Yersiniosis is a zoonosis causing gastroenteritis, diarrhoea, and occasionally reactive arthritis and septicaemia. Cases are often linked to meat consumption and the most common aetiological agent is the Gram-negative bacilliform Yersinia enterocolitica bacterium. The occurrence of Yersinia spp. among wild animals has mostly been studied in wild boar, but it has seldom been in other species. A total of 1,868 faecal samples from animals found dead or hunted were collected between 2015 and 2018 in the Valle d’Aosta region of the northwestern Italian Alps. Alpine ibex faecal samples were collected during a health monitoring program in 2018. Bacteria were isolated via PCR and confirmed as Y. enterocolitica biochemically. Strain antimicrobial susceptibility was tested by Kirby–Bauer disc diffusion, and the presence of virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance genes was investigated using whole-genome sequencing. Yersinia enterocolitica strains of biotype 1A were detected in six faecal samples from red deer (0.93%), roe deer (0.49%) and red foxes (0.7%). Strains found in beech martens (3.57%) and Alpine ibex (2.77%) belonged to biotypes 1B and 5, respectively and harboured the pYPTS01 plasmid that had only been detected in Y. pseudotuberculosis PB1/+. All the isolates were resistant to ampicillin and erythromycin. The biovar 1A strains exhibited different virulence factors and behaved like non-pathogenic commensals. The strain from an Alpine ibex also harboured the self-transmissible pYE854 plasmid that can mobilise itself and the pYPTS01 plasmid to other strains. The beech marten could be considered a sentinel animal for Y. enterocolitica. Phenotypic resistance may account for the ability of all the strains to resist β-lactams.

Yersiniosis is a zoonosis causing gastroenteritis, diarrhoea, and occasionally reactive arthritis and septicaemia. Cases are often linked to meat consumption and the most common aetiological agent is the Gram-negative bacilliform Yersinia enterocolitica bacterium. The occurrence of Yersinia spp. among wild animals has mostly been studied in wild boar, but it has seldom been in other species.

Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) is one of the main pathotypes causing gastroenteritis, particularly in young immunocompromised hosts. The study reports the prevalence, characterisation, and molecular epidemiology of EPEC from piglets in northeastern India. A total of 457 faecal samples were collected, from which 1,286 E. coli strains were isolated and screened by PCR. The resultant EPEC strains were serotyped and phenotypically characterised for resistance against 15 antimicrobials. Also, the phylogenetic sequence was analysed for 11 selected strains. A total of 42 strains (3.26%) belonged to atypical EPEC, of which, 15 (35.71%, and 2.29% of the 654 strains from this farm type) were isolated from organised and 27 (64.29%, and 4.27% of the 632 strains from this farm type) from unorganised farms; further, 5 (11.90% of the EPEC strains and 1.51% of the 330 strains from this breed) were isolated from the indigenous breeds and 37 (88.10%, and 3.87% of the 956 strains from this breed) from crossbred piglets. Serogroups O111 (11.9%) and O118 (7.14%) were the most prevalent of the 10 present. Sequence analysis of a length of the eaeA gene of 11 isolates of the region showed them to have 100% homology with each other and their identity ranged from 99.4% to 99.7% with GenBank reference sequences. All the EPEC isolates were multi-drug resistant, showing the highest resistance to amoxicillin (80.9%) and cephalexin (76.19%). The study highlighted the association of EPEC with piglet’s diarrhoea in northeastern India. EPEC isolates belonged to many serotypes and phenotypically all were multi-drug resistant with close genetic homology.

Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) is one of the main pathotypes causing gastroenteritis, particularly in young immunocompromised hosts. The study reports the prevalence, characterisation, and molecular epidemiology of EPEC from piglets in northeastern India.

Porcine epidemic diarrhoea (PED) is a highly contagious and devastating enteric disease of pigs caused by porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV), an enveloped, single-stranded RNA virus belonging to the Alphacoronavirus genus of the Coronaviridae family. The disease is clinically similar to other forms of porcine gastroenteritis. Pigs are the only known host of the disease, and the occurrence of PED in wild boars is unknown. The virus causes acute diarrhoea, vomiting, dehydration, and high mortality in suckling piglets reaching 100%. Heavy economic losses in the pig-farming industry were sustained in the USA between 2013 and 2015 when PEDV spread very quickly and resulted in epidemics. The loss in the US pig industry has been estimated at almost seven million pigs. The purpose of this review is a description of the current status of porcine epidemic diarrhoea in European pigs and the risk presented by the introduction of PEDV to Poland in comparison to the epidemics in the USA.

Porcine epidemic diarrhoea (PED) is a highly contagious and devastating enteric disease of pigs caused by porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV), an enveloped, single-stranded RNA virus belonging to the Alphacoronavirus genus of the Coronaviridae family. The disease is clinically similar to other forms of porcine gastroenteritis. Pigs are the only known host of the disease, and the occurrence of PED in wild boars is unknown. The virus causes acute diarrhoea, vomiting, dehydration, and high mortality in suckling piglets reaching 100%. Heavy economic losses in the pig-farming industry were sustained in the USA between 2013 and 2015 when PEDV spread very quickly and resulted in epidemics. The loss in the US pig industry has been estimated at almost seven million pigs. The purpose of this review is a description of the current status of porcine epidemic diarrhoea in European pigs and the risk presented by the introduction of PEDV to Poland in comparison to the epidemics in the USA.

Introduction: Chronic gastritis is a common diagnosis in dogs with signs of chronic vomiting. However, there is no data concerning endoscopic and histopathological agreement in dogs with chronic gastritis. Thus, a question should be raised whether taking gastroduodenal biopsies in dogs with chronic gastritis is necessary or not. Consequently, the purpose of the study was to compare the endoscopic and histopathological agreement in dogs with chronic gastritis. Material and Methods: A total of 22 non-pregnant client-owned dogs with the signs of chronic gastritis were enrolled in this prospective study. Procedures including clinical examination, blood analysis, and diagnostic imaging were performed before anaesthesia. Biopsies obtained from gastroduodenal sites were histopathologically evaluated. A total of 110 gastroduodenal samples were examined. Results: Sixtyeight samples had abnormal histopathology and endoscopy while 11 showed normal histopathological and endoscopic evidence. Conclusion: The obtained data demonstrated that it is not necessary to take extra gastroduodenal biopsies in dogs with evidence of endoscopic gastroduodenitis. We also believe that further prospective studies, including cost and time effectiveness and more specific comparison between endoscopic appearance and histopathology, are necessary to make final recommendations regarding the need of using both procedures for definitive diagnosis.

Introduction: Chronic gastritis is a common diagnosis in dogs with signs of chronic vomiting. However, there is no data concerning endoscopic and histopathological agreement in dogs with chronic gastritis. Thus, a question should be raised whether taking gastroduodenal biopsies in dogs with chronic gastritis is necessary or not. Consequently, the purpose of the study was to compare the endoscopic and histopathological agreement in dogs with chronic gastritis. Material and Methods: A total of 22 non-pregnant client-owned dogs with the signs of chronic gastritis were enrolled in this prospective study. Procedures including clinical examination, blood analysis, and diagnostic imaging were performed before anaesthesia. Biopsies obtained from gastroduodenal sites were histopathologically evaluated. A total of 110 gastroduodenal samples were examined. Results: Sixtyeight samples had abnormal histopathology and endoscopy while 11 showed normal histopathological and endoscopic evidence. Conclusion: The obtained data demonstrated that it is not necessary to take extra gastroduodenal biopsies in dogs with evidence of endoscopic gastroduodenitis. We also believe that further prospective studies, including cost and time effectiveness and more specific comparison between endoscopic appearance and histopathology, are necessary to make final recommendations regarding the need of using both procedures for definitive diagnosis.