Next Article in Journal
Prior to versus after Metformin Treatment—Effects on Steroid Enzymatic Activities
Previous Article in Journal
DHX37 and NR5A1 Variants Identified in Patients with 46,XY Partial Gonadal Dysgenesis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rapid Onsite Visual Detection of Orf Virus Using a Recombinase-Aided Amplification Assay
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/life13051092
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Detection of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Clostridia in the Aetiology of Neonatal Piglet Diarrhoea: Important Factors for Their Prevention

by
Nikolaos Tsekouras
1,
Eleftherios Meletis
2,
Polychronis Kostoulas
2,
Georgia Labronikou
3,
Zoi Athanasakopoulou
4,
Georgios Christodoulopoulos
5,
Charalambos Billinis
2,4 and
Vasileios G. Papatsiros
1,*
1
Clinic of Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
2
Faculty of Public and Integrated Health, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
3
Swine Technical Support, Hipra Hellas SA, 10441 Athens, Greece
4
Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
5
Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Athens, 75 Iera Odos Street, Botanikos, 11855 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2023, 13(5), 1092; https://doi.org/10.3390/life13051092
Submission received: 28 March 2023 / Revised: 13 April 2023 / Accepted: 23 April 2023 / Published: 27 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Prevention and Control of Zoonotic and Livestock Bacteria)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to research the involvement of enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) and C. difficile or C. perfringens type C in the aetiology of neonatal piglet diarrhoea in Greece and to identify preventive factors for them. A total of 78 pooled faecal samples were collected randomly from 234 suckling piglets (1–4 days of age) with diarrhoea from 26 pig farms (3 piglets × 3 litters × 26 farms = 234 piglets = 78 faecal pool samples). The collected samples were initially screened for the presence of E. coli and C. difficile or C. perfringens via cultivation on MacConkey and anaerobic blood agar, respectively. Subsequently, the samples were pooled on ELUTE cards. From samples tested, 69.23% of those in the farms were ETEC F4-positive, 30.77% were ETEC F5-positive, 61.54% ETEC were F6-positive, 42.31% were ETEC F4- and E. coli enterotoxin LT-positive, 19.23% were ETEC F5- and LT-positive, 42.31% were ETEC F6- and LT-positive, while LT was found in 57.69% of those in the farms. C. difficile was involved in many cases and identified as an emerging neonatal diarrhoea etiological agent. Specifically, Toxin A of C. difficile was found in 84.62% and Toxin B in 88.46% of those in the farms. Antibiotic administration to sows in combination with probiotics or acidifiers was revealed to reduce the detection of antigens of ETEC and the enterotoxin LT of E. coli.

1. Introduction

Neonatal piglet diarrhoea is a major economic and welfare issue in the swine industry worldwide due to increased pre-weaning mortality and therapeutic cost, as well as decreased growth rates in piglets [1,2]. To this day, it has proven to be challenging to identify the agents responsible for neonatal diarrhoea clinical signs in pig herds [3]. Several previous studies have reported various common pathogens as etiological agents, including Escherichia coli (E. coli), Clostridium perfringens (C. perfringens), Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile), Cystoisospora suis, rotavirus, and Cryptosporidium parvum [4,5,6,7,8]. In many field cases, combinations of pathogens have been isolated [8].
Neonatal diarrhoea is one of the most frequent clinical signs in newborn piglets, significantly increasing pre-weaning mortality and the number of weaning piglets with a lower body weight than the farm’s target [9]. Even though enteric diseases in newborn piglets are often endemic, outbreaks characterized by high morbidity and mortality have been reported [10,11]. For example, in Sweden and Denmark, diarrhoea represented 5–24% of the overall pre-weaning mortality cases [12] and is responsible for a reduction in average daily gain (8–14 g/day) during the first week of life [13,14]. The cost of neonatal diarrhoea in affected pig herds was recently estimated to be EUR 134 per sow per year [2]. Commercial pig farms use vaccinations against E. coli and clostridial diseases, antibiotics, and alternatives to antibiotics to prevent or reduce economic losses due to neonatal diarrhoea.
E. coli is a Gram-negative bacterium that normally lives in the intestine, but imbalances in the gut microbiota can potentially cause diarrhoea in pigs [15]. Neonatal piglets affected by E. coli suffer from severe diarrhoea and have a high mortality rate [16]. Enteropathogenic E. coli strains (EPEC) and enterotoxigenic E. coli strains (ETEC) are classified by their virulence factors, with EPEC being characterized by the production of intimin and ETEC strains by their principal virulence factors, enterotoxins (STa, STb, and LT) and fimbriae adhesins [17]. ETEC are a significant and common cause of diarrhoea among suckling and weaned piglets [18]. ETEC colonize the mucosal surface of the small intestine via surface proteins (fimbriae or pilli), producing the following enterotoxins: heat-stable (Sta and STb) and heat-labile (LT) ones, or both [19]. The reported porcine fimbriae are F4 (K88), F5 (K99), F6 (987P), F18, and F41 [20]. Neonatal diarrhoea due to ETEC infection is characterized by high morbidity rates of suckling piglets per litter and is associated with increased economic losses for the swine farms due to an increased mortality rate, reduced growth performance, and increased veterinary cost for treatments and preventive strategies (e.g., antimicrobials, vaccines, alternatives to antibiotics, and biosecurity measures) [21,22].
Clostridia are large, rod-shaped bacteria that also form spores that persist in the environment for long periods. C. perfringens and C. difficile are classified as the main swine enteric clostridial pathogens [23]. C. perfringens type C causes severe and foetal necrotic enteritis in neonatal piglets due to the production of α-toxin and β-toxin [23,24,25,26]. Diarrhoea can spread rapidly amongst the herd, inducing high mortality (up to 100%) in affected piglets of non-vaccinated herds [23]. The peracute and acute forms of diarrhoea disease affect piglets mainly at 0–3 days of age [23].
C. difficile is a Gram-positive spore-forming bacterium that causes the enteric disease in humans and pigs, among many mammals [27,28,29]. C. difficile is widespread in the environment and is a common part of the gastrointestinal microbiota of mammals [30,31]. Previous studies have revealed C. difficile to be an emerging pathogen [1], which has been involved in cases of uncontrolled enteritis outbreaks affecting neonatal piglets in the USA and Europe [28,32,33]. Previous studies also reported C. difficile strains usually isolated from piglets that have infected humans in North America and Europe [34,35] and play a serious role in human diarrhoea [36].
The fundamental tools to tackling neonatal diarrhoea are a good knowledge of epidemiology, an efficient diagnostic approach, as well as appropriate control or preventive strategies [22]. For example, to control enteric colibacillosis in neonatal piglets, it is crucial to better comprehend the pathotypes and virotypes of E. coli and the predisposing factors that allow the bacterium to cause diseases, as well as to apply rapid diagnostic methods and efficient control or preventive tools [22]. For a correct diagnosis of neonatal piglet diarrhoea, detecting the presence of pathogenicity factors is fundamental, as many agents are included in bacterial flora and bacterial isolation is not proof that these agents cause diarrhoea. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a very effective technique to detect virulence factors, such as the presence of fimbriae F4, F5, F6, and LT of E. coli, and the β-toxin of C. perfringens type C [23]. Multiplex PCR approaches enable the amplification of several genes simultaneously, reducing the cost and time needed [37,38,39,40]. FTA (Flinders Technology Associates) cards provide important advantages, such as sample storage, transport, and extraction, leading to a decrease in the cost and time needed for molecular diagnosis. FTA cards have been widely used to extract and stabilize DNA from samples of human and swine clinical cases [41,42,43,44,45,46]. The method of FTA cards is reported to be a valid diagnostic tool, and it can be used for a short period (24 h) for the storage and transport of live bacteria, specifically Gram-positive types [44].
Multidrug resistance genes among ESBL-producing E. coli strains retrieved from feces of pigs were reported, underlining the issue of antimicrobial resistance [47,48,49,50,51]. Various non-antibiotic strategies, including feed additives such as acidifiers or probiotics, have been proposed in swine herd health management strategies as other optional prophylactic or therapeutic protocols [52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. Probiotic supplementation in feed is beneficial for improving the immune response and growth performance, maintaining gut health, and controlling enteric infections due to its antimicrobial effects on several enteric pathogens by stimulating the growth of beneficial microorganisms in the gut [54,55,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. Previous studies have reported that dietary acidifiers provide prophylactic effects such as antibiotics do, mainly by limiting the growth of enteric pathogens and simultaneously providing the opportunity for the proliferation of beneficial organisms [56,57,58,59,69,70,71].
There are limited published data about the aetiology of neonatal piglet diarrhoea in the Greek swine industry, especially on the prevalence of C. difficile. The objective of this study was to investigate the detection of ETEC and C. difficile or C. perfringens type C pathogens in neonatal piglet diarrhoea, as well as the factors contributing to their prevention in commercial pig farms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

2.1.1. Description of Farms, Criteria for Inclusion, and Study Groups

The present study was carried out from January 2020 to October 2021 in Greece. A total of 26 commercial farrow-to-finish pig farms, with an overall population of 12,380 sows comprising approximately 24.5% of the Greek swine industry, representing different regions with high pig density, as well as with different capacities, were included in the study (Table 1). Inclusion criteria for the participated commercial pig farms were the ability to vaccinate sows against E. coli (F4ab, F4ac, F5, F6, and LT) and C. perfringens type C (beta toxoid) using commercial vaccines (intramuscularly, 2 mL per animal) in a routine program 15–20 days before farrowing. The pig farmers participated voluntarily and provided data about the possible use of acidifiers or/and probiotics in gestation and lactation feed. Moreover, the administration or not of injectable antibiotics to sows on the first day of farrowing was recorded. The injectable antibiotic that was used in sows of selected farms was amoxicillin LA at the dose of 15 mg/kg of body weight (BW) after cultivation and antibiogram in samples of former clinical cases to prevent postpartum dysgalactia syndrome (PDS). Moreover, some of the selected farms used, according to the manufacturer’s guidelines, acidifiers based on commercial products containing a combination of formic acid, propionic acid, phosphoric acid, lactic acid, and acetic acid and/or probiotics based on commercial products with Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis (the used commercial products are analytically presented in Supplementary File S1). The study groups of the trial are presented in Table 2.

2.1.2. Sampling and Laboratory Examinations

In total, 78 pooled faecal samples were collected from 234 suckling piglets (1–4 days of age) with diarrhoea (Figure 1). No medication or treatment was given to the selected piglets. Concerning diarrhoea, the sampling time was random. The collected samples were initially screened for the presence of E. coli and C. difficile or C. perfringens via cultivation on MacConkey and anaerobic blood agar, respectively [72]. A modified scoring system created by Pedersen et al. [73] based on faecal consistency was applied for each selected piglet for faecal sampling, as follows: scores 1 (soft faeces), 2 (mild diarrhoea), or 3 (severe diarrhoea). Three rectal swab samples per litter (1 pool) were collected randomly from suckling piglets with symptoms of diarrhoea for three litters per farm (3 piglets × 3 litters × 26 farms = 234 piglets = 78 faecal pool samples). Subsequently, the samples were pooled on ELUTE cards (FTA-like) according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Enterocheck®, Hipra, Spain). The DNA extraction process, as well as the one-step multiplex PCR technique to detect genes that codify the adhesion factors F4, F5, F6, and the LT toxin of enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), β-toxin of C. perfringens type C, and toxins A and B of C. difficile, were carried out using specific probes according to laboratory guidelines (Laboratorios Hipra, Amer, Girona, Spain) [74,75,76]. The results were determined as negative (−) based on the Cycle threshold (Ct) values (>38.5 Ct value). Positive samples were categorized into three categories: pos (+): a low quantity of genetic material of the tested pathogens was detected (35–38.5 Ct value); pos (++): a moderate quantity of genetic material of the tested pathogens was detected (30–35 Ct value); pos (+++): a large quantity of genetic material of the tested pathogens was detected (<30 Ct value).

2.2. Statistical Analysis

The results were statistically analysed using R programming language [77], and all graphs were created with Seaborn, a Python data visualization library based on matplotlib [78]. The results of the detection of the genes F4, F5, and F6 of ETEC, E. coli enterotoxin LT, β-toxin of C. perfringens, and toxins A and B of C. difficile in faeces of piglets were analysed statistically three times based on the following groups: None, AB, PR, AC, PR + AC, PR + AB, AC + AB, and AB + PR + AC. The results were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test [79]. All comparisons were performed at a significant level of p < 0.05. Power analysis with G-Power software (version 3.1.) was performed to estimate the study power and the minimum sample size. The actual power of this study was greater than 95% for a total sample size of 78 samples.

3. Results

The percentages (proportions) of 26 farms when at least one sample was positive and of 78 samples where ETEC F4, ETEC F5, ETEC F6, enterotoxin LT, and β-toxin of C. perfringens type C and toxins A and B of C. difficile were detected are presented in Table 3.
Regarding the detection of F4 gen, the quantity was significantly higher in group None in comparison to those in groups AB (p = 0.018), AB + PR + AC (p = 0.014), AC + AB (p = 0.0117), and PR + AC (p = 0.04). A statistical difference was found between group AB + PR + AC in comparison and groups AC (p = 0.02), PR (p = 0.02), and PR + AB (p = 0.02). Lastly, groups AC + AB and PR were found to be statistically different (p = 0.03). Groups AB, AB + PR + AC, AC + AB had the lowest median (higher quantity of genetic material), while the highest median (lower quantity of genetic material) was observed in groups AC, PR, PR + AB, and None (Figure 2a).
Statistical analysis of ETEC F5 detection in the faeces of piglets showed that the proportion was significantly lower in group PR in comparison to that in group AB + PR + AC (p = 0.04), and it was lower in group PR + AC compared to those in groups AB (p = 0.01) and AB + PR + AC (p = 0.004). Group AB + PR + AC had the highest median (Figure 2b).
Regarding the detection of ETEC F6 in the faeces of piglets, the proportion was significantly lower in group PR + AB in comparison to those in groups AC (p = 0.04), None (p = 0.005), and PR (p = 0.01). Similarly, group AB + PR + AC had a significant difference in comparison to groups PR (p = 0.001) and PR (p = 0.007). Lastly, there was a statistical difference between groups AC + AB and PR (p = 0.001). The highest median was in groups AC, PR, and None (Figure 2c).
Statistical analysis of the detection of enterotoxin LT showed that the proportion was significantly higher in group PR in comparison to those in groups AC (p = 0.007), AC + AB (p = 0.007), and None (p = 0.003). Statistical differences were also found between groups AB and B + PR + AC (p = 0.01), AB and None (p = 0.03), PR and PR + AB (p = 0.007), and PR + AC and AB (p = 0.02) and PR (p = 0.003). The highest medians were in groups PR and AB (Figure 3).
Concerning the detection of toxin A of C. difficile, the proportion was found significantly higher in group AB in comparison to those in groups AB + PR + AC (p < 0.001), AC + AB (p = 0.009), PR (p = 0.01), and PR + AB (p = 0.01), and it was lower in group AB + PR + AC in comparison to group None (p = 0.01). Group AB had the highest median, while groups AB + PR + AC, AC + AB, and PR + AB had the lowest median (Figure 4).
Moreover, statistical analysis of the detected toxin B of C. difficile showed that the proportion is significantly higher in group AB in comparison to those in groups AB + PR + AC (p < 0.001), AC + AB (p = 0.0078, None (p = 0.03), PR (p = 0.003), and PR + AB (p = 0.01). Lastly, a significant difference between groups AB + PR + AC and None (p = 0.165) was found. For the detection of toxin B of C. difficile, the lowest median was in groups AC + AB, None, and AB + PR + AC (Figure 5).
Concerning the score of piglet diarrhoea, it was found significantly higher in group AB in comparison to those in groups AB + PR + AC (p = 0.001), AC + AB (p = 0.015), None (p = 0.04), and PR (p = 0.01). The highest median was in group AB, while the lowest one was in groups AB + PR + AC, AC + AB, and PR (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

