Next Article in Journal
Structural Insights on Hyp-Gly-Containing Peptides as Antiplatelet Compounds through Topomer CoMFA and CoMSIA Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
How Does Lagenaria siceraria (Bottle Gourd) Metabolome Compare to Cucumis sativus (Cucumber) F. Cucurbitaceae? A Multiplex Approach of HR-UPLC/MS/MS and GC/MS Using Molecular Networking and Chemometrics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/foods12040778
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Occurrence of Campylobacter in Faeces, Livers and Carcasses of Wild Boars Hunted in Tuscany (Italy) and Evaluation of MALDI-TOF MS for the Identification of Campylobacter Species

by
Monika Ziomek
1,*,
Michał Gondek
1,
Beatrice Torracca
2,
Francesca Marotta
3,
Giuliano Garofolo
3,
Kinga Wieczorek
4,
Katarzyna Michalak
5,
Filippo Fratini
2,6 and
Francesca Pedonese
2,6,*
1
Department of Food Hygiene of Animal Origin, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 12, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Pisa, Viale delle Piagge 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
3
National Reference Laboratory for Campylobacter, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale”, Via Campo Boario 1, 64100 Teramo, Italy
4
National Veterinary Research Institute, Department of Hygiene of Food of Animal Origin, Partyzantow 57, 24-100 Pulawy, Poland
5
Department and Clinic of Animal Internal Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Głęboka 30, 20-612 Lublin, Poland
6
Interdepartmental Research Center Nutrafood “Nutraceuticals and Food for Health”, University of Pisa, Via del Borghetto 80, 56124 Pisa, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(4), 778; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040778
Submission received: 12 December 2022 / Revised: 23 January 2023 / Accepted: 1 February 2023 / Published: 10 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Food Microbiology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A total of 193 wild boars hunted in Tuscany, an Italian region with a high presence of wild ungulates, were examined to assess the occurrence of Campylobacter species in faeces, bile, liver and carcasses, with the aim of clarifying their contribution to human infection through the food chain. Campylobacter spp. were found in 44.56% of the animals, 42.62% of the faecal samples, 18.18% of the carcass samples, 4.81% of the liver tissues and 1.97% of the bile samples. The Campylobacter species genotypically identified were C. coli, C. lanienae, C. jejuni and C. hyointestinalis. The prevalent species transpired to be C. coli and C. lanienae, which were isolated from all the matrices; C. jejuni was present in faeces and liver, while C. hyointestinalis only in faeces. Identification was carried out by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation–time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) on 66 out of 100 isolates identified genotypically, and the technique yielded unsatisfactory results in the case of C. lanienae, which is responsible for sporadic human disease cases. The level of Campylobacter spp. contamination of meat and liver underlines the need to provide appropriate food safety information to hunters and consumers.

1. Introduction

Campylobacteriosis is a gastro-intestinal infection and the most reported zoonosis in the EU, with Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli as the main causative agents, and it represents a threat to public health worldwide [1,2,3]. It is usually self-limiting; however, in rare cases, and especially in immunocompromised individuals, it can lead to severe post-infection complications: arthropathies, immune-mediated neuropathy such as Guillain-Barré Syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome and septicaemia [4]. Although campylobacteriosis is mostly associated with the consumption of poultry meat and raw milk, Campylobacter spp. is also commonly found in the meat of other animal species [5].
The wild boar is currently the second most abundant ungulate in Europe, and it is considered a pest in many areas mainly because it damages crops, has a negative ecological impact and causes road traffic accidents [6,7]. Tuscany is the Italian region with the highest number of ungulates; it also has a higher ungulate density than all other European Union countries, except Austria [8]. In 2018 in Tuscany, the estimated ungulate population was 400,000 animals, with 40% represented by roe deer and 30% by wild boar. The estimated number of wild boars corresponded to 122,000 animals [8]. Wild boar hunting and meat consumption is traditionally widespread in many parts of Europe, including Italy. Moreover, in recent years, the most widely used and most effective method of mitigating the economic, ecological and agricultural impact of wild boars consists of programmes of culling by means of hunting [7,9]. These actions lead to an increase in wild boar meat availability on the market and its wider consumption.
Wild boars are also important reservoirs of infectious diseases, including campylobacteriosis [10]. Globally, the prevalence of Campylobacter in wild boars has been studied, with results demonstrating great variety in relation to the different geographical areas [11,12,13,14]. When wild boars are hunted, their meat is usually destined for human consumption, and since they are a reservoir for several Campylobacter species, including antimicrobial-resistant strains, they can represent a source of infection for humans [15].
Wild boar meat and offal, such as liver, are usually consumed after thorough cooking, of which Campylobacter spp. are unable to survive. There is, however, a risk associated with sausages containing wild boar meat which have not been properly ripened and, most importantly, with the potential cross-contamination of ready-to-eat foods during the preparation of cooked meals containing wild boar meat. There is also the possibility of a transmission of campylobacteriosis from wild boars to extensively reared livestock and vice versa [14]. This is particularly true in Tuscany, where highly appreciated autochthonous pig breeds such as the “Cinta Senese” are reared in a semi-wild breeding system that allows them to contact other wild animals unhindered. If infected, these animals could then introduce Campylobacter to the following stages of the food chain [16].
To obtain a reliable identification of the Campylobacter species involved in food-borne infections and alongside genotypic identification techniques (conventional and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR), real-time quantitative PCR, 16S rDNA gene sequencing, multi-locus sequence typing, amplified fragment length polymorphisms [17,18]) and the most popularly used phenotypic identification methods (biotyping, serotyping, multilocus enzyme electrophoresis [19]), other rapid and accurate methodologies can be valuable tools. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation–time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is nowadays a commonly used method to identify micro-organisms. MALDI-TOF MS utilization in food microbiology is constantly increasing due to several advantages. Indeed, testing requires small amounts of biomass and can be performed from primary culture. In addition, sample preparation is relatively simple, and MALDI-TOF MS analyses are timely and cost-effective [20,21]. Most data on its reliability, however, come from studies involving clinical or human strains, while the reliability for food-related Campylobacter has been less comprehensively studied, and then mainly with the focus on C. jejuni and C. coli [22,23].
The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of Campylobacter in wild boars hunted in Italy in order to assess their role as a wild reservoir of this pathogen and the possibility of Campylobacter entering the food chain through wild boar meat and liver. Limited information is currently available concerning the presence of Campylobacter spp. in wild boar tissues intended for human consumption. To our best knowledge, this is the first report to isolate C. lanienae from wild boar liver and bile. We also tested the usefulness of MALDI-TOF MS in identifying Campylobacter isolates from wild boar (rare game-origin matrices) compared to the molecular standard. This was intended to alleviate the scarcity of MALDI-TOF Campylobacter data, especially regarding C. lanienae—one of the species most frequently isolated from wild boar of which the pathogenic potential for humans is still not fully known [24].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals

A total of 193 wild boars (111 females and 82 males; 87 adult, 30 sub-adult and 76 young animals) were sampled as part of a project focused on the isolation of pathogenic micro-organisms in hunted Tuscan wild boar, to study their role as a reservoir for human and animal diseases. The animals’ ages were determined based on tooth eruption and lower-jaw tooth wear [25]. Sampling took place during the autumn–winter hunting season from 2018 to 2019, following the regional hunting legislation [26] in 4 Tuscan provinces (Pisa, Livorno, Siena and Grosseto). Sampling was integrated with the routine procedure of delivery of shot animals (by the evening of the hunting day at the latest) to the central collection point, where evisceration and skinning operations were performed.

2.2. Sample Collection

The samples were taken by expert microbiology laboratory personnel during the standard course of action when hunted prey was dressed. Faecal swabs were obtained directly from the rectum using an Amies charcoal swab (Copan Italia S.p.A., Brescia, Italy). During the evisceration phase, bile was withdrawn from the gall bladder with a sterile syringe, and a sample of liver (about 50 g) was also collected. After the skinning, a Whirl-Pak Speci-Sponge (Nasco, Madison, WI, USA) (pre-moistened on site with 10 mL of sterile buffered peptone water) was used to sample the carcass tissue; a total area of approximately 300 cm2 for each half carcass from the belly/flank, medial thigh, and shoulder regions was sampled. Since the sampling was performed in collaboration with the hunters during regular hunting sessions, it was not always possible to collect all four types of samples from each animal examined. The total numbers of analysed samples were as follows: 183 faecal swabs, 187 liver tissue samples, 152 bile samples and 55 carcass sponges. All samples were transported to the laboratory under refrigerated conditions and analysed before 24 h had elapsed from the sampling time.

2.3. Sample Preparation and Campylobacter Enrichment

For all types of samples, enrichment was carried out in Bolton selective enrichment broth with the addition of the corresponding supplement (cefoperazone, vancomycin or trimethoprim, 20 mg/L in each case, and cycloheximide, 50 mg/L) and laked horse blood (5% v/v). For faecal samples, each swab was put in a tube with 9 mL of Bolton enrichment broth. For liver tissue, a swab was taken from a freshly cut surface exposed using a sterile scalpel and put in a tube with 9 mL of Bolton enrichment broth. Before the incision, the liver surface was sterilised by touching it with the red-hot blade of a scalpel to avoid external contamination [27]. For bile samples, 1 mL of sample was added to 9 mL of enrichment broth. Finally, for carcass samples, 70 mL of enrichment broth was added to each sponge bag, and the contents were mixed by squeezing the sponge repeatedly. All enrichment broths were incubated for 48 h at 42 ± 0.5 °C under microaerobic conditions using CampyGen sachets (5% O2, 10% CO2, 85% N2). The same incubation conditions were applied for all subsequent phases. All culture media, supplements and microaerobic sachets in all phases were acquired from Oxoid (Basingstoke, UK).

2.4. Campylobacter Isolation and Pre-Identification

Campylobacter isolation and preliminary identification at the genus level was carried out following the ISO 10272-1:2017 method modified by adding a supplemental filtration phase of the enrichment broth after the incubation, as described by Pedonese et al. [28,29]. Briefly, 0.3 mL of the enrichment broth was seeded onto a sterile cellulose membrane filter (47 mm diameter, 0.45 µm pore size, Sigma-Aldrich, Milan, Italy) laid on the surface of a modified charcoal cefoperazone deoxycholate agar (mCCDA) plate, and the filtrate was spread onto the agar surface. After incubation, 1 or 2 characteristic colonies per sample were picked from positive plates. Isolates were preliminarily identified at the genus level by using several phenotypic tests: microscope observation of cell morphology and motility with a contrast stain (1:1 Gram’s crystal violet, Pro-Lab Diagnostics, Bromborough, Wirral, UK, and saline solution) [30], an oxidase test (oxidase strips, Oxoid), a catalase test (hydrogen peroxide 3% solution, Merck Life Sciences S.r.l., Milan, Italy), growth trials (at 42 °C in aerobiosis and at 25 °C in microaerobic conditions) and with the Oxoid Biochemical Identification System Campy (Oxoid), a rapid identification system based on the detection of L-alanyl aminopeptidase production. Isolates phenotypically confirmed as Campylobacter spp. and fully viable were stored at −80 °C in brain–heart infusion broth with 5% laked horse blood and 15% glycerol (Sigma-Aldrich) for further analyses.

2.5. Molecular Identification

The isolates from positive samples were confirmed using a multiplex PCR as described by Wang et al. [31] and a simplex PCR according to Di Giannatale et al. [32], as previously reported [33]. For these analyses, DNA was extracted using the Maxwell 16-tissue DNA purification kit (Promega Corporation, Madison, WI, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. In addition, isolates negative in PCR identification were subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Typing was performed by amplifying the 16S rRNA gene using the primers shown in Table 1 (Eurofins Genomics, Ebersberg, Germany), followed by sequencing of the PCR product. Amplification products were verified by gel electrophoresis. The products of the PCR were purified using ExoSAP-IT reagent (Applied Biosystems, GE Healthcare, Piscataway, NJ, USA) and sequenced using the BigDye Terminator v.3.1 Cycle sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems) according to the recommendations of the manufacturer. After sequencing, DNA was purified with ethanol precipitation using the Agencourt CleanSEQ® kit (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA). Sequencing products were analysed with a Genetic Analyzer 3500® (Life Technologies, Renfrewshire, UK). Basic local alignment search tool analysis of the partial 16S rRNA gene sequence obtained was performed using the taxonomy browser of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed on 6 December 2019).

