You are here

Home » Content

Damızlık Yumurtacı Tavuk Sürülerinden Salmonella Tespiti için Farklı Örnek Tiplerinin Karşılaştırılması

Comparison of Different Sample Types for Salmonella Detection From Chicken Layer Breeder Flocks

Journal Name:

  • Uludag University Journal of The Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The object of this study was to detect Salmonella from different chicken samples in same flocks to compare sample types for Salmonella detection by both International Organization for Standardization Method 6579:2002/Amd 1:2007 (ISO) and as molecular by a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. Salmonellosis is a zoonotic infection and apart from this, infection can be transmitted via vertically to embryo, and this is very important for breeding flocks. A total of 115 samples, comprised of 451 individual samples each pooled into 3, 4, 5 and 6 including 14 drag swabs, 28 pooled wet faeces, 11 pooled embryonated chicken eggs, 62 pooled cloa-cal swabs, were collected from 14 chicken layer breeding flocks, and tested by culture method (ISO 6579) and conventional PCR. Overall Salmonella infection rate in chicken layer breeder flocks by PCR and culture was 18.2% (21/115). According to sample type, Salmonella rate in culture positive samples were: 0% (0/14) in drag swabs, 90.9% (10/11) in embryonated chicken eggs, 21.4% (6/28) in wet faeces, 8% (5/62) in cloacal swabs. PCR results were in 100% agreement (100% sensitivity and specificity) with culture results. We determined Salmonella rate in 14 chicken layer breeder flocks by using culture and PCR methods, and the use of embryonat-ed chicken eggs and wet faeces samples, respectively in Salmonella detection would yield reliable results. These results indicate that Salmonella screening can be done together with different types of sample. And the most reliable and high results were taken from embryonated chicken egg samples for layer breeding poultry. As a conclusion, Salmonella infection seems to be the major problem in poultry flocks in Turkey, and both conven-tional culture method and PCR methods were found sensitive for the detection of Salmonella from poultry with different types of sample.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı, aynı kümeslerden alınan farklı örnek tiplerinin, hem Uluslararası Standardizasyon Teşkilatı 6579:2002/Amd 1:2007 (ISO) kültür metotu hem de moleküler olarak polimeraz zincir reaksiyonu (PCR) ile çalışılarak Salmonella teşhisi bakımından karşılaştırılmasıdır. Salmonella zoonoz bir enfeksiyondur ve ayrıca vertikal geçiş özelliğinden civcivlere geçebileceğinden dolayı, özellikle damızlık kanatlı yetiştiriciliğinde ayrı bir öneme sahiptir. Çalışmamızda alınan 451 bireysel örnek; 14 adet drag svab, 28 adet pool edilmiş ıslak dışkı, 11 adet pool edilmiş embriyolu yumurta, 62 adet pool edilmiş kloakal svab, 3, 4 ve 5’li bir araya gelecek şekilde gruplandırılarak, toplam 115 adet örnekte, hem ISO 6579 kültür metotu hem de geleneksel PCR metotu ile Salmonella aranmıştır. Damızlık yumurtacı tavuklardaki Salmonella yaygınlığı, çalışılan iki metotla da %18.2 olarak bulunmuştur. Örnek tiplerine bakılarak değerlendirme yapıldığında ise kültür sonuçları; drag svablarda %0, embriyolu yumurtalarda %90.9, ıslak dışkıda %21.4 ve kloakal svablarda %8 olarak bulunmuştur. PCR sonuçları da, kültür sonuçları ile örnek tiplerine göre, yine %100 sensitivite ve spesifite ile aynı bulunmuştur. Türkiye’deki yumurtacı kümeslerde Salmonella yaygınlığı PCR ve ISO 6579 kültür metotları ile %18.2 olarak bulunmuş ve damızlık kanatlılarda Salmonella taramalarında alınabilecek en güvenli örneklerin embriyolu yu-murta ve ıslak dışkı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlar aslında, en yüksek oranda Salmonella tespiti yapılan örnek