Skip to main content
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health logoLink to International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
. 2010 Jan 12;7(1):89–114. doi: 10.3390/ijerph7010089

Avian Colibacillosis and Salmonellosis: A Closer Look at Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Control and Public Health Concerns

S M Lutful Kabir 1,2
PMCID: PMC2819778  PMID: 20195435

Abstract

Avian colibacillosis and salmonellosis are considered to be the major bacterial diseases in the poultry industry world-wide. Colibacillosis and salmonellosis are the most common avian diseases that are communicable to humans. This article provides the vital information on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, control and public health concerns of avian colibacillosis and salmonellosis. A better understanding of the information addressed in this review article will assist the poultry researchers and the poultry industry in continuing to make progress in reducing and eliminating avian colibacillosis and salmonellosis from the poultry flocks, thereby reducing potential hazards to the public health posed by these bacterial diseases.

Keywords: poultry, colibacillosis, salmonellosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, public health

1. Introduction

Avian colibacillosis is an infectious disease of birds caused by Escherichia coli, which is considered as one of the principal causes of morbidity and mortality, associated with heavy economic losses to the poultry industry by its association with various disease conditions, either as primary pathogen or as a secondary pathogen. It causes a variety of disease manifestations in poultry including yolk sac infection, omphalitis, respiratory tract infection, swollen head syndrome, septicemia, polyserositis, coligranuloma, enteritis, cellulitis and salpingitis. Colibacillosis of poultry is characterized in its acute form by septicemia resulting in death and in its subacute form by peri-carditis, airsacculitis and peri-hepatitis [1]. On the other hand, Salmonella infection caused by a variety of Salmonella species is one of the most important bacterial diseases in poultry causing heavy economic losses through mortality and reduced production [2]. Avian salmonella infection may occur in poultry either acute or chronic form by one or more member of genus Salmonella, under the family Enterobacteriaceae [3]. Besides, motile Salmonellae (paratyphoid group) infection cause salmonellosis in chickens and have zoonotic significance.

Avian colibacillosis has been noticed to be a major infectious disease in birds of all ages. This disease has an important economic impact on poultry production worldwide. The majority of economic losses results from mortality and decrease in productivity of the affected birds [4]. Infectious bursal disease (IBD), mycoplasmosis, coccidiosis, Newcastle disease or infectious bronchitis, as well as nutritional deficiencies all predispose the birds to this disease [5]. However, faecal contamination of egg may result in the penetration of E. coli through the shell and may spread to the chickens during hatching and is often associated with high mortality rates, or it may give rise to yolk sac infection. On the other hand, with the great expansion of poultry rearing and farming, avian salmonellosis is the most devastating disease worldwide. The epidemiology of fowl typhoid and pullorum disease in poultry, particularly with regard to transmission from one generation to the next is known to be closely associated with infected eggs [6]. The birds that survive from clinical disease when infected at a young stage may show few signs of infection but can become carriers [7].

At slaughter, resistant strains from the gut readily soil poultry carcasses and as a result poultry meats are often contaminated with multiresistant E. coli [ 814]; likewise eggs become contaminated during laying [15]. Hence, resistant faecal E. coli from poultry can infect humans both directly and via food. These resistant bacteria may colonize the human intestinal tract and may also contribute resistance genes to human endogenous flora [16]. Similarly, the emergence of multidrug resistance among Salmonella spp. is an increasing concern. Salmonella serovar Hadar has been reported as one of the most resistant Salmonella serotypes [1719].

Microbial food safety is an increasing public health concern worldwide. Epidemiological reports suggest that poultry meat is still the primary cause of human food poisoning [20]. Poultry meat is more popular in the consumer market because of advantages such as easy digestibility and acceptance by the majority of people [21]. However, the presence of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms in poultry meat and its by-products remains a significant concern for suppliers, consumers and public health officials worldwide. E. coli and Salmonella has been consistently associated with foodborne illnesses in most countries of the world.

There are many poultry diseases transmissible to human, among them avian colibacillosis and avian salmonellosis are the prime concerns. But the detailed information about avian colibacillosis and avian salmonellosis in connection to the public health concerns are not available yet in one place. So, I intend to write this review article focusing on the various aspects of avian colibacillosis and avain salmonellosis in connection to the public health concerns.

2. Epidemiology of Avian Colibacillosis and Avian Salmonellosis

2.1. Epidemiology of Avian Colibacillosis

E. coli is a gram-negative, non-acid-fast, uniform staining, non-spore-forming bacillus that grows both aerobically and anaerobically and may be variable in size and shape. Many strains are motile and have peritrichous flagella. E. coli is considered as a member of the normal microflora of the poultry intestine, but certain strains, such as those designated as avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC), spread into various internal organs and cause colibacillosis characterized by systemic fatal disease [22,23]. E. coli isolates pathogenic for poultry commonly belong to certain serogroups, particularly the serogroups O78, O1, and O2, and to some extent O15 and O55 [24,25]. In domestic poultry, avian colibacillosis is frequently associated with E. coli strains of serotypes O78:K80, O1:K1 and O2:K1 (2- Filali E). The avian colibacillosis was found widely prevalent in all age group of chickens (9.52 to 36.73%) with specially high prevalence rate in adult layer birds (36.73%) [26].

The most important reservoir of E. coli is the intestinal tract of animals, including poultry. In chickens, there are about 109 colony forming units (CFU) of bacteria per gram of feces and of these, 106 CFU are E. coli. E. coli has also been commonly isolated from the upper respiratory tract. In addition, it is present on the bird’s skin and feathers. These strains always belong to both pathogenic and non-pathogenic types [27]. In the caecal flora of healthy chickens, 10 to 15% of the E. coli strains may belong to an O-serotype that can also be isolated from colibacillosis lesions [28]. As soon as the first hours after hatching, the birds start building up their E. coli flora. The bacteria drastically increase their numbers in the gut. In a single bird a large number of different E. coli types is present, obtained via horizontal contamination from the environment, more specifically from other birds, faeces, water and feed [29]. Moreover, rodents may be carriers of APEC and hence a source of contamination for the birds [22].

The risk for colibacillosis increases with increasing infection pressure in the environment. A good housing hygiene and avoiding overcrowding are very important. Other principal risk factors are the duration of exposure, virulence of the strain, breed, and immune status of the bird [3034]. Every damage to the respiratory system favours infection with APEC. Several pathogens, like NDV, IBV and MG, both wildtype and vaccine strains, may play a part in this process. An unfavourable housing climate, like an excess of ammonia or dust, renders the respiratory system more susceptible to APEC infections through deciliation of the upper respiratory tract [22].

Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) is considered to be the most reliable molecular finger-printing technique to differentiate organisms but restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) is the one that is used most frequently. However, both techniques require large quantities of DNA, are time consuming, and require expensive equipment [35]. Other techniques such as ERIC–PCR and REP–PCR [36,37] and random amplification of polymorphic DNA (RAPD)–PCR [38] have been proposed as alternatives and used to characterize Escherichia coli isolates of avian origin [39,40]. Other molecular techniques such as ribotyping and isoenzyme profile have also been used to evaluate the clonality of avian E. coli [41]. Some clones are specific to APEC and a small-scale comparison of commensal and pathogenic isolates revealed that 83% of pathogenic strains belong to only five clones, whereas each of the 10 non-pathogenic strains belong to different clones [42]. On the other hand, clonal relationships were found for O2:K1 isolates from humans and chickens [43] and for O78 isolates from humans, cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens [44], indicating that these species too might act as a source of infection for chickens.

Even though certain O-types are more frequently detected in APEC than in commensal E. coli [45], the isolates are very heterogenous, both in their pheno- and genotype [43,4547]. On the other hand, the prevalence of certain serotypes is linked with the geographical localisation of a flock [48].

Since avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC) and human uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) may encounter similar challenges when establishing infection in extraintestinal locations, they may share a similar content of virulence genes and capacity to cause disease. In this regard, Rodriguez-Siek et al. [49] compared 200 human uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) and 524 avian pathogenic E. coli (APEC) isolates for their content of virulence genes (Table 1), including many implicated in extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC) virulence as well as those associated with APEC plasmids for assessing the potential of APEC to cause human extraintestinal diseases and a well-documented ability of avian E. coli to spread to human beings, the potential for APEC to act as human UPEC or as a reservoir of virulence genes for UPEC should be considered.

Table 1.

ExPEC/APEC genes used in virulence genotyping*.

Gene Description Reference
pTJ100-related genes
cvaC+ Structural gene for the colicin V operon [50]
iroN± Catecholate siderophore receptor gene [51]
iss+ Increased serum survival gene [52,53]
iucC± Involved in aerobactin synthesis [54,55]
iutA± Ferric aerobactin receptor gene; iron transport [55]
sitA± Putative iron transport gene [56]
traT+ Outer membrane protein gene; surface exclusion; serum resistance [57,58]
tsh Temperature-sensitive hemagglutinin gene [59]
Iron-Related
feoB Gene which mediates ferric iron uptake [56]
ireA Encodes an iron-responsive element; [60]
putative sideropohore receptor gene
irp-2 Iron repressible gene associated with yersiniabactin synthesis [61]
Toxins
hlyD Transport gene of the hemolysin operon [62]
Miscellaneous
fliC (H7) Produces-flagellin protein associated with the H7 antigen group [63]
*

Descriptions of genes encoding components of certain adhesins (i.e., genes encoding parts of the P pilus, papA; papC; papEF; papG, including papG alleles I, II, and III; the S pilus, sfa and the gene encoding the S fimbrial tip, sfaS; the Type 1 fimbrial adhesin, fimH; the F1C fimbrial tip, focG; and other genes encoding portions of miscellaneous adhesins, iha; afa; gafD; and bmaE); toxins (cnf-1 and cdtB); protectins (kpsMT K1; kpsMT II; kpsMT III; and rfc); siderophores (fyuA); and other miscellaneous structures (ibeA; ompT; and PAI(CFT073), a fragment from archetypal UPEC strain CFT073) can be found in Johnson and co-workers [64]. Also, the description of papG allele I’ can be found in Johnson and Stell [65].

