Detection of Arcobacter butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus
in Clinical Samples of Humans and Foods of Animal Origin by Cultural and Multiplex
PCR Based Methods
Thadiyam Puram Ramees,
Ramswaroop Singh Rathore,
Prashanth Suresh Bagalkot,
Hosakote Venkatappa Mohan,
In recent years, the frequency of isolation and detection of Arcobacter
organisms from animals and humans with enteritis and food samples, highlights
the importance of arcobacters worldwide as emerging food-borne pathogens. Reports
are very scanty regarding prevalence of arcobacters from India. Therefore, the
present study aimed to know the prevalence of Arcobacter spp. (Arcobacter
butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus) in humans and foods of animal
origin by employing cultural and multiplex PCR (mPCR) methods. A total number
of 353 samples were collected from human hospitals, retail meat shops and milk
suppliers [human stools (102), chicken meat (151), milk (100)] from in and around
Bareilly region, Uttar Pradesh, India. By cultural method the overall prevalence
rate of Arcobacter spp. was found to be 10.20% (36/353) while it was
18.13% (64/353) with mPCR which revealed mPCR to be a more efficient technique
in detecting arcobacters. The highest prevalence rate was observed in chicken
meat, followed by human stool and milk samples with A. butzleri having
more prevalence. For simultaneous detection and differentiation of arcobacters
at species level the cultural methods possess limitations while mPCR gave rapid
and confirmatory detection of A. butzleri and A. cryaerophilus
species. The results of the study add to the epidemiological data available
for arcobacters. Extensive epidemiological studies employing the utility of
mPCR are suggested for knowing the magnitude of Arcobacter infection
animals, humans and various food sources in the country. This would help in
designing appropriate prevention and control strategies for this important pathogen
having public health concerns.
to cite this article:
Thadiyam Puram Ramees, Ramswaroop Singh Rathore, Prashanth Suresh Bagalkot, Hosakote Venkatappa Mohan, Ashok Kumar and Kuldeep Dhama, 2014. Detection of Arcobacter butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus
in Clinical Samples of Humans and Foods of Animal Origin by Cultural and Multiplex
PCR Based Methods. Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9: 243-252.
Received: December 23, 2013;
Accepted: January 28, 2014;
Published: April 19, 2014
Arcobacters have been implicated as emerging food-borne pathogens worldwide
having zoonotic importance and are associated with enteritis and bacteraemia
in animals and humans (Hsueh et al., 1997; Engberg
et al., 2000; Patyal et al., 2011;
Merga et al., 2013). The emerging era of antibiotic
resistance and one world one health issues have highlighted the importance of
checking important food-borne pathogens (Campylocbacter jejuni, Escherichia
coli, Listeria monocytogenes and Arcobacter spp.) and their
related zoonosis; hence proper attention is mandatory for their early diagnosis,
adopting appropriate prevention and control strategies so as to safeguard health
of animals and humans(Chakeri et al., 2012;
Dhama et al., 2013a, b;
Tiwari et al., 2013). The genus Arcobacter
was introduced in 1991 and belongs to the family Campylobacteraceae (Vandamme
and De Ley, 1991; Vandamme et al., 1991).
Arcobacters have been reported to be isolated and detected from variety of foods
like chicken meat, animal meat (pork, beef) and milk (Ridsdale
et al., 1998; Houf et al., 2002a; Kabeya
et al., 2004; Amare et al., 2011).
Arcobacter can grow aerobically and microaerobically and has the ability
to grow at 15°C which is the distinctive features that differentiates Arcobacter
species from Campylobacter species (Vandamme et
al., 1992; Atabay et al., 2006). In
view of cultural difficulty and misidentification, nucleic acid based methods
particularly the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and its versions are growingly
being considered highly useful for detection, identification and monitoring
of arcobacters in clinical samples of both animals and humans as well as foods
of animal origin (Snelling et al., 2006; Patyal
et al., 2011; Ferreira et al., 2013).
Both genus specific and species specific PCR have been developed for rapid,
specific and confirmatory identification of Arcobacter spp. In addition
to these, mPCR has been found to have wide practical applicability in detection
and differentiation of arcobacters at species level (Gonzalez
et al., 2000; Houf et al., 2000;
Ramees et al., 2014). mPCR enables detection of
more than two Arcobacter species simultaneously and serves as a useful
tool in screening of clinical samples and the food quality monitoring for arcobacters
(Vytrasova et al., 2003; Pentimalli
et al., 2009; Patyal et al., 2011).
