Next Article in Journal
Circulating Bacterial DNA as Plasma Biomarkers for Lung Cancer Early Detection
Previous Article in Journal
Human Colonization and Infection by Staphylococcus pseudintermedius: An Emerging and Underestimated Zoonotic Pathogen
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/microorganisms11030583
microorganisms-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

House Flies Are Underappreciated Yet Important Reservoirs and Vectors of Microbial Threats to Animal and Human Health

by
Dana Nayduch
1,*,
Saraswoti Neupane
2,
Victoria Pickens
2,
Tanya Purvis
1 and
Cassandra Olds
2,*
1
Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1515 College Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
2
Department of Entomology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(3), 583; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11030583
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 24 February 2023 / Accepted: 24 February 2023 / Published: 25 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Antimicrobial Agents and Resistance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
House flies are well recognized as filth-associated organisms and public nuisances. House flies create sanitation issues when they bridge the gap between microbe-rich breeding environments and animal/human habitations. Numerous scientific surveys have demonstrated that house flies harbor bacterial pathogens that pose a threat to humans and animals. More extensive and informative surveys incorporating next-generation sequencing technologies have shown that house fly carriage of pathogens and harmful genetic elements, such as antimicrobial resistance genes, is more widespread and dangerous than previously thought. Further, there is a strong body of research confirming that flies not only harbor but also transmit viable, and presumably infectious, bacterial pathogens. Some pathogens replicate and persist in the fly, permitting prolonged shedding and dissemination. Finally, although the drivers still have yet to be firmly determined, the potential range of dissemination of flies and their associated pathogens can be extensive. Despite this evidence, the house flies’ role as reservoirs, disseminators, and true, yet facultative, vectors for pathogens have been greatly underestimated and underappreciated. In this review, we present key studies that bolster the house fly’s role both an important player in microbial ecology and population biology and as transmitters of microbial threats to animal and human health.

1. Introduction

House flies (Musca domestica L.) are ubiquitous cosmopolitan pests occupying a variety of environmental niches on a global scale. Flies flourish in environments where they have access to microbe-rich substrates, which are essential for the development and fitness of the larval progeny [1,2]. Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) produce copious amounts of microbe-rich manure that comprises suitable larval developmental sites; as a result, fly populations can quickly reach nuisance levels in a short amount of time. Female house flies can lay over 100 eggs in a single batch, with over 500 in a lifetime (Figure 1A, [3]). Under optimal temperature conditions, larval development (Figure 1B) can be completed in under a week. Emerged adults are sexually receptive quickly and can mate successfully within a day of eclosion [4], and the first clutch of eggs can be laid less than two days after mating [3]. Alarmingly, resistance to pesticides, the mainstay of fly control for generations, is exceedingly high in house flies [5,6]. Typically, the aim of fly control in animal production systems has been to reduce population size and therefore nuisance activities, with significantly less focus being on limiting their potential to vector microbes.
Due to their mobile nature, adult house flies encounter microbes from disparate locations within a facility that would otherwise not interact. House flies are typically seen resting on physical structures (buildings, equipment, fencing, feed bunkers), feeding or inspecting animal feed and feed storage areas, and on the animals themselves (Figure 1C,D). Adult flies have broad trophic associations, consuming a variety of substrates that range from human and livestock food to their excreta. Female flies directly consume microbe-rich substrates such as manure and are possibly driven by opportunity during oviposition or perhaps a direct-yet-undetermined need for microbial nutrition [7]. While adult male flies tend to prefer carbohydrate-rich food sources, given a choice, females are attracted to protein-rich options [8]. The preference is most likely due to their anautogenous reproductive physiology, which requires protein for egg development (vitellogenesis). Female flies in agricultural settings are often seen feeding on proteinaceous secretions and excretions of animals (eye exudate, mucus, weeping wounds, blood, and manure) (Figure 1D). Not surprisingly, a greater abundance of bacteria is found in female than male flies, possibly due to their propensity for microbe-rich environments [9,10]. The greatest threat posed by house flies is their ability to acquire and move pathogens from low-risk areas such as manure to high-risk areas such as feed (both human and animal). Being both zoophilic and synanthropic, house flies bridge the gap between filth and animals (including humans) both within environmental niches and across them. At a minimum, house flies serve as reservoirs and disseminators of microbes in the environment; therefore, they are integral to microbial ecology from both a small scale, such as within a farm, to larger landscape scales, such as CAFOs and surrounding communities, as well as urban locales where access to waste (e.g., dumpsters) exists. In this review, evidence highlighting the role of flies as reservoirs and disseminators of microbes is presented and the implication for animal and human health discussed.

