Molecular Characterization of the Recently Emerged Poultry Pathogen Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale by Multilocus Sequence Typing

Susann Thieme; Kristin Mühldorfer; Dörte Lüschow; Hafez M. Hafez

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148158

Abstract

Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale (ORT) is an economically important bacterial pathogen of turkeys and chickens worldwide. Since its first detection, a variety of typing methods have been used to gain basic knowledge about the bacterial population structure, an issue that still needs to be addressed. Serological characterization revealed at least 18 different serotypes (A-R) with ORT of serotype A to be predominate among poultry. This study aimed to establish a multilocus sequence typing (MLST) scheme for ORT that could easily be used by other laboratories and allows for worldwide comparison of sequence data. For this purpose, 87 ORT strains from different poultry hosts, geographical origins, years of isolation and serotypes were included in the analysis to identify correlations. Fourteen different sequence types (ST) were found. The most common ST1 was identified in 40 ORT strains from turkeys and chickens on 4 continents and in 3 different European countries. Together with ST9, both STs represented over three quarters (77%) of ORT strains used in the MLST analysis and included strains of frequently cross-reacting ORT serotypes A, E and I. Nine STs were only represented by one ORT strain and might indicate possible avian host, disease or serotype-specific relationships. In contrast, discrepancies between serotype and phylogenetic relatedness were clearly demonstrated by ORT strains that belonged to identical serotypes but differed in their ST. The overall identified low genetic diversity among strains isolated from turkeys and chickens independent of host and geographical origins suggests that ORT has only recently been introduced into domestic poultry and dispersed worldwide.

Citation: Thieme S, Mühldorfer K, Lüschow D, Hafez HM (2016) Molecular Characterization of the Recently Emerged Poultry Pathogen Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale by Multilocus Sequence Typing. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0148158. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148158

Editor: Patrick CY Woo, The University of Hong Kong, HONG KONG

Received: September 14, 2015; Accepted: January 13, 2016; Published: February 1, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Thieme et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The DNA sequences of the distinct alleles at the 7 loci of ORT strains used in this study have been deposited in GenBank under accession nos. KP775847-KP775856 (adk), KP775857-KP775868 (aroE), KP775869-KP775877 (fumC), KP775878-KP775888 (gdhA), KP775889-KP775897 (mdh), KP775898-KP775908 (pgi) and KP775909-KP775919 (pmi). Information about primer, PCR conditions, allele sequences, sequence types and isolates have been made publicly available in the ORT MLST database (http://pubmlst.org/orhinotracheale/) hosted at the University of Oxford [32]. Users are encouraged to upload their MLST data together with background information of ORT strains for comparison and epidemiological studies.

Funding: These authors have no support or funding to report.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale (ORT) has become an important pathogen of turkeys and chickens since its first detection and classification in the early 1990s [1, 2]. Clinical symptoms of infected birds range from respiratory disease, arthritis and increased mortality to growth retardation and decreased egg production. Main pathological findings are fibrinopurulent airsacculitis and pneumonia, sometimes paired with pericarditis and perihepatitis [3]. The severity of ORT infections increases strongly by predisposing factors, such as poor management, high stocking density and inadequate ventilation [3] as well as coinfections with other respiratory pathogens [4–6].

ORT is an emerging bacterial pathogen of global concern in poultry production and has already been isolated in the USA, Brazil, France, the Netherlands, Germany, South Africa, Israel, Japan, Taiwan and even more countries [7–10]. A wide variety of birds including economically important poultry species as well as wild birds like pigeons, pheasants, partridges, falcons and rooks [1, 7, 11, 12] are susceptible to ORT infection or have been found to carry ORT.

Different typing methods have been attempted for characterization of ORT strains and epidemiological investigations. Serological typing of ORT strains by agar gel precipitation test (AGP) is a very practical and common method that was established in 1997 for immunological purposes [9]. Since then 18 different serotypes (A-R) have been reported [13, 14], with A being the most predominate serotype of ORT in poultry. About 95% of ORT isolated from chickens and more than 50% of ORT strains from turkeys belong to serotype A [9, 15]. Cross-reactions between 2 or more ORT serotypes such as A, E and I are common and some strains are not typeable with available antisera [15, 16].

Amonsin et al. [17] were first to investigate the molecular epidemiology of 55 ORT strains from avian hosts in 8 countries on 4 continents by comparison of 3 different methods. The results of multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MLEE), repetitive sequence based polymerase chain reaction (rep-PCR) and 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene analyses indicated that ORT strains were genetically closely related independent of hosts and geographic origins. This observation was confirmed by ribotyping results of Leroy-Setrin et al. [18], who characterized 23 ORT strains from 5 different poultry species in France also by plasmid and by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analyses. Only RAPD analysis provided good level of discriminatory power indicating 3 different clusters of ORT strains without obvious host-specific differences. Due to the lack of serotype information, a possible relationship was not investigated [18]. A subsequent RAPD analysis of 6 field strains from chickens in Turkey [19] included strains of serotypes A to E (this study RefA-RefE), but did not find clear genotype-serotype correlations. Similar results were obtained for 117 field strains of different serotypes from France and Germany by comparing their RAPD profiles with those of different serotype reference strains (this study RefA-RefQ) [20]. The author concluded that only strains of serotype A might produce a reliable fingerprinting by RAPD-PCR. At least, the comparison of 16S rRNA and OR01 gene analyses [15] and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) [21] results of several ORT field strains with those of ORT serotype reference strains (this study RefA-RefQ) showed consistent genotype-serotype relationships.