Many reports are coming from worldwide countries regarding detection and prevalence
of arcobacters, however from India such report are scanty. Therefore, the present
study was designed with an aim to know the prevalence of Arcobacter spp.
(Arcobacter butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus) in clinical
cases of humans and foods of animal origin by utilizing both conventional cultural
and molecular tool of multiplex PCR (mPCR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample collection and processing: A total number of 353 samples were
collected from human hospitals (human stools, 102), retail meat shops (chicken
meat, 151) and milk suppliers, vendors and Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI) Dairy Farm (milk of cow, 100) from in and around Bareilly region of Uttar
Pradesh, India (Table 1).
The human stool samples (102) were collected from diarrhoeal cases of infants less than five years of age in swabs containing Cary-Blair transport (CBT) media without charcoal (HiMedia Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai). The samples were then transported in chilled conditions to the laboratory and kept in refrigerated conditions till processed. For processing, the stool samples were homogenized in phosphate buffer saline (PBS, pH 7.2) (1X) and then 1 mL of the faecal suspension was inoculated in to 9 mL Arcobacter enrichment broth in 1:9 ratio. Further incubation was performed for Arcobacter for enrichment at 30°C for 48 h under micro-aerophilic (5% O2, 10% CO2 and 85% N2) conditions. For processing of food samples, 10 g of chicken meat samples were aseptically minced with scissors and suspended in 90 mL of PBS (pH 7.2). The mixtures were homogenized with stomacher for 1 min at 200 rpm. A 1 mL of the suspension was inoculated into 10 mL of CAT broth and incubated at 30°C under microaerophilic condition for 48 h for enrichment purposes. The 1 mL of milk sample was centrifuged at 12,000 rpm for 15 min and the sediment was used for enrichment as followed for processed stool and meat samples.
Multiplex PCR detection of Arcobacter spp. in enriched samples: The whole cell DNA was extracted from all the 353 enriched samples (human stools, chicken meat and cow milk) by heat lysis (snap chill) method. Briefly, 1.5 mL of the broth culture was pelleted (8,000 rpm, 5 min) in a microcentrifuge tube and re-suspended in 100 μL of sterile triple distilled water. It was then kept in a boiling water bath for 15 min and immediately transferred onto ice. The bacteria lysate was centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 5 min and the supernatant was used as DNA template for mPCR assay. For storage and further use of the bacterial lysate, the supernatant were diluted with Tris Borate (TE) buffer (1:10 v/v) and stored at -20°C.
The optimized protocols of multiplex specific PCR (mPCR) for Arcobacter
spp. was attempted on the extracted DNAs of all the 353 samples. The detection
of Arcobacter spp. (A. butzleri and A. cryaerophilus) was
performed using primer sets BUTZ, ARCO, CRY-1 and CRY-2; which were designed
from 16S rRNA and 23S rRNA genes by Houf et al.
(2000) with slight modifications. Briefly, 50 μLreaction mixture was
composed of 5 μL of 10xPCR buffer; 2.5 U of Taq DNA polymerase;
0.2 mM of each deoxyribo nucleotide triphosphate (dNTPs); 2.5 mM MgCl2;
30 pmol of the primers ARCO butZ, CRY-1 and CRY-2; 5 μL heat lyses DNA
of the bacteria as template and the final volume was adjusted to 50 μL
with nuclease free water (NFW). The mPCR involved an initial denaturation at
94°C for 5 min, followed by 30 cycles of denaturation (94°C for 30 sec.),
primer annealing (51°C for 30 sec) and extension (72°C for 1.00 min)
and final extension at 72°C for 10 min. The mPCR products were subjected
to electrophoresis on 1.5% agarose gel and analyzed under UV trans-illuminator
(Gel-Doc System-UVP Gel Seq software).
Cultural isolation and identification of arcobacters: All the 353 enriched positive samples were filtered separately using 0.45 μm Pore Size Polyethersulfone (PES) syringe filter directly on to Arcobacter blood agar plates (7% blood) and incubated under aerobic conditions at 30°C for 48-72 h. Cultural plates showing characteristic translucent to whitish, 2-4 mm, round and convex bacterial colonies were selected as suspected Arcobacter spp. colonies and tested for motility using wet mount method and for typical morphology by Gram's staining. Those organisms which gave Gram's negative staining, showed spirally curved rod or short "S" shape morphology with rapid corkscrew-like motility and catalase and oxidase positive reaction (colonies taken from agar plates), were considered as suspected Arcobacter species. These were then streaked on Arcobacter blood agar plates with selective supplements for further biochemical testing and molecular studies.
Multiplex PCR detection of Arcobacter spp. from cultural colonies: The genomic DNA was extracted from all the Arcobacter positive colonies (n = 36) by the whole cell heat lysis (snap chill) method. Briefly, loopful (3-5 suspected colonies) of 48 h growth culture of the test organism was suspended in 150 μL of NFW in a 0.5 mL centrifuge tube. After mixing properly, the tubes were heated in 100°C water bath for 15 min and immediately placed on ice (-20°C). After 20 min, the bacterial lysate was centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 5 min and the supernatant was used as DNA template for mPCR assay. The DNA was also extracted from all the Arcobacter positive colonies by using Dneasy Blood and Tissue Kit (QIAGEN, USA) as per manufacturers protocol.
Multiplex PCR detection of Arcobacter spp. in enriched samples:
Out of 353 enriched samples, 64 (18.13%) showed positive results with multiplex
PCR and gave an amplification product of 401 bp and 257 bp sizes specific for
Arcobacter butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus, respectively.
Within different kind of samples, chicken meat revealed higher positivity of
32.45% (49/151), followed by human stool samples of 11.76% (12/102) and cow
milk of 3% (3/100) for presence of arcobacters (Table 1, Fig.
Cultural isolation and identification of arcobacters: Cultural isolation
of arcobacters showed 36 (10.20%) samples out of a total of 353 to have the
presence of Arcobacters.
||Multiplex PCR detection of Arcobacter butzleri and
Arcobacter cryaerophilus in chicken meat samples in agarose gel electrophoresis,
Lane M: Molecular weight marker, 100 bp, Lane 1, 2: Arcobacter butzleri
(401 bp), Lane 3, 4: Arcobacter cryaerophilus (257 bp), Lane
5, 6: Mixed infection of Arcobacter butzleri (401 bp) and Arcobacter
cryaerophilus (257 bp), Lane 7: Negative control
|| Comparison of conventional cultural and multiplex PCR methods
for detection of Arcobacter in clinical and food samples
Culturally Arcobacters were identified on basis of specific characteristics
viz., translucent to whitish, 2-4 mm, round, motile and convex bacterial colonies;
tested as Gram's negative, showing spirally curved rod or short "S" shape morphology,
rapid corkscrew-like motility, catalase and oxidase positive reactions. Within
different kind of samples, chicken meat revealed higher positivity of 21.85%
(33/151), followed by human stool samples of 1.96% (02/102) and cow milk of
1.0% (01/100) for presence of arcobacters (Table 1).
Multiplex PCR detection and differentiation of Arcobacters at species level: Using the multiplex-PCR assay, two different species of Arcobacter genus were detected in 64/353 (18.13%) samples found positive for Arcobacter DNA. The comparative detection of Arcobacter butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus species in broth (before cultural isolation) and colony (after cultural isolation) testing revealed are presented in Table 2. The 64 mPCR positive broth samples showed 33 to be having the presence of A. butzleri, 19 with A. cryaerophilus and 12 having mixed presence of both the spp. (A. butzleri and A. cryaerophilus. Out of a total of 36 arcobacters positive colonies, mPCR revealed 19 to be of A. butzleri, 11 o f A. cryaerophilus and 6 having mixed presence of both the spp. (A. butzleri and A. cryaerophilus). The mixed presence of the two Arcobacter spp. was particularly not observed in case of cow milk samples tested. Within different kind of samples, A. butzleri species was found to be having more prevalence as compared to A. cryaerophilus and with decreasing proportions in chicken meat, followed by human stool samples and cow milk; details of which are presented Table 2.
|| Comparative detection of Arcobacter species by multiplex
PCR from cultural broth and colonies
Arcobacters cause enteritis and bacteraemia in animals and humans, are emerging
food-borne pathogens and have public health concerns worldwide (Snelling
et al., 2006; De Smet et al., 2011;
Patyal et al., 2011; Merga
et al., 2013). These bacteria have been found to be associated with
causing mastitis in cattle, gastric ulcers in swine and reproductive disorders
in animal species (Logan et al., 1982; Suarez
et al., 1997; On et al., 2002). Arcobacters
have been especially detected/recovered more from chicken and chicken products
(De Boer et al., 1996; Rivas
et al., 2004; Son et al., 2006).
Only very scarce reports are available regarding occurrence and prevalence of
arcobacters in animals, humans and/or food sources from India (Kownhar
et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2010;
Patyal et al., 2011). In view of this context,
the present study reports the prevalence of two Arcobacter spp. (A.
butzleri and A. cryaerophilus) in humans with diarrhea and foods
of animal origin employing conventional cultural as wells as molecular technique
of multiplex PCR (mPCR).
In the present study, multiplex PCR screening of the 353 samples including
of human stools, chicken meat and cow milk obtained from in and around Bareilly
region of Uttar Pradesh, India revealed an overall prevalence rate of 18.13%.
The chicken meat showed higher prevalence rate (32.45%) for arcobacters followed
by human stools (11.76%) and cow milk (3%). Several species of arcobacters have
been isolated, identified and detected from animals (cattle, pig, fish) and
humans (particularly faeces/stool samples) and from foods of various origin
viz., chicken meat, animal meat (pork, beef), fish and sea foods, milk and others
as detected by different isolation methods and molecular techniques (Houf
et al., 2002b; Van Driessche et al., 2003;
Patyal et al., 2011).
Compared to the present study, earlier studies regarding screening of chicken
meat by mPCR reported a low prevalence rate of 24% in Netherlands (De
Boer et al., 1996) and 23% in Japan in retail chicken meat (Kabeya
et al., 2004). A higher prevalence rate of 73% in chicken has been
reported from Australia (Rivas et al., 2004).
Arcobacter spp have also been reported to be common contaminants of retail
raw meats (62% in poultry meat, 35% in pork) in Northern Ireland (Scullion
et al., 2006). Even up to 85.7% prevalence of Arcobacter spp
has been reported in retail chicken meat by Pentimalli
et al. (2009). In another study, sea food (clams) revealed 100%,
chicken (64.3%), pork (53.0%) and mussels (41.1%) prevalence of arcobacters
(Collado et al., 2009). In poultry abattoirs,
A. butzleri has been commonly found and thus poultry carcasses may be contaminated
while processing (Houf et al., 2003; Gude
et al., 2005; Son et al., 2007). The slaughterhouse
environment, including of equipments and water used while processing, might
serve as an important source of Arcobacter contamination of animal carcasses
(Atabay and Corry, 1997; Gude et
al., 2005; Van Driessche and Houf, 2007). Recently,
PCR screening showed an overall prevalence of Arcobacter spp. as 12%
in chicken meat and 4.0% in human stools from India (Patyal
et al., 2011). More recently, Arcobacters have been reported
to be present in skin with a prevalence rate of 22.88% (35/153) (Ramees
et al., 2014). Hence, proper biosecurity, sanitary, hygienic, disinfection
and biosafety practices need to be followed so as to reduce the chances of food-borne
zoononic infections including of arcobacters.
The samples of cow milk as tested in the present study revealed the least percentage
of only 3% (3/100) to be positive for arcobacters by mPCR. In earlier studies,
5.8% prevalence of Arcobacter species was reported from cow milk; with
A. butzleri as the dominant species (60%), followed by A. cryaerophilus
(40%) from Malaysia (Shah et al., 2012). A 6%
positivity of Arcobacter has been documented from raw milk sample in
Turkey (Ertas et al., 2010).
The human stool samples revealed the presence of arcobacters in 12 out of 102
samples (11.76% prevalence rate) by mPCR; these samples were collected from
diarrhoeal cases of infants less than five years. In earlier studies, 1.4% positivity
of Arcobacter has been documented from human stool samples in Belgium
(Houf and Stephan, 2007); 8% to be associated with travelers
diarrhea in persons from Mexico and India (Jiang et
al., 2010) and 10% from India recently (Bagalakote
et al., 2013).
In the present study, cultural isolation and identification of arcobacters
showed 10.20% prevalence rate. A total number of 36 colonies were identified
as Arcobacter isolates based on the specific characteristics and properties
of the bacterium, as has been documented like Gram's negative staining, rapid
corkscrew-like motility, spirally curved rods ("S" shape) and biochemical reactions
(catalase and oxidase positive) (Snelling et al.,
2006; Engberg et al., 2000; Patyal
et al., 2011). Highest recovery/isolation rates of 21.85% (33/151)
for arcobacters were observed with chicken meat while human stool samples revealed
only 1.96% (02/102) and the cow milk the least of 1.0% (01/100). Recently, Patyal
et al. (2011) reported isolation of 63 Arcobacter spp. out
of 600 samples (10.50%) inclusive of pig faeces, sea foods, poultry faeces,
pork, chicken meat and human stools. On account of a lack of full proof standardized
methodology, membrane filtration onto blood agar plate was used in the present
study for isolation and recovery of arcobacters from different kind of samples
which is considered as reliable isolation method (Gonzalez
et al., 2000; Patyal et al., 2011).
The conventional cultural isolation methods require several (5-6) days to obtain
confirmatory results and are also laborious and tedious to perform, have limitations
and difficulties. Therefore, in the present study, molecular technique of multiplex
PCR was used as an important tool for rapid detection, confirmation and characterization
of Arcobacter spp. from various types of samples. PCR and its various
versions (nested PCR, multiplex PCR, real time PCR and others) have high utility
for raid and confirmatory detection and screening of arcobacters in clinical
samples and foods of animal origin (Snelling et al.,
2006; Patyal et al., 2011; Ferreira
et al., 2013). In the present study, mPCR was found to be useful
in rapid screening of all the 353 samples for the confirmatory presence of arcobacters.
mPCR was found more efficient with over all detection level of 18.13%, highly
specific, sensitive and time saving for detection and confirmation of Arcobacter
spp. as compared to conventional cultural methods which revealed over all
detection level only 10.20% and which were also more time consuming and laborious.
Many workers have demonstrated and supported the superior efficacy of mPCR in
rapidly detecting the Arcobacter spp. as compared to conventional cultural
and biochemical identification methods needing at least 96 h, whereas PCR requires
only few hours (Gonzalez et al., 2000; Vytrasova
et al., 2003; Bagalakote et al., 2013).
Apart from screening of the samples in the present study, mPCR also differentiated
arcobacters at species level, revealing the presence of two species (Arcobacter
butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus). Multiplex PCR testing revealed
specific amplicons of 401 and 257 bp sizes for A. butzleri and A.
cryaerophilus, respectively which is in accordance to (Houf
et al., 2000). mPCR analysis revealed that 33 out of 64 positive
broth samples were having the presence of A. butzleri while only 19 were
A. cryaerophilus and 12 were having both the species (A. butzleri
and A. cryaerophilus). mPCR testing of the 36 cultural isolates/colonies
revealed A. butzleri in 19, A. cryaerophilus in 11 mixed presence
of both the spp. (A. butzleri and A. cryaerophilus) in 6 Arcobacter
isolates. Particularly, the mixed presence of A. butzleri and A. cryaerophilus
was not found in cow milk samples compared to stool and meat samples examined.
Overall sample analysis revealed that A. butzleri species showed more
prevalence when compared to A. cryaerophilus with a decreasing trend
observed in chicken meat, followed by stool samples of humans and milk of cow.
mPCR has been employed by several workers to detect and differentiate more than
two Arcobacter species simultaneously and is a potent tool for testing
clinical samples as well as food samples (food safety monitoring) for arcobacters
(Amare et al., 2011). Utilizing mPCR, 03 different
Arcobacter species have been detected (A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus
and A. skirrowii) from human stool samples and foods of animal origin
with mixed infections being more predominant (Patyal et
The rationale for differences in detection and isolation/recovery rates of
Arcobacter spp. from different animals, humans and various kinds of samples
as reported in several studies might be due to various factors. These include
multiple factors including of geographic region, seasonal variations, hygienic/sanitary
conditions of production and processing of animal meat and its products; variations
in sample size, differences in sensitivity and specificity of isolation and
detection methods employed (Collins et al., 1996;
Gonzalez et al., 2000; Atabay
et al., 2003; Patyal et al., 2011).
These reasons might have attributed for the differences in prevalence rates
observed in the present study as compared to the earlier ones.
The study reports the detection and prevalence of Arcobacter spp. (A. butzleri and A. cryaerophilus) from humans and foods (chicken meat, milk) of animal origin employing traditional cultural isolation/identification and molecular test of multiplex PCR. With mPCR a higher prevalence rate of 18.13% was recorded as compared to 10.20% with cultural methods; the mPCR test results were rapid and less laborious and enabled differentiation of arcobacters at species level. Altogether, these finding supports that mPCR is a highly sensitive, specific and superior test for screening of various kinds of samples for arcobacters. Since reports on arcobacters from India are very few/scanty, therefore the results of the present prevalence study adds to the data available for this important animal pathogen having zoonotic concerns and supports the significance of arcobacters as emerging food-borne pathogens. Further explorative studies are suggested regarding detailed epidemiological surveys in animals and various food sources, experimental pathogenicity and molecular characterization of the Indian isolates of arcobacters, antibiogram patterns and revealing the zoonotic aspects associated.
Amare, L.B., A.A. Saleha, Z. Zunita, A. Jalila and L. Hassan, 2011.
Prevalence of Arcobacter
spp. on chicken meat at retail markets and in farm chickens in Selangor, Malaysia. Food Control, 22: 732-736.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Atabay, H.I. and J.E.L. Corry, 1997.
The prevalence of campylobacters and arcobacters in broiler chickens. J. Applied Microbiol., 83: 619-626.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Atabay, H.I., F. Aydin, K. Houf, M. Sahin and P. Vandamme, 2003.
The prevalence of Arcobacter
spp. on chicken carcasses sold in retail markets in Turkey and identification of the isolates using SDS-PAGE. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 81: 21-28.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Atabay, H.I., M. Waino and M. Madsen, 2006.
Detection and diversity of various Arcobacter
species in Danish poultry. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 109: 139-145.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Bagalakote, P.S., R.S. Rathore, T.P. Ramees, H.V. Mohan and M. Sumankumar et al
Study on prevalence of Arcobacter
spp. in human and foods of animal origin. J. Vet. Public Health, 11: 105-109.
Chakeri, A., M.S.H. Foroushani, Z.Torki, E. Rahimi and A.G. Ebadi, 2012.
Antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter
species isolated from fecal samples from cats and dogs in Iran. J. Pure Applied Microbiol., 6: 1823-1827.
Collado, L., J. Guarro and M.J. Figueras, 2009.
Prevalence of Arcobacter
in meat and shellfish. J. Food Prot., 72: 1102-1106.Direct Link |
Collins, C.I., I.V. Wesley and E.A. Murano, 1996.
Detection of Arcobacter
spp. in ground pork by modified plating methods. J. Food Prot., 59: 448-452.Direct Link |
De Boer, E., J.J.H.C. Tilburg, D.L. Woodward, H. Lior and W.M. Johnson, 1996.
A selective medium for the isolation of Arcobacter
from meats. Lett. Applied Microbiol., 23: 64-66.CrossRef |
De Smet, S., L. De Zutter and K. Houf, 2011.
Small ruminants as carriers of the emerging foodborne pathogen Arcobacter
on small and medium farms. Small Rumin. Res., 97: 124-129.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Dhama, K., S. Rajagunalan, S. Chakraborty, A.K. Verma, A. Kumar, R. Tiwari and S. Kapoor, 2013.
Food-borne pathogens of animal origin-diagnosis, prevention, control and their zoonotic significance: A review. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 16: 1076-1085.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Dhama, K., S. Chakraborty, S. Kapoor, R. Tiwari and A. Kumar et al
One world, one health-veterinary perspectives. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci., 1: 5-13.Direct Link |
Engberg, J., S.L. On, C.S. Harrington and P. Gerner-Smidt, 2000.
Prevalence of Campylobacter
spp. in human fecal samples as estimated by a reevaluation of isolation methods for Campylobacters. J. Clin. Microbiol., 38: 286-291.Direct Link |
Ertas, N., Y. Dogruer, Z. Gonulalan, A. Guner and I. Ulger, 2010.
Prevalence of Arcobacter
species in drinking water, spring water and raw milk as determined by multiplex PCR. J. Food Prot., 73: 2099-2102.PubMed | Direct Link |
Ferreira, S., M.J. Fraqueza, J.A. Queiroz, F.C. Domingues and M. Oleastro, 2013.
Genetic diversity, antibiotic resistance and biofilm-forming ability of Arcobacter butzleri
isolated from poultry and environment from a Portuguese slaughterhouse. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 162: 82-88.CrossRef |
Gonzalez, I., T. Garcia, A. Antolin, P.E. Hernandez and R. Martin, 2000.
Development of a combined PCR-culture technique for the rapid detection of Arcobacter
spp. in chicken meat. Lett. Applied Microbiol., 30: 207-212.CrossRef |
Gude, A., T.J. Hillman, C.R. Helps, V.M. Allen and J.E.L. Corry, 2005.
Ecology of Arcobacter
species in chicken rearing and processing. Lett. Applied Microbiol., 41: 82-87.CrossRef |
Houf, K., L. De Zutter, J. Van Hoof and P. Vandamme, 2002.
Occurrence and distribution of Arcobacter
species in poultry processing. J. Food Prot., 65: 1233-1239.PubMed | Direct Link |
Houf, K., L. De Zutter, J. Van Hoof and P. Vandamme, 2002.
Assessment of the genetic diversity among arcobacters isolated from poultry products by using two PCR-based typing methods. Applied Environ. Microbiol., 68: 2172-2178.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Houf, K., L. De Zutter, B. Verbeke, J. Van Hoof and P. Vandamme, 2003.
Molecular characterization of Arcobacter
isolates collected in a poultry slaughterhouse. J. Food Prot., 66: 364-369.PubMed | Direct Link |
Houf, K., A. Tutenel, L. De Zutter, J. Van Hoof and P. Vandamme, 2000.
Development of a multiplex PCR assay for the simultaneous detection and identification of Arcobacter butzleri
, Arcobacter cryaerophilus
and Arcobacter skirrowii
. FEMS Microbiol. Lett., 193: 89-94.CrossRef |
Houf, K. and R. Stephan, 2007.
Isolation and characterization of the emerging foodborn pathogen Arcobacter
from human stool. J. Microbiol. Methods, 68: 408-413.CrossRef | PubMed |
Hsueh, P.R., L.J. Teng, P.C. Yang, S.K. Wang and S.C. Chang et al
Bacteremia caused by Arcobacter cryaerophilus
1B. J. Clin. Microbiol., 35: 489-491.Direct Link |
Jiang, Z.D., H.L. DuPont, E.L. Brown, R.K. Nandy and T. Ramamurthy et al
Microbial etiology of travelers' diarrhea in Mexico, Guatemala and India: Importance of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis
species. J. Clin. Microbiol., 48: 1417-1419.CrossRef |
Kabeya, H., S. Maruyama, Y. Morita, T. Ohsuga and S. Ozawa et al
Prevalence of Arcobacter
species in retail meats and antimicrobial susceptibility of the isolates in Japan. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 90: 303-308.CrossRef |
Kownhar, H., E.M. Shankar, R. Rajan, A. Vengatesan, U.A. Rao, 2007.
Prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni
and enteric bacterial pathogens among hospitalized HIV infected versus non-HIV infected patients with diarrhoea in Southern India. Scand. J. Infect. Dis., 39: 862-866.CrossRef | PubMed |
Logan, E.F., S.D. Neill and D.P. Mackie, 1982.
Mastitis in dairy cows associated with an aerotolerant Campylobacter
. Vet. Res., 110: 229-230.PubMed |
Merga, J.Y., N.J. Williams, W.G. Miller, A.J. Leatherbarrow and M. Bennett et al
Exploring the diversity of Arcobacter butzleri
from cattle in the UK using MLST and whole genome sequencing. PLoS ONE, Vol. 8.CrossRef | Direct Link |
On, S.L., T.K. Jensen, V. Bille-Hansen, S.E. Jorsal and P. Vandamme, 2002.
Prevalence and diversity of Arcobacter
spp. isolated from the internal organs of spontaneous porcine abortions in Denmark. Vet. Microbiol., 85: 159-167.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Patyal, A., R.S. Rathore, H.V. Mohan, K. Dhama and A. Kumar, 2011.
Prevalence of Arcobacter
spp. in humans, animals and foods of animal origin including sea food from India. Transboundary Emerg. Dis., 58: 402-410.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Pentimalli, D., N. Pegels, T. Garcia, R. Martin and I. Gonzalez, 2009.
Specific PCR detection of Arcobacter butzleri
, Arcobacter cryaerophilus
, Arcobacter skirrowii
and Arcobacter cibarius
in chicken meat. J. Food Prot., 72: 1491-1495.PubMed | Direct Link |
Ridsdale, J.A., H.I. Atabay and J.E.L. Corry, 1998.
Prevalence of campylobacters and arcobacters in ducks at the abattoir. J. Applied Microbiol., 85: 567-573.CrossRef |
Rivas, L., N. Fegan and P. Vanderlinde, 2004.
Isolation and characterisation of Arcobacter butzleri
from meat. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 91: 31-41.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Scullion, R., C.S. Harrington and A.H. Madden, 2006.
Prevalence of Arcobacter
spp. in raw milk and retail raw meats in Northern Ireland. J. Food Prot., 69: 1986-1990.PubMed | Direct Link |
Snelling, W.J., M. Matsuda, J.E. Moore and J.S.G. Dooley, 2006.
Under the microscope: Arcobacter
. Lett. Applied Microbiol., 42: 7-14.CrossRef |
Shah, A.H., A.A. Saleha, M. Murugaiyah, Z. Zunita and A.A. Memon, 2012.
Prevalence and distribution of Arcobacter
spp. in raw milk and retail raw beef. J. Food Prot., 75: 1474-1478.PubMed | Direct Link |
Son, I., M.D. Englen, M.E. Berrang, P.J. Fedorka-Cray and M.A. Harrison, 2007.
Prevalence of Arcobacter
on broiler carcasses during processing. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 113: 16-22.CrossRef |
Son, I., M.D. Englen, M.E. Berrang, P.J. Fedorka-Cray and M.A. Harrison, 2006.
Genetic diversity of Arcobacter
on broiler carcasses during processing. J. Food Prot., 69: 1028-1033.PubMed | Direct Link |
Suarez, D.L., I.V. Wesley and D.J. Larson, 1997.
Detection of Arcobacter
species in gastric samples from swine. Vet. Microbiol., 57: 325-336.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Tiwari, R., S. Chakraborty, K. Dhama, S. Rajagunalan and S.V. Singh, 2013.
Antibiotic resistance-an emerging health problem: Causes, worries, challenges and solutions: A review. Int. J. Curr. Res., 5: 1880-1892.Direct Link |
Van Driessche, E., K. Houf, J. Van Hoof, L. De Zutter and P. Vandamme, 2003.
Isolation of Arcobacter
species from animal feces. FEMS Microbiol. Lett., 229: 243-248.CrossRef |
Vandamme, P. and J. De Ley, 1991.
Proposal for a new family, Campylobacteraceae
. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol., 41: 451-455.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Vandamme, P., E. Falsen, R. Rossau, B. Hoste, P. Segers, R. Tytgat and J. De Ley, 1991.
Revision of Campylobacter
taxonomy: Emendation of generic descriptions and proposal of Arcobacter
gen. nov. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol., 41: 88-103.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Vandamme, P., P. Pugina, G. Benzi, R. Van Etterijck and L. Vlaes et al
Outbreak of recurrent abdominal cramps associated with Arcobacter butzleri
in an Italian school. J. Clin. Microbiol., 30: 2335-2337.Direct Link |
Van Driessche, E. and K. Houf, 2007.
Characterization of the Arcobacter
contamination on Belgian pork carcasses and raw retail pork. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 118: 20-26.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Vytrasova, J., M. Pejchalova, K. Harsova and S. Binova, 2003.
Isolation of Arcobacter butzleri
and A. cryaerophilus
in samples of meats and from meat-processing plants by a culture technique and detection by PCR. Folia Microbiol., 48: 227-232.CrossRef |
Ramees, T.P., R.S. Rathore, P.S. Bagalkot, H.V. Mohan, A. Kumar and K. Dhama, 2014.
Multiplex PCR detection of Arcobacter butzleri
and Arcobacter cryaerophilus
in skin of poultry. J. Pure Applied Microbiol., 8: 1755-1758.Direct Link |