Seyed Ziaeddin MIRHOSSEINI, Alireza SEIDAVI, Mahmoud SHIVAZAD, Mohammad CHAMANI, Ali Asghar SADEGHI, Reza POURSEIFY

Detection of Salmonella spp. in gastrointestinal tract of broiler chickens by polymerase chan reaction

Salmonella spp. broylerlerde ölüm, üretimde düşüş veya karkasın imhasına yol açan birçok hastalığa neden olmaktadır. Dolayısıyla salmonellosisin görülme sıklığının azaltılması için Salmonella bakterilerinin hızlı, duyarlı ve güvenli metotlarla tespit edilmesi gerekmetedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı İran tavukçuluk sektöründe Salmonella bakterilerinin cins düzeyinde belirlenmesi için özgün, duyarlı ve hızlı PCR protokolunun tespit edilmesidir. Et piliçlerin duodenum, jejenum, ileum ve sekumlarında Salmonella spp oranları 16S rDNA geni analizi ile muakeyese edildi. Gastrointestinal segmentlerden alınan 96 ornek içerisinden PCR kullanılarak, 4, 14 ve 30 günlük broylerlerde toplamda sırasıyla %56.25, 12.5 ve 6.25 oranlarında Salmonella spp. belirlendi. Sekumda 4, 14 ve 30 günlük broylerlerde PCR metoduyla Salmonella spp. sırasıyla % 87.5, 12.5 ve 12.5 oranlarında belirlendi. İnce barsak içeriklerinin mikrobiyel incelemesi Salmonella spp. tüm barsak segmentlerinde bulunmadığını göstermiştir. Sonuçlar Salmonella spp. 14 ve 30 günlük broylerlerin birçok barsak segmentinde belirlenemedi. Özellikle sekumun posteriyör segmentindeki Salmonella spp. oranları anterior segmenttekine göre daha yüksektir. Bu çalışmada gösterildiği üzere çok sayıdaki analizleri yapmak üzere yeni metotların geliştirilmesi bu tür çalışmalarda önemli olacaktır. Bu teknik günlük olarak çok sayıda kanatlı örneğinin rutin teşhisinde kullanılan basit ve hızlı bir tekniktir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

teşhis, etlik piliç, doğruluk, Salmonella, tavuk, salmonelloz, kümes hayvanları, polimeraz zincir reaksiyonu, mikrobiyal flora, bağırsak mikroorganizmaları, sindirim kanalı, tanı teknikleri

Broyler piliçlerin gastrointestinal sistemindeki Salmonella spp'nin polimeraz zincir reaksiyonu ile belirlenmesi

Salmonella spp. cause a number of diseases in broiler, ultimately leading to death or to a decrease in production or condemning of carcasses. Thus, there are needed to rapid, sensitive, and reliable methods for detection of Salmonella to reduce the occurrence of salmonellosis. The objective of the present study was to establish a specific, sensitive and rapid PCR protocol for the detection of Salmonella at the genus level in Iran poultry industries. Salmonella spp. in the duodenum, jejunum, ileum and cecum of broiler chickens were compared by molecular analysis of 16S rRNA genes. Among 96 samples of gastrointestinal segments, a total of 56.25, 12.5 and 6.25% samples were positive for naturally occurring Salmonella spp. by PCR method at 4, 14 and 30d of ages respectively. For cecum, a total of 87.5, 12.5 and 12.5% samples were positive for naturally occurring Salmonella spp. by PCR method at 4, 14 and 30d of ages respectively. Analysis of the microbial contents of the different small intestine segments examined indicated that Salmonella spp. was not consistently detected in all intestinal segments. The results indicated that at 14 and 30 d of ages, Salmonella spp. was not detectable in the most of studied segments. In fact, posterior segments exhibited higher levels of Salmonella spp. compared with the anterior segments especially cecum. As demonstrated here, the development of new tools for high-throughput analyses will be of key importance for these studies. This technique is simple and rapid and can be used on different chicken samples for routine detection of a large number of samples on a daily basis.

Keywords:

diagnosis, broilers, accuracy, Salmonella, fowls, salmonellosis, poultry, polymerase chain reaction, microbial flora, intestinal microorganisms, digestive tract, diagnostic techniques,

PDF

___

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Preliminary foodnet data on the incidence of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food selected sites, United States, 2003. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 53, 338-343, 2004.
2.Fratamico PM: Comparison of culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), TaqMan Salmonella, and Transia Card Salmonella assays for detection of Salmonella spp. in naturally-contaminated ground chicken, ground turkey, and ground beef. Mol Cell Probes, 17, 215-221, 2003.
3.Patel JR, Bhagwat AA, Sanglay GC, Solomon MB: Rapid detection of Salmonella from hydrodynamic pressure-treated poultry using molecular beacon real-time PCR. Food Microbiol, 23, 39-46, 2006.
4.Oliveira SD, Santos LR, Schuch DMT, Silva AB, Salle CTP, Canal CW: Detection and identification of salmonellas from poultry-related samples by PCR. Vet Microbiol, 87, 25-35, 2002.
5.Feng P: Development and impact of rapid methods for detection of foodborne pathogens. In, Doyle MP, Beuchat LR, Montville TJ (Eds): Food Microbiology, Fundamentals and Frontiers. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press. pp. 775-796, 2001.
6.Depaula AMR, Gelli DS, Landgraf M, Destro MT, Demelo-Franco BDG: Detection of Salmonella in foods using Tecra Salmonella VIA and Tecra Salmonella unique rapid immunoassays and a cultural procedure. J Food Protect, 65, 552-555, 2002.
7.Nogva HK, Rudi K, Naterstad K, Holck A, Lillehaug D: Application of a 50-nuclease PCR for quantitative detection of Listeria monocytogenes in pure cultures, water, skim milk, and unpasteurized whole milk. Appl Environ Microbiol, 66, 4266-4271, 2000.
8.Lin CK, Hung CL, Hsu SC, Tsai CC, Tsen HY: An improved PCR primer pair based on 16S rDNA for the specific detection of Salmonella serovars in food samples. J Food Protect, 67, 1335-1343, 2004.
9.Seidavi AR, Mirhosseini SZ, Shivazad M, Chamani M, Sadeghi AA: Optimizing multiplex polymerase chain reaction method for specific, sensitive and rapid detection of Salmonella sp., Escherichia coli and Bifidobacterium sp. in chick gastrointestinal tract. Asian J Anim Vet Adv, 3, 230-235, 2008.
10.Myint MS, Johnson YJ, Tablante NL, Heckert RA: The effect of pre-enrichment protocol on the sensitivity and specificity of PCR for detection of naturally contaminated Salmonella in raw poultry compared to conventional culture. Food Microbiol, 23, 599-604, 2006.
11.Schrank IS, Mores MAZ, Costa JLA, Frazzon APG, Soncini R, Schrank A, Vainstein MH, Silva SC: Influence of enrichment media and application of a PCR based method to detect Salmonella in poultry industry products and clinical samples. Vet Microbiol, 82, 45-53, 2001.
12.Sackey BA, Mensah P, Collison E, Sakyi-Dawson E: Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella and Escherichia coli in live and dressed poultry from metropolitan Accra. Int J Food Microbiol, 71, 21-28, 2001.
13.Inglis GD, Kalischuk LD: Use of PCR for direct detection of Campylobacter species in bovine feces. Appl Environ Microbiol, 69, 3435-3447, 2003.
14.Apajalahti J, Kettunen A, Graham H: Characteristics of the gastrointestinal microbial communities, with special reference to the chicken. World’s Poult Sci J, 60, 223-232, 2004.
15.Li Y, Zhuang S, Mustapha A: Application of a multiplex PCR for the simultaneous detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella and Shigella in raw and ready-to-eat meat products. Meat Sci, 71, 402-406, 2005.
16.Csordas A: Toxicology of butyrate and short-chain fatty acids. In, Hill MJ (Ed): Role of Gut Bacteria in Human Toxicology and Pharmacology. pp. 105-125, Taylor and Francis, London, 1995.
17.Gong J, Forster RJ, Yu H, Chambers JR, Wheatcroft R, Sabour PM, Chen S: Molecular analysis of bacterial populations in the ileum of broiler chickens and comparison with bacteria in the cecum. FEMS Microbiol Ecol, 41, 171-179, 2002.