ERYSIPELOID AND ENVIRONMENT

Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiaebacterium is ubiquitous and able to persist for a long period of time in the environment, especially where nitrogenous substances decompose (Klauder, 1938; Molin et al., 1989).

This characteristic may explain why Popugalio et al., (1983) in a shoe factory found leather and casein glue contaminated with E. rhusiopathiae. Geographically, this pathogen can be found in terrestrial and marine locations while clinical cases have been reported worldwide (Japan, Russia, Australia, USA, Europe, etc.) (Wanget al., 2010). The range of animals that are infected by and possibly transmitters of this bacterium includes vertebrates and invertebrates such as swine, sheep, cattle, horses, dogs, bears, kangaroos, reindeer, mice, rodents, seals, sea lions, cetaceans, mink, chipmunks, crustaceans, fresh and salt water fish, crocodiles, Caymans, stable flies, houseflies, ticks, mites, mouse, lice, turkeys, chickens,

(Figure 2.10.1) (Bricker and Saif, 1997; Reboli and Farrar, 1989; Oli’akova and Antoniuk, 1989; Wood, 1975; Grieco and Sheldon, 1970).

Major transmission and infection cases were reported on persons working at meat, offal and bone processing plants where they had direct contact with infected animals (Savchenkoet al., 1984).

Human infections are mainly related to direct contact with swine and turkey through slaughterhouse and meat manufacture; however, in Western Australia, an erysipeloid-like infection referred to as“crayfish poisoning” occurred in lobster fishermen and handlers (Fidalgo et al. 2004), an incidence already reported in the 40’s of the last century (Anonymous, 1946).

For three years (2007–2009), Benderet al. (2010) analyzed clinical and environmental isolates from affected pigs in Midwest United States. Environmental samples included: manure, feed, water lines, oral fluids, swab samples from wall, feed lines, air inlets, exhaust fans and nipple drinker. Except for feed line, all other environmental samples were positive forErysipelothrixspp. in the range of 21.4 to 52.9%, feed and nipple drinkers having the highest percentage of positive samples.

A previous study demonstrated that this organism can survive for a maximum of 35 days in soil under diverse conditions of temperature, pH, moisture and organic content (Wood, 1973). Taking into account the continuous excretion of this pathogen by infected animals and high nitrogen content of decaying Figure 2.10.1. Ecology ofErysipelothrixspp. in biosphere related to human infection

Erysipeloid 77

vegetation, soil certainly can be considered as a realistic source of human infection, especially under poor hygienic conditions.

2.10.2 REFERENCES

Anonymous (1946) Erysipeloid.Lancet,2, 327–328.

Bender, J.S., Shen, H.G., Irwin, C.K., Schwartz, K.J. & Opriessnig, T. (2010) Characterization ofErysipelothrixspecies isolates from clinically affected pigs, environmental samples, and vaccine strains from six recent swine Erysipelas outbreaks in the United States.Clin. Vaccine Immunol.,17, 1605–1611.

Boo, T.W., Hone, R. & Hurley, J. (2003)Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiaeendocarditis: a preventable zoonosis?.Ir J Med Sci172, 81–82.

Bricker, J.M. & Saif, Y.M. (1997) Erysipelas. In: Calnek, B.W., Barnes, H.J., Beard, C.W., McDougald, L.R., Saif, Y.M.

(Eds.), Diseases of Poultry. 10th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, pp. 302–313.

Brooke, C. & Riley, T. (1999).“Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae: bacteriology, epidemiology and clinical manifestations of an occupational pathogen”.J Med Microbiol48, 789–799.

Chandler, D.S. & Craven, J.A. (1980) Persistence and distribution of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae and bacterial indicator organisms on land used for disposal of piggery effluent.J. Appl. Bacteriol.48, 361–315.

Fidalgo, S.G. & Riley, T.V. (2004) Detection ofErysipelothrix rhusiopathiaein clinical and environmental samples.

Methods Mol. Biol.268, 199–205.