As indicated by the results of previous studies, different methods have been used for molecular characterization of ORT. Many included only small numbers of ORT strains, strains representing one poultry host or geographical origin or strains without serotype information, making comparisons between laboratories difficult. Consequently, relevant questions on the population genetic structure and epidemiology of ORT infections still need to be addressed, as for example, to understand the molecular basis of serotype cross-reactivity and their relevance for disease prevention [22, 23].

MLST has been frequently used as powerful tool for reliable molecular characterization of bacteria and fungi, and particularly to address epidemiological questions [24]. The analysis is highly standardized by targeting a set of different gene loci that are distributed on the whole genome of the bacterium. MLST results are unambiguous, highly reproducible and portable, and easily allow the comparison of sequence data together with background information from bacterial strains on a broader context and between laboratories worldwide [25].

The present study aimed to establish MLST as an advanced alternative typing method for ORT. Relationships of possible importance in the epidemiology of ORT infections were investigated by molecular characterization of a variety of strains of different serotypes that have been collected between 1983 and 2014 from different avian hosts and geographical origins.

Materials and Methods

Bacterial strains

Eighty-seven strains of previously identified ORT were used for the development of MLST comprising 17 ORT reference strains of serotypes A-Q (RefA-RefQ), 69 field strains from turkeys and chickens of different serotypes, geographical origins and years of isolation as well as the ORT type strain DSM 15997 (complete genome available under accession number NC_018016). The ORT field strains have previously been serotyped using agar gel precipitation test as formerly described [14, 16]. Details of all 87 ORT strains are provided as S1 Table. As several ORT strains were identical in their partial gene sequences, 34 out of 87 ORT strains were selected as representatives for presentation of the MLST outcome (Table 1) and phylogenetic analysis (Fig 1). The 34 ORT strains included the ORT type strain DSM 15997, 17 ORT serotype reference strains (RefA-RefQ) and 16 ORT field strains to enable the comparison of different characteristics (serotype, host, geographical origin and year of isolation) possibly associated with MLST results.

Download:

Fig 1. Phylogenetic tree showing the relatedness of 34 representative ORT strains generated from MLST sequences by using the maximum likelihood method of MEGA6 [26].

ORT strains included in the phylogenetic analysis comprised 17 reference strains of serotypes A-Q (RefA-RefQ), 16 field strains mainly from turkeys and chickens of different geographic origins and the ORT type strain DSM 15997. Two main clusters (A and B) and 5 subclusters (Ba-Be) were indicated. Details on sequence type (ST), allelic profile, strain identification (ID), host, geographic origin and serotype were provided. ORT strains that could not be typed with available antisera A to L were indicated by 'n.t.'. Slight serotype cross-reactions in the agar gel precipitation test are given in parentheses. For ORT field strains from China (GB 1707/12), only DNA was available for MLST analysis and the serotype has not yet been determined.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148158.g001

Download:

Table 1. Details of 34 representative strains used for multilocus sequence typing of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148158.t001

DNA extraction

All ORT strains were cultured from frozen bacterial stocks onto Columbia agar plates with 7% sheep blood and were incubated at 37°C under a 5% CO₂ atmosphere for 24–48 hours. DNA extraction was performed by heat cell lysis for Gram-negative bacteria. A loopful of bacterial colonies dissolved in 200 μl of nuclease free water was heated at 98°C for 10 minutes followed by 10 minutes of centrifugation (20,000 × g). The supernatant was used as DNA template for PCR analysis and stored at -20°C until further use.

Selection of housekeeping genes for MLST

A set of 7 different housekeeping genes were selected for MLST of ORT (Table 2) based on previous studies of MLEE analysis of ORT [17] and MLST analysis of Pasteurella multocida [27] because of high similarities between both bacterial species [2]. Three genes (adk, mdh, pgi) were present in both studies, whereas genes aroE and fumC were selected from MLEE analysis and genes gdhA and pmi from MLST of P. multocida (Table 2). Gene loci are scattered across the main chromosome to ensure independence from each other.

Download:

Table 2. Housekeeping genes, primers and corresponding gene fragments used for multilocus sequence typing of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148158.t002

Gene amplification and sequencing

PCR analysis and partial sequencing of 7 housekeeping genes was performed on 86 out of 87 ORT strains. Gene sequences from the ORT type strain DSM 15997 were taken directly from GenBank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/index.html).

The primer sets used for MLST analysis (Table 2) were created based on the genomic sequence of ORT type strain DSM 15997 using the primer designing tool Primer 3 [28]. For the ORT reference strain of serotype F (RefF), a different reverse primer (5’-TCRTTCCATTTRTTTTGTCCTT-3’) was used for PCR amplification and partial sequencing of the housekeeping gene adk to yield the desired amplicon.

PCR was carried out using Ready-To-Go PCR beads (GE Healthcare, Freiburg, Germany) with 25 μl reaction volumes containing 1 μl of bacterial DNA and 1 μl of the respective forward and reverse primers (25 pmol/μl). PCR cycler conditions for all genes were the following: initial denaturation at 94°C for 5 minutes followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 52°C for 60 seconds and extension at 72°C for 90 seconds. The final extension at 72°C for 7 minutes completed the PCR. Clean-up of PCR products and Sanger sequencing in both directions were performed by microtitre plate sequencing at LGC Genomics, Berlin, Germany.

MLST analysis

Raw sequence chromatograms were visually screened for quality with the Chromas Lite software (version 2.01; Technelysium Pty Ltd, South Brisbane, Australia) and sequences were uploaded to BioNumerics (version 7.1.; Applied Maths, Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium).

For each gene locus, nucleotide sequence differences between strains were identified by alignment and distinct alleles were numbered in ascending order. The composition of 7 allele numbers formed the allelic profile of the ORT strain and the subsequent ST in order of identification (ST1, ST2,…). Thus, each unique allelic profile represented a new ST.

Discriminatory power was calculated with the formula of Simpson’s index of the discriminatory ability (D) as previously described [29] by using the tool http://insilico.ehu.es/mini_tools/discriminatory_power/index.php. The discriminatory ability describes the capability of a typing method to identify strains to be different from each other. The sum ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 and estimates the probability to obtain different types for two strains randomly selected from a sample. The higher the index the more discriminatory the method.

The index of association (I_A) describes the level of genetic recombination and was calculated as described by Maynard Smith et al. [30] using the START2 software [31]. A value of zero reflects no association between gene loci (linkage equilibrium). If the index is significantly different from zero more recombination takes place in the population.

For each of the 34 representative ORT strains, partial sequences of the 7 alleles were concatenated and a phylogenetic tree was built with the MEGA software (version 6) using the maximum likelihood method [26].

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers

The DNA sequences of the distinct alleles at the 7 loci of ORT strains used in this study have been deposited in GenBank under accession nos. KP775847-KP775856 (adk), KP775857-KP775868 (aroE), KP775869-KP775877 (fumC), KP775878-KP775888 (gdhA), KP775889-KP775897 (mdh), KP775898-KP775908 (pgi) and KP775909-KP775919 (pmi).

Information about primer sequences, PCR conditions, allele sequences, sequence types and isolates have been made available at the ORT MLST website (http://pubmlst.org/orhinotracheale/) sited at the University of Oxford [32].

Results and Discussion

The purpose of this study was to enable the characterization of ORT strains under standardized conditions by developing a MLST scheme, which could easily be used and expanded by other laboratories, and finally allows for worldwide comparison of sequence data. To approach this idea, 7 housekeeping genes were identified from previous studies on ORT [17] and P. multocida [27], and newly developed primer pairs were used for partial sequencing of ORT strains representing different poultry hosts, geographical origins, years of isolation and serotypes.

MLST analysis

The length of the gene sequences used for MLST varied from 393 bp (adk gene) to 519 bp (mdh gene). No deletions or insertions were identified in any of the sequences. For 87 ORT strains, 9 to 12 alleles for each gene locus were distinguished with a mean number of 10.43.

The number of polymorphic sites varied notably between the 7 housekeeping genes. For example, a maximum number of 22 and 105 polymorphic sites were identified within the partial sequences of genes pmi and gdhA, respectively (Table 3). Most nucleotide polymorphisms were seen in 3 strains, namely RefF (turkey, the Netherlands), GB 978/14/1 (turkey, Germany) and GB 137/10/2 (chicken, Germany). The number of polymorphic sites among gdhA gene sequences decreased markedly from 105 to 10 if these 3 strains were excluded from the analysis (Table 3).

Download:

Table 3. Maximum number of alleles and polymorphic sites per gene locus.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148158.t003

Fourteen different STs were identified among the 87 ORT strains by MLST, which is low compared to results of other bacterial species [27, 33–35]. Nine sequence types were only represented by one ORT strain (Fig 1). The most common ST1 was identified in 40 (46%) ORT strains and included 6 different serotype reference strains (RefA, RefB, RefE, RefI, RefM, RefP) as well as type strain DSM 15997. Together with the closely related ST9, which differed only in one allele from ST1, both STs represented 77% of ORT strains. Sequence types 3, 6 and 11 included 4, 3 and 4 strains, respectively. The value of the discriminatory power was 0.6937, which is low compared to MLST indices of other bacterial species that offered discriminatory powers close to 1.0 [27, 35, 36].

The index of association (I_A) calculated for all 87 strains analyzed was 4.86. Significant linkage disequilibrium was detected indicating clonal population structures. Limited genetic heterogeneity of ORT has been suggested by Amonsin et al. [17] who characterized different ORT strains from poultry hosts of various geographical origins by MLEE, rep-PCR and 16S rRNA gene analyses. The authors supposed that all strains from domesticated poultry belong to a single clonal complex. Similar results have also been shown by whole-cell protein analyses. Hung and Alvarado [37] analyzed 25 ORT strains from outbreaks of respiratory disease in chickens from Peru and found identical SDS-PAGE protein patterns.

Two distinct phylogenetic clusters A and B were identified in the phylogenetic tree generated from MLST sequences (Fig 1). Three ORT strains (RefF, GB 978/14/1 and GB 137/10/2) from turkeys and chicken in Germany and the Netherlands formed cluster A and differed considerably from the vast majority of ORT strains (all cluster B) included in this study. Interestingly, they represented 2 strains of the rarely identified serotype F and one field strain that was not typeable with available antisera. Thus, cluster B included 84 (96.6%) of the 87 investigated ORT strains and was divided into 5 closely related subclusters (Ba-Be).

Relationships between STs and hosts

Eighty-four out of 87 ORT strains (96.6%) were isolated from turkeys or chickens (S1 Table) and did not reveal clear species-specific correlations based on MLST results. Sequence types, which were identified more than once (ST1, ST3, ST6 and ST9), comprised strains from both turkey and chicken. The only exception was ST11 that solely included field strains from turkeys.

As mentioned before, high genetic similarity among ORT strains independent of poultry hosts has been reported by Amonsin et al. [17]. Van Empel et al. [38] showed that ORT strains isolated either from turkeys or chickens produce similar disease symptoms in cross-infection experiments. However, rep-PCR results of Amonsin et al. [17] indicated that ORT clones infecting passeriform birds were genetically distinct from clones infecting galliform birds. Clear host-specific differences between ORT strains from non-galliform birds such as pigeons and those from poultry species have also been shown by 16S rRNA analysis [7].

In this study, 3 ORT strains originated from pheasant, guinea fowl and rook. Both ORT strains from guinea fowl (RefN) and rook (RefO) formed unique STs (ST7 and ST8), while the pheasant-derived field strain (serotype D) belonged to ST3 together with reference strains of serotypes D, H and Q isolated from turkey or chicken. The 3 strains isolated from non-commercial-poultry host species or respective from a passeriform bird were included in subcluster Bc of the main cluster B (Fig 1).

Relationship between STs and geographic origin

The MLST analysis included strains from 9 different countries and 4 continents (S1 Table) that were widely distributed across STs and phylogenetic clusters (Fig 1). ORT strains from different geographical origins were assigned to identical STs, namely ST1, ST3, ST6 and ST9, indicating that a specific ST is not linked to geographical origin. For example, subcluster Ba included 68 (78.2%) ORT strains of 4 STs from 7 countries on 4 continents. Such a global distribution of few STs that grouped phylogenetically very close together provides further evidence of highly clonal bacterial population structures. Likewise, analyses of either outer membrane or total proteins demonstrated high similarities between polypeptide profiles of ORT strains originating from various countries worldwide [1, 13].

Interestingly, ST11 was identified in 4 field strains that have been isolated in different years from turkey flocks in Germany (S1 Table). This relationship to bacterial origin might be biased because of the randomized dataset used for the development of MLST. However, PFGE results of Popp [21] indicated a possible relation between geographical origin and genetic homogeneity of ORT strains. Her analysis included 11 field strains from Hungary that together with only one strain from Germany had identical PFGE patterns and represented a single clonal complex of only 41% similarity to other ORT strains.

Relationship between STs and year of isolation

The 87 ORT strains of this study were collected between 1983 and 2014. Four strains that have been isolated between 1994 and 1996, and 3 strains from 1997 were assigned to ST3 and ST6, respectively. Strains of ST3 clustered together with 3 strains of ST2, ST7 and ST8 (one strain each). All 7 ORT strains formed subcluster Bc and have been collected in a short period of time between 1991–1996 or rather in 1983 (ST8). In contrast, ORT strains of ST1 (n = 40) and ST9 (n = 27) ranged more widely in their years of isolation from 1988 to 2013 and 2005 to 2013, respectively (S1 Table). To date, there are no earlier studies that investigated a possible epidemiological relationship between ORT strains of different years.

Relationship between STs and serotypes

The ORT reference strains of serotypes A-Q (RefA-RefQ) were included in the MLST analysis as well as different field strains that have been characterized previously by serotyping. The predominant ORT serotypes A, B, E or I were identified in 58 (67%) strains investigated in this study. It has been shown that these 4 serotypes frequently cross-react in AGP tests ([15], Hafez et al., unpublished data). Based on MLST results, they belonged to 3 different STs (ST1, ST9 and ST13) and formed subcluster Ba (Fig 1). The serotype strain RefG alone formed ST5 but differed only in 1 or 2 alleles from strains of ST9 or ST1 and belonged to subcluster Ba. Both STs 9 and 1 included the majority of ORT field strains that slightly cross-reacted with 3 to 5 different serotypes including serotype G (S1 Table). In general, STs which were represented by 2 or more ORT strains such as ST1, ST3, ST6, ST9 and ST11, included more than one ORT serotype. Two ORT strains of serotype F from turkeys were investigated by MLST that clearly differed in their STs, but belonged both to cluster A. Strains RefN and RefO were the only representatives for ORT serotypes N and O and formed unique STs (ST7 and ST8, respectively) within the major cluster B.

