Possible Seasonality of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>in Retail Meat, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We previously reported Clostridium diffi cile in 20% of retail meat in Canada, which raised concerns about potential foodborne transmissibility.Here, we studied the genetic diversity of C. diffi cile in retail meats, using a broad Canadian sampling infrastructure and 3 culture methods.We found 6.1% prevalence and indications of possible seasonality (highest prevalence in winter). C lostridium diffi cile infection (CDI) has been associ-ated with increased illness and death in Canada since 2000 (1,2).Although multiple genotypes with higher levels of virulence and antimicrobial resistance have been recognized (1,3), little is known about risk factors for CDI acquisition outside healthcare facilities.In a 2005 study, we found C. diffi cile in 20% of retail meats sampled in Canada (4).Limitations to that study included limited geographic representation, nonsystematic sampling, and the use of a nonvalidated culture method.These sampling limitations prevent valid extrapolations.Broader sampling and a better understanding of the culture methods were thus required to reassess the prevalence of retail meat contamination with C. diffi cile.Here, we determined the prevalence of C. diffi cile in retail meat by using a broad-based government sampling infrastructure, compared 3 culture methods, characterized recovered isolates, and evaluated month-to-month variability in C. diffi cile recovery. The StudyRetail meats were obtained from 2 randomly selected census divisions per week from various retailers across Canada as part of the active retail surveillance component of the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) (5).We tested random packages of ground beef as well as veal chops from milkfed calves; the packages were purchased by CIPARS in Ontario, Québec, and Saskatchewan, Canada, from January through August 2006.Purchased packages were sent to the Laboratory of Foodborne Zoonoses, Québec (ground beef), and to the Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety, Ontario (veal chops), where 35-g composite samples were made.Rinsates were prepared by mixing 25 g of meat and 225 mL of buffered peptone water (placed in a stomacher for 15 min).Rinsates (12 mL) and the remains of the composite samples (10 g) were then sent to the University of Guelph for C. diffi cile testing.Sample size estimations indicated that 211 packages were adequate to verify a prevalence of 20% ± 8% (α = 0.05, power = 0.8; Stata sampsi command [Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA]).A total of 214 meat samples were cultured by using 3 methods.One method, used in an earlier study (4), was tested in duplicate to assess reproducibility.All protocols had an enrichment phase of 7 days (Table 1), followed by ethanol treatment of culture sediments (96%, 1:2 [vol/ vol], 30 min), and inoculation onto solid agar for colony identifi cation (4,6).Suspected colonies (swarming, nonhemolytic) were subcultured onto 5% sheep blood agar.C. diffi cile was preliminarily identifi ed with L-proline aminopeptidase activity (Pro Disc; Remel, Lenexa, KS, USA) but confi rmed by PCR detection of the triose phosphate isomerase gene (7).PCR ribotyping and detection of genes for toxins A (tcdA), B (tcdB), binary toxin (cdtB), and toxin regulator (tcdC) were performed as previously described (4,8,9).Isolates having either tcdA, tcdB, or cdtB were classifi ed as toxigenic (10).Resulting PCR ribotypes were visually compared to representative PCR ribotypes previously identifi ed in cattle (n = 8, 2004), retail meats (n = 4, 2005), and humans (n = 39, 2004-2006) in Ontario and Québec, Canada (2,4,11).The fi rst meat-derived isolate of each PCR ribotype and 1 matching human isolate were submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, for SmaI pulsed-fi eld gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and toxinotyping (1).We tested selected isolates to determine the MICs of clindamycin, levofl oxacin, moxifl oxacin, and gatifl oxacin by using the Etest (AB Biodisk, Solna, Sweden) and interpreted the results after the isolates were incubated for 48 h on Brucella agar (12).Controls included C. diffi cile strain ATCC 700057.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».