Reported hospitalization, deaths, and case‐fatality rates due to zoonoses in confirmed human cases in the EU, 2014.
It is now recognized that Campylobacter is one of the main bacterial hazard involved in foodborne diseases around the world leading to an increasing number of gastrointestinal campylobacteriosis in humans. Also, it is known that this disease has a very high‐social cost. According to researchers of Emerging Pathogens Institute (EPI) (University of Florida, the United States), the combination poultry/Campylobacter is the greatest cause of human campylobacteriosis. It is well known all around the world that intestinal carriage of Campylobacter is very large and frequent; it can be reached 100% of animal infected. Reducing this biological hazard can be exercised at different stage levels in the food chain. Intervention at the farm level by reducing colonization of the birds should be taken into account in the overall control strategy. This chapter gives an up‐to‐date overview of suggested on‐farm control measures to reduce the prevalence and colonization of Campylobacter in poultry.
- control strategies
These days, the majority of human zoonotic microbial infections have a food origin (Table 1). Contamination of the food matrix can occur at all stages of the food production chain. In the search for causes of contamination, any stage of the production chain must not be neglected. This fact requires a global approach of problems and a good knowledge of the characteristics of the microorganisms involved. For the latter, the precise knowledge of their privileged reservoir and their potential ability to colonize other reservoirs will identify or clarify some contamination scenarios. Thus, it is known that the psychrotrophic nature of
|Disease||Number of confirmed
(a) human cases
|West Nile fever (a)||77||48||7||13.7|
Contamination of food appears as a necessary step to trigger disease in humans. In some cases, and for certain microorganisms, this phase must necessarily be followed by another phase involving a multiplication of microorganisms in food, concomitantly, or not, with a toxin synthesis. This second phase will allow microorganisms to reach sufficient numbers (minimum infectious dose) to cause disease in consumers. Thus, some microbial hazards should multiply in food (such as
Researchers from the Emerging Pathogens Institute (EPI) of the University of Florida in the United States have recently focused on infectious diseases of food origin. They estimated that 31 foodborne pathogens are responsible for 9.4 million cases of human infections each year in the United States, leading to 55,961 hospitalizations and 1351 deaths (http://www.epi.ufl.edu/?q=RankingTheRisks). Among all of these cases, 59% cases are associated with viruses, 39% cases with bacteria, and 2% cases by parasites. Among viruses, norovirus is involved in 58% of cases and for bacteria,
In Africa, the situation is most worrying. It is known that the first
Transmission by direct contact with reservoirs like pets, human being, or contaminated bathing water, although rare, should not be neglected. It can cause disease, especially for high‐risk professions, namely: farmers, veterinarians, and slaughterhouse workers . Notwithstanding, in most cases, transmission to humans is done indirectly by ingestion of water or food contaminated by certain species of
Some gestures made during the preparation of foods in the kitchen is often the cause of contamination transfers, including the use, for cutting the roasted poultry, of the board on which was cut or eviscerated raw poultry. Furthermore, studies have shown that the transfer of
This disease can be serious for certain populations or during postinfection complications, like Guillain‐Barré syndrome or Miller-Fisher syndrome . It seems that some serogroups of
The colonization of the intestine of broilers by
All of these works clearly show that intestinal carriage of
|Interventions in primary production||Reduction of campylobacteriosis cases|
|Systematic use of screen fly in broiler houses (Denmark)||60%|
|Reduction of slaughter age||42 days||0–5%|
|Reduction colonization in cecal contents||1 log||48–83%|
The study found that the most effective measures are those aimed at reducing the number of
Campylobacter in chicken farms
The few quantitative risk assessment studies available on the
2.1. Good hygienic practices and biosecurity
Thus, in addition to reducing the risk
Other measures such as cleaning and effective disinfection of poultry house between two batches of animals, as reducing the number of visits, as strict control of entry into the breeding of rodents, wild birds, and flying insects. Thus, studies in Denmark have shown that the use of mosquito nets preventing the entry of flying insects in the broiler house, potential vectors of
The application of all these measures greatly reduces the risk of
2.2. Treatment of drinking water
Another important factor is the quality of drinking water. Several studies have shown that poor quality water (untreated water from wells) may increase the transmission of
2.3. Use of antimicrobial from vegetal origin
In addition to their application in drinking water, organic acids can also be used as additives in foods to reduce the prevalence of
The principle of vaccination of chickens against
More recent studies involving a larger number of animals were used to test the use of recombinant vaccines. Thus, 840 SPF chicks were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccine derived from
These studies are promising and probably mean that a possible vaccination strategy for
2.5. Use of phages
The lytic activity of bacteriophages can be used as a strategy to reduce the colonization of chickens with
Loc Carrillo et al.  and Wagenaar et al.  have shown three decimal reductions of
2.6. Use of prebiotics and probiotics
Probiotics are defined as “live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a benefit to human health.” Prebiotics are generally oligosaccharides (fructo‐oligosaccharide (FOS), galacto‐oligosaccharides (GOS)) or polysaccharides such as inulin. These escape digestion in the small intestine and have a beneficial effect on the health of their host by stimulating the growth and/or activity of bacteria of the genera
The use of prebiotics and probiotics is a strategy that has been studied by several research teams in order to reduce the colonization of chickens by
In 1997, Morishita et al.  used on 1‐day‐old chicks, a probiotic mixture containing
Again, this is very promising works, that requires further study in order to decide definitively on their use. They also have the merit of bringing forward an interesting and ongoing concept named “microbial solution for microbial problems.”
2.7. Genetic selection of chicken
Selective breeding of resistant lines of chickens to
In 2005, Boyd et al.  have shown that the selection of chicken lines genetically resistant to
2.8. Use of bacteriocins
The use of antimicrobial peptides could be an interesting biological intervention strategy to reduce colonization of poultry by
Stern et al.  have studied the effect of the bacteriocin OR 7, produced by
Campylobacter is today a leading cause of foodborne diseases, all around the world. It is also a paradox for microbiologists, who see a contradiction between the apparent physiological fragility, its small genome and its obvious ability to survive outside its main habitat (digestive tract of birds) and to reach its main target (i.e., the consumer). Moreover, this impression is reinforced by the fact that the organism does not grow in foods and that his number would tend to decrease during processing operations, rather than increase. In fact, intestinal carriage of
Ribeiro da Silva M, Federighi M. Mint: seafood products as a source of listeriosis: myth or reality? Advanced Research in Food Science. 2005; 4, 73–78.
EFSA. Mint: analysis of the baseline survey on the prevalence of Campylobacterin broiler batches and of Campylobacterand Salmonellaon broiler carcasses in the EU, 2008, part A: Campylobacterand Salmonellaprevalence estimates. EFSA Journal, 2010; 8(3), 1503. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1503.
INVS. Morbidity and mortality due to foodborne infections in France. Report of the French Institute of Public Health. 2004; pp. 185.
Roberts JA, Cumberland P, Sockett PN, Wheeler J, Rodrigues LC, Sethi D, Roderick PJ. Mint: the study of infectious intestinal disease in England: socio‐economic impact. Epidemiology and Infection. 2003; 130, 1–11.
EFSA. Mint: scientific opinion on Campylobacterin broiler meat production: control options and performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain. EFSA Journal. 2011; 9(4), 2105. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2105.
Oberhelman R, Taylor D. Campylobacterinfections in developing countries. In: Nachamkin I, Blaser M, editors. Campylobacter, 3rd ed. Washington: ASM Press; 2000. p. 139–153.
Goualie GB, Karou G, S Bakayoko, KJ Coulibaly, Coulibaly KE, Niamke SL, Mr. Dosso Mint: Prevalence of Campylobacter in chickens sold in the markets of Abidjan: Pilot study in the municipality of Adjamé 2005 African Journal of Health and Animal Production. 2010; 8 (S), 31–34.
Lastovica A, Skirrow M. Clinical significance of Campylobacterand related species other than Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli. In: Nachamkin I, Blaser M, editors. Campylobacter, 3rd ed. Washington: ASM Press; 2000. p. 89–120.
Garénaux A Ritz-Bricaud M, Mr. Federighi Mint: Campylobacter and food safety: risk analysis, risk assessment and risk management. Bulletin of the Veterinary Academy of France, 2005; 158, 377-383.
Federighi M, C Magras, Pilet MF. Campylobacter. In: Federighi M, editor. Food bacteriology, Compendium of food hygiene, Paris, Economica, 2005, p. 145-172.
Scallan E, Hoekstra R, Angulo F, Tauxe R, Widdowson MA, Roy S, Jones J, Griffin P. Mint: foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens. Emerging and Infectious Disease. 2011; 17(1), 7–15.
Vellinga A, Loock VID. Mint: the dioxin crisis as experiment to determine poultry‐related Campylobacter enteritis. Emerging and Infectious Disease. 2002; 8, 19–22.
Salvat G, Chemaly M, Denis M, Robinault C, Huneau A, Le Bouquin S, Fravalo P. Mint: evolution des risques sanitaires: Campylobacteret Salmonelles. Sciences des Aliments. 2008, 28(4–5), 285–292.
Kusumaningrum HD, Riboldi G, Hazeleger WC, Beumer RR. Mint: survival of foodborne pathogens on stainless steel surfaces and cross‐contamination to foods. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2003; 85, 227–236. doi:10.1016/S0168‐1605(02)00540‐8; doi:10.1016/S0168‐1605%2802%2900540‐8#doilink.
Zilbauer M, Dorrell N, Elmi A, Lindley KJ, Schüller S, Jones HE, Klein NJ, Núňez G, Wren BW, Bajaj‐Elliott M. Mint: a major role for intestinal epithelial nucleotide oligomerization domain 1 (NOD1) in eliciting host bactericidal immune responses to Campylobacter jejuni. Cellular Microbiology. 2007; 9, 2404–2416. DOI: 10.1111/j.1462‐5822.2007.00969.x.
Martinez‐Rodriguez S, Mackey BM. Mint: factors affecting the pressure resistance of some Campylobacterspecies. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2005; 41, 321–326. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472‐765X.2005.01768.x.
Messaoudi S, Federighi M. Campylobacter infections: epidemiology, diagnosis, control and prevention. In: Bertucci BA, editor. Campylobacter Infection: Epidemiology, Clinical Management and Prevention. New York: Novascience Publishers; 2015. p. 29–54.
Newell D. Mint: the ecology of Campylobacter jejuniin avian and human hosts and in the environment. International Journal of Infectious Disease. 2002; 6, (Suppl. 3), S16–S21. doi:10.1016/S1201‐9712(02)90179‐7; doi:10.1016/S1201‐9712%2802%2990179‐7#doilink.
Yan SS, Pendrak ML, Foley SL, Powers JH. Mint: Campylobacterinfection and Guillain‐Barre syndrome: public health concerns from a microbial food safety perspective. Clinical Applied Immunology Review. 2005; 5, 285–305. doi:10.1016/j.cair.2005.08.001; doi:10.1016/j.cair.2005.08.001#doilink.
Herman L, Heyndrickx M, Grijspeerdt K, Vandekerchove D, Rollier I, De Zutter L. Mint: routes for Campylobactercontamination of poultry meat: epidemiological study from hatchery to slaughterhouse. Epidemiology and Infection. 2003; 131, 1169–1180. doi.org/10.1017/S0950268803001183; doi:10.1017/S0950268803001183#_blank.
Rasschaert G, Houf K, Van Hende J, De Zutter L. Mint: Campylobactercontamination during poultry Slaughter in Belgium. Journal of Food Protection. 2006; 69, 27–33.
Reich F, Atanassova V, Haunhorst E, Klein GN. Mint: the effects of Campylobacter numbers in caeca on the contamination of broiler carcasses with Campylobacter. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2008; 127, 116–120. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.06.018; doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.06.018#doilink.
Suzuki H, Yamamoto S. Mint: Campylobactercontamination in retail poultry meats and by‐products in Japan: a literature survey. Food Control. 2009; 20, 531–537. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.08.016; doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.08.016#doilink.
Allen VM, Weaver H, Ridley AM, Harris JA, Sharma M, Emery J, Sparks N, Lewis M, Edge S. Mint: sources and spread of thermophilic Campylobacterspp. during partial depopulation of broiler chicken flocks. Journal of Food Protection. 2008; 71, 264–270.
Berrang ME, Buhr RJ, Cason JA, Dickens JA. Mint: broiler carcass contamination with Campylobacterfrom feces during defeathering. Journal of Food Protection. 2001; 64, 2063–2066.
Boysen L, Rosenquist H. Mint: reduction of thermotolerant Campylobacterspecies on broiler carcasses following physical decontamination at slaughter. Journal of Food Protection. 2009; 72, 497–502.
Romero‐Barrios P, Hempen M, Messens W, Stella P, Hugas M. Mint: quantitative microbiological risk assessment (QMRA) of food‐borne zoonoses at the European level. Food Control, 2013; 29(1), 341–349. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.05.043; doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.05.043#doilink.
Rosenquist H, Sommer HM, Nielsen NL, Christensen BB. Mint: the effect of slaughter operations on the contamination of chicken carcasses with thermotolerant Campylobacter. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2006; 108, 226–232. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.12.007; doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.12.007#doilink.
Lin J. Mint: novel approaches for Campylobactercontrol in poultry. Foodborne Pathogens and Diseases. 2009; 6, 755–765. doi:10.1089/fpd.2008.0247.
Messens W, Hartnett E, Gellynck X, Viaene J, Halet D, Herman L, Grijspeerdt K. Quantitative risk assessment of human campylobacteriosis through the consumption of chicken meat in Belgium. In: Proceedings of the XVIII European Symposium on the Quality of Poultry Meat and XII European Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg Products, 2–5 September 2007; Prague. p. 167–168.
Hald B, Sommer HM, Skovgard H. Mint: use of fly screens to reduce Campylobacterspp., introduction in broiler houses. Emerging and Infectious Diseases. 2007; 13, 1951–1953.
Gibbens JC, Pascoe SJS, Evans SJ, Davies RH, Sayers AR. Mint: a trial of biosecurity as a means to control Campylobacterinfection of broiler chickens. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2001; 48, 85–99. doi:10.1016/S0167‐5877(00)00189‐6; doi:10.1016/S0167‐5877%2800%2900189‐6#doilink.
Van De Giessen AW, Tilburg JJ, Ritmeester WS, Van Der Plas J. Mint: reduction of Campylobacter infections in broiler flocks by application of hygiene measures. Epidemiology Infection. 1998; 121, 57–66.
Lyngstad TM, Jonsson ME, Hofshagen M, Heier BT. Mint: risk factors associated with the presence of Campylobacterspecies in Norwegian broiler flocks. Poultry Science. 2008, 87, 1987–1994. doi: 10.3382/ps.2008‐00132.
Sparks NHC. Mint: the role of the water supply system in the infection and control of Campylobacterin chicken. World Poultry Science Journal. 2009; 65, 459–474. doi.org/10.1017/S0043933909000324; doi:10.1017/S0043933909000324#_blank.
Mohyla P, Bilgili SF, Oyarzabal OA, Warf CC, Kemp GK. Mint: application of acidified sodium chlorite in the drinking water to control Salmonella serotype Typhimuriumand Campylobacter jejuniin commercial broilers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2007; 16, 45–51. doi: 10.1093/japr/16.1.45.
Byrd JA, Hargis BM, Caldwell DJ, Bailey RH, Herron KL, Mac Reynolds JL, Brewer RL, Anderson RC, Bischoff KM, Callaway TR, Kubena LF. Mint: effect of lactic acid administration in the drinking water during preslaughter feed withdrawal on Salmonellaand Campylobactercontamination of broilers. Poultry Science. 2001; 80, 278–283. doi: 10.1093/ps/80.3.278.
Hilmarsson H, Thormar H, Thrainsson JH, Gunnarsson E, Dadadottir S. Mint: effect of glycerol monocaprate (monocaprin) on broiler chickens: an attempt at reducing intestinal Campylobacterinfection. Poultry Science. 2006; 85, 588–592. doi: 10.1093/ps/85.4.588.
De Los Santos FS, Donoghue AM, Venkitanarayanan K, Metcalf JH, Reyes‐Herrera I, Dirain ML, Aguiar VF, Blore PJ, Donoghue DJ. Mint: the natural feed additive caprylic acid decreases Campylobacter jejunicolonization in market‐aged broiler chickens. Poultry Science. 2009; 88, 61–64. doi: 10.3382/ps.2008‐00228.
Van Deun K, Haesebrouck F, Van Immerseel F, Ducatelle R, Pasmans F. Mint: short‐chain fatty acids and l‐lactate as feed additives to control Campylobacter jejuniinfections in broilers. Avian Pathology. 2008; 37, 379–383. doi :10.1080/03079450802216603.
Gerwe TV, Bouma A, Klinkenberg D, Wagenaar JA, Jacobs‐Reitsma WF, Stegeman A. Mint: medium chain fatty acid feed supplementation reduces the probability of Campylobacter jejunicolonization in broilers. Veterinary Microbiology. 2010; 143, 314–318. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.11.029; doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.11.029#doilink.
Hermans D, Martel A, Van Deun K, Verlinden M, Van Immerseel F, Garmyn A, Messens W, Heyndrickx M, Haesebrouck F, Pasmans F. Mint: intestinal mucus protects Campylobacter jejuniin the ceca of colonized broiler chickens against the bactericidal effects of medium‐chain fatty acids. Poultry Science. 2010; 89, 1144–1155. doi:10.3382/ps.2010‐00717.
De Los Santos FS, Hume M, Venkitanarayanan K, Donoghue AM, Hanning I, Slavik MF, Aguiar VF, Metcalf JH, Reyes‐Herrera I, Blore PJ, Donoghue DJ. Mint: caprylic acid reduces enteric Campylobactercolonization in market‐aged broiler chickens but does not appear to alter cecal microbial populations. Journal of Food Protection. 2010; 73, 251–257.
Khoury C, Meinersmann RJ. Mint: a genetic hybrid of the Campylobacter jejuniflaA gene with LT‐B of Escherichia coliand assessment of the efficacy of the hybrid protein as an oral chicken vaccine. Avian Diseases. 1995; 39(4), 812–820. doi: 10.2307/1592418.
Rice BE, Rollins DM, Mallinson ET, Carr L, Joseph SW. Mint: Campylobacter jejuniin broiler chickens: colonization and humoral immunity following oral vaccination and experimental infection. Vaccine, 1997; 15, 1922–1932. doi:10.1016/S0264‐410X(97)00126‐6; doi:10.1016/S0264‐410X%2897%2900126‐6#doilink.
Buckley AM, Wang J, Hudson DL, Grant AJ, Jones MA, Maskell DJ, Stevens MP. Mint: evaluation of live‐attenuated Salmonellavaccines expressing Campylobacter antigens for control of C. jejuniin poultry. Vaccine. 2010; 28, 1094–1105.
Layton SL, Morgan MJ, Cole K, Kwon YM, Donoghue DJ, Hargis BM, Pumford NR. Mint: evaluation of Salmonella‐vectored Campylobacterpeptide epitopes for reduction of Campylobacter jejuniin broiler chickens. Clinical Vaccine Immunology. 2011; 18, 449–454. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00379‐10.
Loc Carrillo C, Atterbury RJ, El‐Shibiny A, Connerton PL, Dillon E, Scott A, Connerton IF. Mint: bacteriophage therapy to reduce Campylobacter jejunicolonization of broiler chickens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005; 71, 6554–6563. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.11.6554‐6563.
Wagenaar JA, Bergen MAPV, Mueller MA, Wassenaar TM, Carlton RM. Mint: phage therapy reduces Campylobacter jejunicolonization in broilers. Veterinary Microbiology. 2005; 109, 275–283. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.06.002 doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.06.002#doilink.
El‐Shibiny A, Scott A, Timms A, Metawea Y, Connerton P, Connerton I. Mint: application of a group II Campylobacterbacteriophage to reduce strains of Campylobacter jejuniand Campylobacter colicolonizing broiler chickens. Journal of Food Protection. 2009; 72, 733–740.
Morishita TY, Aye PP, Harr BS, Cobb CW, Clifford JR. Mint: Evaluation of an avian‐specific probiotic to reduce the colonization and shedding of Campylobacter jejuniin broilers. Avian Diseases. 1997; 41, 850–855. doi: 10.2307/1592338.
Schoeni JL, Wong AC. Mint: Inhibition of Campylobacter jejunicolonization in chicks by defined competitive exclusion bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1994, 60, 1191–1197.
Chang MH, Chen TC. Mint: reduction of Campylobacter jejuniin a simulated chicken digestive tract by Lactobacillicultures. Journal of Food Protection. 2000; 63, 1594–1597.
Baurhoo B, Ferket PR, Zhao X. Mint: effects of diets containing different concentrations of mannanoligosaccharide or antibiotics on growth performance, intestinal development, cecal and litter microbial populations, and carcass parameters of broilers. Poultry Science. 2009; 88, 2262–2272. doi: 10.3382/ps.2008‐00562.
Boyd Y, Herbert EG, Marston KL, Jones MA, Barrow PA. Mint: host genes affect intestinal colonisation of newly hatched chickens by Campylobacter jejuni. Immunogenetics. 2005; 57, 248–253. doi:10.1007/s00251‐005‐0790‐6.
Kaiser P, Howell MM, Fife M, Sadeyen JR, Salmon N, Rothwell L, Young J, Poh TY, Stevens M, Smith J, Burt D, Swaggerty C, Kogut M. Mint: towards the selection of chickens resistant to Salmonellaand Campylobacterinfections. Bulletin des Membres de l’Académie Royale de Médecine de Belgique. 2009; 164, 17–25; discussion 25‐16.
Line JE, Svetoch EA, Eruslanov BV, Perelygin VV, Mitsevich EV, Mitsevich IP, Levchuk VP, Svetoch OE, Seal BS, Siragusa GR, Stern NJ. Mint: isolation and purification of enterocin E‐760 with broad antimicrobial activity against gram‐positive and gram‐negative bacteria. Antimicrobial Agents Chemotherapy. 2008; 52, 1094–1100. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01569‐06.
Messaoudi S, Kergourlay G, Rossero A, Ferchichi M, Prevost H, Drider D, Manai M, Dousset X. Mint: identification of Lactobacilliresiding in chicken ceca with antagonism against Campylobacter. International Microbiology. 2011; 14, 103–110.
Stern NJ, Svetoch EA, Eruslanov BV, Perelygin VV, Mitsevich EV, Mitsevich IP, Pokhilenko VD, Levchuk VP, Svetoch OE, Seal BS. Mint: isolation of a Lactobacillus salivariusstrain and purification of its bacteriocin, which is inhibitory to Campylobacter jejuniin the chicken gastrointestinal system. Antimicrobial Agents Chemotherapy. 2006; 50, 3111–3116. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00259‐06.
Svetoch EA, Eruslanov BV, Perelygin VV, Mitsevich EV, Mitsevich IP, Borzenkov VN, Levchuk VP, Svetoch OE, Kovalev YN, Stepanshin YG, Siragusa GR, Seal BS, Stern NJ. Mint: diverse antimicrobial killing by Enterococcus faeciumE 50‐52 bacteriocin. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 2008; 56, 1942–1948. doi: 10.1021/jf073284g.
Svetoch EA, Stern NJ. Mint: bacteriocins to control Campylobacterspp. in poultry — a review. Poultry Science. 2010; 89, 1763–1768. doi:10.3382/ps.2010‐00659.
Stern NJ, Svetoch EA, Eruslanov BV, Kovalev YN, Volodina LI, Perelygin VV, Mitsevich EV, Mitsevich IP, Levchuk VP. Mint: Paenibacillus polymyxapurified bacteriocin to control Campylobacter jejuniin chickens. Journal of Food Protection. 2005; 68, 1450–1453.
Svetoch EA, Eruslanov BV, Levchuk VP, Perelygin VV, Mitsevich EV, Mitsevich IP, Stepanshin J, Dyatlov I, Seal BS, Stern NJ. Mint: isolation of Lactobacillus salivarius1077 (NRRL B‐50053) and characterization of its bacteriocin, including the antimicrobial activity spectrum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2011; 77, 2749–2754. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02481‐10.
Stern NJ, Eruslanov BV, Pokhilenko VD, Kovalev YN, Volodina LL, Perelygin VV, Mitsevich EV, Mitsevich IP, Borzenkov VN, Levchuk VP, Svetoch OE, Stepanshin YG, Svetoch EA. Mint: bacteriocins reduce Campylobacter jejunicolonization while bacteria producing bacteriocins are ineffective. Microbial Ecology and Health Diseases. 2008; 20, 74–79. doi :10.1080/08910600802030196.