Diarrhoea in neonatal piglets up to 4 days of age is a common issue in many sow herds worldwide, and its diagnosis remains an ongoing challenge for swine practitioners. Among the causal agents of neonatal diarrhoea, E. coli is present in swine herds around the world [1,13]. The results of our study confirmed that E. coli is an enteric pathogen of concern for Greek swine farms, even if vaccinations against E. coli are given to sows. However, in contrast to previous studies, we noticed a higher prevalence of F4 and F6, as well as LT toxins, in comparison to that of F5 [80]. Based on our results, 69.23% (18/26) of those in the farms were F4-positive, 30.77% (8/26) were F5-positive, 61.54% (16/26) were F6-positive, 42.31% (11/26) were F4- and enterotoxin LT-positive, 19.23% (5/26) were F5- and LT-positive, 42.31% (11/26) were F6- and LT-positive, and in 57.69% (15/26) of those in the farms, E. coli enterotoxin LT was found. However, our study did not investigate heat-stable (Sta and STb) E. coli enterotoxins due to the absence of this option in the ELUTE cards used according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Enterocheck®, Hipra, Madrid, Spain) [74,75,76].
In recent years, the focus of vaccination strategies against neonatal and post-weaning diarrhoea has been on anti-adhesin strategies, as this is the initial step of ETEC pathogenesis. However, while these vaccines have provided some protection against ETEC infections, there is still no universally effective ETEC vaccine that is commercially available [81]. A comprehensive approach that includes an appropriate vaccination program for the sow herd, the adequate intake of piglet colostrum and milk, and effective preventive strategies could help reduce the incidence of infectious diarrhoea in piglets. Several risk factors associated with clinical forms of neonatal diarrhoea have been reported to enhance protection against enteric pathogens, including passive immunity transferred by colostrum and milk [82,83], environmental conditions (e.g., temperature and humidity) [21,84], herd health management [85], the inadequate intake of colostrum, parity of the sows, and infection pressure by specific pathogens among the herd [85,86,87].
Various studies suggest that further investigations of C. difficile as an etiological agent in neonatal diarrhoea are needed [1,88,89]. Previous studies reported that C. difficile could be an etiological agent of enteritis in neonatal piglets [90,91,92]. While it is not considered to be a primary diarrheic pathogen in pigs based on epidemiological studies [93,94,95,96], other studies indicate that C. difficile is an emerging pathogen in neonatal diarrhoea [1,97,98]. These findings highlight the need for farmers to use recently developed commercial vaccines that provide immunization against C. difficile to sows to prevent neonatal diarrhoea via passive immunity. A new commercial vaccine for the immunization of sows with C. difficile (toxins A and B) and C. perfringens type A was recently registered in Europe, resulting in a significant reduction in diarrhoea and productive losses caused by C. difficile and C. perfringens type A [99].
While a previous study reported that pathogenic E. coli was only found in combination with other pathogens in Spanish swine farms [82], our study found that E. coli is present in combination with C. difficile, but no detection of C. perfringens type C was noticed among the 26 pig farms studied. Even if C. difficile causes disease in piglets worldwide, it is considered to be much less important than other enteric pathogens are from a global perspective [100]. For example, a low prevalence of C. perfringens type C (1,4%) in herds was reported in Poland [101]. Our results regarding the absence of C. perfringens type C in faecal samples from newborn piglets with diarrhoea are consistent with those in previous studies, which included a larger number of herds and samples [3]. These findings may be explained by the sufficient protection of routine vaccinations for sows against C. perfringens type C [1,3]. However, in contrast to our results, these studies did not find a relationship between C. difficile and diarrhoeal status.
Our study found that administering antibiotics alone to sows did not reduce the detection of ETEC antigens. However, combining antibiotics with probiotics or acidifiers or both resulted in better outcomes. This is supported by several studies that have reported the beneficial effects of probiotics as a feed additive in the health and performance of piglets and sows [102,103,104]. The supplementation of probiotics in the feed of gestating and lactating sows has been shown to improve their health status and reproductive performance, as well as increase the production of immunoglobulins in colostrum and milk, resulting in a decrease in the incidence of neonatal diarrhoea [105,106,107,108,109]. Additionally, the administration of acidifiers in pig diets can enhance their growth performance and modulate the intestinal microbiota, reducing gastric pH and delaying the multiplication of enterotoxigenic E. coli [110,111]. The supplementation of acidifiers in sow feed could influence the mother’s microbiota and affects those of piglets [112]. Our results could support the findings of previous trials relating to the administration of acidifiers in sow gestation feed, which reported beneficial effects on the sows’ performance during lactation [113,114] and their gut microbiome, reducing the E. coli counts during farrowing and weaning [115].
Feed additives, including probiotics and acidifiers, have been explored as antibiotic alternatives, but their effectiveness varies [116]. Our study found that administering antibiotics alone did not reduce the detection of pathogen toxins (such as enterotoxin LT and toxin A of C. difficile), but combining antibiotics with probiotics or acidifiers decreased the toxin levels. Feeding sows probiotics or acidifiers also resulted in lower neonatal piglet diarrhoea scores compared to those who received nothing or only injectable antibiotics. In contrast to our results, Greeff et al. [117] reported that oral amoxicillin administration during the last week of gestation to sows can modulate the gut development of their piglets for a period of at least 5 weeks after the last antibiotic administration.
It is worth noting that in the case of C. difficile, the highest median toxin detection was found in the group that received antibiotics alone, while a lower detection rate was observed in groups that received alternatives to antibiotics, such as probiotics and acidifiers, either alone or in combination with antibiotics. In humans, C. difficile infection (CDI) is becoming increasingly difficult to treat due to severe antibiotic resistance, and for this reason, there are very limited treatment options [118,119]. Currently, only three antibiotics (metronidazole, vancomycin, and fidaxomicin) are available for CDI treatment [120]. These antibiotics are forbidden for use in swine. Fry et al. [121] reported that significant proportions of C. difficile in swine are toxigenic and are often associated with antimicrobial resistance genes, although they are not resistant to drugs that are used to treat CDI. A connection between the presence of C. difficile and diarrhoea or antibiotic treatments in piglets has not been proven thus far [122,123,124]. Moreover, a previous study by Schneeberg et al. [125] reported that emerging human-pathogenic C. difficile PCR ribotypes were the predominant PCR ribotypes in piglets in Germany. However, they did not find a link between the presence of C. difficile in piglets and antibiotic treatment or diarrhoea in piglets.
Our findings highlight the potential benefits of using alternatives to antibiotics, such as probiotics and acidifiers, in swine feed to improve the health and performance of both sows and their piglets. In addition, our results suggest that further research is needed to investigate the potential use of these alternatives in the treatment of CDI in swine and humans, either alone or in combination with antibiotics.

