Abstract
Objective:
The study was carried out for molecular characterization and antibiotic resistance analysis of Escherichia coli isolated from different turkey farms in Dinajpur, Bangladesh.
Materials and methods:
A total of 45 samples comprising feces (n = 23) and cloacal swabs (n = 22) were collected randomly from turkeys. The samples were subjected to isolation and identification of E. coli by cultural and biochemical characteristics, followed by polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. An antibiogram of the isolated E. coli isolates was carried out by following the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method.
Results:
Out of the 45 samples, 28 (62.21%) were positive for E. coli, of which 16 (35.55%) fecal samples were positive and 12 (26.66%) cloacal swabs were positive. The antibiotic sensitivity analysis revealed that all the E. coli isolates were 100% sensitive to levofloxacin, norfloxacin, neomycin, gentamicin, and nitrofurantoin. On the other hand, all the isolates were 100% resistant to amoxicillin, azithromycin, erythromycin, tetracycline, bacitracin, cephalexin, nalidixic acid, vancomycin, methicilin, piperacillin, pefloxacin, novobiocin, cefepime, trimethoprim, netilmicin, and aztreonam.
Conclusion:
This study’s results uncover the occurrence and antibiotic resistance pattern of E. coli in the study area’s turkeys.
Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance, cloacal swabs, Escherichia coli, fecal swabs, Turkey
Introduction
Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) production has gained special attention among Bangladesh’s people considering its progressive commercial value and comprehensive mandate for its products [1]. The reasons behind such consideration are that turkeys have less disease risk, elevated market value, lesser feed cost, and lower mortality than the rest of the poultry species [2]. In the last few years, the acceptance of turkeys in Bangladesh has increased through triggering alternative protein supplementation, income generation, and poverty alleviation. Furthermore, Bangladesh’s climate pattern supports the production system of different poultry species positively [3]. It is noticeable that poultry meat alone provides a significant amount of animal protein through meat production, accounting for 37% of total meat requirements in Bangladesh [4].
In a decade, globally, turkey meat production increased significantly, which is 5.6 million tons in 2012, whereas it was 5.1 million tons in 2003 [5]. Thus, turkey can be a useful alternative source of protein as the broiler meat has problems with higher disease incidence and lower taste. The drawbacks of broiler meat production tend to move farmers’ attention to turkey production in developing countries like Bangladesh. As an excellent forager, a turkey helps eradicate insects that are harmful to crops and vegetables [6]. This poultry species is more suitable to raise in any climatic condition if they are provided proper feeding and management, such as disease and predator protection [2]. Although there are many points in favor of turkey production over other poultry species, they still have some limitations that need to be addressed appropriately. It should be noted that farmers are not aware enough regarding feed efficiency, which needs particular attention because feed represents 70% of the total cost of the poultry production system [7].
Additionally, the farmers’ feeding system deserves special attention, as the turkey poults have higher protein requirements during their first 7 weeks [8]. On the other hand, farmers are not knowledgeable about turkey breeder ration, which was also observed in other parts of the world [9]. Only a few organisms are causing turkey diseases that need intensive observation to address commercially viable turkey production. Escherichia coli is the most abundant disease-producing strain in the domestic turkey production system among different microorganisms, leading to decreased egg and meat production and ultimately leading to the bird’s death [10]. E. coli infections and observable consequences include egg peritonitis, omphalitis, coligranuloma, swollen head syndrome, cellulitis, colisepticemia, and death of the birds [11]. Thus, E. coli affects the turkey production system through decreased feed efficiency, slow growth rate, and higher morbidity and mortality, inclining the turkey to other diseases [12]. Furthermore, the treatment of bacteria using different antibiotics gives the turkey antibiotic resistance, which further affects the turkey’s performance against diseases. Therefore, the present work was designed to isolate and characterize the avian E. coli in Bangladesh’s turkey population and formulate a control strategy against the isolates by selecting the best antibiotics [13].
Materials and Methods
Ethical approval
The Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University’s ethical committee approved this study’s methodology [approval number: Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University (HSTU)/IRT/3084].
Selection of study area
The present research work was carried out on different selected turkey farms in the Dinajpur district for 6 months from January 2019 to June 2019. Samples were collected and further research was conducted at the Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Science, HSTU, Dinajpur-5200.
Collection of samples
A total of 45 samples were collected randomly from healthy and sick turkeys from different turkey farms (five from HSTU farm, eight from Ma Turkey farm, eight from Habib turkey farm, eight from Anowara turkey farm, eight from Liton turkey farm, and eight from Nazrul turkey farm) in Dinajpur district. Among the samples, 23 were fecal and 22 cloacal samples. According to age, 25 samples were collected from 4-week-old turkeys, and 20 samples were collected from 10-week-old turkeys.
Isolation of bacteria
In nutrient agar (NA) and nutrient broth media, the primary culture was conducted. Then, different bacteriological agar media such as MacConkey agar (MA), eosin methylene blue (EMB) agar, and tryptic soy agar were used for subculturing of suspected bacteria. The aseptic condition was maintained and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. For further investigation, the NA plates were maintained at 4°C. Pure cultures were obtained following the protocols published previously [14].
Identification of bacteria
To identify the bacterial flora, cultural, morphological, and biochemical characteristics were studied. Then, the morphology and staining characteristics of bacteria were evaluated by Gram stain [14]. Furthermore, biochemical tests, such as sugar fermentation, catalase, methyl red (MR), Voges–Proskauer (VP), Simmon’s citrate, triple sugar iron, and indole tests, were carried out using standard methods [15].
Genomic DNA extraction and purification
Genomic DNA isolation and purification from E. coli was initiated according to the protocol developed in our laboratory [16]. Briefly, genomic DNA was extracted using the chloroform-isoamyl alcohol method from E. coli isolates cultured in a sodium thioglycolate broth. Initially, cells were harvested by centrifugation in an IEC CL31R multispeed centrifuge (Thermo Scientific) at 2,400 g for 10 min. The pellets were then resuspended in 400 μl Tris-EDTA bu-er, containing 0.01 M Tris-HCl pH 7.4, 0.001 M EDTA with gentle agitation. After that, 10% SDS (Fisher Scientific), followed by proteinase K (Ambion), was supplemented to the suspension. The suspension was then incubated at 65°C for 1 h in a hybridization oven (Biometra OV2, Anachem, UK). While incubation was completed, 100 μl of 5M NaCl, followed by 100 μl CTAB/NaCl (prewarmed at 70°C), was added to the solutions. The solution was then gently inverted and was subjected to incubation for 20 min at 65°C and cooling at room temperature for 5 min. A ratio of 24:1 chloroform isoamyl alcohol (Sigma-Aldrich) was used in the solution and centrifuged at 1,300 g for 15 min. The supernatants were then collected in a new tube and treated with 5 μl RNase A (5 mg/ml in RNase A buffer containing 0.5M NaCl, 0.01M EDTA), incubated at 37°C for 30 min. Quantification and quality were examined using a nanodrop spectrophotometer, and the DNA was stored at –20°C for further use.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
The reaction scale used for PCR was 25 ml consisting of 12.5 μl of 2× master mix [GENE Amp Fast PCR Master Mix (2×)], 2 μl template DNA, 0.2 μl Taq DNA polymerase, 0.5 μl forward primer, 0.5 μl reverse primer, and 9.3 μl molecular grade water. The samples were then subjected to initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 1 min; annealing at 53°C for 1 min; extension at 72°C for 1 min, and a final extension at 72°C for 10 min [17].
