No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 19, 2026.

Salmonellosis: An Overview of Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Innovative Approaches to Mitigate the Antimicrobial Resistant Infections

Bibek Lamichhane, Asmaa M. M. Mawad, Mohamed Saleh and 9 more

Antibiotics · 2024 · Review · CC BY

Abstract

Salmonella is a major foodborne pathogen and a leading cause of gastroenteritis in humans and animals. Salmonella is highly pathogenic and encompasses more than 2600 characterized serovars. The transmission of Salmonella to humans occurs through the farm-to-fork continuum and is commonly linked to the consumption of animal-derived food products. Among these sources, poultry and poultry products are primary contributors, followed by beef, pork, fish, and non-animal-derived food such as fruits and vegetables. While antibiotics constitute the primary treatment for salmonellosis, the emergence of antibiotic resistance and the rise of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Salmonella strains have highlighted the urgency of developing antibiotic alternatives. Effective infection management necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the pathogen’s epidemiology and transmission dynamics. Therefore, this comprehensive review focuses on the epidemiology, sources of infection, risk factors, transmission dynamics, and the host range of Salmonella serotypes. This review also investigates the disease characteristics observed in both humans and animals, antibiotic resistance, pathogenesis, and potential strategies for treatment and control of salmonellosis, emphasizing the most recent antibiotic-alternative approaches for infection control.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 21, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1. Introduction

1Salmonella is a foodborne pathogen that belongs to the family Enterobacteriaceae. It causes human gastroenteritis and can inhabit animals, amphibians, and reptiles. The transmission of Salmonella to a healthy host occurs through the consumption of contaminated food and water. Salmonella has been causing a significant impact on health and economics worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) describes Salmonella as one of the four most important causes of diarrhea worldwide. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 1.35 million people are infected with Salmonella, with about 420 deaths annually. The economic burden caused by Salmonella comes at the third position among a list of the annual cost of illness caused by 14 foodborne pathogens, with an annual cost of about $3.3 billion. Annually, around 200 million to 1 billion cases of Salmonella infections are recorded worldwide, with 93 million cases of gastroenteritis and 155,000 deaths; among them, approximately 85% of the cases are associated with the consumption of contaminated food. Salmonella outbreaks in 2022 alone in the US caused about 884 cases across 48 states between February and July, which were mainly attributed to poultry and poultry products. Salmonella is classified as one of the category B pathogens with moderate morbidity and low death rates. The severity of the infection in humans varies depending on the serotype of the bacteria and the immune status of the host, with the infection classified into typhoidal and non-typhoidal types. Non-typhoidal Salmonella infections are often associated with acute onset of diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever. It is usually self-limiting, resolving between 1 and 7 days without treatment, depending on the host status. However, about 5% of people, including immune-compromised patients, infants, and older adults, may develop bacteremia or invasive infections such as meningitis, osteomyelitis, endovascular infections, and septic arthritis. The typhoidal Salmonella serovars are responsible for non-specific disseminated infections, with symptoms including sustained fever (39–40 °C), headache, diarrhea or constipation, loss of appetite, and relative bradycardia.

2Salmonella infects birds of all age groups. However, young chickens and turkeys are highly susceptible within the first two weeks of age. The disease is characterized by poor body condition, such as ruffled feathers, weakness, and anorexia. Additionally, infected birds tend to huddle together, exhibit diarrhea and a pasty vent, with decreased egg production, and post-mortem examination shows signs of a swollen liver and spleen with hemorrhages. Studies have suggested that over 52% of Salmonella infections in poultry are caused by S. Enteritidis, making it one of the most prevalent serotypes of Salmonella in the US, whereas, according to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory, the most common serotype in livestock, especially cattle, was found to be S. Dublin (18%), followed by S. Cerro (16%) and S. Typhimurium (13%).

3Treating salmonellosis in humans and animals typically relies on antibiotics. Broad-spectrum antibiotics are normally used to treat highly susceptible individuals with clinical complications. Chloramphenicol and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole antibiotics were first used for the treatment of salmonellosis. Currently, third-generation quinolones such as fluoroquinolones, including ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin, are the drug of choice for treating Salmonella infection in immunocompromised patients. Due to the increasing bacterial resistance against fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins like ceftriaxone and macrolides like azithromycin are being used as empiric treatment to control Salmonella infections. Like antibiotics, vaccines are also used to prevent and control Salmonella infections in humans and animals. There are two vaccines for Salmonella approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): the live attenuated Ty21a oral vaccine and intra-muscular Vi polysaccharide capsular vaccine, whereas several other vaccines such as the GMMA-based vaccine, glycoconjugate vaccine, O-antigen glycoconjugate vaccines, and new attenuated vaccines are still in development. The effectiveness of vaccines against Salmonella is constrained by various factors such as the presence of asymptomatic carriers, which makes it difficult to design vaccines, complex immune evasion mechanisms, and the presence of diverse serotypes. Currently, available typhoid vaccines provide only moderate and short-term protection in humans. Additionally, Salmonella serotypes are highly variable, with significant genetic diversity within and between hosts, complicating the efforts to control the pathogen.

4Therefore, there is a critical need for developing novel antibiotic alternative approaches to control Salmonella infections in animals and humans, including probiotics, prebiotics and bacteriophage, antimicrobial peptides, essential oils, and vaccines. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology of salmonellosis with emphasis on transmission dynamics, host spectrum, clinical signs, the most recent outbreaks, and pathogenesis. We also provide insights on the current antibiotic treatment and emphasize the novel antibiotic alternatives developed/under development to control AMR-Salmonella infections in animals and humans.

2.1. Salmonella Serotypes and Host Spectrum

5Approximately 2659 Salmonella serovars were identified according to the White–Kauffmann–Le Minor scheme in the published supplement (no. 48–2014). Salmonella serovars are classified into typhoidal and nontyphoidal (NTS) according to their ability to develop specific pathogenicity in humans and animals. Typhoidal serovars that cause typhoid and paratyphoid fever in humans include S. Typhi, S. Paratyphi A, B, C, and S. Sendai. These serovars are highly host-specific and are only transmitted from infected hosts or carriers through contaminated food and water. Typhoidal salmonellosis is characterized by high mortality and low morbidity. However, NTS includes more than 2000 serotypes, which predominantly include S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, S. Newport, and S. Heidelberg, and can infect both humans and animals. Some NTS serovars like S. Typhimurium phage type DT2, S. Abortusovis, S. Typhisuis, S. Gallinarum, and S. Pullorum primarily infect pigeons, sheep, swine, aquatic birds, and poultry, respectively, whereas S. Dublin and S. Choleraesuis primarily infect cattle and pigs. Moreover, NTS can easily adapt to a wide range of hosts and can quickly spread from infected hosts by consuming contaminated food and water. The invasive nontyphoidal Salmonella [iNTS] are more virulent than other non-iNTS types; however, most of the iNTS serovars are similar to non-iNTS in terms of the type of illness, susceptibility to the high-risk group, and other characteristics such as the development of multidrug resistance. The ability of Salmonella to adapt to the host’s environment and trigger clinical symptoms in that specific host is influenced by factors such as the dosage of the infecting bacteria, the host species involved, the age of the host, and its immune status. For example, S. Choleraesuis serovar is a pig-adapted serovar, and it produces the most severe sickness in pigs compared to humans. Some serotypes like S. enterica serovar Typhimurium have been listed as the prototypical broad host range serotype that can infect humans, livestock, domestic fowl, horses, swine, pigeons, rodents, and birds. Other serovars such as S. enterica subspecies can be classified as host-generalist, host-adapted, or host-restricted. They have developed mechanisms for surviving within the host while avoiding immune responses via colonizing the non-phagocytic cells. For example, S. Typhi spreads from the gastrointestinal tract to the reticuloendothelial system. Moreover, it normally colonizes the surface of gallstones upon dissemination. Approximately 1–6% of people infected with Salmonella Typhi do not display clinical symptoms after primary infections but become asymptomatic and chronic bacterial carriers. Conversely, the pathogenesis of host-generalist serovars frequently results in gastroenteritis, and Salmonella shedding occurs for a very short time. Because of their limited long-term shedding capability, the lifetime of host-generalist NTS is more dependent on their ability to survive in the environment.

2.2. Source of Infection and Mode of Infection Transmission in Humans and Animals

6Because Salmonella species are thought to be part of the normal microbiota of an animal’s gut or gallbladder, these animals may also play a role in the pathogen’s indirect or direct transmission to humans. The sources of Salmonella infection include (1) Poultry and poultry products, which are considered the primary source of Salmonella infection in humans. Meat contamination occurs generally as a result of improper handling of the infected organs, such as the gut and liver, during carcass processing. Salmonella infection in 44 broiler and 51 layer farms was investigated, where Salmonella was found in 41.3% of the broiler houses, and nearly 50% of the strains identified were capable of producing biofilm. In the US, a previous report demonstrated that the prevalence of S. Enteritidis serovar in chicken products has grown from 0.45% to 1.5% within a period of 10 years (2002–2012), implying that poultry meat is one of the substantial risk factors for human infection. Frozen raw breaded chicken products (FRBCP) have also been recognized as a Salmonella risk factor in Canada and the US. From a list of 18 food sources, eggs and egg products were the most frequent sources of salmonellosis outbreaks. (2) Ground meat: The CDC conducted a population survey which found that 82.2% of Americans consume beef weekly, with 67% explicitly preferring ground beef. It was determined that chicken, pig, and beef were responsible for 34, 25, and 16% of Salmonella outbreaks, respectively, and 10% of human salmonellosis is attributed to beef consumption in the US. A recent outbreak of salmonellosis has resulted in over 400 reported infections, with more than 100 individuals requiring hospitalization. The outbreak was attributed to antibiotic-resistant (AMR) S. Newport, which was traced back to the consumption of ground beef in 30 different states. (3) Pets may contaminate the environment and transmit infection to other food-producing animals by sporadically shedding bacteria in their feces. Pets like dogs fed on raw food diets are more likely to harbor Salmonella serovars such as S. Typhimurium, S. Heidelberg, and S. Kentucky. Moreover, the probability of Salmonella shedding was around 23 times higher in dogs on raw food diets than in dogs on commercial diets. Furthermore, a case–control study on salmonellosis in children in Michigan revealed that exposure to cats is one of the major risk factors for Salmonella infection. (4) Wild animals, including wild boar and feral pigs, play a crucial role in transmitting Salmonella to both domesticated animals and humans globally. Salmonella is frequently detected in various wild mammals, such as opossums, raccoons, foxes, mink, tigers, cougars, seals, white-tailed deer, and whales, as well as wild birds. Domesticated animals become infected through contact with the contaminated feces of wild animals and birds. In humans, transmission commonly takes place either through direct contact with the contaminated feces from infected animals or from the consumption of contaminated meat from wild birds and other wild animals such as deer or wild boars. Several studies have been conducted to determine the prevalence of Salmonella in wild animals. For example, Cummings et al., found that out of 442 fecal samples obtained from feral pigs across 50 counties in Texas, USA, 43% tested positive for Salmonella. Among these samples, the most prevalent serovars were S. Montevideo (10%), S. Newport (9.1%), and S. Give (8.2%). Likewise, Molino et al. demonstrated that upon analyzing tissue samples from 1041 wild boars from central–western Spain, 7.7% were positive for Salmonella and S. Newport was the most prevalent serovar. Similarly, out of 225 fecal samples collected from captive wildlife and exotic animals including giraffes, cranes, and raccoons from Ohio, USA, 24.9% (n = 56) were positive for Salmonella and the most common serovars included S. Typhimurium (64.3%), S. Newport (32.1%), and S. Heidelberg (5.3%). (5) Insects are also one of the vectors for transmitting Salmonella in the farm setting. Research has demonstrated that houseflies and dump flies, namely Musca domestica and Hydrotaea aenescens, can carry S. Enteritidis, S. Heidelberg, and S. Infantis serotypes. Similarly, larvae and adult lesser mealworms (Alphitobius diaperinus) have also been found to harbor AMR S. Enteritidis and transmit infections in farm settings. Furthermore, 15 different serotypes, including S. Anatum, S. Choleraesuis var. kunzendorf, and S. Derby, were found in common house flies (Musca domestica) on a swine farm. Moreover, 13 of these serotypes were found in swine fecal samples, with S. Anatum and S. Derby being the predominant ones. (6) Rodents such as house mice are one of the significant sources of infection on farms. It was reported that the house mouse (Mus musculus) plays a crucial role in transmitting Salmonella Enteritidis infection among farm animals. Additionally, species such as the roof rat (Rattus rattus) are also known sources of S. Enteritidis infections. Various studies have reported that R. rattus, R. norvegicus, and M. musculus domesticus are all implicated as sources of several Salmonella serotypes in poultry and pig farms. Similarly, the CDC defines other host species, such as reptiles and amphibians, as hosts that can harbor Salmonella and transmit the infection to humans and farm animals. Additionally, the ability of Salmonella to form biofilms, enabling it to attach to and endure various environmental surfaces, vegetables, fruits, and chicken egg shells, as well as surfaces in proximity to animal living areas, like vacuum cleaner bags, sink drains, and doorknobs in households, helps in the further transmission of the bacteria to the mammalian hosts. Other sources such as water, contaminated floors, carts, using contaminated water for crop irrigation, or direct contact with feces from animals carrying Salmonella can also transmit the infection to humans.

7The transmission of Salmonella serotypes often varies significantly between human and animal populations in the same geographical region. Various Salmonella serotypes exhibit differing potentials for causing human disease. However, the transmission of Salmonella infections can occur through direct or indirect contact at home, hospital, or farm settings; however, most of the Salmonella-related illnesses that occur globally each year are foodborne. The transmission of Salmonella may occur by direct contact through direct consumption of fecal-contaminated food or water. Vertical transmission occurs typically in birds and reptiles where the bacteria from the female reproductive tract obtain access to the eggs. The introduction of the pathogen relies upon the thickness and permeability of an eggshell, where the reptiles’ eggshell is more thinner and permeable than avians, whereas indirect transmission occurs when the bacteria are transmitted through intermediate objects such as contaminated utensils and live or inanimate vectors. The transmission cycle of Salmonella is shown in Figure 1.

2.3. Risk Factors and High-Risk Groups

8Risk factors for a particular pathogen vary depending on the environmental stress the host and the pathogen endure. According to the CDC, infections with Salmonella are more prevalent during the summer (June, July, and August) than in the winter. Moreover, poorly breastfed infants, young children normally under the age of five years, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals are the most vulnerable to severe Salmonella infections. Certain drugs, such as stomach antacids and antibiotics, can create gut dysbiosis, thus increasing the risk of Salmonella infections. The development of clinical symptoms between animals can vary depending on various factors, including animal species, age groups, and geographical area. The risk factors for animal infections include stress, co-infection with another pathogen, and contaminated food. The size of animal herds increases the risk of salmonellosis in farm animals, and bacterial shedding appears to be impacted by different factors such as production methods, housing types, general cleanliness standards, management practices, and the age of the animals. Moreover, environmental factors such as dust, dirty surfaces, and chicken excrement are the known risk factors for acquiring the infections. In humans, nail-biting, contact with animal excreta, sucking the thumb in children, and eating without properly sanitizing hands after farm work are considered potential risk factors for animal-acquired Salmonella infections. Consuming contaminated food is one of the most significant risk factors in humans.

2.4.1. In Humans

9Typhoidal Salmonella serovars, such as S. Typhi or S. Paratyphi, are the causative agents of enteric fever, also known as typhoid or paratyphoid, respectively. Globally, there are 11–21 million instances of typhoid fever and 5 million cases of paratyphoid fever each year, resulting in approximately 135,000–230,000 deaths annually. In the US, around 400 confirmed cases of typhoid fever and 5–100 cases of paratyphoid fever tested positive in cultures between 2016 and 2018. Notably, more than 85% of these cases occurred in individuals who had traveled internationally. The incubation period of enteric fever is marked by a duration of one week or longer, during which individuals experience several symptoms, such as high fever, diarrhea, vomiting, and headache. Throughout enteric fever, a notable fever pattern emerges. It begins with a low-grade fever (>37.5 °C to 38.2 °C) and gradually progresses to a high-grade fever (>38.2 °C to 41.5 °C) in the second week. The fever can persist without appropriate treatment for a month or even longer. In addition to fever, infected individuals may experience myalgia, bradycardia, hepatomegaly (enlarged liver), splenomegaly (enlarged spleen), and rose blotches on their chest and abdomen. Approximately 15% of infected individuals in endemic areas experience gastrointestinal problems such as pancreatitis, hepatitis, and cholecystitis. Hemorrhage is one of the most serious gastrointestinal complications caused by the perforation of Peyer’s patches, the lymphatic nodules found in the terminal ileum causing bloody diarrhea. Furthermore, typhoidal Salmonella’s nature to live and remain in the reticuloendothelial system results in recurrence in around 10% of infected individuals.

10Non-typhoidal Salmonella affects approximately 93.8 million people and causes 160,000 fatalities globally each year. According to the current surveillance report in the US on NTS infections in humans, most of the isolated serovars are S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, and S. Newport, while S. enteritidis are the most common serotype recovered from clinical samples in Asia, Europe, and Latin America. The infection is typically self-limiting and the symptoms normally last for about a week. The incubation period ranges from 6 h to 6 days after initial inoculation and the infection normally lasts for 4 to 7 days. Shedding of the bacteria via feces may last for a month or longer. The most common human symptoms include gastroenteritis, accompanied by clinical signs including nausea, vomiting, headache, abdominal pain, non-bloody diarrhea, and muscle pain. The severity of the infections increases in susceptible individuals such as babies and children under the age of five years, immunocompromised patients, and immunocompromised elderly people. Conditions like cholecystitis, pancreatitis, and appendicitis may manifest and can escalate to severe levels, leading to life-threatening conditions like meningitis and sepsis. Inadequate fluid balance due to prolonged loss of bodily fluids can lead to dehydration, which may be fatal in newborns and older adults. Reactive arthritis, a persistent autoimmune joint inflammation, may supervene even after weeks or months of urogenital or digestive tract infections and occurs in around 20% of clinical cases reported in Europe and the US following Salmonella infections. Furthermore, Salmonella infections are implicated in the development of colonic cancer in patients suffering from chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the risk factor for colorectal and gallbladder cancer.

2.4.2. In Animals

11Salmonella infections are prevalent among various animals, encompassing both domesticated and wild species. This bacterium typically affects the host gastrointestinal tracts, often without readily apparent symptoms of illness. Salmonella can present itself at both clinical (symptomatic) and sub-clinical (asymptomatic) levels. Poultry can serve as healthy carriers and the clinical signs in poultry depend on the bacteria’s serotype. For instance, S. enterica serovar Pullorum causes anorexia, diarrhea, dehydration, and death in young poults, and adult birds demonstrate diarrhea, decreased egg production, poor hatchability, and increased mortality, whereas fowl typhoid can be characterized by acute diarrhea, dehydration, weakness, septicemia, and death. Nevertheless, regardless of the bacterial serotype, all Salmonella infections in poultry are commonly characterized by pronounced symptoms, including extensive diarrhea, fever, weight loss, dehydration, and death. Similarly, Salmonella infections in animals vary based on the age group and specific bacteria serotype, particularly in large and small ruminant animals. Ruminants and pigs commonly exhibit acute enteric infections, characterized by clinical indications such as fever, reduced appetite, lethargy, and diarrhea. Conversely, systemic infections tend to be more prevalent among younger animals. Notably, abortion has been extensively recorded in cattle specifically attributed to NTS serotypes S. Typhimurium and S. Dublin. The infection in dogs and cats can be manifested by anorexia, fever, nausea, vomiting, acute gastroenteritis anorexia, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. Similarly, horses are also considered a risk group for Salmonella infections, with atypical symptoms such as voluminous gastric reflux, diarrhea, and fever. They can also serve as asymptomatic carriers of the bacteria, thereby shedding them into the environment and disseminating the infection throughout the farm or facility.

2.5. Prevalence of Salmonellosis and the Most Recent Salmonella Outbreaks

12Currently, the advancement of science and technology and globalization have made international trade and travel easily accessible to the general population. However, it has increased the risk of the rapid spread of infectious diseases throughout the world. Controlling an outbreak of foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella can be challenging due to several factors, such as environmental factors and the high risk of indirect transmission through the consumption of Salmonella-contaminated food and water, which may originate from any source. Salmonella infection presents significant public health concerns due to its propensity for endemicity, high rates of morbidity and mortality, and the challenge of implementing effective and timely control measures. Salmonella causes approximately 1.35 million illnesses, with 26,500 annual hospitalizations and 420 fatalities in the US each year, as tracked by the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet). It was suggested that there is a substantial relationship between Salmonella serovar and the type and origin of the food commodity. For example, outbreaks linked to poultry are generally associated with S. Enteritidis, S. Heidelberg, and S. Hadar, while outbreaks of S. Uganda have been associated with the consumption of contaminated pork and beef meat. Outbreaks associated with farm products such as fruits and vegetables have also been documented. Several reports suggest that improper handling of infected chicks is also responsible for a considerable number of human outbreaks of salmonellosis, mainly involving serovars such as S. Typhimurium, S. Johannesburg, S. Braenderup, S. Thompson, and S. Montevideo. The serovars S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis are also linked with the zoonotic transmission of salmonellosis from companion animals such as kittens, guinea pigs, hedgehogs, and turtles.

13Salmonella is a highly virulent pathogen and the presence of as low as 10 CFU/mL of bacteria typically represents a high potential for pathogenicity. In 2018, about 92,000 confirmed human salmonellosis cases were documented in the US alone. NTS causes over 100,000 gastroenteritis illnesses in Canada annually. S. Enteritidis stands out as the predominant serovar, accounting for around 45% of human salmonellosis cases in Canada, followed by S. Typhimurium and S. Heidelberg, constituting 8% and 6% of such cases, respectively. Similarly, S. Typhimurium is the most common serovar in humans in North America and Oceania, regardless of the source, followed by S. Enteritidis. In contrast, S. Enteritidis ranked as the most common serovar in the European Union, followed by S. Typhimurium. However, S. Enteritidis was reported in pork only in Africa and Asia. In Europe, a total of 1508 Salmonella outbreaks were included in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) analysis. Of these, 1040 were caused by foods, including salads, steak, and ham, whereas 468 outbreaks were caused by unknown food sources including complex foods like bakery products containing eggs, dairy products, and grains. Approximately 939 outbreaks were recorded to be caused by S. Enteritidis, 130 by S. Typhimurium and its monophasic variant, 107 by other known serotypes, and 332 by unknown types in the European Union. In May 2022, 324 cases were reported in 12 EU/EEA countries and the UK, including two distinct strains of monophasic S. Typhimurium. Most cases were in children below ten years of age, and 41% of all cases were hospitalized. Chocolate products in Belgium were reported to be a source of infection. The most recent Salmonella outbreaks in the US, their source, and the identified serotype are shown in Table 1. Between 2012 and 2023, there were approximately 86 outbreaks, and 18,031 illnesses occurred in the US alone.

3. Pathogenesis and Virulence Factors

14The pathogenesis of Salmonella serotypes starts with the adherence of the bacteria to the host cell surface. After adhesion, bacteria’s internalization occurs either through the uptake of bacteria via phagocytosis or by active invasion of both phagocytic and non-phagocytic cells. The phagocytosis process involves intricate mechanisms that rely on the engagement of multiple receptors, such as Pattern Recognition Receptors (PRRs). The PRRs include toll-like receptors (TLRs) and cytosolic nucleotide-binding receptors, which recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) like lipopolysaccharides (LPS) and flagellin located on either the cell surface or within phagosomes. This recognition influences the maturation of phagosomes, triggers signaling pathways, and modulates gene expression. Studies suggest that the interaction between the TLR and LPS in NTS species plays a vital role in developing septic shock. However, the typhoidal serovars, including S. Typhi, evade recognition by TLR4, thus preventing the recruitment of neutrophils and the expression of pro-inflammatory molecules such as TNF-α and Interleukin 1β (IL-1β) and preventing a typical antimicrobial response in the host. The level of production of the cytokines in human monocytes is, however, similar to those elicited in the NTS infections. This is an essential stage in the invasion of Salmonella and occurs by infiltrating both phagocytic and non-phagocytic cells. Invasion and colonization of Salmonella in the host cells rely on several virulence factors, including:

3.1. Virulence Plasmid

15Virulence plasmids play a crucial role in bacteria by harboring genes related to antibiotic resistance and virulence factors such as spvB (ADP-ribosylating toxin) and spvC (inhibits pyroptosis and inflammation). Virulence plasmids are required to develop the systemic disease in the host and can spread through horizontal gene transfer by transformation and conjugation. They are large and present in low copy numbers to minimize the strain on the host’s cell metabolism, preventing them from being retained during cell division. In response, virulence plasmids have evolved to guarantee distribution, preserving their presence.

3.2. Type III Secretion Systems

16Type III secretion systems (T3SSs) are responsible for translocating effector proteins from prokaryotic cytoplasm to the eukaryotic cytosol. In Salmonella, the T3SS is encoded by two distinct pathogenicity islands, namely SPI1 and SPI2. SPI-1 encodes the T3SS1 and plays a crucial role in invading non-phagocytic epithelia. SPI-2 encodes the T3SS2 effector proteins that function by regulating the dynamics of Salmonella-containing vacuole (SCV) membranes, placing SCVs in specific positions within host cells, influencing immune responses, modifying the cytoskeleton, and impacting the movement of infected cells. These effector proteins combine to undermine the cytoskeleton, signal transduction pathways, and pro-inflammatory responses of the host.

3.3. Type 1 Secretion System (T1SS)

17The Type 1 secretion system is responsible for delivering a wide range of molecules like lipases, surface proteins, toxins, and adenylate cyclase into the extracellular space of Salmonella. It is also responsible for mediating adhesion and invasion into the host immune cells and biofilm formation. Two distinct surface-associated proteins, BapA, responsible for adhering to host cells and forming biofilms, and SiiE, responsible for the initial attachment to host cells followed by invasion, are transported through a specialized Type 1 secretion system (T1SS).

3.4. Superoxide Dismutase

18Superoxide dismutase (SOD) is a group of enzymes that catalyze the conversion of superoxide radicals (O2−) into molecular oxygen (O2) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Numerous host cells generate reactive oxygen species, primarily via the functioning of the phagosome NADPH oxidase, which is essential for eliminating intracellular pathogens. To counterbalance this effect, Salmonella uses superoxide dismutases and SodCI and SodCII enzymes, which help the bacteria in cellular defense against reactive oxygen species. Both of the enzymes are produced during the infections; however, SodCI relative to SodCII is tethered within the periplasm and is resistant to proteases. This allows the enzyme to maintain functionality and help the bacteria survive in the phagosome’s challenging environmental conditions.

3.5. Fimbriae

19Adherence to the host cells plays a pivotal role in the progression of Salmonella infection. Salmonella possesses fimbrial gene clusters (FGCs) within its genome, which encodes extracellular fimbriae. Among the extracellular fimbriae, one of the most prevalent adhesive structures is known as type 1 fimbriae (T1F). T1F is primarily composed of fimA protein and an adhesive protein fimH, which is critical in binding to specific receptors, preferably glycoproteins that carry terminal mannose residues. The adhesive protein fimH is a pathogen-associated molecular pattern recognized by host TLRs and significantly influences the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

3.6. Flagella

20The motility of Salmonella is driven by the activity of flagella. Flagella participates in adhesion, invasion, protein export, and biofilm formation. Biofilm formation is regulated through the transcription factor CsgD. Salmonella has two genes for flagellin, fljB and fliC. Out of the two flagellin genes, the expression of fliC is more crucial in identifying specific sites on host cells than fljB. In bacteria with impaired flagellar motility, there is an observable diminished adhesion and smaller colony formation in biofilms.

3.7. Vi Antigen

21The Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi differs from NTS due to the production of the ‘Vi antigen’, a polysaccharide capsule located on the cell surface. The Vi antigen inhibits phagocytosis and helps develop resistance against the host immune system. It is also responsible for the translocation of S. Typhi to the gallbladder as it helps the bacteria to surpass the phagocyte-mediated barrier. Ultimately, it prevents the binding of IgM, which gives the pathogen the ability to hinder neutrophil chemotaxis, neutrophil phagocytosis, and the neutrophil respiratory burst.

3.8. Toxins

22One of the most significant features of S. Typhi is its ability to produce toxins resulting in typhoid fever. This typhoid toxin belongs to the group of AB toxins, which include an enzymatic subunit (A) and a receptor subunit (B). Salmonella-containing vacuole exports toxin from infected cells into the external environment, allowing it to affect other target cells.

3.9. Lipopolysaccharides (LPS)

23Lipopolysaccharides are a major component of the outer membrane of any Gram-negative bacteria responsible for eliciting innate immune response in the host. It provides cell stability and acts as a permeability barrier. LPS is made up of lipid A, core oligosaccharide (C-OS), and O-antigen polysaccharide (O-PS). LPS is also responsible for adherence or invasion of the host epithelial. The proper distribution of O-antigen is required to express virulence in S. Typhimurium. It is also responsible for determining antigenic specificity between and within the bacterial species.

3.10. Biofilms

24Formation or the ability to develop biofilms is one of the major determinants of virulence in Salmonella inside the host. Biofilms are the adaptive response that could alter the gene expression of the bacteria to promote resistance to both environmental stressors and antibiotics. A Salmonella biofilm is formed by the secretion of a polymeric matrix characterized by the expression of different factors such as curli fimbriae and cellulose, which are the two predominant components. Biofilm formation in Salmonella is regulated by csgD, a curli subunit gene belonging to the LuxR group. The expression of csgD is regulated by various environmental signals and transcription factors such as c-di-GMP and sRNAs on a post-transcriptional level.

4. Control Strategies for Salmonella Infections

25Various control strategies are employed to manage and prevent salmonellosis in humans. These measures encompass practices related to cleanliness and sanitation, consistent screening and diagnosis of individuals responsible for food handling, regular surveillance of potential carrier animals, and treating both carriers and those showing symptoms. In animals, all stages of the production system should be regularly screened for Salmonella infection, including breeding facilities, vehicles, slaughterhouses, and storage facilities. Several strategies can be used to prevent or control Salmonella infections in humans and animals, including:

4.1. Management and Biosecurity Measures

26Control of salmonellosis in farm settings depends on good management and biosecurity practices. To apply successful biosecurity programs and to control the spread of infection, the primary source of infection and the methods of transmission within the farm must be well identified. Any successful biosecurity program must include isolation of sick animals, traffic limitation, disinfection, and sanitation of the farm. Two types of biosecurity measures can be conducted to prevent or reduce the risk of infection flowing in and out of the farm, including external and internal biosecurity practices. External biosecurity measures are pivotal in minimizing the influx of infections originating outside the farm premises. These strategies encompass the installation of perimeter fences, regulating the movement of vehicles to and from the farm and imposing restrictions on the introduction of animals from external sources, whereas internal biosecurity measures are designed to manage Salmonella transmission within the farm environment effectively. These tactics include changing footwear and clothing when transitioning from outside to inside the farm, isolating animals exhibiting symptoms from healthy ones, and routinely decontaminating the bedding material and transporting vehicles including dead animal transporters.

27Farm visitors such as veterinarians, stakeholders, salespeople, and technicians are among the highest-risk visitors as a source of infection. Furthermore, the need for more awareness among certain farmers regarding necessary safety precautions while moving in and out of the farm can potentially introduce Salmonella infection from neighboring farms and the environment. Failure to adequately clean or dispose of their clothing, boots, and tools can also result in contamination. Several farm safety guidelines can be implemented to decrease the risk of infection disseminating from personnel, which includes (1) the movement of the visitors should be strictly restricted; (2) visitors and workers must be supplied with clean outer clothes and boots; (3) regular organic matter removal and provide footbaths with disinfectants, especially during working inside the farm; (4) caring of the animals should always start with the healthy and the young stock and move to the sick and adult stocks; (5) workers must not use the same tools for handling both food and manures or at least must be disinfected between use; (6) tools must not be borrowed from neighboring farms; (7) access to vehicles must be limited, especially in the farm premise, and vehicles must be cleaned and disinfected before entering the farm.

4.2. Vector Control and Eradication

28According to the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), vectors are living organisms that are not only capable of transmitting a pathogen but also help disseminate the associated diseases in the population. Some insects, rodents, and wild birds have been reported as sources of infection incidence, transmission, spread, and maintenance. Rodents and wild birds can harbor the infections from different sources and transmit the infections to other farm animals through their feces on any part of the farm, including food and water; therefore, repeated disinfection is required with rodent control. A high degree of sanitation must be applied, including litter and garbage disposal and proper filling up of any holes or openings to prevent access for mice. Moreover, supplies must be stored well in a clean area apart from the main building to avoid rodent access. For the control of the carrier insects, a high level of sanitation must be maintained in animal farms and holdings, including regular and fast litter and waste removal, keeping the place well-ventilated and dry without any stagnant water. Synthetic chemical insecticides and organophosphates can also be used regularly. These include permethrin, fenvalerate, tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP), dichlorvos organophosphate (DDVP), methomyl, benomyl, cyromazine, and dimethoate, but most of them have serious toxic effects on humans and animals, so specific instructions must be followed during their application. Natural extracts such as essential oils with insecticidal or insect repellent activities and bioinsecticides formed of natural constituents can be used as a healthier and more eco-friendly, economical, and effective alternative. Pyrethrin, a natural extract from chrysanthemum flowers, can be used with a lower level of toxicity. Some essential oils like thyme, cinnamon, rosemary, clove, mint, orange, eucalyptus, and tea tree are considered to have established insecticide activity with lower toxicity and are registered to be among the commercially available constitutes of natural pesticides.

4.3. Isolation and Quarantine

29The principle of quarantine mainly focuses on two primary goals: prevention of infection transmission to healthy animals and prevention of transmission in the hospital setting to vulnerable individuals such as immune-compromised patients, children, and the elderly. Isolation of a sick person or animal and limiting contact with such individuals will significantly reduce the risk of contamination and the spread of the disease between humans and animals. The isolation units should be away from the healthy sheds and should have a proper manure disposal facility. Regularly cleaning the farm equipment, utensils, feeders, and drinkers and relevant safe transportation and disposal procedures for contaminated carcasses are urgently required. The duration of the quarantine period varies according to the type of pathogen and the status of exposure to the pathogen. For individuals who are healthy and have been exposed, the quarantine period should align with the pathogen’s incubation period. Conversely, for infected animals, the quarantine duration should be determined by the time it takes for symptoms to manifest, along with confirmation through laboratory diagnosis. Together, applying these control measures as “biosecurity and hygienic management” can positively impact food safety, and animal, and human health.

4.4. Antibiotics Used for Salmonella Treatment and Antimicrobial Resistance

30The treatment of Salmonella infections typically relies on supportive therapy. The infection is normally self-limiting, and the individuals do not require therapeutic treatment. However, individuals with weakened immune systems, underlying health conditions, or severe infection might require antibiotics. In the past, chloramphenicol was utilized for treating Salmonella infections. The preferred antibiotic choices include ampicillin, third-generation quinolones such as ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin, third generation cephalosporins like ceftriaxone, and macrolides. Unfortunately, bacterial resistance to these important antibiotics has been growing, posing a challenge to effective treatment. Antibiotic resistance has become a global concern in both non-Typhoidal and Typhoidal Salmonella strains. The emergence of antibiotic resistance has exhibited an escalating trend of 20–30% per decade. The extent of resistance, however, varies across different antibiotics and serotypes of the bacteria, highlighting the delicate interplay between microbial genetic factors, environmental conditions, and the selective pressures that contribute to the diverse spectrum of AMR strains observed within bacterial populations. It is noteworthy that serotypes with higher prevalence tend to develop resistance against commonly prescribed antibiotics more frequently. It was reported that 30.9% of isolated Salmonella strains from broiler farms exhibited resistance to streptomycin, with 13.9% resistant to tetracycline, 12.6% resistant to gentamycin, and 8.6% resistant to sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim. Similarly, a substantial level of resistance was noted towards ceftriaxone (75%) and ceftiofur (44%). Multidrug-resistant Salmonella was also identified in several studies before. For instance, MDR was detected in 17% of broiler chickens in Egypt, with the highest resistance against neomycin (100%), nalidixic acid and cefoxitin (95%), norfloxacin (86.3%), cefotaxime (77.2%), amikacin (72.7%), erythromycin (68.1%), and chloramphenicol (40.9%). Similarly, 19.6% of S. Infantis isolates from animals in the US possessed MDR, with the highest resistance observed against aminoglycosides, chloramphinecol, beta-lactams, and tetracyclines. Furthermore, in Salmonella isolated from equines between 2007 and 2015, 10.2% of the samples were MDR strains, with the highest resistance against aminoglycosides (gentamycin and streptomycin), followed by beta lactam inhibitors including penicillin (amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and ampicillin), cephems (cefoxitin, ceftiofur, and ceftriaxone), and folate pathway inhibitors (sulfisoxazole and trimethoprim), respectively. Furthermore, MDR has also been demonstrated in wild animals and birds. For example, Cilia et al. found that AMR strain prevalence in European wild boar hunted in Central Italy possessed 55.6% resistance to streptomycin, 11.1% to cephalothin, and 5.6% to imipenem. Notably, a single isolate (S. Infantis) displayed multidrug resistance (MDR) to tetracycline, enrofloxacin, nitrofurantoin, nalidixic acid, and streptomycin.

31Additionally, another investigation established a significant link between the isolation of ceftiofur-resistant S. Heidelberg from chickens and subsequent clinical infections in humans caused by the same bacterial strain. Likewise, another study underscored the elevated prevalence of AMR strains, including S. Bredeney, S. Kentucky, and S. Enteritidis, as prominent AMR variants identified in chicken meat. These strains displayed resistance against rifampicin, tetracycline, and oxyclozanide.

4.5.1. Probiotics

32Probiotics are a group of non-pathogenic microorganisms that can confer health benefits to the host when administered sufficiently. According to FAO/WHO regulations, for probiotics to be used as therapeutic or prophylactic agents, they are required to fulfill specific criteria such as safety margin, efficacy, immunomodulatory capabilities, ability to effectively colonize the intestinal epithelium, resistance to bile salts and low pH conditions, as well as maintaining phenotypic and genetic stability. Probiotics have different mechanisms of action (Figure 2) that include (i) improving the intestinal barrier and gut mucosal integrity, (ii) enhancing intestinal immunity, (iii) reducing the colonization of intestinal pathogens, (iv) maintaining the balance between pathogenic and beneficial microbes in the gastrointestinal tract, and (v) competitive exclusion and secretion of antibacterial substances or metabolites such as bacteriocins that suppress the growth of pathogenic microorganisms, stimulating mucous secretion by intestinal goblet cells to limit epithelial invasion by pathogens and the production of minerals, enzymes, and trace elements. Each probiotic strain has different properties and clinical effects on the host. Probiotics are classified as mono-strain or single-strain probiotics (SSP), multi-strain probiotics (MSP), and multi-species probiotics. Single-strain probiotics (SSP) can provide limited health benefits to the host. Probiotics containing multiple groups of bacteria with different mechanisms of action tend to have synergistic effects on each other and have a broad spectrum of activity. For insistence, the MSP of Bacillus amyloliquefacrem, Enterococcus hirae, and Lysinibacillus fusiformis was able to significantly inhibit the growth and biofilm formation of Aeromonas hydrophila compared to the individual probiotics. Multi-species probiotics (L. reuteri, E. faecium, B. animalis, P. acidilactici, and L. salivarius) greatly reduce S. Enteritidis infections (up to 2.7 log reduction) in poultry.

33Several studies have shown that probiotics can profoundly affect the growth and virulence of Salmonella in humans and animals. These effects include preventing adhesion and invasion of the bacteria into the intestinal epithelial cells, alteration in the expression of virulence genes, modulation of the host immune system through enhancing the cytokines’ expression, intestinal permeability, and increasing intestinal villi height. It was reported that Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria are the most common probiotics used against Salmonella and are present as normal gut microflora in the host. Many studies have demonstrated that using single strains of probiotics individually and in combination can show high efficacy in Salmonella-infected hosts (Table 2). For example, L. salivarius CTC2197 alone completely inhibited S. Enteritidis C-114 from the gut of a leghorn chicken 21 days post-infection. Similarly, L. reuteri R-17485 alone demonstrated more than 1 log reduction, whereas L. johnsonii R-17504 demonstrated a 2 log reduction in cecal Salmonella count in Lohmann White laying hens. Another study demonstrated that probiotic L. plantarum caused a 2.1 log reduction in cecal S. Heidelberg in broiler chicken 168 h post-infection. In addition to this, other probiotics such as E. faecium NCIMB 11181 demonstrated a reduction in colonization and translocation of Salmonella in liver tissue by 2.2 log and cecal content by 4.2 log in infected birds pretreated with E. faecium. Similarly, S. boulardii demonstrated enhanced survival of the probiotic-treated mice (70%) compared to 40% in untreated ones, with reduced translocation of Salmonella to the liver.

34On the other hand, the combination of different Lactobacillus strains, including L. murinus, L. salivarius, L. pentosus, and P. pentosaceous, demonstrated up to 99% inhibition in Salmonella colonization in pigs, whereas the combination of other strains, such as L. reuteri R-17485, L. johnsonii R-17504, and L. vaginalis R-17362, demonstrated up to two-fold reduction in Salmonella cecal counts in chickens. Furthermore, the combination of the probiotic Lactobacillus with other species such as Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus subtilis, Bifidobacterium animalis, Clostridium butyricum, or Saccharomyces cervisae has a synergistic action with a significant inhibition (up to 95%) of Salmonella colonization in poultry and mice. Several different experiments demonstrate that the combination of either two or more probiotics for treating Salmonella can have synergistic effects and may become more effective in inhibiting growth and colonization in the host (Table 2).

35However, the use of probiotics for the treatment of infectious diseases, including Salmonella, presents itself as a multifaceted approach, and further studies need to be conducted to determine whether their efficacy is contingent upon strain-specific factors of the pathogen or influenced by variables such as probiotic dosage, administration method, treatment duration, host characteristics (including age), and other management-related factors. Moreover, there is a pressing concern regarding the clinical applications of probiotics, which includes issues such as the shelf life that may impact the viability of probiotic strains, their ability to withstand the conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, the potential for acquiring virulence or resistance genes from pathogenic or opportunistic organisms, the capacity of specific probiotic strains to transfer antibacterial resistance genes within the gastrointestinal tract, and the possibility of some probiotic strains like B. subtilis secreting toxic substances which can potentially induce food poisoning.

4.5.2. Prebiotics

36Prebiotics are defined as the non-digestible components that undergo selective fermentation, resulting in targeted modifications to the composition and behavior of the gastrointestinal microbiota. When the microbiota utilizes these components, they contribute to beneficial effects on the health of the host. Prebiotics are usually combined with probiotics in commercial products and are known as: “Synbiotics, beneficial microorganisms with selective substrates”. This combination has great therapeutic efficacy against various animal and human diseases. Several prebiotic compounds are available, including fructooligosaccharides (FOS), galactooligosaccharides (GOS), mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS), xylooligosaccharides (XOS), transgalactic-oligosaccharides (TGOS), arabinoxylo-oligosaccharides, lactulose, and inulin. The human digestive enzymes do not normally digest these compounds but they could be introduced into the diet in certain quantities to stimulate the gut microbiota, which, in turn, can provide the host with the essential nutrients and energy. The mechanism of action of prebiotics can be summarized into direct and indirect pathways. The indirect pathway is through nourishing beneficial gut flora and maintaining gut health, thereby conferring health benefits to the host, whereas the direct pathway acts through the inhibition of pathogenic microorganisms and reduces the risk of infection with infectious pathogens. Several studies have been conducted to determine the protective effects of probiotics and prebiotics in experimental animals, including poultry infected with Salmonella. For example, it was reported that the administration of B. subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, and mannan-oligosaccharide revealed a significant (up to 2 logs) reduction in S. Enteritidis colonization in layers of ovaries and the intestine. Similarly, chickens administered with inulin and oligofructose had up to a four-log reduction in cecal Salmonella counts possibly due to the effect of administered prebiotics on the pH and the level of produced volatile fatty acids. Similar results were reported on the supplementation of broiler chickens with 0.75% oligofructose, where a four-fold reduction in cecal Salmonella counts was demonstrated. Furthermore, the dietary supplementation of broiler chickens with fructooligosaccharides demonstrated a log reduction in intestinal colonization and count of S. Typhimurium. Similarly, feeding broiler chickens with a combination of prebiotics (fructooligosaccharides) and probiotics (B. animalis, L. reuteri, P. acidilactici, and E. faecium), as well as prebiotics with antibiotics, resulted in decreased S. Enteritidis load by 1.4 and 1.5 log units/mL of carcass rinse and 0.90 and 0.85 log units/g of cecal contents, respectively. In another study, the treatment of S. Enteritidis challenged turkey poults with Lactobacillus spp. And dietary lactose (0.1%) revealed significant improvement in body weight and feed conversion ratio with a 2 log reduction in cecal S. Enteritidis count. Furthermore, a study for the evaluation of the effectiveness of synbiotics alone or in combination with organic acids on carcass and cecal Salmonella load in challenged one-day-old broiler chicks revealed a 0.34 to 0.58 log reduction in the Salmonella cecal contents compared to the controls, whereas no difference was observed between the dietary treatments. Similarly, the treatment combination of synbiotics with organic acids revealed a 1.7 log reduction in carcass bacterial count, whereas a 1.3 and 0.53 log reduction was observed in Salmonella loaded with synbiotics alone and synbiotics combined with organic acids, respectively. Nevertheless, some studies have demonstrated no effect of prebiotics in protective efficacy against and susceptibility to pathogenic infections. For example, S. Typhimurium translocation in the liver, mesenteric lymph nodes, spleen, and intestine have been increased, with an approximate 1.6–1.8 mean CFU in mice fed on a diet containing 10% of fructooligosaccharide, xylooligosaccharides, or apple pectin. Similarly, no effect was observed in the production of anti-Salmonella antibodies in birds challenged with S. Enteritidis or broiler chickens fed with a combination of probiotics (Lac XCL 5x™) and prebiotics (MOS). Furthermore, another study demonstrated that no anti-Salmonella effect was seen in birds tested for the symbiotic effect of B. longum, and L. rhamnosus combined with oligofructose-enriched inulin on S. Typhimurium-challenged pigs. In addition to this, evaluation of the efficacy of probiotics alone (L. acidophilus, B. subtilis, L. casei, B. longum, and E. faecium), prebiotics alone (fructooligosaccharide, inulin, oligosaccharide, and mannanoligosaccharide), and synbiotics (combined pro- and prebiotics) on S. Enteritidis challenged one-day-old layer and broiler chicks and concluded that the group of chicks supplemented with prebiotics only demonstrated a higher reduction in SE colonization (3 log reduction) when compared to groups supplemented with probiotics alone or synbiotics alone. Hence, prebiotics play a vital role in maintaining gut health, linked to a range of health advantages like better digestion, synergistic actions along with the gut microbiota and supplemented probiotics, exclusion of pathogens, and improved growth performance.

4.5.3. Antimicrobial Peptides

37Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are a diverse group of small peptides that are an essential part of the innate immune system of different organisms. The updated AMPs database reports more than 3569 AMPs identified, most of which originated from bacteria, followed by animals, plants, fungi, protists, and archaea. There are several types of AMPs with various numbers of amino acid residues ranging from 10 to 60 amino acids, most of which are cationic, and some are non-cationic AMPs. AMPs have two mechanisms of action: membrane-targeting and non-membrane-targeting mechanisms. The membrane-targeting mechanism can be classified into three models: (1) carpet-like model in which AMPs are arranged parallel to the cell membrane like a carpet and destroy the pathogen’s membrane, (2) the barrel-stave model in which AMPs aggregate with each other and penetrate the membrane bilayer, forming channels that cause cytoplasmic leakage, thus resulting in cell death and, (3) the toroidal pore model through which AMPs are vertically embedded in the cell membrane and bend to form a ring hole.

38The non-membrane-targeting mechanism can be classified according to the targets by which AMPs act after entering the cytoplasm, which includes (i) protein biosynthesis inhibition, (ii) nucleic acid biosynthesis inhibition, (iii) inhibition of metabolic activities, and (iv) inhibition of DNA replication and cell division. In addition to the broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties of AMPs, they are potential antibiotic substitutes with a low probability of developing AMR strains.

39Several studies have evaluated the antimicrobial efficacy of AMPs against foodborne pathogens including Salmonella. These studies evaluate their efficacy on immune regulation, growth performance, and intestinal microbiota in different animal species. For example, Festa et al. demonstrated the in vitro effect of peptide 1018-K6 against S. enterica (1 × 103 cfu/mL) with a Minimum inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of 8–64 μg/mL and 16–128 μg/mL, respectively, and the sub inhibitory dose significantly reduced the biofilm formation of S. Enteritidis. In vitro, evaluation of the effect of novel AMP “A11” modified from acidocin J1132β against S. Typhimurium demonstrated a complete inhibitory effect of A11 against S. Typhimurium, with an MIC ranging from 15.6 to 125 µg/mL. Similarly, the screening of six different AMPs (KLK and KLK1) derived from flesh fly larva, BmKn-2, and BmKn-22 derived from scorpion venom, and Pug-1 and Pug-4 derived from pomegranate fruit), against eight multidrug-resistant Salmonella isolates showed that BmKn-2 derived from scorpion venom has the highest and most potent antibacterial activity against all isolates and the highest inhibition of Salmonella biofilm formation compared with other peptides. Another in vitro study determining the antimicrobial activity of the modified thermostable cathelicidin-derived peptide, P7, against drug-resistant S. Typhimurium showed that P7 decreased the S. Typhimurium viable cells to more than 103 and 104 cfu/mL within 2 to 4 h, respectively, and also demonstrated complete clearance of Salmonella 24 h post incubation. Furthermore, it was reported that AMP (Microcin J25) could significantly reduce the infection rate of Salmonella CVCC519 by approximately 30% in challenged Arbor Acres male broiler chickens at day 42 compared to non-treated birds. Moreover, the AMP (Microcin J25) secreted by ECN has been recorded to lower the in vitro growth of S. Enteritidis on agar plates and also resulted in a 25× reduction in S. Enteritidis count and colonization in turkey cecum. Similarly, an investigation determining the efficacy of AMP (HJH-3) in challenged chickens with S. Pullorum demonstrated a more than 48-fold reduction in total bacteria in the spleen of the HJH-3 group compared to the non-treated group. Yeom et al. also reported that AMP (C-terminally hexahistidine-tagged A3-APO) loaded onto gold nanoparticle DNA conjugate completely inhibited and eliminated intracellular S. Typhimurium in challenged mice, resulting in 100% survival of infected mice. Two AMPs (IK12 and TS10) were compared for their efficacy against S. enterica in fish, and the results demonstrated that AMP (IK12) exhibited a significant inhibition zone (20 ± 1 mm) against S. enterica at a concentration of 625 μg/mL, while concentrations of 1000 μg/mL and 2500 μg/mL decreased the Salmonella load up to 6 log. In addition to this, the treatment of S. Typhimurium-challenged mice with AMP (Css54) demonstrated that Css54 can inhibit S. Typhimurium growth at a concentration of 6.25 μg/mL, while complete bactericidal activity can be obtained at a concentration of 25 µg/mL. Similarly, supplementing S. Enteritidis-challenged female laying chicks with two different doses of AMP (Ctx(Ile21)-Ha) at the rate of 20–40 mg/kg feed for 28 days revealed a reduced mortality rate in young chickens by 69%; however, no difference in the mortality rate was observed even after increasing the Ctx(Ile21)-Ha dose concentration. Maiti et al. demonstrated that avian defensin 7 (AvBD7) significantly reduced S. Typhimurium load in the liver (80% reduction) of treated mice 24 h post-infection in intraperitoneally challenged mice. In addition to this, evaluating the efficacy of two human β-defensins (hBD-1 and hBD-2) in mice challenged intraperitoneally with S. Typhi demonstrated the 50% lethal doses of hBD-1 and hBD-2 to be 0.36 and 0.38 μg/μL respectively, with a significant reduction in Salmonella load in the peritoneal fluid, spleen, and liver of treated mice whether hBD-1 and hBD-2 is delivered individually or in combination. A study to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of three gallinacin AMPs (GALL 4, 7, 9) against S. enteritidis revealed that the antimicrobial potency was in the following peptide order (Gall 9 > 4 > 7), with a synergistic action observed between Gall 7 and 9, whereas an in vivo study in non-domesticated fowl demonstrated no significant effect in the expression of gal4 or gall9.

40The capacity of AMPs to effectively target a wide range of bacterial pathogens, including Salmonella, holds significant promise in addressing the persistent problem of AMR strains. Nonetheless, despite their immense potential, several obstacles, such as the bacteria’s ability to develop resistance to these compounds and potential toxicity to host cells, pose significant challenges in developing them as alternatives to antibiotics. Thus, it becomes imperative to embark on further research to gain a more profound understanding of the precise mechanisms by which AMPs operate, improving their bioavailability and allowing us to devise cost-effective methods for their production. This holistic approach is essential to harnessing the full potential of AMPs as alternatives to traditional antibiotics and addressing the pressing global concerns surrounding AMR strains.

4.5.4. Bacteriophages

41Bacteriophages, also known as phages, are viruses with the unique capability to infect bacteria. A bacteriophage consists of a protein capsid housing containing DNA or RNA as its nucleic acid core. They can undergo replication within the bacterial cell through two distinct cycles: the lytic cycle and the lysogenic cycle. (1) The lytic cycle is when a bacteriophage takes control of a bacterial cell and replicates itself, causing the lysis of the bacteria. This process involves the bacteriophage reprogramming the host cell, transforming it into a phage-replicating unit, leveraging its ribosomes and ATP resources normally employed for the host’s benefit to its advantage. Phage-specified proteins that are translated after the host cell infection from phage mRNA can reprogram these energetic pathways in the bacteria. When the host cell is lysed, all of the bacteriophages are released into the environment, allowing them to infect a new host cell. (2) A lysogenic cycle is very similar to the lytic, except that the phages replicate and pass themselves onto the bacterial daughter cells without killing the bacteria. Bacteriophages cannot infect and replicate within human or animal cells; instead, they exclusively target bacterial cells.

42The effectiveness of phages in the treatment of bacterial infections depends on factors such as the phage’s form and type, the level of lytic activity, and the method and timing of administration. Different researchers have demonstrated that the use of phages over a long period has been effective in reducing Salmonella in the digestive tract. The mode of administration includes oral administration by mixing with water or feed, spraying the surface of the eggs, or by the addition of bacteriophage suspension directly into infected products. Henriques et al. demonstrated that administrating phages through aerosol spray during the transfer of eggs from incubators to hatchers can be a cost-effective and efficient method to reduce the horizontal transmission of Salmonella in poultry. Bacteriophage treatment is a novel strategy for providing prophylactic treatment against poultry pathogens including Salmonella. It can be used safely without altering the gut microbiota. Wattana et al. demonstrated that the novel Salmonella phages showed a significantly high bacterial lysis effect (93.3%) on ciprofloxacin-resistant Salmonella strains in broilers.

43Furthermore, Spricigo et al. demonstrated that the use of three Salmonella-phage cocktails (UAB_Phi 20, UAB_Phi78, and UAB_Phi87) showed two log reductions in pig skin and lettuce and one log reduction in Salmonella count in chicken breast contaminated with the bacteria. In addition, the administration of five Salmonella-phase cocktails demonstrated an up to 3.1 log-reduction reduction in Salmonella count in contaminated raw chicken breast. The complete list of bacteriophages used in treating Salmonella infection is shown in Table 3.

44While phage therapy holds promise in combatting MDR pathogens like Salmonella, it does come with certain limitations. These limitations include the phages’ narrow host spectrum, which restricts their effectiveness to specific bacterial genera, the potential development of bacterial resistance through CRISPR-Cas adaptive immunity against commonly encountered bacteriophages, and the lack of comprehensive data on the pharmacokinetic properties of these viruses. Additionally, there are concerns about the adverse effects of bacterial toxins released during the phage-mediated lysis process. These factors collectively challenge the widespread adoption and efficacy of phage therapy in clinical settings. Despite these disadvantages, ongoing research and development are exploring ways to harness the potential of bacteriophages and use them against bacterial pathogens like Salmonella for both prophylactic and therapeutic purposes.

4.5.5. Small Molecules and Quorum-Sensing Inhibitors

45Small molecules (SMs) are low-molecular-weight compounds that can be directed to specific cellular processes of bacterial physiology to perform a broad to narrow spectrum of activity and can be used as growth inhibitors or virulence inhibitors. These molecules can be obtained from natural sources or be synthesized. The natural compounds may include phytochemicals, including fruit extracts (grape seed extract), plant extracts (punicalagin), spice oils (thyme, basil, rosemary, ginger, garlic), and phenolic compounds such as Gallo tannins, coumarins (furocoumarin), benzoates, and terpenes (monoterpenes, diterpenes, and triterpenes). The synthetic compounds may include furanone, chitosan, thiophene inhibitors, and limonene nanoemulsion. Different studies evaluating the effect of small molecules on the growth and virulence of Salmonella are demonstrated in Table 4. For example, Li et al. demonstrated that using Quercitrin, a flavonoid with antioxidant properties, significantly inhibited the adhesion, invasion, and survival of Salmonella in HeLa cell lines by about 70%. Similarly, Deblais et al. and Rajashekara et al., in two different independent experiments, demonstrated that the compounds imidazole and methoxybenzylamine were able to cause complete clearance of S. Typhimurium in vitro in Caco-2 cells with minimal toxicity to chicken RBC. Furthermore, another study conducted by Jacob et al. demonstrated that compound 7955004 can cause 55% inhibition of preformed biofilms, with complete clearance of planktonic S. Typhimurium in vitro. Similarly, Nagy et al. demonstrated an up to 2 log reduction in the colonization of S. Typhimurium in the spleen and liver 48 h post-infection in mice. These compounds have demonstrated their effectiveness in disrupting crucial bacterial processes, including metabolism, virulence factor inhibition, and infection prevention, which positions them as a viable alternative to antibiotics for managing Salmonella infections. Consequently, they provide a versatile and precisely targeted strategy for controlling this bacterium. However, the intricate nature of Salmonella, its adaptability, and its potential to develop resistance to these molecules emphasize the imperative need for ongoing research and refinement of these compounds. In summary, small molecules possess the ability to inhibit the growth and virulence of Salmonella without the inherent risk of developing antibiotic resistance, thus positioning them as important candidates for the development of antibiotic-alternative therapeutics.

46Quorum sensing (QS) is a bacterial cell-to-cell communication process that is regulated by the production, release, and uptake of particular signal molecules known as autoinducers (AI). It is a complex inter/intra-species process that allows a bacterium to carry out colony-wide functions such as biofilm formation, bioluminescence, sporulation, conjugation, and expression of the virulence factors. Gram-negative bacteria like Salmonella produce autoinducers called autoinducer-2 (AI-2), a furanosyl borate diester that is found in both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Unlike Gram-positive bacteria, which use the LuxI gene that codes with the AHL molecule to activate the transcription of the LuxICDBAE operon to produce bioluminescence, Salmonella lacks the LuxI gene encoded in their genome. Salmonella instead uses the LuxR homolog called SdiA to produce AI-2 molecules and regulate the expression of virulence genes. These genes serve specific functions in facilitating host invasion and colonization, developing antibiotic resistance, evading complement systems, expressing fimbriae, and producing anti-phagocytic factors. Therefore, the inhibition of LuxS and AI-2 activity can offer a promising strategy to decrease the virulence of Salmonella. Quorum-sensing inhibitors (QSIs), which include small molecules, natural extracts, and oils, are increasingly being considered as promising alternatives to antibiotics for salmonellosis. By disrupting quorum sensing, QSIs can effectively interfere with various colony-wide bacterial activities, including the formation of biofilms, the production of virulence factors, and the development of antibiotic resistance. Unlike antibiotics, the QSIs inhibit the microbial quorum or prevent forming a quorum rather than exerting selection pressure and interfering with the cellular and metabolic process, thus making the bacteria less likely to develop resistance. The QSIs were also reported to show high efficacy in vitro when combined with small molecules’ growth inhibitors. Several studies have been conducted on compounds that can inhibit QS and AI-2 production by downregulating QS-associated genes and inhibiting the virulence of Salmonella (Table 4). For example, the use of punicalagin led to a reduction in motility and the downregulation of the QS-related genes flhC, sdiA, and srgE in S. Typhimurium; carvacrol, thymol, and eugenol downregulated the genes associated with host colonization, such as flgG, fimD, sopB, and invH, as well as genes related to macrophage survival like ssaV and pipB in S. Enteritidis; and furanone caused significant downregulation of QS-associated genes like sdiA and srgE in S. Typhimurium in vitro. Similarly, dephostatin and homocysteine thiolactone are capable of downregulating QS-regulated spiA genes responsible for the adhesion and invasion of Salmonella to the host cells. In addition, fluorothiazinon, fusaric acid, and cytosporone B have been found to inhibit the QS-regulated Type-3 secretion system apparatus, which is responsible for host cell adhesion and invasion. In summary, QSIs offer significant promise as alternative strategies for managing Salmonella infections in humans and animals. Their capacity to interfere with bacterial communication, hinder the establishment of infections, evade host immune responses, and cause disease without impacting bacterial growth highlights their potential as valuable targets for developing antibiotic-alternative therapeutics to combat MDR Salmonella infections in both human and animal populations. However, it is essential to acknowledge the challenges associated with QSIs. Achieving high specificity to target a single bacterial species without affecting the normal microbiota can be challenging. Furthermore, our understanding of QS mechanisms in various pathogenic bacteria still needs to be broadened. Ensuring the bioavailability and effective delivery of QSIs to complex environments like biofilms within the host body presents a significant hurdle. Additionally, the high cost and time required for QSI development pose practical challenges in their widespread use as therapeutic agents.

4.5.6. Vaccines

47Vaccines are preparations of antigens or a part of the pathogen which, when administered to a host, can safely induce an immune response against infection by specific pathogens upon future exposure, thereby preventing severe infections. Vaccines mimic the natural infection without causing severe illness, enabling the body to build immunity against diseases, helping prevent infection, reducing the severity of the infection, and lowering the risk of complications and transmission to others. Vaccines help reduce the incidence of infectious diseases worldwide including fowl (avian) cholera, coronavirus, anthrax, polio, norovirus, Rift Valley fever, and rabies. The mode of action of vaccines depends on their formulations. For example, (1) Live attenuated vaccines contain a weakened, live version of the pathogen, capable of eliciting an immune response without causing disease. The purpose of attenuation is to eliminate pathogen’s infectivity but preserve their immunogenicity. These vaccines can effectively stimulate humoral and secretory antibodies, as well as activate cytotoxic T-cells; (2) Killed-whole-cell vaccines are the vaccines in which the pathogens are killed but maintain their epitope structures intact to preserve their immunogenicity, while simultaneously eliminating their capacity to replicate or cause disease; (3) Toxoid vaccines are a type of vaccine in which a pathogen’s toxin is purified and subjected to formalin treatment to deactivate its harmful effects but retains its immunogenicity against the associated pathogen; (4) Subunit vaccines are a class of vaccines which contain fragments of the pathogen, such as polysaccharides, nucleic acids, or proteins like flagellin or synthetic peptides; (5) Outer membrane vesicle (OMV) vaccines are made up of naturally discharged constituents of OMVs from the bacterial outer membrane, featuring vital antigenic elements capable of eliciting an immune response without triggering any illness; (6) Protein-polysaccharide conjugate vaccines consist of bacterial polysaccharides which are bound to proteins that enable a desired immune response. These vaccines induce polysaccharide-specific B-cell immunity, help prevent colonization, and block person-person transmission, thus generating herd immunity; (7) Recombinant viral and bacterial vector vaccines employ non-pathogenic viruses or bacteria as vectors to deliver genetic information encoding the antigens of the pathogen into the host cells, which subsequently elicits the immune response; (8) Nanovaccines are an innovative class of vaccines that employ nanoparticles (NPs) as carriers or adjuvants. These nanoparticles enable precise targeting of the specific site where the disease originated, distinguishing them from vaccines that exert systemic effects.

48Currently, two different forms of vaccines are widely available to control typhoid and paratyphoid fever in humans. These vaccines are available in the form of orally administered live-attenuated Ty21a vaccine and injectable Vi capsular polysaccharide vaccine. Ty21a vaccine has an efficacy of 51% in adults and children above 5 years with high cross-protection against both S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi B. The vaccine has been reported to develop IgA antibody response and mediate CD4+ T-cell mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity against S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi. Antibody-dependent enhanced phagocytosis of S. Typhi has also been reported in orally administrated Ty21a vaccines. MacLennan et al. and Wahid et al. have separately reported robust production of T-cell-mediated immune stimulation, with increased production of IgA antibodies. They have also reported cross-reactive immunity against S. Typhi (56%) and S. Paratyphi (38%). Different from Ty21a, the Vi capsular polysaccharide vaccine acts through the activation of T-cell-independent IgG antibody production and has an efficacy of 55%, with cumulative immunity up to 3 years through a single dose. The administration of a S. Typhi Vi polysaccharide with the tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine (Tybar) vaccine has shown to have an efficacy of up to 85% in children under the age of 2 years, with a high increase in T-cell-independent IgG production. Similarly, another Vi-polysaccharide based Vi Conjugate (Vi-CRM197) and Vi Conjugate (Vi-rEPA) vaccine has demonstrated up to 90% efficacy in children and a similar increase in IgG production lasting up to 4 years post-vaccination against S. Typhi. In addition to this, other forms of vaccines are also available or are currently in development (Table 5). For example, Lyon et al. found that the administration of a single-dose independently attenuated deletion S. Typhi (Ty2ΔaroCΔssaV) ZH9 vaccine produced complete fecal clearance of S. Typhi 7 days post-infection, with rapid and high production of S. Typhi-specific IgG and IgA production. Similarly, a new formulation of vaccines, Generalized Modules for Membrane Antigens (GMMA), containing bacterial surface immunogens such as LPS, has shown increased production and stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells and elicit production of strong bacteriocidal anti-LPS O-antibody and IgG antibody with complete clearance of S. Typhimurium, S. Typhi, and S. Paratyphi A. Furthermore, the modified live S. Dublin vaccine (EnterVene-d) has shown increased cell-mediated, humoral, and mucosal immunity against S. Dublin in cattle with antibody titer, increased by 49% in vaccinated cows and by 88.56% in calves from the vaccinated cows, demonstrating substantial horizontal transfer. Several vaccines have been developed to prevent Salmonella infections in poultry. Renu et al. have demonstrated that the oral administration of a chitosan-adjuvanted Salmonella subunit nanoparticle vaccine containing outer membrane proteins (OMPs), and flagellins (F) coated with nanoparticles (NPs) can cause significant stimulation of gut mucosal immunity upregulating TLRs, Th1, and Th2 cytokine mRNA, with increased production of OMPs-specific IgY and IgA antibodies in saliva and intestine. Similarly, the commercially available modified-live S. Typhimurium vaccine (Poulvac® ST; Zoetis Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA), one of the most effective poultry vaccines commercially available, has demonstrated an up to 50% reduction in S. Kentucky, S. Enteritidis, S. Heidelberg, S. Typhimurium, and S. Hadar in the liver and spleen. Another trivalent but inactivated Salmonella enterica vaccine (Nobilis® Salenvac T; Intervet International B.V., Boxmeer, The Netherlands) has shown an up to 3.9 log increase in mean antibody titer after the administration of the booster dose in chicken, along with a 2.6 log reduction in cecal shedding of S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis, followed by a 1.3 log reduction in S. Infantis. Unfortunately, due to the presence of variations in the cellular structures and antigens between the typhoidal and non-typhoidal Salmonella species, the technology used in typhoid vaccine development has not benefited the development of a vaccine against non-typhoidal Salmonella species.

49While vaccines have played a pivotal role in mitigating the severity of infections, progress in the development of vaccines against Salmonella has been limited. One of the primary challenges is the extensive genetic variability among Salmonella serovars, each possessing distinct surface antigens. This variability poses a significant obstacle to creating effective Salmonella vaccines. Additionally, various other factors contribute to the difficulty faced in Salmonella vaccine development. These include the risk of vaccine failure due to improper handling, the potential for live-attenuated vaccines to regain virulence after administration, the development of tolerance to toxoids when high doses are used in toxoid vaccines, and the relatively low immunogenicity of outer membrane vesicle vaccines. These combined factors collectively have limited the progress in the field of Salmonella vaccine development. Considering these limitations, it is crucial to emphasize the necessity of ongoing research in vaccine development. Vaccines have undeniably established themselves as fundamental pillars of public health, offering substantial advantages in preventing and mitigating infectious diseases. The efforts should focus on creating more effective vaccines and addressing the complexities associated with specific pathogens, variable immune responses, and the ever-evolving nature of infectious diseases. In doing so, we can harness the full potential of vaccines as vital tools in safeguarding public health, while simultaneously working to overcome their constraints.

4.5.7. Organic Acids

50Organic acids (OAs) are acidic organic compounds, primarily consisting of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs). Organic acids are typically produced by the native gut microbiota residing in the intestines of animals, as well as in crops and within the ceca of birds. These compounds exert antimicrobial activities, like restraining the growth and colonization of pathogenic bacteria in the gut, by reducing the pH within microbial cytoplasm, disrupting energy production and regulation, and causing the accumulation of dissociated acid ions to toxic levels inside microbial cells. This improves digestibility, gut health, and immunity. They also hold significant importance in the animal production industry. Traditionally, they have been employed as fungistats in the animal food industry and have demonstrated strong antibacterial properties against foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella. They are primarily used in the form of salts, either monocarboxylic acids like acetic, butyric, formic, and propionic acids, or based on the side chains available.

51The short-chain fatty acids encompass organic acids like formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid, along with acids containing additional hydroxyl (OH) groups such as citric, lactic, malic, and tartaric acids, whereas, the medium-chain fatty acids include organic acids like caproic acid, caprylic acid, capric acid, and lauric acid. Several studies have indicated that MCFAs can have more potent effects compared to SCFAs, but it is important to distinguish between their bactericidal and bacteriostatic activities. For example, caprylic acids and capric acids, which are known as MCFAs, exhibited bactericidal properties and completely cleared Salmonella Enteritidis in vitro compared to other organic acids at the same concentration. Similarly, MCFAs C6 and C10 had bacteriostatic effects on S. Enteritidis at a concentration of 25 mM, whereas the same strain showed complete resistance to 100 mM of SCFAs.

52Organic acids can significantly impact the growth of and colonization by enteric pathogens like Salmonella within the host and in the host’s feed products. Koyuncu et al. demonstrated a significant reduction (up to 2.5 log) in the numbers of S. Infantis, S. Putten, S. Senftenberg, and S. Typhimurium in mash and rapeseed feed containing formic acid, propionic acid, and sodium formate. Moreover, the combination of propionic acid and sodium formate was more efficacious. Similarly, dietary supplementation of a combination of organic acid mixture of formic acids and sodium formate in broiler chicken showed a significant (1.5 logs) reduction in the cecal colonization of S. Typhimurium. Furthermore, Ruhnke et al. also demonstrated that the use of formic acids (1 kg/ton), or propionic acid (5 kg/ton) as feed additives in broiler chicken can cause low cecal retention (35%) of S. Typhimurium compared to the control group (60%) at 6 weeks of age. Moreover, a significant reduction (up to 90%) in fecal Salmonella shedding in pigs was observed 7 days post-exposure after supplementation with sodium butyrate, formic, and citric acid as acidifiers. Additionally, the normal gut microflora and oral supplementation of probiotics and prebiotics was shown to stimulate the production of short-chain fatty acids in poultry GIT, thus limiting Salmonella colonization, causing complete clearance of the bacteria and modulation of gut immunity in mice. It was also demonstrated that lactic acid bacteria can work synergistically in lowering the gut pH and modulating the gut immunity in 160-day-old broiler chicken.

53While organic acids have shown promise in antimicrobial drug development and pathogen inhibition, notable concerns and limitations exist associated with their utilization. The most significant limitation is the dissociation of the organic acids and their ability to reach the lower portion of the gastrointestinal tract. The organic acids are digested and metabolized, and, as a result, the concentration is decreased, leading to dissociation when reaching the lower GIT, which is the primary site for Salmonella infection. Resistance is also possible as pathogenic species adapt to treatment. Despite the limitations, it is worth noting that organic acids, indeed, are promising tools for mitigating Salmonella contamination in food. Their application should be considered an integral component of a comprehensive food safety strategy aimed at controlling and preventing foodborne infections, particularly those caused by antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.

4.5.8. Essential Oils (EOs)

54Essential oils (EOs), also referred to as volatile oils, are a mixture of aromatic compounds with characteristic flavors and aromas. They are derived from various plant parts, including stems, flowers, fruits, buds, leaves, and even wood. Essential oils consist of a wide range of compounds such as alcohol, acetones, phenolic acids, terpenes, aldehydes, and esters, which can play a significant role as antimicrobial agents or nutrient supplements. For example, citrus based EOs comprises more than 2000 different types of organic compounds. Essential oils exist in a highly bioactive vapor phase and typically do not require physical contact with the pathogen to demonstrate antimicrobial action. In plants, they also play significant role in protecting against bacterial, viral, or fungal infections and help attract insects that can directly help in the pollination process. Essential oils possess numerous therapeutic properties for humans and animals, including antimicrobial, antioxidant, anticancer, antidiabetic, spasmolytic, and insect repellent. Moreover, they have long been utilized in aromatherapy to promote relaxation, stabilize moods, and provide physical and psychological relief. These compounds are regularly used in the food industry as preservatives for preventing the growth of foodborne bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, and Campylobacter.

55Essential oils have been used as antimicrobial compounds and food preservatives to control Salmonella. It has been reported that EOs like cinnamon oils result in a 2.7 log reduction in S. Typhimurium and can have synergistic effects in vitro when used with antibiotics such as cefotaxime. Similarly, lemongrass, cinnamon, geraniol, and palmarosa-based EOs against can cause complete clearance of S. Enteritidis in fruit juices. Furthermore, in vitro, assessment of the antimicrobial effect of C. zelanicum and S. aromaticum against the Salmonella enterica serotypes Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium from poultry demonstrated a high inhibitory effect, with MIC ranging from 1.26 mg/mL to 0.63 mg/mL for C. zelanicum and 2.637 mg/mL to 0.164 mg/mL for S. aromaticum and an MIC of 1.289 mg/mL to 0.322 mg/mL for the mixture of both. However, laurel leaves, cardamom, ginger, and rosemary based EOs had moderate inhibitory activity against different Salmonella serotypes isolated from humans. Similarly, another in vitro study showed that thyme oil had the highest inhibitory effect (22.5–38.5 mm zone of inhibition) against S. Enteritidis, S. Montevideo, and S. Heidelberg, followed by clove oil and rosemary oil, whereas orange oil had no significant inhibitory effect on S. Heidelberg. Also, oregano, thyme, clove, and arborvitae based EOs showed significant inhibitory effects (p < 0.001), with complete clearance of S. Typhimurium at 0.125% with no genotoxic effect on human embryo lung cells after 24 h of administration in vitro. Different studies on evaluating the effect of EOs on the growth of Salmonella are shown in Table 6.

56While EOs have found diverse applications, ranging from feed additives and crop protectants to food preservatives and treatments for human ailments, it is essential to exercise caution when considering their extended utilization due to the potentially toxic effects of these compounds. The widespread use of essential oils has been hindered by their adverse impact on organoleptic characteristics, limited stability under standard environmental conditions, volatility, poor solubility in water, and possible toxicity. Toxicological concerns related to essential oils have been documented, including findings by Millet et al. who reported instances of neurotoxicity and tonic-clonic convulsions in humans due to the use of commercially available extracts from sage, hyssop, thuja, and cedar. Similarly, severe effects, including dermatitis, hospitalizations, and, in severe cases, fatalities have also been reported following aromatherapy using lavender, peppermint, and ylang-ylang. Looking forward, the integration of EOs into a comprehensive food safety strategy demands a holistic and multidisciplinary approach, and further research is essential for their production to guarantee uniform quality, efficacy, and safety.

5. Conclusions

57Foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella pose a formidable challenge to human and animal health and significant economic loss in the healthcare and agricultural sectors worldwide. The widespread use of antibiotics in food animals for growth promotion, therapeutic applications, and preventative measures has played a significant role in the swift rise and global dissemination of AMR Salmonella. Furthermore, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, particularly in sub-therapeutic doses, has significantly contributed to the rise of MDR strains. The rapid emergence and spread of MDR Salmonella have necessitated the development of alternative strategies for treating and controlling the infection. Addressing the issue of AMR strains calls for a multifaceted strategy involving early detection of infections and the implementation of necessary biosecurity measures to effectively contain outbreaks within the infected individual or the animal farm. Early detection of the infection allows for the timely initiation of appropriate targeted treatment and avoids the need for broad-spectrum antibiotics, which lowers the selective pressure that drives the development and spread of AMR strains in a bacterium. In addition to the early detection of the outbreak, the use of antibiotic-alternative therapeutics holds a promising role in combating AMR strains. Several research efforts have been made to limit the spread of AMR Salmonella by exploring various alternative intervention strategies, including the use of probiotics and prebiotics, antimicrobial peptides, phage therapy, small molecule growth inhibitors, quorum sensing/virulence inhibitors, vaccines, organic acids, and essential oils. These strategies can be used individually or in combination.

58Nonetheless, each alternative approach carries its distinct advantages and limitations. It is crucial to approach them carefully, and additional research is required to ascertain their effectiveness, safety, and viability when implemented on a larger scale. As we transition to a future where traditional treatments like antibiotics could progressively lose efficacy, adopting a contemporary and enhanced strategy is crucial. These strategies involve synergistic application of these antibiotic alternatives, complemented by enhanced biosecurity protocols and judicious antibiotic use. Such a comprehensive approach will prove pivotal in controlling the dissemination of AMR-Salmonella infection. Furthermore, applying a One Health approach and continued collaboration between researchers, healthcare professionals, veterinarians, and policymakers in antibiotic stewardship is crucial in safeguarding public health and food safety from the threat of prevalent foodborne pathogens like MDR Salmonella.

