饲喂牛、淘汰牛和淘汰奶牛收获时粪便中产肠出血性志贺毒素大肠杆菌的比例和血清群

IF 2.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY Journal of food protection Pub Date : 2024-04-08 DOI:10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100273
Joseph M. Bosilevac, Tatum S. Katz, Terrance M. Arthur, Norasak Kalchayanand, Tommy L. Wheeler
{"title":"饲喂牛、淘汰牛和淘汰奶牛收获时粪便中产肠出血性志贺毒素大肠杆菌的比例和血清群","authors":"Joseph M. Bosilevac,&nbsp;Tatum S. Katz,&nbsp;Terrance M. Arthur,&nbsp;Norasak Kalchayanand,&nbsp;Tommy L. Wheeler","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cattle are considered a primary reservoir of Shiga toxin (<em>stx</em>)-producing <em>Escherichia coli</em> that cause enterohemorrhagic disease (EHEC), and contaminated beef products are one vehicle of transmission to humans. However, animals entering the beef harvest process originate from differing production systems: feedlots, dairies, and beef breeding herds. The objective of this study was to determine if fed cattle, cull dairy, and or cull beef cattle carry differing proportions and serogroups of EHEC at harvest. Feces were collected via rectoanal mucosal swabs (RAMSs) from 1,039 fed cattle, 1,058 cull dairy cattle, and 1,018 cull beef cattle at harvest plants in seven U.S. states (CA, GA, NE, PA, TX, WA, and WI). The proportion of the <em>stx</em> gene in feces of fed cattle (99.04%) was not significantly different (<em>P</em> &gt; 0.05) than in the feces of cull dairy (92.06%) and cull beef (91.85%) cattle. When two additional factors predictive of EHEC (intimin and <em>ecf1</em> genes) were considered, EHEC was significantly greater (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05) in fed cattle (77.29%) than in cull dairy (47.54%) and cull beef (38.51%) cattle. The presence of <em>E. coli</em> O157:H7 and five common non-O157 EHEC of serogroups O26, O103, O111, O121, and O145 was determined using molecular analysis for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) followed by culture isolation. SNP analysis identified 23.48%, 17.67%, and 10.81% and culture isolation confirmed 2.98%, 3.31%, and 3.00% of fed, cull dairy, and cull beef cattle feces to contain one of these EHEC, respectively. The most common serogroups confirmed by culture isolation were O157, O103, and O26. Potential EHEC of fourteen other serogroups were isolated as well, from 4.86%, 2.46%, and 2.01% of fed, cull dairy, and cull beef cattle feces, respectively; with the most common being serogroups O177, O74, O98, and O84. The identification of particular EHEC serogroups in different types of cattle at harvest may offer opportunities to improve food safety risk management.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X24000577/pdfft?md5=2647003c2a536f7422796b3211b669d5&pid=1-s2.0-S0362028X24000577-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proportions and Serogroups of Enterohemorrhagic Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli in Feces of Fed and Cull Beef and Cull Dairy Cattle at Harvest\",\"authors\":\"Joseph M. Bosilevac,&nbsp;Tatum S. Katz,&nbsp;Terrance M. Arthur,&nbsp;Norasak Kalchayanand,&nbsp;Tommy L. Wheeler\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Cattle are considered a primary reservoir of Shiga toxin (<em>stx</em>)-producing <em>Escherichia coli</em> that cause enterohemorrhagic disease (EHEC), and contaminated beef products are one vehicle of transmission to humans. However, animals entering the beef harvest process originate from differing production systems: feedlots, dairies, and beef breeding herds. The objective of this study was to determine if fed cattle, cull dairy, and or cull beef cattle carry differing proportions and serogroups of EHEC at harvest. Feces were collected via rectoanal mucosal swabs (RAMSs) from 1,039 fed cattle, 1,058 cull dairy cattle, and 1,018 cull beef cattle at harvest plants in seven U.S. states (CA, GA, NE, PA, TX, WA, and WI). The proportion of the <em>stx</em> gene in feces of fed cattle (99.04%) was not significantly different (<em>P</em> &gt; 0.05) than in the feces of cull dairy (92.06%) and cull beef (91.85%) cattle. When two additional factors predictive of EHEC (intimin and <em>ecf1</em> genes) were considered, EHEC was significantly greater (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05) in fed cattle (77.29%) than in cull dairy (47.54%) and cull beef (38.51%) cattle. The presence of <em>E. coli</em> O157:H7 and five common non-O157 EHEC of serogroups O26, O103, O111, O121, and O145 was determined using molecular analysis for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) followed by culture isolation. SNP analysis identified 23.48%, 17.67%, and 10.81% and culture isolation confirmed 2.98%, 3.31%, and 3.00% of fed, cull dairy, and cull beef cattle feces to contain one of these EHEC, respectively. The most common serogroups confirmed by culture isolation were O157, O103, and O26. Potential EHEC of fourteen other serogroups were isolated as well, from 4.86%, 2.46%, and 2.01% of fed, cull dairy, and cull beef cattle feces, respectively; with the most common being serogroups O177, O74, O98, and O84. The identification of particular EHEC serogroups in different types of cattle at harvest may offer opportunities to improve food safety risk management.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of food protection\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X24000577/pdfft?md5=2647003c2a536f7422796b3211b669d5&pid=1-s2.0-S0362028X24000577-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of food protection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X24000577\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X24000577","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

牛被认为是产生志贺毒素(stx)并导致肠出血性疾病(EHEC)的大肠埃希氏菌的主要贮存库,受污染的牛肉产品是向人类传播疾病的一种途径。然而,进入牛肉收获流程的动物来自不同的生产系统:饲养场、奶牛场和肉牛养殖群。本研究的目的是确定喂养的牛、淘汰的奶牛和淘汰的肉牛在收获时是否携带不同比例和血清群的 EHEC。在美国七个州(加利福尼亚州、佐治亚州、东北部、宾夕法尼亚州、德克萨斯州、华盛顿州和威斯康星州)的收割厂,通过直肠肛门粘膜拭子(RAMS)收集了 1039 头喂养牛、1058 头宰杀乳牛和 1018 头宰杀肉牛的粪便。喂养牛(99.04%)粪便中的 stx 基因比例与宰杀奶牛(92.06%)和宰杀肉牛(91.85%)粪便中的 stx 基因比例没有显著差异(P > 0.05)。当考虑到另外两个预测 EHEC 的因素(intimin 和 ecf1 基因)时,喂养牛(77.29%)的 EHEC 显著高于宰杀奶牛(47.54%)和宰杀肉牛(38.51%)(P < 0.05)。采用单核苷酸多态性(SNPs)分子分析法确定大肠杆菌 O157:H7 和血清 O26、O103、O111、O121 和 O145 五种常见的非 O157 型大肠杆菌,然后进行培养分离。SNP 分析确定了 23.48%、17.67% 和 10.81%,培养分离确认了 2.98%、3.31% 和 3.00% 的饲料牛、奶牛和肉牛粪便中分别含有其中一种 EHEC。通过培养分离确认的最常见血清群为 O157、O103 和 O26。此外,还从 4.86%、2.46% 和 2.01% 的饲料牛、奶牛和肉牛粪便中分离出了 14 个其他血清群的潜在 EHEC;其中最常见的是 O177、O74、O98 和 O84 血清群。在收获时识别不同类型牛的特定 EHEC 血清群可为改善食品安全风险管理提供机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Proportions and Serogroups of Enterohemorrhagic Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli in Feces of Fed and Cull Beef and Cull Dairy Cattle at Harvest

Cattle are considered a primary reservoir of Shiga toxin (stx)-producing Escherichia coli that cause enterohemorrhagic disease (EHEC), and contaminated beef products are one vehicle of transmission to humans. However, animals entering the beef harvest process originate from differing production systems: feedlots, dairies, and beef breeding herds. The objective of this study was to determine if fed cattle, cull dairy, and or cull beef cattle carry differing proportions and serogroups of EHEC at harvest. Feces were collected via rectoanal mucosal swabs (RAMSs) from 1,039 fed cattle, 1,058 cull dairy cattle, and 1,018 cull beef cattle at harvest plants in seven U.S. states (CA, GA, NE, PA, TX, WA, and WI). The proportion of the stx gene in feces of fed cattle (99.04%) was not significantly different (P > 0.05) than in the feces of cull dairy (92.06%) and cull beef (91.85%) cattle. When two additional factors predictive of EHEC (intimin and ecf1 genes) were considered, EHEC was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in fed cattle (77.29%) than in cull dairy (47.54%) and cull beef (38.51%) cattle. The presence of E. coli O157:H7 and five common non-O157 EHEC of serogroups O26, O103, O111, O121, and O145 was determined using molecular analysis for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) followed by culture isolation. SNP analysis identified 23.48%, 17.67%, and 10.81% and culture isolation confirmed 2.98%, 3.31%, and 3.00% of fed, cull dairy, and cull beef cattle feces to contain one of these EHEC, respectively. The most common serogroups confirmed by culture isolation were O157, O103, and O26. Potential EHEC of fourteen other serogroups were isolated as well, from 4.86%, 2.46%, and 2.01% of fed, cull dairy, and cull beef cattle feces, respectively; with the most common being serogroups O177, O74, O98, and O84. The identification of particular EHEC serogroups in different types of cattle at harvest may offer opportunities to improve food safety risk management.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of food protection
Journal of food protection 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
296
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Food Protection® (JFP) is an international, monthly scientific journal in the English language published by the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP). JFP publishes research and review articles on all aspects of food protection and safety. Major emphases of JFP are placed on studies dealing with: Tracking, detecting (including traditional, molecular, and real-time), inactivating, and controlling food-related hazards, including microorganisms (including antibiotic resistance), microbial (mycotoxins, seafood toxins) and non-microbial toxins (heavy metals, pesticides, veterinary drug residues, migrants from food packaging, and processing contaminants), allergens and pests (insects, rodents) in human food, pet food and animal feed throughout the food chain; Microbiological food quality and traditional/novel methods to assay microbiological food quality; Prevention of food-related hazards and food spoilage through food preservatives and thermal/non-thermal processes, including process validation; Food fermentations and food-related probiotics; Safe food handling practices during pre-harvest, harvest, post-harvest, distribution and consumption, including food safety education for retailers, foodservice, and consumers; Risk assessments for food-related hazards; Economic impact of food-related hazards, foodborne illness, food loss, food spoilage, and adulterated foods; Food fraud, food authentication, food defense, and foodborne disease outbreak investigations.
期刊最新文献
Isolation and Enumeration of the Bacillus cereus Group Using a Chromogenic Substrate that Targets Phosphatidylcholine Phospholipase C Activity. Evaluation of a postbiotic on Salmonella enterica prevalence, serotype diversity, and antimicrobial resistance in the subiliac lymph nodes of cull dairy cattle. Hazard characterization of antibiotic-resistant Aeromonas spp. isolated from mussel and oyster shellstock available for retail purchase in Canada. Generic Food Safety Assessment: A Framework to Evaluate Food Safety Hazards Emerging from Change(s) in the Primary Production System – A Case Study Involving Intercropping Investigation of Feedlot-level Use of a Direct-fed Microbial on Fecal Shedding of E. coli O157:H7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1