Sequencing and phylogenetic analysis
PCR product of fecal origin E. coli was sequenced by the Genetic Analyzer 3,130 (Applied Biosystems) using the dideoxy chain termination method (Sanger and Coulson method) at the National Institute of Biotechnology (NIB), Savar, Dhaka. Sequencing was carried out using both forward and reverse directions. Obtained sequences were edited and analyzed by Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis software [18]. A phylogenetic tree was made using the neighbor-joining method with 1,000-bootstrap replication [19,20]. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site [21]. The nucleotide sequence was submitted to GenBank under the accession number MW165527 (Feces/Turkey/2019)
Antibiogram study of isolated E. coli
Commonly used antibiotics were used to test the antibiotic sensitivity and resistance patterns of the isolated E. coli. Two lines, namely resistant and sensitive, were used to evaluate the sensitivity against antibiotic disks. Disk diffusion method or the Kirby–Bauer method [18] and guidelines of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [20] were used to interpret the antimicrobial drug sensitivity on newly prepared and dried-up Mueller Hinton agar. A total of 20 antibiotics were used in this study. The antibiotics include amoxicillin (11 μg), aztreonam (11 μg), azithromycin (12 μg), bacitracin (5 μg), cefepime (7 μg), cephalexin (10 μg), erythromycin (10 μg), gentamicin (10 μg), kanamycin (14 μg), levofloxacin (25 μg), methicilin (5 μg), nalidixic acid (30 μg), neomycin (15 μg), netilmicin (9 μg), nitrofurantoin (22 μg), norfloxacin (20 μg), novobiocin (8 μg), pefloxacin (10 μg), tetracycline (30 μg), and trimethoprim (10 μg). The disks were purchased from Himedia, India.
Results
Isolation of E. coli
Out of the 45 samples (23 fecal and 22 cloacal swabs), 28 (62.21%) were positive for E. coli, of which 16 (35.55%) were positive for fecal samples and 12 (26.66%) were positive for cloacal swabs (Table 1). According to the age group, 17 (37.77%) samples were positive in 4-week-old turkeys and 11 (24.44%) were positive in 10-week-old turkeys. All the isolated organisms were positive in MA, EMB agar, MR, VP, Simmon’s citrate test, triple sugar iron test, motility indole urease test, sugar fermentation test, and catalase test.
Table 1. Results of E. coli isolated from fecal and cloacal swabs of turkeys.
| Name of farms | Samples collected (n = 45) | E. coli positive samples(28) | Occurrence rate (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fecal | Cloacal | Fecal | Cloacal | Overall | |
| HSTU Farm | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 80.00% |
| Borogurgola | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 50.00% |
| Basherhat | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 37.50% |
| Farmerhat | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 75.00% |
| Bottoli | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 62.50% |
| Gopalganj | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 75.00% |
| Sub-total | 23 | 22 | 16 | 12 | |
| Total | 45 | 28 | 62.21 | ||
Antibiotic sensitivity test of E. coli
The antibiotic sensitivity pattern of E. coli revealed that all isolates were sensitive to levofloxacin, neomycin, gentamycin, and nitrofurantoin (Table 2). All E. coli were resistant to amoxicillin, azithromycin, erythromycin, tetracycline, bacitracin, cephalexin, nalidixic acid, vancomycin, methicilin, piperacillin, pefloxacin, novobiocin, cefepime, trimethoprim, netilmicin, norfloxacin, and aztreonam (Table 2). Two different categories, namely resistant and sensitive, were used to evaluate the results of sensitivity against antibiotic disks according to the guidelines of Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute [22].
Table 2. Resistant and sensitive percentage of isolated E. coli (n = 28).
| Antimicrobial agents | Sensitive (%) | Resistant (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Amoxicillin (11 μg) | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Azithromycin (12 μg) | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Aztreonam (11 μg) | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Bacitracin (5 μg) | 0 (0.0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Cefepime (7 μg) | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Cephalexin (10 μg) | 0 (0.0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Erythromycin (10 μg) | 0 (0.0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Gentamicin (10 μg) | 28 (100%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Kanamycin (14 μg) | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Levofloxacin (25 μg) | 28 (100%) | 0 (0%) |
| Methicilin (5 μg) | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Nalidixic acid (30 μg) | 0 (0.0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Neomycin (15 μg) | 28 (100%) | 0 (0%) |
| Netilmycin (9 μg) | 0(0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Nitrofurantoin (22 μg) | 28 (0.0%) | 0 (100%) |
| Norfloxacin (20 μg) | 28 (100%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Novobiocin (8 μg) | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Pefloxacin (10 μg) | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Tetracycline (30 μg) | 0 (0.0%) | 28 (100%) |
| Trimethoprim (10 μg) | 0 (0%) | 28 (100%) |
S = Sensitive, R = Resistant.
PCR, sequencing, and phylogenetic analysis
About 584-bp product from E. coli DNA was amplified with specific E1 and E2 primers [23] (Fig. 1). Sequencing of the PCR product was conducted at the NIB. Blast analysis revealed that our sequence had 100% homology with the sequences available at GenBank (Fig. 2). For example, bacteria with accession numbers MT649857 and MT649847 were isolated from a patient in China, CP054236 from urinary tract infection of a woman in Texas, USA, CP053281 from human, MT453873 from the superficial surgical incision of a patient from Iraq, MW116771 from the saliva of a cat from Bangladesh. These findings indicate the sequence of our E. coli isolated from turkeys clustered with the pathogenic E. coli. Hence, we assumed that the isolated E. coli of our study could be pathogenic.
Figure 1. Amplification of DNA from E. coli. Lane M: Marker, Ladder is 50-bp, Lane 1–10: test samples.
Figure 2. Phylogenetic analysis of the partial 16SrRNA gene of E. coli isolated from turkeys. The evolutionary history was inferred using the neighbor-joining method. The optimal tree with the sum of branch length = 2.46853609 is shown. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) are shown next to the branches. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. This analysis involved 18 nucleotide sequences. Codon positions included were 1st + 2nd + 3rd + noncoding. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair (pairwise deletion option). Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGAX. Our sequence is marked in the tree with a black dot.
Discussion
The study was conducted for the isolation, identification, molecular characterization, and antibiotic sensitivity study of the E. coli isolated from turkey’s fecal and cloacal swabs. Among the 45 samples, 28 (62.22%) were positive for E. coli. E. coli isolated from fecal and cloacal swab samples collected from turkey farms were compared with the previous results [24–26]. The isolates of E. coli showing the results in biochemical tests, including MR, VP, and indole tests, were similar to the previous reports [27–29].
The colony characteristics of E. coli observed in NA and EMB agar were similar to previous findings [30]. In Gram stain, the isolated bacteria’s morphology exhibited Gram-negative, short-rods arranged in single or paired and motile, supported by an earlier study [31]. The E. coli isolates revealed a complete fermentation of five basic sugars by producing acid and gas supported by earlier research work [28,32]. About 80% of the samples were positive for E. coli from HSTU farms, 50% from Borogurgula turkey farms, 37.5% from Basherhat, 75% from Farmerhat turkey farms, 62.5% from Bottoli, and 75% from Gopalgonj. The incidence of E. coli. Isolated was from fecal and cloacal swab samples collected from turkey, as reported previously [24–26]. The different isolates of E. coli showed identical results in different biochemical tests, including MR, VP, and indole test, and a similar type of biochemical reaction was reported [27,29]. Molecular characterization revealed that the target E. coli DNA gene band found at 584-bp was similar to a previous study [23]. Antibiogram profile reports showed various degrees of antibiotic resistance in E. coli. strains isolated from poultry [33,34]. The antibiotic study revealed that all E. coli was 100% sensitive to nitrofurantoin, gentamicin, levofloxacin, norfloxacin, and neomycin. The isolates were 100% resistant to amoxicillin, azithromycin, erythromycin, tetracycline, bacitracin, cephalexin, nalidixic acid, vancomycin, methicilin, piperacillin, pefloxacin, novobiocin, cefepime, trimethoprim, netilmicin, and aztreonam. Several antibiotics were also used by Tawyabur et al. [35] and reported similar results. Moreover, Tawyabur et al. [35] studied the prevalence of multidrug-resistant E. coli in diseased and healthy turkeys. However, they did not find any significant difference in the antibiotics resistance pattern between these two groups.
Conclusion
In the context of this study, it may be concluded that both the fecal and cloacal samples of turkeys from different farms are reservoirs of E. coli. It also brings out the multidrug-resistant E. coli of the study area. Antibiotic drug resistance is a problem in treating turkey diseases associated with E. coli and a potential public health hazard to individuals that consume turkey meat.
List of abbreviations
MA = MacConkey Agar, NA = Nutrient agar, EMB = Eosin Methylene Blue, MR = Methyl Red, VP = Voges–Proskauer, HSTU = Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University
Acknowledgments
Nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Authors’ contribution
TK, NAR, and MKH designed the study. TK did the actual work. TK, NAR, and MSR drafted the manuscript. MMKH, MSR, and JH critically checked and improved the manuscript. All the authors read the manuscript and approved the final version for publication.
References
- [1].Yakubu A, Abimiku K, Musa IS, Idahor AKO, Akinsola OM. Assessment of flock structure, preference in selection and traits of economic importance of domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) genetic resources in Nasarawa state, Nigeria. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2013;25:18. [Google Scholar]
- [2].Asaduzzaman M, Salma U, Ali HS, Hamid MA, Miah AG. Problems and prospects of turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) production in Bangladesh. Res Agric Livest Fish. 2017;4(2):77–90. https://doi.org/10.3329/ralf.v4i2.33719. [Google Scholar]
- [3].Polash CR, Hossain MK, Rumi NA, Rahman MS, Mohammad SM, Hossain I. Isolation and identification of bacterial pathogens from cloacal swab of turkeys and their antimicrobial sensitivity patterns. Asian J Med Biol Res. 2017;3(4):419–25. https://doi.org/10.3329/ajmbr.v3i4.35331. [Google Scholar]
- [4].Begum IA, Alam MJ, Buysse J, Frija A, Huylen-broeck GV. A comparative efficiency analysis of poultry farming systems in Bangladesh: a data envelopment analysis approach. Appl Econ. 2011;44:3737–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.581216. [Google Scholar]
- [5].FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy: 2012. Livestock primary production data. [Google Scholar]
- [6].Grimes J, Beranger J, Bender M, Walters M. How to raise heritage turkey on pasture. American livestock Breeds conservancy. 2007 Pittsboro, NC27312 USA. Headquarters, 233 S. W. Ackes Drive, 11th floor Chicago, Illinois-60606. [Google Scholar]
- [7].Wood BJ, Willems OW. Selection for improved efficiency in poultry, progress to date and challenges for the future. Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 2014. Communication No. 111. [Google Scholar]
- [8].Robbins CT. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 1983. Wildlife feeding and nutrition; pp. 33–7. [Google Scholar]
- [9].Ojewola GS, Udokainyang AD, Obasi V. Growth, carcass and economic response of localturkey poults to various levels of dietary energy. In: Aletor VA, , Onibi GE, , editors. Increasing household protein consumption through livestock products; Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference Nigeria Society of Animal Production; Akure, Nigeria. 2002. pp. 167–9. [Google Scholar]
- [10].Sackey B, Mensah P, Collison E, Dawson ES. Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella and Escherichia coli in live and dressed turkey from metropolitan Accra. Int J Food Microbiol. 2001;71:21–8. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1605(01)00595-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00595-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Hofstad MS, Calnek BW, Heirnboldt CF, Reid WM, Yoder HW. 2nd. Delhi, India: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.; 1992. Diseases of poultry; pp. 88–125. [Google Scholar]
- [12].Schmidt GP, Domermuth CH, Potter LM. Effect of oral Escherichia coli inoculation on performance of young turkeys. Avian Dis. 1988;32:103–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1590956. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].McCarthy N, Reen FJ, Buckley JF, Frye JG, Boyd EF, Gilroy D. Sensitive and rapid molecular detection assays for Salmonella enterica serovars Typhimurium and Heidelberg. J Food Prot. 2009;72:2350–7. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-72.11.2350. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-72.11.2350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Merchant IA, Packer RA. 7th. Ames, IA: The Iowa University Press; 1967. Veterinary bacteriology and virology; pp. 286–306. [Google Scholar]
- [15].Cheesbrough M. Tropical Health Technology. London, UK: ELBS; 2003. Laboratory manual for tropical countries. Volume II. Microbiology; pp. 14–20. [Google Scholar]
- [16].Rumi NA, Hosen MA, Kundu T, Rahman MS. Molecular characterization of Salmonella isolated from internal organs of dead turkey and its antimicrobial activity pattern. Asian J Med Biol Res. 2019;5(3):219–25. https://doi.org/10.3329/ajmbr.v5i3.43591. [Google Scholar]
- [17].Suresh KG, Batish VK, Grover S, Mohanty AK. Rapid and sensitive detection of Escherichia coli in milk by 16S rRNA gene targeted PCR. Int J Anim Biotechnol. 2011;1(1):107–10. [Google Scholar]
- [18].Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:1547–49. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 1985;39:783–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987;4:406–25. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Tamura K, Nei M, Kumar S. Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101:11030–35. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0404206101. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404206101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].CLSI. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Wayne, PA, USA: 2013. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing: Twenty-third Informational Supplement M100-S23. [Google Scholar]
- [23].Tsen HY, Lin CK, Chi WR. Development and use of 16SrRNA gene targeted PCR primers for identification of Escherichia coli cells in water. J Appl Microbiol. 1998;85(3):554–60. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.1998.853535.x. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.1998.853535.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Tiffany DP. The Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Master of Science in Animal and Poultry Sciences. Blacksburg, VA: 2014. Bacterial profiles and ex vivo effects of Salmonella Heidelberg on leukocyte function in turkey purebred lines; pp. 45–8. [Google Scholar]
- [25].Jessica L, Danzeisen AJ, Calvert SL, Brian MC, Julie S, Sherwood CM, et al. Succession of the turkey gastrointestinal bacterial microbiome related to weight gain. Peer J. 2013;1:237. doi: 10.7717/peerj.237. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Bielke LR, Elwood AL, Donoghue DJ, Donoghue AM, Newberry LA, Neighbor NK, et al. Approach for selection of individual enteric bacteria for competitive exclusion in turkey. Poult Sci. 2003;82:1378–82. doi: 10.1093/ps/82.9.1378. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.9.1378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Menconi A, Wolfenden AD, Shivaramaiah SJ, Terraes C, Urbano T, Kuttel J, et al. Effect of lactic acid bacteria probiotic culture for the treatment of Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg in neonatal turkey chickens and turkey poults. Poult Sci. 2011;90:561–5. doi: 10.3382/ps.2010-01220. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Guthertz JT, Fruin DS, James LF. Microbiology of fresh comminuted Turkey meat. J Milk Food Technol. 1976;39:823–9. https://doi.org/10.4315/0022-2747-39.12.823. [Google Scholar]
- [29].Bryan FL. 1965. Factors associated with the dissemination of Salmonellae in turkey products and processing plants. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Library, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. [Google Scholar]
- [30].Khan MFR, Rahman MB, Khan MSR, Nazir KHMNH, Rahman M. Antibiogram and plasmid profile analysis of isolated poultry Salmonella of Bangladesh. Pak J Biol Sci. 2005;8:1614–9. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2005.1614.1619. [Google Scholar]
- [31].Merchant IA, Packer RA. 7th. Ames, IA: The lowa State University Press; 1967. Veterinary bacteriology and virology; pp. 211–305. [Google Scholar]
- [32].Naqi SA, Lewis DH, Hall CF. The intestinal microflora of Turkeys. Avian Dis. 1970;14(4):620–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/1588633. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [33].Yang H, Chen S, White DG, Zhao S, McDermott P, Walker R, et al. Characterization of multiple-antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli isolates from diseased chickens and swine in China. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:3483–9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.8.3483-3489.2004. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.42.8.3483-3489.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [34].Zhao S, Maurer JJ, Hubert S, De Villena JF, McDermott PF, Meng J, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility and molecular characterization of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli isolates. Vet Microbiol. 2005;107:215–24. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.01.021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.01.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [35].Tawyabur M, Islam MS, Sobur MA, Hossain MJ, Mahmud MM, Paul S, et al. Isolation and characterization of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. from healthy and diseased turkeys. Antibiotics. 2020;9(11):770. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9110770. [Google Scholar]