Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Interaction between Salmonella and Plants: Potential Hosts and Vectors for Human Infection

Written By

Eva Fornefeld, Jasper Schierstaedt, Sven Jechalke, Rita Grosch, Kornelia Smalla and Adam Schikora

Submitted: May 17th, 2016 Reviewed: November 25th, 2016 Published: April 5th, 2017

DOI: 10.5772/67061

Chapter metrics overview

1,764 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Fruits and vegetables are important for a healthy diet. However, when eaten raw and contaminated with human pathogens (HPs) they may cause a disease outbreak. Contamination with HPs can occur along the entire farm-to-fork production chain and Salmonella enterica is one of the most common foodborne pathogens. A range of biotic and abiotic environmental factors can influence the complex interactions between Salmonella and plants. Moreover, the outcome of experiments largely depends on the experimental design and parameters or methods employed, and on top, on the accompanying plant microbiome and the genetic equipment of the plant and the Salmonella strain. Particularly mobile genetic elements contribute to the diversification and adaptation of Salmonella to the plant environment. So far, little is known about the key processes and factors influencing the attachment and potential internalization of Salmonella in plants and the plant specific responses. It is therefore important to better understand the ecology of Salmonella in the soil and plant environment, in order to propose practicable recommendations for prevention of foodborne diseases. This also requires improved sensitivity and specificity of detection methods. In this chapter, we present the current knowledge, research needs, and methodology regarding the complex interactions between Salmonella and plants.

Keywords

  • Salmonella enterica
  • plant
  • biofilm
  • colonization mechanisms
  • interaction

1. Introduction

The natural microbiome of plants includes a wide diversity of microorganisms and is a key determinant of plant health and productivity, e.g., by supporting the uptake of mineral nutrients in roots or suppressing pathogen growth and inducing the host‐immune system [13]. Due to its relevance, the plant microbiome (totality of microorganisms associated with the plant) is even called the second plant genome. Because of the tight interplay between plants and their epiphytic and endophytic microorganisms the terms holobiont and meta‐organisms are used as well. The plant microbiome is important not only for plant growth and health, but is also positively influencing human health [4]. However, besides positive effects on human health plants can also be carriers of bacterial HPs.

Salmonellais one of the major causal agents of foodborne gastroenteritis and represents a major threat to public health. It is estimated that each year 93.8 million cases of salmonellosis occur globally (86% of which foodborne), with 155,000 deaths [5]. Consumption of raw plants is more and more recognized as a source for HPs and associated with disease outbreaks in several countries. The number of outbreaks linked to fresh produce, spices, and nuts surpassed those linked to foods of animal origin [6]. Sources of HPs in the production chain and factors contributing to the contamination of fruits and vegetables include for example the application of organic fertilizers such as animal manures, contaminated irrigation water, insect and animal vectors but also the use of contaminated seeds [7]. Enterobacteriaceaesuch as Erwinia, Serratia,and Pantoeabelong to bacteria typically associated with the phyllosphere [810]. However, it is not completely understood how Salmonellapersists in the plant environment and which environmental factors trigger its survival. In this chapter, we discuss factors influencing the survival of Salmonellain the agricultural environment as well as adaptations that allow successful colonization of plants, such as attachment, biofilm formation, and internalization.

Advertisement

2. Contamination of fresh produce

Besides contaminated animal products, Salmonellaoutbreaks are increasingly associated with fruits and vegetables. Already on the field, plants may be contaminated via soil or irrigation, especially if watered with surface water [1114]. Salmonellahas been shown to persist in various ecological niches in soil as well as in irrigation water and fertilizers [1517]. In this context, the watering system and the agricultural practices seem to play a key role in the prevention of contamination with human pathogens. For instance, lettuce plants were more likely to be contaminated with Escherichia coliwhen watered using overhead sprinklers when compared to subsurface drip or surface furrow irrigation [18]. Besides, even noncontaminated rain‐sized water droplets could transfer HPs from contaminated soil or plants to other plants [19].

Organic fertilizers like manure, biogas plant digestates and sewage sludge offer an additional route for contamination of fresh produce. Similarly, animals like birds, game, mice, or insects can contribute to the contamination of fresh produce directly or indirectly via feces or irrigation water [7, 14, 20]. Often underestimated are soil particles, which can be carried by the wind over long distances and contribute to the transient of microbiome between plants [8]. Hence, wind‐caused spread of HPs should also be considered. Contaminated plant residues might constitute additional risk if incorporated into soil before the planting of next crop. The infection of plants is essentially dependent on the ability of HPs to survive and persist in the agricultural environment. Salmonella, for example, was shown to survive in soil for more than 200 days if the soil was fertilized [21, 22]. The survival of diverse bacteria newly introduced into soil has been subject of research for many years [23], and the mechanisms that govern this process, compared often to microbial invasion, were described in many studies (recently reviewed by [24]). In order to survive in the soil, HPs need to find an adequate ecological niche in which they can establish. Furthermore, their ability to do so and to survive for extended time increased when the indigenous microbial community was reduced as a result of, for example, sterilization [25]. In addition, the survival of microorganisms that successfully invaded the soil is highly dependent on the environmental heterogeneity [2628].

Contamination of fresh produce with HPs like Salmonella,can occur before the harvest and also along the whole production chain [11, 14]. Since the epidemiological investigations start very often long time after the contamination or the harvest, it is very challenging to assess whether the contamination took place in the field or occurred “post‐harvest” during the processing. Consequently in the majority of cases, the information available does not necessarily reveal the real causes of contamination [29].

Advertisement

3. Epidemiology of Salmonellain agricultural systems

Fresh produce contaminated with Salmonellacan easily trigger a salmonellosis outbreak, and despite the difficulties with identification, in the past years fresh produce were repeatedly identified as the outbreak source. Among the outbreaks in the USA, Salmonellais the leading cause of the fresh produce‐originated foodborne diseases [30]. The available data are depending on the procedures and records in particular countries. At least 12 large, fresh produce‐related Salmonellaoutbreaks have been reported since 2010, an overview of international outbreaks with more than 100 associated cases is presented in Table 1.

SalmonellaSerovarVectorYearCountryCases/serovar confirmedReference
S. NewportTomatoes2015USA115/81[112]
S.PoonaCucumbers2015‐16USA907/907[113]
UnknownOnions, tomatoes2015USA200/0[114]
S. EnteriditisSprouts,
beans
2014USA115/0[113]
S. NewportCucumbers2014USA275/0[113]
S. TyphimuriumCantaloupe2012USA261/261[115]
S.BraenderupMangoes2012USA, Canada127/0[113]
S.NewportMung beans2011Germany Netherlands106/32[116]
UnknownProduce‐based salads, broccoli salad2011Japan1500/0[117]
S. AgonaFruit, papaya2011USA106/0[113]
S.I4,[5],12:i:‐Vegetables, sprouts, alfalfa sprouts2010USA140/0[118]
S.HvittingfossVegetables, leafy greens, lettuce fruit, tomatoes, olives2010USA114/108[119]

Table 1.

International salmonellosis outbreaks associated with fresh produce.

Only large outbreaks with more than 100 associated total or confirmed cases since 2010 are shown.

Although fruits and vegetables were identified as source of human pathogens, it is not clear whether the plants were colonized in the field or during processing. Salmonellamay live epiphytically or be internalized through wounds, the root system, stomata, or hydathodes (see below). Additionally, Salmonellacan be entrapped in fruits or seeds after contamination of flowers [31, 32]. Moreover, large outbreaks can be destructive to consumer's confidence which results in economic losses [33, 34]. Therefore, the research on the ecology of HPs like Salmonellain relation to farming and harvesting practices is very important for human health and also for the economy.

Advertisement

4. Factors influencing the survival of Salmonellain soil

Successful establishment of human pathogenic bacteria in soil depends on a variety of biotic and abiotic factors (see Figure 1 for an overview). Numerous studies, carried out under different conditions, showed that among them are weather or atmospheric conditions like temperature, UV radiation, and moisture content of the soil [7, 35]. In general, temperature has an important effect on growth and decay rates of bacteria. Most studies examined the influence of temperature on survival of enteric bacteria under isothermal conditions, showing a generally reduced survival of Salmonellain soil with increasing temperature and, accordingly a better persistence in soil at lower temperatures [36, 37]. Semenov et al.[38] analyzed how temperature fluctuations affect Salmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium (S.Typhimurium) in cow manure and demonstrated increased decay rates with increasing amplitudes of daily oscillations. Besides temperature, water availability is a key factor for Salmonellato survive in the environment. Humidity in soil depends on rainfall and watering as well as on evaporation. Soil moisture also depends on soil properties like clay content or pore size. In general, it seems that survival of Salmonellain soil is promoted by high humidity while water shortage has a detrimental influence on persistence, probably due to drought stress [3941]. The soil type and its physical and chemical characteristics have a strong influence on the fate of bacterial HPs. Those characteristics include texture and particle size distribution, which affect adsorption of Salmonellato soil particles. The soil type determines the extent of Salmonellaleaching, if the bacteria are applied to the soil surface via contaminated slurry or manure as shown by Bech et al.[42]. In this study, percolation of S.Typhimurium was more pronounced in loamy than in sandy soil with leaching bacteria reaching 1 m of depth at 105 CFU/ml of leachate. Transport and survival of bacterial pathogens in soil is also influenced by amendment of fertilizers probably because of the presence of organic matter [43]. Leaching of Salmonellathrough soil was observed to reach greater depths after application of slurry than of manure [44]. In the same line, the application method of fertilizers can also have an effect on Salmonellasurvival in soil since an injection of manure or slurry or clumping of the applied fertilizer aboveground protect bacteria in the soil from desiccation, UV, and high temperatures [43, 45, 46]. Agricultural practices like tillage that have an effect on the porosity of soil determine the extent of leaching [47] and the availability of oxygen. While a detrimental influence of aeration on survival of E. coliO157:H7 has been demonstrated, the oxygen availability does not influence the survival of Salmonella[48]. Soil pH is also an important factor for Salmonellasurvival and Salmonellacan survive in the environment with neutral to acidic pH while alkaline pH has a detrimental effect on its persistence [49]. Another important determinant of Salmonellasurvival in soil is the availability of nutrients. In this environment, nutrients can only partly be used by bacterial HPs and are generally rather scarce. Salmonellais chemoheterotrophic and therefore depends on carbohydrates, lipids, and protein in its environment as sources for energy, nitrogen, and amino acids. Addition of organic fertilizers improves nutrient availability by addition of readily available carbon and nitrogen sources as well as other nutrients. But amendment of fertilizers also changes the microbiological properties of soil by introducing microorganisms to the soil microbial community. Moreover, the additional nutrients stimulate growth of copiotrophic soil bacteria which might compete for the nutrient resources [50]. So far, no clear correlations between the type of fertilizer and survival in soil have been identified [51]. But when survival in manure was compared to survival in manure‐amended soil, Salmonellausually survived better in soil [22]. This could be due to competition by the microbial flora of manure, which is more concentrated than in soil.

Figure 1.

Factors influencing the survival ofSalmonellain soil and its colonization of plants.

The soil microbial community and its composition have a great influence on the survival of Salmonella[52]. In the soil ecosystem, Salmonellahas to compete with the indigenous microbial community for space and nutrients [24]. For example, it was shown that Salmonella entericaserovar Newport (S. Newport) survived about 10 weeks longer in sterilized soil compared to nonsterilized manure‐amended soil [22]. Similarly, a better survival was found in γ‐irradiated than in untreated soil [53]. These results indicate suppression by the native microbial community. Overall, results demonstrate the importance of the microbial community affecting the fate of Salmonellain soil. Plant pathogens, fungi, viruses, and animal pests present in the environment can degrade the plant material and increase the content of available nutrients or provide entry sites facilitating internalization into plants [7, 14, 54]. They may also serve as vectors [7, 55]. Effects of protists have been analyzed using protozoa showing that their presence can foster or reduce survival of different species. For example, Salmonella entericaserovar Thompson was accumulated in vesicles of Tetrahymena[56], while growth of protozoa can also decimate S.Typhimurium populations [37].

In addition to the environment in which Salmonellais introduced, the bacterial characteristics are crucial for persistence. Firstly, the genetic disposition of the strain, for example, the presence of type III secretion system (T3SS), the ability to form biofilms, chemotaxis, or motility are important. Studies using strains with mutations influencing these characteristics usually resulted in reduced survival [5759]. Salmonellacan also produce an O‐antigen capsule, which improves survival under desiccation stress [60]. Furthermore, the ability to form biofilms enhances environmental persistence of some Salmonellaserovars [61]. Similarly, a biofilm‐producing Salmonellastrain survived chlorination significantly better than the biofilm‐deficient mutant [62]. The conditions under which Salmonellaare grown before their inoculation in the environment are also important since preadaptation influences the persistence [20]. Finally, many studies on the survival of HPs in soil employed a relatively high inoculum, which under natural conditions occurs only locally, e.g., by fecal point contaminations. Inoculation resulted in a fast initial decline of inoculated bacterial populations with usually low numbers of Salmonellathat survive for a long time after the inoculation.

In conclusion, studies analyzing the survival of Salmonellademonstrated complex interactions with the environment and a network of factors, which might play an important role in the persistence of Salmonella. Therefore, the very often contradictory results reflect the variability of strains, their survival strategies in a complex environment as well as differences in experimental setups used.

Advertisement

5. Attachment to plant surfaces and biofilm formation

Attachment and adhesion of Salmonellato plant surfaces are essential steps of plant colonization. Several bacterial elements such as fimbrial structures, nonfimbrial adhesins, flagella, cellulose, and lipopolysaccharides (LPS) are important bacterial factors for colonization [63, 64]. Although previous studies demonstrated that the attachment depends on plant and bacterial factors, no single factor was found to be essential, suggesting that bacteria use several parallel mechanisms to ensure attachment to different plants or to different plant cells under a wide variety of conditions [65]. Furthermore, the attachment of S. entericato plant surfaces appears to be serovar‐dependent [66]. For example, the strength of the attachment to basil, lettuce, or spinach leaves differed between S. entericaserovars. While S.Typhimurium, Salmonella entericaserovar Enteritidis, and Salmonella entericaserovar Senftenberg were efficient, other serovars including Salmonella entericaserovar Agona, Salmonella entericaserovar Heidelberg or Salmonella entericaserovar Arizonaeshowed less attachment [67]. Clear differences in attachment were also observed in leaves of different age, for example, S.Typhimurium showed a better attachment to older compared to younger lettuce leaves [68]. Additionally, S. entericaserovars were reported to actively move toward plant roots, attracted by root exudates [69]. There, they are able to efficiently attach and to form biofilms at natural openings or wounds [70, 71].

Several other studies provided evidence for biofilm formation by Salmonellaon plant surfaces [72]. Within biofilms, bacteria are generally well‐protected against environmental stresses, antibiotics, and disinfectants. The importance of biofilms for the attachment of Salmonellato plants and their role in the persistence in plants was recently described by Yaron and Romling [65]. Biofilm formation of Salmonellais influenced by environmental conditions and is reported to be maximal under reduced nutrient availability, aerobic conditions, low osmolarity, and mid temperatures [73], which are characteristic for the plant surface. In contrast, it was shown in vitrothat S. Typhimurium cells grown at 37°C, the temperature in the animal host, do not produce cellulose and fimbriae [64]. Furthermore, the red dry and rough(rdar) and the smooth and white(saw) morphotypes, regulated by the agfDpromoter and defined by a combination of traits such as the presence of thin aggregative fimbriae (tafi), cellulose, and O‐antigen capsule, might affect the dispersal of Salmonellain an agricultural environment [74]. In contrast to the sawmorphotype, the rdarmorphotype, isolated from tomato, showed better attachment to plant surfaces [74, 75]. Biofilm‐producing Salmonellaon parsley showed a higher resistance against disinfectants than the biofilm‐deficient mutant. Furthermore, after a storage period of the plant, the cells that were able to produce the biofilm matrix were significantly more resistant to the disinfection treatment [62]. A screening of 6000 transposon mutants of S. Newport resulted in the identification of 20 mutants selected for reduced adherence to alfalfa sprouts [70]. Interestingly, these mutants contained insertions associated with genes, for example, for the surface‐exposed aggregative fimbriae nucleator (agfB) and the general transcriptional regulator rpoS. The respective proteins have been reported to regulate the production of curly, cellulose, and other adhesins such as pili. Two other genes (STM0278 and STM0650) were identified as important factors for the colonization of alfalfa seedlings. Both play an important role in the formation of biofilms [76]. Furthermore, bacterial cellulose and curly were involved in the colonization of parsley with S.Typhimurium from irrigation water [77].

Although many factors influencing the colonization of plants were identified by in vitroexperiments, a more detailed investigation of genes of Salmonellathat are expressed during the colonization of plants is needed. New techniques for the isolation of mRNA from samples containing both plant and bacterial materials as well as for the quantitative PCR allow the analysis of the transcriptome and the identification of genes with related functions [78].

Advertisement

6. Internalization of Salmonellainto plant tissues

An increasing number of salmonellosis outbreaks associated with plants shows that human pathogenic bacteria use plants as a niche for replication or as hosts and vectors for animal and human infection (Table 1). For a long time it was assumed that Salmonellarather survives on plant surfaces than colonizes the plant interior. This view has been challenged by recent reports. Today we know that Salmonellacan actively enter and spread within the plant. Plants offer multiple entry possibilities for HPs; stomata, for example, were identified already a few years ago. Stomata are used for gas exchange between the surroundings and cells of the inner mesophyll layers, this is necessary for proper photosynthetic efficacy. They can close if a pathogen is recognized. Some pathogens, however, produce toxins (coronatine), which reopen stomata and therefore allow their use as gates for colonization of underlying tissues. Salmonellawas shown to gather around the open stomata and enter the mesophyll tissue of lettuce leaves [58]. Similar to lettuce, a high incidence of internalization was observed in arugula leaves, while romaine and red‐lettuce, as well as basil showed significantly lower internalization rates [79]. Interestingly, in this study parsley and tomato leaves showed only marginal internalization [79]. In addition to stomata, also hydratodes and trichomes allow an internalization of Salmonellainto leaves [31, 80, 81]. Not only Salmonellaor phytopathogenic bacteria use stomata as entry points, also other Enterobacteriaceae,for example E. coli,use similar strategies to access the plant's interior [82, 83]. Importantly to note is the fact that the preference to gather around open stomata manifests only in photosynthetically active leaves, and an artificial opening of the stomata at night has no effect on the bacterial behavior [58]. This observation is in line with the proposed hypothesis that those bacteria are in a direct competition for C‐ and N‐sources with the native leaf microbiome [69, 71], and suggests a chemotaxis toward the newly synthesized products of the photosynthesis.

From the consumers’ point of view, not only the internalization into leaves but also the translocation within the plant, e.g., toward fruits is important. In some crop plants, e.g., tomato, such translocation was detected [81]. The authors showed internalization into the tomato fruits when the entire plant was systemically colonized. Still, the colonization rates seemed rather low [81]. Nonetheless, in light of the persistent pathogenicity in animals after the passage through a plant host [84], the internalization mechanisms are of high interest. Some detailed mechanisms were already suggested. Erlacher and coworkers proposed one of those possible mechanisms: colonization of the niche below the cuticle layer of the epidermis [9]. Obviously such a behavior protects bacteria from the harsh conditions on the leaf surface (UV light, drought, and quick changes in temperature) but also from surface sterilization agents. Another strategy would be an intracellular lifestyle, which would resemble the strategy in the animal infection model. Until now, this possibility remains unverified, two reports postulated internalization into plant cells using Arabidopsisand tobacco systems [84, 85]. Yet, another helpful strategy is the efficient formation of biofilms, this strategy was discussed above and was reviewed by Yaron and Romling [65]. Only recently, it was discovered that particular Salmonellastrains may avoid the recognition by the plant immune system [86], which would make them very well adapted colonizers (see below).

Many row eaten crop plants plants associated with salmonellosis outbreaks or food poisoning are usually grown in soil (lettuce, basil, parsley, etc.). In such cases the translocation from the potentially contaminated soil (through manure or irrigation water) via roots into the harvested and consumed plant parts is of enormous importance. Several reports assessed already this possibility and pointed at a very diverse picture with regard to pathogenic E. colior Salmonella. Here the high heterogeneity with regard to colonization in the plant population is very remarkable [69, 87], usually about 20% of the plant population is colonized, however, this range may vary from 0 to 100% and strongly depends on plant species and bacterial strain [51, 69, 77, 8890].

Advertisement

7. The function of T3SS and the role of plant immune system during the interactions between plant and Salmonella

Bacterial pathogens use T3SS and T4SS to inject so‐called effector proteins directly into the cytoplasm of host cells. Those effectors are able to manipulate the host immune system and suppress the otherwise negative effects of defense responses. Salmonellauses two T3SS and more than 40 effectors in order to manipulate the immune system (perception mechanisms and signaling cascades) as well as the cytoskeleton of animal cells at different stages of the infection process [91]. Recent discoveries from others and our group imply that the mechanisms used in animal and plant hosts may resemble each other [59, 85, 86, 9295]. The inoculation with the wild‐type Salmonellastrains and mutants in one or both of the T3SSs showed that functional secretion systems are required for efficient plant colonization [59, 85, 93]. Two observations allow such a conclusion: (1) The mutants had lower proliferation rates when compared to the respective wild type, which suggests that a functional T3SS helps with the colonization of plants; and (2) T3SS mutants induced stronger immune response of the host plant. Similar to animals or humans, plants respond to colonization of pathogenic bacteria inducing numerous immune responses, among others are oxidative burst and enhanced expression of Pathogenesis Related(PR) genes. Both were observed after inoculation with Salmonellaand both were stronger if the inoculation was performed using mutants in T3SS [59, 85, 86]. Those results suggest that the wild‐type strain is able to suppress the immune response. It is very plausible to think that this suppression is due to functional T3SS‐dependent effector proteins. We know only little about their function in plant cells, since only two effectors (SseF and SpvC) were evaluated in this respect. SseF together with SseG are translocated into animal cells and are responsible for the establishment of the reproduction niche [96]. In plants, SseF induces the hypersensitive response (HR) [94]. Important is the fact that silencing of the suppressor of SGT1 eliminates the response to SseF, suggesting that this effector is recognized in R protein‐dependent manner, which is the usual recognition method of pathogen effectors during the effector‐triggered immunity (ETI). SpvC is a phosphothreonin lyase which dephosphorylates activated MAP kinases. Those kinases build a core compound in the signaling cascade leading from the perception of the pathogen on the cell surface to the transcriptional response at the chromatin level. Especially the trio MPK3, MPK4, and MPK6 plays an important role in plants [97], and is activated (phosphorylated) during the response to Salmonella[84]. SpvC interacts actively with the MPK6 and dephosphorylates this kinase, consequently abolishing the signal transduction [95]. A comprehensive overview of the reports regarding the plant immune responses to HPs was published only recently and is an excellent compendium of the current knowledge [98].

Advertisement

8. Salmonellachanges its physiology in contact with plant host

During the interaction between Salmonellaand crop plants, not only the plant reacts to the presence of the bacteria, also Salmonellaadapts to the conditions represented by a plant organism. Recent results show that bacteria modify their physiology and motility in order to adjust to the physiological conditions occurring in plants. Several authors evaluated the transcriptional changes of bacteria when in contact with plants or plant‐originated products [99, 100]. Interestingly, the analysis of the transcriptome, revealed a partial overlap between bacteria from macerated lettuce or cilantro leaves and bacteria from intestine, suggesting that those bacteria might be better adapted to the exploitation of plant material than estimated [100]. Similar results were observed for the pathogenic E. coliO157:H7, which seem to change its enzymatic and metabolomic equipment in order to utilize plant compounds [101, 102]. In addition, the bacteria upregulate a plethora of genes related to attachment, antimicrobial resistance and response to oxidative stress [101]. Very striking was the fact that although plant filtrates or root exudates contain numerous amino acids, which are available to the bacteria as C and N sources, E. coliinduced many amino acid synthesis pathways probably to supplement the missing compounds [102].

Advertisement

9. Detection, characterization and quantification of Salmonellain environmental samples

Salmonellais rarely detected in crop plants. For example, in a previous study Salmonellacould not be detected in more than 170 plants but in their environment [103]. This suggests that environmental factors are affecting the prevalence of Salmonellain the field, or that the sensitivity of the currently used detection system is not sufficient.

Traditional methods for the detection and identification of HPs often rely on cultivation‐dependent techniques followed by biochemical and serological identification, which is typically time‐consuming and laborious [104]. Furthermore, in response to environmental stresses Salmonellacan enter a physiological state where the cells remain viable, but are no longer culturable on typically used growth media. Salmonellain this VBNC state are often only detectable by methods depending on nucleic acids. This highlights the importance of the complementary use of cultivation‐dependent and ‐independent detection methods for the diagnosis and prevention of food contamination and foodborne diseases. In the recent decades, there have been increasing efforts to develop and improve molecular methods for the rapid detection and characterization of pathogens in animals and animal products [105108]. These methods, which include immunological as well as biosensor‐ and nucleic acid‐based assays (e.g., ELISA, PCR, microarrays, next generation sequencing) have an improved sensitivity and specificity but are also time‐, cost‐, and labor‐demanding. Typically, to further increase the sensitivity of these methods nonselective or selective enrichment steps are employed. One of the most challenging problems is the sample preparation, which is strongly depending on the sample matrix, associated inhibitory compounds, and the bacterial load.

So far, knowledge is scarce regarding the specific and reliable detection of Salmonellain complex and often heterogenous plant‐ and environmental‐matrices (e.g., vegetables, spices, soil samples, manure, biogas digestates) as well as the appropriate extraction and purification techniques. For iceberg lettuce, carrot‐ and cucumber‐peelings, qPCR detection limits of 103 bacterial cells per gram were reported [109]. Since the infectious dose of Salmonellawas reported to be less than 103 cells [110], small numbers have to be detected reliably. Besides direct extraction of total DNA from the sample material, a preceding enrichment step in the respective culture media can be performed. This enrichment has the advantage to increase the sensitivity of detection and additionally to reactivate cells in the dormant VBNC state. After extraction of DNA from the respective samples, Salmonellacan be detected by qPCR or PCR‐Southern blot hybridization, e.g., by detection of the invAgene [104, 111]. Alternatively or additionally to DNA‐based methods, RNA‐based methods can be used. Apart from a more laborious sample preparation, RNA‐based methods have the advantage that in contrast to DNA‐based methods only living and active Salmonellaare detected, i.e., Salmonellarelevant for a potential infection of humans. Especially the detection of mRNA of pathogenicity determinants could be appropriate to prove the viability and potential virulence of HPs.

Microarrays and next‐generation sequencing technologies offer intriguing possibilities regarding the rapid and accurate detection as well as genetic characterization of Salmonellain environmental matrices. However, the costs and technical requirements for the analysis of large data sets still limit their practicability in the day‐to‐day qualitative and quantitative detection. The further development of rapid, reliable, and cost‐effective high‐throughput detection methods will very likely contribute to the understanding of the ecology of Salmonellain the plant environment and consequently help to reduce or prevent infections mediated by plant‐associated HPs.

Advertisement

10. Conclusions

Today the notion that human pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonellamight persist on or within plants in low numbers is widely accepted. The research on the interactions between crop or model plants and Salmonellais obviously driven by its medical aspects and the need for better prevention methods. We already know various features of the interactions but many are still not fully understood. New techniques that use high‐throughput analyses and unbiased approaches are useful. Numerous national survey agencies started to use next‐generation sequencing for the epidemiological analysis of salmonellosis outbreaks and have therefore direct access to the genome sequences of particular serovars. They are also able to monitor the genomic changes, for example, reception of new plasmids or pathogenicity islands, which are important prerequisites in virulence of the bacterial strain. Similarly, the full range of “omic” approaches is being used in model systems providing very detailed data on both partners in the Salmonella‐plant interaction at biochemical, physiological, and transcriptional levels. The study of those interactions harbors even more potential, it permits the characterization of the different infection mechanisms and the different strategies available for Salmonellain contact with diverse hosts. New and more efficient prevention strategies greatly depend on our understanding of these mechanisms. Therefore, the new findings might significantly improve our possibilities to diminish the number of future outbreaks.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to apologize to all colleagues whose work was not cited due to space limitation. This work was supported by the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt; 371271209), the JKI, and the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, BLE), Grants 13HS026 and 13HS029.

References

  1. 1. Berendsen RL, Pieterse CM & Bakker PA. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health.Trends Plant Sci2012;17:478–486.
  2. 2. Buee M, De Boer W, Martin F et al.The rhizosphere zoo: An overview of plant‐associated communities of microorganisms, including phages, bacteria, archaea, and fungi, and of some of their structuring factors.Plant Soil2009;321:189–212.
  3. 3. Turner TR, James EK & Poole PS. The plant microbiome.Genome Biol2013;14:10.
  4. 4. Berg G, Grube M, Schloter M et al.The plant microbiome and its importance for plant and human health.Front Microbiol2014;5:491.
  5. 5. Majowicz SE, Musto J, Scallan E et al.The global burden of nontyphoidalSalmonellagastroenteritis.Clin Infect Dis2010;50:882–889.
  6. 6. Brandl MT, Cox CE & Teplitski M. Salmonella interactions with plants and their associated microbiota.Phytopathology2013;103:316–325.
  7. 7. Brandl MT. Fitness of human enteric pathogens on plants and implications for food safety.Annu Rev Phytopathol2006;44:367–392.
  8. 8. Rastogi G, Sbodio A, Tech JJ et al.Leaf microbiota in an agroecosystem: spatiotemporal variation in bacterial community composition on field‐grown lettuce.Isme Journal2012;6:1812–1822.
  9. 9. Erlacher A, Cardinale M, Grube M et al.Biotic stress shifted structure and abundance ofEnterobacteriaceaein the lettuce microbiome.PLoS ONE2015;10:e0118068.
  10. 10. van Overbeek LS, van Doorn J, Wichers JH et al.The arable ecosystem as battleground for emergence of new human pathogens.Front Microbiol2014;5:17.
  11. 11. Olaimat AN & Holley RA. Factors influencing the microbial safety of fresh produce: A review.Food Microbiol2012;32:1–19.
  12. 12. Allende A & Monaghan J. Irrigation water quality for leafy crops: A perspective of risks and potential solutions.Int J Environ Res Public Health2015;12:7457–7477.
  13. 13. Li B, Jackson SA, Gangiredla J et al.Genomic evidence reveals numerous Salmonella enterica serovar Newport reintroduction events in suwannee watershed irrigation ponds.Appl Environ Microbiol2015;81:8243–8253.
  14. 14. Jacobsen CS & Bech TB. Soil survival ofSalmonellaand transfer to freshwater and fresh produce.Food Res Int2012;45:557–566.
  15. 15. Barak JD & Liang AS. Role of soil, crop debris, and a plant pathogen in Salmonella enterica contamination of tomato plants.PLoS One2008;3:e1657.
  16. 16. Duffy EA, Lucia LM, Kells JM et al.Concentrations ofEscherichia coliand genetic diversity and antibiotic resistance profiling of salmonella isolated from irrigation water, packing shed equipment, and fresh produce in texas.J Food Protect2005;1:70–79.
  17. 17. Miles JM, Sumner SS, Boyer RR et al.Internalization ofSalmonella entericaserovar montevideo into greenhouse tomato plants through contaminated irrigation water or seed stock.J Food Protect2009;4:696–914.
  18. 18. Fonseca JM, Fallon SD, Sanchez CA et al.Escherichia colisurvival in lettuce fields following its introduction through different irrigation systems.J Appl Microbiol2011;110:893–902.
  19. 19. Monaghan JM & Hutchison ML. Distribution and decline of human pathogenic bacteria in soil after application in irrigation water and the potential for soil‐splash‐mediated dispersal onto fresh produce.J Appl Microbiol2012;112:1007–1019.
  20. 20. Semenov AM, Kuprianov AA & van Bruggen AH. Transfer of enteric pathogens to successive habitats as part of microbial cycles.Microb Ecol2010;60:239–249.
  21. 21. Islam M, Morgan J, Doyle MP et al.Persistence of salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium on lettuce and parsley and in soils on which they were grown in fields treated with contaminated manure composts or irrigation water.Foodborne Pathog Dis2004;1:27–35.
  22. 22. You Y, Rankin SC, Aceto HW et al.Survival ofSalmonella entericaserovar Newport in manure and manure‐amended soils.Appl Environ Microbiol2006;72:5777–5783.
  23. 23. Acea MJ, Moore CR & Alexander M. Survival and growth of bacteria introduced into soil.Soil Biol Biochem1988;20:509–515.
  24. 24. Mallon CA, Elsas JD & Salles JF. Microbial invasions: the process, patterns, and mechanisms.Trends Microbiol2015;23:719–729.
  25. 25. Mallon CA, Poly F, Le Roux X et al.Resource pulses can alleviate the biodiversity–invasion relationship in soil microbial communities.Ecol Soc Am2015;96:915–926.
  26. 26. Fierer N & Jackson RB. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2006;103:626–631.
  27. 27. Martiny JB, Bohannan BJM, Brown JH et al.Microbial biogeography: Putting microorganisms on the map.Nat Rev Microbiol2006;4:102–112.
  28. 28. Horner‐Devine MC, Lage M, Hughes JB et al.A taxa–area relationship for bacteria.Nature2004;432:750–753.
  29. 29. Suslow TV, Oria MP, Beuchat LR et al.Production practices as risk factors in microbial food safety of fresh and fresh‐cut produce.Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf2003;2:38–77.
  30. 30. Hanning IB, Nutt JD & Ricke SC. Salmonellosis outbreaks in the united states due to fresh produce: Sources and potential intervention measures.Foodborne Pathog Dis2009;6:635–648.
  31. 31. Gu G, Cevallos‐Cevallos JM & van Bruggen AH. Ingress ofSalmonella entericaTyphimurium into tomato leaves through hydathodes.PLoS One2013;8:e53470.
  32. 32. Guo X, Chen J, Brackett RE et al.Survival of salmonellae on and in tomato plants from the time of inoculation at flowering and early stages of fruit development through fruit ripening.Appl Environ Microbiol2001;67:4760–4764.
  33. 33. WBG. The economic impact of ebola on sub‐Saharan Africa: Updated estimates for 2015. 2015;1–17.
  34. 34. Butler D. The next time the world is ill‐prepared for the next epidemic or pandemic. But the horror of the ebola outbreak in West Africa may drive change.Nature2015;524:22–25.
  35. 35. Santamaría J & Toranzos GA. Enteric pathogens and soil: a short review.Int Microbiol2003;6:5–9.
  36. 36. Arrus KM, Holley RA, Ominski KH et al.Influence of temperature onSalmonellasurvival in hog manure slurry and seasonal temperature profiles in farm manure storage reservoirs.Livest Sci2006;102:226–236.
  37. 37. García R, Baelum J, Fredslund L et al.Influence of temperature and predation on survival ofSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium and expression ofinvAin soil and manure‐amended soil.Appl Environ Microbiol2010;76:5025–5031.
  38. 38. Semenov AV, van Bruggen AH, van Overbeek L et al.Influence of temperature fluctuations onEscherichia coliO157:H7 andSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium in cow manure.FEMS Microbiol Ecol2007;60:419–428.
  39. 39. Bernstein N, Sela S & Neder‐Lavon S. Effect of irrigation regimes on persistence ofSalmonella entericaserovar Newport in small experimental pots designed for plant cultivation.Irrigation Sci2007;26:1–8.
  40. 40. Or D, Smets BF, Wraith JM et al.Physical constraints affecting bacterial habitats and activity in unsaturated porous media—a review.Adv Water Resour2007;30:1505–1527.
  41. 41. Holley RA, Arrus KM, Ominski KH et al.Salmonellasurvival in manure‐treated soils during simulated seasonal temperature exposure.J Environ Qual2006;35:1170–1180.
  42. 42. Bech TB, Johnsen K, Dalsgaard A et al.Transport and distribution ofSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium in loamy and sandy soil monoliths with applied liquid manure.Appl Environ Microbiol2010;76:710–714.
  43. 43. Horswell J, Hewitt J, Prosser J et al.Mobility and survival ofSalmonella Typhimuriumand human adenovirus from spiked sewage sludge applied to soil columns.J Appl Microbiol2010;108:104–114.
  44. 44. Semenov AV, van Overbeek L & van Bruggen AH. Percolation and survival ofEscherichia coliO157:H7 andSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium in soil amended with contaminated dairy manure or slurry.Appl Environ Microbiol2009;75:3206–3215.
  45. 45. Hutchison ML, Walters LD, Moore T et al.Fate of pathogens present in livestock wastes spread onto fescue plots.Appl Environ Microbiol2005;71:691–696.
  46. 46. Nicholson FA, Groves SJ & Chambers BJ. Pathogen survival during livestock manure storage and following land application.Bioresour Technol2005;96:135–143.
  47. 47. Hruby CE, Soupir ML, Moorman TB et al.Effects of tillage and poultry manure application rates onSalmonellaand fecal indicator bacteria concentrations in tiles draining Des Moines Lobe soils.J Environ Manage2016;171:60–69.
  48. 48. Semenov AV, van Overbeek L, Termorshuizen AJ et al.Influence of aerobic and anaerobic conditions on survival ofEscherichia coliO157:H7 andSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium in Luria‐Bertani broth, farm‐yard manure and slurry.J Environ Manage2011;92:780–787.
  49. 49. Bennett DD, Higgins SE, Moore RW et al.Effects of lime onSalmonella enteritidissurvival in vitro.J Appl Poult Res2003;12:65–68.
  50. 50. Ding GC, Radl V, Schloter‐Hai B et al.Dynamics of soil bacterial communities in response to repeated application of manure containing sulfadiazine.Plos One2014;9(3):e92958.
  51. 51. Franz E, van Diepeningen AD, de Vos OJ et al.Effects of cattle feeding regimen and soil management type on the fate ofEscherichia coliO157:H7 andSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium in manure, manure‐amended soil, and lettuce.Appl Environ Microbiol2005;71:6165–6174.
  52. 52. Moynihan EL, Richards KG, Brennan FP et al.Enteropathogen survival in soil from different land‐uses is predominantly regulated by microbial community composition.Appl Soil Ecol2015;89:76–84.
  53. 53. Goberna M, Podmirseg SM, Waldhuber S et al.Pathogenic bacteria and mineral N in soils following the land spreading of biogas digestates and fresh manure.Appl Soil Ecol2011;49:18–25.
  54. 54. Ge C, Lee C, Nangle E et al.Impact o f phytopathogen infection and extreme weather stress on internalization ofSalmonellaTyphimurium in lettuce.Int J Food Microbiol2014;168169:24–31.
  55. 55. Caldwell KN, Anderson GL, Williams PL et al.Attraction of a free‐living nematode,Caenorhabditis elegans, to foodborne pathogenic bacteria and its potential as a vector ofSalmonellaPoona for preharvest contamination of cantaloupe.J Food Protect2003;66:1964–1971.
  56. 56. Brandl MT, Rosenthal BM, Haxo AF et al.Enhanced survival ofSalmonella entericain vesicles released by a soilborneTetrahymenaspecies.Appl Environ Microbiol2005;71:1562–1569.
  57. 57. Cooley MB, Miller WG & Mandrell RE. Colonization ofArabidopsis thalianawithSalmonella entericaand enterohemorrhagicEscherichia coliO157:H7 and competition byEnterobacter asburiae.Appl Environ Microbiol2003;69:4915–4926.
  58. 58. Kroupitski Y, Golberg D, Belausov E et al.Internalization ofSalmonella entericain leaves is induced by light and involves chemotaxis and penetration through open stomata.Appl Environ Microbiol2009;75:6076–6086.
  59. 59. Schikora M, Neupane B, Madhogaria S et al.An image classification approach to analyze the suppression of plant immunity by the human pathogenSalmonellaTyphimurium.BMC Bioinformatics2012;13.
  60. 60. Gibson DL, White AP, Snyder SD et al.Salmonellaproduces an O‐antigen capsule regulated by AgfD and important for environmental persistence.J Bacteriol2006;188:7722–7730.
  61. 61. Vestby LK, Moretro T, Langsrud S et al.Biofilm forming abilities ofSalmonellaare correlated with persistence in fish meal and feed factories.BMC Vet Res2009;5.
  62. 62. Lapidot A, Romling U & Yaron S. Biofilm formation and the survival ofSalmonellaTyphimurium on parsley.Int J Food Microbiol2006;109:229–233.
  63. 63. Wiedemann A, Virlogeux‐Payant I, Chausse AM et al.Interactions ofSalmonellawith animals and plants.Front Microbiol2014;5:791.
  64. 64. Tan MSF, White AP, Rahman S et al.Role of fimbriae, flagella and cellulose on the attachment ofSalmonellaTyphimuriumATCC 14028 to plant cell wall models.PLos One2016;11:13.
  65. 65. Yaron S & Romling U. Biofilm formation by enteric pathogens and its role in plant colonization and persistence.Microb Biotechnol2014;7:496–516.
  66. 66. Ongeng D, Geeraerd AH, Springael D et al.Fate ofEscherichia coliO157:H7 andSalmonella entericain the manure‐amended soil‐plant ecosystem of fresh vegetable crops: a review.Crit Rev Microbiol2015;41:273–294.
  67. 67. Berger CN, Shaw RK, Brown DJ et al.Interaction ofSalmonella entericawith basil and other salad leaves.ISME J2009;3:261–265.
  68. 68. Kroupitski Y, Pinto R, Belausov E et al.Distribution ofSalmonellaTyphimurium in romaine lettuce leaves.Food Microbiol2011;28:990–997.
  69. 69. Klerks MM, Franz E, van Gent‐Pelzer M et al.Differential interaction ofSalmonella entericaserovars with lettuce cultivars and plant‐microbe factors influencing the colonization efficiency.ISME J2007;1:620–631.
  70. 70. Barak JD, Gorski L, Naraghi‐Arani P et al.Salmonella entericavirulence genes are required for bacterial attachment to plant tissue.Appl Environ Microbiol2005;71:5685–5691.
  71. 71. Klerks MM, van Gent‐Pelzer M, Franz E et al.Physiological and molecular responses ofLactuca sativato colonization bySalmonella entericaserovar Dublin.Appl Environ Microbiol2007;73:4905–4914.
  72. 72. Steenackers H, Hermans K, Vanderleyden J et al.Salmonellabiofilms: An overview on occurrence, structure, regulation and eradication.Food Res Int2012;45:502–531.
  73. 73. Gerstel U & Romling U. ThecsgDpromoter, a control unit for biofilm formation inSalmonellaTyphimurium.Res Microbiol2003;154:659–667.
  74. 74. Cevallos‐Cevallos JM, Gu G, Danyluk MD et al.Adhesion and splash dispersal ofSalmonella entericaTyphimurium on tomato leaflets: effects of rdar morphotype and trichome density.Int J Food Microbiol2012;160:58–64.
  75. 75. Cevallos‐Cevallos JM, Gu G, Danyluk MD et al.Salmonellacan reach tomato fruits on plants exposed to aerosols formed by rain.Int J Food Microbiol2012;158:140–146.
  76. 76. Barak JD, Gorski L, Liang AS et al.Previously uncharacterizedSalmonella entericagenes required for swarming play a role in seedling colonization.Microbiology2009;155:3701–3709.
  77. 77. Lapidot A & Yaron S. Transfer ofSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium from contaminated irrigation water to parsley is dependent on curli and cellulose, the biofilm matrix components.J Food Prot2009;72:618–623.
  78. 78. Holmes A, Birse L, Jackson RW et al.An optimized method for the extraction of bacterial mRNA from plant roots infected withEscherichia coliO157:H7.Front Microbiol2014;5:286.
  79. 79. Golberg D, Kroupitski Y, Belausov E et al.Salmonella Typhimuriuminternalization is variable in leafy vegetables and fresh herbs.Int J Food Microbiol2011;145:250–257.
  80. 80. Barak JD, Kramer LC & Hao LY. Colonization of tomato plants bySalmonella entericais cultivar dependent, and type 1 trichomes are preferred colonization sites.Appl Environ Microbiol2011;77:498–504.
  81. 81. Gu G, Hu J, Cevallos‐Cevallos JM et al.Internal colonization ofSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium in tomato plants.PLoS One2011;6:e27340.
  82. 82. Berg G, Erlacher A, Smalla K et al.Vegetable microbiomes: Is there a connection among opportunistic infections, human health and our ‘gut feeling’?Microb Biotechnol2014;7:487–495.
  83. 83. Erlacher A, Cardinale M, Grosch R et al.The impact of the pathogenRhizoctonia solaniand its beneficial counterpartBacillus amyloliquefacienson the indigenous lettuce microbiome.Front Microbiol2014;5:175.
  84. 84. Schikora A, Carreri A, Charpentier E et al.The dark side of the salad:SalmonellaTyphimuriumovercomes the innate immune response of Arabidopsis thaliana and shows an endopathogenic lifestyle.PLoS One2008;3:e2279.
  85. 85. Shirron N & Yaron S. Active suppression of early immune response in tobacco by the human pathogenSalmonella Typhimurium.PLoS One2011;6:e18855.
  86. 86. Garcia AV, Charrier A, Schikora A et al.Salmonella entericaflagellin is recognized via FLS2 and activates PAMP‐triggered immunity inArabidopsis thaliana.Molecular Plant2014;7:657–674.
  87. 87. Gorbatsevich E, Sela Saldinger S, Pinto R et al.Root internalization, transport and in‐planta survival ofSalmonella entericaserovar Newport in sweet basil.Environ Microbiol Rep2013;5:151–159.
  88. 88. Erickson MC, Webb CC, Diaz‐Perez JC et al.Infrequent internalization ofEscherichia coliO157:H7 into field‐grown leafy greens.J Food Prot2010;73:500–506.
  89. 89. Bernstein N, Sela S & Neder‐Lavon S. Assessment of contamination potential of lettuce bySalmonella entericaserovar Newport added to the plant growing medium.J Food Prot2007;70:1717–1722.
  90. 90. Franz E, Visser AA, Van Diepeningen AD et al.Quantification of contamination of lettuce by GFP‐expressingEscherichia coliO157:H7 andSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium.Food Microbiol2007;24:106–112.
  91. 91. Niemann GS, Brown RN, Gustin JK et al.Discovery of novel secreted virulence factors fromSalmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium by proteomic analysis of culture supernatants.Infect Immun2011;79:33–43.
  92. 92. Hernandez‐Reyes C & Schikora A.Salmonella, a cross‐kingdom pathogen infecting humans and plants.FEMS Microbiol Lett2013; 343(1):1–7.
  93. 93. Schikora A, Virlogeux‐Payant I, Bueso E et al.Conservation ofSalmonellainfection mechanisms in plants and animals.PLoS One2011;6:e24112.
  94. 94. Ustun S, Muller P, Palmisano R et al.SseF, a type III effector protein from the mammalian pathogenSalmonella enterica, requires resistance‐gene‐mediated signalling to activate cell death in the model plantNicotiana benthamiana.New Phytol2012;194:1046–1060.
  95. 95. Neumann C, Fraiture M, Hernandez‐Reyes C et al.TheSalmonellaeffector protein SpvC, a phosphothreonine lyase is functional in plant cells.Front Microbiol2014;5:548.
  96. 96. Deiwick J, Salcedo SP, Boucrot E et al.The translocated Salmonella effector proteins SseF and SseG interact and are required to establish an intracellular replication niche.Infect Immun2006;74:6965–6972.
  97. 97. Pitzschke A, Schikora A & Hirt H. MAPK cascade signalling networks in plant defence.Curr Opin Plant Biol2009;12:421–426.
  98. 98. Melotto M, Panchal S & Roy D. Plant innate immunity against human bacterial pathogens.Front Microbiol2014;5:411.
  99. 99. Deng X, Li Z & Zhang W. Transcriptome sequencing ofSalmonella entericaserovar Enteritidis under desiccation and starvation stress in peanut oil.Food Microbiol2012;30:311–315.
  100. 100. Goudeau DM, Parker CT, Zhou Y et al.TheSalmonellatranscriptome in lettuce and cilantro soft rot reveals a niche overlap with the animal host intestine.Appl Environ Microbiol2013;79:250–262.
  101. 101. Kyle JL, Parker CT, Goudeau D et al.Transcriptome analysis ofEscherichia coliO157:H7 exposed to lysates of lettuce leaves.Appl Environ Microbiol2010;76:1375–1387.
  102. 102. Crozier L, Hedley PE, Morris J et al.Whole‐transcriptome analysis of verocytotoxigenicEscherichia coliO157:H7 (Sakai) suggests plant‐species‐specific metabolic responses on exposure to spinach and lettuce extracts.Front Microbiol2016;7:1088.
  103. 103. Micallef SA, Rosenberg Goldstein RE, George A et al.Occurrence and antibiotic resistance of multiple Salmonella serotypes recovered from water, sediment and soil on mid‐Atlantic tomato farms.Environ Res2012;114:31–39.
  104. 104. Hein I, Flekna G, Krassnig M et al.Real‐time PCR for the detection ofSalmonellaspp. in food: An alternative approach to a conventional PCR system suggested by the FOOD‐PCR project.J Microbiol Methods2006;66:538–547.
  105. 105. Park SH, Aydin M, Khatiwara A et al.Current and emerging technologies for rapid detection and characterization ofSalmonellain poultry and poultry products.Food Microbiol2014;38:250–262.
  106. 106. Mandal PK, Biswas AK, Choi K et al.Methods for rapid detection of foodborne pathogens: an overview.Am J Food Technol2011;6:87–102.
  107. 107. Law JWF, Ab Mutalib NS, Chan KG et al.Rapid methods for the detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens: principles, applications, advantages and limitations.Front Microbiol2015;5:19.
  108. 108. Zhao X, Lin CW, Wang J et al.Advances in rapid detection methods for foodborne pathogens.J Microbiol Biotechnol2014;24:297–312.
  109. 109. Vojkovska H, Kubikova I & Kralik P. Evaluation of DNA extraction methods for PCR‐based detection ofListeria monocytogenesfrom vegetables.Lett Appl Microbiol2015;60:265–272.
  110. 110. Blaser MJ & Newman LS. A review of human salmonellosis: I. Infective dose.Rev Infect Dis1982;4:1096–1106.
  111. 111. Nastasi A, Mammina C & Mioni R. Detection ofSalmonellaspp. in food by a rapid PCR‐hybridization procedure.Microbiologica1999;22:195–202.
  112. 112. MDH. Update: Tomatoes identified as source of Salmonella outbreak in restaurant chain. 2015.
  113. 113. CDC.Salmonellaoutbreaks. Available athttp://www.cdc.gov/Salmonella/outbreaks.html. Accessed July 2016:177–188.
  114. 114. CDHD. Health department investigating recent salmonella cases. 2015.
  115. 115. ISDH. Chamberlain farm produce, inc. 2012.
  116. 116. RKI. Salmonella Newport‐Ausbruch in Deutschland und den Niederlanden, 2011.Epidemiologisches Bulletin2012;20:177–188.
  117. 117. TJP. Available athttp://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/02/24/news/salads‐caused‐hokkaido‐food‐scare. Accessed July 2016. 2011.
  118. 118. FDH. Fei number 1000515256. 2011.
  119. 119. IDPH. Summary ofS. ser. Hvittingfoss outbreak April‐June 2010. 2010.

Written By

Eva Fornefeld, Jasper Schierstaedt, Sven Jechalke, Rita Grosch, Kornelia Smalla and Adam Schikora

Submitted: May 17th, 2016 Reviewed: November 25th, 2016 Published: April 5th, 2017