tipinin embriyolu yumurtalar olarak bulunmasıyla, özellikle damızlık yetiştiriciliği yapılan kanatlı sürüle-rinde, Salmonella teşhisinde güvenilir sonuçlar alınabilmesi için, klasik olarak kullanılan dışkı kökenli örnekle-rin dışında, farklı örnek tiplerinin de alınarak hep birlikte değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini de göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, Türkiye’deki yumurtacı tavuk kümeslerinde Salmonella enfeksiyonun önemli problem olarak varlığını sürdürmeyi devam ettiği ve hem geleneksel kültür metotu hem de PCR’ın farklı örneklerden Salmonella tespi-tinde güvenilir yöntemler olarak kullanılabileceği gösterilmiştir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-damizlik-yumurtaci-tavuk-surulerinden-salmonella-tespiti-icin-farkli-ornek-tiplerinin-karsilastirilmasi.pdf
  • 2
19
24
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Ata Z., Aydın N., 2008. Isolation of Salmonella spp. in Ankara region poultry plants. Veterinary Journal of Ankara University, 55, 161-166.
2. Arnold M.E., Carrique-Mas J.J., Davies R.H., 2010. Sensitivity of environmental sampling methods for detecting Salmonella Enteritidis in commercial laying flocks relative to the within-flock prevalence. Epidemiology and Infection, 138, 330–339.
3. Brownell J.R., Sadler W.W., Fanelli M.J., 1970. Role of caeca in intestinal infection of chicken with Salmonella Typhimurium. Avian Disease, 14, 106-116.
4. Calnek B.W., Barnes H.J., Beard C.W., McDou-gald L.R., Saif Y.M., 1997. Diseases of Poultry. 10th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA.
5. Carli K.T., Eyigor A., Caner V., 2001a. Preva-lence of Salmonella serovars in chickens in Tur-key. Journal of Food Protection, 64,1832-1835.
6. Carli K.T., Unal C.B., Caner V., Eyigor A., 2001b. Detection of Salmonella in chicken feces by a combination of tetrathionate broth enrich-ment, capillary PCR, and capillary gel electrop-horesis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 39, 1871-1876.
7. Carrique-Mas J., Breslin M., Snow L., McLaren I., Sayers A.R., Davies R.H., 2009. Persistenceand clearance of different Salmonella serovars in buildings housing laying hens. Epidemiology Infection, 137, 837-846.
8. De Medici D., Pezzotti G., Marfoglia C., Caciolo D., Foschi G., Orefice L., 1998. Comparison between ICS-VIDAS, MSRV and standard cultu-ral method for Salmonella. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 45, 205-210.
9. Dorn W., Schleiff G., 1997. Evaluation of met-hods for preparing chicken feces from the veteri-nary hygienic aspect. Zentralblatt fur Veterinar-medizin Reihe B. 44, 105-118.
10. Eyigor A., Carli K.T., Unal C.B., 2002. Imple-mentation of real-time PCR to tetrathionate broth enrichment step of Salmonella detection in po-ultry. Letter of Applied Microbiology, 34, 37-41.
11. Eyigor A., Carli K.T., 2003. Rapid detection of Salmonella from poultry by real-time polymerase chain reaction with fluorescent hybridization probes. Avian Diseases, 47, 380-386.
12. Eyigor A., Goncagul G., Gunaydin E., Carli K.T., 2005. Salmonella profile in chickens determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction and bac-teriology from years 2000 to 2003 in Turkey. Av-ian Pathology, 34, 101-105.
13. Gast R.K., 1997. Paratyphoid infections, In Cal-nek B.W., Barnes H. J., and Beard C.W. (ed.), Diseases of poultry, 12th ed. Iowa State Univer-sity Press, Ames, Iowa. p. 620-635.
14. Hoorfar J., Cook N., Malorny B., Wagner M., Medici D. De, Abdulmawjood A., Fah P., 2003. Making internal amplification control mandatory for diagnostic PCR. Journal of Clinical Microbio-logy, 41, 5835.
15. Huneau-Salaün A., Chemaly M., Bouquin S. Le, Lalande F., Petetin I., Rouxel S., Michel V., Fra-valo P., Rose N., 2009. Risk factors for Salmo-nella enterica subsp. enterica contamination in French laying hen flocks at the end of the laying period. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 271, 89, 51-58.
