• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of aemPermissionsJournals.ASM.orgJournalAEM ArticleJournal InfoAuthorsReviewers
Appl Environ Microbiol. Aug 2005; 71(8): 4510–4515.
PMCID: PMC1183281

Concurrent Quantitation of Total Campylobacter and Total Ciprofloxacin-Resistant Campylobacter Loads in Rinses from Retail Raw Chicken Carcasses from 2001 to 2003 by Direct Plating at 42°C

Abstract

This is the first report on the use of a normally lethal dose of ciprofloxacin in a Campylobacter agar medium to kill all ciprofloxacin-sensitive Campylobacter spp. but allow the selective isolation and quantitation of naturally occurring presumptive ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU in rinses from retail raw chicken carcasses (RTCC). Thermophilic-group total Campylobacter CFU and total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU (irrespective of species) were concurrently quantified in rinses from RTCC by direct plating of centrifuged pellets from 10 or 50 ml out of 400-ml rinse subsamples concurrently on Campylobacter agar and ciprofloxacin-containing Campylobacter agar at 42°C (detection limit = 0.90 log10 CFU/carcass). For 2001, 2002, and 2003, countable Campylobacter CFU were recovered from 85%, 96%, and 57% of RTCC, while countable ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU were recovered from 60%, 59%, and 17.5% of RTCC, respectively. Total Campylobacter CFU loads in RTCC rinses ranged from 0.90 to 4.52, 0.90 to 4.58, and 0.90 to 4.48 log10 CFU/carcass in 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively. Total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU loads in RTCC rinses ranged from 0.90 to 4.06, 0.90 to 3.95, and 0.90 to 3.04 log10 CFU/carcass in 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively. Overall, total Campylobacter loads of 0.90 to 2.0, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, 4 to 5 log10 CFU/carcass, respectively, were recovered from 16%, 32%, 26%, and 5% of RTCC tested over the 2-year sampling period. For the same period, total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter loads of 0.90 to 2.0, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, and 4 to 5 log10 CFU/carcass, respectively, were recovered from 24%, 11%, 7%, and 0.2% of RTCC tested. There was a steady decline in total Campylobacter and total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter loads in RTCC rinses from 2001/2002 to 2003.

Many recent reports show that the usage of the fluoroquinolone group of antibiotics in poultry apparently creates a reservoir of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter jejuni and other Campylobacter spp. in the food chain in the United States (1, 4, 9, 10a, 21, 29, 31, 32). Recent surveillance data by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Program (NARMS) clearly illustrate the emerging ciprofloxacin (a fluoroquinolone antibiotic) resistance of Campylobacter in humans (2, 5, 13). Molecular subtyping showed an association between ciprofloxacin-resistant C. jejuni from chicken products and acquired Campylobacter infections among Minnesota residents (29) who had contact with these products. Among Campylobacter spp., both C. jejuni and C. coli are recognized as predominant human-pathogenic species, showing the presence of ciprofloxacin-resistant strains, and these were frequently found in retail raw chicken carcasses (RTCC) (1, 3, 21, 26). While ciprofloxacin resistance in Campylobacter can occur following the treatment of humans with the antibiotic, raw poultry is considered a significant source of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter (1, 4, 11, 16, 21, 29, 31, 32). Therefore, there is a clear need for monitoring their persistence and quantitative reduction of the total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter load in the food chain, particularly from raw chicken products, in efforts to control human campylobacteriosis.

