ArticleBMC microbiology2025
WGS-based surveillance for Campylobacter spp. in human infections and chicken meat production in Italy (2023).
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multisectoral Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant Campylobacter coli Sequence Type 10042 Lineage, Europe, 2018-2025.Emerging infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Contributions of whole-genome sequencing to the epidemiological monitoring ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Reducing Antibiotic Dependence in Poultry: The Potential of Phytochemicals as Antibiotic Alternatives Against Bacterial Foodborne Pathogens.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Review
- Article
- CRISPR-based tools in food safety and microbiology: applications for pathogen detection and control.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Ribotyping for Accurate Identification of Infectious Bacteria in Animal-Derived Foods and Laboratory Samples: Implications for Human Health.Journal of tropical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCampylobacter spp. infections present an urgent and significant global public health challenge. This study offers a genomic characterization of Campylobacter spp. isolates from human samples and chicken-origin food sources in Italy during 2023. Whole-genome sequencing, cluster analysis, genomic comparison of human and food of animal origin isolates, and characterization of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms were performed on 257 isolates.
resultsCampylobacter jejuni revealed considerable variability, with predominant types, including ST21, ST50 (ST21 CC), and ST3335 (ST206 CC), in human isolates, whereas ST50 and ST2116 (ST353 CC) prevailed in food sources. In contrast, C coli isolates were associated primarily with the ST828 CC. Cluster analysis based on core-genome multilocus sequence typing (cgMLST) revealed that 40.0% of the isolates formed 23 genetic clusters, suggesting potential outbreak scenarios. The isolates presented a high prevalence of ciprofloxacin resistance linked to mutations in GyrA (80.1%) and extensive tetracycline resistance attributed to tet genes (64.6%). Multidrug resistance was predominantly observed in C. coli (12.1%). Notably, the chromosomal erythromycin resistance gene erm(N) in food C. coli isolates was detected for the first time in Italy and for the first time worldwide in a veterinarian or food isolate.
conclusionsThis One Health study, which was based on genomic surveillance, improved our understanding of antimicrobial resistance and the epidemiology of Campylobacter spp. This study highlights the emergence of a novel antimicrobial resistance marker in Italy, erm(N), and reveals the prospective occurrence of multiple nationwide outbreak scenarios that demand immediate public health attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.