The influences of SE infection on layers’ production performance, egg quality and blood biochemical indicators

Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology

Guiyun Xu¹  Ning Yang¹  Zhongyi Duan¹  Jiangxia Zheng¹  Shijie Fan¹ 

[1]Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China

关键词: Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis;    Egg quality;    Chicken;    Blood biochemical indicators;   

Others  :  803712
DOI  :  10.1186/2049-1891-5-4

 received in 2013-09-11, accepted in 2013-12-31,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (SE), as a major cause of foodborn illness, infects humans mainly through the egg. However, the symptom of laying hens usually is not typical and hard to diagnosis. In the present study, it is studied that the influences of SE infection on layers’ performance, egg quality and blood biochemical indicators. It will help us to improve the strategy to control SE infection in commercial layers. One hundred layers at 20 wk of age were divided into 2 groups, 60 hens for experiment and others for control. The experiment group was fed with the dosage of 10⁸ CFU SE per hen. The specific PCR was used to detect the deposition of SE. On the 8 d after SE infection, 10 hens from the control group and 30 hens from the experimental group were slaughtered to detect the SE colonization. The production performance, egg quality and blood biochemical indices were also analyzed.

Results

The results showed that the colonization rate of SE was highest in caecum contents (55.17%) and lowest in vagina (17.24%). For the eggs the detection rate of SE was highest on the eggshell (80.00%) and lowest in yolk (18.81%). SE infection had no significant influence on production performance and egg qualities (P > 0.05). The difference of laying rate between the experimental and control groups was less than 0.30%, and both were approximately equal to 82.00%. The blood analysis showed that the aspartic aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) of experimental group was significantly higher than those of control group (P < 0.05). For experimental and control groups AST values were 236.22 U/l and 211.84 U/l respectively, and ALT values were 32.19 U/l and 24.55 U/l. All of coefficients were less than 20%. The colonization of SE in organs increases the enzyme activities of AST and ALT in blood.

Conclusions

SE in feed could invade the oviduct and infect the forming eggs. It significantly increased the concentration of ALT and AST in blood. However,SE infection was hard to be observed from the appearances of layer and egg. It might be a dangerous risk to human health.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Fan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Agron PG, Walker RL, Kinde H, Sawyer SJ, Hayes DC, Wollard J, Andersen GL: Identification by subtractive hybridization of sequences specific for salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001, 67:4984-4991.
• [2]Patrick ME, Adcock PM, Gomez TM, Altekruse SF, Holland BH, Tauxe RV, Swerdlow DL: Salmonella enteritidis infections, United States, 1985–1999. Emerg Infect Dis 2004, 10:1-7.
• [3]Ward LR, Threlfall J, Smith HR, O’Brien SJ: Salmonella enteritidis epidemic. Science 2000, 287:1753.
• [4]Bäumler AJ, Hargis BM, Tsolis RM: Tracing the origins of salmonella outbreaks. Science 2000, 287:50-52.
• [5]Rabsch W, Hargis BM, Tsolis RM: Competitive exclusion of salmonella enteritidis by salmonella gallinarum in poultry. Emerg Infect Dis 2000, 6:443-448.
• [6]Braden CR: Salmonella enterica serotype enteritidis and eggs: a national epidemic in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2006, 43:512-517.
• [7]Gomez TM, Motarjemi Y, Miyagawa S, Kaferstein FK, Stohr K: Foodborne salmonellosis. World Health Stat Q 1997, 50:81-89.
• [8]Hope BK, Baker R, Edel ED, Hogue AT, Schlosser WD, Whiting R, McDowell RM, Morales RAL: An overview of the salmonella enteritidis risk assessment for shell eggs and egg products. Risk Anal 2002, 22:203-218.
• [9]Kang H, Loui C, Clavijo RI, Riley LW, Lu S: Survival characteristics of salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis in chicken egg albumen. Epidemiol Infect 2006, 134:967-976.
• [10]Gillespie IA, O’Brien SJ, Adak GK, Ward LR, Smith HR: Foodborne general outbreaks of salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 infection, England and Wales, 1992–2002: where are the risks? Epidemiol Infect 2005, 133:795-801.
• [11]Zhang W, Zheng JX, Xu GY: Toward better control of salmonella contamination by taking advantage of the egg’s self-defense system: a review. J Food Sci 2011, 76:R76-R81.
• [12]Gantois I, Ducatelle R, Pasmans F, Haesebrouck F, Gast R, Humphrey TJ, Immerseel FV: Mechanisms of egg contamination by salmonella enteritidis. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2009, 33:718-738.
• [13]Techathuvanan C, D’Souza DH: Reverse-transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification as a rapid screening/monitoring tool for salmonella enterica detection in liquid whole eggs. J Food Sci 2012, 77:M200-M205.
• [14]Wang L, Mustapha A: EMA-real-time PCR as a reliable method for detection of viable salmonella in chicken and eggs. J Food Sci 2010, 75:M134-M139.
• [15]Okamura M, Miyamoto T, Kamijima Y, Tani H, Sasai K, Baba E: Differences in abilities to colonize reproductive organs and to contaminate eggs in intravaginally inoculated hens and in vitro adherences to vaginal explants between salmonella enteritidis and other salmonella serovars. Avian Dis 2001, 45:962-971.
• [16]Okamura M, Kamijima Y, Miyamoto T, Tani H, Sasai K, Baba E: Differences among Six salmonella serovars in abilities to colonize reproductive organs and to contaminate eggs in laying hens. Avian Dis 2001, 45:61-69.
• [17]Miyamoto T, Baba E, Tanaka T, Sasai K, Fukata T, Arakawa A: Salmonella enteritidis contamination of eggs from hens inoculated by vaginal, cloacal, and intravenous routes. Avian Dis 1997, 41:296-303.
• [18]Medici DD, Croci L, Delibato E, Di Pasquale S, Filetici E, Toti L: Evaluation of DNA extraction methods for use in combination with SYBR green I real-time PCR to detect salmonella enterica serotype enteritidis in poultry. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003, 69:3456-3461.
• [19]Edwards RA, Olsen GJ, Maloy SR: Comparative genomics of closely related salmonellae. Trends Microbiol 2002, 10:94-99.
• [20]Stanley J, Baquar N: Phylogenetics of salmonella enteritidis. Int J Food Microbiol 1994, 21:79-87.
• [21]Clavijo RI, Loui C, Andersen GL, Riley LW, Lu S: Identification of genes associated with survival of salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis in chicken egg albumen. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006, 72:1055-1064.
• [22]Chu C, Hong SF, Tsai C, Lin WS, Liu TP, Ou JT: Comparative physical and genetic maps of the virulence plasmids of salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium, enteritidis, choleraesuis, and dublin. Infect Immun 1999, 67:2611-2614.
• [23]Malorny B, Bunge C, Helmuth R: A real-time PCR for the detection of salmonella enteritidis in poultry meat and consumption eggs. J Microbiol Methods 2007, 70:245-251.
• [24]Gast RK, Beard CW: Serological detection of experimental Salmonella enteritidis infections in laying hens. Avian Dis 1990, 34:721-728.
• [25]Bakshi CS, Singh VP, Malik M, Singh RK, Sharma B: 55 kb plasmid and virulence-associated genes are positively correlated with salmonella enteritidis pathogenicity in mice and chickens. Vet Res Commun 2003, 27:425-432.
• [26]Fan SJ, Li DF, Duan ZY, Yang N, Xu GY: Infection status of eggs after hens infected salmonella enteritidis through feed intake. China Poult 2012, 34:11-15.
• [27]Didierlaurent A, Sirard JC, Kraehenbuhl JP, Neutra MR: How the gut senses its content. Cell Microbiol 2002, 4:61-72.
• [28]Gast RK, Guraya R, Guard-Bouldin J, Holt PS, Moore RW: Colonization of specific regions of the reproductive tract and deposition at different locations inside eggs laid by hens infected with salmonella enteritidis or salmonella Heidelberg. Avian Dis 2007, 51:40-44.
• [29]Vazquez-Torres A, Jones-Carson J, Baumler AJ, Falkow S, Valdivia R, Brown W, Le M, Berggren R, Parks WT, Fang FC: Extraintestinal dissemination of salmonella by CD18-expressing phagocytes. Nature 1999, 401:804-808.
• [30]Cho S, Crisp NS, Maley JR, Evon KM, Younus M, Arshad MM, Lu S, Saeed AM: Experimental infection of egg-laying hens with salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis phage type 4 and its three mutants. J Poult Sci 2010, 47:190-195.
• [31]Gantois I, Eeckhaut V, Pasmans F, Haesebrouck F, Ducatelle R, Immerseel FV: A comparative study on the pathogenesis of egg contamination by different serotypes of salmonella. Avian Pathol 2008, 37:399-406.
• [32]Fan JG, Zhong L, Xu ZJ, Tia LY, Ding XD, Li MS, Wang GL: Effects of low-calorie diet on steatohepatitis in rats with obesity and hyperlipidemia. World J Gastroenterol 2003, 9:2045-2049.
• [33]Gast RK, Holt PS: Deposition of phage type 4 and 13a Salmonella enteritidis strains in the yolk and albumen of eggs laid by experimentally infected hens. Avian Dis 2000, 44:706-710.
• [34]Buck JD, Immerseel FV, Haesebrouck F, Ducatelle R: Colonization of the chicken reproductive tract and egg contamination by salmonella. J Appl Microbiol 2004, 97:233-245.
• [35]Gast RK, Jean GP, Peter SH: Effect of prior serial In vivo passage on the frequency of salmonella enteritidis contamination in eggs from experimentally infected laying hens. Avian Dis 2003, 47:633-639.
• [36]Miyamoto T, Horie T, Fukata T, Sasai K, Baba E: Changes in microflora of the cloaca and oviduct of hens after intracloacal or intravaginal inoculation with salmonella enteritidis. Avian Dis 1998, 42:536-544.
• [37]Singh A, Korasapati NR, Juneja VK, Subbiah J, Froning G, Thippareddi H: Dynamic predictive model for the growth of salmonella spp. in liquid whole egg. J Food Sci 2011, 76:M225-M232.
• [38]Gast RK, Guard-Bouldin J, Holt PS: The relationship between the duration of fecal shedding and the production of contaminated eggs by laying hens infected with strains of salmonella enteritidis and salmonella Heidelberg. Avian Dis 2005, 49:382-386.
• [39]Hughey VL, Johnson EA: Antimicrobial activity of lysozyme against bacteria involved in food spoilage and food-borne disease. Appl Environ Microbiol 1987, 53:2165-2170.
• [40]Lu S, Killoran PB, Riley LW: Association of salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis yafD with resistance to chicken egg albumen. Infect Immun 2003, 71:6734-6741.
• [41]Mayes FJ, Takeballi MA: Microbial contamination of the hen’s egg: a review. J Food Prot 1983, 46:1092-1098.
• [42]Gast RK, Beard CW: Production of salmonella enteritidis-contaminated eggs by experimentally infected hens. Avian Dis 1990, 34:438-446.
• [43]Mann K: Proteomic analysis of the chicken egg vitelline membrane. Proteomics 2008, 8:2322-2332.
• [44]Reu KD, Grijspeerdt K, Messens W, Heyndrickx M, Uyttendaele M, Debevere J, Herman L: Eggshell factors influencing eggshell penetration and whole egg contamination by different bacteria, including salmonella enteritidis. Int J Food Microbiol 2006, 112:253-260.
• [45]Jones D, Anderson K, Curtis P, Jones F: Microbial contamination in inoculated shell eggs: I. Effects of layer strain and hen age. Poult Sci 2002, 81:715-720.
• [46]Humphrey TJ, Whitehead A, Gawler AHL, Henley A, Rowe B: Numbers of salmonella enteritidis in the contents of naturally contaminated hens’ eggs. Epidemiol Infect 1991, 106:489-496.
• [47]Humphrey TJ, Whitehead A: Egg age and the growth of salmonella enteritidis PT4 in egg contents. Epidemiol Infect 1993, 111:209-220.
• [48]Duboccage L, Heyndrickx M, Grijspeerdt K, Herman L: Growth of salmonella in egg white. Meded Rijksuniv Gent Fak Landbouwkd Toegep Biol Wet 2001, 66:531-534.
• [49]Gast RK, Holt PS: Influence of the level and location of contamination on the multiplication of salmonella enteritidis at different storage temperatures in experimentally inoculated eggs. Poult Sci 2000, 79:559-563.
• [50]Messens W, Duboccage L, Grijspeerdt K, Heyndrickx M, Herman L: Growth of salmonella serovars in hens’ egg albumen as affected by storage prior to inoculation. Food Microbiol 2004, 21:25-32.