Carriage and Subtypes of Foodborne Pathogens Identified in Wild Birds Residing near Agricultural Lands in California: a Repeated Cross-Sectional Study.

Current California agricultural practices strive to comanage food safety and habitat conservation on farmland. However, the ecology of foodborne pathogens in wild bird populations, especially those avian species residing in proximity to fresh produce production fields, is not fully understood. In this repeated cross-sectional study, avifauna within agricultural lands in California were sampled over 1 year. Feces, oral swabs, and foot/feather swabs were cultured for zoonotic Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7, and non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) and characterized by serotyping and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Of 60 avian species sampled, 8 species (13.3%, bird groups of sparrows, icterids, geese, wrens, and kinglets) were positive for at least one of these foodborne pathogens. At the individual bird level, the detection of foodborne pathogens was infrequent in feces (n = 583; 0.5% Salmonella, 0.34% E. coli O157:H7, and 0.5% non-O157 STEC) and in feet/feathers (n = 401; 0.5% non-O157 STEC), and it was absent from oral swabs (n = 353). Several subtypes of public health importance were identified, including Salmonella enterica serotype Newport, E. coli O157:H7, and STEC serogroups O103 and O26. In late summer and autumn, the same STEC subtype was episodically found in several individuals of the same and different avian species, suggesting a common source of contamination in the environment. Sympatric free-range cattle shared subtypes of STEC O26 and O163 with wild geese. A limited rate of positive detection in wild birds provides insights into broad risk profile for contamination considerations but cannot preclude or predict risk on an individual farm.IMPORTANCE The shedding dynamics of foodborne pathogens by wild birds on farmland are not well characterized. This yearlong study sampled wild birds for foodborne pathogens within agricultural lands in northern California. There was a low prevalence of Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7, and non-O157 Shiga-toxin producing E. coli (prevalence, 0.34% to 0.50%) identified in bird populations in this study. However, pathogens of public health importance (such as Salmonella Newport, E. coli O157:H7, and STEC O103 and O26) were identified in fecal samples, and two birds carried STEC on their feet or feathers. Identical pathogen strains were shared episodically among birds and between wild geese and free-range cattle. This result suggests a common source of contamination in the environment and potential transmission between species. These findings can be used to assess the risk posed by bird intrusions in produce fields and enhance policy decisions toward the comanagement of food safety and farmland habitat conservation

Microbial mutualism dynamics governed by dose-dependent toxicity of cross-fed nutrients

Microbial interactions, including mutualistic nutrient exchange (cross-feeding), underpin the flow of energy and materials in all ecosystems. Metabolic exchanges are difficult to assess within natural systems. As such, the impact of exchange levels on ecosystem dynamics and function remains unclear. To assess how cross-feeding levels govern mutualism behavior, we developed a bacterial coculture amenable to both modeling and experimental manipulation. In this coculture, which resembles an anaerobic food web, fermentative Escherichia coli and photoheterotrophic Rhodopseudomonas palustris obligately cross-feed carbon (organic acids) and nitrogen (ammonium). This reciprocal exchange enforced immediate stable coexistence and coupled species growth. Genetic engineering of R. palustris to increase ammonium cross-feeding elicited increased reciprocal organic acid production from E. coli, resulting in culture acidification. Consequently, organic acid function shifted from that of a nutrient to an inhibitor, ultimately biasing species ratios and decreasing carbon transformation efficiency by the community; nonetheless, stable coexistence persisted at a new equilibrium. Thus, disrupting the symmetry of nutrient exchange can amplify alternative roles of an exchanged resource and thereby alter community function. These results have implications for our understanding of mutualistic interactions and the use of microbial consortia as biotechnology

Escherichia coli in animals

Escherichia coli is the most widely studied bacterium over the world. It is well known that E. coli is the predominant non-pathogenic microbiota of warm blood species; however, some strains have developed the ability to cause severe diseases. Taking into account the diversity in American countries, this chapter examines the complex situation of puzzling intestinal pathogenic E. coli, also called diarrheagenic, (enteropathogenic E. coli, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, enterotoxigenic E. coli, enteroaggregative E. coli, enteroinvasive E. coli, diffusely adherent E. coli), and extra-intestinal E. coli (uropathogenic E. coli, neonatal meningitis-associated E. coli, avian pathogenic E. coli, sepsis-associated E. coli, mammary pathogenic E. coli, endometrial pathogenic E. coli, and necrotoxigenic E. coli) in animals. In addition to E. coli associated animal diseases, the role of carriers and reservoirs are presented, including the last regional references from synanthropic and wild animals. Findings of the last 5 years are discussed and data of the eco-epidemiology of E. coli is also included. Considering the concept of One Health, that recognizes that health of humans is connected to health of animals and the environment, the strategies to diminish illness in human population cannot exclude control and vigilance of pathogenic strains in animals. However, in E. coli control, strategies distinguish between those strains that produce animal illness and those that affect humans and have an animal reservoir. The different proposed ways to E. coli control are also discussed.Fil: Etcheverría, Analía Inés. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tandil. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comision de Investigaciones Científicas. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil; ArgentinaFil: Lucchesi, Paula Maria Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tandil. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comision de Investigaciones Científicas. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil; ArgentinaFil: Krüger, Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tandil. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comision de Investigaciones Científicas. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil; ArgentinaFil: Bentancor, Adriana Beatriz. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias; ArgentinaFil: Padola, Nora Lía. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tandil. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comision de Investigaciones Científicas. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil; Argentin