Abstract
Campylobacter spp. are a leading cause of bacterial foodborne zoonosis worldwide, with poultry meat and products recognised as a significant source of human infection. In Vietnam there are few data regarding the occurrence, antimicrobial resistance, and genomic diversity of Campylobacter in poultry and poultry meat. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of Campylobacter in chicken meat at retail in Hanoi, determine antimicrobial sensitivities of the Campylobacter isolated, and assess their genetic diversity. A total of 120 chicken meat samples were collected from eight traditional retail markets (n=80) and four supermarkets (n=40). Campylobacter was isolated following ISO 10272-1 : 2017 and identification verified by PCR. The prevalence of Campylobacter was 38.3 % (46/120) and C. coli was the most prevalent species in both retail markets (74 %) and supermarkets (88 %). The minimum inhibitory concentrations for ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid, streptomycin, and tetracycline were determined by broth microdilution for 32 isolates. All characterised Campylobacter were resistant to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, and tetracycline, with corresponding resistance determinants detected in the sequenced genomes. Most C. coli were multidrug resistant (24/28) and two harboured the erythromycin resistance gene ermB on a multiple drug-resistance genomic island, a potential mechanism for dissemination of resistance. The 32 isolates belonged to clonal complexes associated with both poultry and people, such as CC828 for C. coli. These results contribute to the One Health approach for addressing Campylobacter in Vietnam by providing detailed new insights into a main source of human infection and can inform the design of future surveillance approaches.
Keywords: antimicrobial susceptibility, C. coli, C. jejuni, Campylobacter, prevalence, Vietnam, whole genome sequencing
Impact Statement
Campylobacter spp. are a major cause of foodborne bacterial disease and present a significant threat to public health globally with a considerable concomitant economic burden. Campylobacter are prevalent in livestock reared for food, and human infection is generally via handling or consumption of contaminated meat and meat products, such as chicken. In Vietnam consumption of poultry meat has almost doubled in the 5 years up to 2020. Given the lack of data on Campylobacter in Vietnam, we have investigated the occurrence and characteristics of Campylobacter present in chicken at retail in Hanoi. We show that the Campylobacter detected were of the same genotypes as those found in human infections in many countries. Furthermore, all characterised isolates were resistant to quinolone antibiotics, commonly used to treat human infection, and the majority were multidrug resistant (i.e. resistance to at least three classes of antibiotics). These findings reinforce the importance of good food hygiene and preparation measures to minimise exposure. This study has utilised standard methods for isolation, phenotypic characterisation and genomic typing providing data that is readily comparable across the One Health space and will inform risk assessments for Campylobacteriosis and dissemination of AMR both in Vietnam and in a global context.
Data Summary
The whole genome sequences were deposited in the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) National Library of Medicine under BioProject accession number PRJNA1016150.
Introduction
Campylobacter spp., in particular C. jejuni and C. coli, are major causes of bacterial foodborne disease worldwide and are commonly present in food-producing animals. Campylobacter is responsible for 1.5 million cases of foodborne illnesses in the USA every year [1] and was the most reported zoonosis in the European Union in 2022 [2]. It has been estimated that Campylobacter spp. are responsible for 400–500 million cases of disease each year worldwide [3]. The number of foodborne illnesses and deaths caused by Campylobacter globally in 2010 has been estimated at over 95 million and >21 000, respectively [4]. Disease is typically a self-limiting diarrheal illness lasting 5 to 7 days, although immunocompromised and elderly patients have a higher risk for morbidity, mortality, and prolonged illness [5].
Handling and consumption of undercooked chicken meat or contaminated ready-to-eat food are common sources of infection [2]. Campylobacter is highly prevalent in poultry production systems, including broilers, layers, turkeys, and ducks [6]. C. jejuni colonises the chicken gut in high numbers, primarily in the caeca and small intestine, but it may also be found in liver and spleen [7]. Therefore, intestinal tracts of chickens are reservoirs of Campylobacter for on-farm transmission or cross-contamination of carcases during processing [8].
Worldwide, C. jejuni is responsible for 85 % of foodborne Campylobacter enteritis cases in humans and is also the most frequently isolated Campylobacter species from poultry, while the remaining cases are primarily attributed to C. coli [9]. There has been an increase in the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates over time and resistances to fluoroquinolones and macrolides are of particular concern, given their use for treatment of human infections [10, 11].
In Vietnam Campylobacter is recognised as an important cause of gastroenteritis [12] and has been detected in children and adults, with positive rates ranging from 2–20 % in patients presenting with diarrhoeal illness [13–15]. The consumption of chicken meat is regarded as the main source of human campylobacteriosis in Vietnam [12]. Consumption of poultry meat in Vietnam has almost doubled between 2015 and 2020 to 10 kg per capita [16], and ranks second to pork in meat consumption [17]. In a study from the Mekong delta, Vietnam, the prevalence of Campylobacter in chicken faeces was 32 % [18], while a study from the Can Tho Province reported a prevalence of 76 % [19]. In poultry carcases and food products Campylobacter contamination rates of between 15 and 41 % have been reported in Vietnam [17, 20–22]. Few publications have described the antimicrobial susceptibilities of Vietnamese Campylobacter, reviewed in [12], and these report a high occurrence of resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, and tetracycline [15, 18, 19, 21, 23]. A significant data gap is the absence of a detailed understanding of the genetic basis for antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter from Vietnam, as published studies have focussed on generating susceptibility data only and none have published whole genome sequences. Genomic characterisation via multi-locus sequence typing indicate the diversity the Campylobacter population within an ecological space and has been successfully used to infer the expected origins of isolates via source attribution modelling [24] and the accuracy of attributions are improving with availability of AI and WGS data [25]. To date there is limited genomic information published that describes the population of Campylobacter contaminating chicken meat at retail in Vietnam [23], and such information is key to determine the extent to which chicken production and consumption is driving campylobacteriosis in people in Vietnam.
The aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence of Campylobacter in chicken meat at retail in Hanoi in 2019, and to determine the genome diversity and antimicrobial sensitivities of the strains isolated using Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) and broth microdilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing.
Methodology
Isolation and identification of Campylobacter
A total of 120 chicken meat samples were collected from eight traditional retail markets (n=80) and four supermarkets (n=40) in Hanoi, Vietnam between March and May 2019. Each site was visited on four separate occasions for sample collection, and the time between visits was 2 weeks for the retail markets and 1–2 weeks for the supermarkets. Two chicken meat vendors were visited at four of the retail markets and three vendors were visited at the other four retail markets. One chicken carcass sample (approximately 300 g breast meat) was collected from each retail market vendor per visit, to ensure the samples did not come from the same chicken. At the supermarkets, one packaged chicken meat sample (approximately 500 g) was collected from each brand at each sampling visit, to ensure the samples did not come from the same chicken. At two supermarkets two different brands were collected, whereas at the other two supermarkets three different brands were collected.
The samples were processed immediately upon arrival at the laboratory of the National Institute of Veterinary Research following standard protocols for Campylobacter isolation and identification (ISO 10272-1 : 2017). Briefly, 10 g chicken breast meat without skin were homogenised in 90 ml of Preston broth (Oxoid, UK) using a stomacher (Seward, UK) for 1 min. Homogenates were incubated at 42 °C for 48 h in a microaerobic atmosphere generated in gas jars containing CampyGen sachets (Oxoid, UK). A 10 µl loopful of enriched broth was streaked onto modified cefoperazone charcoal deoxycholate agar (mCCDA; Oxoid, UK) and Preston agar (Oxoid, UK) and incubated at for 48 h as before. Colonies were examined by Gram-stain and wet mount for typical Campylobacter morphology and motility. After sub-culturing the isolates on Columbia blood agar with 5 % sterile defibrinated sheep blood (Oxoid, UK), oxidase, catalase, and hippurate tests were applied for further confirmation and speciation. Genus and species identification were verified by PCR using the primers in Table 1 on DNA extracts prepared from fresh plate cultures using the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Ki (Qiagen, Germany) according to the kit protocol on a Biorad PCR System (BIO RAD). Campylobacter isolates, one colony per positive sample, were stored at −80 °C in 30 % (v:v) glycerol (Merck, Germany) in Brain Heart Infusion broth.
Table 1.
PCR primers used to identify Campylobacter genus, C. jejuni and C. coli
|
Target species |
Name of primer |
Target gene |
Sequence (5′−3′) |
Product size (bp) |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
C. jejuni |
MapAF |
MapA |
CTATTTTATTTTTGAGTGCTTGTG |
589 bp |
[66] |
|
MapAR |
GCTTTATTTGCCATTTGTTTTATTA |
||||
|
C. coli |
Coli F |
ceuE |
AATTGAAAATTGCTCCAACTATG |
462 bp |
[66] |
|
Coli R |
TGATTTTATTATTTGTAGCAGCG |
||||
|
Campylobacter Genus |
PL06 |
16S rRNA |
GGTTAAGTCCCGCAACGAGCCGC |
283 bp |
[67] |
|
CAMPC5 |
GGCTGATCTACGATTACTAGCGAT |
The proportion of samples positive for Campylobacter and the 95 % confidence interval of the proportions were calculated from the multiple of estimated standard error and an approximately normal sampling distribution [26]. The Chi-squared test with one degree of freedom [26] tested the null hypothesis that there was no significant difference between the proportion of Campylobacter positive samples in meat from supermarkets and meat from retail markets.
Campylobacter strains were recovered from frozen storage by culture on Columbia blood agar (Oxoid, UK) and shipped to the UK on charcoal transport swabs, according to IATA regulations, for additional testing (see below). In the UK, Campylobacter isolates were cultured in a microaerobic environment (5–10 % CO2, 5–7 % O2) on mCCDA and 7 % sheep blood agar with 0.1 % actidione plates to ensure purity prior to storage. For speciation, ethanol/formic acid extracts of colonies were analysed by mass spectrometry (Bruker Microflex MALDI-TOF MS, Bruker Daltonics Ltd, UK) and Bruker MBT Compass software (version 4.1.70).
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing
The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) for six antimicrobials (ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid, streptomycin, and tetracycline) were determined by broth microdilution using Thermofisher Sensititre EUCAMP2 plates according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Plates were incubated microaerobically at 41 °C for 24 h. MICs were interpreted using the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) epidemiological cut-off (ECOFF) values as wild-type or non-wild-type [27]. ECOFFs distinguish microorganisms without (wild-type) and with phenotypically detectable acquired resistance mechanisms (non-wild-type) to the antimicrobial in question (https://mic.eucast.org/). Isolates with non-wild-type susceptibilities have been termed microbiologically ‘resistant’, although it is recognised this is not necessarily synonymous with clinical resistance. Multidrug resistance was defined as resistance to three or more antimicrobial classes [27]. In the panel of antimicrobials tested the quinolone class is represented by ciprofloxacin and nalidixic acid.
Whole genome sequencing
Campylobacter isolates were suspended in 0.1 M phosphate buffered saline (pH7.2) (PBS) to a turbidity of 0.5 McFarland and centrifuged to produce pellets. Supernatants were removed and pellets re-suspended in PBS prior to extraction and purification of DNA using a semi-automated extraction protocol entailing MagMAX CORE extraction kits and the KingFisher Flex system (both Thermo Fisher Scientific, Basingstoke, UK). Extracted DNA was processed for WGS at APHA Central Sequencing Unit (APHA Weybridge, UK). Libraries were prepared with a Nextera XT DNA sample preparation kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. WGS was carried out using the Illumina NextSeq platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, California, USA) for short read sequencing. Raw sequences were analysed using the Nullabor two pipeline [28], using as reference the published genome of Campylobacter coli strain 15–537360 [29], SPADES for genome assembly (version 3.14.1 [30]) and Prokka for annotation (version 1.14.6 [31]). The presence of genes and point mutations conferring antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was assessed using AMRFinderPlus [32]. The sequence type (ST) was determined with MLST (version 2.19.0; https://github.com/tseemann/mlst) using the pubMLST database [33]. New alleles and STs were submitted to the Campylobacter jejuni/coli database at pubMLST. The core genome SNP alignment for C. coli isolates was produced by Snippy (version 4.6.0; https://github.com/tseemann/snippy) and used to build a bootstrapped (n=200) phylogenetic tree with RAxML [34] and annotated using iTOLv3 [35].
Results and discussion
Prevalence of Campylobacter in chicken meat
The overall prevalence of Campylobacter in chicken meat was 38.3 % (46/120 samples; Table 2). The proportion of positive samples from retail markets was significantly higher (Chi2=13.7, P<0.001) than supermarkets, 47.5 % (n=80) and 20 % (n=40) respectively. Campylobacter were found at all of the visited retail markets and supermarkets. C. coli was the most prevalent species at both market types: 28/38 (74 %) positive samples from retail markets and 7/8 (88 %) positive samples from supermarkets. A similar predominance of C. coli was also observed in a survey of fresh chicken carcasses conducted in Hanoi [17]. The difference in prevalence between retail markets and supermarkets is likely due to one or more factors such as source and types of poultry, slaughter, preparation, storage and hygiene practices, and warrants further study. Poultry at retail markets is generally slaughtered by retailers at point of sale, or at home by consumers, whereas chicken meat in supermarkets has been prepared at slaughterhouses owned or contracted by large producers [16]. Hygiene standards in slaughterhouses are regarded as superior to those in retail markets and can include practices such as sampling to monitor for pathogens [16]. Differences in hygiene standards may have contributed to the increased prevalence of Campylobacter in chicken meat at retail markets. Furthermore, in Vietnam the poultry production and distribution networks for white (or exotic) broilers and coloured and spent hens differ, with the latter sold mainly through retail markets [16]. These differences may affect the prevalence and species of Campylobacter detected and warrant further investigation. Another study in Vietnam reported a moderately higher prevalence (although not significant) in supermarkets (57 %) compared to traditional markets (47 %) [17]. The increased prevalence in supermarket chicken reported by [17] relative to the current study may be related to methodological differences. Enrichment in Bolton broth as used by [17] may have increased sensitivity for detection of stressed and low numbers of Campylobacter relative to Preston broth which was used in this study (ISO 10272-1 : 2017).
Table 2.
Prevalence of Campylobacter at retail markets and supermarkets in Hanoi, Vietnam
|
Sample origin |
Samples tested |
C. jejuni positive samples |
C. coli positive samples |
Total positive samples |
Prevalence |
Confidence interval (95 %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retail market |
80 |
10 |
28 |
38 |
47.5 % |
36.6–58.4 % |
|
Supermarket |
40 |
1 |
7 |
8 |
20.0 % |
7.6–32.4 % |
|
Total |
120 |
11 |
35 |
46 |
38.3 % |
29.6–47.0 % |
A prevalence of 38.3 % is similar to that found in earlier studies undertaken in Vietnam, which showed 31 % (from 100 samples tested) Campylobacter contamination in chicken meat from retail markets in Hanoi [22], 28.3 % (from 60 samples tested) in poultry meat collected from hospitals, schools and factory canteens [20], and 41.1 % (from 107 samples tested) in fresh chicken carcasses [17]. Interestingly, it is considerably lower than rates seen in chicken meat samples in many other countries, including: Cambodia (80.9 %, 139 samples tested [36]), Japan (64.7 %, 170 samples tested [37]), Poland (70 %, 70 samples tested [38]), New Zealand (69.7 %, 175 samples tested [39]), and Northern Ireland (91 %, 336 samples tested [40]). The lower rate in the Hanoi markets investigated is notable but care must be taken in drawing comparisons, as sampling strategies and numbers of samples taken vary considerably. For example, studies in Italy with localized sampling reported prevalences in fresh poultry meat and ready-to-cook products in retail outlets that varied from 17–86 % [41–44]. Furthermore, skin typically accumulates more contamination than the actual meat [45] and our study tested skinless chicken breast meat whilst other studies included samples with skin.
Diversity of Campylobacter
Only 32 of the 46 isolates shipped to the UK were still viable upon receipt. These were all identified by MALDI-ToF as Campylobacter; 28 C. coli and four C. jejuni (Table S1, available in the online version of this article), which matched the PCR speciation data. The C. coli isolates comprised 15 sequence types, of which four were newly identified in this study (ST13529, ST13531, ST15532, and ST13535; Table S2). All 11 previously described STs and three new STs were from the ST-828 clonal complex (Tables S1 and S2). CC828 has been defined as the main C. coli CC following an analysis of 11 920 C. coli genomes in public repositories and proposed as a ‘chicken infection specialist’ [46], although others have hypothesised that CC828 is adapted to a generalist lifestyle [47]. CC828 has been the most reported CC in studies of human C. coli infections in China [46] and in the UK [48], and has been described in poultry-derived samples from Vietnam [18, 23]. There was considerable diversity in the core SNP genome phylogenetic tree of the C. coli isolates and within this limited sample size no ST was detected that was common to both retail market and supermarket samples (Fig. 1). In this study 87.5 % of the Campylobacter isolates from chicken meat sample originating from intensive production systems were characterised as C. coli, whilst a survey of Vietnamese chicken flocks that included small (backyard), medium and large-scale farming systems reported a similar proportion of C. coli and C. jejuni [18]. Campylobacter coli belonging to CC828 is recognised as a lineage that has evolved alongside the development of intensive agriculture systems [47].
Fig. 1.
Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from core genome single-nucleotide polymorphisms of C. coli isolates. Genetic relatedness is indicated by branch length and position confidence in clades by bootstrap confidence values >80 % are displayed on the tree. Also shown are the source, multi-locus sequence type, and carriage of AMR genes and point mutations (indicated by black square). Reference was C. coli strain 15–537360.
The four C. jejuni isolates were ST464 (CC464), ST535 (two isolates; CC460), and ST12630 (CC354) (Table S1). In the pubMLST database (accessed 23 August 2023) ST12630 has been reported previously only from human samples in Vietnam collected in 2015. Similarly, CC460 has been reported in chicken, duck, and pig samples from Vietnam [18, 23]. Analysis of c. 39 800 publicly available C. jejuni and C. coli genomes from around the world determined clonal complexes 354, 460 and 464 are strongly associated with samples from the chicken meat production system [49]. Furthermore, in a UK study these complexes were found to be associated with ciprofloxacin resistance and human infection [48], and a link with human infections was also noted in Polish, Australian, Finnish, and Chinese studies [46, 50–52].
Antimicrobial resistance
Antimicrobial susceptibilities were determined for six antibiotics by broth microdilution assay and MICs interpreted using EUCAST ECOFF values. The 32 isolates were all resistant to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, and tetracycline. All four C. jejuni isolates were susceptible to the remaining three antimicrobials (streptomycin, gentamicin, and erythromycin) and none were multidrug resistant, a resistance pattern commonly reported for C. jejuni in the European Union and the United Kingdom [10] and Vietnam [21, 23]. For C. coli (n=28) additional resistances were detected in many isolates: streptomycin (n=23), gentamicin (n=18), and erythromycin (n=8) (Table S1). Multidrug resistance was common amongst the C. coli isolates, with 24 out of 28 isolates (86 %) having resistance to three or more antimicrobial classes, a striking proportion relative to statistics for C. coli isolated from broiler flocks in EU member states in 2019/20 where just 3.9 % were reported as multidrug resistant, using the same antimicrobial panel as used in this study [53]. The relative abundance of C. coli in these samples coupled with the predilection of this species to acquire resistance elements within its genome highlight the need for tight controls on release of antimicrobials into the environment via food producing animals and medical treatment [54].
The genetic basis for antimicrobial resistance was assessed by WGS analysis (Fig. 1), and there was good correspondence between AMR phenotype and genotype (Table S1). Resistance to quinolones was associated with the mutation in gyrA giving rise to the single step T86I amino acid change, commonly associated with quinolone resistance in Campylobacter [55]. Tetracycline resistance was most commonly associated with tet(O/M/O) encoding a ribosomal protection mosaic protein, which has been reported in Campylobacter from several sources [56]. The tet(O) gene was present in five C. coli isolates. Gentamicin resistant isolates harboured either aac(6')-Ie/aph(2'')-Ia or aph(2'')-If; one resistant isolate harboured both genes; aph (2'')-If also confers resistance to kanamycin [57] but susceptibility to this antibiotic was not tested. Twenty-three C. coli isolates were resistant to streptomycin, with each harbouring a corresponding resistance determinant: aadE (n=20), aadE-Cc (n=1) or a K43R mutation in rpsL (n=2). Additional AMR genes were detected by WGS but the corresponding resistance phenotype was not tested: aadA9 (spectinomycin) n=21; aph(3')-IIIa (amikacin / kanamycin) n=11; bla OXA (beta-lactam) n=27 [of which 19 were bla OXA-193]; catA13 (chloramphenicol) n=10; and lnu(C) (lincomycin) n=1 (Table S1). Many of the C. coli isolates characterised in this study had multiple genes associated with aminoglycoside resistance, encoding for aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes; aminoglycoside adenyltransferase (AAD), aminoglycoside phosphotransferase (APH) and aminoglycoside acetyltransferase (AAC). This portfolio of genes may be reflective of a genomic resistance island for aminoglycosides as previously described for C. coli (sequence types, ST5604, ST1586 and ST1625) recovered from chickens in China [58]. In this study a single ST1625 isolate was identified however further analyses are required to confirm the location and co-location of aminoglycoside resistances on all the isolates to confirm the presence of a genomic resistance island.
Erythromycin resistance was associated with an A2075G point mutation in the 23S rRNA gene in six isolates and with ermB in two isolates (isolate H01 from a supermarket and H08 from a retail market) (Fig. 1). The presence of the A2075G chromosomal mutation in five different STs is an important finding as it may indicate a wide distribution and possibly relates to a widespread usage of erythromycin in poultry in Vietnam [59]. Furthermore, the mutation was not associated with a fitness cost in C. coli [60] and so could persist in the absence of antibiotic selection. Isolates H01 and H08 were resistant to all six antimicrobials tested. In addition to ermB they carried the T86I gyrA variant and five further AMR genes: tet(O/M/O), aadE, aad9, aac(6')-Ie/aph(2'')-Ia, and bla OXA-193; H01 additionally harboured aph(3')-IIIa and aph(2'')-If (Fig. 1). The ermB gene was located on a small contig in the WGS from both isolates (H01 3726 bp; H08 3725 bp) which also carried the aminoglycoside resistance gene aadA9 and four additional predicted coding sequences (detailed in Table S3) (Fig. 2). In blastn analysis [61] the contigs had 100 % nucleotide identity with each other and >99.9 % nucleotide identity with sequences of a multiple drug-resistant genomic island previously described in C. coli and C. jejuni. These genomic islands have been classified into at least eleven types [62, 63] and the contigs from this study had the highest nucleotide identity with Type VII. However, the contigs did not span the entire island precluding definitive assignment. The two contigs were compared using EasyFig [64] on the corresponding region of three isolates identified by Blast, including KF864551 the Type VII exemplar [62], revealing high sequence identity and conserved gene synteny (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2.
Genomic synteny comparisons of the ermB region of selected genomes. Isolates H01 and H08 are compared to the corresponding region in the exemplar genomes of isolates C. jejuni KF864551 [68] and C. coli CP068581 and CP068586 [69]. Antimicrobial resistance genes are shaded in red (ermb) or blue (aadA9 and aadE); other coding sequences are shaded in light grey and described in Table S3. Regions of sequence similarity between isolates are shown by grey shading. Image generated using Easyfig [64] and the BLASTn algorithm [61].
The two isolates with ermB were of different STs and divergent in the core SNP genome phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1), providing the first evidence that a multiple drug-resistant genomic island is present in different lineages of C. coli in Vietnam. This is significant as ermB in C. coli confers resistance to erythromycin and elevated resistance to other macrolides including azithromycin [65], and together with other resistances, particularly to quinolones, significantly restricts therapeutic options for treatment of human infections.
This study has provided detailed insight into the prevalence of Campylobacter in retail chicken in Hanoi, Vietnam, and the antimicrobial resistances present, which can inform risk assessments for Campylobacteriosis and dissemination of AMR. Although the prevalence reported here is low in comparison to many other countries, consumers should continue to take measures to minimise exposure. These can include chilling food, cooking chicken correctly, avoiding cross-contamination and ensuring good personal hygiene. The Campylobacter isolates examined by WGS were from clonal complexes associated with poultry and human infection, highlighting the potential risk for consumers. The study has provided the first detailed insight into the genetic basis of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter in Vietnam, thereby addressing an important evidence gap. Although most human infections of Campylobacter are self-limiting, the high occurrence of quinolone resistance (100 %) and erythromycin resistance (25 %) in these isolates warrants consideration when considering effective treatment of human infections. The predominance of multidrug resistant C. coli contamination on meat for human consumption highlighted in this study emphasises the need for an expanded programme of surveillance, susceptibility testing, and genomic characterisation of Campylobacter in poultry at retail to evaluate the significance of this risk in the context of One Health and the global campaign to control AMR. Employing similar approaches, including whole genome sequencing, for human clinical isolates will help inform the One Health approach to addressing Campylobacter and contribute to source tracing.
Supplementary Data
Funding information
Samples were collected by L.H., without funding assistance. R.C., S.C., J.R., and T.C. were supported by the UK FAO Reference Centre for Antimicrobial Resistance (which receives funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and UK aid funding from the Department of Health and Social Care’s Fleming Fund).
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Francesca Martelli for the critical reading of the manuscript.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: L.H., R.C. Methodology and investigation: L.H., T.C., R.C., J.R. Supervision: L.H., R.C. Resources: L.H., R.C. Data curation and formal analysis: L.H., T.C. Draft manuscript preparation: L.H., T.C., R.C., S.C. Manuscript review and editing: all authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
- 1.CDC Campylobacter [Online] 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/campylobacter/faq.html
- 2.European Food Safety Authority. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food‐borne outbreaks in 2012. EFS2. 2014;12:3547. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3547. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ruiz-Palacios GM. The health burden of Campylobacter infection and the impact of antimicrobial resistance: playing chicken. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:701–703. doi: 10.1086/509936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Havelaar AH, Kirk MD, Torgerson PR, Gibb HJ, Hald T, et al. World Health Organization global estimates and regional comparisons of the burden of foodborne disease in 2010. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001923. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kaakoush NO, Castaño-Rodríguez N, Mitchell HM, Man SM. Global epidemiology of Campylobacter infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28:687–720. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00006-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Sahin O, Zhang Q, Meitzler JC, Harr BS, Morishita TY, et al. Prevalence, antigenic specificity, and bactericidal activity of poultry anti-Campylobacter maternal antibodies. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67:3951–3957. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.9.3951-3957.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lamb-Rosteski JM, Kalischuk LD, Inglis GD, Buret AG. Epidermal growth factor inhibits Campylobacter jejuni-induced claudin-4 disruption, loss of epithelial barrier function, and Escherichia coli translocation. Infect Immun. 2008;76:3390–3398. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01698-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.El-Aziz DMA, Abd-Allah SM. Incidence of Campylobacter species in wholesale chicken carcasses and chicken meat products in Assiut city. Egypt Int Food Res J. 2017;24:2660–2665. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wagenaar JA, French NP, Havelaar AH. Preventing Campylobacter at the source: why is it so difficult? Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:1600–1606. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) The European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2020/2021. EFSA J. 2023;21:e07867. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7867. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Luangtongkum T, Jeon B, Han J, Plummer P, Logue CM, et al. Antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter: emergence, transmission and persistence. Future Microbiol. 2009;4:189–200. doi: 10.2217/17460913.4.2.189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Nguyen NH, Nguyen TNM, Hotzel H, El Adawy H, Nguyen AQ, et al. Thermophilic Campylobacter - neglected foodborne pathogens in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;8:00279. doi: 10.15406/ghoa.2017.08.00279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Anders KL, Thompson CN, Thuy NTV, Nguyet NM, Tu LTP, et al. The epidemiology and aetiology of diarrhoeal disease in infancy in southern Vietnam: a birth cohort study. Int J Infect Dis. 2015;35:3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2015.03.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bodhidatta L, Lan NTP, Hien BT, Lai NV, Srijan A, et al. Rotavirus disease in young children from Hanoi, Vietnam. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2007;26:325–328. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000257426.37289.8c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Thompson CN, Phan MVT, Hoang NVM, Minh PV, Vinh NT, et al. A prospective multi-center observational study of children hospitalized with diarrhea in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92:1045–1052. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Thi Dien N, Thi Minh Khue N, Ebata A, Fournié G, Huyen LTT, et al. Mapping chicken production and distribution networks in Vietnam: an analysis of socio-economic factors and their epidemiological significances. Prev Vet Med. 2023;214:105906. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.105906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Minh VD, Meeyam T, Unger F, Gölz G, Ngoc PT, et al. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. on retail fresh chicken carcasses in Hanoi, Vietnam. VIS. 2023;21:221–227. doi: 10.12982/VIS.2023.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Carrique-Mas JJ, Bryant JE, Cuong NV, Hoang NVM, Campbell J, et al. An epidemiological investigation of Campylobacter in pig and poultry farms in the Mekong delta of Vietnam. Epidemiol Infect. 2014;142:1425–1436. doi: 10.1017/S0950268813002410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Schwan P. Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance of Campylobacter Spp. in Poultry and Raw Meat in the Can Tho Province, Vietnam. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ha TAD, Pham TY. Study of Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli contamination in raw food available in factories, schools, and hospital canteens in Hanoi, Vietnam. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1081:262–265. doi: 10.1196/annals.1373.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Garin B, Gouali M, Wouafo M, Perchec A-M, Pham MT, et al. Prevalence, quantification and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter spp. on chicken neck-skins at points of slaughter in 5 major cities located on 4 continents. Int J Food Microbiol. 2012;157:102–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.04.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Luu QH, Tran TH, Phung DC, Nguyen TB. Study on the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. from chicken meat in Hanoi, Vietnam. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1081:273–275. doi: 10.1196/annals.1373.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Nguyen TNM, Hotzel H, El-Adawy H, Tran HT, Le MTH, et al. Genotyping and antibiotic resistance of thermophilic Campylobacter isolated from chicken and pig meat in Vietnam. Gut Pathog. 2016;8:19. doi: 10.1186/s13099-016-0100-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Cody AJ, Maiden MC, Strachan NJ, McCarthy ND. A systematic review of source attribution of human campylobacteriosis using multilocus sequence typing. Euro Surveill. 2019;24:1800696. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.43.1800696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Arning N, Sheppard SK, Bayliss S, Clifton DA, Wilson DJ. Machine learning to predict the source of campylobacteriosis using whole genome data. PLoS Genet. 2021;17:e1009436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Petrie A, Watson PF. Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science. Third edition ed. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, a John Wiley Sons, Ltd., publication Chichester, West Sussex; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Schwarz S, Silley P, Simjee S, Woodford N, van Duijkeren E, et al. Assessing the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria obtained from animals. Vet Microbiol. 2010;141:1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.12.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Seemann T, Bulach DM, Schultz MB, Kwong JC, Howden BP. Nullarbor. Github; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Pearson BM, Rokney A, Crossman LC, Miller WG, Wain J, et al. Complete genome sequence of the Campylobacter coli clinical isolate 15-537360. Genome Announc. 2013;1:e01056-13. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.01056-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19:455–477. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2068–2069. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Feldgarden M, Brover V, Haft DH, Prasad AB, Slotta DJ, et al. Validating the AMRFinder tool and resistance gene database by using antimicrobial resistance genotype-phenotype correlations in a collection of isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63:e00483-19. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00483-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Jolley KA, Bray JE, Maiden MCJ. Open-access bacterial population genomics: BIGSdb software, the PubMLST.org website and their applications. Wellcome Open Res. 2018;3:124. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14826.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1312–1313. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W242–5. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Lay KS, Vuthy Y, Song P, Phol K, Sarthou JL. Prevalence, numbers and antimicrobial susceptibilities of Salmonella serovars and Campylobacter spp. in retail poultry in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. J Vet Med Sci. 2011;73:325–329. doi: 10.1292/jvms.10-0373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Sallam KI. Prevalence of Campylobacter in chicken and chicken by-products retailed in Sapporo area, Hokkaido, Japan. Food Control. 2007;18:1113–1120. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.07.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Szosland-Fałtyn A, Bartodziejska B, Królasik J, Paziak-Domańska B, Korsak D, et al. The prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in polish poultry meat. Pol J Microbiol. 2018;67:117–120. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0011.6152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Wong TL, Hudson JA. Campylobacter Spp. in Uncooked Retail Chicken Meats. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Moran L, Scates P, Madden RH. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in raw retail poultry on sale in Northern Ireland. J Food Prot. 2009;72:1830–1835. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-72.9.1830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Nobile CGA, Costantino R, Bianco A, Pileggi C, Pavia M. Prevalence and pattern of antibiotic resistance of Campylobacter spp. in poultry meat in Southern Italy. Food Control. 2013;32:715–718. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.02.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Prencipe V, Parisciani G, Calistri P, Caporale CM, Iannitto G, et al. Thermotolerant Campylobacter in poultry meat marketed in the Abruzzo and Molise regions of Italy: prevalence and contamination levels. Vet Ital. 2007;43:167–174. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Sammarco ML, Ripabelli G, Fanelli I, Grasso GM, Tamburro M. Prevalence and biomolecular characterization of Campylobacter spp. isolated from retail meat. J Food Prot. 2010;73:720–728. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-73.4.720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Stella S, Soncini G, Ziino G, Panebianco A, Pedonese F, et al. Prevalence and quantification of thermophilic Campylobacter spp. in Italian retail poultry meat: analysis of influencing factors. Food Microbiol. 2017;62:232–238. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2016.10.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Rouger A, Tresse O, Zagorec M. Bacterial contaminants of poultry meat: sources, species, and dynamics. Microorganisms. 2017;5:50. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms5030050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Zhang P, Zhang X, Liu Y, Jiang J, Shen Z, et al. Multilocus sequence types and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli isolates of human patients from Beijing, China, 2017-2018. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:554784. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.554784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Dearlove BL, Cody AJ, Pascoe B, Méric G, Wilson DJ, et al. Rapid host switching in generalist Campylobacter strains erodes the signal for tracing human infections. ISME J. 2016;10:721–729. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2015.149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Cody AJ, McCarthy NM, Wimalarathna HL, Colles FM, Clark L, et al. A longitudinal 6-year study of the molecular epidemiology of clinical campylobacter isolates in Oxfordshire, United kingdom. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50:3193–3201. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01086-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Cobo-Díaz JF, González del Río P, Álvarez-Ordóñez A. Whole resistome analysis in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli genomes available in public repositories. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:662144. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.662144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Feodoroff B, de Haan CPA, Ellström P, Sarna S, Hänninen M-L, et al. Clonal distribution and virulence of Campylobacter jejuni isolates in blood. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19:1653–1655. doi: 10.3201/eid1910.121537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Moffatt CRM, Greig A, Valcanis M, Gao W, Seemann T, et al. A large outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni infection in a university college caused by chicken liver pâté, Australia, 2013. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144:2971–2978. doi: 10.1017/S0950268816001187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Wysok B, Wojtacka J, Hänninen M-L, Kivistö R. Antimicrobial resistance and virulence-associated markers in Campylobacter strains from diarrheic and non-diarrheic humans in Poland. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1799. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.European Food Safety Authority. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control The European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017/2018. EFSA J. 2020;18:e06007. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Mourkas E, Florez-Cuadrado D, Pascoe B, Calland JK, Bayliss SC, et al. Gene pool transmission of multidrug resistance among Campylobacter from livestock, sewage and human disease. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:4597–4613. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.14760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Alfredson DA, Korolik V. Antibiotic resistance and resistance mechanisms in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli . FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2007;277:123–132. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00935.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Hormeño L, Campos MJ, Vadillo S, Quesada A. Occurrence of tet(O/M/O) mosaic gene in tetracycline-resistant Campylobacter . Microorganisms. 2020;8:1710. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8111710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Yao H, Liu D, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Shen Z. High prevalence and predominance of the aph(2″)-If gene conferring aminoglycoside resistance in Campylobacter . Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e00112-17. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00112-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Qin S, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Chen X, Shen Z, et al. Identification of a novel genomic island conferring resistance to multiple aminoglycoside antibiotics in Campylobacter coli . Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:5332–5339. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00809-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Carrique-Mas JJ, Trung NV, Hoa NT, Mai HH, Thanh TH, et al. Antimicrobial usage in chicken production in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Zoonoses Public Health. 2015;62 Suppl 1:70–78. doi: 10.1111/zph.12165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Zeitouni S, Collin O, Andraud M, Ermel G, Kempf I. Fitness of macrolide resistant Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni . Microb Drug Resist. 2012;18:101–108. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2011.0188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403–410. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Bolinger H, Kathariou S. The current state of macrolide resistance in Campylobacter spp.: trends and impacts of resistance mechanisms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017;83:e00416-17. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00416-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Wallace RL, Bulach D, Valcanis M, Polkinghorne BG, Pingault N, et al. Identification of the first erm(B)-positive Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli associated with novel multidrug resistance genomic islands in Australia. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;23:311–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jgar.2020.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Sullivan MJ, Petty NK, Beatson SA. Easyfig: a genome comparison visualizer. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1009–1010. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Qin S, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Zhang M, Deng F, et al. Report of ribosomal RNA methylase gene erm(B) in multidrug-resistant Campylobacter coli . J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:964–968. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkt492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Denis M, Soumet C, Rivoal K, Ermel G, Blivet D, et al. Development of a m-PCR assay for simultaneous identification of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli . Lett Appl Microbiol. 1999;29:406–410. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-765x.1999.00658.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Cardarelli-Leite P, Blom K, Patton CM, Nicholson MA, Steigerwalt AG, et al. Rapid identification of Campylobacter species by restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of a PCR-amplified fragment of the gene coding for 16S rRNA. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34:62–67. doi: 10.1128/jcm.34.1.62-67.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Deng F, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Shen Z. Characterization of the genetic environment of the ribosomal RNA methylase gene erm(B) in Campylobacter jejuni . J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70:613–615. doi: 10.1093/jac/dku418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Tang B, Wang Y, Luo Y, Zheng X, Qin X, et al. Coexistence of optrA and fexA in Campylobacter. mSphere. 2021;6 doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00125-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.


