DETECTION OF CAMPYLOBACTER SPP. WITH REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION

Bacteria of Campylobacter genus are ones of the main zoonotic pathogens causing human and animal diseases. Campylobacter organisms are microaerophiles and, therefore, require low oxygen concentration (3–5%) and high carbon dioxide concentration (3–10%) for their growth. They use amino acids rather than carbons as a source of energy. Classical bacteriological methods for Campylobacter spp. detection are not always successful due to diffi culties in creating optimal conditions for their growth. Therewith, development and implementation of molecular methods for Campylobacter detection and identifi cation are of current importance. Assay for qualitative Campylobacter spp. detection with real-time polymerase chain reaction using CFX-96 thermocycler was optimized. Highly specifi c segment of 16S rRNA gene allowing identifi cation of 6 Campylobacter species: C. jejuni, C. coli, C. lari, C. upsaliensis, C. helveticus и C. hyointestinalis was selected as an amplifi cation target. Optimal magnesium ion concentration (2.5 мМ) and primer annealing temperature (58 °С) were determined. Eighteen reference strains of various bacteria were tested. Only tests of Campylobacter genus strains gave positive results. The method sensitivity was 40 target molecules. The said method was used for testing 76 samples of raw materials of animal origin. Campylobacter spp. genome was detected in 18 samples. Obtained results showed that the optimized variant of real-time polymerase chain reaction based on 16S rRNA gene amplifi cation was a specifi c, sensitive, rapid, reproducible and accurate method for qualitative detection of Campylobacter spp. in samples of raw animal materials.

1. Minayev V. I., Cherkasskiy B. L., Minayeva N. Z. Modern laboratory diagnosis of campylobacteriosis [Laboratornaya diagnostika kampilobakterioza v sovremennyh usloviyah]. Žurnal mikrobiologii, epidemiologii i immunobiologii. 1991; 8: 18–21 (in Russian).

2. Nutrient medium for Campylobacter spp. isolation and cultivation [Pitatel’naya sreda dlya vydeleniya i kul’tivirovaniya kampilobakterij]. Z. U. Temirkhanova, P. Sh. Gashimova, N. V. Safonova [et al.]. Microbiology. 1999; 6: 27–30 (in Russian).

3. Guidelines for performing PCR [Rekomendacii po postanovke PCR]. Evrogene. Ver. of 18 September, 2017. URL: http://evrogen.ru/kit-usermanuals/Evrogen-PCR-recommendation.pdf (in Russian).

4. A one-year study of Campylobacter carriage by individual Danish broiler chickens as the basis for selection of Campylobacter spp. strains for a chicken infection model. D. D. Bang, E. M, Nielsen, K. Knudsen, M. Madsen. Epidemiol. Infect. 2003; 130 (2): 323–333; DOI: 10.1017/s095026880200821x.

5. Bronowski C., James C. E., Winstanley C. Role of environmental survival in transmission of Campylobacter jejuni. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2014; 356 (1): 8–19; DOI: 10.1111/1574-6968.12488.

6. Campylobacter helveticus sp. nov., a new thermophilic species from domestic animals: characterization, and cloning of a species-specifi c DNA probe. J. Stanley, A. P. Burnens, D. Linton [et al.]. J. Gen. Microbiol. 1992; 138 (11): 2293–2303; DOI: 10.1099/00221287-138-11-2293.

7. Campylobacter hyointestinalis subsp. lawsonii subsp. nov., isolated from the porcine stomach, and an emended description of Campylobacter hyointestinalis. S. L. On, B. Bloch, B. Holmes [et al.]. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1995; 45 (4): 767–774; DOI: 10.1099/00207713-45-4-767.

8. Detection of Campylobacter spp. in chicken fecal samples by realtime PCR. M. Lund, S. Nordentoft, K. Pedersen, M. Madsen. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004; 42 (11): 5125–5132; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.11.5125-5132.2004.

9. Diversity of serotypes of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated in laboratory animals. N. S. Taylor, M. A. Ellenberger, P. I. Wu, J. G. Fox. Lab. Anim. Sci. 1989; 39 (30): 219–221; PMID: 2724920.

10. Estimating the true incidence of campylobacteriosis and salmonellosis in the European Union, 2009. A. H. Havelaar, S. Ivarsson, M. Lofdahl, M. J. Nauta. Epidemiol. Infect. 2013; 141 (2): 293–302; DOI: 10.1017/S0950268812000568.

11. Evaluation of a Campylobacter fetus subspecies venerealis realtime quantitative polymerase chain reaction for direct analysis of bovine preputial samples. B. Chaban, S. Chu, S. Hendrick [et al.]. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2012; 76 (3): 166–173; PMCID: PMC3384278.

12. Fitzgerald C. Campylobacter. Clin. Lab. Med. 2015; 35 (2): 289–298; DOI: 10.1016/j.cll.2015.03.001.

13. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States – Major pathogens. E. Scallan, R. M. Hoekstra, F. J. Angulo [et al.]. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011; 17 (1): 7–15; DOI: 10.3201/eid1701.P11101.

14. Global epidemiology of Campylobacter infection. N. O. Kaakoush, N. Castano-Rodriguez, H. M. Mitchell, S. M. Man. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2015; 28 (3): 687–720; DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00006-15.

15. Humphrey T., O’Brien S., Madsen M. Campylobacters as zoonotic pathogens: A food production perspective. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007; 117 (3): 237–257; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.01.006.

16. Huq M., Gonis G., Istivan T. Development and evaluation of a multiplex PCR for the detection of Campylobacter concisus and other Campylobacter spp. from gastroenteritis cases. Open J. Med. Microbiol. 2014; 4 (1): 29– 37; DOI: 10.4236/ojmm.2014.41005.

17. Identifi cation of Campylobacteria isolated from Danish broilers by phenotypic tests and species-specifi c PCR assays. M. Waino, D. D. Bang, M. Lund [et al.]. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003; 95 (4): 649–655; DOI: 10.1046/j.13652672.2003.01996.x.

18. Identifi cation of hyperinvasive Campylobacter jejuni strains isolated from poultry and human clinical sources. C. Fearnley, G. Manning, M. Bagnall [et al.]. J. Med. Microbiol. 2008; 57 (5): 570–580; DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.47803-0.

19. Infectious agent and immune response characteristics of chronic enterocolitis in captive rhesus macagues. K. Sestak, C. K. Merritt, J. Borda [et al.]. Infect. Immun. 2003; 71 (7): 4079–4086; DOI: 10.1128/iai.71.7.40794086.2003.

20. Lehtola M.J., Loades C. J., Keevil C. W. Advantages of peptide nucleic acid oligonucleotides for sensitive site directed 16S rRNA fl uorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) detection of Campylobacter jejuni, Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter lari. J. Microbiol. Methods. 2005; 62 (2): 211–219; DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2005.02.009.

21. Man S. M. The clinical importance of emerging Campylobacter species. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2011; 8 (12): 669–685; DOI: 10.1038/nrgastro.2011.191.

22. New methods for detection of campylobacters in stool samples in comparison to culture. E. Bessede, A. Delcamp, E. Sifre [et al.]. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011; 49 (3): 941–944; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01489-10.

23. Pitkanen T. Review of Campylobacter spp. in drinking and environmental waters. J. Microbiol. Methods. 2013; 95 (1): 39–47; DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2013.06.008.

24. Rodrigues-Lazaro D., Hernandez M., Pla M. Simultaneous quantitative detection of Listeria spp. and Listeria monocytogenes using a duplexrealtime PCR-based assay. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2004; 233 (2): 257–267; DOI: 10.1016/j.femsle.2004.02.018.

25. The role of environmental reservoirs in human campylobacteriosis. H. Whiley, B. van den Akker, S. Giglio, R. Bentham. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2013; 10 (11): 5886–5907; DOI: 10.3390/ijerph10115886.

26. Whiley H., McLean R., Ross K. Detection of Campylobacter jejuni in Lizard faeces from cenral Australia using quantitative PCR. Pathogens. 2017; 6 (1):1; DOI: 10.3390/pathogens6010001.

27. Winters D. K., O’Leary A. E., Slavik M. F. Polymerase chain reaction for rapid detection of Campylobacter jejuni in artifi cially contaminated foods. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1998; 27 (3): 163–167; DOI: 10.1046/j.1472765x.1998.00411.x.