RT Journal Article
T1 Microbiological risk assessment of Turkey and chicken meat for consumer: Significant differences regarding multidrug resistance, mcr or presence of hybrid aEPEC/ExPEC pathotypes of E. coli
A1 Díaz Jiménez, Dafne
A1 García Meniño, Isidro
A1 Herrera, Alexandra
A1 Lestón Cambeiro, Luz
A1 Mora Gutiérrez, Azucena
K1 Escherichia coli
K1 Antimicrobial resistance (AMR)
K1 mcr-1
K1 ESBL
K1 ExPEC
K1 ST131
K1 Poultry meat
K1 Risk assessment
K1 One-health
AB To assess the microbiological risk for consumers, we propose a lab workflow based on six virulence/antimicrobial resistance (AMR) traits, and including a duplex PCR for the screening of extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC). This protocol was tested in 100 poultry meat products. The characterization of 323 isolates revealed that poultry meat is a rich phylogenetic source of E. coli phylogroups (A to G) and Escherichia clade I. Non-susceptible E. coli isolates to monobactams, 3rd-generation cephalosporins and/or fluoroquinolones, were present in 71% of the samples. Besides, 47% carried ≥2 different E. coli positive for ESBL, pAmpC or mcr genes. Isolates from 78% of the poultry meat exhibited ExPEC status, and 53% were carriers of isolates positive for the uropathogenic (UPEC) status. The sequence types (STs) identified in 86% of the samples belonged to the so-called ExPEC high-risk lineages, being 73% carriers of clonal groups identified in human infections of the same Health Area. Moreover, different human-associated clones co-occurred in same meat sample: ST131-B2 (CH40-22), ST648-F (CH4-58), ST93-A (CH11-neg) or ST95-B2 (CH38-27), ST354-F (CH88-58), ST155-B1 (CH4-neg). Globally, 84% of the meat samples posed ≥3 risks, including resistance genes, successful clones and virulence traits. Turkey meat showed significant higher rates concerning mcr-carriage or multidrug resistance; while the ExPEC status rate, or the presence of hybrid pathotypes such as the aEPEC/ExPEC O153:H10-A-ST10 (CH11-54), were associated with chicken origin (P < 0.05). In a “Farm to Fork Strategy”, ExPEC should be clearly included in food surveillance.
PB Elsevier
SN 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107713
YR 2021
FD 2021
LK https://hdl.handle.net/10347/44583
UL https://hdl.handle.net/10347/44583
LA eng
NO Food Control Volume 123, May 2021, 107713
NO This study was supported by the projects AGL2016-79343-R and PID2019-104439RB-C21/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 from the Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI, Spain), cofounded by the European Regional Development Fund of the European Union: a Way to Making Europe (FEDER); ED431C 2017/57 from the Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, (Xunta de Galicia) and FEDER; and by the Strategic Researcher Cluster BioReDeS funded by the Regional Government Xunta de Galicia under the project no. ED431E 2018/09. I. García-Meniño, D. Díaz-Jiménez acknowledge the Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia for their pre-doctoral grants (ED481A-2015/149 and ED481A-2019/022, respectively). L. Lestón acknowledge the Ministry of Education of Spain for her pre-doctoral grant FPU19/01127.
DS Minerva
RD 24 abr 2026