5. Conclusions

In our research study, despite routine vaccinations of sows against E. coli, a high prevalence of positive samples was found, revealing that E. coli remains a main pathogen of great importance in neonatal pig diarrhoea. Additionally, our study reports, for the first time in Greece, the involvement of C. difficile in most clinical cases of neonatal pig diarrhoea in commercial pig farms. Therefore, the need for herd immunization against C. difficile may be necessary. However, these findings reveal the necessity of extended future studies on the epidemiology of C. difficile in pigs and the need for research on this pathogen in the future, as well as the need for herd immunization against C. difficile. Maternal interventions with antibiotics in combination with probiotics or acidifiers appear to have beneficial effects in terms of neonatal pig diarrhoea, reducing the detection of ETEC antigens and the enterotoxin LT of E. coli.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/life13051092/s1, Supplementary File S1: used commercial products in farms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.G.P., N.T., G.C. and C.B.; methodology, N.T., V.G.P., Z.A., G.L., G.C. and C.B.; software, E.M. and P.K.; validation, N.T., V.G.P., Z.A., G.L, G.C. and C.B.; formal analysis, N.T. and V.G.P.; investigation, N.T., Z.A., V.G.P. and G.L.; resources, N.T.; data curation, N.T., E.M. and P.K.; writing—original draft preparation, N.T., V.G.P. and E.M.; writing—review and editing, V.G.P., G.C. and C.B.; visualization, E.M. and P.K. supervision, V.G.P., G.C. and C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study received approval (permission number 96/19.12.2019) from our Institutional Animal Use Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Thessaly.

Informed Consent Statement

The farm owners involved in the research were informed and provided consent to use the animals in the present study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Hipra Hellas S.A. and Laboratorios Hipra (Amer, Girona, Spain) for the performance of laboratory examinations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chan, G.; Farzan, A.; DeLay, J.; McEwen, B.; Prescott, J.F.; Friendship, R.M. A retrospective study on the etiological diagnoses of diarrhea in neonatal piglets in Ontario, Canada, between 2001 and 2010. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2013, 77, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Sjölund, M.; Zoric, M.; Wallgren, P. Financial impact of disease on pig production. Part III. Gastrointestinal disorders. In Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium of Porcine Health Management, Sorrento, Italy, 7–9 May 2014; p. 189. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kongsted, H.; Pedersen, K.; Hjulsager, C.K.; Larsen, L.E.; Pedersen, K.S.; Jorsal, S.E.; Bækbo, P. Diarrhoea in neonatal piglets: A case control study on microbiological findings. Porc. Health Manag. 2018, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dubreuil, J.D.; Isaacson, R.E.; Schifferli, D.M. Animal enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. EcoSal Plus. 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Luppi, A.; Gibellini, M.; Gin, T.; Vangroenweghe, F.; Vandenbroucke, V.; Bauerfeind, R.; Bonilauri, P.; Labarque, G.; Hidalgo, A. Prevalence of virulence factors in enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli isolated from pigs with post-weaning diarrhea in Europe. Porc. Health Manag. 2016, 2, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ruiz, V.L.A.; Bersano, J.G.; Carvalho, A.F.; Catroxo, M.H.B.; Chiebao, D.P.; Gregori, F.; Miyashiro, S.; Nassar, A.F.C.; Oliveira, T.M.F.S.; Ogata, R.A.; et al. Case–control study of pathogens involved in piglet diarrhea. BMC Res. Notes 2016, 9, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Uzal, F.A.; Songer, J.G. Clostridial diseases. In Diseases of Swine, 11th ed.; Zimmerman, J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J., Stevenson, G.W., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 792–806. [Google Scholar]
  8. Vidal, A.; Martín-Valls, G.E.; Tello, M.; Mateu, E.; Martín, M.; Darwich, L. Prevalence of enteric pathogens in diarrheic and non-diarrheic samples from pig farms with neonatal diarrhea in the North East of Spain. Vet. Microbiol. 2019, 237, 108419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Holland, R.E. Some infectious causes of diarrhea in young farm animals. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1990, 3, 345–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Morin, M.; Turgeon, D.; Jolette, J.; Robinson, Y.; Phaneuf, J.B.; Sauvageau, R.; Beauregard, M.; Teuscher, E.; Higgins, R.; Lariviere, S. Neonatal diarrhea of pigs in Quebec: Infectious causes of significant outbreaks. Can. J. Comp. Med. 1983, 47, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  11. Svensmark, B.; Jorsal, S.; Nielsen, K.; Willeberg, P. Epidemiological studies of piglet diarrhoea in intensively managed Danish sow herds. I. Pre-weaning diarrhoea. Acta Vet. Scand. 1988, 30, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Svendsen, J.; Bille, N.; Nielsen, N.; Larsen, J.; Riising, H. Preweaning mortality in pigs. Diseases of the gastrointestinal tract in pigs. Nordisk Veterinär. 1975, 27, 85–101. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kongsted, H.; Stege, H.; Toft, N.; Nielsen, J.P. The effect of new neonatal porcine Diarrhoea syndrome (NNPDS) on average daily gain and mortality in 4 Danish pig herds. BMC Vet. Res. 2014, 10, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Johansen, M.; Alban, L.; Kjærsgård, H.D.; Bækbo, P. Factors associated with suckling piglet average daily gain. Prev. Vet. Med. 2004, 63, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dubreuil, J.D. Escherichia coli STb toxin and colibacillosis: Knowing is half the battle. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2008, 78, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Moon, H.W.; Schineider, R.A.; Mosely, S.L. Comparative prevalence of four enterotoxin genes among Escherichia coli isolates from swine. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1986, 47, 210–212. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Toledo, A.; Gómez, D.; Cruz, C.; Carreón, R.; López, J.; Giono, S.; Castro, A.M. Prevalence of virulence genes in Escherichia coli strains isolated from piglets in the suckling and weaning period in Mexico. J. Med. Virol. 2012, 61, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Zajacova, Z.S.; Konstantinová, L.; Alexa, P. Detection of virulence factors of Escherichia coli focused on prevalence of EAST1 toxin in the stool of diarrheic and non-diarrheic piglets and presence of adhesion involving virulence factors in astA positive strains. Vet. Microbiol. 2012, 154, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Nagy, B.; Fekete, P.Z. Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC) in farm animals. Vet. Res. 1999, 30, 259–284. [Google Scholar]
  20. Vu-Khac, H.; Holoda, E.; Pilipcinec, E.; Blanco, M.; Blanco, J.E.; Dahbi, G.; Mora, A.; López, C.; González, E.A.; Blanco, J. Serotypes, virulence genes, intimin types and PFGE profiles of Escherichia coli isolated from piglets with diarrhoea in Slovakia. Vet. J. 2007, 174, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fairbrother, J.M.; Gyles, C.L. Colibacillosis. In Diseases of Swine, 10th ed.; Zimmerman, J., Karriker, L.A., Ramirez, A., Schwartz, K.J., Stevenson, G.W., Eds.; WileyBlackwell: Chichester, UK, 2012; pp. 723–749. [Google Scholar]
  22. Luppi, A. Swine enteric colibacillosis: Diagnosis, therapy and antimicrobial resistance. Porc. Health Manag. 2017, 3, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Songer, J.G.; Uzal, F.A. Clostridial Enteric Infections in Pigs. J. Vet. Diagn. 2005, 17, 528–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Petit, L.; Gibert, M.; Popoff, M.R. Clostridium perfringens: Toxinotype and genotype. Trends Microbiol. 1999, 7, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Songer, J.G. Clostridial enteric diseases of domestic animals. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1996, 9, 216–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rood, J.I.; Adams, V.; Lacey, J.; Lyras, D.; McClane, B.A.; Melville, S.B.; Moore, R.J.; Popoff, M.R.; Sarker, M.R.; Songer, J.G.; et al. Expansion of the Clostridium perfringens toxin-based typing scheme. Anaerobe 2018, 53, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gould, L.H.; Limbago, B. Clostridium difficile in food and domestic animals: A new foodborne pathogen? Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 51, 577–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Keel, M.K.; Songer, J.G. The comparative pathology of Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Vet. Pathol. 2006, 43, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Keessen, E.C.; van den Berkt, A.J.; Haasjes, N.H.; Hermanus, C.; Kuijper, E.J.; Lipman, L.J.A. The relation between farm specific factors and prevalence of Clostridium difficile in slaughter pigs. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 154, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Britton, R.A.; Young, V.B. Interaction between the intestinal microbiota and host in Clostridium difficile colonization resistance. Trends Microbiol. 2012, 20, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Lim, S.C.; Knight, D.R.; Riley, T.V. Clostridium difficile and One Health. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Songer, J.G. The emergence of Clostridium difficile as a pathogen of food animals. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2004, 5, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Debast, S.B.; van Leengoed, L.A.M.G.; Goorhuis, A.; Harmanus, C.; Kuijper, E.J.; Bergwerff, A.A. Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 078 toxinotype V found in diarrhoeal pigs identical to isolates from affected humans. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 11, 505–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Goorhuis, A.; Bakker, D.; Corver, J.; Debast, S.B.; Harmanus, C.; Notermans, D.W.; Bergwerff, A.A.; Dekker, F.W.; Kuijper, E.J. Emergence of Clostridium difficile infection due to a new hypervirulent strain, polymerase chain reaction ribotype 078. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 47, 1162–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Goorhuis, A.; Debast, S.B.; van Leengoed, L.A.M.G.; Harmanus, C.; Notermans, D.W.; Bergwerff, A.A.; Kuijper, E.J. Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 078: An emerging strain in humans and in pigs? J. Clin Microbiol. 2008, 46, 1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mylonakis, E.; Ryan, E.T.; Calderwood, S.B. Clostridium difficile–associated diarrhea: A review. Arch. Intern. Med. 2001, 161, 525–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. DebRoy, C.; Roberts, E.; Valadez, A.M.; Dudley, E.G.; Cutter, C.N. Detection of Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli O26, O45, O103, O111, O113, O121, O145, and O157 serogroups by multiplex polymerase chain reaction of the wzx gene of the O-antigen gene cluster. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2011, 8, 651–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bai, J.; Paddock, Z.D.; Shi, X.; Li, S.; An, B.; Nagaraja, T.G. Applicability of a multiplex PCR to detect the seven major Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli based on genes that code for serogroup-specific O-antigens and major virulence factors in cattle feces. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2012, 9, 541–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Baker, C.A.; Rubinelli, P.M.; Park, S.H.; Carbonero, F.; Ricke, S.C. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in food: Incidence, ecology, and detection strategies. Food Control 2016, 59, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Baker, C.A.; Rubinelli, P.M.; Park, S.H.; Ricke, S.C. Immuno-based detection of Shiga toxin-producing pathogenic Escherichia coli in food—A review on current approaches and potential strategies for optimization. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 42, 656–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Salvador, J.M.; De Ungria, M.C.A. Isolation of DNA from saliva of betel quid chewers using treated cards. J. Forensic Sci. 2003, 48, 794–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Muthukrishnan, M.; Singanallur, N.B.; Ralla, K.; Villuppanoor, S.A. Evaluation of FTA® cards as a laboratory and field sampling device for the detection of foot-and-mouth disease virus and serotyping by RT-PCR and real-time RT-PCR. J. Virol. Methods 2008, 151, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Linhares, D.C.; Rovira, A.; Torremorell, M. Evaluation of Flinders Technology Associates cards for collection and transport of samples for detection of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2012, 24, 328–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shalaby, A.G.; Bakry, N.R.; Mohamed, A.; Khalil, A.A. Evaluating Flinders Technology Associates card for transporting bacterial isolates and retrieval of bacterial DNA after various storage conditions. Vet. World. 2020, 13, 2243–2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stringer, O.W.; Bossé, J.T.; Lacouture, S.; Gottschalk, M.; Fodor, L.; Angen, Ø.; Velazquez, E.; Penny, P.; Lei, L.; Langford, P.R.; et al. Rapid Detection and Typing of Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae Serovars Directly From Clinical Samples: Combining FTA® Card Technology With Multiplex PCR. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 728660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rajendram, D.; Ayenza, R.; Holder, F.M.; Moran, B.; Long, T.; Shah, H.N. Long-term storage and safe retrieval of DNA from microorganisms for molecular analysis using FTA matrix cards. J. Microbiol. Methods. 2006, 67, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Li, J.Y. Current Status and Prospects for in-Feed Antibiotics in the Different Stages of Pork Production—A Review. Asian Austral. J. Anim. 2017, 30, 1667–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Pamer, E.G. Resurrecting the Intestinal Microbiota to Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogens. Science 2016, 352, 535–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Laird, T.J.; Abraham, S.; Jordan, D.; Pluske, J.R.; Hampson, D.J.; Trott, D.J.; O’Dea, M. Porcine Enterotoxigenic Escherichia Coli: Antimicrobial Resistance and Development of Microbial-Based Alternative Control Strategies. Vet. Microbiol. 2021, 258, 109117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Athanasakopoulou, Z.; Reinicke, M.; Diezel, C.; Sofia, M.; Chatzopoulos, D.C.; Braun, S.D.; Reissig, A.; Spyrou, V.; Monecke, S.; Ehricht, R.; et al. Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in ESBL-Producing Escherichia Coli Isolates from Animals in Greece. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tsekouras, N.; Athanasakopoulou, Z.; Diezel, C.; Kostoulas, P.; Braun, S.D.; Sofia, M.; Monecke, S.; Ehricht, R.; Chatzopoulos, D.C.; Gary, D.; et al. Cross-Sectional Survey of Antibiotic Resistance in Extended Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae Isolated from Pigs in Greece. Animals 2022, 12, 1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, Y.; Espinosa, C.D.; Abelilla, J.J.; Casas, G.A.; Lagos, L.V.; Lee, S.A.; Kwon, W.B.; Mathai, J.K.; Navarro, D.M.D.L.; Jaworski, N.W.; et al. Non-antibiotic feed additives in diets for pigs: A review. Anim Nutr. 2018, 4, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Papatsiros, V.G.; Billinis, C. The prophylactic use of acidifiers as antibacterial agents in swine. In Antimicrobial Agents; Bobbarala, V., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 295–310. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ji, P.; Li, X.; Liu, Y. Dietary Intervention to Reduce E. coli Infectious Diarrhea in Young Pigs. In E. Coli Infections—Importance of Early Diagnosis and Efficient Treatment (Internet); Rodrigo, L., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/71010 (accessed on 24 July 2022). [CrossRef]
  55. Wellison, A.P.; Franco, S.M.; Reis, I.L.; Mendonça, C.M.N.; Piazentin, A.C.M.; Azevedo, P.O.S.; Tse, M.L.P.; De Martinis, E.C.P.; Gierus, M.; Oliveira, R.P.S. Beneficial effects of probiotics on the pig production cycle: An overview of clinical impacts and performance. Vet. Microbiol. 2022, 269, 109431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kim, Y.Y.; Kil, D.; Oh, H.K.; Han, I. Acidifier as an Alternative Material to Antibiotics in Animal Feed. Asian Australas J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 18, 1048–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jacela, J.Y.; DeRouchey, J.M.; Tokach, M.D.; Goodband, R.D.; Nelssen, J.L.; Renter, D.G.; Dritz, S.S. Feed additives for swine: Fact sheets—Acidifi ers and antibiotics. J. Swine Health Prod. 2009, 17, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Roth, F.X.; Kirchgessner, M. Organic acids as feed additives for young pigs: Nutritional and gastrointestinal effects. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 1998, 7, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Papatsiros, V.G.; Katsoulos, P.D.; Koutoulis, K.C.; Karatzia, M.; Dedousi, A.; Christodoulopoulos, G. Alternatives to antibiotics for farm animals. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 2013, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kantas, D.; Papatsiros, V.G.; Tassis, P.D.; Athanasiou, L.V.; Tzika, E.D. Effect of a natural feed additive (Macleaya cordata), containing sanguinarine, on the performance and health status of weaning pigs. Anim. Sci. J. 2015, 86, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sayan, H.; Assavacheep, P.; Angkanaporn, K.; Assavacheep, A. Effect of Lactobacillus salivarius on growth performance, diarrhea incidence, fecal bacterial population and intestinal morphology of suckling pigs challenged with F4+ enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Asian Australas J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 1308–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yue, S.; Li, Z.; Hu, F.; Picimbon, J.F. Curing piglets from diarrhea and preparation of a healthy microbiome with Bacillus treatment for industrial animal breeding. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 19476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alexopoulos, C.; Georgoulakis, I.E.; Tzivara, A.; Kritas, S.K.; Siochu, A.; Kyriakis, S.C. Field evaluation of the efficacy of a probiotic containing Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis spores, on the health status and performance of sows and their litters. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2000, 88, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Böhmer, B.M.; Kramer, W.; Roth-Maier, D.A. Dietary probiotic supplementation and resulting effects on performance, health status, and microbial characteristics of primiparous sows. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2006, 90, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kantas, D.; Papatsiros, V.G.; Tassis, P.D.; Giavasis, I.; Bouki, P.; Tzika, E.D. A feed additive containing Bacillus toyonensis (Toyocerin(®)) protects against enteric pathogens in postweaning piglets. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 118, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hayakawa, T.; Masuda, T.; Kurosawa, D.; Tsukahara, T. Dietary administration of probiotics to sows and/or their neonates improves the reproductive performance, incidence of post-weaning diarrhea and histopathological parameters in the intestine of weaned piglets. Anim. Sci. J. 2016, 87, 1501–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Menegat, M.B.; Gourley, K.M.; Braun, M.B.; DeRouchey, J.M.; Woodworth, J.C.; Bryte, J.; Tokach, M.D.; Dritz, S.S.; Goodband, R.D. Effects of a Bacillus-Based Probiotic on Sow Performance and on Progeny Growth Performance, Fecal Consistency, and Fecal Microflora. Kans. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 2018, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kritas, S.K.; Marubashi, T.; Filioussis, G.; Petridou, E.; Christodoulopoulos, G.; Burriel, A.R.; Tzivara, A.; Theodoridis, A.; Pískoriková, M. Reproductive performance of sows was improved by administration of a sporing bacillary probiotic (Bacillus subtilis C-3102). J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Papatsiros, V.G.; Tassis, P.D.; Tzika, E.D.; Papaioannou, D.S.; Petridou, E.; Alexopoulos, C.; Kyriakis, S.C. Effect of benzoic acid and combination of benzoic acid with a probiotic containing Bacillus cereus var. Toyoi in weaned pig nutrition. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2011, 14, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Papatsiros, V.; Christodouloupoulos, G.; Filippopoulos, L.C. The use of organic acids in monogastric animals (swine and rabbits). JCAB 2012, 6, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pearlin, B.V.; Muthuvel, S.; Govidasamy, P.; Villavan, M.; Alagawany, M.; Farag, M.R.; Dhama, K.; Gopi, M. Role of acidifiers in livestock nutrition and health: A review. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 104, 558–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Goldstein, M.R.; Kruth, S.A.; Bersenas, A.M.; Holowaychuk, M.K.; Weese, J.S. Detection and characterization of Clostridium perfringens in the feces of healthy and diarrheic dogs. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2012, 76, 161–165. [Google Scholar]
  73. Pedersen, K.S.; Holyoake, P.; Stege, H.; Nielsen, J.P. Observations of variable inter-observer agreement for clinical evaluation of faecal consistency in pigs. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011, 98, 284–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Quilitis, M.; Lumabiang, J.; Camprodon, A.; Torres, M.; Magcalas, J.; Bautista, C.; Nuestro, F.; Vergel de Dios, R.; Santos, R.; Manuel, R. Control of pre-weaning mortality associated with Escherichia coli using Suiseng® in two Philippine commercial swine farms. In Proceedings of the 6th Asian Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 23–25 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
  75. Kitchodok, R.; Ananratanakul, C.; Kongthong, T. Efficacy and safety of Suiseng in prevention of neonatal diarrhea according to enterotoxigenic E. coli under a mixed infection with PRRSV involved from the field. Thai J. Vet. Med. 2018, 48, 169–170. [Google Scholar]
  76. Kitchodok, R.; Triyarach, S.; Sutheerakul, K.; Serod, C.; Chompupun, D. Prevalence of Genotypic Fimbrial Antigens of Enterotoxigenic E. Coli Isolated in Thai Pig Herds. In Proceedings of the 20th Khon Kaen Veterinary Annual International Conference, Khon kaen, Thailand, 21–22 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
  77. R Core Team. R: A language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 18 February 2023).
  78. Levene, H. Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling; Olkin, I., Ghurye, S.G., Hoeffding, W., Madow, W.G., Mann, H.B., Eds.; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1960; pp. 278–292. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47, 583–621, Erratum in J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 48, 907–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wang, H.; Sanz Garcia, R.; Cox, E.; Devriendt, B. Porcine Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli Strains Differ in Their Capacity To Secrete Enterotoxins through Varying YghG Levels. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 86, e00523-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Dubreuil, J.D. Pig vaccination strategies based on enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli toxins. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2021, 52, 2499–2509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Mesonero-Escuredo, S.; Strutzberg-Minder, K.; Casanovas, C.; Segalés, J. Viral and bacterial investigations on the aetiology of recurrent pig neonatal diarrhoea cases in Spain. Porc. Health Manag. 2018, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Le Dividich, J.; Noblet, J. Colostrum intake and thermoregulation in the neonatal pig in relation to environmental temperature. Biol. Neonate. 1981, 40, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pereira, D.A.; Vidotto, M.C.; Nascimento, K.A.; Santos, A.C.R.; Mechler, M.L.; Oliveira, L.G. Virulence factors of Escherichia coli in relation to the importance of vaccination in pigs. Cienc. Rural. 2016, 46, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pedersen, L.J.; Malmkvist, J.; Kammersgaard, T.; Jorgensen, E. Avoiding hypothermia in neonatal pigs: Effect of duration of floor heating at different room temperatures. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Martineau, G.P.; Vaillancourt, J.P.; Broes, A. Principal neonatal diseases. In The Neonatal Pig Development and Survival; Varley, M.A., Ed.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1995; pp. 239–264. [Google Scholar]
  87. Muirhead, M.R.; Alexander, T.L. Managing Pig Health and the Treatment of Disease: A Reference for the Farm; 5M Enterprises: Sheffield, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  88. Haesebrouck, F.; Pasmans, F.; Chiers, K.; Maes, D.; Ducatelle, R.; Decostere, A. Efficacy of vaccines against bacterial diseases in swine: What can we expect? Vet. Microbiol. 2004, 100, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yaeger, M.J.; Kinyon, J.M.; Songer, J.G. A prospective, case control study evaluating the association between Clostridium difficile toxins in the colon of neonatal swine and gross and microscopic lesions. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2007, 19, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cruz, E.C., Jr.; Salvarani, F.M.; Silva, R.O.S.; Silva, M.X.; Lobato, F.C.F.; Guedes, R.M.C. A surveillance of enteropathogens in piglets from birth to seven days of age in Brazil. Pesqui. Vet. Bras. 2013, 33, 963–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Steele, J.; Feng, H.; Parry, N.; Tzipori, S. Piglet models of acute or chronic Clostridium difficile illness. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 201, 428–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Arruda, P.H.E.; Madson, D.M.; Ramirez, A.; Rowe, E.; Lizer, J.T.; Songer, J.G. Effect of age, dose and antibiotic therapy on the development of Clostridium difficile infection in neonatal piglets. Anaerobe 2013, 22, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. McElroy, M.C.; Hill, M.; Moloney, G.; MacAogain, M.; McGettrick, S. Typhlocolitis associated with Clostridium difficile ribotypes 078 and 110 in neonatal piglets from a commercial Irish pig herd. Ir. Vet. J. 2016, 69, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Silva, R.O.S.; Salvarani, F.M.; Cruz, E.C.C., Jr.; Pires, P.S.; Santos, R.L.R.; Antunes de Assis, R.; Guedes, R.M.C.; Lobato, F.C.F. Detection of enterotoxin a and cytotoxin B, and isolation of Clostridium difficile in piglets in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Cienc. Rural. 2011, 41, 1430–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Jonach, B.; Boye, M.; Stockmarr, A.; Jensen, T. Fluorescence in situ hybridization investigation of potentially pathogenic bacteria involved in neonatal porcine diarrhea. BMC Vet. Res. 2014, 10, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Alvarez-Perez, S.; Alba, P.; Blanco, J.L.; Garcia, M.E. Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in pig feces by PCR. Vet. Med. 2009, 54, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Larsson, J.; Aspan, A.; Lindberg, R.; Grandon, R.; Baverud, V.; Fall, N.; Jacobson, M. Pathological and bacteriological characterization of neonatal porcine diarrhoea of uncertain aetiology. J. Med. Microbiol. 2015, 64, 916–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Yaeger, M.; Funk, N.; Hoffman, L. A survey of agents associated with neonatal diarrhea in Iowa swine including Clostridium difficile and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. J. Vet. Diag. 2002, 14, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Farzan, A.; Kircanki, J.; DeLay, J.; Soltes, G.; Songer, J.G.; Friendship, R.; Prescott, J.F. An investigation into the association between cpb2-encoding C. perfringens type A and diarrhea in neonatal piglets. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2013, 77, 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  100. Gibert, X.; Puig, A.; Sabaté, D.; Vidal-Mas, J.; March, R. Effects of a new vaccine against Clostridioides Difficile and Clostridium Perfigens Type A on the incidence of diarrhoea and antibiotic treatments uder field conditions. In Proceedings of the European Symposium of Porcine Health Management (ESPHM 2021), Bern, Switzerland, 14–16 April 2021. [Google Scholar]
  101. Dors, A.; Czyżewska-Dors, E.; Wasyl, D.; Pomorska-Mól, M. Prevalence and factors associated with the occurrence of bacterial enteropathogens in suckling piglets in farrow-to-finish herds. Vet. Rec. 2016, 179, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Estienne, M.J.; Hartsock, T.G.; Harper, A.F. Effects of antibiotics and probiotics on suckling pig and weaned pig performance. Int. J. Appl. Res. Vet. Med. 2005, 4, 303–308. [Google Scholar]
  103. Szabó, I.; Wieler, L.H.; Tedin, K.; Scharek-Tedin, L.; Taras, D.; Hensel, A.; Appel, B.; Nöckler, K. Influence of a probiotic strain of enterococcus faecium on salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 infection in a porcine animal infection model. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 96, 219–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Liao, S.F.; Nyachoti, M. Using probiotics to improve swine gut health and nutrient utilization. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 3, 331–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Satora, M.; Magdziarz, M.; Rząsa, A.; Rypuła, K.; Płoneczka-Janeczko, K. Insight into the intestinal microbiome of farrowing sows following the administration of garlic (Allium sativum) extract and probiotic bacteria cultures under farming conditions. BMC Vet. Res. 2020, 16, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Betancur, C.; Martínez, Y.; Tellez-Isaias, G.; Castillo, R.; Ding, X. Effect of oral administration with Lactobacillus plantarum CAM6 strain on sows during gestation-lactation and the derived impact on their progeny performance. Med. Inflamm. 2021, 2021, 6615960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Satora, M.; Rząsa, A.; Rypuła, K.; Płoneczka-Janeczko, K. Field evaluation of the influence of garlic extract and probiotic cultures on sows and growing pigs. Med. Weter. 2021, 77, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Laskowska, E.; Jarosz, Ł.; Grądzki, Z. Effect of multi-microbial probiotic formulation bokashi on pro-and anti-inflammatory cytokines profile in the serum, colostrum and milk of sows, and in a culture of polymorphonuclear cells isolated from colostrum. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 11, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tsukahara, T.; Inatomi, T.; Otomaru, K.; Amatatsu, M.; Romero-Pérez, G.A.; Inoue, R. Probiotic supplementation improves reproductive performance of unvaccinated farmed sows infected with porcine epidemic diarrhea virus. Anim. Sci. J. 2018, 89, 1144–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Partanen, K.H.; Morz, Z. Organic acids for performance enhancement in pig diets. Nutr. Res. Rev. 1999, 12, 117–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Thompson, J.L.; Lawrence, T.L.J. Dietary manipulation of gastric pH in the profilaxis of enteric disease in weaned pigs. Some field observations. Vet. Rec. 1981, 109, 120–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Tanaka, T.; Imai, Y.; Kumagae, N.; Sato, S. The effect of feeding lactic acid to Salmonella typhimurium experimentally infected swine. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2010, 72, 827–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ferronato, G.; Prandini, A. Dietary Supplementation of Inorganic, Organic, and Fatty Acids in Pig: A Review. Animals 2020, 10, 1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Sampath, V.; Park, J.H.; Pineda, L.; Han, Y.; Kim, I.H. Impact of synergistic blend of organic acids on the performance of late gestating sows and their offspring. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 21, 1334–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Devi, S.M.; Lee, K.Y.; Kim, I.H. Analysis of the effect of dietary protected organic acid blend on lactating sows and their piglets. Rev. Bras. Zootech. 2016, 45, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Turner, J.L.; Dritz, S.; Minton, J.E. Alternatives to Conventional Antimicrobials in Swine Diets1. PAS 2001, 17, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Greeff, A.; Schokker, D.; Roubos-van den Hil, P.; Ramaekers, P.; Vastenhouw, S.A.; Harders, F.; Bossers, A.; Smits, M.A.; Rebel, J.M.J. The effect of maternal antibiotic use in sows on intestinal development in offspring. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, skaa181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Lessa, F.C.; Gould, C.V.; McDonald, L.C. Current status of Clostridium difficile infection epidemiology. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 55, S65–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kociolek, L.K.; Gerding, D.N. Breakthroughs in the treatment and prevention of Clostridium difficile infection. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 13, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Nale, J.Y.; Redgwell, T.A.; Millard, A.; Clokie, M.R.J. Efficacy of an Optimised Bacteriophage Cocktail to Clear Clostridium difficile in a Batch Fermentation Model. Antibiotics 2018, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Fry, P.R.; Thakur, S.; Abley, M.; Gebreyes, W.A. Antimicrobial resistance, toxinotype, and genotypic profiling of Clostridium difficile isolates of swine origin. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012, 50, 2366–2372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Alvarez-Perez, S.; Blanco, J.L.; Bouza, E.; Alba, P.; Gibert, X.; Maldonado, J.; Garcia, M.E. Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in diarrhoeic and non-diarrhoeic piglets. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 137, 302–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Avbersek, J.; Janezic, S.; Pate, M.; Rupnik, M.; Zidaric, V.; Logar, K.; Vengust, M.; Zemljic, M.; Pirs, T.; Ocepek, M. Diversity of Clostridium difficile in pigs and other animals in Slovenia. Anaerobe 2009, 15, 252–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Susick, E.K.; Putnam, M.; Bermudez, D.M.; Thakur, S. Longitudinal study comparing the dynamics of Clostridium difficile in conventional and antimicrobial free pigs at farm and slaughter. Vet. Microbiol. 2012, 157, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Schneeberg, A.; Neubauer, H.; Schmoock, G.; Baier, S.; Harlizius, J.; Nienhoff, H.; Brase, K.; Zimmermann, S.; Seyboldt, C. Clostridium difficile genotypes in piglet populations in Germany. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 3796–3803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Life 13 01092 g001 550
Figure 1. A flowchart of study design (animals, sampling, and laboratory exams).
Figure 1. A flowchart of study design (animals, sampling, and laboratory exams).
Life 13 01092 g001
Life 13 01092 g002a 550Life 13 01092 g002b 550
Figure 2. (a) Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected ETEC F4 in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes. (b) Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected ETEC F5 in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes. (c) Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected ETEC F6 in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes.
Figure 2. (a) Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected ETEC F4 in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes. (b) Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected ETEC F5 in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes. (c) Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected ETEC F6 in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes.
Life 13 01092 g002aLife 13 01092 g002b
Life 13 01092 g003 550
Figure 3. Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected E. coli toxin LT in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes.
Figure 3. Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected E. coli toxin LT in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes.
Life 13 01092 g003
Life 13 01092 g004 550
Figure 4. Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected toxin A of C. difficile in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes.
Figure 4. Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected toxin A of C. difficile in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes.
Life 13 01092 g004
Life 13 01092 g005 550
Figure 5. Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected toxin B of C. difficile in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes.
Figure 5. Observed data points of the scores of the PCR detected toxin B of C. difficile in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected genes.
Life 13 01092 g005
Life 13 01092 g006 550
Figure 6. Observed data points of diarrhoea scores in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected scores.
Figure 6. Observed data points of diarrhoea scores in all groups. The x-axis indicates the administration group, and the y-axis indicates the amount of the detected scores.
Life 13 01092 g006
Table
Table 1. Overview of the 26 commercial pig farms included in the present study: number per geographic region, the capacity of sows, and the number of samples.
Table 1. Overview of the 26 commercial pig farms included in the present study: number per geographic region, the capacity of sows, and the number of samples.
Region of GreeceNumber of FarmsCapacity of Sows per FarmNumber of Faecal Pool Samples
<100101–300301–500>500
Central Greece10231430
North Greece7041221
West Greece5020315
South Greece4111112
Total2631031078
Table
Table 2. Overview of the study groups according to the use of antibiotics, probiotics, or acidifiers.
Table 2. Overview of the study groups according to the use of antibiotics, probiotics, or acidifiers.
Groups of the Trial Farms Based on Their Routine Program in Sows
Non-Use of AB *, PR **, and AC ***Injectable AB at 1st Day of FarrowingUse in Pre-Farrowing FeedCombination of Injectable AB and PR or/and AC in Pre-Farrowing Feed
Group NoneGroup ABGroup PR Group ACGroup PR + AC Group PR + AB Group AC + ABGroup AB + PR + AC
68214113
* AB: antibiotics. ** PR: probiotics. *** AC: acidifiers.
Table
Table 3. Percentage (%) and number (no) of positive pig farms (when at least one sample was positive) and positive samples in the detection, by PCR of ETEC F4, F5, and F6 genes, enterotoxin LT, β toxin of C. perfringens, and toxins A and B of C. difficile.
Table 3. Percentage (%) and number (no) of positive pig farms (when at least one sample was positive) and positive samples in the detection, by PCR of ETEC F4, F5, and F6 genes, enterotoxin LT, β toxin of C. perfringens, and toxins A and B of C. difficile.
Analytical Target% Positive Farms (No Farms)% Positive Samples (No Pool Samples)
F4 gene69.23% (18)53.85% (42)
F5 gene30.77% (8)24.36% (19)
F6 gene61.54% (16)55.13% (43)
Enterotoxin LT57.69% (15)44.88% (35)
F4 gene + Enterotoxin LT42.31% (11)25.64% (20)
F5 gene + Enterotoxin LT19.23% (5)16.67% (13)
F6 gene + Enterotoxin LT42.31% (11)32.05% (25)
β-toxin—C. perfringens type C0.00% (0)0.00% (0)
Toxin A—C. difficile84.62% (22)65.38% (51)
Toxin B—C. difficile88.46% (23)61.54% (48)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tsekouras, N.; Meletis, E.; Kostoulas, P.; Labronikou, G.; Athanasakopoulou, Z.; Christodoulopoulos, G.; Billinis, C.; Papatsiros, V.G. Detection of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Clostridia in the Aetiology of Neonatal Piglet Diarrhoea: Important Factors for Their Prevention. Life 2023, 13, 1092. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13051092

AMA Style

Tsekouras N, Meletis E, Kostoulas P, Labronikou G, Athanasakopoulou Z, Christodoulopoulos G, Billinis C, Papatsiros VG. Detection of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Clostridia in the Aetiology of Neonatal Piglet Diarrhoea: Important Factors for Their Prevention. Life. 2023; 13(5):1092. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13051092

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tsekouras, Nikolaos, Eleftherios Meletis, Polychronis Kostoulas, Georgia Labronikou, Zoi Athanasakopoulou, Georgios Christodoulopoulos, Charalambos Billinis, and Vasileios G. Papatsiros. 2023. "Detection of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Clostridia in the Aetiology of Neonatal Piglet Diarrhoea: Important Factors for Their Prevention" Life 13, no. 5: 1092. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13051092

APA Style

Tsekouras, N., Meletis, E., Kostoulas, P., Labronikou, G., Athanasakopoulou, Z., Christodoulopoulos, G., Billinis, C., & Papatsiros, V. G. (2023). Detection of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Clostridia in the Aetiology of Neonatal Piglet Diarrhoea: Important Factors for Their Prevention. Life, 13(5), 1092. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13051092

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop