These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9674125)
1. The isolation and prevalence of campylobacters from dairy cattle using a variety of methods. Atabay HI; Corry JE J Appl Microbiol; 1998 May; 84(5):733-40. PubMed ID: 9674125 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of the productivity of cefoperazone amphotericin teicoplanin (CAT) agar and modified charcoal cefoperazone deoxycholate (mCCD) agar for various strains of Campylobacter, Arcobacter and Helicobacter pullorum. Corry JE; Atabay HI Int J Food Microbiol; 1997 Sep; 38(2-3):201-9. PubMed ID: 9506285 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Basis of the superiority of cefoperazone amphotericin teicoplanin for isolating Campylobacter upsaliensis from stools. Byrne C; Doherty D; Mooney A; Byrne M; Woodward D; Johnson W; Rodgers F; Bourke B J Clin Microbiol; 2001 Jul; 39(7):2713-6. PubMed ID: 11427603 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison of different culture methods for the recovery of Campylobacter species from pets. Acke E; McGill K; Golden O; Jones BR; Fanning S; Whyte P Zoonoses Public Health; 2009 Nov; 56(9-10):490-5. PubMed ID: 19243565 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Prevalence of Campylobacter, Arcobacter, Helicobacter, and Sutterella spp. in human fecal samples as estimated by a reevaluation of isolation methods for Campylobacters. Engberg J; On SL; Harrington CS; Gerner-Smidt P J Clin Microbiol; 2000 Jan; 38(1):286-91. PubMed ID: 10618103 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Isolation and characterization of a novel catalase-negative, urease-positive Campylobacter from cattle faeces. Atabay HI; Corry JE; On SL Lett Appl Microbiol; 1997 Jan; 24(1):59-64. PubMed ID: 9024006 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Isolation of Campylobacter from Brazilian broiler flocks using different culturing procedures. Vaz CS; Voss-Rech D; Pozza JS; Coldebella A; Silva VS Poult Sci; 2014 Nov; 93(11):2887-92. PubMed ID: 25172927 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Restoring the selectivity of modified charcoal cefoperazone deoxycholate agar for the isolation of Campylobacter species using tazobactam, a β-lactamase inhibitor. Smith S; Meade J; McGill K; Gibbons J; Bolton D; Whyte P Int J Food Microbiol; 2015 Oct; 210():131-5. PubMed ID: 26119190 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Use of PCR for direct detection of Campylobacter species in bovine feces. Inglis GD; Kalischuk LD Appl Environ Microbiol; 2003 Jun; 69(6):3435-47. PubMed ID: 12788747 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prevalence, quantitative load and genetic diversity of Campylobacter spp. in dairy cattle herds in Lithuania. Ramonaitė S; Rokaitytė A; Tamulevičienė E; Malakauskas A; Alter T; Malakauskas M Acta Vet Scand; 2013 Dec; 55(1):87. PubMed ID: 24304521 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Improvement of modified charcoal-cefoperazone-deoxycholate agar by addition of potassium clavulanate for detecting Campylobacter spp. in chicken carcass rinse. Chon JW; Kim H; Kim HS; Seo KH Int J Food Microbiol; 2013 Jul; 165(1):7-10. PubMed ID: 23685466 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Detection of Hansson I; Olsson Engvall E; Ferrari S; Harbom B; Lahti E Vet Rec; 2020 Jun; 186(18):605. PubMed ID: 31727852 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Prevalence and strain diversity of thermophilic campylobacters in cattle, sheep and swine farms. Oporto B; Esteban JI; Aduriz G; Juste RA; Hurtado A J Appl Microbiol; 2007 Oct; 103(4):977-84. PubMed ID: 17897201 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Detection of campylobacter species: a comparison of culture and polymerase chain reaction based methods. Kulkarni SP; Lever S; Logan JM; Lawson AJ; Stanley J; Shafi MS J Clin Pathol; 2002 Oct; 55(10):749-53. PubMed ID: 12354800 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A survey of Campylobacter species shed in faeces of beef cattle using polymerase chain reaction. Inglis GD; Kalischuk LD; Busz HW Can J Microbiol; 2003 Nov; 49(11):655-61. PubMed ID: 14735214 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Occurrence and strain diversity of thermophilic campylobacters in cattle of different age groups in dairy herds. Nielsen EM Lett Appl Microbiol; 2002; 35(1):85-9. PubMed ID: 12081556 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The prevalence of campylobacters and arcobacters in broiler chickens. Atabay HI; Corry JE J Appl Microbiol; 1997 Nov; 83(5):619-26. PubMed ID: 9418023 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimising recovery of Campylobacter spp. from the lower porcine gastrointestinal tract. Madden RH; Moran L; Scates P J Microbiol Methods; 2000 Oct; 42(2):115-9. PubMed ID: 11018267 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison of a new campylobacter selective medium (CAT) with membrane filtration for the isolation of thermophilic campylobacters including Campylobacter upsaliensis. Aspinall ST; Wareing DR; Hayward PG; Hutchinson DN J Appl Bacteriol; 1996 Jun; 80(6):645-50. PubMed ID: 8698666 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Metagenomic analysis of isolation methods of a targeted microbe, Campylobacter jejuni, from chicken feces with high microbial contamination. Kim J; Guk JH; Mun SH; An JU; Song H; Kim J; Ryu S; Jeon B; Cho S Microbiome; 2019 Apr; 7(1):67. PubMed ID: 31027515 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]