Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Campylobacter: Virulence Factors and Pathogenesis

Written By

Matthew Terzungwe Tion, Kenneth Ikejiofor Ogbu and Felix Kundu Shima

Reviewed: 16 June 2023 Published: 28 February 2024

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.112215

From the Edited Volume

Recent Advances in Bacterial Biofilm Studies - Formation, Regulation, and Eradication in Human Infections

Edited by Liang Wang, Bing Gu, Li Zhang and Zuobin Zhu

Chapter metrics overview

141 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The species from the genus Campylobacter are the common causes of foodborne bacterial pathogens found worldwide. The diseases that arise from the infection of this bacterial agent are sometimes self-limiting or can range from mild symptoms to fatal illnesses. The disease is reported in more than 500 million cases of diarrhea annually. The taxonomy, pathogenesis and treatment of Campylobacter is been discussed here. Several virulence factors of Campylobacter are involved in playing a crucial role in pathogenesis, e.g., the chemotactically controlled cellular motility, the bacterial adhesion, the invasion into the host cell, and toxin formation. When a specific diagnosis is made, antibiotic therapy is advocated for use to reduce symptoms. The random use of antibiotics in the treatment of infectious diseases has brought about the emergence of many antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which have become a public health problem and a menace to society.

Keywords

  • adhesion
  • bacteria
  • Campylobacter
  • gastroenteritis
  • virulence factors

1. Introduction

Campylobacter was first described in 1913 [1] but was initially classified in the genus Vibrio. With its similarities to the Helicobacter genus, it was finally grouped into the genus Campylobacter (family Campylobacteraceae, order Campylobacterales, class Epsilonproteobacteria, phylum Proteobacteria), which consisted of 33 species and subspecies, showing a broad ecological distribution [2].

Campylobacter is one of the most common causes of bacterial gastroenteritis worldwide [3]. Currently, there are several species within the genus Campylobacter divided into 43 child taxa with a validly published species (http://www.bacterio.net/campylobacter.html) [4] as shown in Table 1. The most common sources of transmission of its infection are contaminated water, raw or contaminated milk, and food especially undercooked meat or meat products [5].

S/NoCampylobacter specie
1Campylobacter sputorum
2Campylobacter jejuni
3Campylobacter fetus
4Campylobacter coli
5Campylobacter concisus
6Campylobacter laridis
7Campylobacter mucosalis
8Campylobacter hyointestinalis
9Campylobacter curvus
10Campylobacter upsaliensis
11Campylobacter rectus
12Campylobacter helveticus
13Campylobacter showae
14Campylobacter gracilis
15Campylobacter lanienae
16Campylobacter hominis
17Campylobacter insulaenigrae
18Campylobacter canadensis
19Campylobacter peloridis
20Campylobacter cuniculorum
21Campylobacter avium
22Campylobacter ureolyticus
23Campylobacter subantarcticus
24Campylobacter volucris
25Campylobacter corcagiensis
26Campylobacter iguaniorum
27Campylobacter hepaticus
28Campylobacter geochelonis
29Campylobacter pinnipediorum
30Campylobacter ornithocola
31Campylobacter blaseri
32Campylobacter armoricus
33Campylobacter novaezeelandiae
34Campylobacter vulpis
35Campylobacter taeniopygiae
36Campylobacter portucalensis
37Campylobacter massiliensis
38Campylobacter estrildidarum
39Campylobacter aviculae
40Campylobacter bilis
41Campylobacter anatolicus
42Campylobacter suis
42Campylobacter majalis

Table 1.

Currently described Campylobacter species.

The taxonomic classification of Campylobacter species has been long characterized by the phenotype of bacterial isolates, where molecular characterization played a minute role in the description of bacteria [6]. There is a drastic change involving all the branches of taxonomy with the advent of DNA sequencing technologies, the standards for the description of Campylobacter species have been updated to a biphasic approach with genotype and phenotype descriptions both being important [7].

DNA-based classifications also have no universal standard and different methodologies (eg. multi-locus sequence typing vs. whole genome sequencing) that allow different resolving capacities to distinguish between strain variants as well as dealing with complex evolutionary phenomena such as recombination in different ways. Nonetheless, taxonomic updates based on DNA sequences are essential and have led to the inclusion of species previously not classified as Campylobacter [8] and the exclusion and reclassification of others [9].

The members of the Campylobacter genus share so many common features. Morphologically, Campylobacter is a slightly curved or spiral, rod-shaped bacteria with single, bipolar, or entire absence flagellum depending on the specie, motile and non-spore-forming, obligate microaerophilic (requires minimum 5% O2 level, Nitrogen 85%, 10% CO2) heat labile, thermophilic, Gram-negative bacteria and exhibits optimum growth at 42 ̊ C [10, 11, 12, 13]. An atmosphere containing increased hydrogen is required by some species for microaerobic growth [10]. Campylobacter species measure approximately 0.2 to 0.8 by 0.5 to 5 m in size and are chemoorganotrophs which acquire their energy sources from amino acids or tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates [14].

This bacterium takes residence in different places, commonly the gastrointestinal tracts of many animal species where it serves as commensal or pathogenic [15]. Most infections in humans are attributed to Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli, additional species are isolated from humans too [13]. C. jejuni is the major causative agent of human foodborne gastroenteritis globally resulting in more than 500 million cases of diarrhea annually [16, 17]. In severe cases of infection incriminated by C. jejuni, there is a development of post-infection complications such as Guillain Barré Syndrome [18].

The genome size of C. jejuni and C. coli is approximately 1600 ± 1700 kilobases (kb). This is comparatively small in relation to the enteropathogens such as Escherichia coli with a genome size of approximately 4500 kb [19, 20]. Since the genome of C. jejuni was sequenced, it revealed the presence of hypervariable sequences that consist of homopolymeric tracts [21].

Among the species of Campylobacter, C. jejuni show a high level of variability within many sequences, helping it to adapt to different harsh environments [22]. Within these hypervariable genes, several phenotypic variations and vast diversity within Campylobacter populations occur, especially after transmission from animals or humans. This is shown in different experiments performed in vivo and in vitro, resulting in several genetic changes and mutations that contribute to a high genetic diversity [23, 24]. When samples collected from animals and humans are sequenced and typed, only a few genotypes are similar bringing about strain-dependent pathogenicity and specific colonization ability [25, 26].

Advertisement

2. Pathogenesis

Campylobacter is very infectious as low infective doses of 500 to 800 CFU can cause a problem in humans [27, 28]. Thermotolerant campylobacters, such as C. Jejuni and C. coli, are the most frequent cause of bacterial infection of the lower intestine worldwide [29]. The mechanism of pathogenesis of C. jejuni comprises of four main stages: adhesion to intestinal cells, colonization of the digestive tract, invasion of targeted cells, and toxin production [30].

Several virulence factors of Campylobacter are involved in playing a crucial role in pathogenesis, e.g., the chemotactically controlled cellular motility, the bacterial adhesion, the invasion into the host cell, and toxin formation. In addition to the roles of virulence factors in host colonization, additional factors are involved in successful colonization, such as various genes, antigens, mechanisms of iron utilization, and the response to oxidative and environmental stress. The poor knowledge in understanding, which bacterial and cellular factors are, involved in pathogenicity is not only due to the genetic inter- and intrastrain variability but also to differences between the laboratory strains and the different host cell lines and protocols used in the different laboratories [31]. However, even if the exact mechanism of infection in humans is not yet known, three basic steps can be identified [32].

First, the colonization of the intestinum, especially the crypts of the gut mucosa, a specific adhesion occurs to proteins of the host epithelium, followed by the invasion of the intestinal cells and the translocation of the bacterium, either trans- or paracellularly. At this point, Campylobacter multiplies in the intestinal mucosa releasing toxins that necrotize the intestinal villi. The damage to the intestinal epithelium results in a loss of function, opening of the shielding barrier and the tight junctions, induction of inflammation, release of electrolytes from the systemic compartment of the host to the lumen of the gut, and finally to strong and bloody diarrhea. Furthermore, the adhesion of the bacteria to the epithelial cells is accompanied by a strong pro-inflammatory immune response [33].

2.1 The mechanism of pathogenesis

Humans get infected primarily by contact with live animals or through consumption of contaminated foodstuffs, contact with live poultry, consumption of poultry meat [34, 35], Pork meat [36], beef [37], drinking water from untreated water sources, and raw milk [38].

For adequate attachment to a host, microorganisms require adherence factors which are usually surface appendages such as the pili that are located on the surface of many Gram-negative and Gram-positive species. Genome annotations of several C. jejuni strains do not include obvious pilus or pilus-like open reading frames [21, 38]. A multi-protein type II-like secretion system of a type that is associated with pilus assembly in Vibrio cholerae and Neisseria gonorrhoeae was identified as part of the competence machinery, but an actual pilus-like structure has not been identified [39].

Campylobacter colonization of the host mechanism involves primary intestinal cells – Islets of cobblestone cells. The intestinal mucus attenuates C. jejuniinvasion in-vitro in chicken. A specific avian intestinal factor rather than tissue tropism underlies Campylobacter commensalism in Chickens [40]. Upon infection, Campylobacter elicits the secretion of Interlukin-8, IL-8 and Cytokine. The bacteria adhere preferentially to mucus overlying the intestinal tissue. There is also an interaction of C. jejuni with tissue or mucus via the flagella [41]. Several factors have been identified as influencing the binding of Campylobacter to epithelial cells of the host in-vitro [30].

Other proteins involved in campylobacter virulence and adhesions to the host call are the CadF (Campylobacter adhesin to fibronectin) and Peb1 proteins. Inactivation of the CadF gene seemed to render C. jejuni capable of colonizing the cecum of chicks. Also, CadF protein is required for optimal bacterial adhesion to the extracellular matrix and the colonization of newly hatched Leghorn chicken [42].

CadF binds specifically to fibronectin, which is located basolaterally on epithelial cells in situ [43, 44]. CadF is required for maximal binding and invasion by C. jejuni in vitro, and cadF mutants are greatly reduced in chick colonization compared with the wild type [44].

Another characterized adhesion is the JlpA, a surface exposed lipoprotein that is highly required for HEp-2 cell binding [45]. JlpA binds to Hsp90α, some of which is surface localized in these cells [46]. The process of JlpA binding to Hsp90α activates NF-κB and p38 mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, both of them contribute to proinflammatory responses [46]. This is an indication that some of the inflammatory processes that are observed during the pathogenesis of C. jejuni might be related to JlpA-dependent adherence. Another lipoprotein, CapA, was implicated as a possible adhesion. CapA is an autotransporter that is homologous to an autotransporter adhesin, and CapA-deficient mutants have decreased adherence to Caco-2 cells and decreased colonization and persistence in a chick model [47].

Some putative adhesins of C. jejuni are located in the periplasm such as the Peb1 adhesin, also known as CBF1 required for adherence to HeLa cells [48, 49]. Peb1 shares homology with the periplasmic-binding proteins of amino acid ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters [50, 51]. Peb1 binds to both aspartate and glutamate with high affinity, and peb1-deficient mutants cannot grow if these amino acids are the major carbon source [51]. Although Peb1 has not been localized to the inner or outer membrane, some has been observed in culture supernatants [51]. Furthermore, Peb1 contains a predicted signal peptidase II recognition site, a common motif in surface-localized lipoproteins, and so there is a possibility that some Peb1 is surface accessible, despite the failure of fractionation techniques to demonstrate this [50, 51]. Mutants that lack peb1 colonize mice poorly, but this could be attributed to the loss of either the adhesion or the amino-acid-transport functions, or both [49, 51].

The cytotoxic activity in C. jejuni is associated with a cytolethal-distending toxin (CDT) [52]. CDT induces DNA double-strand breaks leading to cell cycle arrest in the G2 phase and provokes cell distension and eventually cell death [52, 53, 54]. CDT also seems to play a role in the invasion and/or survival of C. Jejuni in HeLa cells [55].

The growth temperature of the bacteria significantly affects the ability of C. jejuni to bind to epithelial cell lines in-vitro. Its maximum adhesion to INT-407 is 37°C [56]. Generally, the binding of C. jejuni to cultured cells is not affected by temperature or the Phylogenetic origin of the target cell. The number of bacteria in the inoculum or multiplicity of infection regulates the ability of Campylobacter to invade [57].

The Cytotoxic effect is characterized by remarkable cell distension that is obvious 48 to 72 h after the addition of bacteria-free supernatant and results in cell death. This cell distension is evident in the appearance of HeLa cells, which are star-shaped [53].

Adhesion, invasion, and cytotoxic assay indicate that the ability to invade and induce IL-8 production, to produce CDT, and to resist bile salt is widespread among C. jejuni isolates [58], nevertheless, a higher degree of bile salt resistance and more. Pronounced CDT productions are associated with strains causing enteritis in humans. Furthermore, the CheY appears to be a modulator of C. jejuni virulence.

Molecular studies revealed a high rate of variation of homopolymeric runs – lipooligosaccharides, capsules, or flagellin that are responsible for virulence, are also important for the survival strategy of C. jejuni [21]. The flagellar apparatus is more important for the invasion and translocation of C. jejuni in contact with the host cell and for Chicken gut colonization. The Lipooligosaccharide (LOS) of C. jejuni is highly variable but their structures resemble human neuronal gangliosides. It is thought that this phenomenon results in autoimmune disorders, including Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), a paralytic neuropathy that occurs following approximately 1 in every 1000 cases of campylobacterosis, and Miller–Fisher syndrome, a variant of GBS. Much research works have been done to advance the understanding of the mechanism by which C. Jejuni infections result in the conditions above [59, 60, 61, 62].

The presence of variation in the capsule structure observed has been linked to multiple mechanisms that include phase variation of structural genes and an O-methyl phosphoramidate modification [63, 64, 65, 66]. Many strains of C. jejuni are thought to produce both LOS and a high molecular weight lipopolysaccharide (HMW LPS) that is a highly variable capsular polysaccharide. The structural capsules of several C. jejuni strains have been determined including strain 11,168 and strain RM1221 showing their similarities and differences in structure. The former presented with 6-methyl-d-glycero-α-l-glucoheptose, β-d-glucouronic acid modified with 2-amino-2-deoxyglycerol, β-d-GalfNAc and β-d-ribose [64], and contains a novel modification on the GalfNAc [65], the latter having 6-deoxy-d-manno-heptose and d-xylose [67], which are two sugars that are not often detected in bacterial polysaccharides while some strains possess teichoic acid-like or hyaluronic acid-like capsules [68, 69]. The C. jejuni capsule is responsible for serum resistance, the adherence and invasion of epithelial cells, chick colonization and virulence in a ferret model [70, 71, 72].

Other important genes -CiaB (Campylobacter invasion antigen B) is involved in mutagenesis and is required for the secretion process and effective entry of the bacterium into the host cell [73, 74, 75]; while the Cjl121c is essential for host colonization and virulence [76].

Mutation experiments showed that many genes involved in Campylobacter virulence are conserved across species (e.g., CadF, Peb1, jlpA, cdt operon, CiaB, and flagellin genes). Among the same strains of the same origin, there are differences in virulence characteristics [77].

Campylobacteriosis in humans presents symptoms including diarrhea (often bloody), cramping, abdominal pain, nausea, and headaches [78] most commonly caused by the species C. jejuni and C. coli [79, 80]. It has also been tagged as an ‘emerging Campylobacter spp.’ [13], including Campylobacter concisus [81]. Campylobacter sputorum [82], Campylobacter upsaliensis [82], Campylobacter ureolyticus [83] and Campylobacter hyointestinalis [84]. C. jejuni, C. coli, Campylobacter lari, and C. upsaliensis form a genetically close group referred to as the thermotolerant campylobacters because they grow optimally at 42°C [85] and the remaining Campylobacter species are classified into other general groups [86]. The increasing availability of genetic and genomic data on the species’ characteristics and ecological associations due to the improved diagnostic technologies has transformed our perception of the clinical importance of “emerging Campylobacter spp.” [84].

Generally, Campylobacter causes a self-limiting clinical illness that lasts 5 to 7 days; the infection resolves without the use of antimicrobials in the majority of cases but 5–10% of patients relapse after their initial illness [87]. However, the infection can take a much more severe course, especially in infants, elderly people, and immunosuppressed patients (e.g., HIV), so intensified antibiotic treatment is necessary [88].

Advertisement

3. Treatment

The culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDT) detect the presence of specific antigens or DNA sequences and are recently more used for the detection of bacterial enteric infections such as Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella, Shigatoxin–producing E. coli, Vibrio, and Yersinia [89].

Various PCR methods are used for the specific identification of Campylobacter e.g. single locus sequencing of the flagellar flaA and flaB genes and Multilocus sequence typing. Campylobacter-specific genome sections can also be detected by multiplex PCR [90].

Standardized molecular typing methods such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis [91] and flagellin typing (fla typing) by restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of a PCR product [92] are in use worldwide.

The random use of antibiotics in the treatment of infectious diseases has brought about the emergence of many antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which have become a public health problem and a menace to society. In recent years, several studies have reported the problem of antibiotic resistance in the various strains of bacteria [93, 94].

In self-limiting infection, no treatment is required but uncomplicated enterocolitis is managed symptomatically with fluid therapy consisting of electrolytes and volume substitution [95, 96, 97].

In cases where a specific diagnosis is made and a severe progression to a fatal illness, immunosuppression, or lack of improvement of symptoms antibiotic therapy with macrolides (azithromycin), fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin), and tetracyclines is recommended. Resistance testing should be performed routinely for these cases. The use of cephalosporins should be highly avoided due to high resistance rates. Macrolides, fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides are classified as critically important antimicrobials, while tetracycline is considered a highly important antimicrobial [98]. Resistance to (fluoro)quinolones and tetracyclines is highly prevalent in Campylobacter spp. isolates, while resistance to erythromycin is typically low to moderate [99, 100, 101].

Macrolides are the first-line antibiotic for the treatment of enteric gastroenteritis, while fluoroquinolones and tetracyclines remain as alternatives [102, 103, 104]. Systemic infections are routinely treated with aminoglycosides [104, 105] with low resistance [100].

Fluoroquinolones act by primarily targeting the DNA gyrase [106]. DNA gyrase is a heterotetrameric type IIA topoisomerase, consisting of two polypeptide subunits (GyrA and GyrB, encoded by gyrA and gyrB, respectively), catalyzing ATP-dependent negative supercoiling of DNA to regulate replication, repair and gene expression [107, 108, 109]. Resistance to (fluoro)quinolones among Campylobacter spp. is largely mediated by chromosomal mutations in the quinolone resistance-determining region (QRDR) of gyrA, typically conferred by the C257T nucleotide mutation (Thr-86-Ile) [110].

The prevalence of Campylobacter gastroenteritis can be significantly reduced by risk-based vaccination, although, there is no commercial vaccine available at the moment, which is also due to the great antigenic diversity of the bacterium. A capsule polysaccharide-based vaccine has proven successful against diarrhea in primates [111]. In order to increase its immunogenicity in humans, it has been coupled to liposomes [112].

Advertisement

4. Conclusion

It is established that Infections caused by Campylobacter are one of the major food-borne causes of gastroenteritis, which can range from mild symptoms to fatal illness worldwide. With the advancement in molecular technology, the epidemiology of some Campylobacter infections remains a mystery.

Care must be taken in severe forms, especially in infants, elderly people, and immunosuppressed patients (e.g., HIV), and must be placed on antibiotic therapy bearing in mind that random use of antibiotics has brought about antibiotic-resistant strains of the bacteria. Further research work is needed to unveil more information.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. McFadyean J, Stockman S. Report of the Departmental Committee Appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to Inquire into Epizootic Abortion. Part III. HMSO London: Abortion in Sheep; 1913
  2. 2. Parte AC List of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature. 2018. https://www.bacterio.net/. [Accessed: August 18, 2020]
  3. 3. Kaakoush NO, Castano-Rodriguez N, Mitchell HM, Man SM. Global epidemiology of Campylobacter infection. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2015;28:687-720. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00006-15
  4. 4. Aydin F, Abay S, Kayman T, Karakaya E, Mustak HK, Mustak IB, et al. Campylobacter anatolicus sp. nov., a novel member of the genus Campylobacter isolated from feces of Anatolian ground squirrel (Spermophilus xanthoprymnus) in Turkey. Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 2021;44:126265
  5. 5. World Health Organization (WHO). Camplyobacter. 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/campylobacter
  6. 6. Ursing JB, Lior H, Owen RJ. Proposal of minimal standards for describing new species of the family Campylobacteraceae. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1994;44:842-845. DOI: 10.1099/00207713-44-4-842
  7. 7. On SLW, Miller WG, Houf K, Fox JG, Vandamme P. Minimal standards for describing new species belonging to the families Campylobacteraceae and Helicobacteraceae: Campylobacter, Arcobacter, helicobacter and Wolinella spp. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2017;67(12):5296-5311. DOI: 10.1099/ijsem.0.002255
  8. 8. Vandamme P, Debruyne L, De Brandt E, Falsen E. Reclassifcation of Bacteroides ureolyticus as Campylobacter ureolyticus comb. nov., and emended description of the genus Campylobacter. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2010;2010(60):2016-2022. DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.017152-0
  9. 9. Goodwin CS et al. Transfer of Campylobacter pylori and Campylobacter mustelae to helicobacter gen. Nov. as helicobacter pylori comb. nov. and helicobacter mustelae comb. nov., respectively. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 1989;1989(39):397-405. DOI: 10.1099/00207713-39-4-397
  10. 10. Vandamme P, Falsen E, Rossau R, Hoste B, Segers P, Tytgat R, et al. Revision of Campylobacter, helicobacter, and Wolinella taxonomy: Emendation of generic descriptions and proposal of Arcobacter gen. Nov. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1991b;41:88-103
  11. 11. Newell DG, Fearnley C. Sources of Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2003;69(8):4343-4351
  12. 12. Koenraad PM, Jacobs-Reitsma WF, van der Laan T, Beumer RR, Rombouts FM. Antibiotic susceptibility of Campylobacter isolates from sewage and poultry abattoir drain water. Epidemiology and Infection. 1995;115:475-483
  13. 13. Man SM. The clinical importance of emerging Campylobacter species. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2011;8(12):669-685
  14. 14. Vandamme P, Dewhirst FE, Paster BJ, On SLW, Campylobacteraceae. . In: Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT, editors. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Springer Science; 2005. pp. 1147-1160
  15. 15. Iraola G et al. Genomic evidence for the emergence and evolution of pathogenicity and niche preferences in the genus Campylobacter. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2014;4:2392-2405. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evu195
  16. 16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-CDC. National Center for emerging and zoonotic Infectius disease. Campylobacteriosis. 2020;1:720. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2020/travel-related-infectious-diseases/campylobacteriosis. [Accessed: January 21, 2021]
  17. 17. European Food Safety Authority-EFSA. The European Union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017/2018. EFSA J. Parma Italy. 2020;18(3):6007. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6007
  18. 18. Goodfellow J, Willison H. Guillain–Barré syndrome: A century of progress. Nature Reviews. Neurology. 2016;12:723-731. DOI: 10.1038/nrneurol.2016.172
  19. 19. Chang N, Taylor DE. Use of pulsed-field agarose gel electrophoresis to size genomes of Campylobacter species and to construct a SalI map of Campylobacter jejuni UA580. Journal of Bacteriology. 1990;172:5211-5217
  20. 20. Nuijten PJM, Bartels C, Bleumink-Pluym NMC, Gaastra W, van der Zeijst BAM. Size and physical map of the Campylobacter jejuni chromosome. Nucleic Acids Research. 1990a;18:6211-6214
  21. 21. Parkhill J, Wren BW, Mungall K, Ketley JM, Churcher C, Basham D, et al. The genome sequence of the food-borne pathogen Campylobacter jejuni reveals hypervariable sequences. Nature. 2000;403:665-668
  22. 22. Dasti JI, Tareen AM, Lugert R, Zautner AE, Gross U. Campylobacter jejuni: A brief overview on pathogenicityassociated factors and disease-mediating mechanisms. International Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2010;300:205-211
  23. 23. Abd El-Hamid MI, Abd El-Aziz NK, Samir M, El-Naenaeey E-SY, Abo Remela EM, Mosbah RA, et al. Genetic diversity of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from avian and human sources in Egypt. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10:1-14
  24. 24. Mohawk KL, Poly F, Sahl JW, Rasko DA, Guerry P. High frequency, spontaneous motA mutations in Campylobacter jejuni strain 81-176. PLoS One. 2014;9:1-8
  25. 25. deBoer P, Wagenaar JA, Achterberg R, van Putten J, Schouls L, Duim B. Generation of Campylobacter jejuni genetic diversity in vivo. Molecular Microbiology. 2002;44:351-359
  26. 26. Ridley AM, Toszeghy MJ, Cawthraw SA, Wassenaar TM. Newell DG genetic instability is associated with changes in the colonization potential of Campylobacter jejuni in the avian intestine. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2008;105:95-104
  27. 27. Janssen R, Krogfelt KA, Cawthraw SA, van Pelt W, Wagenaar JA, Owen RJ. Host-pathogen interactions in Campylobacter infections: The host perspective. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2008;21:505-518
  28. 28. Robinson DA. Infective dose of Campylobacter jejuni in milk. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.). 1981;282:1584
  29. 29. Miller WG, Mandrell RE. Prevalence of Campylobacter in the food and water supply: Incidence, outbreaks, isolation and detection. In: Konkel ME, Ketley JM, editors. Campylobacter, Molecular and Cellular Biology. Wymondham, UK: Horizon Bioscience; 2005. pp. 101-163
  30. 30. Haddad N, Marce C, Magras C, Cappelier J-M. An overview of methods used to clarify pathogenesis mechanisms of Campylobacter jejuni. Journal of Food Protection. 2010;73(4):786-802
  31. 31. Poli VFS, Thorsen L, Olesen I, Wik MT, Jespersen L. Differentiation of the virulence potential of Campylobacter jejuni strains by use of gene transcription analysis and a Caco-2 assay. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2012;155:60-68
  32. 32. Konkel ME, Monteville MR, Rivera-Amill V, Jones LA. The pathogenesis of-Campylobacter jejuni-mediated enteritis. Current Issuse in Interest Mocrobiology. 2001;2:55-71
  33. 33. Aguilar C, Jiménez-Marín Á, Martins RP, Garrido JJ. Interaction between Campylobacter and intestinal epithelial cells leads to a different proinflammatory response in human and porcine host. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology. 2014;162:14-23
  34. 34. Hanninen ML, Perko-Makela P, Pitkala A, Rautelin H. A three-year study of Campylobacter jejuni genotypes in humans with domestically acquired infections and in chicken samples from the Helsinki area. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2000;38:1998-2000
  35. 35. Pearson AD, Greenwood MH, Donaldson J, Healing TD, Jones DM, Shahamat M, et al. Continuous source outbreak of campylobacteriosis traced to chicken. Journal of Food Protection. 2000;63:309-314
  36. 36. Fosse J, Seegers H, Magras C. Foodborne zoonoses due to meat: A quantitative approach for a comparative risk assessment applied to pig slaughtering in Europe. Veterinary Research. 2008;39:1-16
  37. 37. Fosse J, Seegers H, Magras C. Hie’rarchiser les risques de zoonoses alimentaires: une approche quantitative. Application aux dangers bacte’riens transmis par les viandes porcine et bovine. Revue scientifique et technique Official International Epizootic. 2008;27:643-655
  38. 38. Engberg J, Gerner-Smidt P, Scheutz F, On SL, Moller Nielsen E, Molbak K. Water-borne Campylobacter jejuni infection in a Danish town—A 6-week continuous source outbreak. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 1998;4:648-656
  39. 39. Wiesner RS, Hendrixson DR, DiRita VJ. Natural transformation of Campylobacter jejuni requires components of a type II secretion system. Journal of Bacteriology. 2003;185:5408-5418
  40. 40. Byrne CM, Clyne M, Bourke B. Campylobacter jejuni adhere to and invade chicken intestinal epithelial cells in vitro. Microbiology. 2007;153:561-569
  41. 41. MacCallum AJ, Harris D, Haddock G, Everest PH. Campylobacter jejuni–infected human epithelial cell lines vary in their ability to secrete interleukin-8 compared to in vitro–infected primary human intestinal tissue. Microbiology. 2006;152:3661-3665
  42. 42. Ziprin RL, Young CR, Stanker LH, Hume ME, Konkel ME. The absence of cecal colonization of chicks by a mutant of Campylobacter jejuni not expressing bacterial fibronectinbinding protein. Avian Diseases. 1999;43:586-589
  43. 43. Monteville MR, Konkel ME. Fibronectinfacilitated invasion of T84 eukaryotic cells by Campylobacter jejuni occurs preferentially at the basolateral cell surface. Infection and Immunity. 2002;70:6665-6671
  44. 44. Monteville MR, Yoon JE, Konkel ME. Maximal adherence and invasion of INT 407 cells by Campylobacter jejuni requires the CadF outermembrane protein and microfilament reorganization. Microbiology. 2003;149:153-165
  45. 45. Jin S et al. JlpA, a novel surface-exposed lipoprotein specific to Campylobacter jejuni, mediates adherence to host epithelial cells. Molecular Microbiology. 2001;39:1225-1236
  46. 46. Jin S, Song YC, Emili A, Sherman PM, Chan VL. JlpA of Campylobacter jejuni interacts with surface-exposed heat shock protein 90α and triggers signalling pathways leading to the activation of NF-κB and p38 MAP kinase in epithelial cells. Cellular Microbiology. 2003;5:165-174
  47. 47. Ashgar SS et al. CapA, an autotransporter protein of Campylobacter jejuni, mediates association with human epithelial cells and colonization of the chicken gut. Journal of Bacteriology. 2007;189:1856-1865
  48. 48. Kervella M et al. Isolation and characterization of two Campylobacter glycine-extracted proteins that bind to HeLa cell membranes. Infection and Immunity. 1993;61:3440-3448
  49. 49. Pei Z et al. Mutation in the peb1A locus of Campylobacter jejuni reduces interactions with epithelial cells and intestinal colonization of mice. Infection and Immunity. 1998;66:938-943
  50. 50. Pei Z, Blaser MJ. PEB1, the major cell-binding factor of Campylobacter jejuni, is a homolog of the binding component in gram-negative nutrient transport systems. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1993;268:18717-18725
  51. 51. Leon-Kempis Mdel R, Guccione E, Mulholland F, Williamson MP, Kelly DJ. The Campylobacter jejuni PEB1a adhesin is an aspartate/glutamatebinding protein of an ABC transporter essential for microaerobic growth on dicarboxylic amino acids. Molecular Microbiology. 2006;60:1262-1275
  52. 52. Purdy D, Buswell CM, Hodgson AE, McAlpine K, Henderson I, Leach SA. Characterisation of cytolethal distending toxin (CDT) mutants of Campylobacter jejuni. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2000;49:473-479
  53. 53. Cortes-Bratti X, Frisan T, Thelestam M. The cytolethal distending toxins induce DNA damage and cell cycle arrest. Toxicon. 2001;39:1729-1736
  54. 54. Thelestam M, Frisan T. Cytolethal distending toxins. In: Aktories K, Just I, editors. Special Issue on Emerging Bacterial Toxins. Vol. 152. Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp. 111-133
  55. 55. Biswas D, Fernando U, Reiman C, Willson P, Potter A, Allan B. Effect of cytolethal distending toxin of Campylobacter jejuni on adhesion and internalization in cultured cells and in colonization of the chicken gut. Avian Diseases. 2006;50:586-593
  56. 56. Konkel ME, Corwin MD, Joens LA, Cieplak W. Factors that influence the interaction of Campylobacter jejuni with cultured mammalian cells. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 1992;37:30-37
  57. 57. Hu L, Kopecko DJ. Campylobacter jejuni 81-176 associates with microtubules and dynein during invasion of human intestinal cells. Infection and Immunity. 1999;67:4171-4182
  58. 58. Van Deun K, Haesebrouck F, Heyndrickx M, Favoreel H, Dewulf J, Ceelen L, et al. Virulence properties of Campylobacter jejuni isolates of poultry and human origin. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2007;56:1284-1289
  59. 59. Nachamkin I. Chronic effects of Campylobacter infection. Microbes and Infection. 2002;4:399-403
  60. 60. Hughes R. Campylobacter jejuni in Guillain–Barre syndrome. Lancet Neurology. 2004;3:644
  61. 61. Komagamine T, Yuki N. Ganglioside mimicry as a cause of Guillain–Barre syndrome. CNS & Neurological Disorders Drug Targets. 2006;5:391-400
  62. 62. Yu RK, Usuki S, Ariga T. Ganglioside molecular mimicry and its pathological roles in Guillain–Barre syndrome and related diseases. Infection and Immunity. 2006;74:6517-6527
  63. 63. Karlyshev AV, Linton D, Gregson NA, Lastovica AJ, Wren BW. Genetic and biochemical evidence of a Campylobacter jejuni capsular polysaccharide that accounts for Penner serotype specificity. Molecular Microbiology. 2000;35:529-541
  64. 64. St MF et al. The structures of the lipooligosaccharide and capsule polysaccharide of Campylobacter jejuni genome sequenced strain NCTC 11168. European Journal of Biochemistry. 2002;269:5119-5136
  65. 65. Szymanski CM et al. Detection of conserved N-linked glycans and phase-variable lipooligosaccharides and capsules from Campylobacter cells by mass spectrometry and high resolution magic angle spinning NMR spectroscopy. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2003;278:24509-24520
  66. 66. Karlyshev AV et al. Analysis of Campylobacter jejuni capsular loci reveals multiple mechanisms for the generation of structural diversity and the ability to form complex heptoses. Molecular Microbiology. 2005;55:90-103
  67. 67. Gilbert M, Mandrell RE, Parker CT, Li J, Vinogradov E. Structural analysis of the capsular polysaccharide from Campylobacter jejuni RM1221. Chembiochem. 2007;8:625-631
  68. 68. McNally DJ et al. The HS:1 serostrain of Campylobacter jejuni has a complex teichoic acid-like capsular polysaccharide with nonstoichiometric fructofuranose branches and O-methyl phosphoramidate groups. The FEBS Journal. 2005;272:4407-4422
  69. 69. McNally DJ et al. The HS:19 serostrain of Campylobacter jejuni has a hyaluronic acid-type capsular polysaccharide with a nonstoichiometric sorbose branch and O-methyl phosphoramidate group. The FEBS Journal. 2006;273:3975-3989
  70. 70. Bacon DJ et al. A phase-variable capsule is involved in virulence of Campylobacter jejuni 81-176. Molecular Microbiology. 2001;2001(40):769-777
  71. 71. Bachtiar BM, Coloe PJ, Fry BN. Knockout mutagenesis of the kpsE gene of Campylobacter jejuni 81116 and its involvement in bacterium–host interactions. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology. 2007;49:149-154
  72. 72. Jones MA et al. Adaptation of Campylobacter jejuni NCTC11168 to high-level colonization of the avian gastrointestinal tract. Infection and Immunity. 2004;72:3769-3776
  73. 73. Konkel ME, Cieplak W. Altered synthetic response of Campylobacter jejuni to cocultivation with human epithelial cells is associated with enhanced internalization. Infection and Immunity. 1992;60:4945-4949
  74. 74. Konkel ME, Kim BJ, Rivera-Amill V, Garvis SG. Bacterial secreted proteins are required for the internalization of Campylobacter jejuni into cultured mammalian cells. Molecular Microbiology. 1999;32:691-701
  75. 75. Rivera-Amill V, Kim BJ, Seshu J, Konkel ME. Secretion of the virulence-associated Campylobacter invasion antigens from Campylobacter jejuni requires a stimulatory signal. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2001;183:1607-1616
  76. 76. Vijayakumar S, Merkx-Jacques A, Ratnayake DB, Gryski I, Obhi RK, Houle S, et al. Cj1121c, a novel UDP-4-keto-6-deoxy-GlcNAc C-4 aminotransferase essential for protein glycosylation and virulence in Campylobacter jejuni. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2006;281:27733-27743
  77. 77. Fouts DE et al. Major structural differences and novel potential virulence mechanisms from the genomes of multiple Campylobacter species. PLoS Biology. 2005;3:e15
  78. 78. Skirrow MB, Blaser MJ. Clinical Aspects of Campylobacter Infection. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2000
  79. 79. Gurtler M, Alter T, Kasimir S, Fehlhaber K. The importance of Campylobacter coli in human campylobacteriosis: Prevalence and genetic characterization. Epidemiology and Infection. 2005;133:1081-1087. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268805004164 (2005)
  80. 80. Karmali MA, Penner JL, Fleming PC, Williams A, Hennessy JN. The serotype and biotype distribution of clinical isolates of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli over a three-year period. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1983;147:243-246
  81. 81. Kalischuk LD, Inglis GD. Comparative genotypic and pathogenic examination of Campylobacter concisus isolates from diarrheic and non-diarrheic humans. BMC Microbiology. 2011;11:53. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-11-53
  82. 82. Lindblom GB, Sjogren E, Hansson-Westerberg J, Kaijser B, Campylobacter upsaliensis, C. Sputorum sputorum and C. concisus as common causes of diarrhoea in Swedish children. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1995;27:187-188
  83. 83. O’Donovan D, Corcoran GD, Lucey B, Sleator RD. Campylobacter ureolyticus. Virulence. 2014;5:498-506. DOI: 10.4161/viru.28776
  84. 84. Wilkinson DA, O’Donnell AJ, Akhter RN, Fayaz A, Mack HJ, Rogers LE, et al. Updating the genomic taxonomy and epidemiology of Campylobacter hyointestinalis. Scientific Reports. 2018;8(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-20889-x
  85. 85. On SL. Taxonomy of Campylobacter, Arcobacter, helicobacter and related bacteria: Current status, future prospects and immediate concerns. Symposium Series Society Application Microbiology. 2001;90(S6):1S-15S
  86. 86. Miller WG, Parker CT. Campylobacter and Arcobacter. In: Fratamico P, Liu Y, Kathariou S, editors. Genomes Offoodborne and Waterborne Pathogens. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2011. pp. 49-65
  87. 87. Blaser MJ. Epidemiologic and clinical features of Campylobacter jejuni infections. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1997;176(Suppl. 2):S103-S105
  88. 88. Koch-Institut R. RKI-Ratgeber Campylobacter-Enteritis. Epidemiologisches Bulletin. 2018;23:1-8
  89. 89. CDC. Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet). 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/reports/cidt-questionsand-answers-2015.html. [Accessed: February 10, 2020]
  90. 90. Colles FM, Maiden MCJ. Campylobacter sequence typing databases: Applications and future prospects. Microbiology. 2012;158:2695-2709
  91. 91. CDC Standard Operating Procedure for PulseNet PFGE of Campylobacter jejuni. Standard operating procedure for PulseNet PFGE of Campylobacter jejuni. PulseNEt. 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/pulsenet/pathogens/protocols.html. [Accessed: May 14, 2020]
  92. 92. Ayling RD, Woodward MJ, Evans S, Newell DG. Restriction fragment length polymorphism of polymerase chain reaction products applied to the differentiation of poultry campylobacters for epidemiological investigations. Research in Veterinary Science. 1996;60:168-172
  93. 93. Melo RT, Grazziotin AL, Valadares Júnior ECV, Prado RR, Mendonca EP, Monteiro GP, et al. Evolution of Campylobacter Jejuni of poultry origin in Brazil. Food Microbiology. 2019;82:489-496. DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2019.03.009
  94. 94. Elhadidy M, Ali MM, El-Shibiny A, Miller WG, Elkhatib WF, Botteldoorn N, et al. Antimicrobial resistance patterns and molecular resistance markers of Campylobacter Jejuni isolates from human diarrheal cases. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):227833. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227833
  95. 95. AWMF, Hagel S, Epple E-J, Feurle GE, Kern WV, Lynnen Jansen P, et al. S2k-Leitlinie Gastrointestinale Infektionen und Morbus Whipple. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2015
  96. 96. NICE. Diarrhoea and Vomiting Caused by Gastroenteritis in Under 5s Diagnosis and Management. 200. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg84. [Accessed: April 30, 2020]
  97. 97. Farthing M, Salam MA, Lindberg G, Dite P, Khalif I, Salazar-Lindo E, et al. Acute diarrhea in adults and children: A global perspective. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 2013;47(1):12-20. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31826df662. PMID: 23222211
  98. 98. World Health Organisation. Critically Important Antimicrobials for Human Medicine 6th Revision. 2018. Available online: https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/antimicrobials-sixth/en/. [Accessed: April 1, 2020]
  99. 99. Duarte A, Santos A, Manageiro V, Martins A, Fraqueza MJ, Caniç M, et al. Human, food and animal Campylobacter spp. isolated in Portugal: High genetic diversity and antibiotic resistance rates. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2014;44:306-313 [CrossRef]
  100. 100. European Food Safety Authority; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. European union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2016. EFSA Journal. 2018;16:4380
  101. 101. European Food Safety Authority; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The European union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, aimals and food in 2017. EFSA Journal. 2019;17:e04694
  102. 102. Alfredson DA, Korolik V. Antibiotic resistance and resistance mechanisms in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2007;227:123-132 [CrossRef]
  103. 103. Bolinger H, Kathariou S. The current state of macrolide resistance in Campylobacter spp.: Trends and impacts of resistance mechanisms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2017;83:e00416-e00417 [CrossRef]
  104. 104. Aarestrup FM, Engberg J. Antimicrobial resistance of thermophilic Campylobacter. Veterinary Research. 2001;32:311-321 [CrossRef]
  105. 105. Nielsen H, Hansen KK, Gradel KO, Kristensen B, Ejlertsen T, Østergaard C, et al. Bacteraemia as a result of Campylobacter species: A population-based study of epidemiology and clinical risk factors. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2010;16:57-61 [CrossRef]
  106. 106. Payot S, Bolla J-M, Corcoran D, Fanning S, Mégraud F, Zhang Q. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter spp. Microbes and Infection. 2006;8:1967-1971 [CrossRef]
  107. 107. Drlica K, Zhao X. DNA gyrase, topoisomerase IV, and the 4-quinolones. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 1997;61:377-392 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. 108. Klostermeier D. Why two? On the role of (A-)symmetry in negative supercoiling of DNA by gyrase. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2018;19:1489 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. 109. Gellert M, Mizuuchi K, O’Dea MH, Nasht HA. DNA gyrase: An enzyme that introduces superhelical turns into DNA (Escherichia coli/ATP-dependent reaction/superhelix density). Proceedings of the National Academic Science USA. 1976;73:3872-3876 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. 110. Zirnstein G, Li Y, Swaminathan B, Angulo F. Ciprofloxacin resistance in Campylobacter jejuni isolates: Detection of gyrA resistance mutations by mismatch amplification mutation assay PCR and DNA sequence analysis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 1999;37:3276-3280 [CrossRef]
  111. 111. Riddle MS, Guerry P. Status of vaccine research and development for Campylobacter jejuni. Vaccine. 2016;34:2903-2906
  112. 112. Ramakrishnan A, Schumack NM, Gariepy CL, Eggleston H, Nunez G, Espinoza N, et al. Enhanced immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a Campylobacter jejuni conjugate vaccine coadministered with liposomes containing monophosphoryl lipid a and QS-21. mSphere. 2019;4:e00101-e00119

Written By

Matthew Terzungwe Tion, Kenneth Ikejiofor Ogbu and Felix Kundu Shima

Reviewed: 16 June 2023 Published: 28 February 2024