16. ISO, 2007. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs-horizontal method for the detection of Salmonella (EN ISO 6579:2002/Amd 1:2007). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
17. ISO, 2003. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs-272 protocol for the validation of alternative methods. ISO 16140:2003 (E), Inter-national Organization for Standardization, Gene-va, Switzerland.
18. Kalender H., Muz A., 1999. Typing of Salmonel-la species isolated from chickens in Elazıg re-gion. Turkish Journal of Veterinary Animal Sci-ence, 23, 297-303.
19. Kinde H., Castellan D.M., Kerr D., Campbell J., Breitmeyer R., Ardans A., 2005. Longitudinal monitoring of two commercial layer flocks and
their environments for Salmonella enterica sero-var Enteritidis and other Salmonella. Avian Dise-ase, 49, 189-194.
20. Kreader C.A, 1995. Design and evalution of Bacteriodes DNA probes for specific detection of human faecal pollution. Applied and Environ-mental Microbiology, 61, 1171-1179.
21. Li X., Payne J.B., Santos F.B., Levine J. F., An-derson K.E., Sheldon B.W., 2007. Salmonella populations and prevalence in layer feces from commercial high-rise houses and characterization of the Salmonella isolates by serotyping, antibio-tic resistance analysis, and pulsed field gel elect-rophoresis. Poultry Science, 86, 591-597.
22. Majowicz S.E., Musto J., Scallan E., Angulo F.J., Kirk M., O'Brien S.J., Jones T.F., Fazil A., Ho-ekstra R.M., 2010. The global burden nontyphoi-dal Salmonella gastroenteritis. Clinical Infectious Disease, 50, 882-889.
23. Namata H., Méroc E., Aerts M., Faes C., Abra-hantes J.C., Imberechts H., Mintiens K., 2008. Salmonella in Belgian laying hens: An identifica-tion of risk factors. Preventive Veterinary Medi-cine, 83, 323–336.
24. Nief V., Hoop R.K., 1998. Detection of Salmo-nella enteritidis in suspected flocks of laying hens. Schweizer Archiv Tierheilkunde, 140, 70-75.
25. Rahn K., De Grandis S.A., Clarke R.C., McEwen S.A., Galán J.E., Ginocchio C., III. Curtiss R., Gyles C.L., 1992. Amplification of an invA gene sequence of Salmonella typhimurium by polyme-rase chain reaction as a specific method of detec-tion of Salmonella. Molecular and Cellular Pro-bes, 6, 271-279.
26. Rybolt M.L., Wills R.W., Byrd J.A., Doler T.P., Bailey R.H., 2004. Comparison of four Salmonel-la isolation techniques in four different inocula-ted matrices. Poultry Science, 83, 1112-1116.
27. Soumet C., Ermel G., Rose V., Rose N., Droin P., Salvat G., Colin P., 1999. Identification by a mul-tiplex PCR-based assay of Salmonella Typhimu-rium and Salmonella Enteritidis strains from en-vironmental swabs of poultry houses. Letters of Applied Microbiology, 29, 1–6.
28. Taitt C.R., Shubin Y.S., Angel R., Ligler F.S., 2004. Detection of Salmonella enterica typhimu-rium by using a rapid, array-based immunosen-sor. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70, 152-158.
29. Temelli S., Kahya S., Eyigör A., Carli K.T., 2010. Incidence of Salmonella Enteritidis in Chicken Layer Flocks in Turkey: Results by Real-Time PCR and ISO Culture Methods. Po-ultry Science, 89, 1406-1410.
30. Van Hoorebeke S., Van Immerseel F., Schulz J., Hartung J., Harisberger M., Barco L., Ricci A., Theodoropoulos G., Xylouri E., J. Vylder De,
24
Ducatelle R., Haesebrouck F., Pasmans F., Kruif A. de, Dewulf J., 2010. Determination of the wit-hin and between flock prevalence and identifica-tion of risk factors for Salmonella infections in laying hen flocks housed in conventional and al-ternative systems, Preventetive Veterinary Medi-cine, 94, 94-100.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com