Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Public Health and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in raw beef, cow, sheep, goat, camel and buffalo meat in Iran

Ebrahim Rahimi1*, Mohammad Jalali2 and J Scott Weese3

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Food Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, P.O. Box: 166 Shahrekord, Iran

2 Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine Research Center and School of Food Science and Nutrition, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Department of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Public Health 2014, 14:119  doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-119


The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/119


Received:27 August 2013
Accepted:8 January 2014
Published:5 February 2014

© 2014 Rahimi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Clostridium difficile has been shown to be a nosocomial pathogen associated with diarrhoea and pseudomembranous colitis in hospitalised patients and the infection is believed to be acquired nosocomially. Recent studies have shown the occurrence of C. difficile in food animals which may act as a source of infection to humans.The aim of this study was to determine the occurrence of C. difficile in retail raw beef, cow, sheep, goat, camel and buffalo meat in Iran.

Method

From April to October 2012, a total of 660 raw meat samples from beef, cow, sheep, goat, camel and buffalo were purchased from 49 butcheries in Isfahan and Khuzestan provinces, Iran, and were evaluated for the presence of C. difficile using a method including selective enrichment in C. difficile broth, subsequent alcohol shock-treatment and plating onto C. difficile selective medium. C. difficile isolates were tested for the presence of toxin genes and were typed using PCR ribotyping.

Results

In this study, 13 of 660 meat samples (2%) were contaminated with C. difficile. The highest prevalence of C. difficile was found in buffalo meat (9%), followed by goat meat (3.3%), beef meat (1.7%), cow (0.94%) and sheep meat (0.9%). Seven of the 13C. difficile strains (53.9%) were positive for tcdA, tcdB and cdtB toxin genes and were classified as ribotype 078. Four strains (30.8%) were positive tcdA, and tcdB, and one strain (7.7%) was possessed only tcdB. The remaining isolate was non-toxigenic. Susceptibilities of 13C. difficile isolates were determined for 11 antimicrobial drugs using the disk diffusion assay. Resistance to clindamycin, gentamycin, and nalidixic acid was the most common finding.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, the present study is the first report of the isolation of C. difficile from raw buffalo meat. This study indicates the potential importance of food, including buffalo meat, as a source of transmission of C. difficile to humans.

Keywords:
Clostridium difficile; Raw meat; Camel; Buffalo; Beef; Antimicrobial resistance

Background

Clostridium difficile is a Gram-positive, anaerobic, spore-forming bacterium that has come to the forefront as an important human pathogen. It was initially dismissed as commensal in healthy infants, but was recognized as an important cause of antimicrobial-associated with diarrhoea in the 1970s. It is, now, the most commonly diagnosed cause of antimicrobial-associated and hospital-associated diarrhoea, and the cause of virtually all cases of pseudomembranous colitis [1]. C. difficile infection (CDI) more recently was described in non-hospitalized patients without underlying disease or a predisposing risk factor such as antimicrobial exposure, advanced age or significant comorbidities [2,3].

C. difficile also appears to be an important cause of enteric disease or a commensal in a wide variety of animal species [4-6]. Food animals are an important source of enteropathogens, and C. difficile has been isolated from food animals such as poultry and sheep [4-7], pigs [8,9], chickens, goats and cattle [6] and calves [10]. The types of C. difficile found in animals and humans are often indistinguishable [10-12] raising concerns that C. difficile might be a zoonotic pathogen [9,11]. In particular, ribotype 078 is commonly found in food animals [5,13] and an increasingly reported cause of community-associated CDI in humans [5,14].

The epidemiology of CDI in Iran is poorly understood. The recent finding of ribotype 078 as the leading ribotype in a small study of CDI in humans in Iran [14] raised concern about the potential for food as a source of infection, but the prevalence of C. difficile in food in Iran has never been reported. The aim of this study was to determine the occurrence of C. difficile in retail raw beef, cow, sheep, goat, camel and buffalo meat in Iran.

Methods

Sample collection

From April to October 2012, a total of 660 raw meat samples from beef (young cattle) (n = 121), cow (adult dairy cow) (n = 106), sheep (n = 150), goat (n = 92), camel (n = 124) and buffalo (n = 67) were purchased unpacked from 49 butcheries in Isfahan and Khuzestan provinces, Iran. These cities are the most prominent national cultural and tourist centers located in the center and south of the country, respectively. From each city 40–55 samples (about 0.5 kg / sample; two sections of meat (10 cm × 10 cm × 3 cm) from neck of each carcasses were aseptically removed) were purchased monthly. All samples were placed in separate sterile plastic bags to prevent from spilling and cross contamination and were immediately transported to the laboratory in a cooler with ice packs and processed within 6 h.

