Escherichia coli O104 in Feedlot Cattle Feces: Prevalence, Isolation and Characterization
Escherichia coli O104:H4, an hybrid pathotype of Shiga toxigenic and enteroaggregative E. coli, involved in a major foodborne outbreak in Germany in 2011, has not been detected in cattle feces. Serogroup O104 with H type other than H4 has been reported to cause human illnesses, but their prevalence...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2016-03, Vol.11 (3), p.e0152101 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | e0152101 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 11 |
creator | Shridhar, Pragathi B Noll, Lance W Shi, Xiaorong Cernicchiaro, Natalia Renter, David G Bai, J Nagaraja, T G |
description | Escherichia coli O104:H4, an hybrid pathotype of Shiga toxigenic and enteroaggregative E. coli, involved in a major foodborne outbreak in Germany in 2011, has not been detected in cattle feces. Serogroup O104 with H type other than H4 has been reported to cause human illnesses, but their prevalence and characteristics in cattle have not been reported. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of E. coli O104 in feces of feedlot cattle, by culture and PCR detection methods, and characterize the isolated strains. Rectal fecal samples from a total of 757 cattle originating from 29 feedlots were collected at a Midwest commercial slaughter plant. Fecal samples, enriched in E. coli broth, were subjected to culture and PCR methods of detection. The culture method involved immunomagnetic separation with O104-specific beads and plating on a selective chromogenic medium, followed by serogroup confirmation of pooled colonies by PCR. If pooled colonies were positive for the wzxO104 gene, then colonies were tested individually to identify wzxO104-positive serogroup and associated genes of the hybrid strains. Extracted DNA from feces were also tested by a multiplex PCR to detect wzxO104-positive serogroup and associated major genes of the O104 hybrid pathotype. Because wzxO104 has been shown to be present in E. coli O8/O9/O9a, wzxO104-positive isolates and extracted DNA from fecal samples were also tested by a PCR targeting wbdDO8/O9/O9a, a gene specific for E. coli O8/O9/O9a serogroups. Model-adjusted prevalence estimates of E. coli O104 (positive for wzxO104 and negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a) at the feedlot level were 5.7% and 21.2%, and at the sample level were 0.5% and 25.9% by culture and PCR, respectively. The McNemar's test indicated that there was a significant difference (P < 0.01) between the proportions of samples that tested positive for wzxO104 and samples that were positive for wzxO104, but negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a by PCR and culture methods. A total of 143 isolates, positive for the wzxO104, were obtained in pure culture from 146 positive fecal samples. Ninety-two of the 143 isolates (64.3%) also tested positive for the wbdDO8/O9/O9a, indicating that only 51 (35.7%) isolates truly belonged to the O104 serogroup (positive for wzxO104 and negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a). All 51 isolates tested negative for eae, and 16 tested positive for stx1 gene of the subtype 1c. Thirteen of the 16 stx1-positive O104 isolates were from one feedlot. The predominant serot |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0152101 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1775626218</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A453470522</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d17df1641f1b4ab4b850b5cd8ada2f27</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A453470522</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-b9591b6bb07126db18e7b3400accf5f970098624d45c1393537a57762d4f677f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkluL1DAcxYso7rr6DUQLgiA4Y5Lm0vogLMOuDiyMeAOfQm6dZsg0Y5Iu6qc3s9NdpqAgfUjzz--chMMpiqcQzGHF4JuNH0Iv3HznezMHkCAI4L3iFDYVmlEEqvtH_yfFoxg3AJCqpvRhcYIYgAAhelp8v4iqM8GqzopSeWfLFQS4tH15aYx2PpULkZIzeatMfFt-DOZaONMr87pcRu9Esr4vRa_LRSeCUCl7_b4ZPi4etMJF82Rcz4qvlxdfFh9mV6v3y8X51UzRBqWZbEgDJZUSMIiolrA2TFYYAKFUS9qGAdDUFGGNiYJVU5GKCcIYRRq3lLG2OiueH3x3zkc-phI5ZIxQRBGsM7E8ENqLDd8FuxXhF_fC8puBD2suQrLKGa4h0y2kGLZQYiGxrAmQROlaaIFaxLLXu_G2QW6NVqZPQbiJ6fSktx1f-2uOa8AARdngxWgQ_I_BxPSPJ4_UOofNbd_6bKa2Nip-jkmFGSBo7zX_C5U_bbZW5V60Ns8nglcTQWaS-ZnWYoiRLz9_-n929W3KvjxiOyNc6nI5hn0P4hTEB1AFH2Mw7V1yEPB9rW_T4Pta87HWWfbsOPU70W2Pqz8SAfBb</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1775626218</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Escherichia coli O104 in Feedlot Cattle Feces: Prevalence, Isolation and Characterization</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Shridhar, Pragathi B ; Noll, Lance W ; Shi, Xiaorong ; Cernicchiaro, Natalia ; Renter, David G ; Bai, J ; Nagaraja, T G</creator><creatorcontrib>Shridhar, Pragathi B ; Noll, Lance W ; Shi, Xiaorong ; Cernicchiaro, Natalia ; Renter, David G ; Bai, J ; Nagaraja, T G</creatorcontrib><description>Escherichia coli O104:H4, an hybrid pathotype of Shiga toxigenic and enteroaggregative E. coli, involved in a major foodborne outbreak in Germany in 2011, has not been detected in cattle feces. Serogroup O104 with H type other than H4 has been reported to cause human illnesses, but their prevalence and characteristics in cattle have not been reported. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of E. coli O104 in feces of feedlot cattle, by culture and PCR detection methods, and characterize the isolated strains. Rectal fecal samples from a total of 757 cattle originating from 29 feedlots were collected at a Midwest commercial slaughter plant. Fecal samples, enriched in E. coli broth, were subjected to culture and PCR methods of detection. The culture method involved immunomagnetic separation with O104-specific beads and plating on a selective chromogenic medium, followed by serogroup confirmation of pooled colonies by PCR. If pooled colonies were positive for the wzxO104 gene, then colonies were tested individually to identify wzxO104-positive serogroup and associated genes of the hybrid strains. Extracted DNA from feces were also tested by a multiplex PCR to detect wzxO104-positive serogroup and associated major genes of the O104 hybrid pathotype. Because wzxO104 has been shown to be present in E. coli O8/O9/O9a, wzxO104-positive isolates and extracted DNA from fecal samples were also tested by a PCR targeting wbdDO8/O9/O9a, a gene specific for E. coli O8/O9/O9a serogroups. Model-adjusted prevalence estimates of E. coli O104 (positive for wzxO104 and negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a) at the feedlot level were 5.7% and 21.2%, and at the sample level were 0.5% and 25.9% by culture and PCR, respectively. The McNemar's test indicated that there was a significant difference (P < 0.01) between the proportions of samples that tested positive for wzxO104 and samples that were positive for wzxO104, but negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a by PCR and culture methods. A total of 143 isolates, positive for the wzxO104, were obtained in pure culture from 146 positive fecal samples. Ninety-two of the 143 isolates (64.3%) also tested positive for the wbdDO8/O9/O9a, indicating that only 51 (35.7%) isolates truly belonged to the O104 serogroup (positive for wzxO104 and negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a). All 51 isolates tested negative for eae, and 16 tested positive for stx1 gene of the subtype 1c. Thirteen of the 16 stx1-positive O104 isolates were from one feedlot. The predominant serotype was O104:H7. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis analysis indicated that stx1-positive O104:H7 isolates had 62.4% homology to the German outbreak strain and 67.9% to 77.5% homology to human diarrheagenic O104:H7 strains. The 13 isolates obtained from the same feedlot were of the same PFGE subtype with 100% Dice similarity. Although cattle do not harbor the O104:H4 pathotype, they do harbor and shed Shiga toxigenic O104 in the feces and the predominant serotype was O104:H7.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152101</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27010226</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Animals ; Beads ; Beef cattle ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Bovidae ; Cattle ; Cattle - microbiology ; Cattle Diseases - epidemiology ; Cattle Diseases - microbiology ; Colonies ; Culture ; Deoxyribonucleic acid ; Disease Outbreaks ; Diseases and pests ; Distribution ; DNA ; E coli ; Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field ; Epidemics ; Escherichia coli ; Escherichia coli - genetics ; Escherichia coli - isolation & purification ; Escherichia coli Infections - epidemiology ; Escherichia coli Infections - microbiology ; Escherichia coli Infections - veterinary ; Factory farming ; Feces ; Feces - microbiology ; Feedlots ; Food Microbiology ; Foodborne Diseases - epidemiology ; Foodborne Diseases - microbiology ; Gel electrophoresis ; Genes ; Germany - epidemiology ; Homology ; Humans ; Illnesses ; Immunomagnetic separation ; Intensive farming ; Laboratories ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Microbiology ; Multiplexing ; Outbreaks ; Pathogens ; Physiological aspects ; Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Prevalence ; Prevalence studies (Epidemiology) ; Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis ; Pure culture ; Rectum ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli - genetics ; Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli - isolation & purification ; Stx1 gene ; Zoonoses</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2016-03, Vol.11 (3), p.e0152101</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2016 Shridhar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2016 Shridhar et al 2016 Shridhar et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-b9591b6bb07126db18e7b3400accf5f970098624d45c1393537a57762d4f677f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-b9591b6bb07126db18e7b3400accf5f970098624d45c1393537a57762d4f677f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4807062/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4807062/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27010226$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shridhar, Pragathi B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noll, Lance W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Xiaorong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cernicchiaro, Natalia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renter, David G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bai, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagaraja, T G</creatorcontrib><title>Escherichia coli O104 in Feedlot Cattle Feces: Prevalence, Isolation and Characterization</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Escherichia coli O104:H4, an hybrid pathotype of Shiga toxigenic and enteroaggregative E. coli, involved in a major foodborne outbreak in Germany in 2011, has not been detected in cattle feces. Serogroup O104 with H type other than H4 has been reported to cause human illnesses, but their prevalence and characteristics in cattle have not been reported. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of E. coli O104 in feces of feedlot cattle, by culture and PCR detection methods, and characterize the isolated strains. Rectal fecal samples from a total of 757 cattle originating from 29 feedlots were collected at a Midwest commercial slaughter plant. Fecal samples, enriched in E. coli broth, were subjected to culture and PCR methods of detection. The culture method involved immunomagnetic separation with O104-specific beads and plating on a selective chromogenic medium, followed by serogroup confirmation of pooled colonies by PCR. If pooled colonies were positive for the wzxO104 gene, then colonies were tested individually to identify wzxO104-positive serogroup and associated genes of the hybrid strains. Extracted DNA from feces were also tested by a multiplex PCR to detect wzxO104-positive serogroup and associated major genes of the O104 hybrid pathotype. Because wzxO104 has been shown to be present in E. coli O8/O9/O9a, wzxO104-positive isolates and extracted DNA from fecal samples were also tested by a PCR targeting wbdDO8/O9/O9a, a gene specific for E. coli O8/O9/O9a serogroups. Model-adjusted prevalence estimates of E. coli O104 (positive for wzxO104 and negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a) at the feedlot level were 5.7% and 21.2%, and at the sample level were 0.5% and 25.9% by culture and PCR, respectively. The McNemar's test indicated that there was a significant difference (P < 0.01) between the proportions of samples that tested positive for wzxO104 and samples that were positive for wzxO104, but negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a by PCR and culture methods. A total of 143 isolates, positive for the wzxO104, were obtained in pure culture from 146 positive fecal samples. Ninety-two of the 143 isolates (64.3%) also tested positive for the wbdDO8/O9/O9a, indicating that only 51 (35.7%) isolates truly belonged to the O104 serogroup (positive for wzxO104 and negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a). All 51 isolates tested negative for eae, and 16 tested positive for stx1 gene of the subtype 1c. Thirteen of the 16 stx1-positive O104 isolates were from one feedlot. The predominant serotype was O104:H7. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis analysis indicated that stx1-positive O104:H7 isolates had 62.4% homology to the German outbreak strain and 67.9% to 77.5% homology to human diarrheagenic O104:H7 strains. The 13 isolates obtained from the same feedlot were of the same PFGE subtype with 100% Dice similarity. Although cattle do not harbor the O104:H4 pathotype, they do harbor and shed Shiga toxigenic O104 in the feces and the predominant serotype was O104:H7.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Beads</subject><subject>Beef cattle</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Bovidae</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Cattle - microbiology</subject><subject>Cattle Diseases - epidemiology</subject><subject>Cattle Diseases - microbiology</subject><subject>Colonies</subject><subject>Culture</subject><subject>Deoxyribonucleic acid</subject><subject>Disease Outbreaks</subject><subject>Diseases and pests</subject><subject>Distribution</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>E coli</subject><subject>Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field</subject><subject>Epidemics</subject><subject>Escherichia coli</subject><subject>Escherichia coli - genetics</subject><subject>Escherichia coli - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Escherichia coli Infections - epidemiology</subject><subject>Escherichia coli Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Escherichia coli Infections - veterinary</subject><subject>Factory farming</subject><subject>Feces</subject><subject>Feces - microbiology</subject><subject>Feedlots</subject><subject>Food Microbiology</subject><subject>Foodborne Diseases - epidemiology</subject><subject>Foodborne Diseases - microbiology</subject><subject>Gel electrophoresis</subject><subject>Genes</subject><subject>Germany - epidemiology</subject><subject>Homology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Illnesses</subject><subject>Immunomagnetic separation</subject><subject>Intensive farming</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Microbiology</subject><subject>Multiplexing</subject><subject>Outbreaks</subject><subject>Pathogens</subject><subject>Physiological aspects</subject><subject>Polymerase Chain Reaction</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Prevalence studies (Epidemiology)</subject><subject>Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis</subject><subject>Pure culture</subject><subject>Rectum</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli - genetics</subject><subject>Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Stx1 gene</subject><subject>Zoonoses</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkluL1DAcxYso7rr6DUQLgiA4Y5Lm0vogLMOuDiyMeAOfQm6dZsg0Y5Iu6qc3s9NdpqAgfUjzz--chMMpiqcQzGHF4JuNH0Iv3HznezMHkCAI4L3iFDYVmlEEqvtH_yfFoxg3AJCqpvRhcYIYgAAhelp8v4iqM8GqzopSeWfLFQS4tH15aYx2PpULkZIzeatMfFt-DOZaONMr87pcRu9Esr4vRa_LRSeCUCl7_b4ZPi4etMJF82Rcz4qvlxdfFh9mV6v3y8X51UzRBqWZbEgDJZUSMIiolrA2TFYYAKFUS9qGAdDUFGGNiYJVU5GKCcIYRRq3lLG2OiueH3x3zkc-phI5ZIxQRBGsM7E8ENqLDd8FuxXhF_fC8puBD2suQrLKGa4h0y2kGLZQYiGxrAmQROlaaIFaxLLXu_G2QW6NVqZPQbiJ6fSktx1f-2uOa8AARdngxWgQ_I_BxPSPJ4_UOofNbd_6bKa2Nip-jkmFGSBo7zX_C5U_bbZW5V60Ns8nglcTQWaS-ZnWYoiRLz9_-n929W3KvjxiOyNc6nI5hn0P4hTEB1AFH2Mw7V1yEPB9rW_T4Pta87HWWfbsOPU70W2Pqz8SAfBb</recordid><startdate>20160324</startdate><enddate>20160324</enddate><creator>Shridhar, Pragathi B</creator><creator>Noll, Lance W</creator><creator>Shi, Xiaorong</creator><creator>Cernicchiaro, Natalia</creator><creator>Renter, David G</creator><creator>Bai, J</creator><creator>Nagaraja, T G</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160324</creationdate><title>Escherichia coli O104 in Feedlot Cattle Feces: Prevalence, Isolation and Characterization</title><author>Shridhar, Pragathi B ; Noll, Lance W ; Shi, Xiaorong ; Cernicchiaro, Natalia ; Renter, David G ; Bai, J ; Nagaraja, T G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-b9591b6bb07126db18e7b3400accf5f970098624d45c1393537a57762d4f677f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Beads</topic><topic>Beef cattle</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Bovidae</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Cattle - microbiology</topic><topic>Cattle Diseases - epidemiology</topic><topic>Cattle Diseases - microbiology</topic><topic>Colonies</topic><topic>Culture</topic><topic>Deoxyribonucleic acid</topic><topic>Disease Outbreaks</topic><topic>Diseases and pests</topic><topic>Distribution</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>E coli</topic><topic>Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field</topic><topic>Epidemics</topic><topic>Escherichia coli</topic><topic>Escherichia coli - genetics</topic><topic>Escherichia coli - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Escherichia coli Infections - epidemiology</topic><topic>Escherichia coli Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Escherichia coli Infections - veterinary</topic><topic>Factory farming</topic><topic>Feces</topic><topic>Feces - microbiology</topic><topic>Feedlots</topic><topic>Food Microbiology</topic><topic>Foodborne Diseases - epidemiology</topic><topic>Foodborne Diseases - microbiology</topic><topic>Gel electrophoresis</topic><topic>Genes</topic><topic>Germany - epidemiology</topic><topic>Homology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Illnesses</topic><topic>Immunomagnetic separation</topic><topic>Intensive farming</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Microbiology</topic><topic>Multiplexing</topic><topic>Outbreaks</topic><topic>Pathogens</topic><topic>Physiological aspects</topic><topic>Polymerase Chain Reaction</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Prevalence studies (Epidemiology)</topic><topic>Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis</topic><topic>Pure culture</topic><topic>Rectum</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli - genetics</topic><topic>Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Stx1 gene</topic><topic>Zoonoses</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shridhar, Pragathi B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noll, Lance W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Xiaorong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cernicchiaro, Natalia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renter, David G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bai, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagaraja, T G</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shridhar, Pragathi B</au><au>Noll, Lance W</au><au>Shi, Xiaorong</au><au>Cernicchiaro, Natalia</au><au>Renter, David G</au><au>Bai, J</au><au>Nagaraja, T G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Escherichia coli O104 in Feedlot Cattle Feces: Prevalence, Isolation and Characterization</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2016-03-24</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e0152101</spage><pages>e0152101-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Escherichia coli O104:H4, an hybrid pathotype of Shiga toxigenic and enteroaggregative E. coli, involved in a major foodborne outbreak in Germany in 2011, has not been detected in cattle feces. Serogroup O104 with H type other than H4 has been reported to cause human illnesses, but their prevalence and characteristics in cattle have not been reported. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of E. coli O104 in feces of feedlot cattle, by culture and PCR detection methods, and characterize the isolated strains. Rectal fecal samples from a total of 757 cattle originating from 29 feedlots were collected at a Midwest commercial slaughter plant. Fecal samples, enriched in E. coli broth, were subjected to culture and PCR methods of detection. The culture method involved immunomagnetic separation with O104-specific beads and plating on a selective chromogenic medium, followed by serogroup confirmation of pooled colonies by PCR. If pooled colonies were positive for the wzxO104 gene, then colonies were tested individually to identify wzxO104-positive serogroup and associated genes of the hybrid strains. Extracted DNA from feces were also tested by a multiplex PCR to detect wzxO104-positive serogroup and associated major genes of the O104 hybrid pathotype. Because wzxO104 has been shown to be present in E. coli O8/O9/O9a, wzxO104-positive isolates and extracted DNA from fecal samples were also tested by a PCR targeting wbdDO8/O9/O9a, a gene specific for E. coli O8/O9/O9a serogroups. Model-adjusted prevalence estimates of E. coli O104 (positive for wzxO104 and negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a) at the feedlot level were 5.7% and 21.2%, and at the sample level were 0.5% and 25.9% by culture and PCR, respectively. The McNemar's test indicated that there was a significant difference (P < 0.01) between the proportions of samples that tested positive for wzxO104 and samples that were positive for wzxO104, but negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a by PCR and culture methods. A total of 143 isolates, positive for the wzxO104, were obtained in pure culture from 146 positive fecal samples. Ninety-two of the 143 isolates (64.3%) also tested positive for the wbdDO8/O9/O9a, indicating that only 51 (35.7%) isolates truly belonged to the O104 serogroup (positive for wzxO104 and negative for wbdDO8/O9/O9a). All 51 isolates tested negative for eae, and 16 tested positive for stx1 gene of the subtype 1c. Thirteen of the 16 stx1-positive O104 isolates were from one feedlot. The predominant serotype was O104:H7. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis analysis indicated that stx1-positive O104:H7 isolates had 62.4% homology to the German outbreak strain and 67.9% to 77.5% homology to human diarrheagenic O104:H7 strains. The 13 isolates obtained from the same feedlot were of the same PFGE subtype with 100% Dice similarity. Although cattle do not harbor the O104:H4 pathotype, they do harbor and shed Shiga toxigenic O104 in the feces and the predominant serotype was O104:H7.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>27010226</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0152101</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2016-03, Vol.11 (3), p.e0152101 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1775626218 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
subjects | Animals Beads Beef cattle Biology and Life Sciences Bovidae Cattle Cattle - microbiology Cattle Diseases - epidemiology Cattle Diseases - microbiology Colonies Culture Deoxyribonucleic acid Disease Outbreaks Diseases and pests Distribution DNA E coli Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field Epidemics Escherichia coli Escherichia coli - genetics Escherichia coli - isolation & purification Escherichia coli Infections - epidemiology Escherichia coli Infections - microbiology Escherichia coli Infections - veterinary Factory farming Feces Feces - microbiology Feedlots Food Microbiology Foodborne Diseases - epidemiology Foodborne Diseases - microbiology Gel electrophoresis Genes Germany - epidemiology Homology Humans Illnesses Immunomagnetic separation Intensive farming Laboratories Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Microbiology Multiplexing Outbreaks Pathogens Physiological aspects Polymerase Chain Reaction Prevalence Prevalence studies (Epidemiology) Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis Pure culture Rectum Research and Analysis Methods Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli - genetics Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli - isolation & purification Stx1 gene Zoonoses |
title | Escherichia coli O104 in Feedlot Cattle Feces: Prevalence, Isolation and Characterization |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T22%3A11%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Escherichia%20coli%20O104%20in%20Feedlot%20Cattle%20Feces:%20Prevalence,%20Isolation%20and%20Characterization&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Shridhar,%20Pragathi%20B&rft.date=2016-03-24&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e0152101&rft.pages=e0152101-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0152101&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA453470522%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1775626218&rft_id=info:pmid/27010226&rft_galeid=A453470522&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_d17df1641f1b4ab4b850b5cd8ada2f27&rfr_iscdi=true |