Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Preharvest Control of Campylobacter Colonization in Chickens: Special Emphasis on Vaccination Strategies

Submitted:

12 August 2025

Posted:

13 August 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Campylobacter is a leading cause of human gastroenteritis, with poultry serving as the primary reservoir host. Effective preharvest control strategies are crucial for preventing or reducing Campylobacter contamination on meat surfaces. As concerns grow regarding the use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture, the importance of non-antimicrobial preharvest strategies in poultry production has become increasingly significant. This comprehensive review focuses on the biology of Campylobacter, its impact on public health, and current and emerging preharvest strategies with a special emphasis on vaccination. Preharvest strategies are broadly classified into biosecurity measures, gut microbiota modifications using prebiotics, probiotics, postbiotics, feed additives, and vaccination. While many live, attenuated, and subunit vaccines have proven effective in research settings, there are currently no commercial vaccines available. Because no single strategy can effectively combat Campylobacter, integrating multiple approaches, such as improved biosecurity measures, immunization, and dietary modifications, may provide a solution for reducing Campylobacter loads in poultry. Embracing a “One Health” approach, gaining a deeper understanding of Campylobacter pathophysiology, making advancements in vaccine technology, and implementing holistic farm management practices will be essential for sustainable control of Campylobacter and for reducing the risk of human campylobacteriosis.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Campylobacter is one of the major causes of bacterial gastroenteritis in the United States [1,2]. Each year, an estimated 1.5 million people in the United States contract Campylobacter infections [3]. The primary source of these infections is raw or undercooked chicken meat containing high loads of Campylobacter originating from the chicken’s digestive tract [4,5,6]. The two major species responsible for human infections are Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli [7]. Apart from causing gastroenteritis, C. jejuni is linked to about one-third of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) cases in humans [8,9,10]. GBS is an immune-mediated peripheral nerve disease characterized by symmetrical ascending weakness that can progress to paralysis accompanied by hyporeflexia and areflexia [11,12]. Thermophilic Campylobacter species, mainly C. jejuni and C. coli, are commonly found in wild birds and domestic poultry [13,14,15,16]. Some farms worldwide have reported Campylobacter prevalence rates as high as 100%, particularly among birds that have reached marketable age. Both C. jejuni and C. coli have adapted to the avian gastrointestinal tract. Despite widespread intestinal colonization (up to 109 colony-forming units/g of cecal content), Campylobacter are often regarded as commensals in birds, causing little to no overt illness [4,17,18,19]. However, recent studies have shown that Campylobacter spp. can lead to significant infections and immune responses [20,21,22,23]. Following intestinal infection by Campylobacter in chickens, cytokine responses that drive humoral, adaptive, and Th17 responses have been observed [21,24,25]. Additionally, the newly emerged species, Campylobacter hepaticus, causes spotty liver disease (SLD) in layer hens, which is most prevalent during peak production stages [26,27].
Fluoroquinolones and macrolides have been widely used in the past in animals for growth promotion and infection control purposes. They have also been prescribed as supportive treatments for human Campylobacter infections. However, this widespread use in food animals is believed to have significantly contributed to the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) against these antibiotics [28,29,30]. The emergence of AMR has significantly restricted effective antibiotic treatment options for Campylobacter infections [30,31,32]. Consequently, growing concerns regarding AMR and food safety have led to bans on the use of medically important antimicrobials in food production systems for nontherapeutic purposes, driving the urgent search for alternative strategies that focus on Campylobacter control and prevention at the poultry farm level [32,33,34,35,36]. Achieving Campylobacter prevention in farm settings is quite challenging due to following reasons, i) the ubiquitous nature of Campylobacter, ii) multiple transmission routes, iii) a low infection dose required for human illness, and iv) the delayed detection of Campylobacter colonization or spread in birds [37,38,39,40]. Despite these challenges, quantitative microbial risk assessment studies showed a 1–2 log reduction in the level of Campylobacter in broiler chicken intestines can significantly impact relative risk reduction, achieving a decrease of 44%-95% [41]. The incidence of Campylobacteriosis through chicken meat can be reduced 30 times by introducing a 2-log reduction in the number of Campylobacter spp.in chicken carcasses [42]. Therefore, control of human Campylobacter infections is feasible through the consistent application of safe practices from farm to fork.
Campylobacter control strategies can be broadly divided into two main categories: preharvest and postharvest strategies [43,44]. Preharvest strategies are measures and interventions to control Campylobacter at the farm level. These strategies mainly focus on reducing Campylobacter colonization and preventing its introduction and spread in the environment [34,45,46]. Preharvest strategies can be further divided into three categories: i) reduction of environmental exposure through biosecurity measures, ii) reducing Campylobacter colonization in the bird intestines by improving host resistance via competitive exclusion, vaccination, and host genetic selection, and iii) using alternatives to antibiotics to mitigate Campylobacter colonization in birds [47]. Post-harvest interventions include carcass decontamination, antimicrobial treatment for poultry processing, cold chain management, and consumer education [48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. However, most of these interventions are ineffective when used alone and are not commercially available. While vaccines have shown promising results in the prevention of various poultry diseases, and many studies have tested numerous vaccine candidates, no commercial vaccines are currently available to prevent or reduce Campylobacter colonization in chickens. A multifaceted approach that combines two or three strategies, with a particular focus on vaccination, is essential for preventing and controlling Campylobacter colonization in poultry. This comprehensive review explores the current state of preharvest approaches to mitigate Campylobacter colonization in poultry, with a special emphasis on vaccination strategies against Campylobacter spp.

2. Campylobacter in Broilers –Biology and Public Health Impact

Campylobacter spp. are gram-negative, motile, slender, comma-shaped or spiral-shaped, non-spore forming bacteria. They grow strictly under anaerobic to microaerophilic conditions and are nutritionally fastidious organisms. The bacterial length ranges from 0.5-5 µm and width of 0.2-0.9 µm [55,56]. There are more than 57 Campylobacter spp. under the genus Campylobacter (https://lpsn.dsmz.de/genus/Campylobacter). They colonize the intestines of warm-blooded hosts, including humans; however avian species are more favorable as commensal colonizers [57]. In humans, Campylobacter causes gastroenteritis, which can sometimes lead to complications such as Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and reactive arthritis [56]. In the United States, Campylobacter is one of the major causes of gastroenteritis with approximately 1.3 million cases leading to economic costs ranging from $1.3 to $6.8 billion [58]. Generally, self-limited diarrheal illness lasts for about 5 to 7 days, but elderly people with immuno-compromised status are at a high risk for mortality, morbidity, and prolonged illness [7].
C. jejuni and C. coli are the major Campylobacter species associated with human illness. Humans acquire infections through fecal-oral transmission from infected animals and food products [59,60]. Avian species, especially chickens, account for 50% -70% of Campylobacter infections in humans [61]. When chickens carry Campylobacter in their intestines, chicken meat may become contaminated during slaughter and processing [62]. As few as 500 to 800 CFU of C. jejuni are sufficient to cause infection implying that bacteria do not need to multiply to cause disease [63,64].
Campylobacter can colonize the mucus of the small intestine and ceca of chickens sometimes at very low densities such as 40 CFU [65]. Once colonization occurs, bacteria rapidly reaches a high number in cecal contents [66,67,68]. Chicken are coprophagic meaning that they consume feces, which allows contaminated feces to spread Campylobacter rapidly throughout the flock. Once Campylobacter colonization is detected in a flock, most birds in the flock typically become colonized within days [69,70,71,72]. There is a direct correlation between Campylobacter prevalence in chickens and the likelihood of human Campylobacter infections. Therefore, reducing the prevalence of Campylobacter in chicken flocks has the potential to significantly decrease human infections [73]. This approach has been quite successful in countries such as Denmark and Iceland [74,75].

3. Overview of Preharvest Control Strategies

Various non-antibiotic interventions have been tested to reduce Campylobacter colonization of poultry during the preharvest phase (Figure 1). These include biosecurity measures, prebiotics, probiotics, postbiotics, feed additives, bacteriophage therapy, vaccination, and genetic selection for resistant chicken strains.

3.1. Biosecurity Measures

Biosecurity is crucial for keeping Campylobacter out of animal flocks, as it acts as the primary defense against this pathogen [46,76]. In poultry, the transmission route of Campylobacter is horizontal (Figure 2). There are no known reports on vertical transmission of Campylobacter spp. There are currently no known reports on vertical transmission of Campylobacter spp. Potential sources of Campylobacter into a farm include, domestic and wild animals, farm equipment, contaminated litter, feed and water as well as potential transmission form infected birds [77,78,79,80,81]. The poultry house interior environment showed a lower prevalence of Campylobacter in air/ventilation samples (6%), pests (5%), litter (3%), water samples (2%), and feed (rarely), in the descending order of Campylobacter prevalence rates. The external environment of the poultry house showed 14% prevalence, with 67% and 14% prevalence in domestic animals and their excreta, respectively. The transport equipment used for live haul, including trucks (44%) and crates (22%), showed different prevalence rates of Campylobacter [78]. Although implementing strict biosecurity measures can be challenging, they are fundamental in preventing initial colonization. Many interventions primarily focus on reducing Campylobacter levels after it is already present, but biosecurity protocols help prevent it from entering the farm in the first place. The effectiveness of biosecurity is greatly enhanced when combined with other successful strategies [82,83].

3.1.1. Managing Human Entry and Hygiene to Prevent Contamination

Campylobacter bacteria are frequently found in agricultural workers, farm managers, and truck drivers. To reduce the number of Campylobacter-positive flocks, it is recommended to limit human traffic by restricting unnecessary movements of people and minimizing visitors to farms and animal housing. The following practices can help reduce the entry of Campylobacter through humans: (i) Enforce the use of personal protective equipment (PPE): PPE should be mandatory for anyone making essential visits to the farm. (ii) Maintain dedicated hygiene measures: Regularly cleaned and disinfected footwear and clothing specifically should be designated for each poultry house. This practice helps create a stronger hygiene barrier. (iii) Promote hand hygiene: Handwashing stations should be accessible at all entry points to the poultry houses. Everyone must be instructed to thoroughly sanitize their hands for 15-20 seconds both before entering and after leaving animal housing. (iv) Avoid high-risk activities: To significantly reduce contamination risks, it is important to avoid unnecessary movements of people, particularly during high-risk activities such as thinning [46,84]. Despite having clear guidelines, biosecurity protocols are often not followed meticulously. To achieve a greater impact, comprehensive training, education, and consistent monitoring are essential to ensure adherence to best practices [83,85].

3.1.2. Equipment and Vehicle Sanitation

The movement of vehicles and equipment between houses or between farms poses a significant risk of Campylobacter transmission. It is not advisable to transfer the equipment unless it is properly cleaned. Campylobacter can survive longer periods on equipment surfaces, staying in a viable but non-culturable state (VBNC), making it more challenging to eliminate from the environment and allowing it to survive under various stress conditions [86,87]. Residual organic matter still harbors Campylobacter, protecting the standard washing process [37]. It is necessary to employ effective sanitation and disinfection methods to prevent the spread of Campylobacter. This process involves more than just washing; it requires a multistep approach that includes dry cleaning, wet cleaning, disinfection and drying [82].

3.1.3. Pest and Wildlife Control

Animals, including cattle and poultry, are known reservoirs of Campylobacter, which has been isolated from the intestinal tracts of various animals and birds [88,89,90,91]. Wildlife serves as an amplifying host, exhibiting a high pathogen shedding capacity and playing an important role in transmission [77]. Wild birds are particularly important because they can spread Campylobacter from different geographical areas because of their ability to fly over large distances [92,93]. In addition to domestic and wild animals, birds, rodents and insects have all been shown to transmit Campylobacter [94,95,96,97,98]. To control its spread, robust vector-control programs should be implemented targeting wild animals, rodents, and insects. Comprehensive integrated pest management programs can help eliminate pest attractants and breeding sites from the surrounding environment. Effective strategies include rodent-proofing measures, targeted larvicides for improved litter management to exclude and control flies, and bird-proof sealing to deter wild birds [46,99].

3.2. Probiotics, Prebiotics and Postbiotics

In the post-antibiotic era, there is a growing interest in probiotics, prebiotics, and postbiotics as effective dietary interventions [100,101]. Probiotics are non-pathogenic live organisms that confer health benefits to the host when consumed in adequate amounts [102]. Common probiotic microorganisms belong to the genera Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces, Bacillus, Streptococcus, and Enterococcus [103,104,105,106]. They positively influence the host through various mechanisms, such as improved intestinal barrier function, immunomodulation, and production of neurotransmitters [107]. Probiotic supplementation in chicken diets helps maintain intestinal homeostasis, eliminate pathogenic bacteria through competitive exclusion, and stimulates the secretion of important digestive enzymes such as phytases, amylases and proteases, thereby improving feed utilization efficiency [108,109,110,111,112,113,114]. Chickens are monogastric animals, that have a single-chamber stomach divided into the gizzard, small intestine, and large intestine [115]. The entire GIT interacts symbiotically with microbiota to aid in digestion and absorption and plays crucial roles in health and production by regulating physiological processes [116,117,118]. The chicken gut microbiota is highly complex and is dominated by bacteria, with over 600 different bacterial species identified [119]. While bacterial diversity varies throughout the GIT, the cecum is the most densely colonized region. The cecum plays a key role pathogens colonization [120,121]. Under uncertain conditions, an imbalance in the normal gut microbiota can promote the growth of opportunistic and pathogenic bacteria, thereby disrupting gut health. Probiotics can help in this situation by restoring the beneficial gut microflora and preserving gut integrity [120,122,123,124].
Prebiotics are non-digestible food components, generally metabolized by specific bacteria and provide beneficial effects on the host [121,125]. They help increase the abundance of beneficial microorganisms such as bifidobacteria and lactobacilli and improve gut metabolic activity, resulting in the production of a series of metabolites that favor the maintenance of gut health [121,126]. Prebiotics consist of monomers derived from common sugars, including glucose, galactose, fructose, and xylose. Widely studied examples are insulin, fructooligosaccharides (FOS), isomalto-oligosaccharides (IMO), and galactooligosaccharides (GOS). Postbiotics are functional bioactive molecules produced during the metabolic processes of probiotics, that which confer health benefits to the host [122,127]. Unlike live probiotics, postbiotics offer a safer and more stable alternative by mitigating key limitations that have impeded the broader application of probiotics in commercial settings, such as the risk of antimicrobial resistance, poor thermal stability, and potential for expressing virulence factors [128]. According to the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP, 2021), postbiotics are comprised of inactivated microbial cells, bacteriocins, cell-free supernatants, exopolysaccharides, and short-chain fatty acids [129,130]. A growing body of in vitro and in vivo evidence indicates that postbiotics enhance gastrointestinal health by promoting beneficial bacterial populations, modulating host immune responses, and supporting intestinal barrier integrity [131,132,133,134].

3.3. Bacteriophage Application in Campylobacter Control

The application of bacteriophages as a biocontrol strategy has been investigatedfor controlling food-borne pathogens (e.g., Listeria, Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 [135]. Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacterial cells and have demonstrated potential as therapeutic agents against bacteria. Bacteriophages used in these treatments are specific to bacteria. For instance, certain Salmonella bacteriophages (ST27, ST29, and ST35) are specific to the TolC receptors of Salmonella serovars. The binding specificity of bacteriophages to bacteria determines their host ranges. Upon entering a bacterial cellbacteriophages generally undergo either a lysogenic or a lytic cycle. Bacteriophages utilize the host machinery to produce progeny. Because of the low risk of phage transduction and rapid lysis activity, lytic phages are preferred as therapeutic targets over lysogenic phages. It is estimated that a 2 log CFU reduction in Campylobacter levels in poultry intestines is sufficient to reduce the occurrence of human campylobacteriosis associated with poultry by 30-fold [136]. Chinivasagam et al., used a cocktail of bacteriophages to control Campylobacter in a commercial broiler setting. One of the farms involved in the trial achieved a 1–3 log10 CFU/g significant reduction in Campylobacter loads in the ceca of 47-day-old broiler chickens compared to the control group. Another farm in the study showed a non-significant 1.7 log10 CFU/g reduction in Campylobacter [137]. Another recent study conducted with a cocktail of two bacteriophages showed a significant reduction of 2.4 log10 CFU g-1 in Campylobacter two days of post-treatment compared to mock-treated controls [138].

3.4. Feed Additives

In poultry production, organic acids such as acidifiers (e.g., formic, butyric), essential oils (EOs) (e.g., thymol, carvacrol), and diverse plant extracts (phytogenic) are increasingly utilized as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters. These substances play an important role in enhancing intestinal health primarily by modulating gut microbiota [139,140]. Organic acids are naturally produced during the metabolism of various animal feeds. They help lower intestinal pH, thereby inhibiting the proliferation of pH-sensitive enteric pathogens such as Salmonella and E. coli. This acidic environment allows the undissociated form of these acids to pass across bacterial cell membranes, leading to intracellular acidification, disruption of metabolic processes, and eventual bacterial lysis, while simultaneously fostering the growth of beneficial acid-tolerant bacteria such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium [141,142,143]. Organic acids also aid in the absorption of vital micro- and macro-minerals such as calcium, magnesium and zinc [141]. Eo’s are strong antioxidants and antibacterial agents [144]. They are rich in lipophilic phenolic compounds that can disrupt bacterial cell membrane integrity, increase permeability, and cause leakage of cytoplasmic contents, which contribute to their broad-spectrum antimicrobial effects against pathogens such as Clostridium perfringens and E. coli [145]. EOs can also neutralize free radicals and exhibit potential antioxidant properties [146,147]. Plant extracts are generally considered safe, and many can be consumed as food [148,149]. These extracts comprise of a complex array of bioactive compounds such as flavonoids, tannins, and alkaloids. They exhibit multifaceted mechanisms such as direct antimicrobial effects, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that strengthen the gut barrier, and the ability to stimulate digestive secretions, collectively shifting microbial communities towards a healthier and more diverse microbial profile that favors commensal bacteria and optimizes nutrient utilization [150,151,152,153]. For example, herbal compounds like tryptanthrin have been shown to significantly reduce Campylobacter colonization in vitro and in vivo [154].

3.5. Vaccination – A Targeted Approach

Vaccination is a proven strategy for the prevention and control of bacterial and viral infections. Compared to other management strategies, it offers advantages in terms of public health impact and long-term sustainability [153,155]. Currently, no commercial vaccine is available to protect chickens from colonization [156,157,158]. Although vaccines are not 100% successful in preventing Campylobacter colonization in hens, they have been shown to be more effective than previously reported methods. Better protection could potentially be obtained by combining immunization with additional preharvest strategies [159,160,161]. Figure 3 illustrates the different vaccine strategies available for the prevention and control of bacterial infections. These include killed/inactivated vaccines, subunit vaccines, live attenuated vaccines, DNA vaccines, and mRNA vaccines, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.

3.5.1. Types of Poultry Campylobacter Vaccines

3.5.1.1. Subunit Vaccines

Subunit vaccines use bacterial components instead of complete bacteria, to trigger an immune response. They generally offer advantages over attenuated and killed vaccines in terms of lower risk of reverting to virulence, enhanced safety, targeted immunity, and better compatibility with adjuvants. Despite these advantages, developing effective subunit vaccines remains a challenge. One major difficulty is identifying suitable antigens capable of protecting different Campylobacter species or even serotypes and strains within the same species. Also, providing robust immunity to protect broiler chickens with a shorter lifespan requires an optimized delivery method. To date several antigens tested as subunit vaccines have shown modest to significant results [162,163,164].

3.5.1.2. Live-Attenuated Vaccines

Live attenuated vaccines are live bacteria that result from reduced virulence/pathogenicity but are capable of generating adequate long-lasting immunogenicity while activating both adaptive and innate immune responses [157,165]. Live attenuated vaccines tested against Campylobacter include heterologous bacterial vectors that transport Campylobacter antigens and Campylobacter strains with mutated oxidative stress defense antigens [157,160]. Another approach to live attenuated vaccines is to use E. coli to deliver glycoconjugated antigens, thus improving the vaccine performance [166] . These vaccines offer more advantages than killed and subunit vaccines by providing long-lasting immune responses, including mucosal immunity. Despite these advantages, the risk of reverting to virulent forms and interference with material antibodies in young chickens are major concerns regarding subunit vaccines [167]. Environmental contamination through the shedding of vaccine strains is an additional concern, making it crucial to select a strain that guarantees both safety and immunogenicity without posing any environmental biohazard risks [167,168].

3.5.1.3. Inactivated/Killed Vaccines

The concept behind inactivated or killed vaccines is that, after undergoing physical or chemical treatments bacteria still retain protective antigens that can elicit an immune response [169]. However, few studies on inactivated or killed vaccines have had shown limited success [170,171,172]. A major challenge with poultry killed vaccines is identifying an effective adjuvant to boost the immune response [173]. Additionally, inactivated/killed vaccines do not generate the mucosal immune response essential for reducing Campylobacter colonization. These vaccines must be administered via a parenteral route prohibiting mass administration and making them economically not feasible [167,174,175]

3.5.1.4. DNA and mRNA Vaccines

Genetic vaccines represent a significant advancement in the field of vaccinology [176,177,178]. These vaccines do not require live vector for delivery; they use host-cell mechanisms to produce antigens. Genetic vaccines primarily consist of DNA or mRNA, which is taken up by cells and translated into proteins [179]. Recently, various DNA vaccines, including flagellin-based, outer-membrane protein-based, and prime-boost DNA vaccines, have been investigated for Campylobacter control with promising results [180,181,182]. DNA and mRNA vaccines are generally safer to administer because they do not involve the risks associated with live pathogens [178,183]. They are capable of eliciting both humoral and cellular immune responses, even in the presence of maternal antibodies [184,185]. Although genetic vaccines show a high rate of success, optimizing delivery and ensuring efficient cellular uptake are critical to their overall effectiveness. The delivery of mRNA vaccines via lipid nanoparticles and their storage must be refined, as current methods are not cost-effective for mass immunization [186,187].

3.5.2. Challenges in Campylobacter Vaccine Development

3.5.2.1. Campylobacter Properties

Pan-genome analyses of Campylobacter revealed extensive genomic variability, highlighting its highly diverse nature at the genome level [188,189,190,191]. This significant genetic diversity indicates that a vaccine targeting only one or a few strains may not be effective against many circulating Campylobacter strains in the field. Adding to this challenge is the phase variation phenomenon, which allows bacteria to swiftly adapt to their new surroundings and effectively colonize and survive in the phase of host immune response [192,193,194]. Through phase variation, bacteria can generate new subpopulations with distinct phenotypes without undergoing overall changes in their genetic content [194,195,196]. In Campylobacter, more than 30 genes, including those encoding key cell surface components, such as lipooligosaccharides, capsular polysaccharides, and flagellin, are differentially regulated in response to the external environment. This phase variation leads to the expression of different versions of surface antigens, which can make vaccines ineffective since the immune response produced by the vaccine may no longer recognize the altered antigens. Consequently, polymorphism arising from phase variation presents a challenge for the development of a single vaccine that is effective against all relevant bacterial forms. Even the vaccines that initially provide protective immunity may eventually lose their effectiveness as the bacterial population dynamically changes its antigen profile [197,198].

3.5.2.2. Host Factors Influencing Vaccinal Immunity

One of the major hurdles in Campylobacter vaccine development is the poor understanding of Campylobacter infection immunobiology [159]. Typically, newly hatched chicks are Campylobacter-free, and maternal antibodies provide initial protection by delaying the start of colonization [199,200,201,202]. Vaccination of breeder hens with bacterin and subunit vaccines resulted in chicks possessing anti-Campylobacter antibodies in their blood and mucus, offering some protection, although this protection waned after approximately two weeks [203,204]. Notably, Campylobacter colonization usually begins at around three weeks of age, a timeframe that coincides with a decrease in maternal antibody levels [204,205,206]. In addition to this complexity, mucosal immune system of chicks does not fully mature until around seven weeks, which is after the typical six-week market age for broilers [24,25,207]. This delayed immune maturation is further supported by studies on antibody-associated clearance in bursectomized birds, which indicate that adaptive immune responses develop after approximately six weeks, suggesting that achieving effective immune-based protection is more feasible in older, adult birds [199,208,209,210,211].
The mucous layers of the lower digestive tract are colonized by Campylobacter without provoking any notable immune response [212]. In contrast, effective vaccines elicit a strong intestinal mucosal immunity to combat Campylobacter colonization and infection (163, 209). Most injectable vaccines do not produce adequate immunity because Campylobacter remains in the intestinal lumen and does not trigger a serious infection to elicit mucosal immune responses. Also, the anatomical features of the chicken immune system present several obstacles. Unlike mammals, chickens lack lymph nodes, which play a key role in antigen presentation and initiation of adaptive immune responses. As a result, secondary lymphoid tissues contribute significantly to the immunity provided by vaccination [214,215]. The Bursa of Fabricius is a specialized lymphoid organ critical for the development of B cells and production of antibodies; however, it undergoes regression with age [216]. Therefore, effective vaccines targeting gut-associated lymphoid tissues (GLAT) and stimulating local mucosal immunity are required for Campylobacter control [217,218].

3.5.2.3. Administration and Management of Vaccines

Although small-scale laboratory experiments have shown success, Campylobacter vaccines do not yield the same effectiveness under field conditions. The diverse nature of poultry rearing systems, spanning from small-scale backyard operations to large-scale commercial enterprises, presents a significant challenge for the implementation of a standardized and universally effective vaccination protocol [67]. In controlled laboratory settings, each bird receives a precisely measured vaccination dose, which is impractical in the field settings. To enable practical and cost-effective scaling up for larger flocks, mass vaccine administration techniques such as in ovo, water, or spray application systems are employed. These techniques often result in irregular immune responses and varying rates of vaccine uptake [219].

3.5.3. Success Stories and Promising Campylobacter Vaccine Candidates

Despite the unavailability of a commercial Campylobacter vaccine for poultry, several studies have demonstrated significant reductions in Campylobacter colonization in the chicken intestines. These promising results offer hope for optimizing and developing scalable vaccination strategies in the future. Although, the main focus of this review is on vaccine studies that have reported substantial and statistically significant reductions in Campylobacter colonization, Table 1 presents an overview of all poultry Campylobacter vaccine studies to date.

3.5.3.1. Autogenous Vaccines

A whole-cell autogenous vaccine targeting Campylobacter genes essential for extraintestinal survival was created using a genomic tailoring approach. The progeny of broiler breeders that received the vaccine showed a nearly 50% decrease in Campylobacter isolates that colonized and carried extraintestinal survival genes, as well as a notable decrease in meat surface survival. A logistic regression model estimated that the vaccine could successfully target 65% of the population of clinically relevant Campylobacter strains. This vaccine strategy is an effective method for combating bacterial infections by targeting bacterial lineages linked to infection and transmission risk within a larger commensal population [220].

3.5.3.2. Subunit Vaccines

Subcutaneous administration of 125 µg of the outer membrane (OMP) fraction of C. jejuni resulted in significantly lower Campylobacter levels in the cecal contents compared to the oral route of administration. When these outer membrane components were delivered subcutaneously via nanoparticles, Campylobacter was undetectable. However, 13% of the chickens showed detectable levels of Campylobacter in the intestines when non-encapsulated outer membrane components were administered subcutaneously. The serum IgA (IgG) and IgY responses appeared earlier and were higher in the groups that received the vaccine subcutaneously with nanoparticle encapsulated OMP vaccine showing higher IgY and IgA titers in cloacal feces than the other OMP vaccine types. These findings indicate that subcutaneous delivery of OMPs, both with and without nanoparticle encapsulation, effectively stimulated antibody production and significantly reduced Campylobacter colonization in the intestine [221]. Similarly, vaccination with chitosan/pCAGGS-flaA nanoparticles intranasally reduced the bacterial colonization by 2-3 log10 [222]. Furthermore, vaccination with recombinant peptides derived from CadF, FlaA, and a combined CadF-FlaA-FlpA protein of C. jejuni significantly lowered Campylobacter loads in the ceca, with median log10 reductions of 3.35 for CadF, 3.11 for FlaA, and 3.16 for the fusion protein [163].

3.5.3.3. Live Attenuated Vaccines

Vaccinating chickens with a modified Salmonella strain expressing the cjaA gene from C. jejuni stimulated the production of IgY and IgA antibodies against the outer surfaces of both Salmonella and Campylobacter. In contrast to the control group, in which all chickens were heavily colonized, only 15% of the vaccinated chickens had high levels of Campylobacter (above 103 CFU/g) in their ceca [223]. Similarly, a Salmonella strain carrying the dps gene of C. jejuni demonstrated a 2.5 log reduction in Campylobacter levels following experimental infection [224]. Oral delivery of an E. coli strain that produces C. jejuni N-glycan resulted in 65% protection against Campylobacter colonization, whereas all unvaccinated chickens became colonized. Combining the N-glycan vaccine with the probiotics A. mobilis or L. reuteri enhanced weight gain, IgY antibody production, and overall effectiveness of the vaccination [166].

3.5.3.4. DNA Vaccine

Four novel vaccine candidates discovered using reverse vaccination technology demonstrated a significant decrease in the cecal burden of Campylobacter in Ross broiler chickens. These findings indicated a notable drop in the Campylobacter load by 4.2 log10 CFU/g, which could potentially reduce the risk of human campylobacteriosis by 76–100%. However, these findings proved challenging to reproduce consistently, necessitating further investigation to develop a reliable vaccine [42,225,226,227].
Table 1. Summary of the vaccine approaches investigated for poultry Campylobacter.
Table 1. Summary of the vaccine approaches investigated for poultry Campylobacter.
Vaccine Chicken breed
(chicken type)
Age at Vaccination Vaccination
regimen
Challenge
Reduction in levels (mean log10 CFU/gram) of Campylobacter Reference
Age Strain (dose)
Live attenuated Salmonella vaccine expressing CfrA or CmeC proteins Cornish x Rock (broiler) Day 7 Oral administration of 200 μl of Salmonella (1×109 CFU/ml) expressing CfrA or CmeC Day 28 C. jejuni NCTC 11168 (2×103 CFU/bird) No significant reduction [160]
Nanoparticle-encapsulated OMPs of C. jejuni 81–176
Not specified Day 7 and Day 21
Oral administration of 25 or 125 µg of nanoparticle-encapsulated OMPs or OMPs alone Day 35
C. jejuni 81–176 (2×107 CFU/bird) No significant reduction
[221]
Subcutaneous administration of 25 or 125 µg of nanoparticle-encapsulated OMPs or OMPs alone
Live Salmonella Typhimurium ΔaroA strain expressing CjaA of C. jejuni Light Sussex (broiler) Day 1 and Day 14 Oral gavage of 0.3 ml of stationary phase culture (1×108 CFU/ml) Day 28 C. jejuni M1 (1×107 CFU/bird) Significant 1.4 log10 CFU/g reduction [211]
Purified recombinant CjaA Light Sussex chickens (broiler) Day 1 and Day 15, or Day 15 and Day 29 Subcutaneous administration of 14 μg of rCjaA with TiterMax adjuvant Day 29/Day 44 No significant reduction
Autogenous poultry vaccine Ross (broiler) 14 and 18 weeks of age Intramuscular administration of 0.5 ml of oil-based autogenous vaccine Not a challenge study Measured natural colonization No significant reduction [220]
FliD and FspA White Leghorn (layer) Day 1 and Day 14 Subcutaneous administration of 4.3×1010 moles of each recombinant protein, FliD and FspA, with TiterMax Gold adjuvant Day 28 C. jejuni M1 (1×107 CFU/bird)

2 log10 CFU/g in reduction with FliD (statistically significant) [228]
Eimeria tenella-expressing CjaA White Leghorn (layer) Group 1: Day 1 Group 2: 1/3/7/20 Oral administration of 100, 500, 3000, and 5000 fourth-generation CjaA-transfected parasites Day 28 C. jejuni 02M6380 (1×105 CFU/bird) One order reduction (statistically significant) [229]
FlpA with ten N-heptasaccharide glycan Moieties White Leghorn (layer) Day 0 and Day 14 Subcutaneous administration of 100 μg of FlpA with TiterMax Gold or the molar equivalent of FlpA-10×GT in 100 µl Day 28 C. jejuni NCTC11168H (1 × 105 CFU/bird ) No significant reduction [230]
Ent–KLH conjugate vaccine White Leghorn (layer) Day 7, Day 21, and Day 35 Intramuscular administration of 100 μg of Ent–KLH conjugate vaccine with Montanide adjuvant Day 49 C. jejuni (1 × 104 CFU/bird ) 3-4 log10 unit reduction in the cecum (statistically significant) [231]
White Leghorn (layer) Day 7 and Day 21 Intramuscular administration of 100 μg of Ent–KLH conjugate vaccine with Montanide adjuvant Day 35 C. jejuni ( 1× 104 CFU/bird ) 3-4 log10 unit reduction in the cecum (statistically significant)
Recombinant YP437 protein Ross 308 (broiler) Day 5 and Day 12 Intramuscular administration of 100 µg of recombinant YP437 protein (YP437 I2, P I2, YP437 I4, and P I4) emulsified with adjuvant MONTANIDETM ISA 78 VG Day 19 C. jejuni (1×104 CFU/bird) No significant reduction [232]
Plasmid DNA prime/recombinant protein boost vaccination (YP437 and YP9817) Ross 308 (broiler) Day 12 Intramuscular administration of 100 µg of recombinant protein emulsified in MONTANIDE™ ISA 78 VG Day 19 C. jejuni C97Anses640 ( 1× 104 CFU/bird) No significant reduction [181]
Ross 308 (broiler) Day 5 Intramuscular administration of 50 μg of plasmid DNA
Lactococcus lactis expressing JlpA Vencobb (broiler) Day 7
Oral gavage of 1x109 CFU /100 µl of Lactococcus lactis expressing recombinant JlpA Day 28 C. jejuni isolate BCH71 (1×108 CFU/bird) No significant reduction
[233]
Subcutaneous administration of 50 µg of recombinant JlpA emulsified in incomplete Freund's adjuvant
Bacterin vaccine (Mix of 13 Campylobacter suspensions) Ross 308 (broiler) 28,
30, 32, and 34 weeks
Intramuscular administration of 8.1 log10 CFU inactivated Campylobacter (7 log10 CFU/Campylobacter strain) Day 7
Day 14 Day 21
C. jejuni strain KC40 (102.5 and 103.5 CFU/bird)
No significant reduction
[203]
Subunit vaccine (6 immunodominant Campylobacter antigens) Ross 308 (broiler) Intramuscular administration of 75 µg of protein with Freund's complete and incomplete adjuvant
Diphtheria toxoid C. jejuni capsular polysaccharide- vaccine (CPSconj) Ross 308 (broiler) Day 7 and Day 21 Subcutaneous administration of 25 μg of CPSconj with 10 μg CpG or 100 μl Addavax adjuvant Day 29 C. jejuni 81-176 (2×107 CFU/bird) 0.64 log10 reduction (statistically significant) [234]
Chitosan/pCAGGS-flaA nanoparticles White Leghorn (layer) Day 1, Day 15, and Day 29 Intranasal administration of 150 μg chitosan/pCAGGS-flaA nanoparticles Day 42 C. jejuni ALM-80 (5×107 CFU/bird) 2 log10 in the cecum (statistically significant) [222]
LT-B/fla hybrid protein Breed not specified (broiler) Day 7 and Day 21 Oral administration of 250 μg, 500 μg, 750 μg, and 1mg of LT-B/fla hybrid protein; intramuscular administration of 250µg, and 1 mg of LT-B/Fla hybrid protein Day 28 C. jejuni A74 (2x108 CFU/bird) Statistically significant reduction of the number of Campylobacter positive birds [213]
CjaA, CjaD, and hybrid protein rCjaAD of C. jejuni
Hy-line (layer) Day 1, Day 9, and Day 19 Oral or subcutaneous administration of 2.5×109 CFU of L. salivarius GEM particles with CjaALysM and CjaDLysM Day 30 C. jejuni 12/2 (1x104 CFU/bird) No significant reduction


[213]
Rosa 1 (broiler) 18-day-old embryo In ovo administration of 0.1 ml of inoculum rCjaAD with GRM s particles or liposomes into the amniotic fluid Day 14 C. jejuni 12/2 (1x106 CFU/bird) Statistically significant reduction of cecal loads of Campylobacter
Live attenuated Salmonella Typhimurium strain expressing C. jejuni CjaA Cobb 500 (broiler) Day 1 and Day 14 Oral administration of ~108 CFU of S. Typhimurium strain χ9718 harboring pUWM1161 (Asd+ vector carrying the cjaA gene) Day 28 C. jejuni Wr1 (1x105 CFU/bird) No significant reduction
[235]
Live attenuated Salmonella expressing linear peptides of C. jejuni (Cj0113, Cj0982c, and Cj0420) Cobb-500 (broiler) Day 1

Oral gavage of 108 CFU/ml Salmonella Day 21 C. jejuni PHLCJ1-J3 (2.5×106 CFU/bird) 4.8-log reduction in the ileum with Cj0113 (statistically significant) [210]
4-log reduction - undetectable level in the ileum with Cj0113 (statistically significant)
Live attenuated Salmonella expressing linear peptides of C. jejuni (Cj0113) Oral gavage of 108 CFU/ml Salmonella 108 CFU/ml
CmeC and CfrA Cobb 500 (broiler) 18-day-old embryo In ovo administration of 50 µg pCmeC-K or 50 µg pCfrA into the amniotic fluid Day 14 C. jejuni NCTC 11168 (5×107 CFU/bird) No significant reduction [180]
In ovo administration of DNA vaccines emulsified with incomplete Freund’s adjuvant Day 21 No significant reduction
pcDNA3-YP DNA vaccines YP_001000437.1, YP_001000562.1, YP_999817.1, and YP_999838.1 Ross PM3 (broiler) Day 5 and Day 12 Intramuscular administration of with 300 μg of pcDNA3-YP, supplemented with 50 μg of unmethylated CpG ODN2007 followed by intramuscular administration of 100 μg of recombinant proteins emulsified in MONTANIDE™ ISA70 VG Day 19 C. jejuni C97Anses640 (1×105 CFU/bird) 2.03, 3.61, 4.27 and 2.08 log 10 reductions of P562, YP437, YP9817 and P9838 groups, respectively (statistically significant) [226]
Intramuscular administration of with 300 μg of pcDNA3-YP9817, supplemented with 50 μg of unmethylated CpG ODN2007 followed by intramuscular administration of 100 μg of recombinant proteins emulsified in MONTANIDE™ ISA70 VG No significant reduction
CmeC Breed not specified (broiler) Day 7 and
Day 21
Oral gavage with 50 or 200 μg of CmeC vaccine with or without with 10 μg of mLT Day 35

C. jejuni NCTC 11168 (1×106 CFU/bird) No significant reduction [236]
White Leghorn chickens (layer) Day 21 and
Day 35
Oral and subcutaneous administration of 50 or 200 μg of CmeC vaccine with or without 70 μg of mLT Day 49 C. jejuni NCTC 11168 (1×105 CFU/bird) No significant reduction
Lactococcus lactis NZ3900/pNZ8149 expressing cjaA White leghorn (layer) Day 5 to 11, and Day 19 to 25
Oral administration of 2 × 1010 CFU of L. lactis NZ3900-sCjaA-Ltb, NZ3900-sCjaA, NZ3900-pNZ8149s, and NZ3900-pNZ8149 Day 33 C. jejuni NCTC 11168 (1.5 × 106 CFU/bird) 2.35 log10 and 2.05 log10 reduction with NZ3900-sCjaA vaccine group at post 5 DPI (statistically significant) [162]
Glycoproteins of FlpA and SodB White Leghorn (layer) Day 6 and Day 16 Intramuscular administration of 240 µg of FlpA and G-FlpA or 138 µg of SodB and G-SodB. Day 20 C. jejuni M1 (1×107 CFU/bird) No significant reduction [237]
C. jejuni M1 (102 CFU/bird) No significant reduction
Glycoprotein G-ExoA White Leghorn (layer) Day 6 and Day 16 Intramuscular administration of 95 µg protein of ExoA or G-ExoA with MontanideTM ISA 70 VG adjuvant Day 20 C. jejuni M1 (1×102 CFU/bird) Reduction on Day 37 with ExoA-vaccinated group (statistically significant) [238]
C. jejuni 11168H. C. jejuni M1 (1×104 CFU/bird) Reduction on Day 37 with ExoA and G-ExoA-vaccinated groups (statistically significant)
Bacterin and subunit vaccine Ross 308 (broiler) 18-day-old embryo In ovo administration of 7.4 log10 CFU inactivated Campylobacter/bacterin dose of bacterin vaccine injected into the amniotic cavity Day 19 C. jejuni KC4 (1 × 107 CFU/bird) No significant reduction [239]
In ovo administration of 28.5 μg of 6 immunodominant Campylobacter antigens with ESSAI IMS 1505101OVO1 adjuvant
C. jejuni Dps Cornish × Rock (broiler) Day 10 and Day 24 Subcutaneous administration of 0.2 mg recombinant Dps protein with Freund's complete adjuvant Day 34 C. jejuni NCTC11168 (1×105 CFU/bird) No reduction [224]
Day 3, Day 10, and Day 16 Oral gavage of Salmonella Typhimurium strain χ9088 expressing C. jejuni Dps in 0.5 ml Day 26 2.92 log10 reduction (statistically significant)
PLGA-encapsulated CpG ODN Breed is not specified (layer) Day 14 Oral administration of 5 µg or 50 µg of soluble CpG Day 15 C. jejuni (107 CFU/bird) 1.23 and 1.32 log reduction at 8-day post infection with low and high dose, respectively (statistically significant) [240]
Breed is not specified (layer) Oral administration of 5 µg E-CpG 0.9, 1.9 and 1.89 log reduction at 8, 15 and 22 days of post-infection (statistically significant)
Breed is not specified (layer) Oral administration with a high dose of E-CpG (25 µg) 1.46 log10 reduction at day 22 post-infection (statistically significant)
Breed is not specified (broiler) Oral administration of a low dose of C. jejuni lysate (4.3 µg protein) 2.14 and 2.14 log10 at day 8 and day 22 post-infection, respectively (statistically significant)
Breed is not specified (broiler) Oral administration of combination of E-CpG ODN (25 µg) and C. Oral administration of a combination of E-CpG ODN (25 µg) and C. jejuni lysate (4.3 µg protein) 2.42 log10 at day 22 post-infection (statistically significant)
C. jejuni Type VI secretion system (T6SS) protein Hcp Vencobb (broiler) Day 7, Day 14, and Day 21 Oral gavage of 50 μg rhcp loaded CS-TPP NPs (CS-TPP-Hcp) Day 28 C. jejuni isolate BCH71 (1×108 CFU/bird) 1 log reduction (statistically significant) [241]
Subcutaneous administration of 50 μg of rhcp emulsified with Incomplete Freund’s adjuvant 0.5 log reduction (statistically significant)
Recombinant NHC flagellin Ross 308 (broiler) 18.5-day-old embryo In ovo administration of 40 or 20 μg NHC flagellar protein with 10 mM Tris (pH 9.0), 20% glycerol, 5 mM sucrose day 18 C. jejuni ( 1× 105 CFU/bird ) No significant reduction
[242]
Recombinant C. jejuni peptides of CadF, FlaA, FlpA, CmeC, and CadF-FlaA-FlpA fusion protein Cornish cross (broiler) Day 6 and
Day 16
Intramuscular administration of 240 µg of GST-tagged 90 mer peptides or equal mixure of CadF-His, FlaA-His, and FlpA-His (trifecta group) emulsified in Montanide ISA 70 VG Day 20 C. jejuni (2×108 CFU/bird) 3.1, 3.3, 3.1, and 1.7 log reductions observed with Trifecta, FlpA, FlaA and CadF, respectively (statistically significant) [163]
CfrA: ferric enterobactin receptor), CjaA: C. jejuni aminoacid binding protein, CjaD: peptidoglycan-binding protein, CmeC: an essential component of CmeABC multidrug efflux pump, CpG ODN: oligodeoxynucleotides containing unmethylated CpG motifs, CS-TPP NPs: Chitosan-Sodium tripolyphosphate nanoparticles, DPI: days post infection, Dps: DNA binding protein, Ent–KLH conjugate vaccine: Enterobactin conjugated to the carrier keyhole limpet hemocyanin, FlaA: Flagellin A, FliD: flagellum-capping protein, FlpA-10×GT : FlpA with 10 N-Heptasaccharide Glycan Moieties, FspA: flagellum-secreted protein, GEM particles: Gram-positive Enhancer Matrix particles, JlpA: C. jejuni lipoprotein A, LT-B: Binding subunit of the heat-labile enterotoxin, mLT: modified E. coli heat-labile enterotoxin, ODN: oligodeoxynucleotides, OMPs: outer membrane proteins, and SodB: superoxide dismutase.

4. Conclusion and Future Perspectives of Campylobacter Control:

As a food-borne pathogen, Campylobacter continues to pose a challenge to global public health, with poultry serving as the primary source of human infection. Growing concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance and the push for antibiotic-free poultry production have accelerated the urgency for sustainable and long-term control measures against Campylobacter in poultry. This comprehensive review focuses on the possible preharvest options to control Campylobacter colonization in chickens, with a special emphasis on vaccination. Because a single strategy cannot completely prevent Campylobacter colonization, our review highlights the importance of a multifaceted approach that integrates several on-farm interventions. Strict biosecurity measures play a fundamental role in preventing the introduction and spread of Campylobacter. Additionally, dietary interventions such as probiotics, prebiotics, postbiotics and feed additives offer promising avenues for modulating the gut microbiome and enhancing host resistance to Campylobacter colonization. Importantly, vaccination stands out as one of the most logical approaches for preventing and reducing Campylobacter colonization at the source level. Although there is currently no commercial vaccine available, ongoing research on multi-epitope and universal vaccine designs coupled with advancements in delivery systems and formulations, offers great promise in addressing the challenges presented by the genetic diversity of the pathogen and the unique immunological characteristics of poultry.

4.1. Future Prospects:

4.1.1. Biosecurity Enhancing Innovations

Biosecurity innovations provide a more efficient primary protective barrier against the entry of Campylobacter into poultry farms [244]. Improved fly control management through biological traps and insecticide-impregnated netting has significantly reduced the prevalence of Campylobacter on farms. Furthermore, managing the poultry house environment using new technologies such as electrostatic air filtration, UV-based disinfection, automated cleaning system and water purification system offers promising tools for reducing environmental exposure to Campylobacter. More advanced features like real-time monitoring systems for detecting contamination hotspots on farms enable early action against Campylobacter and preventing its entry and spread [245]. However, effective implementation depends on human compliance, including proper training and stringent adherence to biosecurity protocols by farm staff [246,247].

4.1.2. Studies Targeting Campylobacter and Host Interactions

Inadequate knowledge of Campylobacter pathophysiology and host reactions is one of the main challenges in controlling these bacteria [57]. The primary goal of ongoing research is to identify virulent genes, including colonization factors, and metabolic adaptations necessary for developing rational mitigation strategies. Studying avian innate and adaptive immunity against Campylobacter and host resistance indicators that can prevent Campylobacter colonization is crucial for maintaining a balance where Campylobacter colonization occurs without causing invasive infection [248,249,250]. Advanced multi-omics research is expected to make these investigations conceivable [251,252,253,254].

4.1.3. Genetic Selection of Campylobacter-Resistant Breeds

A long-term approach to control Campylobacter involves genetic selection of breeds resistant to bacterial colonization. Research has demonstrated that the Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL), major histocompatibility complex (MHC), and immune response genes vary among birds with various levels of resistance to Campylobacter (240, 241). The selection of breeder stocks resistant to Campylobacter can help to control colonization at the primary production level.

4.1.4. Developing Effective Vaccination Strategies

One of the main challenges in developing an effective Campylobacter vaccine is the high antigenic diversity among strains, hindering cross-protection. This issue can be addressed by identifying the conserved and protective antigens shared between multiple strains [257]. Further research is needed to identify broad-spectrum vaccine targets (e.g., multi-epitope vaccines) through the use of in silico prediction tools. Reverse vaccine technology offers avenues to identify vaccine antigen candidates that offer protection against a wide range of Campylobacter strains [258,259]. Additionally, optimization of mucosal vaccine delivery systems can enhance vaccine efficacy against Campylobacter colonization [242,260].

4.1.5. Microbiota Targeting Interventions

A healthy gut microbiota can inhibit Campylobacter colonization through competitive exclusion and the production of antimicrobial metabolites (e.g., short-chain fatty acids) thereby improving mucosal immunity. These beneficial effects can be achieved through the use of prebiotics, probiotics and postbiotics, which help modulate the gut microbiota and support protective microbial communities [261,262]. Emerging technologies like fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) and precision microbiome engineering are still in the early stages but represent promising future avenues for Campylobacter control [117,263].

4.1.6. Cross-Sectoral Collaboratory Efforts (One Health)

Effective preharvest control strategies require strong and sustained collaboration among researchers, poultry industry, and policymakers. Success depends on teamwork, planning in advance, and a combination of efforts across all three sectors. Future control depends on teamwork, proactive planning, and a coordinated effort across all the three sectors. The adoption of the One Health approach, combined with the practical application of scientific innovations at the farm-level can significantly greatly reduce the global burden of Campylobacter [264,265,266].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, S.K., and C.G.; writing—original draft preparation, CG; writing—review, C.G., S.K., L.K.E., and G.D.B., editing, S.K., L.K.E. and G.D.B.; supervision, S.K.; project administration, S.K.; funding acquisition, S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 1031150 from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the USDA NIFA Animal Health and Disease Grant no. 1023600.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data provided in the manuscript are from published studies, no new data were generated

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AMR Antimicrobial resistance
CFU Colony forming units
EOs Essential oils
FMT Fecal microbiota transplantation
FOS Fructooligosaccharides
GBS Guillain-Barré Syndrome
GIT Gastrointestinal tract
GLAT Gut-associated lymphoid tissue
GOS Galactooligosaccharides
IBS Irritable bowel syndrome
IMO Isomalto-oligosaccharides
MHC Major histocompatibility complex
PPE Personal protective equipment
QTL Quantitative Trait Loci
VBNC Viable but non-culturable state

References

  1. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R. V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States-Major Pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis 2011, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pires, S.M.; Devleesschauwer, B. Estimates of Global Disease Burden Associated with Foodborne Pathogens. In Foodborne Infections and Intoxications; 2021.
  3. Prevention, C. for D.C. and Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019. Cdc 2019.
  4. Hermans, D.; Pasmans, F.; Heyndrickx, M.; Van Immerseel, F.; Martel, A.; Van Deun, K.; Haesebrouck, F. A Tolerogenic Mucosal Immune Response Leads to Persistent Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization in the Chicken Gut. Crit Rev Microbiol 2012, 38, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zambrano, L.D.; Levy, K.; Menezes, N.P.; Freeman, M.C. Human Diarrhea Infections Associated with Domestic Animal Husbandry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2014, 108, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lopes, G.V.; Ramires, T.; Kleinubing, N.R.; Scheik, L.K.; Fiorentini, Â.M.; Padilha da Silva, W. Virulence Factors of Foodborne Pathogen Campylobacter Jejuni. Microb Pathog 2021, 161. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kaakoush, N.O.; Castaño-Rodríguez, N.; Mitchell, H.M.; Man, S.M. Global Epidemiology of Campylobacter Infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 2015, 28, 687–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Finsterer, J. Triggers of Guillain–Barré Syndrome: Campylobacter Jejuni Predominates. Int J Mol Sci 2022, 23. [Google Scholar]
  9. Nyati, K.K.; Prasad, K.N.; Rizwan, A.; Verma, A.; Paliwal, V.K. TH1 and TH2 Response to Campylobacter Jejuni Antigen in Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Arch Neurol 2011, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sinha, S.; Prasad, K.N.; Jain, D.; Nyati, K.K.; Pradhan, S.; Agrawal, S. Immunoglobulin IgG Fc-Receptor Polymorphisms and HLA Class II Molecules in Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Acta Neurol Scand 2010, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Madden, J.; Spadaro, A.; Koyfman, A.; Long, B. High Risk and Low Prevalence Diseases: Guillain-Barré Syndrome. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2024, 75. [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodfellow, J.A.; Willison, H.J. Guillain-Barré Syndrome: A Century of Progress. Nat Rev Neurol 2016, 12. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gölz, G.; Rosner, B.; Hofreuter, D.; Josenhans, C.; Kreienbrock, L.; Löwenstein, A.; Schielke, A.; Stark, K.; Suerbaum, S.; Wieler, L.H.; et al. Relevance of Campylobacter to Public Health–the Need for a One Health Approach. International Journal of Medical Microbiology 2014, 304, 817–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sahin, O.; Morishita, T.Y.; Zhang, Q. Campylobacter Colonization in Poultry: Sources of Infection and Modes of Transmission. Animal health research reviews / Conference of Research Workers in Animal Diseases 2002, 3, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shane, S.M. The Significance of Campylobacter Jejuni Infection in Poultry: A Review. Avian Pathology 1992, 21, 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stern, N.J.; Clavero, M.R.; Bailey, J.S.; Cox, N.A.; Robach, M.C. Campylobacter Spp. in Broilers on the Farm and after Transport. Poult Sci 1995, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Corry, J.E.; Atabay, H.I. Poultry as a Source of Campylobacter and Related Organisms. Symp Ser Soc Appl Microbiol 2001, 96S–114S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lee, M.D.; Newell, D.G. Campylobacter in Poultry: Filling an Ecological Niche. Avian Dis 2006, 50, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wagenaar, J.A.; Van Bergen, M.A.P.; Mueller, M.A.; Wassenaar, T.M.; Carlton, R.M. Phage Therapy Reduces Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization in Broilers. Vet Microbiol 2005, 109, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Humphrey, S.; Chaloner, G.; Kemmett, K.; Davidson, N.; Williams, N.; Kipar, A.; Humphrey, T.; Wigley, P. Campylobacter Jejuni Is Not Merely a Commensal in Commercial Broiler Chickens and Affects Bird Welfare. mBio 2014, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smith, C.K.; AbuOun, M.; Cawthraw, S.A.; Humphrey, T.J.; Rothwell, L.; Kaiser, P.; Barrow, P.A.; Jones, M.A. Campylobacter Colonization of the Chicken Induces a Proinflammatory Response in Mucosal Tissues. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2008, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Meade, K.G.; Narciandi, F.; Cahalane, S.; Reiman, C.; Allan, B.; O’Farrelly, C. Comparative in Vivo Infection Models Yield Insights on Early Host Immune Response to Campylobacter in Chickens. Immunogenetics 2009, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De Zoete, M.R.; Keestra, A.M.; Roszczenko, P.; Van Putten, J.P.M. Activation of Human and Chicken Toll-like Receptors by Campylobacter Spp. Infect Immun 2010, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Awad, W.A.; Molnár, A.; Aschenbach, J.R.; Ghareeb, K.; Khayal, B.; Hess, C.; Liebhart, D.; Dublecz, K.; Hess, M. Campylobacter Infection in Chickens Modulates the Intestinal Epithelial Barrier Function. Innate Immun 2015, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Reid, W.D.K.; Close, A.J.; Humphrey, S.; Chaloner, G.; Lacharme-Lora, L.; Rothwell, L.; Kaiser, P.; Williams, N.J.; Humphrey, T.J.; Wigley, P.; et al. Cytokine Responses in Birds Challenged with the Human Food-Borne Pathogen Campylobacter Jejuni Implies a Th17 Response. R Soc Open Sci 2016, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Crawshaw, T.R.; Chanter, J.I.; Young, S.C.L.; Cawthraw, S.; Whatmore, A.M.; Koylass, M.S.; Vidal, A.B.; Salguero, F.J.; Irvine, R.M. Isolation of a Novel Thermophilic Campylobacter from Cases of Spotty Liver Disease in Laying Hens and Experimental Reproduction of Infection and Microscopic Pathology. Vet Microbiol 2015, 179, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Van, T.T.H.; Elshagmani, E.; Gor, M.C.; Scott, P.C.; Moore, R.J. Campylobacter Hepaticus Sp. Nov., Isolated from Chickens with Spotty Liver Disease. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016, 66, 4518–4524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gharbi, M.; Béjaoui, A.; Hamrouni, S.; Arfaoui, A.; Maaroufi, A. Persistence of Campylobacter Spp. in Poultry Flocks after Disinfection, Virulence, and Antimicrobial Resistance Traits of Recovered Isolates. Antibiotics 2023, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gibreel, A.; Taylor, D.E. Macrolide Resistance in Campylobacter Jejuni and Campylobacter Coli. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006, 58, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alfredson, D.A.; Korolik, V. Antibiotic Resistance and Resistance Mechanisms in Campylobacter Jejuni and Campylobacter Coli. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2007, 277. [Google Scholar]
  31. Oh, E.; Jeon, B. Contribution of Surface Polysaccharides to the Resistance of Campylobacter Jejuni to Antimicrobial Phenolic Compounds. Journal of Antibiotics 2015, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rahman, M.R.T.; Fliss, I.; Biron, E. Insights in the Development and Uses of Alternatives to Antibiotic Growth Promoters in Poultry and Swine Production. Antibiotics 2022, 11. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wickramasuriya, S.S.; Ault, J.; Ritchie, S.; Gay, C.G.; Lillehoj, H.S. Alternatives to Antibiotic Growth Promoters for Poultry: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Research Journals. Poult Sci 2024, 103, 103987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Phongsisay, V.; Strachan, N.J.C.; Forbes, K.J.; Efsa; Nauta, M.N.J.; Johannessen, G.; Laureano Adame, L.; Williams, N.; Rosenquist, H.; Bertolo, L.; et al. Campylobacter Vaccination of Poultry : Clinical Trials , Quantitative Microbiological Methods and Decision Support Tools for the Control of Campylobacter in Poultry. Int J Food Microbiol 2015, 9.
  35. Poudel, S.; Li, T.; Chen, S.; Zhang, X.; Cheng, W.-H.; Sukumaran, A.T.; Kiess, A.S.; Zhang, L. Prevalence, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Molecular Characterization of Campylobacter Isolated from Broilers and Broiler Meat Raised without Antibiotics. Microbiol Spectr 2022, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Abd El-Hack, M.E.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Salem, H.M.; El-Tahan, A.M.; Soliman, M.M.; Youssef, G.B.A.; Taha, A.E.; Soliman, S.M.; Ahmed, A.E.; El-kott, A.F.; et al. Alternatives to Antibiotics for Organic Poultry Production: Types, Modes of Action and Impacts on Bird’s Health and Production. Poult Sci 2022, 101. [Google Scholar]
  37. Slader, J.; Domingue, G.; Jørgensen, F.; McAlpine, K.; Owen, R.J.; Bolton, F.J.; Humphrey, T.J. Impact of Transport Crate Reuse and of Catching and Processing on Campylobacter and Salmonella Contamination of Broiler Chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bull, S.A.; Allen, V.M.; Domingue, G.; Jørgensen, F.; Frost, J.A.; Ure, R.; Whyte, R.; Tinker, D.; Corry, J.E.L.; Gillard-King, J.; et al. Sources of Campylobacter Spp. Colonizing Housed Broiler Flocks during Rearing. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wagenaar, J.A.; French, N.P.; Havelaar, A.H. Preventing Campylobacter at the Source: Why Is It so Difficult? Clinical Infectious Diseases 2013, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hakeem, M.J.; Lu, X. Survival and Control of Campylobacter in Poultry Production Environment. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2021, 10. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nauta, M.; Johannessen, G.; Laureano Adame, L.; Williams, N.; Rosenquist, H. The Effect of Reducing Numbers of Campylobacter in Broiler Intestines on Human Health Risk. Microb Risk Anal 2016, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rosenquist, H.; Nielsen, N.L.; Sommer, H.M.; Nørrung, B.; Christensen, B.B. Quantitative Risk Assessment of Human Campylobacteriosis Associated with Thermophilic Campylobacter Species in Chickens. Int J Food Microbiol 2003, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in Broiler Meat Production: Control Options and Performance Objectives and/or Targets at Different Stages of the Food Chain. EFSA Journal 2011, 9. [CrossRef]
  44. Soro, A.B.; Whyte, P.; Bolton, D.J.; Tiwari, B.K. Strategies and Novel Technologies to Control Campylobacter in the Poultry Chain: A Review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2020, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Abbas, R.Z.; Alsayeqh, A.F.; Aqib, A.I. Role of Bacteriophages for Optimized Health and Production of Poultry. Animals 2022, 12. [Google Scholar]
  46. Newell, D.G.; Elvers, K.T.; Dopfer, D.; Hansson, I.; Jones, P.; James, S.; Gittins, J.; Stern, N.J.; Davies, R.; Connerton, I.; et al. Biosecurity-Based Interventions and Strategies to Reduce Campylobacter Spp. on Poultry Farms. Appl Environ Microbiol 2011, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lin, J. Novel Approaches for Campylobacter Control in Poultry. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2009, 6. [Google Scholar]
  48. Solow, B.T.; Cloak, O.M.; Fratamico, P.M. Effect of Temperature on Viability of Campylobacter Jejuni and Campylobacter Coli on Raw Chicken or Pork Skin. J Food Prot 2003, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Soro, A.B.; Whyte, P.; Bolton, D.J.; Tiwari, B.K. Modelling the Effect of UV Light at Different Wavelengths and Treatment Combinations on the Inactivation of Campylobacter Jejuni. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 2021, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wagle, B.R.; Donoghue, A.M.; Jesudhasan, P.R. Select Phytochemicals Reduce Campylobacter Jejuni in Postharvest Poultry and Modulate the Virulence Attributes of C. Jejuni. Front Microbiol 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wideman, N.; Bailey, M.; Bilgili, S.F.; Thippareddi, H.; Wang, L.; Bratcher, C.; Sanchez-Plata, M.; Singh, M. Evaluating Best Practices for Campylobacter and Salmonella Reduction in Poultry Processing Plants. Poult Sci 2016, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zakarienė, G.; Novoslavskij, A.; Meškinis, Š.; Vasiliauskas, A.; Tamulevičienė, A.; Tamulevičius, S.; Alter, T.; Malakauskas, M. Diamond like Carbon Ag Nanocomposites as a Control Measure against Campylobacter Jejuni and Listeria Monocytogenes on Food Preparation Surfaces. Diam Relat Mater 2018, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhao, T.; Ezeike, G.O.I.; Doyle, M.P.; Hung, Y.C.; Howell, R.S. Reduction of Campylobacter Jejuni on Poultry by Low-Temperature Treatment. J Food Prot 2003, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kim, J.-S.; Kim, T.-Y.; Lim, M.-C.; Khan, M.S.I. Campylobacter Control Strategies at Postharvest Level. Food Sci Biotechnol 2024, 33, 2919–2936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kaakoush, N.O.; Castaño-Rodríguez, N.; Mitchell, H.M.; Man, S.M. Global Epidemiology of Campylobacter Infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 2015, 28, 687–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Facciolà, A.; Riso, R.; Avventuroso, E.; Visalli, G.; Delia, S.A.; Laganà, P. Campylobacter: From Microbiology to Prevention. J Prev Med Hyg 2017, 58. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hermans, D.; Van Deun, K.; Martel, A.; Van Immerseel, F.; Messens, W.; Heyndrickx, M.; Haesebrouck, F.; Pasmans, F. Colonization Factors of Campylobacter Jejuni in the Chicken Gut. Vet Res 2011, 42. [Google Scholar]
  58. Batz, M.B.; Hoffmann, S.; Morris, J.G. Ranking the Disease Burden of 14 Pathogens in Food Sources in the United States Using Attribution Data from Outbreak Investigations and Expert Elicitation. J Food Prot 2012, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Veronese, P.; Dodi, I. Campylobacter Jejuni/Coli Infection: Is It Still a Concern? Microorganisms 2024, 12, 2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. dessouky, Y. El; Elsayed, S.W.; Abdelsalam, N.A.; Saif, N.A.; Álvarez-Ordóñez, A.; Elhadidy, M. Genomic Insights into Zoonotic Transmission and Antimicrobial Resistance in Campylobacter Jejuni from Farm to Fork: A One Health Perspective. Gut Pathog 2022, 14. [Google Scholar]
  61. Korsak, D.; Maćkiw, E.; Rozynek, E.; Zyłowska, M. Prevalence of Campylobacter Spp. in Retail Chicken, Turkey, Pork, and Beef Meat in Poland between 2009 and 2013. J Food Prot 2015, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rasschaert, G.; De Zutter, L.; Herman, L.; Heyndrickx, M. Campylobacter Contamination of Broilers: The Role of Transport and Slaughterhouse. Int J Food Microbiol 2020, 322. [Google Scholar]
  63. Robinson, D.A. Infective Dose of Campylobacter Jejuni in Milk. Br Med J 1981, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Black, R.E.; Levine, M.M.; Clements, M. Lou; Hughes, T.P.; Blaser, M.J.; Black, R.E. Experimental Campylobacter Jejuni Infection in Humans. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1988, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cawthraw, S.A.; Wassenaar, T.M.; Ayling, R.; Newell, D.G. Increased Colonization Potential of Campylobacter Jejuni Strain 81116 after Passage through Chickens and Its Implication on the Rate of Transmission within Flocks. Epidemiol Infect 1996, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wassenaar, T.M.; Van der Zeijst, B.A.M.; Ayling, R.; Newell, D.G. Colonization of Chicks by Motility Mutants of Campylobacter Jejuni Demonstrates the Importance of Flagellin A Expression. J Gen Microbiol 1993, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Newell, D.G.; Fearnley, C. Sources of Campylobacter Colonization in Broiler Chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sadek, S.A.S.; Shaapan, R.M.; Barakat, A.M.A. Campylobacteriosis in Poultry: A Review. J Worlds Poult Res 2023, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Neves, M.I.; Malkawi, I.; Walker, M.; Alaboudi, A.; Abu-Basha, E.; Blake, D.P.; Guitian, J.; Crotta, M. The Transmission Dynamics of Campylobacter Jejuni among Broilers in Semi-Commercial Farms in Jordan. Epidemiol Infect 2019, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Rawson, T.; Dawkins, M.S.; Bonsall, M.B. A Mathematical Model of Campylobacter Dynamics within a Broiler Flock. Front Microbiol 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Zhang, X.; Yin, T.; Du, X.; Yang, W.; Huang, J.; Jiao, X. Occurrence and Genotypes of Campylobacter Species in Broilers during the Rearing Period. Avian Pathology 2017, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. FAO/WHO Risk Assessment of Campylobacter Spp in Broiler Chickens: Technical Report; 2009; Vol. 180;
  74. Rosenquist, H.; Boysen, L.; Galliano, C.; Nordentoft, S.; Ethelberg, S.; Borck, B. Danish Strategies to Control Campylobacter in Broilers and Broiler Meat: Facts and Effects. Epidemiol Infect 2009, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Stern, N.J.; Hiett, K.L.; Alfredsson, G.A.; Kristinsson, K.G.; Reiersen, J.; Hardardottir, H.; Briem, H.; Gunnarsson, E.; Georgsson, F.; Lowman, R.; et al. Campylobacter Spp. in Icelandic Poultry Operations and Human Disease. Epidemiol Infect 2003, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. The European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in Zoonotic and Indicator Bacteria from Humans, Animals and Food in 2022–2023. EFSA Journal 2025, 23. [CrossRef]
  77. Olvera-Ramírez, A.M.; McEwan, N.R.; Stanley, K.; Nava-Diaz, R.; Aguilar-Tipacamú, G. A Systematic Review on the Role of Wildlife as Carriers and Spreaders of Campylobacter Spp. Animals 2023, 13. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wang, J.; Vaddu, S.; Bhumanapalli, S.; Mishra, A.; Applegate, T.; Singh, M.; Thippareddi, H. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Sources of Campylobacter in Poultry Production (Preharvest) and Their Relative Contributions to the Microbial Risk of Poultry Meat. Poult Sci 2023, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gregory, E.; Barnhart, H.; Dreesen, D.W.; Stern, N.J.; Corn, J.L. Epidemiological Study of Campylobacter Spp. in Broilers: Source, Time of Colonization, and Prevalence. Avian Dis 1997, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hald, B.; Skovgård, H.; Bang, D.D.; Pedersen, K.; Dybdahl, J.; Jespersen, J.B.; Madsen, M. Flies and Campylobacter Infection of Broiler Flocks. Emerg Infect Dis 2004, 10, 1490–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Newell, D.G. The Ecology of Campylobacter Jejuni in Avian and Human Hosts and in the Environment. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2002, 6, S16–S21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. FSIS Compliance Guideline for Controlling Salmonella and Campylobacter in Poultry. Third Edition 2010.
  83. Royden, A.; Christley, R.; Prendiville, A.; Williams, N.J. The Role of Biosecurity in the Control of Campylobacter: A Qualitative Study of the Attitudes and Perceptions of UK Broiler Farm Workers. Front Vet Sci 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Georgiev, M.; Beauvais, W.; Guitian, J. Effect of Enhanced Biosecurity and Selected On-Farm Factors on Campylobacter Colonization of Chicken Broilers. Epidemiol Infect 2017, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. The European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in Zoonotic and Indicator Bacteria from Humans, Animals and Food in 2021–2022. EFSA Journal 2024, 22. [CrossRef]
  86. Santos, L.S.; Rossi, D.A.; Braz, R.F.; Fonseca, B.B.; Guidotti–Takeuchi, M.; Alves, R.N.; Beletti, M.E.; Almeida-Souza, H.O.; Maia, L.P.; Santos, P. de S.; et al. Roles of Viable but Non-Culturable State in the Survival of Campylobacter Jejuni. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2023, 13. [CrossRef]
  87. Chaisowwong, W.; Kusumoto, A.; Hashimoto, M.; Harada, T.; Maklon, K.; Kawamoto, K. Physiological Characterization of Campylobacter Jejuni under Cold Stresses Conditions: Its Potential for Public Threat. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 2012, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nemelka, K.W.; Brown, A.W.; Wallace, S.M.; Jones, E.; Asher, L. V.; Pattarini, D.; Applebee, L.; Gilliland, T.C.; Guerry, P.; Baqar, S. Immune Response to and Histopathology of Campylobacter Jejuni Infection in Ferrets (Mustela Putorius Furo). Comp Med 2009, 59. [Google Scholar]
  89. Marks, S.L.; Rankin, S.C.; Byrne, B.A.; Weese, J.S. Enteropathogenic Bacteria in Dogs and Cats: Diagnosis, Epidemiology, Treatment, and Control. J Vet Intern Med 2011, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Macartney, L.; Al-Mashat, R.R.; Taylor, D.J.; McCandlish, I.A. Experimental Infection of Dogs with Campylobacter Jejuni. Vet Rec 1988, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Clemmons, E.A.; Jean, S.M.; Machiah, D.K.; Breding, E.; Sharma, P. Extraintestinal Campylobacteriosis in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca Mulatta). Comp Med 2014, 64. [Google Scholar]
  92. Kwon, Y.K.; Oh, J.Y.; Jeong, O.M.; Moon, O.K.; Kang, M.S.; Jung, B.Y.; An, B.K.; Youn, S.Y.; Kim, H.R.; Jang, I.; et al. Prevalence of Campylobacter Species in Wild Birds of South Korea. Avian Pathology 2017, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wysok, B.; Sołtysiuk, M.; Stenzel, T. Wildlife Waterfowl as a Source of Pathogenic Campylobacter Strains. Pathogens 2022, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gill, C.; Bahrndorff, S.; Lowenberger, C. Campylobacter Jejuni in Musca Domestica: An Examination of Survival and Transmission Potential in Light of the Innate Immune Responses of the House Flies. Insect Sci 2017, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hald, B.; Skovgård, H.; Pedersen, K.; Bunkenborg, H. Influxed Insects as Vectors for Campylobacter Jejuni and Campylobacter Coli in Danish Broiler Houses. Poult Sci 2008, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kim, J.; Guk, J.H.; Mun, S.H.; An, J.U.; Kim, W.; Lee, S.; Song, H.; Seong, J.K.; Suh, J.G.; Cho, S. The Wild Mouse (Micromys Minutus): Reservoir of a Novel Campylobacter Jejuni Strain. Front Microbiol 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Olkkola, S.; Rossi, M.; Jaakkonen, A.; Simola, M.; Tikkanen, J.; Hakkinen, M.; Tuominen, P.; Huitu, O.; Niemimaa, J.; Henttonen, H.; et al. Host-Dependent Clustering of Campylobacter Strains From Small Mammals in Finland. Front Microbiol 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), E.P. Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in Broiler Meat Production: Control Options and Performance Objectives and/or Targets at Different Stages of the Food Chain. EFSA Journal 2011, 9, 2105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hansson, I.; Ederoth, M.; Andersson, L.; Vågsholm, I.; Engvall, E.O. Transmission of Campylobacter Spp. to Chickens during Transport to Slaughter. J Appl Microbiol 2005, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bindels, L.B.; Delzenne, N.M.; Cani, P.D.; Walter, J. Opinion: Towards a More Comprehensive Concept for Prebiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015, 12. [Google Scholar]
  102. FAO/WHO Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in Food Including Powder Milk with Liver Lactic Acid Bacteria. Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization Joint Report. Prevention 2001, 5.
  103. Verschuere, L.; Rombaut, G.; Sorgeloos, P.; Verstraete, W. Probiotic Bacteria as Biological Control Agents in Aquaculture. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 2000, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Ouwehand, A.C.; Salminen, S.; Isolauri, E. Probiotics: An Overview of Beneficial Effects. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology 2002, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Gibson, G.R.; Roberfroid, M.B. Dietary Modulation of the Human Colonic Microbiota: Introducing the Concept of Prebiotics. Journal of Nutrition 1995, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Fontana, L.; Bermudez-Brito, M.; Plaza-Diaz, J.; Muñoz-Quezada, S.; Gil, A. Sources, Isolation, Characterisation and Evaluation of Probiotics. British Journal of Nutrition 2013, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bermudez-Brito, M.; Plaza-Díaz, J.; Muñoz-Quezada, S.; Gómez-Llorente, C.; Gil, A. Probiotic Mechanisms of Action. Ann Nutr Metab 2012, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Chaudhari, A.A.; Lee, Y.; Lillehoj, H.S. Beneficial Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Bacillus Strains on Growth Performance and Gut Health in Chickens with Mixed Coccidiosis Infection. Vet Parasitol 2020, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Shahbaz, F.; Muccee, F.; Shahab, A.; Safi, S.Z.; Alomar, S.Y.; Qadeer, A. Isolation and in Vitro Assessment of Chicken Gut Microbes for Probiotic Potential. Front Microbiol 2024, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. He, T.; Long, S.; Mahfuz, S.; Wu, D.; Wang, X.; Wei, X.; Piao, X. Effects of Probiotics as Antibiotics Substitutes on Growth Performance, Serum Biochemical Parameters, Intestinal Morphology, and Barrier Function of Broilers. Animals 2019, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Biswas, A.; Junaid, N.; Kumawat, M.; Qureshi, S.; Mandal, A.B. Influence of Dietary Supplementation of Probiotics on Intestinal Histo-Morphometry, Blood Chemistry and Gut Health Status of Broiler Chickens. S Afr J Anim Sci 2019, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Aruwa, C.E.; Pillay, C.; Nyaga, M.M.; Sabiu, S. Poultry Gut Health – Microbiome Functions, Environmental Impacts, Microbiome Engineering and Advancements in Characterization Technologies. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Bedford, M.R.; Apajalahti, J.H. The Role of Feed Enzymes in Maintaining Poultry Intestinal Health. J Sci Food Agric 2022, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Rabetafika, H.N.; Razafindralambo, A.; Ebenso, B.; Razafindralambo, H.L. Probiotics as Antibiotic Alternatives for Human and Animal Applications. Encyclopedia 2023, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Varastegani, A.; Dahlan, I. Influence of Dietary Fiber Levels on Feed Utilization and Growth Performance in Poultry. J. Anim. Pro. Adv. 2014, 4. [Google Scholar]
  116. Shang, Y.; Kumar, S.; Oakley, B.; Kim, W.K. Chicken Gut Microbiota: Importance and Detection Technology. Front Vet Sci 2018, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Clavijo, V.; Flórez, M.J.V. The Gastrointestinal Microbiome and Its Association with the Control of Pathogens in Broiler Chicken Production: A Review. Poult Sci 2018, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Carrasco, J.M.D.; Casanova, N.A.; Miyakawa, M.E.F. Microbiota, Gut Health and Chicken Productivity: What Is the Connection? Microorganisms 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Torok, V.A.; Hughes, R.J.; Mikkelsen, L.L.; Perez-Maldonado, R.; Balding, K.; MacAlpine, R.; Percy, N.J.; Ophel-Keller, K. Identification and Characterization of Potential Performance-Related Gut Microbiotas in Broiler Chickens across Various Feeding Trials. Appl Environ Microbiol 2011, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Idowu, P.A.; Mpofu, T.J.; Magoro, A.M.; Modiba, M.C.; Nephawe, K.A.; Mtileni, B. Impact of Probiotics on Chicken Gut Microbiota, Immunity, Behavior, and Productive Performance—a Systematic Review. Frontiers in Animal Science 2025, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Pourabedin, M.; Zhao, X. Prebiotics and Gut Microbiota in Chickens. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2015, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Yue, T.; Lu, Y.; Ding, W.; Xu, B.; Zhang, C.; Li, L.; Jian, F.; Huang, S. The Role of Probiotics, Prebiotics, Synbiotics, and Postbiotics in Livestock and Poultry Gut Health: A Review. Metabolites 2025, 15, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Naeem, M.; Bourassa, D. Probiotics in Poultry: Unlocking Productivity Through Microbiome Modulation and Gut Health. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Jha, R.; Das, R.; Oak, S.; Mishra, P. Probiotics (Direct-fed Microbials) in Poultry Nutrition and Their Effects on Nutrient Utilization, Growth and Laying Performance, and Gut Health: A Systematic Review. Animals 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Gaggìa, F.; Mattarelli, P.; Biavati, B. Probiotics and Prebiotics in Animal Feeding for Safe Food Production. Int J Food Microbiol 2010, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Yue, T.; Lu, Y.; Ding, W.; Xu, B.; Zhang, C.; Li, L.; Jian, F.; Huang, S. The Role of Probiotics, Prebiotics, Synbiotics, and Postbiotics in Livestock and Poultry Gut Health: A Review. Metabolites 2025, 15, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Tsilingiri, K.; Rescigno, M. Postbiotics: What Else? Benef Microbes 2013, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Marcial-Coba, M.S.; Pjaca, A.S.; Andersen, C.J.; Knøchel, S.; Nielsen, D.S. Dried Date Paste as Carrier of the Proposed Probiotic Bacillus Coagulans BC4 and Viability Assessment during Storage and Simulated Gastric Passage. LWT 2019, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Salminen, S.; Collado, M.C.; Endo, A.; Hill, C.; Lebeer, S.; Quigley, E.M.M.; Sanders, M.E.; Shamir, R.; Swann, J.R.; Szajewska, H.; et al. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) Consensus Statement on the Definition and Scope of Postbiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021, 18. [Google Scholar]
  130. Burcelin, R.; Serino, M.; Chabo, C.; Blasco-Baque, V.; Amar, J. Gut Microbiota and Diabetes: From Pathogenesis to Therapeutic Perspective. Acta Diabetol 2011, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Thu, T. V.; Loh, T.C.; Foo, H.L.; Yaakub, H.; Bejo, M.H. Effects of Liquid Metabolite Combinations Produced by Lactobacillus Plantarum on Growth Performance, Faeces Characteristics, Intestinal Morphology and Diarrhoea Incidence in Postweaning Piglets. Trop Anim Health Prod 2011, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zhang, Z.; Guo, Q.; Wang, J.; Tan, H.; Jin, X.; Fan, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhao, S.; Zheng, J.; Peng, N. Postbiotics from Pichia Kudriavzevii Promote Intestinal Health Performance through Regulation of Limosilactobacillus Reuteri in Weaned Piglets. Food Funct 2023, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Wachi, S.; Kanmani, P.; Tomosada, Y.; Kobayashi, H.; Yuri, T.; Egusa, S.; Shimazu, T.; Suda, Y.; Aso, H.; Sugawara, M.; et al. Lactobacillus Delbrueckii TUA4408L and Its Extracellular Polysaccharides Attenuate Enterotoxigenic Escherichia Coli-Induced Inflammatory Response in Porcine Intestinal Epitheliocytes via Toll-like Receptor-2 and 4. Mol Nutr Food Res 2014, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Patil, S.; Sawant, S.; Hauff, K.; Hampp, G. Validated Postbiotic Screening Confirms Presence of Physiologically-Active Metabolites, Such as Short-Chain Fatty Acids, Amino Acids and Vitamins in Hylak® Forte. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2019, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Goodridge, L.D.; Bisha, B. Phage-Based Biocontrol Strategies to Reduce Foodborne Pathogens in Foods. Bacteriophage 2011, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Rosenquist, H.; Boysen, L.; Krogh, A.L.; Jensen, A.N.; Nauta, M. Campylobacter Contamination and the Relative Risk of Illness from Organic Broiler Meat in Comparison with Conventional Broiler Meat. Int J Food Microbiol 2013, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Chinivasagam, H.N.; Estella, W.; Maddock, L.; Mayer, D.G.; Weyand, C.; Connerton, P.L.; Connerton, I.F. Bacteriophages to Control Campylobacter in Commercially Farmed Broiler Chickens, in Australia. Front Microbiol 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Richards, P.J.; Connerton, P.L.; Connerton, I.F. Phage Biocontrol of Campylobacter Jejuni in Chickens Does Not Produce Collateral Effects on the Gut Microbiota. Front Microbiol 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Waghmare, S.; Gupta, M.; Bahiram, K.B.; Korde, J.P.; Bhat, R.; Datar, Y.; Rajora, P.; Kadam, M.M.; Kaore, M.; Kurkure, N.V. Effects of Organic Acid Blends on the Growth Performance, Intestinal Morphology, Microbiota, and Serum Lipid Parameters of Broiler Chickens. Poult Sci 2025, 104, 104546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Yang, X.; Xin, H.; Yang, C.; Yang, X. Impact of Essential Oils and Organic Acids on the Growth Performance, Digestive Functions and Immunity of Broiler Chickens. Animal Nutrition 2018, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Khan, R.U.; Naz, S.; Raziq, F.; Qudratullah, Q.; Khan, N.A.; Laudadio, V.; Tufarelli, V.; Ragni, M. Prospects of Organic Acids as Safe Alternative to Antibiotics in Broiler Chickens Diet. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Mani-López, E.; García, H.S.; López-Malo, A. Organic Acids as Antimicrobials to Control Salmonella in Meat and Poultry Products. Food Research International 2012, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Dibner, J.J.; Buttin, P. Use of Organic Acids as a Model to Study the Impact of Gut Microflora on Nutrition and Metabolism. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2002, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Movahedi, F.; Nirmal, N.; Wang, P.; Jin, H.; Grøndahl, L.; Li, L. Recent Advances in Essential Oils and Their Nanoformulations for Poultry Feed. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2024, 15, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Rusdi, R.; Hasanuddin, A.; Arief, R. Evaluation of Eleutherine (Eleutherine Americana) Potential As Feed Additive for Poultry. Jurnal Agrisains 2016, 17. [Google Scholar]
  146. Kamatou, G.P.P.; Viljoen, A.M. A Review of the Application and Pharmacological Properties of α-Bisabolol and α-Bisabolol-Rich Oils. JAOCS, Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 2010, 87.
  147. Miguel, M.G. Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Essential Oils: A Short Review. Molecules 2010, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Navarro, M.; Stanley, R.; Cusack, A.; Yasmina, S. Combinations of Plant-Derived Compounds AgainstCampylobacter in Vitro. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2015, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Sar, T.; Akbas, M.Y. Antimicrobial Activities of Olive Oil Mill Wastewater Extracts against Selected Microorganisms. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2023, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Hashemi, S.R.; Davoodi, H. Herbal Plants and Their Derivatives as Growth and Health Promoters in Animal Nutrition. Vet Res Commun 2011, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Giannenas, I.; Bonos, E.; Filliousis, G.; Stylianaki, I.; Kumar, P.; Lazari, D.; Christaki, E.; Florou-Paneri, P. Effect of a Polyherbal or an Arsenic-Containing Feed Additive on Growth Performance of Broiler Chickens, Intestinal Microbiota, Intestinal Morphology, and Lipid Oxidation of Breast and Thigh Meat. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2019, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Burt, S. Essential Oils: Their Antibacterial Properties and Potential Applications in Foods - A Review. Int J Food Microbiol 2004, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Windisch, W.; Schedle, K.; Plitzner, C.; Kroismayr, A. Use of Phytogenic Products as Feed Additives for Swine and Poultry. J Anim Sci 2008, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Iwata, T.; Watanabe-Yanai, A.; Tamamura-Andoh, Y.; Arai, N.; Akiba, M.; Kusumoto, M. Tryptanthrin Reduces Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization in the Chicken Gut by a Bactericidal Mechanism. Appl Environ Microbiol 2023, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. World health organization WHO | WHO Department on Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals. Who 2017.
  156. Igwaran, A.; Okoh, A.I. Molecular Determination of Genetic Diversity among Campylobacter Jejuni and Campylobacter Coli Isolated from Milk, Water, and Meat Samples Using Enterobacterial Repetitive Intergenic Consensus PCR (ERIC-PCR). Infect Ecol Epidemiol 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Jeon, B.; Saisom, T.; Sasipreeyajan, J.; Luangtongkum, T. Live-Attenuated Oral Vaccines to Reduce Campylobacter Colonization in Poultry. Vaccines (Basel) 2022, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Castelo Taboada, A.C.; Pavic, A. Vaccinating Meat Chickens against Campylobacter and Salmonella: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines (Basel) 2022, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Hermans, D.; Van Deun, K.; Messens, W.; Martel, A.; Van Immerseel, F.; Haesebrouck, F.; Rasschaert, G.; Heyndrickx, M.; Pasmans, F. Campylobacter Control in Poultry by Current Intervention Measures Ineffective: Urgent Need for Intensified Fundamental Research. Vet Microbiol 2011, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Adams, L.J.; Zeng, X.; Lin, J. Development and Evaluation of Two Live Salmonella-Vectored Vaccines for Campylobacter Control in Broiler Chickens. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2019, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Meunier, M.; Guyard-Nicodème, M.; Dory, D.; Chemaly, M. Control Strategies against Campylobacter at the Poultry Production Level: Biosecurity Measures, Feed Additives and Vaccination. J Appl Microbiol 2016, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Wang, C.; Zhou, H.; Guo, F.; Yang, B.; Su, X.; Lin, J.; Xu, F. Oral Immunization of Chickens with Lactococcus Lactis Expressing CjaA Temporarily Reduces Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2020, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Neal-McKinney, J.M.; Samuelson, D.R.; Eucker, T.P.; Nissen, M.S.; Crespo, R.; Konkel, M.E. Reducing Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization of Poultry via Vaccination. PLoS One 2014, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Wyszyńska, A.; Raczko, A.; Lis, M.; Jagusztyn-Krynicka, E.K. Oral Immunization of Chickens with Avirulent Salmonella Vaccine Strain Carrying C. Jejuni 72Dz/92 CjaA Gene Elicits Specific Humoral Immune Response Associated with Protection against Challenge with Wild-Type Campylobacter. Vaccine 2004, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Carneiro, F.A.; Cortines, J. dos R.; Essus, V.A.; da Silva, I.B.N. Vaccine Engineering & Structural Vaccinology. In System Vaccinology: The History, the Translational Challenges and the Future; 2022.
  166. Nothaft, H.; Perez-Muñoz, M.E.; Gouveia, G.J.; Duar, R.M.; Wanford, J.J.; Lango-Scholey, L.; Panagos, C.G.; Srithayakumar, V.; Plastow, G.S.; Coros, C.; et al. Coadministration of the Campylobacter Jejuni N-Glycan-Based Vaccine with Probiotics Improves Vaccine Performance in Broiler Chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 2017, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Pumtang-On, P.; Mahony, T.J.; Hill, R.A.; Vanniasinkam, T. A Systematic Review of Campylobacter Jejuni Vaccine Candidates for Chickens. Microorganisms 2021, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Head, J.R.; Vos, A.; Blanton, J.; Müller, T.; Chipman, R.; Pieracci, E.G.; Cleaton, J.; Wallace, R. Environmental Distribution of Certain Modified Live-Virus Vaccines with a High Safety Profile Presents a Low-Risk, High-Reward to Control Zoonotic Diseases. Sci Rep 2019, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Cramer, J.P. Principles of Immunization. In Travel Medicine; 2018.
  170. Naguib, M.; Sharma, S.; Schneider, A.; Wehmueller, S.; Abdelaziz, K. Comparative Effectiveness of Various Multi-Antigen Vaccines in Controlling Campylobacter Jejuni in Broiler Chickens. Vaccines (Basel) 2024, 12, 908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Okamura, M.; Tominaga, A.; Ueda, M.; Ohshima, R.; Kobayashi, M.; Tsukada, M.; Yokoyama, E.; Takehara, K.; Deguchi, K.; Honda, T.; et al. Irrelevance between the Induction of Anti-Campylobacter Humoral Response by a Bacterin and the Lack of Protection against Homologous Challenge in Japanese Jidori Chickens. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 2012, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Konkel, M.E.; Joens, L.A. Adhesion to and Invasion of HEp-2 Cells by Campylobacter Spp. Infect Immun 1989, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Burakova, Y.; Madera, R.; McVey, S.; Schlup, J.R.; Shi, J. Adjuvants for Animal Vaccines. Viral Immunol 2018, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Ravikumar, R.; Chan, J.; Prabakaran, M. Vaccines against Major Poultry Viral Diseases: Strategies to Improve the Breadth and Protective Efficacy. Viruses 2022, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Bodman-Harris, O.; Rollier, C.S.; Iqbal, M. Approaches to Enhance the Potency of Vaccines in Chickens. Vaccines (Basel) 2024, 12, 1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Whalen, R.G. DNA Vaccines, Cyberspace and Self-Help Programs. Intervirology 1996, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Mor, G. Plasmid DNA: A New Era in Vaccinology. Biochem Pharmacol 1998, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Leitner, W.W.; Ying, H.; Restifo, N.P. DNA and RNA-Based Vaccines: Principles, Progress and Prospects. Vaccine 1999, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Wang, C.; Yuan, F. A Comprehensive Comparison of DNA and RNA Vaccines. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2024, 210, 115340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Liu, X.; Adams, L.J.; Zeng, X.; Lin, J. Evaluation of in Ovo Vaccination of DNA Vaccines for Campylobacter Control in Broiler Chickens. Vaccine 2019, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Gloanec, N.; Guyard-Nicodème, M.; Brunetti, R.; Quesne, S.; Keita, A.; Chemaly, M.; Dory, D. Plasmid DNA Prime/Protein Boost Vaccination against Campylobacter Jejuni in Broilers: Impact of Vaccine Candidates on Immune Responses and Gut Microbiota. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Meunier, M.; Guyard-Nicodème, M.; Vigouroux, E.; Poezevara, T.; Béven, V.; Quesne, S.; Amelot, M.; Parra, A.; Chemaly, M.; Dory, D. A DNA Prime/Protein Boost Vaccine Protocol Developed against Campylobacter Jejuni for Poultry. Vaccine 2018, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Gote, V.; Bolla, P.K.; Kommineni, N.; Butreddy, A.; Nukala, P.K.; Palakurthi, S.S.; Khan, W. A Comprehensive Review of MRNA Vaccines. Int J Mol Sci 2023, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Capozzo, A.V.E.; Ramírez, K.; Polo, J.M.; Ulmer, J.; Barry, E.M.; Levine, M.M.; Pasetti, M.F. Neonatal Immunization with a Sindbis Virus-DNA Measles Vaccine Induces Adult-Like Neutralizing Antibodies and Cell-Mediated Immunity in the Presence of Maternal Antibodies. The Journal of Immunology 2006, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Manickan, E.; Yu, Z.; Rouse, B.T. DNA Immunization of Neonates Induces Immunity despite the Presence of Maternal Antibody. Journal of Clinical Investigation 1997, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Giannotta, G.; Murrone, A.; Giannotta, N. COVID-19 MRNA Vaccines: The Molecular Basis of Some Adverse Events. Vaccines (Basel) 2023, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Holm, M.R.; Poland, G.A. Critical Aspects of Packaging, Storage, Preparation, and Administration of MRNA and Adenovirus-Vectored COVID-19 Vaccines for Optimal Efficacy. Vaccine 2021, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Lefébure, T.; Bitar, P.D.P.; Suzuki, H.; Stanhope, M.J. Evolutionary Dynamics of Complete Campylobacter Pan-Genomes and the Bacterial Species Concept. Genome Biol Evol 2010, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Costa, D.; Lévesque, S.; Kumar, N.; Fresia, P.; Ferrés, I.; Lawley, T.D.; Iraola, G. Pangenome Analysis Reveals Genetic Isolation in Campylobacter Hyointestinalis Subspecies Adapted to Different Mammalian Hosts. Sci Rep 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Gemmell, M.R.; Berry, S.; Mukhopadhya, I.; Hansen, R.; Nielsen, H.L.; Bajaj-Elliott, M.; Nielsen, H.; Hold, G.L. Comparative Genomics of Campylobacter Concisus: Analysis of Clinical Strains Reveals Genome Diversity and Pathogenic Potential. Emerg Microbes Infect 2018, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Zhong, C.; Qu, B.; Hu, G.; Ning, K. Pan-Genome Analysis of Campylobacter: Insights on the Genomic Diversity and Virulence Profile. Microbiol Spectr 2022, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Cayrou, C.; Barratt, N.A.; Ketley, J.M.; Bayliss, C.D. Phase Variation During Host Colonization and Invasion by Campylobacter Jejuni and Other Campylobacter Species. Front Microbiol 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Fox, K.L.; Atack, J.M.; Srikhanta, Y.N.; Eckert, A.; Novotny, L.A.; Bakaletz, L.O.; Jennings, M.P. Selection for Phase Variation of Los Biosynthetic Genes Frequently Occurs in Progression of Non-Typeable Haemophilus Influenzae Infection from the Nasopharynx to the Middle Ear of Human Patients. PLoS One 2014, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Van Der Woude, M.W.; Bäumler, A.J. Phase and Antigenic Variation in Bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Van Der Woude, M.W. Re-Examining the Role and Random Nature of Phase Variation. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2006, 254. [Google Scholar]
  196. van der Woude, M.W. Phase Variation: How to Create and Coordinate Population Diversity. Curr Opin Microbiol 2011, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Burnham, P.M.; Hendrixson, D.R. Campylobacter Jejuni: Collective Components Promoting a Successful Enteric Lifestyle. Nat Rev Microbiol 2018, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Lu, T.; Marmion, M.; Ferone, M.; Wall, P.; Scannell, A.G.M. On Farm Interventions to Minimise Campylobacter Spp. Contamination in Chicken. Br Poult Sci 2021, 62. [Google Scholar]
  199. Sahin, O.; Luo, N.; Huang, S.; Zhang, Q. Effect of Campylobacter-Specific Maternal Antibodies on Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization in Young Chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Shreeve, J.E.; Toszeghy, M.; Pattison, M.; Newell, D.G. Sequential Spread of Campylobacter Infection in a Multipen Broiler House. Avian Dis 2000, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Jacobs-Reitsma, W.F.; Van de Giessen, A.W.; Bolder, N.M.; Mulder, R.W.A.W. Epidemiology of Campylobacter Spp. at Two Dutch Broiler Farms. Epidemiol Infect 1995, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Evans, S.J.; Sayers, A.R. A Longitudinal Study of Campylobacter Infection of Broiler Flocks in Great Britain. Prev Vet Med 2000, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Haems, K.; Van Rysselberghe, N.; Goossens, E.; Strubbe, D.; Rasschaert, G.; Martel, A.; Pasmans, F.; Garmyn, A. Reducing Campylobacter Colonization in Broilers by Active Immunization of Naive Broiler Breeders Using a Bacterin and Subunit Vaccine. Poult Sci 2023, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Haems, K.; Strubbe, D.; Van Rysselberghe, N.; Rasschaert, G.; Martel, A.; Pasmans, F.; Garmyn, A. Role of Maternal Antibodies in the Protection of Broiler Chicks against Campylobacter Colonization in the First Weeks of Life. Animals 2024, 14, 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Eliasson, E.; Sun, L.; Cervin, G.; Pavia, H.; Tällberg, G.; Ellström, P.; Ivarsson, E. No Colonization Resistance to Campylobacter Jejuni in Broilers Fed Brown Algal Extract-Supplemented Diets. Front Microbiol 2024, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Naguib, M.; Sharma, S.; Schneider, A.; Bragg, Ari.J.; Abdelaziz, K. A Multi-Antigen Campylobacter Vaccine Enhances Antibody Responses in Layer Breeders and Sustains Elevated Maternal Antibody Levels in Their Offspring. Poult Sci 2025, 104, 104898. [CrossRef]
  207. Lacharme-Lora, L.; Chaloner, G.; Gilroy, R.; Humphrey, S.; Gibbs, K.; Jopson, S.; Wright, E.; Reid, W.; Ketley, J.; Humphrey, T.; et al. B Lymphocytes Play a Limited Role in Clearance of Campylobacter Jejuni from the Chicken Intestinal Tract. Sci Rep 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Chintoan-Uta, C.; Cassady-Cain, R.L.; Al-Haideri, H.; Watson, E.; Kelly, D.J.; Smith, D.G.E.; Sparks, N.H.C.; Kaiser, P.; Stevens, M.P. Superoxide Dismutase SodB Is a Protective Antigen against Campylobacter Jejuni Colonisation in Chickens. Vaccine 2015, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Barrow, P.A.; Huggins, M.B.; Lovell, M.A.; Simpson, J.M. Observations on the Pathogenesis of Experimental Salmonella Typhimurium Infection in Chickens. Res Vet Sci 1987, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Layton, S.L.; Morgan, M.J.; Cole, K.; Kwon, Y.M.; Donoghue, D.J.; Hargis, B.M.; Pumford, N.R. Evaluation of Salmonella-Vectored Campylobacter Peptide Epitopes for Reduction of Campylobacter Jejuni in Broiler Chickens. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 2011, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Buckley, A.M.; Wang, J.; Hudson, D.L.; Grant, A.J.; Jones, M.A.; Maskell, D.J.; Stevens, M.P. Evaluation of Live-Attenuated Salmonella Vaccines Expressing Campylobacter Antigens for Control of C. Jejuni in Poultry. Vaccine 2010, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Gilroy, R.; Wedley, A.; Jopson, S.; Hall, J.; Wigley, P. The Immunobiology of Persistent Intestinal Infection by Campylobacter Jejuni in the Chicken 2024.
  213. Kobierecka, P.A.; Wyszynska, A.K.; Gubernator, J.; Kuczkowski, M.; Wisniewski, O.; Maruszewska, M.; Wojtania, A.; Derlatka, K.E.; Adamska, I.; Godlewska, R.; et al. Chicken Anti-Campylobacter Vaccine - Comparison of Various Carriers and Routes of Immunization. Front Microbiol 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Ceccopieri, C.; Madej, J.P. Chicken Secondary Lymphoid Tissues—Structure and Relevance in Immunological Research. Animals 2024, 14, 2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Wu, Z.; Kaiser, P. Antigen Presenting Cells in a Non-Mammalian Model System, the Chicken. Immunobiology 2011, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. de Matos, R.; Morrisey, J.K. Marek’s Disease. In Comparative Veterinary Anatomy; Elsevier, 2022; pp. 1355–1363.
  217. Muir, W.I.; Bryden, W.L.; Husband, A.J. Immunity, Vaccination and the Avian Intestinal Tract. Dev Comp Immunol 2000, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Nochi, T.; Jansen, C.A.; Toyomizu, M.; Eden, W. van The Well-Developed Mucosal Immune Systems of Birds and Mammals Allow for Similar Approaches of Mucosal Vaccination in Both Types of Animals. Front Nutr 2018, 5. [Google Scholar]
  219. Guérin, J.L.; Balloy, D.; Pinson, M.; Jbenyeni, A.; Delpont, M. Vaccination Technology in Poultry: Principles of Vaccine Administration. Avian Dis 2023, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Calland, J.K.; Pesonen, M.E.; Mehat, J.; Pascoe, B.; Haydon, D.J.; Lourenco, J.; Lukasiewicz, B.; Mourkas, E.; Hitchings, M.D.; La Ragione, R.M.; et al. Genomic Tailoring of Autogenous Poultry Vaccines to Reduce Campylobacter from Farm to Fork. NPJ Vaccines 2024, 9, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  221. Annamalai, T.; Pina-Mimbela, R.; Kumar, A.; Binjawadagi, B.; Liu, Z.; Renukaradhya, G.J.; Rajashekara, G. Evaluation of Nanoparticle-Encapsulated Outer Membrane Proteins for the Control of Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization in Chickens. Poult Sci 2013, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Jiao, X.A.; Huang, J.L.; Yin, Y.X.; Pan, Z.M.; Zhang, G.; Zhu, A.P.; Liu, X.F. Intranasal Immunization with Chitosan/PCAGGS-Fla A Nanoparticles Inhibits Campylobacter Jejuni in a White Leghorn Model. J Biomed Biotechnol 2010, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Wyszyńska, A.; Raczko, A.; Lis, M.; Jagusztyn-Krynicka, E.K. Oral Immunization of Chickens with Avirulent Salmonella Vaccine Strain Carrying C. Jejuni 72Dz/92 CjaA Gene Elicits Specific Humoral Immune Response Associated with Protection against Challenge with Wild-Type Campylobacter. Vaccine 2004, 22, 1379–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Theoret, J.R.; Cooper, K.K.; Zekarias, B.; Roland, K.L.; Law, B.F.; Curtiss, R.; Joens, L.A. The Campylobacter Jejuni Dps Homologue Is Important for in Vitro Biofilm Formation and Cecal Colonization of Poultry and May Serve as a Protective Antigen for Vaccination. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 2012, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Romero-Barrios, P.; Hempen, M.; Messens, W.; Stella, P.; Hugas, M. Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment (QMRA) of Food-Borne Zoonoses at the European Level. Food Control 2013, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Meunier, M.; Guyard-Nicodème, M.; Vigouroux, E.; Poezevara, T.; Beven, V.; Quesne, S.; Bigault, L.; Amelot, M.; Dory, D.; Chemaly, M. Promising New Vaccine Candidates against Campylobacter in Broilers. PLoS One 2017, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Meunier, M.; Guyard-Nicodème, M.; Hirchaud, E.; Parra, A.; Chemaly, M.; Dory, D. Identification of Novel Vaccine Candidates against Campylobacter through Reverse Vaccinology. J Immunol Res 2016, 2016, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Chintoan-Uta, C.; Cassady-Cain, R.L.; Stevens, M.P. Evaluation of Flagellum-Related Proteins FliD and FspA as Subunit Vaccines against Campylobacter Jejuni Colonisation in Chickens. Vaccine 2016, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Clark, J.D.; Oakes, R.D.; Redhead, K.; Crouch, C.F.; Francis, M.J.; Tomley, F.M.; Blake, D.P. Eimeria Species Parasites as Novel Vaccine Delivery Vectors: Anti-Campylobacter Jejuni Protective Immunity Induced by Eimeria Tenella-Delivered CjaA. Vaccine 2012, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Corona-Torres, R.; Vohra, P.; Chintoan-Uta, C.; Bremner, A.; Terra, V.S.; Mauri, M.; Cuccui, J.; Vervelde, L.; Wren, B.W.; Stevens, M.P. Evaluation of a FlpA Glycoconjugate Vaccine with Ten N-Heptasaccharide Glycan Moieties to Reduce Campylobacter Jejuni Colonisation in Chickens. Vaccines (Basel) 2024, 12, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Cui, Y.; Guo, F.; Guo, J.; Cao, X.; Wang, H.; Yang, B.; Zhou, H.; Su, X.; Zeng, X.; Lin, J.; et al. Immunization of Chickens with the Enterobactin Conjugate Vaccine Reduced Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization in the Intestine. Vaccines (Basel) 2020, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  232. Gloanec, N.; Guyard-Nicodème, M.; Brunetti, R.; Quesne, S.; Keita, A.; Chemaly, M.; Dory, D. Evaluation of Two Recombinant Protein-Based Vaccine Regimens against Campylobacter Jejuni: Impact on Protection, Humoral Immune Responses and Gut Microbiota in Broilers. Animals 2023, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Gorain, C.; Singh, A.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Kundu, A.; Lahiri, A.; Gupta, S.; Mallick, A.I. Mucosal Delivery of Live Lactococcus Lactis Expressing Functionally Active JlpA Antigen Induces Potent Local Immune Response and Prevent Enteric Colonization of Campylobacter Jejuni in Chickens. Vaccine 2020, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Hodgins, D.C.; Barjesteh, N.; St. Paul, M.; Ma, Z.; Monteiro, M.A.; Sharif, S. Evaluation of a Polysaccharide Conjugate Vaccine to Reduce Colonization by Campylobacter Jejuni in Broiler Chickens. 2015; 8. [CrossRef]
  235. Łaniewski, P.; Kuczkowski, M.; Chrzastek, K.; Woźniak, A.; Wyszyńska, A.; Wieliczko, A.; Jagusztyn-Krynicka, E.K. Evaluation of the Immunogenicity of Campylobacter Jejuni CjaA Protein Delivered by Salmonella Enterica Sv. Typhimurium Strain with Regulated Delayed Attenuation in Chickens. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2014, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Zeng, X.; Xu, F.; Lin, J. Development and Evaluation of CmeC Subunit Vaccine against Campylobacter Jejuni. J Vaccines Vaccin 2010, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Vohra, P.; Chintoan-uta, C.; Terra, V.S.; Bremner, A.; Cuccui, J.; Wren, B.W.; Vervelde, L.; Stevens, M.P. Evaluation of Glycosylated FLPA and SODB as Subunit Vaccines against Campylobacter Jejuni Colonisation in Chickens. Vaccines (Basel) 2020, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Vohra, P.; Chintoan-Uta, C.; Bremner, A.; Mauri, M.; Terra, V.S.; Cuccui, J.; Wren, B.W.; Vervelde, L.; Stevens, M.P. Evaluation of a Campylobacter Jejuni N-Glycan-ExoA Glycoconjugate Vaccine to Reduce C. Jejuni Colonisation in Chickens. Vaccine 2021, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Vandeputte, J.; Martel, A.; Van Rysselberghe, N.; Antonissen, G.; Verlinden, M.; De Zutter, L.; Heyndrickx, M.; Haesebrouck, F.; Pasmans, F.; Garmyn, A. In Ovo Vaccination of Broilers against Campylobacter Jejuni Using a Bacterin and Subunit Vaccine. Poult Sci 2019, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Taha-Abdelaziz, K.; Hodgins, D.C.; Alkie, T.N.; Quinteiro-Filho, W.; Yitbarek, A.; Astill, J.; Sharif, S. Oral Administration of PLGA-Encapsulated CpG ODN and Campylobacter Jejuni Lysate Reduces Cecal Colonization by Campylobacter Jejuni in Chickens. Vaccine 2018, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Singh, A.; Nisaa, K.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Mallick, A.I. Immunogenicity and Protective Efficacy of Mucosal Delivery of Recombinant Hcp of Campylobacter Jejuni Type VI Secretion System (T6SS)in Chickens. Mol Immunol 2019, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Radomska, K.A.; Vaezirad, M.M.; Verstappen, K.M.; Wösten, M.M.S.M.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Van Putten, J.P.M. Chicken Immune Response after in Ovo Immunization with Chimeric TLR5 Activating Flagellin of Campylobacter Jejuni. PLoS One 2016, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Sibanda, N.; McKenna, A.; Richmond, A.; Ricke, S.C.; Callaway, T.; Stratakos, A.C.; Gundogdu, O.; Corcionivoschi, N. A Review of the Effect of Management Practices on Campylobacter Prevalence in Poultry Farms. Front Microbiol 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  244. Boodhoo, N.; Shoja Doost, J.; Sharif, S. Biosensors for Monitoring, Detecting, and Tracking Dissemination of Poultry-Borne Bacterial Pathogens Along the Poultry Value Chain: A Review. Animals 2024, 14, 3138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  245. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  246. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Connell, S.; Meade, K.G.; Allan, B.; Lloyd, A.T.; Kenny, E.; Cormican, P.; Morris, D.W.; Bradley, D.G.; O’Farrelly, C. Avian Resistance to Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization Is Associated with an Intestinal Immunogene Expression Signature Identified by MRNA Sequencing. PLoS One 2012, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Smith, C.K.; Kaiser, P.; Rothwell, L.; Humphrey, T.; Barrow, P.A.; Jones, M.A. Campylobacter Jejuni-Induced Cytokine Responses in Avian Cells. Infect Immun 2005, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Shaughnessy, R.G.; Meade, K.G.; Cahalane, S.; Allan, B.; Reiman, C.; Callanan, J.J.; O’Farrelly, C. Innate Immune Gene Expression Differentiates the Early Avian Intestinal Response between Salmonella and Campylobacter. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2009, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Zhang, M.; Li, D.; Yang, X.; Wei, F.; Wen, Q.; Feng, Y.; Jin, X.; Liu, D.; Guo, Y.; Hu, Y. Integrated Multi-Omics Reveals the Roles of Cecal Microbiota and Its Derived Bacterial Consortium in Promoting Chicken Growth. mSystems 2023, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Man, L.; Soh, P.X.Y.; McEnearney, T.E.; Cain, J.A.; Dale, A.L.; Cordwell, S.J. Multi-Omics of Campylobacter Jejuni Growth in Chicken Exudate Reveals Molecular Remodelling Associated with Altered Virulence and Survival Phenotypes. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Wagle, B.R.; Quach, A.; Yeo, S.; Assumpcao, A.L.F.V.; Arsi, K.; Donoghue, A.M.; Jesudhasan, P.R.R. A Multiomic Analysis of Chicken Serum Revealed the Modulation of Host Factors Due to Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization and In-Water Supplementation of Eugenol Nanoemulsion. Animals 2023, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Cao, H.; Xu, H.; Ning, C.; Xiang, L.; Ren, Q.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, R. Multi-Omics Approach Reveals the Potential Core Vaccine Targets for the Emerging Foodborne Pathogen Campylobacter Jejuni. Front Microbiol 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  254. Psifidi, A.; Kranis, A.; Rothwell, L.M.; Bremner, A.; Russell, K.; Robledo, D.; Bush, S.J.; Fife, M.; Hocking, P.M.; Banos, G.; et al. Quantitative Trait Loci and Transcriptome Signatures Associated with Avian Heritable Resistance to Campylobacter. Sci Rep 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Psifidi, A.; Fife, M.; Howell, J.; Matika, O.; van Diemen, P.M.; Kuo, R.; Smith, J.; Hocking, P.M.; Salmon, N.; Jones, M.A.; et al. The Genomic Architecture of Resistance to Campylobacter Jejuni Intestinal Colonisation in Chickens. BMC Genomics 2016, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Quintel, B.K.; Prongay, K.; Lewis, A.D.; Raué, H.-P.; Hendrickson, S.; Rhoades, N.S.; Messaoudi, I.; Gao, L.; Slifka, M.K.; Amanna, I.J. Vaccine-Mediated Protection against Campylobacter -Associated Enteric Disease. Sci Adv 2020, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  257. Meunier, M.; Guyard-Nicodème, M.; Hirchaud, E.; Parra, A.; Chemaly, M.; Dory, D. Identification of Novel Vaccine Candidates against Campylobacter through Reverse Vaccinology. J Immunol Res 2016, 2016, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Gupta, N.; Kumar, A. Designing an Efficient Multi-Epitope Vaccine against Campylobacter Jejuni Using Immunoinformatics and Reverse Vaccinology Approach. Microb Pathog 2020, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  259. Saggese, A.; Baccigalupi, L.; Donadio, G.; Ricca, E.; Isticato, R. The Bacterial Spore as a Mucosal Vaccine Delivery System. Int J Mol Sci 2023, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Śmiałek, M.; Kowalczyk, J.; Koncicki, A. The Use of Probiotics in the Reduction of Campylobacter Spp. Prevalence in Poultry. Animals 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Pang, J.; Looft, T.; Zhang, Q.; Sahin, O. Deciphering the Association between Campylobacter Colonization and Microbiota Composition in the Intestine of Commercial Broilers. Microorganisms 2023, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Pang, J.; Beyi, A.F.; Looft, T.; Zhang, Q.; Sahin, O. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Reduces Campylobacter Jejuni Colonization in Young Broiler Chickens Challenged by Oral Gavage but Not by Seeder Birds. Antibiotics 2023, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Gölz, G.; Rosner, B.; Hofreuter, D.; Josenhans, C.; Kreienbrock, L.; Löwenstein, A.; Schielke, A.; Stark, K.; Suerbaum, S.; Wieler, L.H.; et al. Relevance of Campylobacter to Public Health–the Need for a One Health Approach. International Journal of Medical Microbiology 2014, 304, 817–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  264. Babo Martins, S.; Rushton, J.; Stärk, K.D.C. Economics of Zoonoses Surveillance in a “One Health” Context: An Assessment of Campylobacter Surveillance in Switzerland. Epidemiol Infect 2017, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  265. Sharafutdinov, I.; Linz, B.; Tegtmeyer, N.; Backert, S. Therapeutic and Protective Approaches to Combat Campylobacter Jejuni Infections. Front Pharmacol 2025, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Preharvest intervention strategies to control Campylobacter in poultry (Created in BioRender).
Figure 1. Preharvest intervention strategies to control Campylobacter in poultry (Created in BioRender).
Preprints 172256 g001
Figure 2. On farm transmission cycle of Campylobacter in poultry production (Created in BioRender).
Figure 2. On farm transmission cycle of Campylobacter in poultry production (Created in BioRender).
Preprints 172256 g002
Figure 3. Major types of vaccines used to control bacterial infections in poultry (Created in BioRender).
Figure 3. Major types of vaccines used to control bacterial infections in poultry (Created in BioRender).
Preprints 172256 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated