Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 15, Number 5—May 2009

Possible Seasonality of Clostridium difficile in Retail Meat, Canada

Alexander Rodriguez-PalaciosComments to Author , Richard J. Reid-Smith, Henry R. Staempfli, Danielle Daignault, Nicol Janecko, Brent P. Avery, Hayley Martin, Angela D. Thomspon, L. Clifford McDonald, Brandi M. Limbago, and J. Scott Weese
Author affiliations: University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada (A. Rodriguez-Palacios, R.J. Reid-Smith, H.R. Staempfli, N. Janecko, H. Martin, J.S. Weese); Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph (R.J. Reid-Smith, B.P. Avery); Public Health Agency of Canada, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada (D. Diagnault); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (A.D. Thompson, L.C. McDonald, B. Limbago)

Main Article

Table 1

Proportion of retail meat packages yielding Clostridium difficile in 4 culture replicates and estimated method sensitivity, Canada, 2006*†

Sample Culture method
% Samples with C. difficile
sensitivity, %‡
Enrichment Agar Ground beef Veal from milk-fed calves Both‡
Rinsate TCDMNB CDMNA 2.7 (4/149)§ 0 (0/65) 1.9 (4/214) 31
Meat¶ TCDMNB CDMNA 2.7 (4/149)§ 1.5 (1/65) 2.3 (5/214) 39
Meat¶ TCDMNB CDMNA 1.3 (2/149)§ 1.5 (1/65) 1.4 (3/214) 23

1.3% (2/149)
1.5 (1/65)
1.4 (3/214)
Total of contaminated packages# 6.7 (10/149) 4.6 (3/65) 6.1 (13/214)‡ 100

*Rinsate, sediment; TCDMNB, in-house C. difficile broth (CM0601; Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) supplemented with cysteine hydrochloride, moxalactam, norfloxacin (CDMN, SR0173E; Oxoid), and 0.1% sodium taurocholate (Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA) (4); Meat, 2 g; CDMNA, C. difficile agar supplemented with CDMN and 7% laked horse blood (SR0048C; Oxoid); TCCFB, broth supplemented with D-cycloserine and cefoxitin (SR0096E; Oxoid) and 0.1% sodium taurocholate; Blood, 5% defibrinated sheep blood.
†Poor test agreement was found among and between cultures (κ –0.28; p>0.9).
‡Culture sensitivity calculation based on parallel interpretation of all 4 cultures (standard comparator) and 6.1% of overall contamination. Duplicate testing sensitivity ranged from 46.2% (6/13) to 61.5% (8/13).
§Represents 2 packages that simultaneously tested positive in 2 culture replicates.
¶Protocol previously used to test meat; duplicate run (4).
#No statistical differences were found between ground beef and veal in any culture replicate (p>0.1).

Main Article

  1. McDonald  LC, Killgore  GE, Thompson  A, Owens  RC Jr, Kazakova  SV, Sambol  JP, An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:243341. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Martin  H, Willey  B, Low  DE, Staempfli  HR, McGeer  A, Boerlin  P, Characterization of Clostridium difficile isolated from patients in Ontario, Canada, from 2004 to 2006. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:29993004. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbut  F, Mastrantonio  P, Delmee  M, Brazier  J, Kuijper  E, Poxton  I. European Study Group on Clostridium difficile (ESGCD). Prospective study of Clostridium difficile infections in Europe with phenotypic and genotypic characterisation of the isolates. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007;13:104857. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rodriguez-Palacios  A, Staempfli  HR, Duffield  T, Weese  JS. Clostridium difficile in retail ground meat, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13:4857.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian integrated program for antimicrobial resistance surveillance (CIPARS) 2005 [cited 2008 Jan 20]. Available from
  6. Arroyo  LG, Rousseau  J, Willey  BM, Low  DE, Staempfli  H, McGeer  A, Use of a selective enrichment broth to recover Clostridium difficile from stool swabs stored under different conditions. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:53413. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lemee  L, Dhalluin  A, Testelin  S, Mattrat  MA, Maillard  K, Lemeland  JF, Multiplex PCR targeting tpi (triose phosphate isomerase), tcdA (toxin A), and tcdB (toxin B) genes for toxigenic culture of Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:57104. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Spigaglia  P, Mastrantonio  P. Molecular analysis of the pathogenicity locus and polymorphism in the putative negative regulator of toxin production (TcdC) among Clostridium difficile clinical isolates. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:34705. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bidet  P, Barbut  F, Lalande  V, Burghoffer  B, Petit  JC. Development of a new PCR-ribotyping method for Clostridium difficile based on ribosomal RNA gene sequencing. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1999;175:2616. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Rupnik  M, Dupuy  B, Fairweather  NF, Gerding  DN, Johnson  S, Just  I, Revised nomenclature of Clostridium difficile toxins and associated genes. J Med Microbiol. 2005;54:1137. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Rodriguez-Palacios  A, Stampfli  HR, Duffield  T, Peregrine  AS, Trotz-Williams  LA, Arroyo  LG, Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes in calves, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:17306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria; approved standard, seventh edition. CLSI document M11–A7; 2007:27(2) [cited 2008 May 17]. Available from
  13. Songer  JG, Trinh  HT, Thompson  AD, Killgore  GE, McDonald  L, Limbago  BM. Isolation of Clostridium difficile from retail meats. In: Second International Clostridium difficile Symposium; June 6–9, 2007; Maribor, Slovenia. Maribor (Slovenia): Marie Curie Conferences and Training Procedures; 2007. p. 44.
  14. Vengust  M, Arroyo  LG, Weese  JS, Baird  JD. Preliminary evidence for dormant clostridial spores in equine skeletal muscle. Equine Vet J. 2003;35:5146. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. National Health Service for Wales. All-Wales mandatory Clostridium difficile surveillance- 2006 report [cited 2007 Jun 21]. Available from

Main Article

Page created: December 16, 2010
Page updated: December 16, 2010
Page reviewed: December 16, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.