scholarly journals Characterization of Salmonella entericaSerovar Typhimurium DT104 Isolated from Denmark and Comparison with Isolates from Europe and the United States

2000 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 1581-1586 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. L. Baggesen ◽  
D. Sandvang ◽  
F. M. Aarestrup

A total of 136 isolates of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 from Denmark (n = 93), Germany (n = 10), Italy (n = 4), Spain (n = 5), and the United Kingdom (n = 9) were characterized by antimicrobial resistance analysis, plasmid profiling, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) with the restriction enzymes XbaI and BlnI, and analysis for the presence of integrons and antibiotic resistance genes. The isolates from Denmark were from nine pig herds, while the isolates from other countries were both of animal and of human origin. All but 10 isolates were resistant to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, spectinomycin, streptomycin, sulfonamides, and tetracycline. Five isolates from the United Kingdom and Spain were sensitive to all antibiotics examined, whereas four isolates from the United Kingdom and the United States were also resistant to one or more of the antibiotics, namely, gentamicin, neomycin, and trimethoprim. All but two strains had the same PFGE profiles when the XbaI restriction enzyme was used, while seven different profiles were observed when theBlnI restriction enzyme was used. Different dominatingBlnI types were observed among European isolates compared with the types observed among those from the United States. All the isolates harbored common 95-kb plasmids either alone or in combination with smaller plasmids, and a total of 11 different plasmid profiles were observed. Furthermore, all but one of the multidrug-resistant isolates contained two integrons, ant (3")-Ia andpse-1. Sensitive isolates contained no integrons, and isolates that were resistant to spectinomycin, streptomycin, and sulfonamides had only one integron containing ant (3")-Ia. When restriction enzyme BlnI was used, the 14 isolates from one of the nine herds in Denmark showed unique profiles, whereas isolates from the remaining herds were homogeneous. Among isolates from seven of nine herds, the same plasmid profile (95 kb) was observed, but isolates from two herds had different profiles. Thus, either PFGE (withBlnI) or plasmid profiling could distinguish isolates from three of nine pig herds in Denmark. The epidemiological markers (antimicrobial susceptibility testing, plasmid profiling, and PFGE) applied demonstrated high in vivo stability in the Danish herds. This may indicate that some different strains of multidrug-resistantS. enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 have been introduced into Danish food animal herds. The presence of isolates from six different countries with similar profiles by PFGE with XbaI and highly homogeneous profiles by PFGE with BlnI indicate that multidrug-resistant S. enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 has probably been spread clonally in these countries. However, some minor variation could be observed by using plasmid profiling and profiling by PFGE with BlnI. Thus, a more sensitive technique for subtyping of strains of DT104 and a broader investigation may help in elucidating the epidemiological spread of DT104 in different parts of the world.

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Rehana Cassim

Abstract Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 empowers courts to declare directors delinquent and hence to disqualify them from office. This article compares the judicial disqualification of directors under this section with the equivalent provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America, which have all influenced the South African act. The article compares the classes of persons who have locus standi to apply to court to disqualify a director from holding office, as well as the grounds for the judicial disqualification of a director, the duration of the disqualification, the application of a prescription period and the discretion conferred on courts to disqualify directors from office. It contends that, in empowering courts to disqualify directors from holding office, section 162 of the South African Companies Act goes too far in certain respects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document