References 491

1.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Salmonella Infection.
Not in our library
2.
Sanchez-Vargas F.M., Abu-El-Haija M.A., Gomez-Duarte O.G. Salmonella infections: An update on epidemiology, management, and prevention. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2011;9:263-277.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tmaid.2011.11.001
3.
Interactions of Salmonella with animals and plants · 2015
Not checked
4.
Helmy Y.A., El-Adawy H., Abdelwhab E.M. A Comprehensive Review of Common Bacterial, Parasitic and Viral Zoonoses at the Human-Animal Interface in Egypt. Pathogens. 2017;6:33.
Not in our library10.3390/pathogens6030033
5.
Baptista D., Borsoi A., Reischak D., Nascimento A., Montesino L., Camillo S., Abreu D., Pereira V. Salmonella Serovars Isolated from Poultry Breeding Flocks under the Brazilian Official Control Programme Between 2016 and 2018. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2023;25:1.
Not in our library10.1590/1806-9061-2022-1646
6.
The global burden and epidemiology of invasive non-typhoidal Salmonella infections · 2018
No notice
7.
Hoffmann S., Batz M.B., Morris J.G. Annual Cost of Illness and Quality-Adjusted Life Year Losses in the United States Due to 14 Foodborne Pathogens. J. Food Prot. 2012;75:1292-1302.
Not in our library10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-417
8.
Campylobacteriosis, Salmonellosis, Yersiniosis, and Listeriosis as Zoonotic Foodborne Diseases: A Review · 2018
No notice
9.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Salmonella.
Not in our library
10.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Drug-Resistant Nontyphoidal Salmonella.
Not in our library
11.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
Not in our library
12.
Wei X., Long L., You L., Wang M., Wang D., Liu C., Li S., Wang J. Serotype distribution, trend of multidrug resistance and prevalence of β-lactamase resistance genes in human Salmonella isolates from clinical specimens in Guizhou, China. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0282254.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0282254
13.
Keestra-Gounder A.M., Tsolis R.M., Bäumler A.J. Now you see me, now you don’t: The interaction of Salmonella with innate immune receptors. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015;13:206-216.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro3428
14.
Animal contact as a source of human non-typhoidal salmonellosis · 2011
No notice
15.
Bula-Rudas F.J., Rathore M.H., Maraqa N.F. Salmonella Infections in Childhood. Adv. Pediatr. 2015;62:29-58.
Not in our library10.1016/j.yapd.2015.04.005
16.
Crump J.A., Sjolund-Karlsson M., Gordon M.A., Parry C.M. Epidemiology, Clinical Presentation, Laboratory Diagnosis, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Antimicrobial Management of Invasive Salmonella Infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2015;28:901-937.
Not in our library10.1128/cmr.00002-15
17.
Giannella R.A., Baron S. Salmonella. Medical Microbiology. 1996.
Not in our library
18.
Cohen J.I., Bartlett J.A., Corey G.R. Extra-intestinal manifestations of salmonella infections. Medicine. 1987;66:349-388.
Not in our library10.1097/00005792-198709000-00003
19.
Wibisono F.M., Wibisono F.J., Effendi M.H., Plumeriastuti H., Hidayatullah A.R., Hartadi E.B., Sofiana E.D. A Review of Salmonellosis on Poultry Farms: Public Health Importance. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2020;11:481-486.
Not in our library
20.
World Health Organization (WHO). Salmonella (Non-Typhoidal).
Not in our library
21.
Olnood C.G., Beski S.S., Choct M., Iji P.A. Use of Lactobacillus johnsonii in broilers challenged with Salmonella sofia. Anim. Nutr. 2015;1:203-212.
Not in our library10.1016/j.aninu.2015.07.001
22.
Tie K., Yuan Y., Yan S., Yu X., Zhang Q., Xu H., Zhang Y., Gu J., Sun C., Lei L., et al. Isolation and identification of Salmonella pullorum bacteriophage YSP2 and its use as a therapy for chicken diarrhea. Virus Genes. 2018;54:446-456.
Not in our library10.1007/s11262-018-1549-0
23.
Sania T., Abdul S., Muhammad H., Areeb A., Ayesha M., Shehroz A., Abdelslam Masoud Abobakr A. Salmonella in Poultry; an Overview. Int. J. Multidiscip. Sci. Arts. 2022;1:80-84.
Not in our library10.47709/ijmdsa.v1i1.1706
24.
Velasquez C.G., Macklin K.S., Kumar S., Bailey M., Ebner P.E., Oliver H.F., Martin-Gonzalez F.S., Singh M. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance patterns of Salmonella isolated from poultry farms in southeastern United States. Poult. Sci. 2018;97:2144-2152.
Not in our library10.3382/ps/pex449
25.
Holschbach C.L., Peek S.F. Salmonella in Dairy Cattle. Vet. Clin. Food Anim. Pract. 2018;34:133-154.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cvfa.2017.10.005
26.
Chen H.-M., Wang Y., Su L.-H., Chiu C.-H. Nontyphoid Salmonella Infection: Microbiology, Clinical Features, and Antimicrobial Therapy. Pediatr. Neonatol. 2013;54:147-152.
Not in our library10.1016/j.pedneo.2013.01.010
27.
Galán J.E. Salmonella Typhimurium and inflammation: A pathogen-centric affair. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021;19:716-725.
Not in our library10.1038/s41579-021-00561-4
28.
Stoycheva M.V., Murdjeva M.A. Antimicrobial therapy of salmonelloses—Current state and perspectives. Folia Medica. 2006;48:5-10.
Not in our library
29.
Jibril A.H., Okeke I.N., Dalsgaard A., Olsen J.E. Association between antimicrobial usage and resistance in Salmonella from poultry farms in Nigeria. BMC Vet. Res. 2021;17:234.
Not in our library10.1186/s12917-021-02938-2
30.
Ashurst J.V., Truong J., Woodbury B. Salmonella Typhi. StatPearls. 2022.
Not in our library
31.
Hailu W., Helmy Y.A., Carney-Knisely G., Kauffman M., Fraga D., Rajashekara G. Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Foodborne Pathogens Isolated from Dairy Cattle and Poultry Manure Amended Farms in Northeastern Ohio, the United States. Antibiotics. 2021;10:1450.
Not in our library10.3390/antibiotics10121450
32.
Van Panhuis W.G., Grefenstette J., Jung S.Y., Chok N.S., Cross A., Eng H., Lee B.Y., Zadorozhny V., Brown S., Cummings D. Contagious diseases in the United States from 1888 to the present. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013;369:2152.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmms1215400
33.
Sears K.T., Galen J.E., Tennant S.M. Advances in the development of Salmonella-based vaccine strategies for protection against Salmonellosis in humans. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2021;131:2640-2658.
Not in our library10.1111/jam.15055
34.
Miletic S., Goessweiner-Mohr N., Marlovits T.C. The structure of the type III secretion system needle complex. Curr. Top Microbiol. Immunol. 2020;427:67-90.
Not in our library10.1007/82_2019_178
35.
Gordon M.A., Graham S.M., Walsh A.L., Wilson L., Phiri A., Molyneux E., Zijlstra E.E., Heyderman R.S., Hart C.A., Molyneux M.E. Epidemics of invasive Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis and S. enterica Serovar typhimurium infection associated with multidrug resistance among adults and children in Malawi. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008;46:963-969.
Not in our library10.1086/529146
36.
Milligan R., Paul M., Richardson M., Neuberger A. Vaccines for preventing typhoid fever. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018;5:Cd001261.
Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd001261.pub4
37.
Giannelli C., Cappelletti E., Di Benedetto R., Pippi F., Arcuri M., Di Cioccio V., Martin L.B., Saul A., Micoli F. Determination of free polysaccharide in Vi glycoconjugate vaccine against typhoid fever. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2017;139:143-147.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jpba.2017.02.042
38.
De Benedetto G., Salvini L., Gotta S., Cescutti P., Micoli F. Investigation on Sugar–Protein Connectivity in Salmonella O-Antigen Glycoconjugate Vaccines. Bioconjugate Chem. 2018;29:1736-1747.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.8b00178
39.
Maddux J.T., Stromberg Z.R., Curtiss III R., Mellata M. Evaluation of Recombinant Attenuated Salmonella Vaccine Strains for Broad Protection against Extraintestinal Pathogenic Escherichia coli. Front. Immunol. 2017;8:1280.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2017.01280
40.
Mancini F., Micoli F., Necchi F., Pizza M., Berlanda Scorza F., Rossi O. GMMA-Based Vaccines: The Known and The Unknown. Front. Immunol. 2021;12:715393.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2021.715393
41.
Łojewska E., Sakowicz T. An Alternative to Antibiotics: Selected Methods to Combat Zoonotic Foodborne Bacterial Infections. Curr. Microbiol. 2021;78:4037-4049.
Not in our library10.1007/s00284-021-02665-9
42.
Issenhuth-Jeanjean S., Roggentin P., Mikoleit M., Guibourdenche M., De Pinna E., Nair S., Fields P.I., Weill F.-X. Supplement 2008–2010 (no. 48) to the white–Kauffmann–Le minor scheme. Res. Microbiol. 2014;165:526-530.
Not in our library10.1016/j.resmic.2014.07.004
43.
Embracing Diversity: Differences in Virulence Mechanisms, Disease Severity, and Host Adaptations Contribute to the Success of Nontyphoidal Salmonella as a Foodborne Pathogen · 2019
No notice
44.
Townsend S.M., Kramer N.E., Edwards R., Baker S., Hamlin N., Simmonds M., Stevens K., Maloy S., Parkhill J., Dougan G. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi possesses a unique repertoire of fimbrial gene sequences. Infect. Immun. 2001;69:2894-2901.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.69.5.2894-2901.2001
45.
Ferrari R.G., Rosario D.K., Cunha-Neto A., Mano S.B., Figueiredo E.E., Conte-Junior C.A. Worldwide epidemiology of Salmonella serovars in animal-based foods: A meta-analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019;85:e00591-19.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.00591-19
46.
Dróżdż M., Małaszczuk M., Paluch E., Pawlak A. Zoonotic potential and prevalence of Salmonella serovars isolated from pets. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2021;11:1975530.
Not in our library10.1080/20008686.2021.1975530
47.
Rabsch W., Tschäpe H., Bäumler A.J. Non-typhoidal salmonellosis: Emerging problems. Microbes Infect. 2001;3:237-247.
Not in our library10.1016/s1286-4579(01)01375-2
48.
Branchu P., Bawn M., Kingsley R.A. Genome variation and molecular epidemiology of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium pathovariants. Infect. Immun. 2018;86:e00079-18.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.00079-18
49.
Saraf S., Jafra B.S., Ray P., Rawat A., Verma S. Multidrug-Resistant Nontyphoidal Salmonella Associated with Invasive Disease in an Immunocompetent Child. Indian J. Pediatr. 2021;88:1266.
Not in our library10.1007/s12098-021-03923-1
50.
Porwollik S., Santiviago C., Cheng P., Florea L., McClelland M. Differences in gene content between Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis isolates and comparison to closely related serovars Gallinarum and Dublin. J. Bacteriol. 2005;187:6545-6555.
Not in our library10.1128/jb.187.18.6545-6555.2005
51.
Rabsch W., Andrews H.L., Kingsley R.A., Prager R., Tschäpe H., Adams L.G., Bäumler A.J. Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium and its host-adapted variants. Infect. Immun. 2002;70:2249-2255.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.70.5.2249-2255.2002
52.
Evangelopoulou G., Kritas S., Govaris A., Burriel A.R. Animal salmonelloses: A brief review of? host adaptation and host specificity? of Salmonella spp. Vet. World. 2013;6:703.
Not in our library10.14202/vetworld.2013.703-708
53.
Kingsley R.A., Bäumler A.J. Host adaptation and the emergence of infectious disease: The Salmonella paradigm. Mol. Microbiol. 2000;36:1006-1014.
Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.01907.x
54.
Langridge G.C., Fookes M., Connor T.R., Feltwell T., Feasey N., Parsons B.N., Seth-Smith H.M., Barquist L., Stedman A., Humphrey T. Patterns of genome evolution that have accompanied host adaptation in Salmonella. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2015;112:863-868.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1416707112
55.
Hansen-Wester I., Stecher B.r., Hensel M. Type III secretion of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium translocated effectors and SseFG. Infect. Immun. 2002;70:1403-1409.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.70.3.1403-1409.2002
56.
Pucciarelli M.G., Garcia-del Portillo F. Salmonella intracellular lifestyles and their impact on host-to-host transmission. Microb. Transm. 2019;5:95-116.
Not in our library10.1128/9781555819743.ch6
57.
Gopinath S., Carden S., Monack D. Shedding light on Salmonella carriers. Trends Microbiol. 2012;20:320-327.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tim.2012.04.004
58.
Zhang H., Lou Z., Chen X., Cui Y., Wang H., Kou X., Ma C. Effect of simultaneous ultrasonic and microwave assisted hydrodistillation on the yield, composition, antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of essential oils from Citrus medica L. var. sarcodactylis. J. Food Eng. 2019;244:126-135.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2018.09.014
59.
Foster N., Tang Y., Berchieri A., Geng S., Jiao X., Barrow P. Revisiting persistent Salmonella infection and the carrier state: What do we know? Pathogens. 2021;10:1299.
Not in our library10.3390/pathogens10101299
60.
Waldner L.L., MacKenzie K.D., Köster W., White A.P. From exit to entry: Long-term survival and transmission of Salmonella. Pathogens. 2012;1:128-155.
Not in our library10.3390/pathogens1020128
61.
Ahmer B.M., Gunn J.S. Interaction of Salmonella spp. with the intestinal microbiota. Front. Microbiol. 2011;2:101.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2011.00101
62.
Gonzalez-Escobedo G., Gunn J.S. Gallbladder epithelium as a niche for chronic Salmonella carriage. Infect. Immun. 2013;81:2920-2930.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.00258-13
63.
Dos Santos E.J.E., Azevedo R.P., Lopes A.T.S., Rocha J.M., Albuquerque G.R., Wenceslau A.A., Miranda F.R., Rodrigues D.D.P., Maciel B.M. Salmonella spp. in Wild Free-Living Birds from Atlantic Forest Fragments in Southern Bahia, Brazil. BioMed Res. Int. 2020;2020:7594136.
Not in our library10.1155/2020/7594136
64.
Marin C., Hernandiz A., Lainez M. Biofilm development capacity of Salmonella strains isolated in poultry risk factors and their resistance against disinfectants. Poult. Sci. 2009;88:424-431.
Not in our library10.3382/ps.2008-00241
65.
Morton V.K., Kearney A., Coleman S., Viswanathan M., Chau K., Orr A., Hexemer A. Outbreaks of Salmonella illness associated with frozen raw breaded chicken products in Canada, 2015–2019. Epidemiol. Infect. 2019;147:e254.
Not in our library10.1017/s0950268819001432
66.
Chanamé Pinedo L., Mughini-Gras L., Franz E., Hald T., Pires S.M. Sources and trends of human salmonellosis in Europe, 2015–2019: An analysis of outbreak data. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022;379:109850.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.109850
67.
Laufer A.S., Grass J., Holt K., Whichard J.M., Griffin P.M., Gould L.H. Outbreaks of Salmonella infections attributed to beef —United States, 1973–2011. Epidemiol. Infect. 2015;143:2003-2013.
Not in our library10.1017/s0950268814003112
68.
Prevalence and Serotype Diversity of Salmonella in Apparently Healthy Cattle: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Studies, 2000–2017 · 2019
Not checked
69.
Zając M., Wasyl D., Różycki M., Bilska-Zając E., Fafiński Z., Iwaniak W., Krajewska M., Hoszowski A., Konieczna O., Fafińska P., et al. Free-living snakes as a source and possible vector of Salmonella spp. and parasites. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2016;62:161-166.
Not in our library10.1007/s10344-016-0988-y
70.
Finley R., Ribble C., Aramini J., Vandermeer M., Popa M., Litman M., Reid-Smith R. The risk of salmonellae shedding by dogs fed Salmonella-contaminated commercial raw food diets. Can. Vet. J. 2007;48:69-75.
Not in our library
71.
Lefebvre S.L., Reid-Smith R., Boerlin P., Weese J.S. Evaluation of the risks of shedding Salmonellae and other potential pathogens by therapy dogs fed raw diets in Ontario and Alberta. Zoonoses Public Health. 2008;55:470-480.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01145.x
72.
Younus M., Wilkins M.J., Davies H.D., Rahbar M.H., Funk J., Nguyen C., Siddiqi A.E., Cho S., Saeed M. Case-control study of disease determinants for non-typhoidal Salmonella infections among Michigan children. BMC Res. Notes. 2010;3:105.
Not in our library10.1186/1756-0500-3-105
73.
Cilia G., Turchi B., Fratini F., Bilei S., Bossù T., De Marchis M.L., Cerri D., Pacini M.I., Bertelloni F. Prevalence, Virulence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica and Listeria monocytogenes in European Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Hunted in Tuscany (Central Italy). Pathogens. 2021;10:93.
Not in our library10.3390/pathogens10020093
74.
Navarro-Gonzalez N., Ugarte-Ruiz M., Domínguez L., Ruiz-Fons F., Jay-Russell M., Doyle M.P. A European Perspective on the Transmission of Foodborne Pathogens at the Wildlife–Livestock–Human Interface. Food Safety Risks from Wildlife: Challenges in Agriculture, Conservation, and Public Health. 2016;59-88.
Not in our library
75.
Gil Molino M., Garcia Sanchez A., Risco Perez D., Goncalves Blanco P., Quesada Molina A., Rey Pérez J., Martín Cano F.E., Cerrato Horrillo R., Hermoso-de-Mendoza Salcedo J., Fernandez Llario P. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in tonsils, mandibular lymph nodes and faeces of wild boar from Spain and genetic relationship between isolates. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2019;66:1218-1226.
Not in our library10.1111/tbed.13140
76.
Cummings K.J., Rodriguez-Rivera L.D., Grigar M.K., Rankin S.C., Mesenbrink B.T., Leland B.R., Bodenchuk M.J. Prevalence and Characterization of Salmonella Isolated from Feral Pigs Throughout Texas. Zoonoses Public Health. 2016;63:436-441.
Not in our library10.1111/zph.12244
77.
Farias L.F.P., Oliveira C.J.B., Medardus J.J., Molla B.Z., Wolfe B.A., Gebreyes W.A. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of Salmonella enterica in Captive Wildlife and Exotic Animal Species in Ohio, USA. Zoonoses Public Health. 2015;62:438-444.
Not in our library10.1111/zph.12170
78.
Olsen A.R., Hammack T.S. Isolation of Salmonella spp. from the housefly, Musca domestica L., and the dump fly, Hydrotaea aenescens (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Muscidae), at caged-layer houses. J. Food Prot. 2000;63:958-960.
Not in our library10.4315/0362-028x-63.7.958
79.
Donoso A., Paredes N., Retamal P. Detection of Antimicrobial Resistant Salmonella enterica Strains in Larval and Adult Forms of Lesser Mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus) From Industrial Poultry Farms. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020;7:577848.
Not in our library10.3389/fvets.2020.577848
80.
Wang Y.C., Chang Y.C., Chuang H.L., Chiu C.C., Yeh K.S., Chang C.C., Hsuan S.L., Lin W.H., Chen T.H. Transmission of Salmonella between swine farms by the housefly (Musca domestica). J. Food Prot. 2011;74:1012-1016.
Not in our library10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-10-394
81.
Xu Y., Tao S., Hinkle N., Harrison M., Chen J. Salmonella, including antibiotic-resistant Salmonella, from flies captured from cattle farms in Georgia, U.S.A. Sci. Total Environ. 2018;616–617:90-96.
Not in our library10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.324
82.
Henzler D.J., Opitz H.M. The role of mice in the epizootiology of Salmonella enteritidis infection on chicken layer farms. Avian Dis. 1992;36:625-631.
Not in our library10.2307/1591757
83.
Lapuz R., Tani H., Sasai K., Shirota K., Katoh H., Baba E. The role of roof rats (Rattus rattus) in the spread of Salmonella Enteritidis and S. Infantis contamination in layer farms in eastern Japan. Epidemiol. Infect. 2008;136:1235-1243.
Not in our library10.1017/s095026880700948x
84.
Davies R.H., Wray C. Mice as carriers of Salmonella enteritidis on persistently infected poultry units. Vet. Rec. 1995;137:337-341.
Not in our library10.1136/vr.137.14.337
85.
Meerburg B.G., Jacobs-Reitsma W.F., Wagenaar J.A., Kijlstra A. Presence of Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. in wild small mammals on organic farms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006;72:960-962.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.72.1.960-962.2006
86.
Pocock M.J., Searle J.B., Betts W.B., White P.C. Patterns of infection by Salmonella and Yersinia spp. in commensal house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus) populations. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001;90:755-760.
Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01303.x
87.
Le Moine V., Vannier P., Jestin A. Microbiological studies of wild rodents in farms as carriers of pig infectious agents. Prev. Vet. Med. 1987;4:399-408.
Not in our library10.1016/0167-5877(87)90026-2
88.
Lee K.-H., Lee J.-Y., Roy P.K., Mizan M.F.R., Hossain M.I., Park S.H., Ha S.-D. Viability of Salmonella Typhimurium biofilms on major food-contact surfaces and eggshell treated during 35 days with and without water storage at room temperature. Poult. Sci. 2020;99:4558-4565.
Not in our library10.1016/j.psj.2020.05.055
89.
Elpers L., Kretzschmar J., Nuccio S.P., Bäumler A.J., Hensel M. Factors Required for Adhesion of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium to Corn Salad (Valerianella locusta). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020;86:e02757-19.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.02757-19
90.
Presence and Persistence of Salmonella in Water: The Impact on Microbial Quality of Water and Food Safety · 2018
No notice
91.
Strawn L.K., Danyluk M.D., Worobo R.W., Wiedmann M. Distributions of Salmonella subtypes differ between two U.S. produce-growing regions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014;80:3982-3991.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.00348-14
92.
Bosilevac J.M., Guerini M.N., Kalchayanand N., Koohmaraie M. Prevalence and Characterization of Salmonellae in Commercial Ground Beef in the United States. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009;75:1892-1900.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.02530-08
93.
Majowicz S.E., Musto J., Scallan E., Angulo F.J., Kirk M., O’Brien S.J., Jones T.F., Fazil A., Hoekstra R.M. The global burden of nontyphoidal Salmonella gastroenteritis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010;50:882-889.
Not in our library10.1086/650733
94.
CDC. Salmonella Outbreaks Associated with Not Ready-to-Eat Breaded, Stuffed Chicken Products—United States, 1998–2022. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2023. 2023;72:484-487.
Not in our library10.15585/mmwr.mm7218a2
95.
Griffith R.W., Carlson S.A., Krull A.C. Salmonellosis. Dis. Swine. 2019;912-925.
Not in our library10.1002/9781119350927.ch59
96.
Gantois I., Ducatelle R., Pasmans F., Haesebrouck F., Gast R., Humphrey T.J., Van Immerseel F. Mechanisms of egg contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2009;33:718-738.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00161.x
97.
Lee J.-S., Mogasale V.V., Mogasale V., Lee K. Geographical distribution of typhoid risk factors in low and middle income countries. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016;16:732.
Not in our library10.1186/s12879-016-2074-1
98.
CDC. Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 2011 Surveillance Report. 2011.
Not in our library
99.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Incidence and trends of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food-foodborne diseases active surveillance network, 10 U.S. sites, 1996–2012. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2013;62:283-287.
Not in our library
100.
Jones T.F., Ingram L.A., Fullerton K.E., Marcus R., Anderson B.J., McCarthy P.V., Vugia D., Shiferaw B., Haubert N., Wedel S., et al. A case-control study of the epidemiology of sporadic Salmonella infection in infants. Pediatrics. 2006;118:2380-2387.
Not in our library10.1542/peds.2006-1218
101.
Bavishi C., Dupont H.L. Systematic review: The use of proton pump inhibitors and increased susceptibility to enteric infection. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2011;34:1269-1281.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04874.x
102.
Nollet N., Maes D., De Zutter L., Duchateau L., Houf K., Huysmans K., Imberechts H., Geers R., de Kruif A., Van Hoof J. Risk factors for the herd-level bacteriologic prevalence of Salmonella in Belgian slaughter pigs. Prev. Vet. Med. 2004;65:63-75.
Not in our library10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.06.009
103.
Nielsen L.R., Schukken Y.H., Gröhn Y.T., Ersbøll A.K. Salmonella Dublin infection in dairy cattle: Risk factors for becoming a carrier. Prev. Vet. Med. 2004;65:47-62.
Not in our library10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.06.010
104.
Evans S., Davies R. Case control study of multiple-resistant Salmonella typhimurium DT104 infection of cattle in Great Britain. Vet. Rec. 1996;139:557-558.
Not in our library10.1002/j.2042-7670.1996.tb23959.x
105.
Kent E., Okafor C., Caldwell M., Walker T., Whitlock B., Lear A. Control of Salmonella Dublin in a bovine dairy herd. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2021;35:2075-2080.
Not in our library10.1111/jvim.16191
106.
Ethèves M.A., Choisis N., Alvarez S., Dalleau F., Hascoat J., Gallard V., Cardinale E. Risk factors for Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica persistence in broiler-chicken flocks on Reunion Island. Heliyon. 2021;7:e06278.
Not in our library10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06278
107.
Crump J.A., Braden C.R., Dey M.E., Hoekstra R.M., Rickelman-Apisa J.M., Baldwin D.A., De Fijter S.J., Nowicki S.F., Koch E.M., Bannerman T.L., et al. Outbreaks of Escherichia coli O157 infections at multiple county agricultural fairs: A hazard of mixing cattle, concession stands and children. Epidemiol. Infect. 2003;131:1055-1062.
Not in our library10.1017/s0950268803001237
108.
Cardoso M.J., Nicolau A.I., Borda D., Nielsen L., Maia R.L., Møretrø T., Ferreira V., Knøchel S., Langsrud S., Teixeira P. Salmonella in eggs: From shopping to consumption-A review providing an evidence-based analysis of risk factors. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021;20:2716-2741.
Not in our library10.1111/1541-4337.12753
109.
Liu Y., Jiang J., Ed-Dra A., Li X., Peng X., Xia L., Guo Q., Yao G., Yue M. Prevalence and genomic investigation of Salmonella isolates recovered from animal food-chain in Xinjiang, China. Food Res. Int. 2021;142:110198.
Not in our library10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110198
110.
Reddy E.A., Shaw A.V., Crump J.A. Community-acquired bloodstream infections in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2010;10:417-432.
Not in our library10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70072-4
111.
Thakur R., Suri C.R., Rishi P. Contribution of typhoid toxin in the pathogenesis of Salmonella Typhi. Microb. Pathog. 2022;164:105444.
Not in our library10.1016/j.micpath.2022.105444
112.
Patel T.A., Armstrong M., Morris-Jones S.D., Wright S.G., Doherty T. Imported enteric fever: Case series from the hospital for tropical diseases, London, United Kingdom. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2010;82:1121-1126.
Not in our library10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0007
113.
Kuvandik C., Karaoglan I., Namiduru M., Baydar I. Predictive value of clinical and laboratory findings in the diagnosis of the enteric fever. New Microbiol. 2009;32:25-30.
Not in our library
114.
Galán J.E. Typhoid toxin provides a window into typhoid fever and the biology of Salmonella Typhi. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:6338-6344.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1606335113
115.
Progress in Typhoid Fever Epidemiology · 2019
No notice
116.
Parry C.M., Hien T.T., Dougan G., White N.J., Farrar J.J. Typhoid fever. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002;347:1770-1782.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmra020201
117.
Allen J.C., Toapanta F.R., Baliban S.M., Sztein M.B., Tennant S.M. Reduced immunogenicity of a live Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium vaccine in aged mice. Front. Immunol. 2023;14:1190339.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2023.1190339
118.
CDC. National Enteric Disease Surveillance: Salmonella Annual Report.
Not in our library
119.
Bakhshandeh B., Sorboni S.G., Haghighi D.M., Ahmadi F., Dehghani Z., Badiei A. New analytical methods using carbon-based nanomaterials for detection of Salmonella species as a major food poisoning organism in water and soil resources. Chemosphere. 2022;287:132243.
Not in our library10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132243
120.
Turgeon P., Ng V., Murray R., Nesbitt A. Forecasting the incidence of salmonellosis in seniors in Canada: A trend analysis and the potential impact of the demographic shift. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0208124.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0208124
121.
Stepwise evolution of Salmonella Typhimurium ST313 causing bloodstream infection in Africa · 2020
No notice
122.
Acheson D., Hohmann E.L. Nontyphoidal Salmonellosis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2001;32:263-269.
Not in our library10.1086/318457
123.
Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens · 2011
No notice
124.
Ajene A.N., Fischer Walker C.L., Black R.E. Enteric pathogens and reactive arthritis: A systematic review of Campylobacter, salmonella and Shigella-associated reactive arthritis. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 2013;31:299-307.
Not in our library10.3329/jhpn.v31i3.16515
125.
Salmonella, Food Safety and Food Handling Practices · 2021
No notice
126.
Schempp C.M., Schauer F., Huhn C.K., Venhoff N., Finzel S. Skin inflammation associated with arthritis, synovitis and enthesitis. Part 2: Rheumatoid arthritis, reactive arthritis, Reiter’s syndrome, Lyme borreliosis, dermatomyositis and lupus erythematosus. J. Dtsch. Dermatol. Ges. 2019;17:167-181.
Not in our library10.1111/ddg.13761
127.
Tsuchiya Y., Loza E., Villa-Gomez G., Trujillo C.C., Baez S., Asai T., Ikoma T., Endoh K., Nakamura K. Metagenomics of microbial communities in gallbladder bile from patients with gallbladder cancer or cholelithiasis. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2018;19:961.
Not in our library10.22034/apjcp.2018.19.4.961
128.
Zha L., Garrett S., Sun J. Salmonella infection in chronic inflammation and gastrointestinal cancer. Diseases. 2019;7:28.
Not in our library10.3390/diseases7010028
129.
DuPont H.L. Bacterial diarrhea. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009;361:1560-1569.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmcp0904162
130.
Serpil Kahya D., Maria Teresa M. Salmonellosis in Animals. Salmonella—A Re-emerging Pathogen. 2017;19-37.
Not in our library10.5772/intechopen.72192
131.
Barrow P.A., Jones M.A., Smith A.L., Wigley P. The long view: Salmonella—The last forty years. Avian Pathol. 2012;41:413-420.
Not in our library10.1080/03079457.2012.718071
132.
Zhou X., Kang X., Zhou K., Yue M. A global dataset for prevalence of Salmonella Gallinarum between 1945 and 2021. Sci. Data. 2022;9:495.
Not in our library10.1038/s41597-022-01605-x
133.
Shen X., Zhang A., Gu J., Zhao R., Pan X., Dai Y., Yin L., Zhang Q., Hu X., Wang H., et al. Evaluating Salmonella pullorum dissemination and shedding patterns and antibody production in infected chickens. BMC Vet. Res. 2022;18:240.
Not in our library10.1186/s12917-022-03335-z
134.
Uzzau S., Leori G.S., Petruzzi V., Watson P.R., Schianchi G., Bacciu D., Mazzarello V., Wallis T.S., Rubino S. Salmonella enterica serovar-host specificity does not correlate with the magnitude of intestinal invasion in sheep. Infect. Immun. 2001;69:3092-3099.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.69.5.3092-3099.2001
135.
Habrun B., Listes E., Spicic S., Cvetnic Z., Lukacevic D., Jemersic L., Lojkic M., Kompes G. An outbreak of Salmonella Abortusovis abortions in sheep in south Croatia. J. Vet. Med. B Infect. Dis. Vet. Public Health. 2006;53:286-290.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1439-0450.2006.00959.x
136.
Vanselow B.A., Hum S., Hornitzky M.A., Eamens G.J., Quinn K. Salmonella Typhimurium persistence in a Hunter Valley dairy herd. Aust. Vet. J. 2007;85:446-450.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1751-0813.2007.00224.x
137.
Askari N., Mashhad Rafiee S., Amini K. A case control study of Salmonella SPP. infection in stray dogs in Tehran shelters and the correlation between paraclinical tests results and clinical findings. Arch. Razi Inst. 2020;75:93-99.
Not in our library10.22092/ari.2018.123213.1242
138.
Feary D.J., Hassel D.M. Enteritis and colitis in horses. Vet. Clin. North Am. Equine Pract. 2006;22:437-479.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cveq.2006.03.008
139.
Burgess B.A., Noyes N.R., Bolte D.S., Hyatt D.R., van Metre D.C., Morley P.S. Rapid Salmonella detection in experimentally inoculated equine faecal and veterinary hospital environmental samples using commercially available lateral flow immunoassays. Equine Vet. J. 2015;47:119-122.
Not in our library10.1111/evj.12234
140.
CDC. Vital signs: Incidence and trends of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food—Foodborne diseases active surveillance network, 10 U.S. sites, 1996–2010. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2011;60:749-755.
Not in our library
141.
Outbreak-associated Salmonella enterica Serotypes and Food Commodities, United States, 1998–2008 · 2013
No notice
142.
Soto-Dávila M., Hossain A., Chakraborty S., Rise M.L., Santander J. Aeromonas salmonicida subsp. salmonicida Early Infection and Immune Response of Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua L.) Primary Macrophages. Front. Immunol. 2019;10:1237.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2019.01237
143.
Safety of use of Monk fruit extract as a food additive in different food categories · 2019
Not checked
144.
Thomas M.K., Murray R., Flockhart L., Pintar K., Pollari F., Fazil A., Nesbitt A., Marshall B. Estimates of the burden of foodborne illness in Canada for 30 specified pathogens and unspecified agents, circa 2006. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2013;10:639-648.
Not in our library10.1089/fpd.2012.1389
145.
Government of Canada. National Enteric Surveillance Program (NESP) Annual Summary 2013. 2015.
Not in our library
146.
Hendriksen R.S., Vieira A.R., Karlsmose S., Lo Fo Wong D.M., Jensen A.B., Wegener H.C., Aarestrup F.M. Global monitoring of Salmonella serovar distribution from the World Health Organization Global Foodborne Infections Network Country Data Bank: Results of quality assured laboratories from 2001 to 2007. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2011;8:887-900.
Not in our library10.1089/fpd.2010.0787
147.
Hassan R., Buuck S., Noveroske D. Multistate outbreak of Salmonella infections linked to raw turkey products—United States, 2017–2019. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2019;68:1045-10493.
Not in our library10.15585/mmwr.mm6846a1
148.
EFSA. The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-Borne Outbreaks in 2017.
Not in our library
149.
European Centre for Disease P., Control E.F.S.A. Multi-country outbreak of monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium sequence type 34 linked to chocolate products–first update–18 May 2022. EFSA Support. Publ. 2022;19:7352E.
Not in our library10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.en-7352
150.
Cevallos-Cevallos J.M., Gu G., Danyluk M.D., van Bruggen A.H. Adhesion and splash dispersal of Salmonella enterica Typhimurium on tomato leaflets: Effects of rdar morphotype and trichome density. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012;160:58-64.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.09.021
151.
Salmonella - the ultimate insider. Salmonella virulence factors that modulate intracellular survival · 2009
No notice
152.
Kumar H., Kawai T., Akira S. Pathogen recognition in the innate immune response. Biochem. J. 2009;420:1-16.
Not in our library10.1042/bj20090272
153.
Kage H., Takaya A., Ohya M., Yamamoto T. Coordinated regulation of expression of Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 and flagellar type III secretion systems by ATP-dependent ClpXP protease. J. Bacteriol. 2008;190:2470-2478.
Not in our library10.1128/jb.01385-07
154.
Lang T., Mansell A. The negative regulation of Toll-like receptor and associated pathways. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2007;85:425-434.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.icb.7100094
155.
Khan S.A., Everest P., Servos S., Foxwell N., Zähringer U., Brade H., Rietschel E.T., Dougan G., Charles I.G., Maskell D.J. A lethal role for lipid A in Salmonella infections. Mol. Microbiol. 1998;29:571-579.
Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.00952.x
156.
Raffatellu M., Chessa D., Wilson R.P., Dusold R., Rubino S., Bäumler A.J. The Vi capsular antigen of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi reduces Toll-like receptor-dependent interleukin-8 expression in the intestinal mucosa. Infect. Immun. 2005;73:3367-3374.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.73.6.3367-3374.2005
157.
Bignold L.P., Rogers S.D., Siaw T.M., Bahnisch J. Inhibition of chemotaxis of neutrophil leukocytes to interleukin-8 by endotoxins of various bacteria. Infect. Immun. 1991;59:4255-4258.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.59.11.4255-4258.1991
158.
Jessen D.L., Osei-Owusu P., Toosky M., Roughead W., Bradley D.S., Nilles M.L. Type III secretion needle proteins induce cell signaling and cytokine secretion via Toll-like receptors. Infect. Immun. 2014;82:2300-2309.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.01705-14
159.
An Updated View on the Rck Invasin of Salmonella: Still Much to Discover · 2017
Not checked
160.
Mellor K.C., Blackwell G.A., Cawthraw S.A., Mensah N.E., Reid S.W.J., Thomson N.R., Petrovska L., Mather A.E. Contrasting long-term dynamics of antimicrobial resistance and virulence plasmids in Salmonella typhimurium from animals. Microb. Genom. 2022;8:000826.
Not in our library10.1099/mgen.0.000826
161.
Salmonella spvC Gene Inhibits Pyroptosis and Intestinal Inflammation to Aggravate Systemic Infection in Mice · 2020
Not checked
162.
Rodríguez-Beltrán J., DelaFuente J., León-Sampedro R., MacLean R.C., San Millán Á. Beyond horizontal gene transfer: The role of plasmids in bacterial evolution. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021;19:347-359.
Not in our library10.1038/s41579-020-00497-1
163.
Sengupta M., Austin S. Prevalence and significance of plasmid maintenance functions in the virulence plasmids of pathogenic bacteria. Infect. Immun. 2011;79:2502-2509.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.00127-11
164.
Kosarewicz A., Königsmaier L., Marlovits T.C. The blueprint of the type-3 injectisome. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond B Biol. Sci. 2012;367:1140-1154.
Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2011.0205
165.
Srikanth C.V., Mercado-Lubo R., Hallstrom K., McCormick B.A. Salmonella effector proteins and host-cell responses. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2011;68:3687-3697.
Not in our library10.1007/s00018-011-0841-0
166.
LaRock D.L., Chaudhary A., Miller S.I. Salmonellae interactions with host processes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2015;13:191-205.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro3420
167.
Figueira R., Holden D.W. Functions of the Salmonella pathogenicity island 2 (SPI-2) type III secretion system effectors. Microbiology. 2012;158:1147-1161.
Not in our library10.1099/mic.0.058115-0
168.
Sellin M.E., Müller A.A., Felmy B., Dolowschiak T., Diard M., Tardivel A., Maslowski K.M., Hardt W.D. Epithelium-intrinsic NAIP/NLRC4 inflammasome drives infected enterocyte expulsion to restrict Salmonella replication in the intestinal mucosa. Cell Host Microbe. 2014;16:237-248.
Not in our library10.1016/j.chom.2014.07.001
169.
Salmonella takes control: effector-driven manipulation of the host · 2009
No notice
170.
Lenders M.H.H., Weidtkamp-Peters S., Kleinschrodt D., Jaeger K.-E., Smits S.H.J., Schmitt L. Directionality of substrate translocation of the hemolysin A Type I secretion system. Sci. Rep. 2015;5:12470.
Not in our library10.1038/srep12470
171.
MUC1 is a receptor for the Salmonella SiiE adhesin that enables apical invasion into enterocytes. · 2019
Not checked
172.
Main-Hester K.L., Colpitts K.M., Thomas G.A., Fang F.C., Libby S.J. Coordinate regulation of Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 (SPI1) and SPI4 in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Infect. Immun. 2008;76:1024-1035.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.01224-07
173.
Fang L., Shen H., Tang Y., Fang W. Superoxide dismutase of Streptococcus suis serotype 2 plays a role in anti-autophagic response by scavenging reactive oxygen species in infected macrophages. Vet. Microbiol. 2015;176:328-336.
Not in our library10.1016/j.vetmic.2015.02.006
174.
Felmy B., Songhet P., Slack E.M., Müller A.J., Kremer M., Van Maele L., Cayet D., Heikenwalder M., Sirard J.C., Hardt W.D. NADPH oxidase deficient mice develop colitis and bacteremia upon infection with normally avirulent, TTSS-1- and TTSS-2-deficient Salmonella typhimurium. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e77204.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0077204
175.
Tang B., Elbediwi M., Nambiar R.B., Yang H., Lin J., Yue M. Genomic Characterization of Antimicrobial-Resistant Salmonella enterica in Duck, Chicken, and Pig Farms and Retail Markets in Eastern China. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022;10:e0125722.
Not in our library10.1128/spectrum.01257-22
176.
Wang F., Deng L., Huang F., Wang Z., Lu Q., Xu C. Flagellar Motility Is Critical for Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium Biofilm Development. Front. Microbiol. 2020;11:1695.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2020.01695
177.
Krishnakumar R., Kim B., Mollo E.A., Imlay J.A., Slauch J.M. Structural properties of periplasmic SodCI that correlate with virulence in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. J. Bacteriol. 2007;189:4343-4352.
Not in our library10.1128/jb.00010-07
178.
Rehman T., Yin L., Latif M.B., Chen J., Wang K., Geng Y., Huang X., Abaidullah M., Guo H., Ouyang P. Adhesive mechanism of different Salmonella fimbrial adhesins. Microb. Pathog. 2019;137:103748.
Not in our library10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103748
179.
Kolenda R., Ugorski M., Grzymajlo K. Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Salmonella Type 1 Fimbriae, but Were Afraid to Ask. Front. Microbiol. 2019;10:1017.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2019.01017
180.
Grzymajło K., Ugorski M., Kolenda R., Kędzierska A., Kuźmińska-Bajor M., Wieliczko A. FimH adhesin from host unrestricted Salmonella Enteritidis binds to different glycoprotein ligands expressed by enterocytes from sheep, pig and cattle than FimH adhesins from host restricted Salmonella Abortus-ovis, Salmonella Choleraesuis and Salmonella Dublin. Vet. Microbiol. 2013;166:550-557.
Not in our library10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.07.004
181.
Uchiya K.I., Kamimura Y., Jusakon A., Nikai T. Salmonella Fimbrial Protein FimH Is Involved in Expression of Proinflammatory Cytokines in a Toll-Like Receptor 4-Dependent Manner. Infect. Immun. 2019;87:e00881-18.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.00881-18
182.
Sano G., Takada Y., Goto S., Maruyama K., Shindo Y., Oka K., Matsui H., Matsuo K. Flagella facilitate escape of Salmonella from oncotic macrophages. J. Bacteriol. 2007;189:8224-8232.
Not in our library10.1128/jb.00898-07
183.
Effect of Antimicrobial Peptide Microcin J25 on Growth Performance, Immune Regulation, and Intestinal Microbiota in Broiler Chickens Challenged with Escherichia coli and Salmonella · 2020
Not checked
184.
Sokaribo A.S., Hansen E.G., McCarthy M., Desin T.S., Waldner L.L., MacKenzie K.D., Mutwiri G., Herman N.J., Herman D.J., Wang Y., et al. Metabolic Activation of CsgD in the Regulation of Salmonella Biofilms. Microorganisms. 2020;8:964.
Not in our library10.3390/microorganisms8070964
185.
The Role of the Bacterial Flagellum in Adhesion and Virulence · 2013
No notice
186.
Horstmann J.A., Zschieschang E., Truschel T., de Diego J., Lunelli M., Rohde M., May T., Strowig T., Stradal T., Kolbe M., et al. Flagellin phase-dependent swimming on epithelial cell surfaces contributes to productive Salmonella gut colonisation. Cell. Microbiol. 2017;19:e12739.
Not in our library10.1111/cmi.12739
187.
Liston S.D., Ovchinnikova O.G., Whitfield C. Unique lipid anchor attaches Vi antigen capsule to the surface of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:6719-6724.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1524665113
188.
Hart P.J., O’Shaughnessy C.M., Siggins M.K., Bobat S., Kingsley R.A., Goulding D.A., Crump J.A., Reyburn H., Micoli F., Dougan G., et al. Differential Killing of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhi by Antibodies Targeting Vi and Lipopolysaccharide O:9 Antigen. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0145945.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0145945
189.
Hiyoshi H., Tiffany C.R., Bronner D.N., Bäumler A.J. Typhoidal Salmonella serovars: Ecological opportunity and the evolution of a new pathovar. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2018;42:527-541.
Not in our library10.1093/femsre/fuy024
190.
Chong A., Lee S., Yang Y.A., Song J. The Role of Typhoid Toxin in Salmonella Typhi Virulence. Yale J. Biol. Med. 2017;90:283-290.
Not in our library
191.
Needham B.D., Trent M.S. Fortifying the barrier: The impact of lipid A remodelling on bacterial pathogenesis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013;11:467-481.
Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro3047
192.
Richards S.M., Strandberg K.L., Gunn J.S. Salmonella-regulated lipopolysaccharide modifications. Subcell. Biochem. 2010;53:101-122.
Not in our library10.1007/978-90-481-9078-2_5
193.
Kong Q., Yang J., Liu Q., Alamuri P., Roland K.L., Curtiss R. Effect of deletion of genes involved in lipopolysaccharide core and O-antigen synthesis on virulence and immunogenicity of Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium. Infect. Immun. 2011;79:4227-4239.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.05398-11
194.
Chen C.-Y., Tsen H.-Y., Lin C.-L., Yu B., Chen C.-S. Oral administration of a combination of select lactic acid bacteria strains to reduce the Salmonella invasion and inflammation of broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 2012;91:2139-2147.
Not in our library10.3382/ps.2012-02237
195.
Römling U. Characterization of the rdar morphotype, a multicellular behaviour in Enterobacteriaceae. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2005;62:1234-1246.
Not in our library10.1007/s00018-005-4557-x
196.
Collinson S.K., Clouthier S.C., Doran J.L., Banser P.A., Kay W.W. Salmonella enteritidis agfBAC operon encoding thin, aggregative fimbriae. J. Bacteriol. 1996;178:662-667.
Not in our library10.1128/jb.178.3.662-667.1996
197.
Zakikhany K., Harrington C.R., Nimtz M., Hinton J.C., Römling U. Unphosphorylated CsgD controls biofilm formation in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Mol. Microbiol. 2010;77:771-786.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07247.x
198.
Kader A., Simm R., Gerstel U., Morr M., Römling U. Hierarchical involvement of various GGDEF domain proteins in rdar morphotype development of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Mol. Microbiol. 2006;60:602-616.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05123.x
199.
Van Immerseel F., Russell J.B., Flythe M.D., Gantois I., Timbermont L., Pasmans F., Haesebrouck F., Ducatelle R. The use of organic acids to combat Salmonella in poultry: A mechanistic explanation of the efficacy. Avian Pathol. 2006;35:182-188.
Not in our library10.1080/03079450600711045
200.
Galipó E., Zoche-Golob V., Sassu E.L., Prigge C., Sjölund M., Tobias T., Rzeżutka A., Smith R.P., Burow E. Prioritization of pig farm biosecurity for control of Salmonella and hepatitis E virus infections: Results of a European expert opinion elicitation. Porc. Health Manag. 2023;9:8.
Not in our library10.1186/s40813-023-00306-0
201.
Madec F. Good Practices for Biosecurity in the Pig Sector: Issues and Options in Developing and Transition Countries.
Not in our library
202.
Sharma B. Poultry Production, Management and Bio-Security Measures. J. Agric. Environ. 2010;11:120-125.
Not in our library10.3126/aej.v11i0.3659
203.
Jensen A.N., Dalsgaard A., Stockmarr A., Nielsen E.M., Baggesen D.L. Survival and transmission of Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium in an outdoor organic pig farming environment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006;72:1833-1842.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.72.3.1833-1842.2006
204.
Mannion C., Leonard F.C., Lynch P.B., Egan J. Efficacy of cleaning and disinfection on pig farms in Ireland. Vet. Rec. 2007;161:371-375.
Not in our library10.1136/vr.161.11.371
205.
Trampel D.W., Holder T.G., Gast R.K. Integrated farm management to prevent Salmonella Enteritidis contamination of eggs. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014;23:353-365.
Not in our library10.3382/japr.2014-00944
206.
Lestari V.S., Sirajuddin S.N., Kasim K. Adoption of biosecurity measures by layer smallholders. J. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric. 2011;36:297-302.
Not in our library10.14710/jitaa.36.4.297-302
207.
Mee J.F., Geraghty T., O’Neill R., More S.J. Bioexclusion of diseases from dairy and beef farms: Risks of introducing infectious agents and risk reduction strategies. Vet. J. 2012;194:143-150.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.07.001
208.
Renault V., Damiaans B., Sarrazin S., Humblet M.F., Dewulf J., Saegerman C. Biosecurity practices in Belgian cattle farming: Level of implementation, constraints and weaknesses. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018;65:1246-1261.
Not in our library10.1111/tbed.12865
209.
Tilli G., Laconi A., Galuppo F., Mughini-Gras L., Piccirillo A. Assessing Biosecurity Compliance in Poultry Farms: A Survey in a Densely Populated Poultry Area in North East Italy. Animals. 2022;12:1409.
Not in our library10.3390/ani12111409
210.
Busani L., Dalla Pozza M., Bonfanti L., Toson M., Ferrè N., Marangon S. Intervention strategies for low-pathogenic avian influenza control in Italy. Avian Dis. 2007;51:470-473.
Not in our library10.1637/7553-033106r.1
211.
Gelaude P., Schlepers M., Verlinden M., Laanen M., Dewulf J. Biocheck.UGent: A quantitative tool to measure biosecurity at broiler farms and the relationship with technical performances and antimicrobial use. Poult. Sci. 2014;93:2740-2751.
Not in our library10.3382/ps.2014-04002
212.
Van Limbergen T., Dewulf J., Klinkenberg M., Ducatelle R., Gelaude P., Méndez J., Heinola K., Papasolomontos S., Szeleszczuk P., Maes D. Scoring biosecurity in European conventional broiler production. Poult. Sci. 2018;97:74-83.
Not in our library10.3382/ps/pex296
213.
Maunsell F., Donovan G.A. Biosecurity and risk management for dairy replacements. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2008;24:155-190.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.10.007
214.
Monitoring N.A.H. Dairy 2002:Animal Disease Exclusion Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations. 2004.
Not in our library
215.
Verwoerd D.W. Definition of a vector and a vector-borne disease. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2015;34:29-39.
Not in our library10.20506/rst.34.1.2343
216.
Spalding M.G. Diseases of Poultry. 2009.
Not in our library
217.
Meerburg B.G., Kijlstra A. Role of rodents in transmission of Salmonella and Campylobacter. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007;87:2774-2781.
Not in our library10.1002/jsfa.3004
218.
Rebeca Z.-S., Andrea Molina A., Mihai M. Preharvest Salmonella Risk Contamination and the Control Strategies. Current Topics in Salmonella and Salmonellosis. 2017;193-213.
Not in our library10.5772/67399
219.
Axtell R.C. Fly Management in Poultry Production: Cultural, Biological, and Chemical1. Poult. Sci. 1986;65:657-667.
Not in our library10.3382/ps.0650657
220.
Balaraman V., Drolet B.S., Mitzel D.N., Wilson W.C., Owens J., Gaudreault N.N., Meekins D.A., Bold D., Trujillo J.D., Noronha L.E., et al. Mechanical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by house flies. Parasites Vectors. 2021;14:214.
Not in our library10.1186/s13071-021-04703-8
221.
Azizi-Lalabadi M., Rahimzadeh-Sani Z., Feng J., Hosseini H., Jafari S.M. The impact of essential oils on the qualitative properties, release profile, and stimuli-responsiveness of active food packaging nanocomposites. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023;63:1822-1845.
Not in our library10.1080/10408398.2021.1971154
222.
Ong S.Q., Ab Majid A.H., Ahmad H. Insecticide Residues on Poultry Manures: Field Efficacy Test on Selected Insecticides in Managing Musca Domestica Population. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 2017;28:45-55.
Not in our library10.21315/tlsr2017.28.2.4
223.
Isman M.B. Bioinsecticides based on plant essential oils: A short overview. Z. Naturforsch. C J. Biosci. 2020;75:179-182.
Not in our library10.1515/znc-2020-0038
224.
Weese J.S. Barrier precautions, isolation protocols, and personal hygiene in veterinary hospitals. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2004;20:543-559.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cveq.2004.07.006
225.
Wierup M. The control of microbial diseases in animals: Alternatives to the use of antibiotics. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2000;14:315-319.
Not in our library10.1016/s0924-8579(00)00143-6
226.
Martelli F., Lambert M., Butt P., Cheney T., Tatone F.A., Callaby R., Rabie A., Gosling R.J., Fordon S., Crocker G., et al. Evaluation of an enhanced cleaning and disinfection protocol in Salmonella contaminated pig holdings in the United Kingdom. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0178897.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0178897
227.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Interventions for the Control of Non-Typhoidal Salmonella spp. in Beef and Pork. 2015.
Not in our library
228.
Braden C.R. Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis and eggs: A national epidemic in the United States. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2006;43:512-517.
Not in our library10.1086/505973
229.
Jørgensen F., Bailey R., Williams S., Henderson P., Wareing D.R., Bolton F.J., Frost J.A., Ward L., Humphrey T.J. Prevalence and numbers of Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. on raw, whole chickens in relation to sampling methods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002;76:151-164.
Not in our library10.1016/s0168-1605(02)00027-2
230.
Bhandari M., Poelstra J.W., Kauffman M., Varghese B., Helmy Y.A., Scaria J., Rajashekara G. Genomic Diversity, Antimicrobial Resistance, Plasmidome, and Virulence Profiles of Salmonella Isolated from Small Specialty Crop Farms Revealed by Whole-Genome Sequencing. Antibiotics. 2023;12:1637.
Not in our library10.3390/antibiotics12111637
231.
Wright G.D. Antibiotic resistance in the environment: A link to the clinic? Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2010;13:589-594.
Not in our library10.1016/j.mib.2010.08.005
232.
Liljebjelke K.A., Hofacre C.L., White D.G., Ayers S., Lee M.D., Maurer J.J. Diversity of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes in Salmonella isolated from commercial poultry farms. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017;4:96.
Not in our library10.3389/fvets.2017.00096
233.
Sneeringer S., MacDonald J., Key N., McBride W. Economics of Antibiotic Use in US. Livestock Production. 2015;1-100.
Not in our library
234.
Levy S.B., Marshall B. Antibacterial resistance worldwide: Causes, challenges and responses. Nat. Med. 2004;10:S122-S129.
Not in our library10.1038/nm1145
235.
Gebreyes W.A., Thakur S. Multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Muenchen from pigs and humans and potential interserovar transfer of antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005;49:503-511.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.49.2.503-511.2005
236.
Elsayed M.M., El-Basrey Y.F.H., El-Baz A.H., Dowidar H.A., Shami A., Al-Saeed F.A., Alsamghan A., Salem H.M., Alhazmi W.A., El-Tarabily K.A., et al. Ecological incidence, genetic diversity, multidrug resistance of Salmonella enteritidis recovered from broiler and layer chicken farms. Poult. Sci. 2023;103:103320.
Not in our library10.1016/j.psj.2023.103320
237.
Srednik M.E., Morningstar-Shaw B.R., Hicks J.A., Tong C., Mackie T.A., Schlater L.K. Whole-genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis capture the emergence of a multi-drug resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Infantis clone from diagnostic animal samples in the United States. Front. Microbiol. 2023;14:1166908.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2023.1166908
238.
Leon I.M., Lawhon S.D., Norman K.N., Threadgill D.S., Ohta N., Vinasco J., Scott H.M. Serotype Diversity and Antimicrobial Resistance among Salmonella enterica Isolates from Patients at an Equine Referral Hospital. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018;84:e02829-17.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.02829-17
239.
Gebreyes W.A., Thakur S., Morrow W.M. Comparison of prevalence, antimicrobial resistance, and occurrence of multidrug-resistant Salmonella in antimicrobial-free and conventional pig production. J. Food Prot. 2006;69:743-748.
Not in our library10.4315/0362-028x-69.4.743
240.
Lynne A.M., Dorsey L.L., David D.E., Foley S.L. Characterisation of antibiotic resistance in host-adapted Salmonella enterica. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2009;34:169-172.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2009.02.018
241.
Alagawany M., Abd El-Hack M.E., Farag M.R., Sachan S., Karthik K., Dhama K. The use of probiotics as eco-friendly alternatives for antibiotics in poultry nutrition. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018;25:10611-10618.
Not in our library10.1007/s11356-018-1687-x
242.
Antimicrobial Resistance and Recent Alternatives to Antibiotics for the Control of Bacterial Pathogens with an Emphasis on Foodborne Pathogens · 2023
No notice
243.
de Melo Pereira G.V., de Oliveira Coelho B., Júnior A.I.M., Thomaz-Soccol V., Soccol C.R. How to select a probiotic? A review and update of methods and criteria. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018;36:2060-2076.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.09.003
244.
Hill C., Guarner F., Reid G., Gibson G.R., Merenstein D.J., Pot B., Morelli L., Canani R.B., Flint H.J., Salminen S., et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014;11:506-514.
Not in our library10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66
245.
Kulkarni R.R., Gaghan C., Gorrell K., Sharif S., Taha-Abdelaziz K. Probiotics as alternatives to antibiotics for the prevention and control of necrotic enteritis in chickens. Pathogens. 2022;11:692.
Not in our library10.3390/pathogens11060692
246.
Alizadeh M., Bavananthasivam J., Shojadoost B., Astill J., Taha-Abdelaziz K., Alqazlan N., Boodhoo N., Shoja Doost J., Sharif S. In ovo and oral administration of probiotic lactobacilli modulate cell-and antibody-mediated immune responses in newly hatched chicks. Front. Immunol. 2021;12:664387.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2021.664387
247.
Dawood M.A., Koshio S., Esteban M.Á. Beneficial roles of feed additives as immunostimulants in aquaculture: A review. Rev. Aquac. 2018;10:950-974.
Not in our library10.1111/raq.12209
248.
Tuomola E.M., Ouwehand A.C., Salminen S.J. The effect of probiotic bacteria on the adhesion of pathogens to human intestinal mucus. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 1999;26:137-142.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1574-695x.1999.tb01381.x
249.
Liu D., Jiang X.-Y., Zhou L.-S., Song J.-H., Zhang X. Effects of probiotics on intestinal mucosa barrier in patients with colorectal cancer after operation: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine. 2016;95:e3342.
Not in our library10.1097/md.0000000000003342
250.
Probiotics in Medicine: A Long Debate · 2020
No notice
251.
Timmerman H.M., Koning C.J., Mulder L., Rombouts F.M., Beynen A.C. Monostrain, multistrain and multispecies probiotics—A comparison of functionality and efficacy. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004;96:219-233.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.05.012
252.
Wang Y.-C., Hu S.-Y., Chiu C.-S., Liu C.-H. Multiple-strain probiotics appear to be more effective in improving the growth performance and health status of white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, than single probiotic strains. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019;84:1050-1058.
Not in our library10.1016/j.fsi.2018.11.017
253.
Kathayat D., Closs G., Helmy Y.A., Deblais L., Srivastava V., Rajashekara G. In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 Against Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli and Identification of Novel Probiotic-Derived Bioactive Peptides. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins. 2022;14:1012-1028.
Not in our library10.1007/s12602-021-09840-1
254.
Ouwehand A.C., Invernici M.M., Furlaneto F.A., Messora M.R. Effectiveness of multi-strain versus single-strain probiotics: Current status and recommendations for the future. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2018;52:S35-S40.
Not in our library10.1097/mcg.0000000000001052
255.
Puvanasundram P., Chong C.M., Sabri S., Yusoff M.S.M., Lim K.C., Karim M. Efficacy of Single and Multi-Strain Probiotics on In Vitro Strain Compatibility, Pathogen Inhibition, Biofilm Formation Capability, and Stress Tolerance. Biology. 2022;11:1644.
Not in our library10.3390/biology11111644
256.
Mountzouris K., Balaskas C., Xanthakos I., Tzivinikou A., Fegeros K. Effects of a multi-species probiotic on biomarkers of competitive exclusion efficacy in broilers challenged with Salmonella enteritidis. Br. Poult. Sci. 2009;50:467-478.
Not in our library10.1080/00071660903110935
257.
Thirabunyanon M., Thongwittaya N. Protection activity of a novel probiotic strain of Bacillus subtilis against Salmonella Enteritidis infection. Res. Vet. Sci. 2012;93:74-81.
Not in our library10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.08.008
258.
Effects of multi-strain probiotic supplementation on intestinal microbiota, tight junctions, and inflammation in young broiler chickens challenged with subsp. · 2020
Not checked
259.
Acharjee M., Hasan F., Islam T., Nur I.T., Begum N., Mazumder C., Lubna M.A., Zerin N., Shahriar A., Mahmud M.R. In-vitro antibacterial activity of commercially available probiotics on food-borne pathogens along with their synergistic effects with synthetic drugs. Metab. Open. 2022;14:100187.
Not in our library10.1016/j.metop.2022.100187
260.
Bhogoju S., Nahashon S., Wang X., Darris C., Kilonzo-Nthenge A. A comparative analysis of microbial profile of Guinea fowl and chicken using metagenomic approach. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0191029.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0191029
261.
El-Sharkawy H., Tahoun A., Rizk A.M., Suzuki T., Elmonir W., Nassef E., Shukry M., Germoush M.O., Farrag F., Bin-Jumah M., et al. Evaluation of Bifidobacteria and Lactobacillus Probiotics as Alternative Therapy for Salmonella typhimurium Infection in Broiler Chickens. Animals. 2020;10:1023.
Not in our library10.3390/ani10061023
262.
Pascual M., Hugas M., Badiola J.I., Monfort J.M., Garriga M. Lactobacillus salivarius CTC2197 prevents Salmonella enteritidis colonization in chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999;65:4981-4986.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.65.11.4981-4986.1999
263.
Van Coillie E., Goris J., Cleenwerck I., Grijspeerdt K., Botteldoorn N., Van Immerseel F., De Buck J., Vancanneyt M., Swings J., Herman L. Identification of lactobacilli isolated from the cloaca and vagina of laying hens and characterization for potential use as probiotics to control Salmonella Enteritidis. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007;102:1095-1106.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03164.x
264.
Gil De Los Santos J., Storch O., Gil-Turnes C. Bacillus cereus var. toyoii and Saccharomyces boulardii increased feed efficiency in broilers infected with Salmonella enteritidis. Br. Poult. Sci. 2005;46:494-497.
Not in our library10.1080/00071660500181461
265.
Okamoto A.S., Andreatti Filho R.L., Milbradt E.L., Moraes A.C.I., Vellano I.H.B., Guimarães-Okamoto P.T.C. Bacterial communication between Lactobacillus spp. isolated from poultry in the inhibition of Salmonella Heidelberg—Proof of concept. Poult. Sci. 2018;97:2708-2712.
Not in our library10.3382/ps/pey141
266.
Shao Y., Zhen W., Guo F., Hu Z., Zhang K., Kong L., Guo Y., Wang Z. Pretreatment with probiotics Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 11181 attenuated Salmonella Typhimurium-induced gut injury through modulating intestinal microbiome and immune responses with barrier function in broiler chickens. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2022;13:130.
Not in our library10.1186/s40104-022-00765-5
267.
Martins F.S., Vieira A.T., Elian S.D., Arantes R.M., Tiago F.C., Sousa L.P., Araújo H.R., Pimenta P.F., Bonjardim C.A., Nicoli J.R. Inhibition of tissue inflammation and bacterial translocation as one of the protective mechanisms of Saccharomyces boulardii against Salmonella infection in mice. Microbes Infect. 2013;15:270-279.
Not in our library10.1016/j.micinf.2012.12.007
268.
Shanmugasundaram R., Mortada M., Cosby D., Singh M., Applegate T., Syed B., Pender C., Curry S., Murugesan G., Selvaraj R. Synbiotic supplementation to decrease Salmonella colonization in the intestine and carcass contamination in broiler birds. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0223577.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0223577
269.
Kimminau E., Karnezos T., Berghaus R., Jones M., Baxter J., Hofacre C. Combination of probiotic and prebiotic impacts Salmonella Enteritidis infection in layer hens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2021;30:100200.
Not in our library10.1016/j.japr.2021.100200
270.
Medina M., Izquierdo E., Ennahar S., Sanz Y. Differential immunomodulatory properties of Bifidobacterium logum strains: Relevance to probiotic selection and clinical applications. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2007;150:531-538.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2249.2007.03522.x
271.
Wan M.L.Y., Forsythe S.J., El-Nezami H. Probiotics interaction with foodborne pathogens: A potential alternative to antibiotics and future challenges. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019;59:3320-3333.
Not in our library10.1080/10408398.2018.1490885
272.
Juricova H., Matiasovicova J., Faldynova M., Sebkova A., Kubasova T., Prikrylova H., Karasova D., Crhanova M., Havlickova H., Rychlik I. Probiotic Lactobacilli Do Not Protect Chickens against Salmonella Enteritidis Infection by Competitive Exclusion in the Intestinal Tract but in Feed, Outside the Chicken Host. Microorganisms. 2022;10:219.
Not in our library10.3390/microorganisms10020219
273.
Khan I., Nawaz M., Anjum A.A., Ahmad M.-u.-D., Mehmood A., Rabbani M., Mustafa A., Ali M.A. Effect of indigenous probiotics on gut morphology and intestinal absorption capacity in broiler chicken challenged with Salmonella enteritidis. Pak. J. Zool. 2020;52:1825.
Not in our library10.17582/journal.pjz/20190518090547
274.
Steinberg R.S., Silva L.C., Souza T.C., Lima M.T., De Oliveira N.L., Vieira L.Q., Arantes R.M., Miyoshi A., Nicoli J.R., Neumann E. Safety and protective effectiveness of two strains of Lactobacillus with probiotic features in an experimental model of salmonellosis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2014;11:8755-8776.
Not in our library10.3390/ijerph110908755
275.
Haghighi H.R., Abdul-Careem M.F., Dara R.A., Chambers J.R., Sharif S. Cytokine gene expression in chicken cecal tonsils following treatment with probiotics and Salmonella infection. Vet. Microbiol. 2008;126:225-233.
Not in our library10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.06.026
276.
Casey P.G., Gardiner G.E., Casey G., Bradshaw B., Lawlor P.G., Lynch P.B., Leonard F.C., Stanton C., Ross R.P., Fitzgerald G.F. A five-strain probiotic combination reduces pathogen shedding and alleviates disease signs in pigs challenged with Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007;73:1858-1863.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.01840-06
277.
Truusalu K., Naaber P., Kullisaar T., Tamm H., Mikelsaar R.-H., Zilmer K., Rehema A., Zilmer M., Mikelsaar M. The influence of antibacterial and antioxidative probiotic lactobacilli on gut mucosa in a mouse model of Salmonella infection. Microb. Ecol. Health Dis. 2004;16:180-187.
Not in our library
278.
Chen Q., Tong C., Ma S., Zhou L., Zhao L., Zhao X. Involvement of microRNAs in probiotics-induced reduction of the cecal inflammation by Salmonella typhimurium. Front. Immunol. 2017;8:704.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2017.00704
279.
Huang Y.-F., Liu P.-Y., Chen Y.-Y., Nong B.-R., Huang I.-F., Hsieh K.-S., Chen K.-T. Three-combination probiotics therapy in children with salmonella and rotavirus gastroenteritis. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2014;48:37-42.
Not in our library10.1097/mcg.0b013e31828f1c6e
280.
Upadhaya S.D., Shanmugam S.K., Kang D.K., Kim I.H. Preliminary assessment on potentials of probiotic B. subtilis RX7 and B. methylotrophicus C14 strains as an immune modulator in Salmonella-challenged weaned pigs. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2017;49:1065-1070.
Not in our library10.1007/s11250-017-1278-8
281.
Ward M., Alinovi C., Couetil L., Glickman L., Wu C. randomized clinical trial using probiotics to prevent Salmonella fecal shedding in hospitalized horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2004;24:242-247.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jevs.2004.05.004
282.
Sun C., Gao X., Sun M., Wang Z., Wang Y., Zhao X., Jia F., Zhang T., Ge C., Zhang X., et al. Protective effects of E. coli Nissle 1917 on chickens infected with Salmonella pullorum. Microb. Pathog. 2022;172:105768.
Not in our library10.1016/j.micpath.2022.105768
283.
Smialek M., Kaczorek E., Szczucińska E., Burchardt S., Kowalczyk J., Tykałowski B., Koncicki A. Evaluation of Lactobacillus spp. and yeast based probiotic (Lavipan) supplementation for the reduction of Salmonella Enteritidis after infection of broiler chickens. Pol. J. Vet. Sci. 2019;22:5-10.
Not in our library10.24425/pjvs.2018.125616
284.
Savino F., Fornasero S., Ceratto S., De Marco A., Mandras N., Roana J., Tullio V., Amisano G. Probiotics and gut health in infants: A preliminary case–control observational study about early treatment with Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938. Clin. Chim. Acta. 2015;451:82-87.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cca.2015.02.027
285.
Pineiro M., Asp N.-G., Reid G., Macfarlane S., Morelli L., Brunser O., Tuohy K. FAO Technical meeting on prebiotics. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2008;42:S156-S159.
Not in our library10.1097/mcg.0b013e31817f184e
286.
Cazzola M., Pham-Thi N., Kerihuel J.-C., Durand H., Bohbot S. Efficacy of a synbiotic supplementation in the prevention of common winter diseases in children: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Ther. Adv. Respir. Dis. 2010;4:271-278.
Not in our library10.1177/1753465810379010
287.
Ojansivu I., Ferreira C.L., Salminen S. Yacon, a new source of prebiotic oligosaccharides with a history of safe use. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2011;22:40-46.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tifs.2010.11.005
288.
Passeron T., Lacour J.P., Fontas E., Ortonne J.P. Prebiotics and synbiotics: Two promising approaches for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in children above 2 years. Allergy. 2006;61:431-437.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00956.x
289.
Macfarlane S., Macfarlane G.T., Cummings J.H. Review article: Prebiotics in the gastrointestinal tract. Aliment Pharmacol. Ther. 2006;24:701-714.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03042.x
290.
De Vrese M., Schrezenmeir J. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics. Food Biotechnol. 2008;111:1-66.
Not in our library10.1007/10_2008_097
291.
Gibson G.R., Probert H.M., Van Loo J., Rastall R.A., Roberfroid M.B. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: Updating the concept of prebiotics. Nutr. Res. Rev. 2004;17:259-275.
Not in our library10.1079/nrr200479
292.
Wang G., Li X., Wang Z. APD3: The antimicrobial peptide database as a tool for research and education. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D1087-D1093.
Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkv1278
293.
Helmy Y.A., Closs G., Jung K., Kathayat D., Vlasova A., Rajashekara G. Effect of Probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 Supplementation on the Growth Performance, Immune Responses, Intestinal Morphology, and Gut Microbes of Campylobacter jejuni Infected Chickens. Infect. Immun. 2022;90:e0033722.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.00337-22
294.
Helmy Y.A., Kassem I.I., Kumar A., Rajashekara G. In Vitro Evaluation of the Impact of the Probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 on Campylobacter jejuni’s Invasion and Intracellular Survival in Human Colonic Cells. Front. Microbiol. 2017;8:1588.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2017.01588
295.
Helmy Y.A., Kassem I.I., Rajashekara G. Immuno-modulatory effect of probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917 in polarized human colonic cells against Campylobacter jejuni infection. Gut Microbes. 2021;13:1-16.
Not in our library10.1080/19490976.2020.1857514
296.
Mawad A., Helmy Y.A., Shalkami A.G., Kathayat D., Rajashekara G.E. coli Nissle microencapsulation in alginate-chitosan nanoparticles and its effect on Campylobacter jejuni in vitro. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018;102:10675-10690.
Not in our library10.1007/s00253-018-9417-3
297.
Al-Sheraji S.H., Ismail A., Manap M.Y., Mustafa S., Yusof R.M., Hassan F.A. Prebiotics as functional foods: A review. J. Funct. Foods. 2013;5:1542-1553.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jff.2013.08.009
298.
Gibson G.R., Scott K.P., Rastall R.A., Tuohy K.M., Hotchkiss A., Dubert-Ferrandon A., Gareau M., Murphy E.F., Saulnier D., Loh G. Dietary prebiotics: Current status and new definition. Food Sci. Technol. Bull. Funct. Foods. 2010;7:1-19.
Not in our library10.1616/1476-2137.15880
299.
Chen T. Effect of adding chicory fructans in feed on fecal and intestinal microflora and excreta volatile ammonia. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2003;2:188-194.
Not in our library
300.
Bailey J., Blankenship L., Cox N. Effect of fructooligosaccharide on Salmonella colonization of the chicken intestine. Poult. Sci. 1991;70:2433-2438.
Not in our library10.3382/ps.0702433
301.
Choi K., Namkung H., Paik I. Effects of dietary fructooligosaccharides on the suppression of intestinal colonization of Salmonella typhimurium in broiler chickens. Korean J. Anim. Sci. 1994;82:1030-1036.
Not in our library
302.
Vicente J., Wolfenden A., Torres-Rodriguez A., Higgins S., Tellez G., Hargis B. Effect of a Lactobacillus species-based probiotic and dietary lactose prebiotic on turkey poult performance with or without Salmonella enteritidis challenge. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2007;16:361-364.
Not in our library10.1093/japr/16.3.361
303.
Sobotik E.B., Ramirez S., Roth N., Tacconi A., Pender C., Murugesan R., Archer G.S. Evaluating the effects of a dietary synbiotic or synbiotic plus enhanced organic acid on broiler performance and cecal and carcass Salmonella load. Poult. Sci. 2021;100:101508.
Not in our library10.1016/j.psj.2021.101508
304.
Petersen A., Heegaard P.M., Pedersen A.L., Andersen J.B., Sørensen R.B., Frøkiær H., Lahtinen S.J., Ouwehand A.C., Poulsen M., Licht T.R. Some putative prebiotics increase the severity of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection in mice. BMC Microbiol. 2009;9:245.
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2180-9-245
305.
Ribeiro A.M.L., Vogt L.K., Canal C.W., Cardoso M.d.I., Labres R.V., Streck A.F., Bessa M.C. Effects of prebiotics and probiotics on the colonization and immune response of broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella enteritidis. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2007;9:193-200.
Not in our library10.1590/s1516-635x2007000300009
306.
Rodríguez-Sorrento A., Castillejos L., López-Colom P., Cifuentes-Orjuela G., Rodríguez-Palmero M., Moreno-Muñoz J.A., Martin-Orue S.M. Effects of Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis CECT 7210 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001, combined or not with oligofructose-enriched inulin, on weaned pigs orally challenged with Salmonella typhimurium. Front. Microbiol. 2020;11:2012.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2020.02012
307.
Murate L.S., Paião F.G., de Almeida A.M., Berchieri A., Shimokomaki M. Efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on laying hens and broilers challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis. J. Poult. Sci. 2015;52:52-56.
Not in our library10.2141/jpsa.0130211
308.
Antimicrobial Peptides: Classification, Design, Application and Research Progress in Multiple Fields · 2020
No notice
309.
Lai Y., Villaruz A.E., Li M., Cha D.J., Sturdevant D.E., Otto M. The human anionic antimicrobial peptide dermcidin induces proteolytic defence mechanisms in staphylococci. Mol. Microbiol. 2007;63:497-506.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05540.x
310.
Malkoski M., Dashper S.G., O’Brien-Simpson N.M., Talbo G.H., Macris M., Cross K.J., Reynolds E.C. Kappacin, a novel antibacterial peptide from bovine milk. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001;45:2309-2315.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.45.8.2309-2315.2001
311.
Oren Z., Shai Y. Mode of action of linear amphipathic alpha-helical antimicrobial peptides. Biopolymers. 1998;47:451-463.
Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0282(1998)47:6<451::aid-bip4>3.0.co;2-f
312.
Lohner K., Prossnigg F. Biological activity and structural aspects of PGLa interaction with membrane mimetic systems. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2009;1788:1656-1666.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbamem.2009.05.012
313.
Mardirossian M., Pérébaskine N., Benincasa M., Gambato S., Hofmann S., Huter P., Müller C., Hilpert K., Innis C.A., Tossi A. The dolphin proline-rich antimicrobial peptide Tur1A inhibits protein synthesis by targeting the bacterial ribosome. Cell Chem. Biol. 2018;25:530-539.E7.
Not in our library10.1016/j.chembiol.2018.02.004
314.
Le C.-F., Gudimella R., Razali R., Manikam R., Sekaran S.D. Transcriptome analysis of Streptococcus pneumoniae treated with the designed antimicrobial peptides, DM3. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:26828.
Not in our library10.1038/srep26828
315.
He S.-w., Zhang J., Li N.-q., Zhou S., Yue B., Zhang M. A TFPI-1 peptide that induces degradation of bacterial nucleic acids, and inhibits bacterial and viral infection in half-smooth tongue sole, Cynoglossus semilaevis. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2017;60:466-473.
Not in our library10.1016/j.fsi.2016.11.029
316.
Le C.-F., Fang C.-M., Sekaran S.D. Intracellular targeting mechanisms by antimicrobial peptides. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017;61:e02340-16.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.02340-16
317.
Cruz G.F., de Araujo I., Torres M.D., de la Fuente-Nunez C., Oliveira V.X., Ambrosio F.N., Lombello C.B., Almeida D.V., Silva F.D., Garcia W. Photochemically-generated silver chloride nanoparticles stabilized by a peptide inhibitor of cell division and its antimicrobial properties. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater. 2020;30:2464-2474.
Not in our library10.1007/s10904-019-01427-2
318.
Almarwani B., Phambu N., Hamada Y.Z., Sunda-Meya A. Interactions of an anionic antimicrobial peptide with Zinc (II): Application to bacterial mimetic membranes. Langmuir. 2020;36:14554-14562.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.langmuir.0c02306
319.
Festa R., Ambrosio R.L., Lamas A., Gratino L., Palmieri G., Franco C.M., Cepeda A., Anastasio A. A study on the antimicrobial and antibiofilm peptide 1018-K6 as potential alternative to antibiotics against food-pathogen Salmonella enterica. Foods. 2021;10:1372.
Not in our library10.3390/foods10061372
320.
Sengkhui S., Klubthawee N., Aunpad R. A novel designed membrane-active peptide for the control of foodborne Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Sci. Rep. 2023;13:3507.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-023-30427-z
321.
Mangmee S., Reamtong O., Kalambaheti T., Roytrakul S., Sonthayanon P. Antimicrobial Peptide Modifications against Clinically Isolated Antibiotic-Resistant Salmonella. Molecules. 2021;26:4654.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules26154654
322.
Klubthawee N., Aunpad R. A Thermostable, Modified Cathelicidin-Derived Peptide With Enhanced Membrane-Active Activity Against Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Front. Microbiol. 2021;11:592220.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2020.592220
323.
Forkus B., Ritter S., Vlysidis M., Geldart K., Kaznessis Y.N. Antimicrobial probiotics reduce Salmonella enterica in turkey gastrointestinal tracts. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:40695.
Not in our library10.1038/srep40695
324.
Xu Y., Wang Q., Dong M., Song H., Hang B., Sun Y., Zhang H., Hu J. Evaluation of the efficacy of the antimicrobial peptide HJH-3 in chickens infected with Salmonella Pullorum. Front. Microbiol. 2023;14:1102789.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2023.1102789
325.
Yeom J.-H., Lee B., Kim D., Lee J.-k., Kim S., Bae J., Park Y., Lee K. Gold nanoparticle-DNA aptamer conjugate-assisted delivery of antimicrobial peptide effectively eliminates intracellular Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Biomaterials. 2016;104:43-51.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.07.009
326.
Kumaresan V., Bhatt P., Ganesh M.-R., Harikrishnan R., Arasu M., Al-Dhabi N.A., Pasupuleti M., Marimuthu K., Arockiaraj J. A novel antimicrobial peptide derived from fish goose type lysozyme disrupts the membrane of Salmonella enterica. Mol. Immunol. 2015;68:421-433.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molimm.2015.10.001
327.
Tuxpan-Pérez A., Ibarra-Valencia M.A., Estrada B.E., Clement H., Corrales-García L.L., Espino-Solis G.P., Corzo G. Antimicrobial and Immunomodulatory Effects of Selected Chemokine and Antimicrobial Peptide on Cytokine Profile during Salmonella Typhimurium Infection in Mouse. Antibiotics. 2022;11:607.
Not in our library10.3390/antibiotics11050607
328.
Roque-Borda C.A., Pereira L.P., Guastalli E.A.L., Soares N.M., Mac-Lean P.A.B., Salgado D.D.A., Meneguin A.B., Chorilli M., Vicente E.F. Hpmcp-coated microcapsules containing the ctx (Ile21)-ha antimicrobial peptide reduce the mortality rate caused by resistant Salmonella enteritidis in laying hens. Antibiotics. 2021;10:616.
Not in our library10.3390/antibiotics10060616
329.
Bailleul G., Guabiraba R., Virlogeux-Payant I., Lantier I., Trotereau J., Gilbert F.B., Wiedemann A., Trotereau A., Velge P., Schouler C. Systemic administration of avian defensin 7: Distribution, cellular target, and antibacterial potential in mice. Front. Microbiol. 2019;10:541.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2019.00541
330.
Maiti S., Patro S., Purohit S., Jain S., Senapati S., Dey N. Effective control of Salmonella infections by employing combinations of recombinant antimicrobial human β-defensins hBD-1 and hBD-2. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014;58:6896-6903.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.03628-14
331.
Milona P., Townes C.L., Bevan R.M., Hall J. The chicken host peptides, gallinacins 4, 7, and 9 have antimicrobial activity against Salmonella serovars. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2007;356:169-174.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.02.098
332.
Britannica T. Argon. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2020.
Not in our library
333.
Kasman L.M., Porter L.D. Bacteriophages. StatPearls. 2021.
Not in our library
334.
Doron S., Melamed S., Ofir G., Leavitt A., Lopatina A., Keren M., Amitai G., Sorek R. Systematic discovery of antiphage defense systems in the microbial pangenome. Science. 2018;359:eaar4120.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aar4120
335.
Campbell A. The future of bacteriophage biology. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2003;4:471-477.
Not in our library10.1038/nrg1089
336.
Bacteriophage therapy to combat bacterial infections in poultry · 2017
No notice
337.
Fiorentin L., Vieira N.D., Barioni W. Oral treatment with bacteriophages reduces the concentration of Salmonella Enteritidis PT4 in caecal contents of broilers. Avian Pathol. 2005;34:258-263.
Not in our library10.1080/01445340500112157
338.
Khan M.A.S., Rahman S.R. Use of Phages to Treat Antimicrobial-Resistant Salmonella Infections in Poultry. Vet. Sci. 2022;9:438.
Not in our library10.3390/vetsci9080438
339.
Henriques A., Sereno R., Almeida A. Reducing Salmonella horizontal transmission during egg incubation by phage therapy. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2013;10:718-722.
Not in our library10.1089/fpd.2012.1363
340.
Lee S., Kwon T., Chae S.-J., Kim J.-H., Kang Yeon H., Chung Gyung T., Kim D.-W., Lee D.-Y. Complete Genome Sequence of Bacteriophage MA12, Which Infects both Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis. Genome Announc. 2016;4:e00810-e00816.
Not in our library10.1128/genomea.00810-16
341.
Lorenzo-Rebenaque L., Malik D.J., Catalá-Gregori P., Marin C., Sevilla-Navarro S. In Vitro and In Vivo Gastrointestinal Survival of Non-Encapsulated and Microencapsulated Salmonella Bacteriophages: Implications for Bacteriophage Therapy in Poultry. Pharmaceuticals. 2021;14:434.
Not in our library10.3390/ph14050434
342.
Pelyuntha W., Sanguankiat A., Kovitvadhi A., Vongkamjan K. Broad lytic spectrum of novel Salmonella phages on ciprofloxacin-resistant Salmonella contaminated in the broiler production chain. Vet. World. 2022;15:169-174.
Not in our library10.14202/vetworld.2022.2039-2045
343.
Spricigo D.A., Bardina C., Cortés P., Llagostera M. Use of a bacteriophage cocktail to control Salmonella in food and the food industry. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013;165:169-174.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.05.009
344.
Duc H.M., Son H.M., Honjoh K.-I., Miyamoto T. Isolation and application of bacteriophages to reduce Salmonella contamination in raw chicken meat. LWT. 2018;91:353-360.
Not in our library10.1016/j.lwt.2018.01.072
345.
Hyman P., Abedon S.T. Bacteriophage host range and bacterial resistance. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2010;70:217-248.
Not in our library10.1016/s0065-2164(10)70007-1
346.
Gill J.J., Hyman P. Phage choice, isolation, and preparation for phage therapy. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2010;11:2-14.
Not in our library10.2174/138920110790725311
347.
Callaway T.R., Edrington T.S., Brabban A.D., Anderson R.C., Rossman M.L., Engler M.J., Carr M.A., Genovese K.J., Keen J.E., Looper M.L. Bacteriophage isolated from feedlot cattle can reduce Escherichia coli O157: H7 populations in ruminant gastrointestinal tracts. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2008;5:183-191.
Not in our library10.1089/fpd.2007.0057
348.
Bacteriophages as potential new mammalian pathogens · 2017
Not checked
349.
Merril C.R. Interaction of bacteriophages with animals. Bacteriophage Ecology. 2008;332-352.
Not in our library
350.
Kosznik-Kwaśnicka K., Podlacha M., Grabowski Ł., Stasiłojć M., Nowak-Zaleska A., Ciemińska K., Cyske Z., Dydecka A., Gaffke L., Mantej J., et al. Biological aspects of phage therapy versus antibiotics against Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection of chickens. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022;12:941867.
Not in our library10.3389/fcimb.2022.941867
351.
Wong C.L., Sieo C.C., Tan W.S., Abdullah N., Hair-Bejo M., Abu J., Ho Y.W. Evaluation of a lytic bacteriophage, Φ st1, for biocontrol of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in chickens. Int. J. Food. Microbiol. 2014;172:92-101.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.11.034
352.
Esmael A., Azab E., Gobouri A.A., Nasr-Eldin M.A., Moustafa M.M.A., Mohamed S.A., Badr O.A.M., Abdelatty A.M. Isolation and Characterization of Two Lytic Bacteriophages Infecting a Multi-Drug Resistant Salmonella Typhimurium and Their Efficacy to Combat Salmonellosis in Ready-to-Use Foods. Microorganisms. 2021;9:423.
Not in our library10.3390/microorganisms9020423
353.
Bardina C., Spricigo D.A., Cortés P., Llagostera M. Significance of the bacteriophage treatment schedule in reducing Salmonella colonization of poultry. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012;78:6600-6607.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.01257-12
354.
Atterbury R.J., Van Bergen M., Ortiz F., Lovell M., Harris J., De Boer A., Wagenaar J., Allen V., Barrow P. Bacteriophage therapy to reduce Salmonella colonization of broiler chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007;73:4543-4549.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.00049-07
355.
Bielke L.R., Higgins S.E., Donoghue A.M., Donoghue D.J., Hargis B.M., Tellez G. Use of Wide-Host-Range Bacteriophages to Reduce Salmonella on Poultry Products. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2007;6:754-757.
Not in our library
356.
Nabil N.M., Tawakol M.M., Hassan H.M. Assessing the impact of bacteriophages in the treatment of Salmonella in broiler chickens. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2018;8:1539056.
Not in our library10.1080/20008686.2018.1539056
357.
Lim T.H., Kim M.S., Lee D.H., Lee Y.N., Park J.K., Youn H.N., Lee H.J., Yang S.Y., Cho Y.W., Lee J.B., et al. Use of bacteriophage for biological control of Salmonella Enteritidis infection in chicken. Res. Vet. Sci. 2012;93:1173-1178.
Not in our library10.1016/j.rvsc.2012.06.004
358.
Sonalika J., Srujana A., Akhila D., Juliet M., Santhosh K. Application of bacteriophages to control Salmonella Enteritidis in raw eggs. Iran. J. Vet. Res. 2020;21:221.
Not in our library
359.
Zhang Y., Ding Y., Li W., Zhu W., Wang J., Wang X. Application of a novel lytic podoviridae phage Pu20 for biological control of drug-resistant Salmonella in liquid eggs. Pathogens. 2021;10:34.
Not in our library10.3390/pathogens10010034
360.
Rivera D., Moreno-Switt A.I., Denes T.G., Hudson L.K., Peters T.L., Samir R., Aziz R.K., Noben J.-P., Wagemans J., Dueñas F. Novel Salmonella phage, vB_Sen_STGO-35-1, characterization and evaluation in chicken meat. Microorganisms. 2022;10:606.
Not in our library10.3390/microorganisms10030606
361.
Lipinski C.A., Lombardo F., Dominy B.W., Feeney P.J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 1997;23:3-25.
Not in our library10.1016/s0169-409x(96)00423-1
362.
Maurer C.K., Lu C., Empting M., Hartmann R.W. Synthetic quorum sensing inhibitors (QSIs) blocking receptor signaling or signal molecule biosynthesis in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Quorum Sensing vs Quorum Quenching: A Battle with No End in Sight. 2014;303-317.
Not in our library
363.
Tirkkonen H., Brown K.V., Niemczura M., Faudemer Z., Brown C., Ponomareva L.V., Helmy Y.A., Thorson J.S., Nybo S.E., Metsä-Ketelä M. Engineering BioBricks for Deoxysugar Biosynthesis and Generation of New Tetracenomycins. ACS Omega. 2023;8:21237-21253.
Not in our library10.1021/acsomega.3c02460
364.
Alshawwa S.Z., Alshallash K.S., Ghareeb A., Elazzazy A.M., Sharaf M., Alharthi A., Abdelgawad F.E., El-Hossary D., Jaremko M., Emwas A.-H., et al. Assessment of Pharmacological Potential of Novel Exopolysaccharide Isolated from Marine Kocuria sp. Strain AG5: Broad-Spectrum Biological Investigations. Life. 2022;12:1387.
Not in our library10.3390/life12091387
365.
Ta C.A., Arnason J.T. Mini Review of Phytochemicals and Plant Taxa with Activity as Microbial Biofilm and Quorum Sensing Inhibitors. Molecules. 2015;21:E29.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules21010029
366.
Escobar-Muciño E., Arenas-Hernández M.M.P., Luna-Guevara M.L. Mechanisms of Inhibition of Quorum Sensing as an Alternative for the Control of E. coli and Salmonella. Microorganisms. 2022;10:884.
Not in our library10.3390/microorganisms10050884
367.
Guo M., Gamby S., Zheng Y., Sintim H.O. Small molecule inhibitors of AI-2 signaling in bacteria: State-of-the-art and future perspectives for anti-quorum sensing agents. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013;14:17694-17728.
Not in our library10.3390/ijms140917694
368.
Witsø I.L., Valen Rukke H., Benneche T., Aamdal Scheie A. Thiophenone attenuates enteropathogenic Escherichia coli O103: H2 virulence by interfering with AI-2 signaling. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0157334.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0157334
369.
Vinothkannan R., Muthu Tamizh M., David Raj C., Adline Princy S. Fructose furoic acid ester: An effective quorum sensing inhibitor against uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Bioorganic Chem. 2018;79:310-318.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bioorg.2018.05.009
370.
Li Q., Wang L., Xu J., Liu S., Song Z., Chen T., Deng X., Wang J., Lv Q. Quercitrin Is a Novel Inhibitor of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium Type III Secretion System. Molecules. 2023;28:5455.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules28145455
371.
Deblais L., Helmy Y.A., Kathayat D., Huang H.-C., Miller S.A., Rajashekara G. Novel Imidazole and Methoxybenzylamine Growth Inhibitors Affecting Salmonella Cell Envelope Integrity and its Persistence in Chickens. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:13381.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-018-31249-0
372.
Koopman Jacob A., Marshall Joanna M., Bhatiya A., Eguale T., Kwiek Jesse J., Gunn John S. Inhibition of Salmonella enterica Biofilm Formation Using Small-Molecule Adenosine Mimetics. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014;59:76-84.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.03407-14
373.
Nagy T.A., Quintana J.L.J., Reens A.L., Crooks A.L., Detweiler C.S. Autophagy Induction by a Small Molecule Inhibits Salmonella Survival in Macrophages and Mice. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019;63:e01536-19.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.01536-19
374.
Reens A.L., Crooks A.L., Su C.-C., Nagy T.A., Reens D.L., Podoll J.D., Edwards M.E., Yu E.W., Detweiler C.S. A cell-based infection assay identifies efflux pump modulators that reduce bacterial intracellular load. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14:e1007115.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.ppat.1007115
375.
Bakowski M.A., Braun V., Brumell J.H. Salmonella-containing vacuoles: Directing traffic and nesting to grow. Traffic. 2008;9:2022-2031.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0854.2008.00827.x
376.
Stevens A.M., Schuster M., Rumbaugh K.P. Working together for the common good: Cell-cell communication in bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 2012;194:2131-2141.
Not in our library10.1128/jb.00143-12
377.
Helmy Yosra A., Kathayat D., Deblais L., Srivastava V., Closs G., Tokarski Robert J., Ayinde O., Fuchs James R., Rajashekara G. Evaluation of Novel Quorum Sensing Inhibitors Targeting Auto-Inducer 2 (AI-2) for the Control of Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli Infections in Chickens. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022;10:e0028622.
Not in our library10.1128/spectrum.00286-22
378.
Linciano P., Cavalloro V., Martino E., Kirchmair J., Listro R., Rossi D., Collina S. Tackling antimicrobial resistance with small molecules targeting LsrK: Challenges and opportunities. J. Med. Chem. 2020;63:15243-15257.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c01282
379.
Helmy Y.A., Deblais L., Kassem I.I., Kathayat D., Rajashekara G. Novel small molecule modulators of quorum sensing in avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC). Virulence. 2018;9:1640-1657.
Not in our library10.1080/21505594.2018.1528844
380.
Winzer K., Hardie K.R., Williams P. LuxS and autoinducer-2: Their contribution to quorum sensing and metabolism in bacteria. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2003;53:291-396.
Not in our library10.1016/s0065-2164(03)53009-x
381.
Sholpan A., Lamas A., Cepeda A., Franco C.M. Salmonella spp. quorum sensing: An overview from environmental persistence to host cell invasion. AIMS Microbiol. 2021;7:238-256.
Not in our library10.3934/microbiol.2021015
382.
Smith D., Wang J.-H., Swatton J.E., Davenport P., Price B., Mikkelsen H., Stickland H., Nishikawa K., Gardiol N., Spring D.R. Variations on a theme: Diverse N-acyl homoserine lactone-mediated quorum sensing mechanisms in gram-negative bacteria. Sci. Prog. 2006;89:167-211.
Not in our library10.3184/003685006783238335
383.
Johnson Jeremiah G., Yuhas C., McQuade Thomas J., Larsen Martha J., DiRita Victor J. Narrow-Spectrum Inhibitors of Campylobacter jejuni Flagellar Expression and Growth. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015;59:3880-3886.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.04926-14
384.
Choi J., Shin D., Ryu S. Implication of quorum sensing in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium virulence: The luxS gene is necessary for expression of genes in pathogenicity island 1. Infect. Immun. 2007;75:4885-4890.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.01942-06
385.
Deblais L., Helmy Y.A., Kumar A., Antwi J., Kathayat D., Acuna U.M., Huang H.-c., de Blanco E.C., Fuchs J.R., Rajashekara G. Novel narrow spectrum benzyl thiophene sulfonamide derivatives to control Campylobacter. J. Antibiot. 2019;72:555-565.
Not in our library10.1038/s41429-019-0168-x
386.
Johnson T.J., Shank J.M., Johnson J.G. Current and Potential Treatments for Reducing Campylobacter Colonization in Animal Hosts and Disease in Humans. Front. Microbiol. 2017;8:487.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2017.00487
387.
Helmy Y.A., Kathayat D., Closs G., Galgozy K., Fuchs J.R., Rajashekara G. Efficacy of quorum sensing and growth inhibitors alone and in combination against avian pathogenic Escherichia coli infection in chickens. Poult. Sci. 2023;102:102543.
Not in our library10.1016/j.psj.2023.102543
388.
Li G., Yan C., Xu Y., Feng Y., Wu Q., Lv X., Yang B., Wang X., Xia X. Punicalagin inhibits Salmonella virulence factors and has anti-quorum-sensing potential. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014;80:6204-6211.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.01458-14
389.
Upadhyaya I., Upadhyay A., Kollanoor-Johny A., Darre M.J., Venkitanarayanan K. Effect of plant derived antimicrobials on Salmonella enteritidis adhesion to and invasion of primary chicken oviduct epithelial cells in vitro and virulence gene expression. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013;14:10608-10625.
Not in our library10.3390/ijms140510608
390.
Janssens J.C., Steenackers H., Robijns S., Gellens E., Levin J., Zhao H., Hermans K., De Coster D., Verhoeven T.L., Marchal K., et al. Brominated furanones inhibit biofilm formation by Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008;74:6639-6648.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.01262-08
391.
Birhanu B.T., Park N.-H., Lee S.-J., Hossain M.A., Park S.-C. Inhibition of Salmonella Typhimurium adhesion, invasion, and intracellular survival via treatment with methyl gallate alone and in combination with marbofloxacin. Vet. Res. 2018;49:101.
Not in our library10.1186/s13567-018-0597-8
392.
Styles M.J., Blackwell H.E. Non-native autoinducer analogs capable of modulating the SdiA quorum sensing receptor in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2018;14:2651-2664.
Not in our library10.3762/bjoc.14.243
393.
Nesterenko L.N., Zigangirova N.A., Zayakin E.S., Luyksaar S.I., Kobets N.V., Balunets D.V., Shabalina L.A., Bolshakova T.N., Dobrynina O.Y., Gintsburg A.L. A small-molecule compound belonging to a class of 2,4-disubstituted 1,3,4-thiadiazine-5-ones suppresses Salmonella infection in vivo. J. Antibiot. 2016;69:422-427.
Not in our library10.1038/ja.2015.131
394.
Song Y., Xu G., Li C., Li Z., Lu C., Shen Y. Structural optimization of natural product fusaric acid to discover novel T3SS inhibitors of Salmonella. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2021;582:72-76.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.10.035
395.
Hudson Debra L., Layton Abigail N., Field Terry R., Bowen Alison J., Wolf-Watz H., Elofsson M., Stevens Mark P., Galyov Edouard E. Inhibition of Type III Secretion in Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium by Small-Molecule Inhibitors. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2007;51:2631-2635.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.01492-06
396.
Defoirdt T. Quorum-sensing systems as targets for antivirulence therapy. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26:313-328.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tim.2017.10.005
397.
Krzyżek P. Challenges and Limitations of Anti-quorum Sensing Therapies. Front. Microbiol. 2019;10:2473.
Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2019.02473
398.
Mechesso A.F., Yixian Q., Park S.C. Methyl gallate and tylosin synergistically reduce the membrane integrity and intracellular survival of Salmonella Typhimurium. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0221386.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0221386
399.
Aswathanarayan J.B., Vittal R.R. Inhibition of biofilm formation and quorum sensing mediated phenotypes by berberine in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella typhimurium. RSC Adv. 2018;8:36133-36141.
Not in our library10.1039/c8ra06413j
400.
Sivasankar C., Jha N.K., Ghosh R., Shetty P.H. Anti quorum sensing and anti virulence activity of tannic acid and it’s potential to breach resistance in Salmonella enterica Typhi/Paratyphi A clinical isolates. Microb. Pathog. 2020;138:103813.
Not in our library10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103813
401.
Durães F., Resende D., Palmeira A., Szemerédi N., Pinto M.M.M., Spengler G., Sousa E. Xanthones Active against Multidrug Resistance and Virulence Mechanisms of Bacteria. Antibiotics. 2021;10:600.
Not in our library10.3390/antibiotics10050600
402.
Janssens Joost C.A., Metzger K., Daniels R., Ptacek D., Verhoeven T., Habel Lothar W., Vanderleyden J., De Vos Dirk E., De Keersmaecker Sigrid C.J. Synthesis of N-Acyl Homoserine Lactone Analogues Reveals Strong Activators of SdiA, the Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium LuxR Homologue. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007;73:535-544.
Not in our library10.1128/aem.01451-06
403.
Tsai C.N., MacNair C.R., Cao M.P.T., Perry J.N., Magolan J., Brown E.D., Coombes B.K. Targeting Two-Component Systems Uncovers a Small-Molecule Inhibitor of Salmonella Virulence. Cell Chem. Biol. 2020;27:793-805.E7.
Not in our library10.1016/j.chembiol.2020.04.005
404.
Li J., Lv C., Sun W., Li Z., Han X., Li Y., Shen Y. Cytosporone B, an Inhibitor of the Type III Secretion System of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013;57:2191-2198.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.02421-12
405.
CDC. Immunization: The Basics.
Not in our library
406.
Plotkin S.A. Updates on immunologic correlates of vaccine-induced protection. Vaccine. 2020;38:2250-2257.
Not in our library10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.046
407.
Allen H.K., Levine U.Y., Looft T., Bandrick M., Casey T.A. Treatment, promotion, commotion: Antibiotic alternatives in food-producing animals. Trends Microbiol. 2013;21:114-119.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tim.2012.11.001
408.
Elaish M., Ngunjiri J.M., Ali A., Xia M., Ibrahim M., Jang H., Hiremath J., Dhakal S., Helmy Y.A., Jiang X. Supplementation of inactivated influenza vaccine with norovirus P particle-M2e chimeric vaccine enhances protection against heterologous virus challenge in chickens. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0171174.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0171174
409.
Fawzy M., Helmy Y.A. The One Health Approach is Necessary for the Control of Rift Valley Fever Infections in Egypt: A Comprehensive Review. Viruses. 2019;11:139.
Not in our library10.3390/v11020139
410.
The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comprehensive Review of Taxonomy, Genetics, Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Control · 2020
No notice
411.
Taha-Abdelaziz K., Singh M., Sharif S., Sharma S., Kulkarni R.R., Alizadeh M., Yitbarek A., Helmy Y.A. Intervention Strategies to Control Campylobacter at Different Stages of the Food Chain. Microorganisms. 2023;11:113.
Not in our library10.3390/microorganisms11010113
412.
Lucero M.S., Chimeno Zoth S., Jaton J., Gravisaco M.J., Pinto S., Richetta M., Berinstein A., Gómez E. Oral Immunization With Plant-Based Vaccine Induces a Protective Response Against Infectious Bursal Disease. Front. Plant Sci. 2021;12:741469.
Not in our library10.3389/fpls.2021.741469
413.
Yadav D.K., Yadav N., Khurana S.M.P. Vaccines: Present status and applications. Animal Biotechnology. 2020;523-542.
Not in our library
414.
Tumpey T.M., Alvarez R., Swayne D.E., Suarez D.L. Diagnostic approach for differentiating infected from vaccinated poultry on the basis of antibodies to NS1, the nonstructural protein of influenza A virus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005;43:676-683.
Not in our library10.1128/jcm.43.2.676-683.2005
415.
Francis M.J. Recent Advances in Vaccine Technologies. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2018;48:231-241.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cvsm.2017.10.002
416.
Vanderslott S., Dattani S., Spooner F., Roser M. Vaccination. 2013.
Not in our library
417.
Parham P. The Immune System: Fifth International Student Edition with Registration Card. 2021.
Not in our library
418.
Lidder P., Sonnino A. Biotechnologies for the management of genetic resources for food and agriculture. Adv. Genet. 2012;78:1-167.
Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-12-394394-1.00001-8
419.
Micoli F., MacLennan C.A. Outer membrane vesicle vaccines. Proceedings of the Seminars in Immunology. 2020;101433.
Not in our library10.1016/j.smim.2020.101433
420.
Rappuoli R. Glycoconjugate vaccines: Principles and mechanisms. Sci. Transl. Med. 2018;10:eaat4615.
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aat4615
421.
Clarke E.T., Williams N.A., Dull P.M., Findlow J., Borrow R., Finn A., Heyderman R.S. Polysaccharide–protein conjugate vaccination induces antibody production but not sustained B-cell memory in the human nasopharyngeal mucosa. Mucosal Immunol. 2013;6:288-296.
Not in our library10.1038/mi.2012.70
422.
Developments in Viral Vector-Based Vaccines · 2014
No notice
423.
Gheibi Hayat S.M., Darroudi M. Nanovaccine: A novel approach in immunization. J. Cell. Physiol. 2019;234:12530-12536.
Not in our library10.1002/jcp.28120
424.
MacLennan C.A., Martin L.B., Micoli F. Vaccines against invasive Salmonella disease: Current status and future directions. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2014;10:1478-1493.
Not in our library10.4161/hv.29054
425.
Germanier R., Fiirer E. Isolation and characterization of Gal E mutant Ty 21a of Salmonella typhi: A candidate strain for a live, oral typhoid vaccine. J. Infect. Dis. 1975;131:553-558.
Not in our library10.1093/infdis/131.5.553
426.
Levine M.M., Ferreccio C., Black R.E., Lagos R., Martin O.S., Blackwelder W.C. Ty21a live oral typhoid vaccine and prevention of paratyphoid fever caused by Salmonella enterica Serovar Paratyphi B. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007;45:S24-S28.
Not in our library10.1086/518141
427.
Tagliabue A., Villa L., De Magistris M.T., Romano M., Silvestri S., Boraschi D., Nencioni L. IgA-driven T cell-mediated anti-bacterial immunity in man after live oral Ty 21a vaccine. J. Immunol. 1986;137:1504-1510.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.137.5.1504
428.
Lindow J.C., Fimlaid K.A., Bunn J.Y., Kirkpatrick B.D. Antibodies in action: Role of human opsonins in killing Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi. Infect. Immun. 2011;79:3188-3194.
Not in our library10.1128/iai.05081-11
429.
Wahid R., Simon R., Zafar S.J., Levine M.M., Sztein M.B. Live oral typhoid vaccine Ty21a induces cross-reactive humoral immune responses against Salmonella enterica serovar Paratyphi A and S. Paratyphi B in humans. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2012;19:825-834.
Not in our library10.1128/cvi.00058-12
430.
A Study on Longevity of Immune Response after Vaccination with Salmonella Typhi Vi Conjugate Vaccine (Pedatyph™) in Children · 2015
Not checked
431.
Crump J.A., Oo W.T. Salmonella Typhi Vi polysaccharide conjugate vaccine protects infants and children against typhoid fever. Lancet. 2021;398:643-644.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01340-4
432.
Jossi S.E., Arcuri M., Alshayea A., Persaud R.R., Marcial-Juárez E., Palmieri E., Di Benedetto R., Pérez-Toledo M., Pillaye J., Channell W.M., et al. Vi polysaccharide and conjugated vaccines afford similar early, IgM or IgG-independent control of infection but boosting with conjugated Vi vaccines sustains the efficacy of immune responses. Front. Immunol. 2023;14:1139329.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2023.1139329
433.
Micoli F., Rondini S., Pisoni I., Giannelli C., Di Cioccio V., Costantino P., Saul A., Martin L. Production of a conjugate vaccine for Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi from Citrobacter Vi. Vaccine. 2012;30:853-861.
Not in our library10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.108
434.
Lyon C.E., Sadigh K.S., Carmolli M.P., Harro C., Sheldon E., Lindow J.C., Larsson C.J., Martinez T., Feller A., Ventrone C.H., et al. In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, the single oral dose typhoid vaccine, M01ZH09, is safe and immunogenic at doses up to 1.7×1010 colony-forming units. Vaccine. 2010;28:3602-3608.
Not in our library10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.02.017
435.
Smith G.W., Smith F., Zuidhof S., Foster D.M. Short communication: Characterization of the serologic response induced by vaccination of late-gestation cows with a Salmonella Dublin vaccine. J. Dairy Sci. 2015;98:2529-2532.
Not in our library10.3168/jds.2014-8972
436.
Renu S., Han Y., Dhakal S., Lakshmanappa Y.S., Ghimire S., Feliciano-Ruiz N., Senapati S., Narasimhan B., Selvaraj R., Renukaradhya G.J. Chitosan-adjuvanted Salmonella subunit nanoparticle vaccine for poultry delivered through drinking water and feed. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020;243:116434.
Not in our library10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116434
437.
Muniz E.C., Verdi R., Leão J.A., Back A., Nascimento V.P.d. Evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of a genetically modified live vaccine in broilers challenged with Salmonella Heidelberg. Avian Pathol. 2017;46:676-682.
Not in our library10.1080/03079457.2017.1348598
438.
Crouch C.F., Nell T., Reijnders M., Donkers T., Pugh C., Patel A., Davis P., van Hulten M.C.W., de Vries S.P.W. Safety and efficacy of a novel inactivated trivalent Salmonella enterica vaccine in chickens. Vaccine. 2020;38:6741-6750.
Not in our library10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.08.033
439.
Pollard A.J., Bijker E.M. A guide to vaccinology: From basic principles to new developments. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2021;21:83-100.
Not in our library10.1038/s41577-020-00479-7
440.
Moyle P.M., Toth I. Modern subunit vaccines: Development, components, and research opportunities. ChemMedChem. 2013;8:360-376.
Not in our library10.1002/cmdc.201200487
441.
Tekle Y.I., Nielsen K.M., Liu J., Pettigrew M.M., Meyers L.A., Galvani A.P., Townsend J.P. Controlling antimicrobial resistance through targeted, vaccine-induced replacement of strains. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e50688.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0050688
442.
Huberman Y.D., Velilla A.V., Terzolo H.R. Evaluation of different live Salmonella enteritidis vaccine schedules administered during layer hen rearing to reduce excretion, organ colonization, and egg contamination. Poult. Sci. 2019;98:2422-2431.
Not in our library10.3382/ps/pez003
443.
Baranyi J., Roberts T.A. A dynamic approach to predicting bacterial growth in food. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1994;23:277-294.
Not in our library10.1016/0168-1605(94)90157-0
444.
Theron M.M., Lues J.F.R. Organic Acids and Meat Preservation: A Review. Food Rev. Int. 2007;23:141-158.
Not in our library10.1080/87559120701224964
445.
Taylor M., Joerger R., Palou E., López-Malo A., Avila-Sosa R., Calix-Lara T. Alternatives to traditional antimicrobials for organically processed meat and poultry. Org. Meat Prod. Process. 2012;1:211-237.
Not in our library10.1002/9781118229088.ch13
446.
Antibacterial Free Fatty Acids and Monoglycerides: Biological Activities, Experimental Testing, and Therapeutic Applications · 2018
No notice
447.
Gómez-García M., Sol C., de Nova P.J.G., Puyalto M., Mesas L., Puente H., Mencía-Ares Ó., Miranda R., Argüello H., Rubio P., et al. Antimicrobial activity of a selection of organic acids, their salts and essential oils against swine enteropathogenic bacteria. Porc. Health Manag. 2019;5:32.
Not in our library10.1186/s40813-019-0139-4
448.
Ng W.-K., Koh C.-B. The utilization and mode of action of organic acids in the feeds of cultured aquatic animals. Rev. Aquac. 2017;9:342-368.
Not in our library10.1111/raq.12141
449.
Ricke S.C. Perspectives on the use of organic acids and short chain fatty acids as antimicrobials. Poult. Sci. 2003;82:632-639.
Not in our library10.1093/ps/82.4.632
450.
Organic Acids and Potential for Modifying the Avian Gastrointestinal Tract and Reducing Pathogens and Disease · 2018
No notice
451.
Formic Acid as an Antimicrobial for Poultry Production: A Review · 2020
Not checked
452.
Desbois A.P., Smith V.J. Antibacterial free fatty acids: Activities, mechanisms of action and biotechnological potential. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010;85:1629-1642.
Not in our library10.1007/s00253-009-2355-3
453.
Hensel M. Evolution of pathogenicity islands of Salmonella enterica. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2004;294:95-102.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmm.2004.06.025
454.
Sprong R.C., Hulstein M.F., Van der Meer R. Bactericidal activities of milk lipids. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001;45:1298-1301.
Not in our library10.1128/aac.45.4.1298-1301.2001
455.
Immerseel F.V., Buck J.D., Smet I.D., Pasmans F., Haesebrouck F., Ducatelle R. Interactions of butyric acid–and acetic acid–treated Salmonella with chicken primary Cecal epithelial cells in vitro. Avian Dis. 2004;48:384-391.
Not in our library10.1637/7094
456.
Durant J.A., Corrier D.E., Ricke S.C. Short-chain volatile fatty acids modulate the expression of the hilA and invF genes of Salmonella typhimurium. J. Food Prot. 2000;63:573-578.
Not in our library10.4315/0362-028x-63.5.573
457.
Koyuncu S., Andersson M.G., Löfström C., Skandamis P.N., Gounadaki A., Zentek J., Häggblom P. Organic acids for control of Salmonella in different feed materials. BMC Vet. Res. 2013;9:81.
Not in our library10.1186/1746-6148-9-81
458.
Menconi A., Reginatto A., Londero A., Pumford N., Morgan M., Hargis B., Tellez G. Effect of organic acids on Salmonella Typhimurium infection in broiler chickens. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2013;12:72-75.
Not in our library10.3923/ijps.2013.72.75
459.
Ruhnke I., Röhe I., Goodarzi Boroojeni F., Knorr F., Mader A., Hafeez A., Zentek J. Feed supplemented with organic acids does not affect starch digestibility, nor intestinal absorptive or secretory function in broiler chickens. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2015;99:29-35.
Not in our library10.1111/jpn.12313
460.
Lynch H., Leonard F.C., Walia K., Lawlor P.G., Duffy G., Fanning S., Markey B.K., Brady C., Gardiner G.E., Argüello H. Investigation of in-feed organic acids as a low cost strategy to combat Salmonella in grower pigs. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017;139:50-57.
Not in our library10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.02.008
461.
Tsai C.-C., Hsih H.-Y., Chiu H.-H., Lai Y.-Y., Liu J.-H., Yu B., Tsen H.-Y. Antagonistic activity against Salmonella infection in vitro and in vivo for two Lactobacillus strains from swine and poultry. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2005;102:185-194.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.12.014
462.
Gunal M., Yayli G., Kaya O., Karahan N., Sulak O. The effects of antibiotic growth promoter, probiotic or organic acid supplementation on performance, intestinal microflora and tissue of broilers. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2006;5:149-155.
Not in our library
463.
Organic acid toxicity, tolerance, and production in Escherichia coli biorefining applications · 2005
No notice
464.
Khan S.H., Iqbal J. Recent advances in the role of organic acids in poultry nutrition. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2016;44:359-369.
Not in our library10.1080/09712119.2015.1079527
465.
Brah A.S., Armah F.A., Obuah C., Akwetey S.A., Adokoh C.K. Toxicity and therapeutic applications of citrus essential oils (CEOs): A review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2023;26:301-326.
Not in our library10.1080/10942912.2022.2158864
466.
Bakkali F., Averbeck S., Averbeck D., Idaomar M. Biological effects of essential oils—A review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008;46:446-475.
Not in our library10.1016/j.fct.2007.09.106
467.
Angioni A., Barra A., Coroneo V., Dessi S., Cabras P. Chemical composition, seasonal variability, and antifungal activity of Lavandula stoechas L. ssp. stoechas essential oils from stem/leaves and flowers. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006;54:4364-4370.
Not in our library10.1021/jf0603329
468.
Inouye S., Abe S., Yamaguchi H., Asakura M. Comparative study of antimicrobial and cytotoxic effects of selected essential oils by gaseous and solution contacts. Int. J. Aromather. 2003;13:33-41.
Not in our library10.1016/s0962-4562(03)00057-2
469.
Costa D.C., Costa H., Albuquerque T.G., Ramos F., Castilho M.C., Sanches-Silva A. Advances in phenolic compounds analysis of aromatic plants and their potential applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015;45:336-354.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tifs.2015.06.009
470.
Lubbe A., Verpoorte R. Cultivation of medicinal and aromatic plants for specialty industrial materials. Ind. Crops. Prod. 2011;34:785-801.
Not in our library10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.01.019
471.
Bansal T. Benefits of essential oil. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2016;8:143-149.
Not in our library
472.
O’Brien T.F. Emergence, spread, and environmental effect of antimicrobial resistance: How use of an antimicrobial anywhere can increase resistance to any antimicrobial anywhere else. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2002;34:S78-S84.
Not in our library10.1086/340244
473.
Antimicrobial Properties of Plant Essential Oils against Human Pathogens and Their Mode of Action: An Updated Review · 2016
No notice
474.
Park J.B., Kang J.H., Song K.B. Antibacterial activities of a cinnamon essential oil with cetylpyridinium chloride emulsion against Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium in basil leaves. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2018;27:47-55.
Not in our library10.1007/s10068-017-0241-9
475.
Raybaudi-Massilia R.M., Mosqueda-Melgar J., Martin-Belloso O. Antimicrobial Activity of Essential Oils on Salmonella Enteritidis, Escherichia coli, and Listeria innocua in Fruit Juices. J. Food Prot. 2006;69:1579-1586.
Not in our library10.4315/0362-028x-69.7.1579
476.
In Vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Essential Oils Against Salmonella enterica Serotypes Enteritidis and Typhimurium Strains Isolated from Poultry · 2019
Not checked
477.
Olaimat A.N., Al-Holy M.A., Abu Ghoush M.H., Al-Nabulsi A.A., Osaili T.M., Holley R.A. Inhibitory effects of cinnamon and thyme essential oils against Salmonella spp. in hummus (chickpea dip). J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019;43:e13925.
Not in our library10.1111/jfpp.13925
478.
Thanissery R., Kathariou S., Smith D.P. Rosemary oil, clove oil, and a mix of thyme-orange essential oils inhibit Salmonella and Campylobacter in vitro. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014;23:221-227.
Not in our library10.3382/japr.2013-00888
479.
Puškárová A., Bučková M., Kraková L., Pangallo D., Kozics K. The antibacterial and antifungal activity of six essential oils and their cyto/genotoxicity to human HEL 12469 cells. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:8211.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-017-08673-9
480.
Slameňová D., Horváthová E., Kováčiková Z., Kozics K., Hunáková Ľ. Essential rosemary oil protects testicular cells against DNA-damaging effects of H2O2 and DMNQ. Food Chem. 2011;129:64-70.
Not in our library10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.04.020
481.
Maurya A., Prasad J., Das S., Dwivedy A.K. Essential Oils and Their Application in Food Safety. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021;5:133.
Not in our library10.3389/fsufs.2021.653420
482.
Millet Y., Jouglard J., Steinmetz M., Tognetti P., Joanny P., Arditti J. Toxicity of some essential plant oils. Clinical and experimental study. Clin. Toxicol. 1981;18:1485-1498.
Not in our library10.3109/15563658108990357
483.
Posadzki P., Alotaibi A., Ernst E. Adverse effects of aromatherapy: A systematic review of case reports and case series. Int. J. Risk Saf. Med. 2012;24:147-161.
Not in our library10.3233/jrs-2012-0568
484.
Fadil M., Fikri-Benbrahim K., Rachiq S., Ihssane B., Lebrazi S., Chraibi M., Haloui T., Farah A. Combined treatment of Thymus vulgaris L., Rosmarinus officinalis L. and Myrtus communis L. essential oils against Salmonella typhimurium: Optimization of antibacterial activity by mixture design methodology. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2018;126:211-220.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejpb.2017.06.002
485.
Barbosa L.N., Alves F.C.B., Andrade B.F.M.T., Albano M., Rall V.L.M., Fernandes A.A.H., Buzalaf M.A.R., Leite A.d.L., de Pontes L.G., dos Santos L.D., et al. Proteomic analysis and antibacterial resistance mechanisms of Salmonella Enteritidis submitted to the inhibitory effect of Origanum vulgare essential oil, thymol and carvacrol. J. Proteom. 2020;214:103625.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jprot.2019.103625
486.
Hasheminya S.-M., Dehghannya J. Composition, phenolic content, antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of Pistacia atlantica subsp. kurdica hulls’ essential oil. Food Biosci. 2020;34:100510.
Not in our library10.1016/j.fbio.2019.100510
487.
Alibi S., Selma W.B., Ramos-Vivas J., Smach M.A., Touati R., Boukadida J., Navas J., Mansour H.B. Anti-oxidant, antibacterial, anti-biofilm, and anti-quorum sensing activities of four essential oils against multidrug-resistant bacterial clinical isolates. Curr. Res. Transl. Med. 2020;68:59-66.
Not in our library10.1016/j.retram.2020.01.001
488.
Rattanachaikunsopon P., Phumkhachorn P. Antimicrobial Activity of Basil (Ocimum basilicum) Oil against Salmonella Enteritidis in Vitro and in Food. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2010;74:1200-1204.
Not in our library10.1271/bbb.90939
489.
Morshdy A., El-Tahlawy A.S., Qari S.H., Qumsani A.T., Bay D.H., Sami R., Althubaiti E.H., Mansour A.M.A., Aljahani A.H., Hafez A.E.E., et al. Anti-Biofilms’ Activity of Garlic and Thyme Essential Oils against Salmonella typhimurium. Molecules. 2022;27:2182.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules27072182
490.
Hu Z., Liu L., Guo F., Huang J., Qiao J., Bi R., Huang J., Zhang K., Guo Y., Wang Z. Dietary supplemental coated essential oils and organic acids mixture improves growth performance and gut health along with reduces Salmonella load of broiler chickens infected with Salmonella Enteritidis. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2023;14:95.
Not in our library10.1186/s40104-023-00889-2
491.
Moore-Neibel K., Gerber C., Patel J., Friedman M., Ravishankar S. Antimicrobial activity of lemongrass oil against Salmonella enterica on organic leafy greens. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012;112:485-492.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05222.x

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.