2.6. MALDI-TOF MS Identification

Sixty-six isolates were subjected to MALDI-TOF MS identification to verify the effectiveness of this technique in identifying Campylobacter species. The identification of bacterial isolates was preceded by preliminary extraction of proteins with ethanol and formic acid. For this purpose, a single colony of each bacterial culture was suspended in 150 μL of sterile deionized water, after which 450 μL of pure ethanol (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was added. Then, each sample was mixed thoroughly by vortexing. The resulting sample was then centrifuged for 5 min at 13,000 rpm. After that, the supernatant was discarded, 40 μL of 70% aqueous formic acid and then 40 μL of acetonitrile (Merck) were added to the precipitate, and the sample was thoroughly mixed by vortexing. After centrifugation (12,470× g), 1 μL of the obtained supernatant was pipetted onto a metal plate (Anchorchip 800 384, Bruker Daltonik, Bremen, Germany) and allowed to dry at room temperature. Then, 1 μL of cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid was added as the matrix solution (Bruker Daltonik), and the sample was left to dry at room temperature. The metal plate with the samples was subsequently placed in a MALDI chamber for analysis. An automatic measurement of the spectrum and a comparative analysis with reference spectra of bacteria were performed using the UltrafleXtreme mass spectrometer and MALDI-Biotyper 3.0 software (Bruker Daltonik). The analysis was performed in triplicate for each isolate. Mass spectra were recorded in active positive reflector mode within the 2000–20,000 mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) range using “complete sample” laser walk and 2000 shots per sample. The mass spectrometer automatically generated spectra of peaks corresponding to ions with different m/z, providing their number, intensity and peak correlation. Characteristic spectra for Campylobacter species generated by the Bruker UltrafleXtreme MALDI-TOF system were presented in Figure 1 and Figures S1–S3. Before identification, raw spectra were smoothed, and baseline was corrected and then compared with reference microbial spectra using MALDI-Biotyper 3.0 software with a database containing microbial profiles. The probability of correct identification in MALDI Biotyper 3.0 is expressed as a score index, and the following values indicate the level of identification: 2.300–3.000 is highly probable identification of the micro-organism to species level; 2.000–2.299 is highly probable identification of the micro-organism to genus level and likely identification to species level; 1.700–1.999 is likely identification to genus level; and 0–1.699 is unreliable identification. Using molecular diagnosis as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of MALDI-TOF MS species identification was determined. The Campylobacter species identification was considered valid if the cut-off score reached or exceeded 2.0, referring to the database provided by Bruker Daltonics. The data were processed with Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

Wild animals may represent a reservoir and source of various foodborne infections for humans, including campylobacteriosis. This disease can be transmitted indirectly by contaminated water, vegetables or domestic animals, or directly through contact with contaminated carcasses or by consuming raw or undercooked meat and meat products [34]. Previous studies have shown a significantly higher occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in wild boars as compared to other wild animals [15]. In this study, 44.56% (86/193) of the tested animals were found to be positive for Campylobacter spp. (Table 2).
A total of 100 isolates were genotypically identified at the species level. The presence of four Campylobacter species (C. coli, C. lanienae, C. jejuni and C. hyointestinalis) was registered by analysing wild boar faecal swabs, liver tissue, bile, and carcass samples (Table 3). Campylobacter spp. were found in 42.62% (78/183) of the faecal samples tested, of which 50% (39/78) were identified as C. coli, 41.03% (32/78) as C. lanienae, 5.13% (4/78) as C. hyointestinalis and 3.85% (3/78) as C. jejuni. Of the liver samples, 4.81% (9/187) were positive for Campylobacter spp.; C. coli, C. jejuni and C. lanienae were found evenly at 33.33% (3/9) of each species. In the tested bile samples, a prevalence of only 1.97% (3/152) was observed for Campylobacter, and the following species were confirmed: C. coli in 33.33% (1/3) and C. lanienae in 66.66% (2/3) of specimens. Regarding carcasses, 18.18% (10/55) of samples were positive for Campylobacter; C. coli and C. lanienae were found in 50% (5/10) of these contaminated carcasses.
Reviewing global studies, the Campylobacter rate of positivity and species diversity in wild boar varied significantly depending on the geographical areas where the animals came from and the type of sample tested. In Swedish wild boar, Wahlström et al. reported 10.6% Campylobacter positivity in faecal samples. In Switzerland, Campylobacter was not found in the faecal samples or the tonsils of 153 wild boar [11,12]. More recently, Tomino et al. reported 12.5% positive faecal samples among 248 wild boars hunted in Japan, with C. hyointestinalis as the most represented species; however, C. lanienae and C. coli were also confirmed in this study [35]. Generally, a high rate of Campylobacter prevalence in wild boar faecal samples was reported in Spain: 66% of 287 samples in southern central Spain, with prevalence ranging from 33% to 100% depending on the hunting region, and 38.9% of 126 samples in southern Spain, with most isolates being C. lanienae (n = 34) [13]. However, C. coli (n = 8) and C. jejuni (n = 2) were also confirmed [11]. In the same period, Navarro-Gonzalez et al. reported 12% of samples positive for Campylobacter bacteria presence out of 150 tested in north-eastern Spain, with a higher prevalence (24.6%) when sample enrichment was performed [12]. In this case, C. lanienae was also found as the most prevalent Campylobacter species. A very high prevalence (54.6%) of Campylobacter was reported in the faeces of wild boar in the Czech Republic, with C. coli as the predominant species (46.9%), followed by C. jejuni (13.4%) [36]. It should also be stated that studies regarding contamination of wild boar carcasses with Campylobacter are limited. A low carcass contamination level was reported in Germany, with only two positive samples for C. coli (1.57%) and one for C. jejuni (0.79%) out of 127 carcasses examined [37].
Similarly, data on the occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in Italian wild boar are scant. Ercolini et al. tested 50 muscle tissue samples from wild boars that were collected in Liguria and reported that only 2% were Campylobacter-positive (for C. lari) [38]. More recently, Stella et al. studied the presence of Campylobacter in wild boar hunted in northern Italy, and found 51.8% of faecal samples positive out of 56 tested and 16.7% of carcasses positive out of 30, with absolute values similar to those obtained in our study, in which 42.62% of faecal samples and 18.18% of carcasses samples were positive [39].
Our studies also showed the presence of Campylobacter in the liver and gallbladder of examined wild boar. Hepatic contamination with Campylobacter was proven in poultry, where it was a not-uncommon cause of human food-borne disease strongly linked to the ingestion of undercooked pâté [40]. Previous research also investigated these bacteria in suids: The prevalence of Campylobacter in pig livers was studied in Germany by von Altrock et al., and 10% of the 1500 pig livers sampled from 50 fattening herds were found to be positive, with C. coli as the predominant species [41]. Also in the UK, Campylobacter was isolated from 18.3% of pig offal samples, including liver, drawn from retailed food [42]. It should be stated, however, that new data regarding the occurrence of Campylobacter in wild boar liver are only gathered sporadically [43], and the first confirmation that raw liver may represent an important source of infection for the consumer or the operators who eviscerate wild boar after hunting is provided in our results. It should also be emphasised that even though C. lanienae has often been isolated from wild boar [44], this is the first time that this species has been isolated from wild boar liver and bile.
The present study confirmed multiple infections involving two species of Campylobacter in four tested wild boar. The possibility of a co-infection with different strains and species of Campylobacter was previously highlighted both in animals and humans [45,46,47]. The simultaneous occurrence of several Campylobacter species was confirmed in dog faeces samples where carriages of C. coli/C. lari, C. jejuni/C. coli, C. jejuni/C. upsaliensis and C. upsaliensis/C. lari were observed [48]. In humans, co-infection with multiple Campylobacter was described in infants co-infected with C. jejuni/C. infans/C. curvus/C. concisus/C. helveticus/C. upsaliensis, C. jejuni/C. infans/C. upsaliensis and C. concisus/C. infans species [49].
Our study also indicates a higher prevalence of Campylobacter in males (25.39%) than in females (19.17%). This phenomenon is difficult to explain; however, in this context, Zeng et al. demonstrated a more efficient immune response to Gram-negative bacteria in female than in male mice [43]. It was proven that innate antibodies against Gram-negative bacteria, such as enteropathogenic Escherichia coli, were present only in female mice, developed as a response to oestrogen hormones, and were not dependent on previous exposure to the antigen [50]. Thus, differences in sex hormone levels could play a significant role in the immune response to bacterial infection and partially explain the results obtained in this study. This correlation was also supported by human Campylobacter incidence studies where, in meta-analysis, the data confirmed higher incidence rates of campylobacteriosis in men than in women [51]. Our study also proved that young animals can be an important source of Campylobacter, hosting larger bacteria populations than sub-adult and adult individuals. In fact, there is little information in the global literature about age-based changes in gut microbiota composition in wild boar. It is known, however, that the process of Campylobacter gastrointestinal tract colonisation in chickens may be affected by the maturation stage of the immune system and the developmental stage of the gut microbiota composition [52,53]. In studies conducted on pigs, it has also been indicated that Proteobacteria (to which Campylobacter belongs) are relatively more abundant in the guts of piglets, but their relative abundance considerably decreases in adulthood [54].
Recently, MALDI-TOF MS was highly recommended for Campylobacter spp. isolates identification and was considered an accurate alternative to traditional identification methods [55,56]. In the present study, out of 66 examined isolates (Table 4), 93.94% (62/66) were identified to the genus level as Campylobacter spp., with scores of ≥1.700, and only 6.06% (4/66) scored <1.700 (all four belonged to the C. lanienae species). To the species level, in the case of C. coli isolates, 20.00% (7/35) were confirmed with scores of ≥2.300, 70.00% (26/35) had scores in the range of 2.000 to 2.299, and only 5.71% (2/35) had scores in the range of 1.700 to 1.999. In the case of C. jejuni, 100.00% (2/2) of the isolates were confirmed, with scores of 2.000–2.299. Contrastingly, C. lanienae isolates were identified considerably less conclusively, with 13.79% (4/29) yielding scores <1.700 and categorised as unreliable identification, 51.72% (15/29) scoring between 1.700 and 1.999 as identification only to the genus level, and only 34.48% (10/29) having scores of 2.000–2.299; also, no isolates were identified as this species with the highest scores in the 2.300–3.000 range. The Campylobacter species identification for C. coli by MALDI-TOF MS yielded sensitivity at 0.94 (0.814–0.984) and specificity at 1.00 (0.890–1.00) (Table 5). Regarding C. jejuni, sensitivity was 1.00 (0.342–1.00) and specificity was 1.00 (0.943–1.00). The sensitivity attained for C. lanienae, however, was no greater than 0.344 (0.199–0.526), whereas the specificity reached 1.00 (0.905–1.00).
The successful identification of micro-organisms using MALDI-TOF MS mainly relies on the database containing the appropriate spectra of known organisms and on the obtainment of a sufficient protein signal [20]. The level (score) of identification is determined by existing mass-spectral signature patterns in the database and factors which influence spectra quality, especially culture conditions such as the type of media used and the atmosphere in which bacterial isolates are grown, technical issues such as the age and intensity of the laser and the number of laser shots applied, as well as the type of MALDI-TOF MS target plates and matrix used [57]. It has been proven that for infrequently encountered microorganisms, the results of MALDI-TOF MS identification are reliable if the protein spectra of such micro-organisms are covered by the database; otherwise, the generated results may only give a hint by finding a related species or, in some cases, may misidentify the micro-organism as a very closely related species [58,59]. Campylobacter lanienae, for which the lowest scores were given, is not often identified to the species level using the MALDI-TOF technique, and this species is also often overlooked in food safety and animal health diagnostic protocols. Therefore, the database used may contain a lower number of reference spectra for C. lanienae, and the paucity of data could explain the lower score values for this species that were obtained in this study. There is a need to extend the databases with the spectra from different C. lanienae strains, and particularly those isolated from various game-origin food matrices. Recently, the reliability of MALDI-TOF MS for Campylobacter identification was tested on 27 strains of C. coli and C. jejuni isolated from birds and gave 100% correct results [56]. On a tenfold higher number of Campylobacter isolates from poultry and turkey products, MALDI-TOF MS identified C. jejuni, C. coli and C. lari 96% correctly overall [59].
As for other Campylobacter species commonly reported in wild boar, such as the C. lanienae evident in this study, few data are available on the usefulness of MALDI-TOF MS for their identification. Kérouanton et al. used MALDI-TOF MS to identify isolates of C. lanienae, although they did not report data on the reliability and quality of the identification or whether some strains were not identified [60]. Identifying the species of the strain involved in the first case in Europe of C. lanienae-related human gastroenteritis, Fornefett et al. reported a low MALDI-TOF MS identification score and only confirmed the isolate identification by 16S rRNA gene partial sequencing and species-specific PCR [61]. It was shown for the first time using MALDI-TOF MS that it is possible to obtain secure species identification for some C. lanienae isolates. This study shows reliable identification scores for 34% of the tested C. lanienae. Making a correct identification of C. lanienae should not be overlooked, as its actual pathogenic potential is still not fully known. In fact, besides the first European case of gastroenteritis with this aetiological agent in a butcher from Germany investigated by Fornefett et al. (which was mentioned previously), there is also on record the report of the first human case of enteritis caused by C. lanienae in a 39-year-old Canadian woman living on a pig farm [24,61]. The microorganism has also been isolated in slaughterhouse workers in Switzerland [62].

4. Conclusions

The present study shows that wild boar may be a conspicuous source of Campylobacter spp., because 44.56% of the tested animals were found to be positive. It should be emphasised that all identified species of Campylobacter, i.e., C. coli, C. lanienae, C. jejuni and C. hyointestinalis, are a public health concern. The Campylobacter spp. on carcasses and offal may be a direct source of human infection, especially for hunters, game dressers, butchers and game consumers, while Campylobacter in faecal samples may implicate faecal contamination of the environment in indirect zoonotic transmission. It was shown that MALDI-TOF MS combined with a reliable database could be a powerful method for the identification of C. coli and C. jejuni species (the species of most significant epidemiological importance and those frequently identified). Taking into account the achieved C. lanienae MALDI-TOF MS identification parameters, it should be stated that there is a need to constantly extend spectrum databases in order to increase the sensitivity of the method.
There are some limitations in our research. Firstly, it was not always possible to collect all four types of samples for each wild boar individual. In addition, not all collected isolates were confirmed using MALDI-TOF because of the loss of their vitality. Despite these problems, we conducted an in-depth analysis of Campylobacter infections in wild boar, taking into account the sampling site, the animal age and its sex. We contended that MALDI-TOF MS is a useful tool for major Campylobacter species identification and showed the limitations of this method in identifying a minor species such as C. lanienae. The investigation draws attention to this species, which is frequently found in wild boar and has neglected but not totally negligible pathogenic potential. The occurrence of Campylobacter in wild boar faeces, meat and offal requires communication measures targeted to hunters and consumers and intended to minimize the possibility of food-borne disease outbreaks linked to the improper handling of hunted animals and their meat.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods12040778/s1, Figure S1: Characteristic spectra of Campylobacter coli isolates (n = 35) generated by the Bruker Ultraflextreme MALDI TOF system. The intensities and m/z of the ions are shown on the Y- and X-axes, respectively. Sample codes (in accordance with those in Table 3) are displayed on the right at the end of each spectrum; Figure S2: Characteristic spectra of Campylobacter lanienae isolates (n = 29), generated by the Bruker Ultraflextreme MALDI TOF system. The intensities and m/z of the ions are shown on the Y- and X-axes, respectively. Sample codes (in accordance with those in Table 3) are displayed on the right at the end of each spectrum; Figure S3: Characteristic spectra of Campylobacter jejuni isolates (n = 2) generated by the Bruker Ultraflextreme MALDI TOF system. The intensities and m/z of the ions are shown on the Y- and X-axes, respectively. Sample codes (in accordance with those in Table 3) are displayed on the right at the end of each spectrum.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.P., M.Z. and M.G.; methodology, F.P., B.T., F.M., G.G., K.W., M.Z. and K.M.; software, M.G.; validation, F.P. and M.Z.; formal analysis, F.P. and M.Z.; investigation, F.P., F.M., G.G. and M.G.; resources, F.P. and M.Z.; data curation, B.T., M.Z. and M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, F.P., B.T. and M.Z.; writing—review and editing, F.P., F.F., M.Z. and M.G.; supervision, F.P.; funding acquisition, F.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by grants from the University of Pisa (PRA_2018_56).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study since animals were sampled during hunting activities regulated by national law.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting reported results are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Michela Angiolini for her valuable technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Laughlin, M.E.; Chatham-Stephens, K.; Geissler, A.L. Campylobacteriosis. In CDC Yellow Book 2020: Health Information for International Travel; Brunette, G.W., Nemhauser, J.B., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/campylobacter/additional.html (accessed on 2 December 2022).
  2. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union One Health 2019 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2021, 19, 6406. [Google Scholar]
  3. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union One Health 2020 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2021, 19, 6971. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hansson, I.; Sandberg, M.; Habib, I.; Lowman, R.; Engvall, E.O. Knowledge gaps in control of Campylobacter for prevention of campylobacteriosis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2016, 65, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Silva, J.; Leite, D.; Fernandes, M.; Mena, C.; Gibbs, P.A.; Teixeira, P. Campylobacter spp. as a foodborne pathogen: A review. Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Iacolina, L.; Pertoldi, C.; Amills, M.; Kusza, S.; Megens, H.J.; Bâlteanu, V.A.; Bakan, J.; Cubrik-Curik, V.; Oja, R.; Saarma, U.; et al. Hotspots of recent hybridization between pigs and wild boars in Europe. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jori, F.; Massei, G.; Licoppe, A.; Ruiz-Fons, F.; Linden, A.; Václavek, P.; Chenais, E.; Rosell, C. Management of wild boar populations in the European Union before and during the ASF crisis. In Understanding and combatting African Swine Fever: A European perspective; Iacolina, L., Penrith, M.L., Bellini, S., Chenais, E., Jori, F., Montoya, M., Ståhl, K., Gavier-Widén, D., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 263–271. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tuscany Regional Council. Information note on the implementation of regional policies n. 40. Implementation of the Regional Law 10/2016 “Objective Law for the management of Ungulates in Tuscany”. 2018. Available online: http://www.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/upload/COCCOINA/documenti/nota%20informativa%2040_pub.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2022). In Italian.
  9. Geisser, H.; Reyer, H.U. Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars. J. Wildl. Manag. 2004, 68, 939–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M.; London, L.; Skrzypczak, T.; Kantala, T.; Laamanen, I.; Biström, M.; Maunula, L.; Gadd, T. Foodborne zoonoses common in hunted wild boars. Ecohealth 2020, 17, 512–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wahlström, H.; Tysen, E.; Olsson Engvall, E.; Brändstrom, B.; Eriksson, E.; Mörner, T.; Vågsholm, I. Survey of Campylobacter species, VTEC 0157 and Salmonella species in Swedish wildlife. Vet. Rec. 2003, 153, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Wacheck, S.; Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M.; König, M.; Stolle, A.; Stephan, R. Wild boars as an important reservoir for foodborne pathogens. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2010, 7, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Díaz-Sánchez, S.; Sánchez, S.; Herrera-León, S.; Porrero, C.; Blanco, J.; Dahbi, G.; Vidal, D. Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. in large game animals intended for consumption: Relationship with management practices and livestock influence. Vet. Microbiol. 2013, 163, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Navarro-Gonzalez, N.; Ugarte-Ruiz, M.; Porrero, M.C.; Zamora, L.; Mentaberre, G.; Serrano, E.; Domínguez, L. Campylobacter shared between free-ranging cattle and sympatric wild ungulates in a natural environment (NE Spain). Ecohealth 2014, 11, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Carbonero, A.; Paniagua, J.; Torralbo, A.; Arenas-Montes, A.; Borge, C.; García-Bocanegra, I. Campylobacter infection in wild artiodactyl species from southern Spain: Occurrence, risk factors and antimicrobial susceptibility. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014, 37, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Fontanesi, L.; Scotti, E.; Gallo, M.; Nanni Costa, L.; Dall’Olio, S. Authentication of “mono-breed” pork products: Identification of a coat colour gene marker in Cinta Senese pigs useful to this purpose. Livest. Sci. 2016, 184, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. On, S.L.W. Isolation, identification and subtyping of Campylobacter. Where to from here? J. Microbiol. Methods 2013, 95, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ricke, S.C.; Feye, K.M.; Chaney, W.E.; Shi, Z.; Pavlidis, H.; Yang, Y. Developments in rapid detection methods for the detection of foodborne Campylobacter in the United States. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 3280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eberle, K.N.; Kiess, A.S. Phenotypic and genotypic methods for typing Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in poultry. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rychert, J. Benefits and limitation of MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry for the identification of microorganisms. J. Infectology. 2019, 2, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pavlovic, M.; Huber, I.; Konrad, R.; Busch, U. Application of MALDI-TOF MS for the identification of food borne bacteria. Open Microbiol. J. 2013, 7, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Elbehiry, A.; Marzouk, E.; Hamada, M.; Al-Dubaib, M.; Alyamani, E.; Moussa, I.M.; AlRowaidhan, A.; Hemeg, H.A. Application of MALDI-TOF MS fingerprinting as a quick tool for identification and clustering of foodborne pathogens isolated from food products. New Microbiol. 2017, 40, 269–278. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sulaiman, I.M.; Hsieh, Y.H.; Simpson, S. Species identification of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolates from raw poultry products by MALDI–TOF MS and rRNA sequence analysis. J. AOAC Int. 2020, 103, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lévesque, S.; Lemay, F.; Bekal, S.; Frost, E.H.; Michaud, S. First reported case of Campylobacter lanienae enteritis in a human. JMM Case Rep. 2016, 3, e005045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sáez-Royuela, C.; Gomariz, R.P.; Luis Tellería, J. Age determination of European wild boar. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1989, 17, 326–329. [Google Scholar]
  26. Tuscany Regional Council, Implementing Regulation 5 September 2017, n. 48/R of Tuscany Regional Law 12 January 1994 n. 3 DPGR 48/R/2017. 2017. Available online: http://raccoltanormativa.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/articolo?urndoc=urn:nir:regione.toscana:regolamento.giunta:2017-09-05;48/R (accessed on 2 December 2022). (In Italian).
  27. Moore, J.E. An optimized recovery method for thermophilic Campylobacter from liver. BMC Microbiol. 2001, 1, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. ISO 10272-1:201; Microbiology of the food chain—Horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp.—Part 1: Detection method. International Organization for Standardization ISO Standards: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  29. Pedonese, F.; Nuvoloni, R.; Turchi, B.; Torracca, B.; Di Giannatale, E.; Marotta, F.; Cerri, D. Prevalence, phenotypic and genetic diversity of Campylobacter in poultry fresh meat and poultry products on retail sale in Tuscany (Italy). Vet. Ital. 2017, 5, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. FDA. Chapter 7: Campylobacter, Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM). 2001. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/food/laboratory-methods-food/bam-chapter-7-campylobacter (accessed on 2 December 2022).
  31. Wang, G.; Clark, C.G.; Taylor, T.M.; Pucknell, C.; Barton, C.; Price, L.; Woodward, D.L.; Rodgers, F.G. Colony multiplex PCR assay for identification and differentiation of Campylobacter jejuni, C. coli, C. lari, C. upsaliensis, and C. fetus subsp. fetus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002, 40, 4744–4747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Di Giannatale, E.; Garofolo, G.; Alessiani, A.; Di Donato, G.; Candeloro, L.; Vencia, W.; Decastelli, L.; Marotta, F. Tracing back clinical Campylobacter jejuni in the Northwest of Italy and assessing their potential source. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Marotta, F.; Garofolo, G.; Di Marcantonio, L.; Di Serafino, G.; Neri, D.; Romantini, R.; Sacchini, L.; Alessiani, A.; Di Donato, G.; Nuvoloni, R.; et al. Antimicrobial resistance genotypes and phenotypes of Campylobacter jejuni isolated in Italy from humans, birds from wild and urban habitats, and poultry. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Facciolà, A.; Riso, R.; Avventuroso, E.; Visalli, S.A.; Delia, A.; Laganà, P. Campylobacter: From microbiology to prevention. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 2017, 58, E79–E92. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tomino, Y.; Andoh, M.; Horiuchi, Y.; Shin, J.; Ai, R.; Nakamura, T.; Toda, M.; Yonemitsu, K.; Takano, A.; Shimoda, H.; et al. Surveillance of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and Campylobacter spp. in wild Japanese deer (Cervus nippon) and boar (Sus scrofa). J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2020, 82, 1287–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hulánková, R.; Bořilová, G.; Plhal, R. Occurrence and characterization of selected bacterial pathogens in the intestinal tract of wild boars hunted in the Czech Republic. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Wild Boar and Other Suids, Lázně Bělohrad, Czech Republic, 4–7 September 2018; p. 50. Available online: https://wmrg.ldf.mendelu.cz/wcd/w-ldf-wmrg/wbs_2018_cp_final_2ku.pdf#page=51 (accessed on 2 December 2022).
  37. Atanassova, V.; Apelt, J.; Reich, F.; Klein, G. Microbiological quality of freshly shot game in Germany. Meat. Sci. 2008, 78, 414–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ercolini, C.; Serracca, L.; Migone, L.; Goria, M.; Ferrari, A. Prevalenza di Campylobacter spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, E. coli 0157: H7 in tessuto muscolare di bovino, suino, equino e cinghiale. Il Prog. Vet. 2007, 10, 453–456. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  39. Stella, S.; Tirloni, E.; Castelli, E.; Colombo, F.; Bernardi, C. Microbiological evaluation of carcasses of wild boar hunted in a hill area of northern Italy. J. Food Prot. 2018, 81, 1519–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Edwards, D.S.; Milne, L.M.; Morrow, K.; Sheridan, P.; Verlander, N.Q.; Mulla, R.; Richardson, J.F.; Pender, A.; Lilley, M.; Reacher, M. Campylobacteriosis outbreak associated with consumption of undercooked chicken liver pâté in the East of England, September 2011: Identification of a dose–response risk. Epidemiol. Infect. 2014, 142, 352–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. von Altrock, A.; Hamedy, A.; Merle, R.; Waldmann, H. Campylobacter spp.—Prevalence on pig livers and antimicrobial susceptibility. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 109, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Little, C.L.; Richardson, J.F.; Owen, R.J.; de Pinna, E.; Threlfall, E.J. Campylobacter and Salmonella in raw red meats in the United Kingdom: Prevalence, characterization and antimicrobial resistance pattern, 2003–2005. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25, 538–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Marotta, F.; Di Marcantonio, L.; Janowicz, A.; Pedonese, F.; Di Donato, G.; Ardelean, A.; Nuvoloni, R.; Di Giannatale, E.; Garofolo, G. Genotyping and antibiotic resistance traits in Campylobacter jejuni and coli from pigs and wild boars in Italy. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 15, 592512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Castillo-Contreras, R.; Marín, M.; López-Olvera, J.R.; Ayats, T.; Fernandez Aguilar, X.; Lavín, S.; Mentaberre, G.; Cerdà-Cuéllar, M. Zoonotic Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. carried by wild boars in a metropolitan area: Occurrence, antimicrobial susceptibility and public health relevance. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 822, 153444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Koene, M.G.Y.; Houvers, D.J.; Djkrstra, J.R.; Dium, B.; Wagenaar, J.A. Simultaneous presence of multiple Campylobacter species in dogs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 819–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Thépault, A.; Poezevara, T.; Quesne, S.; Rose, V.; Chemaly, M.; Rivoal, K. Prevalence of thermophilic Campylobacter in cattle production at slaughterhouse level in France and link between C. jejuni bovine strains and campylobacteriosis. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Abbasi, E.; Ghaznavi-Rad, E. A report of two clinical coinfections with Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in infantile dysentery. Arch. Pediatr. Infect. Dis 2019, 7, e80116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Thépault, A.; Rose, V.; Queguiner, M.; Chemaly, M.; Rivoal, K. Dogs and Cats: Reservoirs for highly diverse Campylobacter jejuni and a potential source of human exposure. Animals. 2020, 12, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Parker, C.T.; Schiaffino, F.; Huynh, S.; Olortegui, M.P.; Peñataro Yori, P.; Garcia Bardales, P.F.; Pinedo Vasquez, T.; Curico Huansi, G.E.; Manzanares Villanueva, K.; Shapiama Lopez, W.V.; et al. Shotgun metagenomics of fecal samples from children in Peru reveals frequent complex co-infections with multiple Campylobacter species. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2022, 4, e0010815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Zeng, Z.; Surewaard, B.G.J.; Wong, C.H.Y. Sex-hormone-driven innate antibodies protect females and infants against EPEC infection. Nat. Immunol. 2018, 19, 1100–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Green, M.S.; Schwartz, N.; Peer, V. Sex differences in campylobacteriosis incidence rates at different ages—A seven country, multi-year, meta-analysis. A potential mechanism for the infection. BMC Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Han, Z.; Pielsticker, C.; Gerzova, L.; Rychlik, I.; Rautenschlein, S. The influence of age on Campylobacter jejuni infection in chicken. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2016, 62, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Connerton, P.L.; Richards, P.J.; Lafontaine, G.L.; O’Kane, P.M.; Ghaffar, N.; Cummings, N.J.; Smith, D.L.; Fish, N.M.; Connerton, I.F. The effect of the timing of exposure to Campylobacter jejuni on the gut microbiome and inflammatory responses of broiler chickens. Microbiome 2018, 6, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ke, S.; Fang, S.; He, M.; Huang, X.; Hui Yang, H.; Yang, B.; Chen, C.; Huang, L. Age-based dynamic changes of phylogenetic composition and interaction networks of health pig gut microbiome feeding in a uniformed condition. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bessède, E.; Solecki, O.; Sifre, E.; Labadi, L.; Megraud, F. Identification of Campylobacter species and related organisms by matrix assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2011, 17, 1735–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lawton, S.J.; Weis, A.M.; Byrne, B.A.; Fritz, H.; Taff, C.C.; Townsend, A.K.; Weimer, B.C.; Mete, A.; Wheeler, S.; Boyce, W.M. Comparative analysis of Campylobacter isolates from wild birds and chickens using MALDI-TOF MS, biochemical testing, and DNA sequencing. J. Vet. Diagn. 2018, 30, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cuénod, A.; Foucault, F.; Pflüger, V.; Egli, A. Factors associated with MALDI-TOF mass spectral quality of species identification in clinical routine diagnostics. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 646648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Belkum, A.; Welker, M.; Pincus, D.; Charrier, J.P.; Girard, V. Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry in clinical microbiology: What are the current issues? Ann. Lab. Med. 2017, 37, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ziino, G.; Marotta, S.M.; Giarratana, F.; Giuffrida, A.; Panebianco, F. Reliability evaluation of MALDI-TOF MS associated with SARAMIS software in rapid identification of thermophilic Campylobacter isolated from food. Food Anal. Methods 2019, 12, 1128–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kérouanton, A.; Chidaine, B.; Rose, V.; Samson, V.; Denis, M. Direct detection of Campylobacter from feces of organic and conventional pigs highlighted the presence of Campylobacter lanienae. In Proceedings of the Epidemiology and Control of Hazards in Pork Production Chain, Safepork: One Health Approach Under a Concept of Farm to Fork, Porto, Portugal, 7–10 September 2015; pp. 53–57. [Google Scholar]
  61. Fornefett, J.; Busch, A.; Döpping, S.; Hotzel, H.; Rimek, D. Bacterial gastroenteritis caused by the putative zoonotic pathogen Campylobacter lanienae: First reported case in Germany. Access Microbiol. 2021, 25, 000199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Logan, J.M.; Burnens, A.; Linton, D.; Lawson, A.J.; Stanley, J. Campylobacter lanienae sp. nov., a new species isolated from workers in an abattoir. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2000, 50, 865–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 12 00778 g001 550
Figure 1. Characteristic spectra of C. jejuni, C. coli and C. lanienae isolates generated by the Bruker Ultraflextreme MALDI TOF system. The intensities and m/z of the ions are shown on the Y- and X-axis, respectively.
Figure 1. Characteristic spectra of C. jejuni, C. coli and C. lanienae isolates generated by the Bruker Ultraflextreme MALDI TOF system. The intensities and m/z of the ions are shown on the Y- and X-axis, respectively.
Foods 12 00778 g001
Table
Table 1. Primers used for 16S rRNA gene sequencing.
Table 1. Primers used for 16S rRNA gene sequencing.
PrimersSequence (5′–3′)
16S_F5175′-GCC AGC AGC CGC GGT-3′
16S_R5175′-AAG GAG GTG ATC CAG-3′
Table
Table 2. Prevalence of genotypically confirmed Campylobacter in all tested wild boars (n = 193) and in the wild boars harbouring genotypically confirmed Campylobacter (n = 86), categorized by sex and age.
Table 2. Prevalence of genotypically confirmed Campylobacter in all tested wild boars (n = 193) and in the wild boars harbouring genotypically confirmed Campylobacter (n = 86), categorized by sex and age.
Total% of 193 *% of 86 **
Male4925.3956.98
Female3719.1743.02
Adult3417.6239.54
Subadult115.7012.79
Young4121.2447.67
193 *: total number of wild boars tested in this study; 86 **: total number of wild boars harbouring genotypically confirmed Campylobacter.
Table
Table 3. Identity, sex, and age group of wild boars harbouring genotypically confirmed Campylobacter.
Table 3. Identity, sex, and age group of wild boars harbouring genotypically confirmed Campylobacter.
Animal Id.SexAge GroupFaecal SwabLiverBileCarcass
Wb3FAC. lan #−−\
Wb4FYC. lan #*−\
Wb18FSA−C. lan #−\
Wb24FYC. coli #\\\
Wb27MAC. lan #−\\
Wb28MAC. coli #−−C. coli
Wb29MSAC. lan #−\\
Wb32MAC. coli #−−C. coli
Wb35FSAC. coli #−−\
Wb36FAC. coli #C. coli−\
Wb37FYC. jej #−−\
Wb38FAC. coli #−−\
Wb39FYC. coli #−−\
Wb44FA\C. coli #\\
Wb49FY−−−C. coli #
Wb55MYC. coli−−\
Wb57MAC. lan #−−C. lan #
Wb59FAC. lan−−−
Wb67FAC. lanC. jej #−\
Wb75MSAC. lan #−−−
Wb76FYC. coli #−−−
Wb77MYC. coli #−−−
Wb78MYC. coli #−\C. coli #
Wb85FAC. coli #−−\
Wb98FYC. coli #−−C. lan #
Wb101FAC. lan #−−−
Wb103MY C. lan−−C. lan
Wb107FAC. lan #−\\
Wb108FAC. lan #−−\
Wb109FAC. coli #−−\
Wb110FSAC. lan #−−\
Wb111FAC. coli #−−\
Wb112MYC. coli #−−\
Wb113FAC. coli #−−\
Wb115FYC. lan #−−\
Wb116MYC. lan #−−\
Wb118MYC. lan−−\
Wb125FAC. lan #−C. lan #\
Wb126FAC. lan−−\
Wb128MYC. lan #−−\
Wb129FYC. lan #−−\
Wb130MAC. lan #−−\
Wb133MAC. coli #−\\
Wb134MAC. coli #−−\
Wb136FAC. coli #−−\
Wb137FYC. coli #−−\
Wb138FAC. coli #−−\
Wb139FYC. coli #−−\
Wb140FAC. coli #−−\
Wb141FYC. coli #−−\
Wb142FYC. coli−−\
Wb143MYC. coli−−\
Wb144MYC. coliC. coli\\
Wb145MYC. coli #C. lan #−\
Wb146MYC. coli #\\\
Wb147MA−−−C. lan
Wb148MSAC. lan #−\\
Wb151FAC. lan #−−−
Wb152MAC. jej−\\
Wb153MAC. jej−\\
Wb155FA*C. jej−\
Wb156MY*C. jej−\
Wb157FYC. coli−−\
Wb159MA−−C. lan\
Wb162MYC. coli−−−
Wb164MYC. coli−−−
Wb171MAC. coli−−−
Wb172MSAC. coli−−\
Wb173FYC. lan−−\
Wb174FSAC. lan−−\
Wb175FYC. lan*−\
Wb176FYC. lan−−\
Wb180FSAC. lan−\\
Wb182MAC. hyo−−\
Wb183FAC. hyo−\\
Wb186MSAC. lan #−−\
Wb189MYC. lan #−−−
Wb191FYC. coli #−−−
Wb192MYC. hyo−−−
Wb193FYC. lan #−\C. lan #
Wb194FYC. coli #−−C. coli #
Wb195FYC. coli #−−\
Wb197MY*C. lan #C. coli #−
Wb198FYC. hyo−−\
Wb199FYC. coli #−−\
Wb200MSAC. lan #−−−
Total8686789310
Animal id.: wild boar identification number; F: female; M: male; A: adult; SA: subadult; Y: young; C. hyo: C. hyointestinalis; C. jej: C. jejuni; C. lan: C. lanienae, *: presence of a positive isolate for Campylobacter spp. which was lost before genotyping; −: negative for Campylobacter spp.; \: sample not available., # isolates intended for MALDI-TOF MS identification.
Table
Table 4. Identification of Campylobacter isolates (n = 66) by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation–time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF).
Table 4. Identification of Campylobacter isolates (n = 66) by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation–time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF).
SpeciesNo. of IsolatesNo. of Isolates with
Id Score < 1.700		No. of Isolates with
Id Score 1.700–1.999		No. of Isolates with
Id Score 2.000–2.299		No. of Isolates with
Id Score 2.300–3.000
C. coli3502267
C. jejuni20020
C. lanienae29 4 15100
Table
Table 5. MALDI-TOF identification results of tested Campylobacter isolates (n = 66) (with genotypic identification taken to be authoritative).
Table 5. MALDI-TOF identification results of tested Campylobacter isolates (n = 66) (with genotypic identification taken to be authoritative).
C. coli
n = 35		C. jejuni
n = 2		C. lanienae
n = 29
Comparisons35229
NR2019
Correctly identified33210
Not correctly identified000
Misidentified000
Sensitivity
(95% CI)		0.942
(0.814–0.984)		1.00
(0.342–1.00)		0.344(0.199–0.526)
Specificity
(95% CI)		1
(0.890–1.00)		1
(0.943–1.00)		1
(0.905–1.00)
NR: results which were not reliable—MALDI-TOF score ≤2.00; Correctly identified: MALDI-TOF score ≥2.00; Not correctly identified: the indicated species was identified by MALDI-TOF as a different one; Misidentified: a different species was identified by MALDI-TOF as the indicated one; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ziomek, M.; Gondek, M.; Torracca, B.; Marotta, F.; Garofolo, G.; Wieczorek, K.; Michalak, K.; Fratini, F.; Pedonese, F. Occurrence of Campylobacter in Faeces, Livers and Carcasses of Wild Boars Hunted in Tuscany (Italy) and Evaluation of MALDI-TOF MS for the Identification of Campylobacter Species. Foods 2023, 12, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040778

AMA Style

Ziomek M, Gondek M, Torracca B, Marotta F, Garofolo G, Wieczorek K, Michalak K, Fratini F, Pedonese F. Occurrence of Campylobacter in Faeces, Livers and Carcasses of Wild Boars Hunted in Tuscany (Italy) and Evaluation of MALDI-TOF MS for the Identification of Campylobacter Species. Foods. 2023; 12(4):778. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040778

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ziomek, Monika, Michał Gondek, Beatrice Torracca, Francesca Marotta, Giuliano Garofolo, Kinga Wieczorek, Katarzyna Michalak, Filippo Fratini, and Francesca Pedonese. 2023. "Occurrence of Campylobacter in Faeces, Livers and Carcasses of Wild Boars Hunted in Tuscany (Italy) and Evaluation of MALDI-TOF MS for the Identification of Campylobacter Species" Foods 12, no. 4: 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040778

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop