Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Review of Escherichia Coli Infections of Veterinary Importance

Written By

Haben Fesseha and Isayas Asefa

Submitted: 09 July 2022 Reviewed: 22 July 2022 Published: 19 September 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.106703

One Health Approach - Advancing Global Health Security With the Sustainable Development Goals IntechOpen
One Health Approach - Advancing Global Health Security With the S... Edited by Shailendra K. Saxena

From the Edited Volume

One Health Approach - Advancing Global Health Security With the Sustainable Development Goals [Working Title]

Prof. Shailendra K. Saxena

Chapter metrics overview

94 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Escherichia coli is a vital pollutant indicator, and pathogenic strains are a serious public health concern. Total coliform bacteria and E. coli count have been known indicators of unsanitary conditions and fecal contamination in food. The most common cause of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks is the consumption of undercooked beef or other foods contaminated with beef. Such outbreaks are typically identified by a significant increase in illness within a group or community. Common-source outbreaks are typically brief, limited by the quantity and shelf life of the contaminated product(s), and avoidable with proper kitchen hygiene and cooking. Extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC), which causes diseases in humans, is suspected to be present in chicken products. The zoonotic risk of E. coli from chickens to humans is not fully understood. Food safety concerns with new meat products (for example, meat tenderization and E. coli internalization) as well as the development and evaluation of intervention strategies are some areas that require ongoing research and monitoring. Preventive measures include protecting the food from direct or indirect contamination, using personal hygiene practices, storing processed food in appropriate places and temperatures, checking packaging and storage, well cooking, proper cooling, and keeping cooked food separate from raw food.

Keywords

  • Escherichia coli
  • meat and meat product
  • milk
  • one health

1. Introduction

E. coli typically colonizes the gastrointestinal tract of humans and animals within a few hours after birth. Typically, E. coli and its human host coexist in good health and mutual benefit for decades. Except in immunocompromised hosts or when the normal gastrointestinal barriers are breached, such as in peritonitis, these commensal E. coli strains rarely cause disease. The mucous layer of the mammalian colon serves as a home for commensal E. coli. Despite an immense body of literature on the genetics and physiology of this species, the mechanisms by which E. coli maintains this favorable symbiosis in the colon are poorly understood. One intriguing theory proposes that E. coli may take advantage of its ability to use gluconate in the colon more efficiently than other resident species, allowing it to occupy a highly specific metabolic niche [1, 2].

E. coli is the most common foodborne pathogenic bacteria. Despite the well-documented risk of enteric infection, some consumers prefer to drink unpasteurized milk [3, 4]. E. coli enteropathogenic, enteroinvasive, and enterotoxigenic strains can be major cause of foodborne diarrhea [5]. The pathogen and food vehicle responsible for the majority of foodborne infections are difficult to identify. Foodborne diseases are primarily associated with unsanitary practices and the use of contaminated instruments and materials in food processing [6, 7].

E. coli O157:H7 is commonly found in food. Because of its low infectious dose and potentially fatal complications, this organism has emerged as a significant pathogen and a serious threat to public health [8]. This organism is mostly associated with bovine-derived foods, ground meat, and raw milk outbreaks [9]. It is transmitted fecally or orally and should never be found in food. This microorganism most noticeable symptom is diarrhea, sepsis, meningitis, and a variety of enteric diseases. As a result, this paper will focus on a review of the significance of food contaminated with E. coli of animal origin (meat, milk, and eggs), food contamination cases, current food safety approaches, and mitigation methods.

Advertisement

2. E. coli and food commodities of concern

E. coli is a coliform bacterium and one of six Escherichia species. It is one of 30 members of the Enterobacteriaceae bacterial family (E. adecaroxylate, E. blattae, Escherichia fergusonii, Escherichia hermannii, and Escherichia vulneris). The presence of coliforms in food indicates fecal contamination, poor hygiene, or the presence of enteric pathogens [10, 11]. It is widely assumed that farm ruminants, specifical cattle, are the primary reservoirs of EHEC. However, it is unclear to what extent EHEC can be considered ubiquitous in cattle, as well as the reasons for EHEC’s sporadic nature and variation in prevalence in cattle across the globe. Person-to-person transmission, animal contact, foodborne transmission, and waterborne transmission are the most common routes of EHEC infection. Only the foodborne route is discussed further in this review [12].

Raw or undercooked bovine foods, particularly undercooked ground beef and unpasteurized milk, have been implicated in the majority of EHEC outbreaks. Ground beef has been identified as an important risk factor for EHEC infection in several case-control studies. Furthermore, outbreaks and sporadic infections indicate that ground beef consumption remains the single most frequently identified source of foodborne EHEC infection. Dry fermented meats, as well as cooked and fermented sausages, have also been linked to reported EHEC outbreaks. However, a growing number of outbreaks have been linked to eating raw or minimally processed fruits and vegetables. Leafy green vegetables, such as lettuce, have been linked to several large E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks, some of which have had serious public health consequences. Because they are prone to contamination and are eaten raw, they are a significant source of human cases of EHEC-related foodborne illness [13].

2.1 E. coli associated with meat

E. coli O157:H7 belongs to the enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) group and was first identified as a human pathogen in 1982 when strains of a previously uncommon serotype, O157:H7, were linked to two outbreaks of hemorrhagic colitis (HC) in the United States of America. In the years since outbreaks and isolated cases of EHEC O157:H7 infection have been reported in some countries around the world. Infections caused by non-O157 E. coli serotypes, such as O26:H11, O103:H2, O104:H21, O111:H8, and O113:H21, are also frequently reported [13].

EHECs have been isolated from cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and deer, among other domestic animals and wildlife. Ruminants, particularly cattle, are thought to be a major reservoir of EHEC. Although multiple sources and routes of transmission are now known, data from outbreaks and sporadic infections show that beef and beef products are the most frequently identified source of foodborne EHEC infection. Undercooked ground beef products, in particular, have emerged as a significant source of foodborne infection. Milk and dairy products (e.g., unpasteurized milk and raw milk cheese), fresh produce (e.g., sprouts and salads), drinks (e.g., apple cider or juice), and water are other foodborne sources. Several new outbreaks have been reported, involving various sources and demonstrating the multifaceted epidemiology of EHEC infections [13].

2.2 History of E. coli O157:H7 in the meat industry

Meat inspection began in France in 1162, in England in 1319, and in Germany in 1385. Meat inspection was first observed in the United States in the 1800s, but mandatory inspection did not begin until 1906, with the passage of the Meat Inspection Act. The publication of Upton Sinclair’s book the Jungle in 1904 sparked interest in the government. The meat industry was found to have poor food safety practices, according to the Jungle. The book outlined several areas during slaughter and manufacturing, where additional food safety implementation methods were required. The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 established new regulatory standards for the meat industry that are still in effect today [14].

In 1981 and 1985, Congress passed several laws aimed at improving the inspection system and preventing disease transmission from animals to humans during consumption. The requirement for wholesome products, as well as the evaluation of live animals before slaughter for health reasons, included small butchers and farmers. The poultry industry quickly followed suit with the Poultry Products Inspection Act in 1957. The Wholesome Meat Act and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act were passed by Congress in 1967 and 1968, respectively, to ensure that processing plants would be held accountable for the products produced in their facilities [14].

2.3 Sources of E. coli O157:H7 cross-contamination

Numerous vectors can be used to spread E. coli O157:H7 on or into meat products. Animal feces can be transferred on hides and carcasses, the equipment can become contaminated, personnel may not use proper hygienic practices, airborne contamination, rodents, insects, and other animals are all potential sources (Tables 1 and 2) [14].

VehicleE. coli O157:H7 (%)
Water25.6
Meat24.6
Dairy12.5
Animal contact9.7
Produce9.2
Person-person contact6.8
Other food5.8
Unknown5.8

Table 1.

The important vehicles linked with international occurrences of E. coli O157:H7.

Sources: [15].

FoodPreservation time (day)
Eggs14
Fruits1–14
Vegetables2–7
Big piece of meat3–5
Milk and cream3–4
Cooked fish2–3
Chicken2–3
Sausage2–3
Cooked meat2–3
Raw fish1–2
Minced meat1–2
Shellfish1

Table 2.

Survival time of E. coli O157:H7 in diverse food and animal products.

Sources: [16].

2.4 E. coli is associated with poultry products

The ExPEC strains that cause these various syndromes are known as avian-pathogenic E. coli (APEC), uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC), neonatal meningitis E. coli (NMEC), and sepsis-associated E. coli, and are sometimes considered to represent distinct pathotypes (SEPEC). ExPEC-associated human diseases cause significant morbidity and mortality, as well as high medical costs and lost productivity, which place a significant economic burden on society [17].

Due to reduced production and/or transmission to consumers through contaminated poultry products, pathogenic bacteria in poultry pose a risk to both the poultry industry and human health. Human pathogens, such as Campylobacter, Listeria, and Salmonella, are known to be present in both meat and eggs. If the recommended limit for microbial load is exceeded, these products may be recalled if they are inspected and found to be contaminated with these organisms [18]. According to recent studies, poultry in particular can transmit the ExPEC strain to humans through meat consumption [19].

ExPEC has multiple virulence traits that allow it to invade, colonize, and cause infections in bodily sites other than the gastrointestinal tract [20]. Many ExPEC isolates from humans and animals have similar virulence genes and clonal backgrounds, implying that they may be zoonotic pathogens [21]. ExPEC virulence genes are common in E. coli isolates from food products, particularly raw meats [20] and poultry meat [22]. Although poultry-sourced E. coli isolates have been shown to cause UTI, sepsis, and meningitis in rodent models that mimic human ExPEC infections [23], the human health risk posed by poultry products is still being debated because direct transmission of ExPEC from poultry to humans is difficult to document [19].

ExPEC isolates are genotypically heterogeneous, which complicates determining the zoonotic risk of poultry products. They not only share numerous genomic similarities with commensal, nonpathogenic E. coli [24], but the different putative ExPEC subgroups are also difficult to distinguish. Although recent evidence suggests that phylotypes and virulence genotypes can distinguish ExPEC from commensal E. coli [25, 26, 27], host-pathogen interactions can lead to differential gene expression in vivo [28].

2.5 Survival of E. coli on the food of animal origin

E. coli O157:H7 is a cause for concern, especially if it is present in foods that have not been treated to eliminate the pathogen, or that may have been contaminated after such treatment but before packaging, as in the case of ready-to-eat (RTE) products. When microorganisms are exposed to a lethal agent, the population decreases exponentially rather than instantly. The D value, also known as “decimal reduction time,” is used in food microbiology to describe the time required in minutes at any given temperature to reduce 90%(or 1 log) of a specific microbial population in a specific food, and it is affected by factors, such as pH, water activity (Aw), preservative content, product composition, and the size of the microbial population, among others. According to research, cooking ground beef with 17–20% fat at 57.28°C and 62.88°C results in D values of 4.5 and 0.40, respectively. To ensure adequate cooking and prevent outbreaks, hamburgers must be cooked for 15 seconds at an internal temperature of 71.18°C (1608F) [14].

Pasteurization is another common heating method used to kill this pathogen in milk, fruit juices, and ciders. Milk can be pasteurized for 15 seconds at 71.78°C (1618F) for a 5-log reduction in E. coli O157:H7, and apple cider can be pasteurized for 14 seconds at 68.1°C. [29]. Ground beef stored at −208°C for 12 months recovered the pathogen with an approximate reduction of 1.0 log [30], demonstrating the ability of E. coli O157:H7 to survive in hamburgers for long periods at frozen temperatures with little decline in viable cell numbers. As a result, E. coli O157:H7 has the unique ability to survive in a wide range of products subjected to varying process conditions for extended periods, allowing foods to serve as vehicles for infection transmission.

2.6 Means of food poisonings interventions

The Processed Products Inspection Improvement Act of 1986 gave meat inspectors a resource for allocating training and increasing the overall effectiveness of product inspection. These measures were evaluated in the early 1990s, during a period of high-profile food poisoning caused by E. coli O157:H7 and meat products. The USDA mandated the implementation and use of HACCP in meat and poultry plants in 1996 to aid in food safety and as a prevention method. HACCP is intended to identify and control safety hazards during the food manufacturing process. Pillsbury Company introduced HACCP in 1959 to ensure that the food produced for NASA astronauts had a safe food supply during space travel [14].

The concept of preventing rather than reacting to food hazards resulted in a renewal of training and education for meat suppliers and producers. Sanitation practices, pre-and post-operational procedures, flow diagrams of all products produced and slaughter methods, and all forms used to monitor critical control points are all anticipated. Critical control points in the manufacturing process are steps that can reduce or eliminate the possibility of a hazard (chemical, biological, or physical) entering the food product [14].

Furthermore, the term hazard is used in the HACCP to refer to any substance or condition that has the potential to cause adverse health effects and is unacceptable. These risks can be caused by biological, chemical, or physical contamination in raw materials, semi-processed foods, or finished foods. Hazard analysis is defined as determining the severity of a hazard and the likelihood that it will occur. HACCP is a seven-principle-based system for identifying, assessing, and controlling potential food hazards [31, 32]: (1). Conduct hazard analysis; (2). Identify critical control points (CCP); (3). Establish critical limits; (4). Establish monitoring procedures; (5). Establish corrective actions; (6). Establish verification procedures; and (7). Establish documentation and record procedures [32].

State institutions, trade associations, and the food industry all endorse these principles. Today, HACCP-based food safety systems are successfully implemented in food processing plants, retail food stores, and global food service operations. Following HACCP guidelines in manufacturing facilities is critical. HACCP should be used in conjunction with antimicrobial treatment to reduce the presence of potential pathogens, such as E. coli O157: H7 and non-O157 STEC, in cattle carcasses, according to a Mexican slaughterhouse [33]. These guidelines serve as a guarantee for food production, testing, quality, and assurance, assisting in the reduction of the risk of foodborne diseases and ensuring the production and distribution of safe food for human consumption.

All beef processors and plants must develop a plan that identifies the hazards associated with their respective processes and the control measures that can be implemented in each step to reduce their likelihood in the food product as part of the HACCP system adoption. These control measures can be divided into three categories: (a) physical (hot water spray, steam pasteurization, steam-vacuuming, water wash cabinet, and knife trimming); (b) chemical (organic acids, polyphosphates, chlorine, acidified sodium chlorite, ozone, peroxyacetic acid, nisin, and lactoferrin); (c) emerging technologies (hydrostatic pressure, irradiation, pulsed electric fields, and microwaves) (Sa (lactic acid bacteria and bacteriophages). Previous authors have reported on the use and effectiveness of previous interventions on beef hides [34, 35], carcasses [36], beef trim/variety meats, and ground beef [35], and they are frequently used in addition to other procedures, such as carcass inspection and knife trimming off any visible feces, ingest. Furthermore, the use of interventions should not be viewed as a way to “clean” unwholesome products, and they should never be used as a substitute for strict hygienic manufacturing practices and good cleaning and sanitation procedures in the processing facility [14].

Advertisement

3. One health approach and mitigatigations of E. coli

Current clinical laboratory recommendations for EHEC diagnosis in humans, if followed, could allow for earlier diagnosis and better response to infection. To detect both O157:H7 and non-O157 EHEC strains, stools should be cultured on selective and differential agar, such as sorbitol-MacConkey (SMAC) agar and simultaneously tested for Shiga toxins or the genes that encode them [37]. Typical O157:H7 strains do not ferment sorbitol and appear as colorless colonies on SMAC agar, whereas most non-O157 strains ferment sorbitol and appear as pink colonies on SMAC agar. In humans, there are no specific treatments for HUS. Supportive therapy includes intravenous fluids and volume expansion [38].

Still, antibiotics are not recommended in suspected or confirmed cases of O157:H7 infection due to the increased risk of HUS caused by STX-encoding bacteriophage induction [39, 40]. Vaccines, Gb3 receptor analogs, and monoclonal antibodies against STX are examples of human intervention strategies [41, 42, 43]. The best way to avoid HUS is to avoid EHEC O157 infection; recommendations to reduce zoonotic risks associated with animals in public settings are available from the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians [39, 44]. The most important step in lowering the risk of EHEC O157 and non-O157 transmission is hand washing [44, 45], in this issue, makes the same point about methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The associations among the factors intricate in enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli spread. Integrating and understanding the interaction of these factors linking humans, animals, and the environment will facilitate One health approaches to thwart and control the zoonotic transmission of EHEC. Source: [46].

The strain was isolated from feral swine, domestic cattle, surface water, sediment, and soil during the 2006 nationwide outbreak of EHEC O157 in humans, which was linked to the consumption of bagged spinach. It thus demonstrated the significance of the one Health concept [47], a strategy for better understanding and addressing contemporary health issues caused by the convergence of human, animal, and environmental domains [46]. The primary source of the organism, the animal reservoir, should be targeted for control of zoonotic EHEC on farms [48]; methods are available to reduce the risk of EHEC disease in humans at the farm, transport, processing unit, distributor, and retailer/preparer/consumer levels [49].

Probiotics, vaccination, antimicrobials, sodium chlorate, bacteriophages, and other feed additives are used before slaughter to reduce EHEC O157 shedding in the feces of weaned domestic ruminants [50]. Vaccination strategies can reduce EHEC O157 shedding to reduce zoonotic risk [51]. A coordinated multidisciplinary effort to understand and integrate EHEC epidemiology, pathogenesis, and pathophysiology will aid in the development of novel strategies for preventing, controlling, and treating zoonotic EHEC infection and disease.

Advertisement

4. Conclusions

Foodborne pathogens are regarded as a significant risk factor in terms of public health in both developed and developing countries due to their global prevalence. Controllability and traceability are critical throughout the food chain for ensuring consumer safety and protecting foods from biological, physical, and chemical hazards from the field to the point of consumption. The final ring of food safety is the consumer. Consumer purchasing power and awareness contribute to food safety and are the most important factors for risk protection and prevention. Despite their complex biology, epidemiology, and analyses, most foodborne diseases are preventable. It is critical for public health that consumers and food producers follow the principles governing internationally accepted safety methods. It should not be forgotten that E. coli, as a foodborne pathogen, has the potential to cause infections, food poisoning, and even death. There are numerous simple steps that consumers can take to prevent bacterial growth and ensure food safety. In conclusion, consumers should develop their safety methods at home by adhering to personnel sanitation and hygienic measures. Food producers should abide by public health safety method principles, such as HACCP and GMP, to prevent diseases of animal origin and outbreaks.

Advertisement

Funding

The work was not funded by any funding institution or source.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Kaper JB, Nataro JP, Mobley HL. Pathogenic Escherichia coli. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2004;2(2):123-140
  2. 2. Tan SL, Lee HY, Abu Bakar F, Karim A, Rukayadi Y, Mahyudin NA. Microbiological quality on food handlers' hands at primary schools in Hulu Langat District, Malaysia. International Food Research Journal. 2013;20(5):322-323
  3. 3. Akbar A, Anal AK. Prevalence and antibiogram study of Salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus in poultry meat. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine. 2013;3(2):163-168
  4. 4. Keene WE, Hedberg K, Herriott DE, Hancock DD, McKay RW, Barrett TJ, et al. A prolonged outbreak of Escherichia coli O157: H7 infections were caused by commercially distributed raw milk. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1997;176(3):815-818
  5. 5. Akbar A, Anal AK. Food safety concerns and food-borne pathogens, Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Campylobacter. FUUAST Journal of Biology. 2011;1(1):5-17
  6. 6. Ruban SW, Prabhu KN, Kumer GS. Prevalence of food borne pathogens in markets sam; les of chicken meat in Ban galore chain reactions. International Journal of Microbiological Research. 2012;1(3):106-109
  7. 7. Akbar A, Anal AK. Occurrence of Staphylococcus aureus and evaluation of the anti-staphylococcal activity of Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis in ready-to-eat poultry meat. Annals of Microbiology. 2014;64(1):131-138
  8. 8. Akkaya L, Atabay H, Kenar B, Alisarli M. Prevalence of verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli O157: H7 on chicken carcasses sold in Turkey. Bulletin of the Veterinary Institute in Pulawy. 2006;50(4):123-124
  9. 9. Bachrouri M, Quinto EJ, Mora MT. Survival of Escherichia coli O157: H7 during storage of yogurt at different temperatures. Journal of Food Science. 2002;67(5):1899-1903
  10. 10. Balpetek D, Gürbüz Ü. Investigations on the presence of E. coli O157: H7 in some meat products. Eurasian Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2010;26(1):25-31
  11. 11. Uçar G, Yörük NG, Güner A. Escherichia coli infections. Turkiye Klinikleri Journals Food Hygiene Technology. 2015;1(3):22-29
  12. 12. Wilson JB, Clarke RC, Renwick SA, Rahn V, Johnson RP, Karmali MA, et al. Vero cytotoxigenic Escherichia coli infection in dairy farm families. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1996;174(5):1021-1027
  13. 13. World Health Organization. Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli in Raw Beef and Beef Products: Approaches for the Provision of Scientific Advice: Meeting Report. World Health Organization. NLM Classification: WC 290; 2011. ISBN 978-92-4-154824-3
  14. 14. Laury A, Echeverry A, Brashears M. Fate of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in meat. In: Safety of Meat and Processed Meat. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. pp. 31-53
  15. 15. Doyle ME, Archer J, Kaspar CW, Weiss R. Human illness caused by E. coli O157:H7 from food and non-food. 2006. Available from: http://fri.wisc.edu/briefs/FRIBrief_EcoliO157H7humanillness.pdf
  16. 16. Seydi A. Risk factors and hygiene importance in food safety. Journal of Tourism Gastronomy Studies. 2017;1(2):310-321
  17. 17. Russo TA, Johnson JR. The medical and economic impact of extraintestinal infections due to Escherichia coli: Focus on an increasingly important endemic problem. Microbes and Infection. 2003;5(5):449-456
  18. 18. Greger M. The human/animal interface: Emergence and resurgence of zoonotic infectious diseases. Critical Reviews in Microbiology. 2007;33(4):243-299
  19. 19. Manges AR, Johnson JR. Food-borne origins of Escherichia coli causing extraintestinal infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2012;55(5):712-719
  20. 20. Smith JL, Fratamico PM, Gunther NW. Extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2018;4:134-163
  21. 21. Jakobsen L, Garneau P, Kurbasic A, Bruant G, Stegger M, Harel J, et al. Microarray-based detection of extended virulence and antimicrobial resistance gene profiles in phylogroup B2 Escherichia coli of human, meat, and animal origin. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2011;60(10):1502-1511
  22. 22. Johnson JR, Kuskowski MA, Smith K, O’Bryan TT, Tatini S. Antimicrobial-resistant and extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli in retail foods. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2005;191(7):1040-1049
  23. 23. Jakobsen L, Garneau P, Bruant G, Harel J, Olsen SS, Porsbo LJ, et al. Is Escherichia coli urinary tract infection a zoonosis? Proof of direct link with production of animals and meat. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2012;31(6):1121-1129
  24. 24. Köhler CD, Dobrindt U. What defines extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli? International Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2011;301(8):642-647
  25. 25. Moulin-Schouleur M, Répérant M, Laurent S, Brée A, Mignon-Grasteau S, Germon P, et al. Extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli strains of avian and human origin: The link between phylogenetic relationships and common virulence patterns. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2007;45(10):3366-3376
  26. 26. Johnson TJ, Wannemuehler Y, Doetkott C, Johnson SJ, Rosenberger SC, Nolan LK. Identification of minimal predictors of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli virulence for use as a rapid diagnostic tool. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2008;46(12):3987-3996
  27. 27. Spurbeck RR, Dinh PC Jr, Walk ST, Stapleton AE, Hooton TM, Nolan LK, et al. Escherichia coli isolates that carry vat, fyuA, chuA, and yfcV efficiently colonize the urinary tract. Infection and Immunity. 2012;80(12):4115-4122
  28. 28. Hagan EC, Lloyd AL, Rasko DA, Faerber GJ, Mobley HL. Escherichia coli global gene expression in urine from women with urinary tract infection. PLoS Pathogens. 2010;6(11):1001187-1001188
  29. 29. Al-taher F, Knutson K. Overview of the FDA juice HACCP rule. Food Protection Trends. 2004;24:222-238
  30. 30. Ansay SE, Darling KA, Kaspar CW. Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in ground-beef patties during storage at 2, 2, 15, and then 2°C, and 20°C. Journal of Food Protection. 1999;62:1243-1247
  31. 31. Tzouros NE, Arvanitoyannis IS. Implementation of hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) system to the fish/seafood industry: A review. Food Reviews International. 2000;16(3):273-325
  32. 32. Ibrahim OO. Foodborne pathogen Escherichia coli O157: H7 history, sources of transmission, symptoms, detection, and prevention. EC Microbiology. 2015;21:2
  33. 33. Cusato S, Gameiro AH, Sant’Ana ADS, Corassin CH, Cruz AGD, De Oliveira CAF. Assessing the costs involved in the implementation of GMP and HACCP in a small dairy factory. Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops and Foods. 2014;6(2):135-139
  34. 34. Acuff GR. Chemical decontamination strategies for meat. Improving the Safety of Fresh Meat. 2005:350-363
  35. 35. Koohmaraie M, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, Guerini M, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL. Post-harvest interventions to reduce/eliminate pathogens in beef. Meat Science. 2005;71(1):79-91
  36. 36. Keeton JT, Eddy SM. 24 chemical methods for decontamination of meat and poultry. Preharvest and Postharvest Food Safety. 2004;1(1):319-320
  37. 37. Gould LH, STEC Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics Working Group. Update: recommendations for diagnosis of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections by clinical laboratories. Clinical Microbiology Newsletter. 15 May 2012;34(10):75-83
  38. 38. Ake JA, Jelacic S, Ciol MA, Watkins SL, Murray KF, Christie DL, et al. Relative nephroprotection during Escherichia coli O157: H7 infections: Association with intravenous volume expansion. Pediatrics. 2005;115(6):e673-e680
  39. 39. Ahn CK, Holt NJ, Tarr PI. Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli and the hemolytic uremic syndrome: what have we learned in the past 25 years? In: Hot Topics in Infection and Immunity in Children. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. pp. 1-17
  40. 40. Zhang X, McDaniel AD, Wolf LE, Keusch GT, Waldor MK, Acheson DW. Quinolone antibiotics induce Shiga toxin-encoding bacteriophages, toxin production, and death in mice. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2000;181(2):664-670
  41. 41. Bitzan M. Treatment options for HUS secondary to Escherichia coli O157: H7. Kidney International. 2009;75:S62-S66
  42. 42. Orth D, Grif K, Zimmerhackl LB, Würzner R. Prevention and treatment of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli infections in humans. Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy. 2008;6(1):101-108
  43. 43. Tzipori S, Sheoran A, Akiyoshi D, Donohue-Rolfe A, Trachtman H. Antibody therapy in the management of Shiga toxin-induced hemolytic uremic syndrome. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2004;17(4):926-941
  44. 44. NASPHV [National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians]. Centers for disease control and prevention, council of state and territorial epidemiologists, american veterinary medical association. In: Compendium of Measures to Prevent Disease Associated with Animals in Public Settings, 2009: NASPHV. Vol. 58. MMWR—Recommendations and Reports; 2009. pp. 1-21
  45. 45. Weese JS. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals. ILAR Journal. 2010;51(3):233-244
  46. 46. King LJ, Anderson LR, Blackmore CG, Blackwell MJ, Lautner EA, Marcus LC, et al. Executive summary of the AVMA one health initiative task force report. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2008;233(2):259-261
  47. 47. Jay MT, Cooley M, Carychao D, Wiscomb GW, Sweitzer RA, CrawfordMiksza L, et al. Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feral swine near spinach fields and cattle, central California coast. Emergence Infectious Disease. 2007;13:1908-1911
  48. 48. Fairbrother JM, Nadeau E. Escherichia coli: On-farm contamination of animals. Revue Scientifique et Technique. 2006;25(2):555-569
  49. 49. Khanna R, Waechter L, Sargeant J, Clark WF, Garg AX. Environmental prevention of human disease from verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2008;23(6):1819-1822
  50. 50. Sargeant JM, Sanderson MW, Griffin DD, Smith RA. Factors associated with the presence of Escherichia coli O157 in feedlot–cattle water and feed in the Midwestern USA. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2004;66(1-4):207-237
  51. 51. Potter AA, Klashinsky S, Li Y, Frey E, Townsend H, Rogan D, et al. Decreased shedding of Escherichia coli O157: H7 by cattle following vaccination with type III secreted proteins. Vaccine. 2004;22(3-4):362-369

Written By

Haben Fesseha and Isayas Asefa

Submitted: 09 July 2022 Reviewed: 22 July 2022 Published: 19 September 2022