At the present time, the occurrence of ciprofloxacin-resistant C. jejuni or other Campylobacter spp. on raw chicken carcasses is determined by enrichment methods which provide only qualitative presence or absence tests per carcass sampled (12, 13, 26, 34). Selective quantitative methods are yet to be developed for the quantitative monitoring of total ciprofloxacin-resistant C. jejuni and other Campylobacter loads persisting on raw and raw further-processed poultry products. The standard Campylobacter selective broth enrichment methods will not provide estimates of the original numbers of Campylobacter cells present per carcass. Also, culture isolation by broth enrichment techniques does not permit the total differentiated enumeration of the numbers or diversity of the ciprofloxacin-resistant versus ciprofloxacin-sensitive Campylobacter strains present in foods. The faster-growing strains will overgrow other strains. Genetic-based resistance to ciprofloxacin in human and animal isolates of Campylobacter has been established (7, 14, 31). A PCR-based TaqMan method was developed for the detection of C. jejuni isolates that carry the C→T transition in codon 86 of gyrA (24, 33, 35). However, there appears to be the involvement of multiple genes for resistance to ciprofloxacin (10, 14), and a comprehensive set of PCR probes for these other loci has not yet been developed. Confirmative tests based on complete gene sequencing or multiple PCR tests are indispensable for the complete characterization of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter. However, it is currently impractical by any DNA-based methods to isolate and quantitatively enumerate ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter load from crude carcass rinses without destroying the Campylobacter cells present in those samples. Recently, a direct real-time PCR quantification of Campylobacter jejuni in chicken fecal and cecal samples has been published, but the minimum quantitation limit was 4 log10 CFU/g (27). A culture-based direct plating method was recommended for the isolation and enumeration of total Campylobacter spp. from broilers (17, 28), but no such method was published for ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter load. This is the first report of a direct plating method for selectively quantifying the persisting ciprofloxacin-resistant subpopulation of the total Campylobacter load on retail raw chicken carcasses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Campylobacter media and chemicals.

Campylobacter agar (CA) was prepared from Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended Campylobacter enrichment broth medium (Bolton formula, LAB 135; J&K Microbiologics, Inc., North Ridgeville, OH) (15) by adding 1.5% agar (Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Sparks, MD). After autoclaving and tempering CA medium, 5% lysed defibrinated horse blood (MT 59074; Quad Five, Ryegate, MT) and FDA-approved Campylobacter selective antibiotic supplement (X132, comprised of four selective antibiotics for Campylobacter isolation from raw poultry products, namely, 20 mg/liter sodium cefoperazone, 20 mg/liter vancomycin, 20 mg/liter trimethoprim, and 25 mg/liter natamycin; J&K Microbiologics, Inc., North Ridgeville, OH) were added and mixed thoroughly prior to pouring CA plates. Ciprofloxacin-containing Campylobacter agar (CCA) containing 8.6 mg/liter ciprofloxacin was prepared by adding 10 mg/liter ciprofloxacin hydrochloride (purity = 86.2% ciprofloxacin; Serological Proteins, Inc., Kankakee, IL) to CA along with 5% horse blood and other selective antibiotic supplement described above before pouring plates.

Retail raw whole chicken carcass sampling source.

From July 2001 through December 2003, individual commercially packaged refrigerated raw whole chicken carcasses (approximately 3 lb each) were sampled within their printed shelf dates generally at weekly intervals from local retail grocery stores in the Fayetteville, AR, area, at the rate of four carcasses per week. The samples were transported to the laboratory and sampled within 2 h of purchase.

Carcass rinse collection, subsample rinse concentration, and direct plating on CA and CCA.

After removing from the retail package, each raw whole chicken carcass was placed in a 15-in. by 20-in. sterile poultry rinse bag (Nasco, Fort Atkinson, WI) and Butterfield's phosphate diluent (400 ml) was added to the bag. One-half of the Butterfield's phosphate diluent was poured into the interior cavity of the carcass and the other half on the outside of the carcass. To make sure all surface areas of each carcass were sampled, each carcass was rinsed inside and out with a rocking reciprocal motion in an 18- to 24-in. arc for 2 min. Then, the bag was aseptically cut at the lower corner to recover the whole carcass rinse into a sterile 500-ml bottle. The carcass rinse sample collected was mixed by gentle shaking prior to removing large subsamples for assay. Rinse subsamples were tested concurrently for each carcass for the determination of total Campylobacter counts and total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter counts by direct plating. Subsample volumes of 10 ml and 50 ml from the 400-ml rinse per carcass were concentrated by centrifugation at 8,000 × g for 20 min, and the supernatant was carefully decanted without disturbing the pellet. Using all of the small volume (approximately <250 μl) of rinse left in the tube after discarding the supernatant, the entire pellet was resuspended by pipetting and then direct plated on CA or CCA. Pellets obtained by centrifuging rinse subsamples (one 10 ml and one 50 ml for CA; both 50 ml for CCA) per carcass were direct plated on CA or CCA. CA and CCA plates were incubated under microaerophilic conditions in a Campy gas mixture (5% O2, 10% CO2, 85% N2) at 42°C for 48 h. Typical presumptive Campylobacter microcolonies obtained from each rinse subsample concentrate on CA or CCA were enumerated as described below.

Campylobacter colony presumptive confirmation on CA and CCA, calculation of CFU counts, and statistical analysis of data.

Characteristic total Campylobacter colonies on CA or CCA were presumptively identified after 48-h incubation at 42°C based on typical morphological characteristics (17, 18, 20, 25). Typically, two types of Campylobacter colonies were found on CA or CCA after 48 h: (a) round, 1- to 2-mm-diameter, small, raised, smooth, shiny, convex, with a defined clear or translucent edge and a dirty brownish opaque center, and (b) flat, large, spreading with an irregular edge, clear, translucent, light cream, or grayish. Only a few non-Campylobacter contaminants grew on CA or CCA, and these were easily distinguishable from typical Campylobacter by their differences in colony morphologies. Representative characteristic Campylobacter colonies were examined by wet mounts for the presence of thin, curved, spiral cells with corkscrew motility. The representative presumptive Campylobacter colonies after their isolation on CA and CCA (a total of 16 Campylobacter isolates representing four carcasses per week) were randomly selected and preserved as frozen stocks after growth expansion. Genus and species identities for some selected Campylobacter isolates from CA and CCA were confirmed by PCR assays (19).

Total Campylobacter CFU recovered per carcass were calculated based on the following formulae: n1 × V1/V2 or n1 × V1/V3, where n1 is the total number of typical Campylobacter CFU recovered on CA at 42°C within 48 h per concentrated rinse subsample, V1 is the total volume of chicken carcass rinse (400 ml), and V2 and V3 are the volume of subsample rinse used for concentration, 10 and 50 ml, respectively. Total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU recovered per carcass were calculated based on the following formula: n2 × V1/V3, where n2 is the total number of typical Campylobacter CFU recovered on CCA at 42°C within 48 h per concentrated rinse subsample and V1 and V3 are as described above. All Campylobacter count data were transformed to log10 CFU/carcass using the Microsoft Excel program (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Wash.). Mean log10 CFU/carcass of total Campylobacter, mean log10 CFU/carcass of total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter, standard deviations, correlation, and regression analyses were calculated using the Excel program.

Ciprofloxacin resistance confirmation of random Campylobacter colony picks on CA and CCA.

Representative presumptive characteristic Campylobacter colonies randomly picked on CA or CCA (total of 16 new Campylobacter isolates representing four carcasses weekly) were spotted as individual spots (0.5-cm diameter) to generate fresh spiral cell growth; cell suspension (approximately 107 CFU/ml) was prepared by lifting each spot into 1 ml of Campylobacter enrichment broth (Bolton formula), each was then labeled as an individual Campylobacter isolate and then spotted (10 μl per spot, approximately 0.5-cm diameter) onto a series of CCA plates containing different basal concentrations of ciprofloxacin (0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or 128 μg/ml), and all plates were incubated at 42°C for 48 h under microaerophilic conditions to determine the ability of Campylobacter to grow at each ciprofloxacin concentration. Based on the agar dilution method according to NCCLS recommendations (23), a diverse set of C. jejuni and other Campylobacter spp. isolated on CA and CCA were tested concurrently for ciprofloxacin MICs on both CCA and Mueller-Hinton agar containing 5% defibrinated sheep blood, with C. jejuni ATCC 33560 as the quality control organism. The genetic basis for ciprofloxacin resistance of some selected Campylobacter isolates was confirmed by CampyMAMA PCR (36).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

One of the highest-priority research needs on Campylobacter was to develop laboratory methods for quantifying an antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter load persisting on raw poultry products to aid in risk assessment, to evaluate intervention strategies, and to develop meaningful baseline data for this pathogen. Currently, there is no published method for estimating loads of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU within the total Campylobacter CFU load per chicken carcass. The recently published direct-plating method by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Agricultural Resource Service (17, 18) permitted the quantitative enumeration of Campylobacter CFU but not of antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter. Ge et al. (12) recently examined the antimicrobial susceptibilities of 378 Campylobacter species isolates obtained by an enrichment method from retail meats, but their method did not permit quantitation of the numbers of such antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter present in those meat products. Stern and Robach (30) and Siragusa et al. (28) enumerated the total Campylobacter spp. on processed broiler carcasses by a direct plating method but did not enumerate ciprofloxacin-resistant subpopulations present on those carcasses. Using the CA- or CCA-based direct-plating method, we determined quantitative trends in the numbers of total Campylobacter CFU (on CA medium) and total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU (on CCA medium) at the rate of four carcasses per week by sampling a total of 420 carcasses in 105 weeks during the period from July 2001 through December 2003.

Currently, there is no universally accepted best plating medium for isolating Campylobacter spp. In our direct-plating method, FDA-recommended Bolton formula was used in CA or CCA while Food Safety and Inspection Service and Agricultural Resource Service scientists adopted Campy-Cefex or modified campylobacter charcoal differential agar or Campy-Line agar media (17, 25, 28, 30) for Campylobacter enumeration. We did not use NCCLS-recommended Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented with 5% defibrinated sheep blood because it was not recommended for the isolation of Campylobacter from crude carcass rinses. A normally lethal dose of ciprofloxacin in CCA permitted the direct isolation of primary colonies on CCA from a naturally occurring subpopulation of the ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter cells if such cells are preexisting in crude chicken carcass rinses. The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy advised a minimum breakpoint of 2 μg/ml for ciprofloxacin resistance in Campylobacter. Conversely, both Danish Veterinary and Food Administration and NARMS in the United States have adopted a breakpoint of 4 μg/ml. In this study, we used a higher concentration of 8.6 μg/ml ciprofloxacin in CCA medium (equivalent to 10 μg/ml ciprofloxacin hydrochloride in CCA with 86% purity) due to the following criteria: (a) the lethal dose of 8.6 μg/ml ciprofloxacin in CCA is greater than the 2× ciprofloxacin breakpoint concentration of ≤4 μg/ml used by NARMS and NCCLS for Campylobacter, which killed all ciprofloxacin-sensitive cells on CCA; (b) this lethal dose in CCA is lower than the minimum threshold limit of frequently found higher levels of ciprofloxacin resistance (MIC, ≥16 μg/ml) in naturally occurring ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter in chicken (12, 22) and therefore allowed their selective recovery on CCA; and (c) this lethal dose in CCA excluded the recovery of intermediate or lower levels of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter (MIC between >4 and ≤8 μg/ml), since such strains were rarely reported within the clinically significant ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter isolated from chicken or human or other sources (12, 22). For example, in a recent survey by Ge et al. (12) of 378 Campylobacter isolates from retail meats, 35% were ciprofloxacin resistant, but none of the resistant isolates had ciprofloxacin MICs between >4 and ≤8 μg/ml but all had MICs of ≥16 μg/ml. NARMS tested 297 Campylobacter isolates from humans, 288 Campylobacter isolates from chicken breast, and four Campylobacter isolates from ground turkey but reported that none of the resistant isolates had ciprofloxacin MICs between >4 and ≤8 μg/ml but that all had MICs of ≥16 μg/ml (22).

Our direct-plating method accounted for the thermophilic group of total Campylobacter CFU on CA and total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU on CCA, irrespective of species, and all recoverable at 42°C under microaerophilic conditions. The species-specific counts of different thermophilic campylobacters that may co-occur in crude carcass rinses, e.g., C. jejuni, C. coli, C. lari, or C. upsaliensis, were not determinable in this method. Using the recommended USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service carcass rinse sampling procedure (25), this method permitted the detection and enumeration of a lower minimum level of total Campylobacter or total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter (about 8 CFU/carcass = 0.90 log10 CFU/carcass) due to the direct plating of pellets from centrifuged rinse subsample volumes of up to 50 ml from the total 400-ml rinse (equal to one-eighth of the total rinse volume), compared to the substantially higher minimum levels (about 1,000 to 4,000 CFU/carcass = 3.0 to 3.6 log10 CFU/carcass) obtainable by the direct plating of 0.1-ml subsample rinses of the total 100- or 400-ml rinse (equal to 1/1,000 or 1/4,000 of total rinse volume), as was used for Campylobacter enumeration by other researchers (17, 18, 25, 30). Our direct-plating method, like those of Line et al. (17), Siragusa et al. (28), and Stern and Robach (30), determines only the numbers of Campylobacter CFU released from carcass skin into the rinse. Thus, this method does not reveal what numbers or percentages of total Campylobacter or total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter still remained firmly attached to carcass surfaces during the rinse sampling.

Total Campylobacter load in rinses from retail raw chicken carcasses from 2001 to 2003.

Figure Figure1A1A shows the overall distribution of total Campylobacter loads in rinses from 420 RTCC sampled over a 2-year period. Figure Figure2A2A summarizes for 2001 to 2003 the percentage of RTCC yielding different loads of total Campylobacter CFU/carcass. Countable numbers (detection limit = 0.90 log10 CFU/carcass) of Campylobacter were recovered from 85%, 96%, and 57% of carcasses sampled in 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively. In general, the numbers of total Campylobacter CFU per carcass ranged from 0.90 to 4.52 log10 CFU/carcass (equal to 8 to 34,800 CFU/carcass) in 2001, 0.90 to 4.58 log10 CFU/carcass (equal to 8 to 38,400 CFU/carcass) in 2002, and 0.90 to 4.48 log10 CFU/carcass (equal to 8 to 30,400 CFU/carcass) in 2003. Concerning counts, the Campylobacter loads per carcass did not decline appreciably from 2001 to 2003 but some reductions were seen for carcasses carrying higher Campylobacter loads. For example, about 50%, 30%, and 8% of the carcasses sampled in 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively, had total Campylobacter loads as high as 3 to 4 log10 CFU/carcass. Overall, 79% of 420 RTCC tested in the 2-year sampling period from July 2001 to December 2003 had countable numbers of total Campylobacter, out of which 16%, 32%, 26%, and 5% of RTCC yielded total Campylobacter loads of 0.90 to 2.0, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, and 4 to 5 log10 CFU/carcass, respectively. Campylobacter incidence rates of 44% to 91% were frequently reported from retail raw chicken in the United States (6, 26, 34), but to the best of our knowledge, there are only a few reports about Campylobacter counts per carcasses at retail (20).

FIG. 1.
Concurrent quantitation by the direct-plating method on CA and CCA of total Campylobacter CFU/carcass (A) and total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU/carcass (B) recovered at 42°C in concentrated rinses from RTCC for a total of 420 carcasses ...
FIG. 2.
Percentage of RTCC sampled from 2001 to 2003 yielding different loads of total Campylobacter CFU/carcass (A) and total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU/carcass (B).

Total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter load in rinses from retail raw chicken carcasses from 2001 to 2003.

Figure Figure1B1B shows the overall distribution of total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter loads in rinses from 420 RTCC sampled over a 2-year period. Figure Figure2B2B summarizes for 2001 to 2003 the percentages of RTCC yielding different loads of total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU/carcass. The percentages of carcasses with minimum detectable levels of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU (log10 0.90 or greater CFU/carcass) ranged from 60%, 59%, and 17.5%, respectively, for 2001, 2002, and 2003. In general, the numbers of total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter per carcass ranged from 0.90 to 4.06 log10 CFU/carcass (equal to 8 to 12,000 CFU/carcass) in 2001, 0.90 to 3.95 log10 CFU/carcass (equal to 8 to 8,800 CFU/carcass) in 2002, and 0.90 to 3.04 log10 CFU/carcass (equal to 8 to 1,100 CFU/carcass) in 2003. Concerning counts, some reductions were noted in numbers of carcasses containing relatively higher ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter loads. For example, 11%, 10%, and 0.6% of carcasses, respectively, in 2001, 2002, and 2003 had ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter mean counts as high as 3 to 4 log10 CFU/carcass. Overall, 42% of 420 RTCC tested in the 2-year sampling period from July 2001 to December 2003 had countable numbers of total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter, out of which 24%, 11%, 7%, and 0.2% had total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter loads of 0.90 to 2.0, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, and 4 to 5 log10 CFU/carcass, respectively. Other surveys for U.S. poultry samples reported in 1999 to 2002 yielded ciprofloxacin resistance incidence rates of 10 to 35% for Campylobacter (12, 13, 26, 34). None of the above other research reports gave numbers for total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter CFU/carcass on samples they tested for Campylobacter.

In conclusion, our 2-year analysis of RTCC in one geographical area shows continuing persistence of countable numbers of total Campylobacter and total ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter while there were some reductions in their incidence and loads from 2001/2002 to 2003. Random colony picks on CA and CCA confirmed the presence of subpopulations of ciprofloxacin-resistant C. jejuni (ciprofloxacin MICs ranging from ≥16 to ≤128 μg/ml in both hippurate-positive and hippurate-negative strains) and of ciprofloxacin-resistant other Campylobacter spp. in RTCC rinses (data not shown), but their differential quantitation in carcass rinses must await further development of selective methods.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded in part by a grant from the USDA-CSREES Food Safety Consortium to the University of Arkansas.