Serotype-specific relationships have been indicated by previous studies using PFGE [21], 16S rRNA and Or01 [15] gene analyses or RAPD-PCR [19, 20] for characterization of ORT. In the PFGE analysis serotype strains A-Q were identical with RefA-RefQ used in the present study. Consistent with MLST results, strains of serotypes A, E, I and P (this study ST1) as well as strains RefD, RefH and RefQ (this study ST3) grouped together based on their PFGE patterns [21]. Analyses of partial 16S rRNA and Or01 gene sequences by Numee et al. [15] also included ORT serotype strains A-H (this study RefA-RefH) and were in agreement with both MLST and PFGE results. Again, strains RefA, RefB and RefE clustered together in the neighbor-joining tree, and strains RefD and RefH showed close relationship to each other. Likewise, Ozbey et al. [19] found that some strains of serotype A shared their RAPD profile with those of serotype B and E. Only the serotype reference strain C (this study RefC) had a unique RAPD profile. The relationship between strains of serotypes A and B as well as the distinct RAPD profile of serotype C were confirmed by Waldow [20].

This study included 3 ORT strains of serotype C that were assigned to distinct STs and subclusters Ba, Bc and Bd based on nucleotide differences in all 7 gene loci (Fig 1). RefC formed its own ST (ST2), whereas both field strains shared identical STs with other strains (ST1 and ST11). Consistent results were found for 2 strains of serotype J that belong to different STs and subclusters (Fig 1). As the molecular basis for serological variations of ORT remains unknown, the most likely explanation might be the transfer of genes between strains encoding serotype specificity. Horizontal spread of capsular genes leading to identical serotypes in genetically diverse bacterial strains has been discussed for other bacteria like Streptococcus species [39–41]. Based on MLST results and serotype information, it is most likely that serotype exchange frequently occurs among ORT strains from turkeys. Only 2 STs were identified by the MLST scheme that represented the majority of ORT and included most common serotypes as well as frequently cross-reacting strains.

Conclusion

The MLST scheme presented here can provide an unambiguous, reproducible and portable typing system to stepwise gain more insights into the population structure of ORT by identifying the extent of recombination. It has limited discriminatory power, which is most likely associated with the observed low genetic heterogeneity and clonal population structure of ORT that originated from poultry species. In general, ORT strains from turkeys or chickens in different geographical regions were not separated by MLST and assigned to identical STs. However, 3 strains differed markedly from the vast majority suggesting that ongoing analyses of more strains could increase the discriminating ability of this method. The inclusion of ORT strains from non-poultry host species will enhance our understanding whether these birds may act as vectors in disease transmission. On a future perspective, sequence data from laboratories worldwide together with background information on specific disease symptoms or virulence can be very helpful to address epidemiological questions and may lead to improvements for the control of ORT infections.

Supporting Information

S1 Table. Details of the 87 strains used for multilocus sequence typing of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale.

RefA-RefQ: ORT strains of serotypes A to Q that have been used for production of reference antisera for serological typing of ORT field strains [9]. Slight serotype cross-reactions of ORT strains are given in parentheses. n.t.: ORT strain that could not be typed with available antisera A to L. ^a The serotype of the respective ORT strain was not determined, as only DNA was available for MLST analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148158.s001

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Wael Gad for his support in the early MLST development stage.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: KM DL HMH. Performed the experiments: ST. Analyzed the data: ST. Wrote the paper: ST KM.

