Prevalence and serotypes of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in dairy cattle from Northern Portugal

Andressa Ballem; Soraia Gonçalves; Isidro Garcia-Meniño; Saskia C. Flament-Simon; Jesús E. Blanco; Conceição Fernandes; Maria José Saavedra; Carlos Pinto; Hugo Oliveira; Jorge Blanco; Gonçalo Almeida; Carina Almeida

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244713

Abstract

The prevalence of Shiga toxin (Stx)-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) was determined by evaluating its presence in faecal samples from 155 heifers, and 254 dairy cows in 21 farms at North of Portugal sampled between December 2017 and June 2019. The prevalence of STEC in heifers (45%) was significantly higher than in lactating cows (16%) (p<0.05, Fisher exact test statistic value is <0.00001). A total of 133 STEC were isolated, 24 (13.8%) carried Shiga-toxin 1 (stx1) genes, 69 (39.7%) carried Shiga-toxin 2 (stx2) genes, and 40 (23%) carried both stx1 and stx2. Intimin (eae) virulence gene was detected in 29 (21.8%) of the isolates. STEC isolates belonged to 72 different O:H serotypes, comprising 40 O serogroups and 23 H types. The most frequent serotypes were O29:H12 (15%) and O113:H21 (5.2%), found in a large number of farms. Two isolates belonged to the highly virulent serotypes associated with human disease O157:H7 and O26:H11. Many other bovine STEC serotypes founded in this work belonged to serotypes previously described as pathogenic to humans. Thus, this study highlights the need for control strategies that can reduce STEC prevalence at the farm level and, thus, prevent food and environmental contamination.

Citation: Ballem A, Gonçalves S, Garcia-Meniño I, Flament-Simon SC, Blanco JE, Fernandes C, et al. (2020) Prevalence and serotypes of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in dairy cattle from Northern Portugal. PLoS ONE 15(12): e0244713. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244713

Editor: Dov Joseph Stekel, University of Nottingham, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: July 8, 2020; Accepted: December 16, 2020; Published: December 31, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Ballem et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This study was financially supported by: i) project PhageSTEC (POCI-01-0145 -FEDER-029628) funded by FEDER through COMPETE2020 (Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização) and by National Funds thought FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia); ii) strategic project UIDB/04469/2020 unit and BioTecNorte operation (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000004) funded by FCT under the scope of the European Regional Development Fund (Norte2020 - Programa Operacional Regional do Norte); iii) project PI16/01477 from Plan Estatal de I+D+I 2013-2016, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), Subdirección General de Evaluación y Fomento de la Investigación, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Gobierno de España) and FEDER; and iv) grant ED431C2017/57 from the Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, (Xunta de Galicia) and FEDER; UIDB/AGR/04033/2020 by National Funds thought FCT. Author IGM acknowledges the Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia for the individual grant ED481A-2015/149 and and author SCFS acknowledges the FPU programme for the individual grant FPU15/02644 from the Secretaría General de Universidades, Spanish Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are a heterogeneous group of foodborne pathogens with various levels of virulence for humans and are defined by the presence of one or both phage-encoded Shiga toxin genes: Shiga-toxin 1 (stx1) and Shiga-toxin 2 (stx2) [1, 2]. STEC cause clinical illness in humans, ranging from uncomplicated non-bloody diarrhoea to severe diseases, such as acute gastroenteritis, haemorrhagic colitis (HC) and the life-threatening haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) [3, 4].

In 2018, 8161 human cases of STEC infections were confirmed in Europe. In fact, in the European Union, STEC ranks the third place on the most relevant foodborne pathogens, behind Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. [5].

The stx genes are responsible for producing the Shiga toxins (Stx), also called Verotoxins. These toxins are grouped into two types, Stx1 and Stx2, each one including several variants that contribute for different virulence degrees. Subtypes within Stx1 include Stx1a, Stx1c and Stx1d, while for Stx2 seven subtypes (Stx2a, Stx2b, Stx2c, Stx2d, Stx2e, Stx2f, Stx2g) are well-established among the scientific community [6, 7]. Additionally, two new variants of Stx2 (Stx2h and Stx2k) have been recently identified [8, 9].

There are other virulence factors expressed by STEC such as, the protein intimin, coded by eae gene, that is associated with the capacitive of STEC to colonize the human gut and cause illness [10–12]. The intimin is responsible for intimate attachment of STEC to intestinal epithelial cells, causing attaching and effacing lesions in the intestinal mucosa. It is located at the pathogenicity island known as the locus of enterocyte effacement (LEE) [13].

The main STEC serotype associated with outbreaks and serious diseases in humans is O157:H7. However, the increase of outbreaks caused by non-O157 has given a warning signal to the virulence potential of other serotypes [2, 14].

STEC are found in a wide variety of animal species, as a natural inhabitant of gut. Ruminants, including cattle, are the most important reservoir of the zoonotic STEC. These pathogens can be transmitted to humans through many different routes, but contaminated food, by contact with faecal material, has been described as the main transmission route [15–18].

Beef and milk are the main animal food products responsible for outbreaks reported between 1998 and 2016 [19]. Because of this, the surveillance on the prevalent STEC serotypes, and stx subtypes, in cattle gut, is crucial to prevent transmission to humans and to design tailored control strategies against STEC.

In Portugal, there are no reports on the prevalence of STEC in dairy cattle and other ruminants. So, in this study we investigate the prevalence of STEC in healthy dairy cattle (lactating cows and heifers). Isolates were screened for the presence of major virulence genes and serotypes were determined.

