Bin Yan, Shu-Xuan Deng, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Nian-Chun Yin, Ping Cao, Sheng-Yan Cao, Avian Disease Research Center, Collage of Veterinary Medicine of Sichuan Agriculture University, Yaan 625014, Sichuan Province, China

Ming-Shu Wang, College of Life Science and Technology of Southwest University for Nationalities, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China

An-Chun Cheng, Ming-Shu Wang, Key Laboratory of Animal Disease and Human Health of Sichuan Province, College of Veterinary Medicine of Sichuan Agriculture University, Yaan 625014, Sichuan Province, China

Supported by the National Key Technology R&D Program of China, No. 2004BA 901A 03; National Scientific and Sechnical Support Program, No. 2007Z06-017; The Cultvation Fund of the Key Scientific and Technical Innovation Project & Ministry of Education of China, No. 706050; Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University, No. NCET-04-0906/NCET-06-0818; Sichuan Province Basic Research Program, No. 04JY0290061/07JY029-017 and Program for Key Disciplines Construction of Sichuan Province No. SZD0418

Correspondence to: Professor An-Chun Cheng, Key Laboratory of Animal Disease and Human Health of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine of Sichuan Agriculture University, Yaan 625014, Sichuan Province, China. chenganchun@vip.163.com

Telephone: +86-835-2885774  Fax: +86-835-2885774

Received: August 30, 2007      Revised: November 15, 2007

Abstract

AIM: To detect Salmonella enteritidis (S. enteritidis) in paraffin slices and antigen location in infected duck tissues. 

METHODS: Rabbits were immunized with purified bacillus to obtain S. enteritidis-specific antibody, which were then extracted by the caprylic-ammonium sulphate method, purified through High-Q columns. An indirect immuno-fluorescent staining method (IFA) was established to detect the S. enteritidis antigen in paraffin slices. S. enteritidis was detected  in each organ tissue of ducklings experimentally infected with S. enteritidis.

RESULTS: The gland of Garder, heart, kidney, spleen, liver, brain, ileum, jejunum, bursa of Fabricius from
S. enteritidis experimentally infected ducklings were positive or strongly positive, and the S. enteritidis antigen was mainly distributed in the infected cell cytoplasm.

CONCLUSION: IFA is an intuitionist, sensitive and specific method in detecting S. enteritidis antigen in paraffin wax slices, and it is a good method in diagnosis and antigen location of S. enteritidis. We also conclude that the gland of Garder, heart, kidney, spleen, liver, ileum, jejunum are target organs in S. enteritidis infections of duck, and S. enteritidis is an intracellular parasitic bacterium.

© 2008 WJG. All rights reserved.

Key words: Indirect immuno-fluorescent antibody staining; Salmonella enteritidis; Paraffin tissues; Detection; Localization of antigens

Peer reviewer: Wang-Xue Chen, Dr, Institute for Biological Sciences, National Research Concil Canada, 100 Sussex Drive, Room 3100, Ottawa, Ontario K1A0R6, Canada

Yan B, Cheng AC, Wang MS, Deng SX, Zhang ZH, Yin NC, Cao P, Cao SY. Application of an indirect immunofluorescent staining method for detection of Salmonella enteritidis in paraffin slices and antigen location in infected duck tissues. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14(5): 776-781  Available from: URL: http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/14/776.asp  DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.14.776

INTRODUCTION

Salmonella enteritidis (S. enteritidis) is the infectious disease cause of Zoonoses. S. enteritidis is one of the primary causing human food poisoning throughout the world, and has become a pointed public health problem^[1-4]. China is the biggest country in the raising and consumption of duck in the world, but the S. enteritidis bacillus infection is a severely important infectious disease in the duck industry^[5]. S. enteritidis outbreaks have been found to be associated with the consumption of contaminated and undercooked poultry products, such as eggs and egg-containing products, and have become a serious economic and public health problem^[6]. Conventional methods for isolation of S. enteritidis are too laborious, not sufficiently sensitive or correct^[7,8]. To our knowledge, a serum method for detection and antigen location of S. enteritidis has not been reported. Thus, to establish a rapid, sensitive and highly specific method for detection of S. enteritidis is necessary. We established the Indirect Immunofluorescent (IFA) method to detect and antigen locate Salmonella enteritidis to offer a clinical means of diagnosis and apathogenic mechanism of ecology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bacteria strain

S. enteritidis MY1 strain (obtained from Avain Disease Research Center of Sichuan Agriculture University).

Rabbit anti-serum preparation

Briefly, 5 mL of S. enteritidis, an overnight culture grown in LB broth, was harvested by centrifugation after 18 h at 37℃. Then diluted at 4 × 10⁹ cfu and inactivated by formaldehyde and equaled to complete Freund’s adjuvant (CFA) made the antigen. Rabbits were immunized with 1 mL antigen to obtain S. enteritidis-specific antibody, which was then extracted by the caprylic-ammonium sulphate method^[9], purified through High-Q columns.

The establishment of the IFA

According to references^[10], the following factors were considered to establish the method: (1) antigen recovery, to partly recover the antigens based on a microwave using 0.01 mol/L pH 6.0 citrate buffer solution for 20 min,
200 mg/mL parenzyme for 20min and no recovery; (2) rinsing water: 0.01 mol/L pH 7.4 PBS, 0.01 mol/L pH 7.4 PBS (containing 0.05% Tween-20) and rinsing water separately; (3) confining liquid: using 10% horse serum and 10% BSA to confine; (4) the diluted content of anti-rabbit-SE IgG: 1:25; 1:50; 1:100 and 1:200, incubate time: 4℃ overnight and 37℃ for 40 min; (5) the diluted content of the FITC labeled goat anti-rabbit IgG: 1:25; 1:50; 1:10 and 1:200; (6) foiled liquid: partly used 0.01% Evans Blue and unfoiled.

Artificial infected cases detection

Experimental infections were performed with a S. enteritidis MY1 strain. In brief, a group of 24 (specific antibody of SE negative) Bei Jing duck were inoculated with 0.2 mL (2 × 10⁹ cfu) of S. enteritidis at the age of 7 d in the crop. Twenty-four uninoculated 7-d-old ducks were used as control animals.

After 24 h post-inoculation some of the ducks began to die resulting in organ harvesting. The organs were detected by IFA and conventional isolation respectively.

Treatment included first, using a non-selective pre-enrichment medium of buffered Peptone Water, incubated at 37℃ for 18 h. Then, using the selective enrichment media-Selenite Cystine Broth, incubating at 37℃ for 18 h. And then, transferring to SS agar, two differential media, Macconkey agar and Triple sugar iron agar were streaked and incubated at 37℃ for 24 h. Suspected colonies were picked up for biochemical and serological tests. The following tests were used: glucose, maltose, arabopyranose, mannitol, glycitol, hydrogensulfide, MR, lysinedecarboxylase, argininedecarboxylase, ornithinedecarboxylase, etc. Serotypes were identified by multivalence serum of O_A-F and O_{1, 9, 12} factor serum. The results were referred to^[11,12].

The other organs were submerged in 4% formaldehyde, after 24 h; the organs were then embedded in paraffin. Then the tissue sections were made at 4 mm and stained with an indirect immunofluorescent technique.

Specific detection

The established method was applied to detect the livers from the dead ducks infected by S. pullorum, S. gallinarum, E. coli Riemerella anatipestifer, P. multocida and Duck plague virus (obtained from the Avian Disease Research Center of Sichuan Agriculture University).

The standard of judging results

The standard of the results are according to the presence, quantity, the depth and lighting of the coloured cells under the fluorescent microscope. There are no flavoviren cells judged negative, infra 5% weakly positive, 5%-50% positive, super 50% strong positive.

RESULTS

Results of anti-SE antibody

The purified anti-rabbit-SE IgG has an Antigen Jade Enlarge (AGE) potency to 1:32, through the SDS-PAGE, there are duplicate bands, and the molecular weight equals to the l-chain and H-chain of IgG. This suggests the IgG is highly pure.

The optimum conditions of IFA

The optimum conditions of this IFA were as follows: Ten minutes antigen retrieval by microwave with 0.01 mmol/L
citrate buffer solution (pH 6.0); 10 min antigen retrieval by pancreatin; incubate in 10% bovine serum albumin at 37℃ for 30 min; dilute the primary antibody (1:25) and incubate for 40 min at 37℃; and then incubated at 37℃ for 30 min with diluted FITC-labeled-secondary antibody (1:100) which contains 0.01% Evans.

Distribution in organs of the infected ducks

We detected the organs by IFA after 24 h, a large part of the organs had positive results, and the results were as follows (Figure 1): Heart: Presented as a strong positive, Cardiac muscle fiber had positive cells, and the positive signal distributing the cytoplasm (Figure 1A). Kidney: Presented positive, the mesenchyme between the tube of the Kidney had positive cells, and the positive signal distributing the cytoplasm (Figure 1B). Liver: Presented positive, the mesenchyme between the hepatic cord had positive cells, and the positive signal distributing the cytoplasm (Figure 1C). Bursa of Fabricius: presented positive, the area of the medulla of the follicle had positive cells, and the positive signal distributing the cytoplasm (Figure 1D). Brain: Presented positive, positive cells presented in capillary vessels, and the positive signal distributing the cytoplasm (Figure 1E). Gland of Garder: Presented as a strong positive, the mesenchyme of the tube of the gland had positive cells, and the positive signal distributing the cytoplasm (Figure 1F). Small intestine: Numerous S. enteritidis organs were observed lying free within the interstitial tissue of the lamina propria in the villi, and the strong positive signals observed in the cytoplasm (Figure 1G, H). Spleen: Presented strong positive, a number of positive cells with particle immunofluorescent antigen distributed in the red medulla of the spleen (Figure 1I).

The results of conventional isolation

All the positive samples detected by the isolation method can be detected by this IFA (Table 1).

The results of specific detection

We detected the livers from the dead ducks infected by S. pullorum, S. gallinarum, E. coli Riemerella anatipestifer, P.multocida and Duck plague virus, S. enteritidis. The result showed only the S. enteritidis infected, present positive reaction; the others have negative reaction. This suggested good establishment for specificity of the IFA (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

Comparing the differences between IFA and other methods

In the present study, there is little to report about the clinical diagnosis beside conventional methods of isolation for
S. enteritidis, but there is much about other species. Gast et al^[6] collected various organs of the infected birds and isolated the bacteria, but it is too laborious, not sufficiently sensitive and correct and cannot be used with the rapid diagnoses. Kim et al^[13] detected the S. enteritidis by enzyme immunoassay and had a good result. Desmidt et al^[14] observed the S. enteritidis in the ceca of chickens by immunohistochemistry, which can be used to locate sub-cells of organ tissues of S. enteritidis infected chickens. Coope^[15] detected the S. enteritidis by Dot-Blot and Western-Blot, which is rapid and specific, but could not detect the location in sub-cells of organ tissues. Compared to the above method, the IFA method established has the ability to detect and locate cells and organ tissues of S. enteritidis infection, thus offering a clinical means of diagnosis and a pathogenic mechanism of ecology.

The distribution of S. enteritidis in organ tissues

We checked all the ducks when they began to die. At 24 h post-inoculation, the positive signals were observed in the small intestine and spleen; at 36 h, in the heart, kidney, livers, bursa of Fabricius, and Gland of Garder; at 72 h, the positive signals were at the peak; at 6 d post-inoculation, the signals began to reduce. From the result (Figure 1) of the study, we know that the IFA can detect the antigens in almost all organ tissues. The small intestine (ileum, jejunum), heart, liver, kidney, spleen, the Gland of Garder have strong positive signals (Figure 1A-C, I), and presented in the cytoplasm of phagocytic cells of the macrophile system. This may be caused by phagocytic cells after entering the host. Meanwhile, we can detect a positive signal in the brain, a positive signal presented in the vascular endothelial cell, which may be caused by S. enteritidis invading the organs and S. enteritidis in blood. At the anaphase of infection, the infection appeared bacteremic, the S. enteritidis needed to transit the vascular endothelial cells, and uniformly distributed in the cytoplasm of the vascular endothelial cells. We also detected small positive signals in the  bursa of Fabricius.

The value of S. enteritidis infections from other viral infectious diseases

Immuno-fluorescent labeled bacilli were associated with the epithelial surface of the intestinal villi at 4 h. At 24 a strong positive signal was detected intracellularly in the small intestine (Figure 1G, H). This resulted in a  positive signal which only presented in the lamina propria of the villi. This is a big difference from Duck plague virus (DPV)^[16] and Duck Hepatitis Virus (DHV)^[17], which was located in the lamina propria. This variation might be related to a different microenvironment^[18] in different parts of the gut, dividing into a microcolony at that site. The microenvironment has an important effect in the colonization of the gut, primarly as follows. Gastric acid is the first defense of the intestinal infection, the bacterium can hardly survive (pH < 1.5). The slime layer of the intestinal mucosa has a barrier function to the S. enteritidis; moreover pankrin, bile salt and small intestinal juice can depress the bacterium. Some studies suggest that the gene encoding the invasive protein is depressed because of the bile^[19,20]. Meanwhile, the involvement of mucosal IgA in the protection against S. enteritidis involving the epithelial surface has been reported^[21,22]. The cathodolyte antibacterial peptide secreted by pit cells in the small intestine belongs to the Toalexin family, which can increase the permeability of the cytomembrane of the bacterium, and not profit to survive^[23].

The intestine is an important barrier for prevention against invasion by bacteria. The lymphoid tissue called Peyer macular under the muscoa^[24] consists of T cells, B cells, macrophages and dendritic cells, following the swallowing of the pathogenic bacterium.

The immune reaction also played an important role in preventing S. enteritidis lying free in the endothelial cells of the intestine. After swallowing the S. enteritidis by macrophage and heterophil granulocyte, both happened to outbreak by breathing, which produced oxygen free radical, for instance, O₂-, H₂O₂, OH-, and O₂- and so on. The oxygen free radical can kill and wound bacteria; the cell factors (IL-1, IL-6, TNF-a^[25]) composed and released have a pathopoiesis effect and a bactericidal effect; when the S. enteritidis invades the enterocyte, it can induce the secretion of IL-8^[26], which can kill and wound bacteria. CD4⁺ T cells also have an effect on the immune defense^[27].

The cooperation between the host cells and S. enteritidis infections

Infection with bacteria is usually started by oral ingestion of the pathogen and is followed by bacterial colonization of the gut and invasion of internal tissues. Intracellular replication is essential for the virulence.

Attachment to host tissues is the first important step to establish a bacterial infection. The attachment is primarily referred to as the inv gene^[28]. Once attached to the host cells, the bacterium manifests athletic phenomenon of invasion of the cells, phagocytosis by cell invagination. After fusion of macrophage lysosomes with phagosomes, the S. enteritidis appears in the phagocytotic vesicle of the cytoplasm^[29], and may destroy the cell invagination. In the present study, there are different reports about the S. enteritidis entering the cell, the bulk of the investigations support the view that S. enteritidis enters the cell by a virulence factor. Higashide and McGhie suggest that when S. enteritidis enter the cell, firstly SspC excreted by TTSS insert into the plasma membrane, then Sip and SipA bind to the actin of the cytoskeleton and rearrange the frame, which enhances the entrance of the bacterium^[30,31]. Scientists report recently that the dendritic cell (DC) residing in the mucosa of the small intestine can use the dendrite to open the tight junction of the cells, and directly ingest the bacteria from the mucosa^[32]. From the result (Figure 1), the positive signal distributed in the cytoplasm of infected cells of the organ tissues, we conclude that S. enteritidis is an intracellular parasitic bacterium.

COMMENTS

Background

Salmonella enteritidis (S. enteritidis) is the infectious disease causing Zoonoses. S. enteritidis is one of the primary causes of human food poisoning throughout the world. China is the biggest country in growing and consumption in the world, but the S. enteritidis bacillus infection is the severely important infectious disease in raising duck’s industry. But the pathogenic mechanism of ecology is unknown.

Research frontiers

The S. enteritidis can be isolated from various organs of the infected birds. It is possible that the S. enteritidis invades the tissues of these organs; electron microscopic studies of chicks have shown passage of Salmonella through ileocecal mucosa. The observation of attachment and invasion of the ceca of infected chicks have been reported. Also, in mammalian animal models, the colonization of S. enteritidis has been studied further. However, there are few studies about ducks.

Innovations and breakthroughs

The present study was to establish a serum method for detection and antigen location of S. enteritidis which has not been reported.

Applications

The results can offer a clinic means of diagnosis and pathogenic mechanism of ecology.

Peer review

This is a methodology manuscript. The author of this manuscript establishes a method of IFA and detected the organs of the S. enteritidis infected ducks. The author conclude that IFA is a sensitive and specific method in detecting S. enteritidis antigen in paraffin slice; it’s a good method in diagnosis and antigen location of S. enteritidis; the Gland of Garder, heart, kidney, spleen, liver, and small intestine are target organs in S. enteritidis infections of duck; S. enteritidis is an intracellular parasitic bacterium.

REFERENCES

1      Chiu CH, Su LH, Chu C. Salmonella enterica serotype Choleraesuis: epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical disease, and
        treatment. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004; 17: 311-322   PubMed

2      Baskerville A, Humphrey TJ, Fitzgeorge RB, Cook RW, Chart H, Rowe B, Whitehead A. Airborne infection of laying hens
        with Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4. Vet Rec 1992; 130: 395-398   PubMed

3      Fantasia M, Filetici E. Salmonella enteritidis in Italy. Int J Food Microbiol 1994; 21: 7-13   PubMed

4      Lee WC, Sakai T, Lee MJ, Hamakawa M, Lee SM, Lee IM. An epidemiological study of food poisoning in Korea and
        Japan. Int J Food Microbiol 1996; 29: 141-148   PubMed

5      Angulo FJ, Swerdlow DL. Epidemiology of human Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis infections in the United States.
        7th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1999: 33-41

6      Braden CR. Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis and eggs: a national epidemic in the United States. Clin Infect Dis
        2006; 43: 512-517   PubMed

7      Gast RK, Beard CW. Isolation of Salmonella enteritidis from internal organs of experimentally infected hens. Avian Dis
        1990; 34: 991-993   PubMed

8      Keller LH, Schifferli DM, Benson CE, Aslam S, Eckroade RJ. Invasion of chicken reproductive tissues and forming eggs is
        not unique to Salmonella enteritidis. Avian Dis 1997; 41: 535-539   PubMed

9      Kuper CF, Koornstra PJ, Hameleers DM, Biewenga J, Spit BJ, Duijvestijn AM, van Breda Vriesman PJ, Sminia T. The role
        of nasopharyngeal lymphoid tissue. Immunol Today 1992; 13: 219-224   PubMed

10    Homburger HA, Cahen YD, Griffiths J, Jacob GL. Detection of antinuclear antibodies: comparative evaluation of enzyme
        immunoassay and indirect immunofluorescence methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998; 122: 993-999   PubMed

11    Gast RK, Beard CW. Serological detection of experimental Salmonella enteritidis infections in laying hens. Avian Dis
        1990; 34: 721-728   PubMed

12    Chart H, Rowe B, Baskerville A, Humphrey TJ. Serological analysis of chicken flocks for antibodies to Salmonella
        enteritidis. Vet Rec 1990; 127: 501-502   PubMed

13    Kim CJ, Nagaraja KV, Pomeroy BS. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of Salmonella enteritidis
        infection in chickens. Am J Vet Res 1991; 52: 1069-1074   PubMed

14    Desmidt M, Ducatelle R, Haesebrouck F. Research notes: Immunohistochemical observations in the ceca of chickens
        infected with Salmonella enteritidis phage type four. Poult Sci 1998; 77: 73-74   PubMed

15    Cooper GL, Thorns CJ. Evaluation of SEF14 fimbrial dot blot and flagellar western blot tests as indicators of Salmonella
        enteritidis infection in chickens. Vet Rec 1996; 138: 149-153   PubMed

16    Yuan GP, Cheng AC, Wang MS, Liu F, Han XY, Liao YH, Xu C. Electron microscopic studies of the morphogenesis of duck
        enteritis virus. Avian Dis 2005; 49: 50-55   PubMed

17    Zhao XL, Phillips RM, Li GD, Zhong AQ. Studies on the detection of antibody to duck hepatitis virus by enzyme-linked
        immunosorbent assay. Avian Dis 1991; 35: 778-782   PubMed

18    Popiel I, Turnbull PC. Passage of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella thompson through chick ileocecal mucosa. Infect
        Immun 1985; 47: 786-792   PubMed

19    Prouty AM, Brodsky IE, Manos J, Belas R, Falkow S, Gunn JS. Transcriptional regulation of Salmonella enterica serovar
        Typhimurium genes by bile. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2004; 41: 177-185   PubMed

20    Cunliffe RN. Alpha-defensins in the gastrointestinal tract. Mol Immunol 2003; 40: 463-467   PubMed

21    Sheela RR, Babu U, Mu J, Elankumaran S, Bautista DA, Raybourne RB, Heckert RA, Song W. Immune responses against
        Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis infection in virally immunosuppressed chickens. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2003;
        10: 670-679   PubMed

22    Hassan JO, Porter SB, Curtiss R 3rd. Effect of infective dose on humoral immune responses and colonization in chickens
        experimentally infected with Salmonella typhimurium. Avian Dis 1993; 37: 19-26   PubMed

23    Acheson DW, Luccioli S. Microbial-gut interactions in health and disease. Mucosal immune responses. Best Pract Res
        Clin Gastroenterol 2004; 18: 387-404   PubMed

24    Mahida YR, Cunliffe RN. Defensins and mucosal protection. Novartis Found Symp 2004; 263: 71-77; discussion 77-84,
        211-218   PubMed

25    Chowers Y, Cahalon L, Lahav M, Schor H, Tal R, Bar-Meir S, Levite M. Somatostatin through its specific receptor inhibits
        spontaneous and TNF-alpha- and bacteria-induced IL-8 and IL-1 beta secretion from intestinal epithelial cells. J Immunol
        2000; 165: 2955-2961   PubMed

26    Salerno-Goncalves R, Wyant TL, Pasetti MF, Fernandez-Vina M, Tacket CO, Levine MM, Sztein MB. Concomitant
        induction of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in volunteers immunized with Salmonella enterica serovar typhi strain CVD
        908-htrA. J Immunol 2003; 170: 2734-2741   PubMed

27    Leung KY, Finlay BB. Intracellular replication is essential for the virulence of Salmonella typhimurium. Proc Natl Acad Sci
        USA 1991; 88: 11470-11474   PubMed

28    Amin II, Douce GR, Osborne MP, Stephen J. Quantitative studies of invasion of rabbit ileal mucosa by Salmonella
        typhimurium strains which differ in virulence in a model of gastroenteritis. Infect Immun 1994; 62: 569-578   PubMed

29    Oh YK, Alpuche-Aranda C, Berthiaume E, Jinks T, Miller SI, Swanson JA. Rapid and complete fusion of macrophage
        lysosomes with phagosomes containing Salmonella typhimurium. Infect Immun 1996; 64: 3877-3883   PubMed

30    Higashide W, Dai S, Hombs VP, Zhou D. Involvement of SipA in modulating actin dynamics during Salmonella invasion
        into cultured epithelial cells. Cell Microbiol 2002; 4: 357-365   PubMed

31    McGhie EJ, Hayward RD, Koronakis V. Cooperation between actin-binding proteins of invasive Salmonella: SipA
        potentiates SipC nucleation and bundling of actin. EMBO J 2001; 20: 2131-2139   PubMed

32    Rescigno M, Urbano M, Valzasina B, Francolini M, Rotta G, Bonasio R, Granucci F, Kraehenbuhl JP, Ricciardi-Castagnoli
        P. Dendritic cells express tight junction proteins and penetrate gut epithelial monolayers to sample bacteria. Nat
        Immunol 2001; 2: 361-367   PubMed

S- Editor  Yang RH    L- Editor  Alpini GD    E- Editor  Ma WH

Reviews	Add
more>>