Isolation and identification of C. difficile

The samples were processed immediately upon arrival using aseptic techniques. The detection and isolation method used were based on the method described by Rodriguez-Palacios et al. [15] and de Boer et al. [16]. Briefly, 5 g of each sample was transferred to 20 mL of C. difficile broth (CDB; Oxoid SR0048) containing 40 g/l proteose peptone, 5.0 g/l, disodium hydrogen phosphate, 0.1 g/l magnesium sulphate, 2.0 g/l sodium chloride, 6.0 g/lfructose and 1.0 g/l sodium taurocholate supplemented with C. difficile selective supplement (Oxoid, UK, Code: SR0173) and 5% (v/v) defibrinated sheep blood. After incubation at 37°C for 10 to 15 days under anaerobic conditions 2 mL of the enrichment broth was added to 2 mL of 96% ethanol in a centrifuge tube and homogenized for 50 min on a shaker at room temperature. After centrifugation (3800 × g for 10 min), a loopful of the sediment was streaked onto C. difficile agar base (Oxoid, UK, Code: CM0601) supplemented with an antibiotic supplement for the selective isolation of C. difficile (Oxoid, UK, Code: SR0173) and 7% (v/v) defibrinated sheep blood and the plates were incubated for 48 h at 37°C, under anaerobic conditions. Three colonies per plate were subcultured onto tryptone soya agar (Oxoid, UK, Code: CM0131) and tested by standard microbiological and biochemical procedures including odour, Gram stain morphology and L-proline aminopeptidase test [4]. Crudely extracted DNA [boiling method: One colony was suspected in 500 μl distilled water and after heating for 10 min at 95°C, the suspension was centrifuged (5 min, 10000 × g)] was used for PCR confirmation (tpi gene detection), determination of toxin gene (tcdA, tcdB and cdtB), and PCR ribotyping of isolates as performed in previous studies [17,18]. For assurance managed at the lab positive and negative controls were included in each batch.

The limitations of the study include the small number of C. difficile isolates which were analysed in the study and the impossibility of sampling from other areas of Iran.

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was done by the Kirby–Bauer disc diffusion method using Mueller–Hinton agar (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India) according to the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [19] as has been previously described [4]. The antimicrobial agents tested and their corresponding concentrations were as follows: nalidixic acid (30 μg), ciprofloxacin (5 μg), erythromycin (15 μg), tetracycline (30 μg), doxycycline (30 μg), gentamicin (10 μg), metronidazol (5 μg), ampicillin (10 μg), chloramphenicol (30 μg), vancomycin (30 μg), and clindamycin (2 μg). After incubating the inoculated plate for 48 h at 37°C, under anaerobic conditions, the susceptibility of the C. difficile to each antimicrobial agent was measured and the results were interpreted in accordance with interpretive criteria provided by CLSI [19].

Results and discussion

Table 1 shows the prevalence of C. difficile isolated from beef, cow, sheep, goat, camel and buffalo meat in two provinces, Iran. C. difficile was isolated 13/660 meat samples (Table 1). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the frequency of positive samples among the meat samples or between Isfahan (4/315, 1.3%) and Khuzestan (9/355, 2.3%) (P > 0.05).

Table 1. Prevalence of Clostridium difficile detected in beef, cow, sheep, goat, camel and buffalo meat samples in Iran

The highest prevalence of C. difficile was found in buffalo meat samples (6/67), followed by goat (3/92), beef (2/121) and sheep (1/150) (Table 1). All the camel meat samples found to be negative. Toxigenic C. difficile strains (tcdA, tcdB and cdtB toxin genes) were detected in 12/13 of isolates. Seven of the 13C. difficile strains (53.9%) were positive fortcdA, tcdB and cdtB toxin genes. Four strains (30.8%) were positive tcdA, and tcdB, and one strain (7.7%) was possessed only tcdB. The remaining isolate was non-toxigenic. Our finding of C. difficile and its toxigenic strains in meat are supported by similar reports from other counters [9,15,16,20-23]. The low prevalence of C. difficile in cow, beef, goat and sheep meat samples are comparable with those reported by others [16,20-23]. However, higher contamination rates (20% to 50%) have also been reported [9,15]. In contrast, Von Abercron et al. [24] did not detect C. difficile in meat samples other than beef. Whether this reflects a true different prevalence or is due to differences in sampling techniques employed (meat sample, carcass swab or carcass rinse fluid sample), seasonal effects [20] and/or laboratory methodologies employed in different studies is not clear.

The source of C. difficile in food products is unclear. Contamination of meat might be due to C. difficile residing in the gastrointestinal tract of animals, but could also originate from the hands of personnel working in the slaughterhouse, meat processing equipment or the slaughterhouse environment during the slaughtering process [5,25,26]. The prolonged survival of C. difficile spores in the environment increases the possibilities for contamination of animals and foods. Another potential source of infection that requires investigation is the presence of C. difficile spores in healthy muscle tissue in living animals [1].

Seven of the 13C. difficile strains were positive for tcdA, tcdB and cdtB toxin genes and were classified as ribotype 078. The predominance of ribotype 078 is consistent with other studies of food animals and food [8,23,27]. Given the presence of this strain in humans in the same region with CDI, consideration must be given as to whether food might be the source. However, further study is required to determine whether food is a reasonable source of infection.

Antimicrobial susceptibility data are presented in Table 2. Resistance of C. difficile to clindomycin, gentamycin, nalidixic acid, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, ampicillin, and tetracycline was high. These results are comparable to those reported by other investigators [6,22,28]. All the C. difficile isolates were susceptible to metronidazole, and vancomycin as was observed in other studies [6,15,22]. These two drugs are the most commonly used to treat C. difficile diarrhea in humans but are not used in food animals. The results of antimicrobial resistance found in this study are correlated with antibiotics usage to treat infections in food animals in Iran. In contrast, many of the drugs to which the isolates were resistant (i.e. gentamicin) are commonly used in food animals.

Table 2. Antimicrobial resistance of 13 Clostridium difficile isolated from beef, cow, sheep, goat, camel and buffalo meat in, Iran

Conclusions

This study indicates that the potential importance of food, including buffalo meat, as a source of transmission of C. difficile to humans. Slaughterhouses can be heavily contaminated with foodborn pathogens [29-31], the maintenance of slaughter hygiene, regular microbiological monitoring of carcasses, implementation of good manufacturing practices and a food safety system such as the HACCP system are essential to minimize the risk to the consumer. To the author’s knowledge, the present study is the first report of the isolation of C. difficile from raw beef, cow, goat, sheepand buffalo meat in Iran. Further studies are required to determine the prevalence of C. difficile in meat in Iran and to explore the potential risk of human infection with C. difficile via consumption of meat.

Abbreviations

C. difficile: Clostridium difficile; CDI: C. difficile infection; PCR: Polymerase chain reaction; CLSI: Clinical laboratory standards institute.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

The supporting of project were performed by ER, MJ and JSW, DNA extraction, PCR techniques were performed by ER and MJ and samples collection, culture, statistical analysis and writing of manuscript were performed by ER. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Hassn Momtaz, Dr. Amir Shakerian, Mohammad Jahanmard and Manouchehr Momeni for the sincere help in performing technical parts of the project. We are also grateful to Pouya Parsaei, Morteza Moosavian, Iman Azadkhah, and Ali Rasooli for assistance with sampling. This work was supported by the Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord Branch-Iran grant 148.

References

  1. Weese JS: Clostridium difficile in food-innocent bystander or serious threat?

    Clin Microbiol Infect 2010, 16:3-10. OpenURL

  2. Bauer MP, Veenendaal D, Verhoef L, Bloembergen P, van Dissel JT, Kuijper EJ: Clinical and microbiological characteristics of community-onset Clostridium difficile infection in The Netherlands.

    Clin Microbiol Infect 2009, 15:1087-1092. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  3. Wilcox MH, Mooney L, Bendall R, Settle CD, Fawley WN: A case–control study of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection.

    J Antimicrob Chemother 2008, 62:388-396. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  4. Harvey RB, Norman KN, Andrews K, Hume ME, Scanlan CM, Callaway TR, Anderson RC, Nisbet DJ: Clostridium difficile in poultry and poultry meat.

    Foodborne Pathog Dis 2011, 8:1321-1323. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  5. Keessen EC, Gaastra W, Lipman LJA: Clostridium difficile infection in humans and animals, differences and similarities.

    Vet Microbiol 2011, 153:205-217. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  6. Simango C, Mwakurudza S: Clostridium difficile in broiler chickens sold at market places in Zimbabwe and their antimicrobial susceptibility.

    Int J Food Microbiol 2008, 124:268-270. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  7. Al Saif N, Brazier JS: The distribution of Clostridium difficile in the environment of South Wales.

    J Med Microbiol 1996, 45:133-137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  8. Songer JG, Trinh HT, Killgore GE, Thompson AD, McDonald LC, Limbago BM: Clostridium difficile in retail meat products, USA 2007.

    Emerg Infect Dis 2009, 15:819-821. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  9. Songer JG: Clostridia as agents of zoonotic disease.

    Vet Microbiol 2010, 140:399-404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  10. Rodriguez-Palacios A, Stämpfli HR, Duffield T, Peregrine AS, Trotz-Williams LA, Arroyo LG, Brazier JS, Weese JS: Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes in calves, Canada.

    Emerg Infect Dis 2006, 12:1730-1736. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  11. Goorhuis A, Debast SB, Van Leengoed LA, Harmanus C, Notermans DW, Bergwerff AA, Kuijper EJ: Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 078: an emerging strain in humans and in pigs?

    J ClinMicrobiol 2008, 46:1157-1158. OpenURL

  12. Rupnik M, Wilcox MH, Gerding DN: Clostridium difficile infection: new developments in epidemiology and pathogenesis.

    Natur Rev Microbiol 2009, 7:526-536. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  13. Pirs T, Ocepek M, Rupnik M: Isolation of Clostridium difficile from food animals in Slovenia.

    J Med Microbiol 2008, 57:790-792. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  14. Jalali M, Khorvash F, Warriner K, Weese JS: Clostridium difficile infection in an Iranian hospital.

    BMC Res Notes 2012, 5:159.

    10.1186/1756-0500-5-159

    PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  15. Rodriguez-Palacios A, Staempfli HR, Duffield T, Weese JS: Clostridium difficile in retail ground meat Canada.

    Emerg Infect Dis 2007, 13:485-487. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  16. de Boer E, Zwartkruis-Nahuis A, Heuvelink AE, Harmanus C, Kuijper EJ: Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in retailed meat in The Netherlands.

    Int J Food Microbiol 2011, 144:561-564. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  17. Bidet P, Barbut F, Lalande V, Burghoffer B, Petit J: Development of a new PCR-ribotyping method for Clostridium difficile based on ribosomal RNA gene sequencing.

    FEMS Microbiol Lett 1999, 175:261-266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  18. Lemee L, Dhalluin A, Testelin S, Mattrat M, Maillard K, Lemeland J, Pons JL: Multiplex PCR targeting tpi (triose phosphate isomerase), tcdA (Toxin A), and tcdB (Toxin B) genes for toxigenic culture of Clostridium difficile.

    J Clin Microbiol 2004, 42:5710-5714. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  19. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; 7th ed, CLSI document M11–A7. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2007. OpenURL

  20. Rodriguez-Palacios A, Reid-Smith RJ, Staempfli HR, Daignault D, Janecko N, Avery BP, Martin H, Thompson AD, McDonald LC, Limbago B, Weese JS: Possibility of seasonality of Clostridium difficile in retail meat, Canada.

    Emerg Infect Dis 2009, 15:802-805. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  21. Bouttier S, Barc MC, Felix B, Lambert S, Collignon A, Barbut F: Clostridium difficile in ground meat, France.

    Emerg Infect Dis 2010, 16:733-735. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  22. Jöbstl M, Heuberger S, Indra A, Nepf R, Köfer J, Wagner M: Clostridium difficile in raw products of animal origin.

    Int J Food Microbiol 2010, 138:172-175. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  23. Curry SR, Marsh JW, Schlackman JL, Harrison LH: Prevalence of Clostridium difficilein uncooked ground meat products from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    Appl Environ Microbiol 2012, 78:4183-4186. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  24. Von Abercron SMM, Karlsson F, Wigh GT, Wierup M, Krovacek K: Low occurrence of Clostridium difficile in retail ground meat in Sweden.

    J Food Prot 2009, 72:1732-1734. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  25. Baker AA, Davis E, Rehberger T, Rosener D: Prevalence and diversity of toxigenic Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium difficile among swine herds in the midwest.

    Appl Environ Microbiol 2010, 76:2961-2967. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  26. Thitaram SN, Frank JF, Lyon SA, Siragusa GR, Bailey JS, Lombard JE, Haley CA, Wagner BA, Dargatz DA, Fedorka-Cray PJ: Clostridium difficile from healthy food animals: optimized isolation and prevalence.

    J Food Prot 2011, 74:130-133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  27. Avbersek J, Janezic S, Pate M, Rupnik M, Zidaric V, Logar K, Vengust M, Zemljic M, Pirs T, Ocepek M: Diversity of Clostridium difficile in pigs and other animals in Slovenia.

    Anaerobe 2009, 15:252-255. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  28. Indra A, Schmid D, Huhulescu S, Hell M, Gattringer R, Hasenberger P, Fiedler A, Wewalka G, Allerberger F: Characterization of clinical Clostridium difficile isolates by PCR ribotyping and detection of toxin genes in Austria, 2006–2007.

    J Med Microbiol 2008, 57:702-708. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  29. Rahimi E, Momtaz H, Bonyadian M: PCR detection of Campylobacter sp. from turkey carcasses during processing plant in Iran.

    Food Control 2010, 21:692-694. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  30. Rahimi E, Momtaz H, Ameri M, Ghasemian Safai H, Ali Kazemi M: Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter species isolated from chicken carcasses during processing in Iran.

    Poult Sci 2010, 89:1015-1020. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  31. Rahimi E, Momtaz H, Nozarpour N: Prevalence of Listeria spp., Campylobacter spp., and Escherichia coli O157:H7 isolated from camel during processing.

    BJVM 2010, 13:179-185. OpenURL

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/119/prepub