Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244713. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244713

Prevalence and serotypes of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in dairy cattle from Northern Portugal

Andressa Ballem 1,2,3,4,5, Soraia Gonçalves 1, Isidro Garcia-Meniño 6,7, Saskia C Flament-Simon 6,7, Jesús E Blanco 6,7, Conceição Fernandes 5, Maria José Saavedra 2,4, Carlos Pinto 1,¤, Hugo Oliveira 8,*, Jorge Blanco 6,7, Gonçalo Almeida 1, Carina Almeida 1,*
Editor: Dov Joseph Stekel9
PMCID: PMC7774927  PMID: 33382795

Abstract

The prevalence of Shiga toxin (Stx)-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) was determined by evaluating its presence in faecal samples from 155 heifers, and 254 dairy cows in 21 farms at North of Portugal sampled between December 2017 and June 2019. The prevalence of STEC in heifers (45%) was significantly higher than in lactating cows (16%) (p<0.05, Fisher exact test statistic value is <0.00001). A total of 133 STEC were isolated, 24 (13.8%) carried Shiga-toxin 1 (stx1) genes, 69 (39.7%) carried Shiga-toxin 2 (stx2) genes, and 40 (23%) carried both stx1 and stx2. Intimin (eae) virulence gene was detected in 29 (21.8%) of the isolates. STEC isolates belonged to 72 different O:H serotypes, comprising 40 O serogroups and 23 H types. The most frequent serotypes were O29:H12 (15%) and O113:H21 (5.2%), found in a large number of farms. Two isolates belonged to the highly virulent serotypes associated with human disease O157:H7 and O26:H11. Many other bovine STEC serotypes founded in this work belonged to serotypes previously described as pathogenic to humans. Thus, this study highlights the need for control strategies that can reduce STEC prevalence at the farm level and, thus, prevent food and environmental contamination.

Introduction

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are a heterogeneous group of foodborne pathogens with various levels of virulence for humans and are defined by the presence of one or both phage-encoded Shiga toxin genes: Shiga-toxin 1 (stx1) and Shiga-toxin 2 (stx2) [1, 2]. STEC cause clinical illness in humans, ranging from uncomplicated non-bloody diarrhoea to severe diseases, such as acute gastroenteritis, haemorrhagic colitis (HC) and the life-threatening haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) [3, 4].

In 2018, 8161 human cases of STEC infections were confirmed in Europe. In fact, in the European Union, STEC ranks the third place on the most relevant foodborne pathogens, behind Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. [5].

The stx genes are responsible for producing the Shiga toxins (Stx), also called Verotoxins. These toxins are grouped into two types, Stx1 and Stx2, each one including several variants that contribute for different virulence degrees. Subtypes within Stx1 include Stx1a, Stx1c and Stx1d, while for Stx2 seven subtypes (Stx2a, Stx2b, Stx2c, Stx2d, Stx2e, Stx2f, Stx2g) are well-established among the scientific community [6, 7]. Additionally, two new variants of Stx2 (Stx2h and Stx2k) have been recently identified [8, 9].

There are other virulence factors expressed by STEC such as, the protein intimin, coded by eae gene, that is associated with the capacitive of STEC to colonize the human gut and cause illness [1012]. The intimin is responsible for intimate attachment of STEC to intestinal epithelial cells, causing attaching and effacing lesions in the intestinal mucosa. It is located at the pathogenicity island known as the locus of enterocyte effacement (LEE) [13].

The main STEC serotype associated with outbreaks and serious diseases in humans is O157:H7. However, the increase of outbreaks caused by non-O157 has given a warning signal to the virulence potential of other serotypes [2, 14].

STEC are found in a wide variety of animal species, as a natural inhabitant of gut. Ruminants, including cattle, are the most important reservoir of the zoonotic STEC. These pathogens can be transmitted to humans through many different routes, but contaminated food, by contact with faecal material, has been described as the main transmission route [1518].

Beef and milk are the main animal food products responsible for outbreaks reported between 1998 and 2016 [19]. Because of this, the surveillance on the prevalent STEC serotypes, and stx subtypes, in cattle gut, is crucial to prevent transmission to humans and to design tailored control strategies against STEC.

In Portugal, there are no reports on the prevalence of STEC in dairy cattle and other ruminants. So, in this study we investigate the prevalence of STEC in healthy dairy cattle (lactating cows and heifers). Isolates were screened for the presence of major virulence genes and serotypes were determined.

Materials and methods ethics statement

The study has been validated by a specialized panel composed by a veterinary physician, and two authorized persons to perform animal experimentation, with accreditation number 020/08 by FELASA—Federation of Laboratory Animal Science Associations. Animals were enrolled under the permission of farms’ owners. No additional approvals were required by the authority as samples were collected during a standard procedure of rectal examination performed by a veterinary physician, which is an integral part of a thorough clinical examination in cows. This study was conducted in accordance with the E.U. Animal Welfare Directives (Directive 98/58/CE and Decreto-lei no 64/2000).

Farms selection and collection of samples

Milk farms enrolled in this study were from the north-west region. This particular area, placed at “Entre Douro e Minho”, has a high frequency of dairy herds and is usually referred to as the “Bacia leiteira primária”. Farms were distributed in 12 different counties: Barcelos, Vila do Conde, Póvoa de Varzim, Ponte de Lima, Guimarães, Vila Nova de Cerveira, Chaves, Miranda do Douro, Vimioso, Povoa de Lanhoso, Penafiel and Paços de Ferreira (Fig 1). Only farms with a documented herd size of more than 50 dairy cows or heifers were sampled. A total of 21 milk farms (S1 Table) were enrolled and faecal samples were collected randomly directly from the rectum of healthy animals, between December 2017 and June 2019. Farms distribution is presented in Fig 1. Map was created using MicroStation v8 (Bentley Systems, Incorporated). All farms kept animals indoors, in open stables, but, at times, animals were given the opportunity to graze outside. The animals were categorized into two groups: lactating dairy cows (more than 24 months of age) and heifers (age between 6 and 18 months). All animals sampled were of the Holstein-Friesian breed.

Fig 1. Map of North of Portugal showing the dairy farms sampled for STEC screening.

Fig 1

The farm location and number of sampled animals can be consulted in S1 Table. Map was constructed using open data (public domain) from the Portuguese government that have Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) and was available at https://dados.gov.pt/pt/datasets/concelhos-de-portugal/ access on 12 February.

The minimum sample size of about 300 animals was calculated using the standard formula described by Thrusfield et al. [20] with confidence level of 0.95 and a margin of error of 0.05. Also, it was based on the assumption of a 27% prevalence of carriage described by Blanco et al. (2004) [12] in a prevalence study, in the neighbouring country Spain, in cattle samples collected between 1993 and 1995. A sample of 10% of the animals (lactating cows and heifers) was collected whenever possible at each farm, ranging from a minimum of 5 animals to a maximum of 20 per farm. A total of 409 samples from 254 (62.1%) adults lactating dairy cow, and 155 (37.9%) heifers, were collected and transported to the laboratory in portable, insulated cold boxes. The samples were kept at 4°C and examined within 24h.

Isolation/ detection of STEC

The method used for isolation/ detection of STEC was adapted from ISO/TS 13136:2012 (E) [21]. Ten grams of faeces were placed in 90 mL of modified Tryptone Soy Broth media supplemented with 20 mg. L-1 of novobiocin (mTSB+N), homogenized in a blend bag with filter and incubated at 37°C for 18 h to 24 h. Enrichment broth was subjected to multiplex real-time PCR to detect stx genes. Enrichment broths positive for stx genes were streaked onto MacConkey Sorbitol agar (SMAC) and Tryptone bile x-glucuronide medium (TBX) and incubated at 37°C for 18 h to 24 h. Then, 50 single colonies with E. coli morphology were picked up from TBX and SMAC and point-inoculated on nutrient agar (NA). Plates were incubated at 37°C for 18 h to 24 h. The 50 colonies were organized in 5 pools of 10 colonies each, and pools were then subjected to real-time PCR as described below. For pools positive to stx genes, the single colonies were analysed individually again. Isolates containing one or more stx genes were preserved at -80°C. For pools with several stx-positive colonies, but with the same profile, only one colony was selected for storage and further analysis.

DNA template preparation

DNA extraction from enrichment was performed according to the U. S. Food, Drug & Administration in Bacteriological Analytical Manual: Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli [22]. Briefly, 1 mL of overnight enrichment in mTSB+N was transferred to a microtube and centrifuged (12,000 × g) for 3 min. The pellet was washed with 1 ml 0.85% NaCl and centrifuged again at 12,000 × g for 3 min. The pellet was suspended in 1 ml of sterile ultrapure water. The microtubes were placed in a heat block at 100°C for 15 min and then centrifuged 12,000 × g for 1 minute. The supernatant was diluted 10-fold in ultrapure sterile water.

Pure cultures (including control cultures) and pools from agar plate were suspended in microtubes with 1 mL of sterile ultrapure water, placed in a heat block at 100°C for 15 min and centrifuged 12,000 × g for 1 minute. The supernatant was then used for real-time PCR screening. This procedure for template preparation has been previously tested in enriched faeces samples, artificially inoculated with STEC, to assure an appropriate performance in the following PCR-screening steps.

Detection of stx1, stx2 and eae in faecal samples by multiplex real time-PCR

DNA samples from enrichments, pools and single colonies were screened by multiplex real-time PCR for detection of stx1, stx2 and eae gene sequences. This was performed according to ISO/TS 13136:2012(E) [21]. Primers, probes and the predicted lengths of PCR amplification products are listed in Table 1. Plasmid pUC19 was used as internal amplification control to monitor any possible inhibitory effect. PCR assays were carried out in a 25 μL volume containing: 2.5 μL of nucleic acid template, 12.5 μL of commercial real-time PCR Probe Master Mix (2x) (NZYtech), 1 μL of pUC 19 DNA (approximately 100 copies), 0.4 pmol. μL-1 of each primer and 0.2 pmol. μL-1 of each probe. DNA samples from E. coli O26 (LMV_E_2, INIAV culture collection), was used as a positive control. Negative controls were included in each run, where template was replaced by sterile ultrapure water. Temperature conditions consisted of an initial 95°C denaturation step for 5 min followed by 39 cycles at 95°C for 10 s (denaturation) and 60°C for 50 s (annealing and extension). For samples with evidence of inhibition (no amplification of the internal control, pUC19), DNA samples were diluted 1/10 and retested.

Table 1. Primers and probes used for 5’-nuclease real-time-PCR assaysa.

Primer Sequence 5’> 3’b Amplicon size (bp)
F-stx1 TTTGTYACTGTSACAGCWGAAGCYTTACG 131
R-stx1 CCCCAGTTCARWGTRAGRTCMACRTC
stx1 probe [FAM]CTGGATGATCTCAGTGGGCGTTCTTATGTAA[BHQ1]
F-stx2c TTTGTYACTGTSACAGCWGAAGCYTTACG 128
R-stx2c CCCCAGTTCARWGTRAGRTCMACRTC
stx2 probe [HEX]TCGTCAGGCACTGTCTGAAACTGCTCC[BHQ2]
F-eae CATTGATCAGGATTTTTCTGGTGATA 102
R-eae CTCATGCGGAAATAGCCGTTA
eae probe [CY5]ATAGTCTCGCCAGTATTCGCCACCAATACC[BHQ2]
F-pUC19 GCAGCCACTGGTAACAGGAT 119
R-pUC19 GCAGAGCGCAGATACCAAAT
pUC19 probe [ROX]AGAGCGAGGTATGTAGGCGG[BHQ2]

aTable adapted from ISO/TS 13136:2012 (E).

bIn the sequence Y is (C, T), S is (C, G), W is (A, T), R is (A, G), M is (A, C).

cThis combination of primer/probe recognizes all the stx2 variants except the stx2f.

Screening for virulence genes by conventional PCR

Conventional PCR was used for confirming the presence of stx1, stx2 and eae genes. These screening was performed according to Mora et al. (2011) [23]. Primers, PCR conditions and the predicted lengths of PCR amplification products are listed in S2 Table. Multiplex PCR assays for stx1 and stx2 were carried out in a 25 μL volume containing, 5 μL of nucleic acid template, 12.5 μL of commercial Multiplex PCR Master Mix 2x (NZYtech), 1 μL (0.8 pmol. μL-1) each primer and 2.5 μL of sterile deionized water. For eae confirmation, simplex PCR assays was carried out in a 25 μL volume containing, 5 μL of nucleic acid template, 12.5 μL of commercial Supreme PCR Master Mix 2x (NZYtech), 0.5 μL (0.4 pmol. μL-1) each primer and 6.5 μL of sterile deionized water.

Serotyping

The determination of O and H antigens was carried out using the method previously described by Guinée et al. (1981) [24] with all available O (O1 to O181) and H (H1 to H56) antisera produced in the Laboratorio de Referencia de E. coli—University of Santiago de Compostela (LREC-USC). To remove nonspecific agglutinins, all antisera were absorbed with cross-reacting antigens. Isolates that did not react with O antisera were classified as nontypeable (ONT) and those non motile were denoted as HNM.

Richness (S), Shannon's diversity (H), Simpson's diversity (D), and Simpson's evenness (E) [25] were calculated using the serotype data obtained for both heifers and lactating cows. Serotypes diversity of the STEC isolates obtained from lactating cows and heifers was determined using Simpson’s numerical index (D) as described by Hunter and Gaston [25]. Values for D range between 0 and 1, with a value of 1 indicating the most diverse population. D depends on the number of serotypes identified by the test method and the relative frequencies of these serotypes and was calculated by the following formula:

D=1j=1Snj(nj1)N(N1)

where N is the total number of unrelated isolates in the sample population, s is the total number of types described, and nj is the number of strains that belong to the j the type.

Results and discussion

STEC prevalence in cattle

A total of 409 animals were sampled in 21 dairy farms from the North of Portugal. A total of 133 STEC isolates were recovered from 112 positive animals, which, overall, gave a prevalence rate of 27.4%. This observation is not surprising when comparing to similar prevalence studies. In Spain, between 1993 and 1995, the overall prevalence rates of STEC colonization were estimated in 37% for calves and 27% for cows [12]. These values were not far from the prevalence values found in Germany (18%) and France (34%) [26, 27]. In the US, a study conducted in Michigan in 2012 has shown STEC prevalence rates of 21% for beef cattle and 13% for dairy cattle [28]. In this work, the prevalence rates were calculated only considering the animals that resulted in the recovery of STEC isolates. Positive samples in enrichment (stx screening), but without STEC isolates, were disregarded. So, their prevalence is likely higher, as STEC is sometimes difficult to be isolated, especially if present in low concentrations. Another important observation is the number of STEC positive farms. All farms sampled in this study were positive for STEC presence, with prevalence rates per farm ranging from 5% to 65.4% (Fig 2A). The results are similar to that found by Blanco et al. (1996) [29] in Spain (STEC found on 84% of the farms and the proportion of animals infected varied from 0–63% and Venegas-Vargas et al. (2016) [28] in the United States, that have reached an overall prevalence of 13%, but with great variability between the sampled farms (6% to 54%). Many factors can be involved in the variability of prevalence rates between farms such as sensitivity and specificity of the methods used to detect STEC isolates, geographical area, year and annual sampling season, water supply, herd size, slurry and manure spreading on pasture, as well as the age of animals [30]. Animal age is usually a crucial factor. STEC were more commonly isolated from young animals, as demonstrated in the present study, where about 45% (70 out of 155) of the heifers were colonized by STEC in opposition to, only 16% of the adult cows (42 out of 254) (p<0.05, Fisher exact test statistic value is <0.00001) (Fig 2B) and this might explain the variations found between farms. This observation has already been reported in other studies [12, 31, 32]. A higher prevalence of STEC in young cattle has been related with a lower diversity of the gut microflora at early ages, which increases as the cattle matured [33]. Also, super-shedders of STEC have been found to be more common among younger animals [34]. Other important factors that can affect STEC prevalence are related with seasonality [35] or even with the immediate environment of the animal [18]. While the management systems were very similar among farms, seasonality has not been taken into account in this study, due to the large sampling period needed to reach the expected sample size. So, these prevalence values can only be seen as an average prevalence data for this particular period. Regarding the stx genes found in STEC isolates 24 (18%) harboured only stx1 genes, 69 (51.9%) possessed stx2 genes, and 40 (30.1%) encoded both stx1 and stx2. The Fig 2C shows the distribution of isolates obtained by heifers and lactating cows according to the presence of stx genes. Overall, differences were found in the number of isolates with only stx1 genes and isolates carrying both stx1 and stx2 genes. For stx1 gene, and while the same number of stx1-positive isolates have been found in heifers (12) and adult cows (12), stx1 isolates have represented 27.3% (12/44) of the STEC isolates recovered from adult cows and 13.5% of the isolates recovered from heifers. In opposition, the number of stx1/stx2-positive strains were higher in heifers, a total of 33 out of 89 (37.1%), than in adult cows, with a total of 7 isolates out of 44 (15.9%). This might be close related with the diversity/serotypes of isolates that are more prevalent in the two groups of animals, as, for instance, more virulence serotypes have been consistently associated with stx2 genes [36].

Fig 2. Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) in the North of Portugal.

Fig 2

(A)- Prevalence of STEC per farm (error bars show 95% confidence intervals); (B) prevalence in heifers and lactating cows (box plots graph showing median, interquartile range and discrepant points); (C) isolates Stx profile per animal type.

In association with Shiga toxins, the presence of the intimin gene (eae) is another relevant virulence gene commonly assessed in STEC. The intimin causes lesion in the intestine, in association with Shiga toxins and usually defines strains as enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) [37]. Thus, EHEC strains are associated with severe disease outcomes, including haemorrhagic colitis and HUS. Intimin (eae) virulence gene was detected in 29 STEC isolates (21.8%). The frequency of eae was similar in dairy cows and heifers. The fact that eae-positive STEC isolates were quite common is of great relevance as their pathogenic potential is even higher. While the presence of eae is not mandatory in isolates causing haemorrhagic colitis and HUS, its role in E. coli intimate attachment is very well established as an increased risk factor for human health [37, 38]. Assessment of eae presence in other cattle-STEC prevalence studies have reached to similar results, with 12% of the strains showing the presence of this virulence gene in healthy dairy cattle [36, 39]. In Spain the intimin (eae) virulence gene was detected in 29% of the bovine STEC isolates [12].

Serotypes of STEC isolates

The serotype is another relevant property when assessing the virulence potential of STEC, as some specific ones are highly associated with food outbreaks. This is not only related with stx and eae presence, but most probably with the genetic pool of other virulence genes associated with those particular serotypes [40]. On this regard, it is important to bear in mind that the E. coli genome presents high plasticity. While E. coli strains usually contain about 5000 genes, only approximately 3000 compose the species core genome (since they are found in all E. coli genomes). The other ones represent the “accessory genome” that makes the huge heterogeneity and genetic diversity among E. coli strains [41, 42]. Because of this, serotype remains as a valuable tool for epidemiologic studies, not only for establishing the potential source/relationship of relevant isolates, but also to evaluate the clonal and pathogenic potential of isolates. Among the STEC, O157:H7 is the most well-known serotype due to its association with foodborne outbreaks; but there is a worldwide increase in cases of human disease related to non-O157. Serotyping of our STEC isolates identified 72 different O:H serotypes belonging to 40 O serogroups and 23 H (flagellar) types including non-motile (HNM) and non-typeable (NT) isolates (Table 2).

Table 2. Diversity and frequency of STEC serotypes isolated from dairy cattle (lactating cows and heifers) faeces.

Serotype Number of isolates Number of farms (farms ID) Serotype Number of isolates Number of farms (farms ID)
O1:H6 1 1 (16) O113:H36 1 1 (12)
O1:H20 1 1 (12) O113:HNM 1 1 (18)
O1:HNM 1 1 (7) O115:H2 1 1 (17)
O2:H27 1 1 (14) O115:HNM 1 1 (17)
O6:H34 3 1 (16) O116:H21 4 3 (4; 7; 13)
O7, O103:H7 1 1 (4) O116:HNM 3 3 (6; 9; 10)
O8:H8 1 1 (15) O116:HNT 2 1 (2)
O8:H14 1 1 (16) O119:H25 3 3 (4; 9; 18)
O8:H19 1 1 (3) O119:HNM 1 1 (7)
O15:H2 1 1 (12) O126:H20 1 1 (8)
O15:H16 1 1 (20) O130:H47 1 1 (14)
O15:HNM 1 1 (12) O136:H12 4 2 (1; 5)
O18:HNM 1 1 (15) O136:HNM 1 1 (5)
O19:H27 3 1 (14) O140:HNT 1 1 (10)
O22:H8 3 2 (14;15) O142:H34 1 1 (14)
O26:H11 1 1 (7) O150:H8 1 1 (11)
O29:H1 1 1 (13) O150:H21 1 1 (7)
O29:H12 20 5 (1; 2; 7; 16; 19) O157:H7 1 1 (10)
O32:H19 1 1 (2) O165:H25 3 2 (12; 14)
O39:H25 1 1 (15) O166:HNM 1 1 (7)
O55:H8 2 1 (10) O172:HNM 1 1 (11)
O55:H12 2 1 (16) O174:H21 1 1 (10)
O55:H21 1 1 (7) O177:H34 1 1 (16)
O55:HNM 1 1 (10) O177:H44 1 1 (11)
O76:H21 1 1 (12) O177:HNM 4 4 (10; 13; 16; 17)
O88:H38 1 1 (2) O179:H8 2 1 (19)
O89:H38 1 1 (10) O181:H19 1 1 (3)
O91:H8 4 2 (15; 16) O183:H18 1 1 (8)
O91:H12 1 1 (2) O183:HNM 1 1 (9)
O103:H6 1 1 (16) ONT:H8 1 1 (14)
O103:H25 1 1 (16) ONT:H11 2 1 (9)
O103:H34 1 1 (16) ONT:H16 4 3 (4; 16; 17)
O109:H11 1 1 (15) ONT:H21 2 1 (4)
O109:H25 2 1 (16) ONT:H25 1 1 (14)
O109:H34 1 1 (16) ONT:H35 1 1 (3)
O113:H21 8 4 (1; 7; 19; 21) ONT:HNM 2 2 (9; 14)

The serotypes previously associated with human STEC are highlighted at bold and serotypes previously associated with human STEC causing HUS are highlighted at bold and a italic characters. NM = non-motile; NT = non-typeable.

The serotypes Richness found in heifers was higher (50 serotypes) than that found in the milking cows (35 serotypes); nonetheless, Simpson indexes of diversity were very high in both populations (Table 3), either using only the serotypes data or the serotypes associated with the stx-profile of the strains. This is probably due to the fact that serotype O29:H12 dominates in this population (representing 19 of the 50 serotypes found).

Table 3. Richness and diversity estimation for the STEC serotypes found in heifers and lactating cows.

All STEC STEC from lactating cows STEC from Heifers (n = 89)
(n = 133) (n = 44)
Richness 72 35 50
Simpson's index of diversity * Serotype 0,969 0,989 0,948
Serotype/Stx 0,973 0,989 0,957

*Diversity index was calculated taking into account the serotypes data alone and the serotype combined with stx-profile.

In fact, the most frequent serotypes was O29:H12 (15%), followed by O113:H21 (5.2%). The serotype O29:H12 was mainly found in heifer faeces (20 isolates) and was present at five different farms, while the seven isolates of serotype O113:H21 was distributed in four farms and it was found in heifer and lactating cow faeces (Table 2). The serotype O113:H21 is considered one of the relevant non-O157 STEC serotypes associated with severe human infections [26] and it has been reportedly associated with dairy cattle [43], but, to, to the best of our knowledge, serotype O29:H12 has not been previously associated with cattle faeces. Interestingly, 31 of the 72 serotypes found in the present study in bovine STEC isolates have been associated in previous studies with STEC isolates causing human infections and 13 of them were associated with haemolytic uremic syndrome [12, 38, 4446]. Despite the clinical relevance of this data, the fact is that most of the studies evaluating the STEC in cattle has reached to similar observations, with studies reporting high numbers of different serotypes, ranging from 17 to 113 [12, 47], several of them associated with human infection.

Conclusions

The main objective of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of STEC in dairy cattle in Portugal, and to evaluate their serotypes diversity. This could provide us with valuable information on the natural reservoir diversity, as well as their pathogenic potential, risks for consequent food contamination and human infection. Data has shown a high prevalence of STEC in dairy cattle (27%), in line with similar studies performed in European and non-European countries. All farms were positive for the presence of STEC and, as expected, heifers were most commonly colonized than adult cows. Serotypes O29:H12 and O113:H21, were found in at least four different farms. Many serotypes found in this study have been previously associated with serious diseases in humans, so the search for innovative tools for controlling these pathogens in animal husbandry is essential to prevent the spread to food and environment. Also, this prevalence information should be taken into account when designing the national surveillance programs for STEC.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Farms enrolled in the present study, their location, total number of animals and main feed.

aTotal number of animals is the sum of lactating cows, dry cows and heifers. bInformation provided by the farm owner.

(TIF)

S2 Table. Conventional PCR primer and conditions for amplification of STEC virulence genes.

(TIFF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank topographer Fabiano Balem for making the map.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This study was financially supported by: i) project PhageSTEC (POCI-01-0145 -FEDER-029628) funded by FEDER through COMPETE2020 (Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização) and by National Funds thought FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia); ii) strategic project UIDB/04469/2020 unit and BioTecNorte operation (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000004) funded by FCT under the scope of the European Regional Development Fund (Norte2020 - Programa Operacional Regional do Norte); iii) project PI16/01477 from Plan Estatal de I+D+I 2013-2016, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), Subdirección General de Evaluación y Fomento de la Investigación, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Gobierno de España) and FEDER; and iv) grant ED431C2017/57 from the Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, (Xunta de Galicia) and FEDER; UIDB/AGR/04033/2020 by National Funds thought FCT. Author IGM acknowledges the Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia for the individual grant ED481A-2015/149 and and author SCFS acknowledges the FPU programme for the individual grant FPU15/02644 from the Secretaría General de Universidades, Spanish Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Madic J, Vingadassalon N, de Garam CP, Marault M, Scheutz F, Brugère H, et al. Detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serotypes O26:H11, O103:H2, O111:H8, O145:H28, and O157:H7 in raw-milk cheeses by using multiplex real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011/01/14. 2011;77: 2035–2041. 10.1128/AEM.02089-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Byrne L, Jenkins C, Launders N, Elson R, Adak GK. The epidemiology, microbiology and clinical impact of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in England, 2009–2012. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143: 3475–3487. 10.1017/S0950268815000746 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Noris M, Remuzzi G. Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16: 1035 LP– 1050. 10.1681/ASN.2004100861 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kargar M, Homayoon M. Prevalence of shiga toxins (stx1, stx2), eaeA and hly genes of Escherichia coli O157:H7 strains among children with acute gastroenteritis in southern of Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2015;8: 24–28. 10.1016/S1995-7645(14)60182-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.EFSA ECDC. The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2019;17 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Scheutz F, Teel LD, Beutin L, Piérard D, Buvens G, Karch H, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a sequence-based protocol for subtyping Shiga toxins and standardizing Stx nomenclature. J Clin Microbiol. 2012/07/03. 2012;50: 2951–2963. 10.1128/JCM.00860-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Shridhar PB, Siepker C, Noll LW, Shi X, Nagaraja TG, Bai J. Shiga Toxin Subtypes of Non-O157 Escherichia coli Serogroups Isolated from Cattle Feces. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7: 121 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bai X, Fu S, Zhang J, Fan R, Xu Y, Sun H, et al. Identification and pathogenomic analysis of an Escherichia coli strain producing a novel Shiga toxin 2 subtype. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 6756 10.1038/s41598-018-25233-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yang X, Bai X, Zhang J, Sun H, Fu S, Fan R, et al. Escherichia coli strains producing a novel Shiga toxin 2 subtype circulate in China. Int J Med Microbiol. 2020;310: 151377 10.1016/j.ijmm.2019.151377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Douëllou T, Delannoy S, Ganet S, Mariani-Kurkdjian P, Fach P, Loukiadis E, et al. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli strains isolated from dairy products—Genetic diversity and virulence gene profiles. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016;232: 52–62. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.04.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Blanco JE, Blanco M, Alonso MP, Mora A, Dahbi G, Coira MA, et al. Serotypes, virulence genes, and intimin types of Shiga toxin (verotoxin)-producing Escherichia coli isolates from human patients: prevalence in Lugo, Spain, from 1992 through 1999. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42: 311–319. 10.1128/jcm.42.1.311-319.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Blanco M, Blanco JE, Mora A, Dahbi G, Alonso MP, Gonzalez EA, et al. Serotypes, virulence genes, and intimin types of Shiga toxin (verotoxin)-producing Escherichia coli isolates from cattle in Spain and identification of a new intimin variant gene (eae-xi). J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42: 645–651. 10.1128/jcm.42.2.645-651.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hornitzky MA, Mercieca K, Bettelheim KA, Djordjevic SP. Bovine Feces from Animals with Gastrointestinal Infections Are a Source of Serologically Diverse Atypical Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli and Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli Strains That Commonly Possess Intimin. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71: 3405–3412. 10.1128/AEM.71.7.3405-3412.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shen J, Rump L, Ju W, Shao J, Zhao S, Brown E, et al. Virulence characterization of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates from food, humans and animals. Food Microbiol. 2015;50: 20–27. 10.1016/j.fm.2015.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Monaghan Á, Byrne B, Fanning S, Sweeney T, McDowell D, Bolton DJ. Serotypes and virulotypes of non-O157 shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) on bovine hides and carcasses. Food Microbiol. 2012;32: 223–229. 10.1016/j.fm.2012.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Verhaegen B, Van Damme I, Heyndrickx M, Botteldoorn N, Elhadidy M, Verstraete K, et al. Evaluation of detection methods for non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli from food. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016;219: 64–70. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jones G, Lefèvre S, Donguy M-P, Nisavanh A, Terpant G, Fougère E, et al. Outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O26 paediatric haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) cases associated with the consumption of soft raw cow’s milk cheeses, France, March to May 2019. Euro Surveill. 2019;24: 1900305 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.22.1900305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fairbrother JM, Nadeau É. Escherichia coli: On-farm contamination of animals. Rev Sci Tech. 2006;25: 555–569. 10.20506/rst.25.2.1682 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.WHO (World Health Organization), FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and food: attribution, characterization, and monitoring: report. Rome PP—Rome: World Health Organization; 2018. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272871 [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Thrusfield M. Veterinary epidemiology. Third Edit Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.ISO/TS 13136:2012(E). Microbiology of food and animal feed—Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based method for the detection of food-borne pathogens—Horizontal method for the detection of Shiga toxinproducing Escherichia coli (STEC) and the determination of O157. Switzerland; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Feng P, Weagant SD, Jinneman K. BAM: Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM). U.S. Food & Drug Administration; 2017. Available: https://www.fda.gov/food/laboratory-methods-food/bam-diarrheagenic-escherichia-coli [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mora A, Herrrera A, Lopez C, Dahbi G, Mamani R, Pita JM, et al. Characteristics of the Shiga-toxin-producing enteroaggregative Escherichia coli O104:H4 German outbreak strain and of STEC strains isolated in Spain. Int Microbiol. 2011;14: 121–141. 10.2436/20.1501.01.142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Guinée PAM, Jansen WH, Wadström T, Sellwood R. Escherichia Coli Associated with Neonatal Diarrhoea in Piglets and Calves In: Leeuw PW de Guinée PAM, editors. Laboratory Diagnosis in Neonatal Calf and Pig Diarrhoea. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1981. pp. 126–162. 10.1007/978-94-009-8328-1_18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Morris EK, Caruso T, Buscot F, Fischer M, Hancock C, Maier TS, et al. Choosing and using diversity indices: insights for ecological applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories. Ecol Evol. 2014/08/28. 2014;4: 3514–3524. 10.1002/ece3.1155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pradel N, Livrelli V, De Champs C, Palcoux JB, Reynaud A, Scheutz F, et al. Prevalence and characterization of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from cattle, food, and children during a one-year prospective study in France. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38: 1023–1031. Available: 10.1128/JCM.38.3.1023-1031.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zschöck M, Hamann HP, Kloppert B, Wolter W. Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli in faeces of healthy dairy cows, sheep and goats: prevalence and virulence properties. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2000;31: 203–208. 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.00789.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Venegas-Vargas C, Henderson S, Khare A, Mosci RE, Lehnert JD, Singh P, et al. Factors Associated with Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Shedding by Dairy and Beef Cattle. Björkroth J, editor. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82: 5049–5056. 10.1128/AEM.00829-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Blanco M, Blanco JE, Blanco J, Gonzalez EA, Mora A, Prado C, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 and other verotoxin-producing E. coli in healthy cattle. Epidemiol Infect. 1996;117: 251–257. 10.1017/s0950268800001424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gunn GJ, McKendrick IJ, Ternent HE, Thomson-Carter F, Foster G, Synge BA. An investigation of factors associated with the prevalence of verocytotoxin producing Escherichia coli O157 shedding in Scottish beef cattle. Vet J. 2007;174: 554–564. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.08.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kobayashi H, Shimada J, Nakazawa M, Morozumi T, Pohjanvirta T, Pelkonen S, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli from healthy cattle in Japan. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67: 484–489. 10.1128/AEM.67.1.484-489.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bibbal D, Loukiadis E, Kerouredan M, Ferre F, Dilasser F, Peytavin de Garam C, et al. Prevalence of carriage of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serotypes O157:H7, O26:H11, O103:H2, O111:H8, and O145:H28 among slaughtered adult cattle in France. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81: 1397–1405. 10.1128/AEM.03315-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mir RA, Weppelmann TA, Elzo M, Ahn S, Driver JD, Jeong KC. Colonization of Beef Cattle by Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli during the First Year of Life: A Cohort Study. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0148518 10.1371/journal.pone.0148518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.McCabe E, Burgess CM, Lawal D, Whyte P, Duffy G. An investigation of shedding and super-shedding of Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli O157 and E. coli O26 in cattle presented for slaughter in the Republic of Ireland. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019;66: 83–91. 10.1111/zph.12531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Stanford K, Johnson RP, Alexander TW, McAllister TA, Reuter T. Influence of Season and Feedlot Location on Prevalence and Virulence Factors of Seven Serogroups of Escherichia coli in Feces of Western-Canadian Slaughter Cattle. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0159866 10.1371/journal.pone.0159866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Karama M, Mainga AO, Cenci-Goga BT, Malahlela M, El-Ashram S, Kalake A. Molecular profiling and antimicrobial resistance of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O26, O45, O103, O121, O145 and O157 isolates from c attle on cow-calf operations in South Africa. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 11930 10.1038/s41598-019-47948-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sandhu KS, Gyles CL. Pathogenic Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in the intestine of calves. Can J Vet Res. 2002;66: 65–72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Karmali MA, Mascarenhas M, Shen S, Ziebell K, Johnson S, Reid-Smith R, et al. Association of Genomic O Island 122 of Escherichia coli EDL 933 with Verocytotoxin-Producing Escherichia coli Seropathotypes That Are Linked to Epidemic and/or Serious Disease. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41: 4930–4940. 10.1128/jcm.41.11.4930-4940.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kang E, Hwang SY, Kwon KH, Kim KY, Kim JH, Park YH. Prevalence and characteristics of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) from cattle in Korea between 2010 and 2011. J Vet Sci. 2013/06/30. 2014;15: 369–379. 10.4142/jvs.2014.15.3.369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Karama M, Cenci-Goga BT, Malahlela M, Smith AM, Keddy KH, El-Ashram S, et al. Virulence Characteristics and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Isolates from Humans in South Africa: 2006–2013. Toxins (Basel). 2019;11: 424 10.3390/toxins11070424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dobrindt U, Agerer F, Michaelis K, Janka A, Buchrieser C, Samuelson M, et al. Analysis of genome plasticity in pathogenic and commensal Escherichia coli isolates by use of DNA arrays. J Bacteriol. 2003;185: 1831–1840. 10.1128/jb.185.6.1831-1840.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Land M, Hauser L, Jun S-R, Nookaew I, Leuze MR, Ahn T-H, et al. Insights from 20 years of bacterial genome sequencing. Funct Integr Genomics. 2015;15: 141–161. 10.1007/s10142-015-0433-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fernández D, Irino K, Sanz ME, Padola NL, Parma AE. Characterization of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from dairy cows in Argentina. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;51: 377–382. 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02904.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Messens W, Bolton D, Frankel G, Liebana E, McLauchlin J, Morabito S, et al. Defining pathogenic verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) from cases of human infection in the European Union, 2007–2010. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143: 1652–1661. 10.1017/S095026881400137X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Fierz L, Cernela N, Hauser E, Nüesch-Inderbinen M, Stephan R. Characteristics of Shigatoxin-Producing Escherichia coli Strains Isolated during 2010–2014 from Human Infections in Switzerland. Front Microbiol. 2017;8 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.De Rauw K, Jacobs S, Piérard D. Twenty-seven years of screening for shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in a university hospital. Brussels, Belgium, 1987–2014. PLoS One. 2018;13 10.1371/journal.pone.0199968 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Monaghan A, Byrne B, Fanning S, Sweeney T, McDowell D, Bolton DJ. Serotypes and virulence profiles of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates from bovine farms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77: 8662–8668. 10.1128/AEM.06190-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dov Joseph Stekel

11 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-19097

Prevalence and Serotypes of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Dairy Cattle from Northern Portugal

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

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.

Please could you respond to all points raised by the two reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 26 2020 11:59PM. 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,

Dov Joseph Stekel

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.We note that [Figure(s) 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [1] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3.Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[IGM acknowledge the Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación

Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia for the grant ED481A-2015/149 and SCFS acknowledges

the FPU programme for the grant FPU15/02644 from the Secretaría General de

Universidades, Spanish Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 [Funding statment is presented in the manuscript body]

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: 1. Some concerns of the validity of the PCR results as the DNA extraction method has not been validated for use on faeces/soil which is more complex than the food substances that the method was designed for. However, if they have considered inhibition and included controls of spiked faecal material then those concerns are mitigated. Within the manuscript there is no statement regarding the inclusion of positive and negative controls during the DNA extraction process, so explanation of what they did will add clarity and confirm that the results are valid and sensitivity was not compromised by the chosen extraction method. More explanation could be given and the results and discussion section reads more as a statement of results in some places without proposed explanations for the findings. They also need to check whether they wanted 29 or 31 serotypes to have been placed in bold text in Table 2 as the table conflicts with the in text reference.

4. While the paper is largely well written, I have suggested some minor edits below to make it clearer to the reader.

Summary of paper

The paper examined the prevalence of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and serotypes of STEC in heifers and dairy cattle in Northern Portugal. This research appeared to be novel due to being undertaken in North Portugal and the results compared with other similar studies in different locations. The authors identified that STEC was significantly more likely to be isolated from heifers than lactating cattle, as had been found in other studies (e.g. [1] which was not referenced). In total, 133 STEC were isolated from 409 cattle across 21 farms; 13.8% (n = 24) carried stx1, 39.7% (n = 69) carried stx2 and 23% (n = 40) carried both stx1 and stx2. The overall prevalence rate of STEC (27.4%) was similar to that identified in Spain, Germany and France in other studies that were referenced. The study identified 74 different O:H serotypes belonging to 40 O serogroups and 21 H groups including non-motile (HNM) and non-typable (NW) isolates; 29 of the identified serotypes were stated (in text) to have been linked to foodborne outbreaks.

[1] 10. Mir RA, Weppelmann TA, Kang M, Bliss TM, DiLorenzo N, Lamb GC, et al. Association between animal age and the prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in a cohort of beef cattle. Vet Microbiol. 2014

Introduction

• Rephrase line 68 – ‘ STEC are found in a wide variety of animal species as a natural gut inhabitant.’

• Lines 69-72: Rephrase to demonstrate that the food is likely contaminated with faeces containing STEC, rather than saliva/blood etc. (e.g. ref: Fairbrother & Nadeau, 2006).

• Line 78-9: ‘investigate the prevalence of STEC in healthy dairy cattle…’ . Do you need to add ’and heifers’ as they were referred to separately in the abstract (L29).

Methods

Methods

• Line 120 – do not need ‘the’ in that sentence.

• Line 123 – there isn’t a ‘quantitative’ aspect to the PCR then I would refer to it as presence-absence real time PCR (e.g. PA-PCR)

• Line 123 – sensitivity of the method would be good to include and any discussion surrounding the potential for inhibition by other components from the enriched faeces or reference the method as being suitable to avoid inhibition by compounds (such as humic acids) that may decrease sensitivity.

• Line 134 – No controls discussed for the extraction of DNA from enriched faecal slurry. Should include information regarding a positive and negative control for the extraction process as well as the PCR plate set-up, particularly due to the use of an extraction method not designed for faeces.

Results and discussion

• Line 185 – Remove ‘in fact’.

• Line 189 ‘in the Michigan’, remove ‘the’.

• Line 191-192 – requires different phrasing.

• The section describing stx1 genes as being more common in adults than heifers, while those STEC carrying both genes were more frequently found in heifers requires more discussion. In conjunction with this I think that the section stating that STEC was more commonly isolated from heifers (45% heifers, 16% of adults) – already reported in other studies. So, despite STEC being more frequently isolated from heifers, stx1 was still more common in the adult population? This section reads more like a statement of results and could do with more discussion and tying in with other literature (Lines 203-214). Are there any farm metadata or other studies that could provide insight?

• Line 228- ‘well established’.

• Line 228 – missing references.

• Line 243 – ‘establishing’

• Line 245 – ‘foodborne’

• Higher diversity of serotypes from heifers (55) compared to lactating (34 serotypes) but no discussion.

• In text it is stated that 29/74 (line 260) but 31 are indicated in bold (Table 2).

• More could be done to achieve the objective of evaluating the serotype diversity (line 266). Did some farms/areas have higher diversity than others? Do certain serotypes appear to out compete others? Is it possible to run Simpson/Shannon diversity on these data? Did the farms with high or low diversity have high cattle numbers or an older cattle cohort?

Conclusion

• Did not mention that Portugal does not have a surveillance system in place for monitoring STEC/VTEC infections like most EU/EEA Member States – could be worth mentioning in the conclusion to make a case for increased surveillance?

Reviewer #2: The reviewer feel that the paper contains valuable scientific research which would benefit people in similar or closely related field. However, the paper would require a bit of some work prior to publication, areas of which are listed below followed by specific areas:

1. There is need for though proof reading to correct on grammar and some tenses.

2. Detailed explanation why there were variations on STEC prevalence in Heifers and cows

3. How did the study consider factors such as season, management systems between farms etc during sample collection? Any adjustments made for these factors among others so as to avoid bias.

Abstract

Include what this - stx1 and stx2 stands for at the start then can be followed by use of short form.

The prevalence of STEC in heifers was significantly higher than in lactating cows (include p value)

Introduction

51-52 – Did you mean third place in Europe?

78 - Revisit the wording on how you have structured the aim at the start of the sentence.

Materials and methods

83-91 – No need to include the names of the persons

93: check on tenses and also review the sentence

98: what criteria was used for deciding to work with farms >50 herd size?

100-101: though mentioned in the abstract the clarity on type of samples collected not shown

105: software for mapping should not be included on the figures section instead should be somewhere on the materials and methods.

111: neighbour?

Results and discussion

Information why the STEC prevalence was higher in heifers than milking cow is lacking in this work.

Also, the study needs to show how it took care of animals kept outside compared to those managed indoors. No clear information whether the animals were indoors throughout or were at times given the opportunity to graze outside during warmer months etc?

Worth detailing why the stx1 isolates was more common in adult cows compared to heifers;

214 however, the proportion of isolates harbouring both genes were higher in heifers.

How did the study consider factors such as season? This needs to be detailed in the stud

**********

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: Yes: Sian Mari Powell

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Paper Review.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244713. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244713.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Nov 2020

We have incorporated the suggestions made by the editor and reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the Marked Up manuscript as well in the Response to Reviewers letter that we attached.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_v2.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dov Joseph Stekel

16 Dec 2020

Prevalence and Serotypes of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Dairy Cattle from Northern Portugal

PONE-D-20-19097R1

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

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,

Dov Joseph Stekel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Dov Joseph Stekel

21 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-19097R1

Prevalence and Serotypes of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Dairy Cattle from Northern Portugal

Dear Dr. Oliveira:

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. Dov Joseph Stekel

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 Table. Farms enrolled in the present study, their location, total number of animals and main feed.

    aTotal number of animals is the sum of lactating cows, dry cows and heifers. bInformation provided by the farm owner.

    (TIF)

    S2 Table. Conventional PCR primer and conditions for amplification of STEC virulence genes.

    (TIFF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Paper Review.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_v2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES