Next Article in Journal
Regional Perspective of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in Latin American Pediatric Emergency Departments
Next Article in Special Issue
Widespread Multidrug Resistance of Arcobacter butzleri Isolated from Clinical and Food Sources in Central Italy
Previous Article in Journal
The Real Practice Prescribing Antibiotics in Outpatients: A Failed Control Case Assessed through the Simulated Patient Method
Previous Article in Special Issue
Persistence of Campylobacter spp. in Poultry Flocks after Disinfection, Virulence, and Antimicrobial Resistance Traits of Recovered Isolates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/antibiotics12050917
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genomic Characterization of Antibiotic-Resistant Campylobacterales Isolated from Chilean Poultry Meat

by
Macarena Concha-Toloza
1,
Mónica Lopez-Cantillo
1,
Jose Arturo Molina-Mora
2 and
Luis Collado
1,*
1
Instituto de Bioquímica y Microbiología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia 5110566, Chile
2
Centro de Investigación en Enfermedades Tropicales (CIET) & Facultad de Microbiología, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José 11501-2060, Costa Rica
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(5), 917; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050917
Submission received: 21 March 2023 / Revised: 11 May 2023 / Accepted: 13 May 2023 / Published: 16 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Arcobacteraceae and Campylobacteraceae: Prevalence, Virulence and Antibiotics Resistance)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Due to the lack of knowledge about Campylobacterales in the Chilean poultry industry, the objective of this research was to know the prevalence, resistance, and genotypes of Campylobacter, Arcobacter and Helicobacter in 382 samples of chicken meat purchased in Valdivia, Chile. The samples were analyzed using three isolation protocols. Resistance to four antibiotics was evaluated by phenotypic methods. Genomic analyses were performed on selected resistant strains to detect resistance determinants and their genotypes. A total of 59.2% of the samples were positive. Arcobacter butzleri (37.4%) was the most prevalent species, followed by Campylobacter jejuni (19.6%), C. coli (11.3%), A. cryaerophilus (3.7%) and A. skirrowii (1.3%). Helicobacter pullorum (14%) was detected by PCR in a subset of samples. Campylobacter jejuni was resistant to ciprofloxacin (37.3%) and tetracycline (20%), while C. coli and A. butzleri were resistant to ciprofloxacin (55.8% and 2.8%), erythromycin (16.3% and 0.7%) and tetracycline (4.7% and 2.8%), respectively. Molecular determinants were consistent with phenotypic resistance. The genotypes of C. jejuni (CC-21, CC-48, CC-49, CC-257, CC-353, CC-443, CC-446 and CC-658) and C. coli (CC-828) coincided with genotypes of Chilean clinical strains. These findings suggest that besides C. jejuni and C. coli, chicken meat could play a role in the transmission of other pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant Campylobacterales.

1. Introduction

The order Campylobacterales is widely known because of its pathogenic genera Campylobacter, Helicobacter, and to a lesser extent Arcobacter. However, other members are known to play ecologically important roles in diverse niches and environments [1].
Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli produce most of the human bacterial gastroenteritis cases worldwide, and C. jejuni is also associated with post-infection sequelae such as Guillain-Barre syndrome [2,3,4]. Meanwhile, A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus and A. skirrowii have been associated with gastrointestinal and systemic diseases [5,6]. Regarding the genus Helicobacter, H. pylori is the most relevant species due to its association with gastritis, peptic ulcers, and gastric cancer [7]. However, in recent years entero-hepatic Helicobacter (EHH) species have become increasingly important as emerging pathogens and potential zoonotic agents due to their link to intestinal and hepatobiliary diseases [8].
Campylobacter jejuni/coli reservoirs include a wide variety of animals, such as farm animals, pets, and wildlife [2,9]. Zoonotic transmission can occur through the consumption of food of animal origin or by drinking contaminated water, but poultry meat has been attributed as their main route of transmission [2,10,11]. In the case of Arcobacter and Helicobacter, their transmission routes are not entirely clear, but there is growing evidence that it is like that of Campylobacter spp. [8,12].
The human disease caused by Campylobacter is generally self-limited, and antimicrobial treatment is recommended only in severe, persistent, or recurrent infections and in immunocompromised patients [13]. Macrolides and fluoroquinolones are the first line of treatment for gastrointestinal infections, and tetracyclines and aminoglycosides for systemic infections, whereas in Arcobacter the use of tetracyclines has been suggested [14].
In recent years, an increase in antimicrobial resistance has been observed in clinically relevant Campylobacterales isolated from both animal reservoirs and human samples worldwide [15,16,17]. Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified Campylobacter spp. and Helicobacter pylori as high-priority bacteria for the study of new antimicrobials due to the high levels of fluoroquinolones and clarithromycin resistance reported, respectively [16].
In Chile, a noteworthy increase in resistance to ciprofloxacin (CIP) and tetracycline (TET) has been observed in clinical strains of Campylobacter spp. over the past two decades [17,18]. Likewise, resistance to CIP, TET, and Erythromycin (E) has been reported in isolates obtained from chicken and bovine meat [3,19]. Globally, it has been suggested that this increase in antimicrobial resistance is mainly due to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in poultry and livestock production, to which is added the ability of these microorganisms to survive in these conditions and, therefore, endure over time, although there are also other potential resistance sources [20,21,22].
Based on the above data and the fact that the transmission of Campylobacter in the ecosystem is multidirectional, this microorganism represents a One Health challenge [23]. Unfortunately, this approach is still relatively early in Chile compared to other South American countries such as Brazil, and the study of Campylobacter epidemiology is little considered; therefore, its detection in various sources is limited and focused on certain research groups [18,24].
So far, most studies on resistance in the poultry industry have focused on C. jejuni and/or C. coli. However, considering that different Campylobacterales reside in the intestines of birds, it is necessary to assess how selective pressures affect them as a group. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that there is a lack of knowledge about Campylobacterales present in the Chilean poultry industry, this study aims to reveal the prevalence, antimicrobial resistance, and genetic diversity of Campylobacterales present in retailed chicken meat samples in Chile.

2. Results

2.1. Prevalence and Distribution of Campylobacterales

A total of 226 out of 382 (59.2%) chicken meat samples tested positive for Campylobacterales using microbiological culture. In most samples, only one species was isolated (45.8%) (Table 1), while 11.5% (44/382) of the samples were positive for both Campylobacter spp. and Arcobacter spp. The most prevalent species was A. butzleri (37.4%; 143/382), followed by C. jejuni (19.6%; 75/382), C. coli (11.3%; 43/382), A. cryaerophilus (3.7%; 14/382), and A. skirrowii (1.3%; 5/382). It was not possible to isolate Helicobacter spp. in any sample with the culture media used (Table 2). However, Helicobacter pullorum was detected (14%) by PCR in a subset of samples.
As shown in Table 2, Arcobacter spp. was able to grow in all isolation protocols, while Campylobacter spp. could only be recovered in Bolton broth and mCCDA plates incubated at 37 °C under microaerobic conditions (Protocol B).

2.2. Antimicrobial Resistance

Susceptibility to antimicrobials was assessed phenotypically in 280 isolates (118 Campylobacter spp. and 162 Arcobacter spp.). Campylobacter jejuni showed resistance to CIP (37.3%) and TET (20%), with 5.3% strains resistant to both antibiotics. Campylobacter coli was resistant to CIP (55.8%), E (16.3%), and TET (4.7%), in which 16.3% strains presented simultaneous resistance to CIP-E and 2.3% strain to CIP-TET. All Campylobacter isolates were susceptible to Gentamicin (GEN) (Table 3).
Arcobacter butzleri was the only species of the genus with antimicrobial resistance confirmed by MIC, with 2.8% to CIP, 0.7% to E, and 2.8% to TET. All Arcobacter isolates were susceptible to GEN (Table 3). However, there were discrepancies between the results of the disk diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration methods, where the resistant isolates only coincided in 50%, 33.3% and 5.6% for CIP, E and TET, respectively.

2.3. Molecular Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance

Molecular antibiotic resistance determinants detected after whole-genome sequencing and functional annotation on selected samples are shown in Figure 1. All Campylobacter spp. strains resistant to CIP and TET had the C257T mutation in the quinolone resistance-determining regions (QRDR) of gyrA gene and the tet(O) gene, respectively. Meanwhile, the six C. coli strains resistant to E, presented the A2074G (2/6) or A2075G (4/6) mutation. The erm(B) gene, however, was detected in none of the strains. All Campylobacter strains presented the cmeABC gene. Moreover, 7 of 19 C. jejuni strains whose genome was sequenced and all C. coli had mutations in the cmeR gene. Additionally, resistance determinants were found for certain antibiotics that were not phenotypically tested. Some C. jejuni possessed the lnu(C) gene (6/19) and the presence of blaOXA-61 (9/19). While C. coli presented the gene aph(3′)-III (2/14), aadE-Cc (1/14), cfr(C) (2/14) and the presence of blaOXA-61 (3/14).
All A. butzleri strains that had resistance phenotype to CIP had the C254T mutation in the QRDR of gyrA gene. Moreover, in one A. butzleri strain resistant to E, we found a mutation in the areR gene, suggesting an overexpression of the AreABC pump. Interestingly, despite observing phenotypic resistance to TET, no known specific molecular determinant was found for this antibiotic. However, most (7/10) strains had blaOXA-464.

2.4. Virulence Genes

Although it was not one of the main objectives of the study, virulence determinants were investigated using whole-genome sequences. It was found that the main genes in Campylobacter are cadF, jlpA, porA, pebA, racR, dnaJ, pldA, ciaB, ceuE, iamb, and flaC. The cdtABC toxins genes were found almost exclusively in C. jejuni, while the genes associated with T6SS were found in C. jejuni and C. coli. (Figure S1). In A. butzleri, the cadF, cj1349, mviN, ciaB, pldA and irgA, genes were found in all the isolates, while only some strains have hecA (2/10), hecB (6/10) and iroE (6/10) genes (Figure S2).

2.5. Genotyping

As shown in Figure 1, the 19 C. jejuni genome sequences were classified into 16 different STs, four of which had not previously been reported (2 by novel allele sequences and 2 by novel combinations of preexisting alleles), which were submitted to the Campylobacter jejuni/coli PubMLST database. The remaining twelve STs were grouped into nine different clonal complexes (CC-21, CC-48, CC-49, CC-257, CC-353, CC-354, CC-443, CC-446 and CC-658). In addition, five different STs were identified out of 14 C. coli, with four of them grouped in CC-828, while ST-1109 could not be assigned to any CC.
In A. butzleri, eight different genotypes were identified. According to the analysis in the Arcobacter spp. PubMLST, six of which had not previously been reported (3 by novel allele sequences and 3 by novel combinations of preexisting alleles). The remaining two STs corresponded to the ST-40 and ST-172. However, new allele/new ST numbers could not be assigned to these Arcobacter genes/strains, respectively, due to the lack of a curator for this species in the database at the submission date (February 2023) (Keith Jolley, personal communication).

3. Discussion

Although the existence of Campylobacter and taxonomically related organisms in chicken meat samples is well known, most of the studies worldwide have been focusing only on C. jejuni and, to a lesser extent, on C. coli, with other Campylobacterales rarely considered, even when they coexist in the same reservoir and are subject to the same selective pressures, due to exposure to antibiotics in the poultry industry [25].
In the current study, more than half of the chicken meat samples for sale in the city of Valdivia, Chile, were positive for different Campylobacterales. In total, six species were detected: C. jejuni, C. coli, A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus, A. skirrowii and Helicobacter pullorum. This contrasts with previous studies, where up to four species for this type of sample have been reported [15,26]. As far as we are aware, this is the first study demonstrating a higher diversity of Campylobacterales coexisting in samples of retail chicken meat.

3.1. Prevalence and Distribution of Campylobacterales

The prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in chicken meat samples was 29.8%, with C. jejuni present in 19.6% and C. coli in 11.3%, figures that fall within the ranges reported worldwide [25]. Unlike the large number of studies carried out on chicken meat in North America and the European Union (EU), studies carried out in South America are scarce, and as such unrepresentative. Moreover, they are concentrated in just a few countries, mainly Brazil, followed by Argentina and Chile [3,27,28].
Some studies on poultry meat in Chile show Campylobacter spp. has a similar prevalence to Salmonella spp. [3,29]. Despite this, unlike Salmonella the diagnosis of Campylobacter is not included in the Chilean sanitary regulations for food [18]. This may be because of their infrequent diagnosis in clinical laboratories, in contrast to what happens in high-income settings such as the United States, Iceland, the Netherlands and New Zealand, where the high prevalence obtained from both clinical samples and poultry meat led to recommendations to control Campylobacter in processing plants and imported products [18,30]. However, despite the scarcity of clinical laboratory diagnoses, a progressive increase in its detection as a cause of diarrhea was observed in Chilean children under five years of age between 2013 and 2017, as well as in adults with diarrhea [18,31].
Studies on emerging Campylobacterales are very limited in South America. Indeed, this is the first report of Helicobacter spp. in chicken meat in this setting. Within the emerging Campylobacterales, Arcobacter spp. presented a prevalence of 40.8%, where the most isolated species was A. butzleri (37.4%), predominating even over the genus Campylobacter spp. (Table 2) [19,32,33]. This could be due to the capacity of A. butzleri to grow in a wide range of temperatures, in different atmospheres and in aquatic environments. As such, it may be better able to survive in poultry industry facilities and be found in high concentrations in this type of food [32,34]. Arcobacter butzleri has been identified as an emerging foodborne pathogen and has been reported from Chilean patients with gastroenteritis [35,36]. However, like other emerging pathogens, there are no regulations on its detection in food, and its diagnosis in clinical samples is not done routinely [6,37].
It was not possible to isolate Helicobacter spp. This could be because Helicobacter spp. was present in low concentrations and/or in a viable but non-culturable state or because the protocol used was not ideal for isolating it from chicken meat, even though the media used have allowed the isolation of several EHH species in other biological samples [8,38,39]. However, a frequency of 14% for H. pullorum was obtained by molecular detection. This figure is close to the range reported in chicken meat in Iran (16–49%) [40,41]. There is only one previous record of this species from the bile of a patient with chronic cholecystitis in Chile [42]. As such, this is the first report of H. pullorum in Chilean chicken meat.

3.2. Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence

There is a need to explain the increase in antibiotic resistance observed in clinical Campylobacter spp. strains over the last two decades in Chile [17,18]. While it has been attributed to the use of antimicrobials in the poultry industry, its cause is not known with certainty [18].
The results obtained show that the pattern of antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter spp. analyzed coincides with what has been reported in chicken meat and clinical strains worldwide [3,43]. According to phenotypic and genomic analyses, all Campylobacter strains resistant to CIP presented the C257T mutation in gyrA gene. This mutation is also associated with a gain in the fitness of Campylobacter, which would imply that strains with these mutations persist over time, even when the antibiotic is discontinued [44,45]. On the other hand, Campylobacter resistance to TET was similar to what had previously been reported for clinical strains, chicken meat and bovine liver in Chile [3,19]. All strains phenotypically resistant to TET possess the tet(O) gene in their genome [46]. Among the Campylobacter species, only C. coli presented resistance to E, which was associated with the presence of the A2074G and A2075G mutations in the 23S rRNA. These mutations generate a cost in the fitness of C. jejuni, but not in C. coli, which could explain the results obtained in this study [47,48]. The erm (B) gene was not detected in the genomes analyzed, though it has already been reported in strain from chicken skin samples from Peru and China [49,50].
All Campylobacter genomes contained cmeABC genes, which generate an efflux system or pump that contributes to Campylobacter intrinsic resistance to various antimicrobials, including CIP, E, and TET [51,52]. This pump has already been reported in Chile in Campylobacter spp. strains of bovine origin, as well as in clinical strains [19,53]. However, seven of the 19 C. jejuni genomes and all of C. coli (n = 14) presented mutations in the cmeR gene, which is associated with a greater expression of this multidrug efflux pump. Despite this, a difference in MICs was not observed between those that did and did not present the mutation [54]. To our knowledge, this is the first time that mutations in the cmeR gene is reported in Chilean strains.
Additionally, genomic analysis allowed us to detect antibiotic-resistance genes that were not phenotypically tested here, such as lnu(C), cfr(C) and blaOXA-61 [55,56]. Meanwhile, only the C. coli genomes presented molecular determinants of resistance to aminoglycosides (aph(3′)-III and aadE-Cc). Even though both are related to resistance to aminoglycosides, none of them confers resistance to gentamicin, in accordance with the phenotypic results obtained in this study [57].
Genomic analysis of resistance determinants has the potential to accurately predict resistance phenotypes [57]. As such, 27.3% of these Campylobacter spp. strains could be classified as multidrug-resistant (MDR), that is, strains with resistance to three or more classes of antibiotics, which coincides with the MDR reported in clinical samples in Chile [53]. This figure is lower than that obtained in other countries such as India (54.4%) and China (93.7%), in which a considerable increase in strains resistant to antibiotics has been observed over the years [58,59]. However, it is similar to other South American countries, like Brazil (13%) [60].
Similar phenotypic patterns of antimicrobial resistance reported in Campylobacter were observed for A. butzleri. The percentage of strains resistant to TET is within the range reported worldwide, while lower values were obtained for CIP and E [61]. A discrepancy was observed between the resistance results by DD and MIC in Arcobacter spp., mainly to TET. Since Arcobacter spp. does not have cut-off values in CLSI or EUCAST, most studies use the criteria and breakpoints listed for C. jejuni/C. coli in CLSI M45 [33,62]. However, the data obtained in this, and previous studies would suggest that Campylobacter cut-off values are not reliable for this microorganism and confirm the need for having own and standardized cut-off values for a trustworthy interpretation [63].
All the sequenced A. butzleri strains resistant to CIP carried the C254T mutation in the gyrA gene [63]. Additionally, all of them presented the adeF gene (with a low percentage of identity), associated with resistance to fluoroquinolones and tetracyclines [64]. A total of 70% of the A. butzleri genomes presented the previously reported blaOXA-464 gene, which is associated beta-lactams resistance [63,65]. Moreover, for the first time we report a mutation in the areR gene, involving an overexpression of the AreABC pump, which would correlate with the resistance to E observed in a strain, which could be supported with further gene expression analysis [66,67]. Meanwhile, the presence of the tet(O), tet(A) or tet(W), which generate resistance to TET, were not found in these strains. As we currently have limited knowledge of molecular determinants of resistance in Arcobacter, the presence of an unknown gene conferring phenotypic resistance cannot be ruled out, which highlights the need to investigate them, more so given that this is a naturally transformable bacterium, and therefore, could acquire an antibiotic resistance gene by horizontal transfer [68].
Even though the same antimicrobials used in human medicine are not used in the poultry industry [18,69], those applied in avian production belong to the same families, as in the case of enrofloxacin, tylosin, and oxytetracycline, which are antibiotics belonging to the fluoroquinolones, macrolides and tetracyclines families, respectively, and authorized for use in poultry according to the Chilean registry of veterinary medicines [69]. It is important to know about the local use of these antibiotics as it has previously been shown that the use of enrofloxacin for the treatment of broiler chickens, generated resistance to CIP in 100% C. jejuni, obtaining a MIC ≥ 32 µg/mL, which persists after the end of treatment [70]. In the case of tylosin, its use in therapeutic concentrations has generated resistance to E in 33.3% of C. coli and 7.9% of C. jejuni, a situation that in some cases generates highly resistant mutants (MIC > 512 µg/mL) [71,72]. Significantly higher resistance to TET, meanwhile, was seen when broilers were treated with oxytetracycline, and this increased resistance to TET has even been reported in Salmonella spp. isolated from chicken meat in Chile, with a range of 95.4–100% resistance to this antibiotic [29,73,74].
On the other hand, although it was not one of the main objectives of the study, virulence determinants were also detected. In Campylobacter spp., the virulence genes found are consistent with those previously reported in Chile in different types of samples, where those associated with adhesion and invasion predominate. It was also found that C. jejuni presents a greater number of virulent genes than C. coli [3,53]. We have also reported here on virulence genes detected in the genomes of A. butzleri, which is an emerging pathogen that presents several virulence determinants homologous to genes present in Campylobacter spp. (Figure S2).

3.3. Epidemiology

At the time of writing, the genotypes of only 145 Chilean strains of Campylobacter spp. were available in the PubMLST database, which were obtained mainly from clinical samples [17,53]. This is around 200 and 300 times less in comparison with the USA and the United Kingdom, respectively, where the epidemiology of Campylobacter spp. has been extensively investigated. However, it is similar to the amount of data from South American countries such as Brazil and Ecuador.
This is the first Chilean study reporting Campylobacter MLST genotypes of chicken meat strains. The C. jejuni strains were grouped into clonal complexes (CC) previously reported in clinical strains isolated in Valdivia (CC-21, CC-48, CC-257 and CC-353) and Santiago (CC-21, CC-48, CC-49, CC-257, CC-353, CC-443, CC-446 and CC-658) [17,53]. One poultry isolate corresponded to ST-3874 belonging to CC-354, which has been previously reported in a bovine liver isolate in the same geographical area (Valdivia city) and has also been isolated from clinical samples in the USA and Canada [19,75]. A total of 21% of the C. jejuni strains (4/19) clustered in CC-353, being the most prevalent CC, a genotype known to cause human infections and colonize broiler products, as well as its association with resistance to quinolones [76,77,78].
Campylobacter coli presents a particular genetic population structure, in which at least three main clades have been described to date [79]. In this study, all the C. coli strains belonged to clade 1 (Figure S3), that are commonly isolated from farm animals and human gastroenteritis cases, unlike clade 2 and 3, which are mainly isolated from environmental sources [53]. Most of the isolates clustered in CC-828 (92.9%), in line with previously reported genotypes of clinical strains in Chile and the worldwide distribution of C. coli in birds and patients with diarrhea [53,80]. The only ST of C. coli that did not belong to any CC was the ST-1109, which has previously been isolated from animals and humans. These associations suggest that domestic broiler meat is likely an important source of antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter in Chile. Additionally, 21% (4/19) of the C. jejuni genomes did not match with previously reported STs, which correspond to four new STs (12300, 12301, 12302, 12303) found in this study.
The genotypes obtained in A. butzleri were only identified at ST level (genotypes did not cluster into clonal complexes), and corresponded to ST-40 and ST-172, which have only been described in samples associated with poultry (chicken, turkey, and poultry environment) in Nigeria, Thailand, and the USA. A total of 70% (7/10) of the genomes analyzed did not coincide with previously reported STs, corresponding to six potential new STs, which cannot be assigned yet due to the lack of a curator in the PubMLST database, as mentioned above. Due to the few studies carried out on this emerging pathogen and the late development of their MLST protocol compared to Campylobacter spp., knowledge of the epidemiology of A. butzleri is even more limited [81]. In fact, the data reported here correspond to the first MLST genotypes of A. butzleri in South America, which could provide a basis for understanding its distribution when data on clinical strains in the area are available.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sample Collection

A total of 382 broiler meat packages were obtained from 14 supermarkets in the city of Valdivia (southern Chile), between June 2021 and January 2022. The meat came from the three main supply chains in Chile. This study was conducted by simple random sampling. The sample size was calculated using Working in Epidemiology “http://www.winepi.net/ (accessed on 10 March 2021)”, based on a seroprevalence of 46%, an error of 5%, and a 95% confidence interval [3]. The samples were transported refrigerated in an airtight bag to the laboratory, where they were analyzed within six hours.

4.2. Isolation of Campylobacterales

Three protocols were used for the isolation of different Campylobacterales genera.
Protocol A, aimed at the isolation of Arcobacter, consisted of enriching 10 g of meat in 90 mL of Arcobacter broth, supplemented with CAT (cefoperazone, amphotericin B and teicoplanin), homogenized for 1 min in a Stomacher bag and then incubated at 30 °C for 48 h in aerobic conditions. Then, 200 μL of broth was transferred to the surface of a Millipore membrane filter (diameter pore 0.45 μm) for passive filtration on Columbia Agar supplemented with 5% sheep blood, and allowed to filter for 30 min [82]. Finally, the filter was removed, and the plates were incubated at 30 °C for 48 h under aerobic conditions. Plates that were negative at 48 h were incubated for up to 5 days.
Protocol B, aimed at the isolation of Campylobacter, consisted of the enrichment of 10 g of meat in Bolton broth, supplemented with 5% sheep blood, homogenized for 1 min in a Stomacher bag and then incubated for 48 h at 37 °C under microaerobic condition using Anaerocult© C (Merck Millipore). Next, 50 μL of this broth was streaked in mCCDA, which was incubated for 48 h at 37 °C under microaerobic conditions. Plates that were negative at 48 h were incubated for up to 5 days.
Protocol C1 and C2, aimed at the isolation of Helicobacter, consisted of adding 10 g of the sample to 90 mL of PBS 1X, and homogenizing it for 1 min in a Stomacher bag. This was then centrifuged, discarding the supernatant and resuspending the pellet of which 400 μL was used to carry out passive filtration as described above (Protocol C1). Another 50 μL was streaked in Columbia agar supplemented with 5% sheep blood and CAT antibiotic supplement. Both media were incubated under microaerobic conditions at 37 °C for 48 h (Protocol C2). Cultures that were negative at 48 h were incubated up to 7 days.
Suspicious colonies, with Gram characteristics of Campylobacterales, were cultured on Columbia agar supplemented with 5% blood sheep to obtain a pure culture. They were stored at −80 °C in BHI broth with 20% glycerol.

4.3. Identification

DNA extraction was performed from fresh bacterial culture using the boiling method [83]. Colonies obtained by protocols B and C were identified using multiplex PCR (mPCR) for Campylobacter [84]. Samples that resulted negative for the Campylobacter genus and isolates obtained from protocol A underwent PCR for Arcobacter genus, with the subsequent mPCR analysis for Arcobacter species [85,86].

4.4. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

Antimicrobial susceptibility to CIP, E, TET, and GEN was assessed. The qualitative disk diffusion method was performed, for which the breakpoints of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M45 (2016) were used [87]. Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 was used as a quality control strain. For GEN interpretation, the CLSI M100 (2020) guidelines for Enterobacterales were followed [88]. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was then determined using MIC Test Strip (Liofilchem) in the resistant isolates or in those with intermediate resistance.

4.5. Whole-Genome Sequencing

DNA of a set of representative antibiotic-resistant-strains (19 C. jejuni, 14 C. coli and 10 A. butzleri) were extracted using an Easy-DNATM gDNA Purification Kit (Invitrogen), and quantified by spectrophotometry (NanoQuant—Infinite M200, Tecan) and fluorometry (Qubit 3.0 fluorometer). The sample libraries were prepared using the Illumina DNA Prep kit and IDT 10 bp UDI indices, sequenced on an Illumina NextSeq 2000 at the Microbial Genomics Sequencing Center (SeqCenter, Pittsburgh, PA, USA). Sequence files were evaluated using FastQC v.0.11.9 before and after trimming [89]. Reads were trimmed using Trimmomatic v.0.39 to discard sequences with per base sequence quality score < 28 [90]. Two assemblers (SPAdes v3.13.1 and Unicycler v0.4.8) were used with default parameters and without reference-guided options. The assessment of draft genome assembly quality was done using the 3C criterion (contiguity, completeness, and correctness; Table S1) [91,92,93]. Assembly sequences were kept at the contig level with a minimum size of 1000 bp. The draft genomes were investigated for the presence of genes of antimicrobial resistance, which were identified using Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) and ResFinder [94]. Additionally, the sequences of the QRDR-gyrA gene from ciprofloxacin-resistant mutant strains in A. butzleri were analyzed in comparison with parental strains to identify point mutations. The detection of virulence determinants was carried out using the Virulence Factor Database (VFDB) and a local BLAST alignment (identified with > 90% identity and > 60% coverage). Genome assemblies were also mapped to PubMLST [95].

4.6. Molecular Detection of Helicobacter Pullorum

A subset of 50 samples, processed by protocol C, underwent DNA extraction using Cells and Tissue DNA Isolation Kit (Norgen Biotek, Thorold, ON, Canada), which were subjected to a specific PCR targeting to the cdtB gene of Helicobacter pullorum [96]. This was confirmed by Sanger sequencing and BLASTn analysis.

4.7. Phylogenomic Tree

The genome sequences from this study were uploaded to the Type (Strain) Genome Server (TYGS) (https://tygs.dsmz.de), for a whole genome-based taxonomic analysis. TYGS used the Genome-BLAST Distance Phylogeny method (GBDP) to compare whole-genome sequences. The phylogenomic tree was viewed and edited using iTOL v.4 [97].

4.8. Statistical Analysis

Prevalence among all Campylobacterales isolates in this study was assessed with Cochran’s Q test, while McNemar’s tests was used to determine any differences between the prevalence of Campylobacter and Arcobacter species. In both tests a p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. The analysis was performed using the statistical software R v4.1.1.

5. Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study where three genera of the order Campylobacterales have been studied in parallel in samples of retail chicken meat using phenotypic and genomic approaches, showing a high prevalence and diversity of bacterial species along with high antibiotic resistance and virulence potential. In fact, emerging species such as Arcobacter spp. were identified with the highest prevalence. In addition, Helicobacter pullorum was reported for the first time in chicken meat in a South American country. Additionally, the concordance between the MLST genotypes of previously reported clinical strains of Campylobacter with those from chicken meat, as well as the presence of the same pattern of antibiotic resistance, leads us to suggest that poultry production in Chile bears part of the responsibility for the increase in antibiotic resistance observed in human campylobacteriosis. Therefore, epidemiological surveillance of Campylobacterales should be a priority for the Chilean food industry, and the governmental institutions should implement specific control measures to assess the contamination in chicken meat of national origin.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics12050917/s1, Table S1. Comparison of contiguity and annotation of genomes assemblies by different approaches.; Figure S1. Phylogenetic tree based on whole-genome sequencing generated with Genome Blast Distance Phylogeny (GBDP). The presence or lack of virulence genes in antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter spp. is indicated by the presence or absence of red blocks, respectively. The new STs are in bold type. Bar, 0.01.; Figure S2. Phylogenetic tree based on whole-genome sequencing generated with Genome Blast Distance Phylogeny (GBDP). The presence or lack of virulence of antibiotic-resistant Arcobacter butzleri is indicated by the presence or absence of red block, respectively. NST: New Sequence Type. NST are in bold type. Bar, 0.01.; Figure S3. Phylogenetic tree based on whole-genome sequencing generated with Genome Blast Distance Phylogeny (GBDP). This shows the clade to which the C. coli strains isolated in this study belong. RM2228 belongs to clade 1, H055260513 to clade 2, and BIGS0008 to clade 3. Bar, 0.01.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.C.; formal analysis, M.C.-T.; investigation, M.C.-T. and M.L.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.-T.; writing—review and editing, J.A.M.-M. and L.C.; funding acquisition, L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT–Chile) in the framework of FONDECYT Project No 1200125.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in NCBI under Bioproject PRJNA932782.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Carmen Lopez-Joven (UACh, Universidad Austral de Chile) for technical assistance. This article is based on a master’s thesis from the UACh.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Waite, D.W.; Vanwonterghem, I.; Rinke, C.; Parks, D.H.; Zhang, Y.; Takai, K.; Sievert, S.; Simon, J.; Campbell, B.; Hanson, T.; et al. Comparative genomic analysis of the class Epsilonproteobacteria and proposed reclassification to Epsilonbacteraeota (phyl. nov.). Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kaakoush, N.O.; Castaño-Rodríguez, N.; Mitchell, H.M.; Man, S.M. Global epidemiology of Campylobacter infection. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 28, 687–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lapierre, L.; Gatica, M.A.; Riquelme, V.; Vergara, C.; Yañez, J.M.; San Martin, B.; Sáenz, L.; Vidal, M.; Martínez, M.C.; Araya, P.; et al. Characterization of antimicrobial susceptibility and its association with virulence genes related to adherence, invasion, and cytotoxicity in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolates from animals, meat, and humans. Microb. Drug Resist. 2016, 22, 432–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Nachamkin, I.; Allos, B.M.; Ho, T. Campylobacter Species and Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1998, 11, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Vandenberg, O.; Dediste, A.; Houf, K.; Ibekwem, S.; Souayah, H.; Cadranel, S.; Douat, N.; Zissis, G.; Butzler, J.P.; Vandamme, P. Arcobacter species in humans. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 1863–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Collado, L.; Figueras, M.J. Taxonomy, Epidemiology, and Clinical Relevance of the Genus Arcobacter. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 24, 174–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Marshall, B.; Warren, J.R. Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration. Lancet 1984, 323, 1311–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ochoa, S.; Collado, L. Enterohepatic Helicobacter Species—Clinical Importance, Host Range and Zoonotic Potential. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 47, 728–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Thépault, A.; Rose, V.; Queguiner, M.; Chemaly, M.; Rivoal, K. Dogs and Cats: Reservoirs for Highly Diverse Campylobacter jejuni and a Potential Source of Human Exposure. Animals 2020, 10, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Man, S.M. The clinical importance of emerging Campylobacter species. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2011, 8, 669–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Epps, S.V.; Harvey, R.B.; Hume, M.E.; Phillips, T.D.; Anderson, R.C.; Nisbet, D.J. Foodborne Campylobacter: Infections, metabolism, pathogenesis and reservoirs. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 6292–6304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hansen, R.; Thomson, J.M.; Fox, J.G.; El-Omar, E.M.; Hold, G.L. Could Helicobacter organisms cause inflammatory bowel disease? FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 61, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Endtz, H.P. Campylobacter Infections. In Hunter’s Tropical Medicine and Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10th ed.; Ryan, E., Hill, D., Solomon, T., Aronson, N.E., Endy, T.P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 507–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Van den Abeele, A.M.; Vogelaers, D.; Vanlaere, E.; Houf, K. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Arcobacter butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus strains isolated from Belgian patients. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016, 71, 1241–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Son, I.; Englen, M.D.; Berrang, M.E.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Harrison, M.A. Prevalence of Arcobacter and Campylobacter on broiler carcasses during processing. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 113, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tacconelli, E.; Magrini, N.; Kahlmeter, G.; Singh, N. Global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to guide research, discovery, and development of new antibiotics. WHO 2017, 27, 318–327. [Google Scholar]
  17. Collado, L.; Muñoz, N.; Porte, L.; Ochoa, S.; Varela, C.; Muñoz, I. Genetic diversity and clonal characteristics of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter jejuni isolated from Chilean patients with gastroenteritis. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2018, 58, 290–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Collado, L. Microbial diagnosis and epidemiological surveillance of campylobacteriosis in Chile: Present state and further challenges. Rev. Chilena Infectol. 2020, 37, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lopez-Cantillo, M.; Opazo-Capurro, A.; Lopez-Joven, C.; Vidal-Veuthey, B.; Collado, L. Campylobacter jejuni and other emerging Campylobacteraceae in retail beef liver–an underestimated potential source? Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 75, 1505–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Iannetti, S.; Calistri, P.; Di Serafino, G.; Marotta, F.; Alessiani, A.; Antoci, S.; Neri, D.; Perilli, M.; Iannitto, G.; Iannetti, L.; et al. Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli: Prevalence, contamination levels, genetic diversity and antibiotic resistance in Italy. Vet. Ital. 2020, 56, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hansson, K. To narrate danger: Antibiotics and resistant bacteria’s. In Proceedings of the SANT2021-the Swedish Anthropological Association, Stockholm, Sweden, 22–23 April 2021; Lunds Universitet: Lund, Sweden, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  22. Popa, S.A.; Morar, A.; Ban-Cucerzan, A.; Tîrziu, E.; Herman, V.; Sallam, K.I.; Morar, D.; Acaroz, U.; Imre, M.; Florea, T.; et al. Occurrence of Campylobacter spp. and Phenotypic Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Campylobacter jejuni in Slaughtered Broiler Chickens in North-Western Romania. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, Q.; Beyi, A.F.; Yin, Y. Zoonotic and antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter: A view through the One Health lens. One Health Adv. 2023, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pettan-Brewer, C.; Martins, A.F.; Abreu, D.P.B.D.; Brandão, A.P.D.; Barbosa, D.S.; Figueroa, D.P.; Cediel, N.; Kahn, L.H.; Brandespim, D.F.; Velásquez, J.C.C.; et al. From the approach to the concept: One health in Latin America-Experiences and perspectives in Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 687110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zbrun, M.V.; Rossler, E.; Romero-Scharpen, A.; Soto, L.P.; Berisvil, A.; Zimmermann, J.A.; Fusari, M.L.; Signorini, M.L.; Frizzo, L.S. Worldwide meta-analysis of the prevalence of Campylobacter in animal food products. Res. Vet. Sci. 2020, 132, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Atanassova, V.; Kessen, V.; Reich, F.; Klein, G. Incidence of Arcobacter spp. in poultry: Quantitative and qualitative analysis and PCR differentiation. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 2533–2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Silva, W.C.; Targino, B.N.; Mendonça, R.S.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Hungaro, H.M. Campylobacter: An overview of cases, occurrence in food, contamination sources, and antimicrobial resistance in Brazil. Food Rev. Int. 2018, 34, 364–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zbrun, M.V.; Rossler, E.; Soto, L.P.; Rosmini, M.R.; Sequeira, G.J.; Frizzo, L.S.; Signorini, M.L. Molecular epidemiology of Campylobacter jejuni isolates from the broiler production chain: First report of MLST profiles in Argentina. Rev. Argent. Microbiol. 2021, 53, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lapierre, L.; Cornejo, J.; Zavala, S.; Galarce, N.; Sánchez, F.; Benavides, M.B.; Gúzman, M.; Sáenz, L. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization of virulence factors and susceptibility to antibiotics in Salmonella Infantis strains isolated from chicken meat: First findings in Chile. Animals 2020, 10, 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Geissler, A.L.; Bustos Carrillo, F.; Swanson, K.; Patrick, M.E.; Fullerton, K.E.; Bennett, C.; Barrett, K.; Mahon, B.E. Increasing Campylobacter infections, outbreaks, and antimicrobial resistance in the United States, 2004–2012. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 65, 1624–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ministerio de Salud, Departamento de Epidemiología. Informe Epidemiológico Anual, Diarrea Aguda en Menores de 5 años 2014–2018. Gobierno de Chile. 2018. Available online: http://epi.minsal.cl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/DIARREA_INFORME_2014_2018.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2022).
  32. Dekker, D.; Eibach, D.; Boahen, K.G.; Akenten, C.W.; Pfeifer, Y.; Zautner, A.E.; Mentens, E.; Krumkamp, R.; Jaeger, A.; Flieger, A.; et al. Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Salmonella enterica, Campylobacter spp.; and Arcobacter butzleri from Local and Imported Poultry Meat in Kumasi, Ghana. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vidal-Veuthey, B.; Jara, R.; Santander, K.; Mella, A.; Ruiz, S.; Collado, L. Antimicrobial resistance and virulence genes profiles of Arcobacter butzleri strains isolated from back yard chickens and retail poultry meat in Chile. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 72, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ohnishi, T.; Hara-Kudo, Y. Presence and quantification of pathogenic Arcobacter and Campylobacter species in retail meats available in Japan. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 73, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. ICMSF. Microorganisms in Foods 7-Microbiological Testing in Food Safety Management; International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  36. Collado, L.; Gutiérrez, M.; González, M.; Fernández, H. Assessment of the prevalence and diversity of emergent campylobacteria in human stool samples using a combination of traditional and molecular methods. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2013, 75, 434–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Salas-Massó, N.; Pérez-Cataluña, A.; Collado, L.; Levican, A.; Figueras, M.J. Chapter 23: Arcobacter. In Handbook of Foodborne Diseases, 1st ed.; Dongyou, L., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 243–260. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ochoa, S.; Martínez, O.A.; Fernández, H.; Collado, L. Comparison of media and growth conditions for culturing enterohepatic Helicobacter species. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Habib, I.; Uyttendaele, M.; De Zutter, L. Evaluation of ISO 10272: 2006 standard versus alternative enrichment and plating combinations for enumeration and detection of Campylobacter in chicken meat. Food Microbiol. 2011, 28, 1117–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Jebellijavan, A.; Emadi Chashmi, S.H.; Staji, H.; Akhlaghi, H. Comparison of the Culture and PCR Methods to Determine the Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance of Helicobacter pullorum Isolated from Chicken Thigh Samples in Semnan, Iran. J. Hum. Environ. Health Promot. 2020, 6, 167–172. [Google Scholar]
  41. Akhlaghi, H.; Chashmi, S.E.; Javan, A.J. Development of a novel and specialized cultivation method for isolating Helicobacter pullorum from chicken meat. Iran. J. Vet. Res. 2021, 22, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Fox, J.G.; Dewhirst, F.E.; Shen, Z.; Feng, Y.; Taylor, N.S.; Paster, B.J.; Ericson, E.L.; Lau, C.N.; Correa, P.; Araya, J.C.; et al. Hepatic Helicobacter species identified in bile and gallbladder tissue from Chileans with chronic cholecystitis. Gastroenterology 1998, 114, 755–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Aleksić, E.; Miljković-Selimović, B.; Tambur, Z.; Aleksić, N.; Biočanin, V.; Avramov, S. Resistance to antibiotics in thermophilic Campylobacters. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 763434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Luo, N.; Pereira, S.; Sahin, O.; Lin, J.; Huang, S.; Michel, L.; Zhang, Q. Enhanced in vivo fitness of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni in the absence of antibiotic selection pressure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 541–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Han, J.; Wang, Y.; Sahin, O.; Shen, Z.; Guo, B.; Shen, J.; Zhang, Q. A fluoroquinolone resistance associated mutation in gyrA Affects DNA supercoiling in Campylobacter jejuni. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2012, 2, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Béjaoui, A.; Gharbi, M.; Bitri, S.; Nasraoui, D.; Ben Aziza, W.; Ghedira, K.; Rfaik, M.; Marzougui, L.; Ghram, A.; Maaroufi, A. Virulence Profiling, Multidrug Resistance and Molecular Mechanisms of Campylobacter Strains from Chicken Carcasses in Tunisia. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Han, F.; Pu, S.; Wang, F.; Meng, J.; Ge, B. Fitness cost of macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2009, 34, 462–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Luangtongkum, T.; Shen, Z.; Seng, V.W.; Sahin, O.; Jeon, B.; Liu, P.; Zhang, Q. Impaired fitness and transmission of macrolide-resistant Campylobacter jejuni in its natural host. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012, 56, 1300–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Anampa, D.; Benites, C.; Lázaro, C.; Espinoza, J.; Angulo, P.; Díaz, D.; Manchego, A.; Rojas, M. Detección del gen ermB asociado a la resistencia a macrólidos en cepas de Campylobacter aisladas de pollos comercializados en Lima, Perú. Rev. Panam. Salud Pública 2020, 44, e60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Wang, T.; Zhao, W.; Li, S.; Yao, H.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, L. Characterization of erm(B)-carrying Campylobacter spp. of retail chicken meat origin. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2022, 30, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lin, J.; Sahin, O.; Michel, L.O.; Zhang, Q. Critical role of multidrug efflux pump CmeABC in bile resistance and in vivo colonization of Campylobacter jejuni. Infect. Immun. 2003, 71, 4250–4259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Gibreel, A.; Wetsch, N.M.; Taylor, D.E. Contribution of the CmeABC efflux pump to macrolide and tetracycline resistance in Campylobacter jejuni. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2007, 51, 3212–3216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Bravo, V.; Katz, A.; Porte, L.; Weitzel, T.; Varela, C.; Gonzalez-Escalona, N.; Blondel, C.J. Genomic analysis of the diversity, antimicrobial resistance and virulence potential of clinical Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli strains from Chile. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021, 15, e0009207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lin, J.; Cagliero, C.; Guo, B.; Barton, Y.W.; Maurel, M.C.; Payot, S.; Zhang, Q. Bile salts modulate expression of the CmeABC multidrug efflux pump in Campylobacter jejuni. J. Bacteriol. 2005, 187, 7417–7424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Achard, A.; Villers, C.; Pichereau, V.; Leclercq, R. New lnu(C) gene conferring resistance to lincomycin by nucleotidylation in Streptococcus agalactiae UCN36. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 2716–2719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tang, Y.; Dai, L.; Sahin, O.; Wu, Z.; Liu, M.; Zhang, Q. Emergence of a plasmid-borne multidrug resistance gene cfr(C) in foodborne pathogen Campylobacter. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 1581–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Zhao, S.; Tyson, G.H.; Chen, Y.; Li, C.; Mukherjee, S.; Young, S.; Lam, C.; Folster, J.P.; Whichard, J.M.; McDermott, P.F. Whole-genome sequencing analysis accurately predicts antimicrobial resistance phenotypes in Campylobacter spp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Han, X.; Zhu, D.; Lai, H.; Zeng, H.; Zhou, K.; Zou, L.; Wu, C.; Han, G.; Liu, S. Prevalence, antimicrobial resistance profiling and genetic diversity of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from broilers at slaughter in China. Food Control 2016, 69, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Suman Kumar, M.; Ramees, T.P.; Dhanze, H.; Gupta, S.; Dubal, Z.B.; Kumar, A. Occurrence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter isolates from broiler chicken and slaughter house environment in India. Anim. Biotechnol. 2021, 34, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Paravisi, M.; Laviniki, V.; Bassani, J.; Kunert Filho, H.C.; Carvalho, D.; Wilsmann, D.E.; Borges, K.A.; Furian, T.Q.; Salle, C.T.P.; Moraes, H.L.S.; et al. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni isolated from Brazilian poultry slaughterhouses. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2020, 22, 02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ferreira, S.; Luis, A.; Oleastro, M.; Pereira, L.; Domingues, F.C. A meta-analytic perspective on Arcobacter spp. antibiotic resistance. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2019, 16, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Vicente-Martins, S.; Oleastro, M.; Domingues, F.C.; Ferreira, S. Arcobacter spp. at retail food from Portugal: Prevalence, genotyping and antibiotics resistance. Food Control 2018, 85, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jehanne, Q.; Bénéjat, L.; Ducournau, A.; Bessède, E.; Lehours, P. Molecular Cut-off Values for Aliarcobacter butzleri Susceptibility Testing. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e01003-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Parisi, A.; Capozzi, L.; Bianco, A.; Caruso, M.; Latorre, L.; Costa, A.; Giannico, A.; Ridolfi, D.; Bulzacchelli, C.; Santagada, G. Identification of virulence and antibiotic resistance factors in Arcobacter butzleri isolated from bovine milk by Whole Genome Sequencing. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2019, 8, 7840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, Y.Y.; Zhou, G.L.; Li, Y.; Gu, Y.X.; He, M.; Zhang, S.; Ji, G.Q.; Yang, J.; Wang, M.; Ma, H.M.; et al. Genetic characteristics and antimicrobial susceptibility of Arcobacter butzleri isolates from raw chicken meat and patients with diarrhea in China. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2021, 34, 1024–1028. [Google Scholar]
  66. Kadam, U.S.; Lossie, A.C.; Schulz, B.; Irudayaraj, J. Gene expression analysis using conventional and imaging methods. In DNA and RNA Nanobiotechnologies in Medicine: Diagnosis and Treatment of Diseases; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 141–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Isidro, J.; Ferreira, S.; Pinto, M.; Domingues, F.; Oleastro, M.; Gomes, J.P.; Borges, V. Virulence and antibiotic resistance plasticity of Arcobacter butzleri: Insights on the genomic diversity of an emerging human pathogen. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2020, 80, 104213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Bonifácio, M.; Mateus, C.; Alves, A.R.; Maldonado, E.; Duarte, A.P.; Domingues, F.; Oleastro, M.; Ferreira, S. Natural transformation as a mechanism of horizontal gene transfer in Aliarcobacter butzleri. Pathogens 2021, 10, 909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Palma, E.; Tilocca, B.; Roncada, P. Antimicrobial resistance in veterinary medicine: An overview. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. McDermott, P.F.; Bodeis, S.M.; English, L.L.; White, D.G.; Walker, R.D.; Zhao, S.; Simjee, S.; Wagner, D.D. Ciprofloxacin resistance in Campylobacter jejuni evolves rapidly in chickens treated with fluoroquinolones. J. Infect. Dis. 2002, 185, 837–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ladely, S.R.; Harrison, M.A.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Berrang, M.E.; Englen, M.D.; Meinersmann, R.J. Development of macrolide-resistant Campylobacter in broilers administered subtherapeutic or therapeutic concentrations of tylosin. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 1945–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lin, J.; Yan, M.; Sahin, O.; Pereira, S.; Chang, Y.J.; Zhang, Q. Effect of macrolide usage on emergence of erythromycin-resistant Campylobacter isolates in chickens. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2007, 51, 1678–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Avrain, L.; Humbert, F.; L’Hospitalier, R.; Sanders, P.; Vernozy-Rozand, C.; Kempf, I. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter from broilers: Association with production type and antimicrobial use. Vet. Microbiol. 2003, 96, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pardo-Este, C.; Lorca, D.; Castro-Severyn, J.; Krüger, G.; Alvarez-Thon, L.; Zepeda, P.; Sulbaran-Bracho, Y.; Hidalgo, A.; Tello, M.; Molina, F.; et al. Genetic characterization of Salmonella infantis with multiple drug resistance profiles isolated from a poultry-farm in Chile. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Frosth, S.; Karlsson-Lindsjö, O.; Niazi, A.; Fernström, L.L.; Hansson, I. Identification of transmission routes of Campylobacter and on-farm measures to reduce Campylobacter in chicken. Pathogens 2020, 9, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ramonaite, S.; Tamuleviciene, E.; Alter, T.; Kasnauskyte, N.; Malakauskas, M. MLST genotypes of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from broiler products, dairy cattle and human campylobacteriosis cases in Lithuania. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhang, T.; Dong, J.; Cheng, Y.; Lu, Q.; Luo, Q.; Wen, G.; Liu, G.; Shao, H. Genotypic diversity, antimicrobial resistance and biofilm-forming abilities of Campylobacter isolated from chicken in Central China. Gut Pathog. 2017, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Mäesaar, M.; Meremäe, K.; Ivanova, M.; Roasto, M. Antimicrobial resistance and multilocus sequence types of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from Baltic broiler chicken meat and Estonian human patients. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 3645–3651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Sheppard, S.K.; Maiden, M.C. The evolution of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2015, 7, a018119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Zhang, P.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, J.; Shen, Z.; Chen, Q.; Ma, X. Multilocus sequence types and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli isolates of human patients from Beijing, China, 2017–2018. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 554784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Miller, W.G.; Wesley, I.V.; On, S.L.; Houf, K.; Mégraud, F.; Wang, G.; Yee, E.; Srijan, A.; Mason, C.J. First multi-locus sequence typing scheme for Arcobacter spp. BMC Microbiol. 2009, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Steele, T.W.; McDermott, S.N. The use of membrane filters applied directly to the surface of agar plates for the isolation of Campylobacter jejuni from feces. Pathology 1984, 16, 263–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Houf, K.; De Zutter, L.; Van Hoof, J.; Vandamme, P. Assessment of the genetic diversity among arcobacters isolated from poultry products by using two PCR-based typing methods. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 2172–2178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yamazaki-Matsune, W.; Taguchi, M.; Seto, K.; Kawahara, R.; Kawatsu, K.; Kumeda, Y.; Kitazato, M.; Nukina, M.; Misawa, N.; Tsukamoto, T. Development of a multiplex PCR assay for identification of Campylobacter coli, Campylobacter fetus, Campylobacter hyointestinalis subsp. hyointestinalis, Campylobacter jejuni, Campylobacter lari and Campylobacter upsaliensis. J. Med. Microbiol. 2007, 56, 1467–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Harmon, K.M.; Wesley, I.V. Identification of Arcobacter isolates by PCR. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1996, 23, 241–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Douidah, L.; De Zutter, L.; Vandamme, P.; Houf, K. Identification of five human and mammal associated Arcobacter species by a novel multiplex-PCR assay. J. Microbiol. Methods 2010, 80, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. CLSI. Methods for Antimicrobial Dilution and Disk Susceptibility Testing of Infrequently Isolated or Fastidious Bacteria. In Approved Guideline, CLSI Guideline M45, 2nd ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  88. CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, CLSI Supplement M100, 30th ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  89. Andrews, S. FastQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data. Available online: https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/ (accessed on 1 August 2022).
  90. Bolger, A.M.; Lohse, M.; Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2114–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D.; et al. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 2012, 19, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Wick, R.R.; Judd, L.M.; Gorrie, C.L.; Holt, K.E. Unicycler: Resolving bacterial genome assemblies from short and long sequencing reads. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2017, 13, e1005595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Molina-Mora, J.A.; Campos-Sánchez, R.; Rodríguez, C.; Shi, L.; García, F. High quality 3C de novo assembly and annotation of a multidrug resistant ST-111 Pseudomonas aeruginosa genome: Benchmark of hybrid and non-hybrid assemblers. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Bortolaia, V.; Kaas, R.S.; Ruppe, E.; Roberts, M.C.; Schwarz, S.; Cattoir, V.; Philippon, A.; Allesoe, R.L.; Rebelo, A.R.; Florensa, A.F.; et al. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 3491–3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Dingle, K.E.; Colles, F.M.; Wareing, D.R.A.; Ure, R.; Fox, A.J.; Bolton, F.E.; Bootsma, H.J.; Willems, R.J.; Urwin, R.; Maiden, M.C.J. Multilocus sequence typing system for Campylobacter jejuni. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Rocha, M.; Avenaud, P.; Menard, A.; Le Bail, B.; Balabaud, C.; Bioulac-Sage, P.; Magalhaes, D.M.; Megraud, F. Association of Helicobacter species with hepatitis C cirrhosis with or without hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut 2005, 54, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Letunic, I.; Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: Recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, W256–W259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Antibiotics 12 00917 g001 550
Figure 1. Phylogenetic trees based on whole-genome sequencing generated with Genome Blast Distance Phylogeny (GBDP). The presence or lack of molecular determinants of antimicrobial resistance of a subgroup of antibiotic-resistant Campylobacterales isolates is shown with the presence or absence, respectively, of a black block. The new STs are in bold type. NST: New Sequence. Type; Bar, 0.1.
Figure 1. Phylogenetic trees based on whole-genome sequencing generated with Genome Blast Distance Phylogeny (GBDP). The presence or lack of molecular determinants of antimicrobial resistance of a subgroup of antibiotic-resistant Campylobacterales isolates is shown with the presence or absence, respectively, of a black block. The new STs are in bold type. NST: New Sequence. Type; Bar, 0.1.
Antibiotics 12 00917 g001
Table
Table 1. Prevalence and diversity of Campylobacterales isolated from 382 Chilean chicken meat samples.
Table 1. Prevalence and diversity of Campylobacterales isolated from 382 Chilean chicken meat samples.
Isolated SpeciesPositive Sample
N°%
C. jejuni4311.3
C. coli256.5
A. butzleri9625.1
A. cryaerophilus71.8
A. skirrowii41
C. jejuni + C. coli20.5
C. jejuni + A. butzleri277.1
C. jejuni + A. cryaerophilus10.3
C. coli + A. butzleri123.1
C. coli + A. cryaerophilus10.3
A. butzleri + A. cryaerophilus41
A. butzleri + A. skirrowii10.3
C. jejuni + C. coli + A. butzleri20.5
C. coli + A. butzleri + A. cryaerophilus10.3
Total22659.2
Table
Table 2. Prevalence of Campylobacterales using different isolation protocols.
Table 2. Prevalence of Campylobacterales using different isolation protocols.
Isolation Protocols
SpeciesABC1C2Total
(n = 382)
N°%N°%N°%N°%N°% *
C. jejuni 7519.6 7519.6
C. coli 4311.3 4311.3
Total Campylobacter 11429.8 114 **29.8
A. butzleri130344511.8 30.814337.4
A. cryaerophilus82.14110.310.3143.7
A. skirrowii41 10.351.3
Total Arcobacter14237.24912.810.351.3156 **40.8
A: Enrichment in Arcobacter broth supplemented with cefoperazone, amphotericin B and teicoplanin (CAT), incubated at 30 °C for 48 h under aerobic conditions and cultured by filtration over Columbia agar supplemented with 5% sheep blood (CBA), incubated at 30 °C under aerobic conditions for a minimum of 48 h. B: Enrichment in Bolton broth with Bolton antibiotic supplement, incubated at 37 °C under microaerobic condition for 48 h and cultured in modified charcoal cefoperazone deoxycholate agar (mCCDA) at 37 °C under microaerobic condition for a minimum of 48 h. C1: Suspension of sample in PBS, centrifugation, resuspension of the pellet which was filtrated over CBA and incubated at 37 °C under microaerobic conditions for a minimum of 48 h. C2: Suspension of sample in PBS, centrifugation, resuspension of the pellet which was cultured directly in CBA with supplement CAT and incubated at 37 °C under microaerobic conditions for 48 h. * Statistically significant difference was found among all prevalence of the isolated species (p < 0.05). ** More than one species was isolated from some samples.
Table
Table 3. Distribution of antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacterales isolated from Chilean chicken meat.
Table 3. Distribution of antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacterales isolated from Chilean chicken meat.
Antimicrobial AgentSpeciesn°Disk Difussion MethodTest Strip
Number of StrainsDistribution of MIC (µg/ml)
SIR%R0.0320.751.01.52346812162432486496128>256%R
CiprofloxacinC. jejuni7547 2837.3 1 27 37.3
C. coli4319 2455.8 1 23 55.8
A. butzleri143135 85.61 3 111 1 2.8
A. cryaerophilus1515
A. skirrowii44
ErythromycinC. jejuni7575
C. coli4336 716.3 716.3
A. butzleri143140211 1 11 0.7
A. cryaerophilus1515
A. skirrowii44
TetracyclineC. jejuni7560 1520 1 55211 20
C. coli4341 24.7 11 4.7
A. butzleri14359325236.4 1116922141164 2.8
A. cryaerophilus1512216.7 111
A. skirrowii422 2
GentamicinC. jejuni7575
C. coli4343
A. butzleri143143
A. cryaerophilus1515
A. skirrowii44
n°, number of isolates. S, susceptible; I, intermediate; R, resistant; %R, percentage of resistance. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) breakpoints: ciprofloxacin ≥ 4 mg/L, erythromycin ≥ 32 mg/L, gentamicin ≥ 16 mg/L, tetracycline ≥ 16 mg/L. The grey shading indicates resistant isolates.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Concha-Toloza, M.; Lopez-Cantillo, M.; Molina-Mora, J.A.; Collado, L. Genomic Characterization of Antibiotic-Resistant Campylobacterales Isolated from Chilean Poultry Meat. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 917. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050917

AMA Style

Concha-Toloza M, Lopez-Cantillo M, Molina-Mora JA, Collado L. Genomic Characterization of Antibiotic-Resistant Campylobacterales Isolated from Chilean Poultry Meat. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(5):917. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050917

Chicago/Turabian Style

Concha-Toloza, Macarena, Mónica Lopez-Cantillo, Jose Arturo Molina-Mora, and Luis Collado. 2023. "Genomic Characterization of Antibiotic-Resistant Campylobacterales Isolated from Chilean Poultry Meat" Antibiotics 12, no. 5: 917. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050917

APA Style

Concha-Toloza, M., Lopez-Cantillo, M., Molina-Mora, J. A., & Collado, L. (2023). Genomic Characterization of Antibiotic-Resistant Campylobacterales Isolated from Chilean Poultry Meat. Antibiotics, 12(5), 917. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050917

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop