A Review of Current Knowledge and Gaps About Campylobacter Methods: From Culture to Characterization

Abstract

Campylobacteriosis is a zoonotic disease caused by Campylobacter, mostly associated with consumption of contaminated foodstuffs and water. Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli recognized as the leader of foodborne diarrheal illness in humans. The frequency of these microorganisms in poultry is fairly high than Salmonella and more challenging to measure, which represent an expensive burden charge on public health due to their difficulties to master them, especially with the fast increase rates of multidrug-resistant of thermophilic Campylobacter strains. It is well recognized that Campylobacter spp. is a fastidious cell, difficult to isolate in laboratories owing to their requirements and sensibility. That’s why; these factors must be taken into consideration during recovery protocols. A variety of phenotyping tests have been reported and widely used for confirmation and identification of Campylobacter species. Nonetheless, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) and Culture-Independent Diagnostic Tests (CIDTs) are new eras of hopeful technologies, mainly involved in the detection and characterization of threaten public health pathogens. This review aimed to describe the culture methods, phenotypic and genotypic schemes used to isolate, identify, and characterize Campylobacter isolates, through discussing the current knowledge and gaps related to the application of these techniques over others performed for typing this microaerophilic genus.

Novel strains of Campylobacter cause diarrheal outbreak in Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) of Kathmandu Valley

“…However, availability of molecular based diagnostic techniques have proved to be effective in detecting bacterial species that are normally difficult to culture [ 47 , 48 ]. Although culture methods are more feasible compared to molecular and sequencing methods, and selective culture can provide qualitative diagnosis comparable to PCR, it only identifies up to the genus level, usually takes almost a day longer compared to PCR, and Campylobacter’s low metabolic activity and often non-culturable characteristics under unfavorable conditions can also lead to false-negative results [ 22 , 49 ]. Multiple studies have shown molecular methods having significantly higher sensitivity and specificity [ 22 , 49 , 50 ] and is often preferred when presence and burden along with strain identification of the disease is required [ 49 ].…”

“…However, availability of molecular based diagnostic techniques have proved to be effective in detecting bacterial species that are normally difficult to culture [47,48]. Although culture methods are more feasible compared to molecular and sequencing methods, and selective culture can provide qualitative diagnosis comparable to PCR, it only identifies up to the genus level, usually takes almost a day longer compared to PCR, and Campylobacter's low metabolic activity and often non-culturable characteristics under unfavorable conditions can also lead to false-negative results [22,49]. Multiple studies have shown molecular methods having significantly higher sensitivity and…”

“…specificity [22,49,50] and is often preferred when presence and burden along with strain identification of the disease is required [49]. In this study, we were interested in identification of Campylobacter at species level, thus, molecular and sequencing methods were preferred.…”

Development and Evaluation of Real Time PCR for Detection and Identification of C. jejuni and C. coli from Human Food

“…In the light of these ndings, we suggested the evaluation of multiplex qPCR to include HipO, CadF, and other genes for an easy and appropriate routine use (El Baaboua et al, 2021). Unlike, the replacement of the culture approach seems to be di cult (Liang et al, 2018;Baaboua et al, 2021). In order to control and prevent Campylobacter infections, real time PCR was used as culture-independent diagnostic test and have proven the ability to detect the VBNC state of C. jejuni, commonly recognized as hidden risk factor for campylobacteriosis (Liu et al, 2018;Lv et al, 2020).…”

“…Within it taxonomy history, Campylobacter was di cult to culture and differentiate from Vibrio, Helicobacter, and Arcobacter genus (Corry et al, 2003). For that purpose, many techniques have been reported to detect, con rm, and characterize Campylobacter including phenotypic and genotypic methods (Baaboua et al, 2021;Banowary et al, 2015;Duarte et al, 2016). In fact, the phenotypic methods of these bacteria have several limitations due to the lack of discriminatory tests between species, disability to detect Viable But Non-Culturable state (VBNC) of Campylobacter that may appear under unfavorable conditions, and the fact that these cells are biochemically inert (Duarte et al, 2016;Baaboua et al, 2017).…”