2. Adult House Fly Associations with Bacteria and Vector Potential

When adult house flies interact with microbe-rich substrates, they become contaminated with bacteria on their external surfaces. Bacteria on the fly’s mouthparts, tarsi, wings, and body becomes dislodged from and transferred to the locations flies subsequently visit by direct contact (i.e., mechanical transfer), feeding (i.e., contaminated mouthparts), and/or grooming (i.e., removal and disposal) [11,12]. Flying has been shown to negatively impact viability of bacteria on flies presumably by hastening drying [11]; however, bacteria located within crevices of the house fly external anatomy may have increased protection that enhances persistence as shown for Escherichia coli O157:H7, which survived on the fly body up to 13 d after bacterial exposure [13]. Mechanical transmission from the external surfaces likely applies to both female and male flies that both frequent and interact with septic substrates.
Flies also carry bacteria internally within their gut, acquired either indirectly when auto-grooming or directly by intentionally ingesting the microbe-rich substrate [14]. Ingestion of bacteria has been more often observed in female flies, who visit and inspect substrates such as manure and dumpster sludge as potential oviposition sites [7]. After ingestion, bacteria may be stored in the crop (a diverticulated storage area of the insect foregut where ingested substances are held prior to digestion in the midgut), from where they can be regurgitated, or the midgut, where they face hostile digestive and defensive processes. Bacteria that survive these midgut challenges may pass through the alimentary canal and are released to the environment via defecation. Recent studies showed that internal bacterial communities of individual house flies are comprised of up to 400 bacterial taxa [15,16,17], while other studies that employ next generation sequencing of whole flies (accounting for internal and external bacteria) have revealed that an individual fly can carry >1600 operational taxonomic units [18,19,20].
Demonstrating the ability of house flies to act as bacterial vectors is key in understanding their true risk to animal and human health. Indirect evidence of house fly vector potential was supported when the presence of house flies was associated with a 10-fold increase in the number of fecal coliforms (Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp.) on steam-flaked corn [21]. Other studies have implicated house flies as bacterial vectors in the field by identifying bacterial genotypes shared between the environment and house flies caught in the immediate area, thereby deducing sources of acquisition and connecting to subsequent fly harborage and dissemination [22,23,24]. More direct evidence of house fly bacterial transmission has been shown via bioassays where flies acquired Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium from inoculated manure, subsequently transmitting the pathogen to cantaloupe [25]. Although it likely occurs naturally at a high frequency, especially in animal production settings, experiments directly demonstrating transmission of bacteria from house flies to animals or people are sparse. However, one study demonstrated successful transmission of pathogenic E. coli O157:H7 to naïve calves [26], and house flies were also implicated in an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in people in Japan [27].
“Mechanical transmission” of bacteria by flies has been used to describe transmission of nonreplicating microbes from fly surfaces, vomit, and feces, while the term “bio-enhanced transmission” was suggested for E. coli that replicated in the anterior alimentary canal of house flies before transmission [28]. However, if conditions exist where bacteria are ingested, proliferate, and survive passage through the digestive system, then house flies are indeed, by definition, facultative biological vectors of those microbes. House flies’ effectiveness as vectors depends on several factors including bacterial viability. Several studies have investigated the “fate” of bacteria ingested by house flies, mainly through assays that feed flies a set amount of pure culture of a single bacterial species and monitor bacterial abundance and/or excretion over time. Some bacterial species were only transient residents within the fly digestive system that exhibited short-term viability. For example, the Gram-positive cocci, Staphylococcus aureus [29] and Streptococcus pyogenes [30], did not proliferate or persist for long periods in the house fly gut, and microscopic observations of the bacteria in the gut indicated these microbes were rapidly lysed (over 75% of ingested inoculum is lost by 6 h in each species), likely by lysozymes or other antimicrobial and/or digestive enzymes, thereby precluding transmission via defecation. A maximum of 30 colony-forming units of S. pyogenes was shed by only ~23% of flies in the study [30], indicating that house flies are not important vectors or reservoirs for this bacterial species. However, flies shed large amounts of S. aureus, likely through regurgitation from the crop, within a short time window post-ingestion (PI) [29]. Thus, although house flies may only serve as short-range transmitters of S. aureus, this phenomenon still could be functionally relevant where animals and sources of bacteria are in close proximity, such as dairy cattle operations.
In contrast, other studies have shown that some bacteria have extended survival or even propagated within the house fly gut. GFP-expressing Enterococcus faecalis proliferated in a crop of house flies from exposure through 48 h, and bacterial abundance remained constant until the end of the experiment (96 h) [31]. Aeromonas caviae proliferated in house flies for up to 2 d PI, persisted for up to 8 d PI, and were shed for up to 3 d PI [32]. Both Pseudomonas aeruginosa [33] and Salmonella typhimurium [34] proliferated in the house fly digestive tract (maximum of 115% and 600% increase from initial dose, respectively), showing temporal dynamics that indicated apparent attrition that possibly was mediated via house fly excretion or gut defenses, followed by recovery, proliferation, and multiple shedding events. Bacterial persistence, proliferation, and excretion into the environment bolsters biological vectoring of these pathogens by the house fly, and at the very least indicates an increased risk for transmission and dissemination.
Other bacterial species such E. coli, Campylobacter jejuni, and Aeromonas hydrophila seem to have intermediate outcomes within the gut of flies. Some strains of E. coli survived and persisted in the fly gut but did not seem to proliferate [28,35,36,37]; however, viable bacteria have been recovered from excreta, indicating a transmission risk still exists. Flies fed C. jejuni maintained viable bacteria for up to 24 h, but no culturable bacteria were recovered from excreta past 4 h PI [38]. Aeromonas hydrophila proliferated in flies (up to 1000× initial dose was ingested), though only for a short window of time (2 h PI; [39]). Viable bacteria were recovered from regurgitant for up to 2 h PI, though not from feces, indicating the bacteria were likely proliferating in the house fly crop, but were destroyed when they entered the gut. Thus, like S. aureus, flies may be short-term and short-distance mechanical vectors for both E. coli and C. jejuni, which can prove relevant under crowded conditions that typically exist in CAFOs such as feedlots (for E. coli) and poultry houses (for both species). Similarly, flies may be short-range transmitters of A. hydrophila from sources such as waste dumpsters to nearby homes or restaurants.

3. Wild House Flies Are Potential Threats to Animal and Human Health

Global surveys demonstrated that adult house flies from urban and agricultural settings possess >200 pathogenic bacterial taxa including key species important to human and animal health such as Salmonella spp. [14,40,41,42,43,44,45,46], pathogenic strains of E. coli [22,47,48,49,50,51,52], Campylobacter spp. [49,50,53,54,55,56], Aeromonas cavie [57], and bacterial pathogens causing bovine respiratory disease Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni [58]. Culture-based and more recently (i.e., within the past 20 years) molecular-based surveys have provided even more extensive lists of pathogens carried by flies, which have already been well summarized in other studies or reviews [14,15,16,17,18,59,60,61,62,63,64] and will not be recapitulated here. As carriers of many pathogenic bacteria, adult house flies are undoubtedly key players in food security, specifically in pre- and post-harvest food safety across a variety of food animal species [42,65,66].

4. House Flies as Reservoirs and Disseminators of Antimicrobial Resistance

Widespread and/or overuse of antibiotics, particularly in the production of animals for food, often selects for the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in both animal and human pathogens [67,68,69]. Broad-spectrum antibiotics such as tetracyclines, florfenicol, enrofloxacin, and ceftiofur [70,71] are commonly used for metaphylaxis to prevent or mitigate suspected infection and disease. Although now banned in many countries, the mass administration of antibiotics as growth promoters still occurs (reviewed by [72]). As a result of this indiscriminate overuse, food animals maintain a plethora of drug-resistant bacterial species, which they shed in their excreta that is subsequently accessed by house flies.
House flies collected from animal production facilities (Table S1; [10,22,43,45,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88] and urban environments [10,63,84] exhibit a wide diversity of AMR bacteria including potential human and animal pathogenic species. Multi-drug-resistant bacteria have also been isolated from these flies including Staphylococcus spp. isolated with multiple antibiotic-resistant genes (ARGs; msrA, msrB, tetK, tetM, tetL, ermC, and aad6) exhibiting multidrug resistance (oxacillin, penicillin, erythromycin, clindamycin, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, and chloramphenicol) phenotype [63]. Providencia spp. Enterobacter spp. and E. coli from house flies with colistin resistance genes (mcr-1, mcr-2, mcr-3) were highly prevalent in a variety of ecological niches including animal production facilities [45,82,89]. In addition, a high prevalence of E.coli with several extended-spectrum beta-lactamase genes (blaCTX-M, blaTEM) and tetracycline resistance genes (tetA, tetB, tetD, tetM) are highly prevalent in house flies associated with animal agriculture [77,78,82].
Not only do house flies harbor AMR bacteria, but, alarmingly, house flies can facilitate the transfer of AMR elements between bacterial species in their gut (reviewed in [24,31,61,90,91,92]. Horizontal gene transfer via plasmid transfer or phage transduction has been demonstrated to occur in the house fly gut. Plasmid-encoded chloramphenicol resistance genes were horizontally transferred from donor to recipient bacteria inside the gut of the house fly, while bacteriophage containing Shiga toxin genes (stx1) were transduced to recipient E. coli [90]. Plasmids carrying cephalosporin and tetracycline resistance genes were transferred horizontally from donor to recipient bacteria in the house fly gut [92]. Interestingly, in addition to the intended recipient E. coli strain, Achromobacter spp. and Pseudomonas fluorescens present in the gut also acquired the resistance element [92]. Gene transfer events can happen very quickly, with conjugative plasmids carrying tetracycline resistance being shared among enterococci within 24 h of exposure [91]. In the environment, house flies visit numerous sources of microbes, facilitating interactions between bacteria collected from physically separated habitats which otherwise would not interact. As such, they contribute significantly to the dissemination of AMR bacteria and their resistance genes across habitats and ecological niches.

5. Unique Modes of Bacteria Dispersal from House Flies

In addition to the mechanical pathogen transmission and dissemination of bacteria by flies, described above, some methods used to control house flies have been shown to lead to unintentional dispersal of bacteria and other microbes. Electrocuting insect traps (EIT) have been used as an alternative to pesticides for house flies, especially in areas such as restaurants and human dwellings. Such traps cause fly body particulates to scatter around the trap [93], contaminating nearby areas, or aerosolize as a respirable particle size after electrocution [94,95]. Microbes associated with insect debris and microbial aerosols could be distributed by the electrocution of flies in both high- and low-voltage light traps [96], with a majority of aerosolized microbes at a size capable of penetrating the lung alveoli.
Investigations by [97] revealed that ingested Serratia marcescens remains viable in house flies for up to 5 weeks following electrocution. Post-fly death bacterial dissemination could also occur with other control methods which kill house flies without collecting the carcass. Considering that many insecticides are not immediately lethal or are slow acting, house flies may be given enough time to reach another area of a facility before succumbing to the toxic effects. In some cases, they might die in or near animal feed, where they can be accidentally consumed. Since the bacterial load of the whole fly is often higher than that of the feces or regurgitant [29,39], in animal species prone to eating insects such as poultry, dead flies might even result in intentional consumption by the animal, resulting in higher transmission risk. Viral infection through the consumption of deceased flies has already been demonstrated in the case of Aujeszky’s virus in swine [98], as well as the bacterial infection of chickens with Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis [66]. Further research is needed to estimate the rates at which consumption of house flies occurs in livestock facilities, as well as the survivability of pathogenic microorganisms in post-mortem house flies, to assess the potential for animal infection by contaminated house flies if ingested.

6. House Fly Movement and the Implication for Pathogen Transmission

The highly mobile nature of the house fly both within and from animal rearing facilities is key to its threat as a vector. Changing location and quality of nutritional and ovipositional resources is likely a motivator for flies to move from one place to another, with the nature of these drivers varying over the lifespan of the fly. With fly movement comes the movement of their associated bacteria, so understanding fly movement both within and dispersal from animal facilities is key in evaluating the risks posed to animal and human health. How far and why flies fly have been key questions asked by researchers since their identification as vectors of pathogens. While an individual fly’s movement patterns are more complex than we currently understand, some variables driving movement have been identified. For example, fly sex may underlie differences in movement and activity. A newly emerged adult female will first move in an attempt to locate a source of food high in sugar, later switching and seeking out food high in protein, which is important for vitellogenesis [99]. During the latter stages of vitellogenesis, she will eschew the attention of males, possibly even relocating to a different food source to avoid male attention [99]. Fly sexes show different diurnal activity, with male flies being active earlier in the day during cooler temperatures [100].
Fly movement on a small scale can be quantified and observed using mark–release–recapture studies. In a small demonstration, approximately 4000 flies were collected by sweep netting at a small cattle feedlot (under 350 head in a 11,250 m2 area), and 600–700 flies were colored in 1 of 6 colors with mica powder (Olds, unpublished data). Flies were released and their location within the feedlot monitored (Figure 2). While many flies stayed close to their release site (within the feed bunker corridor), flies of all colors were observed in all areas in as little as 1 h after release. Flies remain marked for 36 h, after which point no marked flies could be observed. Although this experiment was performed in a relatively small location, it can be reasonably assumed that similar patterns of movement would occur in larger facilities.
As outlined above, in animal feeding operations, flies have access to sources of microbes (from animals and their waste) and move about freely among these sources and the animals’ food, water, and environment (Figure 3). The propensity of flies to freely move between sanitary and unsanitary areas in animal production operations has important implications for the movement of pathogenic, and potentially antimicrobial-resistant microbes. Flies are regularly found to have bacteria associated with animal waste such as fecal coliforms and enteric pathogens that they likely acquire from manure. Flies also have been implicated in the movement of bacterial pathogens of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) because they carried the causative agents—M. haemolytica, P. multocida, and H. somni—around pen areas housing cattle with apparent BRD symptoms [58]. Whether flies acquired those bacteria from the sick animals in the pen or were involved in the transmission was not determined. Nonetheless, sanitation or disease-limiting efforts such as cleaning out pens and piling waste, separating sick animals from well ones, or separating types of animals in a multi-species production setting can be easily undermined if fly control is not effective.
Factors driving house fly dispersal are complex and sometimes ambiguous, but as with insects, most individuals in the population likely remain in their natal site, with only a few moving outside of that to a new environment (reviewed by [101]). Multiple catch-and-release studies confirm that most house flies stay within the ‘home’ environment, with fewer flies being caught further out [102,103,104,105,106]. However, despite the persistent presence of excellent nutritional and ovipositional resources, flies still readily disperse from animal production facilities, as evidenced most dramatically by fly nuisance lawsuits filed against livestock producers [106,107,108]. In addition to nuisance, the movement of flies away from animal production to nearby human habitation poses additional risks of contamination and disease transmission (Figure 3). House flies collected from urban areas shared potential pathogenic bacterial taxa Corynebacterium, Clostridium, and Escherichia-Shigella as well as rumen-associated bacterial taxa Romboutsia, Ruminococcaceae, and Lachnospiraceae, which were probably acquired from a nearby agricultural farm [17], as cattle excretions and manure are known sources of these taxa [109,110]. Several mark–release–recapture studies have shown that when flies do disperse, they can travel vast distances. Reported flight distances vary significantly (7–32 km) depending on the location, vegetation, landscape barriers, and drivers for dispersion [103,104,105,111,112]. Flies can easily enter motorized vehicles, and are either released along the way or once the final destination is reached, significantly increasing dispersal potential.

7. Conclusions

House flies are trophically associated with microbe-rich substrates in all habitats they occupy, from manure and waste generated by CAFOs to urban dumpsters. These environments are teeming with microbes, many of which are pathogenic and/or carry antimicrobial resistance elements. Flies have been demonstrated to harbor and disseminate viable microbial pathogens, some of which have been shown to proliferate in the fly, thereby increasing their vector potential. Furthermore, house flies can facilitate the transfer of antimicrobial resistance and other genetic elements among the bacteria contained within their gut. As gregarious and indiscriminate feeders, house flies bridge the gap between filth or other sources of bacteria (manure, feed waste, sick animals, etc.) and healthy animals or areas of human habitation. It is abundantly clear that house flies are much more than just a nuisance problem in food animal production settings. Without the use of proper integrated pest management strategies, practices of removing or distancing filth such as manure and sick animals from clean areas (healthy animals and their pens) become useless when open access to these niches by flies exists. Fly control should be paramount in any hygiene plan in agricultural or residential settings, the foundation of which should be the identification and removal of larval habitats that are not only sources of bacteria but also breeding grounds for the flies that carry the bacteria. Thus, sanitation effectively removes both sources of dangerous microbes as well as larval development sites, reducing fly populations and bacterial acquisition risk. House flies have been largely underappreciated not only in their role in the microbial ecology of the bacteria they harbor but also in their ability to act as competent vectors of human and animal pathogens. However, while flies may pose a threat to animal and human health, surveying house fly microbial communities has potential utility in allowing us to monitor microbial threats in the environment.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms11030583/s1, Table S1: Bacteria with antibiotic resistance phenotypes isolated from house flies associated with food and companion animal facilities.

Author Contributions

Original draft preparation, D.N., C.O., S.N. and V.P.; review and editing, D.N., C.O., S.N., V.P. and T.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by United States Department of Agriculture—Agriculture Research Service National Program 104, Project Number 3020-32000-018-00D.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are included in the article and supplementary materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the funding agency United States Department of Agriculture—Agriculture Research Service project 3020-32000-018-00D.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Any opinions, findings, conclusion, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of United States Department of Agriculture.

References

  1. Schmidtmann, E.T.; Martin, P.A.W. Relationship Between Selected Bacteria and the Growth of Immature House Flies, Musca domestica, in an Axenic Test System. J. Med. Entomol. 1992, 29, 232–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zurek, L.; Schal, C.; Watson, D.W. Diversity and Contribution of the Intestinal Bacterial Community to the Development of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) Larvae. J. Med. Entomol. 2000, 37, 924–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Larsen, J.R.; Pfadt, R.E.; Peterson, L.G. Olfactory and Oviposition Responses of the House Fly to Domestic Manures, with Notes on an Autogenous Strain. J. Econ. Entomol. 1966, 59, 610–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Murvosh, C.M.; Fye, R.L.; Labrecque, G.C. Studies on the Mating Behavior of the House Fly. Musca domestica L. Ohio J. Sci. 1964, 64, 264. [Google Scholar]
  5. Khan, H.A.A.; Shad, S.A.; Akram, W. Combination of Phagostimulant and Visual Lure as an Effective Tool in Designing House Fly Toxic Baits: A Laboratory Evaluation. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e77225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Scott, J.G.; Leichter, C.A.; Rinkevihc, F.D.; Harris, S.A.; Su, C.; Aberegg, L.C.; Moon, R.; Geden, C.J.; Gerry, A.C.; Taylor, D.B.; et al. Insecticide Resistance in House Flies from the United States: Resistance Levels and Frequency of Pyrethroid Resistance Alleles. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2013, 107, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Thomson, J.L.; Yeater, K.M.; Zurek, L.; Nayduch, D. Abundance and Accumulation of Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium Procured by Male and Female House Flies (Diptera: Muscidae) Exposed to Cattle Manure. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2017, 110, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Neupane, S.; Hall, B.; Brooke, G.; Nayduch, D. Sex-Specific Feeding Behavior of Adult House Flies, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2023, 60, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Thomson, J.L. The Procurement, Transmission, and Abundance of Bacteria in and among House Flies (Musca domestica L.). Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2019. Available online: https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/handle/2097/40202 (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  10. Neupane, S.; White, K.; Thomson, J.L.; Zurek, L.; Nayduch, D. Environmental and Sex Effects on Bacterial Carriage by Adult House Flies (Musca domestica L.). Insects 2020, 11, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Yap, K.L.; Kalpana, M.; Lee, H.L. Wings of the Common House Fly (Musca domestica L.): Importance in Mechanical Transmission of Vibrio cholerae. Trop. Biomed. 2008, 25, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jacques, B.J.; Bourret, T.J.; Shaffer, J.J. Role of Fly Cleaning Behavior on Carriage of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Med. Entomol. 2017, 54, 1712–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Wasala, L.; Talley, J.L.; Desilva, U.; Fletcher, J.; Wayadande, A. Transfer of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to Spinach by House Flies, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Phytopathology 2013, 103, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Nayduch, D.; Burrus, R.G. Flourishing in Filth: House Fly–Microbe Interactions across Life History. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2017, 110, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Gupta, A.K.; Nayduch, D.; Verma, P.; Shah, B.; Ghate, H.V.; Patole, M.S.; Shouche, Y.S. Phylogenetic Characterization of Bacteria in the Gut of House Flies (Musca domestica L.). FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2012, 79, 581–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Park, R.; Dzialo, M.C.; Spaepen, S.; Nsabimana, D.; Gielens, K.; Devriese, H.; Crauwels, S.; Tito, R.Y.; Raes, J.; Lievens, B.; et al. Microbial Communities of the House Fly Musca domestica Vary with Geographical Location and Habitat. Microbiome 2019, 7, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Neupane, S.; Nayduch, D. Effects of Habitat and Sampling Time on Bacterial Community Composition and Diversity in the Gut of the Female House Fly, Musca domestica Linnaeus (Diptera: Muscidae). Med. Vet. Entomol. 2022, 36, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bahrndorff, S.; de Jonge, N.; Skovgård, H.; Nielsen, J.L. Bacterial Communities Associated with Houseflies (Musca domestica L.) Sampled within and between Farms. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Bahrndorff, S.; Ruiz-González, A.; de Jonge, N.; Nielsen, J.L.; Skovgård, H.; Pertoldi, C. Integrated Genome-Wide Investigations of the Housefly, a Global Vector of Diseases Reveal Unique Dispersal Patterns and Bacterial Communities across Farms. BMC Genom. 2020, 21, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Poudel, A.; Kang, Y.; Mandal, R.K.; Kalalah, A.; Butaye, P.; Hathcock, T.; Kelly, P.; Walz, P.; Macklin, K.; Cattley, R.; et al. Comparison of Microbiota, Antimicrobial Resistance Genes and Mobile Genetic Elements in Flies and the Feces of Sympatric Animals. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2020, 96, fiaa027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ghosh, A.; Zurek, L. Fresh Steam-Flaked Corn in Cattle Feedlots Is an Important Site for Fecal Coliform Contamination by House Flies. J. Food Prot. 2015, 78, 567–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Alam, M.J.; Ludek, Z. Association of Escherichia coli O157:H7 with Houseflies on a Cattle Farm. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 7578–7580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Doud, C.W.; Scott, H.M.; Zurek, L. Role of House Flies in the Ecology of Enterococcus faecalis from Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Microb. Ecol. 2014, 67, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Zurek, L.; Ghosh, A. Insects Represent a Link between Food Animal Farms and the Urban Environment for Antibiotic Resistance Traits. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 3562–3567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Thomson, J.L.; Cernicchiaro, N.; Zurek, L.; Nayduch, D. Cantaloupe Facilitates Salmonella typhimurium Survival within and Transmission among Adult House Flies (Musca domestica L.). Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2021, 18, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ahmad, A.; Nagaraja, T.G.; Zurek, L. Transmission of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to Cattle by House Flies. Prev. Vet. Med. 2007, 80, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moriya, K.; Fujibayashi, T.; Yoshihara, T.; Matsuda, A.; Sumi, N.; Umezaki, N.; Kurahashi, H.; Agui, N.; Wada, A.; Watanabe, H. Verotoxin-Producing Escherichia coli O157:H7 Carried by the Housefly in Japan. Med.Vet. Entomol. 1999, 13, 214–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Kobayashi, M.; Sasaki, T.; Saito, N.; Tamura, K.; Suzuki, K.; Watanabe, H.; Agui, N. Houseflies: Not Simple Mechanical Vectors of Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1999, 61, 625–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nayduch, D.; Cho, H.; Joyner, C. Staphylococcus Aureus in the House Fly: Temporospatial Fate of Bacteria and Expression of the Antimicrobial Peptide Defensin. J. Med. Entomol. 2013, 50, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Chifanzwa, R. House Fly (Musca Domestica L.) Temporal and Spatial Immune Response to Streptococcus pyogenes and Salmonella typhimurium: Role of Pathogen Density in Bacterial Fate, Persistence and Transmission. Master’s Thesis, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA, 2011. Available online: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/749/ (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  31. Doud, C.W.; Zurek, L. Enterococcus faecalis OG1RF:PMV158 Survives and Proliferates in the House Fly Digestive Tract. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Nayduch, D.; Pittman Noblet, G.; Stutzenberger, F.J. Vector Potential of Houseflies for the Bacterium Aeromonas caviae. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2002, 16, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Joyner, C.; Mills, M.K.; Nayduch, D. Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Musca domestica L.: Temporospatial Examination of Bacteria Population Dynamics and House Fly Antimicrobial Responses. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e79224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Chifanzwa, R.; Nayduch, D. Dose-Dependent Effects on Replication and Persistence of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium in House Flies (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2018, 55, 225–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sasaki, T.; Kobayashi, M.; Agui, N. Epidemiological Potential of Excretion and Regurgitation by Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in the Dissemination of Escherichia coli O157: H7 to Food. J. Med. Entomol. 2000, 37, 945–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Fleming, A.; Kumar, H.V.; Joyner, C.; Reynolds, A.; Nayduch, D. Temporospatial Fate of Bacteria and Immune Effector Expression in House Flies Fed GFP-Escherichia coli O157:H7. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2014, 28, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Kumar, N.H.V.; Nayduch, D. Dose-Dependent Fate of GFP-Expressing Escherichia coli in the Alimentary Canal of Adult House Flies. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2016, 30, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Gill, C.; Bahrndorff, S.; Lowenberger, C. Campylobacter jejuni in Musca domestica: An Examination of Survival and Transmission Potential in Light of the Innate Immune Responses of the House Flies. Insect Sci. 2017, 24, 584–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Mcgaughey, J.; Nayduch, D. Temporal and Spatial Fate of GFP-Expressing Motile and Nonmotile Aeromonas hydrophila in the House Fly Digestive Tract. J. Med. Entomol. 2009, 46, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Oo, K.N.; Sebastian, A.A.; Aye, T. Carriage of Enteric Bacterial Pathogens by House Fly in Yangon, Myanmar. J. Diarrheal Dis. Res. 1989, 7, 81–84. [Google Scholar]
  41. Olsen, A.R.; Hammack, T.S. Isolation of Salmonella spp. from the Housefly, Musca domestica L., and the Dump Fly, Hydrotaea aenescens (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Muscidae), at Caged-Layer Houses. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 958–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mian, L.S.; Maag, H.; Tacal, J.V. Isolation of Salmonella from Muscoid Flies at Commercial Animal Establishments in San Bernardino County, California. J. Vector Ecol. 2002, 27, 82–85. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wang, Y.-C.; Chang, Y.-C.; Chuang, H.-L.; Chiu, C.-C.; Yeh, K.-S.; Chang, C.-C.; Hsuan, S.-L.; Lin, W.-H.; Chen, T.-H. Transmission of Salmonella between Swine Farms by the Housefly (Musca domestica). J. Food Prot. 2011, 74, 1012–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xu, Y.; Tao, S.; Hinkle, N.; Harrison, M.; Chen, J. Salmonella, Including Antibiotic-Resistant Salmonella, from Flies Captured from Cattle Farms in Georgia, U.S.A. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Sobur, A.; Hasan, M.; Haque, E.; Mridul, A.I.; Noreddin, A.; El Zowalaty, M.E.; Rahman, T. Molecular Detection and Antibiotyping of Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella Isolated from Houseflies in a Fish Market. Pathogens 2019, 8, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Hamilton, A.M.; Paulsen, D.J.; Trout-Fryxell, R.T.; Orta, V.E.; Gorman, S.J.; Smith, D.M.; Buchanan, J.R.; Wszelaki, A.L.; Critzer, F.J. Prevalence of Salmonella enterica in Flies on a Diversified Cattle and Fresh Produce Farm across Two Growing Seasons. J. Food Prot. 2021, 84, 1009–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Buma, R.; Sanada, H.; Maeda, T.; Kamei, M.; Kourai, H. Isolation and Characterization of Pathogenic Bacteria, Including Escherichia coli O157: H7, from Flies Collected at a Dairy Farm Field. Med. Entomol. Zool. 1999, 50, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Iwasa, M.; Makino, S.-I.; Asakura, H.; Kobori, H.; Morimoto, Y. Detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) at a Cattle Farm in Japan. J. Med. Entomol. 1999, 36, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Szalanski, A.L.; Owens, C.B.; Mckay, T.; Steelman, C.D. Detection of Campylobacter and Escherichia coli O157:H7 from Filth Flies by Polymerase Chain Reaction. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2004, 18, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Förster, M.; Klimpel, S.; Sievert, K. The House Fly (Musca domestica) as a Potential Vector of Metazoan Parasites Caught in a Pig-Pen in Germany. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 160, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Burrus, R.G.; Hogsette, J.A.; Kaufman, P.E.; Maruniak, J.E.; Simonne, A.H.; Mai, V. Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 From House Flies (Diptera: Muscidae) and Dairy Samples in North Central Florida. J. Med. Entomol. 2017, 54, 733–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Puri-Giri, R.; Ghosh, A.; Thomson, J.L.; Zurek, L. House Flies in the Confined Cattle Environment Carry Non-O157 Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli. J. Med. Entomol. 2017, 54, 726–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Rosef, O.; Kapperud, G. House Flies (Musca Domestica) as Possible Vectors of Campylobacter Fetus Subsp. jejuni. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1983, 45, 381–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Choo, L.C.; Saleha, A.A.; Wai, S.S.; Fauziah, N. Isolation of Campylobacter and Salmonella from Houseflies (Musca domestica) in a University Campus and a Poultry Farm in Selangor, Malaysia. Trop. Biomed. 2011, 28, 16–20. [Google Scholar]
  55. Royden, A.; Wedley, A.; Merga, J.Y.; Rushton, S.; Hald, B.; Humphrey, T.; Williams, N.J. A Role for Flies (Diptera) in the Transmission of Campylobacter to Broilers? Epidemiol. Infect. 2016, 144, 3326–3334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Ommi, D.; Hemmatinezhad, B.; Hafshejani, T.T.; Khamesipour, F. Incidence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Campylobacter and Salmonella from Houseflies (Musca domestica) in Kitchens, Farms, Hospitals and Slaughter Houses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India B—Biol. Sci. 2017, 87, 1285–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nayduch, D.; Honko, A.; Noblet, G.P.; Stutzenberger, F. Detection of Aeromonas caviae in the Common Housefly (Musca domestica) by Culture and Polymerase Chain Reaction. Epidemiol. Infect. 2001, 127, 561–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Neupane, S.; Nayduch, D.; Zurek, L. House Flies (Musca domestica) Pose a Risk of Carriage and Transmission of Bacterial Pathogens Associated with Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD). Insects 2019, 10, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Butler, J.F.; Garcia-Maruniak, A.; Meek, F.; Maruniak, J.E. Wild Florida House Flies (Musca domestica) as Carriers of Pathogenic Bacteria. Fla. Entomol. 2010, 93, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Khamesipour, F.; Lankarani, K.B.; Honarvar, B.; Kwenti, T.E. A Systematic Review of Human Pathogens Carried by the Housefly (Musca domestica L.). BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Onwugamba, F.C.; Fitzgerald, J.R.; Rochon, K.; Guardabassi, L.; Alabi, A.; Kühne, S.; Grobusch, M.P.; Schaumburg, F. The Role of ‘Filth Flies’ in the Spread of Antimicrobial Resistance. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2018, 22, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Geden, C.J.; Nayduch, D.; Scott, J.G.; Burgess, E.R., IV; Gerry, A.C.; Kaufman, P.E.; Thomson, J.; Pickens, V.; Machtinger, E.T. House Fly (Diptera: Muscidae): Biology, Pest Status, Current Management Prospects, and Research Needs. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2021, 12, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sudagidan, M.; Ozalp, V.C.; Can, Ö.; Eligül, H.; Yurt, M.N.Z.; Tasbasi, B.B.; Acar, E.E.; Kavruk, M.; Koçak, O. Surface Microbiota and Associated Staphylococci of Houseflies (Musca domestica) Collected from Different Environmental Sources. Microb. Pathog. 2022, 164, 105439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Gioia, G.; Freeman, J.; Sipka, A.; Santisteban, C.; Wieland, M.; Gallardo, V.A.; Monistero, V.; Scott, J.G.; Moroni, P. Pathogens associated with houseflies from different areas within a New York State dairy. JDS Commun. 2022, 3, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hald, B.; Skovgård, H.; Bang, D.D.; Pedersen, K.; Dybdahl, J.; Jespersen, J.B.; Madsen, M. Flies and Campylobacter Infection of Broiler Flocks. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 1490–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Holt, P.S.; Geden, C.J.; Moore, R.W.; Gast, R.K. Isolation of Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis from Houseflies (Musca domestica) Found in Rooms Containing Salmonella Serovar Enteritidis Challenged Hens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 6030–6035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Marshall, B.M.; Levy, S.B. Food Animals and Antimicrobials: Impacts on Human Health. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 24, 718–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Ferri, M.; Ranucci, E.; Romagnoli, P.; Giaccone, V. Antimicrobial Resistance: A Global Emerging Threat to Public Health Systems. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 2857–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hoelzer, K.; Wong, N.; Thomas, J.; Talkington, K.; Jungman, E.; Coukell, A. Antimicrobial Drug Use in Food-Producing Animals and Associated Human Health Risks: What, and How Strong, Is the Evidence? BMC Vet. Res. 2017, 13, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Baptiste, K.E.; Kyvsgaard, N.C. Do Antimicrobial Mass Medications Work? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials Investigating Antimicrobial Prophylaxis or Metaphylaxis against Naturally Occurring Bovine Respiratory Disease. Pathog. Dis. 2017, 75, ftx083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. O’Connor, A.M.; Hu, D.; Totton, S.C.; Scott, N.; Winder, C.B.; Wang, B.; Wang, C.; Glanville, J.; Wood, H.; White, B.; et al. A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Injectable Antibiotic Options for the Control of Bovine Respiratory Disease in the First 45 Days Post Arrival at the Feedlot. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2019, 20, 163–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wallinga, D.; Smit, L.A.M.; Davis, M.F.; Casey, J.A.; Nachman, K.E. A Review of the Effectiveness of Current US Policies on Antimicrobial Use in Meat and Poultry Production. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2022, 9, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Graham, J.P.; Price, L.B.; Evans, S.L.; Graczyk, T.K.; Silbergeld, E.K. Antibiotic Resistant Enterococci and Staphylococci Isolated from Flies Collected near Confined Poultry Feeding Operations. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 2701–2710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Literak, I.; Dolejska, M.; Rybarikova, J.; Cizek, A.; Strejckova, P.; Vyskocilova, M.; Friedman, M.; Klimes, J. Highly Variable Patterns of Antimicrobial Resistance in Commensal Escherichia coli Isolates from Pigs, Sympatric Rodents, and Flies. Microb. Drug Resist. 2009, 15, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Rybaříková, J.; Dolejská, M.; Materna, D.; Literák, I.; Čížek, A. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characteristics of Antimicrobial Resistant Escherichia coli Isolated from Symbovine Flies, Cattle and Sympatric Insectivorous House Martins from a Farm in the Czech Republic (2006–2007). Res. Vet. Sci. 2010, 89, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ahmad, A.; Ghosh, A.; Schal, C.; Zurek, L. Insects in Confined Swine Operations Carry a Large Antibiotic Resistant and Potentially Virulent Enterococcal Community. BMC Microbiol. 2011, 11, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Usui, M.; Iwasa, T.; Fukuda, A.; Sato, T.; Okubo, T.; Tamura, Y. The Role of Flies in Spreading the Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase Gene from Cattle. Microb. Drug Resist. 2013, 19, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Usui, M.; Shirakawa, T.; Fukuda, A.; Tamura, Y. The Role of Flies in Disseminating Plasmids with Antimicrobial-Resistance Genes Between Farms. Microb. Drug Resist. 2015, 21, 562–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Blaak, H.; Hamidjaja, R.A.; van Hoek, A.H.A.M.; de Heer, L.; de Roda, H.A.M.; Schets, F.M. Detection of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL)-Producing Escherichia coli on Flies at Poultry Farms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Solà-Ginés, M.; González-López, J.J.; Cameron-Veas, K.; Piedra-Carrasco, N.; Cerdà-Cuéllar, M.; Migura-Garcia, L. Houseflies (Musca domestica) as Vectors for Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli on Spanish Broiler Farms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 3604–3611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Cervelin, V.; Fongaro, G.; Pastore, J.B.; Engel, F.; Reimers, M.A.; Viancelli, A. Enterobacteria Associated with Houseflies (Musca domestica) as an Infection Risk Indicator in Swine Production Farms. Acta Trop. 2018, 185, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Fukuda, A.; Usui, M.; Okubo, T.; Tagaki, C.; Sukpanyatham, N.; Tamura, Y. Co-Harboring of Cephalosporin (bla)/Colistin (mcr) Resistance Genes among Enterobacteriaceae from Flies in Thailand. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2018, 365, fny178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Poudel, A.; Hathcock, T.; Butaye, P.; Kang, Y.; Price, S.; Macklin, K.; Walz, P.; Cattley, R.; Kalalah, A.; Adekanmbi, F.; et al. Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus spp. in Houseflies and Blowflies from Farms and Their Environmental Settings. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16, 3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Akter, S.; Sabuj, A.A.M.; Haque, Z.F.; Kafi, M.A.; Rahman, M.T.; Saha, S. Detection of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and Their Resistance Genes from Houseflies. Vet. World 2020, 13, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Pileggi, M.T.; Chase, J.R.; Shu, R.; Teng, L.; Jeong, K.C.; Kaufman, P.E.; Wong, A.C.N. Prevalence of Field-Collected House Flies and Stable Flies With Bacteria Displaying Cefotaxime and Multidrug Resistance. J. Med. Entomol. 2021, 58, 921–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Wadaskar, B.; Kolhe, R.; Waskar, V.; Budhe, M.; Kundu, K.; Chaudhari, S. Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli and Salmonella Isolated from Flies Trapped at Animal and Poultry Farm Premises. J. Anim. Res. 2021, 11, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Macovei, L.; Miles, B.; Zurek, L. Potential of Houseflies to Contaminate Ready-to-Eat Food with Antibiotic-Resistant Enterococci. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 435–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dolejska, M.; Duskova, E.; Rybarikova, J.; Janoszowska, D.; Roubalova, E.; Dibdakova, K.; Maceckova, G.; Kohoutaova, L.; Literak, I.; Smola, J.; et al. Plasmids Carrying blaCTX-M-1 and qnr Genes in Escherichia coli Isolates from an Equine Clinic and a Horseback Riding Centre. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2011, 66, 757–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Zhang, J.; Wang, J.; Chen, L.; Yassin, A.K.; Kelly, P.; Butaye, P.; Li, J.; Gong, J.; Cattley, R.; Qi, K.; et al. Housefly (Musca domestica) and Blow Fly (Protophormia terraenovae) as Vectors of Bacteria Carrying Colistin Resistance Genes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Petridis, M.; Bagdasarian, M.; Waldor, M.K.; Walker, E. Horizontal Transfer of Shiga Toxin and Antibiotic Resistance Genes among Escherichia coli Strains in House Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) Gut. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Akhtar, M.; Hirt, H.; Zurek, L. Horizontal Transfer of the Tetracycline Resistance Gene tetM Mediated by PCF10 among Enterococcus faecalis in the House Fly (Musca domestica L.) Alimentary Canal. Microb. Ecol. 2009, 58, 509–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Fukuda, A.; Usui, M.; Okubo, T.; Tamura, Y. Horizontal Transfer of Plasmid-Mediated Cephalosporin Resistance Genes in the Intestine of Houseflies (Musca domestica). Microb. Drug Resist. 2016, 22, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Pickens, L.G. Factors Affecting the Distance of Scatter of House Flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from Electrocuting Traps. J. Econ. Entomol. 1989, 82, 149–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ananth, G.P.; Bronson, D.C.; Brown, J.K. Generation of Airborne Fly Body Particles by Four Electrocution Fly Traps and an Electronic Fly Trap. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 1992, 2, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Broce, A.B. Electrocuting and Electronic Insect Traps: Trapping Efficiency and Production of Airborne Particles. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 1993, 3, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tesch, M.J.; Goodman, W.G. Dissemination of Microbial Contaminants from House Flies Electrocuted by Five Insect Light Traps. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 1995, 5, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cooke, E.A.; O’neill, G.; Anderson, M. The Survival of Ingested Serratia marcescens in Houseflies (Musca domestica L.) after Electrocution with Electric Fly Killers. Curr. Microbiol. 2003, 46, 0151–0153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Medveczky, I.; Kovacs, L.; Sz, F.K.; Papp, L. The Role of the Housefly, Musca domestica, in the Spread of Aujeszky’s Disease (Pseudorabies). Med. Vet. Entomol. 1988, 2, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Krafsur, E.S.; Black, W.C., IV; Church, C.J.; Barnes, D.A. Age Structure and Reproductive Biology of a Natural House Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) Population. Environ. Entomol. 1985, 14, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zahn, L.K.; Gerry, A.C. Diurnal Flight Activity of House Flies (Musca domestica) Is Influenced by Sex, Time of Day, and Environmental Conditions. Insects 2020, 11, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Renault, D. A Review of the Phenotypic Traits Associated with Insect Dispersal Polymorphism, and Experimental Designs for Sorting out Resident and Disperser Phenotypes. Insects 2020, 11, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Parker, R. Dispersion of Musca domestica, Linnaeus, under City Conditions in Montana. J. Econ. Entomol. 1916, 9, 325–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Schoof, H.; Siverly, R.; Jensen, J. House Fly Dispersion Studies in Metropolitan Areas. J. Econ. Entomol. 1952, 45, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Schoof, H.; Siverly, R. Multiple Release Studies on the Dispersion of Musca domestica at Phoenix, Arizona. J. Econ. Entomol. 1954, 47, 830–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Nazni, W.A.; Luke, H.; Wan Rozita, W.M.; Abdullah, A.G.; Sa’diyah, I.; Azahari, A.H.; Zamree, I.; Tan, S.B.; Lee, H.L.; Sofian, M.A. Determination of the Flight Range and Dispersal of the House Fly, Musca domestica (L.) Using Mark Release Recapture Technique. Trop. Biomed. 2005, 22, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  106. Winpisinger, K.A.; Ferketich, A.K.; Berry, R.L.; Moeschberger, M.L. Spread of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), from Two Caged Layer Facilities to Neighboring Residences in Rural Ohio. J. Med. Entomol. 2005, 42, 732–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Lasker, A.W. Suit Barred for Plaintiffs Who ‘Came to the Nuisance’ of Fly-Infested Cattle Farm. Ill. Bar J. 2013, 101, 170. [Google Scholar]
  108. Baise, G.; Smithfield Loses $50 Million Lawsuit. Farm Progress. 2018. Available online: https://www.farmprogress.com/commentary/smithfield-loses-50-million-lawsuit (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  109. Jami, E.; Israel, A.; Kotser, A.; Mizrahi, I. Exploring the Bovine Rumen Bacterial Community from Birth to Adulthood. ISME J. 2013, 7, 1069–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Xue, M.; Sun, H.; Wu, X.; Guan, L.L.; Liu, J. Assessment of Rumen Microbiota from a Large Dairy Cattle Cohort Reveals the Pan and Core Bacteriomes Contributing to Varied Phenotypes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e00970-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Wharton, R.; Seow, C.; Ganapathipillai, A.; Jabaratnam, G. House Fly Populations and Their Dispersion in Malaya with Particular Reference to the Fly Problem in the Cameron Highlands. Med. J. Malays. 1962, 17, 115–131. [Google Scholar]
  112. WHO. World Health Organization Vector Control Series: The Housefly: Training and Information Guide; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1986; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/310997 (accessed on 31 January 2023).
Microorganisms 11 00583 g001 550
Figure 1. House flies associate with animals, their waste, and feed in livestock operations. House fly eggs (A) and pupae (B) in cattle manure. Adult house flies feeding on food in feed bunk (C) and cattle eye secretions (D). Photos by Victoria Pickens.
Figure 1. House flies associate with animals, their waste, and feed in livestock operations. House fly eggs (A) and pupae (B) in cattle manure. Adult house flies feeding on food in feed bunk (C) and cattle eye secretions (D). Photos by Victoria Pickens.
Microorganisms 11 00583 g001
Microorganisms 11 00583 g002 550
Figure 2. House fly movement within a concentrated animal feeding operation. Location of colored flies observed 1 h (A) and 24 h (B) after release. Flies were predominantly observed in feed bunkers containing animal feed (C,D) though also on manure (E) and animals (F). Photos by Cassandra Olds.
Figure 2. House fly movement within a concentrated animal feeding operation. Location of colored flies observed 1 h (A) and 24 h (B) after release. Flies were predominantly observed in feed bunkers containing animal feed (C,D) though also on manure (E) and animals (F). Photos by Cassandra Olds.
Microorganisms 11 00583 g002
Microorganisms 11 00583 g003 550
Figure 3. House flies pose a risk to human and animal health by disseminating and transmitting microbes. House flies acquire microbes such as bacteria from sources such as animals and their waste, and disseminate within and among farms, as well as to nearby areas of human habitation.
Figure 3. House flies pose a risk to human and animal health by disseminating and transmitting microbes. House flies acquire microbes such as bacteria from sources such as animals and their waste, and disseminate within and among farms, as well as to nearby areas of human habitation.
Microorganisms 11 00583 g003
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

Nayduch, D.; Neupane, S.; Pickens, V.; Purvis, T.; Olds, C. House Flies Are Underappreciated Yet Important Reservoirs and Vectors of Microbial Threats to Animal and Human Health. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 583. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11030583

AMA Style

Nayduch D, Neupane S, Pickens V, Purvis T, Olds C. House Flies Are Underappreciated Yet Important Reservoirs and Vectors of Microbial Threats to Animal and Human Health. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(3):583. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11030583

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nayduch, Dana, Saraswoti Neupane, Victoria Pickens, Tanya Purvis, and Cassandra Olds. 2023. "House Flies Are Underappreciated Yet Important Reservoirs and Vectors of Microbial Threats to Animal and Human Health" Microorganisms 11, no. 3: 583. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11030583

APA Style

Nayduch, D., Neupane, S., Pickens, V., Purvis, T., & Olds, C. (2023). House Flies Are Underappreciated Yet Important Reservoirs and Vectors of Microbial Threats to Animal and Human Health. Microorganisms, 11(3), 583. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11030583

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