Next Article in Journal
SARS-CoV-2: Outline, Prevention, and Decontamination
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of Feeding Waste Milk Containing Antimicrobial Residues on Dairy Calf Health
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/pathogens10020113
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experimental Study of the Potential Role of Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae in the Diarrhoeic Syndrome of Lambs

by
Dimitris C. Chatzopoulos
1,
Natalia G. C. Vasileiou
2,
Katerina S. Ioannidi
1,
Angeliki I. Katsafadou
1,
Vasia S. Mavrogianni
1,
Charalambia K. Michael
1,
Eleni I. Katsarou
1,
Emmanouil Karavanis
3,
Nikolaos Papadopoulos
3,
Afroditi Sbiraki
4,
Labrini V. Athanasiou
1,
Charalambos Billinis
1 and
George C. Fthenakis
1,*
1
Veterinary Faculty, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
2
Faculty of Animal Science, University of Thessaly, 41110 Larissa, Greece
3
Histopathology Laboratory, 3rd Veterinary Hospital of Greek Army, 57000 Thessaloniki, Greece
4
Veterinary Laboratory of Halkida, Hellenic State Veterinary Service, 34150 Halkida, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2021, 10(2), 113; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10020113
Submission received: 18 December 2020 / Revised: 19 January 2021 / Accepted: 20 January 2021 / Published: 23 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Parasitic Pathogens)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The objectives of this experimental work were the evaluation of the potential role of Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae in diarrhoeic syndrome in lambs and the investigation of facets of the pathogenesis of the infection. In total, 12 lambs were challenged orally on the first day of life, with a S. enterica subsp. diarizonae isolate from a clinical case of diarrhoeic syndrome. Sequential blood, faecal and buccal samples were collected from lambs and faecal and milk samples were taken from their dams. Lambs were euthanised 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 14 and 21 days after challenge. Samples were processed for recovery of the challenge organism; they were also subjected to examination by PCR for detection of the invA gene. Tissue samples from lambs were also examined as above and histopathologically. S. enterica subsp. diarizonae was recovered from faecal samples of all lambs, in total, from 45/77 samples (median duration: 2.4 days post-inoculation). It was also recovered from buccal samples (10/77) from seven lambs (median duration: 0.8 days), and from tissue samples (small intestine, abomasum, liver, gallbladder) of nine lambs. It was recovered from two consecutive milk samples from the same ewe, but not from any faecal sample from ewes. The invA gene was detected in samples from all lambs (median duration: 5.5 days in faecal and 1.3 days in buccal samples), as well as in milk samples from three ewes. Histopathological findings included abomasitis with subepithelial presence of eosinophils, lymphocytes and plasma cells, consistently observed in all lambs. In the small intestine, salient lesions initially included distension and oedema of intestinal villi, leucocytic infiltration and hyperplasia of lymphoid nodules with apparent germinal centres; this was followed at later stages by atrophy and/or degeneration of the lymphoid tissue of the intestine with marked subepithelial infiltration of lymphocytes, plasma cells and eosinophils.

1. Introduction

The genus Salmonella includes two species: Salmonella bongori and Salmonella enterica. The latter includes six subspecies: S. enterica subsp. enterica (I), S. enterica subsp. salamae (II), S. enterica subsp. arizonae (IIIa), S. enterica subsp. diarizonae (IIIb), S. enterica subsp. houtenae (IV) and S. enterica subsp. indica (V). Isolates currently classified in S. enterica subsp. diarizonae were first detected in faecal samples from reptiles [1] and initially included into the Salmonella “Arizona” group, later termed subgenus Arizona or subgenus III. The subgenus was subsequently divided into S. enterica subsp. arizonae (IIIa) and S. enterica subsp. diarizonae (IIIb), based on differing reactions in biochemical tests and genomic relatedness [2].
At least 336 distinct serovars of S. enterica subsp. diarizonae have been detected, which was approximately 13% of all recorded serovars in the S. enterica species [3,4]. S. enterica subsp. diarizonae isolates have been most frequently recovered from samples collected from cold-blooded animals [5,6] or the environment and may also be harboured by domestic (e.g., sheep, details below) or wild [7,8] warm-blooded animals, as well as humans. S. enterica subsp. diarizonae mainly colonises the gastrointestinal tract of hosts, specifically the anterior part of the small intestine.
S. enterica subsp. diarizonae is considered as the most frequently detected Salmonella subspecies in sheep, but it has not been studied widely in the literature. Most S. enterica subsp. diarizonae infections are caused by isolates with antigenic type 61:k:1,5,(7) [9], although serovars with minor modifications or with incomplete antigenic structure have also been detected.
The organism was isolated from samples from sheep in the United Kingdom [10], Norway [11,12] and Germany [13], with isolation rates varying from 1% to 76% of samples. Further, during abattoir studies in the United Kingdom [14], Switzerland [15] and Sweden [16], isolation rates were always less than 1% of sheep carcasses.
The organism is a cause of clinical diseases in sheep [17]. It has been associated mainly with gastrointestinal disorders in lambs [18,19,20], abortion in ewes [21] and chronic proliferative rhinitis in adult sheep [22,23].
Recovery of the organism in samples from lambs with diarrhoea can potentially lead to diagnostic problems regarding the causal agent(s) of the problem. We have already described an outbreak of diarrhoeic syndrome in a flock of sheep, in which S. enterica subsp. diarizonae was isolated from faecal samples from a lamb with clinical signs, as well as from samples from a clinically healthy ewe in the same farm [20]. Despite previous relevant studies, the possible role of the pathogen in the aetiology of the diarrhoeic syndrome in lambs has not been fully clarified.
The objectives of this experimental study were the evaluation of the potential role of S. enterica subsp. diarizonae in the diarrhoeic syndrome in lambs and the investigation of facets of the pathogenesis of the infection.

2. Results

2.1. Clinical Findings

All lambs in the study were clinically healthy before challenge. Only one of the inoculated lambs developed clinical signs within 12 h after challenge (incidence rate: 0.083, 95% confidence interval: 0.015–0.354); the clinical signs lasted until D2 and included increased rectal temperature (>42.0 °C), diarrhoea (watery and yellow-coloured), dullness and depression, recumbency, and increased respiratory rate (>55 min−1). The control lambs remained healthy throughout the study (p = 0.75 for presence of clinical findings between inoculated and control lambs).
No ewe showed any clinically evident abnormalities during the study.

2.2. Haematological Findings

The only significant difference was seen in lymphocyte numbers after D4, which increased as the study progressed and were higher in inoculated lambs (p < 0.042) (Table 1). Nevertheless, even in these animals, the findings were within the proposed respective reference range (reference taken into account as presented by Roger [24]). No other differences were seen in haematological values between inoculated lambs and controls; no morphological abnormalities were detected in leucocytes. Details are shown in Table 1.

2.3. Bacteriological Findings

2.3.1. Faecal Swab Samples from Lambs

Salmonella was not isolated from any faecal swab sample from any lamb in the study, before challenge. After inoculation, the challenge organism was isolated from faecal samples of all lambs (1.000) at least once; intermittent bacterial isolation was recorded in three lambs. In total, the organism was isolated from 45 of 77 (0.584) samples collected from the lambs post-inoculation. Median time of first bacterial isolation was 6 h post-inoculation and median duration of bacterial isolation was 2.4 days. Details are presented in Table 2.
The organism was not isolated from any faecal swab sample from the uninfected control lambs.

2.3.2. Buccal Swab Samples from Lambs

Salmonella was not isolated from any buccal swab sample from any lamb in the study, before challenge. After inoculation, the challenge organism was isolated from buccal samples from seven lambs (0.583) at least once. In total, the organism was isolated from 10 of 77 (0.130) samples collected from the lambs post-inoculation. Median time of first bacterial isolation was 1 d post-inoculation and median duration of bacterial isolation was 0.8 days. Details are in shown Table 2.
The organism was not isolated from any buccal swab sample from the uninfected control lambs.

2.3.3. Faecal Swab Samples from Ewes

Salmonella was not isolated from any faecal swab sample from any dam of the inoculated lambs, before or after inoculation of these lambs. Further, the organism was not isolated from any sample from the dams of the uninfected control lambs.

2.3.4. Milk Samples from Ewes

Salmonella was not isolated from any milk sample from any dam of the inoculated lambs before the inoculation of these lambs. Thereafter, Salmonella was isolated from two milk samples, collected from the same ewe, which was the dam of an inoculated lamb, on two consecutive sampling occasions (D4, D7). From the buccal samples of the lamb of that ewe, Salmonella was also consistently isolated from D2 to D7.
The organism was not isolated from any milk sample from the dams of the uninfected control lambs.

2.3.5. Tissue Samples from Lambs

Salmonella was isolated from tissue samples of nine lambs (0.750). In total, the organism was isolated from 15 of 48 (0.313) tissue samples collected from the euthanised lambs post-inoculation. Specifically, it was isolated from the small intestine of six lambs (0.500), the abomasum of four lambs (0.333), the liver of three lambs (0.250) and the gallbladder of two lambs (0.167) (Table 3). There was no association between the concurrent isolation of Salmonella from tissue samples and the recovery from faecal samples from the same lamb on the day of euthanasia (p > 0.22) (Table 4).
The organism was not isolated from any tissue sample from the uninfected control lambs.

2.3.6. Identification of Isolates Recovered and Serological Typing

Subsequent detailed identification of the isolates recovered from the experimental animals or their dams, confirmed their identity as S. enterica subsp. diarizonae. All eight isolates in which serotyping was performed, were confirmed as S. enterica subsp. diarizonae serotype 61:k:1,5,(7).

2.4. Molecular Findings

Each sample that yielded the expected PCR product was interpreted to have harboured S. enterica subsp. diarizonae. Detailed results of detection of the invA gene of Salmonella spp. in samples from inoculated lambs or their dams are given in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7. In total, the invA gene was detected in samples from all inoculated lambs and from samples of two of their dams. In all samples (independent of type) that had yielded Salmonella at the microbiological examination, the invA gene was subsequently detected (1.000).
Median duration of detection of the gene was 5.5 days (0.38–17.5) in faecal samples from lambs, 1.3 days (0–4.8) in buccal samples from lambs and 0 days (0–5.5) in milk samples from ewes.
The gene was not detected in any sample from the uninfected control lambs.

2.5. Pathological Findings

2.5.1. Gross-Pathological Findings

During post-mortem examination, there was swelling of the abomasal and the intestinal wall; the latter was also turgid. In some cases, there was fibrinohaemorrhagic enteritis. Lesions were located more prominently at the ileum, especially in lambs euthanised up to D7; in lambs euthanised afterwards, there were lesions also in the jejunum and colon; in all cases, no macroscopic lesions were seen in the duodenum. The mesenteric lymph nodes were enlarged.

2.5.2. Histopathological findings

There was abomasitis with subepithelial presence of eosinophils, lymphocytes and plasma cells. This was consistently observed in all inoculated lambs, although there was a varying degree of the inflammation (mild to moderate) between animals. In the small intestine, there were various lesions when compared to healthy tissue (Figure 1). At the early stage of post-inoculation (up to D10), salient lesions included distension and oedema of intestinal villi (Figure 2), leucocytic infiltration (macrophages, neutrophils, lymphocytes, plasma cells) (Figure 3 and Figure 4) and hyperplasia of lymphoid nodules with apparent germinal centres (Figure 5). At later stages (D10 and thereafter), the lymphoid tissue was consistently observed to be atrophied and/or degenerated (Figure 6); there was also marked subepithelial infiltration of lymphocytes, plasma cells and eosinophils.

3. Discussion

After challenge, intestinal infection has been established in inoculated lambs. This was corroborated by the consistent isolation of the challenge organism from the lambs and the definite evidence of inflammation during the histopathological evaluation. Nevertheless, infection was mild and did not lead to fatalities as recorded with other Salmonella species [25]. The organism can nevertheless be confirmed as an intestinal pathogen. The recovery of an isolate from a field case of intestinal infection in a lamb, the subsequent use of this isolate in the experimental reproduction of a mild-type intestinal infection and the re-isolation of the organism from the experimental animals confirm the causality of the disease. The mild effects on the experimental animals should not deter from confirming this association, but rather they are indicative of a mild pathogenicity of the bacterium and effective defences of the animals.
The isolate caused subclinical damage which was evident soon after inoculation. There were clear pathological findings in the intestinal mucosa, as confirmed by the histopathological examination. A possible destruction of the villi (even of mild extent) can lead to problems of nutrient absorption, whilst the observed lymphofollicular atrophy may predispose to reduced intestinal defences. Whilst S. enterica subsp. diarizonae may be of low pathogenic significance on its own, it may pave a way for other bacteria to exert their pathogenicity in infected lambs, causing more significant gastrointestinal problems, which are of paramount importance in lambs [25].
At the end, the challenge isolate had disseminated outside the gastrointestinal tract and was isolated from liver and gallbladder tissue samples. The findings are in contrast to a hypothesis by Katribe et al. [26], who indicated that S. enterica subsp. diarizonae was limited in the intestinal tract. Many researchers believe that this specific subspecies may be a commensal resident of sheep’s intestinal tract [17]. However, our findings are allied more to the results of Lacasta et al. [27], who have also reported extra-intestinal (respiratory) infection of sheep with the pathogen. This shows the possibility for invasiveness of the organism; hence, in immunocompromised hosts, it might even be able to cause mortality. The results suggest that, whilst S. enterica subsp. diarizonae seems to be a host-adapted Salmonella subspecies, the organism can retain its pathogenic properties and, under certain conditions, may cause clinical conditions in sheep.
The isolation of the organism from buccal samples is of particular interest. Bacteria in the mouth of lambs could have originated from the inoculum or from regurgitation of gastric content; the latter possibility is more likely, as a gastric catheter was employed for inoculation, although the possibility of a leakage during the inoculation process cannot be ruled out. Consequentially, the isolation of Salmonella from milk samples of a ewe is consistent with the presence of the organism within the mouth of her offspring, whence it was likely transferred during sucking by lambs. We postulate that as the lower part of the teat comes into contact with the pharynx of the lamb [28], the organism was attached thereon, subsequently entering into the duct; perhaps the tongue of the lamb might have “pushed” the bacteria upwards into the duct. In previous studies [29], we have presented evidence that bacteria can be transferred from the mouth of lambs to the teat duct of their dams even after a short (1 min) sucking activity.
In a field study previously reported [20], S. enterica subsp. diarizonae was isolated from faecal samples of a lamb with grave clinical signs, as well as from faecal samples of a ewe. The present findings are in contrast to those of the field study. These contrasting findings can be attributed to a possibly reduced immune state of those animals, given that the field work was undertaken in a sheep flock a while earlier affected with bluetongue, which may cause immunosuppression in affected animals [30,31]. The finding of less frequent recoveries of the organism by microbiological techniques than the frequency of detection of nucleic acid by molecular techniques lends some support to this hypothesis. Likely, in the experimental study, effective defences of the host eliminated the challenged organism, despite the high dose administered. This is further supportive of a mild pathogenicity of the organism, as postulated above.
Detection of the invA gene was used to confirm the presence of Salmonella using conventional PCR. Although this gene is not specific in S. enterica subsp. diarizonae, it was selected because of its increased sensitivity for Salmonella detection [32]. Each sample that yielded the expected PCR product was interpreted to have harboured S. enterica subsp. diarizonae. The simultaneous presence of Salmonella strains beyond the challenge organism was considered unlikely to have occurred, especially with the findings of the PCR allied to the bacteriological results. In particular, the following points were taken into account: (a) no Salmonella was recovered from the animals before challenge, nor was the invA gene detected in any sample before challenge, (b) the experimental animals remained isolated from each other throughout the study, with limited and strictly controlled access to their pens, (c) Salmonella recovered from the samples after challenge was speciated as S. enterica subsp. diarizonae, (d) typing of the isolates from the experimental animals after challenge in all cases confirmed the identity of the isolates as S. enterica subsp. diarizonae.
The infection in sheep poses a zoonotic threat. Lamb consumption may contribute to potential human infections, as shown by the isolation of the organism from abattoir samples at a small but existent rate [14,15,16]. Moreover, the recovery of this organism from milk samples (present results) should increase awareness about the presence of previously unrecognised pathogens in the milk of ewes, which may subsequently be transferred to humans in cases of inappropriate thermal processing of milk. The detection of multi-resistant [33] and of colistin-resistant [15] isolates of the organism from animals should also be taken into account, when assessing the significance of the potential zoonotic risk of the organism.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Animals

In total, 16 clinically healthy lambs from 8 ewes were enrolled into the study on the first day of life. Of these, 12 lambs were challenged with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae serovar 61:k:1,5,(7). The dams of the lambs had been housed throughout their gestation and were provided with a commercial concentrate feed plus hay and barlay straw. During the final month of gestation and after lambing, ewes were housed individually; during the latter period, lambs were also penned with their respective dam.
Two examinations of blood samples for concentrations of β-hydroxybutyrate [34] did not reveal any problems: in all animals, concentrations were always below 0.95 mmol L−1. Further, examination of serum blood samples, by using ELISA tests with commercially available kits, for presence of antibodies against Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (ID Screen® Paratuberculosis Indirect; ID VET, Grabels, France), Small Ruminant Lentivirus (ID Screen® MVV / CAEV Indirect; ID VET) and Bluetongue Virus (ID Screen® Bluetongue Competition, ID VET) [35,36,37], also did not reveal any problems: in no ewe, antibodies of the above pathogens were detected by any of these tests. Finally, bacteriological examination of faecal samples of the ewes performed during the final week of gestation performed by standard techniques (including the ISO 6579-1:2017 for detection of Salmonella [38]), did not reveal a Salmonella infection in these animals.
The experiment was performed under a licence issued by the Veterinary Authority of the Region of Thessaly (licence no. 1997/30.01.2019), which was the competent authority to allow and monitor the experimentation. Conditions prescribed by legislation of the European Union in relation to animal experimentation procedures (Council Directive 86/809/EEC) were met during this work.

4.2. Inoculation Procedure

The lambs were challenged with a S. enterica subsp. diarizonae serovar 61:k:1,5,(7) that had been isolated during the investigation of the outbreak of diarrhoeic syndrome in a sheep farm [20]. Inoculation of lambs was performed on the 1st day of life (D0).
For inoculation, the challenge isolate was cultured in brain heart infusion broth (Thermo Fisher Scientific-Oxoid, Waltham, MA, USA) for 12 h at 37 °C. The culture was centrifuged and the sediment diluted into 20 mL phosphate-buffer saline pH 7.3 (PBS). A quantity of 10 mL of PBS was aspirated with a sterile syringe and, through use of a sterile plastic gastric catheter, was slowly introduced into the abomasum of the newborn lambs, by following the standard principles of administration of oral solutions to lambs [26]. Lambs were maintained at that position for 3 min after end of the procedure. The inoculum varied from 0.75 × 109 to 1.80 × 109 colony-forming units, as estimated by the method of Miles and Misra [39].
For this method, 1 mL of the inoculum was diluted into 9 mL of sterile phosphate-buffer-saline (PBS) and then serial dilutions of the suspension were performed in sterile PBS (1 mL into 9 mL). A drop of 0.02 mL of each serial dilution was plated and spread onto a plate with Plate Count Agar (PCA) (Thermo Fisher Scientific-Oxoid) and allowed to stand for 20 min before aerobic incubation at 37 °C for 18 to 24 h. The dilutions were performed in triplicate and for each dilution, three plates were inoculated. Then, colony counts on plates were made in drop areas with 20 to 100 colonies. The results of the three plates from each series of dilutions were averaged; then, the three means were again averaged for the final result of the content of the inoculum.
Four lambs received 10 mL of sterile PBS by using the above technique and were used as uninfected controls.

4.3. Examination of Animals-Samplings

4.3.1. Lambs

On D0, but before challenge, a detailed clinical examination was carried out in lambs. Blood samples were collected from the jugular vein for haematological examination. Faecal and buccal swab samples were collected for bacteriological examination for detection of Salmonella spp.
Post-challenge, clinical examinations and sample collection as above were performed at 6 h (D0 + 6 h), 12 h (D0 + 12 h), 1 day (D1) and 2 (D2), 4 (D4), 7 (D7), 10 (D10), 14 (D14) and 21 (D21) days. On D1 and thereafter, lambs were euthanised (n = 1 on each of D1 and D2, n = 2 on each of D4, D7, D10, D14, D21). The uninfected controls were euthanised on D4 (n = 1), D10 (n = 1) and D21 (n = 2).
A detailed post-mortem examination was performed in all euthanised lambs. Tissue samples from the abomasum, the small intestine, the liver and the gallbladder were collected for bacteriological examination by using standard techniques and for detection of Salmonella spp. DNA by using a conventional PCR assay. Further, tissue samples from the abomasum, the small intestine and the mesenteric lymph nodes were collected for histopathological examination.

4.3.2. Ewes

On the same occasions as above, faecal swab and milk samples were collected from the ewes for bacteriological examination. Milk samples were collected aseptically, separately from each of the two mammary glands of each ewe [40].

4.4. Laboratory Examinations

4.4.1. Haematological Examination

Samples for haematological examination were mixed by gentle repeated inversions for several seconds to avoid coagulation. They were processed within 30 min after collection. Initially, blood smears were prepared and kept dry at room temperature. A complete blood count was performed by an automated haematological analyser (Abbott Cell-Dyn 3500 System; Abbott, Abbott Park, IL, USA) previously evaluated in ovine haematology [41]. The following parameters were determined: haematocrit, erythrocyte count, haemoglobin concentration, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration, total leucocyte count and thrombocyte count. Blood smears were evaluated for leucocyte type differentiation and detection of potential presence of morphological abnormalities.

4.4.2. Bacteriological Examination

Faecal swab samples from lambs and ewes were processed for isolation of Salmonella, after immersion into 1 mL of buffered peptone water. Buccal swab samples from lambs were processed similarly. For milk samples from ewes, a volume of 1 mL of milk was mixed with 10 mL of buffered peptone water.
Tissue samples from lambs collected during post-mortem examination were washed with PBS and were then homogenised (10 g of tissue sample with 50 mL of sterile PBS blended for 3 min) in a tissue blender (Mixwel; Alliance Bio Expertise, Guipry, France). Then, of the resulting fluid, 20 mL were added into 200 mL of buffered peptone water, which was followed by the same procedure as above.
After initial processing as above, the enriched suspensions were processed according to the ISO 6579-1:2017 for detection of Salmonella [38]; modified semi-solid Rappaport Vassiliadis medium (Thermo Scientific-Oxoid), XLD (Thermo Scientific-Oxoid) and Salmonella-Shigella agar (Thermo Scientific-Oxoid) agar were used. Colonies obtained were cultured onto sheep blood agar plates and McConkey plates for incubation at 37 °C for up to 48 h. Colonies grown were processed for identification by using the API rapid identification system (Biomerieux, Marcy-l’-Etoile, France). Then, the automated identification Vitek 2 system (Biomerieux) was employed for confirmation of identification of all Salmonella isolates obtained as above. Finally, eight isolates selected at random among the isolates recovered from all clinical samples (3 from faecal, 3 from buccal and 2 from milk samples), were subcultured and sent to the Greek National Reference Laboratory for Salmonellae (in animals), which is a service of the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food, for serotyping.

4.4.3. Molecular Examination for Presence of Salmonella spp.

DNA Extraction

Faecal swab and buccal swab samples were washed with 0.2 mL and 0.4 mL, respectively, of PBS into a DNA-free 2 mL Eppendorf tube. For DNA extraction of milk samples, an initial volume of 1 mL was centrifuged for 10 min at 10,000× g; subsequently, the upper fatty layer was appropriately removed and the supernatant was discarded; the pellet that remained was used as the starting sample material. With regard to tissue samples, 0.05 g of tissue was placed into an Eppendorf tube with 0.5 mL of PBS and subjected to mixing in Vortex equipment (Velp Scientifica, Usmate, Italy) for 3 min; then, 0.5 mL of the mixture was transferred to a new Eppendorf tube.
Thereafter, in all the above, the DNA extraction procedure was carried out using PureLink® Genomic DNA Kit K 1820-01; (Life Technologies, Karlsbad, CA, USA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The bound DNA was eluted using 0.1 mL elution buffer, split in aliquots of 5 μL and stored at −20 °C.

PCR Amplification

Presence of Salmonella spp. invA gene was detected by simple PCR assay. Details of primers and conditions employed are shown in Table 8. Amplification was performed in a PT-100 Thermocycler (MJ Research Inc., St Bruno, QC, Canada). Reactions were performed in a total volume of 50 μL PCR mixture, containing 0.045 mL of Platinum PCR SuperMix (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) and approximately 150 ng of the extracted DNA. The thermal cycling procedure consisted of a pre-denaturation step at 95 °C for 2 min, 35 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 1 min, annealing for 1 min and extending at 72 °C for 45 s and a final elongation step at 72 °C for 7 min. Subsequently, 0.005 mL of each product was analysed by electrophoresis on 1.5% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide (100 mL 1× TBE buffer; DGel Electrosystem, Montreal, QC, Canada), 2 g agarose (NIPPON Genetics, Tokyo, Japan), 0.005 mL ethidium bromide (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) and observed at ultraviolet light. Each product equal in size to the expected amplicon was considered as positive.

4.4.4. Histopathological Examination

Tissue samples were fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin and embedded in paraffin wax. Haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) standard staining procedures were performed for histopathological studies.

4.5. Data Management and Analysis

All data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (ver. 21) (IBM; Armonk, NY, USA).
For estimation of incidence rates, we took into account that a lamb might change from not being infected to being infected and vice-versa; during the interval between sampling points, it was not possible to know what had happened between the two sampling points, i.e., how many cases of infection and “cures” might have occurred. The model detailed by Mavrogianni et al. [43] was used and appropriately modified for the tissues under evaluation in the present study. Based on the above, it was possible to calculate incidence rates of the various infections. Further, it was possible to estimate the length of time for which an animal was at risk before it became infected, as well as the length of time that an animal had been infected. Incidence rate was defined as the proportion of animals at risk, which developed the condition when the time at risk was the same in each group.
Linear mixed models were used in analysis to account for repeated measures of values of haematological parametres over the course of the study. Time points of collecting data were selected as within-subject variables and group allocation as a between-subject factor. Independent variables (fixed effects) included study group, sampling point and a sampling point–study group interaction.
The various associations were evaluated in a table of cross-categorised frequency data by use of the Pearson chi-square test or the Fisher exact test as appropriate.
In all cases, statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

5. Conclusions

The general conclusion from the study can be that S. enterica subsp. diarizonae is an opportunistic gastrointestinal pathogen in lambs. The organism can cause a mild infection, with faecal shedding and definite histopathological changes in the gastrointestinal tract; the bacteria can be isolated from the internal organs of infected animals. The organism can be transmitted from lambs to ewes during sucking, with potential for subsequent isolation of the organism from the milk of the dams of infected lambs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, D.C.C., C.B., G.C.F.; formal analysis, D.C.C., G.C.F.; funding acquisition, C.B., G.C.F.; investigation, D.C.C., N.G.C.V., K.S.I., A.I.K., V.S.M., C.K.M., E.I.K., E.K., N.P., A.S.; methodology, D.C.C., N.G.C.V., K.S.I., A.I.K., V.S.M., C.K.M., E.I.K., E.K., E.K., N.P., A.S.; project administration, G.C.F.; supervision, L.V.A., C.B., G.C.F.; validation, D.C.C., G.C.F.; visualization, D.C.C., G.C.F.; writing—original draft, D.C.C., G.C.F., writing—review and editing, D.C.C., C.B., G.C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The experiment was performed under a licence issued by the Veterinary Authority of the Region of Thessaly (licence no. 1997/30.01.2019), which was the competent authority to allow and monitor the experimentation.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data for this work are within the manuscript and in the publicly available PhD thesis of the first author (www.didaktorika.gr).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Caldwell, M.E.; Ryerson, D.L. Salmonellosis in certain reptiles. J. Infect. Dis. 1939, 65, 242–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tindall, B.J.; Grimont, P.A.D.; Garrity, G.M.; Euzeby, J. Nomenclature and taxonomy of the genus Salmonella. Int. J. System. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 521–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Grimont, P.A.D.; Weill, F.X. Antigenic Formulae of the Salmonella Serovars. In WHO Collaborating Center for Reference and Research on Salmonella, 9th ed.; Institut Pasteur: Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lamas, A.; Miranda, J.M.; Regal, P.; Vázquez, B.; Franco, C.M.; Cepeda, A. A comprehensive review of non-enterica subspecies of Salmonella enterica. Microbiolog. Res. 2018, 206, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Pedersen, K.; Lassen-Nielsen, A.M.; Nordentoft, S.; Hammer, A.S. Serovars of Salmonella from captive reptiles. Zoon. Publ. Health 2009, 56, 238–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lukac, M.; Pedersen, K.; Prukner-Radovcic, E. Prevalence of Salmonella in captive reptiles from Croatia. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2015, 46, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chiari, M.; Zanoni, M.; Tagliabue, S.; Lavazza, A.; Alborali, L.G. Salmonella serotypes in wild boars (Sus scrofa) hunted in northern Italy. Acta Vet. Scand. 2013, 55, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Sanno, A.; Aspan, A.; Hestvik, G.; Jacobson, M. Presence of Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, Yersinia pseudotuberculosis and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in wild boars. Epidemiol. Inf. 2014, 142, 2542–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hall, M.L.; Rowe, B. Arizona 26:29:30 in sheep in the United Kingdom. Vet. Rec. 1980, 107, 581–582. [Google Scholar]
  10. Davies, R.H.; Evans, S.J.; Perece, B.E.; Chappell, S.; Kidd, S.; Jones, Y.E. Increase in Salmonella enterica subspecies diarizonae serovar 61:k:1,5,(7) in sheep. Vet. Rec. 2001, 149, 555–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alvseike, O.; Skjerve, E. Prevalence of Salmonella subspecies diarizonae in Norwegian sheep herds. Pr. Vet. Med. 2002, 52, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sandberg, M.; Alvseike, O.; Skjerve, E. The prevalence and dynamics of Salmonella enterica IIIb 61:k:1,5,(7) in sheep flocks in Norway. Pr. Vet. Med. 2002, 52, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Methner, U.; Moog, U. Occurrence and characterisation of Salmonella enterica subspecies diarizonae serovar 61:k: 1, 5, (7) in sheep in the federal state of Thuringia, Germany. BMC Vet. Res. 2018, 14, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Milnes, A.S.; Stewart, I.; Clifton-Hadley, F.A.; Davies, R.H.; Newell, D.G.; Sayers, A.R.; Cheasty, T.; Cassar, C.; Ridley, A.; Cook, A.J.C.; et al. Intestinal carriage of verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli O157, Salmonella, thermophilic Campylobacter and Yersinia enterocolitica, in cattle, sheep and pigs at slaughter in Great Britain during 2003. Epidemiol. Inf. 2008, 136, 739–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bonke, R.; Wacheck, S.; Bumann, C.; Thum, C.; Stüber, E.; König, M. High prevalence of Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae in tonsils of sheep at slaughter. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 880–884. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sörén, K.; Lindblad, M.; Jernberg, C.; Eriksson, E.; Melin, L.; Wahlström, H.; Lundh, M. Changes in the risk management of Salmonella enterica subspecies diarizonae serovar 61:(k):1,5,(7) in Swedish sheep herds and sheep meat due to the results of a prevalence study 2012. Acta Vet. Scand. 2015, 57, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Chatzopoulos, D.C. Significance of Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae in the Diarrhoeic Syndrome of Lambs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  18. Harp, J.A.; Myers, L.L.; Rich, J.E.; Gates, N.L. Role of Salmonella arizonae and other infective agents in enteric disease of lambs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1981, 42, 596–599. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hannam, D.A.; Wray, C.; Harbourne, J.F. Experimental Salmonella arizonae infection of sheep. Br. Vet. J. 1986, 142, 458–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chatzopoulos, D.C.; Sarrou, S.; Vasileiou, N.G.C.; Ioannidi, K.S.; Peteinaki, E.; Valiakos, G.; Tsokana, K.; Papadopoulos, E.; Spyrou, V.; Giannakopoulos, A.; et al. Dissemination of intestinal pathogens between lambs and puppies in sheep farms. Small Rumin. Res. 2016, 41, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Greenfield, J.; Greenway, J.A.; Bigland, C.H. Arizona infections in sheep associated with gastroenteritis and abortion. Vet. Rec. 1973, 92, 400–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Meehan, J.T.; Brogden, K.A.; Courtney, C.; Cutlip, R.C.; Lehmkuhl, H.D. Chronic proliferative rhinitis associated with Salmonella arizonae in sheep. Vet. Pathol. 1992, 29, 556–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brogden, K.; Meehan, J.; Lehmkuhl, H. Salmonella arizonae infection and colonisation of the upper respiratory tract of sheep. Vet. Rec. 1994, 135, 410–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Roger, P.A. The impact of disease and disease prevention on sheep welfare. Small Rumin. Res. 2008, 76, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Henderson, D.C. Neonatal conditions. In Diseases of Sheep, 4th ed.; Aitken, I.D., Ed.; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  26. Katribe, E.; Bogomolnaya, L.M.; Wingert, H.; Andrews-Polymenis, H. Subspecies IIIa and IIIb Salmonellae are defective for colonization of murine models of salmonellosis compared to Salmonella enterica subsp. I serovar typhimurium. J. Bacteriol. 2009, 191, 2843–2850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Lacasta, D.; Figueras, L.; Bueso, J.P.; De las Heras, M.; Ramos, J.; Ferrer, L.; González, J.; de Arcaute, M.R.; Ortín, A.; Marteles, D. Experimental infection with Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae serotype 61:k:1,5,(7) in sheep: Study of cell mediated immune response. Small Rumin. Res. 2017, 149, 28–33. [Google Scholar]
  28. Titchen, D.A. Cineradiographic studies of swallowing in the suckled lamb. Ann. Rech. Vet. 1977, 8, 483. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gougoulis, D.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Tzora, A.; Taitzoglou, I.A.; Skoufos, J.; Fthenakis, G.C. Effects of lamb sucking on the bacterial flora of teat duct and mammary gland of ewes. Reprod. Dom. Anim. 2008, 43, 22–26. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kyriakis, C.S.; Billinis, C.; Papadopoulos, E.; Vasileiou, N.G.; Athanasiou, L.V.; Fthenakis, G.C. Bluetongue in small ruminants: An opinionated review, with a brief appraisal of the 2014 outbreak of the disease in Greece and the south-east Europe. Vet. Microbiol. 2015, 181, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vasileiou, N.G.C.; Fthenakis, G.C.; Amiridis, G.S.; Athanasiou, L.V.; Birtsas, P.; Chatzopoulos, D.C.; Chouzouris, T.M.; Giannakopoulos, A.; Ioannidi, K.S.; Kalonaki, S.N.; et al. Experiences from the 2014 outbreak of bluetongue in Greece. Small Rumin. Res. 2016, 142, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sunar, N.M.; Stentiford, E.I.; Stewart, D.I.; Fletcher, L.A. Molecular techniques to characterize the invA genes of Salmonella spp. for pathogen inactivation study in composting. arXiv 2014, 1404, 5208. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mejía, W.; Casal, J.; Zapata, D.; Sánchez, G.J.; Martín, M.; Mateu, E. Epidemiology of salmonella infections in pig units and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of the strains of Salmonella species isolated. Vet. Rec. 2006, 159, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Barbagianni, M.S.; Mavrogianni, V.S.; Katsafadou, A.I.; Spanos, S.A.; Tsioli, V.; Galatos, A.D.; Nakou, M.; Valasi, I.; Gouletsou, P.G.; Fthenakis, G.C. Pregnancy toxaemia as predisposing factor for development of mastitis in sheep during the immediately post-partum period. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 130, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Köhler, H.; Burkert, B.; Pavlik, I.; Diller, R.; Geue, L.; Conraths, F.J.; Martin, G. Evaluation of five ELISA test kits for the measurement of antibodies against Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in bovine serum. Berliner und Münch. Tierärztl. Wochensch. 2008, 21, 203–210. [Google Scholar]
  36. Vandenbussche, F.; Vanbinst, T.; Verheyden, B.; Van Dessel, W.; Demeestere, L.; Houdart, P.; Bertels, G.; Praet, N.; Berkvens, D.; Mintiens, K.; et al. Evaluation of antibody-ELISA and real-time RT-PCR for the diagnosis and profiling of bluetongue virus serotype 8 during the epidemic in Belgium in 2006. Vet. Microbiol. 2008, 129, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Michiels, R.; Van Mael, E.; Quinet, C.; Adjadj, N.R.; Cay, A.B.; De Regge, N. Comparative analysis of different serological and molecular tests for the detection of Small Ruminant Lentiviruses (SRLVs) in Belgian sheep and goats. Viruses 2018, 10, 696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. International Organization for Standardization. Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection, Enumeration and Serotyping of Salmonella—Part 1: Detection of Salmonella spp. EN ISO 6579-1; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  39. Miles, A.A.; Misra, S.S.; Irwin, J.O. The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. J. Hyg. Camb. 1938, 38, 732–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Fthenakis, G.C. Prevalence and aetiology of subclinical mastitis in ewes of Southern Greece. Small Rumin. Res. 1994, 13, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Athanasiou, L.V.; Giannakopoulos, C.G.; Polizopoulou, Z.S.; Katsogiannou, E.; Kontos, V.I. A comparative study of the ovine haemogram: Cell-Dyn 3500 versus manual methods. Am. J. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2013, 8, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rahn, K.; De Grandis, S.; Clarke, R.; McEwen, S.; Galan, J.; Ginocchio, C. Amplification of an invA gene sequence of Salmonella typhimurium by polymerase chain reaction as a specific method of detection of Salmonella spp. Mol. Cell. Probes 1992, 6, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mavrogianni, V.S.; Cripps, P.J.; Fthenakis, G.C. Bacterial flora and risk of infection of the ovine teat duct and mammary gland throughout lactation. Prev. Vet. Med. 2007, 79, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pathogens 10 00113 g001 550
Figure 1. Small intestine: normal lymphofollicular tissue (haematoxylin and eosin (H&E), bar 500 μm).
Figure 1. Small intestine: normal lymphofollicular tissue (haematoxylin and eosin (H&E), bar 500 μm).
Pathogens 10 00113 g001
Pathogens 10 00113 g002 550
Figure 2. Small intestine mucosa: dilatation of lymphatic vessels (arrows) (H&E, bar 100 μm).
Figure 2. Small intestine mucosa: dilatation of lymphatic vessels (arrows) (H&E, bar 100 μm).
Pathogens 10 00113 g002
Pathogens 10 00113 g003 550
Figure 3. Small intestine mucosa: neutrophilic infiltration (arrows) (H&E, bar 20 μm).
Figure 3. Small intestine mucosa: neutrophilic infiltration (arrows) (H&E, bar 20 μm).
Pathogens 10 00113 g003
Pathogens 10 00113 g004 550
Figure 4. Small intestine mucosa: lymphocytic infiltration of the villous lamina propria (arrow) (H&E, bar 100 μm).
Figure 4. Small intestine mucosa: lymphocytic infiltration of the villous lamina propria (arrow) (H&E, bar 100 μm).
Pathogens 10 00113 g004
Pathogens 10 00113 g005 550
Figure 5. Small intestine mucosa: mild (left picture) to moderate (right picture) lymphofollicular hyperplasia (H&E, bar 500 μm).
Figure 5. Small intestine mucosa: mild (left picture) to moderate (right picture) lymphofollicular hyperplasia (H&E, bar 500 μm).
Pathogens 10 00113 g005
Pathogens 10 00113 g006 550
Figure 6. Small intestine mucosa: mild lymphofolicullar atrophy (H&E, bar 500 μm).
Figure 6. Small intestine mucosa: mild lymphofolicullar atrophy (H&E, bar 500 μm).
Pathogens 10 00113 g006
Table
Table 1. Haematological findings (median values) in lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae.
Table 1. Haematological findings (median values) in lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae.
Haematocrit (%)Erythrocytes (×106 cells μL−1)Haemoglobin (g dL−1)MCV (fL) 1MCHC (g dL−1) 1
Sampling occasionInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controls
D033.826.18.210.210.511.140.445.212.812.4
D0 + 6 h30.628.07.610.49.810.739.744.612.712.7
D0 + 12 h28.928.17.311.19.510.939.044.212.712.9
D1 30.028.37.711.49.411.139.245.012.412.4
D230.427.77.710.79.710.639.644.212.711.0
D428.128.97.211.09.011.438.741.212.311.0
D728.929.17.711.99.112.035.141.711.911.6
D1028.629.28.19.88.811.435.240.410.910.5
D1427.828.38.79.98.310.532.740.79.89.6
D2134.428.710.510.110.310.533.241.310.010.3
Total leucocytes (cells μL−1)Neutrophils (cells μL−1)Neutrophils (% leucocytes)Lymphocytes (cells μL−1)Lymphocytes (% leucocytes)
Sampling occasionInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controls
D0474064252100330042.151.02610262049.740.9
D0 + 6 h465070101945404037.957.62815254055.336.2
D0 + 12 h472082001460528029.164.42720265063.232.3
D1 527053501550340031.863.53330173063.132.3
D2530054701790180032.240.63440221560.451.2
D449705000148073029.514.63050200060.880.0
D7493550851230225527.244.43475255566.150.0
D1053954650990184517.940.04025252074.853.6
D14728041052330158027.538.25260229063.856.2
D2110,72594903475325034.334.45675232553.055.8
Monocytes (cells μL−1)Monocytes (% leucocytes)Eosinophils (cells μL−1)Eosinophils (% leucocytes)
Sampling occasionInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controls
D0155652.60.9502851.04.6
D0 + 6 h120203.20.3702601.33.7
D0 + 12 h60201.60.2401101.01.3
D1 60201.50.460701.51.2
D22451804.04.040450.71.0
D480201.60.450401.00.8
D7701001.32.050450.90.9
D101151001.82.235850.82.1
D14190502.11.21301201.72.2
D211501051.41.111406009.16.4
Basophils (cells μL−1)Basophils (% leucocytes)Thrombocytes (cells μL−1)
Sampling occasionInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controlsInoculated lambsUninfected controls
D0901101.91.7545763
D0 + 6 h1201002.11.4556893
D0 + 12 h100902.01.0512844
D1 90802.01.5549922
D290701.91.75981030
D41101802.23.69341045
D7120952.61.810281770
D1095551.71.211461503
D1490451.21.111511167
D211851001.21.010821070
1 MCV: mean corpuscular volume, MCHC: mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration.
Table
Table 2. Bacteriological findings (isolation of Salmonella) in faecal or buccal swab samples from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae (results expressed as positive of total samples examined).
Table 2. Bacteriological findings (isolation of Salmonella) in faecal or buccal swab samples from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae (results expressed as positive of total samples examined).
Before ChallengeDay After ChallengeCumulative
D0D0 + 6 hD0 + 12 hD1D2D4D7D10D14D21
Faecal samples
0/128/1212/1211/129/112/102/81/60/40/245/77
Buccal samples
0/120/120/126/122/111/101/80/60/40/210/77
Table
Table 3. Bacteriological findings (isolation of Salmonella) in tissue samples from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae and euthanised (results expressed as positive of total samples examined).
Table 3. Bacteriological findings (isolation of Salmonella) in tissue samples from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae and euthanised (results expressed as positive of total samples examined).
TissueDay After ChallengeCumulative
D1D2D4D7D10D14D21
small intestine1/11/10/21/21/22/20/26/12
abomasum1/11/12/20/20/20/20/24/12
liver0/10/11/20/20/21/21/23/12
gallbladder0/10/11/21/20/20/20/22/12
Cumulative2/42/44/82/81/83/81/815/48
Table
Table 4. Association between concurrent isolation of Salmonella from faecal swab samples and from tissue samples from the same animals from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae and euthanised (results expressed as number of lambs with samples in each category).
Table 4. Association between concurrent isolation of Salmonella from faecal swab samples and from tissue samples from the same animals from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae and euthanised (results expressed as number of lambs with samples in each category).
Recovery from Faecal Swab Samples
YesNo
Recovery from Small Intestine Tissue SamplesYes24
No06
Recovery from Any Tissue SamplesYes38
No10
Table
Table 5. Detection of invA gene in faecal or buccal swab samples from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae (results expressed as positive of total samples examined).
Table 5. Detection of invA gene in faecal or buccal swab samples from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae (results expressed as positive of total samples examined).
Before ChallengeDay After ChallengeCumulative
D0D0 + 6 hD0 + 12 hD1D2D4D7D10D14D21
Faecal samples
0/129/1212/1211/1210/1110/108/86/64/40/270/77
Buccal samples
0/123/123/128/125/113/102/80/60/40/224/77
Table
Table 6. Frequency of detection of the invA gene in various samples collected from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae and euthanised or from their dams (results expressed as positive of total examined).
Table 6. Frequency of detection of the invA gene in various samples collected from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae and euthanised or from their dams (results expressed as positive of total examined).
AnimalsType of SamplesNo. of Animals
in Samples from which Detected		No. of Samples
in which Detected
LambsFaeces12/12 (1.000)70/77 (0.909)
LambsBuccal cavity swab9/12 (0.750)24/77 (0.312)
EwesFaeces0/6 (0.000)0/39 (0.000)
EwesMilk2/6 (0.333)3/78 (0.038) 1
LambsSmall intestine tissue12/12 (1.000)12/12 (1.000)
LambsAbomasum tissue8/12 (0.667)8/12 (0.667)
LambsLiver tissue12/12 (1.000)12/12 (1.000)
LambsGallbladder tissue8/12 (0.667)8/12 (0.667)
1 Corresponding to 3/39 sampling occasions (0.078).
Table
Table 7. Detection of invA gene in tissue samples from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae and euthanised (results expressed as positive of total samples examined).
Table 7. Detection of invA gene in tissue samples from lambs orally inoculated with S. enterica subsp. diarizonae and euthanised (results expressed as positive of total samples examined).
TissueDay After ChallengeCumulative
D1D2D4D7D10D14D21
small intestine1/11/12/22/22/22/22/212/12
abomasum1/11/12/22/21/21/20/210/12
liver1/11/12/22/22/22/22/212/12
gallbladder0/10/11/21/22/22/22/28/12
Cumulative3/43/47/87/87/87/86/815/48
Table
Table 8. Primers used and work conditions undertaken for detection of Salmonella spp. invA gene in DNA extract from samples from lambs or ewes.
Table 8. Primers used and work conditions undertaken for detection of Salmonella spp. invA gene in DNA extract from samples from lambs or ewes.
Primer SequenceConcentration (μM)Product Size (bp)AT 1 (°C)Reference
Fw-GTGAAATTATCGCCACGTTCGGGCAA0.2528455.0[42]
Rv-TCATCGCACCGTCAAAGGAACC
1 AT: annealing temperature.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chatzopoulos, D.C.; Vasileiou, N.G.C.; Ioannidi, K.S.; Katsafadou, A.I.; Mavrogianni, V.S.; Michael, C.K.; Katsarou, E.I.; Karavanis, E.; Papadopoulos, N.; Sbiraki, A.; et al. Experimental Study of the Potential Role of Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae in the Diarrhoeic Syndrome of Lambs. Pathogens 2021, 10, 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10020113

AMA Style

Chatzopoulos DC, Vasileiou NGC, Ioannidi KS, Katsafadou AI, Mavrogianni VS, Michael CK, Katsarou EI, Karavanis E, Papadopoulos N, Sbiraki A, et al. Experimental Study of the Potential Role of Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae in the Diarrhoeic Syndrome of Lambs. Pathogens. 2021; 10(2):113. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10020113

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chatzopoulos, Dimitris C., Natalia G. C. Vasileiou, Katerina S. Ioannidi, Angeliki I. Katsafadou, Vasia S. Mavrogianni, Charalambia K. Michael, Eleni I. Katsarou, Emmanouil Karavanis, Nikolaos Papadopoulos, Afroditi Sbiraki, and et al. 2021. "Experimental Study of the Potential Role of Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae in the Diarrhoeic Syndrome of Lambs" Pathogens 10, no. 2: 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10020113

APA Style

Chatzopoulos, D. C., Vasileiou, N. G. C., Ioannidi, K. S., Katsafadou, A. I., Mavrogianni, V. S., Michael, C. K., Katsarou, E. I., Karavanis, E., Papadopoulos, N., Sbiraki, A., Athanasiou, L. V., Billinis, C., & Fthenakis, G. C. (2021). Experimental Study of the Potential Role of Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae in the Diarrhoeic Syndrome of Lambs. Pathogens, 10(2), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10020113

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop