4.7 Article

Characteristics of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolates obtained from crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) in freshwater

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 238, 期 -, 页码 132-138

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.09.004

关键词

Vibrio parahaemolyticus; Procambarus clarkii; Multilocus sequence typing

资金

  1. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [2014BBB016]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province [2015CKC901]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31402341, 31471660, 31502080]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [52902-0900201537]
  5. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015T80819]
  6. Open Project Program of Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Zoonosis [R1605]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vibrio parahaemolyticus usually occurs in coastal areas and is generally recognized as a marine bacterium. It has become the leading cause of gastroenteritis worldwide. In the present study, 96 V. parahaemolyticus isolates were obtained from freshwater crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) and classified by multilocus sequence typing. Fifty-three sequence types (STs) were identified among the 96 isolates analyzed, 38 of which were novel STs. These isolates fell into six groups and 42 singletons, suggesting a high level of genetic diversity. Screening for 9 virulence and virulence-related genes in the isolates revealed that 40 isolates contained more than two genes with possible roles in pathogenicity. The virulence of the representative isolates VP66 (trh(+), ureC(+), T3SS1(+), T3SS2 beta(+), T6SS2(+)) and VP80 (T3SS1(+), T6SS1(+), T6SS2(+)) were further assessed in zebrafish and mouse infection model in vivo, and the tested isolates were shown to be lethal to both zebrafish and mice. These results suggest that crayfish may serve as a carrier of V. parahaemolyticus in freshwater, and that some isolates may have the potential to cause foodborne disease in humans. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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