IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i10p6087-d817460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agents of Campylobacteriosis in Different Meat Matrices in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Micaela Guidotti Takeuchi

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

  • Roberta Torres de Melo

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

  • Carolyne Ferreira Dumont

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

  • Jéssica Laura Miranda Peixoto

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

  • Gabriella Rayane Aparecida Ferreira

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

  • Mariana Comassio Chueiri

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

  • Jocasta Rodrigues Iasbeck

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

  • Marcela Franco Timóteo

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

  • Bárbara de Araújo Brum

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

  • Daise Aparecida Rossi

    (Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia 38402-018, Brazil)

Abstract

We aimed to identify the prevalence of thermophilic species of Campylobacter in meats of different species available on the Brazilian commercial market and to determine the genetic diversity, antimicrobial resistance and virulence potential of the isolates. A total of 906 samples, including chicken, beef and pork carcasses and chicken and beef livers, were purchased in retail outlets, and prevalences of 18.7% (46/246), 3.62% (5/138), 10.14% (14/138), 3.62% (5/138) and 4.47% (11/132), respectively, were identified, evidencing the dissemination of genotypes in the main producing macro-regions. Of all isolates, 62.8% were classified as multidrug resistant (MDR), with resistance to amoxicillin-clavulanate (49.4%), tetracycline (51.8%) and ciprofloxacin (50.6%) and co-resistance to macrolides and fluoroquinolones (37.1%). Multivirulent profiles were identified mainly in isolates from chicken carcasses (84.8%), and the emergence of MDR/virulent strains was determined in pork isolates. All isolates except those from chicken carcasses showed a high potential for biofilm formation (71.4% luxS ) and consequent persistence in industrial food processing. For chicken carcasses, the general virulence was higher in C. jejuni (54.3%), followed by C. coli (24%) and Campylobacter spp. (21.7%), and in the other meat matrices, Campylobacter spp. showed a higher prevalence of virulence (57.2%). The high rates of resistance and virulence reinforce the existence of strain selection pressure in the country, in addition to the potential risk of strains isolated not only from chicken carcasses, but also from other meat matrices.

Suggested Citation

  • Micaela Guidotti Takeuchi & Roberta Torres de Melo & Carolyne Ferreira Dumont & Jéssica Laura Miranda Peixoto & Gabriella Rayane Aparecida Ferreira & Mariana Comassio Chueiri & Jocasta Rodrigues Iasbe, 2022. "Agents of Campylobacteriosis in Different Meat Matrices in Brazil," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:10:p:6087-:d:817460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/10/6087/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/10/6087/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aneesa Noormohamed & Mohamed K. Fakhr, 2013. "A Higher Prevalence Rate of Campylobacter in Retail Beef Livers Compared to Other Beef and Pork Meat Cuts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    2. Christy E. Manyi-Loh & Sampson N. Mamphweli & Edson L. Meyer & Golden Makaka & Michael Simon & Anthony I. Okoh, 2016. "An Overview of the Control of Bacterial Pathogens in Cattle Manure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen Tangwe & Patrick Mukumba & Golden Makaka, 2022. "Design and Employing of a Non-Linear Response Surface Model to Predict the Microbial Loads in Anaerobic Digestion of Cow Manure: Batch Balloon Digester," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-25, October.
    2. Pin-Han Chen & Jun-Yi Wu, 2025. "Circular Economy Approach for Utilizing Organic Waste in Cat Litter and Compost to Support Plant Growth," Waste, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Gahyun Baek & Danbee Kim & Jinsu Kim & Hanwoong Kim & Changsoo Lee, 2020. "Treatment of Cattle Manure by Anaerobic Co-Digestion with Food Waste and Pig Manure: Methane Yield and Synergistic Effect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-13, July.
    4. M Gwida & A Zakaria & H El-Sherbiny & R Elkenany & M Elsayed, 2019. "Prevalence of Campylobacter, Enterococcus and Staphylococcus aureus in slaughtered camels," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 64(12), pages 521-530.
    5. Badsha, Mohammad A.H. & Arachchilage, Pubudu W. & Lundquist, Tryg & Tao, Wendong, 2024. "Empowering anaerobic digestion of dairy cow manure with pretreatment and post-treatment using vacuum stripping," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(PB).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:10:p:6087-:d:817460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.