Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

Broiler farming practices using new or re-used bedding, inclusive of free-range, have no impact on Campylobacter levels, species diversity, Campylobacter community profiles and Campylobacter bacteriophages

  • Received: 03 August 2023 Revised: 27 November 2023 Accepted: 25 December 2023 Published: 16 January 2024
  • A multi-stage option to address food-safety can be produced by a clearer understanding of Campylobacter's persistence through the broiler production chain, its environmental niche and its interaction with bacteriophages. This study addressed Campylobacter levels, species, genotype, bacteriophage composition/ levels in caeca, litter, soil and carcasses across commercial broiler farming practices to inform on-farm management, including interventions.

    Broilers were sequentially collected as per company slaughter schedules over two-years from 17 farms, which represented four commercially adopted farming practices, prior to the final bird removal (days 39–53). The practices were conventional full clean-out, conventional litter re-use, free-range–full cleanout and free-range–litter re-use. Caeca, litter and soil collected on-farm, and representative carcases collected at the processing plant, were tested for Campylobacter levels, species dominance and Campylobacter bacteriophages. General community profiling via denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of the flaA gene was used to establish the population relationships between various farming practices on representative Campylobacter isolates. The farming practice choices did not influence the high caeca Campylobacter levels (log 7.5 to log 8.5 CFU/g), the carcass levels (log 2.5 to log 3.2 CFU/carcass), the C. jejuni/C. coli dominance and the on-farm bacteriophage presence/levels. A principal coordinate analysis of the flaA distribution for farm and litter practices showed strong separation but no obvious farming practice related grouping of Campylobacter. Bacteriophages originated from select farms, were not practice-dependent, and were detected in the environment (litter) only if present in the birds (caeca).

    This multifaceted study showed no influence of farming practices on on-farm Campylobacter dynamics. The significance of this study means that a unified on-farm risk-management could be adopted irrespective of commercial practice choices to collectively address caeca Campylobacter levels, as well as the potential to include Campylobacter bacteriophage biocontrol. The impact of this study means that there are no constraints in re-using bedding or adopting free-range farming, thus contributing to environmentally sustainable (re-use) and emerging (free-range) broiler farming choices.

    Citation: Helene Nalini Chinivasagam, Wiyada Estella, Damien Finn, David G. Mayer, Hugh Rodrigues, Ibrahim Diallo. Broiler farming practices using new or re-used bedding, inclusive of free-range, have no impact on Campylobacter levels, species diversity, Campylobacter community profiles and Campylobacter bacteriophages[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 12-40. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024002

    Related Papers:

    [1] Ogueri Nwaiwu, Chiugo Claret Aduba . An in silico analysis of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes in Aeromonas plasmids. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(1): 75-91. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020005
    [2] Kholoud Baraka, Rania Abozahra, Marwa Mohammed Haggag, Sarah M Abdelhamid . Genotyping and molecular investigation of plasmid-mediated carbapenem resistant clinical Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates in Egypt. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(2): 228-244. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023014
    [3] Amira H. El-Ashry, Shimaa R. Hendawy, Noha Mostafa Mahmoud . Prevalence of pks genotoxin among hospital-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(1): 73-82. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022007
    [4] Sunil Kumar, Razique Anwer, Arezki Azzi . Molecular typing methods & resistance mechanisms of MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(1): 112-130. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023008
    [5] Amira ElBaradei, Dalia Ali Maharem, Ola Kader, Mustafa Kareem Ghareeb, Iman S. Naga . Fecal carriage of ESBL-producing Escherichia coli in Egyptian patients admitted to the Medical Research Institute hospital, Alexandria University. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(4): 422-433. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020025
    [6] Bahram Nikmanesh, Kazem Ahmadikia, Muhammad Ibrahim Getso, Sanaz Aghaei Gharehbolagh, Shima Aboutalebian, Hossein Mirhendi, Shahram Mahmoudi . Candida africana and Candida dubliniensis as causes of pediatric candiduria: A study using HWP1 gene size polymorphism. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 272-279. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020017
    [7] Sunarno Sunarno, Nelly Puspandari, Fitriana Fitriana, Uly Alfi Nikmah, Hasta Handayani Idrus, Novaria Sari Dewi Panjaitan . Extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in Indonesia and South East Asian countries: GLASS Data 2018. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(2): 218-227. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023013
    [8] Rochelle Keet, Diane Rip . Listeria monocytogenes isolates from Western Cape, South Africa exhibit resistance to multiple antibiotics and contradicts certain global resistance patterns. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(1): 40-58. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021004
    [9] Ana M. Castañeda-Meléndrez, José A. Magaña-Lizárraga, Marcela Martínez-Valenzuela, Aldo F. Clemente-Soto, Patricia C. García-Cervantes, Francisco Delgado-Vargas, Rodolfo Bernal-Reynaga . Genomic characterization of a multidrug-resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli and evaluation of Echeveria plant extracts as antibacterials. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 41-61. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024003
    [10] Saboura Haghighi, Hamid Reza Goli . High prevalence of blaVEB, blaGES and blaPER genes in beta-lactam resistant clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(2): 153-166. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022013
  • A multi-stage option to address food-safety can be produced by a clearer understanding of Campylobacter's persistence through the broiler production chain, its environmental niche and its interaction with bacteriophages. This study addressed Campylobacter levels, species, genotype, bacteriophage composition/ levels in caeca, litter, soil and carcasses across commercial broiler farming practices to inform on-farm management, including interventions.

    Broilers were sequentially collected as per company slaughter schedules over two-years from 17 farms, which represented four commercially adopted farming practices, prior to the final bird removal (days 39–53). The practices were conventional full clean-out, conventional litter re-use, free-range–full cleanout and free-range–litter re-use. Caeca, litter and soil collected on-farm, and representative carcases collected at the processing plant, were tested for Campylobacter levels, species dominance and Campylobacter bacteriophages. General community profiling via denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of the flaA gene was used to establish the population relationships between various farming practices on representative Campylobacter isolates. The farming practice choices did not influence the high caeca Campylobacter levels (log 7.5 to log 8.5 CFU/g), the carcass levels (log 2.5 to log 3.2 CFU/carcass), the C. jejuni/C. coli dominance and the on-farm bacteriophage presence/levels. A principal coordinate analysis of the flaA distribution for farm and litter practices showed strong separation but no obvious farming practice related grouping of Campylobacter. Bacteriophages originated from select farms, were not practice-dependent, and were detected in the environment (litter) only if present in the birds (caeca).

    This multifaceted study showed no influence of farming practices on on-farm Campylobacter dynamics. The significance of this study means that a unified on-farm risk-management could be adopted irrespective of commercial practice choices to collectively address caeca Campylobacter levels, as well as the potential to include Campylobacter bacteriophage biocontrol. The impact of this study means that there are no constraints in re-using bedding or adopting free-range farming, thus contributing to environmentally sustainable (re-use) and emerging (free-range) broiler farming choices.



    Klebsiella pneumoniae is a Gram-negative, rod-shaped, non-motile, facultatively anaerobic, lactose-fermenting bacillus with a prominent capsule belonging to the family Enterobacteriaceae [1]. It is recognized as an opportunistic organism. It is the main cause of approximately 15% of all cases of community-acquired pneumonia in Africa and approximately 11.8% of all cases of hospital-acquired pneumonia in the world [2]. It is also one of the main sources of ventilator-related pneumonia (VAP) among patients in intensive care units (ICUs) [3], and causes 83% of hospital-acquired (HA) pneumonia [4]. Death rates in K. pneumoniae pneumonia have been accounted for as high as 50% [2].

    The increase of multi-drug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria and the decrease in the discovery of new antibiotics have forced clinicians to reuse colistin as the last resort to overcome these superbugs [5]. Colistin or polymyxin E is a cationic antibiotic effective against Gram-negative bacteria [6]. Neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity, side effects of colistin use, have [7] limited its utility in 1970 [8].

    The cationic region of polymyxin interacts electrostatically with the negatively charged lipid A moieties of lipopolysaccharides (LPS) that are present on the outer membrane (OM) of Gram-negative bacteria. It replaces divalent cationic ions (e.g., Mg2+ and Ca2+), which affects the permeability of OM. This leads to cellular component leakage, followed by cell death [8],[9].

    Unfortunately, colistin resistance has emerged [10]. Colistin resistance results from the modification of lipid A by the addition of phosphoethanolamine (pETN), and/or 4-amino-L-arabinose (L-Ara4N) that leads to an increase in its positive charges reducing its affinity to colistin [11]. It is caused either by chromosomal mutation of the two-component regulatory system of bacteria PmrA/PmrB and PhoP-PhoQ [12] and its negative feedback mgrB gene [13],[14] or by expression of plasmid-encoded MCR enzymes that spread worldwide [15] after the emergence of mcr-1 in China for the first time in 2015 [16]. The presence of plasmid facilitates the dissemination of genes through the mechanism of horizontal gene transfer [17]. This is why finding effective combination therapy is crucial to get rid of colistin-resistant bacteria and slowing down its spread and prevalence.

    Eugenol is the major active essential component of clove oil that is obtained naturally from Eugenia aromatica. It has analgesic, local anesthetic, and anti-inflammatory effects. It is used in the form of a paste or mixture as dental cement, filler, and restorative material [18]. Eugenol has antibacterial action; it affects membrane permeability and interacts with protein and enzymes inside the cell leading to its destruction [19]. It has an antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli, K. pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanni, Staphylococcus aureus, and Enterococcus faecalis.it also exhibited the best antibacterial activity against Streptococcus gordonii, Porphyromonas gingivalis and Streptococcus mutans [20]. Furthermore, the synergistic combinations with other EOs and conventional antimicrobials have also been highly publicized since the last decade [21]. Eugenol is safe in low doses with a few side effects other than local irritation, rare allergic reactions, and contact dermatitis. Exposure or ingestion of large amounts, as in overdose, can result in tissue injury and a syndrome of acute onset of seizures, coma, and damage to the liver and kidneys [22].

    To date, very few studies about colistin-resistant K. pneumoniae isolated from Egyptian patients are available So, our study aimed to investigate the characterization and prevalence of the colistin resistance gene mcr-1 in K. pneumoniae collected from human clinical specimens in Egypt, evaluate rapid polymyxin NP test, determine the transferability of mcr-1 gene, and study the synergistic activity of eugenol combined with colistin against a collection of clinical K. pneumoniae isolates.

    Eighty-two clinical isolates of K. pneumoniae were collected from the microbiology laboratory of Damanhour medical national institute and the Microbiology Department at El Mery Hospital. They were collected from different clinical specimens including blood, pus, sputum, urine, tracheal tube, and wound. The isolates were identified using biochemical testing and colistin-resistant isolates were confirmed by the Vitek system.

    The susceptibility of the clinical isolates to Gentamicin (GMN, 10 µg), Etrapemem (ETP: 10 µg), Aztreonam (ATM: 30 µg), Cefepime (CPM: 30 µg), Amikacin (AK: 30 µg), Tetracycline (TE: 30 µg), Ceftriaxone (CTR, 30 µg), Ciprofloxacin (CIP: 5 µg), Cefuroxime (CXM: 30 µg), Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (COT: 1.25/23.75 µg), Ampicillin-sulbactam (SAM: 10/10 µg), Ampicillin (AMP: 10 µg), Piperacillin (PRL: 100 µg) was performed using the standard diffusion method according to Bauer et al. [23]with some modifications [24]. The diameter of each inhibition zone generated around the disc was measured in mm and compared to susceptibility tables of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI 2021) [25] to determine the susceptibility of isolates and interpretation of results either susceptible (S), intermediate (I) or resistant (R). The antibiotic disks used were purchased from Oxoid (Oxoid Ltd; Basingostok; Hampshire, England).

    The broth microdilution method (BMD) was performed according to the EUCAST/CLSI guidelines to quantify antibacterial resistance against colistin. Different dilutions of colistin (ACROS organics; Belgium) ranging from 0.125 to 128 mg/mL were made in cation-adjusted MH broth (HiMedia Laboratories Pvt., Mumbai, India) and inoculated with the tested organism giving a final concentration of 5 × 105 CFU/mL of bacteria in each well. This procedure was performed in triplicate for each tested organism. The bacterial cultures were incubated at 37 °C for 18–20 h and then visually examined for microbial growth to determine the MIC values as the lowest concentration of the antibiotic that inhibited the growth of the microorganism. The reference breakpoint for the interpretation of MIC against colistin was set as mentioned by CLSI 2021, a MIC ≤ 2 µg/mL was intermediate, and ≥4 µg/mL was categorized resistant [26],[27].

    The Rapid polymyxin NP test is based on the detection of bacterial metabolism in the presence of a 3.75 µg/mL colistin concentration in a cation-adjusted Müller-Hinton broth (MH) medium. The change in color of phenol red (pH indicator) from orange/red to yellow after incubation at 35 °C ± 2 °C for 2 hours indicates colistin resistance as it grows and forms acid metabolites consecutive to the glucose metabolism. Colistin-susceptible and colistin-resistant reference bacterial suspensions were used as a negative and positive control, respectively [28],[29].

    100 µL of an overnight culture of thirty sensitive clinical isolates were subcultured in 100 µL cation-adjusted MH broth containing 1/4 MIC of colistin for five consecutive days to induce colistin resistance. MIC value of the induced isolates to different concentrations of colistin was measured by the BMD method [30].

    The primers for mcr-1 and its amplicon size are listed in (Table 1). Plasmid DNA templates were obtained by using a QIAprep® Spin Miniprep kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) to one colony grown overnight on LB medium.

    pmrAB and phoPQ and its negative regulator mgrB were screened and amplified using the primers described in table 1. The DNA was isolated with a QIAamp® DNA Mini kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany).

    Each PCR reaction consisted of 12.5 µL of My Taq™ HS Red Mix PCR master mix (Bioline, UK), 1 µL DNA extract, 1 µL forward primer (10 pmol/µL), 1 µL reverse primer (10 pmol/µL) and 9.5 µL water.

    The PCR cycling condition was as follows: 1 cycle of denaturation at 95 °C for 1 min, 35 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 15 seconds followed by annealing at 55 °C for 15 seconds and elongation at 72 °C for 10 seconds, and final elongation cycle at 72 °C for 10 minutes. The PCR products were loaded on a 2% agarose gel containing ethidium-bromide and visualized after 30 minutes of electrophoresis at 120 V.

    Table 1.  The sequences of the primers used in the study.
    Primer name Neucleotide sequence (5′–3)′ No. of bases Size of the amplicons (bps) Reference
    mcr-1-F AGTCCGTTTGTTCTTGTGGC 20 320 [31]
    mcr-1-R AGATCCTTGGTCTCGGCTTG 20 [31]
    phoP-F ATTGAAGAGGTTGCCGCCCGC 21 136 [13]
    phoP-R GCTTGATCGGCTGGTCATTCACC 23 [13]
    phoQ-F CTCAAGCGCAGCTATATGGT 20 177 [11]
    phoQ-R TCTTTGGCCAGCGACTCAAT 20 [11]
    pmrA-F GATGAAGACGGGCTGCATTT 20 104 [11]
    pmrA-R ACCGCTAATGCGATCCTCAA 20 [11]
    pmrB-F TGCCAGCTGATAAGCGTCTT 20 94 [11]
    pmrB-R TTCTGGTTGTTGTGCCCTTC 20 [11]
    mgrB-F CGGTGGGTTTTACTGATAGTCA 22 110 [14]
    mgrB-R ATAGTGCAAATGCCGCTGA 19 [14]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Full nucleotide sequences of mgrB of four isolates that did not possess the mcr-1 gene were determined by direct DNA sequencing using primers listed in Table 1. Gene JET PCR Purification Kit (Thermo Scientific, K0701) was used for DNA purification after its amplification. ABI PRISM® 3100 Genetic Analyzer was applied for sequencing PCR products performed by Macrogen In. Seal, Korea. Gel documentation system (Geldoc-it, UVP, England), was applied for data analysis using Totallab analysis software, ww.totallab.com, (Ver.1.0.1). Aligned sequences were analyzed on the NCBI website (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/webcite) using BLAST to confirm their identity. The Genetic distances and MultiAlignments were computed by the Pairwise Distance method using ClusteralW software analysis (www.ClusteralW.com). Nucleotide sequences were also compared with bacterial isolate sequences available in the GenBank.

    Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The nucleotide sequences of the altered mgrB genes have been deposited at GenBank under the accession numbers LC720456 (isolate AG001), LC720457 (isolate AG002), LC720458 (isolate AG003), and LC720459 (isolate AG004).

    Colistin-resistant isolates of the K. pneumoniae were selected as the plasmid donor and mixed with the recipient (colistin-sensitive isolates) in a ratio of 2:1. They were spotted onto Luria-Bertani agar (LB agar) at 28 °C for 16 h after its harvest by centrifugation. Then 5 mL of LB broth was used to resuspend the cells followed by its culture onto non-selective and selective LB agar containing both 4 µg/mL colistin and 64 µg/mL amikacin and incubated at 37 °C [32]. The grown colonies were diluted and counted to determine the transfer frequencies by dividing the number of transconjugants by the number of donor cells [33].

    Plasmid extract selected from two different colistin-resistant isolates was transformed by heat shock technique into chemically competent E. coli DH5α and sensitive-isolate K. pneumoniae. The chemically competent cells were prepared by using CaCl2 and MgSO4 solutions after their sterilization by autoclaving at 121 °C for 15 min. The cells were mixed with 5 µL of plasmid extract and incubated on ice for 15 min followed by exposure to heat and transferred back on ice. Bacterial cells were regenerated by adding LB broth and incubation for 1 h then plated on selective LB agar containing 4 µg/mL colistin. The plates were checked for any transformants after its incubation for 24 h at 37 °C [34].

    The antibacterial effects of the combination of eugenol and colistin were evaluated by checkerboard test as described in previous studies [35]. The concentrations tested of each agent usually ranged from 4 times below the MIC to 2 times the MIC using the two-fold serial dilution method (i.e., from 1/16 to double the MIC).

    The MICs of the individual drugs, colistin, eugenol, and the combinations, were determined using the broth microdilution technique as recommended by the CLSI and described above. Each longitudinal column tube contained the same concentration of drug A and each horizontal row of tubes contained the same concentration of drug B. All tubes were inoculated with bacterial suspension giving a final concentration of approximately 5 × 105 CFU/mL. Colistin-free control tubes, eugenol-free control tubes, and blank control tubes were also set, and all tubes were incubated at 37 °C for 16 h under aerobic conditions. The experiment was triplicated.

    After the determination of the MICs of single drugs A and B (MICA and MICB) and in combination (MICAB and MICBA), the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration (FIC) index was calculated to deduce the antibacterial activity of each combination by using the formula:

    where FICA equals the MIC of drug A in combination is divided by the MIC of drug A alone. FICB is the same as FICA but for drug B, the MIC of drug B in combination divided by the MIC of drug B alone.

    Combination efficacy should be determined as follows:

    Synergism was defined when FICI ≤ 0.5 while 0.5 < FICI ≤ 0.75 indicated partial synergy. Additivity was donated by 0.76 < FICI ≤ 1 while 1 < FICI ≤4 denoted Indifferently and antagonism in cases in which the FIC index > 4.

    The effect of eugenol on the expression of the mcr-1 gene at the mRNA level was estimated using Real-time PCR. Eugenol was mixed with bacterial cultures in the logarithmic phase to make a final concentration of sub-MIC (3/4 MIC). While LB broth was added instead of eugenol in the control group. The cells were grown at 37 °C with shaking at 160 rpm for 16 h. Total RNA was isolated using an RNeasy® Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions.

    Real-time PCR performed in an Applied Biosystems step one Real-Time PCR System (USA) using TOPreal™ One-step RT qPCR Kit (SYBER Green with low ROX) (enzynomics, Daejeon, South Korea). Each PCR reaction tube contained 20 µL reaction mixtures consisting of the following:1 µL TOPreal ™ One-step RT qPCR Enzyme Mix, 10 µL TOPreal™ One-step RT qPCR Reaction Mix, 2 µL RNA extract, 1 µL of each primer and 5 µL RNAase free water. GapA [36] and rpoB [37]were used as reference genes to normalize expression levels.

    The reacting condition was set as one step method as follows: synthesize cDNA at 42 °C for 30 min, initial denaturation at 94 °C for 3 min, 30 cycles consisting of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 sec, annealing at 55 °C for 30 sec. Data were calculated using the Comparative CT method and expressed as the mean ± standard deviation.

    Among the 82 K. pneumoniae isolates analyzed, 53.6% were resistant to all antibiotics except colistin. The rate of antibiotic resistance among the tested isolates was studied and the percentage of resistant isolates towards each tested antibiotic is shown in Figure 1.

    Figure 1.  Resistance of K. pneumoniae isolates to the tested antibiotics.

    Thirty-two isolates were colistin-resistant, and fifty isolates were defined as colistin-intermediate according to the MIC breakpoints of colistin (CLSI 2021).

    Upon comparing the results of BMD method and polymyxin NP test, it was found that fifteen isolates defined as colistin-resistant according to the results of the BMD method were found susceptible by rapid polymyxin NP test as shown in Table 2.

    Table 2.  The MICs of colistin-resistant K. pneumoniae with performance evaluation of the rapid polymyxin NP test and its mechanism of resistance.
    MIC (µg/mL) No. of isolates (n = 82) Isolate code Mechanism of resistance Rapid polymyxin NP test CA*
    Resistant isolates 128 4 K14 mcr-1 positive R* 100%
    K22 mcr-1 positive R*
    K43 mcr-1 positive R*
    K44 mcr-1 positive R*
    64 2 K11 mcr-1 positive R* 100%
    K13 mcr-1 positive R*
    32 3 K9 mcr-1 positive R* 100%
    AG003 mcr-1 positive R*
    K55 mcr-1 positive R*
    16 6 K1 mcr-1 positive R* 83.3%
    K5 mcr-1 positive R*
    AG001 Chromosomal encoded S*
    K8 mcr-1 positive R*
    AG002 Chromosomal encoded R*
    K31 mcr-1 positive R*
    8 7 K2 mcr-1 positive S* 14.3%
    K3 mcr-1 positive R*
    K4 mcr-1 positive R*
    K18 mcr-1 positive S*
    K64 mcr-1 positive R*
    K61 mcr-1 positive S*
    AG004 Chromosomal encoded S*
    4 10 K17 mcr-1 positive S* 0
    K23 mcr-1 positive S*
    K62 mcr-1 positive S*
    K36 mcr-1 positive S*
    K39 mcr-1positive S*
    K67 mcr-1 positive S*
    K63 mcr-1 positive S*
    K65 mcr-1 positive S*
    K77 mcr-1 positive S*
    K71 Chromosomal encoded S*
    Susceptible isolates 2 19 S* 100%
    1 22 S* 100%
    0.5 9 S* 100%

    No. of ME = 0

    No. of VME = 15 (45.5%)

    S*, colistin-susceptible; R*, colistin-resistant; CA*, categorical agreement; ME, major errors; VME, very major errors. The data represents low-level resistance isolates (MICs 4 or 8 µg/mL), where the lowest categorical agreement was observed.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    After five passages of thirty isolates in ¼ MIC of colistin, the MIC of 3.3 %, 33.3 %, 36.7%, 13.3%, 10%, and 3.3% of isolates increased by two-fold, four-fold, eight folds, 16 folds, 32 folds, and 64 folds, respectively (Figure 2).

    Figure 2.  Induction of resistance in the selected isolates by using ¼ MIC of colistin.

    The PCR protocol specifically amplified the fragments of the mcr-1 gene with 320 bp amplicon size It was found that twenty-seven isolates out of thirty-two harbor the mcr-1 gene that causes resistance to colistin. phoP, phoQ, pmrA, pmrB, and mgrB genes were detected in all isolates.

    The occurrence of mgrB alterations in colistin-resistant clinical isolates of AG001, AG002, AG003, and AG004 was detected by PCR mapping and sequencing strategy using primers described in Table 1. The amplification products found in the four isolates were inactivated by point mutation and small or even large deletion of nucleotides. The gene sequencing of the mgrB gene in isolate AG003 was modified by the insertion of additional nucleotides between nucleotide positions 116 and 126 as shown in Figure 3. The four isolates possess a premature stop codon leading to truncated proteins. All these alterations caused the substitution of amino acids that were probably leading to a non-functional MgrB protein, and thus were possibly the source of colistin resistance.

    Figure 3.  Sequence of the mgrB gene in isolate AG003 indicates the target site for insertion.

    Conjugation between three K. pneumoniae clinical isolates harboring the mcr-1 gene as a donor and colistin-sensitive K. pneumoniae isolates as a recipient was done to check the potential transfer of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance horizontally. After selection, variable numbers of transformants were observed (Figure 4). Their MIC values and transfer frequencies were calculated as shown in Table 3.

    Figure 4.  A: recipient in presence of colistin and amikacin; B: recipient in presence of colistin.
    Table 3.  Plasmid transfer frequencies and MIC of colistin against obtained transformants and recipient isolate.
    Isolate code Transfer frequency MIC of colistin (µg/mL) against
    recipient isolate obtained transformants
    K22 2.4 × 10-5 1 128
    K77 6.1 × 10-6 1 4
    K3 2.6 × 10-5 2 8

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Plasmids harboring mcr-1 from K. pneumoniae isolate detected by PCR were successfully transformed in E. coli DH5α and sensitive strain K. pneumoniae using a heat shock technique. They grew in LB agar containing colistin and their MIC was 4 µg/L which confirms the functionality of the gene.

    The combination of colistin with eugenol was tested against 27 selected clinical isolates. The results of the antimicrobial activity showed that eugenol presented variable antimicrobial activity against all tested strains (MIC, 416 to 1664 µg/mL), and the FIC indices obtained ranged from 0.265–0.75. The obtained results showed that the combination was synergistic against 37.03%, and partial synergistic against 62.96%, as shown in Table 4.

    Table 4.  MIC and FICI of eugenol and colistin against K. pneumoniae isolates.
    Isolate code MIC colistin
    MIC eugenol
    FICI index Combination efficacy
    Alone In combination Alone In combination
    K1 16 2 832 416 0.625 Partial synergy
    K2 8 1 832 416 0.625 Partial synergy
    K3 8 1 1664 832 0.625 Partial synergy
    K4 8 2 1664 416 0.5 Synergy
    K5 16 2 832 208 0.37 Synergy
    K8 16 2 1664 832 0.625 Partial synergy
    K9 32 1 832 416 0.53 Partial synergy
    K11 64 2 832 416 0.531 Partial synergy
    K13 64 4 416 208 0.65 Partial synergy
    K14 128 4 832 416 0.53 Partial synergy
    K17 4 2 832 208 0.75 Partial synergy
    K18 8 1 832 416 0.625 Partial synergy
    K22 128 2 832 416 0.5 Synergy
    K23 4 2 832 104 0.625 Partial synergy
    K31 16 1 1664 832 0.56 Partial synergy
    K36 4 2 832 104 0.625 Partial synergy
    K39 4 2 832 104 0.625 Partial synergy
    K43 128 2 832 208 0.265 Synergy
    K44 128 8 832 208 0.312 Synergy
    K55 32 4 823 208 0.375 Synergy
    K61 8 2 832 104 0.375 Synergy
    K62 4 1 832 208 0.5 Synergy
    K63 4 1 832 416 0.75 Partial synergy
    K64 8 2 832 208 0.5 Synergy
    K65 4 1 1664 416 0.5 Synergy
    K74 4 2 832 104 0.625 Partial synergy
    K77 4 2 1664 416 0.75 Partial synergy

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The expressions of mcr-1 were compared before and after the addition of eugenol to investigate if eugenol influences drug-resistant genes at the mRNA level. They were assessed using qPCR and using two housekeeping genes rpoB and gapA as reference standards. The addition of 3/4MIC of eugenol was able to decrease the expression of the mcr-1 gene in K. pneumoniae isolates. The results in Figure 5 presented differences in the mcr-1 gene before and after eugenol addition, which indicates that colistin resistance gene mcr-1 was down-regulated by additional eugenol when compared to untreated K. pneumonia.

    Figure 5.  Expression of mcr-1 gene in the presence and absence of 3/4MIC of eugenol. Data were expressed as mean ± S.D.

    Klebsiella pneumoniae is classified as one of the most serious ESKAPE organisms that effectively escape antibacterial drugs [38], even when colistin was the last choice for its treatment [39]. In the present study, the susceptibility test displayed that 53.6% of our isolates were resistant to all antibiotics used. It was found that 76.8–100% of tested isolates were resistant to β-lactam antibiotics. These results were in accordance with the results of Montso et al. where 66.7–100% of their isolates were resistant to β-lactams [40]. Moreover, our tested isolates showed 76.8% resistance to ertapenem, while a study by Oladipo et al. showed 91% of K. pneumoniae isolates were highly susceptible to ertapenem [41]. In contrast to a study by Kareem et al. where resistance for amikacin and gentamicin were 48.8% and 69.7%, respectively [42], our study showed high resistance to aminoglycosides where the resistance ranged from 65.9–80.4%. High resistance was observed towards ciprofloxacin at 90.2% which was in accordance with Karimi et al. who found resistance to be 80% [43].

    MIC values of colistin ranged from <0.5–128 µg/mL. Thirty-two (39%) isolates were resistant to colistin in our study. Zafer et al. reported 22 (4.9%) colistin-resistant K. pneumoniae isolated over 18 months from cancer patients in Egypt [44]. Colistin resistance was detected in 8 (7.5%) K. pneumoniae in Tanta University Hospitals according to Ezzat et al. [45]. Rabie et al. found that 17.2% of K. pneumoniae isolates were resistant to colistin at Zagazig University Hospitals [46]. The variability in susceptibility of K. pneumoniae isolates toward colistin in different studies from Egypt may be due to differences in geographical zones or using different protocols of antibiotics in these regions.

    Rapid polymyxin NP Test is a new phenotypic test which has been developed and evaluated worldwide to detect colistin resistance. Our study confirms that it was simple, easy to perform, and fast, as determined in other studies [47][49]. The specificity of the rapid polymyxin NP test was found to be 100% which was similar to the studies of [49][51], Dalmolin et al. (98%), Nordmann P et al. (95.4%) and Conceição-Neto et al. (94%) [28],[47],[48], though slightly different from the results of Malli E et al. (82%) [52]. The sensitivity of the rapid polymyxin NP test was 53.1% in our study which was different from other international studies poirel et al. (100%), Nordmann P et al. (99.3%), Malli E et al (99%), Dalmolin et al. (98%), Shoaib et al. (97.2%) [28],[47],[49],[51],[52]. The study performed by Simar S et al. showed low sensitivity 25% [50] which could be due to possible heteroresistant isolates in their study [51]. In our study, the MIC of 14 isolates out of 15 colistin-resistant isolates that showed false negative results in rapid polymyxin NP test were close to the breakpoint (4 and 8 µg/mL), which was comparable to Conceição-Neto et al study that emphasizes the difficulty of detecting resistance in isolates with low MICs [48].

    Regarding the study of the capability of colistin to prompt resistance against itself, it was found that colistin could induce resistance towards itself in all the selected isolates proved by increasing their MIC values by many folds ranging from 2–64 folds. This can be explained by mutations in the pmrAB and lpxACD genes [53], which have a role in colistin resistance. Also, mutations in several other genes were additionally observed (e.g., vacJ and pldA) that linked with the target of polymyxins; the outer membrane may be the reason [30].

    Contrary to mcr gene families (mcr-2 to mcr-5), The mcr-1 gene is the most commonly to cause colistin resistance in humans [54], so we focused on it in our study. According to the results of PCR, 27 of the resistant studied isolates (84.4%) were positive for the mcr-1 gene declared high prevalence rate of mcr-1 in Alexandria and El-Beheira, Egypt. Previous studies detected a low prevalence of mcr-1 positive isolates from human clinical samples [44],[46],[55]. The higher rates of mcr-1 carriage may be due to the high amount of livestock and poultry in El-Beheira.

    MgrB is a small regulatory transmembrane protein. It is produced after activation of the PhoQ/PhoP signaling system and exerts negative feedback on the same system. Inactivation of the mgrB gene in K. pneumoniae leads to the upregulation of signaling systems which modify the LPS by adding 4-amino-4-deoxy-L-arabinose to lipid A, which decreases its affinity to polymyxins [13],[14]. In this work, we found that the four isolates which didn't have the mcr-1 gene carried alterations of the mgrB gene that were possibly responsible for their colistin resistance. Several different genetic alterations were observed such as point mutations, small or even large deletions, and insertional inactivation that reflect several independent mutational events of mgrB. Our findings agree with Cannatelli et al. [14] study that found the same observation in addition to the inactivation of mgrB by IS5-like elements, which was the most common mechanism of mgrB alteration.

    The spread of the mcr-1 gene between K. pneumoniae and E. coli may generate pan-drug-resistant isolates such as those producing mcr-1 and carbapenemases, therefore it is important to recognize and monitor its transfer [56]. Plasmid-mediated transfer of the mcr-1 gene was investigated in our study through conjugation and heat shock transformation. Successful conjugative transfers were obtained between K. pneumoniae isolates in agreement with Dénervaud Tendon et al. [57]. Also, transformants were obtained by heat shock technique when E. coli DH5α and K. pneumoniae were used as recipients. These findings were in agreement with Ovejero et al. [58] and Zurfluh et al. [59].

    The dissemination and high transfer rate of the mcr-1 gene make it necessary to search for alternatives to substitute antibiotics. Essential oils (Eos) were proved to be one of these alternatives that have significant antimicrobial activity against a wide range of microorganisms [60]. Eugenol, the principal chemical component of clove oil is recognized as a safe compound with a recommended dose of 2.5 mg/kg body weight for humans according to Food and Agriculture Organization/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives [61]. It has antibacterial activity against K. pneumoniae [62]. In the present study, Eugenol showed MIC of 416–1664 µg/mL among K. pneumoniae isolates. In Dhara et al. study, the MIC value of eugenol was 63–999 µg/mL [62]. Eugenol exhibited a synergistic effect on 11 out of 27 mcr-1 colistin-resistant isolates (FICI, 0.265 to 0.5), and a partial synergistic effect (FICI, 0.53–0.75) for the rest isolates. In general, the presence of eugenol decreased the MIC of colistin by 2 to 64-fold.

    Real-time PCR results revealed that eugenol inhibits mcr-1 gene expression as the expression of the mcr-1 gene in the synergy group was significantly lower than in the nonsynergy group. This result is in accordance with Wang et al study [63], which suggests the synergistic effect is due to the interactions between the phenolic hydroxyl group of eugenol and MCR-1 protein.

    In conclusion, there is a high prevalence of mcr-1 in Egypt due to its ability to transfer to other strains. Detection of colistin-resistant isolates with low values is difficult to be determined by rapid polymyxin NP test. Eugenol can promote health and reduce antibiotic resistance as it exerts a synergistic effect with colistin and improves its antimicrobial activity.


    Acknowledgments



    The financial support of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (Agrifutures Australia) (RIRDC Project Number: No PRJ-006238), Chicken Meat Program is gratefully acknowledged. The publication of this work was made possible by the support of the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF), Australia. We gratefully acknowledge both integrator companies and all farmers for their participation. The support of Professor Ian Connerton (University of Nottingham, United Kingdom) with the bacteriophage work is gratefully acknowledged. We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Craig Billington (Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Christchurch, New Zealand) for reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable comments. The technical support of Caitlin Weyand is acknowledged. Dr. Kathy Crew is acknowledged for the preparation of the EM image of Campylobacter bacteriophage.

    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Author contributions



    HC with industry collaborators designed the study, administered the project, curated the data, and wrote the original version. HC, WE, DF, HR, DM and ID all provided input into methodologies, farm and laboratory experiments. HC, DM and DF analysed the data. HC, DF, DM, and ID contributed to the final manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submission.

    [1] Gržinić G, Piotrowicz-Cieślak A, Klimkowicz-Pawlas A, et al. (2022) Intensive poultry farming: A review of the impact on the environment and human health. Sci Total Environ 160014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160014
    [2] Runge GA, Blackall PJ, Casey KD (2007) Chicken litter issues associated with sourcing and use. Canberra: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
    [3] Pepper CM, Dunlop MW (2022) An industry survey on litter management and re-use practices of Australian meat chicken growers. Animal Prod Sci 62: 401-408. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN21222
    [4] Chinivasagam HN, Estella W, Rodrigues H, et al. (2022) Re-used or new bedding are not drivers of Salmonella levels and serovar emergence in commercially farmed broilers in Australia. Front Sustainable Food Syst 6: 816181. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.816181
    [5] Barker KJ, Coufal CD, Purswell JL, et al. (2011) In-house windrowing of a commercial broiler farm during the summer months and its effect on litter composition. J Appl Poult Res 20: 168-180. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2010-00242
    [6] Macklin KS, Hess JB, Bilgili SF (2008) In-house windrow composting and its effects on foodborne pathogens. J Appl Poult Res 17: 121-127. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2007-00051
    [7] Chinivasagam HN Re-use of chicken litter across broiler cycles – managing the food-borne pathogen risk, Final Report, Project No: 05-16, Poultry CRC, Australia (2009). Available from: http://www.poultryhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-Report-05-16.pdf
    [8] Chinivasagam HN, Tran T, Blackall PJ (2012) Impact of the Australian litter re-use practice on Salmonella in the broiler farming environment. Food Res Int 45: 891-896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.06.014
    [9] Chinivasagam HN, Estella W, Rodrigues H, et al. (2016) On-farm Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in commercial broiler chickens: Re-used bedding does not influence Campylobacter emergence and levels across sequential farming cycles. Poult Sci 95: 1105-1115. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew003
    [10] Singh M, Cowieson AJ (2013) Range use and pasture consumption in free-range poultry production. Animal Prod Sci 53: 1202-1208. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN13199
    [11] Pumtang-on P, Mahony TJ, Hill RA, et al. (2020) Investigation of Campylobacter colonization in three Australian commercial free-range broiler farms. Poult Sci 100891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.12.004
    [12] Rothrock MJ, Gibson KE, Micciche AC, et al. (2019) Pastured poultry production in the united states: strategies to balance system sustainability and environmental impact. Front Sustainable Food Syst 3: 10.3389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00074
    [13] Xu X, Rothrock MJ, Mohan A, et al. (2021) Using farm management practices to predict Campylobacter prevalence in pastured poultry farms. Poult Sci 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101122
    [14] Golden CE, Rothrock MJ, Mishra A (2021) Mapping foodborne pathogen contamination throughout the conventional and alternative poultry supply chains. Poult Sci 100: 101157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101157
    [15] Shaughnessy RG, Meade KG, Cahalane S, et al. (2009) Innate immune gene expression differentiates the early avian intestinal response between Salmonella and Campylobacter. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 132: 191-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2009.06.007
    [16] Line JE, Hiett KL, Guard-Bouldin J, et al. (2010) Differential carbon source utilization by Campylobacter jejuni 11168 in response to growth temperature variation. J Microbiol Methods 80: 198-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2009.12.011
    [17] European Food Safety Authority.The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2015. EFSA J (2016) 14: e04634. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4634
    [18] Lake RJ, Campbell DM, Hathaway SC, et al. (2021) Source attributed case-control study of campylobacteriosis in New Zealand. Int J Infect Dis 103: 268-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.167
    [19] D'Lima CB, Miller WG, Mandrell RE, et al. (2007) Clonal population structure and specific genotypes of multidrug-resistant Campylobacter coli from turkeys. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 2156-2164. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02346-06
    [20] Tam CC, O'Brien SJ, Adak GK, et al. (2003) Campylobacter coli - an important foodborne pathogen. J Infect 47: 28-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-4453(03)00042-2
    [21] Zhang J, Konkel ME, Gölz G, et al. (2022) Editorial: Campylobacter-associated food safety. Front Microbiol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1038128
    [22] NNDSS Annual Report Working Group.Australia's notifiable disease status, 2015: Annual report of the national notifiable diseases surveillance system. Commun Dis Intell (2019) . https://doi.org/10.33321/cdi.2019.43.6
    [23] Centre for Disease Control and PreventionNational centre for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases (Campyloacter) (2015). Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/campylobacter/
    [24] Nastasijevic I, Proscia F, Boskovic Cabrol M, et al. (2020) The European Union control strategy for Campylobacter spp. in the broiler meat chain. J Food Safety 40: e12819. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfs.12819
    [25] Ingmer H (2011) Challenges of Campylobacter jejuni in poultry production. IntJ Food Microbiol 145: S110-S110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.12.015
    [26] Lee MD, Newell DG (2006) Invited Minireview: Campylobacter in poultry: filling an ecological niche. Avian Dis 50: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1637/7474-111605R.1
    [27] Diaz Carrasco J, Redondo L, Casanova N, et al. (2022) The role of farm environment and management in shaping the gut microbiota of poultry. Gut Microbiota, Immunity, and Health in Production Animals, The Microbiomes of Humans, Animals, Plants, and the Environment . Springer Nature Switzerland 193-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90303-9_10
    [28] Amit-Romach E, Sklan D, Uni Z (2004) Microflora ecology of the chicken intestine using 16S ribosomal DNA primers. Poult Sci 83: 1093-1098. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.7.1093
    [29] Shane SM, Stern MJ (2003) Campylobacter infection. Diseases of Poultry . Ames: Iowa State University Press 615-630.
    [30] Van Deun K, Pasmans F, Ducatelle R, et al. (2008) Colonization strategy of Campylobacter jejuni results in persistent infection of the chicken gut. Vet Microbiol 130: 285-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.11.027
    [31] Colles FM, Hedges SJ, Dixon R, et al. (2021) Parallel sequencing reveals Campylobacter spp. In commercial meat chickens less than 8 days old. Appl Environ Microbiol 87: e01060-01021. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01060-21
    [32] Cox NA, Richardson LJ, Maurer JJ, et al. (2012) Evidence for horizontal and vertical transmission in Campylobacter passage from hen to her progeny. J Food Prot 75: 1896-1902. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028.JFP-11-322
    [33] Newell DG, Fearnley C (2003) Sources of Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 4343-4351. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.8.4343-4351.2003
    [34] Brown PE, Christensen OF, Clough HE, et al. (2004) Frequency and spatial distribution of environmental Campylobacter spp. Appl Environ Microbiol 70: 6501-6511. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.11.6501-6511.2004
    [35] Colles FM, McCarthy ND, Layton R, et al. (2011) The prevalence of Campylobacter amongst a free-range broiler breeder flock was primarily affected by flock age. PloS One 6: e22825. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022825
    [36] Shanker S, Lee A, Sorrell TC (1990) Horizontal transmission of Campylobacter jejuni amongst broiler chicks: Experimental studies. Epidemiol Infect 104: 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268800054571
    [37] Ridley AM, Morris VK, Cawthraw SA, et al. (2011) A longitudinal molecular epidemiological study of thermophilic campylobacters on one conventional broiler farm. Appl Environ Microbiol 77: 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01388-10
    [38] Sandberg M, Sørensen LL, Steenberg B, et al. (2015) Risk factors for Campylobacter colonization in Danish broiler flocks, 2010 to 2011. Poult Sci 94: 447-453. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/peu065
    [39] Koutsoumanis K, Allende A, Alvarez-Ordonez A, et al. (2020) Update and review of control options for Campylobacter in broilers at primary production. EFSA J 18: 6090-6090. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6090
    [40] Jorgensen F, Ellis-Iversen J, Rushton S, et al. (2011) Influence of season and geography on Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli Subtypes in housed broiler flocks reared in Great Britain. Appl Environ Microbiol 77: 3741-3748. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02444-10
    [41] Zbrun MV, Olivero CR, Soto LP, et al. (2022) Impact of farm-level strategies against thermotolerant Campylobacter in broiler chickens, using a quantitative risk assessment model and meta-analysis. Zoonoses Public Health 00: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12930
    [42] Hermans D, Van Deun K, Messens W, et al. (2011) Campylobacter control in poultry by current intervention measures ineffective: Urgent need for intensified fundamental research. Vet Microbiol 152: 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.03.010
    [43] El-Shibiny A, Connerton PL, Connerton IF (2005) Enumeration and diversity of campylobacters and bacteriophages isolated during the rearing cycles of free-range and organic chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 1259-1266. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.3.1259-1266.2005
    [44] Sillankorva SM, Oliveira H, Azeredo J (2012) Bacteriophages and their role in food safety. Intl J Microbiol 2012: 863945. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/863945
    [45] Mahony J, McAuliffe O, Ross RP, et al. (2011) Bacteriophages as biocontrol agents of food pathogens. Curr Opin Biotechnol 22: 157-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2010.10.008
    [46] Hudson JA, Billington C, Carey-Smith G, et al. (2005) Bacteriophages as biocontrol agents in food. J Food Protect 68: 426-437. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-68.2.426
    [47] Weitz JS, Poisot T, Meyer JR, et al. (2013) Phage–bacteria infection networks. Trends in Microbiol 21: 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.11.003
    [48] El-Shibiny A, Scott A, Timms A, et al. (2009) Application of a Group II Campylobacter bacteriophage to reduce strains of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli colonizing broiler chickens. J Food Prot 72: 733-740. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-72.4.733
    [49] Callaway TR, Edrington TS, Brabban A, et al. (2010) Occurrence of Salmonella-specific bacteriophages in swine feces collected from commercial farms. Foodborne Pathog Dis 7: 851-856. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2009.0512
    [50] Olson EG, Micciche AC, Rothrock MJ, et al. (2022) Application of bacteriophages to limit campylobacter in poultry production. Front Microbiol 12: 458721-458721. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.458721
    [51] Connerton PL, Timms AR, Connerton IF (2011) Campylobacter bacteriophages and bacteriophage therapy. J Appl Microbiol 111: 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05012.x
    [52] Furuta M, Nasu T, Umeki K, et al. (2017) Characterization and application of lytic bacteriophages against Campylobacter jejuni isolated from poultry in Japan. Biocontrol Sci 22: 213-221. https://doi.org/10.4265/bio.22.213
    [53] Nowaczek A, Urban-Chmiel R, Dec M, et al. (2019) Campylobacter spp. and bacteriophages from broiler chickens: Characterization of antibiotic susceptibility profiles and lytic bacteriophages. MicrobiologyOpen 8: e784. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.784
    [54] Kittler S, Fischer S, Abdulmawjood A, et al. (2013) Effect of bacteriophage application on Campylobacter jejuni loads in commercial broiler flocks. Appl Environ Microbiol 79: 7525-7533. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02703-13
    [55] Chinivasagam HN, Estella W, Maddock L, et al. (2020) Bacteriophages to control Campylobacter in commercially farmed broiler chickens, in australia. Front Microbiol 11: 632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00632
    [56] Chinivasagam HN A “proof of concept” study to control Campylobacter using bacteriophages Poultry CRC (2017). Available from: https://www.poultryhub.org/content/uploads/2017/05/3.1.6-Chinivasagam-Final-Report.pdf
    [57] Chinivasagam HN, Estella W, Cockerill SA, et al. (2020) Moving from concept to control; use of phages for Campylobacter reduction. AgriFutures Australia Publication No. 20–110 . https://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20-110.pdf
    [58] Richards PJ, Connerton PL, Connerton IF (2019) Phage biocontrol of Campylobacter jejuni in chickens does not produce collateral effects on the gut microbiota. Front Microbiol 10: 476. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00476
    [59] Hakeem MJ, Lu X (2021) Survival and control of Campylobacter in poultry production environment. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 10: 615049. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.615049
    [60] Alter T, Reich F (2021) Management strategies for prevention of Campylobacter Infections through the poultry food chain: a european perspective. Fighting Campylobacter Infections: Towards a One Health Approach . Cham: Springer International Publishing 79-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65481-8_4
    [61] Reichelt B, Szott V, Epping L, et al. (2022) Transmission pathways of campylobacter spp. at broiler farms and their environment in Brandenburg, Germany. Front Microbiol 13: 982693. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.982693
    [62] Free Range Egg & Poultry Australia (FREPA)FREPA, range care, chicken meat bird standards (2012). http://www.frepa.com.au/standards/meat-standards/.
    [63] Best EL, Powell EJ, Swift C, et al. (2003) Applicability of a rapid duplex real-time PCR assay for speciation of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli directly from culture plates. FEMS Microbiol Lett 229: 237-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1097(03)00845-0
    [64] Leblanc-Maridor M, Garenaux A, Beaudeau F, et al. (2011) Quantification of Campylobacter spp. in pig feces by direct real-time PCR with an internal control of extraction and amplification. J Microbiol Methods 85: 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2011.01.013
    [65] Hein I, Mach RL, Farnleitner AH, et al. (2003) Application of single-strand conformation polymorphism and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis for fla sequence typing of Campylobacter jejuni. J Microbiol Methods 52: 305-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7012(02)00183-5
    [66] Najdenski H, Heyndrickx M, Herman L, et al. (2008) Fla-DGGE analysis of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in cecal samples of broilers without cultivation. Vet Microbiol 127: 196-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.08.002
    [67] Chen YH, Kocherginskaya SA, Lin Y, et al. (2005) Biochemical and mutational analyses of a unique clamp loader complex in the archaeon Methanosarcina acetivorans. J Biol Chem 280: 41852-41863. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M508684200
    [68] Kocherginskaya SA (2005) Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Methods in gut microbial ecology for ruminants . Amsterdam: International Atomic Energy Agency, Springer Academic Press 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3791-0_9
    [69] R Core TeamR: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria (2013).
    [70] Oksanen J, Guillaume Blanchet F, Friendly M, et al. Package ‘vegan’: Community Ecology Package (2019).
    [71] Atterbury RJ, Connerton PL, Dodd CER, et al. (2003) Isolation and characterization of Campylobacter bacteriophages from retail poultry. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 4511-4518. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.8.4511-4518.2003
    [72] GenStatGenStat for Windows, Release 19.1. VSN International Ltd., Oxford (2018).
    [73] McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized Linear Models (2nd ed.). London: Chapman and Hall. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6
    [74] International Committee on Taxonomy of VirusesICTV Taxonomy history: Campylobacter virus CP81 (2018).
    [75] Mota-Gutierrez J, Lis L, Lasagabaster A, et al. (2022) Campylobacter spp. prevalence and mitigation strategies in the broiler production chain. Food Microbiol 104: 103998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2022.103998
    [76] Scott AE, Timms AR, Connerton PL, et al. (2007) Bacteriophage influence Campylobacter jejuni types populating broiler chickens. Environ Microbiol 9: 2341-2353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01351.x
    [77] Scott A, Timms A, Connerton P, et al. (2007) Genome dynamics of Campylobacter jejuni in response to bacteriophage predation. PLoS Pathog 3: 1142-1151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.0030119
    [78] Klancnik A, Guzej B, Jamnik P, et al. (2009) Stress response and pathogenic potential of Campylobacter jejuni cells exposed to starvation. Res Microbiol 160: 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2009.05.002
    [79] Daczkowska-Kozon EG, Sawicki W, Skotarczak K (2010) The caeca-niche supporting survival of Campylobacter spp. in commercially reared broiler chickens. Pol J Food Nutr Sci 60: 265-271.
    [80] Hansson I, Pudas N, Harbom B, et al. (2010) Within-flock variations of Campylobacter loads in caeca and on carcasses from broilers. Int J Food Microbiol 141: 51-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.04.019
    [81] Allen VM, Ridley AM, Harris JA, et al. (2011) Influence of production system on the rate of onset of Campylobacter colonization in chicken flocks reared extensively in the United Kingdom. Br Poult Sci 52: 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.537306
    [82] Valeris-Chacin R, Pieters M, Hwang H, et al. (2021) Association of broiler litter microbiome composition and Campylobacter isolation. Front Vet Sci 8: 654927. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.654927
    [83] Hanning I, Biswas D, Herrera P, et al. (2010) Prevalence and characterization of Campylobacter jejuni Isolated from pasture flock poultry. J Food Sci 75: M496-M502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01747.x
    [84] Nesbit EG, Gibbs P, Dreesen DW, et al. (2001) Epidemiologic features of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from poultry broiler houses and surrounding environments as determined by use of molecular strain typing. Am J Vet Res 62: 190-194. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.2001.62.190
    [85] Meinersmann RJ, Helsel LO, Fields PI, et al. (1997) Discrimination of Campylobacter jejuni isolates by fla gene sequencing. J Clin Microbiol 35: 2810-2814. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.35.11.2810-2814.1997
    [86] Wieczorek K, Wolkowicz T, Osek J (2019) flaA-SVR based genetic diversity of multiresistant Campylobacter jejuni isolated from chickens and humans. Front Microbiol 10: 1176. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01176
    [87] Colles FM, Dingle KE, Cody AJ, et al. (2008) Comparison of Campylobacter populations in wild geese with those in starlings and free-range poultry on the same farm. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 3583-3590. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02491-07
    [88] Meinersmann RJ, Phillips RW, Hiett KL, et al. (2005) Differentiation of Campylobacter populations as demonstrated by flagellin short variable region sequences. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 6368-6374. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.10.6368-6374.2005
    [89] Ahmed MU, Dunn L, Ivanova EP (2012) Evaluation of current molecular approaches for genotyping of Campylobacter jejuni strains. Foodborne Pathog Dis 9: 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2011.0988
    [90] Manning G, Duim B, Wassenaar T, et al. (2001) Evidence for a genetically stable strain of Campylobacter jejuni. Appl Environ Microbiol 67: 1185-1189. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.3.1185-1189.2001
    [91] Sheppard SK, McCarthy ND, Falush D, et al. (2008) Convergence of Campylobacter species: Implications for bacterial evolution. Science 320: 237-239. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155532
    [92] Sheppard SK, Dallas JF, Wilson DJ, et al. (2010) Evolution of an agriculture-associated disease causing Campylobacter coli clade: evidence from national surveillance data in Scotland. PLoS ONE 5: e15708. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015708
    [93] Sheppard SK, Colles FM, McCarthy ND, et al. (2011) Niche segregation and genetic structure of Campylobacter jejuni populations from wild and agricultural host species. Mol Ecol 20: 3484-3490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05179.x
    [94] Johnson TJ, Shank JM, Johnson JG (2017) Current and potential treatments for reducing Campylobacter colonization in animal hosts and disease in humans. Front Microbiol 8: 487. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00487
    [95] Pasquali F, De Cesare A, Manfreda G, et al. (2011) Campylobacter control strategies in European poultry production. Worlds Poult Sci J 67: 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933911000018
    [96] Premaratne A, Zhang H, Wang R, et al. (2021) Phage biotechnology to mitigate antimicrobial resistance in agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 49: Mitigation of Antimicrobial Resistance Vol 2 Natural and Synthetic Approaches Springer International Publishing, Cham . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58259-3_9
    [97] Loc Carrillo CM, Connerton PL, Pearson T, et al. (2007) Free-range layer chickens as a source of Campylobacter bacteriophage. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 92: 275-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-007-9156-4
    [98] Connerton PL, Loc Carrillo CM, Swift C, et al. (2004) Longitudinal study of Campylobacter jejuni bacteriophages and their hosts from broiler chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 70: 3877-3883. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.7.3877-3883.2004
    [99] Atterbury RJ, Dillon E, Swift C, et al. (2005) Correlation of Campylobacter bacteriophage with reduced presence of hosts in broiler chicken ceca. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 4885-4887. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.8.4885-4887.2005
    [100] Baker MG, Grout L, Wilson N (2021) Update on the campylobacter epidemic from chicken meat in New Zealand: The urgent need for an upgraded regulatory response. Epidemiol Infect 149: e30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095026882000299X
  • microbiol-10-01-002-s001.pdf
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Hadeer A. Morgaan, Hoda M. G. Omar, Azza S. Zakaria, Nelly M. Mohamed, Repurposing carvacrol, cinnamaldehyde, and eugenol as potential anti-quorum sensing agents against uropathogenic Escherichia coli isolates in Alexandria, Egypt, 2023, 23, 1471-2180, 10.1186/s12866-023-03055-w
    2. Mouayad Zuheir Bakleh, Muhammad Kohailan, Muhammad Marwan, Abdallah Alhaj Sulaiman, A Systematic Review and Comprehensive Analysis of mcr Gene Prevalence in Bacterial Isolates in Arab Countries, 2024, 13, 2079-6382, 958, 10.3390/antibiotics13100958
    3. Xudong Li, Huifeng Hu, Yongwei Zhu, Taiquan Wang, Youlan Lu, Xiangru Wang, Zhong Peng, Ming Sun, Huanchun Chen, Jinshui Zheng, Chen Tan, Population structure and antibiotic resistance of swine extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli from China, 2024, 15, 2041-1723, 10.1038/s41467-024-50268-2
    4. Eriny T. Attalla, Amal M. Khalil, Azza S. Zakaria, Dave J. Baker, Nelly M. Mohamed, Genomic characterization of colistin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from intensive care unit patients in Egypt, 2023, 22, 1476-0711, 10.1186/s12941-023-00632-9
    5. Amin Khoshbayan, Negar Narimisa, Zahra Elahi, Narjess Bostanghadiri, Shabnam Razavi, Aref Shariati, Global prevalence of mutation in the mgrB gene among clinical isolates of colistin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2024, 15, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1386478
    6. Mai A. Abdelaziz, Abeer M. Abd El-Aziz, Mohamed M. A. El-Sokkary, Rasha Barwa, Characterization and genetic analysis of extensively drug-resistant hospital acquired Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates, 2024, 24, 1471-2180, 10.1186/s12866-024-03321-5
    7. Enas A. Soliman, Alaa Saad, Ashraf A. Abd El Tawab, Fatma I. Elhofy, Amira M. Rizk, Manar Elkhayat, Tamara Kozytska, Majdil Ilyas, Marwa Bassiouny, Hanka Brangsch, Mathias W. Pletz, Heinrich Neubauer, Lisa D. Sprague, Gamal Wareth, Exploring AMR and virulence in Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from humans and pet animals: A complement of phenotype by WGS-derived profiles in a One Health study in Egypt, 2024, 19, 23527714, 100904, 10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100904
    8. Amal F. Makled, Azza Z. Labeeb, Heba M. Moaz, Asmaa S. Sleem, Chlorhexidine and benzalkonium chloride: promising adjuncts in combating multidrug resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in healthcare settings, 2025, 25, 1471-2334, 10.1186/s12879-025-10980-w
    9. Ahmed Azzam, Haitham Salem, Mahmoud Nazih, Enas Mohamed Lotfy, Fatma E. Hassan, Heba Khaled, Prevalence, trends, and molecular insights into colistin resistance among gram-negative bacteria in Egypt: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2025, 24, 1476-0711, 10.1186/s12941-025-00799-3
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 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(2230) PDF downloads(254) Cited by(0)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog