Distribution, diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in swine slaughterhouses and their association with food and human listeriosis strains

Tamazight Cherifi; Julie Arsenault; Franco Pagotto; Sylvain Quessy; Jean-Charles Côté; Kersti Neira; Sylvain Fournaise; Sadjia Bekal; Philippe Fravalo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236807

. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0236807. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236807

Distribution, diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in swine slaughterhouses and their association with food and human listeriosis strains

Tamazight Cherifi ^1,^2,^3,^*, Julie Arsenault ^2,⁴, Franco Pagotto ⁵, Sylvain Quessy ^1,³, Jean-Charles Côté ^1,³, Kersti Neira ^1,^2,³, Sylvain Fournaise ⁶, Sadjia Bekal ⁷, Philippe Fravalo ^1,^2,^4,^*

Editor: Yung-Fu Chang⁸

¹Chaire de recherche en salubrité des viandes, Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada

²Centre de recherche en infectiologie porcine et avicole (CRIPA-FQRNT), Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada

³Groupe de recherche et d’enseignement en salubrité des aliments (GRESA), Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada

⁴Epidemiology of Zoonoses and Public Health Research Unit (GREZOSP), Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada

⁵Listeriosis Reference Service, Microbiology Research Division, Bureau of Microbial Hazards, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

⁶Olymel, Boucherville, Quebec, Canada

⁷Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada

⁸Cornell University, UNITED STATES

Competing Interests: Authors declare no competing of interest. Dr Sylvain Fournaise (from Olymel) contributed to the sampling design at the slaughterhouses and the interpretation of results, but had no role in laboratory analyses, statistical analyses or in reporting the results presented in this work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

^✉

* E-mail: tamazight.cherifi@umontreal.ca (TC); philippe.fravalo@lecnam.net (PF)

Roles

Tamazight Cherifi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Julie Arsenault: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Franco Pagotto: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Sylvain Quessy: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft

Jean-Charles Côté: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Kersti Neira: Data curation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft

Sylvain Fournaise: Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft

Sadjia Bekal: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Philippe Fravalo: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Yung-Fu Chang: Editor

PMCID: PMC7410256 PMID: 32760141

Abstract

Listeria monocytogenes is the etiological agent of listeriosis, a major foodborne disease and an important public health concern. Contamination of meat with L. monocytogenes occurs frequently at the slaughterhouse. Our aims were; 1) to investigate the distribution of L. monocytogenes in the processing areas of four swine slaughterhouses; 2) to describe the diversity of L. monocytogenes strains by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis; 3) to identify persistent L. monocytogenes strains and describe their distribution; 4) to investigate the associations between persistence of strains and their following characteristics: detection in food isolates, detection in human clinical isolates, and the presence of benzalkonium chloride (BAC) resistance genes. Various operation areas within the four swine slaughterhouses were sampled on four occasions. A total of 2496 samples were analyzed, and L. monocytogenes was successfully isolated from 243 samples. The proportion of positive samples ranged from 32 to 58% in each slaughterhouse and from 24 to 68% in each operation area. Fifty-eight different pulsotypes were identified and eight pulsotypes, present in samples collected during 4 visits, were considered persistent. The persistent pulsotypes were significantly more likely to be detected in food (P < 0.01, exact χ²) and human clinical cases (P < 0.01, exact χ²), respectively. Among pulsotypes harboring the BAC bcrABC resistance cassette or the emrE multidrug transporter gene, 42.8% were persistent compared to 4.5% for pulsotypes without these resistance genes (P < 0.01, exact χ²). Our study highlights the importance of persistent L. monocytogenes strains in the environmental contamination of slaughterhouses, which may lead to repeated contamination of meat products. It also shows that the presence of disinfectants resistance genes is an important contributing factor.

Introduction

Listeria monocytogenes is a ubiquitous Gram-positive, rod-shaped, psychrophilic, food-borne bacterial pathogen. It is the etiologic agent of listeriosis, an infection characterized by fever, muscle aches, nausea and diarrhea [1]. More severe cases can lead to sepsis, meningitis, encephalitis and even death [2]. L. monocytogenes can contaminate raw fruits and vegetables, animal meat, unpasteurized dairy products and processed foods. It is a major concern for both the food industry and public health [3].

The environment of swine slaughterhouses can become contaminated with L. monocytogenes, which can then serve as a source of carcass contamination throughout the processing areas [4–8]. A slaughterhouse can be divided into eight operation areas: lairage, stunning, slaughtering and bleeding, dehairing, evisceration, chilling and hanging, cutting and deboning, and freezing and delivery [9], and each can become contaminated. Despite the cleaning and sanitary treatment, some L. monocytogenes strains can persist in the slaughterhouse and persistent strains have been shown to be responsible for repeated food contaminations [10–13]. In USA, a year 2000 multi-state listeriosis outbreak was linked to a persistent L. monocytogenes strain first identified in a 1988 listeriosis case [11]. One of the reasons for the occurrence of persistence in L. monocytogenes strains can be related to their resistance to industrial disinfectants [14]. Several studies revealed resistance to quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) in some L. monocytogenes strains isolated from different food processing plants [15–17]. This resistance may have been caused by the presence of sublethal concentrations of the disinfectants due to the dilution effect that occurs during the industrial sanitation procedures [14]. Benzalkonium chloride (BAC) is a type of QAC widely used in slaughterhouses as a broad-spectrum hard surface disinfectant [18]. L. monocytogenes persistent strains often harbor adaptation and resistance genes to BAC, including the bcrABC resistance cassette [19], and emrE, a multidrug transporter gene [20].

To the best of our knowledge, in Canada, no study has been carried on the distribution, diversity and persistence of L. monocytogenes in swine slaughterhouses. Consequently, no information is available on the potential association between the presence of putative L. monocytogenes persistent strains in swine slaughterhouses and human listeriosis cases in Canada.

Our objectives were: 1) to investigate the distribution of L. monocytogenes in the processing areas of four swine slaughterhouses; 2) to describe the diversity of L. monocytogenes strains by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis; 3) to identify persistent L. monocytogenes strains and describe their distribution; 4) to investigate the associations between persistence of strains and their following characteristics: detection in food isolates, detection in human clinical isolates, presence of BAC resistance genes.

Materials and methods

Sampling procedures

Four swine slaughterhouses, labeled A, B, C and D, which cover 60% (from 20000 to 37500 swine per week) of pork meat production in Quebec, Canada, were sampled four times with a four- to five-month interval between visits, over a 16-month period, from October 2013 to February 2014. All samples were collected at least 12h after in-site cleaning and sanitation, from six different operation areas within the slaughterhouses: 1) lairage, 2) slaughtering and bleeding, 3) dehairing, 4) evisceration, 5) chilling and hanging and 6) cutting and deboning. For each operation area, the surface of different sites, machines and materials, whether in regular contact with carcasses or meat or not, were sampled and are listed in S1 Table. Samples from two operation areas, dehairing and evisceration, were grouped together for later analyses purposes. Depending on the sites, machines and materials, the sampling surface varied from 5 cm² for knives to 1 m² for conveyor belts, doors, walls and floors. Before swabbing, each sampling surface was brushed vigorously using a sterile toothbrush to resuspend any possible residues. Fisherbrand lab wipes (Fisher Scientific, Ottawa, ON, Canada), pre-soaked in a D/E (Dey-Engley) neutralizing broth (Innovation Diagnostic, Saint-Eustache, QC, Canada) to neutralize a broad spectrum of disinfectants and antiseptics, were used to swab all sampling surfaces. Following swabbing, each toothbrush and lab wipe pair was transferred into a Nasco Whirl-Pak bag (Fisher Scientific), kept in a cooler with ice packs, and brought to the lab.

Isolation of L. monocytogenes

First, 100 ml of a Listeria enrichment broth (University of Vermont Medium I; UVM-1; Innovation Diagnostics) was added into each Nasco Whirl-Pak bag containing a toothbrush and the lab wipe, mixed using a Seward Stomacher 400C Lab Blender (Cole-Parmer, Montreal, QC, Canada) for 1 min, and incubated for 48 hr at 30^°C. L. monocytogenes were isolated according to Pagotto et al [21]. Briefly, after 48 hr, positive UVM-1cultures were streaked on selective COMPASS Listeria agar (Innovation Diagnostics), and 10 mL of a second enrichment broth (modified Fraser broth; MFB; Innovation Diagnostics) were inoculated with 100 µL of negative cultures of UVM-1 primary broth and incubated at 35°C for 24 hr. Positive MFB cultures were streaked on selective COMPASS Listeria agar (Innovation Diagnostics) and incubated at 37°C for 24h.

Confirmation of L. monocytogenes isolates was done by testing for beta-hemolysis on sheep blood agar (Oxoid, Nepean, ON, Canada) and carbohydrate metabolism assays using xylose, rhamnose and mannitol. Two colonies per sample were randomly picked from sheep blood agar plates and the L. monocytogenes species was confirmed by PCR by the detection of prfA, prs, lmo0737, lmo1118, orf2819, orf2110, and flaA genes according to Kérouanton, Marault [22].

Characterisation of L. monocytogenes isolates

Serotyping

The obtained isolates were serotyped using the L. monocytogenes antisera for both O- and H-antigens (Denken Seiken Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Ribotyping

Ribotyping was performed on all isolates with restriction enzyme EcoRI using the RiboPrinter microbial characterization system (DuPont Qualicon, Wilmington, DE, USA), according to the manufacturer's instructions and as previously described [23].

Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) typing

One isolate per sample and per ribotype was selected for PFGE typing (i.e. if two isolates from a same sample had different ribotype, both were selected for PFGE typing; otherwise, one isolate was randomly selected). In addition, for a subset of randomly selected samples with two isolates sharing the same ribotype, the two isolates were typed. PFGE typing was performed according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) PulseNet standardized protocol for L. monocytogenes typing [24] using the clamped homogeneous electric fields (CHEF-DR III, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA). DNA was cleaved with ApaI and AscI, (New England Biolabs, Whitby, ON, Canada). Salmonella Braenderup was used as a reference bacterial strain and size marker. The PFGE pulsotypes were compared against the PulseNet Canada database, housed at the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML, Winnipeg, MB, Canada).

Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples

The proportion of L. monocytogenes-positive samples was described according to the seasons, slaughterhouses, operation areas, contact of surfaces with carcasses or meat, and type of surface. A multi-level logistic regression was used to model the probability of detecting L. monocytogenes according to these five variables. The visit was included as a random effect. The Laplace method was used for estimation. From the full model, a backward manual procedure was used to select the final model, using a P > 0.05 as a criterion for rejection. Odds ratios were used to present results, with P-values adjusted for multiples comparisons using Tukey-Cramer tests. Analyses were performed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS v 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

L. monocytogenes pulsotype diversity

A PFGE dendrogram was created using a combination of the PFGE fingerprints of both enzymes with BioNumerics version 6.06 (Applied Maths, Inc, Austin, TX, USA) based on the Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) analysis of the Dice similarity coefficient at 1%. The diversity of pulsotypes according to the seasons, slaughterhouses and operation areas was described using rarefaction curves using iNEXT package [25] available on R v 3.5.2. To avoid bias due to the method of selection, only one strain per positive sample was randomly selected.

Distribution of L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes

A persistent L. monocytogenes pulsotype was defined as a strain (based on PFGE pulsotype) isolated at least three times in the same slaughterhouse over the 16-month sampling period, with a four- to five-month interval between each sampling visit, in accordance with Keto-Timonen, Tolvanen [26] and Ortiz, López [27]. A multilevel logistic regression was used to model the contamination (yes/no) of samples with a persistent pulsotype of L. monocytogenes according to the slaughterhouses and operation areas, as described above for the analysis of L. monocytogenes-positive samples. This analysis was limited to L. monocytogenes positive samples, with one randomly selected isolate per sample.

Association between L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes in the swine slaughterhouses and their detection in food and human clinical isolates of L. monocytogenes

Each L. monocytogenes pulsotype was classified either as persistent or not persistent based on criteria described above. They were compared with pulsotypes of L. monocytogenes isolates from food and human listeriosis cases in Quebec between the years 2000 and 2016 according to the database at the Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec (LSPQ; Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada). The association between persistence (persistent vs. non-persistent) of the pulsotype and detection in food or human clinical cases, respectively, was evaluated using exact χ². The PFGE pulsotype was used at the unit of analysis.

PCR amplification of the benzalkonium chloride (BAC) bcrABC resistance cassette and the emrE multidrug transporter gene from L. monocytogenes isolates

The presence of the benzalkonium chloride (BAC) bcrABC resistance cassette and the emrE multidrug transporter gene were screened by PCR on one randomly selected isolate per pulsotype. Briefly, colonies from selected isolates were transferred into a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube (FisherScientific), containing 50 µl of Chelex 100 resin (Bio-Rad) at 6% (w/v) and heated, first at 55°C for 30 min, second at 98 °C for 15 min, put on ice for 3 min and centrifuged for 5 min. The supernatant was transferred to a clean 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube. The bcrABC and the emrE amplifications were done with primer pairs described by Elhanafi, Dutta [28] and Kovacevic, Ziegler [20], respectively, both using Q5 High-Fidelity 2X Master Mix (New England Biolabs) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Amplification products were analyzed on a 1.5% agarose gel.

Benzalkonium chloride minimum inhibitory concentrations

L. monocytogenes resistance to BAC was confirmed phenotypically using a broth dilution assay to determine the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [29] with minor modifications. Briefly, tryptic soy broth with yeast extract (TSBYE) supplemented with BAC (Sigma-Aldrich, Oakville, ON, Canada) at final concentrations ranging from 0 to 200 ppm (0, 0.78, 0.56, 3.12, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, 100 and 200) was inoculated with 10⁵ CFU of an overnight culture of L. monocytogenes using 96-well plates (Microtest Plate 96 well, Sarstedt, Montreal, QC, Canada). They were incubated at 30 °C for 48 h. The MIC was defined as the lowest concentration of BAC at which the growth of the bacteria was inhibited based on visual assessment. The assay was done in triplicate.

Association between L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes and BAC resistance genes

The association between resistance to BAC following amplification of either bcrABC or emrE and confirmation by MIC, and the following variables 1) persistence of the pulsotype and 2) exposure of the site to disinfectants (low vs. high), were tested using an exact χ² test, with the pulsotype as the unit of analysis.

Results

Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples

A total of 2496 samples were collected from different operation areas over a 16-month period within four swine slaughterhouses (Table 1 and S1 Table) and assayed for the presence of L. monocytogenes. The bacterium was successfully isolated from 243 samples (9.7%). According to the final multivariable model, the proportion of L. monocytogenes-positive samples varied significantly according to slaughterhouses, operation areas and type of surface. Compared to slaughterhouse D, the detection of L. monocytogenes was significantly higher in slaughterhouses A and C (odds ratios (OR) = 1.9 and 3.6; P = 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively; Table 1). No other statistically significant difference was observed between slaughterhouses. Compared to the slaughtering and bleeding area, the detection of L. monocytogenes was significantly higher in the dehairing and evisceration areas (OR = 5.7, P < 0.001), in the chilling and hanging area (OR = 5.5, P < 0.01), and in the cutting and deboning area (OR = 3.5; P < 0.001; Table 1). Finally, compared to the type of surface (sites, machines and materials), higher detection of L. monocytogenes was observed for the conveyor belt top side, the conveyor belt bottom side, the environment, the machines, and the pens (OR = 2.7, 3.0, 3.0, 2.6 and 4.0, respectively; all P ≤ 0.05; Table 1). The season and contact of surfaces with carcasses or meat were not significantly associated with L. monocytogenes positivity and thus were not kept in the final model.

Table 1. Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples in four slaughterhouses in Québec, between October 2013 and February 2015.

Characteristics	Number of samples	Number (%) of L. monocytogenes- positive samples	Odds ratios^a
Characteristics	Number of samples	Number (%) of L. monocytogenes- positive samples	Estimates	P-value^b
Seasons
Fall	624	44 (7.1)	Not included in the final model^c
Winter	936	90 (9.6)
Spring	468	52 (11.1)
Summer	468	57 (12.2)
Slaugherhouses
A	624	58 (9.3)	1.9	0.05
B	624	55 (8.8)	1.8	0.08
C	624	98 (15.7)	3.6	<0.001
D	624	32 (5.1)	Ref
Operation areas
Lairage	848	68 (8.0)	1.5	0.55
Slaughtering and bleeding	288	10 (3.5)	Ref
Dehairing and evisceration	368	51 (13.9)	5.7	<0.001
Chilling and hanging	128	24 (18.8)	5.5	<0.01
Cutting and deboning	864	90 (10.4)	3.5	<0.001
Contact of surfaces with carcasses or meat
Yes	912	86 (9.4)	Not included in the final model^c
No	1584	157 (9.9)
Type of surface^d
Conveyor belt top side	160	19 (11.9)	2.7	<0.01
Conveyor belt bottom side	160	21 (13.1)	3.0	<0.01
Environment	656	86 (13.1)	3.0	<0.001
Machines	256	27 (10.6)	2.6	<0.01
Pens	800	65 (8.1)	4.0	0.04
Materials	464	25 (5.4)	Ref

Open in a new tab

Ref: Reference category used for odds ratios.

^a Odds ratios from multi-level multivariable logistic regression model.

^b P-value adjusted for multiple comparison (Tukey-Cramer).

^c Rejected from the final multivariable model (P-value>0.05 during backward selection)

^d Sites, machines and materials are described in S1 Table.

Characterization of L. monocytogenes isolates

Two unique isolates were obtained from 231 of the 243 L. monocytogenes-positive samples and one isolate from the remaining12 samples, for a total of 474 L. monocytogenes isolates. They were characterized by serotyping. The same serotype was observed for the two isolates in 95.2% (220) of the 231 samples. A sub-total of 217 samples (89.7%) contained at least one L. monocytogenes isolate from serotypes, 1/2a, 1/2b and/or 1/2c (Table 2).

Table 2. Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples according to serotypes detected in at least one isolate in four slaughterhouses in Québec.

Serotypes	Slaughterhouses
	A(58 samples)		B (55 samples)		C (97 samples)		D (32 samples)		All (242 samples)
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
1/2a	29	50.0	37	67.3	11	11.3	14	43.8	91	37.6
1/2b	4	6.9	8	14.6	56	57.7	12	37.5	80	33.1
1/2c	19	32.8	8	14.6	22	22.7	2	6.3	51	21.1
3a	-	-	-	-	-	-	5	15.6	5	2.1
3b	-	-	-	-	7	7.2	-	-	7	2.9
3c	-	-	-	-	1	1.0	1	3.1	2	0.8
4a	10	17.2	-	-	-	-	-	-	10	4.1
4b	-	-	3	5.5	4	4.1	-	-	7	2.9

Open in a new tab

n: number of L. monocytogenes-positive samples with the serotype detected in at least one isolate.

%: relative to the number of L. monocytogenes-positive samples in each slaughterhouse A, B, C or D, or in all slaughterhouses.

The 474 isolates were also characterized by ribotyping. A total of 18 ribotypes were conclusively identified and three additional ribotypes were tentatively identified. The ribotypes DUP-19165 (103 isolates from 57 samples), DUP-16619 (85 isolates from 46 samples), DUP-18627 (49 isolates from 26 samples) and DUP-1052 (45 isolates from 45 samples) were the most common confirmed ribotypes (S2 Table).

A sub-total of 321 isolates from 241 L. monocytogenes-positive samples were characterized by PFGE; one isolate was typed from 161 samples, two isolates having different ribotypes were typed from 69 samples, and two isolates sharing the same ribotype were typed from 11 samples. Overall, a total of 58 pulsotypes were revealed. Two different pulsotypes were detected in 10/69 samples with two isolates sharing a single ribotype, and 11/11 samples with two isolates having a different ribotype. Interestingly, 19 of these 58 pulsotypes, were novel additions in the PulseNet Canada database (Fig 1). Seven pulsotypes were detected in at least one L. monocytogenes isolate from 10 different samples (Fig 1). Pulsotypes LS4 and LS24 were the most common and included the highest number of L. monocytogenes isolates, 34 (from 28 samples) and 33 (from 24 samples), respectively.

Fig 1 — The persistent pulsotypes are colored in red. The newly discovered pulsotypes (absent from the PulseNet Canada database prior to our study) are labeled with an asterisk.

A dendrogram of the PFGE profiles based on ApaI and AscI restriction enzymes from the 58 pulsotypes is shown in Fig 2A and 2B, respectively. Three lineages, I, II and III, were identified. Lineages I and II include 24 and 33 pulsotypes, respectively. Lineage III includes a single pulsotype. Serotypes 1/2a and 1/2b are predominantly present and comprise 18 and 17 pulsotypes, distributed mainly in lineages II and I, respectively. Serotype 1/2c comprises 13 pulsotypes, all in lineage II. Serotypes 3a, 3b, 4a and 4b comprise 2, 3, 1 and 4 pulsotypes, respectively. The single pulsotype in lineage III is the sole member of serotype 4a.

Distribution of L. monocytogenes pulsotypes according to the slaughterhouse

The distribution of the 58 pulsotypes varied according to the slaughterhouse. A total of 33 different pulsotypes were isolated from slaughterhouse C. Eleven, 13 and 13 different pulsotypes were isolated from slaughterhouses A, B and D, respectively (Fig 3). Ten pulsotypes were present in more than one slaughterhouse. A single pulsotype, LS4 (serotype 1/2a), was present in all four slaughterhouses. Pulsotypes LS12 (1/2c) and LS24 (1/2c) were only present in slaughterhouses A and B; LS2 (1/2a) only in A and C, LS45 (1/2b) in A and D, LS37 (1/2b) in B and C, and LS47(3c), LS50 (1/2b), LS51(1/2a) and LS58 (1/2c) in C and D (Fig 3).

Diversity of L. monocytogenes pulsotypes according to seasons, slaughterhouses and operation areas

According to the rarefaction curves, the L. monocytogenes pulsotype diversity was the lowest in fall (Fig 4A) and was significantly lower in fall than in summer (Fig 4B, S1 Fig). The L. monocytogenes pulsotype diversity was significantly higher in slaughterhouse C compared to A and B (Fig 4C and 4D). No significant differences were observed in the diversity between operation areas.

Distribution of L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes

Eight pulsotypes, (LS1, LS2, LS4, LS5, LS7, LS25, LS35 and LS45) were defined as persistent. The proportion of persistent pulsotypes was statistically similar in all slaughterhouses except for C (Table 3). The OR of contamination with a persistent pulsotype was significantly higher in slaughterhouses A, B and D compared to slaughterhouse C (OR = 14.4, 5.4 and 9.6 respectively; all P < 0.01). In the disinfected operation areas of the slaughterhouse, i.e. dehairing and evisceration, chilling and hanging, and cutting and deboning areas, the OR of sample contamination with persistent pulsotype was significantly higher compared to the lairage operation area (OR = 6.7, 7.5 and 36.5 with P = 0.02, P = 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively; Table 3). Moreover, the OR was higher in the cutting and deboning areas compared to the dehairing and evisceration areas (OR = 4.89, P < 0.01).

Table 3. Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples and persistent pulsotypes in four slaughterhouses in Québec.

Characteristics	Number of samples^a	Number (%) with persistent strains	Odds ratios^b
Characteristics	Number of samples^a	Number (%) with persistent strains	Estimate	P-value^c
Slaughterhouses
A	58	33 (56.9%)	14.4	<0.001
B	54	32 (59.3%)	5.4	<0.01
C	97	12 (12.4%)	Ref
D	32	13 (40.6%)	9.6	<0.01
Operation areas
Lairage	68	5 (7.4%)	Ref.
Slaughtering and bleeding	10	3 (30.0%)	9.0	0.15
Dehairing and evisceration	51	13 (25.5%)	6.7	0.02
Chilling and hanging	23	8 (34.8%)	7.5	0.05
Cutting and deboning	89	61 (68.5%)	36.5	<0.001

Open in a new tab

Ref.: Reference category used for odds ratios.

^a Only L. monocytogenes-positive samples from the 241 samples with at least one isolate characterized by PFGE were included (two samples were missing). One isolate per sample was randomly selected.

^b Odds ratios from multi-level multivariable logistic regression model.

^c P-value adjusted for multiple comparison (Tukey-Cramer).

Association between L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes and detection in food and clinical human listeriosis cases

Of the 58 different L. monocytogenes pulsotypes isolated in our study, 11 were detected at least once in food and/or human listeriosis cases. A sub-total of six pulsotypes (LS7, LS11, LS14, LS19, LS24 and LS28) were isolated only from food, one (LS31) was isolated only from human listeriosis cases, and four (LS1, LS2, LS4 and LS57) from both food and human listeriosis cases. The 19 newly identified pulsotypes were not included in this analysis since it was not possible to match them with pulsotypes in the LSPQ database of food and human listeriosis cases.

Statistically significant associations between L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes and their detections in food or human listeriosis cases were revealed. From the ten pulsotypes observed in food, five (50%) were persistent whereas only two (6.9%) from the pulsotypes not observed in food were persistent (Fig 5, P < 0.01, exact χ²). Similarly, from the five pulsotypes observed in human listeriosis cases, three (60%) were persistent whereas only four (11.8%) from the 34 pulsotypes not observed in human listeriosis cases were persistent (Fig 5, P < 0.01, exact χ²).

Association between L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes and BAC resistance genes

The presence of BAC resistance genes was strongly associated with L. monocytogenes pulsotypes designated persistent (P < 0.01, exact χ²). Among the 14 pulsotypes harboring the BAC resistance genes, six (42. 8%) were persistent. Comparatively, only two (4.5%) from the 44 pulsotypes without the BAC resistance genes were persistent (Fig 6). Interestingly, the emr E gene was found only in L. monocytogenes pulsotype LS1 belonging to the clonal complex 8 (CC8).

The MICs of L. monocytogenes isolates harboring bcrABC or emrE (n = 14) were 6.2 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Conversely, the MICs of L. monocytogenes isolates lacking both bcrABC and emrE were two- to eight-fold lower.

The presence of BAC resistance genes in L. monocytogenes pulsotypes was tested for its association to the level of site exposure to disinfectants. No significant association was revealed (P = 0.8, exact χ²; Fig 7).

Discussion

L. monocytogenes isolate diversity has been studied in the pork meat production chain in European countries [7, 27, 30–34], However, to the best of our knowledge, our study is the first extensive survey of the distribution, diversity and persistence of L. monocytogenes isolates in the various operation areas in swine slaughterhouses over a 16-month period. The overall proportions of L. monocytogenes-positive samples in slaughterhouses was in agreement with those previously reported European countries [5, 27] when the sampling was done following cleaning and sanitation (Table 1). The detection frequency of L. monocytogenes on surfaces before cleaning and sanitation seems to be higher and was reported to reach up to 33% [32, 33]. In contrast, the probability of contamination of surfaces observed in our study was relatively low (9.7%, Table 1) as compared with the 24% reported for raw materials and pork products [27] which could be explained by re-contamination during the post-slaughtering operation areas [6, 35, 36].

We observed a higher level of surface contamination with L. monocytogenes in plant C compared to slaughterhouse D (Table 1). One reason could be related to the export activity of the slaughterhouse D where the implemented pathogen surveillance is more rigorous to meet export requirements. The dehairing and evisceration, chilling and hanging and cutting and deboning areas were the more likely contaminated by L. monocytogenes compared to the lairage and slaughtering areas (Table 1). These results could be explained by meat product acting as a source of environmental contamination, considering the high probability of meat raw products contamination reported in previous studies [4, 5, 27]. The practice of evisceration could increase the environmental contamination risk given the presence of L. monocytogenes in many parts of a pig, such as the tongue and tonsils. Indeed, the prevalence of this pathogen in the evisceration step can be as high as 24% [27, 37]. Moreover, a competition factor should be taken into consideration in the chilling and hanging and the cutting and deboning areas, where contamination by mesophilic bacteria could be at its lowest numbers in favor of the psychrophilic L. monocytogenes growth [38, 39]. Previous studies have proposed that the chilling and cutting rooms could be the most likely source of raw product contamination due to their high probability of L. monocytogenes contamination [6].

Serotypes 1/2a and 1/2b were the most frequently L. monocytogenes serotypes observed (Table 2). This is in agreement with previous studies conducted following cleaning and sanitation procedures [4, 27, 40–42]. Conversely, in a recent study by Meloni et al., the serotype 1/2c was the most frequently observed [32]. However, because the sampling was done before the cleaning and sanitation procedures [32], it is tempting to speculate that the latter affects the survival of the serotypes. Our results suggest that serotype 1/2a and 1/2b would better survive the cleaning and sanitation procedures.

A total of 58 different pulsotypes were identified by PFGE typing (Fig 1). Here, only one isolate per sample was typed for most samples harboring isolates with identical ribotypes. Considering that 14.5% of the 69 randomly selected samples with identical ribotypes had different pulsotypes, the presence of certain pulsotypes could have been missed. The selection of one isolate by sample could have resulted in an underestimation of the pulsotype diversity and/or of the proportion of samples with persistent strains. However, this should not have biased our results on the comparison of diversity and/or strain persistence between slaughterhouses, seasons or operation areas, as only one randomly selected isolate per sample was kept in these analyses to ensure group comparability.

In our study, the diversity of L. monocytogenes strains appears to be season-dependent. It was higher in summer than in fall. It is difficult to pinpoint the factors behind this difference. On the other hand, however, the non-significant differences in the detection level of L. monocytogenes between seasons suggests that strains diversity would not be dependent on prevalence.

Slaughterhouse C showed a higher L. monocytogenes diversity compared to slaughterhouses A and B (Fig 4). Interestingly, this slaughterhouse had a higher production capacity. The three other slaughterhouses, A, B and D, were supplied only by local farms (S. Fournaise, personal communication). Interestingly, the high prevalence of L. monocytogenes in the slaughterhouse C appears to be correlated to the higher diversity of pulsotypes found in this plant (S1 Fig).

Surprisingly, the proportion of persistent strains among L. monocytogenes-positive samples was lower in slaughterhouse C (Table 3). One explanation could be related to a less efficient cleaning and disinfection in this slaughterhouse, therefore reducing the selective pressure on persistent strains. At the operation areas following slaughtering and bleeding, the increasing proportion of isolates from persistent strains over the slaughtering process was noticeable (Table 3). This could be explained by differences in the disinfection protocols. Indeed, the lairage and slaughtering and bleeding areas were in proximity and had similar cleaning and sanitation procedures. They were subjected to weekly disinfections using alcohol (70; % v/v) and potassium monopersulfate (1%; m/v)-based disinfectants. In the other operation areas (i.e. dehairing and evisceration, chilling and hanging, cutting and deboning), the disinfection was done daily using QACs (from 150 to 200 ppm), thus, L. monocytogenes strains were subjected to the same environmental conditions. Furthermore, the emergence of resistance or tolerance to QAC could be favored in the presence of sub-optimal concentrations of the disinfectant on localized wet surfaces due to a dilution effect, as reported in many studies [14, 17, 43, 44]. Furthermore, complex equipment and machines present in the dehairing and evisceration, cutting and deboning areas could favor the establishment of harborage sites, which are often present in food equipment and premises [45, 46].

Because of the importance of L. monocytogenes persistent strains in food contamination and, as a consequence to the risk for human health, we aimed to study whether the persistent profiles were more likely to be detected in food and human listeriosis strains. We observed a significant association (Fig 5), which may indicate a high presence of these persistent profiles throughout Quebec, leading to repeated contamination of food and, more importantly, suggesting that these pulsotypes have been present in food and/or food processing environments over the last decade. Interestingly, the S2 and S4 pulsotypes are frequently isolated from sporadic cases of listeriosis (S. Bekal, unpublished data) and the persistent S1 pulsotype belonging to the CC8 is the predominant clone that has been present in listeriosis outbreaks in Canada for more than two decades [47]. A previous study showed that one persistent L. monocytogenes strain isolated over a 12-year period in a food processing facility was associated with repeated listeriosis outbreaks [11]. Nonetheless, our study design does not allow us to determine if the strains isolated from human listeriosis cases originated from the slaughterhouses included in our study.

The significant association between specific L. monocytogenes pulsotype persistence and resistance to BAC, as confirmed by MIC, provides important insights about how these persistent strains can survive in the slaughterhouse over a long period. In the present study, we showed that either the bcrABC resistance cassette or the emrE gene, or both, were present in persistent L. monocytogenes strains. In other studies, BAC resistance genes have been reported in L. monocytogenes strains from food processing facilities, with different prevalences in various region in the world [14, 44, 48–50]. However, only a few studies have shown an association between persistence of L. monocytogenes strains and the presence of resistant genes to BAC [43, 44]. In this study, we observed that the proportion of L. monocytogenes strains with resistant genes to BAC was significantly higher in persistent strains than in non-persistent ones, suggesting that the resistance to BAC may be an important contributor to the persistence of L. monocytogenes strains in the studied slaughterhouses.

Conclusion

This study provides for the first report on the presence, distribution and persistence of L. monocytogenes strains in Canadian swine slaughterhouses. Our study found a wide diversity of L. monocytogenes isolates in slaughterhouses, indicative of their ability to survive and grow within different environment conditions. Furthermore, the high prevalence of persistent L. monocytogenes strains in the slaughterhouse cutting and deboning operation area should be taken into consideration. Meat contamination by persistent strains in the operation area could be carried over to the downstream pork meat processing facilities and would pose a risk to human health.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Pulsotype diversity of L. monocytogenes isolated from four swine slaughterhouses in Quebec, Canada.

A. Pulsotype diversity according to the seasons (A: Fall, B: Winter, C: Spring, D: Summer). B. Pulsotype diversity according to slaughterhouses (A, B, C, D). C. Pulsotype diversity according to the operation areas in the slaughterhouse (A: Lairage, B: Slaughtering and bleeding, C: Dehairing and evisceration, D: Chilling and hanging, E: Cutting and deboning)

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(977.7KB, pdf)}

S1 Table. Sampling of four swine slaughterhouses in Quebec, Canada, for the isolation of L. monocytogenes.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(148KB, pdf)}

S2 Table. Characteristics of the sample of origin, typing results, and resistance to QACs of the 474 L. monocytogenes isolates.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(50KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

We thank Kevin Tyler and Karine Hébert from Health Canada for strain characterization.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) grant number RDCPJ 520873-17 and by industrial partners of the Chaire de recherche en salubrité des viandes to Philippe Fravalo -https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp -olymel.ca/en/?in The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Drevets DA, Bronze MS. Listeria monocytogenes: epidemiology, human disease, and mechanisms of brain invasion. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2008;53(2):151–65. 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2008.00404.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Charlier C, Perrodeau E, Leclercq A, Cazenave B, Pilmis B, Henry B, et al. Clinical features and prognostic factors of listeriosis: the MONALISA national prospective cohort study. The Lancet Infectious diseases. 2017;17(5):510–9. 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30521-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Kathariou S. Listeria monocytogenes virulence and pathogenicity, a food safety perspective. J Food Prot. 2002;65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Lopez V, Villatoro D, Ortiz S, Lopez P, Navas J, Dávila JC, et al. Molecular tracking of Listeria monocytogenes in an Iberian pig abattoir and processing plant. Meat Science. 2008;78(1–2):130–4. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Autio T, Säteri T, Fredriksson-Ahomaa M, Rahkio M, Lundén J, Korkeala H. Listeria monocytogenes contamination pattern in pig slaughterhouses. J Food Prot. 2000;63(10):1438–42. 10.4315/0362-028x-63.10.1438 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Nesbakken T, Kapperud G, Caugant DA. Pathways of Listeria monocytogenes contamination in the meat processing industry. Int J Food Microbiol. 1996;31(1–3):161–71. 10.1016/0168-1605(96)00978-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Hellström S, Laukkanen R, Siekkinen K- M, Ranta J, Maijala R, Korkeala H. Listeria monocytogenes contamination in pork can originate from farms. J Food Prot. 2010;73(4):641–8. 10.4315/0362-028x-73.4.641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Thévenot D, Dernburg A, Vernozy‐Rozand C. An updated review of Listeria monocytogenes in the pork meat industry and its products. J Appl Microbiol. 2006;101(1):7–17. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.02962.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Skaarup T. Slaughterhouse cleaning and sanitation. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 53. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome; 1985.
10.Lunden JM, Autio TJ, Sjöberg A- M, Korkeala HJ. Persistent and nonpersistent Listeria monocytogenes contamination in meat and poultry processing plants. J Food Prot. 2003;66(11):2062–9. 10.4315/0362-028x-66.11.2062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Orsi RH, Borowsky ML, Lauer P, Young SK, Nusbaum C, Galagan JE, et al. Short-term genome evolution of Listeria monocytogenes in a non-controlled environment. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:539 10.1186/1471-2164-9-539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Fagerlund A, Langsrud S, Schirmer BC, Møretrø T, Heir E. Genome analysis of Listeria monocytogenes sequence type 8 strains persisting in salmon and poultry processing environments and comparison with related strains. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151117 10.1371/journal.pone.0151117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Luo L, Zhang Z, Wang H, Wang P, Lan R, Deng J, et al. A 12-month longitudinal study of Listeria monocytogenes contamination and persistence in pork retail markets in China. Food Control. 2017;76:66–73. [Google Scholar]
14.Martínez-Suárez JV, Ortiz S, López-Alonso V. Potential Impact of the Resistance to Quaternary Ammonium Disinfectants on the Persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in Food Processing Environments. Front Microbiol. 2016;7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Fox EM, Leonard N, Jordan K. Physiological and transcriptional characterization of persistent and nonpersistent Listeria monocytogenes isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77(18):6559–69. 10.1128/AEM.05529-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Tezel U, Pavlostathis SG. Quaternary ammonium disinfectants: microbial adaptation, degradation and ecology. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015;33:296–304. 10.1016/j.copbio.2015.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Moretro T, Schirmer BCT, Heir E, Fagerlund A, Hjemli P, Langsrud S. Tolerance to quaternary ammonium compound disinfectants may enhance growth of Listeria monocytogenes in the food industry. Int J Food Microbiol. 2017;241:215–24. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.10.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Kim M, Weigand MR, Oh S, Hatt JK, Krishnan R, Tezel U, et al. Widely used benzalkonium chloride disinfectants can promote antibiotic resistance. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84(17):e01201–18. 10.1128/AEM.01201-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Minarovičová J, Véghová A, Mikulášová M, Chovanová R, Šoltýs K, Drahovská H, et al. Benzalkonium chloride tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from a meat processing facility is related to presence of plasmid-borne bcrABC cassette. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2018:1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Kovacevic J, Ziegler J, Wałecka-Zacharska E, Reimer A, Kitts DD, Gilmour MW. Tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes to quaternary ammonium sanitizers is mediated by a novel efflux pump encoded by emrE. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82(3):939–53. 10.1128/AEM.03741-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Pagotto F, Hébert K, Farber J. Isolation of Listeria monocytogenes and other Listeria spp. from foods and environmental samples Food Directorate, Health Canada, Canada. 2011.
22.Kérouanton A, Marault M, Petit L, Grout J, Dao TT, Brisabois A. Evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay as an alternative method for Listeria monocytogenes serotyping. J Microbiol Methods. 2010;80(2):134–7. 10.1016/j.mimet.2009.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Bruce JL, Hubner RJ, Cole EM, McDowell CI, Webster JA. Sets of EcoRI fragments containing ribosomal RNA sequences are conserved among different strains of Listeria monocytogenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92(11):5229–33. 10.1073/pnas.92.11.5229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Graves LM, Swaminathan B. PulseNet standardized protocol for subtyping Listeria monocytogenes by macrorestriction and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Int J Food Microbiol. 2001;65 10.1016/s0168-1605(00)00399-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Hsieh T, Ma K, Chao A. iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (H ill numbers). Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7(12):1451–6. [Google Scholar]
26.Keto-Timonen R, Tolvanen R, Lunden J, Korkeala H. An 8-year surveillance of the diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in a chilled food processing plant analyzed by amplified fragment length polymorphism. J Food Prot. 2007;70(8):1866–73. 10.4315/0362-028x-70.8.1866 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Ortiz S, López V, Villatoro D, López P, Dávila JC, Martínez-Suárez JV. A 3-year surveillance of the genetic diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in an Iberian pig slaughterhouse and processing plant. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;7(10):1177–84. 10.1089/fpd.2010.0535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Elhanafi D, Dutta V, Kathariou S. Genetic characterization of plasmid-associated benzalkonium chloride resistance determinants in a Listeria monocytogenes strain from the 1998–1999 outbreak. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76(24):8231–8. 10.1128/AEM.02056-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. M07. Wayne, PA, USA; 2015.
30.Giovannacci I, Ragimbeau C, Queguiner S, Salvat G, Vendeuvre J- L, Carlier V, et al. Listeria monocytogenes in pork slaughtering and cutting plants: use of RAPD, PFGE and PCR–REA for tracing and molecular epidemiology. Int J Food Microbiol. 1999;53(2–3):127–40. 10.1016/s0168-1605(99)00141-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Peccio A, Autio T, Korkeala H, Rosmini R, Trevisani M. Listeria monocytogenes occurrence and characterization in meat‐producing plants. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2003;37(3):234–8. 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2003.01384.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Meloni D, Piras F, Mureddu A, Fois F, Consolati SG, Lamon S, et al. Listeria monocytogenes in five Sardinian swine slaughterhouses: prevalence, serotype, and genotype characterization. J Food Prot. 2013;76(11):1863–7. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Chasseignaux E, Toquin MT, Ragimbeau C, Salvat G, Colin P, Ermel G. Molecular epidemiology of Listeria monocytogenes isolates collected from the environment, raw meat and raw products in two poultry‐and pork‐processing plants. J Appl Microbiol. 2001;91(5):888–99. 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01445.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Morales-Partera A, Cardoso-Toset F, Luque I, Astorga R, Maldonado A, Herrera-León S, et al. Prevalence and diversity of Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., and Listeria monocytogenes in two free-range pig slaughterhouses. Food Control. 2018;92:208–15. [Google Scholar]
35.Wulff G, Gram L, Ahrens P, Vogel BF. One group of genetically similar Listeria monocytogenes strains frequently dominates and persists in several fish slaughter-and smokehouses. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(6):4313–22. 10.1128/AEM.02288-05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Van den Elzen A, Snijders J. Critical points in meat production lines regarding the introduction of Listeria monocytogenes. Vet Q. 1993;15(4):143–5. 10.1080/01652176.1993.9694393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Thevenot D, Delignette-Muller M, Christieans S, Vernozy-Rozand C. Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in 13 dried sausage processing plants and their products. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005;102(1):85–94. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Gnanou Besse N, Dubois Brissonnet F, Lafarge V, Leclerc V. Effect of various environmental parameters on the recovery of sublethally salt‐damaged and acid‐damaged Listeria monocytogenes. J Appl Microbiol. 2000;89(6):944–50. 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.01195.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Ye K, Wang K, Liu M, Liu J, Zhu L, Zhou G. Mathematical modelling of growth of Listeria monocytogenes in raw chilled pork. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2017;64(4):309–16. 10.1111/lam.12721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Maury MM, Tsai YH, Charlier C, Touchon M, Chenal-Francisque V, Leclercq A, et al. Uncovering Listeria monocytogenes hypervirulence by harnessing its biodiversity. Nat Genet. 2016;48(3):308–13. 10.1038/ng.3501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.De Cesare A, Parisi A, Mioni R, Comin D, Lucchi A, Manfreda G. Listeria monocytogenes circulating in rabbit meat products and slaughterhouses in Italy: prevalence data and comparison among typing results. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2017;14(3):167–76. 10.1089/fpd.2016.2211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Nucera D, Lomonaco S, Bianchi DM, Decastelli L, Grassi MA, Bottero MT, et al. A five year surveillance report on PFGE types of Listeria monocytogenes isolated in Italy from food and food related environments. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010;140(2–3):271–6. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.04.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Cherifi T, Carrillo C, Lambert D, Miniaï I, Quessy S, Larivière-Gauthier G, et al. Genomic characterization of Listeria monocytogenes isolates reveals that their persistence in a pig slaughterhouse is linked to the presence of benzalkonium chloride resistance genes. BMC Microbiol. 2018;18(1):220 10.1186/s12866-018-1363-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Ortiz S, López-Alonso V, Rodríguez P, Martínez-Suárez JV. The connection between persistent, disinfectant-resistant Listeria monocytogenes strains from two geographically separate Iberian pork processing plants: Evidence from comparative genome analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82(1):308–17. 10.1128/AEM.02824-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Ferreira V, Wiedmann M, Teixeira P, Stasiewicz MJ. Listeria monocytogenes persistence in food-associated environments: epidemiology, strain characteristics, and implications for public health. J Food Prot. 2014;77(1):150–70. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Carpentier B, Cerf O. Review—Persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in food industry equipment and premises. Int J Food Microbiol. 2011;145(1):1–8. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.01.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Knabel SJ, Reimer A, Verghese B, Lok M, Ziegler J, Farber J, et al. Sequence typing confirms that a predominant Listeria monocytogenes clone caused human listeriosis cases and outbreaks in Canada from 1988–2010. J Clin Microbiol. 2012:JCM. 06185–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Aase B, Sundheim G, Langsrud S, Rorvik LM. Occurrence of and a possible mechanism for resistance to a quaternary ammonium compound in Listeria monocytogenes. Int J Food Microbiol. 2000;62(1–2):57–63. 10.1016/s0168-1605(00)00357-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Meier AB, Guldimann C, Markkula A, Pöntinen A, Korkeala H, Tasara T. Comparative phenotypic and genotypic analysis of Swiss and Finnish Listeria monocytogenes isolates with respect to benzalkonium chloride resistance. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:397 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Tamburro M, Ripabelli G, Vitullo M, Dallman TJ, Pontello M, Amar CFL, et al. Gene expression in Listeria monocytogenes exposed to sublethal concentration of benzalkonium chloride. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;40:31–9. 10.1016/j.cimid.2015.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236807.r001

Decision Letter 0

Yung-Fu Chang

18 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-16869

Distribution, diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in swine slaughterhouses and their association with food and human listeriosis strains

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Cherifi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been reviewed by two experts in your filed. A minor revision is suggested.

Please submit your revised manuscript by two weeks. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the interests of reproducibility, in your Methods, please state the names/locations of the slaughterhouses where samples were collected. If you are unable to share this information due to privacy agreements, please include an explanation in your Ethics Statement.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following

competing interests:Authors declare no competing of interest. Dr Sylvain Fournaise

(from Olymel) contributed to the sampling design at the slaughterhouses and the

interpretation of results, but had no role in laboratory analyses, statistical analyses or in

reporting the results presented in this work.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-16869

In this manuscript, the authors provided a deep analysis of L. monocytogenes distribution in the pork production chain from Quebec, Canada, demonstrating risk factors and relevance of production aspects on the presence of persistent strains, and also correlated with isolates previously obtained from other samples. Minor review is suggested:

Please, provide results to support your comments. like in lines 33-34: how these proportions varied based on slaughterhouses and operation areas?

Line 35-37: please, delete “..according to our definition (i.e isolated at least three times in the same slaughterhouse over the 16-month period, with a four- to five-month interval between each sampling visit)”

Line 38: indicate p value for the significant finding

Line 40: how much these genes were more frequent in persistent strains?

Line 40-42: I would expect a much more interesting conclusion than this… this is already known… maybe you can add information related to resistance strains in this conclusion, a real important result.

Line 50: replace Listeria by L.

Line 62-65: this information is important! The authors need to provide further information about resistance of L. monocytogenes to sanitizers and how this is relevant to result in strain persistence. Then, you can address information about quaternary ammonium compounds and Listeria resistance.

Line 66-69: this information could be better merged with the paragraph 53-61… in the present format is loose

Line 102: replace Listeria by L.

Line 112-113: please, indicate the target gene considered to confirm the isolates as L. monocytogenes

Line 187: replace Listeria by L.

Please, consider presenting the digestion profiles in figures, to allow the reader to visualize them and check their quality

Discussion: please, indicate the figures and tables with the obtained results to support your discussion.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript PONE-D-20-16869 “Distribution, diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in swine slaughterhouses and their association with food and human listeriosis strains” represents a very good application of typing methods and statistical logistic regression for the study of L. monocytogenes dissemination within slaughterhouses. It is also very interesting in discussing the persistency in relation to sample sources, type and presence of disinfectant resistance. However, I suggest some improvements below:

Abstract: need specification on statistical methods used for assessing association between persistency and virulence/resistance

Introduction:

Line 55-57 need clarification

Materials and Methods:

Line 97: what do you mean by “put on ice”. Please, clarify

Line 123-125: please clarify

Line 158-163: redundancy with the previously presented statistical methods

Line 195: “visually observed” needs clarification

Results:

Line 233-235: try to clarify the sentence to make numbers clearer.

Line 242: check the table notes

Line 302-304: no need, already stated in M and M

Discussion:

Line 372: check was/is

Line 376-381: clarify sentence and explain better what do you mean by “subjectively observed …” what was observed to conclude that in one premise the cleaning practices were more effective? Check lists? Observation of some particular aspects?

Line 396-399 need some more support, maybe a table, if not is just conjecture

Line 406-412: too much speculation

Line 415: ok, but you need to discuss more in depth the meaning of the underestimation of variability. Could it impair your results or conclusion?

Line 432-437: need more explanation on the differences in cleaning Line 438-439: speculation (did you see these evidence during your visits?)

Line 464-467: ok but mitigate: you have very few samples studied to say that you demonstrated something

Line 468-470: speculation

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0236807. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236807.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

10 Jul 2020

Response to Reviewer’s Comments - Manuscript PLOS D 20 16869

We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and constructive comments, which definitely help to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer #1

1. Please, provide results to support your comments. like in lines 33-34: how these proportions varied based on slaughterhouses and operation areas?

Response: The range in proportions for slaughterhouses and operation areas were added in the Abstract (lines 34-35).

2. Line 35-37: please, delete “..according to our definition (i.e isolated at least three times in the same slaughterhouse over the 16-month period, with a four- to five-month interval between each sampling visit)”

Response: This part of the sentence was deleted as suggested.

3. Line 38: indicate p value for the significant finding.

Response: P-values were added for each of the two comparisons (lines 38-40).

4. Line 40: how much these genes were more frequent in persistent strains?

Response: We modified the sentences in the Abstract to better present this association, including the frequency in each group (lines 39-41).

5. Line 40-42: I would expect a much more interesting conclusion than this… this is already known… maybe you can add information related to resistance strains in this conclusion, a real important result.

Response: We improved the conclusion in the Abstract (lines41-44).

6. Line 50: replace Listeria by L.

Response: The correction was done. We performed a full-text search and corrected another occurrence of the same error.

7. Line 62-65: this information is important! The authors need to provide further information about resistance of L. monocytogenes to sanitizers and how this is relevant to result in strain persistence. Then, you can address information about quaternary ammonium compounds and Listeria resistance.

Response: We added more information according to the literature (lines 61-71).

8. Line 66-69: this information could be better merged with the paragraph 53-61… in the present format is loose.

Response: True. We merged the two paragraphs in order to be more coherent (lines 61-71).

9. Line 102: replace Listeria by L.

Response: Correction was provided within the text.

10. Line 112-113: please, indicate the target gene considered to confirm the isolates as L. monocytogenes.

Response: Target genes are now listed in the text (prfA, prs, lmo0737, lmo1118, orf2819, orf2110, and flaA genes) (line 120).

11. Line 187: replace Listeria by L.

Response: Correction was provided within the text.

12. Please, consider presenting the digestion profiles in figures, to allow the reader to visualize them and check their quality.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the gel images to the dendrogram in Figures 2A and 2B.

13. Discussion: please, indicate the figures and tables with the obtained results to support your discussion.

Response: We have added references to the Tables and Figures throughout the Discussion, as suggested.

Reviewer #2

1. Abstract: need specification on statistical methods used for assessing association between persistency and virulence/resistance

Response: An exact chi-square test was used for these analyses; this precision was added in the Abstract as suggested (lines 38, 41) .

2. Introduction: Line 55-57 need clarification.

Response: Agreed. Some text was added to improve clarification (lines 55-57).

3. Materials and Methods: Line 97: what do you mean by “put on ice”. Please, clarify.

Response: ”put on ice” has been replaced by “… kept in a cooler with ice packs…” (line 103).

4. Line 123-125: please clarify.

Response: This sentence now reads as “One isolate per sample and per ribotype was selected for PFGE typing (i.e. if two isolates from a same sample had different ribotype, both were selected for PFGE typing; otherwise, one isolate was randomly selected). In addition, for a subset of randomly selected samples with two isolates sharing the same ribotype, the two isolates were typed.” We hope that the sentence is now clearer.

5. Line 158-163: redundancy with the previously presented statistical methods.

Response: We replace “(…) with the visit included as a random effect. The GLIMMIX procedure of SAS v 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used with Laplace estimation. Odds ratios were used to present results, with P-values adjusted for multiples comparisons using Tukey-Cramer tests” by “as described above or the analysis of L. monocytogenes-positive samples. “ (lines 174-175).

6. Line 195: “visually observed” needs clarification.

Response: The sentence now reads as: “The MIC was defined as the lowest concentration of BAC at which the growth of the bacteria was inhibited based on visual assessment “. (lines 211-212)

7. Results: Line 233-235: try to clarify the sentence to make numbers clearer.

Response: We understand that the direct reference to odds ratios can lead to cumbersome sentences. We rephrase them to put emphasis on the direction of the associations. (lines 281-292)

8. Line 242: check the table notes.

Response: The superscript was removed when referring to an abbreviation and kept otherwise (all Tables were revised accordingly).

9. Line 302-304: no need, already stated in M and M

Response: Agreed. This sentence was removed.

10. Discussion: Line 372: check was/is.

Response: “is” was deleted.

11. Line 376-381: clarify sentence and explain better what do you mean by “subjectively observed …” what was observed to conclude that in one premise the cleaning practices were more effective? Check lists? Observation of some particular aspects?

Response: Thank you for your comment. Because we had no additional information or data to confirm our observations, we chose to delete these sentences.

12. Line 396-399 need some more support, maybe a table, if not is just conjecture

Response: Agreed. It was conjecture. We have chosen to delete this paragraph because we had no information to support these hypotheses.

13. Line 406-412: too much speculation

Response: We agree. Thank you for raising the point. These sentences were removed as they could lead to over-interpretation.

14. Line 415: ok, but you need to discuss more in depth the meaning of the underestimation of variability. Could it impair your results or conclusion?

Response: We added the following information in this paragraph: “The selection of one isolate by sample could have resulted in an underestimation of the pulsotype diversity and/or of the proportion of samples with persistent strains. However, this should not have biased our results related to the comparison of diversity and/or strain persistence between slaughterhouses, seasons or operation areas, as only one randomly selected isolate per sample was kept for theses analyses to ensure group comparability”.

15. Line 432-437: need more explanation on the differences in cleaning.

Response: We added the following explanation in these differences:” The lairage and slaughtering and bleeding areas were located closed to each other and had similar cleaning and sanitation procedures. They were subjected to a weekly disinfection using alcohol (70 %; v/v) and potassium monopersulfate (1 %; m/v) based disinfectants. In the other operation areas (i.e. dehairing and evisceration, chilling and hanging, cutting and deboning), the disinfection was done daily using QACs (from 150 to 200 ppm), thus, L. monocytogenes strains were subjected to the same environmental conditions”.

16. Line 438-439: speculation (did you see these evidence during your visits?):

Response: In the slaughterhouses we sampled, but also in food processing plants in general, the surfaces are always wet due to the daily cleaning and sanitation. This can lead to a dilution of the disinfectants in micro-places within the slaughterhouses or the food processing plants.

17. Line 464-467: ok but mitigate: you have very few samples studied to say that you demonstrated something

Response: We substituted “demonstrated” by “observed”, and modified slightly the rest of the sentence to tone down our conclusion here

18. Line 468-470: speculation

Response: We agree. Thank you for your comment. This sentence was removed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236807.r003

Decision Letter 1

Yung-Fu Chang

15 Jul 2020

Distribution, diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in swine slaughterhouses and their association with food and human listeriosis strains

PONE-D-20-16869R1

Dear Dr. Cherifi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236807.r004

Acceptance letter

Yung-Fu Chang

23 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-16869R1

Distribution, diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in swine slaughterhouses and their association with food and human listeriosis strains

Dear Dr. Cherifi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yung-Fu Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. Pulsotype diversity of L. monocytogenes isolated from four swine slaughterhouses in Quebec, Canada.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(977.7KB, pdf)}

S1 Table. Sampling of four swine slaughterhouses in Quebec, Canada, for the isolation of L. monocytogenes.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(148KB, pdf)}

S2 Table. Characteristics of the sample of origin, typing results, and resistance to QACs of the 474 L. monocytogenes isolates.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(50KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(22.4KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0236807.ref001] 1.Drevets DA, Bronze MS. Listeria monocytogenes: epidemiology, human disease, and mechanisms of brain invasion. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2008;53(2):151–65. 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2008.00404.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref002] 2.Charlier C, Perrodeau E, Leclercq A, Cazenave B, Pilmis B, Henry B, et al. Clinical features and prognostic factors of listeriosis: the MONALISA national prospective cohort study. The Lancet Infectious diseases. 2017;17(5):510–9. 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30521-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref003] 3.Kathariou S. Listeria monocytogenes virulence and pathogenicity, a food safety perspective. J Food Prot. 2002;65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref004] 4.Lopez V, Villatoro D, Ortiz S, Lopez P, Navas J, Dávila JC, et al. Molecular tracking of Listeria monocytogenes in an Iberian pig abattoir and processing plant. Meat Science. 2008;78(1–2):130–4. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref005] 5.Autio T, Säteri T, Fredriksson-Ahomaa M, Rahkio M, Lundén J, Korkeala H. Listeria monocytogenes contamination pattern in pig slaughterhouses. J Food Prot. 2000;63(10):1438–42. 10.4315/0362-028x-63.10.1438 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref006] 6.Nesbakken T, Kapperud G, Caugant DA. Pathways of Listeria monocytogenes contamination in the meat processing industry. Int J Food Microbiol. 1996;31(1–3):161–71. 10.1016/0168-1605(96)00978-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref007] 7.Hellström S, Laukkanen R, Siekkinen K- M, Ranta J, Maijala R, Korkeala H. Listeria monocytogenes contamination in pork can originate from farms. J Food Prot. 2010;73(4):641–8. 10.4315/0362-028x-73.4.641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref008] 8.Thévenot D, Dernburg A, Vernozy‐Rozand C. An updated review of Listeria monocytogenes in the pork meat industry and its products. J Appl Microbiol. 2006;101(1):7–17. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.02962.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref009] 9.Skaarup T. Slaughterhouse cleaning and sanitation. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 53. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome; 1985.

[pone.0236807.ref010] 10.Lunden JM, Autio TJ, Sjöberg A- M, Korkeala HJ. Persistent and nonpersistent Listeria monocytogenes contamination in meat and poultry processing plants. J Food Prot. 2003;66(11):2062–9. 10.4315/0362-028x-66.11.2062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref011] 11.Orsi RH, Borowsky ML, Lauer P, Young SK, Nusbaum C, Galagan JE, et al. Short-term genome evolution of Listeria monocytogenes in a non-controlled environment. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:539 10.1186/1471-2164-9-539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref012] 12.Fagerlund A, Langsrud S, Schirmer BC, Møretrø T, Heir E. Genome analysis of Listeria monocytogenes sequence type 8 strains persisting in salmon and poultry processing environments and comparison with related strains. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151117 10.1371/journal.pone.0151117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref013] 13.Luo L, Zhang Z, Wang H, Wang P, Lan R, Deng J, et al. A 12-month longitudinal study of Listeria monocytogenes contamination and persistence in pork retail markets in China. Food Control. 2017;76:66–73. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref014] 14.Martínez-Suárez JV, Ortiz S, López-Alonso V. Potential Impact of the Resistance to Quaternary Ammonium Disinfectants on the Persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in Food Processing Environments. Front Microbiol. 2016;7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref015] 15.Fox EM, Leonard N, Jordan K. Physiological and transcriptional characterization of persistent and nonpersistent Listeria monocytogenes isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77(18):6559–69. 10.1128/AEM.05529-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref016] 16.Tezel U, Pavlostathis SG. Quaternary ammonium disinfectants: microbial adaptation, degradation and ecology. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015;33:296–304. 10.1016/j.copbio.2015.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref017] 17.Moretro T, Schirmer BCT, Heir E, Fagerlund A, Hjemli P, Langsrud S. Tolerance to quaternary ammonium compound disinfectants may enhance growth of Listeria monocytogenes in the food industry. Int J Food Microbiol. 2017;241:215–24. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.10.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref018] 18.Kim M, Weigand MR, Oh S, Hatt JK, Krishnan R, Tezel U, et al. Widely used benzalkonium chloride disinfectants can promote antibiotic resistance. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84(17):e01201–18. 10.1128/AEM.01201-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref019] 19.Minarovičová J, Véghová A, Mikulášová M, Chovanová R, Šoltýs K, Drahovská H, et al. Benzalkonium chloride tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from a meat processing facility is related to presence of plasmid-borne bcrABC cassette. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2018:1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref020] 20.Kovacevic J, Ziegler J, Wałecka-Zacharska E, Reimer A, Kitts DD, Gilmour MW. Tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes to quaternary ammonium sanitizers is mediated by a novel efflux pump encoded by emrE. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82(3):939–53. 10.1128/AEM.03741-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref021] 21.Pagotto F, Hébert K, Farber J. Isolation of Listeria monocytogenes and other Listeria spp. from foods and environmental samples Food Directorate, Health Canada, Canada. 2011.

[pone.0236807.ref022] 22.Kérouanton A, Marault M, Petit L, Grout J, Dao TT, Brisabois A. Evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay as an alternative method for Listeria monocytogenes serotyping. J Microbiol Methods. 2010;80(2):134–7. 10.1016/j.mimet.2009.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref023] 23.Bruce JL, Hubner RJ, Cole EM, McDowell CI, Webster JA. Sets of EcoRI fragments containing ribosomal RNA sequences are conserved among different strains of Listeria monocytogenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92(11):5229–33. 10.1073/pnas.92.11.5229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref024] 24.Graves LM, Swaminathan B. PulseNet standardized protocol for subtyping Listeria monocytogenes by macrorestriction and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Int J Food Microbiol. 2001;65 10.1016/s0168-1605(00)00399-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref025] 25.Hsieh T, Ma K, Chao A. iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (H ill numbers). Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7(12):1451–6. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref026] 26.Keto-Timonen R, Tolvanen R, Lunden J, Korkeala H. An 8-year surveillance of the diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in a chilled food processing plant analyzed by amplified fragment length polymorphism. J Food Prot. 2007;70(8):1866–73. 10.4315/0362-028x-70.8.1866 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref027] 27.Ortiz S, López V, Villatoro D, López P, Dávila JC, Martínez-Suárez JV. A 3-year surveillance of the genetic diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in an Iberian pig slaughterhouse and processing plant. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;7(10):1177–84. 10.1089/fpd.2010.0535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref028] 28.Elhanafi D, Dutta V, Kathariou S. Genetic characterization of plasmid-associated benzalkonium chloride resistance determinants in a Listeria monocytogenes strain from the 1998–1999 outbreak. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76(24):8231–8. 10.1128/AEM.02056-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref029] 29.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. M07. Wayne, PA, USA; 2015.

[pone.0236807.ref030] 30.Giovannacci I, Ragimbeau C, Queguiner S, Salvat G, Vendeuvre J- L, Carlier V, et al. Listeria monocytogenes in pork slaughtering and cutting plants: use of RAPD, PFGE and PCR–REA for tracing and molecular epidemiology. Int J Food Microbiol. 1999;53(2–3):127–40. 10.1016/s0168-1605(99)00141-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref031] 31.Peccio A, Autio T, Korkeala H, Rosmini R, Trevisani M. Listeria monocytogenes occurrence and characterization in meat‐producing plants. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2003;37(3):234–8. 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2003.01384.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref032] 32.Meloni D, Piras F, Mureddu A, Fois F, Consolati SG, Lamon S, et al. Listeria monocytogenes in five Sardinian swine slaughterhouses: prevalence, serotype, and genotype characterization. J Food Prot. 2013;76(11):1863–7. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref033] 33.Chasseignaux E, Toquin MT, Ragimbeau C, Salvat G, Colin P, Ermel G. Molecular epidemiology of Listeria monocytogenes isolates collected from the environment, raw meat and raw products in two poultry‐and pork‐processing plants. J Appl Microbiol. 2001;91(5):888–99. 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01445.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref034] 34.Morales-Partera A, Cardoso-Toset F, Luque I, Astorga R, Maldonado A, Herrera-León S, et al. Prevalence and diversity of Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., and Listeria monocytogenes in two free-range pig slaughterhouses. Food Control. 2018;92:208–15. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref035] 35.Wulff G, Gram L, Ahrens P, Vogel BF. One group of genetically similar Listeria monocytogenes strains frequently dominates and persists in several fish slaughter-and smokehouses. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(6):4313–22. 10.1128/AEM.02288-05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref036] 36.Van den Elzen A, Snijders J. Critical points in meat production lines regarding the introduction of Listeria monocytogenes. Vet Q. 1993;15(4):143–5. 10.1080/01652176.1993.9694393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref037] 37.Thevenot D, Delignette-Muller M, Christieans S, Vernozy-Rozand C. Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in 13 dried sausage processing plants and their products. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005;102(1):85–94. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref038] 38.Gnanou Besse N, Dubois Brissonnet F, Lafarge V, Leclerc V. Effect of various environmental parameters on the recovery of sublethally salt‐damaged and acid‐damaged Listeria monocytogenes. J Appl Microbiol. 2000;89(6):944–50. 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.01195.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref039] 39.Ye K, Wang K, Liu M, Liu J, Zhu L, Zhou G. Mathematical modelling of growth of Listeria monocytogenes in raw chilled pork. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2017;64(4):309–16. 10.1111/lam.12721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref040] 40.Maury MM, Tsai YH, Charlier C, Touchon M, Chenal-Francisque V, Leclercq A, et al. Uncovering Listeria monocytogenes hypervirulence by harnessing its biodiversity. Nat Genet. 2016;48(3):308–13. 10.1038/ng.3501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref041] 41.De Cesare A, Parisi A, Mioni R, Comin D, Lucchi A, Manfreda G. Listeria monocytogenes circulating in rabbit meat products and slaughterhouses in Italy: prevalence data and comparison among typing results. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2017;14(3):167–76. 10.1089/fpd.2016.2211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref042] 42.Nucera D, Lomonaco S, Bianchi DM, Decastelli L, Grassi MA, Bottero MT, et al. A five year surveillance report on PFGE types of Listeria monocytogenes isolated in Italy from food and food related environments. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010;140(2–3):271–6. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.04.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref043] 43.Cherifi T, Carrillo C, Lambert D, Miniaï I, Quessy S, Larivière-Gauthier G, et al. Genomic characterization of Listeria monocytogenes isolates reveals that their persistence in a pig slaughterhouse is linked to the presence of benzalkonium chloride resistance genes. BMC Microbiol. 2018;18(1):220 10.1186/s12866-018-1363-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref044] 44.Ortiz S, López-Alonso V, Rodríguez P, Martínez-Suárez JV. The connection between persistent, disinfectant-resistant Listeria monocytogenes strains from two geographically separate Iberian pork processing plants: Evidence from comparative genome analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82(1):308–17. 10.1128/AEM.02824-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref045] 45.Ferreira V, Wiedmann M, Teixeira P, Stasiewicz MJ. Listeria monocytogenes persistence in food-associated environments: epidemiology, strain characteristics, and implications for public health. J Food Prot. 2014;77(1):150–70. 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref046] 46.Carpentier B, Cerf O. Review—Persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in food industry equipment and premises. Int J Food Microbiol. 2011;145(1):1–8. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.01.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref047] 47.Knabel SJ, Reimer A, Verghese B, Lok M, Ziegler J, Farber J, et al. Sequence typing confirms that a predominant Listeria monocytogenes clone caused human listeriosis cases and outbreaks in Canada from 1988–2010. J Clin Microbiol. 2012:JCM. 06185–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref048] 48.Aase B, Sundheim G, Langsrud S, Rorvik LM. Occurrence of and a possible mechanism for resistance to a quaternary ammonium compound in Listeria monocytogenes. Int J Food Microbiol. 2000;62(1–2):57–63. 10.1016/s0168-1605(00)00357-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref049] 49.Meier AB, Guldimann C, Markkula A, Pöntinen A, Korkeala H, Tasara T. Comparative phenotypic and genotypic analysis of Swiss and Finnish Listeria monocytogenes isolates with respect to benzalkonium chloride resistance. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:397 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0236807.ref050] 50.Tamburro M, Ripabelli G, Vitullo M, Dallman TJ, Pontello M, Amar CFL, et al. Gene expression in Listeria monocytogenes exposed to sublethal concentration of benzalkonium chloride. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;40:31–9. 10.1016/j.cimid.2015.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Distribution, diversity and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in swine slaughterhouses and their association with food and human listeriosis strains

Tamazight Cherifi

Julie Arsenault

Franco Pagotto

Sylvain Quessy

Jean-Charles Côté

Kersti Neira

Sylvain Fournaise

Sadjia Bekal

Philippe Fravalo

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Sampling procedures

Isolation of L. monocytogenes

Characterisation of L. monocytogenes isolates

Serotyping

Ribotyping

Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) typing

Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples

L. monocytogenes pulsotype diversity

Distribution of L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes

Association between L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes in the swine slaughterhouses and their detection in food and human clinical isolates of L. monocytogenes

PCR amplification of the benzalkonium chloride (BAC) bcrABC resistance cassette and the emrE multidrug transporter gene from L. monocytogenes isolates

Benzalkonium chloride minimum inhibitory concentrations

Association between L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes and BAC resistance genes

Results

Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples

Table 1. Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples in four slaughterhouses in Québec, between October 2013 and February 2015.

Characterization of L. monocytogenes isolates

Table 2. Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples according to serotypes detected in at least one isolate in four slaughterhouses in Québec.

Fig 1. Representation of the number of L. monocytogenes-positive samples according to their pulsotype.

Fig 2.

Distribution of L. monocytogenes pulsotypes according to the slaughterhouse

Fig 3. Venn diagram with the numbers of shared pulsotypes among the four slaughterhouses A, B, C and D.

Diversity of L. monocytogenes pulsotypes according to seasons, slaughterhouses and operation areas

Fig 4. Pulsotype diversity over the number of L. monocytogenes isolates collected from all four swine slaughterhouses.

Distribution of L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes

Table 3. Distribution of L. monocytogenes-positive samples and persistent pulsotypes in four slaughterhouses in Québec.

Association between L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes and detection in food and clinical human listeriosis cases

Fig 5. Proportion of persistent L. monocytogenes pulsotypes observed in food isolates and human listeriosis cases from 2000 to 2016 in Quebec according to the database of the Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec (LSPQ).

Association between L. monocytogenes persistent pulsotypes and BAC resistance genes

Fig 6. Proportion of persistent L. monocytogenes pulsotypes harboring the benzalkonium chloride bcrABC resistance cassette and/or the emrE multidrug transporter gene.

Fig 7. Proportion of L. monocytogenes pulsotypes harboring the benzalkonium chloride bcrABC resistance cassette and/or the emrE multidrug transporter gene relative to their origin, the most (yes) vs. the least exposed (No) sites to disinfectants.

Discussion

Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Yung-Fu Chang

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Yung-Fu Chang

Roles

Acceptance letter

Yung-Fu Chang

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases