<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Research Article</title>

<style>
.Page_1{
	
	<!--margin-left:200px; -->
	<!--margin-right:200px; -->
	
	border:1px;
	border-color:#d3d1d1;

	font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
	font-size:14px;
	line-height:25px;
	color:#000;
	
	
	
	
	
		<!--min-width:460px; -->
	
	height:100%;
	background-color:#FFF;
	padding-left:5px;
	padding-right:5px;
	
	text-align:justify;



		}
	
	
	
.Hdr1{
	color:#004F4F;
	margin-top:30px;
	margin-bottom:0px;
	
	padding-left:5px;
	padding-right:5px;
	padding-bottom:0px;

			
	  }
.Hdr2{
	text-align:center;
	margin-top:0px;
	margin-bottom:0px;
	color:#002E5B;
	padding-bottom:1px;
	padding-top:1px;
	padding-left:5px;
	padding-right:5px;
		

	}
	
.Mrgn_Top {
	margin-top: 0px;
}
.Author{color:#002E5B; 
text-align:center;}
.inner{
<!--	border: 1px solid #d3d1d1;
	border-radius: 5px;
 -->	padding-left:10px;
	padding-right:10px;
	}
.Hdr30 {
	color:#990000;
	margin-bottom:2px;
	border-bottom-style: solid;
	border-bottom-color:#d3d1d1;
	border-bottom-width: 1px;
	padding:10px;
	background-color:#FFF;

}
.Hdr3{
	color:#002E5B;
padding: 0 0 7px;
margin: 1.5em 0 0.5em 0;
font-size: 1.4em;
border-bottom: 1px solid #d3d1d1;

padding-left:5px;
	padding-right:5px;

}



p {
	padding-left:5px;
	padding-right:5px;
    margin-top:2px;
	margin-bottom:2px;
  <!-- border-bottom-style: solid;
	border-bottom-color:#d3d1d1;
	border-bottom-width: 1px; -->
   }
.p3{margin-top:1px;
margin-bottom:2px;
text-align:center;
margin-bottom:1px;
	<!--border-bottom-style: solid;
	border-bottom-color:#d3d1d1;
	border-bottom-width: 1px;
 -->	}

.p2 {
	
	margin-bottom:10px;
	line-height:1.4em;
	}
	ol{
	padding-left:60px;
	padding-right:30px;		
		}
		
		.p4{
	border-bottom-style: solid;
	border-bottom-color:#d3d1d1;
	border-bottom-width: 1px;
	padding-left:60px;
	padding-right:60px;
	
}
.p5{
	border-bottom-style: solid;
	border-bottom-color:#d3d1d1;
	border-bottom-width: 1px;

	}
	#ColorID {
		padding-top:5px;
		padding-bottom:5px;
		color:#002E5B;
		}
.pt{
	background-color:#BDF;
	border-top-style:solid;
	
	border-top-color:#d3d1d1;
	border-top-width: 1px;
	border-bottom-style: solid;
	
	border-bottom-color:#d3d1d1;
	border-bottom-width: 1px;
	height:90px;
	
	
	}
	
	
.img_display{
	float:left;
	padding:5px;
	
	}
	.img_text{ padding:10px;
		
		}
		
		.Txt_Dis{
			padding-right:20px;
			}
</style>


</head>

<body class="Page_1">

<div class="p5">
<p>
<h1 class="Hdr1">

Research Article


</h1>

Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 1 (2): 75–76     


</p>


</div>


<div>
<h2 class="Hdr2">

Serotyping and antibiotic sensitivity patterns of Escherchia coli isolates obtained from broiler chicks in Kashmir Valley, India

</h2>

<p class="p3">





<strong>FU Peer</strong><span><sup></sup></span>, 

<strong>MM Ansari</strong><span><sup>*</sup></span>, 


<strong>IA Gani</strong><span><sup></sup></span>, 

<strong>MM Willayat</strong><span><sup></sup></span>

</p>


</div>

<div class="p4">

<ol>

Sher–e–Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences and animal Husbandry
Shuhama, Alastaing, Srinagar–190006, J&K, India

</ol>




</div>


<div>        
<p><span class="Author">*Corresponding author:drmoin7862003@gmail.com </span></p>

</div>
<div id="ColorID"><p>
<span><b>ARTICLE CITATION:</b></span> 

Peer F.U,  Ansari M.M, Gani I.A, Willayat M.M, (2013). Serotyping and antibiotic sensitivity patterns of <i>Escherchia coli</i> isolates obtained from broiler chicks in Kashmir Valley, India. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 1 (2): 75–76 .


<br>
<span><b>Received: </b></span>2013–05–19, <span><b>Revised: </b></span>2013–06–26, <span><b>Accepted: </b></span>2013–06–27<br>

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at 

(<a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html
">

http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html


</a>)
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited </p>
</div>

<div>
     <h3 class="Hdr3">ABSTRACT</h3>

    <p>
    A total number of 105 isolates of Escherichia coli were identified, characterized and serotyped out of one hundred twenty five samples collected from yolk sac material of healthy, sick and dead chicks in Kashmir Valley, India. The typable serotypes were 97 (92.40%), the untypable serotyopes were 5 (4.80%) and the rough serotypes were 3 (2.80%). Twenty eight different serotypes viz. O<SUB>2</SUB>, O<sub>8</sub>, O<sub>20</sub>, O<sub>21</sub>, O<sub>25</sub>, O<sub>26</sub>, O<sub>41</sub>, O<sub>45</sub>, O<sub>50</sub>, O<sub>51</sub>, O<sub>78</sub>, O<sub>87</sub> , O<sub>88</sub>, O<sub>89</sub>, O<sub>95</sub>, O<sub>101</sub>, O<sub>103</sub>, O<sub>106</sub>, O<sub>109</sub>, O<sub>111</sub>, O<sub>123</sub>, O<sub>154</sub>, O<sub>159</sub>, O<sub>171</sub>,  and  UT were recorded. Serotypes O<sub>8</sub> was predominant (17) followed by O<sub>154</sub> (14), O<sub>41</sub> (13), O<sub>103</sub> (5), O<sub>20</sub> (5), O<sub>51</sub> (5), O<sub>2</sub> (4), O<sub>26</sub> (4), O<sub>171</sub> (3), rough (3), O<sub>88</sub> (3), O<sub>89</sub> (2), O<sub>101</sub> (2), O<sub>106</sub> (2), O<sub>109</sub> (2), O<sub>159</sub> (2), O<sub>111</sub> (2), O<sub>78</sub> (2), O<sub>78</sub> (2), O<sub>87</sub> (2) and one each of O<sub>21</sub>, O<sub>45</sub>, O<sub>123</sub>, O<sub>50</sub>, O<sub>25</sub>  and O<sub>22</sub>. Drug sensitivity pattern indicated most of the serotypes of avian <i>E. coli</i> were sensitive to ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, amikacin, pefloxacin and cloramphenicol, cephalexin has been found to be moderately effective whils maximum number of <i>E. coli</i> isolates showed resistance against cephalaxin, lincomycin, oxytetracycline, co–trimoxazole, amoxicillin and gentamycin Therefore, this disease problem can be checked by adopting judicious selection of suitable antibiotic based on antibiogram studies.
     

    </p>
 
</div>




<div>
  
  <h3 class="Hdr3">INTRODUCTION</h3>
    <p>
    <i>Escherchia coli</i> (<i>E. coli</i>) is associated with various poultry disease manifestations viz. chronic respiratory disease, colisepticaemia, air sacculitis etc. and has been mainly responsible for omphalitis in broilers during first few days of hatching, favored by bad management and stress in growing chicks (<a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Chauhan1990" target="_self">Chauhan, 1990</a>). The bacterium has been recovered in 70% of chicks with omphalitis (<a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Calnek1991" target="_self">Calnek et al., 1991</a>). <i>E. coli</i> has been labeled in accounting for great economic losses worldwide in broiler industry in terms of loss of growth, poor feed conversion and mortality (<a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Pattison1993" target="_self">Pattison, 1993</a>; <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Dhama2013" target="_self">Dhama et al., 2013</a>). Considering the all these caused by <i>E coli</i>infection and that of the isolates were found resistant to most of the selected antimicrobial drugs used in local poultry farming, omphalitis may be considered as a threat to the broiler. Therefore, in the present study, serotyping and antibiogram of various isolates of <i>E. coli</i> causing omphalitis in broiler chicks in Kashmir valley was undertaken.

</p>
  
</div>

<div>
<h3 class="Hdr3">MATERIALS AND METHODS</h3>
<p>
One hundred twenty five samples of yolk sac material from dead (80), ailing (16) and healthy chicks (29) were collected for isolation chicks of the Kashmir Valley   from Broiler Project Hariparbath, Srinagar, were collected for isolation of <i>E. coli</i>. The bacterial isolation was carried out as per the procedure described by <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Edward1972" target="_self">Edward and Ewing (1972)</a> and Crickshanket al. (1975). The <i>E. coli</i> isolates thus obtained were serotyped at National Salmonella and Escherichia Research Centre, Kasauli (Himachal Pradesh). In–vitro drug sensitivity of <i>E. coli</i> isolates against 15 antimicrobials was carried out as described by <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Baur1996" target="_self">Baur et al. (1996)</a>.
</p>
</div>

<div>
<h3 class="Hdr3">RESULTS AND DISCUSSION</h3>
<p>
Out of 125 samples collected from dead, ailing and healthy chicks, <i>E. coli</i> was confirmed in 84% (105 of the samples). Out of the 105 samples, 97 isolates were grouped under 26 different ‘O’ serogroups of <i>E. coli</i>. The typable seretypes were O<sub>2</sub>, O<sub>8</sub>, O<sub>20</sub>, O<sub>21</sub>, O<sub>25</sub>, O<sub>26</sub>, O<sub>41</SUB>, O<SUB>45</SUB>, O<SUB>50</SUB>, O<SUB>51</SUB>, O<SUB>78</SUB>, O<SUB>87</SUB> , O<SUB>88</SUB> O<SUB>89</SUB>, O<SUB>95</SUB>, O<SUB>101</SUB>, O<SUB>103</SUB>, O<SUB>106</SUB>, O<SUB>109</SUB>, O<SUB>111</SUB>, O<SUB>123</SUB>, O<SUB>154</SUB>, O<SUB>159</SUB>, and O<SUB>171</SUB>. Besides this, there were 3 rough and 5 untypable serotypes too. Various serotypes have been reported by several workers. The different serotypes identified were O<sub>1</sub>,   O<SUB>2</SUB>, O<SUB>8</SUB>, O<SUB>11</SUB>, O<SUB>12</SUB>, O<SUB>14</SUB>, O<sub>18</sub>, O<sub>19</sub>,  O<SUB>21</SUB>, O<SUB>20</SUB>, O<SUB>26</SUB>,O<sub>53</sub>, O<sub>54</sub>, O<sub>57</sub>O<sub>60</sub>, O</sub>65, </sub> O<sub>68</sub>, O<SUB>78</SUB>, O<sub>80</sub>, O<sub>81</sub>, O<sub>83</sub>, O<SUB>89</SUB> , O<sub>91</sub>, O<SUB>101</SUB>, O<SUB>103</SUB>, O<SUB>106</SUB>, O<SUB>109</SUB>, O<SUB>111</SUB>, O115, O<SUB>123</SUB>, O<sub>147</sub>, O<sub>148</sub>,  and  O<sub>162</sub> (<a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Ghose1988" target="_self">Ghose, 1988</a>; <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Linzitto1988" target="_self">Linzitto et al., 1988</a>; <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Allen1993" target="_self">Allen et al., 1993</a>; <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Reddy1994" target="_self">Reddy et al., 1994</a>; <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Blanco1988" target="_self">Blanco et al., 1998</a>). Serotypes O<SUB>8</SUB> was predominant (17) followed by O<SUB>154</SUB> (14), O<SUB>41</SUB>(13), O<SUB>103</SUB> (5), O<SUB>20</SUB> (5), O<SUB>51</SUB> (5), O2 (4), O<SUB>26</SUB> (4), O<SUB>171</SUB>(3), rough (3), O<SUB>88</SUB> (3), O<SUB>89</SUB> (2), O<SUB>101</SUB> (2), O<SUB>106</SUB>(2), O<SUB>109</SUB> (2), O<SUB>159</SUB> (2), O<SUB>111</SUB> (2), O<SUB>78</SUB> (2), O<SUB>78</SUB> (2), O<SUB>87</SUB> (2) and one each of O<SUB>21</SUB>, O<SUB>45</SUB>, O<SUB>123</SUB>, O<SUB>50</SUB>, O<SUB>25</SUB>  and O<SUB>22</SUB>. 
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>The present findings do not coincide with earlier reports of <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Ike1990" target="_self">Ike et al. (1990)</a>, <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Phukan1990" target="_self">Phukan et al. (1990)</a> and <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Gowda1996" target="_self">Gowda et al. (1996)</a> who opined that O2 was predominant among different serotyping of <i>E. coli</i>. May be different topography, season and other factors favoring O<SUB>8</SUB> strains contribute to its high incidence in this region. In–vitro drug sensitivity results indicated ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, amikacin, pefloxacin and cloramphenicol the most effective antibiotic exhibited efficacy of 78.90, 73.70, 68.40, 60.50 and 55.30 %, respectively, against the <i>E. coli</i> isolates, Cephotaxim was found to be moderately effective while maximum number of <i>E. coli</i> isolates showed against cephalaxin (92.40%), lincomycin (97.40%), oxytetracycline (84.20%), co–trimoxazole (71.10%), amoxicillin (68.40%) and gentamycin (52.60%). Effectiveness of ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, and pefloxacin against <i>E. coli</i> isolates from chicks has also been reported by <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Dasgupta1992" target="_self">Dasgupta et al. (1992)</a>. The higher efficacy of these third generation antibiotics could be attributed to their and less use in poultry industry.
</p><p>Resistance of co–trimoxazole,  lincomycin, oxytetracycline, and amoxicillin have been reported by many workers which may be largely attributed to the large scale and indiscriminate use of antimicrobials as feed additives and for therapeutic purposes resulting in emergence of drug resistance to various isolates (<a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Bandhopadhyay1985" target="_self">Bandhopadhyay and Dhawedkar, 1985</a>). <a href="http://www.nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/53/html/#Lambie2000" target="_self">Lambie et al. (2000)</a> has also been reported a high level of resistance to antimicrobial drugs among pathogenic isolates. Therefore, this disease problem can be checked by adopting judicious selection of suitable antibiotic based on antibiogram studies.   

</p>
</div>








<div>
<h3 class="Hdr3">REFERENCES</h3>
 

<p class="p2"> <a name="Allen1993"></a>
Allen BJ, Hunk JVD, Potter AA and Hurk JV (1993). Characterizatioin of Esherichia coli isolates from cases of avian colibacillosis. Canadian J. Vet. Res. 57: 146–151.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Bandhopadhyay1985"></a>
Bandhopadhyay PK and Dhawedkar RG (1985). Drug resistance to bacteria. Indian Vet. J. 62: 173.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Baur1996"></a>
Baur AW, Kirby WMM, Serris JC and Turek M (1996). Drug sensitivity pattern. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 45: 493.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Blanco1988"></a>
Blanco J (1988). Serotyping of Esherichia coli isolates from septicaemic chickens in Galicia (North–West Spain).Veterinary Microbiology. 61: 229–235. <br>
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(98)00182-5" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(98)00182-5</a>
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Calnek1991"></a>
Calnek BW, Barnes HJ, Beard CW, Reid WM and Yoder HWJr (1991). Diseases of poultry, 9th edition, Bookhouse, London, pp 139–143.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Chauhan1990"></a>
Chauhan HVS (1990). Poultry diseases and treatment. 1st edition, Darya ganj, Ansari Road, New Delhi, pp 21, 25–26.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Crinchshank1975"></a>
Crinchshank P, Dugnid JP, Marmion BP and Swain RHA (1975). Medical microbiology, 12th editioin, Churchill living stone, London, pp 428–439.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Dasgupta1992"></a>
Dasgupta P, Chanda A, Sanatan B, Bhuin S (1992). Drug sensitivity of Esherichia coli isolatesd from avian colibacillosis. Indian J. Anim. Health. 31: 169–170.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Dhama2013"></a>
Dhama, K., Chakraborty, S., Barathidasan, R., Tiwari, R., Rajagunalan, S. and Singh, S.D. (2013). Escherichia coli, an economically important avian pathogen, its disease manifestations, diagnosis and control, and public health significance: a review. Research Opinions in Animal and Veterinary Sciences. (In Press).
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Edward1972"></a>
Edward PR and Ewing WH (1972). Identification of enterobacterical, 3rd edition,Burgey Publishing Company, Minnesota, pp 337–356.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Ghose1988"></a>
Ghose SS (1988). Esherichia coli serotyping in poultry in Nagaland. Indian J. Anim. Health. 22: 35–38.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Gowda1996"></a>
Gowda BMV, Murtay GVK, Upadhaya AS and Raghavan R (1996). Serotypes of Esherichia coli from pathological conditions in poultry and their antibiogram. Indian Vet. J. 73: 123–126.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Ike1990"></a>
Ike K, Kume K, Kawahara K and Danbara H (1990). Serotyping of O and pilus antigen of Esherichia coli and antimicrobial resistance patterns of non–verocytotoxin producing Esherichia coli and salmonella in Ontario broiler chickes. Jap. J. Vet. Sci. 52: 1023–1027. <br>
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1292/jvms1939.52.1023" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1292/jvms1939.52.1023</a>
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Lambie2000"></a>
Lambie N, Ngeleka M, Brown G and Ryan J (2000). Retrospective study of Esherichia coli infection in broiler subjected to postmortem examination and antibiotic resistance to isolates in Trinidad. Avian Dis. 44: 155–160. <br>
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1592519" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1592519</a><br>
PMid:10737656 
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Linzitto1988"></a>
Linzitto OR, Mendenez NA and Abeiro HD (1988). Esherichia coli isolates from fowls: pathological and bacteriological studies. Esherichia coli orislades de aves. Estudios Pathologicosy Micobioligicos Therios. 12: 327–334.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Pattison1993"></a>
Pattison M (1993). The health of poultry. 1st editioin, Longman group UK ltd. Marlow, England, p 165.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Phukan1990"></a>
Phukan A, Kalita CC and Dutta GN (1990). Isolation, identificatioin and serotyping of Esherichia coli from poultry. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 60: 556–557.
</p>

<p class="p2"> <a name="Reddy1994"></a>
Reddy YK, Koteshwaran A and Barairajan NS (1994). Characterization of Escherichia coli isolates from pathological of poultry in Nammakkal. Indian Vet. J. 71: 209–212
</p>


</p>

 
 
 
 
</div>



</body>
</html>