Salmonellaprofile in chickens determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction and bacteriology from years 2000 to 2003 in Turkey

Abstract

From years 2000 to 2003, Salmonella was investigated from a total of 1785 samples comprised of chicken intestinal samples, cloacal swabs, drag swabs, litter samples and chick dust samples collected from 191 poultry breeding flocks belonging to 15 different chicken breeding stock companies in the Marmara region, Turkey by a SYBR green-based real-time polymerase chain reaction (SGBRT-PCR), by a probe-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction (PSRT-PCR) and by standardized bacteriology as described in the manual of National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxillary Provisions, United States Department of Agriculture. Between January 2000 and July 2001, Salmonella was detected at the rates of 5.87% and 4.10% out of a total of 1242 samples by SGBRT-PCR and bacteriology, respectively. From July 2001 until December 2003, Salmonella was found at rates of 11.42% and 5.52% from a total of 543 samples by PSRT-PCR and bacteriology, respectively. The dominant Salmonella serovar was determined as Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Serovar Enteritidis (S. Enteritidis), while serogroup C1 and C2 in 2001 and serogroup E1 in 2002 were isolated as additional serovars. As a conclusion, S. Enteritidis seems to be the major problem in poultry breeding flocks in Turkey, and both of the real-time polymerase chain reaction methods were found more sensitive than standard bacteriology for the detection of Salmonella from poultry samples.

Incidence of Salmonella Enteritidis in chicken layer flocks in Turkey: Results by real-time polymerase chain reaction and International Organization for Standardization culture methods

“…This leads to the conclusion that the use of cecal swab and intestine samples in Salmonella detection would yield reliable results. In this study, the Salmonella detection rate of rPCR was higher than ISO culture except for intestine samples, which is almost in parallel to our previous findings (Eyigor and Carli, 2003;Eyigor et al, 2005). The false-positive results in rPCR were also observed by Bohaychuk et al (2007) andO'Regan et al (2008).…”

“…Apart from the effects of Salmonella prevalence within a flock (Arnold et al, 2010), of the housing system (Carrique-Mas et al, 2009;Huneau-Salaün et al, 2009), and of the flock characteristics (Namata et al, 2008), the variations in Salmonella detection rates have particularly been re- I 0 3 0 34 II 30 4 1 0 III 93 3 0 16 IV 11 13 8 4 V 1 0 0 27 VI 0 0 0 11 Total 135 23 9 92 lated to the sample type analyzed and the method used (Rybolt et al, 2004;Kinde et al, 2005;Arnold et al, 2010). In this study for instance, cecal swab and intestine samples, as supported by former study data (Nief and Hoop, 1998;Kalender and Muz, 1999;Carli et al, 2001b;Eyigor and Carli, 2003;Eyigor et al, 2005;Ata and Aydın, 2008) seemed to work relatively better for Salmonella detection both by rPCR and ISO culture than other sample types, such as cloacal swabs. This leads to the conclusion that the use of cecal swab and intestine samples in Salmonella detection would yield reliable results.…”

“…We determined Salmonella Enteritidis as the most common serovar (with 71.1% incidence) in layer flocks in Turkey for 2009 in this study, in parallel to our (Carli et al, 2001a;Eyigor et al, 2005) and others' (Dorn and Schleiff, 1997;Schaar et al, 1997;Nief and Hoop, 1998;Snow et al, 2007;Huneau-Salaün et al, 2009;Van Hoorebeke et al, 2010) reports and in contrast to Li et al (2007), who reported Salmonella Kentucky as the most prevalent serovar. The high detection of Salmonella Enteritidis, regardless of the sample type, points out that this pathogen is persistently present in the layer flocks in Turkey.…”

“…There are similar previous findings from layer flocks in the percentages as high as 55.6, 76.9, and 86.5% by Dorn and Schleiff (1997), Carli et al (2001a), and Li et al (2007), respectively. There are also studies reporting Salmonella detection rates as low as 0.0 to 17.0% (Kalender and Muz, 1999;Eyigor et al, 2002Eyigor et al, , 2005Eyigor and Carli, 2003;Ata and Aydın, 2008) from our country and 9.93 to 17.9% from European Union countries (Huneau-Salaün et al, 2009;Van Hoorebeke et al, 2010). Apart from the effects of Salmonella prevalence within a flock (Arnold et al, 2010), of the housing system (Carrique-Mas et al, 2009;Huneau-Salaün et al, 2009), and of the flock characteristics (Namata et al, 2008), the variations in Salmonella detection rates have particularly been re- I 0 3 0 34 II 30 4 1 0 III 93 3 0 16 IV 11 13 8 4 V 1 0 0 27 VI 0 0 0 11 Total 135 23 9 92 lated to the sample type analyzed and the method used (Rybolt et al, 2004;Kinde et al, 2005;Arnold et al, 2010).…”

Epidemiological investigation of Mycoplasma Synoviae in native chicken breeds in China

“…To determine the causative agent of this disease, we first investigated several pathogens that had previously been reported to associate with infectious synovitis in broiler chickens by pathogenic detection, including Salmonella [16] , Reovirus [17, 18] , Streptococcus [19, 20] , Staphylococcus [21] , and M. synoviae [2] . The results indicated that no of these pathogens could be detected (data not shown).…”