+ These genes are listed as pTJ100-related, but they could also be listed as protectins.

± These genes are listed as pTJ100-related, but they could also be listed with the iron-related genes.

≠ These genes are listed as pTJ100-related, but they also could be listed in the miscellaneous group.

Avian pathogenic E. coli strains are often resistant to antimicrobials approved for poultry including cephradine [66], tetracyclines [6670], chloramphenicol [66], sulfonamides [67,6971], amino-glycosides [6870,72,73] and β-lactam antibiotics [66,67,69,71]. Resistance to fluoroquinolones was reported within several years of the approval of this class of drugs for use in poultry [45,71,74,75]. There is reason for concern that genes conferring resistance to extended-spectrum beta-lactams will emerge in avian pathogenic E. coli strains [76] and reduce the efficacy of ceftiofur, which is currently used on a limited basis in poultry breeding flocks and hatcheries. In one study, conducted at the University of Georgia, 97 of 100 avian pathogenic E. coli isolates were resistant to streptomycin and sulfonamide and 87% of these multiple antimicrobial resistant strains contained a class 1 integron, intI1, which carried multiple antibiotic resistance genes [70]. Multiple antimicrobial resistance traits of avian pathogenic E. coli have also been associated with transmissible R-plasmids [77].

2.2. Epidemiology of Avian Salmonellosis

Avian Salmonella infections are important as both a cause of clinical disease in poultry and as a source of food-borne transmission of disease to humans. Under the family of Enterobacteriaceae, the genus Salmonella is a facultative intracellular pathogen causing localized or systemic infections; as well as a chronic asymptomatic carrier state [78]. The etiological agent of fowl typhoid and pullorum disease is Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Gallinarum, which is divided into two distinct biovars under the serogroup D1, Gallinarum and Pullorum, which are denoted as S. gallinarum and S. pullorum, respectively [78,79]. In addition to S. gallinarum-pullorum, other salmonellae such as S. enteritidis, S. panama and S. dublin also belong to the serogroup D1 [79]. The various motile and non-host adapted highly invasive serotypes such as Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium are commonly referred to as paratyphoid salmonellae [80]. Age wise prevalence of avian salmonellosis showed highest infection rate in adult layers (53.25%) in comparison to brooding (14.55%), growing (16.10%) and pullet (16.10%) chickens [26].

Various routes of infection have been described. Oral route of infection represents the normal route of infection [81]. Although infection in newly hatched chicks by nasal and cloacal route are also considered as the important route of transmission. Chicks may be infected early by vertical transmission either from an infected ovary, oviduct or from the infected eggs during the passage through the cloacal faeces from infected or carrier hens. The birds survive from clinical disease when infected in young stage may show few signs of infection but they become carriers [82]. In adult carriers the reproductive organs are the predilection sites that often lead to the infection of ovarian follicles and as a result transovarian transmission of the disease occurs. The bacteria are passed out through the faeces and lateral spread takes place through the fecal contaminated feeds, water and litter [78].

Although more than 2,300 serotypes of Salmonella have been identified, only about 10% of these have been isolated from poultry [80]. Chickens are the natural hosts for the highly host adapted biovar S. gallinarum and S. pullorum, but natural outbreaks have also been reported in turkeys, guinea fowl, quail and pheasants [83]. Fowl typhoid is a peracute, acute or chronic form of disease affecting mostly adult chickens, whereas pullorum disease affects the very young chickens, mostly 2−3 weeks of age. In the adult it tends to be chronic [78,84]. Fowl typhoid is frequently referred to as a disease of adult birds; still, there are also reports of high morbidity and mortality in young chickens [85]. S. gallinarum can produce lesions in chicks, which are indistinguishable from those associated with pullorum disease [78]. A certain percentage of chickens that survive from the initial infection become carriers with or without presence of clinical signs and pathological lesions [83]. Crowding, malnutrition, and other stressful conditions as well as unsanitary surroundings can exacerbate mortality and performance losses due to salmonellosis, especially in young birds [86]. The potential risk factors responsible for Salmonella contamination of broiler-chicken flocks are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

A list of risk factors responsible for Salmonella contamination of broiler-chicken flocks.

Risk factors Reference
Inadequate level of hygiene [87,88]
Salmonella contamination of the previous flock with a persistence inside the house [89,90] [91]
Contaminated day-old chicks and feed [89,9294]
The farm structure (>3 houses on the farm) [89]
Wet and cold season [89]
Litter-beetle infestation of the house [91]

In more recent years, the use of DNA-related techniques such as plasmid analysis [95,96], ribotyping [97100], and PFGE [101,102] have proved to be useful in discriminating isolates of Salmonella species. Lapuz et al. [103] investigated the prevalence of Salmonella in four layer farms in eastern Japan between 2004 and 2006 to determine the role of roof rats (Rattus rattus) in the epizootology of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Enteritidis (S. enteritidis) and they suggested that roof rats were carriers of S. enteritidis and S. infantis and that persistent S. enteritidis and S. infantis infections in a rat population might play an important role in the spread and maintenance of these pathogens inside the layer premises.

Fowl typhoid and pullorum disease are distributed in many countries of the world, and have economic significance [104]. They are mainly distributed in Latin America, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, Africa and perhaps other parts of the world [78,105]. Salmonellosis has also been reported in many countries of South-East Asia including Bangladesh [106,107], India [108,109], Pakistan [110,111] and Nepal [112]. Fowl typhoid is common in both backyard chickens and in commercial poultry [113].

Salmonella and other food borne pathogens acquire antibiotic resistance by random chromosomal mutations, mutation of existing genes, and through specific mechanisms such as transduction, tranformation, and conjugation [114]. These mechanisms involve transfer of drug resistant genes by means of circular DNA plasmids such as R-factor, conjugative plasmid, or chromosomal elements [115122]. The occurrence and proliferation of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella in environmental samples, poultry, and other animals and humans may be due to the use of medicated feeds [123125], the practice of dipping hatching eggs in solutions containing antimicrobial agents [126128], routine inoculation of day-old poults with antibiotics [126128] and treatment of other animals [129] and humans [117] with antibiotics. Salmonella strains of avian origin are also often resistant to variety of antimicrobials approved for poultry including tetracycline [130133], oxytetracycline [134], penicillin [66,130134], aminoglycosides [130,132,133], sulfisoxazole [133] and fluoroquinolones [135]. On the other hand, Manie et al. [136] found several strains of multiple antibiotic-resistant Salmonella strains in chicken.

3. Pathogenesis and Disease Syndromes of Avian Colibacillosis and Avian Salmonellosis

3.1. Pathogenesis and Disease Syndromes of Avian Colibacillosis

The mechanisms by which avian pathogenic E. coli cause infection are largely unknown. The virulence factors contributing to the pathogenesis of avian colibacillosis are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

A list of virulence factors contributing to the pathogenesis of avian colibacillosis.

Virulence facors Reference
F (type 1) and P fimbrial adhesins [137140]
Curli [141,142]
Factors contributing to adhesion, resistance to immunologic defense, survival in physiologic fluids, and cytotoxic effects [143]
Factors conferring resistance to serum and phagocytosis [138,140,144,145]
Aerobactin siderophores [138,146]
hylE, a hemolysin gene [147]
The tsh gene encoding temperature sensitive hemagglutinin [141,148]
K1 Capsular antigen [149]
Cytotoxins [150152]
Outer membrane proteins [153]
Coligenicity [151]
The heat-labile chick lethal toxin (CLT) [154]
Verotoxin-2 like toxin [152]

Recently, Hughes et al. [155] described a cross-sectional study of wild birds in northern England to determine the prevalence of E. coli-containing genes that encoded Shiga toxins (stx1 and stx2) and intimin (eae), important virulence determinants of STEC associated with human disease and they stated that while wild birds were unlikely to be direct sources of STEC infections, they did represent a potential reservoir of virulence genes.

APEC are responsible for a considerable number of various diseases at different ages. Neonatal infection of chicks can occur horizontally, from the environment, or vertically, from the hen. A laying hen suffering from E. coli-induced oophoritis or salpingitis may infect the internal egg before shell formation. Faecal contamination of the eggshell is possible during the passage of the egg through the cloaca and after laying. The latter possibility is considered as the main route of infection for the egg [22]. Before hatching, APEC causes yolk sac infections and embryo mortality. The chick can also be infected during or shortly after hatching. In these cases, retained infected yolk, omphalitis, septicemia and mortality of the young chicks up to an age of three weeks is seen [22]. Broilers may be affected by necrotic dermatitis, also known as cellulitis, characterized by a chronic inflammation of the subcutis on abdomen and thighs [22].

Swollen head syndrome (SHS), mainly a problem in broilers, causes oedema of the cranial and periorbital skin. SHS can cause a reduction in egg production of 2 to 3%, and a mortality of 3 to 4% [156]. Data on this disease are contradictory. Picault et al. [157] and Hafez & Löhren [158] considered SHS as a disease caused by avian pneumovirus (APV), usually followed by an opportunistic E. coli infection. Nakamura et al. [159] however reported that APEC were probably playing a significant part in the disease, but that the role of APV was not at all clear. This had been confirmed by Georgiades et al. [160], who did not detect APV in any of the flocks affected by SHS during a field study, but instead detected infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), avian adenovirus, avian reovirus, and Newcastle disease virus (NDV), as well as Mycoplasma synoviae and M. gallisepticum (MG).

APEC probably do not cause intestinal diseases. Nevertheless, enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) are occasionally isolated from poultry suffering from diarrhoea [161163] and diarrhoea was experimentally induced after intramuscular inoculation of APEC [164]. On the other hand, enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) were isolated from clinically healthy chickens [165]. In turkeys, experimentally inoculated EPEC can only cause enteritis in combination with coronavirus [166].

Layers as well as broilers may suffer from acute or chronic salpingitis [167,168]. Salpingitis can be the result of an ascending infection from the cloaca [167,168] or an infection of the left abdominal airsac [22], although Bisgaard and Dam [167] considered the latter possibility less likely than an ascending infection. Salpingitis can lead to the loss of egg-laying capacity [163]. In the case of chronic salpingitis, the oviduct has a yellowish-gray, cheese-like content, with a concentric structure [168]. In layers, salpingitis can cause egg peritonitis if yolk material has been deposited in the peritoneal cavity, characterised by a sero-fibrinous inflammation of the surrounding tissues [22].

Airsacculitis is observed at all ages. The bird is infected by inhalation of dust contaminated with faecal material, which may contain 106 CFU of E. coli per gram [169]. This aerogenic route of infection is considered as the main origin of systemic colibacillosis or colisepticemia [33,143,170].

Septicemia also affects chickens of all ages, and is mainly described in broilers. It is the most prevalent form of colibacillosis, characterised by polyserositis [143]. It causes depression, fever and often high mortality. Although its pathogenesis has not been elucidated, several routes of infection are possible: neonatal infections [22], infections through skin lesions [171], infection of the reproductive organs [22,167,168], of the respiratory tract [33] and even infection per os [172]. When E. coli reaches the vascular system, the internal organs and the heart are infected. The infection of the myocard causes heart failure [173]. Septicemia occasionally also leads to synovitis and osteomyelitis [22,174] and on rare occasions to panophthalmia [22]. Coligranuloma or Hjarre’s disease is characterised by granulomas in liver, caeca, duodenum and mesenterium, but not in the spleen. It is a rare form of colibacillosis, but in affected flocks it may cause up to 75% mortality [22].

Further studies are needed to determine the role of newly identified putative virulence genes and genes with unknown functions as virulence markers of APEC to strengthen the current understanding of mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of avian colibacillosis.

3.2. Pathogenesis and Disease Syndrome of Avian Salmonellosis

The pathogenicity of Salmonella depends on the invasive properties and the ability of the bacteria to survive and multiply within the cells, particularly macrophages [175]. The main site of multiplication of these bacteria is the digestive tract, which may result in widespread contamination of the environment due to bacterial excretion through feces. Following invasion through the intestinal mucosa, cecal tonsils and Peyer’s patches, the organisms are engulfed by macrophages, and through the blood stream and/or lymphatic systems, they spread to organs rich in reticuloendothelial tissues (RES), such as liver and spleen, which are the main sites of multiplication [176]. In case of inadequate body defense mechanism, they may lead to second invasion and be localized in other organs, particularly ovary, oviduct, myocardium, pericardium, gizzard, yolk sac and/or lungs [177]. In the bird challenge, S. typhimurium rapidly caused inflammation of the intestinal mucosa, but S. pullorum preferentially targeted the bursa of Fabricius prior to eliciting intestinal inflammation [178]. Pullorum disease manifests itself predominantly as an enteric disease of chickens, while fowl typhoid shows signs of septicemic disease [78]. Both biovars can cause septicemic infections, which may be acute or chronic, but unlike S. pullorum, S. gallinarum is capable of producing peracute infection and hemolytic anemia in both young and adults [84]. S. gallinarum is extremely pathogenic to young broiler chicks [179].

Fowl typhoid is indistinguishable from pullorum disease unless the etiological agent is isolated and identified [113]. Clinical signs in chicks and poults include anorexia, diarrhea, dehydration, weakness and high mortality [83]. In mature fowls, fowl typhoid and pullorum disease are manifested by anorexia, drop in egg production, increased mortality, reduced fertility and hatchability [83]. S. pullorum infected adult birds may or may not exhibit any clinical signs, or they cannot be detected by their physical appearance [78]. Furthermore, the exact mechanisms of getting these poultry diseases are still remained to be obscured.

4. Diagnosis of Avian Colibacillosis and Avian Salmonellosis

Colibacillos is suspected based on the clinical features and the typical macroscopic lesions. The diagnosis is obtained by E. coli isolation from cardiac blood and affected tissues, like liver, spleen, pericard or bone marrow. Experimentally it was shown that in acute cases, isolation is possible from six hours to three days after infection; in subacute cases, isolation is only possible until seven days after infection [180]. Contamination from the intestines is rarely a problem, if fresh material is used and standard bacteriological procedures are applied [181]. Selective media like McConkey, eosin-methylene blue or drigalki agar are used for isolation. Further identification of the isolated colonies is based on biochemical reactions (indol production, fermentation of glucose with gas production, presence of ß-galactosidase, absence of hydrogen sulphite production and urease, and the inability to use citrate as a carbon source) [29]. O-serotyping is a frequently used typing method. An ELISA, based on sonicated E. coli, has been developed for detection of antibodies against two important pathogenic serotypes of E. coli: O78:K80 and O2:K1 [182]. Another ELISA was based on fimbrial antigen [183]. Both have limited value because they can only detect homologous APEC types. All currently known virulence-associated factors, detected in strains isolated from colibacillosis lesions, can also be detected in faecal isolates from clinically healthy chickens. For this reason, none of these traits can be used for APEC identification.

Diagnosis of avian salmonellosis should be confirmed by isolation, identification, and serotyping of Salmonella strains. Infections in mature birds can be identified by serologic tests, followed by necropsy evaluation complemented by microbiologic culture and typing for confirmation. A serological ELISA test for the diagnosis of avian salmonellosis either with S. typhimurium or S. enteritidis has been established [184]. Szmolka et al. [185] established a diagnostic and a real-time PCR system for rapid and reliable genus- and serovar- (S. enteritidis and S. typhimurium) specific detection of Salmonella for monitoring purposes in the poultry food chain.

5. Preventive Measures for Controlling Avian Colibacillosis and Avian Salmonellosis

5.1. Avian Colibacillosis

A first step is the prevention of egg contamination by fumigating them within two hours after lay, and by removing cracked eggs or eggs soiled with faecal material. It is recommended to vent the incubators and hatchers to the outside and to have as few breeder flocks as possible per breeding unit [22]. In chicks, contamination with APEC from the environment must be controlled by reduction and control of intestinal infection. This can be achieved using competitive exclusion (CE) [186190], i.e., inoculating day-old chicks with normal bacterial flora of healthy adult chickens or a monoculture, for instance of Bacillus subtilis. Birds also need to be protected against pathogens that promote infections with APEC. This is possible by using Mycoplasma-free birds [22] and protecting the birds against mycoplasmas and viral diseases by vaccinations [170]. Disease introduction must also be avoided [170] by a suitable house infrastructure, the correct use of a transition zone (for changing clothes and shoes, and washing hands), and pest control: rodent faeces are a source of pathogenic E. coli [22]. The housing climate must be kept optimal for bird density, humidity, ventilation, dust and ammonia [29,170].

The great diversity among APEC strains limits the possibilities of vaccination, and vaccines are not used on a large scale. Several vaccines based on killed or attenuated strains have been tested experimentally. In general, they give sufficient protection against infection with homologous strains, but protection against heterologous strains is less efficient [29]. However, Melamed et al. [191] reported a certain degree of heterologous protection obtained with an inactivated vaccine. Passive immunisation of young birds via the breeder hens is efficient for two weeks [192], if the birds are challenged with homologous strains. Vaccines based on virulence factors like fimbriae, also give a good homologous protection, i.e., against APEC possessing the same fimbriae [193].

5.2. Avian Salmonellosis

Although fowl typhoid and pullorum disease are widely distributed in most parts of the world, the diseases have been eradicated from commercial poultry in developed countries such as the United States of America, Canada and most countries of Western Europe [78]. Successful control programs can be achieved by developing good hygiene and management together with routine serological tests and slaughter policy [177]. The principal management procedures should include chicks free from infections, and the chicks should be placed in a cleaned, sanitized and S. gallinarum and S. pullorum free environment with strict biosecurity measures [194]. The feed and water should be free from Salmonella contamination. The dead birds need to be well disposed. Adequate precautions are needed to prevent infections from mechanical carriers like footwear, human clothing, hatchery disciplines, equipments, litters, crates, trucks and processing plants [195]. Wray et al. [196] described that the birds need to be tested at the age of 16 weeks due to immunologic maturity, at the point of lay due to stress and two consecutive times one month apart to provide the acceptable evidence that the flock is free from fowl typhoid [177]. Kabir et al. [189] and Kabir [190] demonstrated the potential role of probiotics for the controlling of Salmonella strains of poultry via the mechanisms of competitive exclusion. Vaccines may be used to control the disease, and antibiotics can be used for the treatment of fowl typhoid and pullorum disease.

6. Public Health Concerns of Avian Colibacillosis and Avian Salmonellosis

E. coli of the O2:K1 serotype isolated from human urinary tract infections and from septicemic chickens are phenotypically highly related. A distinction between both groups was only possible by examining their plasmid contents [43]. Cherifi et al. [44] obtained similar results for a group of O78 isolates and concluded that chickens might be a source of septicemic human O78 infections. However, contrasting results were obtained in a study by Caya et al. [197]. In this study, avian E. coli isolates from healthy and diseased birds (airsacculitis and cellulitis) and E. coli strains isolated from sick humans during the same period and in the same geographical area as the avian isolates were compared. The study results suggested that these avian isolates possessed very few of the attributes required to cause disease in humans. Reversely, human isolates can be pathogenic to day-old chicks after subcutaneous inoculation. Strains tested were of the serotypes O1, O2, O18 and O78 [198]. Although O157 verotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) had been detected in broilers [158], the chicken was not considered as an important reservoir for this zoonotically often reported serotype. Experimental studies showed that chickens might be functioned as a reservoir: O157 strains easily infected the young birds, even at a low dose, and persisted in the caecum for up to three months [199]. The study by Stavric et al. [200] showed that layers were also susceptible to colonisation by O157:H7 and other VTEC after inoculation per os. The intestines were increasingly colonised if increasing inoculation doses were used. The older the bird, the more restricted the colonisation and persistence were. All birds involved in the experiment remained clinically healthy. Histologically, attachment and effacement lesions were detected in the proximal caeca. Chapman et al. [199] reported that at that time no bacteriologically confirmed human cases of O157 infections had been observed, caused by poultry. Nonetheless, chicken meat was sometimes positive for VTEC [201,202]. In addition, Manges et al. [203] conducted a case-control study between April 2003 and June 2004 and they demonstrated that antimicrobial resistant, urinary tract infection (UTI) causing E. coli could have a food reservoir, possibly in poultry or pork. Uncontrolled, avian E. coli represents a serious animal welfare concern and risk to public health as it is a zoonotic organism with avian E. coli species known to adapt to humans.

Salmonellosis is of public health concern because most of the strains of Salmonella are potentially pathogenic to humans and animals. Avian salmonellosis can pose a health risk to people if exposed. Symptoms appear similar to food poisoning, such as diarrhea and acute gastroenteritis. However, it appears that birds mainly acquire the disease from the environment and that infected birds play a relatively small role in the transmission of disease to domestic animals and humans. Public health concerns and the potential for foodborne zoonotic transmission have made Salmonella the subject of numerous international, national, and local surveillance programs [204].

7. Strategies for Reducing Public Health Hazards

The risk of colibacillosis can be reduced through simple precautions.

  1. By thorough cleaning of poultry houses.

  2. By ensuring proper ventilation of the poultry houses and chlorination of drinking water.

  3. By washing hands carefully before and after food preparation and after toileting.

  4. By avoiding eating raw or undercooked poultry.

  5. By wrapping fresh meats in plastic bags at the market to prevent fluids from dripping on other foods.

  6. By ensuring the correct internal cooking temperature especially when using a microwave.

The risk of salmonellosis can be also reduced through simple precautions.

  1. By washing hands carefully before and after food preparation and after toileting or changing diapers.

  2. By avoiding eating raw or undercooked eggs (or foods made with raw eggs) and poultry.

  3. By wrapping fresh meats in plastic bags at the market to prevent fluids from dripping on other foods.

  4. By ensuring the correct internal cooking temperature especially when using a microwave.

  5. By avoiding chicks and ducklings as pets for small children.

8. Conclusions

Avian colibacillosis and salmonellosis are considered to be the major bacterial disease problems in the poultry industry world-wide and these diseases constitute a major public health burden and represent a significant cost in many countries. The economic and public health burden of these diseases have made this topic time demanding. It is suggested from this review article that more effective application of existing control methods would greatly reduce the hazards to public health.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and comments.

References

  • 1.Calnek BW, Barnes HJ, Beard CW, McDougald LR, Saif YM. Diseases of Poultry. 10th ed. Iowa State University Press; Ames, IA, USA: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Haider MG, Hossain MG, Hossain MS, Chowdhury EH, Das PM, Hossain MM. Isolation and characterization of enterobacteria associated with health and disease in sonali chickens. Bangl. J. Vet. Med. 2004;2:15–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hofstad MS, John BH, Calnek BW, Reid WN, Yoder HW., Jr . Diseases of Poultry. 8th ed. Panima Education Book Agency; New Delhi, India: 1992. pp. 65–123. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Otaki Y. Poultry disease control programme in Japan. Asian Livestock. 1995;20:65–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wray C, Davies RH. Enterobacteriacae. In: Jordan F, Pattison M, Alexander D, Faragher T, editors. Poultry Diseases. 5th ed. W. B. Saunders; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 2001. pp. 95–130. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wigley P, Berchieri A, Jr, Page KL, Smith AL, Barrow PA. Salmonella enterica serovar Pullorum persists in splenic macrophages and in the reproductive tract during persistent, disease free carriage in chickens. Infect. Immun. 2001;69:7873–7879. doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.12.7873-7879.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Berchieri A, Jr, Murphy CK, Marston K, Barrow PA. Observations on the persistence and vertical transmission of Salmonella enterica serovars Pullorum and Gallinarum in chickens: Effect of bacterial and host genetic background. Avian Pathol. 2001;30:221–231. doi: 10.1080/03079450120054631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Caudry SD, Stanisich VA. Incidence of antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli associated with frozen chicken carcasses and characterization of conjugative R-plasmids derived from such strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1979;16:701–709. doi: 10.1128/aac.16.6.701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nazer AH. Transmissible drug resistance in Escherichia coli isolated from poultry and their carcasses in Iran. Cornell. Vet. 1980;70:365–371. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bensink JC, Botham FP. Antibiotic resistant coliform bacilli, isolated from freshly slaughtered poultry and from chilled poultry at retail outlets. Aust. Vet. J. 1983;60:80–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1983.tb05876.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Linton AH, Howe K, Hartley CL, Clements HM, Richmond MH, Osborne AD. Antibiotic resistance among Escherichia coli O-serotypes from the gut and carcasses of commercially slaughtered broiler chickens: a potential public health hazard. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1977;42:365–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1977.tb00704.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chaslus Dancla E, Lafont JP. IncH plasmids in Escherichia coli strains isolated from broiler chicken carcasses. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1985;49:1016–1018. doi: 10.1128/aem.49.4.1016-1018.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jayaratne A, Collins-Thompson DL, Trevors JT. Occurrence of aminoglycoside phosphotransferase subclass I and II structural genes among Enterobacteriaceae spp. isolated from meat samples. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1990;33:547–552. doi: 10.1007/BF00172549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Turtura GC, Massa S, Chazvinizadeh H. Antibiotic resistance among coliform bacteria isolated from carcasses of commercially slaughtered chickens. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1990;11:351–354. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(90)90029-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lakhotia RL, Stephens JF. Drug resistance and R factors among enterobacteria isolated from eggs. Poult. Sci. 1973;52:1955–1962. doi: 10.3382/ps.0521955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.van den Bogaard E, London N, Driessen C, Stobberingh EE. Antibiotic resistance of faecal Escherichia coli in poultry, poultry farmers and poultry slaughterers. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2001;47:763–771. doi: 10.1093/jac/47.6.763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cruchaga S, Echeita A, Aladueña A, García-Peña J, Frias N, Usera MA. Antimicrobial resistance in salmonellae from humans, food and animals in Spain in 1998. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2001;47:315–321. doi: 10.1093/jac/47.3.315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.van Looveren M, Chasseur-Libotte ML, Godard C, Lammens C, Wijdooghe M, Peeters L, Goossens H. Antimicrobial susceptibility of nontyphoidal Salmonella isolated from humans in Belgium. Acta Clin. Belg. 2001;56:180–186. doi: 10.1179/acb.2001.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wybot I, Wildemauwe C, Godard C, Bertrand S, Collard JM. Antimicrobial drug resistance in nontyphoid human Salmonella in Belgium: Trends for the period 2000–2002. Acta Clin. Belg. 2004;59:152–160. doi: 10.1179/acb.2004.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mulder RW. Hygiene during transport, slaughter and processing. In: Richardson RI, Mead GC, editors. Poultry Meat Science Poultry Science Symposium Series. CABI Publishing; Oxford shire, UK: 1999. pp. 277–285. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yashoda KP, Sachindra NM, Sakhare PZ, Rao DN. Microbiological quality of broiler chicken carcasses processed hygienically in a small scale poultry processing unit. J. Food Qual. 2001;24:249–259. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Barnes HJ, Gross WB. Colibacillosis. In: Calnek BW, Barnes HJ, Beard CW, McDougald LR, Saif YM, editors. Diseases of Poultry. 10th ed. Iowa State University Press; Ames, IA, USA: 1997. pp. 131–141. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.La Ragione RM, Woodward MJ. Virulence factors of Escherichia coli serotypes associated with avian colisepticemia. Res. Vet. Sci. 2002;73:27–35. doi: 10.1016/s0034-5288(02)00075-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gross WB. Diseases due to Escherichia coli in poultry. In: Gyles CL, editor. Escherichia coli in Domestic Animals and Humans. CAB International Library; Wallingford, UK: 1994. pp. 237–260. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chart H, Smith HR, La Ragione RM, Woodward MJ. An investigation into the pathogenic properties of Escherichia coli strains BLR, BL21, DH5α, and EQ1. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000;89:1048–1058. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.01211.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rahman MA, Samad MA, Rahman MB, Kabir SML. Bacterio-pathological studies on salmonellosis, colibacillosis and pasteurellosis in natural and experimental infections in chickens. Bangl. J. Vet. Med. 2004;2:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Harry EG, Hemsley LA. The relationship between environmental contamination with septicemia strains of Escherichia coli. Vet. Rec. 1965;77:241–245. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Harry EG, Hemsley LA. The association between the presence of septicemia strains of Escherichia coli in the respiratory and intestinal tracts of chickens and the occurrence of coli septicemia. Vet. Rec. 1965;77:35–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dho-Moulin M, Fairbrother JM. Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Vet. Res. 1999;30:299–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gross WB, Siegel PB, Hall RW, Domermuth CH, DuBoise RT. Production and persistence of antibodies in chickens to sheep erythrocytes. 2. Resistance to infectious diseases. Poult. Sci. 1980;59:205–210. doi: 10.3382/ps.0590205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rosenberger JK, Fries PA, Cloud SS, Wilson RA. In vitro and in vivo characterization of avian Escherichia coli. II. Factors associated with pathogenicity. Avian Dis. 1985;29:1094–1107. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gross WB. Effect of short-term exposure of chickens to corticosterone on resistance to challenge exposure with Escherichia coli and antibody response to sheep erythrocytes. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1992;53:291–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pourbakhsh SA, Boulianne M, Martineau-Doizé B, Dozois CM, Desautels C, Fairbrother JM. Dynamics of Escherichia coli infection in experimentally inoculated chickens. Avian Dis. 1997;41:221–233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.McGruder ED, Moore GM. Use of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) as a positive control for the evaluation of immunopotentiating drug candidates in experimental avian colibacillosis models. Res. Vet. Sci. 1998;66:33–37. doi: 10.1053/rvsc.1998.0237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.da Silveiraa WD, Ferreiraa A, Lancellottia M, Barbosaa AGCD, I, Leitea DS, de Castrob AFP, Brocchi M. Clonal relationships among avian Escherichia coli isolates determined by enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus (ERIC)–PCR. Vet. Microbiol. 2002;89:323–328. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(02)00256-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gilson E, Clément JM, Brutlag D, Hofnung M. A family of dispersed repetitive extragenic palindromic DNA sequences in Escherichia coli. EMBO J. 1984;3:1417–1421. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1984.tb01986.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hulton CS, Higgins CF, Sharp PM. ERIC sequences: A novel family of repetitive elements in the genomes of Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimuirum and other enterobacteria. Mol. Microbiol. 1991;5:825–834. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1991.tb00755.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Welsh J, McClelland M. Fingerprinting genomes using PCR with arbitrary primers. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990;18:7213–7218. doi: 10.1093/nar/18.24.7213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chansiripornchai N, Ramasoota P, Sasipreyajan J, Svenson SB. Differentiation of avian Escherichia coli (APEC) isolates by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis. Vet. Microbiol. 2001;80:77–83. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(00)00380-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.de Moura AC, Irino K, Vidotto MC. Genetic variability of avian Escherichia coli isolates evaluated by enterobacterial reptitive intergenic consensus and repetitive extragenic palindromic polymerase chain reation. Avian Dis. 2001;45:173–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Silveira WD, Lancellotti M, Ferreira A, Solferini VN, de Castro AFP, Stehling EG, Brocchi M. Determination of the clonal structure of avian Escherichia coli strains by isoenzyme and ribotyping analysis. J. Vet. Med. B Infect. Dis. Vet. Public Hlth. 2003;50:63–69. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0450.2003.00607.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.White DG, Dho-moulin M, Wilson RA, Whittam TS. Clonal relationships and variation in virulence among Escherichia coli strains of avian origin. Microb. Pathog. 1993;14:399–409. doi: 10.1006/mpat.1993.1039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Achtman M, Heuzenroeder M, Kusecek B, Ochman H, Caugant D, Selander RK, Vaïsanen-Rhen V, Korhonen TK, Stuart S, Orskov F, Orskov I. Clonal analysis of Escherichia coli O2: K1 isolated from diseased humans and animals. Infect. Immun. 1986;51:268–276. doi: 10.1128/iai.51.1.268-276.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cherifi A, Contrepois M, Picard B, Goullet P, Orskov I, Orskov F. Clonal relationships among Escherichia coli serogroup O78 isolates from human and animal infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1994;32:1197–1202. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.5.1197-1202.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Blanco JE, Blanco M, Mora A, Blanco J. Production of toxins (enterotoxins, verotoxins, and necrotoxins) and colicins by Escherichia coli strains isolated from septicemic and healthy chickens: relationship with in vivo pathogenicity. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997a;35:2953–2957. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.11.2953-2957.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.de Moura AC, Irino K, Vidotto MC. Genetic variability of avian Escherichia coli strains evaluated by enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus and repetitive extragenic palindromic polymerase chain reaction. Avian Dis. 2001;45:173–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ewers C, Janßen T, Kießling S, Philipp HC, Wieler LH. Molecular epidemiology of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) isolated from colisepticemia in poultry. Vet. Microbiol. 2004;104:91–101. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Blanco JE, Blanco M, Mora A, Jansen WH, Garcia V, Vazquez ML, Blanco J. Serotypes of Escherichia coli isolated from septicemic chickens in Galicia (Northwest Spain) Vet. Microbiol. 1998;61:229–235. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(98)00182-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Rodriguez-Siek KE, Giddings CW, Doetkott C, Johnson TJ, Fakhr MK, Lisa KN. Comparison of Escherichia coli isolates implicated in human urinary tract infection and avian colibacillosis. Microbiology. 2005;151:2097–2110. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.27499-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gilson L, Mahanty HK, Kolter R. Four plasmid genes are required for colicin V synthesis, export, and immunity. J. Bacteriol. 1987;169:2466–2470. doi: 10.1128/jb.169.6.2466-2470.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Russo TA, Carlino UB, Mong A, Jodush ST. Identification of genes in an extraintestinal isolate of Escherichia coli with increased expression after exposure to human urine. Infect. Immun. 1999;67:5306–5314. doi: 10.1128/iai.67.10.5306-5314.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Binns MM, Davies DL, Hardy KG. Cloned fragments of the plasmid ColV, I-K94 specifying virulence and serum resistance. Nature. 1979;279:778–781. doi: 10.1038/279778a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Chuba PJ, Leon MA, Banerjee A, Palchaudhuri S. Cloning and DNA sequence of plasmid determinant iss, coding for increased serum survival and surface exclusion, which has homology with lambda DNA. Mol. Gen. Genet. 1989;216:287–292. doi: 10.1007/BF00334367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.de Lorenzo V, Neilands JB. Characterization of iucA and iucC genes of the aerobactin system of plasmid ColV-K30 in Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 1986;167:350–355. doi: 10.1128/jb.167.1.350-355.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.de Lorenzo V, Bindereif A, Paw BH, Neilands JB. Aerobactin biosynthesis and transport genes of plasmid ColV-K30 in Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 1986;165:570–578. doi: 10.1128/jb.165.2.570-578.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Runyen-Janecky LJ, Reeves SA, Gonzales EG, Payne SM. Contribution of the Shigella flexneri Sit, Iuc, and Feo iron acquisition systems to iron acquisition in vitro and in cultured cells. Infect. Immun. 2003;71:1919–1928. doi: 10.1128/IAI.71.4.1919-1928.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Achtman M, Kennedy N, Skurray R. Cell–cell interactions in conjugating Escherichia coli: Role of TraT protein in surface exclusion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1977;74:5104–5108. doi: 10.1073/pnas.74.11.5104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Moll A, Manning PA, Timmis KN. Plasmid determined resistance to serum bactericidal activity: A major outer membrane protein, the traT gene product, is responsible for plasmid-specified serum resistance in Escherichia coli. Infect. Immun. 1980;28:359–367. doi: 10.1128/iai.28.2.359-367.1980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Provence DL, Curtiss R., III Isolation and characterization of a gene involved in hemagglutination by an avian pathogenic Escherichia coli strain. Infect. Immun. 1994;62:1369–1380. doi: 10.1128/iai.62.4.1369-1380.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Russo TA, Carlino UB, Johnson JR. Identification of a new iron-regulated virulence gene, ireA, in an extraintestinal pathogenic isolate of Escherichia coli. Infect. Immun. 2001;69:6209–6216. doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.10.6209-6216.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Schubert S, Rakin A, Karch H, Carniel E, Heesemann J. Prevalence of the “high-pathogenicity island” of Yersinia species among Escherichia coli strains that are pathogenic to humans. Infect. Immun. 1998;66:480–485. doi: 10.1128/iai.66.2.480-485.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hacker J, Goebel W, Hof H, Konig W, Konig B, Scheffer J, Hughes C, Marre R. Adhesins, serum resistance and cytolysins of E coli-genetic structure and role in pathogenicity. In: Cabello FC, Pruzzo C, editors. Bacteria, Complement and the Phagocytic Cell. Springer-Verlag; New York, NY, USA: 1988. pp. 221–229. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Fields PI, Blom K, Hughes HJ, Helsel LO, Feng P, Swaminathan B. Molecular characterization of the gene encoding H antigen in Escherichia coli and development of a PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism test for identification of E. coli O157:H7 and O157:NM. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997;35:1066–1070. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.5.1066-1070.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Johnson JR, Delavari P, Kuskowski M, Stell AL. Phylogenetic distribution of extraintestinal virulence-associated traits in Escherichia coli. J. Infect. Dis. 2001;183:78–88. doi: 10.1086/317656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Johnson JR, Stell AL. Extended virulence genotypes of Escherichia coli strains from patients with urosepsis in relation to phylogeny and host compromise. J. Infect. Dis. 2000;181:261–272. doi: 10.1086/315217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Rahman MA, Samad MA, Rahman MB, Kabir SML. In vitro antibiotic sensitivity and therapeutic efficacy of experimental salmonellosis, colibacillosis and pasteurellosis in broiler chickens. Bangl. J. Vet. Med. 2004;2:99–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Cloud SS, Rosenberger JK, Fries PA, Wilson RA, Odor EM. In vitro and in vivo characterization of avian Escherichia coli. I. Serotypes, metabolic activity, and antibiotic sensitivity. Avian Dis. 1985;29:1084–1093. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Irwin RJ, McEwen SA, Clarke RC, Meek AH. The prevalence of verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli and antimicrobial resistance patterns of nonverocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli and Salmonella in Ontario broiler chickens. Can. J. Vet. Res. 1989;53:411–418. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Blanco JE, Blanco M, Mora A, Blanco J. Prevalence of bacterial resistance to quinolones and other antimicrobials among avian Escherichia coli strains isolated from septicemic and healthy chickens in Spain. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997;35:2184–2185. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.8.2184-2185.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Bass L, Liebert CA, Lee MD, Summers AO, White DG, Thayer SG, Maurer JJ. Incidence and characterization of integrons, genetic elements mediating multiple-drug resistance, in avian Escherichia coli. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1999;43:2925–2929. doi: 10.1128/aac.43.12.2925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Li XS, Wang GQ, Du XD, Cui BA, Zhang SM, Shen JZ. Antimicrobial susceptibility and molecular detection of chloramphenicol and florfenicol resistance among Escherichia coli isolates from diseased chickens. J. Vet. Sci. 2007;8:243–247. doi: 10.4142/jvs.2007.8.3.243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Dubel JR, Zink DL, Kelley LM, Naqi SA, Renshaw HW. Bacterial antibiotic resistance: frequency of gentamicin-resistant strains of Escherichia coli in the fecal microflora of commercial turkeys. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1982;43:1786–1789. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Allan BJ, van den Hurk JV, Potter AA. Characterization of Escherichia coli isolated from cases of avian colibacillosis. Can. J. Vet. Res. 1993;57:146–151. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.White DG, Piddock LJ, Maurer JJ, Zhao S, Ricci V, Thayer SG. Characterization of fluoroquinolone resistance among veterinary isolates of avian Escherichia coli. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000;44:2897–2899. doi: 10.1128/aac.44.10.2897-2899.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.van den Bogaard AE, London N, Driessen C, Stobberingh EE. Antibiotic resistance of faecal Escherichia coli in poultry, poultry farmers and poultry slaughterers. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2001;47:763–771. doi: 10.1093/jac/47.6.763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Zhao S, White DG, McDermott PF, Friedman S, English L, Ayers S, Meng J, Maurer JJ, Holland R, Walker RD. Identification and expression of cephamycinase blacmy genes in Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolated from food animals and ground meats. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001;45:3647–3650. doi: 10.1128/AAC.45.12.3647-3650.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wooley RE, Spears KR, Brown J, Nolan LK, Dekich MA. Characteristics of conjugative R plasmids from pathogenic avian Escherichia coli. Avian Dis. 1992;36:348–352. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Shivaprashad HL. Pullorum disease and fowl typhoid. In: Calnek BW, Barnes HJ, Beard CW, McDoughald LR, Saif YM, editors. Diseases of Poultry. 10th ed. Iowa State University press; Ames, IA, USA: 1997. pp. 82–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Minor L. In: Bergey’s Manual of Systemic Bacteriology. Boone R, Castenholz W, editors. Williams & Wilkins; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 1984. pp. 427–458. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Gast RK. Paratyphoid Infections. In: Calnek BW, Barnes HJ, Beard CW, McDoughald LR, Saif YM, editors. Diseases of Poultry. 10th ed. Iowa State University press; Ames, IA, USA: 1997. pp. 97–121. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Brito JR, Xu Y, Hinton M, Pearson GR. Pathological findings in the intestinal tract and liver of chicks after exposure to Salmonella serotypes Typhimurium or Kedougou. Br. Vet. J. 1995;151:311–323. doi: 10.1016/s0007-1935(95)80181-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Berchieri A, Jr, Murphy CK, Marston K, Barrow PA. Observation on the persistence and vertical transmission Salmonella enterica serovars pullorum and gallinarum in chickens: Effect of bacterial and host genetic background. Avian Pathol. 2001;30:221–231. doi: 10.1080/03079450120054631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Shivaprasad HL. Fowl typhoid and pullorum disease. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2000;19:405–424. doi: 10.20506/rst.19.2.1222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Christensen JP.Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum biovars gallinarum and pullorum in relation to typing and virulencePh.D. Thesis, Department of Veterinary Microbiology, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University; Copenhagen, Denmark: 1996 [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Hall WJ, Legenhausen DH, Macdonald AD. Studies on fowl typhoid. 1. Nature and dissemination. Poult. Sci. 1949;28:344–362. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Waltman WD, Gast RK, Mallinson ET. Isolation and Identification of Avian Pathogens. 5th ed. American Association of Avian Pathologists; Jacksonville, FL, USA: 2008. Salmonellosis; pp. 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Henken AM, Frankena K, Goelema JO, Graat EAM, Noordhuizen JPTM. Multivariate epidemiological approach to salmonellosis in broiler breeder flocks. Poult. Sci. 1992;71:838–843. doi: 10.3382/ps.0710838. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Fris C, van den Bos J. A retrospective case-control study of risk factors associated with Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Enteritidis infections on Dutch broiler breeder farms. Avian Pathol. 1995;24:255–272. doi: 10.1080/03079459508419067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Oystein A, Skov MN, Chriel M, Agger JF, Bisgaard M. A retrospective study on Salmonella infection in Danish broiler flocks. Prev. Vet. Med. 1996;26:223–237. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Lahellec C, Colin P, Bennejean G, Paquin J, Guillerm A, Debois JC. Influence of resident Salmonella on contamination of broiler flocks. Poult. Sci. 1986;65:2034–2039. doi: 10.3382/ps.0652034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Baggesen DL, Olsen JE, Bisgaard M. Plasmid profiles and phages types of Salmonella typhimurium isolated from successive flocks of chickens on three parent stock farms. Avian Pathol. 1992;21:569–579. doi: 10.1080/03079459208418878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Vaughn JB, Williams LP, LeBlanc DR, Helsdon HL, Taylor C. Salmonella in a modern broiler operation: a longitudinal study. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1974;35:737–741. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Christensen JP, Brown DJ, Madsen M, Olsen JE, Bisgaard M. Hatchery-borne Salmonella enterica serovar Tennessee infections in broilers. Avian Pathol. 1997;26:155–168. doi: 10.1080/03079459708419202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Davies RH, Nicholas RAJ, Mclaren IM, Corkish JD, Lanning DG, Wray C. Bacteriological and serological investigation of persistent Salmonella enteritidis infection in an integrated poultry organisation. Vet. Microbiol. 1997;58:277–293. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(97)00157-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Martinetti G, Altwegg M. rRNA gene restriction patterns and plasmid analysis as a tool for typing Salmonella enteritidis. Res. Microbiol. 1990;141:1151–1162. doi: 10.1016/0923-2508(90)90088-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Stubbs AD, Hickman-Brenner FW, Cameron DN, Farmer JJ., III Differentiation of Salmonella enteritidis phage type 8 strains: evaluation of three additional phage typing systems, plasmid profiles, antibiotic susceptibility patterns, and biotyping. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1994;32:199–201. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.1.199-201.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Altwegg M, Hinckman-Brenner FW, Farmer JJ., III Ribosomal RNA gene patterns provide increased sensitivity for typing Salmonella typhi strains. J. Infect. Dis. 1989;160:145–149. doi: 10.1093/infdis/160.1.145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Esteban E, Snipes K, Hiird D, Kasten R, Kinde H. Use of ribotyping for characterization of Salmonella serotypes. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1993;31:233–237. doi: 10.1128/jcm.31.2.233-237.1993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Nastasi A, Mammina C, Villafrate MR. rDNA fingerprinting as a tool in epidemiological analysis of Salmonella typhi infections. Epidemiol. Infect. 1991;107:565–576. doi: 10.1017/s0950268800049268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Usera MA, Popovic T, Bopp CA, Stockbine NA. Molecular subtyping of Salmonella enteritidis phage type 8 strain from the United States. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1994;32:194–198. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.1.194-198.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Olsen JE, Skov MN, Threlfall EJ, Brown DJ. Clonal lines of Salmonella enteritica serotype enteritidis documented by IS200-, ribo-, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and RFLP typing. J. Med. Microbiol. 1994;40:15–22. doi: 10.1099/00222615-40-1-15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Thong KL, Cheong YM, Puthucheary S, Koh CL, Pang T. Epidemiological analysis of sporadic Salmonella typhi isolates and those from outbreaks by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1994;32:1135–1141. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.5.1135-1141.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Lapuz R, Tani H, Sasai K, Shirota K, Katoh H, Baba E. The role of roof rats (Rattus rattus) in the spread of Salmonella enteritidis and S. infantis contamination in layer farms in eastern Japan. Epidemiol Infect. 2008;136:1235–1243. doi: 10.1017/S095026880700948X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Barrow PA, Berchieri A, Jr, Al-Haddad O. Serological response of chickens to infection with Salmonella gallinarum–Salmonella pullorum detected by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. Avian Dis. 1992;36:227–236. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Bouzoubaa K, Lemainguer K, Bell JG. Village chickens as a reservoir of Salmonella pullorum and Salmonella gallinarum in Morocco. Prev. Vet. Med. 1992;12:95–100. [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Bhattacharjee PS, Kundu RL, Mazumder JU, Hossain E, Miah AH. A retrospective analysis of chicken diseases diagnosed at the Central Disease Investigation Laboratory, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Bangladesh Vet. Jr. 1996;30:105–113. [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Begum F, Khan MSR, Choudhury KA, Rahman MM, Amin MM. Studies on immune response of chickens to fowl typhoid vaccines. Bangladesh J. Microbiol. 1993;10:51–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Ghosh SS. Incidence of pullorum disease in Nagaland. Indian Vet. J. 1988;65:949–951. [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Kumur A, Kaushik RK. Investigation of fowl typhoid in Haryana State. Indian J. Poult. Sci. 1988;23:104–106. [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Javed T, Hameed A. Prevalence of Salmonella carriers among broiler breeders in Pakistan. Veterinarski Arhiv. 1989;59:185–191. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Muneer MA, Arshad M, Sheikh MA, Ahmad MD. Identification of pullorum disease carriers using spot agglutination test. Pakistan Vet. J. 1988;8:93–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Jha VC, Thakur RP, Chand-Thakuri K, Yadav JN. Prevalence of salmonellosis in chickens in the eastern Nepal. Veterinary Review Kathmandu. 1994;9:4–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Fricker CR. Isolation of Salmonella and Campylobacter. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1987;63:99–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1987.tb02692.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Okolo MI. Bacterial drug resistance in meat animals: A review. Int. J. Zoonoses. 1986;13:143–152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Vidon DJ, Jacob S, Ganzenmuller M. Incidences of simple and transferable drug resistance in Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolated from various foods: Identification of a R plasmid in S. Saint-Paul. Ann. Microbiol. 1978;129:155–159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.O’Brien TF, Hopkins JD, Gilleece ES, Mederios AA, Kent RL, lackburn BO, Holmes MB, Reardon JP, Vergeront JM, Schell WL, Christenson E, Bissett ML, Morse EV. Molecular epidemiology of antibiotic resistance in Salmonella from animals and human beings in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 1982;307:1–6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198207013070101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Holmberg SD, Osterholm MT, Senger KA, Cohen ML. Drug-resistant Salmonella from animals fed antimicrobials. N. Engl. J. Med. 1984;311:617–622. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198409063111001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Poppe C, Gyles CL. Relation of plasmids to virulence and other properties of salmonellae from avian sources. Avian Dis. 1987;31:844–854. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Schuman JD, Zottola EA, Harlander SK. Preliminary characterization of a food-borne multiple antibiotic resistant Salmonella typhimurium strain. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989;55:2344–2348. doi: 10.1128/aem.55.9.2344-2348.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Salyers AA, Whitt DD. Bacterial Pathogenesis: A Molecular Approach. ASM Press; Washington, DC, USA: 1994. Antibiotics: mechanisms of action and mechanisms of bacterial resistance; pp. 97–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Poppe C, McFadden KA, Demczuk WH. Drug resistance, plasmids, biotypes and susceptibility to bacteriophages of Salmonella isolated from poultry in Canada. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1996;30:325–344. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(96)00960-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Wagner J, Hahn H. Increase of bacterial resistance in human medicine by resistance genes of bacteria from meat supplying animals. Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 1999;112:380–384. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Holmberg SD, Osterholm MT, Senger KA, Cohen ML. Drug-resistant Salmonella from animals fed antimicrobials. N. Eng. J. Med. 1984;311:617–622. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198409063111001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Gast RK, Stephens JF. Effects of kanamycin administration to poultry on the proliferation of drug-resistant Salmonella. Poult. Sci. 1988;67:689–698. doi: 10.3382/ps.0670689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Gast RK, Stephens JF, Foster DN. Effects of kanamycin administration to poultry on the interspecies transmission of drug-resistant Salmonella. Poult. Sci. 1988;67:699–706. doi: 10.3382/ps.0670699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Dubel JR, Zink DL, Kelley LM, Naqi SA, Renshaw HW. Bacterial antibiotic resistance: frequency of gentamicin-resistant strains of Escherichia coli in the faecal microflora of commercial turkeys. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1982;43:1786–1789. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Hirsh DC, Ikeda JS, Martin LD, Kelley BJ, Ghazikhanian GY. R plasmid-mediated gentamicin resistance in salmonellae isolated from turkeys and their environment. Avian Dis. 1983;27:766–772. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Ekperigin HE, Jang S, McCapes RH. Effective control of a gentamicin resistant Salmonella arizonae infection in turkey poults. Avian Dis. 1983;27:822–829. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Pacer RE, Spika JS, Thurmond MC, Hargrett-Bean N, Potter ME. Prevalence of Salmonella and multiple antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella in California dairies. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1989;195:59–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Poppe C, Kolar JJ, Demczuk WHB, Harris JE. Drug resistance and biochemical characteristics of Salmonella from Turkeys. Can. J. Vet. Res. 1995;59:241–248. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Oliveira WF, Cardoso WM, Salles RPR, Romão JM, Teixeira RSC, Câmara SR, Siqueira AA, Marques LCL. Initial identification and sensitivity to antimicrobial agents of Salmonella sp. isolated from poultry products in the state of Ceara, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 2006;8:193–199. [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Berrang ME, Ladely SR, Simmons M, Fletcher DL, Fedorka-Cray PJ. Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Salmonella from retail chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2006;5:351–354. [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Parveen S, Taabodi M, Schwarz JG, Oscar TP, Harter-Dennis J, White DG. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella recovered from processed poultry. J. Food Prot. 2007;70:2466–2472. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-70.11.2466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Sharma M, Katock RC. Deadly outbreak in chicks owing to Salmonella typhimurium. Indian J. Poult. Sci. 1996;31:60–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Herikstad H, Hayes P, Mokhtar M, Fracaro ML, Threlfall EJ, Angulo FJ. Emerging quinolone-resistant Salmonella in the United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1997;3:371–372. doi: 10.3201/eid0303.970316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Manie T, Khan S, Brozel VS, Veith WJ, Gouws PA. Antimicrobial resistance of bacteria isolated from slaughtered and retail chickens in South Africa. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1998;26:253–258. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-765x.1998.00312.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Dho-Moulin M, van den Bosch JF, Girardeau JP, Bree A, Barat T, Lafont JP. Surface antigens from Escherichia coli O2 and O78 strains of avian origin. Infect. Immun. 1990;58:740–745. doi: 10.1128/iai.58.3.740-745.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Dozois CM, Fairbrother JM, Harel J, Bosse M. Pap-and pil-related DNA sequences and other virulence determinants associated with Escherichia coli isolated from septicemic chickens and turkeys. Infect. Immun. 1992;60:2648–2656. doi: 10.1128/iai.60.7.2648-2656.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.van den Bosch JF, Hendriks JH, Gladigau I, Willems HM, Storm PK, de Graaf FK. Identification of F11 fimbriae on chicken Escherichia coli strains. Infect. Immun. 1993;61:800–806. doi: 10.1128/iai.61.3.800-806.1993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Pourbakhsh SA, Dho-Moulin M, Bree A, Desautels C, Martineau-Doize B, Fairbrother JM. Localization of the in vivo expression of P and F1 fimbriae in chickens experimentally inoculated with pathogenic Escherichia coli. Microb. Pathog. 1997;22:331–341. doi: 10.1006/mpat.1996.0116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Maurer JJ, Lee MD, Lobsinger C, Brown T, Maier M, Thayer SG. Molecular typing of avian Escherichia coli isolates by random amplification of polymorphic DNA. Avian Dis. 1998;42:431–451. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Foley SL, Horne SM, Giddings CW, Robinson M, Nolan LK. Iss from a virulent avian Escherichia coli. Avian Dis. 2000;44:185–191. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Dho-Moulin M, Fairbrother JM. Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Vet. Res. 1999;30:299–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Ellis MG, Arp LH, Lamont SJ. Serum resistance and virulence of Escherichia coli isolated from turkeys. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1988;49:2034–2037. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Pfaff-McDonough SJ, Horne SM, Giddings CW, Ebert JO, Doetkott C, Smith MH, Nolan LK. Complement resistance-related traits among Escherichia coli isolates from apparently healthy birds and birds with colibacillosis. Avian Dis. 2000;44:23–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Lafont JP, Dho M, d'Hauteville HM, Brée A, Sansonetti PJ. Presence and expression of aerobactin genes in virulent avian strains of Escherichia coli. Infect. Immun. 1987;55:193–197. doi: 10.1128/iai.55.1.193-197.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Reingold J, Starr N, Maurer J, Lee MD. Identification of a new Escherichia coli She haemolysin homolog in avian E. coli. Vet. Microbiol. 1999;66:125–134. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(98)00310-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Provence DL, Curtiss R., III Isolation and characterization of a gene involved in hemagglutination by an avian pathogenic Escherichia coli strain. Infect. Immun. 1994;62:1369–1380. doi: 10.1128/iai.62.4.1369-1380.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Bree A, Dho M, Lafont JP. Comparative infectivity of axenic and specific pathogen free chickens of O2 E. coli strains with or without virulence factors. Avian Dis. 1989;33:134–139. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Emery DA, Nagaraja KV, Shaw DP, Newman JA, White DG. Virulence factors of Escherichia coli associated with colisepticemia in chickens and turkeys. Avian Dis. 1992;36:504–511. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Blanco JE, Blanco M, Mora A, Blanco J. Production of toxins (enterotoxins, verotoxins, and necrotoxins) and colicins by Escherichia coli strains isolated from septicemic and healthy chickens: relationship with in vivo pathogenicity. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997;35:2953–2957. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.11.2953-2957.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Parreira VR, Yano T. Cytotoxin produced by Escherichia coli isolated from chickens with swollen head syndrome (SHS) Vet. Microbiol. 1998;62:111–119. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(98)00197-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Chaffer M, Heller ED, Schwartsburd B. Relationship between resistance to complement, virulence and outer membrane protein patterns in pathogenic Escherichia coli O2 isolates. Vet. Microbiol. 1999;64:323–332. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(98)00278-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Truscott RB, Lopez-Alvarez J, Pettit JR. Studies of Escherichia coli infection in chickens. Can. J. comp. Med. 1974;38:160–167. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Hughes LA, Bennett M, Coffey P, Elliott J, Jones TR, Jones RC, Lahuerta-Marin A, McNiffe K, Norman D, Williams NJ, Chantrey J. Risk factors for the occurrence of Escherichia coli virulence genes eae, stx1 and stx2 in wild bird populations. Epidemiol. Infect. 2009;137:1574–82. doi: 10.1017/S0950268809002507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Morley AJ, Thomson DK. Swollen-head syndrome in broiler chickens. Avian Dis. 1984;28:238–243. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Picault JP, Giraud P, Drouin P, Guittet M, Bennejean G, Lamande J, Toquin D, Gueguen C. Isolation of a TRTV-like virus from chickens with swollen-head syndrome. Vet. Rec. 1987;121:135. doi: 10.1136/vr.121.6.135-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Hafez HM, Löhren U. Swollen head syndrome: clinical observations and serology in West Germany. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift. 1990;97:322–324. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Nakamura K, Mase M, Tanimura N, Yamaguchi S, Yuasa N. Attempts to reproduce swollen head syndrome in specific pathogen-free chickens by inoculating with Escherichia coli and/or turkey rhinotracheitis virus. Avian Pathol. 1998;27:21–27. doi: 10.1080/03079459808419270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160.Georgiades G, Iordanidis P, Koumbati M. Cases of swollen head syndrome in broiler chickens in Greece. Avian Dis. 2001;45:745–750. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161.Tsuji T, Joya JE, Honda T, Miwatani T. A heat-labile enterotoxin (LT) purified from chicken enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli is identical to porcine LT. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1990;55:329–332. doi: 10.1016/0378-1097(90)90018-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Akashi N, Hitotsubashi S, Yamanaka H, Fujii Y, Tsuji T, Miyama A, Joya JE, Okamoto K. Production of heat-stable enterotoxin II by chicken clinical isolates of Escherichia coli. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1993;109:311–316. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1993.tb06186.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Dho-Moulin M, Fairbrother JM. Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) Vet. Res. 1999;30:299–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.Zanella A, Alborali GL, Bardotti M, Candotti P, Guadagnini PF, Anna Martino P, Stonfer M. Severe Escherichia coli O111 septicemia and polyserositis in hens at the start of lay. Avian Pathol. 2000;29:311–317. doi: 10.1080/03079450050118430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165.Kariuki S, Gilks C, Kimari J, Muyodi J, Getty B, Hart CA. Carriage of potentially pathogenic Escherichia coli in chickens. Avian Dis. 2002;46:721–724. doi: 10.1637/0005-2086(2002)046[0721:COPPEC]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Guy JS, Smith LG, Breslin JJ, Vaillancourt JP, Barnes HJ. High mortality and growth depression experimentally produced in young turkeys by dual infection with enteropathogenic Escherichia coli and turkey coronavirus. Avian Dis. 2000;44:105–113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167.Bisgaard M, Dam A. Salpingitis in poultry. I. Prevalence, bacteriology and possible pathogenesis in broilers. Nordisk Veterinaermedicin. 1980;32:361–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 168.Bisgaard M, Dam A. Salpingitis in poultry. I. Prevalence, bacteriology and possible pathogenesis in egg-laying chickens. Nordisk Veterina ermedicin. 1981;33:81–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 169.Harry EG. The survival of E. coli in the dust of poultry houses. Vet. Rec. 1964;76:466–470. [Google Scholar]
  • 170.Goren E. Colibacillose bij pluimvee: etiologie, pathologie en therapie. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde. 1991;116:1122–1129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171.Norton RA, Macklin KS, McMurtrey BL. The association of various isolates of Escherichia coli from the United States with induced cellulitis and colibacillosis in young broiler chickens. Avian Pathol. 2000;29:571–574. doi: 10.1080/03079450020016814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172.Leitner G, Heller ED. Colonization of Escherichia coli in young turkeys and chickens. Avian Dis. 1992;36:211–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 173.Gross WB. Electrocardiographic changes in Escherichia coli infected birds. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1966;27:1427–1436. [Google Scholar]
  • 174.Dho-Moulin M. Les Escherichia coli pathogènes des volailles. Annales de Médecine Vétérinair. 1993;137:353–357. [Google Scholar]
  • 175.Humbert F, Salvat G. The risk of transmission of salmonellae in poultry farming: Detection and prevention in Europe. Rev. Sci. Tech. 1997;16:83–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176.Barrow PA, Huggins MB, Lovell MA. Host specificity of Salmonella infection in chickens and mice is expressed in vivo primarily at the level of the reticuloendothelial system. Infect. Immun. 1994;62:4602–4610. doi: 10.1128/iai.62.10.4602-4610.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177.Barrow PA. Salmonella control- past, present and future. Avian Pathol. 1993;22:651–669. doi: 10.1080/03079459308418954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 178.Henderson SC, Bounous DI, Lee MD. Early events in the pathogenesis of avian salmonellosis. Infect. Immun. 1999;67:3580–3586. doi: 10.1128/iai.67.7.3580-3586.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 179.Lowry VK, Tellez GI, Nisbet DJ, Garcia G, Urquiza O, Stanker LH, Kogut MH. Efficacy of Salmonella enteritidis-immune lymphokines on horizontal transmission of S. arizonae in turkeys and S. gallinarum in chickens. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1999;48:139–148. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1605(99)00036-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180.Gomis SM, Watts T, Riddell C, Potter AA, Allan BJ. Experimental reproduction of Escherichia coli cellulitis and septicemia in broiler chickens. Avian Dis. 1997;41:234–240. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 181.Gross WB, Domermuth CH. Colibacillosis. In: Hitchner SB, Domermuth CH, Purchase HG, Williams JE, editors. Isolation and Identification of Avian Pathogens. Arnold Printing Corporation; New York, NY, USA: 1975. pp. 34–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 182.Leitner G, Melamed D, Drabkin N, Heller ED. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of antibodies against Escherichia coli: association between indirect hemagglutination test and survival. Avian Dis. 1990;34:58–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 183.Bell CJ, Finlay DA, Clarke HJ, Taylor MJ, Ball HJ. Development of a sandwich ELISA and comparison with PCR for the detection of F11 and F165 fimbriated Escherichia coli isolates from septicemic disease in farm animals. Vet. Microbiol. 2002;85:251–257. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(01)00514-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 184.Kles V, Morin M, Humbert F, Lalande F, Guittet M, Bennejean G. Serologic diagnosis of avian salmonelloses: Adjustment of an ELISA test using antigens adsorbed with the aid of anti-colibacillary sera. Zentralbl Veterinarmed B. 1993;40:305–325. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 185.Szmolka A, Kaszanyitzky E, Nagy B. Improved diagnostic and real-time PCR in rapid screening for Salmonella in the poultry food chain. Acta. Vet. Hung. 2006;54:297–312. doi: 10.1556/AVet.54.2006.3.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 186.Weinack OM, Snoeyenbos GH, Smyser CF, Soerjadi AS. Competitive exclusion intestinal colonization of Escherichia coli in chicks. Avian Dis. 1981;25:696–705. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 187.La Ragione RM, Casula G, Cutting SM, Woodward MJ. Bacillus subtilis spores competitively exclude Escherichia coli O78:K80 in poultry. Vet. Microbiol. 2001;79:133–142. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(00)00350-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 188.Hofacre CL, Johnson AC, Kelly BJ, Froyman R. Effect of a commercial competitive exclusion culture on reduction of colonization of an antibiotic-resistant pathogenic Escherichia coli in day-old broiler chickens. Avian Dis. 2002;46:198–202. doi: 10.1637/0005-2086(2002)046[0198:EOACCE]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 189.Kabir SML, Rahman MM, Rahman MB, Hosain MZ, Akand MSI, Das SK. Viability of probiotics in balancing intestinal flora and effecting histological changes of crop and caecal tissues of broilers. Biotechnology. 2005;4:325–330. [Google Scholar]
  • 190.Kabir SML. The Role of probiotics in the poultry industry. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009;10:3531–3546. doi: 10.3390/ijms10083531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 191.Melamed D, Leitner G, Heller ED. A vaccine against avian colibacillosis based on ultrasonic inactivation of Escherichia coli. Avian Dis. 1991;35:17–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 192.Heller ED, Leitner G, Drabkin N, Melamed D. Passive immunisation of chicks against Escherichia coli. Avian Pathol. 1990;19:345–354. doi: 10.1080/03079459008418685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 193.Gyimah JE, Panigrahy B, Williams JD. Immunogenicity of an Escherichia coli multivalent pilus vaccine in chickens. Avian Dis. 1986;30:687–689. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 194.Pomery BS, Nagaraja KV. Fowl typhoid. In: Calnek BW, Barnes HJ, Beard CW, Reid WM, Yoder HW Jr, editors. Diseases of Poultry. 9th ed. Wolfe publishing Ltd; London, UK: 1991. pp. 87–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 195.Christensen JP, Skov MN, Hinz KH, Bisgaard M. Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum biovar gallinarum in layers: epidemiological investigations of a recent outbreak in Denmark. Avian Pathol. 1994;23:489–501. doi: 10.1080/03079459408419019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 196.Wray C, Davies RH, Corkish JD. Enterobacteriaceae. In: Jordan TW, Pattison M, editors. Poultry Diseases. 4th ed. W. B. Saunders; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 1996. pp. 9–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 197.Caya F, Fairbrother JM, Lessard L, Quessy S. Characterization of the risk to human health of pathogenic Escherichia coli isolates from chicken carcasses. J. Food Prot. 1999;62:741–746. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-62.7.741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 198.Czirók E, Dho M, Herpay M, Gadó I, Milch H. Association of virulence markers with animal pathogenicity of Escherichia coli in different models. Acta Microbiol. Hungarica. 1990;37:207–217. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 199.Chapman PA, Siddons CA, Gerdan Malo AT, Harkin MA. A 1-year study of Escherichia coli O157 in cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry. Epidemiol. Infect. 1997;119:245–250. doi: 10.1017/s0950268897007826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 200.Stavric S, Buchanan B, Gleeson TM. Intestinal colonization of young chicks with Escherichia coli O157:H7 and other verotoxin-producing serotypes. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1993;74:557–563. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 201.Doyle MP, Schoeni JL. Isolation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from retail fresh meats and poultry. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1987;53:2394–2396. doi: 10.1128/aem.53.10.2394-2396.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 202.Radu S, Ling OW, Rusul G, Karim MI, Nishibuchi M. Detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7 by multiplex PCR and their characterization by plasmid profiling, antimicrobial resistance, RAPD and PWWFGE analyses. J. Microbiol. Methods. 2001;46:131–139. doi: 10.1016/s0167-7012(01)00269-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 203.Manges AR, Smith SP, Lau BJ, Nuval CJ, Eisenberg JN, Dietrich PS, Riley LW. Retail meat consumption and the acquisition of antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli causing urinary tract infections: A case-control study. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2007;4:419–431. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2007.0026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 204.Yan S, Pendrak M, Abela-Ridder B, Punderson J, Fedorko D, Foley S. An overview of Salmonella typing public health perspectives. Clin. Applied Immunol. Rev. 2003;4:189–204. [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES