Penner Serotyping and Polymerase Chain Reaction Fingerprinting of Campylobacter Isolated from Poultry and Other Animal Sources

  • Henk J. M. Aarts
  • Bart A. J. T. van Lith
  • Wilma F. Jacobs-Reitsma


Foods of animal origin, and in particular poultry products, are recognized as the most important vehicles of Campylobacter infection in humans. Reduction of Campylobacter contamination of poultry could therefore reduce the risk of campylobacteriosis to consumers. However, the epidemiology of Campylobacter colonization in poultry is not completely understood. Horizontal transmission via the farm environment seems to be the major route for Campylobacter contamination of poultry4. Whereas, vertical transmission of Campylobacter via the egg, from positive breeder flocks to their progeny2,8,9 and horizontal transmission of Campylobacter from one broiler flock to the next one via a persistent contamination within the broiler house4 has not been found to be very likely. Serotyping is often used to support epidemiological investigations. However, serotyping has the disadvantage of having low discriminatory power and additionally, a substantial number of Campylobacter strains are nontypable. Therefore, we have used PCR fingerprinting in this study as an epidemiological marker and compared the results with those obtained with the Penner serotyping7. Thirty-four Campylobacter isolates, belonging to 10 different Penner serotypes, were included in this study. These campylobacters were isolated from broilers, other domestic animals on the farm and from darkling beetles inside the broiler houses.


Horizontal Transmission Animal Source Coli Layer Broiler Flock Broiler House 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aarts H.J.M., van Lith L.A.J.T. and Jacobs-Reitsma W.F. (1995) Lett. Appl. Microbiol, 20, 371–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Annan-Prah A. and Janc M. (1988) J. Vet. Med. 35, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guerry P., Logan S.M. and Trust T.J. (1987) J. Bacteriol, 170, 316–319.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs-Reitsma W.F., van de Giessen A.W., Bolder N.M. and Mulder R.W.A.W. (1995) Epid. Inf, 19, 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jensen M.A., Webster J.A. and Straus, N. (1993) Appl. Environm. Microbiol, 59, 945–952.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mills S.D. Kurjanczyk L.A., Shames B., Hennessy J.N. and Penner J.L. (1991) J. Med. Microbiol, 35, 168–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Penner J.L. and Hennessy J.N. (1980) J. Clin. Microbiol, 12, 732–727.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shanker S.A., Lee A. and Sorell T.C. (1986) J. Hyg. Camb, 96, 153–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van de Giesen A., Mazurier S.I., Jacobs-Reitsma W.F., Jansen W., Berkers P., Ritmeester W. and Wernars K. (1992) Appl. Environm. Microbiol, 58, 1913–1917.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Versalovic J., Koeuth T. and Lupski R. (1991) Nucl. Acid Res, 19, 6823–6831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henk J. M. Aarts
    • 1
  • Bart A. J. T. van Lith
    • 1
  • Wilma F. Jacobs-Reitsma
    • 1
  1. 1.DLO-Institute for Animal Science and HealthResearch Branch BeekbergenBeekbergenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations