Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:04:47.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biochemical and molecular characterization of Salmonella enterica serovar berta, and comparison of methods for typing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. E. Olsen ,
D. J. Brown ,
D. L. Baggesen  and
M. Bisgaard
J. E. Olsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg C., Denmark
D. J. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg C., Denmark
D. L. Baggesen
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg C., Denmark
M. Bisgaard
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg C., Denmark Department of Avian Diseases, National Veterinary Laboratory, Frederiksberg C., Denmark
*
*J. E. Olsen, Department of Veterinary Microbiology. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, 13 Bülowsvej, DK 1870 Frederiksberg C., Denmark.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Strains of Salmonella enterica serovar berta (S. berta) from Denmark and seven other countries have been characterized with the aim of developing a rational typing strategy in connection with outbreak investigations.

Biotyping divided the strains into H2S-positive (90%) and H2S-negative (10%) biovars. Six percent of the strains were resistant to one or more antimicrobial agents. Eighty-eight percent of the strains carried plasmids and 52 different plasmid profiles were recognized. Six of the common plasmid sizes in these profiles were shown by restriction enzyme analyses to contain more than one plasmid species. More than 90% of the strains had the same ribotype with the restriction enzymes Sma I and EcoR I and the same whole cell protein profile. Outer membrane protein profiles and isoenzyme profiles were identical in all S. berta analysed.

Plasmid profiling in combination with restriction enzyme analysis of plasmids seemed to be the most rational typing strategy for S. berta. The results indicated that S. berta strains regardless of geographical source or host are possibly clonal in nature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 108 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 243 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

References

REFERENCES

1.Hormaeche, E, Peluffo, CA, Salsamendi, R. Un Nuevo tipo del genero Salmonella: “S. berta”. Archivos Uruguayos de Medicina Cirugia & Especialidades 1938; XII: 377–87.Google Scholar
2.Krieg, NR, Holt, JG. Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology, Vol 1. Baltimore/London: Williams & Wilkings, 1984.Google Scholar
3.Cox, NA, Bailey, JS, Mauldin, JM, Blankenship, LC. Presence and impact of Salmonella contamination in commercial broiler production. Poult Sci 1990; 69: 1606–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cox, NA, Bailey, JS, Mauldin, JM, Blankenship, LC, Wilson, JL. Extent of Salmonella contamination in breeder hatcheries. Poult Sci 1990; 70: 416–8.Google Scholar
5.Sørensen, M, Brown, DJ, Bisgaard, M, Hansen, HC, Olsen, JE. Plasmid profiles of Salmonella enterica serovar berta isolated from broilers in Denmark. APMIS 1991; 99: 609–14.Google Scholar
6.Olsen, JE, Sørensen, M, Brown, DJ, Gaarslev, K, Bisgaard, M. Plasmid profiles as an epidemiological marker in Salmonella enterica serovar berta. Comparison of isolates obtained from humans and poultry. 1991. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Anon Annual NSSS report. Microbiological Diagnostic Unit. University of Melbourne, 1990. Issue No. 5.Google Scholar
8. Anon, Salmonella surveillance: Salmonella berta. Communicable Disease Report 1990/1939, p. 1 (with permission).Google Scholar
9.LeMinor, L. Typing of Salmonella species. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1988; 7: 214–8.Google Scholar
10.Threlfall, EJ, Frost, JA. The identification, typing and fingerprinting of Salmonella: laboratory aspects and epidimiological applications. J Appl Bact 1990; 88: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Maniatis, T, Fritsch, EF, Sambrook, J. Molecular cloning, a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor, USA. 1982: 440, 504.Google Scholar
12.Bisgaard, M. Characterization of atypical Actinobacillus lignieresi isolated from ducks with salpingitis and peritonitis. Nord Vet Med 1975; 27: 378–83.Google Scholar
13.Bisgaard, M. Isolation of Pateurella caballi from infected wound on a veterinary surgeon. APMIS 1991; 99: 291–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Casals, JB, Pringler, N. Antibiotic sensitivity testing using Neo-Sensitabs. Rosco Diagnostica, 1984, Taastrup, Denmark.Google Scholar
15.Kado, CI, Liu, ST. Rapid procedure for detection and isolation of large and small plasmids. J Bact 1981; 145: 1365–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Hintermann, G, Fischer, H-M, Crameri, R, Hütter, R. Simple procedure for distinguishing CCC, OC, and L forms of plasmid DNA by agarose gel electrophoresis. Plasmid 1981; 5: 371–3.Google Scholar
17.Macrina, FL, Kopecko, DJ, Jones, KR, Ayers, DJ, McCown, SM. A multiple plasmid-containing Escherichia coli strain: convenient source of size reference plasmid molecules. Plasmid 1978; 1: 417–20.Google Scholar
18.Threlfall, EJ, Rowe, B, Ferguson, JL, Ward, LR. Characterization of plasmids conferring resistance to gentamicin and apramycin in strains of Salmonella typhimurium phage type 204c isolated in Britain. J Hyg 1986; 97: 419–26.Google Scholar
19.Rochelle, PA, Fry, JC, Day, MJ, Bale, MJ. An accurate method for estimating sizes of small and large plasmids and DNA fragments by gel electrophoresis. J Gen Microbiol 1985; 132: 53–9.Google Scholar
20.Olsen, JE. An improved method for rapid isolation of plasmid DNA from wild-type Gram-negative bacteria for plasmid restriction profile analysis. Lett Appl Microbiol 1990; 10: 209–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Mekalanos, JJ. Duplication and amplification of toxin genes in Vibrio cholerae. Cell 1983; 35: 253–63.Google Scholar
22.Silhavy, TJ, Berman, ML, Enquist, LW. Experiments with gene fusions. Cold Spring Harbor, USA, 1984: 138–9.Google Scholar
23.McClelland, M, Hanish, J, Nelson, M, Patel, Y. KGB: a single buffer for all restriction endonucleases. Nucl Acids Res 1988; 16: 364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Saunders, NA, Harrison, TG, Kachwalla, N, Taylor, AG. Identification of species of the genus Legionella using a cloned rRNA gene from Legionella pneumophila. J Gen Microbiol 1988; 134: 2363–74.Google Scholar
25.Feinberg, AP, Vogelstein, B. A technique for radiolabeling DNA restriction endonuclease fragments to high specific activity. Anal Biochem 1983; 132: 6–13.Google Scholar
26.Costas, M, Holmes, B, Sloss, LL. Numerical analysis of electrophoretic protein patterns of Providencia rustigianii strains from human diarrhoea and other sources. J Appl Bact 1987; 63: 319–28.Google Scholar
27.Costas, M, Cookson, BD, Talsania, HG, Owen, RJ. Numerical analysis of electrophoretic protein patterns of methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 1989; 27: 2574–81.Google Scholar
28.Achtman, UM, Mercer, A, Kusecek, B et al. , Six widespread clones among Escherichia coli K1 isolates. Infect Immun. 1983; 39: 315–35.Google Scholar
29.Olsen, JE, Baggesen, DL, Nielsen, BB, Larsen, HE. The prevalence of plasmids in Danish bovine and human isolates of Salmonella dublin. APMIS 1990; 98: 735–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Ward, LR, de Sa, JDH, Rowe, B. A phage-typing scheme for Salmonella enteritidis. Epidemiol Infect 1987; 99: 291–4.Google Scholar
31.Shaw, CR, Prasad, R. Starch gel electrophoresis of enzymes – a compilation of recipes. Biochem Genet 1970; 4: 297–320.Google Scholar
32.Brunner, F, Margadant, A, Peduzzi, P, Piffaretti, JC. The plasmid pattern as an epidemiological tool for Salmonella typhimurium epidemics: comparison with the lysotype. J Infect Dis 1983; 148: 7–11.Google Scholar
33.Holmberg, SD, Wachsmuth, IK, Hickman-Brenner, FW, Cohen, ML. Comparison of plasmid profile analysis, phage typing and antimicrobial susceptibility testing in characterizing Salmonella typhimurium isolates from outbreaks. J Clin Microbiol 1984; 19: 100–4.Google Scholar
34.Platt, DJ, Brown, DJ, Old, DC, Barker, RM, Munro, DS, Taylor, J. Old and new techniques together resolve a problem of infection by Salmonella typhimurium. Epidemiol Infect 1987; 99: 137–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Barker, RM, Old, DC. The usefulness of biotyping in studying the epidemiology and phylogeny of salmonellae. J Med Microbiol 1989; 29: 81–8.Google Scholar
36.Kapperud, G, Lassen, J, Dommarsnes, K et al. , Comparison of epidemiological marker methods for identification of Salmonella typhimurium isolates from an outbreak caused by contaminated chocolate. J Clin Microbiol 1989; 27: 2019–24.Google Scholar
37.Le Minor, L, Popoff, MY. Designation of Salmonella enterica sp. nov., nom. rev., as the type and only species of the genus Salmonella. Int J Syst Bact 1987; 37: 465–8.Google Scholar
38.Le Minor, L, Véron, M, Popoff, M. Proposition pour une nomenclature des Salmonella. Ann Microbiol 1982; 133B: 245–54.Google Scholar
39.Cowen, ML, Tauxe, RV. Drug-resistant Salmonella in the United States: an epidemiologic perspective. Science 1986; 234: 964–9.Google Scholar
40.Ward, LR, Threlfall, EJ, Rowe, B. Multiple drug resistance in salmonellae in England and Wales: a comparison between 1981 and 1988. J Clin Pathol 1990; 43: 563–6.Google Scholar
41.Threlfall, EJ, Brown, DJ, Rowe, B, Ward, LR. Occurrence of S. typhimurium DT204c in poultry in England and Wales. Vet Rec 1990; 127: 234.Google Scholar
42.Shaberg, IR, Tompkins, LS, Falkow, S. Use of agarose gel electrophoresis of plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid to fingerprint Gram-negative bacteria. J Clin Microbiol 1981; 13: 1105–8.Google Scholar
43.Threlfall, EJ, Frost, JA, Ward, LR, Rowe, B. Plasmid profile typing can be used to subdivide phage-type 49 of Salmonella typhimurium in outbreak investigations. Epidemiol Infect 1990; 104: 243–51.Google Scholar
44.Sørum, H, Bøvre, K, Bukholm, G, Lassen, J, Olsvik, Ø. A unique plasmid profile characterizing Salmonella enteritidis from patients and employees in a hospital. APMIS 1990; 98: 25–9.Google Scholar
45.Hunter, PR. Reproducibility and indices of discriminatory power of microbial typing methods. J Clin Microbiol 1990; 28: 1903–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Thompson, R, Hughes, SG, Broda, P. Plasmid identification using specific endonucleases. Mol Gen Genet 1974; 133: 141–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Platt, DJ, Chesham, JS, Brown, DJ, Kraft, CA, Taggart, J. Restriction enzyme fingerprinting of enterobacterial plasmids: a simple strategy with wide application. J Hyg 1986; 97: 205–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Tompkins, LS, Troup, N, Labigne-Roussel, A, Cohen, ML. Cloned, random chromosomal sequences as probes to identify Salmonella species. J Infect Dis 1986; 154: 156–62.Google Scholar
49.Grimont, F, Grimont, PAD. Ribosomal ribonucleic acid gene restriction patterns as potential taxonomic tools. Ann Microbiol 1986; 137B: 165–75.Google Scholar
50.Altwegg, M, Hickman-Brenner, FW, Farmer-III, JJ. Ribosomal RNA gene restriction patterns provide increased sensitivity for typing Salmonella typhi strains. J Infect Dis 1989; 160: 145–49.Google Scholar
51.Nicolet, J, Paroz, P, Krawinkler, M. Polyacrylamide electrophoresis of whole-cell proteins of porcine strains of Haemophilus. Int J Syst Bact 1980; 30: 69–76.Google Scholar
52.Helmuth, R, Stephan, R, Bunge, C, Hoog, B, Steinbeck, A, Bulling, E. Epidemiology of virulence-associated plasmids and outer membrane protein patterns within seven common Salmonella serotypes. Infect Immun 1985; 48: 175–82.Google Scholar
53.McLellan, T. Molecular charge and electrophoretic mobility in certain myoglobins of known sequences. Biochem Genet 1984; 22: 181–200.Google Scholar
54.Selander, RK, Caugant, DA, Ochman, H, Musser, JM, Gilmore, MN, Whittam, TS. Methods of multilocus enzyme electrophoresis for bacterial population genetics and systematics. Appl Environ Microbiol 1986; 51: 873–84.Google Scholar
55.Beltran, P, Musser, JM, Helmuth, R et al. , Toward a population genetic analysis of Salmonella: genetic diversity and relationships among strains of serotypes S. choleraesuis, S. derby, S. dublin, S. enteritidis, S. heidelberg, S. infantis, S. newport, and S. typhimurium. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1988; 85: 7753–7.Google Scholar
56.Reeves, MW, Evins, GM, Heiba, AA, Plikaytis, BD, Farmer, JJ III. Clonal nature of Salmonella typhi and its genetic relatedness to other Salmonellae as shown by multilocus enzyme electrophoresis, and proposal of Salmonella bongori comb, nov. J Clin Microbiol 1989; 27: 313–20.Google Scholar
57.Anderson, ES, Ward, LR, de Saxe, MJ, de Sa, JDH. Bacteriophage typing designations of Salmonella typhimurium. J Hyg 1977; 78: 297–300.Google Scholar