Cargando…

Variability in Characterizing Escherichia coli from Cattle Feces: A Cautionary Tale

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are diverse bacteria, with seven serogroups (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145, O157; “Top 7”) of interest due to their predominance in human disease. Confirmation of STEC relies on a combination of culturing, immunological and molecular assays, but no si...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stanford, Kim, Reuter, Tim, Hallewell, Jennyka, Tostes, Renata, Alexander, Trevor W., McAllister, Tim A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30037096
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6030074
_version_ 1783359844683612160
author Stanford, Kim
Reuter, Tim
Hallewell, Jennyka
Tostes, Renata
Alexander, Trevor W.
McAllister, Tim A.
author_facet Stanford, Kim
Reuter, Tim
Hallewell, Jennyka
Tostes, Renata
Alexander, Trevor W.
McAllister, Tim A.
author_sort Stanford, Kim
collection PubMed
description Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are diverse bacteria, with seven serogroups (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145, O157; “Top 7”) of interest due to their predominance in human disease. Confirmation of STEC relies on a combination of culturing, immunological and molecular assays, but no single gold standard for identification exists. In this study, we compared analysis of STEC between three independent laboratories (LAB) using different methodologies. In LAB A, colonies of Top 7 were picked after serogroup-specific immunomagnetic separation of feces from western-Canadian slaughter cattle. A fraction of each colony was tested by PCR (stx1, stx2, eae, O group), and Top 7 isolates were saved as glycerol stocks (n = 689). In LAB B, a subsample of isolates (n = 171) were evaluated for stx1 and stx2 using different primer sets. For this, approximately half of the PCR were performed using original DNA template provided by LAB A and half using DNA extracted from sub-cultured isolates. All Top 7 isolates were sub-cultured by LAB A and shipped to LAB C for traditional serotyping (TS) to determine O and H groups, with PCR-confirmation of virulence genes using a third set of primers. By TS, 76% of O groups (525/689) matched PCR-determined O groups. Lowest proportions (p < 0.05) of O group matches between PCR and TS (62.6% and 69.8%) occurred for O26 and O45 serogroups, respectively. PCR-detection of stx differed most between LAB A and LAB C. Excluding isolates where O groups by PCR and TS did not match, detection of stx1 was most consistent (p < 0.01) for O111 and O157:H7/NM. In contrast, for O45 and O103, stx1 was detected in >65% of isolates by LAB A and <5% by LAB C. Stx2 was only detected by LAB C in isolates of serogroups O121, O145, and O157:H7/NM. LAB B also detected stx2 in O26 and O157:H12/H29, while LAB A detected stx2 in all serogroups. Excluding O111 and O157:H7/NM, marked changes in stx detection were observed between initial isolation and sub-cultures of the same isolate. While multiple explanations exist for discordant O-typing between PCR and TS and for differences in stx detection across labs, these data suggest that assays for STEC classification may require re-evaluation and/or standardization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6165469
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61654692018-10-10 Variability in Characterizing Escherichia coli from Cattle Feces: A Cautionary Tale Stanford, Kim Reuter, Tim Hallewell, Jennyka Tostes, Renata Alexander, Trevor W. McAllister, Tim A. Microorganisms Article Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are diverse bacteria, with seven serogroups (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145, O157; “Top 7”) of interest due to their predominance in human disease. Confirmation of STEC relies on a combination of culturing, immunological and molecular assays, but no single gold standard for identification exists. In this study, we compared analysis of STEC between three independent laboratories (LAB) using different methodologies. In LAB A, colonies of Top 7 were picked after serogroup-specific immunomagnetic separation of feces from western-Canadian slaughter cattle. A fraction of each colony was tested by PCR (stx1, stx2, eae, O group), and Top 7 isolates were saved as glycerol stocks (n = 689). In LAB B, a subsample of isolates (n = 171) were evaluated for stx1 and stx2 using different primer sets. For this, approximately half of the PCR were performed using original DNA template provided by LAB A and half using DNA extracted from sub-cultured isolates. All Top 7 isolates were sub-cultured by LAB A and shipped to LAB C for traditional serotyping (TS) to determine O and H groups, with PCR-confirmation of virulence genes using a third set of primers. By TS, 76% of O groups (525/689) matched PCR-determined O groups. Lowest proportions (p < 0.05) of O group matches between PCR and TS (62.6% and 69.8%) occurred for O26 and O45 serogroups, respectively. PCR-detection of stx differed most between LAB A and LAB C. Excluding isolates where O groups by PCR and TS did not match, detection of stx1 was most consistent (p < 0.01) for O111 and O157:H7/NM. In contrast, for O45 and O103, stx1 was detected in >65% of isolates by LAB A and <5% by LAB C. Stx2 was only detected by LAB C in isolates of serogroups O121, O145, and O157:H7/NM. LAB B also detected stx2 in O26 and O157:H12/H29, while LAB A detected stx2 in all serogroups. Excluding O111 and O157:H7/NM, marked changes in stx detection were observed between initial isolation and sub-cultures of the same isolate. While multiple explanations exist for discordant O-typing between PCR and TS and for differences in stx detection across labs, these data suggest that assays for STEC classification may require re-evaluation and/or standardization. MDPI 2018-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6165469/ /pubmed/30037096 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6030074 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Stanford, Kim
Reuter, Tim
Hallewell, Jennyka
Tostes, Renata
Alexander, Trevor W.
McAllister, Tim A.
Variability in Characterizing Escherichia coli from Cattle Feces: A Cautionary Tale
title Variability in Characterizing Escherichia coli from Cattle Feces: A Cautionary Tale
title_full Variability in Characterizing Escherichia coli from Cattle Feces: A Cautionary Tale
title_fullStr Variability in Characterizing Escherichia coli from Cattle Feces: A Cautionary Tale
title_full_unstemmed Variability in Characterizing Escherichia coli from Cattle Feces: A Cautionary Tale
title_short Variability in Characterizing Escherichia coli from Cattle Feces: A Cautionary Tale
title_sort variability in characterizing escherichia coli from cattle feces: a cautionary tale
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30037096
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6030074
work_keys_str_mv AT stanfordkim variabilityincharacterizingescherichiacolifromcattlefecesacautionarytale
AT reutertim variabilityincharacterizingescherichiacolifromcattlefecesacautionarytale
AT hallewelljennyka variabilityincharacterizingescherichiacolifromcattlefecesacautionarytale
AT tostesrenata variabilityincharacterizingescherichiacolifromcattlefecesacautionarytale
AT alexandertrevorw variabilityincharacterizingescherichiacolifromcattlefecesacautionarytale
AT mcallistertima variabilityincharacterizingescherichiacolifromcattlefecesacautionarytale