SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Veterinaria Eurasia / 2022 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 2

Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance of Arcobacter spp. Isolates from Meats, Meat Products, and Giblets

İbrahim Halil YILDIRIM
Hüsnü Şahan GÜRAN
Mehmet Emin ERKAN
Simten YEŞİLMEN
Aydın VURAL
Pages
128–134
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Arcobacter contamination poses a human health concern and multiple antibiotic resistance in the isolates and this may pose a risk to public health.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the presence and the species distribution of Arcobacter spp. were determined in ground beef, ground lamb, meatballs, chicken meat, and chicken giblet samples (470 samples in total) using the 16S rDNA polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The presence of Arcobacter spp. was found to be 36.38% (n=171) in all samples analyzed; 23.3% (n=63) in ground beef, ground lamb, and meatball samples; 51.3% (n=77) in chicken meat, and 62% (n -= 31) in giblet samples.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Arcobacter contamination poses a human health concern and multiple antibiotic resistance in the isolates and this may pose a risk to public health.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:470 samples
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, the presence and the species distribution of Arcobacter spp. were determined in ground beef, ground lamb, meatballs, chicken meat, and chicken giblet samples (470 samples in total) using the 16S rDNA polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism method. The presence of Arcobacter spp. was found to be 36.38% (n=171) in all samples analyzed; 23.3% (n=63) in ground beef, ground lamb, and meatball samples; 51.3% (n=77) in chicken meat, and 62% (n -= 31) in giblet samples. Chicken wings had the highest Arcobacter spp. contamination level (72%), and the lowest contamination was found in ground lamb (20%) samples. A higher prevalence of Arcobacter spp. was found in chicken meat and giblets than in other samples, and chicken leg and chicken breast with skin had higher prevalence of Arcobacter spp. than those without skin. A. butzleri was the most isolated species in all samples. In neck, leg, breast, and wings samples, A. cryaerophilus was the second most isolated species. In addition, we assessed antibiotic resistance of the isolates found in this study using 14 different antibiotics. All A. butzleri and A. skirrowii isolates, as well as most of the A. cryaerophilus isolates (96.7%), showed resistance to cefoperazone. A. butzleri isolates were mostly susceptible to norfloxacin (61.5%), florphenicol (60.5%), and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. A. skirrowii isolates showed susceptibility to ciprofloxacin (91.6%), norfloxacin (88.8%), and chloramphenicol (83.3%). A. cryaerophilusisolates showed susceptibility to chloramphenicol (96.7%), streptomycin (83.8%), cefoperazone (83.8%), and florphenicol (80.6%). We have identified that many food samples examined in this study were contaminated with Arcobacter species. Arcobacter contamination poses a human health concern and multiple antibiotic resistance in the isolates and this may pose a risk to public health.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, İ. H., GÜRAN, H. Ş., ERKAN, M. E., YEŞİLMEN, S., VURAL, A. (2022). Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance of Arcobacter spp. Isolates from Meats, Meat Products, and Giblets. Acta Veterinaria Eurasia, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 2, 128–134. https://ajindex.com/articles/428041

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Abay, S., Kayman, T., Hizlisoy, H., & Aydin, F. (2012). In vitro antibacterial susceptibility of Arcobacter butzleri isolated from different sources. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 74(5), 613–616. [CrossRef] Amare, L. B., Saleha, A. A., Zunita, Z., Jalila, A., & Hassan, L. (2011). Prevalence of Arcobacter spp. on chicken meat at retail markets and in farm chickens in Selengor. Malaysia Food Control, 22, 732–736.
  2. Atabay, H. I., Aydin, F., Houf, K., Sahin, M., & Vandamme, P. (2003). The prevalence of Arcobacter spp. on chicken carcasses sold in retail markets in Turkey and identification of the isolates using SDS-PAGE. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 81(1), 21–28.
  3. Aydin, F., Gümüssoy, K. S., Atabay, H. I., Iça,T., & Abay, S. (2007). Prevalence and distribution of Arcobacter species in various sources in Turkey and molecular analysis of isolated strains by ERIC-PCR. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 103(1), 27–35. [CrossRef] Bagalakote, P. S., Rathore, R. S., Ramees, T. P., Mohan, H. V., Sumankumar, M., Agarwal, R. K., Kumar, A., & Dhama, K. (2014). Molecular characterization of Arcobacter isolates using randomly amplified polymorphic DNApolymerase chain reaction (RAPD-PCR). Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(9), 543–555. [CrossRef] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. (2012). Performance standarts for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. In Twenty-second Informational Supplement M100-S20. Collado, L., Guarro, J., & Figueras, M. J. (2009). Prevalence of Arcobacter in meat and shellfish. Journal of Food Protection, 72(5), 1102–1106. [CrossRef]. Corry, J. E. L., Atabay, H. I., Forsythe, S. J., & Mansfield, L. P. (2003). Culture media for the isolation of campylobacters, helicobacters and arcobacters. In JEL. Corry, GDW. Curtis, & RM. Baird (Eds.), Handbook of Culture Media for Food Microbiology, 2nd ed (pp. 271–315). Amsterdam: Elsevier. De Oliveira, M. G. X., Gomes, V. T. M., Cunha, M. P. V., Moreno, L. Z., Moreno, A. M., & Knöbl, T. (2018). Genotypic characterization of Arcobacter spp. Isolated from chicken meat in Brazil. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 15(5), 293–299. [CrossRef] De Smet, S., De Zutter, L., Van Hende, J., & Houf, K. (2010). Arcobacter contamination on pre- and post-chilled bovine carcasses and in minced beef at retail. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 108(1), 299–305. [CrossRef] Di Noto, A. M. D., Sciortino, S., Cardamone, C., Ciravolo, C., Napoli, C., Alio, V., Arculeo, P., Oliveri, G., & C