Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5

Typing of ΦSP–3 lytic Salmonella bacteriophages obtained from various fecal sources

Pages
1047–1054
Publication Date
2022-11-06
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)

In conclusion, it was assumed that owing to the high and cross-lytic activity of the S.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although several reports are available on both ΦSP–1 and ΦSP–3 lytic Salmonella bacteriophages obtained from poultry, further research is required to study the effectiveness of ΦSP–3 type on serovars isolated from other sources.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the present study, we aimed to isolate bacteriophages from 8 serovars previously obtained from 869 fecal samples (calf, dairy cow, buffalo, and camel), genotype the bacteriophages, and detect the cross-lytic activities of the bacteriophages on Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Kentucky, S.Anatum, and S.Muenchen.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, it was assumed that owing to the high and cross-lytic activity of the S.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Although several reports are available on both ΦSP–1 and ΦSP–3 lytic Salmonella bacteriophages obtained from poultry, further research is required to study the effectiveness of ΦSP–3 type on serovars isolated from other sources. In the present study, we aimed to isolate bacteriophages from 8 serovars previously obtained from 869 fecal samples (calf, dairy cow, buffalo, and camel), genotype the bacteriophages, and detect the cross-lytic activities of the bacteriophages on Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Kentucky, S.Anatum, and S.Muenchen. A total of 16 bacteriophages were detected as ΦSP–3 type via PCR. The Hunter-Gaston Discriminatory Index of SDS-PAGE was calculated to be 0.825. Determination of multiplicity of infection (MOI) values were different for each bacteriophage according to the cross-lytic activity assessment. The MOI of the most effective S. Kentucky bacteriophage was 79.11 μg/mL for 2.5×104 cells, whereas that of the most ineffective S.Muenchen bacteriophage was 1.142 μg/μL for 2.5×104 cells. In conclusion, it was assumed that owing to the high and cross-lytic activity of the S. Kentucky bacteriophage, it has a larger host range, which differs in the lytic activities of each bacteriophage, despite being the same serovar, and that calf feces is the most important source for obtaining Salmonella bacteriophages.

🔖

Cite This Article

HADİMLİ, H. H., SAKMANOĞLU, A. (2022). Typing of ΦSP–3 lytic Salmonella bacteriophages obtained from various fecal sources. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5, 1047–1054. https://ajindex.com/articles/614739

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson MA et al. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States— major pathogens. Emerging Infectious Disease 2011; 17 (1): 7.doi: 10.3201/eid1701.P11101 2. Izzo M, Kirkland P, Mohler V, Perkins N, Gunn Aet al. Prevalence of major enteric pathogens in Australian dairy calves with diarrhoea. Australian Veterinary Journals 2011; 89 (5): 167-173. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2011.00692.x 3. Fossler C, Wells SJ,Kaneene J, Ruegg P, Warnick L et al. Herd-level factors associated with isolation of Salmonella in a multi-state study of conventional and organic dairy farms: I. Salmonella shedding in cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2005; 70 (3-4): 257-277.doi: 10.1016/j. prevetmed.2005.04.003 4. Cooper IR. A review of current methods using bacteriophages in live animals, food and animal products intended for human consumption. Journalof Microbiological Methods 2016; 130: 38-47. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.07.027 5. Smith-Palmer A, Stewart W, Mather H, Greig A, Cowden J et al. Epidemiology of Salmonella enterica serovars Enteritidis and Typhimurium in animals and people in Scotland between 1990 and 2001. Veterinary Record 2003; 153 (17): 517-520.doi: 10.1136/vr.153.17.517 6. Galanis E, Wong DMLF, Patrick ME, Binsztein N, Cieslik A et al. Web-based surveillance and global Salmonella distribution, 2000–2002. Emerging Infectious Disease 2006; 12 (3): 381.doi: 10.3201/eid1203.050854 7. Hadimli HH, Sayın Z, Erganiş O. Buzağılarda Salmonella Dublin enfeksiyonu ve otojen aşı uygulaması ile kontrolü. Eurasian Journal Veterinary Science 2011; 27: 99-105. 8. Töreci K, Erdem B, Öngen B. Türkiye’de 2011 Yılı Sonuna Kadar İzolasyonu Bildirilen Salmonella Serovarları. Mikrobiyoloji Bülteni 2013; 47 (3): 442-460 (in Turkish). 9. Hadimli HH, Pinarkara Y, Sakmanoglu A, Sayin Z, Erganis O et al. Serotypes of Salmonella isolated from feces of cattle, buffalo, and camel and sensitivities to antibiotics in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences 2017; 41 (2): 193-198. doi:10.3906/vet-1604-67 10. Ata Z. Türkiye’de Sık Rastlanan Salmonella Enteritidis Serovarlarına Spesifik Bakteriyofajların İzolasyonu. Etlik Veteriner Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi 2018; 29 (2): 136-142 (in Turkish). 11. Cummings KJ, Warnick LD, Elton M, Gröhn YT, McDonough PL et al. The effect of clinical outbreaks of salmonellosis on the prevalence of fecal Salmonella shedding among dairy cattle in New York. Foodborne Pathogen and Disease 2010; 7 (7): 815-823.doi: