Listeria monocytogenes is among the most important foodborne bacterial pathogens due to the high mortality rate and severity of the infection. L. monocytogenes is a ubiquitous organism occasionally present in the intestinal tract of various animal species and faecal shedding by asymptomatically infected livestock poses a risk for contamination of farm environments and raw food at the pre-harvest stages. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and strain diversity of L. monocytogenes in healthy ruminants and swine herds.
Results
Faecal samples from 30 animals per herd were collected from 343 herds (120 sheep, 124 beef cattle, 82 dairy cattle and 17 swine) in the Basque Country and screened in pools by an automated enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay (VIDAS®) to estimate the prevalence of positive herds. Positive samples were subcultured onto the selective and differential agar ALOA and biochemically confirmed. L. monocytogenes was isolated from 46.3% of dairy cattle, 30.6% beef cattle and 14.2% sheep herds, but not from swine. Within-herd prevalence investigated by individually analysing 197 sheep and 221 cattle detected 1.5% of faecal shedders in sheep and 21.3% in cattle. Serotyping of 114 isolates identified complex 4b as the most prevalent (84.2%), followed by 1/2a (13.2%), and PFGE analysis of 68 isolates showed a highly diverse L. monocytogenes population in ruminant herds.
Conclusion
These results suggested that cattle represent a potentially important reservoir for L. monocytogenes in the Basque Country, and highlighted the complexity of pathogen control at the farm level.
Background
Listeria monocytogenes is a ubiquitous organism that is occasionally present in the intestinal tract of various animal species and can cause severe illness in humans after the ingestion of contaminated food products. Although the annual incidence of human listeriosis is quite low in the Basque Country (1.0 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2006) compared to salmonellosis (77.2 cases) or campylobacteriosis (114.5 cases) [1], L. monocytogenes is among the most important foodborne bacterial pathogens due to the high mortality rate (20–30% mortality) and severity of the disease particularly among pregnant women, neonates and immunosuppressed adults. In addition, L. monocytogenes febrile gastroenteritis can also affect healthy people, though many of these cases most probably go unreported.
Adult swine can be infected by L. monocytogenes but rarely develop disease [2] and the bacterium is not commonly isolated from swine faeces [3–5]. However, pork meat products have been linked to human infection [6, 7] and contamination of the slaughter and processing environment has been traced back to healthy carrier pigs [8]. In ruminants, L. monocytogenes can cause neurological disease and abortion, but in general, animals infected are asymptomatic carriers that shed the bacterium in their faeces [2]. Faecal contamination of the farm environment favours animal re-infection and persistence of the pathogen in the production units [9]. In addition, the widespread distribution of L. monocytogenes in nature and soil environments is favoured by its ability to grow in a wide range of temperature and pH [10]. This is particularly important in silage production since in many cases the pH reached in the fermentation process is not low enough to prevent growth of L. monocytogenes [11]. Therefore, ruminants fed on silage are at higher risk of getting L. monocytogenes infection [12].
Hence, animal production units may represent a reservoir for L. monocytogenes and source for human infection via faecal contamination of food products since certain L. monocytogenes types carried by farm animals have been associated with human infections [13, 14]. Though eradication from the farm is highly unlikely due to the ability of L. monocytogenes to survive and multiply in many habitats and hosts, transmission and contamination load could probably be reduced through the implementation of adequate intervention strategies. In this context, this study was aimed at determining the prevalence and strain diversity of L. monocytogenes in healthy ruminants and swine herds, as a first step before establishing efficient farm-based control measures.
Results
Herd and within-herd prevalence
L. monocytogenes was isolated from 93 of the 343 herds included in the study (Table 1). L. monocytogenes was absent from all 17 porcine herds analysed, but present in cattle (30.6% of beef cattle and 46.3% of dairy cattle herds) and sheep (14.2%). L. monocytogenes herd prevalence was significantly (p = 10-5) higher in cattle than sheep. Among cattle, L. monocytogenes was significantly (p = 0.0165) more prevalent in dairy than in beef cattle herds (Table 1). In two of the four farms where both sheep and cattle herds were sampled no infection was detected, in the third one L. monocytogenes was isolated from cattle but not from sheep, and in another both herds were positive and selected for the Within-herd prevalence study (Herds AS and AC in Table 2). Positivity was scattered throughout the different regions and no clear geographical pattern was observed. No correlation was found between herd and animal census and L. monocytogenes prevalence by province or county (p > 0.05). However, in the county with the largest census prevalence values were always above the mean.
Table 1
Herd prevalence values by animal source
Animal source
Herds analysed
Positive Herds
N
% (CI)
Sheep
120
17
14.2
(8.6–19.8)
Beef Cattle
124
38
30.6
(22.8–38.4)
Dairy Cattle
82
38
46.3
(36.0–56.6)
Swine
17
0
0.0
TOTAL
343
93
27.1
(22.7–31.5)
CI, 95% confidence intervals on the mean prevalence.
Table 2
Prevalence and typing results of the Within-herd prevalence study
Herdsa
Countyb
n animals analysed
n (%) positive animals
Serotypec
PFGE typed
Sheep (AS)
1
49
1 (2.0)
4b
LA-04
Sheep (B)
17
48
2 (4.1)
4b
LA-02; LA-24
Sheep (C)
7
50
0 (0.0)
n.a.
n.a.
Sheep (D)
1
50
0 (0.0)
n.a.
n.a.
TOTAL Sheep
197
3 (1.5)
Dairy cattle (AC)
1
46
5 (10.9)
4b (4); 1/2a
LA-08; LA-33; LA-34; LA-35; LA-36
Dairy cattle (E)
3
47
34 (72.3)
4b
LA-07; LA-28; LA-29; LA-30
Dairy cattle (F)
18
50
3 (6.0)
4b (2); 1/2a
LA-05; LA-31; LA-32
Dairy cattle (G)
1
39
2 (5.1)
4b
LA-03; LA-46
TOTAL Dairy Cattle
182
44 (24.1)
Beef cattle (H)
1
39
3 (7.7)
4b
n.d.
TOTAL
418
50 (11.9)
a Herds were designated A-H; herds AS and AC correspond to a sheep and a cattle herd, respectively, that share the same farm premises
b See Fig. 3 for geographical location of counties
c One isolate per positive animal was serotyped, except for herd E for which only 5 isolates were available for serotyping
d PFGE patterns as shown in Fig. 1 n.a., not applicable;
n.d., not done
A total of 418 animals from 9 herds (4 sheep, 4 dairy cattle and 1 beef cattle) were individually analysed for L. monocytogenes faecal shedding. Within-herd prevalence for L. monocytogenes was higher in dairy cattle (24.1%) than in beef cattle (7.7%) or sheep (1.5%) (Table 2). This difference was also seen in the farm with infected sheep (AS: 2.0% shedders) and dairy cattle (AC: 10.9%) (Table 2). However, the proportion of shedders varied considerably among herds, especially among dairy cattle (5.1 – 72.3%). Differences were smaller among ovine herds, but in two of them no positive animals where detected. No significant seasonal variation in herd prevalence was observed (p < 0.05).
Distribution and characterisation of Listeria monocytogenesisolates
A total of 114 L. monocytogenes isolates were serotyped (Table 3), including one isolate from each positive pool (93 isolates from the Herd prevalence study) and 21 isolates from the Within-herd prevalence study (1–5 isolates per herd from 7 herds, see Table 2). Most of the isolates (84.2%, 96 isolates from 76 herds) were identified as serotype 4b complex. The remaining were serotype 1/2a (13.2%, 15 isolates from 15 herds), 1/2b (1.7%, 2 isolates from 2 herds), and 4c (1 isolate, 0.9%). Serotypes 4b complex and 1/2a were found in sheep and cattle, whereas serotype 1/2b isolates were found in dairy cattle and the 4c isolate in beef cattle. In 2 dairy cattle herds, different serotypes (4b complex and 1/2a) were identified. No association was found between sampling season and serotype.
Table 3
Serotype distribution of isolates by animal source
Animal source
Serotype
Total
1/2a
1/2b
4b complexa
4c
Sheep
4
-
16
-
20
Beef Cattle
4
-
37
1
42
Dairy Cattle
7
2
43
-
52
TOTAL
15 (13.2%)
2 (1.8%)
96 (84.2%)
1 (0.9%)
114
a serotype 4b and the closely related, albeit rarely encountered serotype 4d and 4e
ApaI PFGE analysis performed on 68 isolates (24 from sheep and 44 from cattle) generated 40 patterns; 28 of them were unique patterns represented by single isolates only, and the remaining 12 included 2–8 isolates. Six patterns where shared by isolates obtained from sheep and cattle. However, isolates obtained from the sheep and cattle herd sharing the same farm premises (herds AS and AC) were clearly different according to their PFGE types (Table 2, Fig. 1). Serotype 1/2a isolates formed a separated cluster from the 4b complex isolates at similarity levels below 40% (Fig. 2). Diversity was high among 1/2a isolates (8 isolates, 8 patterns below 75% similarity), whereas for 4b isolates, 7 PFGE clusters (each containing 2–6 patterns) were observed at the 90% similarity level. Two of these clusters were represented by 14 and 15 isolates each, isolated from both sheep and cattle. The most prevalent pattern (LA-01, see Fig. 2) was isolated from a sheep herd, 2 beef cattle herds and 2 dairy cattle herds. Another pattern found in the three production systems was LA-08 (Fig. 2). The analysis of 24 ovine isolates from 16 herds generated 19 patterns, whereas in cattle 27 patterns were identified among the 44 isolates obtained from 24 herds. Most of the ruminant isolates analysed by PFGE had been isolated from faecal pools from different herds. However, in 6 herds several isolates originating from individual faecal samples were analysed and in 5 of them nearly all isolates (2–5 isolates/herd) had different patterns (Fig. 1, Table 2), demonstrating that several strains coexisted in the herds. Also interesting was to identify the same pattern in two dairy cattle herds (pattern LA-07 in Herds E & F, Fig. 1) located 63 km apart.
Figure 1
Dendrogram (UPGMA) of theApaI PFGE patterns ofL. monocytogenesisolates from 6 different herds (A-G as in Table 2). The isolates have been coded according to sample type of origin: P, pool of faeces; I, individual faecal sample.
Figure 2
Dendrogram (UPGMA) of all the differentL. monocytogenes ApaI PFGE patterns. Sources were coded as follows: S, sheep; DC, dairy cattle; BC, beef cattle.
Discussion
This is the first study carried out in farms from the Basque Country to determine the prevalence of L. monocytogenes in healthy animals. Comparison of prevalence results among different studies can be influenced by variation in sampling strategies and season, and differences in detection methods used. In addition, most data on L. monocytogenes in ruminants are obtained from cases of clinical listeriosis. Although day-to-day variation in L. monocytogenes faecal shedding in dairy cattle has been demonstrated [14], single day sampling can provide an initial snap-shot image of the general situation with regard to the prevalence of L. monocytogenes in healthy herds in a region where no such data are available. In this manner, the proportion of faecal shedders observed in this study was similar to that reported by Nightingale et al. [9] among ruminants without clinical symptoms. Likewise, prevalence was higher in cattle (particularly dairy cattle) than sheep. Nightingale et al. [9] showed that contrary to sheep, cattle exposed to L. monocytogenes through contaminated silage amplify the pathogen to high levels subsequently increasing faecal shedding, and thus contributing to the maintenance and dispersal of L. monocytogenes into the farm environment. A pronounced seasonal variation in faecal shedding has been reported in cattle farms with peak prevalences during the colder months associated to increased silage feeding [15]. Quality of feed provided during the indoor season has also been considered an important risk factor for listeriosis in ruminants [15]. Samples for the Herd prevalence study were collected throughout the year, and no seasonal variation in herd prevalence was observed. However, it is noteworthy that the highest within-herd prevalence of L. monocytogenes shedders corresponded to a dairy cattle herd sampled in winter (dairy cattle herd E in Table 2). Nevertheless, in the Basque Country, sheep and beef cattle spend most of the year pasture-grazing outdoors, whereas dairy cattle are kept indoors throughout the year under a diet based on silage, which has been reported as a risk for L. monocytogenes infection [12]. Stress associated to lactation in dairy cattle might affect susceptibility to L. monocytogenes infection [2] and contribute to differences in shedding between beef and dairy cattle. Daily variability in the number of faecal shedders [14] could explain the wide differences in the within-herd prevalence values observed among the four dairy cattle herds, and the absence of shedders in two ovine herds when sampled individually. The higher prevalence of ruminant herds positive for L. monocytogenes in areas with larger animal census suggests a possible relation between animal density and infection risk, however, more extensive epidemiological data collection (herds contact at mountain pastures and animal trade) and environmental sampling are needed to confirm this link and identify sources of contamination and infection routes.
Swine production in the Basque Country is not extensive and therefore, the number of swine herds analysed in this study was limited. However, L. monocytogenes was never detected in the pig herds analysed. Although L. monocytogenes occurs frequently in pork products, it is rarely isolated from swine faeces [3–5]. Higher infection rates are detected in skin swabs [16] or tonsils [3], and the prevalence of L. monocytogenes in swine generally increases from the farm to the manufacturing plants. Hence, the main source for contamination with L. monocytogenes appears to be the slaughter and processing environment where L. monocytogenes can survive for long periods [17]. Listeriosis is frequently traced to ready-to-eat (RTE) meat products, regardless of meat animal source, and some delicatessen RTE pork products have been involved in listeriosis outbreaks [6, 7]. Conversely, bovine or ovine meat products are rarely associated to human listeriosis, but ruminant healthy carriers may shed Listeria in faeces contaminating pastures or vegetables [18], surface waters [19] and milk [20]. In a study carried out in Navarra (Northern Spain) on food samples from different industries and markets [21], the incidence of L. monocytogenes in raw minced beef and pork meat was 34.9%, 5.4% in raw milk samples (6.8% in cattle milk and 3.0% in sheep milk), and 1.0% in soft cheese. Nevertheless, unpasteurised dairy products represent the major problem regarding human infection.
Strain typing can help to identify sources of infection and routes of transmission and in this sense, is commonly used for disease tracking in human infections. L. monocytogenes comprises a diversity of strains classified into 13 different serotypes, however, only three (1/2a, 1/2b and 4b) are commonly associated with human listeriosis [21, 22]. Food-stuffs are mainly contaminated by serogroup 1/2 isolates, whereas most human clinical isolates belong to serotype 4b [21, 22], and among these, a small subgroup with unique gene clusters represent the two major epidemic-associated clonal groups [23, 24]. In this study, serotype 4b complex was the most common in ruminants (84.2% of isolates and 81.7% of positive herds), followed by serotype 1/2a (13.2% of isolates and 14.0% of positive herds). Since each pool of faecal material can contain several L. monocytogenes strains with different serotype, these values cannot be interpreted as serotype prevalences but clearly indicate the predominance of serotype 4b in healthy ruminants from the Basque Country. As part of the USA National Animal Health Monitoring System Dairy 2002 survey, Van Kessel et al. [25] found a varied distribution of serotypes among L. monocytogenes isolated from cattle bulk tank milk in different regions of the country, with serotype 4b predominating in the Southeast and serogroup 1/2 elsewhere [25]. Serogroup 1/2 was predominant in beef and pork raw minced meat samples from different industries and markets in Navarra (Northern Spain); in cattle milk samples, serogroups 1/2 and 4 were similarly represented (47.8 and 39.1%, respectively), but in sheep milk 83.3% of the isolates were serotype 4b [21]. Conversely, in this study we detected serotype 1/2a at higher proportion in sheep than in cattle. Reporting of human listeriosis cases is compulsory in Spain and Microbiology laboratories at the hospital setting report isolations weekly. A 16-year survey carried out from 1990 to 2006 in one of the largest hospitals in the Basque Country identified 60 human clinical cases, with serotype 4b representing 78% of the cases [26], similar to other Spanish regions [27, 28]. Serotype 1/2b, only represented by two dairy cattle isolates in this study, was second (14%) among local human cases, whereas serotype 1/2a, second among animal samples, was the less common among human cases (6.8%) in the Basque Country [26]. In this context, serotyping is, however, of limited discriminatory value, and techniques like PFGE provide enhanced discrimination for outbreak investigations and surveillance purposes. Restriction analysis with ApaI performed on 68 isolates generated 40 patterns, and provided serotype-specific PFGE patterns that clearly separated 1/2a isolates from 4b isolates, and differentiated strains within serotypes. These results confirmed previously established relationships between serotype and PFGE patterns [22], and revealed that the L. monocytogenes population in Basque farms is genetically highly diverse. In general, isolates from different herds were very different, but occasionally identical or similar patterns were observed in different herds. Contact at communal mountain pastures could be an occasion for strain exchange among sheep and beef cattle herds. However, since dairy cattle are confined indoors, the identification of certain patterns in the three production systems or in dairy cattle herds distantly located, suggest other sources of infection. On the other hand, strains differing in more than seven bands, and therefore of limited genetic relatedness [29], were also identified within each herd suggesting multiple sources of contamination.
Conclusion
Listeriosis results in losses to the agricultural economy due to illness and increased infertility and abortion rates, but losses also occur when consumer confidence is undermined as a consequence of food-borne infections. Food safety programs that cover all aspects of food production (from farm to fork) are needed to provide a safe food supply and prevent foodborne illnesses. Identification of on-farm reservoirs is a pre-requisite for the implementation of farm-specific pathogen reduction programs. In this sense, this study showed a high prevalence of L. monocytogenes in ruminant herds compared to swine, suggesting that such herds may represent an important reservoir for L. monocytogenes in the Basque Country. The wide distribution and variability in L. monocytogenes shed within and among ruminant herds highlighted the complexity of pathogen control at the farm level. The ubiquitous nature of this pathogen hampers its total removal from the farm environment, but a reduction of the intestinal carriage rate in livestock herds would contribute to reduce the contamination pressure at the slaughterhouse and dairy production. In any case, since the relatively high prevalence of L. monocytogenes in ruminant herds does not correlate with the low incidence of human infections in the Basque Country, it can be speculated that control measures to avoid contamination of final food products are being efficient or, possibly, these could be animal-adapted strains with reduced ability to cause human infections. Continuous monitoring schemes and surveillance programs are needed to evaluate trends in the occurrence of L. monocytogenes in livestock and to prevent food contamination.
Methods
Sampling design
Healthy swine, cattle (beef and dairy) and dairy sheep herds were sampled to estimate L. monocytogenes prevalence in farms from the Basque Country, a 7,200-km2 region located in Atlantic northern Spain that is divided into three provinces, each of them formed by several counties: Bizkaia (counties 1–7 in Fig. 3), Araba (8–13) and Gipuzkoa (14–20). Swine production in the Basque Country is not very extensive (ca. 40,000 animals) and is based on indoor confinement systems mainly located in the southern counties. Approximately 40% of the population corresponds to suckling pigs that are fed elsewhere, whereas sows constitute 20% of the animals. The ovine population includes ca. 322,000 sheep of Latxa dairy breed that are commonly housed in winter and during milking (one lambing per year in November-March), but have access to summer communal mountain pastures. The cattle population includes c.a. 170,000 animals of which about 60% are beef cattle and the remaining 40% dairy cattle. Only occasionally do cattle and sheep herds share farm premises. In general, sheep and beef cattle spend most of the year pasture-grazing outdoors and during summer months they usually share mountain pastures, generally within the county but occasionally crossing county boundaries (see Fig. 3); conversely, dairy cattle are kept indoors throughout the year under a diet based on silage.
Figure 3
Map of the Basque Country. Counties are labelled with numbers (1–7 counties in Bizkaia; 8–13 in Araba; 14–20 in Gipuzkoa). Herd animal species sampled in each county are indicated (S, sheep; DC, dairy cattle; BC, beef cattle; Sw, swine), showing in brackets herd species that tested negative. Farms sampled for the Within-herd prevalence study are indicated in superscript.
Two different sampling strategies were followed: one designed to determine the number of herds positive for L. monocytogenes (Herd prevalence), and another to establish the proportion of individuals shedding the organism (Within-herd prevalence) within a selected number of herds identified as positive in the first approach. To estimate herd prevalence, a statistically adequate sample size was calculated on the basis of census provided by the Department of Agriculture of the Basque Country as previously described [30]. Thus, for the Herd prevalence study, a total of 343 herds (17 swine, 120 dairy sheep, 124 beef and 82 dairy cattle) distributed through the different regions were visited once, and faecal samples were collected from the rectum of 30 animals per herd and screened in one pool. Distance between farms ranged between a few metres to 135 kilometres and in four farms both sheep and cattle herds were sampled. Within-herd prevalence was established by individually analysing a maximum of 50 animals from a selection of 9 pool-positive herds (4 sheep, 1 beef and 4 dairy cattle) accounting for a total of 418 animals. Samples were collected by official veterinarians from the Diputaciones Forales from October 2003 to May 2005 and cooled samples were sent to the laboratory on the day of collection.
Isolation and identification of L. monocytogenes
Isolation and identification of L. monocytogenes was carried out as previously described [31]. Briefly, 25 g of pooled (Herd prevalence) rectal faecal samples or 1 g of individual (Within-herd prevalence) faeces were diluted 1/10 in Half-Fraser broth (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France), homogenized and incubated for 22 ± 1 h at 30°C for enrichment. One ml of the incubated suspension was transferred to 10 ml of Fraser broth and incubated as above. Suspensions were then screened for the presence of L. monocytogenes using VIDAS Listeria monocytogenes II test kit (bioMérieux) for automated immunoenzymatic detection. Positive samples were subcultured from the remaining Fraser broth onto a selective and differential agar (Agar Listeria according to Ottaviani and Agosti, ALOA) (AES Laboratories, Combourg, France), and L. monocytogenes-presumptive colonies were biochemically identified with a commercial API Listeria system (bioMérieux).
L. monocytogenesserotyping and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis
Serotyping was performed through examination of group-specific Listeria O and H antigens [32] by slide agglutination using commercially prepared antisera (Listeria antiserum Seiken Kit; Denka Seiken Co., Tokyo, Japan) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Serotype 4b and the closely related, albeit rarely encountered serotypes 4d and 4e, could not always be discriminated by the technique and were designated serotype 4b complex.
For PFGE analysis, pure cultures obtained from single L. monocytogenes colonies were suspended into 3 ml of TE buffer (10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0) and adjusted to McFarland standard 4–5 using a densitometer (Densimat, bioMérieux) and blocks were prepared and digested with 200 units of ApaI following the PulseNet standard laboratory operating procedure for L. monocytogenes PFGE http://www.pulsenet-europe.org/. Fragments were separated by electrophoresis in a CHEF-DRII system (BioRad) at a constant temperature of 14°C during 5 h using an initial switch time of 15 s and a final switch time of 35 s and a further 15 h with switch times of 2–20 s. Gels were normalised by alignment with the Lambda Ladder PFGE size standard (New England Biolabs, MA, USA) and Salmonella Braenderup control strain H9812 digested with XbaI [33]. Gel images were captured using a Fluor-S™ MultiImager (BioRad) and patterns were compared by GelCompar® II (BioNumerics, Applied-Maths, Kortrijk, Belgium). Similarities between the profiles based on band positions were derived by using the Dice correlation coefficient with maximium position tolerance of 1% and 0.2% optimisation and dendrograms were constructed by the unweighted pair group method (UPGMA). Patterns differing by at least one band (number and/or sizes) were considered different and a new code was assigned.
Statistical analysis
A chi-squared (X2) test was used to compare the herd prevalence of L. monocytogenes from different sources. Significance of the association between sampling season (colder months vs. warmer months) and L. monocytogenes isolation and with the serotype were evaluated by Fisher exact probability test. Spearman non-parametric correlation analysis was used to investigate associations between herd and animal population and estimated prevalence. All statistical tests were performed using the SAS statistical package (Version 9.1). p values less than 0.05 were considered significant. The 95% confidence intervals on the herd prevalence were calculated using Win Episcope 2.0 http://www.clive.ed.ac.uk/winepiscope/ for the population size (census provided by the Department of Agriculture of the Basque Country), the sample size (number of herds sampled) and the observed prevalence.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Basque Government (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries – SEC2004007 and Department of Education, Universities and Research – PI2001-8), the Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria INIA (CAL02-034) and FEDER. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Ana García-Pérez (NEIKER) for helpful comments on the manuscript, the veterinary staff from the Diputaciones de Araba, Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa for collecting samples, and the farmers for their collaboration.
Authors’ Affiliations
(1)
Department of Animal Health, NEIKER – Instituto Vasco de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario
References
SIMCAPV: Informe 2006. Sistema de Información Microbiológica de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco. 2006.Google Scholar
Roberts AJ, Wiedmann M: Pathogen, host and environmental factors contributing to the pathogenesis of listeriosis. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2003, 60: 904-918.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Buncic S: The incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in slaughtered animals, in meat, and in meat products in Yugoslavia. Int J Food Microbiol. 1991, 12: 173-180. 10.1016/0168-1605(91)90067-Y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Iida T, Kanzaki M, Nakama A, Kokubo Y, Maruyama T, Kaneuchi C: Detection of Listeria monocytogenes in humans, animals and foods. J Vet Med Sci. 1998, 60: 1341-1343. 10.1292/jvms.60.1341.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Skovgaard N, Norrung B: The incidence of Listeria spp. in faeces of Danish pigs and in minced pork meat. Int J Food Microbiol. 1989, 8: 59-63. 10.1016/0168-1605(89)90080-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
de Valk H, Vaillant V, Jacquet C, Rocourt J, Le Querrec F, Stainer F, Quelquejeu N, Pierre O, Pierre V, Desenclos JC, Goulet V: Two consecutive nationwide outbreaks of listeriosis in France, October 1999-February 2000. Am J Epidemiol. 2001, 154: 944-950. 10.1093/aje/154.10.944.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Giovannacci I, Ragimbeau C, Queguiner S, Salvat G, Vendeuvre JL, Carlier V, Ermel G: Listeria monocytogenes in pork slaughtering and cutting plants. Use of RAPD, PFGE and PCR-REA for tracing and molecular epidemiology. Int J Food Microbiol. 1999, 53: 127-140. 10.1016/S0168-1605(99)00141-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Nightingale KK, Schukken YH, Nightingale CR, Fortes ED, Ho AJ, Her Z, Grohn YT, McDonough PL, Wiedmann M: Ecology and transmission of Listeria monocytogenes infecting ruminants and in the farm environment. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004, 70: 4458-4467. 10.1128/AEM.70.8.4458-4467.2004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Gandhi M, Chikindas ML: Listeria: A foodborne pathogen that knows how to survive. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007, 113: 1-15. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.07.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Fenlon DR: Wild birds and silage as reservoirs of Listeria in the agricultural environment. J Appl Bacteriol. 1985, 59: 537-543.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Low JC, Donachie W: A review of Listeria monocytogenes and listeriosis. Vet J. 1997, 153: 9-29. 10.1016/S1090-0233(97)80005-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Fugett EB, Schoonmaker-Bopp D, Dumas NB, Corby J, Wiedmann M: Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis of temporally matched Listeria monocytogenes isolates from human clinical cases, foods, ruminant farms, and urban and natural environments reveals source-associated as well as widely distributed PFGE types. J Clin Microbiol. 2007, 45: 865-873. 10.1128/JCM.01285-06.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Ho AJ, Ivanek R, Grohn YT, Nightingale KK, Wiedmann M: Listeria monocytogenes fecal shedding in dairy cattle shows high levels of day-to-day variation and includes outbreaks and sporadic cases of shedding of specific L. monocytogenes subtypes. Prev Vet Med. 2007, 80: 287-305. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.03.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Nightingale KK, Fortes ED, Ho AJ, Schukken YH, Grohn YT, Wiedmann M: Evaluation of farm management practices as risk factors for clinical listeriosis and fecal shedding of Listeria monocytogenes in ruminants. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005, 227: 1808-1814. 10.2460/javma.2005.227.1808.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Beloeil PA, Chauvin C, Toquin MT, Fablet C, Le Notre Y, Salvat G, Madec F, Fravalo P: Listeria monocytogenes contamination of finishing pigs: an exploratory epidemiological survey in France. Vet Res. 2003, 34: 737-748. 10.1051/vetres:2003031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Thevenot D, Dernburg A, Vernozy-Rozand C: An updated review of Listeria monocytogenes in the pork meat industry and its products. J Appl Microbiol. 2006, 101: 7-17. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.02962.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Ho JL, Shands KN, Friedland G, Eckind P, Fraser DW: An outbreak of type 4b Listeria monocytogenes infection involving patients from eight Boston hospitals. Arch Intern Med. 1986, 146: 520-524. 10.1001/archinte.146.3.520.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Lyautey E, Lapen DR, Wilkes G, McCleary K, Pagotto F, Tyler K, Hartmann A, Piveteau P, Rieu A, Robertson WJ, Medeiros DT, Edge TA, Gannon V, Topp E: Distribution and characteristics of Listeria monocytogenes isolates from surface waters of the South Nation River watershed, Ontario, Canada. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007, 73: 5401-5410. 10.1128/AEM.00354-07.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Oliver SP, Jayarao BM, Almeida RA: Foodborne pathogens in milk and the dairy farm environment: food safety and public health implications. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2005, 2: 115-129. 10.1089/fpd.2005.2.115.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Vitas AI, Garcia-Jalon VA: Occurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in fresh and processed foods in Navarra (Spain). Int J Food Microbiol. 2004, 90: 349-356. 10.1016/S0168-1605(03)00314-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Lukinmaa S, Aarnisalo K, Suihko ML, Siitonen A: Diversity of Listeria monocytogenes isolates of human and food origin studied by serotyping, automated ribotyping and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004, 10: 562-568. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.00876.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Evans MR, Swaminathan B, Graves LM, Altermann E, Klaenhammer TR, Fink RC, Kernodle S, Kathariou S: Genetic markers unique to Listeria monocytogenes serotype 4b differentiate epidemic clone II (hot dog outbreak strains) from other lineages. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004, 70: 2383-2390. 10.1128/AEM.70.4.2383-2390.2004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Yildirim S, Lin W, Hitchins AD, Jaykus LA, Altermann E, Klaenhammer TR, Kathariou S: Epidemic clone I-specific genetic markers in strains of Listeria monocytogenes serotype 4b from foods. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004, 70: 4158-4164. 10.1128/AEM.70.7.4158-4164.2004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Van Kessel JS, Karns JS, Gorski L, McCluskey BJ, Perdue ML: Prevalence of Salmonellae, Listeria monocytogenes, and fecal coliforms in bulk tank milk on US dairies. J Dairy Sci. 2004, 87: 2822-2830.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Lopez L, Gaztelurrutia L, Martinez I, Aguirrebengoa K, Valls A, Hernandez JL, Alkorta M, Barron J: Listeriosis. Estudio de 16 años en un hospital terciario en España (Listeriosis. A 16-year survey in a tertiary hospital in Spain). Rev Panam Infectol. 2008, 9: 30-37.Google Scholar
Garcia-Alvarez M, Chaves F, Sanz F, Otero JR: [Molecular epidemiology of Listeria monocytogenes infections in a health district of Madrid in a 3-year period (2001–2003)]. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2006, 24: 86-89. 10.1157/13085014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Vela AI, Fernandez-Garayzabal JF, Vazquez JA, Latre MV, Blanco MM, Moreno MA, de La Fuente L, Marco J, Franco C, Cepeda A, Rodriguez MA, Suarez G, Dominguez L: Molecular typing by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of Spanish animal and human Listeria monocytogenes isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001, 67: 5840-5843. 10.1128/AEM.67.12.5840-5843.2001.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Tenover FC, Arbeit RD, Goering RV, Mickelsen PA, Murray BE, Persing DH, Swaminathan B: Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J Clin Microbiol. 1995, 33: 2233-2239.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
Oporto B, Esteban JI, Aduriz G, Juste RA, Hurtado A: Prevalence and strain diversity of thermophilic campylobacters in cattle, sheep and swine farms. J Appl Microbiol. 2007, 103: 977-984.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Esteban JI, Oporto B, Aduriz G, Juste RA, Hurtado A: A survey of food-borne pathogens in free-range poultry farms. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008, 123: 177-182. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.12.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Hunter SB, Vauterin P, Lambert-Fair MA, Van Duyne MS, Kubota K, Graves L, Wrigley D, Barrett T, Ribot E: Establishment of a universal size standard strain for use with the PulseNet standardized pulsed-field gel electrophoresis protocols: converting the national databases to the new size standard. J Clin Microbiol. 2005, 43: 1045-1050. 10.1128/JCM.43.3.1045-1050.2005.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
