner et al. [22], one of the reasons C. difficile cannot grow in foods and therefore cannot be considered as a typical foodborne pathogen, is their lack of ability to germinate in the absence of bile salts. For this reason, bile salts are essential compounds of the medium to isolate C. difficile. However, according to Limbago et al. [32], the addition of sodium taurocholate to the enrichment medium did not have a beneficial effect, but the authors also did not exclude the hypothesis that some strains of C. difficile can be stimulated. In the study by Curry et al. [30], the authors used, simultaneously, two agents in the enrichment medium to stimulate germination—lysozyme and taurocholate. As the authors did not perform a comparison using the components individually, it is not possible to conclude whether the combination of the two components has, indeed, increased germination.

    Horse blood, normally 5 to 7% (v/v) could also be added to supplement the enrichment culture media. In only two studies [26,63] the authors used 5% (v/v) sheep blood instead of horse blood.

    Besides the aforementioned base medium, other enrichment broths have been used (Table 1), such as Brucella broth (BB) [7], Mannitol broth (MB) [30], Thioglycolate broth (TB) [40,43], and, to a greater extent, Brain Heart Infusion broth (BHI) [7,8,11,15,16,18,39,46,51,54,57,59,61,62]. With the exception of four studies in which the authors only used TB [40,43] and BHI [46,51], all authors added some of the selective and/or enrichment compounds already discussed above to their enrichment culture media.

    To understand what type of enrichment medium was the most effective for the recovery of C. difficile from chopped beef inoculated with 100 colony forming units (cfu)/g C. difficile, Chai et al. [72] used two non-selective media: TBHI (brain heart infusion with 0.1% sodium taurocholate) and TCM (cooked meat medium with 0.1% sodium taurocholate); and two selective media: TCCFB (containing cycloserine and cefoxitin) and TCMN (supplemented with cysteine hydrochloride, moxalactam and norfloxacin). The authors concluded that both selective media, TCCFB and TCMN, had a negative effect on bacterial growth since, in addition to the stationary phase being reached later (after 18h), the number of C. difficile decreased approximately 3 log cfu/mL. The non-selective media TBHI and TCM were those that allowed a higher growth rate (log (cfu/mL)/h), but it was in TCM that a higher recovery was observed; that is, C. difficile grew more than in all other enrichment media used. Although there is a benefit in the use of selective agents to reduce the growth of background microorganisms, these authors believe that the use of cycloserine and cefoxitin, as well as moxalactam and norfloxacin, had an adverse effect on the recovery of C. difficile, even though these microorganisms are resistant to these antibiotics [72].

    Based solely on enrichment medium, Hofer et al. [51], Houser et al. [57] and Songer et al. [8] reported a prevalence of C. difficile of 0%, 6% and 42%, respectively, using non-selective BHI broth supplemented with taurocholate, yeast extract and cysteine. Von Abercron et al. [46] reported a prevalence of 2% of C. difficile in retail ground meat, but the authors did not specify if C. difficile was isolated from BHI or CDMN enrichment broths. Limbago et al. [32] reported better recovery of C. difficile from inoculated meat samples in TBHI than in CDMN independently of 1, 3 or 5 enrichment days. This means that use of selective agents in enrichment broths may not be essential, and perhaps even having an adverse effect, to recover C. difficile from foods, but more studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

    In addition to different compositions of enrichment broths, also different volumes have been used varying from 9 to 200 ml [12,13,15,27,37,38,43,50,54,59,62,64]. The use of different volumes along with different amounts of food sample (section 2.2) result in highly variable dilution factors.

    Enrichment time is another factor that should be taken into consideration. In most of the studies shown in Table 1, the enrichment time chosen by the authors was 7 [7,14,17,19,20,42,43,47,51,55] and 10 days [11,16,18,23,28,52,59,61], but several authors also opted for incubation times longer than 10 days [10,36,39,40,44,48,56,63]. Limbago et al. [32] compared the recovery of C. difficile (a single spore suspension at a rate of approximately 100 spores/gram) after three different times—1, 3 and 5 days—in three types of broth enrichment––CDMN broth + 0.1% taurocholate without heat shock, Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth + 0.1% taurocholate (TBHI) without heat shock and TBHI with heat shock. The authors verified that better recoveries were obtained after 3 and 5 days for all tested broth enrichments and, moreover, recovery in TBHI without heat shock was higher, since all inoculated meat samples were positive for C. difficile [32]. Enrichment time of 5 days was used in only one study from Table 1 [30], and five authors used 3 days of incubation [8,15,27,54,64].

    Alcohol shock treatment is recommended to replace the possible inhibitory effect caused by selective antibiotics, since it not only stimulates spores germination but also eliminates possible vegetative cells of contaminating microorganisms [71]. Briefly, after incubation ethanol is added to an aliquot of the enriched broth (1:1) and after 1 h at room temperature, this suspension is centrifuged and the pellet inoculated onto the isolation culture medium.

    Heat shock is another spore selection technique that can be used, allowing the inactivation of vegetative cells of contaminants present in the sample. This technique is performed immediately after sampling, i.e. the amount of sample is placed in tubes with an enrichment medium and the tube is heated at 80 º C prior to enrichment incubation.

    Songer et al. [8] did not find any difference between heat-shocked and non-heat-shocked samples since positive cultures were obtained by both methods. In the study by Marler et al. [68], the ethanol treatment allowed the recovery of a higher number of isolates compared to heat shock treatment. Indeed, alcohol shock was the treatment of choice in the majority of the studies (Table 1).

    A certain volume of enriched broth or washed pellet (after alcohol treatment) is pour plated on solid culture media to recover C. difficile isolates. In the majority of the studies, the culture medium is the same as the enrichment, but with added agar (~15 g/L). Some culture media also contain neutral red as a pH indicator, which changes the color of the medium when pH increases due to the breakdown of peptones by C. difficile [8,10,44,57]. The addition of other components such as lysozyme and taurocholate to increase germination is not so common, unlike 5–7% (v/v) horse or sheep blood that was added to increase the recovery of C. difficile in many of the studies. Also to increase the recovery of C. difficile, egg yolk emulsion may be added to the culture medium, but since the 70's it is known that horse blood allows a greater recovery than egg yolk emulsion [67]. In fact, egg yolk emulsion was used in merely one study out of 54 listed in Table 1 (CCEY agar) [35].

    Also other recovery culture media were used such as Blood agar [20,55], Columbia agar supplemented with 5% (v/v) sheep blood [14,35,47] and also with cysteine and taurocholate [54], Brucella agar [10], Tryptic soy agar with 5% (v/v) horse blood [30], Tryptose sulfite cycloserine agar [58], Schädler agar [52], Fastidious anaerobe agar [46], Anaerobic Blood agar [32]; CHROMagarTM C. difficile [7], C. difficile selective agar (CDSA) [16] and ChromID [61].

    But with so many studies using different components, the question arises: Will the presence of these selective agents be essential in a culture medium to recover C. difficile from foods? Rodriguez-Palacios et al. [55] conducted a study using a total of 214 meat samples that were cultured using both selective agents—CDMN and C. difficile selective supplement. Despite the higher sensitivity obtained when culture medium supplemented with CDMN was used (39%) compared with culture medium with C. difficile selective supplement (23%), no reproducibility of C. difficile recovery was observed between duplicates. However, in a more recent study, the same authors mentioned that they did not use the selective agents moxalactam and norfloxacin since these antibiotics belong to the fluoroquinolones group and are commonly used in the treatment of C. difficile infections in humans. Thus, the authors believe that the use of these supplements only enabled recovery of resistant isolates from food samples [17].

    In only three out of the 54 studies listed in Table 1 [8,43,57], the authors used nonselective enrichment media only, despite the subsequent use of selective recovery culture media. It is not possible to understand if there are methodologies better than others, due to the high number of variables in the reported studies, including the number of samples, type of enrichment and recovery culture media, incubation time, among others. For instance, in the studies of Songer et al. [8] and Houser et al. [57], the authors used the same enrichment and recovery culture media but different times of enrichment.

    Classical microbiological methods are essential to recovering C. difficile colonies for further identification and typing methods. The presumptive identification of C. difficile is based on phenotypic characteristics, but additional biochemical and genotypic tests are essential for accurate identification.

    After growth on recovery culture media, suspected colonies are confirmed biochemically by the L-proline aminopeptidase test. This is a sensitive, specific, fast and inexpensive method based on colorimetric detection of the enzyme L-proline aminopeptidase (Pro-disk, Hardy Diagnostics).

    API Rapid ID 32A (bioMérieux, Inc., Marcy l'Etoile, France) was also used in a few studies to identify C. difficile isolates [18,19,39] as well as Api 20A [37,58].

    A Latex Agglutination test was also used by nine authors [23,27,40,41,46,53,59,60,64] for the detection of C. difficile. This assay is based on the detection of the common glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen which is produced and preserved by C. difficile isolates, in both toxin producers and non-producers [73].

    This technology provides a rapid and precise tool for identification of pathogens [74] and has been reported to be useful for the identification of distinctive C. difficile genotypes [75]. Despite the advantages of this emerging technique, such as testing performed from single colonies on primary culture plates and their accurate identification in minutes without the need of previous knowledge of microorganism type, the cost of the instrument might be one of the major limitations. In one recent study, the authors used MALDI-TOF MS to identify presumptive colonies of C. difficile [62], but no information about the results obtained with this technique was described.

    Once identified as C. difficile, additional tests are performed to confirm the production of toxins and also, methods of typing for epidemiological purposes, which are presented below.

    As mentioned before in this review, there are no standardized procedures for the detection of C. difficile in food samples. However, there are other tests that, although more complex, provide more information and are based on the detection of toxin proteins.

    The toxigenic culture methodology is based on the isolation of C. difficile on culture media with subsequent confirmation of whether the C. difficile isolate is a toxin-producing strain. This is often achieved using a culture supernatant of the C. difficile isolate, which will be tested with toxin detection kits [37,46] or from which its genomic DNA will be extracted and a subsequent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification applied [17,23,56].

    The cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay method, as its name implies, uses cell lines (Hep2 cells, human diploid fibroblasts, human foreskin fibroblasts, McCoy cells, MRC-5 lung fibroblasts and Vero cells) and is widely applied for clinical samples, using faeces filtrates. The method consists of the inoculation of a culture filtrate on the cell line and, after the proper incubation time (24–48h), the induced cytopathic effect by toxins is observed. If this effect is verified, it is necessary to perform a neutralization test with Clostridium sordellii or C. difficile antiserum (reviewed by [76]). In this way, it is assured that the induced cytopathic effect is due to C. difficile toxins. This assay detects toxins A and B, although toxin A is only detectable to some extent [77]. Perhaps because it is a more complex and time-consuming method, the authors of only four studies from those listed in Table 1 used it to detect the presence of toxin B [27,39,58,64]. In the study of Von Abercron et al. [46], the authors used Vero tissue culture cells to detect toxin B in two C. difficile isolated from ground beef and verified its presence by neutralization of the cytopathic effect on Vero cells by C. difficile-specific antitoxin (Techlab, Blacksburg, VA). Quesada-Gómez et al. [39] used four C. difficile culture supernatants on HeLa cells and all strains were able to induce cytopathic effects, thus being toxin producers. Cytotoxicity test in the studies of Rodriguez et al. [27,64] were performed in MRC-5 cells and the specificity of the cytotoxic activity by neutralization was confirmed for eight C difficile isolates using a specific C. difficile antitoxin-B kit (T500, TechLab, Virginia, USA).

    The use of enzyme immunoassays, which are based on the use of antibodies, monoclonal or polyclonal, directed against the toxins (reviewed by [76]) is rapid, simple and low-cost method. However, as the sensitivity of these assays varies largely from ~40 to 100%, its use alone is not recommended [78]. Mooyottu et al. [38] used a commercially available enzyme immunoassay C. difficile Tox A/B II kit (TechLab, Blacksburg, VA, USA) to detect the presence of toxins A and B in two C. difficile isolates from pork samples and confirmed the negative results using a multiplex-PCR for genes of toxins TcdA, TcdB, CdtA, CdtB and TcdC deletion [79]. Rahimi et al. [63] used an ELISA detection kit (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany) and confirmed that the four out of five toxigenic C. difficile strains isolated from ready-to-eat foods were also positive for tcdA and tcdB toxin genes by PCR assay [80]. The presence of C. difficile toxins A or B were reported by Pasquale et al. [23] using Xpect C. difficile Toxin A/B test (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Remel Products, Lenexa, KS, USA) and confirmed by PCR assays [80]. The same Xpect C. difficile Toxin A/B test was used by Ersöz and Coşansu [37], but the authors did not confirm the negative results obtained for non-toxigenic C. difficile isolates.

    Two other enzyme immunoassays were used alone to detect toxin production by C. difficile. Lee et al. [36] used VIDAS-CDAB Kit (bioMérieux, Marcy L'Etoile, France) to detect toxins A and B and found two of 45 C. difficile isolates producers of both toxins. Von Abercron et al. [46] also reported C. difficile producers of both toxins using C. difficile toxin A test (TD 0970A, Oxoid, Hampshire, United Kingdom).

    Detection of C. difficile toxin genes or characterization of C. difficile isolates by genotypic profiles can be done using nucleic acid amplification techniques such as conventional PCR, real-time PCR, PCR-ribotyping, among others.

    As already mentioned above, genes tcdA (toxin A) and tcdB (toxin B) are commonly found in the PaLoc region, but also three other genes - tcdR, tcdC and tcdE – are included in this locus [81,82]. Proteins involved in the transcriptional regulation of the toxin genes are encoded by tcdR and tcdC genes [83,84] and tcdE product is essential for the efficient secretion of TcdA and TcdB toxins [85]. Besides genes tcdA and tcdB [86,87], genes encoding the two-component toxin, cdtA (enzymatic domain) and cdtB (binding domain), and tcdBv (toxin B variant) may be detected by molecular assays [88].

    The polymerase chain reaction has been used by almost all researchers to detect, essentially, toxin A and B genes and cdtB binary toxin gene [41,50,63]. These genes can be detected individually or simultaneously by multiplex-PCR. The protocol developed by Lemee et al. [89] is used in most studies. These authors designed a multiplex-PCR toxigenic culture approach which allows simultaneous identification and toxigenic type characterization of C. difficile isolates by amplification of a species-specific internal fragment of the triose phosphate isomerase (tpi) gene and internal fragments of toxin A (tcdA) and toxin B (tcdB) genes [89].

    Real-time PCR combines conventional PCR assay with a probe-based mechanism of fluorescence. Specificity and sensitivity of this methodology are very high allowing earlier detection of targets and in a mere single step, with no need for further analysis of the PCR product [90]. Only in three studies (Table 1) the authors used a multiplex real-time PCR to detect simultaneously tpi, tcdA and tcdB genes [41] and tcdA, tcdB, cdtA and cdtB genes [28]. Still with several limitations, real-time PCR technology has more advantages compared to the conventional PCR and represents a powerful tool in microbial diagnostics.

    Toxinotyping of C. difficile is an RFLP-PCR-based method using a combination of restriction profiles obtained with amplification of the tcdA and tcdB genes for determination of toxinotype [91]. In 15 out 54 studies found, the authors performed toxinotyping of C. difficile strains isolated from different food products analyzed [6,8,9,10,14,19,20,23,44,48,49,52,54,55,59]. This technique allows the differentiation of C. difficile strains according to the changes in the PaLoc region, which code for toxins A and B. Although the several techniques available to detect C. difficile strains with variant toxin genes without the need of amplification of the toxin gene fragments, none other than toxinotyping (except whole-genome sequencing) allow the detection of all variant strains [91].

    This typing method is based on the amplification of DNA fragments using primers in both 16S rRNA and 23S rRNA genes. The profiles of PCR DNA fragments of different sizes obtained correspond to the different alleles of the rRNA operon on the C. difficile chromosome [92]. Because it is fast, easy and reproducible, it is currently one of the most widely used methods. Almost all researchers from the studies listed in Table 1 used this typing method to identify the PCR ribotypes of C. difficile isolates and to visually compare with PCR ribotypes previously identified [6,9,23,38,41,49,55,59].

    Several C. difficile ribotypes that have been associated with a potential cause of disease in humans have also been found in foods, such as ribotype 001 [15,23], ribotype 014 [59,64] and ribotype 078 [9,18,27,59].

    PFGE is a very discriminatory and reproducible technique widely used to characterize C. difficile. Several authors performed PFGE for typing C. difficile food isolates [8,10,14,19,20,44,49,53]. This method requires the preparation of undigested DNA, DNA digestion using a restriction endonuclease, fragment separation in a gel matrix by an electric field that periodically changes direction, and visualization and interpretation of band patterns [93]. Despite offering good results (typeability, discriminatory ability, etc), PFGE is still a labor-intensive technique when compared with other techniques such as RFLP-PCR or PCR-ribotyping [94].

    Multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) is a typing method that allows discrimination of C. difficile isolates through nucleotide sequences of housekeeping gene fragments, wherein a sequence type number (ST) is given to each combination [95]. Despite being a very common technique for C. difficile isolated from humans, only two authors used MLST to study C. difficile isolated from food [7,27]. By MLST analysis, Rodriguez et al. [27] identified 4 different STs among 8 C. difficile meat isolates and only one isolate was not clustered in the same lineage as human isolates, also included in the study. Wu et al. [7] found 4 different STs among 40 C. difficile isolates, but the only human isolate belonged to a different lineage to the 39 meat isolates studied.

    According to Killgore et al. [94], multi-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis is the most discriminatory method, followed by PFGE, PCR-ribotyping and MLST, being able to discriminate strains with identical PCR ribotypes [96].

    Curry et al. [30] suggested environmental contamination in a retail meat processing facility based on MLVA genotypes of C. difficile isolated from different ground pork products collected over 5 months from this facility. Also closely related MLVA genotypes of C. difficile ribotype 126 from a slaughterhouse, pig stool, colons, carcasses and scalding water suggested cross-contamination in the study of Wu et al. [7].

    It is important to underline that besides each genotyping method mentioned above is being used to detect toxin production by C. difficile and strain typing, the detection of housekeeping genes also allows evaluation of the occurrence of C. difficile in food samples. Furthermore, the genetic characterization of the isolates has an important role in epidemiological studies aimed to emphasize the correlation among food and clinical strains.

    The purpose of this study was to present an overview of the methodologies that have been used to recover C. difficile from food samples; despite several studies having been reported, there is no widely accepted methodology for the detection/enumeration of this bacterium in foods. Current methodologies are only focused on classical microbiological methods of isolation/detection, followed by molecular tests to confirm the toxigenic potential of the suspected colonies. Nonetheless, several culture media are used with the same base, but with the addition of different selective and enrichment components, the role of which is, sometimes, controversial.

    In contrast to studies with clinical strains, which were derived from original stool samples, in studies with foods, only culture methods followed by molecular analysis of the suspected colonies are used. If molecular methods were applied as the first approach, would the prevalence of C. difficile in foods be higher? In theory, the values would be higher since the studies mentioned above showed that techniques like real-time PCR are very sensitive. However, more tests are needed, to adapt and validate the use of these molecular methods in food samples.

    Since C. difficile is a human pathogen and as several studies have reported its presence in foods, more studies are necessary in order to define an appropriate methodology which could, ideally, become standardized.

    The authors are grateful to Dr. Paul Gibbs for the English edition. We would also like to thank the scientific collaboration under the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia(FCT) project UID/Multi/50016/2019.Financial support for author J. Barbosa was provided by a post-doctoral fellowship SFRH/BPD/113303/2015 (FCT).

    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.



    [1] Lawson PA, Citron DM, Tyrrell KL, et al. (2016) Reclassification of Clostridium difficile as Clostridioides difficile (Hall and O'Toole 1935) Prevot 1938. Anaerobe 40: 95-99. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.06.008
    [2] Smits WK, Lyras D, Lacy DB, et al. (2016) Clostridium difficile infection. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2: 1-20.
    [3] Kilic A, Alam MJ, Tisdel NL, et al. (2015) Multiplex real-time PCR method for simultaneous identification and toxigenic type characterization of Clostridium difficile from stool samples. Ann Lab Med 35: 306-313. doi: 10.3343/alm.2015.35.3.306
    [4] McDonald LC, Killgore GE, Thompson A, et al. (2005) An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med 353: 2433-2441. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa051590
    [5] DePestel DD, Aronoff DM (2013) Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection. J Pharm Pract 26: 464-475. doi: 10.1177/0897190013499521
    [6] Weese JS, Avery BP, Rousseau J, et al. (2009) Detection and enumeration of Clostridium difficile spores in retail beef and pork. Appl Environ Microbiol 75: 5009-5011. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00480-09
    [7] Wu YC, Chen CM, Kuo CJ, et al. (2017) Prevalence and molecular characterization of Clostridium difficile isolates from a pig slaughterhouse, pork, and humans in Taiwan. Int J Food Microbiol 242: 37-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.11.010
    [8] Songer JG, Trinh HT, Killgore GE, et al. (2009) Clostridium difficile in retail meat products, USA, 2007. Emerg Infect Dis 15: 819-821. doi: 10.3201/eid1505.081071
    [9] Weese JS, Reid-Smith RJ, Avery BP, et al. (2010) Detection and characterization of Clostridium difficile in retail chicken. Lett Appl Microbiol 50: 362-365. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02802.x
    [10] Harvey RB, Norman KN, Andrews K, et al. (2011) Clostridium difficile in poultry and poultry meat. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8: 1321-1323. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2011.0936
    [11] Romano V, Pasquale V, Lemee L, et al. (2018) Clostridioides difficile in the environment, food, animals and humans in southern Italy: Occurrence and genetic relatedness. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 59: 41-46. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2018.08.006
    [12] Bakri MM, Brown DJ, Butcher JP, et al. (2009) Clostridium difficile in ready-to-eat salads, scotland. Emerg Infect Dis 15: 817-818. doi: 10.3201/eid1505.081186
    [13] Yamoudy M, Mirlohi M, Isfahani BN, et al. (2015) Isolation of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from ready-to-eat salads by multiplex polymerase chain reaction in Isfahan, Iran. Adv Biomed Res 4: 87. doi: 10.4103/2277-9175.156650
    [14] Metcalf DS, Costa MC, Dew WMV, et al. (2010) Clostridium difficile in vegetables, Canada. Lett Appl Microbiol 51: 600-602. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02933.x
    [15] Eckert C, Burghoffer B, Barbut F (2013) Contamination of ready-to-eat raw vegetables with Clostridium difficile in France. J Med Microbiol 62: 1435-1438. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.056358-0
    [16] Han Y (2016) Detection of antibiotic resistance Clostridium difficile in lettuce. Master thesis, Louisiana State University.
    [17] Rodriguez-Palacios A, Ilic S, LeJeune JT (2014) Clostridium difficile with moxifloxacin/clindamycin resistance in vegetables in Ohio, USA, and prevalence meta-analysis. J Pathog: 158601.
    [18] Troiano T, Harmanus C, Sanders IMJG, et al. (2015) Toxigenic Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes in edible marine bivalve molluscs in Italy. Int J Food Microbiol 208: 30-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.05.002
    [19] Norman KN, Harvey RB, Andrews K, et al. (2014) Survey of Clostridium difficile in retail seafood in College Station, Texas. Food Addit Contam A 31: 1127-1129. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2014.888785
    [20] Metcalf D, Avery BP, Janecko N, et al. (2011) Clostridium difficile in seafood and fish. Anaerobe 17: 85-86. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.02.008
    [21] Rupnik M (2007) Is Clostridium difficile-associated infection a potentially zoonotic and foodborne disease? Clin Microbiol Infect 13: 457-459. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2007.01687.x
    [22] Warriner K, Xu C, Habash M, et al. (2017) Dissemination of Clostridium difficile in food and the environment: Significant sources of C. difficile community-acquired infection? J Appl Microbiol 122: 542-553.
    [23] Pasquale V, Romano VJ, Rupnik M, et al. (2011) Isolation and characterization of Clostridium difficile from shellfish and marine environments. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 56: 431-437. doi: 10.1007/s12223-011-0068-3
    [24] Xu C, Salsali H, Weese S, et al. (2015) Inactivation of Clostridium difficile in sewage sludge by anaerobic thermophilic digestion. Can J Microbiol 62: 13-26.
    [25] Romano V, Pasquale V, Krovacek K, et al. (2012) Toxigenic Clostridium difficile PCR Ribotypes from wastewater treatment plants in southern Switzerland. App Environ Microbiol 78: 6643-6646. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01379-12
    [26] Bakri M (2018) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in raw cow, sheep, and goat meat in Jazan, Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci 25: 783-785. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.07.002
    [27] Rodriguez C, Taminiau B, Avesani V, et al. (2014) Multilocus sequence typing analysis and antibiotic resistance of Clostridium difficile strains isolated from retail meat and humans in Belgium. Food Microbiol 42: 166-171. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.03.021
    [28] Varshney JB, Very KJ, Williams JL, et al. (2014) Characterization of Clostridium difficile isolates from human fecal samples and retail meat from Pennsylvania. Foodborne Pathog Dis 11: 822-829. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2014.1790
    [29] Lim SC, Foster NF, Riley TV (2016) Susceptibility of Clostridium difficile to the food preservatives sodium nitrite, sodium nitrate and sodium metabisulphite. Anaerobe 37: 67-71. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2015.12.004
    [30] Curry SR, Marsh JW, Schlackman JL, et al. (2012) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in uncooked ground meat products from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Appl Environ Microbiol 78: 4183-4186. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00842-12
    [31] Esfandiari Z, Jalali M, Ezzatpanah H, et al. (2014) Prevalence and characterization of Clostridium difficile in beef and mutton meats of Isfahan Region, Iran. Jundishapur J Microbiol 7: 1-5.
    [32] Limbago B, Thompson AD, Greene SA, et al. (2012) Development of a consensus method for culture of Clostridium difficile from meat and its use in a survey of U.S. retail meats. Food Microbiol 32: 448-451. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2012.08.005
    [33] Abdel-Glil MY, Thomas P, Schmoock G, et al. (2018) Presence of Clostridium difficile in poultry and poultry meat in Egypt. Anaerobe 51: 21-25. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.03.009
    [34] Guran HS, Ilhak OI (2015) Clostridium difficile in retail chicken meat parts and liver in the Eastern Region of Turkey. J Verbrauch Lebensm 10: 359-364. doi: 10.1007/s00003-015-0950-z
    [35] Razmyar J, Jamshidi A, Khanzadi S, et al. (2017) Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in retail packed chicken meat and broiler flocks in northeastern Iran. Iran. J Vet Res 18: 271-274.
    [36] Lee JY, Lee DY, Cho YS (2018) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile isolated from various raw meats in Korea. Food Sci Biotechnol 27: 883-889. doi: 10.1007/s10068-018-0318-0
    [37] Ersöz ŞŞ, Coşansu S (2018) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile isolated from beef and chicken meat products in Turkey. Korean J Food Sci An 38: 759-767.
    [38] Mooyottu S, Flock G, Kollanoor-Johny A, et al. (2015) Characterization of a multidrug resistant C. difficile meat isolate. Int J Food Microbiol 192: 111-116. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.10.002
    [39] Quesada-Gomez C, Mulvey MR, Vargas P, et al. (2013) Isolation of a toxigenic and clinical genotype of Clostridium difficile in retail meats in Costa Rica. J Food Protect 76: 348-351. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-169
    [40] Indra A, Lassnig H, Baliko N, et al. (2009) Clostridium difficile: a new zoonotic agent? Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 121: 91-95. doi: 10.1007/s00508-008-1127-x
    [41] De Boer E, Zwartkruis-Nahuis A, Heuvelink AE, et al. (2011) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in retailed meat in The Netherlands. Int J Food Microbiol 144: 561-564. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.11.007
    [42] Carvalho P, Barbosa J, Teixeira P (2019) Are indeed meats sold in Portugal without Clostridioides difficile? Acta Aliment 48: 391-395. doi: 10.1556/066.2019.48.3.15
    [43] Pires RN, Caurioa CFB, Saldanha GZ, et al. (2018) Clostridium difficile contamination in retail meat products in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis 2018.
    [44] Harvey RB, Norman KN, Andrews K, et al. (2011) Clostridium difficile in retail meat and processing plants in Texas. J Vet Diagn Invest 23: 8 807-811.
    [45] Shaughnessy MK, Snider T, Sepulbeda R, et al. (2018) Prevalence and molecular characteristics of Clostridium difficile in retail meats, food-producing and companion animals, and humans in Minnesota. J Food Protect 81: 1635-1642. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-18-104
    [46] Von Abercron SM, Karlsson F, Wigh GT, et al. (2009) Low occurrence of Clostridium difficile in retail ground meat in Sweden. J Food Protect 72: 1732-1734. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-72.8.1732
    [47] Metcalf D, Reid-Smith RJ, Avery BP, et al. (2010) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in retail pork. Can Vet J 51: 873-876.
    [48] Kalchayanand N, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, et al. (2013) Isolation and characterization of Clostridium difficile associated with beef cattle and commercially produced ground beef. J Food Prot 76: 256-264. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-261
    [49] Rodriguez-Palacios A, Staempfli HR, Duffield T, et al. (2007) Clostridium difficile in retail ground meat, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis 13: 485-487. doi: 10.3201/eid1303.060988
    [50] Esfandiari Z, Weese S, Ezzatpanah H (2014) Occurrence of Clostridium difficile in seasoned hamburgers and seven processing plants in Iran. BMC Microbiol 14: 283. doi: 10.1186/s12866-014-0283-6
    [51] Hofer E, Haechler H, Frei R, et al. (2010) Low occurrence of Clostridium difficile in fecal samples of healthy calves and pigs at slaughter and in minced meat in Switzerland. J Food Protect 73: 973-975. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-73.5.973
    [52] Jöbstl M, Heuberger S, Indra A, et al. (2010) Clostridium difficile in raw products of animal origin. Int J Food Microbiol 138: 172-175. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.12.022
    [53] Visser M, Sepehrim S, Olson N, et al. (2012) Detection of Clostridium difficile in retail ground meat products in Manitoba. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 23: 28-30. doi: 10.1155/2012/646981
    [54] Bouttier S, Barc M-C, Felix B, et al. (2010) Clostridium difficile in ground meat, France. Emerg Infect Dis 16: 733-735. doi: 10.3201/eid1604.091138
    [55] Rodriguez-Palacios A, Reid-Smith RJ, Staempfli HR, et al. (2009) Possible seasonality of Clostridium difficile in retail meat, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis 15: 802-805. doi: 10.3201/eid1505.081084
    [56] Rahimi E, Jalali M, Weese JS (2014) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in raw beef, cow, sheep, goat, camel and buffalo meat in Iran. BMC Public Health 14: 119. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-119
    [57] Houser BA, Soehnlen MK, Wolfgang DR, et al. (2012) Prevalence of Clostridium difficile toxin genes in the feces of veal calves and incidence of ground veal contamination. Foodborne Pathog Dis 9: 32-36. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2011.0955
    [58] Kouassi KA, Dadie AT, N'Guessan KF, et al. (2014) Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium difficile in cooked beef sold in Côte d'Ivoire and their antimicrobial susceptibility. Anaerobe 28: 90-94. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2014.05.012
    [59] Pasquale V, Romano V, Rupnik M, et al. (2012) Occurrence of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in edible bivalve molluscs. Food Microbiol 31: 309-312. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2012.03.001
    [60] Al Saif N, Brazier JS (1996) The distribution of Clostridium difficile in the environment of South Wales. J Med Microbiol 45: 133-137. doi: 10.1099/00222615-45-2-133
    [61] Lim SC, Foster NF, Elliott B, et al. (2018) High prevalence of Clostridium difficile on retail root vegetables, Western Australia. J Appl Microbiol 124: 585-590. doi: 10.1111/jam.13653
    [62] Tkalec V, Janezic S, Skik B, et al. (2019) High Clostridium difficile contamination rates of domestic and imported potatoes compared to some other vegetables in Slovenia. Food Microbiol 78: 194-200. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2018.10.017
    [63] Rahimi E, Afzali ZS, Baghbadorani ZT (2015) Clostridium difficile in ready-to-eat foods in Isfahan and Shahrekord, Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 5: 128-131. doi: 10.1016/S2221-1691(15)30156-8
    [64] Rodriguez C, Korsak N, Taminiau B, et al. (2015) Clostridium difficile from food and surface samples in a Belgian nursing home: An unlikely source of contamination. Anaerobe 32: 87-89. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2015.01.001
    [65] Aspinall ST, Hutchinson DN (1992) New selective medium for isolating Clostridium difficile from faeces. J Clin Pathol 45: 812-814. doi: 10.1136/jcp.45.9.812
    [66] Delmée M, Vandercam B, Avesani V, et al. (1987) Epidemiology and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections in a leukemia unit. Eur J Clin Microbiol 6: 623-627. doi: 10.1007/BF02013056
    [67] GeorgeWL, Sutter VL, Citron D (1979) Selective and differential medium for isolation of selective and differential medium for isolation of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 9: 214-219.
    [68] Marler LM, Siders JA, Wolters LC, et al. (1992) Comparison of five cultural procedures for isolation of Clostridium difficile from stools. J Clin Microbiol 30: 514-516. doi: 10.1128/JCM.30.2.514-516.1992
    [69] Tyrrell KL, Citron DM, Leoncio ES, et al. (2013) Evaluation of cycloserine-cefoxitin fructose agar (CCFA), CCFA with horse blood and taurocholate, and cycloserine-cefoxitin mannitol broth with taurocholate and lysozyme for recovery of Clostridium difficile isolates from fecal samples. J Clin Microbiol 51: 3094-3096. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00879-13
    [70] Lister M, Stevenson E, Heeg D, et al. (2014) Comparison of culture based methods for the isolation of Clostridium difficile from stool samples in a research setting. Anaerobe 28: 226-229. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2014.07.003
    [71] Edwards AN, Suárez JM, McBride SM (2013) Culturing and maintaining Clostridium difficile in an anaerobic environment. J Vis Exp 79: 1-8.
    [72] Chai C, Lee KS, Lee D, et al. (2015) Non-selective and selective enrichment media for the recovery of Clostridium difficile from chopped beef. J Microbiol Methods 109: 20-24. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2014.12.001
    [73] Wilkins TD, Lyerly DM (2003) Clostridium difficile testing after 20 years, still challenging. J Clin Microbiol 41: 531-534. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.2.531-534.2003
    [74] Steensels D, Verhaegen J, Lagrou K (2011) Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry for the identification of bacteria and yeasts in a clinical microbiological laboratory: A review. Acta Clin Belg 66: 267-273.
    [75] Reil M, Erhard M, Kuijper EJ, et al. (2011) Recognition of Clostridium difficile PCR-ribotypes 001, 027 and 126/078 using an extended MALDI-TOF MS system. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 30: 1431-1436. doi: 10.1007/s10096-011-1238-6
    [76] Burnham CAD, Carroll KC (2013) Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: An ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clin Microbiol Rev 26: 604-630. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00016-13
    [77] Lyerly DM, Krivan HC, Wilkins TD (1988) Clostridium difficile: its disease and toxins. Clin Microbiol Rev 1: 1-18. doi: 10.1128/CMR.1.1.1
    [78] Chapin KC, Dickenson RA, Wu F, et al. (2011) Comparison of five assays for detection of Clostridium difficile toxin. J Mol Diagn 13: 395-400. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.03.004
    [79] Antikainen J, Pasanen T, Mero S, et al. (2009) Detection of virulence genes of Clostridium difficile by multiplex PCR. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand 117: 607-613. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2009.02509.x
    [80] Kato H, Kato N, Katow S, et al. (1999) Deletions in the repeating sequences of the toxin A gene of toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive Clostridium difficile strains. FEMS Microbiol Lett 175: 197-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1999.tb13620.x
    [81] Dupuy B, Govind R, Antunes A, et al. (2008) Clostridium difficile toxin synthesis is negatively regulated by TcdC. J Med Microbiol 57: 685-689. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.47775-0
    [82] Tan KS, Wee BY, Song KP (2001) Evidence for holin function of tcdE gene in the pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile. J Med Microbiol 50: 613-619. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-50-7-613
    [83] Mani N, Dupuy B (2001) Regulation of toxin synthesis in Clostridium difficile by an alternative RNA polymerase sigma factor. Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 98: 5844-5849. doi: 10.1073/pnas.101126598
    [84] Matamouros S, England P, Dupuy B (2007) Clostridium difficile toxin expression is inhibited by the novel regulator TcdC. Mol Microbiol 64: 1274-1288. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05739.x
    [85] Govind R, Dupuy B (2012) Secretion of Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B Requires the Holin-like Protein TcdE. PLoS Pathogens 8: e1002727. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002727
    [86] Eastwood K, Else P, Charlett A, et al. (2009) Comparison of nine commercially available Clostridium difficile toxin detection assays, a real-time PCR assay for C. difficile tcdB, and a glutamate dehydrogenase detection assay to cytotoxin testing and cytotoxigenic culture methods. J Clin Microbiol 47: 3211-3217.
    [87] Soh YS, Yang JJ, You E, et al. (2014) Comparison of two molecular methods for detecting toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Ann Clin Lab Sci 44: 27-31.
    [88] Yoo J, Lee H, Park KG, et al. (2015) Evaluation of 3 automated real-time PCR (Xpert C. difficile assay, BD MAX Cdiff, and IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 assay) for detecting Clostridium difficile toxin gene compared to toxigenic culture in stool specimens. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 83: 7-10.
    [89] Lemee L, Dhalluin A, Testelin S, et al. (2004) Multiplex PCR targeting tpi (triose phosphate isomerase), tcdA (toxin A), and tcdB (toxin B) genes for toxigenic culture of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 42: 5710-5714. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.12.5710-5714.2004
    [90] Houser BA, Hattel AL, Jayarao BM (2010) Real-time multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin-encoding strains. Foodborne Pathog Dis 7: 719-726. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2009.0483
    [91] Rupnik M, Janezic S (2016) An update on Clostridium difficile toxinotyping. J Clin Microbiol 54: 13-18. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02083-15
    [92] Bidet P, Barbut F, Lalande V, et al. (1999) Development of a new PCR-ribotyping method for Clostridium difficile based on ribosomal RNA gene sequencing. FEMS Microbiol Lett 175: 261-2666. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1999.tb13629.x
    [93] Gebreyes WA, Adkins PR (2015) The use of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for genotyping of Clostridium difficile. Methods Mol Biol 1301: 95-101. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2599-5_9
    [94] Killgore G, Thompson A, Johnson S, et al. (2008) Comparison of seven techniques for typing international epidemic strains of Clostridium difficile: restriction endonuclease analysis, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, PCR-ribotyping, multilocus sequence typing, multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis, amplified fragment length polymorphism, and surface layer protein A gene sequence typing. J Clin Microbiol 46: 431-437. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01484-07
    [95] Griffiths D, Fawley W, Kachrimanidou M, et al. (2009) Multilocus sequence typing of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 48: 770-778.
    [96] van den Berg RJ, Schapp I, Templeton KE, et al. (2007) Typing and subtyping of Clostridium difficile isolates using multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis. J Clin Microbiol 45: 1024-1028. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02023-06
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Janine Heise, Pascal Witt, Corinna Maneck, Heidi Wichmann-Schauer, Sven Maurischat, Prevalence and phylogenetic relationship of Clostridioides difficile strains in fresh poultry meat samples processed in different cutting plants, 2021, 339, 01681605, 109032, 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.109032
    2. Alexandra Lianou, Efstathios Z. Panagou, George-John E. Nychas, 2023, 9780323854085, 549, 10.1016/B978-0-323-85408-5.00015-7
    3. Melike Nur Tosun, Gizem Taylan Yalcın, Gizem Korkmazer, Murat Zorba, Cengiz Caner, Nükhet Nilüfer Demirel Zorba, Disinfection of Clostridioides difficile on spinach with epigallocatechin-based antimicrobial solutions and sodium hypochlorite, 2023, 402, 01681605, 110301, 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2023.110301
    4. Mary Garvey, Foodborne Clostridioides Species: Pathogenicity, Virulence and Biocontrol Options, 2023, 11, 2076-2607, 2483, 10.3390/microorganisms11102483
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5953) PDF downloads(495) Cited by(4)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog