Typing of ΦSP–3 lytic Salmonella bacteriophages obtained from various fecal sources

Although several reports are available on both ΦSP–1 and ΦSP–3 lytic Salmonella bacteriophages obtained from poultry, further research is required to study the effectiveness of ΦSP–3 type on serovars isolated from other sources. In the present study, we aimed to isolate bacteriophages from 8 serovars previously obtained from 869 fecal samples (calf, dairy cow, buffalo, and camel), genotype the bacteriophages, and detect the cross-lytic activities of the bacteriophages on Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Kentucky, S.Anatum, and S.Muenchen. A total of 16 bacteriophages were detected as ΦSP–3 type via PCR. The Hunter-Gaston Discriminatory Index of SDS-PAGE was calculated to be 0.825. Determination of multiplicity of infection (MOI) values were different for each bacteriophage according to the cross-lytic activity assessment. The MOI of the most effective S. Kentucky bacteriophage was 79.11 μg/mL for 2.5×104 cells, whereas that of the most ineffective S.Muenchen bacteriophage was 1.142 μg/μL for 2.5×104 cells. In conclusion, it was assumed that owing to the high and cross-lytic activity of the S. Kentucky bacteriophage, it has a larger host range, which differs in the lytic activities of each bacteriophage, despite being the same serovar, and that calf feces is the most important source for obtaining Salmonella bacteriophages.

PDF

___

1. Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson MA et al. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States— major pathogens. Emerging Infectious Disease 2011; 17 (1): 7.doi: 10.3201/eid1701.P11101
2. Izzo M, Kirkland P, Mohler V, Perkins N, Gunn Aet al. Prevalence of major enteric pathogens in Australian dairy calves with diarrhoea. Australian Veterinary Journals 2011; 89 (5): 167-173. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2011.00692.x
3. Fossler C, Wells SJ,Kaneene J, Ruegg P, Warnick L et al. Herd-level factors associated with isolation of Salmonella in a multi-state study of conventional and organic dairy farms: I. Salmonella shedding in cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2005; 70 (3-4): 257-277.doi: 10.1016/j. prevetmed.2005.04.003
4. Cooper IR. A review of current methods using bacteriophages in live animals, food and animal products intended for human consumption. Journalof Microbiological Methods 2016; 130: 38-47. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.07.027
5. Smith-Palmer A, Stewart W, Mather H, Greig A, Cowden J et al. Epidemiology of Salmonella enterica serovars Enteritidis and Typhimurium in animals and people in Scotland between 1990 and 2001. Veterinary Record 2003; 153 (17): 517-520.doi: 10.1136/vr.153.17.517
6. Galanis E, Wong DMLF, Patrick ME, Binsztein N, Cieslik A et al. Web-based surveillance and global Salmonella distribution, 2000–2002. Emerging Infectious Disease 2006; 12 (3): 381.doi: 10.3201/eid1203.050854
7. Hadimli HH, Sayın Z, Erganiş O. Buzağılarda Salmonella Dublin enfeksiyonu ve otojen aşı uygulaması ile kontrolü. Eurasian Journal Veterinary Science 2011; 27: 99-105.
8. Töreci K, Erdem B, Öngen B. Türkiye’de 2011 Yılı Sonuna Kadar İzolasyonu Bildirilen Salmonella Serovarları.
Mikrobiyoloji Bülteni 2013; 47 (3): 442-460 (in Turkish). 9. Hadimli HH, Pinarkara Y, Sakmanoglu A, Sayin Z, Erganis O et al. Serotypes of Salmonella isolated from feces of cattle, buffalo, and camel and sensitivities to antibiotics in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences 2017; 41 (2): 193-198. doi:10.3906/vet-1604-67
10. Ata Z. Türkiye’de Sık Rastlanan Salmonella Enteritidis Serovarlarına Spesifik Bakteriyofajların İzolasyonu. Etlik Veteriner Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi 2018; 29 (2): 136-142 (in Turkish).
11. Cummings KJ, Warnick LD, Elton M, Gröhn YT, McDonough PL et al. The effect of clinical outbreaks of salmonellosis on the prevalence of fecal Salmonella shedding among dairy cattle in New York. Foodborne Pathogen and Disease 2010; 7 (7): 815-823.doi: 10.1089/fpd.2009.0481
12. Foley SL, Nayak R, Hanning IB, Johnson TJ, Han J et al. Population dynamics of Salmonella enterica serotypes in commercial egg and poultry production. Applied Environmental Microbiology 2011; 77 (13): 4273-4279. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00598-11
13. McLaughlin M, Balaa M, Sims J, King R. Isolation of Salmonella bacteriophages from swine effluent lagoons. Journal of Environmental Quality 2006; 35 (2): 522-528.doi: 10.2134/ jeq2005.0080
14. Atterbury RJ, Van Bergen M, Ortiz F, Lovell M, Harris J et al. Bacteriophage therapy to reduce Salmonella colonization of broiler chickens. Applied Environmental Microbiology 2007; 73 (14): 4543-4549. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00049-07
15. Capra M, Quiberoni A, Reinheimer J. Thermal and chemical resistance of Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus paracasei bacteriophages. Lettersin Applied Microbiology 2004; 38 (6): 499-504.doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2004.01525.x
16. Ashelford KE, Day MJ, Fry JC. Elevated abundance of bacteriophage infecting bacteria in soil. Applied Environmental Microbiology 2003; 69 (1): 285-289.doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.1.285-289.2003
17. Edlund A, Santiago-Rodriguez TM, Boehm TK, Pride DT. Bacteriophage and their potential roles in the human oral cavity. Journal of Oral Microbiology 2015; 7 (1): 27423.doi: 10.3402/jom.v7.27423
18. Van Kessel J, Karns J, Wolfgang D, Hovingh E, Jayarao BM et al. Environmental sampling to predict fecal prevalence of Salmonella in an intensively monitored dairy herd. J Food Protect 2008; 71 (10): 1967-1973.doi: 10.4315/0362-028X71.10.1967
19. Kropinski AM. Bacteriophage research–What we have learnt and what still needs to be addressed. Research in Microbiology 2018; 169 (9): 481-487.doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2018.05.002
20. Loc-Carrillo C, Abedon ST. Pros and cons of phage therapy. Bacteriophage. 2011; 1 (2): 111-114.doi: doi.org/10.4161/ bact.1.2.14590
21. Gelman D, Beyth S, Lerer V, Adler K, Poradosu-Cohen R et al. Combined bacteriophages and antibiotics as an efficient therapy against VRE Enterococcus faecalis in a mouse model. Research in Microbiology 2018; 169 (9): 531-539.doi: 10.1016/j. resmic.2018.04.008
22. Principi N, Silvestri E, Esposito S. Advantages and limitations of bacteriophages for the treatment of bacterial infections. Frontiersin Pharmacology 2019; 10: 513. doi: 10.3389/ fphar.2019.00513
23. Felix A, Callow BR. Typing of paratyphoid B bacilli by Vi bacteriophage. British Medical Journal. 1943; 2 (4308): 127. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.4308.127
24. Broers A, Panessa B, Gennaro J. High-resolution scanning electron microscopy of bacteriophages 3C and T4. Science 1975; 189 (4203): 637-9.doi: 10.1126/science.125922
25. Ackermann HW. Tailed bacteriophages: the order Caudovirales. Advances in virus research. 51: Elsevier; 1998. pp. 135-201. doi: 10.1016/S0065-3527(08)60785-X
26. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. New York, NY, USA: Cold spring harbor laboratory press; 1989.
27. Higgins JP, Higgins S, Guenther K, Huff W, Donoghue A et al. Use of a specific bacteriophage treatment to reduce Salmonella in poultry products. Poultry Science 2005; 84 (7): 1141-1145.
28. Switt AIM, den Bakker HC, Vongkamjan K, Hoelzer K, Warnick LD et al. Salmonella bacteriophage diversity reflects host diversity on dairy farms. Food Microbiology 2013; 36 (2): 275-285.doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2013.06.014
29. Cherry W, Davis BR, Edwards PR, Hogan R. A simple procedure for the identification of the genus Salmonella by means of a specific bacteriophage. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1954; 44 (1): 51-55.
30. Birge EA. Bacterial and Bacteriophage Genetics. New York, NY, USA: Springer; 2000. p. 171-214.
31. Holmfeldt K, Middelboe M, Nybroe O, Riemann L. Large variabilities in host strain susceptibility and phage host range govern interactions between lytic marine phages and their Flavobacterium hosts. Applied Environmental Microbiology 2007; 73 (21): 6730-6739. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01399-07
32. Augustine J, Varghese SM, Bhat SG. ΦSP-3, a Salmonellaspecific lytic phage capable of infecting its host under nutrientdeprived states. Annals of Microbiology 2013; 63 (1): 381-386. 33. Laemmli U. SDS-page Laemmli method. Nature. 1970; 227:680-685.
34. Sokal RR. A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Univ Kansas, Science Bulletin. 1958; 38: 1409- 1438.
35. Grundmann H, Hori S, Tanner G. Determining confidence intervals when measuring genetic diversity and the discriminatory abilities of typing methods for microorganisms. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2001; 39 (11): 4190-4192.doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.11.4190-4192.2001
36. López-Cuevas O, Castro-del Campo N, León-Félix J, GonzálezRobles A, Chaidez C. Characterization of bacteriophages with a lytic effect on various Salmonella serotypes and Escherichia coli O157: H7. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 2011; 57 (12): 1042-1051.
37. Liu W, Li C, Qiu Z-G, Jin M, Wang J-F, et al. Development of a novel and highly efficient method of isolating bacteriophages from water. Journal of Microbiological Method 2017; 139: 143- 149. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2017.05.019
38. Wang C, Li P, Niu W, Yuan X, Liu H et al. Protective and therapeutic application of the depolymerase derived from a novel KN1 genotype of Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteriophage in mice. Research in Microbiology 2019; 170 (3): 156-164.doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2019.01.003
39. Petsong K, Benjakul S, Chaturongakul S, Switt AIM, Vongkamjan K. Lysis profiles of Salmonella phages on Salmonella isolates from various sources and efficiency of a phage cocktail against S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium. Microorganisms 2019; 7 (4): 100. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7040100.
40. Dueñas F, Rivera D, Toledo V, Tardone R, Hervé-Claude LP et al. Characterization of Salmonella phages from dairy calves on farms with history of diarrhea. Journal of Dairy Science 2017; 100: 2196–2200. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11569.
41. Brüssow H. Phage therapy: the Escherichia coli experience. Microbiology 2005; 151 (7): 2133-2140. doi: 10.1099/ mic.0.27849-0
42. Almeida GMF, Laanto E, Ashrafi R, Sundberg LR. Bacteriophage adherence to mucus mediates preventive protection against pathogenic bacteria. American Society for Microbiology2019; 10; 1-12.doi: 10.1128/mBio.01984-19