References

1. Vandamme P, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, van Hove K, Mutters R, Hommez J, et al. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from the avian respiratory tract. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1994;44(1):24–37. pmid:8123560
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Hafez HM, Kruse W, Emele J, Sting R, editors. Eine Atemwegsinfektion bei Mastputen durch Pasteurella-ähnliche Erreger: Klinik, Diagnostik und Therapie. International Conference on Poultry Diseases; 1993; Potsdam, Germany.
3. Chin RP, Van Empel CP, Hafez HM. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale Infection. In: Swayne DE, Glisson JR, McDougald LR, Nolan LK, Suarez DL, Nair VL, editors. Diseases of Poultry. 13th ed. Iowa State Press, Ames: IA; 2013. p. 828–834.
4. Marien M, Decostere A, Martel A, Chiers K, Froyman R, Nauwynck H. Synergy between avian pneumovirus and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale in turkeys. Avian Pathol. 2005;34(3):204–211. pmid:16191703
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Pan Q, Liu AJ, Zhang FM, Ling Y, Ou CB, Hou N, et al. Co-infection of broilers with Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale and H9N2 avian influenza virus. BMC Vet Res. 2012;8.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Pan Q, Liu AJ, He C. Co-infection of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale with Streptococcus zooepidemicus in chickens. Avian Dis. 2012;56(4):680–684. pmid:23397838
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Tsai HJ, Huang CW. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of isolates of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale from chickens and pigeons in Taiwan. Avian Dis. 2006;50(4):502–507. pmid:17274285
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Canal CW, Leao JA, Rocha SLS, Macagnan M, Lima-Rosa CAV, Oliveira SD, et al. Isolation and characterization of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale from chickens in Brazil. Res Vet Sci. 2005;78(3):225–230. pmid:15766941
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Van Empel P, Van den Bosch H, Loeffen P, Storm P. Identification and serotyping of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35(2):418–421. pmid:9003608
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Sakai E, Tokuyama Y, Nonaka F, Ohishi S, Ishikawa Y, Tanaka M, et al. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale infection in Japan: preliminary investigations. Vet Rec. 2000;146(17):502–503. pmid:10888000
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Hafez HM, Lierz M. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale in nestling falcons. Avian Dis. 2010;54(1):161–163. pmid:20408418
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Welchman Dde B, Ainsworth HL, Jensen TK, Boye M, King SA, Koylass MS, et al. Demonstration of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale in pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) with pneumonia and airsacculitis. Avian Pathol. 2013;42(2):171–178. pmid:23581445
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Van Empel P. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. 1998.
14. Hafez HM. Diagnosis of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. Int J Poult Sci. 2002;1(5):114–118.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Numee S, Hauck R, Hafez HM. Detection and typing of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale from German poultry flocks. Avian Dis. 2012;56(4):654–658. pmid:23397835
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Hafez HM, Sting R. Investigations on different Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale "ORT" isolates. Avian Dis. 1999;43(1):1–7. pmid:10216753
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Amonsin A, Wellehan JFX, Li LL, Vandamme P, Lindeman C, Edman M, et al. Molecular epidemiology of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35(11):2894–2898. pmid:9350754
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Leroy-Setrin S, Flaujac G, Thenaisy K, Chaslus-Dancla E. Genetic diversity of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale strains isolated from poultry in France. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1998;26(3):189–193. pmid:9569707
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Ozbey G, Ertas HB, Muz A. Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale strains isolated from chickens in Turkey. Vet Med-Czech. 2005;50(12):526–530.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Waldow K. Untersuchungen zur Embryoletalität, Genotypisierung und Resistenzlage aktueller Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale-Isolate. Ph.D. Thesis. Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. 2009.
21. Popp C. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale: Typisierung, Pathogenität, Resistenzverhalten und Bekämpfung. Ph.D. Thesis. Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. 2003.
22. Van Veen L, Vrijenhoek M, Van Empel P. Studies of the transmission routes of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale and immunoprophylaxis to prevent infection in young meat turkeys. Avian Dis. 2004;48(2):233–237. pmid:15283409
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Schuijffel DF, van Empel PC, Pennings AM, van Putten JP, Nuijten PJ. Successful selection of cross-protective vaccine candidates for Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale infection. Infect Immun. 2005;73(10):6812–6821. pmid:16177359
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Maiden MC. Multilocus sequence typing of bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2006;60:561–588. pmid:16774461
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Spratt BG. Multilocus sequence typing: molecular typing of bacterial pathogens in an era of rapid DNA sequencing and the internet. Curr Opin Microbiol. 1999;2(3):312–316. pmid:10383857
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–2729. pmid:24132122
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Subaaharan S, Blackall LL, Blackall PJ. Development of a multi-locus sequence typing scheme for avian isolates of Pasteurella multocida. Vet Microbiol. 2010;141(3–4):354–361. pmid:20129742
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Rozen S, Skaletsky HJ. Primer3. Code available at http://www-genome.wi.mit.edu/genome_software/other/primer3.html. 1998.
29. Hunter PR, Gaston MA. Numerical Index of the Discriminatory Ability of Typing Systems—an Application of Simpsons Index of Diversity. J Clin Microbiol. 1988;26(11):2465–2466. pmid:3069867
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Maynard Smith J, Smith NH, O'Rourke M, Spratt BG. How clonal are bacteria? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90:4384–4388. pmid:8506277
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Jolley KA, Feil EJ, Chan MS, Maiden MCJ. Sequence type analysis and recombinational tests (START). Bioinformatics. 2001;17(12):1230–1231. pmid:11751234
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Jolley KA, Maiden MC. BIGSdb: Scalable analysis of bacterial genome variation at the population level. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:595. pmid:21143983
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Han JE, Kim JH, Choresca C Jr., Shin SP, Jun JW, Park SC. Sequence-based genotyping methods to assess the genetic diversity of Riemerella anatipestifer isolates from ducklings with tremor. New Microbiol. 2013;36(4):395–404. pmid:24177301
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Dingle KE, Colles FM, Wareing DR, Ure R, Fox AJ, Bolton FE, et al. Multilocus sequence typing system for Campylobacter jejuni. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39(1):14–23. pmid:11136741
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Griffiths D, Fawley W, Kachrimanidou M, Bowden R, Crook DW, Fung R, et al. Multilocus sequence typing of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48(3):770–778. pmid:20042623
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Ruiz-Garbajosa P, Bonten MJ, Robinson DA, Top J, Nallapareddy SR, Torres C, et al. Multilocus sequence typing scheme for Enterococcus faecalis reveals hospital-adapted genetic complexes in a background of high rates of recombination. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(6):2220–2228. pmid:16757624
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Hung AL, Alvarado A. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of isolates of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale from Peru. Avian Dis. 2001;45(4):999–1005. pmid:11785905
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Van Empel P, Van den Bosch H, Goovaerts D, Storm P. Experimental infection in turkeys and chickens with Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. Avian Dis. 1996;40(4):858–864. pmid:8980818
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. King SJ, Leigh JA, Heath PJ, Luque I, Tarradas C, Dowson CG, et al. Development of a multilocus sequence typing scheme for the pig pathogen Streptococcus suis: identification of virulent clones and potential capsular serotype exchange. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(10):3671–3680. pmid:12354864
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Coffey TJ, Pullinger GD, Urwin R, Jolley KA, Wilson SM, Maiden MC, et al. First insights into the evolution of Streptococcus uberis: a multilocus sequence typing scheme that enables investigation of its population biology. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(2):1420–1428. pmid:16461695
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Jefferies JM, Smith A, Clarke SC, Dowson C, Mitchell TJ. Genetic analysis of diverse disease-causing pneumococci indicates high levels of diversity within serotypes and capsule switching. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(12):5681–5688. pmid:15583299
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Vandamme P, Segers P, Vancanneyt M, van Hove K, Mutters R, Hommez J, et al. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from the avian respiratory tract. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1994;44(1):24–37. pmid:8123560
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Hafez HM, Kruse W, Emele J, Sting R, editors. Eine Atemwegsinfektion bei Mastputen durch Pasteurella-ähnliche Erreger: Klinik, Diagnostik und Therapie. International Conference on Poultry Diseases; 1993; Potsdam, Germany.

