Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli O157 and non-Shiga-toxigenic E. coli O157 respond differently to culture and isolation from naturally contaminated bovine faeces.

Authors: L M, Durso; J E, Keen;

Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli O157 and non-Shiga-toxigenic E. coli O157 respond differently to culture and isolation from naturally contaminated bovine faeces.

Abstract

To quantify the effect of enrichment, immunomagnetic separation (IMS), and selective plating procedures on isolation of Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli O157 (STEC O157) and non-Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli O157 (non-STEC O157) from naturally contaminated bovine faeces.Two broth enrichment times, two IMS strategies, and two selective plating media were evaluated. STEC O157 and non-STEC O157 strains were often isolated from the same faecal specimen and responded differently to the isolation protocols. A large-volume IMS system was more sensitive than a conventional small-volume IMS method, but was also more expensive. STEC O157 was more frequently isolated from 6 h enriched broth and ChromAgar plates containing 0.63 mg l(-1) potassium tellurite (TCA). Non-STEC O157 was more frequently isolated from un-enriched broth and ChromAgar plates without tellurite (CA).The combination of 6-h enrichment in Gram-negative broth containing vancomycin, cefixime and cefsuludin, large volume IMS and selective plating on TCA maximized STEC O157 recovery from naturally contaminated cattle faecal specimens.The pairing of proper enrichment with a specific plating procedure is key for STEC O157 recovery from naturally contaminated bovine faeces. Incorporating tellurite into an E. coli O157 detection strategy may select for the subset of E. coli O157 that contains the Shiga-toxin genes.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Bacteriological Techniques, Time Factors, Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli, Immunomagnetic Separation, Colony Count, Microbial, Escherichia coli O157, Culture Media, Feces, Animals, Cattle

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    13
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
13
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!