Assessment of two different methods for sampling and detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum in dairy cows in Eastern Slovakia
The aim of our study was to find the most appropriate way of sample collection from cattle feet as well as to assess simple and effective sample processing, including DNA extraction for reliable diagnosis of bacteria Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum. 11 clinically healthy cows wer...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2018-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Applied Animal Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1532903 |
| _version_ | 1819002201004048384 |
|---|---|
| author | Adriana Osová Ivana Segurado Benito Pilipčincová Ján Király Michal Dolník Pavol Mudroň |
| author_facet | Adriana Osová Ivana Segurado Benito Pilipčincová Ján Király Michal Dolník Pavol Mudroň |
| author_sort | Adriana Osová |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The aim of our study was to find the most appropriate way of sample collection from cattle feet as well as to assess simple and effective sample processing, including DNA extraction for reliable diagnosis of bacteria Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum. 11 clinically healthy cows were included in the study, from which swabbing samples (2 types: surface swab and deep swab) were taken. Two isolation methods were used for DNA extraction: 1. freezing and boiling the samples, 2. commercial kit (Roche). PCR analysis of the samples has not shown any variations in the detection ratio of D. nodosus and F. necrophorum at different swabbing methods. The highest sensitivity of the detection of both bacteria was reached with a cultivation of samples in AB with subsequent extraction of DNA with freezing and boiling. The cultivation in anaerobic broth resulted in the detection rate of D. nodosus and F. necrophorum in over 95% and 27%, respectively. To conclude, the simple ‘surface’ swab is sufficient to detect studied pathogens, the most appropriate method of DNA extraction has proven to be freezing and boiling of the sample. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T23:01:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ac637845e645424693f3e23f99c34d09 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0971-2119 0974-1844 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T23:01:20Z |
| publishDate | 2018-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Applied Animal Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-ac637845e645424693f3e23f99c34d092022-12-21T19:23:59ZengTaylor & Francis GroupJournal of Applied Animal Research0971-21190974-18442018-01-014611452145610.1080/09712119.2018.15329031532903Assessment of two different methods for sampling and detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum in dairy cows in Eastern SlovakiaAdriana Osová0Ivana Segurado Benito Pilipčincová1Ján Király2Michal Dolník3Pavol Mudroň4University of Veterinary Medicine and PharmacyUniversity of Veterinary Medicine and PharmacyUniversity of Veterinary Medicine and PharmacyUniversity of Veterinary Medicine and PharmacyUniversity of Veterinary Medicine and PharmacyThe aim of our study was to find the most appropriate way of sample collection from cattle feet as well as to assess simple and effective sample processing, including DNA extraction for reliable diagnosis of bacteria Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum. 11 clinically healthy cows were included in the study, from which swabbing samples (2 types: surface swab and deep swab) were taken. Two isolation methods were used for DNA extraction: 1. freezing and boiling the samples, 2. commercial kit (Roche). PCR analysis of the samples has not shown any variations in the detection ratio of D. nodosus and F. necrophorum at different swabbing methods. The highest sensitivity of the detection of both bacteria was reached with a cultivation of samples in AB with subsequent extraction of DNA with freezing and boiling. The cultivation in anaerobic broth resulted in the detection rate of D. nodosus and F. necrophorum in over 95% and 27%, respectively. To conclude, the simple ‘surface’ swab is sufficient to detect studied pathogens, the most appropriate method of DNA extraction has proven to be freezing and boiling of the sample.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1532903Dichelobacter nodosusFusobacterium necrophorumdiagnosticsfootrotPCRdairy cows |
| spellingShingle | Adriana Osová Ivana Segurado Benito Pilipčincová Ján Király Michal Dolník Pavol Mudroň Assessment of two different methods for sampling and detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum in dairy cows in Eastern Slovakia Journal of Applied Animal Research Dichelobacter nodosus Fusobacterium necrophorum diagnostics footrot PCR dairy cows |
| title | Assessment of two different methods for sampling and detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum in dairy cows in Eastern Slovakia |
| title_full | Assessment of two different methods for sampling and detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum in dairy cows in Eastern Slovakia |
| title_fullStr | Assessment of two different methods for sampling and detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum in dairy cows in Eastern Slovakia |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessment of two different methods for sampling and detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum in dairy cows in Eastern Slovakia |
| title_short | Assessment of two different methods for sampling and detection of Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum in dairy cows in Eastern Slovakia |
| title_sort | assessment of two different methods for sampling and detection of dichelobacter nodosus and fusobacterium necrophorum in dairy cows in eastern slovakia |
| topic | Dichelobacter nodosus Fusobacterium necrophorum diagnostics footrot PCR dairy cows |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1532903 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT adrianaosova assessmentoftwodifferentmethodsforsamplinganddetectionofdichelobacternodosusandfusobacteriumnecrophorumindairycowsineasternslovakia AT ivanaseguradobenitopilipcincova assessmentoftwodifferentmethodsforsamplinganddetectionofdichelobacternodosusandfusobacteriumnecrophorumindairycowsineasternslovakia AT jankiraly assessmentoftwodifferentmethodsforsamplinganddetectionofdichelobacternodosusandfusobacteriumnecrophorumindairycowsineasternslovakia AT michaldolnik assessmentoftwodifferentmethodsforsamplinganddetectionofdichelobacternodosusandfusobacteriumnecrophorumindairycowsineasternslovakia AT pavolmudron assessmentoftwodifferentmethodsforsamplinganddetectionofdichelobacternodosusandfusobacteriumnecrophorumindairycowsineasternslovakia |