4.6 Article

Regional differences in bacterial flora in harbour porpoises from the North Atlantic: environmental effects?

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 106, 期 1, 页码 329-337

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.04006.x

关键词

bacterial flora; harbour porpoises; North and Baltic Sea; North Atlantic; pathological findings

资金

  1. German Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
  2. German Ministry for Research and Education
  3. Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Agriculture of the State of Schleswig-Holstein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbiological findings in harbour porpoises from different regions of the North Atlantic were compared. Results in animals from the North and Baltic Seas were evaluated over a period of 18 years for changes in the microbiological flora. Microbiological investigations were performed on 1429 organ samples from the lung, liver, kidney, spleen, intestine, and mesenteric lymph nodes from harbour porpoises of the German North and Baltic Seas, Greenlandic, Icelandic and Norwegian waters. A large variety of bacteria, including potentially pathogenic bacteria like Brucella sp., Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, beta-haemolytic streptococci and Staphylococcus aureus were isolated. Those bacteria were associated with bronchopneumonia, gastroenteritis, hepatitis, pyelonephritis, myocarditis and septicemia. Organs from animals originating from Greenlandic and Icelandic waters showed clearly less bacterial growth and fewer associated pathological lesions compared to animals from the German North and Baltic Seas and Norwegian waters. Differences in bacterial findings and associated lesions between harbour porpoises from the German North and Baltic Seas and animals from Greenlandic, Norwegian and Icelandic waters may result from higher stress due to anthropogenic activities such as chemical pollutants in the North and Baltic Seas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据