[ref3] 3. Chin RP, Van Empel CP, Hafez HM. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale Infection. In: Swayne DE, Glisson JR, McDougald LR, Nolan LK, Suarez DL, Nair VL, editors. Diseases of Poultry. 13th ed. Iowa State Press, Ames: IA; 2013. p. 828–834.

[ref4] 4. Marien M, Decostere A, Martel A, Chiers K, Froyman R, Nauwynck H. Synergy between avian pneumovirus and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale in turkeys. Avian Pathol. 2005;34(3):204–211. pmid:16191703
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] PubMed/NCBI

[10] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Pan Q, Liu AJ, Zhang FM, Ling Y, Ou CB, Hou N, et al. Co-infection of broilers with Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale and H9N2 avian influenza virus. BMC Vet Res. 2012;8.
View Article
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Pan Q, Liu AJ, He C. Co-infection of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale with Streptococcus zooepidemicus in chickens. Avian Dis. 2012;56(4):680–684. pmid:23397838
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] PubMed/NCBI

[17] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Tsai HJ, Huang CW. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of isolates of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale from chickens and pigeons in Taiwan. Avian Dis. 2006;50(4):502–507. pmid:17274285
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] PubMed/NCBI

[21] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Canal CW, Leao JA, Rocha SLS, Macagnan M, Lima-Rosa CAV, Oliveira SD, et al. Isolation and characterization of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale from chickens in Brazil. Res Vet Sci. 2005;78(3):225–230. pmid:15766941
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Van Empel P, Van den Bosch H, Loeffen P, Storm P. Identification and serotyping of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35(2):418–421. pmid:9003608
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Sakai E, Tokuyama Y, Nonaka F, Ohishi S, Ishikawa Y, Tanaka M, et al. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale infection in Japan: preliminary investigations. Vet Rec. 2000;146(17):502–503. pmid:10888000
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] PubMed/NCBI

[33] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Hafez HM, Lierz M. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale in nestling falcons. Avian Dis. 2010;54(1):161–163. pmid:20408418
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Welchman Dde B, Ainsworth HL, Jensen TK, Boye M, King SA, Koylass MS, et al. Demonstration of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale in pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) with pneumonia and airsacculitis. Avian Pathol. 2013;42(2):171–178. pmid:23581445
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Van Empel P. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. 1998.

[ref14] 14. Hafez HM. Diagnosis of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. Int J Poult Sci. 2002;1(5):114–118.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Numee S, Hauck R, Hafez HM. Detection and typing of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale from German poultry flocks. Avian Dis. 2012;56(4):654–658. pmid:23397835
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Hafez HM, Sting R. Investigations on different Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale "ORT" isolates. Avian Dis. 1999;43(1):1–7. pmid:10216753
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Amonsin A, Wellehan JFX, Li LL, Vandamme P, Lindeman C, Edman M, et al. Molecular epidemiology of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35(11):2894–2898. pmid:9350754
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Leroy-Setrin S, Flaujac G, Thenaisy K, Chaslus-Dancla E. Genetic diversity of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale strains isolated from poultry in France. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1998;26(3):189–193. pmid:9569707
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Ozbey G, Ertas HB, Muz A. Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale strains isolated from chickens in Turkey. Vet Med-Czech. 2005;50(12):526–530.
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Waldow K. Untersuchungen zur Embryoletalität, Genotypisierung und Resistenzlage aktueller Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale-Isolate. Ph.D. Thesis. Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. 2009.

[ref21] 21. Popp C. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale: Typisierung, Pathogenität, Resistenzverhalten und Bekämpfung. Ph.D. Thesis. Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. 2003.

[ref22] 22. Van Veen L, Vrijenhoek M, Van Empel P. Studies of the transmission routes of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale and immunoprophylaxis to prevent infection in young meat turkeys. Avian Dis. 2004;48(2):233–237. pmid:15283409
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] PubMed/NCBI

[70] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Schuijffel DF, van Empel PC, Pennings AM, van Putten JP, Nuijten PJ. Successful selection of cross-protective vaccine candidates for Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale infection. Infect Immun. 2005;73(10):6812–6821. pmid:16177359
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] PubMed/NCBI

[74] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Maiden MC. Multilocus sequence typing of bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2006;60:561–588. pmid:16774461
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] PubMed/NCBI

[78] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Spratt BG. Multilocus sequence typing: molecular typing of bacterial pathogens in an era of rapid DNA sequencing and the internet. Curr Opin Microbiol. 1999;2(3):312–316. pmid:10383857
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–2729. pmid:24132122
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] PubMed/NCBI

[86] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Subaaharan S, Blackall LL, Blackall PJ. Development of a multi-locus sequence typing scheme for avian isolates of Pasteurella multocida. Vet Microbiol. 2010;141(3–4):354–361. pmid:20129742
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Rozen S, Skaletsky HJ. Primer3. Code available at http://www-genome.wi.mit.edu/genome_software/other/primer3.html. 1998.

[ref29] 29. Hunter PR, Gaston MA. Numerical Index of the Discriminatory Ability of Typing Systems—an Application of Simpsons Index of Diversity. J Clin Microbiol. 1988;26(11):2465–2466. pmid:3069867
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Maynard Smith J, Smith NH, O'Rourke M, Spratt BG. How clonal are bacteria? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90:4384–4388. pmid:8506277
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Jolley KA, Feil EJ, Chan MS, Maiden MCJ. Sequence type analysis and recombinational tests (START). Bioinformatics. 2001;17(12):1230–1231. pmid:11751234
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Jolley KA, Maiden MC. BIGSdb: Scalable analysis of bacterial genome variation at the population level. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:595. pmid:21143983
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] PubMed/NCBI

[107] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Han JE, Kim JH, Choresca C Jr., Shin SP, Jun JW, Park SC. Sequence-based genotyping methods to assess the genetic diversity of Riemerella anatipestifer isolates from ducklings with tremor. New Microbiol. 2013;36(4):395–404. pmid:24177301
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Dingle KE, Colles FM, Wareing DR, Ure R, Fox AJ, Bolton FE, et al. Multilocus sequence typing system for Campylobacter jejuni. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39(1):14–23. pmid:11136741
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Griffiths D, Fawley W, Kachrimanidou M, Bowden R, Crook DW, Fung R, et al. Multilocus sequence typing of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48(3):770–778. pmid:20042623
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Ruiz-Garbajosa P, Bonten MJ, Robinson DA, Top J, Nallapareddy SR, Torres C, et al. Multilocus sequence typing scheme for Enterococcus faecalis reveals hospital-adapted genetic complexes in a background of high rates of recombination. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(6):2220–2228. pmid:16757624
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Hung AL, Alvarado A. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of isolates of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale from Peru. Avian Dis. 2001;45(4):999–1005. pmid:11785905
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Van Empel P, Van den Bosch H, Goovaerts D, Storm P. Experimental infection in turkeys and chickens with Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale. Avian Dis. 1996;40(4):858–864. pmid:8980818
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. King SJ, Leigh JA, Heath PJ, Luque I, Tarradas C, Dowson CG, et al. Development of a multilocus sequence typing scheme for the pig pathogen Streptococcus suis: identification of virulent clones and potential capsular serotype exchange. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(10):3671–3680. pmid:12354864
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Coffey TJ, Pullinger GD, Urwin R, Jolley KA, Wilson SM, Maiden MC, et al. First insights into the evolution of Streptococcus uberis: a multilocus sequence typing scheme that enables investigation of its population biology. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(2):1420–1428. pmid:16461695
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Jefferies JM, Smith A, Clarke SC, Dowson C, Mitchell TJ. Genetic analysis of diverse disease-causing pneumococci indicates high levels of diversity within serotypes and capsule switching. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(12):5681–5688. pmid:15583299
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

Molecular Characterization of the Recently Emerged Poultry Pathogen Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale by Multilocus Sequence Typing

Molecular Characterization of the Recently Emerged Poultry Pathogen Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale by Multilocus Sequence Typing

Correction

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Bacterial strains

DNA extraction

Selection of housekeeping genes for MLST

Gene amplification and sequencing

MLST analysis

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers

Results and Discussion

MLST analysis

Relationships between STs and hosts

Relationship between STs and geographic origin

Relationship between STs and year of isolation

Relationship between STs and serotypes

Conclusion

Supporting Information

S1 Table. Details of the 87 strains used for multilocus sequence typing of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale.

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References