Materials and methods ethics statement

The study has been validated by a specialized panel composed by a veterinary physician, and two authorized persons to perform animal experimentation, with accreditation number 020/08 by FELASA—Federation of Laboratory Animal Science Associations. Animals were enrolled under the permission of farms’ owners. No additional approvals were required by the authority as samples were collected during a standard procedure of rectal examination performed by a veterinary physician, which is an integral part of a thorough clinical examination in cows. This study was conducted in accordance with the E.U. Animal Welfare Directives (Directive 98/58/CE and Decreto-lei no 64/2000).

Farms selection and collection of samples

Milk farms enrolled in this study were from the north-west region. This particular area, placed at “Entre Douro e Minho”, has a high frequency of dairy herds and is usually referred to as the “Bacia leiteira primária”. Farms were distributed in 12 different counties: Barcelos, Vila do Conde, Póvoa de Varzim, Ponte de Lima, Guimarães, Vila Nova de Cerveira, Chaves, Miranda do Douro, Vimioso, Povoa de Lanhoso, Penafiel and Paços de Ferreira (Fig 1). Only farms with a documented herd size of more than 50 dairy cows or heifers were sampled. A total of 21 milk farms (S1 Table) were enrolled and faecal samples were collected randomly directly from the rectum of healthy animals, between December 2017 and June 2019. Farms distribution is presented in Fig 1. Map was created using MicroStation v8 (Bentley Systems, Incorporated). All farms kept animals indoors, in open stables, but, at times, animals were given the opportunity to graze outside. The animals were categorized into two groups: lactating dairy cows (more than 24 months of age) and heifers (age between 6 and 18 months). All animals sampled were of the Holstein-Friesian breed.

Download:

Fig 1. Map of North of Portugal showing the dairy farms sampled for STEC screening.

The farm location and number of sampled animals can be consulted in S1 Table. Map was constructed using open data (public domain) from the Portuguese government that have Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) and was available at https://dados.gov.pt/pt/datasets/concelhos-de-portugal/ access on 12 February.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244713.g001

The minimum sample size of about 300 animals was calculated using the standard formula described by Thrusfield et al. [20] with confidence level of 0.95 and a margin of error of 0.05. Also, it was based on the assumption of a 27% prevalence of carriage described by Blanco et al. (2004) [12] in a prevalence study, in the neighbouring country Spain, in cattle samples collected between 1993 and 1995. A sample of 10% of the animals (lactating cows and heifers) was collected whenever possible at each farm, ranging from a minimum of 5 animals to a maximum of 20 per farm. A total of 409 samples from 254 (62.1%) adults lactating dairy cow, and 155 (37.9%) heifers, were collected and transported to the laboratory in portable, insulated cold boxes. The samples were kept at 4°C and examined within 24h.

Isolation/ detection of STEC

The method used for isolation/ detection of STEC was adapted from ISO/TS 13136:2012 (E) [21]. Ten grams of faeces were placed in 90 mL of modified Tryptone Soy Broth media supplemented with 20 mg. L^-1 of novobiocin (mTSB+N), homogenized in a blend bag with filter and incubated at 37°C for 18 h to 24 h. Enrichment broth was subjected to multiplex real-time PCR to detect stx genes. Enrichment broths positive for stx genes were streaked onto MacConkey Sorbitol agar (SMAC) and Tryptone bile x-glucuronide medium (TBX) and incubated at 37°C for 18 h to 24 h. Then, 50 single colonies with E. coli morphology were picked up from TBX and SMAC and point-inoculated on nutrient agar (NA). Plates were incubated at 37°C for 18 h to 24 h. The 50 colonies were organized in 5 pools of 10 colonies each, and pools were then subjected to real-time PCR as described below. For pools positive to stx genes, the single colonies were analysed individually again. Isolates containing one or more stx genes were preserved at -80°C. For pools with several stx-positive colonies, but with the same profile, only one colony was selected for storage and further analysis.

DNA template preparation

DNA extraction from enrichment was performed according to the U. S. Food, Drug & Administration in Bacteriological Analytical Manual: Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli [22]. Briefly, 1 mL of overnight enrichment in mTSB+N was transferred to a microtube and centrifuged (12,000 × g) for 3 min. The pellet was washed with 1 ml 0.85% NaCl and centrifuged again at 12,000 × g for 3 min. The pellet was suspended in 1 ml of sterile ultrapure water. The microtubes were placed in a heat block at 100°C for 15 min and then centrifuged 12,000 × g for 1 minute. The supernatant was diluted 10-fold in ultrapure sterile water.

Pure cultures (including control cultures) and pools from agar plate were suspended in microtubes with 1 mL of sterile ultrapure water, placed in a heat block at 100°C for 15 min and centrifuged 12,000 × g for 1 minute. The supernatant was then used for real-time PCR screening. This procedure for template preparation has been previously tested in enriched faeces samples, artificially inoculated with STEC, to assure an appropriate performance in the following PCR-screening steps.

Detection of stx1, stx2 and eae in faecal samples by multiplex real time-PCR

DNA samples from enrichments, pools and single colonies were screened by multiplex real-time PCR for detection of stx1, stx2 and eae gene sequences. This was performed according to ISO/TS 13136:2012(E) [21]. Primers, probes and the predicted lengths of PCR amplification products are listed in Table 1. Plasmid pUC19 was used as internal amplification control to monitor any possible inhibitory effect. PCR assays were carried out in a 25 μL volume containing: 2.5 μL of nucleic acid template, 12.5 μL of commercial real-time PCR Probe Master Mix (2x) (NZYtech), 1 μL of pUC 19 DNA (approximately 100 copies), 0.4 pmol. μL^-1 of each primer and 0.2 pmol. μL^-1 of each probe. DNA samples from E. coli O26 (LMV_E_2, INIAV culture collection), was used as a positive control. Negative controls were included in each run, where template was replaced by sterile ultrapure water. Temperature conditions consisted of an initial 95°C denaturation step for 5 min followed by 39 cycles at 95°C for 10 s (denaturation) and 60°C for 50 s (annealing and extension). For samples with evidence of inhibition (no amplification of the internal control, pUC19), DNA samples were diluted 1/10 and retested.

Download:

Table 1. Primers and probes used for 5’-nuclease real-time-PCR assays^{^a}.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244713.t001

Screening for virulence genes by conventional PCR

Conventional PCR was used for confirming the presence of stx1, stx2 and eae genes. These screening was performed according to Mora et al. (2011) [23]. Primers, PCR conditions and the predicted lengths of PCR amplification products are listed in S2 Table. Multiplex PCR assays for stx1 and stx2 were carried out in a 25 μL volume containing, 5 μL of nucleic acid template, 12.5 μL of commercial Multiplex PCR Master Mix 2x (NZYtech), 1 μL (0.8 pmol. μL^-1) each primer and 2.5 μL of sterile deionized water. For eae confirmation, simplex PCR assays was carried out in a 25 μL volume containing, 5 μL of nucleic acid template, 12.5 μL of commercial Supreme PCR Master Mix 2x (NZYtech), 0.5 μL (0.4 pmol. μL^-1) each primer and 6.5 μL of sterile deionized water.

Serotyping

The determination of O and H antigens was carried out using the method previously described by Guinée et al. (1981) [24] with all available O (O1 to O181) and H (H1 to H56) antisera produced in the Laboratorio de Referencia de E. coli—University of Santiago de Compostela (LREC-USC). To remove nonspecific agglutinins, all antisera were absorbed with cross-reacting antigens. Isolates that did not react with O antisera were classified as nontypeable (ONT) and those non motile were denoted as HNM.

Richness (S), Shannon's diversity (H), Simpson's diversity (D), and Simpson's evenness (E) [25] were calculated using the serotype data obtained for both heifers and lactating cows. Serotypes diversity of the STEC isolates obtained from lactating cows and heifers was determined using Simpson’s numerical index (D) as described by Hunter and Gaston [25]. Values for D range between 0 and 1, with a value of 1 indicating the most diverse population. D depends on the number of serotypes identified by the test method and the relative frequencies of these serotypes and was calculated by the following formula: where N is the total number of unrelated isolates in the sample population, s is the total number of types described, and nj is the number of strains that belong to the j the type.

Results and discussion

STEC prevalence in cattle

A total of 409 animals were sampled in 21 dairy farms from the North of Portugal. A total of 133 STEC isolates were recovered from 112 positive animals, which, overall, gave a prevalence rate of 27.4%. This observation is not surprising when comparing to similar prevalence studies. In Spain, between 1993 and 1995, the overall prevalence rates of STEC colonization were estimated in 37% for calves and 27% for cows [12]. These values were not far from the prevalence values found in Germany (18%) and France (34%) [26, 27]. In the US, a study conducted in Michigan in 2012 has shown STEC prevalence rates of 21% for beef cattle and 13% for dairy cattle [28]. In this work, the prevalence rates were calculated only considering the animals that resulted in the recovery of STEC isolates. Positive samples in enrichment (stx screening), but without STEC isolates, were disregarded. So, their prevalence is likely higher, as STEC is sometimes difficult to be isolated, especially if present in low concentrations. Another important observation is the number of STEC positive farms. All farms sampled in this study were positive for STEC presence, with prevalence rates per farm ranging from 5% to 65.4% (Fig 2A). The results are similar to that found by Blanco et al. (1996) [29] in Spain (STEC found on 84% of the farms and the proportion of animals infected varied from 0–63% and Venegas-Vargas et al. (2016) [28] in the United States, that have reached an overall prevalence of 13%, but with great variability between the sampled farms (6% to 54%). Many factors can be involved in the variability of prevalence rates between farms such as sensitivity and specificity of the methods used to detect STEC isolates, geographical area, year and annual sampling season, water supply, herd size, slurry and manure spreading on pasture, as well as the age of animals [30]. Animal age is usually a crucial factor. STEC were more commonly isolated from young animals, as demonstrated in the present study, where about 45% (70 out of 155) of the heifers were colonized by STEC in opposition to, only 16% of the adult cows (42 out of 254) (p<0.05, Fisher exact test statistic value is <0.00001) (Fig 2B) and this might explain the variations found between farms. This observation has already been reported in other studies [12, 31, 32]. A higher prevalence of STEC in young cattle has been related with a lower diversity of the gut microflora at early ages, which increases as the cattle matured [33]. Also, super-shedders of STEC have been found to be more common among younger animals [34]. Other important factors that can affect STEC prevalence are related with seasonality [35] or even with the immediate environment of the animal [18]. While the management systems were very similar among farms, seasonality has not been taken into account in this study, due to the large sampling period needed to reach the expected sample size. So, these prevalence values can only be seen as an average prevalence data for this particular period. Regarding the stx genes found in STEC isolates 24 (18%) harboured only stx1 genes, 69 (51.9%) possessed stx2 genes, and 40 (30.1%) encoded both stx1 and stx2. The Fig 2C shows the distribution of isolates obtained by heifers and lactating cows according to the presence of stx genes. Overall, differences were found in the number of isolates with only stx1 genes and isolates carrying both stx1 and stx2 genes. For stx1 gene, and while the same number of stx1-positive isolates have been found in heifers (12) and adult cows (12), stx1 isolates have represented 27.3% (12/44) of the STEC isolates recovered from adult cows and 13.5% of the isolates recovered from heifers. In opposition, the number of stx1/stx2-positive strains were higher in heifers, a total of 33 out of 89 (37.1%), than in adult cows, with a total of 7 isolates out of 44 (15.9%). This might be close related with the diversity/serotypes of isolates that are more prevalent in the two groups of animals, as, for instance, more virulence serotypes have been consistently associated with stx2 genes [36].

Download:

Fig 2. Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) in the North of Portugal.

(A)- Prevalence of STEC per farm (error bars show 95% confidence intervals); (B) prevalence in heifers and lactating cows (box plots graph showing median, interquartile range and discrepant points); (C) isolates Stx profile per animal type.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244713.g002

In association with Shiga toxins, the presence of the intimin gene (eae) is another relevant virulence gene commonly assessed in STEC. The intimin causes lesion in the intestine, in association with Shiga toxins and usually defines strains as enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) [37]. Thus, EHEC strains are associated with severe disease outcomes, including haemorrhagic colitis and HUS. Intimin (eae) virulence gene was detected in 29 STEC isolates (21.8%). The frequency of eae was similar in dairy cows and heifers. The fact that eae-positive STEC isolates were quite common is of great relevance as their pathogenic potential is even higher. While the presence of eae is not mandatory in isolates causing haemorrhagic colitis and HUS, its role in E. coli intimate attachment is very well established as an increased risk factor for human health [37, 38]. Assessment of eae presence in other cattle-STEC prevalence studies have reached to similar results, with 12% of the strains showing the presence of this virulence gene in healthy dairy cattle [36, 39]. In Spain the intimin (eae) virulence gene was detected in 29% of the bovine STEC isolates [12].

Serotypes of STEC isolates

The serotype is another relevant property when assessing the virulence potential of STEC, as some specific ones are highly associated with food outbreaks. This is not only related with stx and eae presence, but most probably with the genetic pool of other virulence genes associated with those particular serotypes [40]. On this regard, it is important to bear in mind that the E. coli genome presents high plasticity. While E. coli strains usually contain about 5000 genes, only approximately 3000 compose the species core genome (since they are found in all E. coli genomes). The other ones represent the “accessory genome” that makes the huge heterogeneity and genetic diversity among E. coli strains [41, 42]. Because of this, serotype remains as a valuable tool for epidemiologic studies, not only for establishing the potential source/relationship of relevant isolates, but also to evaluate the clonal and pathogenic potential of isolates. Among the STEC, O157:H7 is the most well-known serotype due to its association with foodborne outbreaks; but there is a worldwide increase in cases of human disease related to non-O157. Serotyping of our STEC isolates identified 72 different O:H serotypes belonging to 40 O serogroups and 23 H (flagellar) types including non-motile (HNM) and non-typeable (NT) isolates (Table 2).

Download:

Table 2. Diversity and frequency of STEC serotypes isolated from dairy cattle (lactating cows and heifers) faeces.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244713.t002

The serotypes Richness found in heifers was higher (50 serotypes) than that found in the milking cows (35 serotypes); nonetheless, Simpson indexes of diversity were very high in both populations (Table 3), either using only the serotypes data or the serotypes associated with the stx-profile of the strains. This is probably due to the fact that serotype O29:H12 dominates in this population (representing 19 of the 50 serotypes found).

Download:

Table 3. Richness and diversity estimation for the STEC serotypes found in heifers and lactating cows.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244713.t003

In fact, the most frequent serotypes was O29:H12 (15%), followed by O113:H21 (5.2%). The serotype O29:H12 was mainly found in heifer faeces (20 isolates) and was present at five different farms, while the seven isolates of serotype O113:H21 was distributed in four farms and it was found in heifer and lactating cow faeces (Table 2). The serotype O113:H21 is considered one of the relevant non-O157 STEC serotypes associated with severe human infections [26] and it has been reportedly associated with dairy cattle [43], but, to, to the best of our knowledge, serotype O29:H12 has not been previously associated with cattle faeces. Interestingly, 31 of the 72 serotypes found in the present study in bovine STEC isolates have been associated in previous studies with STEC isolates causing human infections and 13 of them were associated with haemolytic uremic syndrome [12, 38, 44–46]. Despite the clinical relevance of this data, the fact is that most of the studies evaluating the STEC in cattle has reached to similar observations, with studies reporting high numbers of different serotypes, ranging from 17 to 113 [12, 47], several of them associated with human infection.

Conclusions

The main objective of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of STEC in dairy cattle in Portugal, and to evaluate their serotypes diversity. This could provide us with valuable information on the natural reservoir diversity, as well as their pathogenic potential, risks for consequent food contamination and human infection. Data has shown a high prevalence of STEC in dairy cattle (27%), in line with similar studies performed in European and non-European countries. All farms were positive for the presence of STEC and, as expected, heifers were most commonly colonized than adult cows. Serotypes O29:H12 and O113:H21, were found in at least four different farms. Many serotypes found in this study have been previously associated with serious diseases in humans, so the search for innovative tools for controlling these pathogens in animal husbandry is essential to prevent the spread to food and environment. Also, this prevalence information should be taken into account when designing the national surveillance programs for STEC.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Farms enrolled in the present study, their location, total number of animals and main feed.

^aTotal number of animals is the sum of lactating cows, dry cows and heifers. ^bInformation provided by the farm owner.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244713.s001

(TIF)

S2 Table. Conventional PCR primer and conditions for amplification of STEC virulence genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244713.s002

(TIFF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank topographer Fabiano Balem for making the map.

References

1. Madic J, Vingadassalon N, de Garam CP, Marault M, Scheutz F, Brugère H, et al. Detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serotypes O26:H11, O103:H2, O111:H8, O145:H28, and O157:H7 in raw-milk cheeses by using multiplex real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011/01/14. 2011;77: 2035–2041. pmid:21239543
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Byrne L, Jenkins C, Launders N, Elson R, Adak GK. The epidemiology, microbiology and clinical impact of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in England, 2009–2012. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143: 3475–3487. pmid:25920912
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Noris M, Remuzzi G. Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16: 1035 LP– 1050. pmid:15728781
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Kargar M, Homayoon M. Prevalence of shiga toxins (stx1, stx2), eaeA and hly genes of Escherichia coli O157:H7 strains among children with acute gastroenteritis in southern of Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2015;8: 24–28. pmid:25901920
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. EFSA ECDC. The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2019;17. pmid:32626211
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Scheutz F, Teel LD, Beutin L, Piérard D, Buvens G, Karch H, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a sequence-based protocol for subtyping Shiga toxins and standardizing Stx nomenclature. J Clin Microbiol. 2012/07/03. 2012;50: 2951–2963. pmid:22760050
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Shridhar PB, Siepker C, Noll LW, Shi X, Nagaraja TG, Bai J. Shiga Toxin Subtypes of Non-O157 Escherichia coli Serogroups Isolated from Cattle Feces. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7: 121. pmid:28443248
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Bai X, Fu S, Zhang J, Fan R, Xu Y, Sun H, et al. Identification and pathogenomic analysis of an Escherichia coli strain producing a novel Shiga toxin 2 subtype. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 6756. pmid:29712985
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Yang X, Bai X, Zhang J, Sun H, Fu S, Fan R, et al. Escherichia coli strains producing a novel Shiga toxin 2 subtype circulate in China. Int J Med Microbiol. 2020;310: 151377. pmid:31757694
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Douëllou T, Delannoy S, Ganet S, Mariani-Kurkdjian P, Fach P, Loukiadis E, et al. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli strains isolated from dairy products—Genetic diversity and virulence gene profiles. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016;232: 52–62. pmid:27257743
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Blanco JE, Blanco M, Alonso MP, Mora A, Dahbi G, Coira MA, et al. Serotypes, virulence genes, and intimin types of Shiga toxin (verotoxin)-producing Escherichia coli isolates from human patients: prevalence in Lugo, Spain, from 1992 through 1999. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42: 311–319. pmid:14715771
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Blanco M, Blanco JE, Mora A, Dahbi G, Alonso MP, Gonzalez EA, et al. Serotypes, virulence genes, and intimin types of Shiga toxin (verotoxin)-producing Escherichia coli isolates from cattle in Spain and identification of a new intimin variant gene (eae-xi). J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42: 645–651. pmid:14766831
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Hornitzky MA, Mercieca K, Bettelheim KA, Djordjevic SP. Bovine Feces from Animals with Gastrointestinal Infections Are a Source of Serologically Diverse Atypical Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli and Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli Strains That Commonly Possess Intimin. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71: 3405–3412. pmid:16000742
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Shen J, Rump L, Ju W, Shao J, Zhao S, Brown E, et al. Virulence characterization of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates from food, humans and animals. Food Microbiol. 2015;50: 20–27. pmid:25998811
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Monaghan Á, Byrne B, Fanning S, Sweeney T, McDowell D, Bolton DJ. Serotypes and virulotypes of non-O157 shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) on bovine hides and carcasses. Food Microbiol. 2012;32: 223–229. pmid:22986184
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Verhaegen B, Van Damme I, Heyndrickx M, Botteldoorn N, Elhadidy M, Verstraete K, et al. Evaluation of detection methods for non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli from food. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016;219: 64–70. pmid:26736066
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Jones G, Lefèvre S, Donguy M-P, Nisavanh A, Terpant G, Fougère E, et al. Outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O26 paediatric haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) cases associated with the consumption of soft raw cow’s milk cheeses, France, March to May 2019. Euro Surveill. 2019;24: 1900305. pmid:31164190
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Fairbrother JM, Nadeau É. Escherichia coli: On-farm contamination of animals. Rev Sci Tech. 2006;25: 555–569. pmid:17094697
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. WHO (World Health Organization), FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and food: attribution, characterization, and monitoring: report. Rome PP—Rome: World Health Organization; 2018. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272871
20. Thrusfield M. Veterinary epidemiology. Third Edit. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2005.
21. ISO/TS 13136:2012(E). Microbiology of food and animal feed—Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based method for the detection of food-borne pathogens—Horizontal method for the detection of Shiga toxinproducing Escherichia coli (STEC) and the determination of O157. Switzerland; 2012.
22. Feng P, Weagant SD, Jinneman K. BAM: Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM). U.S. Food & Drug Administration; 2017. Available: https://www.fda.gov/food/laboratory-methods-food/bam-diarrheagenic-escherichia-coli
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Mora A, Herrrera A, Lopez C, Dahbi G, Mamani R, Pita JM, et al. Characteristics of the Shiga-toxin-producing enteroaggregative Escherichia coli O104:H4 German outbreak strain and of STEC strains isolated in Spain. Int Microbiol. 2011;14: 121–141. pmid:22101411
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Guinée PAM, Jansen WH, Wadström T, Sellwood R. Escherichia Coli Associated with Neonatal Diarrhoea in Piglets and Calves. In: Leeuw PW de Guinée PAM, editors. Laboratory Diagnosis in Neonatal Calf and Pig Diarrhoea. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1981. pp. 126–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8328-1_18
25. Morris EK, Caruso T, Buscot F, Fischer M, Hancock C, Maier TS, et al. Choosing and using diversity indices: insights for ecological applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories. Ecol Evol. 2014/08/28. 2014;4: 3514–3524. pmid:25478144
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Pradel N, Livrelli V, De Champs C, Palcoux JB, Reynaud A, Scheutz F, et al. Prevalence and characterization of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from cattle, food, and children during a one-year prospective study in France. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38: 1023–1031. Available: pmid:10698990
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Zschöck M, Hamann HP, Kloppert B, Wolter W. Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli in faeces of healthy dairy cows, sheep and goats: prevalence and virulence properties. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2000;31: 203–208. pmid:10972729
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Venegas-Vargas C, Henderson S, Khare A, Mosci RE, Lehnert JD, Singh P, et al. Factors Associated with Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Shedding by Dairy and Beef Cattle. Björkroth J, editor. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82: 5049–5056. pmid:27342555
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Blanco M, Blanco JE, Blanco J, Gonzalez EA, Mora A, Prado C, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 and other verotoxin-producing E. coli in healthy cattle. Epidemiol Infect. 1996;117: 251–257. pmid:8870622
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Gunn GJ, McKendrick IJ, Ternent HE, Thomson-Carter F, Foster G, Synge BA. An investigation of factors associated with the prevalence of verocytotoxin producing Escherichia coli O157 shedding in Scottish beef cattle. Vet J. 2007;174: 554–564. pmid:17977035
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Kobayashi H, Shimada J, Nakazawa M, Morozumi T, Pohjanvirta T, Pelkonen S, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli from healthy cattle in Japan. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67: 484–489. pmid:11133487
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Bibbal D, Loukiadis E, Kerouredan M, Ferre F, Dilasser F, Peytavin de Garam C, et al. Prevalence of carriage of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serotypes O157:H7, O26:H11, O103:H2, O111:H8, and O145:H28 among slaughtered adult cattle in France. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81: 1397–1405. pmid:25527532
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Mir RA, Weppelmann TA, Elzo M, Ahn S, Driver JD, Jeong KC. Colonization of Beef Cattle by Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli during the First Year of Life: A Cohort Study. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0148518. pmid:26849041
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. McCabe E, Burgess CM, Lawal D, Whyte P, Duffy G. An investigation of shedding and super-shedding of Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli O157 and E. coli O26 in cattle presented for slaughter in the Republic of Ireland. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019;66: 83–91. pmid:30350347
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Stanford K, Johnson RP, Alexander TW, McAllister TA, Reuter T. Influence of Season and Feedlot Location on Prevalence and Virulence Factors of Seven Serogroups of Escherichia coli in Feces of Western-Canadian Slaughter Cattle. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0159866. pmid:27482711
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Karama M, Mainga AO, Cenci-Goga BT, Malahlela M, El-Ashram S, Kalake A. Molecular profiling and antimicrobial resistance of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O26, O45, O103, O121, O145 and O157 isolates from c attle on cow-calf operations in South Africa. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 11930. pmid:31417098
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Sandhu KS, Gyles CL. Pathogenic Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in the intestine of calves. Can J Vet Res. 2002;66: 65–72. pmid:11989736
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Karmali MA, Mascarenhas M, Shen S, Ziebell K, Johnson S, Reid-Smith R, et al. Association of Genomic O Island 122 of Escherichia coli EDL 933 with Verocytotoxin-Producing Escherichia coli Seropathotypes That Are Linked to Epidemic and/or Serious Disease. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41: 4930–4940. pmid:14605120
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Kang E, Hwang SY, Kwon KH, Kim KY, Kim JH, Park YH. Prevalence and characteristics of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) from cattle in Korea between 2010 and 2011. J Vet Sci. 2013/06/30. 2014;15: 369–379. pmid:23820205
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Karama M, Cenci-Goga BT, Malahlela M, Smith AM, Keddy KH, El-Ashram S, et al. Virulence Characteristics and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Isolates from Humans in South Africa: 2006–2013. Toxins (Basel). 2019;11: 424. pmid:31331115
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Dobrindt U, Agerer F, Michaelis K, Janka A, Buchrieser C, Samuelson M, et al. Analysis of genome plasticity in pathogenic and commensal Escherichia coli isolates by use of DNA arrays. J Bacteriol. 2003;185: 1831–1840. pmid:12618447
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Land M, Hauser L, Jun S-R, Nookaew I, Leuze MR, Ahn T-H, et al. Insights from 20 years of bacterial genome sequencing. Funct Integr Genomics. 2015;15: 141–161. pmid:25722247
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Fernández D, Irino K, Sanz ME, Padola NL, Parma AE. Characterization of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from dairy cows in Argentina. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;51: 377–382. pmid:20695993
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Messens W, Bolton D, Frankel G, Liebana E, McLauchlin J, Morabito S, et al. Defining pathogenic verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) from cases of human infection in the European Union, 2007–2010. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143: 1652–1661. pmid:25921781
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Fierz L, Cernela N, Hauser E, Nüesch-Inderbinen M, Stephan R. Characteristics of Shigatoxin-Producing Escherichia coli Strains Isolated during 2010–2014 from Human Infections in Switzerland. Front Microbiol. 2017;8. pmid:28144237
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. De Rauw K, Jacobs S, Piérard D. Twenty-seven years of screening for shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in a university hospital. Brussels, Belgium, 1987–2014. PLoS One. 2018;13. pmid:29965972
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Monaghan A, Byrne B, Fanning S, Sweeney T, McDowell D, Bolton DJ. Serotypes and virulence profiles of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates from bovine farms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77: 8662–8668. pmid:22003024
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Madic J, Vingadassalon N, de Garam CP, Marault M, Scheutz F, Brugère H, et al. Detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serotypes O26:H11, O103:H2, O111:H8, O145:H28, and O157:H7 in raw-milk cheeses by using multiplex real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011/01/14. 2011;77: 2035–2041. pmid:21239543
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Byrne L, Jenkins C, Launders N, Elson R, Adak GK. The epidemiology, microbiology and clinical impact of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in England, 2009–2012. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143: 3475–3487. pmid:25920912
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Noris M, Remuzzi G. Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16: 1035 LP– 1050. pmid:15728781
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Kargar M, Homayoon M. Prevalence of shiga toxins (stx1, stx2), eaeA and hly genes of Escherichia coli O157:H7 strains among children with acute gastroenteritis in southern of Iran. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2015;8: 24–28. pmid:25901920
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. EFSA ECDC. The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2019;17. pmid:32626211
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Scheutz F, Teel LD, Beutin L, Piérard D, Buvens G, Karch H, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a sequence-based protocol for subtyping Shiga toxins and standardizing Stx nomenclature. J Clin Microbiol. 2012/07/03. 2012;50: 2951–2963. pmid:22760050
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Shridhar PB, Siepker C, Noll LW, Shi X, Nagaraja TG, Bai J. Shiga Toxin Subtypes of Non-O157 Escherichia coli Serogroups Isolated from Cattle Feces. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7: 121. pmid:28443248
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Bai X, Fu S, Zhang J, Fan R, Xu Y, Sun H, et al. Identification and pathogenomic analysis of an Escherichia coli strain producing a novel Shiga toxin 2 subtype. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 6756. pmid:29712985
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Yang X, Bai X, Zhang J, Sun H, Fu S, Fan R, et al. Escherichia coli strains producing a novel Shiga toxin 2 subtype circulate in China. Int J Med Microbiol. 2020;310: 151377. pmid:31757694
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Douëllou T, Delannoy S, Ganet S, Mariani-Kurkdjian P, Fach P, Loukiadis E, et al. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli strains isolated from dairy products—Genetic diversity and virulence gene profiles. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016;232: 52–62. pmid:27257743
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Blanco JE, Blanco M, Alonso MP, Mora A, Dahbi G, Coira MA, et al. Serotypes, virulence genes, and intimin types of Shiga toxin (verotoxin)-producing Escherichia coli isolates from human patients: prevalence in Lugo, Spain, from 1992 through 1999. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42: 311–319. pmid:14715771
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Blanco M, Blanco JE, Mora A, Dahbi G, Alonso MP, Gonzalez EA, et al. Serotypes, virulence genes, and intimin types of Shiga toxin (verotoxin)-producing Escherichia coli isolates from cattle in Spain and identification of a new intimin variant gene (eae-xi). J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42: 645–651. pmid:14766831
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Hornitzky MA, Mercieca K, Bettelheim KA, Djordjevic SP. Bovine Feces from Animals with Gastrointestinal Infections Are a Source of Serologically Diverse Atypical Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli and Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli Strains That Commonly Possess Intimin. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71: 3405–3412. pmid:16000742
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Shen J, Rump L, Ju W, Shao J, Zhao S, Brown E, et al. Virulence characterization of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates from food, humans and animals. Food Microbiol. 2015;50: 20–27. pmid:25998811
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Monaghan Á, Byrne B, Fanning S, Sweeney T, McDowell D, Bolton DJ. Serotypes and virulotypes of non-O157 shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) on bovine hides and carcasses. Food Microbiol. 2012;32: 223–229. pmid:22986184
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Verhaegen B, Van Damme I, Heyndrickx M, Botteldoorn N, Elhadidy M, Verstraete K, et al. Evaluation of detection methods for non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli from food. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016;219: 64–70. pmid:26736066
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Jones G, Lefèvre S, Donguy M-P, Nisavanh A, Terpant G, Fougère E, et al. Outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O26 paediatric haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) cases associated with the consumption of soft raw cow’s milk cheeses, France, March to May 2019. Euro Surveill. 2019;24: 1900305. pmid:31164190
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Fairbrother JM, Nadeau É. Escherichia coli: On-farm contamination of animals. Rev Sci Tech. 2006;25: 555–569. pmid:17094697
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. WHO (World Health Organization), FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and food: attribution, characterization, and monitoring: report. Rome PP—Rome: World Health Organization; 2018. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272871

[ref20] 20. Thrusfield M. Veterinary epidemiology. Third Edit. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2005.

[ref21] 21. ISO/TS 13136:2012(E). Microbiology of food and animal feed—Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based method for the detection of food-borne pathogens—Horizontal method for the detection of Shiga toxinproducing Escherichia coli (STEC) and the determination of O157. Switzerland; 2012.

[ref22] 22. Feng P, Weagant SD, Jinneman K. BAM: Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli. Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM). U.S. Food & Drug Administration; 2017. Available: https://www.fda.gov/food/laboratory-methods-food/bam-diarrheagenic-escherichia-coli
View Article
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Mora A, Herrrera A, Lopez C, Dahbi G, Mamani R, Pita JM, et al. Characteristics of the Shiga-toxin-producing enteroaggregative Escherichia coli O104:H4 German outbreak strain and of STEC strains isolated in Spain. Int Microbiol. 2011;14: 121–141. pmid:22101411
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Guinée PAM, Jansen WH, Wadström T, Sellwood R. Escherichia Coli Associated with Neonatal Diarrhoea in Piglets and Calves. In: Leeuw PW de Guinée PAM, editors. Laboratory Diagnosis in Neonatal Calf and Pig Diarrhoea. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1981. pp. 126–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8328-1_18

[ref25] 25. Morris EK, Caruso T, Buscot F, Fischer M, Hancock C, Maier TS, et al. Choosing and using diversity indices: insights for ecological applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories. Ecol Evol. 2014/08/28. 2014;4: 3514–3524. pmid:25478144
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Pradel N, Livrelli V, De Champs C, Palcoux JB, Reynaud A, Scheutz F, et al. Prevalence and characterization of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from cattle, food, and children during a one-year prospective study in France. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38: 1023–1031. Available: pmid:10698990
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Zschöck M, Hamann HP, Kloppert B, Wolter W. Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli in faeces of healthy dairy cows, sheep and goats: prevalence and virulence properties. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2000;31: 203–208. pmid:10972729
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Venegas-Vargas C, Henderson S, Khare A, Mosci RE, Lehnert JD, Singh P, et al. Factors Associated with Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Shedding by Dairy and Beef Cattle. Björkroth J, editor. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82: 5049–5056. pmid:27342555
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Blanco M, Blanco JE, Blanco J, Gonzalez EA, Mora A, Prado C, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 and other verotoxin-producing E. coli in healthy cattle. Epidemiol Infect. 1996;117: 251–257. pmid:8870622
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Gunn GJ, McKendrick IJ, Ternent HE, Thomson-Carter F, Foster G, Synge BA. An investigation of factors associated with the prevalence of verocytotoxin producing Escherichia coli O157 shedding in Scottish beef cattle. Vet J. 2007;174: 554–564. pmid:17977035
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] PubMed/NCBI

[107] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Kobayashi H, Shimada J, Nakazawa M, Morozumi T, Pohjanvirta T, Pelkonen S, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli from healthy cattle in Japan. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67: 484–489. pmid:11133487
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Bibbal D, Loukiadis E, Kerouredan M, Ferre F, Dilasser F, Peytavin de Garam C, et al. Prevalence of carriage of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serotypes O157:H7, O26:H11, O103:H2, O111:H8, and O145:H28 among slaughtered adult cattle in France. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81: 1397–1405. pmid:25527532
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Mir RA, Weppelmann TA, Elzo M, Ahn S, Driver JD, Jeong KC. Colonization of Beef Cattle by Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli during the First Year of Life: A Cohort Study. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0148518. pmid:26849041
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. McCabe E, Burgess CM, Lawal D, Whyte P, Duffy G. An investigation of shedding and super-shedding of Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli O157 and E. coli O26 in cattle presented for slaughter in the Republic of Ireland. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019;66: 83–91. pmid:30350347
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Stanford K, Johnson RP, Alexander TW, McAllister TA, Reuter T. Influence of Season and Feedlot Location on Prevalence and Virulence Factors of Seven Serogroups of Escherichia coli in Feces of Western-Canadian Slaughter Cattle. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0159866. pmid:27482711
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Karama M, Mainga AO, Cenci-Goga BT, Malahlela M, El-Ashram S, Kalake A. Molecular profiling and antimicrobial resistance of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O26, O45, O103, O121, O145 and O157 isolates from c attle on cow-calf operations in South Africa. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 11930. pmid:31417098
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Sandhu KS, Gyles CL. Pathogenic Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in the intestine of calves. Can J Vet Res. 2002;66: 65–72. pmid:11989736
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Karmali MA, Mascarenhas M, Shen S, Ziebell K, Johnson S, Reid-Smith R, et al. Association of Genomic O Island 122 of Escherichia coli EDL 933 with Verocytotoxin-Producing Escherichia coli Seropathotypes That Are Linked to Epidemic and/or Serious Disease. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41: 4930–4940. pmid:14605120
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Kang E, Hwang SY, Kwon KH, Kim KY, Kim JH, Park YH. Prevalence and characteristics of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) from cattle in Korea between 2010 and 2011. J Vet Sci. 2013/06/30. 2014;15: 369–379. pmid:23820205
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Karama M, Cenci-Goga BT, Malahlela M, Smith AM, Keddy KH, El-Ashram S, et al. Virulence Characteristics and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Isolates from Humans in South Africa: 2006–2013. Toxins (Basel). 2019;11: 424. pmid:31331115
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Dobrindt U, Agerer F, Michaelis K, Janka A, Buchrieser C, Samuelson M, et al. Analysis of genome plasticity in pathogenic and commensal Escherichia coli isolates by use of DNA arrays. J Bacteriol. 2003;185: 1831–1840. pmid:12618447
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Land M, Hauser L, Jun S-R, Nookaew I, Leuze MR, Ahn T-H, et al. Insights from 20 years of bacterial genome sequencing. Funct Integr Genomics. 2015;15: 141–161. pmid:25722247
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Fernández D, Irino K, Sanz ME, Padola NL, Parma AE. Characterization of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from dairy cows in Argentina. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;51: 377–382. pmid:20695993
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Messens W, Bolton D, Frankel G, Liebana E, McLauchlin J, Morabito S, et al. Defining pathogenic verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) from cases of human infection in the European Union, 2007–2010. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143: 1652–1661. pmid:25921781
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Fierz L, Cernela N, Hauser E, Nüesch-Inderbinen M, Stephan R. Characteristics of Shigatoxin-Producing Escherichia coli Strains Isolated during 2010–2014 from Human Infections in Switzerland. Front Microbiol. 2017;8. pmid:28144237
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] PubMed/NCBI

[167] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. De Rauw K, Jacobs S, Piérard D. Twenty-seven years of screening for shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in a university hospital. Brussels, Belgium, 1987–2014. PLoS One. 2018;13. pmid:29965972
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] PubMed/NCBI

[171] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Monaghan A, Byrne B, Fanning S, Sweeney T, McDowell D, Bolton DJ. Serotypes and virulence profiles of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates from bovine farms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77: 8662–8668. pmid:22003024
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[173] View Article

[174] PubMed/NCBI

[175] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods ethics statement

Farms selection and collection of samples

Isolation/ detection of STEC

DNA template preparation

Detection of stx1, stx2 and eae in faecal samples by multiplex real time-PCR

Screening for virulence genes by conventional PCR

Serotyping

Results and discussion

STEC prevalence in cattle

Serotypes of STEC isolates

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Table. Farms enrolled in the present study, their location, total number of animals and main feed.

S2 Table. Conventional PCR primer and conditions for amplification of STEC virulence genes.

Acknowledgments

References