4.3 Article

Prevalence of Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli in House Flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in an Urban Environment

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 55, 期 2, 页码 436-439

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jme/tjx225

关键词

house fly; Escherichia coli; Shiga-toxin; STEC; urban environment

资金

  1. USDA-NIFA-CAP grant [2012-68003-30155]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

House flies (Musca domestica L. [Diptera: Muscidae]) can act as a mechanical vector for food-borne pathogens including Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (Migula; Enterobacteriales: Enterobacteriaceae) (STEC) in and around cattle feedlots. The present study assessed the prevalence of STEC in house flies from a restaurant area of a town in northeastern Kansas. Two hundred twenty-four house flies were collected over 10 wk, surface sterilized, individually homogenized, and cultured by a multifaceted approach of direct plating on selective media and an enrichment broth, followed by the immunomagnetic separation. Bacterial isolates were screened for eight serogroups of E. coli: O103, O104, O26, O111, O45, O145, O121, and O157 using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Furthermore, O-serogroup-positive isolates were tested for virulence genes stx1, stx2, eae, and ehxA by PCR. The majority (91.5%) of flies carried enteric bacteria, and the mean value of enteric concentration on the modified Posse agar was 6.7 +/- 1.1 x 10(6) colony forming units per fly. Thirty-nine of the 224 flies (17.4%) were positive for one or more E. coli serogroup of interest; with the majority O103 (10.7%), followed by O26 (3.1%), O121 (1.3%), O45 (1.3%), and O104 (0.9%). However, none of the serogroup-positive isolates carried any of the virulence genes tested. Results of our study show that house flies in the urban environment do not carry STEC. Nevertheless, detection of E. coli O-serogroups with the potential to acquire virulence traits indicates that house flies in an urban environment represent a public health risk.

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

4.3
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