Disinfection by hydrogen peroxide nebulization increases susceptibility to avian pathogenic Escherichia coli

BMC Research Notes

Bruno M. Goddeeris⁴  Patrick Butaye⁵  Steven Janssens²  Huruma N. Tuntufye³  Leon H. Oosterik¹ 

[1] Department of General Bacteriology, CODA-CERVA, Groeselenberg 99, Brussels, 1180, Belgium;Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, Louvain, 3001, Belgium;Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Parasitology, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, 67125, Tanzania;Department of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke, 9820, Belgium;Department of Biosciences, Ross University, Basseterre, St Kitts, West Indies

关键词: Disinfection;    Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli;    Hydrogen peroxide;   

Others  :  1230461
DOI  :  10.1186/s13104-015-1329-z

 received in 2014-11-26, accepted in 2015-08-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) are the major cause of economic losses in the poultry industry worldwide. Traditionally, antibiotics are used to treat and prevent colibacillosis in broilers. Due to resistance development other ways of preventing/treating the disease have to be found. Therefore during this study the nebulization of low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H ₂ O ₂ ) was tested in the presence of chickens to lower pathogenicity of APEC.

Results

Significantly higher total lesion scores and higher E. coli concentrations were found in the spleen of chickens exposed to 2 % H ₂ O ₂compared to those exposed to 1 % H ₂ O ₂and control chickens which had been exposed to nebulization with distilled water. Higher total lesions scores and E. coli concentrations in the spleen were found in chickens exposed to 1 % H ₂ O ₂in comparison to control chickens (not significant).

Conclusion

H ₂ O ₂is rendering animals more prone to APEC infection contraindicating H ₂ O ₂nebulization in the presence of chickens.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Oosterik et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig.1.

Fig.1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Barnes HJ, Nolan LK, Vaillantcourt JP: Colibacillosis. In Diseases of poultry. 12th edition. Edited by Saif YM. Blackwell Publishing, Ames; 2008:691-732.
• [2]Dziva F, Stevens MP: Colibacillosis in poultry: unravelling the molecular basis of virulence of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in their natural hosts. Avian Pathol 2008, 37(4):355-366.
• [3]Singer RS, Hofacre CL: Potential impacts of antibiotic use in poultry production. Avian Dis 2006, 50(2):161-172.
• [4]Ewers C, Li G, Wilking H, Kiessling S, Alt K, Antáo EM, Laturnus C, Diehl I, Glodde S, Homeier T, et al.: Avian pathogenic, uropathogenic, and newborn meningitis-causing Escherichia coli: how closely related are they? Int J Med Microbiol 2007, 297(3):163-176.
• [5]Johnson JR, Murray AC, Gajewski A, Sullivan M, Snippes P, Kuskowski MA, Smith KE: Isolation and molecular characterization of nalidixic acid-resistant extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli from retail chicken products. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003, 47(7):2161-2168.
• [6]Johnson JR, Delavari P, O’Bryan TT, Smith KE, Tatini S: Contamination of retail foods, particularly turkey, from community markets (Minnesota, 1999-2000) with antimicrobial-resistant and extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2005, 2(1):38-49.
• [7]Gehan MG, Anwer W, Amer HM, IM W, Rezk A, Badawy EM: In vitro efficacy comparisons of disinfectants used in the commercial poultry farms. Int J Poult Sci 2009, 8(3):237-241.
• [8]Dho-Moulin M, Fairbrother JM: Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Vet Res 1999, 30(2–3):299-316.
• [9]Nakamura K, Ueda H, Tanimura T, Noguchi K: Effect of mixed live vaccine (Newcastle disease and infectious bronchitis) and Mycoplasma gallisepticum on the chicken respiratory tract and on Escherichia coli infection. J Comp Pathol 1994, 111(1):33-42.
• [10]La Ragione RM, Woodward MJ: Virulence factors of Escherichia coli serotypes associated with avian colisepticaemia. Res Vet Sci 2002, 73(1):27-35.
• [11]Anonymous: European Union risk assessment report hydrogen peroxide. In: Munn SJ, Allanou R, Aschberger K, Berthault F, De Bruijn J, Musset C, O’Connor S, Pakalin S, Paya-Perez A, Pellegrini G et al, vol 38. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2003. p 246.
• [12]Vandemaele F, Ververken C, Bleyen N, Geys J, D’Hulst C, Addwebi T, van Empel P, Goddeeris BM: Immunization with the binding domain of FimH, the adhesin of type 1 fimbriae, does not protect chickens against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Avian Pathol 2005, 34(3):264-272.
• [13]Tuntufye HN, Lebeer S, Gwakisa PS, Goddeeris BM: Identification of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli genes that are induced in vivo during infection in chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012, 78(9):3343-3351.
• [14]Tsonos J, Oosterik LH, Tuntufye HN, Klumpp J, Butaye P, De Greve H, Hernalsteens J-P, Lavigne R, Goddeeris BM: A cocktail of in vitro efficient phages is not a guarantee for in vivo therapeutic results against avian colibacillosis. Vet Microbiol 2014, 171(3–4):470-479.
• [15]R Development Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org (2015). Last visited: January 2015.
• [16]Mast J, Nanbru C, van den Berg T, Meulemans G: Ultrastructural changes of the tracheal epithelium after vaccination of day-old chickens with the La sota strain of Newcastle disease virus. Vet Pathol Online 2005, 42(5):559-565.