Progress 07/01/23 to 06/30/24
Outputs Target Audience:The target audience dueing the first year of tge project included multiple stakeholders, including: 1- The poutry industry: We communicated our findings with two major poutry meat producers. This occurred during Zoom meetings and several conferences where thework was presented in poster format (The Center for Food Safety Annual Meeting, International Association for Food Protection (IAFP)). 2- The U.S. National Poultry Research Center in Athens: Our findings were communicated via Zoom meetings and also through active collboration. 3- The scientific community: Our findings were communicated in several local, national, and internatiomal meeting in the form of abstracts and posters. Changes/Problems:The only major challenge was the need for continous acccess to the poultry processing plant. Despite the full support of our industry partners, in the recent year there was a need for heightened biosecurity. Therefore, we had to collect the samples outside the plants rather than inside during operations. However, our industry partners are keen on providing continued access to test the interventions in the near future. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project was used to train a PhD student, who performed the assigned experiments as part of a PhD thesis. The findings were presented by the PhD students in several local, national, and international meetings, allowing the student to hone presentation skills and interact with peers and seasoned scientists. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The results were dissemnated via: 1- Zoom meetings with collboratores and stakeholders in the poutry industry. 2- The data were publised and presented in several scientific meetings. 3- A manuscript (that addresses objective 1) is being prepared for publication What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to continue to achieve our proposed objectives, with focus on objective 3: 1- We are testing different antimicrobials on artificiallycontaminated chicken meat to check their ability to significantly reduce process tolerant Campylobacter. This includes novel (niot tested previoulsy) phytochemicals.
Impacts What was accomplished under these goals?
We have achieved significant progress on this project. Objective 1: We have processed 122 chicken samples to isolate Campylobacter: We isolated 51 Campylobacter corresponding to 50 samples, which showed that the prevalence was at ~ 41.8%. The majority of the isolates (n = 42) were identified as C. jejuni (80.4%), while only 7 isolates were C. coli (13.7%). All 51 isolates were sequenced using Whole genome sequencing. Sequences were deposited in GenBank. Sequence types were determined for all the isolates. ST353 and ST48 were the most prevalent in C. jejuni, while ST7818 was most prevalent in C. coli. The antimicrobial resistance profiles were determined for all strains. We found that 65% of the isolates were resistant to ampicillin, 14% to ciprofloxacin, 22% to nalidixic acid, and 20% to tetracycline. We identified different antimicrobial genes and mutations in the isolates, including blaOXA alleles (encodes resistance to β-Lactams), aph(3') and sat-4 (encodes resistance to aminoglycosides), tet(O)( (encodes resistance to β-Lactams), and cmeR (multidrug efflux pump). Mutations in the gyrA that are associated with resistance to quinolones were also identified. We identified several virulence associated genes in the isolates, including cdtABC which was detected in 100% of the C. jejuni. Objective 2: We have found that relatively high concentrations of PAA and chlorine wererequired to effectively inhibit the Campylobacter strains (dubbed process tolerant strains). Each strain was tested individually against PAA and cholrine in lbuffer as well as on chicken meat. The strains that survived the treatments were designated as process tolerant. Different starins exhibited varying tolerance; some having notable high tolerance to these chemicals. Other tested organic acids were either similar or less effective when compared to PAA and chlorine.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2024
Citation:
N. Nasser, T. Xu, D. Mann, X. Deng, I.I. Kassem. Prevalence and characterization of sequence types, antimicrobial susceptibility and virulence determinants of Campylobacter spp. isolated from retail poultry meat in Georgia, USA. Center for Food Safety (CFS) Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 2024.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
N. Nasser, I.I. Kassem. Evaluation of different organic acids for controlling multiple foodborne bacterial pathogens. Center for Food Safety (CFS) Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 2023.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
N. Nasser, I.I. Kassem. Comparative analysis of the impact of different organic acids against major foodborne bacterial pathogens. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC) Southern Section, Atlanta, GA, 2023
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2024
Citation:
N. Nasser, I.I. Kassem. In-depth assessment of Campylobacter spp. in retail chicken meat in Georgia, USA. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC) Southern Section, Atlanta, GA, 2024.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
N. Nasser, M. Barr, I.I. Kassem. Evaluation of different organic acids for controlling multiple foodborne bacterial pathogens. International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, 2023.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2024
Citation:
N. Nasser, I.I. Kassem. Prevalence and comprehensive characterization of Campylobacter species isolated from poultry meat in retail stores in Georgia, USA. International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, 2024.
|