Next Article in Journal
Chemical Composition and In Vitro and In Silico Antileishmanial Evaluation of the Essential Oil from Croton linearis Jacq. Stems
Next Article in Special Issue
Microbial Contamination and Antibiotic Resistance in Marketed Food in Bangladesh: Current Situation and Possible Improvements
Previous Article in Journal
Associating Biological Activity and Predicted Structure of Antimicrobial Peptides from Amphibians and Insects
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clostridioides difficile in Food-Producing Animals in Romania: First Study on the Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/antibiotics11121713
antibiotics-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

Occurrence of Campylobacter spp. and Phenotypic Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Campylobacter jejuni in Slaughtered Broiler Chickens in North-Western Romania

by
Sebastian Alexandru Popa
1,*,
Adriana Morar
1,
Alexandra Ban-Cucerzan
1,
Emil Tîrziu
1,
Viorel Herman
2,
Khalid Ibrahim Sallam
3,
Doru Morar
4,
Ulaș Acaroz
5,
Mirela Imre
6,
Tijana Florea
6,
Hamid Mukhtar
7 and
Kálmán Imre
1
1
Department of Animal Production and Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timişoara, 300645 Timișoara, Romania
2
Department of Infectious Diseases and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timişoara, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
3
Department of Food Hygiene and Control, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Mansura University, Mansura 35516, Egypt
4
Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timişoara, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
5
Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar 03200, Turkey
6
Department of Parasitology and Dermatology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timişoara, 300645 Timișoara, Romania
7
Institute of Industrial Biotechnology, Government College University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2022, 11(12), 1713; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11121713
Submission received: 11 November 2022 / Revised: 24 November 2022 / Accepted: 26 November 2022 / Published: 28 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food-Borne Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Campylobacteriosis is recognized as one of the most common food-borne zoonoses, with worldwide distribution, having undercooked poultry meat and other cross-contaminated foodstuffs as the main sources of human infections. The current study aimed to provide data on the occurrence of the thermophilic Campylobacter spp. in seven broiler chicken flocks, from three north-western Transylvanian counties of Romania, as well as to determine the antimicrobial resistance profile of the isolated C. jejuni strains. A total of 324 fresh cecal samples were collected during the slaughtering process, and screened for the presence of Campylobacter spp., using routine microbiological and molecular diagnostic tools. Overall, 85.2% (276/324; 95% CI 80.9–88.6) of the tested samples expressed positive results for Campylobacter spp., with dominant occurrence of C. coli towards C. jejuni (63.4% vs. 36.6%). From the six tested antimicrobials, the 101 isolated C. jejuni strains were resistant against ciprofloxacin (79.2%), nalidixic acid (78.2%), tetracycline (49.5%), and streptomycin (7.9%), but total susceptibility was noticed against erythromycin and gentamicin. Seven (6.9%) isolates exhibited multidrug resistance. The study results emphasize the role of broiler chicken as reservoir of Campylobacter infections for humans, as well as strengthen the necessity of the prudent using of antimicrobials in the poultry industry.

1. Introduction

Out of the 31 species in the genus Campylobacter [1], Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli are the most frequently (~95%) incriminated in human campylobacteriosis cases [2]. Campylobacteria are Gram-negative, non-spore forming, microaerophilic and oxidase-positive microorganisms, with a spiral or slightly curved form, being very sensitive to environmental factors [1,3]. Its main reservoir is the intestinal tract of wild and domesticated birds and mammals [4].
Campylobacter transmission to humans can occurs through direct contact with farm animals or by consumption of contaminated water and/or animal origin foodstuffs (e.g., untreated drinking water, unpasteurized milk, different types of meat) [5,6,7,8]. Out of those factors, raw or undercooked chicken meat is the biggest potential source of Campylobacter during human consumption. The contamination of this type of meat usually occurs during different stages of the slaughtering process (e.g., evisceration, cleaning, or chilling) [9,10,11,12,13]. Campylobacteriosis symptoms, as human bacterial gastroenteritis, include diarrhea, acute abdominal pain, cramps, vomiting, and fever. In addition, some patients can develop severe systemic and neurological disorders, such as hemolytic-uremic or Guillain–Barré syndromes [14,15,16]
In recent years, bacterial foodborne pathogen resistance to antimicrobials has gradually increased, as a consequence of the large-scale and imprudent usage of antimicrobials in different industry categories (e.g., medical, livestock, poultry, agriculture), and has become a serious global public health concern [17,18,19]. In particular, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) of animal and human-origin Campylobacter strains have also increased [20]. In this regard, high resistance rates have been reported to tetracyclines and quinolones [21], and in the last few years, also towards aminoglycosides [22]. The most recently published open access summarized report by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), on the frequency of isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of food-borne pathogens, underlined a worryingly high antimicrobial resistance profile of the tested Campylobacter spp. strains isolated from broiler meat samples towards tetracycline (57.6–67.7%), ciprofloxacin (64.2–90.0%), and nalidixic acid (71.0–84.8%) [22]. Furthermore, the isolation of multi-drug resistance (MDR) Campylobacter spp. strains has considerably increased [21,23]. In addition, these results strengthen the necessity and importance of the using of a standardized and continuous AMR surveillance system in food animals, especially at the level of slaughtering and food processing units, to prevent the further dispersion and transmission of MDR strains. In healthy domestic poultry, Campylobacter is considered an indicator commensal bacterium, frequently used for the monitoring of AMR [24]. Likewise, this bacteria has the capacity to acquire AMR faster than other commonly isolated bacteria from different animal-origin foodstuffs [18].
Given this context, to date, limited information is available concerning the monitoring of the occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of poultry origin Campylobacter spp. in Romania [25,26]. Therefore, the present study aimed to provide data on the isolation frequency of Campylobacter spp., and the phenotypic antimicrobial resistance profile of C. jejuni, in cecal samples of healthy slaughtered broiler chicken, in different abattoirs, of three north-western Transylvanian counties of Romania.

2. Results

2.1. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp.

The distribution of Campylobacter spp. positive findings in the tested broiler chicken cecum samples, according to their provenience and study years, are presented in Table 1.
Overall, 85.2% (276/324; 95% CI 80.9–88.6) of the tested samples expressed positive results, with relatively uniform distribution within the study years, with the mention that only three farms (A, F, and G) were monitored in each of the study years. The prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in the investigated farms largely varied from 53.3% (farm D) to 100% (farm B).
Results of routine microbiological investigations in the isolation of Campylobacter spp. were molecularly confirmed for all the isolated strains. The species-specific PCR reaction results showed that 175 (63.4%; 95% CI 57.6–68.9) isolates were C. coli, and 101 (36.6%; 95% CI 31.1–42.4) were C. jejuni. In all the investigated farms, C. coli expressed dominant occurrence (Table 1).

2.2. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of the Campylobacter jejuni Isolates

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 101 C. jejuni isolates expressed resistance in descending order towards ciprofloxacin (CIP) (79.2%), nalidixic acid (NA) (78.2%), tetracycline (TET) (49.5%), and streptomycin (STM) (7.9%) (Table 2). All the isolated strains were susceptible to erythromycin (ERY) and gentamycin (GEN). Comparison of the expressed AMR profile results by the isolated C. jejuni strains towards the tested drugs, between the studied years indicated a constant increased trend in the case of NA from 2016 to 2020, and a higher resistance rate in 2018 for CIP, TET, and STM compared with the years of 2016 and 2020.
For thirty-two isolates (31.7%; 95% CI 23.4–41.3), resistance was noticed against antimicrobials from the quinolones group (CIP + NA), with resistance percentages of 37.7%, 17.4%, and 29.4% in 2016, 2018, and 2020, respectively (Table 3). Another 41 strains (40.6%; 95% CI 31.5%–50.3) were also accounted as low drug resistance, showing resistance against drugs from the quinolones (CIP and NA), and tetracycline (TET) classes. It is noteworthy that seven (6.9%; 95% CI 3.4–13.6) isolates expressed resistance towards more than three antimicrobials, from different classes, namely quinolones (CIP and NA), tetracyclines (TET), and aminoglycosides (STM). They were classified as MDR [21], with an occurrence, in each of the studies years, in three out of seven investigated farms (Table 3).

3. Discussions

This is the first published study in Romania providing information in the occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in slaughter-age broiler chickens processing cecal matrices. The recorded high overall prevalence value (85.2%) of Campylobacter spp. in the screened broiler chickens suggests their potential reservoir role for human infections. Several studies, conducted at a worldwide level, have investigated the occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in broiler cecal content, highlighting different frequency of isolation rates. Thus, higher values of isolations have been recorded in the Santa Catarina state of Brazil (100%) [27] and the Sharkia Governatore of Egypt (88.6%) [28], but lower in the Pichincha province of Ecuador (69.6%) [29], North Lebanon (67.0%) [30], five provinces of Sri Lanka (63.8%) [31], and the north-east of Tunisia (22.4%) [32]. Considering other available European studies, investigating the occurrence of the commensal Campylobacter spp. in the same matrices of broiler chickens, lower prevalence values have been reported in Italy (78.8%) [33], Greece (73.9%) [34], Hungary (60.1%) [35], and Spain (38.1%) [36]. Variations in the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. among different investigations can be related by several factors, including sample size and sampling methodology, the applied isolation and identification techniques, and the monitored geographical regions or environmental conditions. Likewise, in the present study, large variations in pathogen detection has been recorded between the investigated farms (ranging from 53.3% to 100%), explainable by the implementation of different biosecurity measures and management practices to monitor and control microbial infections.
In the present investigation, C. coli expressed dominant occurrence towards C. jejuni (63.4% vs. 36.6%), with both species having a potential public health threat. As a term of comparison, several studies have demonstrated the same pattern (44.1% vs. 39.5% in Lebanon [30]; 68.7% vs. 18.9% in Ecuador [29]; and 70.6 vs. 29.4 in Italy [37]), while others indicated the dominance of C. jejuni (100% vs. 70.6% in Brazil [27]; 77.4% vs. 22.6% in Egypt [28]; 55.5% vs. 48.8% in Hungary [35]; and 68.9% vs. 31.1% in Tunisia, [32]) in broiler origin samples, but without a clear scientific explanation supporting the irregular variability of these species from one country or region to another.
In the present study, analysis of AMR data of the tested C. jejuni isolates, in the present study, indicated resistance towards four out of six of the tested antimicrobials, namely CIP (79.2%), NA (78.2%), TET (49.5%), and STM (7.9%) (Table 2), either alone or under different combination forms (Table 3). These values of resistance are in line with those reported for broiler-origin C. jejuni strains in the most recently published harmonised epidemiological cut-off value (ECOFF) EFSA and ECDC summarizing report, from the level of EU countries (CIP–72.8%; NA–69.2%; TET–52.7%; STM–15.6%), as well as with the data provided by Romania (CIP–82.0%; NA–80.4%; TET–57.4%; STM–9.9%) (22). As has been previously highlighted by [38,39,40], it is noteworthy that all strains were susceptible against ERY and GEN, even if Romania was accounted as contributing country (ERY–2.2%; GEN–1.2%) in 2020 to the recorded low resistance rate to these drugs at the EU countries level (ERY–0.8%; GEN–0.1%). Other studies monitoring the antimicrobial susceptibility profile of broiler-origin C. jejuni isolates, conducted in different slaughtering units of the Transylvania region of Romania, indicated different resistance patterns for CIP (100%, [26]; 9.1%, [25]), NA (100% [26]; 9.1% [25]), and TET (100%, [26]; 31.8%, [25]), and total susceptibility for STM, ERY and GEN (0.0% [25,26]). The recorded differences between these results can constitute an important indicator of antimicrobial use, as well as AMR in Romanian broiler farms. In addition, different representative investigations, conducted at the worldwide level, underscored a wide variable resistance spectrum of the tested C. jejuni strains for CIP (98.9% in Tunisia [32]; 97.9% in Ecuador [29]; 58.7% in Lithuania [39]; 42.4% [41] and 39.0% [37] in Italy), NA (100% in Ecuador [29]; 77.8% in Hungary [35]; 60.3% in Lithuania [39]; 57.1% in Tunisia [32]; and 45.3% [41] and 39.0% [37] in Italy), TET (100% in Tunisia [32]; 83.3% in Ecuador [29]; 33% in Hungary [35]; 26.4% in Lithuania [39]; 25.0% [41] and 22.2% in Bulgaria [42]; and 10% [37] in Italy), STM (29.0% [37] and 1.6% [41] in Italy; 8.3% in Sri Lanka [31]; 5.9% in Lithuania [39]), ERY (100% in Tunisia [32]; 4.4% in Bulgaria [42]; 4.2% in Ecuador [29]; 3.1% in Italy [41]; 1.6% in Hungary [35]), and GEN (14.3% in Tunisia [32]; 1.6% in Italy [41]).
An overview of the recorded great variations in AMR of C. jejuni strains in these studies, from extremely high (especially in case of quinolones and tetracyclines), to relatively low (aminoglycosides), can be accounted for by different levels of uncontrolled usage of these antimicrobials in veterinary medicine with therapeutic or prophylactic purposes. This idea is reinforced by the recorded constant increased resistance trend for NA from 2016 to 2020.
Of note, we found seven (6.9%) MDR C. jejuni isolates. This value is much lower than the ones previously published in Romania (100%, [26]; 40.9%, [25]) and, in general, in other studies reporting the worrisome MDR phenomenon for broiler-origin C. jejuni strains in Algeria (100%, [43]); Portugal (74.4%, [44]) and Tunisia (100% [32]). These findings are linked by the unrestricted and preferred usage of some antimicrobials, without any prescription, in the poultry industry, highlighting the urgent need to control antimicrobials usage in animal production.
The recorded total susceptibility against macrolides and some aminoglycosides of the tested C. jejuni strains in the present study suggests that ERY and GEN can still be used as promising tools for the management of human campylobacteriosis cases. Among the antimicrobial classes tested in the present investigation, macrolides are considered the first line drugs for Campylobacter infections treatment, beside quinolones and aminoglycosides, which has a lesser extent, whereas tetracyclines constitute and alternative option [45].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sample Collection

The study was undertaken in the years 2016, 2018 and 2020, respectively. A total of 324 randomly selected broiler chicken cecal samples were collected during the slaughtering process in seven slaughterhouses (A, B, C, D, E, F, G), located in three north-western Transylvanian counties (Maramureș, Satu-Mare and Cluj) of Romania. Thus, 180 samples were collected in 2016, 89 samples in 2018, and 55 samples in 2020. The samples were collected monthly, within the national AMR monitoring program of indicator poultry for commensal and zoonotic bacteria, in accordance with the EU Decision No. 652/2013 [46]. The study included birds between 36 and 51 days of life, free of antimicrobial treatments, with different farm origins, in each of the enrolled slaughterhouses. All the investigated broiler chicken farms were designed for intensive production. The samples were placed in sterile plastic containers, stored, and transported under refrigeration (~4 °C) conditions, in an isothermal box, to the microbiology laboratory of a sanitary veterinary directorate of a north-western county. The samples were submitted for microbiological examination within 24 h of their arrival to the laboratory.

4.2. Isolation, and Molecular Identification of Campylobacter spp.

The detection and identification of Campylobacter spp. commensal strains were performed by direct plating from broiler cecum samples, according to the ISO 10272-1:2017 standard [47]. In brief, a small incision was made at the cecum level, and a loopful (10 µL) of the content was streaked onto the first half of Butzler (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, UK), and Charcoal Cefoperazone Deoycholate (mCCDA) (Oxoid Ltd.) selective agars. Next, a second sterile plastic loop was used to inoculate the second half of the plates in the same way. The C. jejuni ATCC 33291 and C. coli ATCC 43478 served as positive control reference strains, to ensure the specific and relevant results. The plates were incubated at 41.5 °C, for 44 h, in microaerobic environment (5% O2, 10% CO2, 85% N2) in jars, using microaerobic bags (Thermo ScientificTM, Waltham, MA, USA), and then examined. Approximately four typical suspected colonies of presumptive Campylobacter spp. were selected and picked up onto a non-selective Columbia blood agar plate (Oxoid Ltd.,), and then incubated for 44 h, at 41.5 °C, in microaerobic conditions in order to obtain pure colonies.
After the incubation period, the morphology and motility of the freshly grown pure colonies, together with their growing capacity at 25 °C, were studied. In addition, the biochemical characterization of the presumed Campylobacter isolates, including the catalase and oxidase tests (oxidase detection strips, Oxoid Ltd.) were performed. Isolates, identified as Campylobacter spp., were subsequently submitted to the Institute for Hygiene and Public Health, București, Romania for confirmation of Campylobacter genus, and differentiation at species level, by using a simplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The genus and species-specific primers set and cycling conditions were used as previously designed by Linton et al. [48].

4.3. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests of C. jejuni

Following the EU Decision No. 652/2013 recommendation [46], only the isolated C. jejuni (n = 101) strains were tested using the microdilution (MIC) technique. The grown colonies on Columbia blood agar (Oxoid Ltd.) were prepared in Tryptic soy broth, and adjusted to a turbidity of 0.5 McFarland standard. The resulted mixture was seeded in Müeller–Hinton broth (Oxoid Ltd.), supplemented with 2.5–5% lysed horse blood, and subsequently distributed into EUCAMP microtitre plates with concentrations of the following antimicrobials: ERY (1–128 µg/mL), CIP (0.125–16 µg/mL), TET (0.5–64 µg/mL), GEN (0.125–16 µg/mL), NA (1–64 µg/mL), and STM (0.25–16 µg/mL). After inoculation, the microplates were incubated at 37 °C, in a microaerobic atmosphere, for 48 h. The results were interpretated according to EUCAST breakpoints (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing) [49].

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated a high frequency of Campylobacter spp. isolation (85.2%) from the tested broiler chicken cecum samples, confirming their reservoir status for human campylobacteriosis. In addition, our results provided evidence that the AMR phenomenon is common among the isolated C. jejuni strains, particularly towards quinolones and tetracyclines. Likewise, the emergence of MDR strains reinforces the necessity to reduce the routine use of antimicrobials in the poultry industry, or to replace them with medicinal plant-derived alternative drugs. Even if the provided phenotypic AMR data of the present investigation can be considered suggestive, further studies, focusing on the molecular evidence of AMR and virulence genes, beside the molecular typing of phenotypically similar Campylobacter isolates, along the entire food chain, are still necessary, in order to improve the necessary knowledge for control of human campylobacteriosis in our country.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M., H.M. and K.I.; methodology, A.B.-C.; software, M.I.; validation, A.B.-C., E.T., V.H., D.M., M.I., U.A. and H.M.; formal analysis, A.M., M.I. and H.M.; investigation, S.A.P.; resources E.T.; data curation, S.A.P. and U.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.P. and K.I.; writing—review and editing, A.M, A.B.-C., K.I.S., D.M., T.F. and K.I.; visualization, U.A.; supervision, A.M., E.T. and K.I.S.; funding acquisition, V.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is supported by the project “Increasing the impact of excellence research on the capacity for innovation and technology transfer within USAMVB Timișoara” code 6PFE, submitted in the competition Program 1—development of the national system of research—development, Subprogram 1.2—institutional performance, institutional development projects—development projects of excellence in RDI.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. García-Sánchez, L.; Melero, B.; Rovira, J. Campylobacter in the Food Chain. Adv Food Nutr Res. 2018, 86, 215–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Butzler, J.P. Campylobacter, from obscurity to celebrity. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2004, 10, 868–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Silva, J.; Leite, D.; Fernandes, M.; Mena, C.; Gibbs, P.A.; Teixeira, P. Campylobacter spp. as a Foodborne Pathogen: A Review. Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Arsenault, J.; Letellier, A.; Quessy, S.; Boulianne, M. Prevalence and risk factors for Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. carcass contamination in broiler chickens slaughtered in Quebec, Canada. J Food Prot. 2007, 70, 1820–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Nylen, G.; Dunstan, F.; Palmer, S.R.; Andersson, Y.; Bager, F.; Cowden, J.; Feierl, G.; Galloway, Y.; Kapperud, G.; Megraud, F.; et al. The seasonal distribution of Campylobacter infection in nine European countries and New Zealand. Epidemiol. Infect. 2002, 128, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Agunos, A.; Waddell, L.; Léger, D.; Taboada, E.A. Systematic Review Characterizing On-farm Sources of Campylobacter spp. for Broiler Chickens. PLoS ONE. 2014, 9, e104905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Kvalsvig, A.; Baker, M.G.; Sears, A.; French, N. Encyclopedia of Food Safety; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 369–381. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sheppard, S.K.; Dallas, J.F.; Strachan, N.J.; MacRae, M.; Mc Carthy, N.D.; Wilson, D.J.; Gormley, F.J.; Falush, D.; Oqden, I.D.; Maiden, M.C.; et al. Campylobacter genotyping to determine the source of human infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009, 48, 1072–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Skarp, C.P.A.; Hännien, M.L.; Rautelin, H.I.K. Campylobacteriosis: The role of poultry meat. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Allen, V.M.; Bull, S.A.; Corry, J.E.; Domingue, G.; Jørgensen, F.; Frost, J.A.; Whyte, R.; Gonzalez, A.; Elviss, N.; Humphrey, T.J. Campylobacter spp. contamination of chicken carcasses during processing in relation to flock colonisation. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 113, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sallam, K.I.; Abd-Elghany, S.M.; Imre, K.; Morar, A.; Herman, V.; Hussein, M.A.; Mahros, M.A. Ensuring safety and improving keeping quality of meatballs by addition of sesame oil and sesamol as natural antimicrobial and antioxidant agents. Food Microbiol. 2021, 99, 103834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hrustemović, E.; Čaklovica, F.; Đeđibegović, J. Food pathogen of chicken meat Campylobacter spp.: A review. AgroLife Sci. J. 2022, 11, 80–85. [Google Scholar]
  13. Imre, K.; Herman, V.; Morar, A. Scientific Achievements in the Study of the Occurrence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile of Major Foodborne Pathogenic Bacteria in Foods and Food Processing Environments in Romania: Review of the Last Decade. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 5134764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huang, J.; Zang, X.; Lei, T.; Ren, F.; Jiao, X. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in Pig Slaughtering Line in Eastern China: Analysis of Contamination Sources. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2020, 17, 712–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Allos, B.M. Association between Campylobacter infection and Guillain-Barre syndrome. J. Infect. Dis. 1997, 176, S125–S128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Sillero, M.; Almirall, J. Campylobacter jejuni and hemolytic-uremic syndrome. Nephron 1999, 82, 363–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moore, J.E.; Corcoran, D.; Dooley, J.S.G.; Fanning, S.; Lucey, B.; Matsuda, M.; McDowell, D.A.; Mégraud, F.; Millar, B.C.; O’Mahony, R. Campylobacter. Vet. Res. 2005, 36, 351–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Rivera-Gomis, J.; Marín, P.; Martínez-Conesa, C.; Otal, J.; Jordán, M.J.; Escudero, E.; Cubero, M.J. Antimicrobial Resistance of Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis Commensal Isolates from Laying Hen Farms in Spain. Animals 2021, 11, 1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Popa, S.A.; Morar, A.; Ban-Cucerzan, A.; Imre, K. Last decade mini-review of the scientific progresses in the monitoring of the occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of poultry origin Campylobacter spp. within the European Union countries. Rev. Rom. Med. Vet. 2022, 32, 75–82. [Google Scholar]
  20. Englen, M.D.; Hill, A.E.; Dargatz, D.A.; Ladely, S.R.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter in US dairy cattle. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 102, 1570–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Magiorakos, A.P.; Srinivasan, A.; Carey, R.B.; Carmeli, Y.; Falagas, M.E.; Giske, C.G.; Harbarth, S.; Hindler, J.F.; Kahlmeter, G.; Olsson-Liljequist, B.; et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: An international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2018/2019. EFSA J. 2021, 19, e06490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wallace, R.L.; Bulach, D.; McLure, A.; Varrone, L.; Jennison, A.V.; Valcanis, M.; Smith, J.J.; Polkinghorne, B.G.; Glass, K.; Kirk, M.D. Antimicrobial Resistance of Campylobacter spp. Causing Human Infection in Australia: An International Comparison. Microb. Drug Resist. 2021, 27, 518–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union One Health 2019 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2021, 19, e06406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dan, S.D.; Tăbăran, A.; Mihaiu, L.; Mihaiu, M. Antibiotic susceptibility and prevalence of foodborne pathogens in poultry meat in Romania. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2015, 9, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Tîrziu, E.; Bărbălan, G.; Morar, A.; Herman, V.; Cristina, R.T.; Imre, K. Occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of Salmonella spp. in raw and ready-to-eat foods and Campylobacter spp. in retail raw chicken meat in Transylvania, Romania. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2020, 17, 479–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Giombelli, A.; Gloria, M.B.A. Prevalence of Salmonella and Campylobacter on broiler chickens from farm to slaughter and efficiency of methods to remove visible fecal contamination. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 1851–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ammar, A.M.; Abd El-Hamid, M.I.; El-Malt, R.M.S.; Azab, D.S.; Albogami, S.; Bendary, M.M. Molecular detection of fluoroquinolone resistance among multidrug-, extensively drug-, and pan-drug-resistant Campylobacter species in Egypt. J. Antibiot. 2021, 10, 1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vinueza-Burgos, C.; Wautier, M.; Martiny, D.; Cisneros, M.; Van Damme, I.; De Zutter, L. Prevalence, antimicrobial resistance and genetic diversity of Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni in Ecuadorian broilers at slaughter age. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 2366–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Greige, S.; Rivoal, K.; Osman, M.; Safadi, D.E.; Dabboussi, F.; Hage, R.E.; Viscogliosi, E.; Hamze, M.; Chemaly, M. Prevalence and genetic diversity of Campylobacter spp. in the production chain of broiler chickens in Lebanon and its association with the intestinal protozoan Blastocystis sp. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 5883–5891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kalupahana, R.S.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Kottawatta, S.A.; Somarathne, S.; Gamage, C.; Wagenaar, J.A. Weather correlates of Campylobacter prevalence in broilers at slaughter under tropical conditions in Sri Lanka. Epidemiol. Infect. 2018, 146, 972–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Gharbi, M.; Béjaoui, A.; Ben Hamda, C.; Jouini, A.; Ghedira, K.; Zrelli, C. Prevalence and antibiotic resistance patterns of Campylobacter spp. isolated from broiler chickens in the north of Tunisia. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 7943786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Iannetti, S.; Calistri, P.; Di Serafino, G.; Marotta, F.; Alessiani, A.; Antoci, S.; Neri, D.; Perilli, M.; Iannitto, G.; Iannetti, L.; et al. Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli: Prevalence, contamination levels, genetic diversity and antibiotic resistance in Italy. Vet. Ital. 2020, 56, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Natsos, G.; Mouttotou, N.K.; Magiorkinis, E.; Ioannidis, A.; Rodi-Burriel, A.; Chatzipanagiotou, S.; Koutoulis, K.C. Prevalence of and risk factors for Campylobacter spp. colonization of broiler chicken flocks in Greece. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2020, 17, 679–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Schweitzer, N.; Dán, Á.; Kaszanyitzky, É.; Samu, P.; Tóth, Á.G.; Varga, J.; Damjanova, I. Molecular epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolates in poultry, swine, and cattle origin collected from slaughterhouses in Hungary. J. Food Prot. 2011, 74, 905–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Torralbo, A.; Borge, C.; Allepuz, A.; García-Bocanegra, I.; Sheppard, S.K.; Perea, A.; Carbonero, A. Prevalence and risk factors of Campylobacter infection in broiler flocks from southern Spain. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 114, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pergola, S.; Franciosini, M.P.; Comitini, F.; Ciani, M.; De Luca, S.; Bellucci, S.; Menchetti, L.; Casagrande Proietti, P. Genetic Diversity and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni Isolated from broiler chicken in farms and at time of slaughter in central Italy. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 122, 1348–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Haruna, M.; Sasaki, Y.; Murakami, M.; Ikeda, A.; Kusukawa, M.; Tsujiyama, Y.; Ito, K.; Asai, T.; Yamada, Y. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter in broiler flocks in Japan. Zoonoses Public Health 2012, 59, 241–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ruzauskas, M.; Virgailis, M.; Siugzdiniene, R.; Zienius, D.; Mockeliunas, R. Differences in antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from broiler intestines and drumsticks in Lithuania. J. Food Saf. 2011, 31, 379–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pollett, S.; Rocha, C.; Zerpa, R.; Patiño, L.; Valencia, A.; Camiña, M.; Guevara, J.; Lopez, M.; Chuquiray, N.; Salazar-Lindo, E.; et al. Campylobacter antimicrobial resistance in Peru: A ten-year observational study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2012, 12, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Pezzotti, G.; Serafin, A.; Luzzi, I.; Mioni, R.; Milan, M.; Perin, R. Occurrence and resistance to antibiotics of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in animals and meat in northeastern Italy. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 82, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Urumova, V.; Stoyanchev, T.; Lyutskanov, M.; Daskalov, H.; Vashin, I.; Maramski, A. Antimicrobial sensitivity of Campylobacter jejuni poultry isolates from the Republic of Bulgaria. J. Fac. Vet. Med. Istanbul. Univ. 2014, 40, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Messad, S.; Hamdi, T.-M.; Bouhamed, R.; Ramdani-Bouguessa, N.; Tazir, M. Frequency of contamination and antimicrobial resistance of thermotolerant Campylobacter isolated from some broiler farms and slaughterhouses in the region of Algiers. Food Cont. 2014, 40, 324–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fraqueza, M.; Martins, A.; Borges, A.; Fernandes, M.; Fernandes, M.; Vaz, Y.; Bessa, R.J.B.; Barreto, A.S. Antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter spp. strains isolated from different poultry production systems at slaughterhouse level. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 1578–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Allos, B.M. Campylobacter jejuni infections: Update on emerging issues and trends. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2001, 32, 1201–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. EU. Commission implementing decision 2013/652/EU of 12 November 2013 on the monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and commensal bacteria. Off. J. Eur. Union L 2013, 303, 26–39. [Google Scholar]
  47. ISO 10272-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for Detection and Enumeration of Campylobacter spp.—Part 1: Detection Method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  48. Linton, D.; Lawson, A.J.; Owen, R.J.; Stanley, J. PCR Detection, Identification to species level, and fingerprinting of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli direct from diarrheic samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1997, 35, 2568–2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint Tables for Interpretation of MICs and Zone Diameters. Available online: http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/ (accessed on 27 September 2022).
Table
Table 1. Distribution of the identified Campylobacter spp. in the tested broiler chicken cecum samples, according to their origin and study year.
Table 1. Distribution of the identified Campylobacter spp. in the tested broiler chicken cecum samples, according to their origin and study year.
Farm/SlaughterhouseCampylobacter spp.Study YearsTotal (%)
201620182020
Positive/Total Investigated (%)
AC. coli11/30 (36.7)6/9 (66.7)9/13 (69.2)26/52 (50.0)
C. jejuni13/30 (43.3)1/9 (11.1)4/13 (30.8)18/52 (34.6)
Neg.6/30 (20.0)2/9 (22.2)0/13 (0.0)8/52 (15.4)
BC. coli8/10 (80.0)N.A.N.A.8/10 (80.0)
C. jejuni2/10 (20.0)N.A.N.A.2/10 (20.0)
Neg.0/10 (0.0)N.A.N.A.0/10 (0.0)
CC. coli15/20 (75.0)N.A.N.A.15/20 (75.0)
C. jejuni3/20 (15.0)N.A.N.A.3/20 (15.0)
Neg.2/20 (10.0)N.A.N.A.2/20 (10.0)
DC. coli9/30 (30.0)N.A.N.A.9/30 (30.0)
C. jejuni7/30 (23.3)N.A.N.A.7/30 (23.3)
Neg.14/30 (46.6)N.A.N.A.14/30 (46.7)
EC. coli12/30 (40.0)15/18 (83.3)N.A.27/48 (56.2)
C. jejuni15/30 (50.0)3/18 (16.7)N.A.18/48 (37.5)
Neg.3/30 (10.0)0/18 (0.0)N.A.3/48 (6.3)
FC. coli15/30 (50.0)18/29 (62.0)11/22 (50.0)44/70 (62.8)
C. jejuni10/30 (33.3)9/29 (31.1)5/22 (22.7)24/70 (34.3)
Neg.5/30 (16.7)2/29 (6.9)6/22 (27.3)13/70 (18.4)
GC. coli15/30 (50.0)20/33 (60.6)11/20 (55.0)46/83 (55.4)
C. jejuni11/30 (36.7)10/33 (30.3)8/20 (40.0)29/83 (34.9)
Neg.4/30 (13.3)3/33 (9.1)1/20 (5.0)8/83 (9.7)
Totaln.a.146/180 (81.1)82/89 (92.1)48/55 (87.3)n.a.
Legend: Neg.= negative; N.A. = not available; n.a. = not applicable.
Table
Table 2. Antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni strains.
Table 2. Antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni strains.
AntimicrobialsCut-Off
Values		MIC Breackpoint (µg/mL)No. of Resistant /Total Investigated (%) C. jejuni Strains in the Study YearsTotal
(%)
SR201620182020
Erythromycin411280/61 (0.0)0/23 (0.0)0/17 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Ciprofloxacin0.50.1251642/61 (68.9)23/23 (100)15/17 (88.2)80 (79.2)
Tetracycline10.56424/61 (39.3)18/23 (78.3)10/17 (58.8)52 (49.5)
Gentamicin20.125160/61 (0.0)0/23 (0.0)0/17 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Nalidixic acid1616440/61 (65.6)22/23 (95.7)17/17 (100)79 (78.2)
Streptomycin40.25164/61 (6.6)3/23 (13.0)1/17 (5.9)8 (7.9)
Legend: S = susceptible; R = resistant.
Table
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance profile of the isolated Campylocater jejuni strains (n = 101).
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance profile of the isolated Campylocater jejuni strains (n = 101).
Farm/
Slaughterhouse		Resistance to Antimicrobial Profile of Campylobacter jejuni Isolates (%) during the Study Years
201620182020
CIP+NACIP+TET+
NA		CIP+TET+NA+
STM		CIP+NACIP+TET+
NA		CIP+TET+NA+
STM		CIP+NACIP+TET+
NA		CIP+TET+NA+
STM
A10/13 (76.9)0/13 (0.0)0/13 (0.0)1/1 (100)0/1 (0.0)0/1 (0.0)3/4 (75.0)0/4 (0.0)0/4 (0.0)
B2/2 (100)0/2 (0.0)0/2 (0.0)N.A.N.A.
C2/3 (66.7)0/3 (0.0)0/3 (0.0)N.A.N.A.
D0/7 (0.0)0/7 (0)3/7 (42.8)N.A.N.A.
E3/15 (20.0)7/15 (46.7)0/15 (0.0)0/3 (0.0)2/3 (66.6)1/3 (33.3)N.A.
F0/10 (0.0)5/10 (50.0)0/10 (0.0)1/9 (11.1)6/9 (66.6)1/9 (11.1)1/5 (20.0)4/5 (80.0)0/5 (0.0)
G5/11 (45.4)3/11 (27.3)0/11 (0.0)2/10 (20.0)8/10 (80.0)1/10 (10.0)1/8 (12.5)6/8 (75.0)1/8 (12.5)
Total23/61 (37.7)15/61 (24.6)3/61 (4.9)4/23 (17.4)16/23 (69.6)3/23 (13.1)5/17 (29.4)10/17 (58.8)1/17 (5.9)
Legend: N.A.= not available, CIP—ciprofloxacin, NA—nalidixic acid, TET—tetracycline, STM—streptomycin.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Popa, S.A.; Morar, A.; Ban-Cucerzan, A.; Tîrziu, E.; Herman, V.; Sallam, K.I.; Morar, D.; Acaroz, U.; Imre, M.; Florea, T.; et al. Occurrence of Campylobacter spp. and Phenotypic Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Campylobacter jejuni in Slaughtered Broiler Chickens in North-Western Romania. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1713. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11121713

AMA Style

Popa SA, Morar A, Ban-Cucerzan A, Tîrziu E, Herman V, Sallam KI, Morar D, Acaroz U, Imre M, Florea T, et al. Occurrence of Campylobacter spp. and Phenotypic Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Campylobacter jejuni in Slaughtered Broiler Chickens in North-Western Romania. Antibiotics. 2022; 11(12):1713. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11121713

Chicago/Turabian Style

Popa, Sebastian Alexandru, Adriana Morar, Alexandra Ban-Cucerzan, Emil Tîrziu, Viorel Herman, Khalid Ibrahim Sallam, Doru Morar, Ulaș Acaroz, Mirela Imre, Tijana Florea, and et al. 2022. "Occurrence of Campylobacter spp. and Phenotypic Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Campylobacter jejuni in Slaughtered Broiler Chickens in North-Western Romania" Antibiotics 11, no. 12: 1713. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11121713

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