<i>Campylobacter upsaliensis</i>
            : Waiting in the Wings

Bourke, Billy; Chan, Vivien; Sherman, Philip M.

doi:10.1128/cmr.11.3.440

Cited by 119 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Campylobacter genus, C. jejuni is known as an important causative agent of gastroenteritis (Bourke et al, 1998;Lee et al, 2015), and C. coli has also been reported as a leading cause of the illness, accounting for over 5% of cases triggered by Campylobacter (Valenza et al, 2010). Recent studies, however, reported that non-jejuni Campylobacter, including oral Campylobacter species such as C. concisus, C. ureolyticus, and C. rectus are detectable in patients with diarrhea (Vandamme et al, 1989;Lastovica and le Roux, 2000;Bullman et al, 2011b), pointing to the possible relation of these Campylobacter species and gastrointestinal disease.…”

Section: Gastroenteritismentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical relevance of infections with zoonotic and human oral species of Campylobacter

Lee

et al. 2016

J Microbiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genus Campylobacter has been recognized as a causative bacterial agent of animal and human diseases. Human Campylobacter infections have caused more concern. Campylobacters can be classified into two groups in terms of their original host: zoonotic and human oral species. The major zoonotic species are Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli, which mostly reside in the intestines of avian species and are transmitted to humans via consumption of contaminated poultry products, thus causing human gastroenteritis and other diseases as sequelae. The other campylobacters, human oral species, include C. concisus, C. showae, C. gracilis, C. ureolyticus, C. curvus, and C. rectus. These species are isolated from the oral cavity, natural colonization site, but have potential clinical relevance in the periodontal region to varying extent. Two species, C. jejuni and C. coli, are believed to be mainly associated with intestinal diseases, but recent studies suggested that oral Campylobacter species also play a significant role in intestinal diseases. This review offers an outline of the two Campylobacter groups (zoonotic and human oral), their virulence traits, and the associated illnesses including gastroenteritis.

show abstract

Section: Gastroenteritismentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical relevance of infections with zoonotic and human oral species of Campylobacter

Lee

et al. 2016

J Microbiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…C. upsaliensis has been isolated infrequently from poultry, ducks, and shellfish, and not from other food sources [4,22,23]. The main reservoir of C.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Major Structural Differences and Novel Potential Virulence Mechanisms from the Genomes of Multiple Campylobacter Species

Fouts¹,

Mongodin²,

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sequencing and comparative genome analysis of four strains of Campylobacter including C. lari RM2100, C. upsaliensis RM3195, and C. coli RM2228 has revealed major structural differences that are associated with the insertion of phage- and plasmid-like genomic islands, as well as major variations in the lipooligosaccharide complex. Poly G tracts are longer, are greater in number, and show greater variability in C. upsaliensis than in the other species. Many genes involved in host colonization, including racR/S, cadF, cdt, ciaB, and flagellin genes, are conserved across the species, but variations that appear to be species specific are evident for a lipooligosaccharide locus, a capsular (extracellular) polysaccharide locus, and a novel Campylobacter putative licABCD virulence locus. The strains also vary in their metabolic profiles, as well as their resistance profiles to a range of antibiotics. It is evident that the newly identified hypothetical and conserved hypothetical proteins, as well as uncharacterized two-component regulatory systems and membrane proteins, may hold additional significant information on the major differences in virulence among the species, as well as the specificity of the strains for particular hosts.

show abstract

“…These spe-cies, namely C hyointestinalis, [13][14][15] C upsaliensis, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] and C fetus, 25 are inhibited by the high amount of cefoperazone contained in the selective medium. 7 26-28 Because most laboratories in the UK routinely use selective culture, these less common species are being missed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of campylobacter species: a comparison of culture and polymerase chain reaction based methods

Kulkarni

2002

Journal of Clinical Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To investigate the optimal method for the detection of campylobacters from stool samples by comparing selective culture with membrane filtration and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Methods: Three hundred and forty three stool samples were investigated by each of the three methods mentioned above. Selective culture was performed with charcoal cefoperazone desoxycholate agar plates. Membrane filtration was performed using cellulose triacetate membranes with 0.45 µm pores placed on blood agar plates. Enteropathogenic campylobacters were detected using a PCR identification algorithm, consisting of screening PCRs and species identification using a PCR enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (PCR-ELISA), both based on the 16S rRNA gene. Results: Of the 343 samples tested, 23 were positive by one or more method. Of these, 17 were positive by selective culture, 12 by membrane filtration, and 20 by the PCR identification algorithm. A total of 18 of 23 positives were identified as C jejuni and/or C coli by the PCR identification algorithm, compared with 14 identified to the genus level by selective culture, and 10 by membrane filtration. Among the remaining five positive samples, one C hyointestinalis was detected only by the PCR identification algorithm; one C upsaliensis was detected only by the PCR identification algorithm; one Campylobacter sp was detected by membrane filtration and selective culture and later identified as C concisus; one Campylobacter sp was detected by membrane filtration alone and later identified as Arcobacter sp; and one Campylobacter sp detected only by selective culture was lost to study and therefore not speciated. There was no significant difference between detection by selective culture and the other two methods. However, detection by PCR was significantly better than by membrane filtration (0.05 > p > 0.02). Conclusion: The PCR identification algorithm can detect and identify Campylobacter spp to the species level and the result is obtained on the same day. However, PCR is expensive, labour intensive, and does not provide an isolate for further identification or typing. Selective culture is as good as the PCR identification algorithm for the detection of the two most common species, C jejuni and C coli, and it is cheap and practical. However, it does miss the less common species, results take 48 hours, and identification is only to the genus level. Membrane filtration showed a low sensitivity compared with the other methods and is not appropriate for the diagnostic laboratory, although it was the only method to detect the Arcobacter sp. The optimum method for the detection of campylobacters from stool samples in the diagnostic laboratory remains selective culture.

show abstract

Campylobacter upsaliensis : Waiting in the Wings

Cited by 119 publications

References 91 publications

Clinical relevance of infections with zoonotic and human oral species of Campylobacter

Clinical relevance of infections with zoonotic and human oral species of Campylobacter

Major Structural Differences and Novel Potential Virulence Mechanisms from the Genomes of Multiple Campylobacter Species

Detection of campylobacter species: a comparison of culture and polymerase chain reaction based methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About