Mikrobiol. Z. 2017; 79(4):66-74. Russian.
Properties of Сampylobacter jejunі that were Isolated from Poultry Products
Kasyanenko O.I., Fotina T.I., Fotina А.А., Gladchenko S.M., Gnidenko T.Y., Bezruk R.V.
Sumy National Agrarian University
60 G. Kondrateva Str., Sumy, 40021, Ukraine
The aim of our researches was to determine the properties of 17 Campylobacter jejunі strains that were isolated from poultry products. Methods. Isolation and identifcation of Campylobacter sp. we carried out by methods that are regulated by ISO 10272-1: 2007 with using biochemical markers: catalase and oxidase activity, the ability to hydrolyze of sodium hippurate. Pathogenicity of isolated cultures of Campylobacter sp. was examined on rabbits, chickens- hens of brown and white Hajseks cross, mice. Sensitivity to antibiotics was determined by disk diffusion method. Sensitivity to disinfectants was determined by method of successive serial dilutions at liquid nutrient medium. Results. The investigated bacteria were assigned to genus Campylobacter according to their morphological and culture features, ability to produce catalase and oxidase, and according to other signs. The isolates were highly sensitive to erythromycin and tylosin, they were resistant to trimethoprim, rifampicin and cephalexin. Bactericidal concentrations of disinfectants relative to C. jejuni were determined: “Bi-Des” ‒ at 0.1 %, “Brovadez-plus” ‒ 1 : 10000, formaldehyde and 1.5 % “VetOks 1000” ‒ 20 %. Strains of C. jejunі were pathogenic for chickens, rabbits and white mice: LD50 of isolates ‒ 2,0 × 108,72 cells/cm3. Conclusion. Isolation of 17th strains of Campylobacter jejunі from poultry products was proved. The isolates were pathogenic for chickens, and lab. animals.
Key words: Сampylobacter jejunі, poultry products, sensitivity to antibiotics and disinfectants, pathogenicity.
Full text (PDF, in Russian)
- Berezovskyi A.V., Fotina H.A. Z'yasuvannya chutlyvosti bakterialnoi flory ptakhohospodarstv do aktyvno diyuchykh komponentiv suchasnykh protymikrobnykh zasobiv. Ptakhivnytstvo: mizhvid. temat. nauk. zb. Kharkiv, 2011; 67. P. 22–27.
- Fotina T. I., Kasyanenko O.I., Fotina H.A., Dvorska Yu.Ye. Epizootolohichne ta epidemiolohichni znachennya kharchovykh bakterialnykh patoheniv. Nauk.-tekhn. byuleten Instytutu biolohii tvaryn i DNDKI vet. preparativ ta kormovykh dobavok. 2014; 15(2-3):141–148.
- Dipineto L., Gargiulo A., Cuomo A. Campylobacter jejuni in the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) population of Southern Italy. Veterinary J. 2012; 179(1);149–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.09.013
- Guyard-Nicodème M., Rivoal K., Houard E. Prevalence and characterization of Campylobacter jejuni from chicken meat sold in French retail outlets. Int. J. Food Microbiology. 2015; 203:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.02.013
- Hue O., Le Bouquin S. Prevalence of and risk factors for Campylobacter spp. contamination of broiler chicken carcasses at the slaughterhouse. Food Microbiology. 2010; 27:992–999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2010.06.004
- Scientific report of EFSA and ECDC. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2013. EFSA J. 2015; 13(1):51–57.
- The Community summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from animals and food in the European Union in 2008. European Food Safety Authority, 2010. The EFSA J. 2010; 8(7):1658.
- Thibodeau A., Fravalo Ph., Laurent-Lewandowski S. Presence and characterization of Campylobacter jejuni in organically raised chickens in Quebec. Canadian J. Veterinary Research. 2011; 75:298–307.
- Woldemariam E., Bouma A., Vernooij J. C. M. The sensitivity and specificity of fecal and cecal culture for the detection of Campylobacter in Dutch broiler flocks quantified by Bayesian analysis. Int. J. Food Microbiology. 2008; 121(3):308–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.11.01
- Yan S. S., Gilbert J. M. Antimicrobial drug delivery in food animals and microbial food safety concerns: an overview of in vitro and in vivo factors potentially affecting the animal gut microflora. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2014; 56(10):1497–1521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2004.02.010