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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Genotyping and antimicrobial resistance profiles of chicken originated Salmonella Enteritidis isolates.
    Author: İnce SS, Müştak HK.
    Journal: Braz J Microbiol; 2023 Mar; 54(1):499-507. PubMed ID: 36752945.
    Abstract:
    Salmonellosis is a common foodborne zoonosis worldwide. The most common Salmonella serovar in humans is Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Enteritidis (50.3%) in the world. The main transmission route for S. Enteritidis is consumption of contaminated poultry products. Therefore, it is important to determine the diversity and spread of chicken-originated S. Enteritidis isolates in order to monitor and control salmonellosis. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and multiple locus variable number of tandem repeats analysis (MLVA) are frequently used for typing of S. Enteritidis isolates. This study aimed to determine the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles and MLVA and PFGE genotypes of chicken-originated S. Enteritidis isolates. A total of 200 S. Enteritidis isolated from chicken broiler, layer, and breeder flocks from different locations in Turkey were investigated by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method, PFGE, and MLVA. The AMR test indicated that 57% of the S. Enteritidis isolates were susceptible to all antimicrobials, while 39% were resistant to at least one antimicrobial. The highest resistance (25%) was against ampicillin. Multi-drug resistance rate was low (21%) and mostly from broiler flocks (93%). All isolates were genotyped into 32 different PFGE genotypes (PT) and 34 different MLVA genotypes (MT). The dominant genotypes were PT6 (12.5%) and MT22 (50%). In specific sample groups, there was a correlation between genotypes, breeding type, geographic location, and isolation years of the isolates. There was no significant difference in the discrimination power of PFGE and MLVA. However, MLVA was more suitable for large sample groups and routine genotyping because it was easier, quicker, and less labor-intensive to use.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]