Adapazarı Bölgesi Bazı Broiler Tipi Tavukçuluk İşletmelerinden Salmonella İzolasyonu ve Tiplendirilmesi

Öz

Salmonella, tüm dünyada gıda sektörü için önemli bir patojen mikroorganizmadır. Özellikle kanatlı hayvan eti üretiminin her aşamasında takip ve kontrol edilmesi gereken bir kriterdir. Bu nedenle, üretim çiftliklerinde karşılaşılan Salmonella’ların, tespiti ve tiplendirilmesi de önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Adapazarı bölgesinde bulunan broiler tipi tavuk çiftliklerinden Salmonella izolasyonu ve tiplendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. 46 farklı işletmeye ait 130 adet drag svap örneği Salmonella bakımından Dupont BAX Q7 rPCR–BAXrPCR sistemi ile test edilmiştir. Salmonella izolasyonu yapılan örneklerin otomatize Riboprinter sistemi (Dupont Qualicon, Wilmington, DE, USA) ile ribotiplendirilmesi gerçekleştirilmiş ve incelenen örneklerden pozitif sonuçlular kaydedilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda, Adapazarı bölgesindeki kümeslerin %29.23’ünde Salmonella varlığı tespit edilmiştir. Pozitif örnekler içinde en fazla olan serotipin %52.6 oranla Salmonella ser. Enteritidis olduğu görülmüştür. Bu serotip dışında altı farklı serotipin de varlığına rastlanılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Salmonella, rPCR, Ribotiplendirme, Broiler, Tavuk

Isolation and Typing of Salmonella from Some Broiler Chicken Companies in Adapazarı Region

Öz

Salmonella is an important pathogen microorganism for food industries in the all world. Especially, it’s a criteria that should be controlled at every stages of poultry meat production. Therefore, detection and typing of Salmonella encountering in production farms also come into prominence. In this study, it was aimed isolation and typing of Salmonella from broiler-type chicken farms in Adapazarı Region. 130 drag swap samples from 46 different businesses were tested with Dupont BAX Q7 rPCR–BAXrPCR system for Salmonella. Isolated Salmonella samples were ribotyped with automated Riboprinter System (Dupont Qualicon, Wilmington, DE, USA) and positive results from analyzed samples were saved. Finally, we determined that there is Salmonella in 29.23% of coops in Adapazarı Region. We observed that maximum rated serotype among positive samples is Salmonella ser. Enteritidis (52.6%). We determined that there are six different serotypes besides of this serotype.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Salmonella, rPCR, Ribotyping, Broiler, Chicken

Kaynakça

1. Gast, R.K., Mitchell, B.W. and Holt, P.S., “Detection Of Salmonella Enteritidis In The Environment Of
2. Experimentally Infected Laying Hens By An Electrostatic Air Sampling Device,” Proceedings of the Congress
3. of the World Veterinary Poultry Association, p.79, 2003.
4. Hartig, L., Hummert, C., Buhlert, J., Von Czapiwski, K. and Schreiber, A., “Detection of acrylamide in
5. starch-enriched foods,” J. Environ. Health, vol. 27, pp. 219-226, 2003.
6. Sinell, H.J. and Kleer, J., “Lebensmittel als Infektionsquelle. In Das Salmonella Problem,” Selbitz HP, Sinell
7. HJ, Szigoleit A(eds) Gustav Fisher Verleg, Jena (Stuttgart, 1995: 133-149)
8. Şengül, S. ve Türkyılmaz, S., “Broylerlerde Salmonella Enteritidis ve Salmonella Typhimurium

9. Infeksiyonlarının ELISA ve Drag Sıvap Yöntemleri ile İncelenmesi,” Erciyes Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg.,vol.4 ,pp. 85-90, 2007 .
10. Patrick, M.E., Adcock, P.M., Gomez, T.M., A Hekruse, S.F. and Holland, B.H., “Salmonella Enteritidis
11. infection, United States, 1985-1999,” Emerg. Infect. Dis., vol. 10(1), pp. 1-7, 2004.
12. Tietjen, M. and Fung, D.Y.C., “Salmonella and food safety,” Crit. Rev. Microbiol., vol. 21(1), pp. 53-83, 1995.
13. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS), “Salmonella
14. serotypes isolated from raw meat and poultry,” January 26, 1998- January 25, 1999.
15. Candrian, U., “Polymerase chain reaction in food microbiology,” J. Food. Microbiol. Methods, vol. 23, pp. 89-103, 1995.
16. Uyttendaele, M., Vanwildemeersch, K. and Debevere, J., “Evaluation of real-time PCR vs. automated ELISA
17. and a conventional culture method using a semi-solid medium for detection of Salmonella,” Lett. Appl.
18. Microbiol., vol. 37, pp. 386-391, 2003.
19. Koneman, E. W. Koneman’s Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology, 6. ed., Lippincott
20. Williams and Wilkins, Front Cover., Philadelphia, USA, 2006.
21. Eriksson, E. and Aspan, A., “Comparision of culture, ELISA and PCR techniques for Salmonella detection
22. in faecal samples for cattle, pig and poultry,” BMC Vet. Res., vol. 3, pp. 1-19, 2007.
23. Ata, Z. ve Aydın. N., “Ankara bölgesindeki tavukçuluk işletmelerinde Salmonella spp. İzolasyonu,” Ankara
24. Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg., vol. 55, pp.161–168, 2008.
25. Kahya, S., Kesin Tuğ, B., Temelli, S., Çarlı, K.T. and Eyigör, A., “Yumurtacı Tavuklarda Salmonella
26. İzolatlarının Tanısı ve Tiplendirilmesi,” Kafkas Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg., vol. 20/6, pp. 939-944, 2014.
27. Temelli, S., Kahya, S., Eyigor, A. and Carli, K.T., “Incidence of Salmonella Enteritidis in chicken layer
28. flocks in Turkey: Results by real-time polymerase chain reaction and International Organization for
29. Standardization culture methods,” Poultry Sci, vol. 89, pp. 1406-1410, 2010.
30. Tomazelli, I.B., Freitas, J.B., Fabbi, L.M., Filipini, T.A., Silva, C.M., Bedin, J.M., Duarte, D.A.M., Santos,
31. A., Baccarin, A., Higa, L.R.H., Yano, D.M.Y., Killner, M., Frezza, A.L.C., Abecia, E.C.G., Tronco, V.M.,
32. Junior, O.T. and Junior, W.B., “Comparison of the BAX system PCR method to Brazil’s official method for the
33. detection of Salmonella in food, water and environmental samples,” J. Food Prot., vol. 71, pp. 2442-2447, 2008.
34. Tice, G., Andaloro, B., Fallon, D. and Wallace, F.M., "Dupont qualicon BAX system polymerase chain reaction assay performance tested method 100201,” J. AOAC. Int., vol. 92, pp. 1902-1905, 2009.
35. Tice, G., Andaloro, B., White, H.K., Bolton, L., Wang, S., Davis, E. and Wallace, M., “In-house validation study of the Dupont qualicon BAX system Q7 instrument with the BAX System PCR assay for Salmonella,” J. AOAC Int., vol. 92/3, pp. 989-994, 2009.
36. Löfström, C., Kravse, M., Josefsen, M.H., Hansen, F. and Hoorfar, J., “Validation of a same-day real-time PCR method for screening of meat and carcases swabs for Salmonella,” BMC Microbiol., vol. 9, pp.1-9, 2009.
37. Franchin, P., Ogliari, P.J., Andrade, D.F., Chiapinoto, M., Silva, I.G.D. and Batista, C.R.V., “Comparision of the BAX system with an in house MRSV method for the detection of Salmonella in chicken carcasses and pork meat,” Braz. J. Microbiol., vol. 37, pp. 521-526, 2006.
38. Sommer, D., Enderlein, D., Antakli, A., Schönenbrücher, H., Slaghuis, J., Redmann, T. and Lier, M., “Salmonella detection in poultry samples. Comparision of two commercial real-time PCR systems with culture methods for the detection of Salmonella spp. in environmental and fecal samples of poultry,” Tierartl. Prax., vol. 40, pp. 383-389, 2012.
39. Hollis, R.J., Bruce, L., Fritschel, S.J. and Pfaller, M.A., “Comparative evaluation of an automated riboprinting instrument versus Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for epidemiological investigation of clinical isolates of bacteria,” Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., vol. 34, pp. 263-268, 1999.
40. De Cesare, A., Manfreda. G., Dambaugh, T.R., Guerzoni, M.E. and Franchin, A., “Automated rybotpying and random aplified polymorphic DNA analysis for molekuler typing of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium strains isolated in Italy,” J. Appl. Microbiol., vol. 91, pp. 780-785, 2001.
41. Riboprinter Kullanım Kılavuzu: http://www2.dupont.com/Qualicon/en_US/products/RiboPrinter_System
42. Eyigör, A., Goncagul, G., Günaydın. E. and Çarlı, K.T., “Salmonella profile in chickens determined by real- time polymerase chain reaction and bacteriology from years 2000-2003 in Turkey,” Avian Pathol., vol. 34, pp. 101-105, 2005.
43. Abouzeeda, Y.M., Hariharana, H., Poppeb, C. and Kibenge, F.S.B., “Characterization of Salmonella isolates from beef cattle, broiler chickens and humansources on Prince Edward Island,” Comparative Immunology, Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, vol. 23, pp. 253-266, 2000.
44. Eyigor, A., Carli, K.T. and Unal, C.B., “Implementation of real-time PCR to tetrathionate broth enrichment step of Salmonella detection in poultry,” Lett. Appl. Microbiol., vol. 34, pp. 37-41, 2002.
45. Zhang, L., Yan, Z. and Ryser, E.T., “Comparison of the reveal test, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration culture method, and selective media for recovery of Salmonella enteridis from commercial egg layer flock environments,” J. Food Prot., vol. 69, pp. 2766-2769, 2006.
46. Van Hoorebeke, S., Van Immerseel, F., Schulz, J., Hartung, J., Harisberger, M., Barco, L., Ricci, A., Theodoropoulos, G., Xylouri, E., De Vylder, J., Ducatelle, R., Haesebrouck, F., Pasmans, F., De Kruif, A. and Dewulf, J., “Determination of the within and between and flock prevalence and identification of risk factors for Salmonella infections in laying hen flocks housed in conventional and alternative systems,” Prev. Vet. Med., vol. 94, pp. 94-100, 2010.
47. Wedderkopp, A., Gradel, K.O., Jİrgensen, J.C. and Madsen, M., “Pre-harvest surveillance of Campylobacter and Salmonella in Danish broiler flocks: a 2-year study,” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol.68, pp.53–59, 2001.
48. Thakur, S., Brake, J., Keelara, S., Zou, M. and Susick, E., “Farm and environmental distribution of Campylobacter and Salmonella in broiler flocks,” Research in Veterinary Science, vol. 94, pp. 33–42, 2013.