We thank Ron McNew for his helpful discussions about the statistical analyses of data.

REFERENCES

1. Altekruse, S. F., N. J. Stern, P. I. Fields, and D. L. Swerdlow. 1999. Campylobacter jejuni—an emerging foodborne pathogen. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5:28-35. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Anderson, A., J. McClellan, K. Joyce, T. Barrett, F. Angulo, and the NARMS Working Group. 2002. Fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni infections in the United States: NARMS data 1997-2001. [Online.] http://www.cdc.gov/narms/publications/2002/Anderson_2002.pdf.
3. Bren, L. 2001. Antibiotic resistance from down on the chicken farm. FDA Consumer, vol. 35, no. 1. [Online.] http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/101_chic.html. [PubMed]
4. Center for Veterinary Medicine—Food and Drug Administration. 2001. Risk assessment on the human health impact of fluoroquinolone resistant Campylobacter associated with the consumption of chicken. [Online.] http://www.fda.gov/cvm/risk_asses.htm.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS): enteric bacteria. 2000 annual report. [Online.] http://www.cdc.gov/narms/annual/2000/NARMS_final_report_2000.pdf.
6. Consumer Reports. 2003. Of birds and bacteria. January 2003:24-28. [PubMed]
7. Engberg, J., F. M. Aarestrup, D. E. Taylor, P. Gerner-Smidt, and I. Nachamkin. 2001. Quinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli: resistance mechanisms and trends in human isolates. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7:24-34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Reference deleted.
9. Federal Register. 2000. Enrofloxacin for poultry; opportunity for hearing. Fed. Regist. 65:64954-64965. [Online.] http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/103100a.htm.
10. Fluit, A. C., M. R. Visser, and F. J. Schmitz. 2001. Molecular detection of antimicrobial resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 14:836-871. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10a. Food and Drug Administration. 2004. Initial decision on proposal to withdraw approval of the new animal drug application for enrofloxacin for poultry. FDA docket no. 00N-1571. [Online.] http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/04/mar04/031604/00n-1571-idf0001-vol389.pdf.
11. Friedman, C. R., J. Neimann, H. C. Wegener, and R. V. Tauxe. 2000. Epidemiology of C. jejuni infections in the United States and other industrialized nations, p. 121-138. In I. Nachamkin and M. J. Blaser (ed.), Campylobacter. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.
12. Ge, B., D. G. White, P. F. Mcdermott, R. D. Walker, S. Zhao, and J. Meng. 2003. Antimicrobial-resistant Campylobacter spp. from retail raw meats. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69:3005-3007. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Gupta, A., J. M. Nelson, T. J. Barrett, R. V. Tauxe, S. P. Rossiter, C. R. Friedman, et al. 2004. Antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter strains, United States, 1997-2001. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10:1102-1109. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Hooper, D. C. 2001. Emerging mechanisms of fluoroquinolone resistance. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7:337-341. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Hunt, J. M., C. Abeyta, and T. Tran. 2001. Isolation of Campylobacter species from food and water, chapter 7. Bacteriological analytical manual online, 8th ed. [Online.] http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/bam-7.html.
16. Iovine, N. M., and M. J. Blaser. 2004. Antibiotics in animal feed and spread of resistant Campylobacter from poultry to humans. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10:1158-1159. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Line, J. E. 2001. Development of a selective differential agar for isolation and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. J. Food Prot. 64:1711-1715. [PubMed]
18. Line, J. E., N. J. Stern, C. P. Lattuada, and S. T. Benson. 2001. Comparison of methods for recovery and enumeration of Campylobacter from freshly processed broilers. J. Food Prot. 64:982-986. [PubMed]
19. Linton, D., A. J. Lawson, R. J. Owen, and J. Stanley. 1997. PCR detection, identification to species level, and finger printing of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli direct from diarrheic samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:2568-2572. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Musgrove, M. T., N. A. Cox, M. E. Berrang, and M. A. Harrison. 2003. Comparison of weep and carcass rinses for recovery of Campylobacter from retail broiler carcasses. J. Food Prot. 66:1720-1723. [PubMed]
21. Nachamkin, I., H. Ung, and M. Li. 2002. Increasing fluoroquinolone resistance in Campylobacter jejuni, Pennsylvania, USA, 1982-2001. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 8:1501-1503. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System for Enteric Bacteria (NARMS). 2004. NARMS retail meat annual report, 2002. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Rockville, Md.
23. NCCLS. 2002. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility test for bacteria isolated from animals, 2nd ed. Approved standard M31-A2. NCCLS, Wayne, Pa.
24. Piddock, L. J. V., V. Ricci, L. Pumbwe, M. J. Everett, and D. J. Griggs. 2003. Fluoroquinolone resistance in Campylobacter species from man and animals: detection of mutations in topoisomerase genes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 51:19-26. [PubMed]
25. Ransom, G. M., and B. E. Rose. 1998. Isolation, identification, and enumeration of Campylobacter jejuni/coli from meat and poultry products, p. 6-1-6-10. In Microbiology laboratory guidebook, 3rd ed. USDA, FSIS, Washington, D.C. [Online.] http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Ophs/Microlab/Mlgchp6.pdf.
26. Rossiter, S., K. Joyce, M. Ray, J. Benson, C. MacKinson, C. Gregg, M. Sullivan, K. Vought, F. Leano, J. Besser, N. Marano, and F. Angulo. 2000. High prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant, including fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter on chicken in US grocery stores. [Online.] http://www.cdc.gov/narms/publications/2000/Rossiter_Joyce_2000.pdf.
27. Rudi, K., H. K. Hoidal, T. Katla, B. K. Johansen, J. Nordal, K.S. Jakobsen. 2004. Direct real-time PCR quantitation of Campylobacter jejuni in chicken fecal and cecal samples by integrated cell concentration and DNA purification. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70:790-797. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Siragusa, G. R., J. E. Line, L. L. Brooke, T. Hutchinson, J. D. Laster, and R. O. Apple. 2004. Serological methods and selective agars to enumerate Campylobacter from broiler carcasses: Data from inter- and intralaboratory analyses. J. Food Prot. 67:901-907. [PubMed]
29. Smith, K. E., J. M. Besser, C. W. Hedberg, F. T. Leano, J. B. Bender, J. H. Wicklund, B. P. Johnson, K. A. Moore, and M. T. Osterholm. 1999. Quinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni infections in Minnesota, 1992-1998. N. Engl. J. Med. 340:1525-1532. [PubMed]
30. Stern, N. J., and M. C. Robach. 2003. Enumeration of Campylobacter spp. in broiler feces and in corresponding processed carcasses. J. Food Prot. 66:1557-1563. [PubMed]
31. Talsma, E., W. G. Goettsch, H. L. Nieste, P. M. Schrijnemakers, and M. J. Sprenger. 1999. Resistance in Campylobacter species: increased resistance to fluoroquinolones and seasonal variation. Clin. Infect. Dis. 29:845-848. [PubMed]
32. Wegener, H. C. 1999. The consequences for food safety of the use of fluoroquinolones in food animals. N. Engl. J. Med. 340:1581-1582. [PubMed]
33. Wilson, D. L., S. R. Abner, T. C. Newman, L. S. Mansfield, and J. E. Linz. 2000. Identification of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter jejuni by use of a fluorogenic PCR assay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:3971-3978. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Zhao, C., B. Ge, J. D. Villena, R. Sudler, E. Jeh, S. Zhao, D. G. White, D. Wagner, and J. Mengi. 2001. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp., Escherichia coli, and Salmonella serovars in retail chicken, turkey, pork, and beef from the Greater Washington, D.C., area. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67:5431-5436. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
35. Zirnstein, G., L. Helsel, Y. Li, B. Swaminathan, and J. Besser. 2000. Characterization of gyrA mutations associated with fluoroquinolone resistance in Campylobacter coli by DNA sequence analysis and MAMA PCR. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 190:1-7. [PubMed]
36. Zirnstein, G., Y. Li, B. Swaminathan, and F. Angulo. 1999. Ciprofloxacin resistance in Campylobacter jejuni isolates: detection of gyrA resistance mutations by mismatch amplification mutation assay PCR and DNA sequence analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37:3276-3280. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Applied and Environmental Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)
PubReader format: click here to try

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...