Applied and Environmental Microbiology-2019-Ferrari-e00591-19.Full

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
crossm
Worldwide Epidemiology of Salmonella Serovars in Animal-

Based Foods: a Meta-analysis
Rafaela G. Ferrari,a,d Denes K. A. Rosario,a,d Adelino Cunha-Neto,a,c Sérgio B. Mano,a Eduardo E. S. Figueiredo,b,c
Carlos A. Conte-Juniora,d,e
a Molecular and Analytical Laboratory Center, Department of Food Technology, Faculty of Veterinary, Federal Fluminense University, Niterói, Brazil
Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

b Animal Science Program, Faculty of Agronomy and Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, Brazil
c
Nutrition, Food and Metabolism Program, Nutrition Faculty, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, Brazil
d Post Graduate Program in Food Science Program, Institute of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
e National Institute of Health Quality Control, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
ABSTRACT Salmonella spp. are among the most important foodborne pathogens and
the third leading cause of human death among diarrheal diseases worldwide. Animals
are the primary source of this pathogen, and animal-based foods are the main transmis-
sion route to humans. Thus, understanding the global epidemiology of Salmonella sero-
vars is key to controlling and monitoring this bacterium. In this context, this study
aimed to evaluate the prevalence and diversity of Salmonella enterica serovars in animal-
based foods (beef, pork, poultry, and seafood) throughout the five continents (Africa, the
Americas [North and Latin America], Asia, Europe, and Oceania). The meta-analysis con-
sisted of a chemometric assessment (hierarchical cluster analysis and principal compo-
nent analysis) to identify the main epidemiological findings, including the prevalence
and diversity of the Salmonella serovars in each matrix. Regarding the serovar distribu-
tion, S. Typhimurium presented a cosmopolitan distribution, reported in all four assessed
matrices and continents; poultry continues to play a central role in the dissemination of
the Enteritidis serovar to humans, and Anatum and Weltevreden were the most fre-
quently found in beef and seafood, respectively. Additionally, we recommended careful
monitoring of certain serovars, such as Derby, Agona, Infantis, and Kentucky. Finally,
given the scientific data regarding the most frequently reported serovars and which ma-
trices constitute the main vehicles for the transmission of this pathogen, control pro-
grams may be improved, and specific interventions may be implemented in an attempt
to reduce the risk of this pathogen reaching humans.
IMPORTANCE Salmonellosis is caused by Salmonella spp. and is the third leading
cause of death among food-transmitted diseases. This pathogen is commonly dis-
Citation Ferrari RG, Rosario DKA, Cunha-Neto
seminated in domestic and wild animals, and the infection’s symptoms are charac- A, Mano SB, Figueiredo EES, Conte-Junior CA.
terized by acute fever, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. The animals are the 2019. Worldwide epidemiology of Salmonella
primary source of salmonellae, and animal-based foods are the main transmission serovars in animal-based foods: a meta-
analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol 85:e00591-19.
route to humans. Therefore, data collected from these sources could contribute to https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00591-19.
future global interventions for effective control and surveillance of Salmonella along Editor Johanna Björkroth, University of Helsinki
the food chain. In light of this, the importance of our research is in identifying the Copyright © 2019 American Society for
prevalence of Salmonella serovars in four animal-based food matrices (pork, poultry, Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
beef, and seafood) and to evaluate the importance that each matrix has as the pri- Address correspondence to Carlos A. Conte-
Junior, [email protected].
mary source of this pathogen to humans.
R.G.F. and A.C.-N. contributed equally to this
work.
KEYWORDS beef, pork, poultry, Salmonella, seafood
Received 15 March 2019
Accepted 25 April 2019
Accepted manuscript posted online 3 May
S almonella is a genus of Gram-negative bacilli belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae

family and are comprised of two species, Salmonella bongori and S. enterica,
conforming to the White-Kauffmann scheme. This classification is according to the
2019
Published 1 July 2019
July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 Applied and Environmental Microbiology aem.asm.org 1
Ferrari et al. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
three groups of surface structures expressed on the bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS),

flagella, and capsular polysaccharide (1). The species S. enterica is comprised of six
subspecies, enterica, salamae, arizonae, diarizonae, houtenae, and indica, with about
2,659 serovars. Of these, the subspecies enterica is responsible for approximately 1,547
serovars, of which 99% may cause infections in animals and humans (2).
Salmonella species can be classified into typhoid and nontyphoid (NTS) regarding
their ability to develop specific pathologies in humans (3). Typhoid serovars are a
subcategory of serovars known as specialists (adapted), capable of infecting and
colonizing only a very narrow range of hosts, and include the Typhi, Sendai, and
Paratyphi A, B, and C serovars, highly adapted to humans and presenting only higher
primates and humans as reservoirs (4). The pathogenesis of typhoid fever (Typhi and
Sendai) displays several symptoms, such as high fever, diarrhea, vomiting, headaches,
and, in extreme cases, death. Enteric fever (Paratyphi A, B, and C) presents milder

symptoms, i.e., diarrhea, cramping, fever, and vomiting, possibly leading to septicemia
(5). These serovars can be transmitted by water, milk, raw vegetables, seafood, and
contaminated eggs (4, 5). As S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi do not present animals as
reservoirs, except higher primates, their presence indicates contamination through
inadequate hygiene management during food and water handling (6). Other specialist
serovars are associated with systemic illnesses in other animal species, such as Galli-
narum and Pullorum (7), with host specificity for aquatic birds and poultry, respectively,
as well as Typhimurium phage type DT2 (8), Abortusovis (9), and Typhisuis (10),
frequently linked to septicemic infections in pigeons, sheep, and swine, respectively. In
contrast, generalist serovars are capable of triggering infections in both humans and
animals, including NTS Enteritidis and Typhimurium, known mainly for their epidemi-
ological relevance (4). Symptoms caused by generalist serovars usually are limited to
diarrhea, and there is no need for the use of antibiotics. These serovars are mainly
transmitted by animal-based foods, such as beef, pork, poultry, and contaminated raw
eggs, although seafood and plants (fruits and vegetables) can also serve as vehicles (4,
5, 11, 12). Furthermore, some NTS serovars demonstrate evident host predilection and
usually are associated with a specific animal host, such as Choleraesuis and Dublin (13),
which prefer pigs and cattle, respectively, but may also infrequently cause disease in
other mammalian hosts, including humans (10). These NTS can cause invasive infec-
tions (invasive nontyphoidal salmonellae [iNTS]) in humans similar to those produced
by the typhoid forms, as reported in sub-Saharan Africa for the S. Typhimurium
sequence type 313 (ST313) (14). In this regard, some excellent recent reviews have
highlighted different serovar-host specificity aspects, including Bäumler and Fang (15)
and Branchu et al. (13).
The most common NTS reservoir is the intestinal tract of a wide range of domestic
and wild animals and a variety of food matrices that can serve as vehicles for trans-
mission of Salmonella spp. to humans through fecal contamination. The transfer
frequently occurs when these microorganisms are introduced into food preparation
areas, with subsequent proliferation in food items through improper storage temper-
atures, inadequate cooking, and/or cross-contamination, as well as through direct
contact with infected animals and humans (16).
From a public health perspective, according to the World Health Organization
(WHO), Salmonella spp. are among the 31 pathogens displaying the highest capability
of triggering intestinal or systemic disease in humans among diarrheal and/or invasive
agents (viruses, bacteria, protozoa, helminths, and chemicals) (12, 17) and the third
leading cause of death (12) among food-transmitted diseases (FTD). This pathogen was
the second leading causative agent of FTDs in the European Union and the United
States, preceded by Campylobacter spp. and norovirus, respectively (16, 18). Annual
culture-confirmed human infection surveys regarding Salmonella indicate that the five
most prevalent serovars in decreasing order are Enteritidis, Newport, Typhimurium,
Javiana, and monophasic Typhimurium 4,[5],12:i:⫺ in the United States (19) and
Enteritidis, Typhimurium, monophasic Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i⫺, Infantis, and Newport
in the European Union (20). Although the role of the animal-based foods in the
July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 2

Diversity of Salmonella in Foods of Animal Origin Applied and Environmental Microbiology

FIG 1 Flow diagram displaying the results of the literature search carried out at the PubMed, Web of
Science, and Scopus databases.
transmission of this pathogen to humans has been previously demonstrated, the

prevalence of Salmonella serovars in these products is not yet fully understood (16). The
prevalence in different food matrices varies according to countries and regions, influ-
enced both by culture and food production practices, as well as by geographic location
and economic power (12). Furthermore, production animals are often asymptomatic
carriers (21), and after entering the slaughterhouse, Salmonella can be transferred to
other substrates during industrial processing (22–24).
In this context, it is clear that controlling infections caused by Salmonella spp. is a
global concern and that monitoring its possible contamination routes to humans is
essential (25). Thus, this meta-analysis study aimed to report the worldwide distribution
and occurrence of different serovars in four different animal-based foods matrices and
indicate if these matrices present a central role as transmission vehicles for each of the
serovars to humans.
RESULTS
Literature search. A total of 1,023 articles (210, pork; 528, poultry; 258, beef; 27,
seafood) were identified at the PubMed database, 393 articles (76, pork; 210, poultry;
93, beef; 14, seafood) at Web of Science, and 1,247 (312, pork; 785, poultry; 137, beef;
13, seafood) at Scopus, totaling 2,663 articles. Of these, 82 were duplicates or triplicates
and were excluded. A total of 2,581 remained after exclusion of repeated papers. After
screening the titles and abstracts, only 266 papers were adequate for the purpose of
the study, since they dealt with both matrix and Salmonella serovars (Fig. 1).
Salmonella serovars around the world. First, considering all matrices around the
world, according to the continued linkage distance, serovars were separated into
cluster A and cluster B (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). The decision to
separate the clusters was determined by two factors: prevalence and global distribu-
tion. Serovars with major global importance are presented in cluster A (Fig. S2). Second,
five clusters were obtained, where clusters 1, 2, and 3 are subdivisions of cluster A (Fig.
S1). The Typhimurium serovar, indicated as cluster 2, individually represents the most


FIG 2 PCA of Salmonella serovars worldwide. AF, Africa; LA, Latin America; NA, North America; AS, Asia; EU, Europe; OC, Oceania.
prevalent and disseminated serovar worldwide. In addition, the principal component

analysis (PCA) of cluster A (Fig. 2), according to the contribution (loadings) of matrices/
continents and serovars to the factor’s construction (Table S1a and S1b), indicated that
Typhimurium was represented in factor 1 (Fig. 2A) as the most prevalent. This finding
was noted for all matrices and continents, mainly in pork (Table S1a and S1b).
Cluster 1 comprises the Kentucky, Hadar, and Enteritidis serovars (Fig. S1). In
addition, the PCA indicates that poultry is the main disseminator of these serovars
worldwide (Fig. 2A). Likewise, factor 2 indicated serovar Enteritidis as the second most
prevalent (Fig. 2A, Table S1a and S1b). Cluster 3 comprises the Weltevreden, Derby,
Anatum, Meleagridis, and Agona serovars (Fig. S1). These serovars reach global rele-
vance due to beef and seafood (Fig. 2A and B). The Anatum serovar appeared third,
mainly due to beef contamination (Fig. 2B). The Weltevreden serovar displays global
importance in seafood (Fig. 2B). In this study, this serovar was reported in Asia and
North America. On the other hand, cluster B comprises serovars with minor global
relevance (prevalence and distribution), with serovar Sofia being one of the top five
most prevalent serovars worldwide. However, the local importance of this serovar

(Australia) removes its global relevance. Because of this, this serovar is presented in
cluster 4. Finally, cluster 5 presents serovars with unimportant worldwide relevance.
Salmonella serovars in pork. PCA factors 1, 2, and 3 explain 85.64% of the data
variance (Fig. S3) for serovars in pork. According to continent and serovars contributions
(loadings) to factor construction (Table S2a), factor 1 represents Typhimurium and
Derby in Europe, Oceania, Asia, and North America as the most prevalent serovars (Fig.
S3A). However, the location of Europe and Oceania above the factor 2 central axis line,
as well as serovar Typhimurium, indicates that this serovar was more prevalent than
Derby on these continents. Similarly, the location of Asia below the factor 2 central axis
line indicates that Derby was more prevalent on this continent; this was not observed
for North America, since similar locations for both Derby and Typhimurium indicate that
these serovars present the same importance. Factor 2 indicates that Hadar was the
most prevalent serovar in Africa. On the other hand, factor 3 (Fig. S3B) indicates

Meleagridis is the most prevalent in Latin America, albeit with no individual impor-
tance, since the Anatum and Agona serovars displayed similar relevance according to
the PCA.
Salmonella serovars in poultry. PCA factors 1, 2, and 3 explain 87.28% of the data
variance (Fig. S4) for serovars in poultry. According to the continent and serovar
contributions (loadings) to factor construction (Table S3a), factor 1 indicates Enteritidis
is the most prevalent in Asia, Latin America, Europe, and Africa (Fig. S4A). Factor 2
represents Kentucky, Typhimurium, and Sofia as the most prevalent serovars in North
America and Oceania. However, according to factor 3 (Fig. S4B), Sofia was the most
prevalent serovar in Oceania. Likewise, Kentucky was the most prevalent serovar in
North America (Fig. S4).
Salmonella serovars in beef. PCA factors 1, 2, and 3 explain 73.17% of the data
variance (Fig. S5) for serovars in beef. According to the continent and serovar contri-
butions (loadings) to factor construction (Table S4a), factor 1 represents Anatum and
Typhimurium in Africa, Latin America, and Europe as the most prevalent serovars (Fig.
S5A). However, the locations of both Africa and Europe above the factor 2 central axis
line, along with Typhimurium, indicate that this serovar was more prevalent than
Anatum on these continents. Similarly, the fact that Latin America was presented below
the factor 2 central axis line indicates that Anatum was more prevalent on this
continent. Agona was the most prevalent serovar in Asia, according to factor 2 (Fig. S5A
and S5B), with the same observed for Muenchen in Oceania. Factor 3 (Fig. S5B) indicates
that Anatum and Montevideo were the most prevalent serovars in North America.
Salmonella serovars in seafood. PCA factors 1, 2, and 3 explain 71.58% of the data
variance for serovars in seafood (Fig. S6). According to continent and serovar contri-
bution to factor construction (Table S5a), factor 1 represents serovar Hadar in Latin
America and Africa as the most prevalent (Fig. S6A). Factor 2 reaffirms the prevalence
of Hadar in Africa and indicates Typhimurium is the most prevalent in Europe, followed
by Senftenberg, according to the factor loadings (Table S5a). According to factor 3 (Fig.
S6B), Weltevreden was the most prevalent serotype in Asia. Likewise, Newport was the
most prevalent in North America.
DISCUSSION
Salmonella serovars worldwide. The results reported here confirm that the Typhi-
murium serovar displays a cosmopolitan profile and is considered an example of a
generalist serovar (Fig. 3). Thus, it is not surprising that it occupies the second position
in Europe (20) and third in the United States (19) in human salmonellosis reports. Pig
meat was the matrix most associated with S. Typhimurium and its monophasic variant
(20, 26). Therefore, from a worldwide point of view, these results corroborate those
reported by the CDC (26) and EFSA (20), confirming that pig and pork meat are the
main sources of this pathogen.
According to experimental studies, pigs can asymptomatically carry high S. Typhi-
murium concentrations in the tonsils, gut, and mesenteric lymph nodes, and during
their slaughter, these tissues frequently disseminate the bacterium to carcasses (27–31).


FIG 3 World distribution of Salmonella serovars by matrix.
In addition, the presence of S. Typhimurium in the parotid glands can also be a hazard
during sanitary inspection due to cross-contamination generated by the incision. Once
this occurs, Salmonella organisms spread out throughout the processing line and can
be isolated from machinery, knives, carcasses, and employee hands (32, 33).
Serovar Enteritidis was the most frequently reported in human salmonellosis cases
in the European Union, followed by S. Typhimurium and its monophasic variant,
1,4,[5],12:i:⫺. EFSA, in agreement with our results, indicates that this serovar was first
associated with broiler flocks and meat (57.2%), followed by layer (37.1%) and turkey
(3.9%) sources (20). In the United States, S. Enteritidis is the second most isolated
serovar from chicken carcasses and is the most frequent serovar associated with human
disease (34). Hence, with regard to poultry from a worldwide view, these results
corroborated the aforementioned reports, indicating that this matrix continues to play
a crucial role in the delivery of this bacterium to humans.
Concerning Anatum, the most noteworthy serovar in beef (Fig. 2B), the studies
reported here (see Table S8 in the supplemental material) do not discuss why this
serovar is found so frequently in this matrix. Moreover, until the elaboration of this
research, no studies concerning the pathogenesis of this serovar were found in the
literature. It is hoped that this gap is an incentive for future studies, considering the
relevance that this serovar presents regarding its prevalence in beef. From reported
outbreaks by this serovar, it appears the twenty most prevalent are in Asia, Africa (3),
and the United States (19).
Originating in India, the Weltevreden serovar became the most prevalent NTS in
South and Southeast Asia due to its special capacity for commensalism, which can
cause zoonosis worldwide through the consumption of contaminated foods and
seafood. This serovar emerged as a dominant serovar isolated from fish production
systems and aquatic foods (35) and is considered an important pathogen in the context
of public health, especially in coastal areas of China (36). Noor Uddin et al. (37) reported
closely related or identical pulse types of S. Weltevreden profiles from distinct shrimp
farms. These findings suggested a clonal strain resulting from a common feed, fecal
source, or animal, i.e., rodent, reptile, or bird. In addition, it has been proposed that this
serovar is more adapted for survival than other Salmonella serovars. Additionally, an
antimicrobial profile similar to that of S. Typhimurium DT 104 was noted, which


FIG 4 Heat map concerning Salmonella serovar prevalence in different matrices worldwide for pork (A) and poultry (B).
presents resistance to florfenicol and chloramphenicol, related to the floR gene. This
indicates that future molecular studies must be carried out in order to determine the
factors that may be associated with increased survival in aquatic environments and
whether resistant patterns are related to the floR gene (37).
Salmonella serovars in pork. Pigs are one of the most common sources of
Salmonella infections in humans (38–40), and in some countries it is indicated as the
most important source of salmonellosis, as in a great part of Europe and the United
States (19, 40). This is because these animals are frequently asymptomatic carriers and
disseminators of this pathogen throughout the production chain. Even if the preva-
lence of Salmonella in these animals varies depending on the different stages of
production (ranging from 3% to 33%), it is relevant in a food safety context to
understand and control pig infection under slaughter conditions (18, 41). Salmonella
spp. may spread among pigs through the fecal-oral route, direct contact between
snouts, feed, and aerosols. Additionally, as this pathogen is present in the animal
intestines, mesenteric lymph nodes, throat, stomach, and feces (32, 42–44), pigs under
slaughter conditions can quickly develop resurgent infections before processing, in-
creasing the number of impaired animals and the risk of spreading this microorganism
in slaughterhouses (45–50).
S. Typhimurium presented a ubiquitous profile, since all continents reported this
serovar in pork (Fig. 4A). This finding is supported by the fact that this serovar is
described in outbreaks worldwide involving pork (3, 51, 52). According to Hendriksen
et al. (3), S. Typhimurium is the most common serovar in humans in North American and
Oceania, regardless of the source, followed by Enteritidis. In contrast, in the European
Union, S. Enteritidis ranked as the most common serovar, with Typhimurium second.
However, in the present study, S. Enteritidis was reported in pork only in Africa and Asia,

in both cases in the 8th position. This is due to the secondary importance that this
matrix has in the dissemination of this serovar to humans. In fact, several studies
suggest eggs, chicken meat, and derivatives as the main culprits in the dissemination
of this serovar (53–60). Therefore, when the source is attributed, studies indicate that
pork and pork-based food are the main S. Typhimurium transmission vehicle in Africa
and Asia (19, 20, 61).
The Typhimurium serovar, including its monophasic variant, when isolated from
swine, presents a diverse phenotypic and genotypic profile. Studies have reported that
multidrug-resistant (MDR) S. Typhimurium phage type U 288, DT 120, and DT 193 are
the most prevalent in swine (39, 62–72) and DT 193 in both humans and pigs (62, 72,
73). Some researchers have suggested that the prevalence of phage type DT 193 has
increased in humans over the past 10 years due to its association with the dominant
clone of monophasic S. Typhimurium (39, 73–76), although this clonal line is a heter-

ogeneous phage type comprising different monophasic S. Typhimurium lineages (74).
Similarly, DT 120 has been associated with the monophasic variant, although some DT
120 members have derived from DT 104 and are not monophasic (74). Furthermore, the
prevalence of S. Typhimurium and its monophasic variant, as well as its phage types, are
similar in both farms and slaughterhouses. It is not surprising that the isolation of this
serovar in outbreaks is strongly linked to the pork matrix. Additionally, as reported by
Ferrari et al. (77), currently several studies have demonstrated correlations between
swine and human S. Typhimurium isolates.
The Derby serovar, the most reported in Asia and in North America (S. Typhimurium
and Derby had the same importance on this continent) and the second most reported
in Europe (Table S7), is not among the main causes of outbreaks in humans (3). In this
case, different food matrices contaminated with other serovars are responsible for
Salmonella transmission, diluting the prevalence of the Derby serovar in humans.
Another possibility for the low prevalence of the Derby serovar in humans and its high
prevalence in swine is due to the lack of some virulence-associated genes, such as the
truncation of the Salmonella pathogenicity island 3 (SPI-3) and the deletion of some
genes, such as sugR (ATP binding protein) and rhuM (putative cytoplasmic protein) (78).
Hendriksen et al. (3) also report that Derby is not among the most common outbreak-
causing serovars, except in Europe and Asia, ranking 10th and 18th, respectively.
Nevertheless, an interesting fact pointed out by a recent baseline study in Europe
reports that the Derby serovar was the 6th most frequently isolated serovar in human
infection cases, also associated with pigs and pork meat (20, 79). Corroborating the
results reported here, it is important to note that such a serovar is continuously isolated
from pig mesenteric lymph nodes and feces in both Asia and Europe (32, 42–44, 80, 81)
and is among the top 10 serovars isolated from pig slaughter on these two continents.
Moreover, several studies have demonstrated correlations between S. Derby in pigs and
humans (80, 82–87). For example, in Italy, a comparison of the pulsed-field gel elec-
trophoresis (PFGE) profiles of swine and human isolates confirmed a strong correlation
between S. Derby isolated from animals in slaughterhouses and those held at lairage for
long periods. Consequently, the authors recommended that lairage duration should be
considered within Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) slaughterhouse
plans. Similarly, Kerouanton et al. (82) also utilized PFGE (applying three restriction
enzymes, XbaI, BlnI, and SpeI) and antimicrobial susceptibility to correlate swine and
human isolates, and although a sequencing method was required during a second
stage of the study (88), the authors noted a strong link between human and swine
isolates (82). In China, Zheng et al. (89) used multilocus sequence typing (MLST) to
characterize the Derby serovar. The authors identified two clonal groups, with ST40 as
the most frequently detected. It is noteworthy that, according to the Salmonella MLST
database (https://pubmlst.org/salmonella/), ST40 has been commonly reported in pigs
and pork meat in the United States and Europe and in humans in Europe and Asia.
Therefore, descriptive results found in the literature and the findings reported here
indicate S. Derby is associated with and confirms pigs as the main reservoir for this
serovar.

In Latin America, the Meleagridis serovar was the most described in pork, followed
by Anatum and Agona (Fig. 4A). This study also indicates this serovar is found in beef
(3rd) and chicken (11th) on this continent (Table S7). This is interesting, since this
serovar is the 4th leading cause of outbreaks in this region (3), suggesting that pork and
derivatives represent one of the main sources of this serovar for humans. Few studies
regarding the characterization of the Meleagridis serovar and a plausible explanation of
why this serovar is so isolated in swine are found in the literature. Some studies (90–93)
have reported S. Meleagridis is one of the most prevalent in pork serovars, and its
characterization by MLST indicates ST463 and ST64 with an MDR profile.
Concerning the Hadar serovar in Africa, generally associated with poultry (94–97),
the present study indicates that pork and seafood presented a higher prevalence,
followed by poultry, ranked 2nd. Thus, pork meat cannot be identified as the main
potential vehicle of this serovar to humans on this continent. However, these results

may be biased due to the small number of articles found for this continent, as well as
the fact that two articles were carried out in the same country, representing only a local
reality. Hendriksen et al. (3) reported S. Hadar as ranking 14th as a cause of outbreaks
in Africa. However, it is still worrisome, since the prevalence of this serovar in these
matrices can be a serious threat. According to the CDC (19), the four most worrying
Salmonella serovars regarding public health are Typhimurium, Newport, Hadar, and
Heidelberg due to their association with multidrug resistance. Additionally, previous
studies indicate that pigs are the most important source of this serovar in Europe,
highlighting the importance of this matrix as a possible threat to humans (34, 55, 98).
Concerning pathogenicity, experiments using HeLa epithelial cells indicated that S.
Hadar isolated from human feces presented equal or greater invasiveness than blood
isolates, in addition to presenting greater intracellular replication compared to that of
blood isolates (99).
Salmonella serovars in poultry. Poultry can become infected with different Sal-
monella serovars, frequently asymptomatically (100). These animals may acquire Sal-
monella via vertical or horizontal transmission, e.g., from the environment, transporta-
tion, feed, and vectors, such as rodents, insects, and humans. After becoming carriers,
these animals become Salmonella disseminators through both horizontal and vertical
pathways during primary production, when, at this stage, epidemiologists suggest its
spread throughout the production chain (54, 56, 59, 100). Some serovars, such as
Pullorum and Gallinarum, are specific to birds, causing disease in these animals but
rarely in humans, while others, such as Typhimurium, Enteritidis, and Heidelberg, are
able to infect a broad range of hosts (10).
The Enteritidis serovar was also the most reported in humans in Asia, Latin America,
Africa, and Europe, demonstrating that this food matrix is directly involved in the
dissemination of this pathogen to humans (3). The other assessed matrices did not
present high Enteritidis prevalence, at rankings of 2nd, 8th, and 10th in beef (Table S8)
in Africa, Europe, and Asia, respectively, and 3rd in seafood in Africa and Asia (Table S9).
Corroborating these results, several studies have confirmed poultry products as the
main vehicles for Salmonella infection and unquestionably associated this with
the Enteritidis serovar (20, 101–104). According to Shah et al. (105), the prevalence of
the Enteritidis serovar in poultry products in the United States has increased from
0.45% in 2002 to 1.5% in 2012, suggesting that poultry meat is another major risk factor
concerning human infection by this serovar.
Previous to the spread of S. Enteritidis infections in poultry, this serovar was
correlated with rodents (106). Some explanations for the emergence of the Enteritidis
serovar in poultry are available, including the eradication of S. Pullorum and S. Galli-
narum and subsequent filling of this niche by the Enteritidis serovar (107). In addition,
production chain changes, such as increased population density in animal rearing, may
have facilitated the spread of S. Enteritidis (100, 108, 109). This serovar is known to
colonize the reproductive tissues, ovaries, and oviducts, yet it can also survive in the
hostile environment inside the egg (109). Moreover, it also survives in the chicken

endothelial reticulum, which has been demonstrated to be an important host speci-

ficity, explaining their high isolation in eggs and broilers (110).
Lastly, S. Sofia, the most prevalent serovar in Oceania (Fig. 4B), presents very low
outbreak prevalence on this continent and elsewhere, suggesting low virulence to
humans (111). This serovar is rarely reported in countries other than Australia. Bouchrif
et al. (112) isolated this serovar from chicken meat in Morocco, while Carramiñana et al.
(113) isolated it from the same matrix and environment in Spain. According to Pointon
et al. (114), from 1981 to 1985, chickens after processing in Australia presented a Sofia
serovar prevalence rate of 32.8% concerning all isolated Salmonella, increasing to 90.3%
in 2004. According to Duffy et al. (111), the Sofia serovar presents several alterations in
its SPI-1 to -5, ranging from whole gene deletions to insertions/deletions and point
mutations. The main genetic variations found in S. Sofia compared to S. Typhimurium
comprise SPI-1, SPI-3, and SPI-5, with SPI-2 and SPI-4 being relatively conserved. These

findings suggest that changes in Sofia serovar SPI-1 and -2 do not play a significant role
in its successful poultry colonization compared to the Typhimurium serovar. Neverthe-
less, it is still unknown if the number of changes in S. Sofia SPIs, particularly in SPI-1, -3,
and -5, are important concerning human colonization (111).
The Kentucky serovar was the most prevalent in poultry products in North America.
However, no reports of outbreaks in humans were found (3). The relationship of this
serovar to human outbreaks is rare, with ratios below 1% in the United States (16, 115).
This suggests that although this serovar is not among the causative agents of out-
breaks, the possibility exists, due to the high isolation levels in poultry and derivatives.
However, according to Foley et al. (110), most strains of this serovar isolated from
poultry are avirulent to humans and display the ability to grow rapidly in mildly acidic
environments (pH 5.5), which gives them an advantage over other serovars regarding
growth in the chicken cecum (110). Another aggravating factor regarding this serovar
is that it has acquired pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) virulence plasmids (pColV-like),
which appear to be important to S. Kentucky concerning poultry colonization (110,
116). Additionally, the effective control of other serovars (i.e., Typhimurium and Enter-
itidis) in the supply chain seems to have led to a pathogen substitution in this matrix.
A major factor was the inclusion of Enteritidis in the Eggs and Poultry Meat Improve-
ment Plan in 1989 and 1994 (100). According to EFSA (16), changes in Salmonella
serovars related to broilers have also been associated with the dissemination of clones.
The global spread and persistence of the Kentucky serovar in this matrix reflect
increasing globalization, travel, and food trade between different geographical regions.
Finally, the spread of this serovar in Europe, Africa, and Asia has been associated with
an epidemic clone (Kentucky ST198-X1) originating from various reservoirs, in particular
broiler and turkey farms (117, 118).
The Typhimurium serovar presented a global distribution, as observed for pork,
ranging from 0.47% in Europe to 10.22% in Oceania (Table S6). In Europe this serovar
was the second most reported in human outbreaks and, in the latter, the 1st (3).
According to EFSA (20), the three most commonly reported Salmonella serovars in 2017
were S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, and monophasic S. Typhimurium (1,4,[5],12:i:⫺),
representing 70.5% of the 78,949 confirmed human cases presenting known serovars.
The high frequency of this serovar in poultry on this continent suggests that this matrix
is one of the main sources of transmission to humans. In Oceania, this serovar was
reported in all food matrices, and according to Cowling et al. (68), it is more frequent
in outbreak cases. Although it is the most common serovar in poultry, no specific food
matrix is directly involved in the outbreak cases in the region, since in this case this
serovar has become widespread in all matrices. Likewise, Knight-Jones et al. (119)
reported that this serovar is, in fact, disseminated in a wide variety of foods, although
poultry was implicated as an outbreak source in 10.4% of the total cases worldwide.
This serovar has been isolated from a wide range of hosts and is located primarily in
chicken intestinal tissue (120). The hypothesis is that this serovar survives the slightly
acidic environment of chicken intestines, as well as the endothelial reticulum, allowing
for its survival in this host (121, 122). A human-originated Paratyphi B serovar was


FIG 5 Heat map concerning Salmonella serovar prevalence in different matrices worldwide for beef (A) and seafood (B).
detected in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, indicating cross-contamination with

human waste (Table S6).
Salmonella serovars in beef. The spread of Salmonella spp. throughout the meat
production chain can be attributed to several factors, such as the management system
applied to breeding and slaughtering practices and postslaughter manipulation as well
as hygienic care during different chain production stages (123). Asymptomatic animals
eliminate this pathogen in farms, contaminating the environment, food, and water and
spreading it to other animals (123, 124). Horizontal or vertical transmission coupled to
packaging at inadequate temperatures in the cold chain or cooking at insufficient
temperatures or in an improper manner allows for Salmonella spp. survival in meat and
can trigger outbreaks (125–127). Although they are less associated with human infec-
tion than pork, beef products have recently been involved in major outbreaks caused
by multidrug-resistant Salmonella in both Europe and North America (128, 129).
As observed in the other assessed matrices, the Typhimurium serovar presents a
ubiquitous profile (Fig. 5A), present on all continents, ranking 1st in Africa and Europe,
2nd in Latin America, 6th in North America and Oceania, and 7th in Asia. According to
EFSA (20), S. Typhimurium was the most prevalent serovar in beef, with 12 isolates
(19.7%) reported out of 61 detected serovars, whereas for cattle herds it was 2nd,
accounting for 308 out of 1,177 Salmonella isolates (26.2%). A modification in its
epidemiology is noted concerning the most prevalent phage types. For example, in the
1960s, the MDR S. Typhimurium phage type DT 29 became predominant in Great
Britain, being replaced in the 1970s by DT 193 and DT 204 and in the 1980s by DT 204c
(130), which was the cause of a major salmonellosis epidemic in calves in the United
Kingdom. This phage type has currently disappeared and was replaced by DT 104 in the
late 1990s (131, 132). According to Webb et al. (133) and Gragg et al. (134, 135), S.
Typhimurium presents a low isolation frequency from peripheral lymph nodes in cattle

due to its pathogenicity mechanism. In this regard, the diarrheal characteristics pro-
duced by S. Typhimurium in calves are similar to the pathological and clinical signs seen
in humans (136–139). Thus, upon oral infection, calves develop clinical signs of infec-
tion, presenting anorexia, diarrhea, dehydration, fever, and prostration (136, 139). The
Salmonella plasmid virulence (spv) genes and SPI-2, in contrast to the Dublin serovar (an
invasive serovar to calves), have little or no importance during localized infection
caused by the Typhimurium serovar. These findings suggest, as commented above, that
the majority of the Typhimurium serovars in calves remains restricted to the gut and
mesenteric lymph nodes (139). However, an increased risk of the presence of this
serovar in beef leading to human illness is demonstrated by a number of outbreaks
linked to this matrix. Confirming this, reports in the United States (129) and the
European Union (20) point out that the most common serovar responsible for out-
breaks with beef as a vehicle was S. Typhimurium.

In the present study, the Anatum serovar was the most prevalent in Latin America,
ranking 2nd in North America and 3rd in Africa and Asia (Fig. 5A), and it does not
appear among the most frequent agents involved in human outbreaks, appearing as
the 7th most prevalent in Africa and Asia and 14th in Latin America and Oceania (3).
However, this serovar is one of the responsible serovars regarding foodborne illnesses
and has caused some outbreaks involving different matrices, i.e., pasta salad (140),
unpasteurized orange juice (141), and dried formula milk (142). Additionally, it is known
that this serovar, as well as the Typhimurium serovar, is often isolated from the
lymphatic system of infected cattle (22, 134, 143), implying vertical meat contamination
during the slaughter process (144). Although scarce reports implicating this serovar in
outbreaks are available and none concern meat, this study indicates that beef, followed
by pork, are the two main access routes of this serovar to humans concerning the
distribution of the four assessed food categories (Table S8). To improve phylogenetic
comparisons in different niches, genomic and plasmid sequence studies are para-
mount. In this regard, Nguyen et al. (145) detected a closed genome and plasmid
sequences of 10 S. Anatum strains isolated from cattle (ground beef, hide, and
pre-evisceration carcasses) and human salmonellosis. These findings suggest that this
pathogen is directly involved in salmonellosis in humans even if no outbreak involving
this serovar and meat has yet been described. Another important fact concerns human
illness risk assessments with regard to infection and antimicrobial resistance, as several
studies have noted that this serovar isolated from cattle presents an MDR profile
(146–149).
The Agona serovar was the most prevalent in beef in Asia (Fig. S5), but reports of this
serovar causing outbreaks in humans appears to be ranked 17th on this continent (3).
This serovar was first reported in Ghana, isolated from cattle, and appeared as a public
health challenge in the late 1960s in the United States, Europe, and Israel. Kuang et al.
(150) reported that S. Agona is ranked among the top 10 serovars that cause human
diarrheal diseases in China. In addition, these authors reported that most isolates were
susceptible to antibacterial drugs and noted that the PFGE pattern indicated an
association between isolates from humans and different animal-based foods. Further-
more, isolates recovered from 2009 to 2011 indicated possible persistent contamination
of the clone in Shanghai. Brichta-Harhay et al. (143) reported that this serovar is often
isolated from cattle skin and carcasses during the preevisceration step, indicating that
it is distributed in the environment and that carcasses become contaminated through
cross-contamination. When evaluating the occurrence of this serovar in the four
assessed matrices in Asia, in addition to beef, it was also reported in poultry, ranking
5th, and in pork, ranking 10th. This suggests that, regarding human outbreaks, beef is
responsible for transmitting this pathogen to humans in Asia.
The Montevideo serovar, ranking 1st in North America and reported only on this
continent (Fig. S5), has also been reported in poultry (ranking 8th). According to
Hendriksen et al. (3), this serovar is a frequent cause of outbreaks in this region;
however, no source related to this serovar was noted here. This gap in this serovar’s
epidemiology is probably due to the fact that S. Montevideo is a highly clonal

Salmonella serovar, and epidemiological investigations using PFGE, currently the gold
standard method, are limited in their ability to differentiate strains implicated in
epidemic outbreaks (151). However, a recent study performed by Lalsiamthara and Lee
(152) reported that cattle are commonly affected by this serovar and indicated that this
serovar is more adapted to chicken than other animals, suggesting that poultry is the
primary reservoir. However, interesting information corroborating the findings reported
here indicates that although outbreaks in the United States caused by the Montevideo
serovar increased in ten years (2002 to 2012) from 728 to 1,203, the prevalence of this
bacterium in poultry meat was reduced from 0.25% to 0.1% in this same period,
coherent with a negative relationship. In addition, the prevalence of S. Montevideo in
beef increased from 0.3% to 0.5%, indicating a robust positive correlation (105). This
information denotes that this matrix is probably related to human infections, although
more studies about this serovar are required in order to clarify this hypothesis.

Finally, the most prevalent serovar in beef in Oceania was the Muenchen serovar
(Fig. 5A). According to Hendriksen et al. (3), S. Muenchen has been listed among the top
10 most prevalent serovars on this continent. It has also been reported in poultry,
ranking 6th on this continent. Thus, beef represents a real possibility of being respon-
sible for transmitting this pathogen to humans on this continent.
Salmonella serovars in seafood. Seafood may be contaminated by microorgan-
isms naturally present in the aquatic environment or by those introduced via animal
and human waste during processing and/or production chain preparation (153), rep-
resented by different segments, such as catch or removal, processing, and retailing.
Removal can be performed through various methods. The main methods in this regard
are hooking and netting. From a contamination point of view, a net drag leads to
higher contamination levels than hooking, since, in addition to removing the resulting
sludge from the drag, the volume of trapped animals may eventually cause physical
damage and pressure to the animal’s intestines (154, 155).
This food matrix is not a typical Salmonella species reservoir, although this micro-
organism has been isolated from finned and scaly fish and shellfish (156–159). Over 30
serovars have been detected in the aquatic environment, demonstrating the possibility
and diversity of fish and shellfish contamination through the environment (156–165).
Moreover, it is essential to control and reduce the Salmonella in these foods, primarily
because many of these are marketed as ready to eat. Even if the food is cooked before
consumption, bacterial control is essential to avoid cross-contamination in consumer
kitchens.
Salmonella-related foodborne outbreaks related to fish consumption reach up to
12%. In the United States, Salmonella is the most common bacterial isolate in fish
and fishery products (166). In this scenario, the occurrence of the Weltevreden
serovar as an outbreak agent in Asia has increased significantly in the last twenty
years, ranking 11th in the 1990s (51) and 2nd in 2011 (3). This is probably due to the
simultaneous occurrence of this serovar in seafood, supporting the hypothesis that
this food matrix has become a vehicle for this pathogen (167). However, it is
interesting that S. Weltevreden is the 2nd most prevalent serovar in this matrix in
North America (Fig. 5B), but related outbreak cases caused by this serovar reach
only 0.1% (55). According to the articles assessed here, the isolation of the Welte-
vreden serovar in North America is due to fish originated from Asia acquired
through commercial trade, indicating that this pathogen is not native to North
America (168). However, as a high isolation index is observed, outbreaks caused by
the Weltevreden serovar may occur on this continent if hygienic and sanitary
control measures are not adequately applied. Although the Weltevreden serovar is
capable of causing human infections, i.e., asymptomatic transport, moderate to
severe diarrhea, and invasiveness in immunocompromised individuals (169), it
displays low antibiotic resistance frequencies (35), and it is possible that it is less
virulent than other serovars, such as Enteritidis and Typhimurium (36). For example,
Bohaychuk et al. (170) reported that S. Weltevreden was less efficient concerning

survival and multiplication in HeLa cells than the Typhimurium serovar. These
authors noted that this serovar could not survive intracellularly in HeLa cells once
the sseC gene was deleted, indicating that this gene plays a central role in the
persistence of this serovar inside cells.
S. Newport is the most prevalent serovar in North America (Fig. S6) and an important
human pathogen, found in a wide range of hosts, including poultry, water birds, swine,
and cattle, as well as aquatic organisms. This serovar causes over 100,000 infections a
year (171), and in North America it is the 3rd most common serovar involved in human
outbreaks (3). In addition, outbreaks in different parts of the world have been linked to
several kinds of foods, including ground beef (125), mangos (172), unpasteurized
cheese (173), and tomatoes (174). A notable fact is the absence of this serovar in the
other three assessed matrices, suggesting that seafood represents an actual threat
responsible for transmitting this pathogen to humans. S. Newport is polyphyletic,

comprising three lineages: lineage I, from Europe, and lineages II and III, from North
America (175). Corroborating the findings reported here, Sangal et al. (175) reported
that most lineage II and III serovars are isolated from nonhuman mammals. However,
in addition to reptiles and birds, lineage II is frequently isolated from human infections
and does not seem to display a strong host adaptation. On the other hand, almost all
lineage I instances have been isolated from humans and only small amounts from birds
or nonhuman mammals, suggesting human-to-human transmission. Additionally, ac-
cording to several studies, S. Newport has been related to high resistance rates in
several parts of the world in both animals and humans (176–179), while aquatic foods
present a close link to diarrheal patients (179).
S. Hadar was the most prevalent serovar in both Latin America and Africa (Fig. S6).
Interestingly, in the first region, this serovar is not in the top 20 most reported serovars
isolated from humans. In addition, this study indicates that besides seafood, it has also
been detected in poultry, ranking 6th. However, as commented in the pork matrix
section, the results reported here may be biased due to the small number of studies
published for this continent.
Finally, although Oceania has traditional seafood products, no reports regarding the
prevalence of Salmonella serovars were found.
Concluding remarks. Many food types have been implicated as Salmonella
outbreak vehicles, and there is an urgent need to understand the pathways by
which this pathogen affects humans. This systematic review demonstrated the
complex epidemiology of this pathogen in terms of its distribution and transmis-
sion. The Typhimurium serovar presented a cosmopolitan distribution, reported for
all four assessed matrices and continents. This confirms the general profile of this
serovar, indicating the complexities involving the control of this pathogen, since it
can be transmitted to humans by different routes. Poultry continues to play a
central role in the dissemination of the Enteritidis serovar to humans. With the
exception of Oceania, all continents presented this serovar among the eleven most
prevalent serovars in this matrix, and despite sanitary measures implemented in
aviaries over recent decades, this pathogen is far from being reduced or eradicated.
The Anatum serovar had also been consistently among the most frequently isolated
serovar from beef and has been isolated on all continents in this matrix, indicating
beef as a vehicle to humans. Finally, careful monitoring of certain serovars is
recommended, such as Derby, Agona, Infantis, and Kentucky, since they are not yet
among the leading causes of human outbreaks but are widely distributed through-
out continents and matrices. The data presented here compile an overview of
serovar distribution in animal-based foods, which is essential, since veterinary
source literature is still dispersed, if not absent. Animal-based food data are
essential, since, when added to clinical data, they may facilitate the identification of
potential reservoirs. However, as observed here, many of these data are either
sparse or absent. In addition, disparities regarding the number of studies in some
regions are also noted, i.e., much is studied concerning one matrix, e.g., poultry,

while another is not, as in the case of seafood. Finally, this study aimed to subsidize
prevention actions and specific control programs for each continent and for
animal-based products.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following three sequential stages, two authors (R.G.F. and A.C.N.) independently carried out a
preliminary selection of identified abstracts and paper titles.
The search was limited to the English language, and there was no date delimitation. Editorials, letters,
and Ph.D. theses were excluded. Some studies considered essential to compose the revision not included
in any of the research bases were added, i.e., articles addressing human outbreaks, pathologies in
humans and animals, and serovar genotype characteristics. These articles were added later and are
essential, not only due to the differential content addressed but also because of the impact of the journal
in which they were published. Finally, the results were reported in agreement with the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (180).
Focus questions. The question was developed according to the population, intervention, compar-

ison, and outcome (PICO) method. The following questions were formulated. Which matrix has the
greatest relevance in transmitting a serovar? How important is each matrix on each continent in causing
salmonellosis? What is the relevance of each serovar on each continent? Is there a low diversity of
serovars or a predominance of a particular one per matrix?
Information sources. A literature search was performed using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
terms at the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The screening process was performed from
April 2018 to November 2018. Further directed searching was also carried out by checking the reference
list of relevant articles.
Search component 1 (SC1) included the following population search: pork OR pigs OR Suidae OR
porcine OR hog (SC1a); poultry OR chicken OR duck OR turkeys (SC1b); beef OR cattle OR bovine OR red
meat OR Bovidae (SC1c); and seafood OR marine fish OR freshwater fish OR shellfish OR lobsters OR crabs
OR shrimp (SC1d).
Search component 2 (SC2) included the following intervention search: “Salmonella Serovar” OR
“Salmonella serovars” OR “Salmonella serotype” OR “Salmonella serotypes.”
After retrieving the search component results, the Boolean operator “AND” was used to combine
SC1a, SC1b, SC1c, SCd, and SC2.
Finally, a third step comprised serovar separation by continent and matrix. Regarding the production
chain, articles were selected from the slaughter line until consumer sale. The evaluated continents were
Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, and the Americas, with the latter evaluating North America and Latin
America separately due to the economic and social differences of the countries that comprise each
region. Among the total amount of serovars reported, only the eleven most prevalent serovars in each
food matrix were taken into consideration in the Results and Discussion sections of this study. The term
“outbreak” refers to foodborne outbreaks in humans.
Risk of bias assessment. Possible sources of bias include study inclusion/exclusion criteria, the
chosen database, date, language, number of articles, and article type selected for this study. Another
important bias assessment refers to the analytical methodologies used by the different researchers in
Salmonella enterica detection and serology. Only those that applied traditional microbiology (culture
dependent) for isolation and identification were selected. For serotyping, the standard technique of the
Kauffmann-Le Minor scheme was first selected, but some articles use the pulsed-field gel electrophoreses
(PFGE) technique. Isolates identified as monophasic variants of S. Typhimurium (e.g., S. 1,4,[5],12:i:⫺ or
S. 4,[5],12:i:⫺) were considered separate.
Statistical analyses. Prevalence was calculated by dividing the number of positive samples of each
serovar by the total number of samples of a region. To identify the most prevalent serovars in the world,
a hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was used, followed by Ward’s method applying Euclidean distance.
In order to understand the prevalence and dissemination due to the influence of each matrix, the cluster
of most the prevalent serovar was applied to a PCA. A PCA was also carried out to understand the
association between serovars and matrices for each continent. A correlation matrix was employed for the
construction of the principal components (factors). A heat map was used to represent serovar dissem-
ination for each matrix on each continent. To eliminate the effect of magnitude order, prevalence data
were standardized. All data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Supplemental material for this article may be found at https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM
.00591-19.
SUPPLEMENTAL FILE 1, PDF file, 1.9 MB.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (process no.
E-26/201.577/2018, FAPERJ, Brazil), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico (CNPq) (process no. 311422/2016-0, CNPq, Brazil), and Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) (process no. 125, CAPES/

Embrapa 2014, CAPES, Brazil). This study was financed in part by the CAPES (Brazil),
Finance Code 001. We have no conflicts of interest to declare.
REFERENCES
1. Popoff MY, Bockemühl J, Gheesling LL. 2004. Supplement 2002 (no. 46) Salmonella spp. in beef and pork: meeting report and systematic
to the Kauffmann–White scheme. Res Microbiol 155:568 –570. https:// review. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www
doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2004.04.005. .who.int/iris/handle/10665/249529.
2. Issenhuth-Jeanjean S, Roggentin P, Mikoleit M, Guibourdenche M, de 19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. National enteric disease
Pinna E, Nair S, Fields PI, Weill F-X. 2014. Supplement 2008 –2010 (no. surveillance: salmonella annual report. Centers for Disease Control and
48) to the White–Kauffmann–Le Minor scheme. Res Microbiol 165: Prevention, Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/nationalsurveillance/pdfs/
526 –530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2014.07.004. 2016-Salmonella-report-508.pdf.
3. Hendriksen RS, Vieira AR, Karlsmose S, Lo Fo Wong DMA, Jensen AB, 20. European Food Safety Authority. 2018. The European Union summary
Wegener HC, Aarestrup FM. 2011. Global monitoring of Salmonella report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-
serovar distribution from the World Health Organization global foodborne outbreaks in 2017. EFSA J 16:e05500. https://doi.org/10.2903/j
borne infections network country data bank: results of quality assured .efsa.2018.5500.

laboratories from 2001 to 2007. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8:887–900. 21. Buncic S, Sofos J. 2012. Interventions to control Salmonella contami-
https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2010.0787. nation during poultry, cattle and pig slaughter. Food Res Int 45:
4. Gal-Mor O, Boyle EC, Grassl GA. 2014. Same species, different diseases: 641– 655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.10.018.
how and why typhoidal and non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica serovars 22. Arthur TM, Brichta-Harhay DM, Bosilevac JM, Guerini MN, Kalchayanand
differ. Front Microbiol 5:1–10. N, Wells JE, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Koohmaraie M. 2008. Preva-
5. Sakugawa Shinohara NK, Bezerra de Barros V, Castro Jimenez SM, de lence and characterization of Salmonella in bovine lymph nodes po-
Castro Lima Machado E, Fireman Dutra RA, de Lima JL. 2008. Sal- tentially destined for use in ground beef. J Food Prot 71:1685–1688.
monella spp., importante agente patogênico veiculado em alimen- https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-71.8.1685.
tos. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva 13:1675–1683. https://doi.org/10.1590/ 23. Duggan S, Jordan E, Gutierrez M, Barrett G, O’Brien T, Hand D, Kenny K,
S1413-81232008000500031. Fanning J, Leonard N, Egan J. 2012. Salmonella in meats, water, fruit
6. Newell DG, Koopmans M, Verhoef L, Duizer E, Aidara-Kane A, Sprong H, and vegetables as disclosed from testing undertaken by Food Business
Opsteegh M, Langelaar M, Threfall J, Scheutz F, der Giessen J, Kruse H. Operators in Ireland from 2005 to 2009. Ir Vet J 65:1–17. https://doi
2010. Food-borne diseases—the challenges of 20 years ago still persist .org/10.1186/2046-0481-65-17.
while new ones continue to emerge. Int J Food Microbiol 139:3–15. 24. Mannion C, Fanning J, McLernon J, Lendrum L, Gutierrez M, Duggan S,
7. Shivaprasad HL. 2000. Fowl typhoid and pullorum disease. Rev Sci Tech Egan J. 2012. The role of transport, lairage and slaughter processes in
19:405– 424. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.19.2.1222. the dissemination of Salmonella spp. in pigs in Ireland. Food Res Int
8. Rabsch W, Andrews HL, Kingsley RA, Prager R, Tschäpe H, Adams LG, 45:871– 879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.02.001.
Bäumler AJ. 2002. Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium and its 25. Johnson LR, Gould LH, Dunn JR, Berkelman R, Mahon BE, for the
host-adapted variants. Infect Immun 70:2249 –2255. https://doi.org/10 FoodNet Travel Works. 2011. Salmonella infections associated with
.1128/IAI.70.5.2249-2255.2002. international travel: a Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network
9. Dennis SM. 1972. Infectious ovine abortion in Australia. Vet Bull 29: (FoodNet) study. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8:1031–1037. https://doi.org/
133–139. 10.1089/fpd.2011.0854.
10. Uzzau S, Brown DJ, Wallis T, Rubino S, Leori G, Bernard S, Casadesús 26. Morningstar-Shaw BR, Mackie TA, Barker DK, Palmer EA. 2016. Salmo-
J, Platt DJ, Olsen JE. 2000. Host-adapted serotypes of Salmonella nella serotypes isolated from animals and related sources. Centers for
enterica. Epidemiol Infect 125:229 –255. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/
S0950268899004379. nationalsurveillance/pdfs/salmonella-serotypes-isolated-animals-and
11. Berger CN, Sodha SV, Shaw RK, Griffin PM, Pink D, Hand P, Frankel G. -related-sources-508.pdf.
2010. Fresh fruit and vegetables as vehicles for the transmission of 27. Volf J, Stepanova H, Matiasovic J, Kyrova K, Sisak F, Havlickova H, Leva
human pathogens: fresh produce as vehicles for transmission of human L, Faldyna M, Rychlik I. 2012. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium
pathogens. Environ Microbiol 12:2385–2397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j and Enteritidis infection of pigs and cytokine signaling in palatine
.1462-2920.2010.02297.x. tonsils. Vet Microbiol 156:127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic
12. World Health Organization, Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology .2011.10.004.
Reference Group. 2015. WHO estimates of the global burden of food- 28. Boyen F, Pasmans F, Van Immerseel F, Morgan E, Adriaensen C, Her-
borne diseases. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. nalsteens J-P, Decostere A, Ducatelle R, Haesebrouck F. 2006. Salmo-
13. Branchu P, Bawn M, Kingsley RA. 2018. Genome variation and molec- nella Typhimurium SPI-1 genes promote intestinal but not tonsillar
ular epidemiology of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium patho- colonization in pigs. Microbes Infect 8:2899 –2907. https://doi.org/10
variants. Infect Immun 86:e00079-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00079 .1016/j.micinf.2006.09.008.
-18. 29. Castagna SMF, Schwarz P, Canal CW, Cardoso M. 2004. Presença de
14. Feasey NA, Dougan G, Kingsley RA, Heyderman RS, Gordon MA. 2012. Salmonella sp. no trato intestinal e em tonsilas/linfonodos subman-
Invasive non-typhoidal Salmonella disease: an emerging and neglected dibulares de suínos ao abate. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 56:300 –306.
tropical disease in Africa. Lancet 379:2489 –2499. https://doi.org/10 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-09352004000300003.
.1016/S0140-6736(11)61752-2. 30. Ng KCS, Rivera WL. 2014. Antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella enterica
15. Bäumler A, Fang FC. 2013. Host specificity of bacterial pathogens. Cold isolates from tonsil and jejunum with lymph node tissues of slaugh-
Spring Harb Perspect Med 3:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect tered swine in metro Manila, Philippines. ISRN Microbiol 2014:1–9.
.a010041. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/364265.
16. European Food Safety Authority, European Centre for Disease Preven- 31. Van Parys A, Boyen F, Volf J, Verbrugghe E, Leyman B, Rychlik I,
tion and Control. 2017. The European Union summary report on anti- Haesebrouck F, Pasmans F. 2010. Salmonella Typhimurium resides
microbial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, largely as an extracellular pathogen in porcine tonsils, independently
animals and food in 2015. EFSA J 15:4694. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa of biofilm-associated genes csgA, csgD, and adrA. Vet Microbiol 144:
.2017.4694. 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.12.021.
17. Tauxe RV, Doyle MP, Kuchenmüller T, Schlundt J, Stein CE. 2010. 32. Botteldoorn N, Heyndrickx M, Rijpens N, Grijspeerdt K, Herman L. 2003.
Evolving public health approaches to the global challenge of food- Salmonella on pig carcasses: positive pigs and cross-contamination in
borne infections. Int J Food Microbiol 139:16 –28. https://doi.org/10 the slaughterhouse. J Appl Microbiol 95:891–903. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.10.014. .1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02042.x.
18. World Health Organization & Food and Agriculture Organization of the 33. Gomes-Neves E, Antunes P, Tavares A, Themudo P, Cardoso MF, Gärt-
United Nations. 2016. Interventions for the control of non-typhoidal ner F, Costa JM, Peixe L. 2012. Salmonella cross-contamination in swine

abattoirs in Portugal: carcasses, meat, and meat handlers. Int J Food 49. Schroeder S, Harries M, Prager R, Höfig A, Ahrens B, Hoffmann L, Rabsch
Microbiol 157:82– 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.04.015. W, Mertens E, Rimek D. 2016. A prolonged outbreak of Salmonella
34. United States Department of Agriculture. 2014. Serotypes profile of Infantis associated with pork products in central Germany,
Salmonella isolates from meat and poultry products January 1998 April–October 2013. Epidemiol Infect 144:1429 –1439. https://doi.org/
through December 2014. Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 10.1017/S0950268815002629.
Washington, DC. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/3866026a 50. Schielke A, Rabsch W, Prager R, Simon S, Fruth A, Helling R, Schnabel M,
-582d-4f0e-a8ce-851b39c7390f/Salmonella-Serotype-Annual-2014.pdf Siffczyk C, Wieczorek S, Schroeder S. 2017. Two consecutive large out-
?MOD⫽AJPERES. breaks of Salmonella Muenchen linked to pig farming in Germany, 2013 to
35. Ponce E, Khan AA, Cheng C-M, Summage-West C, Cerniglia CE. 2008. 2014: is something missing in our regulatory framework? Euro Surveill
Prevalence and characterization of Salmonella enterica serovar Welte- 22:30528. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.18.30528.
vreden from imported seafood. Food Microbiol 25:29 –35. https://doi 51. Herikstad H, Motarjemi Y, Tauxe RV. 2002. Salmonella surveillance: a
.org/10.1016/j.fm.2007.09.001. global survey of public health serotyping. Epidemiol Infect 129:1–9.
36. Makendi C, Page AJ, Wren BW, Phuong TLT, Clare S, Hale C, Goulding https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268802006842.
D, Klemm EJ, Pickard D, Okoro C, Hunt M, Thompson CN, Lan NPH, 52. Galanis E, Wong D, Patrick ME, Binsztein N, Cieslik A, Chalermchaikit T,
Hoang NTD, Thwaites GE, Hello SL, Brisabois A, Weill F-X, Baker S, Aidara-Kane A, Ellis A, Angulo FJ, Wegener HC, World Health Organi-
Dougan G. 2016. A phylogenetic and phenotypic analysis of Salmonella zation Global Salm-Surv. 2006. Web-based surveillance and global
enterica serovar Weltevreden, an emerging agent of diarrheal disease Salmonella distribution, 2000 –2002. Emerg Infect Dis 12:381. https://

in tropical regions. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 10:e0004446. https://doi.org/10 doi.org/10.3201/eid1205.050854.
.1371/journal.pntd.0004446. 53. Mürmann L, dos Santos MC, Longaray SM, Both JMC, Cardoso M. 2008.
37. Noor Uddin GM, Larsen MH, Barco L, Minh Phu T, Dalsgaard A. 2015. Quantification and molecular characterization of Salmonella isolated
Clonal occurrence of Salmonella Weltevreden in cultured shrimp in the from food samples involved in salmonellosis outbreaks in Rio Grande
Mekong Delta, Vietnam. PLoS One 10:e0134252. https://doi.org/10 do Sul, Brazil. Braz J Microbiol 39:529 –534. https://doi.org/10.1590/
.1371/journal.pone.0134252. S1517-83822008000300024.
38. Hauser E, Tietze E, Helmuth R, Junker E, Blank K, Prager R, Rabsch W, Appel 54. Hedican E, Miller B, Ziemer B, LeMaster P, Jawahir S, Leano F, Smith K.
B, Fruth A, Malorny B. 2010. Pork contaminated with Salmonella enterica 2010. Salmonellosis outbreak due to chicken contact leading to a
serovar 4,[5],12:i:⫺, an emerging health risk for humans. Appl Environ foodborne outbreak associated with infected delicatessen workers.
Microbiol 76:4601–4610. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02991-09. Foodborne Pathog Dis 7:995–997. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2009
39. Hopkins KL, Kirchner M, Guerra B, Granier SA, Lucarelli C, Porrero MC, .0495.
Jakubczak A, Threlfall EJ, Mevius DJ. 2010. Multiresistant Salmonella 55. Jackson BR, Griffin PM, Cole D, Walsh KA, Chai SJ. 2013. Outbreak-
enterica serovar 4,[5],12:i:- in Europe: a new pandemic strain? Euro associated Salmonella enterica serotypes and food commodities,
Surveill 15:19580. United States, 1998 –2008. Emerg Infect Dis 19:1239 –1244. https://doi
40. Bonardi S. 2017. Salmonella in the pork production chain and its impact .org/10.3201/eid1908.121511.
on human health in the European Union. Epidemiol Infect 145: 56. Wensley A, Coole L. 2013. Cohort study of a dual-pathogen point
1513–1526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095026881700036X. source outbreak associated with the consumption of chicken liver pâté,
41. Andino A, Hanning I. 2015. Salmonella enterica: survival, colonization, UK, October 2009. J Public Health 35:585–589. https://doi.org/10.1093/
and virulence differences among serovars. Sci World J 2015:1. https:// pubmed/fdt020.
doi.org/10.1155/2015/520179. 57. Lane CR, LeBaigue S, Esan OB, Awofisyo AA, Adams NL, Fisher IST, Grant
42. Swanenburg M, Urlings HAP, Snijders JMA, Keuzenkamp DA, van KA, Peters TM, Larkin L, Davies RH, Adak GK. 2014. Salmonella enterica
Knapen F. 2001. Salmonella in slaughter pigs: prevalence, serotypes serovar Enteritidis, England, and Wales, 1945–2011. Emerg Infect Dis
and critical control points during slaughter in two slaughterhouses. Int 20:1097–1104. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2007.121850.
J Food Microbiol 70:243–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(01) 58. Song Q, Shen X, Yang Y, Zhang D, Gao H. 2016. Genetically similar
00545-1. isolates of Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis persistent in China
43. Giovannacci I, Queguiner S, Ragimbeau C, Salvat G, Vendeuvre JL, for a long-term period: genetically similar isolates of S. enterica. J Food
Carlier V, Ermel G. 2001. Tracing of Salmonella spp. in two pork slaugh- Sci 81:1778 –1781. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13339.
ter and cutting plants using serotyping and macrorestriction genotyp- 59. Gieraltowski L, Higa J, Peralta V, Green A, Schwensohn C, Rosen H,
ing. J Appl Microbiol 90:131–147. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672 Libby T, Kissler B, Marsden-Haug N, Booth H, Kimura A, Grass J, Bicknese
.2001.01228.x. A, Tolar B, Defibaugh-Chávez S, Williams I, Wise M, Salmonella Heidel-
44. Botteldoorn N, Herman L, Rijpens N, Heyndrickx M. 2004. Phenotypic berg Investigation Team. 2016. National outbreak of multidrug-
and molecular typing of Salmonella strains reveals different contami- resistant Salmonella Heidelberg infections linked to a single poultry
nation sources in two commercial pig slaughterhouses. Appl Environ company. PLoS One 11:e0162369. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone
Microbiol 70:5305–5314. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.9.5305-5314 .0162369.
.2004. 60. Huusko S, Pihlajasaari A, Salmenlinna S, Sõgel J, Dontšenko I, De Pinna
45. Bremer V, Leitmeyer K, Jensen E, Metzel U, Meczulat H, Weise E, Werber E, Lundström H, Toikkanen S, Rimhanen-Finne R. 2017. Outbreak of
D, Tschaepe H, Kreienbrock L, Glaser S, Ammon A. 2004. Outbreak of Salmonella enteritidis phage type 1B associated with frozen pre-cooked
Salmonella Goldcoast infections linked to consumption of fermented chicken cubes, Finland 2012. Epidemiol Infect 145:2727–2734. https://
sausage, Germany 2001. Epidemiol Infect 132:881– 887. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1017/S0950268817001364.
10.1017/S0950268804002699. 61. OzFoodNet Working Group. 2011. Monitoring the incidence and
46. Bertrand S, Dierick K, Heylen K, De Baere T, Pochet B, Robesyn E, causes of diseases potentially transmitted by food in Australia:
Lokietek S, Van Meervenne E, Imberechts H, De Zutter L, Collard JM. annual report of the OzFoodNet network. Commun Dis Intell Q Rep
2010. Lessons learned from the management of a national outbreak of 39:E236 –E264.
Salmonella Ohio linked to pork meat processing and distribution. J 62. Mueller-Doblies D, Speed K, Davies RH. 2013. A retrospective analysis of
Food Prot 73:529 –534. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-73.3.529. Salmonella serovars isolated from pigs in Great Britain between 1994
47. Kuhn KG, SøRensen G, Torpdahl M, Kjeldsen MK, Jensen T, Gubbels S, and 2010. Prev Vet Med 110:447– 455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Bjerager GO, Wingstrand A, Porsbo LJ, Ethelberg S. 2013. A long-lasting .prevetmed.2013.02.023.
outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium U323 associated with several 63. Arguello H, Sørensen G, Carvajal A, Baggesen DL, Rubio P, Pedersen K.
pork products, Denmark, 2010. Epidemiol Infect 141:260 –268. https:// 2013. Prevalence, serotypes and resistance patterns of Salmonella in
doi.org/10.1017/S0950268812000702. Danish pig production. Res Vet Sci 95:334 –342. https://doi.org/10
48. Arnedo-Pena A, Sabater-Vidal S, Herrera-León S, Bellido-Blasco JB, .1016/j.rvsc.2013.04.001.
Silvestre-Silvestre E, Meseguer-Ferrer N, Yague-Muñoz A, Gil-Fortuño M, 64. Arguello H, Álvarez-Ordoñez A, Carvajal A, Rubio P, Prieto M. 2013. Role
Romeu-García A, Moreno-Muñoz R. 2016. An outbreak of monophasic of slaughtering in Salmonella spreading and control in pork production.
and biphasic Salmonella Typhimurium, and Salmonella Derby associ- J Food Prot 76:899 –911. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-404.
ated with the consumption of dried pork sausage in Castellon (Spain). 65. Bonardi S, Bassi L, Brindani F, D’Incau M, Barco L, Carra E, Pongolini S.
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clín 34:544 –550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eimc 2013. Prevalence, characterization and antimicrobial susceptibility of
.2015.11.016. Salmonella enterica and Yersinia enterocolitica in pigs at slaughter in

Italy. Int J Food Microbiol 163:248 –257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j 84. Piras F, Brown DJ, Meloni D, Mureddu A, Mazzette R. 2011. Investigation
.ijfoodmicro.2013.02.012. of Salmonella enterica in Sardinian slaughter pigs: prevalence, serotype
66. Maguire HC, Codd AA, Mackay VE, Rowe B, Mitchell E. 1993. A large and genotype characterization. Int J Food Microbiol 151:201–209.
outbreak of human salmonellosis traced to a local pig farm. Epidemiol https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.08.025.
Infect 110:239 –246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268800068151. 85. Hauser E, Hebner F, Tietze E, Helmuth R, Junker E, Prager R,
67. Animal and Plant Health Agency. 2016. Salmonella in livestock produc- Schroeter A, Rabsch W, Fruth A, Malorny B. 2011. Diversity of
tion in Great Britain, 2016. Animal Plant Health Agency, London, United Salmonella enterica serovar Derby isolated from pig, pork and hu-
Kingdom. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salmonella-in mans in Germany. Int J Food Microbiol 151:141–149. https://doi.org/
-livestock-production-in-great-britain-2016. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.08.020.
68. OzFoodNet Working Group. 2012. Monitoring the incidence and causes 86. Sévellec Y, Vignaud M-L, Granier SA, Lailler R, Feurer C, Le Hello S,
of diseases potentially transmitted by food in Australia: annual report Mistou M-Y, Cadel-Six S. 2018. Polyphyletic nature of Salmonella en-
of the OzFoodNet network, 2010. Commun Dis Intell Q Rep 36: terica serotype Derby and lineage-specific host-association revealed
E213–E241. by genome-wide analysis. Front Microbiol 9:00891. https://doi.org/10
69. OzFoodNet Working Group. 2011. Monitoring the incidence and causes .3389/fmicb.2018.00891.
of diseases potentially transmitted by food in Australia: annual report 87. Knegt LVD, Pires SM, Hald T. 2015. Attributing foodborne salmonellosis
of the OzFoodNet network, 2009. Commun Dis Intell Q Rep 34: in humans to animal reservoirs in the European Union using a multi-
396 – 426. country stochastic model. Epidemiol Infect 143:1175–1186. https://doi

70. Gebreyes WA, Davies PR, Turkson P-K, Morgan Morrow WE, Funk JA, .org/10.1017/S0950268814001903.
Altier C. 2004. Salmonella enterica serovars from pigs on farms and after 88. Kérouanton A, Hirchaud E, Rose V, Esnault E, Naquin D, Denis M. 2015.
slaughter and validity of using bacteriologic data to define herd Sal- First complete genome sequence of a Salmonella enterica subsp. en-
monella status. J Food Prot 67:691– 697. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362 terica serovar Derby strain associated with pork in France. Genome
-028X-67.4.691. Announc 3:e00853-15. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00853-15.
71. Gebreyes WA, Altier C, Thakur S. 2006. Molecular epidemiology and 89. Zheng H, Hu Y, Li Q, Tao J, Cai Y, Wang Y, Li J, Zhou Z, Pan Z, Jiao X.
diversity of Salmonella serovar Typhimurium in pigs using phenotypic 2017. Subtyping Salmonella enterica serovar Derby with multilocus
and genotypic approaches. Epidemiol Infect 134:187–198. https://doi sequence typing (MLST) and clustered regularly interspaced short pal-
.org/10.1017/S0950268805004723. indromic repeats (CRISPRs). Food Control 73:474 – 484. https://doi.org/
72. Hampton MD, Threlfall EJ, Frost JA, Ward LR, Rowe B. 1995. Salmonella 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.08.051.
Typhimurium DT 193: differentiation of an epidemic phage type by 90. Zhu A, Zhi W, Qiu Y, Wei L, Tian J, Pan Z, Kang X, Gu W, Duan L. 2019.
antibiogram, plasmid profile, plasmid fingerprint and Salmonella plas- Surveillance study of the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of
mid virulence (spv) gene probe. J Appl Bacteriol 78:402– 408. https:// Salmonella in pork from open markets in Xuzhou, China. Food Control
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1995.tb03425.x. 98:474 – 480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.07.035.
73. Toboldt A, Tietze E, Helmuth R, Junker E, Fruth A, Malorny B. 2013.
91. Cai Y, Tao J, Jiao Y, Fei X, Zhou L, Wang Y, Zheng H, Pan Z, Jiao X. 2016.
Population structure of Salmonella enterica serovar 4,[5],12:b:⫺ strains
Phenotypic characteristics and genotypic correlation between Salmo-
and likely sources of human infection. Appl Environ Microbiol 79:
nella isolates from a slaughterhouse and retail markets in Yangzhou,
5121–5129. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01735-13.
China. Int J Food Microbiol 222:56 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
74. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ). 2010. Scientific opinion on
.ijfoodmicro.2016.01.020.
monitoring and assessment of the public health risk of “Salmonella
92. Ma S, Lei C, Kong L, Jiang W, Liu B, Men S, Yang Y, Cheng G, Chen Y,
Typhimurium-like” strains. EFSA J 8:1826. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa
Wang H. 2017. Prevalence, antimicrobial resistance, and relatedness of
.2010.1826.
Salmonella isolated from chickens and pigs on farms, abattoirs, and
75. Weaver T, Valcanis M, Mercoulia K, Sait M, Tuke J, Kiermeier A, Hogg G,
markets in Sichuan Province, China. Foodborne Pathog Dis 14:667– 677.
Pointon A, Hamilton D, Billman-Jacobe H. 2017. Longitudinal study of
https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2016.2264.
Salmonella 1,4,[5],12:i:- shedding in five Australian pig herds. Prev Vet
93. Li YC, Pan ZM, Kang XL, Geng S-Z, Liu ZY, Cai YQ, Jiao XA. 2014.
Med 136:19 –28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.11.010.
Prevalence, characteristics, and antimicrobial resistance patterns of
76. Switt AIM, Soyer Y, Warnick LD, Wiedmann M. 2009. Emergence, dis-
tribution, and molecular and phenotypic characteristics of Salmonella Salmonella in retail pork in Jiangsu Province, Eastern China. J Food Prot
enterica serotype 4,5,12:i:–. Foodborne Pathog Dis 6:407– 415. https:// 77:236 –245. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-269.
doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2008.0213. 94. Bugarel M, Tudor A, Loneragan GH, Nightingale KK. 2017. Molecular
77. Ferrari RG, Panzenhagen PHN, Conte-Junior CA. 2017. Phenotypic and detection assay of five Salmonella serotypes of public interest: Typhi-
genotypic eligible methods for Salmonella Typhimurium source track- murium, Enteritidis, Newport, Heidelberg, and Hadar. J Microbiol Meth-
ing. Front Microbiol 8:2587. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02587. ods 134:14 –20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2016.12.011.
78. Litrup E, Torpdahl M, Malorny B, Huehn S, Christensen H, Nielsen EM. 95. Dhanani AS, Block G, Dewar K, Forgetta V, Topp E, Beiko RG, Diarra MS.
2010. Association between phylogeny, virulence potential and serovars 2015. Genomic comparison of non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica sero-
of Salmonella enterica. Infect Genet Evol 10:1132–1139. https://doi.org/ vars Typhimurium, Enteritidis, Heidelberg, Hadar and Kentucky isolates
10.1016/j.meegid.2010.07.015. from broiler chickens. PLoS One 10:e0148706. https://doi.org/10.1371/
79. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ). 2010. Scientific opinion on journal.pone.0148706.
a quantitative microbiological risk assessment of Salmonella in slaugh- 96. Nógrády N, Imre A, Rychlik I, Barrow PA, Nagy B. 2003. Growth and
ter and breeder pigs. EFSA J 8:1547. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010 colonization suppression of Salmonella enterica serovar Hadar in vitro
.1547. and in vivo. FEMS Microbiol Lett 218:127–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/
80. Wu C, Yan M, Liu L, Lai J, Chan EW, Chen S. 2018. Comparative j.1574-6968.2003.tb11508.x.
characterization of nontyphoidal Salmonella isolated from humans and 97. Papadopoulos T, Petridou E, Zdragas A, Nair S, Peters T, de Pinna E,
food animals in China, 2003–2011. Heliyon 4:e00613. https://doi.org/ Mandilara G, Passiotou M, Vatopoulos A. 2015. Phenotypic and molec-
10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00613. ular characterization of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar
81. Zhou Z, Li J, Zheng H, Jin X, Shen Y, Lei T, Sun X, Pan Z, Jiao X. 2017. Hadar in Greece, from 2007 to 2010. Clin Microbiol Infect 21:e1– e149.
Diversity of Salmonella isolates and their distribution in a pig slaugh- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2014.09.016.
terhouse in Huaian, China. Food Control 78:238 –246. https://doi.org/ 98. Hald T, Pires SM, de Knegt L. 2012. Development of a Salmonella
10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.02.064. source-attribution model for evaluating targets in the turkey meat
82. Kerouanton A, Rose V, Weill F-X, Granier SA, Denis M. 2013. Genetic production. EFSA Support Publ 9:EN-259. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp
diversity and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Salmonella enterica .efsa.2012.EN-259.
serotype Derby isolated from pigs, pork, and humans in France. Food- 99. Suez J, Porwollik S, Dagan A, Marzel A, Schorr YI, Desai PT, Agmon V,
borne Pathog Dis 10:977–984. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2013.1537. McClelland M, Rahav G, Gal-Mor O. 2013. Virulence gene profiling and
83. Bonardi S, Alpigiani I, Bruini I, Barilli E, Brindani F, Morganti M, Cavallini pathogenicity characterization of non-typhoidal Salmonella accounted
P, Bolzoni L, Pongolini S. 2016. Detection of Salmonella enterica in pigs for invasive disease in humans. PLoS One 8:e58449. https://doi.org/10
at slaughter and comparison with human isolates in Italy. Int J Food .1371/journal.pone.0058449.
Microbiol 218:44 –50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.11.005. 100. Foley SL, Lynne AM, Nayak R. 2008. Salmonella challenges: prevalence

in swine and poultry and potential pathogenicity of such isolates. J enterica serotype Kentucky ST198 strain. Front Microbiol 4:1–10.
Anim Sci 86:149 –162. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00395.
101. Foley SL, Nayak R, Hanning IB, Johnson TJ, Han J, Ricke SC. 2011. 119. Knight-Jones TJD, Mylrea GE, Kahn S. 2010. Animal production food
Population dynamics of Salmonella enterica serotypes in commercial safety: priority pathogens for standard setting by the World Organisa-
egg and poultry production. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:4273– 4279. tion for Animal Health. Rev Sci Tech 29:523–535. https://doi.org/10
https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00598-11. .20506/rst.29.3.1994.
102. Butaye P, Michael GB, Schwarz S, Barrett TJ, Brisabois A, White DG. 120. Buckley AM, Webber MA, Cooles S, Randall LP, La Ragione RM, Wood-
2006. The clonal spread of multidrug-resistant non-typhi Salmonella ward MJ, Piddock L. 2006. The AcrAB-TolC efflux system of Salmonella
serotypes. Microbes Infect 8:1891–1897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j enterica serovar Typhimurium plays a role in pathogenesis. Cell Micro-
.micinf.2005.12.020. biol 8:847– 856. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2005.00671.x.
103. Barrow PA, Jones MA, Smith AL, Wigley P. 2012. The long view: Salmo- 121. Morgan E, Campbell JD, Rowe SC, Bispham J, Stevens MP, Bowen AJ,
nella—the last forty years. Avian Pathol 41:413– 420. https://doi.org/10 Barrow PA, Maskell DJ, Wallis TS. 2004. Identification of host-specific
.1080/03079457.2012.718071. colonization factors of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium: colo-
104. Cosby DE, Cox NA, Harrison MA, Wilson JL, Buhr RJ, Fedorka-Cray PJ. nization factors of Salmonella Typhimurium. Mol Microbiol 54:
2015. Salmonella and antimicrobial resistance in broilers: a review. J 994 –1010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04323.x.
Appl Poult Res 24:408 – 426. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfv038. 122. Capita R, Alonso-Calleja C, Prieto M. 2007. Prevalence of Salmonella
105. Shah DH, Paul NC, Sischo WC, Crespo R, Guard J. 2017. Population enterica serovars and genovars from chicken carcasses in slaughter-

dynamics and antimicrobial resistance of the most prevalent poultry- houses in Spain: Salmonella types on poultry. J Appl Microbiol 103:
associated Salmonella serotypes. Poult Sci 96:687–702. https://doi.org/ 1366 –1375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03368.x.
10.3382/ps/pew342. 123. Spiehs MJ, Goyal SM. 2007. Best management practices for pathogen
106. Callaway TR, Edrington TS, Anderson RC, Byrd JA, Nisbet DJ. 2008. control in manure management systems. University of Minnesota Ex-
Gastrointestinal microbial ecology and the safety of our food supply as tension M1211:1–10.
related to Salmonella. J Anim Sci 86:163–172. 124. Forshell LP, Wierup M. 2006. Salmonella contamination: a significant
107. Bäumler AJ, Hargis BM, Tsolis RM. 2000. Tracing the origins of Salmo- challenge to the global marketing of animal food products. Rev Sci
nella outbreaks. Science 287:50 –52. https://doi.org/10.1126/science Tech Int Epiz 25:541–554. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.25.2.1683.
.287.5450.50. 125. Schneider JL, White PL, Weiss J, Norton D, Lidgard J, Gould LH, Yee B,
108. Bailey JS. 1988. Integrated colonization control of Salmonella in poultry. Vugia DJ, Mohle-Boetani J. 2011. Multistate outbreak of multidrug-
Poult Sci 67:928 –932. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0670928. resistant Salmonella Newport infections associated with ground beef,
109. Guard-Petter J. 2001. The chicken, the egg and Salmonella Enteritidis. October to December 2007. J Food Prot 74:1315–1319. https://doi.org/
Environ Microbiol 3:421– 430. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2001 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-046.
.00213.x. 126. Guillier L, Danan C, Bergis H, Delignette-Muller M-L, Granier S, Rudelle
S, Beaufort A, Brisabois A. 2013. Use of quantitative microbial risk
110. Foley SL, Johnson TJ, Ricke SC, Nayak R, Danzeisen J. 2013. Salmo-
assessment when investigating foodborne illness outbreaks: the exam-
nella pathogenicity and host adaptation in chicken-associated se-
ple of a monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium 4,5,12:i:⫺ outbreak im-
rovars. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 77:582– 607. https://doi.org/10.1128/
plicating beef burgers. Int J Food Microbiol 166:471– 478. https://doi
MMBR.00015-13.
.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.08.006.
111. Duffy LL, Dykes GA, Fegan N. 2012. A review of the ecology, coloniza-
127. Jones G, Pihier N, Vanbockstael C, Le Hello S, Cadel Six S, Fournet N,
tion and genetic characterization of Salmonella enterica serovar Sofia, a
Jourdan-da Silva N. 2016. Outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis linked
prolific but avirulent poultry serovar in Australia. Food Res Int 45:
to the consumption of frozen beef burgers received from a food
770 –779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.04.024.
bank and originating from Poland: northern France, December 2014
112. Bouchrif B, Paglietti B, Murgia M, Piana A, Cohen N, Ennaji MM, Rubino
to April 2015. Euro Surveill 21:30363. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560
S, Timinouni M. 2009. Prevalence and antibiotic-resistance of Salmo-
-7917.ES.2016.21.40.30363.
nella isolated from food in Morocco. J Infect Dev Ctries 3:35– 040.
128. Mindlin MJ, Lang N, Maguire H, Walsh B, Verlander NQ, Lane C, Taylor
113. Carramiñana JJ, Rota C, Agustín I, Herrera A. 2004. High prevalence of
C, Bishop LA, Crook PD. 2013. Outbreak investigation and case-control
multiple resistance to antibiotics in Salmonella serovars isolated from a study: penta-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 associated with
poultry slaughterhouse in Spain. Vet Microbiol 104:133–139. https:// biltong in London in 2008. Epidemiol Infect 141:1920 –1927. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.08.010. doi.org/10.1017/S0950268812002427.
114. Pointon A, Sexton M, Dowsett P, Saputra T, Kiermeier A, Lorimer M, 129. Laufer AS, Grass J, Holt K, Whichard JM, Griffin PM, Gould LH. 2015.
Holds G, Arnold G, Davos D, Combs B, Fabiansson S, Raven G, McKenzie Outbreaks of Salmonella infections attributed to beef—United States,
H, Chapman A, Sumner J. 2008. A baseline survey of the microbiolog- 1973–2011. Epidemiol Infect 143:2003–2013. https://doi.org/10.1017/
ical quality of chicken portions and carcasses at retail in two Australian S0950268814003112.
States (2005 to 2006). J Food Prot 71:1123–1134. https://doi.org/10 130. Evans S, Davies R. 1996. Case control study of multiple-resistant Sal-
.4315/0362-028X-71.6.1123. monella Typhimurium DT104 infection of cattle in Great Britain. Vet Rec
115. Sarwari AR, Magder LS, Levine P, McNamara AM, Knower S, Armstrong 139:557–558.
GL, Etzel R, Hollingsworth J, Morris JG, Jr. 2001. Serotype distribution of 131. Wray C, McLaren IM, Jones YE. 1998. The epidemiology of Salmonella
Salmonella isolates from food animals after slaughter differs from that Typhimurium in cattle: plasmid profile analysis of definitive phage type
of isolates found in humans. J Infect Dis 183:1295–1299. https://doi (DT) 204c. J Med Microbiol 47:483– 487. https://doi.org/10.1099/
.org/10.1086/319671. 00222615-47-6-483.
116. Johnson TJ, Thorsness JL, Anderson CP, Lynne AM, Foley SL, Han J, 132. Mueller-Doblies D, Speed KCR, Kidd S, Davies RH. 2018. Salmonella
Fricke WF, McDermott PF, White DG, Khatri M, Stell AL, Flores C, Singer Typhimurium in livestock in Great Britain—trends observed over a
RS. 2010. Horizontal gene transfer of a colV plasmid has resulted in a 32-year period. Epidemiol Infect 146:409 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1017/
dominant avian clonal type of Salmonella enterica serovar Kentucky. S095026881800002X.
PLoS One 5:e15524. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015524. 133. Webb HE, Brichta-Harhay DM, Brashears MM, Nightingale KK, Arthur
117. Le Hello S, Hendriksen RS, Doublet B, Fisher I, Nielsen EM, Whichard JM, TM, Bosilevac JM, Kalchayanand N, Schmidt JW, Wang R, Granier SA,
Bouchrif B, Fashae K, Granier SA, Jourdan-Da Silva N, Cloeckaert A, Brown TR, Edrington TS, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Loneragan GH.
Threlfall EJ, Angulo FJ, Aarestrup FM, Wain J, Weill F-X. 2011. Interna- 2017. Salmonella in peripheral lymph nodes of healthy cattle at slaugh-
tional spread of an epidemic population of Salmonella enterica sero- ter. Front Microbiol 8:2214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02214.
type Kentucky ST198 resistant to ciprofloxacin. J Infect Dis 204: 134. Gragg SE, Loneragan GH, Nightingale KK, Brichta-Harhay DM, Ruiz H,
675– 684. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jir409. Elder JR, Garcia LG, Miller MF, Echeverry A, Porras RGR, Brashears MM.
118. Le Hello S, Bekhit A, Granier SA, Barua H, Beutlich J, Zaja˛c M, Münch S, 2013. Substantial within-animal diversity of Salmonella isolates from
Sintchenko V, Bouchrif B, Fashae K, Pinsard J-L, Sontag L, Fabre L, lymph nodes, feces, and hides of cattle at slaughter. Appl Environ
Garnier M, Guibert V, Howard P, Hendriksen RS, Christensen JP, Biswas Microbiol 79:4744 – 4750. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01020-13.
PK, Cloeckaert A, Rabsch W, Wasyl D, Doublet B, Weill F-X. 2013. The 135. Gragg SE, Loneragan GH, Brashears MM, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM,
global establishment of a highly-fluoroquinolone resistant Salmonella Kalchayanand N, Wang R, Schmidt JW, Brooks JC, Shackelford SD,

Wheeler TL, Brown TR, Edrington TS, Brichta-Harhay DM. 2013. Cross- and the potential role of feed for their entry into the food chain. Food
sectional study examining Salmonella enterica carriage in subiliac Feed Res 42:155–162. https://doi.org/10.5937/FFR1502155M.
lymph nodes of cull and feedlot cattle at harvest. Foodborne Pathog 152. Lalsiamthara J, Lee JH. 2017. Pathogenic traits of Salmonella Montevi-
Dis 10:368 –374. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2012.1275. deo in experimental infections in vivo and in vitro. Sci Rep 7:46232.
136. Wray C, Callow RJ. 1989. The detection of Salmonella infection in calves https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46232.
by the fluorescent antibody test. Vet Microbiol 19:85– 89. https://doi 153. Amagliani G, Brandi G, Schiavano GF. 2012. Incidence and role of
.org/10.1016/0378-1135(89)90093-X. Salmonella in seafood safety. Food Res Int 45:780 –788. https://doi.org/
137. Frost AJ, Bland AP, Wallis TS. 1997. The early dynamic response of the 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.06.022.
calf ileal epithelium to Salmonella Typhimurium. Vet Pathol 34: 154. Thrane M, Nielsen EH, Christensen P. 2009. Cleaner production in Danish
369 –386. https://doi.org/10.1177/030098589703400501. fish processing–experiences, status and possible future strategies. J Clean
138. Smith BP, Habasha F, Reina-Guerra M, Hardy AJ. 1979. Bovine Prod 17:380–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.08.006.
salmonellosis: experimental production and characterization of the 155. Borderías AJ, Sánchez-Alonso I. 2011. First processing steps and the
disease in calves, using oral challenge with Salmonella Typhimurium. quality of wild and farmed fish. J Food Sci 76:1–5. https://doi.org/10
Am J Vet Res 40:1510 –1513. .1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01900.x.
139. Tsolis RM, Adams LG, Ficht TA, Bäumler AJ. 1999. Contribution of 156. Dionisio LPC, Joao M, Ferreiro VS, Fidalgo ML, Rosado MEG, Borrego JJ.
Salmonella Typhimurium virulence factors to diarrheal disease in 2000. Occurrence of Salmonella spp in estuarine and coastal waters of
calves. Infect Immun 67:4879 – 4885. Portugal. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 78:99 –106. https://doi.org/10

140. Pakalniskiene J, Falkenhorst G, Lisby M, Madsen SB, Olsen KEP, Nielsen .1023/A:1002733516539.
EM, Mygh A, Boel J, Mølbak K. 2009. A foodborne outbreak of Entero- 157. Martinez-Urtaza J, Saco M, de Novoa J, Perez-Pineiro P, Peiteado J,
toxigenic E. coli and Salmonella Anatum infection after a high-school Lozano-Leon A, Garcia-Martin O. 2004. Influence of environmental
dinner in Denmark, November 2006. Epidemiol Infect 137:396 – 401. factors and human activity on the presence of Salmonella serovars in a
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268808000484. marine environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:2089 –2097. https://doi
141. Krause G, Terzagian R, Hammond R. 2001. Outbreak of Salmonella .org/10.1128/AEM.70.4.2089-2097.2004.
serotype Anatum infection associated with unpasteurized orange juice. 158. Brands DA, Inman AE, Gerba CP, Mare CJ, Billington SJ, Saif LA, Levine
South Med J 12:1168 –1172. JF, Joens LA. 2005. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in oysters in the
142. Threlfall EJ, Ward LR, Hampton MD, Ridley AM, Rowe B, Roberts D, Gilbert United States. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:893– 897. https://doi.org/10
RJ, Van Someren P, Wall PG, Grimont P. 1998. Molecular fingerprinting .1128/AEM.71.2.893-897.2005.
defines a strain of Salmonella enterica serotype Anatum responsible for an 159. Shabarinath S, Sanath Kumar H, Khushiramani R, Karunasagar I, Karu-
international outbreak associated with formula-dried milk. Epidemiol In- nasagar I. 2007. Detection and characterization of Salmonella associ-
fect 121:289–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268898001149. ated with tropical seafood. Int J Food Microbiol 114:227–233. https://
143. Brichta-Harhay DM, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, Kalchayanand N, Schmidt doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.09.012.
160. Fell G, Hamouda O, Lindner R, Rehmet S, Liesegang A, Prager R, Gericke
JW, Wang R, Shackelford SD, Loneragan GH, Wheeler TL. 2012. Micro-
B, Petersen L. 2000. An outbreak of Salmonella Blockley infections
biological analysis of bovine lymph nodes for the detection of Salmo-
following smoked eel consumption in Germany. Epidemiol Infect 125:
nella enterica. J Food Prot 75:854 – 858. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362
9 –12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268899004069.
-028X.JFP-11-434.
161. Guerin PJ, De Jong B, Heir E, Hasseltvedt V, Kapperud G, Styrmo K,
144. Sibhat B, Molla Zewde B, Zerihun A, Muckle A, Cole L, Boerlin P, Wilkie
Gondrosen B, Lassen J, Andersson Y, Aavitsland P. 2004. Outbreak of
E, Perets A, Mistry K, Gebreyes WA. 2011. Salmonella serovars and
Salmonella Livingstone infection in Norway and Sweden due to con-
antimicrobial resistance profiles in beef cattle, slaughterhouse person-
taminated processed fish products. Epidemiol Infect 132:889 – 895.
nel and slaughterhouse environment in Ethiopia: Salmonella serovars
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268804002523.
and antimicrobial resistance profiles. Zoonoses Public Health 58:
162. Gaertner J, Wheeler PE, Obafemi S, Valdez J, Forstner MRJ, Bonner TH,
102–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01305.x.
Hahn D. 2008. Detection of Salmonella from fish in a natural river system.
145. Nguyen DTA, Kanki M, Nguyen PD, Le HT, Ngo PT, Tran DNM, Le NH,
J Aquat Anim Health 20:150–157. https://doi.org/10.1577/H07-045.1.
Dang CV, Kawai T, Kawahara R, Yonogi S, Hirai Y, Jinnai M, Yamasaki S,
163. Raufu IA, Lawan FA, Bello HS, Musa AS, Ameh JA, Ambali AG. 2014.
Kumeda Y, Yamamoto Y. 2016. Prevalence, antibiotic resistance, and Occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of Salmonella se-
extended-spectrum and AmpC ␤-lactamase productivity of Salmonella rovars from fish in Maiduguri, sub-Saharah, Nigeria. Egypt J Aquat Res
isolates from raw meat and seafood samples in Ho Chi Minh City, 40:59 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2014.01.003.
Vietnam. Int J Food Microbiol 236:115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j 164. Li X, Gao R, Hou P, Ren Y, Zhang H, Jiang K, Chen Y, Qi Z, Xu M, Bi Z.
.ijfoodmicro.2016.07.017. 2017. Characterization of the Salmonella enterica serotype Isangi iso-
146. Realpe-Quintero M, Barba-León J, Pérez-Montaño JA, Pacheco-Gallardo lated from patients for the first time in China. Foodborne Pathog Dis
C, González-Aguilar D, Dominguez-Arias RM, Cabrera-Diaz E. 2018. 14:427– 431. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2016.2269.
Genetic diversity and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella serotypes 165. Thompson CK, Wang Q, Bag SK, Franklin N, Shadbolt CT, Howard P,
recovered throughout the beef production chain and from patients Fearnley EJ, Quinn HE, Sintchenko V, Hope KG. 2017. Epidemiology and
with salmonellosis. PeerJ 6:e5482. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5482. whole genome sequencing of an ongoing point-source Salmonella
147. Nguyen SV, Harhay DM, Bono JL, Smith TPL, Fields PI, Dinsmore BA, Agona outbreak associated with sushi consumption in western Sydney,
Santovenia M, Kelley CM, Wang R, Bosilevac JM, Harhay GP. 2016. Com- Australia 2015. Epidemiol Infect 145:2062–2071. https://doi.org/10.1017/
plete and closed genome sequences of 10 Salmonella enterica subsp. S0950268817000693.
enterica serovar Anatum isolates from human and bovine sources. Ge- 166. Panel on Biological Hazards. 2009. Food safety considerations of animal
nome Announc 4:e00447-16. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00447-16. welfare aspects of husbandry systems for farmed fish—scientific opin-
148. Ben Aissa R, Al-Gallas N. 2008. Molecular typing of Salmonella enterica ion of the Panel on Biological Hazards. EFSA J 867:1–24. https://doi
serovars Enteritidis, Corvallis, Anatum and Typhimurium from food and .org/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.736.
human stool samples in Tunisia, 2001–2004. Epidemiol Infect 136: 167. Antony B, Dias M, Shetty A, Rekha B. 2009. Food poisoning due to
468 – 475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268807008916. Salmonella enterica serotype Weltevreden in Mangalore. Indian J Med
149. Gunn L, Finn S, Hurley D, Bai L, Wall E, Iversen C, Threlfall JE, Fanning Microbiol 27:257. https://doi.org/10.4103/0255-0857.53211.
S. 2016. Molecular characterization of Salmonella serovars Anatum and 168. Heinitz ML, Ruble RD, Wagner DE, Tatini SR. 2000. Incidence of Salmo-
Ealing associated with two historical outbreaks, linked to contaminated nella in fish and seafood. J Food Prot 63:579 –592. https://doi.org/10
powdered infant formula. Front Microbiol 7:1664. https://doi.org/10 .4315/0362-028X-63.5.579.
.3389/fmicb.2016.01664. 169. Patil AB, Krishna BVS, Chandrasekhar MR. 2006. Neonatal sepsis caused
150. Kuang D, Zhang J, Meng J, Yang X, Jin H, Shi W, Luo K, Tao Y, Pan H, by Salmonella enterica serovar Weltevreden. Southeast Asian J Trop
Xu X, Ren T. 2014. Antimicrobial susceptibility and molecular typing of Med Public Health 37:1175–1178.
Salmonella Agona isolated from humans and other sources. Foodborne 170. Bohaychuk VM, Gensler GE, Barrios PR. 2011. Microbiological baseline
Pathog Dis 11:844 – 849. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2014.1776. study of beef and pork carcasses from provincially inspected abattoirs
151. Milanov D, Velhner M, Karabasil N, Cabarkapa I, Suvajdzic L. 2015. in Alberta, Canada. Can Vet J 52:1095–1100.
Epidemiological significance of Salmonella enterica serovar Montevideo 171. Cao G, Allard M, Strain E, Stones R, Zhao S, Brown E, Meng J. 2014.

Genetic diversity of Salmonella pathogenicity islands SPI-5 and SPI-6 in 176. Egorova S, Timinouni M, Demartin M, Granier SA, Whichard JM, Sangal
Salmonella Newport. Foodborne Pathog Dis 11:798 – 807. https://doi V, Fabre L, Delauné A, Pardos M, Millemann Y, Espié E, Achtman M,
.org/10.1089/fpd.2014.1784. Grimont PAD, Weill FX. 2008. Ceftriaxone-resistant Salmonella enterica
172. Sivapalasingam S, Barrett E, Kimura A, Van Duyne S, De Witt W, Ying M, serotype Newport, France. Emerg Infect Dis 14:954 –957. https://doi
Frisch A, Phan Q, Gould E, Shillam P, Reddy V, Cooper T, Hoekstra M, .org/10.3201/eid1406.071168.
Higgins C, Sanders JP, Tauxe RV, Slutsker L. 2003. A multistate outbreak 177. Poppe C, Martin L, Muckle A, Archambault M, McEwen S, Weir E. 2006.
of Salmonella enterica serotype Newport infection linked to mango Characterization of antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella Newport
consumption: impact of water-dip disinfestation technology. Clin Infect isolated from animals, the environment, and animal food products in
Dis 37:1585–1590. https://doi.org/10.1086/379710. Canada. Can J Vet Res 70:105–114.
173. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008. Outbreak of multidrug- 178. Zhao S, Datta AR, Ayers S, Friedman S, Walker RD, White DG. 2003.
resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Newport infections associated with Antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella serovars isolated from imported
consumption of unpasteurized Mexican-style aged cheese in Illinois, foods. Int J Food Microbiol 84:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168
March 2006—April 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 57:432–435. -1605(02)00402-6.
174. Greene SK, Daly ER, Talbot EA, Demma LJ, Holzbauer S, Patel NJ, Hill TA, 179. Kuang D, Xu X, Meng J, Yang X, Jin H, Shi W, Pan H, Liao M, Su X, Shi
Walderhaug MO, Hoekstra RM, Lynch MF, Painter JA. 2008. Recurrent X, Zhang J. 2015. Antimicrobial susceptibility, virulence gene profiles
multistate outbreak of Salmonella Newport associated with tomatoes and molecular subtypes of Salmonella Newport isolated from humans
from contaminated fields, 2005. Epidemiol Infect 136:157–165. https:// and other sources. Infect Genet Evol 36:294 –299. https://doi.org/10

doi.org/10.1017/S095026880700859X. .1016/j.meegid.2015.10.003.
175. Sangal V, Harbottle H, Mazzoni CJ, Helmuth R, Guerra B, Didelot X, Paglietti 180. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M,
B, Rabsch W, Brisse S, Weill F-X, Roumagnac P, Achtman M. 2010. Evolution Shekelle P, Stewart LA. 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic
and population structure of Salmonella enterica serovar Newport. J Bacte- review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst
riol 192:6465–6476. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00969-10. Rev 4:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

Applied and Environmental Microbiology-2019-Ferrari-e00591-19.Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied and Environmental Microbiology-2019-Ferrari-e00591-19.Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied and Environmental Microbiology-2019-Ferrari-e00591-19.Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY

Worldwide Epidemiology of Salmonella Serovars in Animal-

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

S almonella is a genus of Gram-negative bacilli belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae

three groups of surface structures expressed on the bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS),

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 2

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

transmission of this pathogen to humans has been previously demonstrated, the

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 3

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

prevalent and disseminated serovar worldwide. In addition, the principal component

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 4

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 5

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 6

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 7

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 8

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 9

endothelial reticulum, which has been demonstrated to be an important host speci-

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 10

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

detected in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, indicating cross-contamination with

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 11

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 12

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 13

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 14

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 15

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 16

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 17

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 18

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 19

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 20

Downloaded from http://aem.asm.org/ on July 1, 2019 by guest

July 2019 Volume 85 Issue 14 e00591-19 aem.asm.org 21

You might also like