Grieco, M.H. & Sheldon, C. (1970)Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.174, 523–532.

Klauder, J.V. (1938) Erysipeloid as an occupational disease.J. Am. Med. Assoc.111, 1345–1348.

Kratokhvil, N.I. (1954) Case of isolation of the causative agent of erysipeloid from sexually mature ticksIxodes ricinus.

Zh. Mikrobiol. Epidemiol. Immunobiol.3, 361–363.

Molin, G., Söderlind, O., Ursing, J., Nørrung, V., Ternstrøm, A. & Löwenhielm, C. (1989) Occurrence ofErysipefothrix rhusiopathiaeon pork and in pig slurry, and the distribution of specific antibodies in abattoir workers.J. Appl.

Bacteriol.67, 347–352.

Mutalib, A., Keirs, R. & Austin, F. (1995) Erysipelas in quail and suspected erysipeloid in processing plant employees.

Avian Dis.39, 191–193.

Mutalib, A.A., King, J.M. & McDonough, P.L. (1993) Erysipelas in caged laying chickens and suspected erysipeloid in animal caretakers.J. Vet. Diagn. Invest.5, 198–201.

Ol’iakova, N.V. & Antoniuk, V.I. (1989) The gray rat (Rattus norvegicus) as a carrier of infectious causative agents in Siberia and the Far East.Med Parazitol (Mosk)3, 73–77.

Popugailo, V.M., Podkin, I.A., Gurvich, V.B., Kuperman, E.F. & Zhukova, L.N. (1983) Erysipeloid as an occupational disease of workers in shoe enterprises.Zh. Mikrobiol. Epidemiol. Immunobiol.10, 46–49.

Reboli, A.C. & Farrar, W.E. (1989)Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae: an occupational pathogen.Clin. Microbiol. Rev.2, 354–359.

Savchenko, I.L., Vasil’chenko, A.A., Krolevetskaia, N.M., Blagodatnyi, V.N. & Serebriakova, T.L. (1984) Zoonotic infections in persons working in plants producing meat and bone meal.Zh. Mikrobiol. Epidemiol. Immunobiol.

3, 71–73.

Timofeeva, A.A., Evseeva, T.I., Shcherbina, R.D., Gaidukova, N.S., Artiukhov, N.I. (1978) Erysipeloid on the islands of the Ohhotsk Sea. 2. Landscape types of the natural foci of erysipeloid.Zh. Mikrobiol. Epidemiol. Immunobiol.1, 41–51.

Timofeeva, L.A. & Golovacheva, V.I. (1959) Detection of erysipeloid in rodents in Transcaucasian steppes. Zh.

Mikrobiol. Epidemiol. Immunobiol.30, 84–89.

Wang, Q., Chang, B.J. & Riley, T.V. (2010)Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae. Vet. Microbiol.140, 405–417.

Wood, R.L. (1973) Survival ofErysipelothrix rhusiopathiaein soil under various environmental conditions.Cornell Vet 63, 390–410.

Environmental Aspects of Zoonotic Diseases 78

Chapter 2.11

Glanders (Malleus or Farcy)

[BURKHOLDERIA MALLEI]

Burkholderia malleiis an aerobic, gram-negative rod, non-motile and non-fermentative bacterium, formerly namedPseudomonas mallei. The disease called Glanders, Malleus or Farcy can be acute and chronic and is characterized by skin lesions, multiple abscesses, respiratory tract necroses, pneumonia and sepsis.

Predominant animals affected by this bacterium are: horses, donkeys, and mules, although other animals (e.g. sheep, goats, dogs, cats and zoo animals) may be infected through contact with ungulates or by consuming their meat (Alibasoglu et al., 1986). Humans who come in contact with horses (e.g., veterinarians, horse dealers, farmers or horseback riders) or consume horse meat are at high risk (Fukuyo et al., 2002; Wittiget al., 2006). In stables, airborne infections are also feasible when infected secretions are dispersed as aerosols (Leveret al., 2003; Whitlocket al., 2007; Dvorak and Spickler, 2008).