Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-gcwzt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-22T12:37:06.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Further studies on the inhibition of colonization of the chicken alimentary tract with Salmonella typhimurium by pre–colonization with an avirulent mutant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Berchieri Jnr  and
P. A. Barrow
A. Berchieri Jnr
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Houghton Laboratory, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 2DA, United Kingdom
P. A. Barrow
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Houghton Laboratory, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 2DA, United Kingdom
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Oral administration to newly hatched chickens or to chicks up to 5 days of age with an avirulent, rough, spectinomycin–resistant mutant of Salmonella typhimurium strain F98 inhibited the colonization of a nalidixic acid–resistant mutant of the same strain administered by the same route 1 day later. The second strain passed rapidly through the alimentary tract and persisted in the caeca of only a few chickens. Resistance to colonization did not develop until 24 h after inoculation of the first strain but was still evident if the second strain was inoculated up to 7 days later. Resistance occurred in 5 different breeds of chicken and in chickens reared on 5 different diets. Protection was evident against a very high challenge dose and could be produced by the introduction of small numbers of the first strain. Pre–colonization of chicks with the first strain of F98 reduced faecal excretion of the second strain over many weeks, whether chickens were challenged directly or by contact with other infected chickens. The rough strain F98 produced protection against only a few S. typhimurium strains and not against other serotypes. However, strains of S. infantis and S. heidelberg, chosen because they colonized the chicken alimentary tract better than did F98, produced inhibition of a wider range of serotypes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 104 , Issue 3 , June 1990 , pp. 427 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.Milner, KC, Shaffer, MF. Bacteriologic studies of experimental Salmonella infections in chicks. J Infect Dis 1952; 90: 81–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Smith, HW, Tucker, JF. The virulence of Salmonella strains for chickens: their excretion by infected chickens. J Hyg 1980; 84: 479–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Barrow, PA, Simpson, JM, Lovell, MA. Intestinal colonization in the chicken by food–poisoning Salmonella serotvpes; microbial characteristics associated with faecal excretion. Avian Path 1988; 17: 571–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Ochi, Y, Mitsuoka, T, Sega, T.Untersuchungen über die Darmflora des Huhnes. III. Mitteilung: die Entwicklung der Darmflora von Küken bis zum Huhn. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene. Abteilung I Originale 1964; 193: 80–95.Google Scholar
5.Smith, HW. The development of the flora of the alimentary tract in young animals. J Pathol Bacteriol 1965; 90: 495–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Barnes, EM, Mead, GC, Barnum, DA, Harry, EG. The intestinal flora of the chicken in the period 2 to 6 weeks of age, with particular reference to the anaerobic bacteria. B Poult Sci 1972; 13: 311–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Coloe, PJ, Bagust, TJ, Ireland, L. Development of the normal gastrointestinal microflora of specific pathogen–free chickens. J Hyg 1984; 92: 79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Mead, GC, Impey, CS. The present status of the Nurmi Concept for reducing carriage of food–poisioning salmonellae and other pathogens in live poultry. In: Smulders, FJM ed. Elimination of pathogenic organisms from meat and poultry. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
9.Impey, CS, Mead, GC, George, SM. Competitive exclusion of salmonellas from the chick caecum using a defined mixture of bacterial isolates from the caecal microflora of the adult bird. J Hyg 1982; 89: 479–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Rigby, C, Pettit, J, Robertson, A. The effect of normal intestinal flora on the Salmonella carrier state. In: Barnum, DA, ed. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Salmonella and Prospects for Control. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph. 1977: 263.Google Scholar
11.Soerjadi, AS, Lloyd, AB, Cumming, RB. Streptococcus faecalis, a bacterial isolate which protects young chickens from enteric invasion by salmonellae. Aust Vet J 1978; 54: 549–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Goren, E. Unpublished data cited by Pivnick H and Nurmi E. The Nurmi concept and its role in the control of Salmonella in poultry. Development in Food Microbiology 1982; 1: 41–70.Google Scholar
13.Pivnick, H, Blanchfield, B. Unpublished data cited by Pivnick H and Nurmi E. The Nurmi 10. concept and its role in the control of Salmonella in poultry. Developments in Food Microbiology 1982; 1: 41–70.Google Scholar
14.Barrow, PA, Tucker, JF. Inhibition of colonization of the chicken alimentary tract with Salmonella typhimurium by pre–treatment with strains of Escherichia coli. J Hyg 1986; 96: 161–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Barrow, PA., Tucker, JF, Simpson, JM. Inhibition of colonization of the chicken alimentary tract with Salmonella typhimurium by Gram–negative facultatively anaerobic bacteria. Epidemiol Infect 1987; 98; 311–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Robertsson, JA., Lindberg, AA, Hoiseth, S, Stocker, BAD. Salmonella typhimurium infection in calves: protection and survival of virulent challenge bacteria after immunization with live or inactivated vaccines. Infect. Immun 1983; 41: 742–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Germanier, R. Typhoid fever. In: Germanier, R, ed. Bacterial vaccines. London: Academic Press. 1984.Google Scholar
18.Curtiss, R, Kelly, SM. Salmonella typhimurium mutants lacking adenylate cyclase and cyclic AMP receptor protein are avirulent and immunogenic. Infect Immun 1987; 55: 3035–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Barrow, PA., Hassan, JO, Berchieri, A Jnr. Reduction in faecal excretion of Salmonella typhimurium strain F98 by chickens by vaccination with live and killed S. typhimurium organisms. Epidemiol Infect 1990; 104: 413–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Smith, HW, Tucker, JF. The effect of antibiotic therapy on the faecal excretion of Salmonella typhimurium by experimentally infected chickens. J Hyg 1975: 75: 275–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Miles, AA, Misra, SS, Irwin, JO. The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. J Hyg 1938: 38: 732–49.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Linton, AH, Howe, K, Richmond, MH, Clements, HM, Osborne, AD, Handley, B. Attempts to displace the indigenous antibiotic resistant gut flora of chickens bv feeding sensitive strains of Escherichia coli prior to slaughter. J Appl Bacteriol 1978; 45: 239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Onderdonk, A, Marshall, B, Cisneros, R, Levy, SD. Competition between congenic Escherichia coli K–12 strains in vivo. Infect Immun 1981; 32: 74–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Duval-Iflah, Y, Chappuis, JP., Ducluzeau, R, Raibaud, P. Intra–specific interactions between Escherichia coli in human newborns and in gnotobiotic mice and piglets. Prog Food Nutr Sci 1983; 7: 107–16.Google Scholar
25.Davidson, JN, Hirsch, DC. Bacterial competition as a means of preventing neonatal diarrhoea in pigs. Infect Immun 1976; 13: 1773–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Shinefield, HR, Ribble, JC, Boris, M, Eichenwald, HF. Bacterial interference: its effect on nursery acquired infections with Staphylococcus aureus. I, II, III, IV. Am J Dis Child 1963; 105: 646–82.Google ScholarPubMed
27.Selwyn, S, Marsh, PD, Sethna, TN. In vitro and in vivo studies on antibiotics from skin micrococcaceae. Chemotherapy 1975; 5: 391–6.Google Scholar
28.Noble, WC, Willie, JA. Infections between antibiotic–producing and non–producing staphylococci in skin surface and sub–surface models. Br J Exp Pathol 1980; 61: 339–43.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Sprunt, K, Leidy, G. The use of bacterial intereference to prevent infection. Can J Mierobiol 1988; 34: 332–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Borriello, SP, Barclay, FE. Protection of hamster against Clostridium difficile ileocaecitis by prior colonization with non–pathogenic strains. J Med Mierobiol 1985; 19: 339–50.Google ScholarPubMed
31.Impey, CS, Mead, GC. Fate of salmonellas in the alimentary tract of chicks pre–treated with a mature caecal microflora to increase colonization resistance. J Appl Bacteriol 1989; 66: 469–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed