































Highlights in BioScience
ISSN:2682-4043
DOI:10.36462/H.BioSci.202109

Research Article

Open Access

1 Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Vet-

erinary Medicine, Adnan Menderes University,

09016, Isikli, Aydin, Turkey.
2 Department of Microbiology, Institute of Health

Sciences, Adnan Menderes University, 09016,

Efeler, Aydin, Turkey.

Contacts of authors

* To whom correspondence should be
addressed: uparin@adu.edu.tr

Received: March 11, 2021

Accepted: June 15, 2021

Published: October 10, 2021

Citation: Kirkan Ş, Parin U, Çapakçioglu H . Iden-
tification of pathogen bacteria from camel (Camelus
dromedarius) mastitis and investigation of antibi-
otic susceptibility. 2021 Oct 10;4:bs202109

Copyright: © 2021 Kirkan et al.. This is an
open access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.

Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and supplementary materials.

Funding: This research was funded by Aydın
Adnan Menderes University Scientific Committee
by grant number VTF-18017.

Competing interests: The authors declare
that they have no competing interests.

Identification of pathogen bacteria from camel (Camelus dromedarius)
mastitis and investigation of antibiotic susceptibility

Şükrü Kirkan1
><, Uğur Parin*1

><, Halil Çapakçioglu2
><

Abstract
The scope of this study was to investigate the presence of pathogenic bacteria in milk

from female camels with mastitis and to select antibiotics for treatment with antibiotic
susceptibility testing. A total of 40 milk samples taken from 20 dromedarian females,
after application of CMT test and determination of SCC values, the camels were diag-
nosed with subclinical mastitis. Milk samples were inoculated into blood agar for iden-
tification of bacterial agents leading to mastitis. A total of 4 (12.5%) Staphylococcus
aureus, 4 (12.5%) S. auricularis, 2 (6.25%) S. pettenkoperi, 2 (6.25%) S. cohnii spp.
cohnii, 2 (6.25%) S. equorum, 2 (6.25%) S. capitis, 2 (6.25%) Streptococcus agalac-
tiae, 2 (6.25%) S. dysgalactiae, 4 (12.5%) Escherichia coli, 2 (%) 6.25) Pseudomonas
pseudalcaligenes, 2 (6.25%) Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis, 2 (6.25%) Aerococ-
cus viridans and 2 (6.25%) Gemella morbillorum were identified. Gram-positive bacteria
were sensitive to Levofloxacin, Linezolid and Tetracycline and Daptomycin, resistant to
Beta lactam-group antibiotics and macrolides. Vancomycin resistance was determined in
S. aureus and S. cohnii spp. cohnii strains. Gram-negative strains are found generally
susceptible to Cefepime and Pipersilin; resistant to Trimethoprim-sulfomethoxazole and
Amoxicillin-Clavulanic acid. As a result, it is recommended to use antibiotic use to pre-
vent the development of antimicrobial resistance as well as mastitis control methods such
as the prevention of infection and monitoring the health status of the mammary of camels.

Keywords: Camel, Subclinical mastitis, Identification, Antimicrobial susceptibility.

Introduction
Camel milk, meat and products have appeared in many cuisines around the world for centuries.

Camel milk has beneficial effects on many biological processes such as digestion, absorption, growth

and immunity [1]. Additionally, camel milk can be stored at room temperature longer than milk from

other animals [2]. Camel whey protein contains a heterogeneous group of proteins, including serum

albumin, α-lactoalbumin, immunoglobulin, lactoferrin, and peptidoglycan recognition protein [3].

Compared to milk, camel milk contains more antibacterial substances and has a high concentration

of vitamin C, so it has valuable nutritional properties. Milk is characterized by a high percentage of

lactoferrin, which can be considered a good source of minerals and vitamins. Also, because camel

milk has the most important nutrients, camel milk can meet most of human’s daily needs in these

nutrients. Camel milk has a similar composition to human milk due to its protective proteins such

as low cholesterol, low sugar, high mineral content (sodium, potassium, iron, copper, zinc and mag-

nesium), vitamin C, lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase, immunoglobulins and lysozyme [4]. The present

studies confirmed that camel milk is unique in terms of antioxidant, antibacterial, antiviral, anti-

fungal, anti-hepatitis, tuberculosis, hypoglycemic, anti-cancer, anti-tumor, anti-aging, auto-immune

disease, cosmetic and detergents [5-6]. Mastitis is a major global complex disease among dairy live-

stock with high economic losses. Camel mastitis is estimated to affect more than 25% of lactating

camels. It is also known to cause about 70% loss from milk production. Mastitis has both extreme

animal infections and economic significance. It is responsible for some harmful effects for human

health and animal production. There is little published information about the pathogens associated

with camel mastitis compared to bovine mastitis.

Highlights in BioScience Page 1 of 7 October 2021|Volume 4

https://doi.org/10.36462/H.BioSci.202109
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
skirkan@adu.edu.tr
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5111-8656
uparin@adu.edu.tr
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0788-5708
halilcapakcioglu@hotmail.com
http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Kirkan et al., 2021 Identification of pathogen bacteria from camel (Camelus dromedarius) mastitis

However, much detailed research still remains to be accom-
plished, especially in the mastery of breeding techniques, since
these species is confronted with particular health issues, includ-
ing mastitis, which can be significant. There has long been a
lack of concern in camel mastitis on the grounds that clinical
mastitis in this species is infrequent. Bacterial infection can be
a major cause of mastitis in livestock. Several bacterial agents
are associated with mastitis cases and their presence in milk can
have a negative impact on consumer health [8-9]. Some research
shows the genus Staphylococcus sp., Streptococcus sp., [10,11],
Micrococcus sp., Streptococcus agalactiae, Coagulase Negative
Staphylococci [12], Staphylococcus epidermidis, Mannheimia
haemolytica, Escherichia coli and Corynebacterium sp. were
isolated from camel mastitis cases. Camel has been linked to the
cause of mastitis. Mammary infections (mastitis) are the leading
risks of herd management in camel breeding as well as in cattle
breeding. The scope of this study was to investigate the presence
of pathogenic bacteria in milk from female camels with mastitis
and to select antibiotics for treatment with antibiotic susceptibil-
ity testing.

Materials and Methods
Sample collection

Milk samples were taken from 20 female one-humped camels
suspected of having mastitis during lactation. The study was car-
ried out from August 2018 to April 2019 at private camel farms
in Aydin province, Turkey. In this study, 40 camel milk sam-
ples were obtained from the right and left lobes of 20 dromedary
camels at farms with a capacity of 5 to 20 camels. Animal
material consists of female camels aged 4 to 10 years who are
lactating without antibiotic treatment. Mastitis was diagnosed
by applying CMT (California Mastitis Test DeLaval®, Sweden)
and determining somatic cell counts. NucleoCounter™ SCC-
100 (Chemometec®, Denmark) was used to determine the SCC
value. The identification of bacterial isolates was determined
by an automatic identification system Phoenix™ M50 (Becton,
Dickinson U.K. Limited).

Ethics of animal use
The authors of this research hereby declare that collection of

specimens was carried out in accordance with the guidelines laid
down by the US National Guide for the Care and Use of Labora-
tory Animals, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 2011
and with the European Communities Council Directive of 24
November 1986 (86/609/EEC).

California mastitis test
Somatic cell number score in milk samples was determined

qualitatively. Detergent containing bromocresol purple was used
as the reagent to release the nucleic acid and rupture the somatic
cell membrane, and it was observed whether a gel-like matrix
was formed whose viscosity was proportional to the leukocyte
number. Plastic shovels with four glasses were used. Equal
amounts (3 ml) of milk and reagent were put into each glass of

the paddle and the contents were mixed in gentle circular motion
in a horizontal plane. Astitis cases were determined according to
the degree of agglutination. CMT is a highly sensitive and fast
method to detect abnormally cell-rich milk. The principle con-
sists of a mixture of milk and tea pools (detergent) in amounts
intended to rupture the cells, so that the nuclear DNA of the cells
gels when they come into contact with the latter [13].

Determination of somatic cell count
Somatic cell count of the samples was determined via au-

tomatic device. The device is a counter based on the optical
fluorescence principle. Ethidium bromide enters the structure of
nuclear DNA, producing a fluorescent signal corresponding to
SHS in milk. It is advantageous because it is an automatic and
fast technique. The milk sample was brought to room tempera-
ture (21 ± 1°C) and homogenized. Then, 0.75 ml of Reagan C at
room temperature was added to the clean 1.5 ml ependorfs and
0.75 ml of the milk sample was added. The ependorfs prepared
for analysis were homogenized by vortexing. For somatic cell
counting, a pre-prepared eppendorf sample at room temperature
was drawn into the cassette and loaded into the instrument. After
loading, the result is automatically saved by the device within 2
minutes.

Bacterial isolation and identification
Samples were brought to the laboratory by a cold chain and

collected with sterile gauze from milk-filled tubes that were strea-
ked in blood agar. The agar plates were incubated at 37 °C for
24-48 h under aerobic conditions. Gram staining is performed
on colonies that have grown as a result of incubation. Gram-
positive and Gram-negative samples were inoculated onto Tryp-
tic soy agar. TSA Petri dishes were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C.
Biochemical assays of pure colonies formed in TSA after incu-
bation were verified using the BD Phoneix™ M50 device. This
method is used for rapid identification and susceptibility testing
of many aerobic and facultative anaerobic Gram positive and
negative bacteria containing selected antimicrobial agents. 24-
hour fresh cultures purified on triptic soy agar were suspended
with ID broth in glass tubes according to McFarland 0.5 colony
density. BD Phoneix ™ PMIC / ID87 was used for gram posi-
tive bacterial isolates and BD Phoneix™ NMIC / ID-400 panel
kit was used for gram negative bacterial isolates. Identification
was performed on the instrument using separate panels for each
sample. ID Broth suspension tubes prepared for each sample
were placed in the device for bacterial diagnosis. Biochemical
identification data obtained from the device were evaluated.

Determination of antibiotic susceptibility
Antibiotic susceptibility tests were performed for the isolates

that were identified with the automated device using the BD
Phoneix™ PMIC / ID87 and NMIC / ID-400 kit. 24 h fresh cul-
tures purified on triptic soy agar were prepared with AST Broth
present in glass tubes according to McFarland 0.5 colony den-
sity. Panels containing bacterial suspensions were placed in the

Highlights in BioScience Page 2 of 7 October 2021|Volume 4

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Kirkan et al., 2021 Identification of pathogen bacteria from camel (Camelus dromedarius) mastitis

device and MIC detection and sensitivity results were obtained
from the electronic system. The antimicrobials and their MIC
values of bacterial isolates (n=32) were determined according to
CLSI standards [14].

Results
California mastitis test and somatic cell count numbers

A plastic shovel with four glasses was used. An equal amount
(3 ml) of milk and reagent was placed in each glass of the shovel
and the contents mixed in a horizontal plane with a slight circu-
lar motion. According to the degree of agglutination, the CMT
score was determined as "Negative" (-), suspicious "+/-", Mild
(+), Significant (++) and Severe (+++) [9]. The CMT score and
somatic cell numbers of 40 milk samples determined by the Nu-
cleoCounter™ SCC-100 (Chemometec®, Denmark) device are
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. CMT Score and Somatic cell counts of milk samples.

Milk samples (n=40) Milk samples CMT scores Somatic cell count standards

8 Negative (-) 100

16 Suspicious (+/-) 100-300

14 Mild (+) 300-900

2 Severe (++) 900-2700

Identification
Bacterial growth was not observed in 8 samples taken from

4 (20%) female camels. Bacterial growth was detected in 16
(80%) female camel milk samples (n = 32 samples). As a result
of identification, 4 (12.5%) Staphylococcus aureus, 4 (12.5%)
Staphylococcus auricularis, 2 (6.25%) Staphylococcus pettenko-
feri, 2 (6.25%) Staphylococcus cohnii spp. cohnii, 2 (6.25%)
Staphylococcus equorum, 2 (6.25%) Staphylococcus capitis, 2
(6.25%) Streptococcus agalactiae, 2 (6.25%) Streptococcus dys-
galactiae, 4 (12.5%) Escherichia coli, 2 (%) 6.25) Pseudomonas
pseudalcaligenes, 2 (6.25%) Corynebacterium pseudotuberculo-
sis, 2 (6.25%) Aerococcus viridans and 2 (6.25%) Gemella mor-
billorum were identified (Table 2).

Antibiotic susceptibility
The evaluation of MIC values indicating the antibiotic sus-

ceptibility of the strains identified in our study (n = 32) showed
that S. aureus (n=4) strains were 100% resistant to Clindamycin
and Trimethoprim-Sulfomethoxazole, and 75% resistant to Ery-
thromycin, Penicillin G and Vancomycin. S. auricularis (n=4)
strains were resistant to Daptomycin, Fusidic acid at a rate of
100%, and against Quinupristine dalfopristin and Trimethoprim-
Sulfomethoxazole at a rate of 75%. S. pettenkoferi (n=2) strains
were 100% resistant to Oxacillin and Penicillin G. S. cohniispp.
cohnii (n=2) strains were 100% resistant to Ampicillin, Clin-
damycin, Fosfomycin, Oxacillin, Penicillin G and Vancomycin.S.
equorum (n=2) strains were 100% resistant to Ampicillin, Fu-
sidic acid and Penicillin G. S. capitis (n=2) strains were exam-

ined, it was found that the strains were 100% resistant to Van-
comycin, Amoxicillin-Clavulanic acid and Ampicillin.S. agalac-
tiae (n=2) strains were 100% resistant to Ciprofloxacin, Ery-
thromycin, Fusidic acid, Gentamicin, Penicillin G and Teicop-
lanin. S. dysgalactiae (n=2) strains were 100% resistant to Ampi-
cillin, Cefoxacin, Ciprofloxacin, Daptomycin, Erythromycin, Fu-
sidic Acid, Gentamicin, Nitrofurantoin, Penicillin G, Quinupris-
tine dalfopristin, Rifampin and Teicoplanin. C. pseudotuberculo-
sis (n=2) strains were 100% resistant to Ampicillin, Ciprofloxacin,
Fusidic acid, Nitrofurantoin and Penicillin G. A. viridans (n=2)
strains were 100% resistant to Ciprofloxacin, Erythromycin and
Gentamicin. G. morbillorum (n=2) strains were 100% resistant
to Ciprofloxacin, Erythromycin and Gentamicin. E. coli (n=4)
strains were 100% resistant to Cefotaxime, Ciprofloxacin, Gen-
tamicin, Meropenem, Netilmicin, Tigecycline and Trimethoprim-
Sulfomethoxazole. P. pseudalcaligenes (n=2) strains were 100%
resistant to Amoxicillin-Clavulanic acid, Aztreonam, Cefurox-
ime and Trimethoprim-Sulfomethoxazole (Table 3)

Discussion
Subclinical camel mastitis has not been extensively studied

and reported in prevalence studies. Subclinical mastitis, where
macroscopic clinical symptoms cannot be seen and indirect tools
are needed for diagnosis, remains a significant public health
problem for camel populations and consumers. Consuming camel
milk has effects on animal health and reduces the quantity and
quality of milk. In studies on the relationship between the Cal-
ifornia mastitis test (CMT) and the number of bacteria in the
camel milk test, it was shown that a high proportion of subclin-
ical mastitis was CMT positive and that there was a significant
difference between positive / negative CMT cases [15-17]. In an-
other study conducted in Sudan, CMT, somatic cell count (SCC)
and bacterial isolates were compared and showed that the mean
values of CMT and SCC were higher in samples taken from an
infected mammary gland [18]. In addition, 47.3% of 336 milk
samples tested positive in CMT and somatic cell count of 757
samples were reported to have a count range of 5 X 105 to 7.5 X
106 cells / ml [19].

CMT has a sensitivity of about 70% and a specificity of 91%
in camel mastitis [20]. Additionally, in another study, it was
suggested that detection of SCC in camels was more sensitive in
detecting subclinical mastitis in camels than the N-acetyl beta-D-
glucosaminidase test [21]. The prevalence of subclinical masti-
tis in camels in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia was 33% in milk samples
examined according to CMT [15]. In other studies, the over-
all prevalence of mastitis was 44.8% and the prevalence of sub-
clinical mastitis was 46% [16,17]. In this study, the CMT test
and digital CCS were used to investigate subclinical mastitis in
female camels. Milk samples were obtained from 20 camels
for the diagnosis of subclinical mastitis and the CMT score was
negative, contaminated with +1, +2 and +3. The mean CCS
obtained from the assessed healthy camel was 100,000 cells/ml.
In our study, no bacterial growth was found in animals with so-

Highlights in BioScience Page 3 of 7 October 2021|Volume 4

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Kirkan et al., 2021 Identification of pathogen bacteria from camel (Camelus dromedarius) mastitis

Table 2. The distribution of bacteria isolated from samples.

Milk samples with bacterial growth
Bacrterial Identification

Right lobe Left lobe

Sample 1 Staphylococcus aureus Staphylococcus aureus

Sample 2 Staphylococcus aureus Escherichia coli

Sample 3 Staphylococcus auricularis Staphylococcus auricularis

Sample 4 Staphylococcus aureus Staphylococcus auricularis

Sample 5 Escherichia coli Staphylococcus auricularis

Sample 6 Staphylococcus pettenkoferi Staphylococcus pettenkoferi

Sample 7 Staphylococcus cohnii spp. cohnii Staphylococcus cohnii spp. cohnii

Sample 8 Staphylococcus equorum Staphylococcus equorum

Sample 9 Staphylococcus capitis Staphylococcus capitis

Sample 10 Streptococcus agalactiae Streptococcus agalactiae

Sample 11 Streptococcus dysgalactiae Streptococcus dysgalactiae

Sample 12 Escherichia coli Escherichia coli

Sample 13 Pseudomonas pseudalcaligenes Pseudomonas pseudalcaligenes

Sample 14 Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis

Sample 15 Aerococcus viridans Aerococcus viridans

Sample 16 Gemella morbillorum Gemella morbillorum

matic cell counts less than 100,000 cells/ml. In our study, the
prevalence of subclinical mastitis was determined to be 80% in
milk samples randomly selected from healthy-looking camels.
However, previous studies have shown that CMT has a sensitiv-
ity of 70% and specificity of 91% in camel mastitis and there is a
positive correlation between SCC/CMT scores [20-22]. Because
early and effective treatment of mastitis is very important, accu-
rate diagnosis of subclinical mastitis is always a priority. The
technique in which the intranuclear dye penetrates into the DNA
of the cell and the stained cells are detected by spectrophotome-
ter has been shown to be applicable in the diagnosis of subclin-
ical mastitis in camels. This study was confirmed by isolating
and identifying the causative agent from milk samples from ani-
mals evaluated for subclinical mastitis by determining CMT and
SCC. Epidemiological data collected in recent years show that
the prevalence of clinical mastitis in camels is between 31-38%
in Europe and 31% in Uruguay. While the prevalence of general
mastitis in camels was 18.52%, subclinical mastitis was more
common (24.7%) than clinical mastitis (11.67%). The major
pathogens isolated were Staphylococcus sp. (41.67%) followed
by Streptococcus sp. (21.67%), Enterobacter sp. (15.00%),
Corynebacterium pyogenes (10.00%), Micrococcus sp. (5.00%),
Pasteurella sp. (5.00%) and Pseudomonas sp. 1.66%. In North
Kordofan, Sudan, in 2013, the incidence rate was found to be
25% subclinical mastitis, 13.3% and 15% using other techniques
such as SCC and White Side Test. The isolated pathogens were
Staphylococcus sp. (80.30%), Bacillus sp. (9.09%), Pasteurella
sp. (6.06%), Corynebacterium sp. (3.03%) and Streptococcus
sp. (1.52%) [23]. Staphylococcus sp. As a result of the study
conducted on 90 female camels in Jordan to identify and gen-
erate data on camel mastitis and pathogens, 21% of the camels
had clinical symptoms of mastitis and Micrococcus sp., Staphy-

lococcus aureus, Streptococcus sp. and Corynebacterium sp.
identified. The isolates were susceptible to antibiotics such as
Gentamicin, Ampicillin and Tetracycline. The study concluded
that Gram-positive cocci are predominantly the result of masti-
tis [24]. The data obtained are in parallel with the findings of
our research. In this study, 81% of Gram-positive bacteria were
isolated. Staphylococcus sp., Streptococcus sp. and Micrococ-
cus sp. isolated camels have been reported to be the dominant
pathogen of these species [25,26].

The incidence and causes of mastitis in camels differ sig-
nificantly due to geographical region and individual herd man-
agement [17]. The prevalence of camel mastitis in Sudan was
30.2%, of which 4.9% were clinically and 25.3% subclinically
in the Jigjiga region. There was a high rate of chronic form
(72.41%) followed by acute form (24.14%), and three types of
clinical mastitis were diagnosed, the least seen gangrenous form
(3.45%). Clinical mastitis occurred in animals older than 10
years of age and late in lactation (55%). In our study, subclinical
mastitis cases were detected in animals younger than 10 years of
age. The dominant isolated microorganisms are Staphylococcus
sp. (37.8%), E. coli (18.9%), Streptococcus sp. (13.5%), Bacil-
lus sp. (10.8%), Micrococcus sp. (8.1%), Corynebacterium
sp. (5.4%) and Salmonella sp. (5.4%) [27]. Of the mastitis
(76.0%) evaluated in Eastern Ethiopia and observed in camel
herds, Staphylococcus aureus (4.2%), Coagulase Negative Staphy-
lococci (39.6%), Streptococcus agalactiae (3.5%), Streptococ-
cus dysagalactiae (22.2%), Corynebacterium sp. (9%), Bacil-
lus sp. (7.6%), Streptococcus uberis (7.6%), Escherichia coli
(6.37%) were identified [28]. Similar to these findings, Staphy-
lococcus sp., Streptococcus sp., E. coli, Corynebacterium pseu-
dotuberculosis and Pseudomonas pseudalcaligenes species were
identified in addition to A. viridans and Gemella morbillorum.

Highlights in BioScience Page 4 of 7 October 2021|Volume 4

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Kirkan et al., 2021 Identification of pathogen bacteria from camel (Camelus dromedarius) mastitis

Table 3. Antibacterial susceptibility results of identified bacterial strains according to MIC values. AMC: Amoxicillin-Clavulanic acid, AM: Ampicillin, FOX:
Cefoxitin, CIP: Ciprofloxacin, CC: Clindamycin, DAP: Daptomycin, E: Erythromycin, FF: Fosfomycin, FA: Fusidic acid, GM: Gentamycin, LVX: Levofloxacin,
LZD:Linezolid, FM:Nitrofurantoin, OX: Oxacillin, P: Penicillin G, SYN: Quinupristin-dalfopristin, RA: Rifampin, TEC: Teicoplanin, TE: Tetracycline, NN:
Tobramycin, SXT: Trimethoprim-Sulfomethoxazole, VA:Vancomycin, AN:Amikacin, ATM: Aztreonam, FEP: Cefepime, CAZ: Ceftazidime, CRO: Ceftriax-
one, CXM: Cefuroxime, CL:Colistin, ETP:Ertapenem, IPM:Imipenem, MEM: Meropenem, NET:Netilmicin, PIP:Piperacillin, TZP: Piperacillin-Tazobactam,
TGC:Tigecycline.

AMC AM FOX CIP CC DAP E FF FA GM LVX LZD

S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R

Staph. aureus (n=4) 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 4 4 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 4

Staph. auricularis (n=4) 3 1 4 4 3 1 3 1 4 3 1 4 4 4 3 1 2 2

Staph. pettenkoferi (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Staph. cohnii spp. cohnii (n=2) 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Staph. equorum (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Staph. capitis (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Str. agalactiae (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Str. dysgalactiae (n=2) 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

C. pseudotuberculosis (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

A. viridans (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

G. morbillorum (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

AN AMC AM ATM FEP CAZ CRO CXM CIP CL ETP GM

S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R

E. coli (n=4) 3 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 1 4

P. pseudalcaligenes (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

FM OX P SYN RA TEC TE TGC NN SXT VA

S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R

Staph. aureus (n=4) 4 2 2 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 4 4 4 4 1 3

Staph. auricularis (n=4) 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 1 3 4

Staph. pettenkoferi (n=2) 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Staph. cohnii spp. cohnii (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Staph. equorum (n=2) 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

Staph. capitis (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Str. agalactiae (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Str. dysgalactiae (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

C. pseudotuberculosis (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

A. viridans (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

G. morbillorum (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2

IPM MEM NET PIP TZP TGC SXT

S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R S I R

E. coli (n=4) 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

P. pseudalcaligenes (n=2) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Besides, 23.8% of Gram-negative bacteria species have been
reported in previous studies [29]. In our study, Gram negative
species were determined as Pseudomonas pseudalcaligenes, es-
pecially E. coli as a cause of circumferential mastitis. In our
study, 12.5% of Staphylococcus aureus were isolated. S. auricu-
laris, S. pettenkoferi, S. cohnii spp. cohnii, S. equorum, S. capitis
were other Staphylococcal species isolated in this research. Our
result (12.5%) was found to be lower than the results reported
before [30] (44.82%). In the same study, E. coli (18.92%) was
the second most isolated bacterium. In our study, E. coli was
identified at a rate of 12.5%.

Previous antimicrobial susceptibility tests showed high sus-
ceptibility to commonly used antibiotics against bacteria. The

isolates were found to be highly sensitive to Gentamicin , Cipr
-ofloxacin, Cloxacillin and Amikacin, moderately sensitive to
Ampicillin / Sulbactam and Trimoxazole, and highly resistant
to Tetracycline and Chloramphenicol [16, 29, 30, 31, 32].

In the study conducted by Abdelgadir [25], Oxytetracycline,
Tetracycline and Chloramphenicol were determined as effective
antibiotics against mastitis pathogens in camels. According to
the antibiotic susceptibility findings obtained in our study, Staphy-
lococcus species were found to be susceptible to Daptomycin,
Tetracycline, Levofloxacin, Tigecycline and Tetracycline antibi-
otics and Trimetoprim-Sulfometoxazole and Penicillin G resis-
tant. As an important result of antibiotic susceptibility find-
ings, Vancomycin resistance in S. aureus and Staph. cohnii spp.

Highlights in BioScience Page 5 of 7 October 2021|Volume 4

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Kirkan et al., 2021 Identification of pathogen bacteria from camel (Camelus dromedarius) mastitis

cohnii strains is remarkable. Streptococcus species identified
in our study were found to be susceptible to Clindamycin, Lev-
ofloxacin, Linezolid and Tetracycline and resistant to Penicillin
G, Gentamicin, Erythromycin and Ciprofloxacin. Resistance to
beta lactam group and macrolides was determined. Other Gram-
positive strains identified as C. pseudotuberculosis, A. viridans
and G. morbillorum were also susceptible to Amoxicillin-Clavu
-lanic acid, Levofloxacin and Daptomycin, and resistant to Ampi-
cillin and Penicillin G.

Antimicrobial susceptibility of E. coli strains was found to
be susceptible to Aztreonam, Cefepime and Piperacillin, and re-
sistant to Gentamycin, Meropenem, Tigecycline, Trimethoprime
-Sulfometoxazole and Amoxicillin Clavulanic acid; Pseudomonas
pseudalcaligenes strains were susceptible to Cefepime, Ciproflox
-acin, Piperacillin.

Gram-positive bacteria identified in our study were found to
be susceptible to Levofloxacin, Linezolid, Tetracycline, Dapto-
mycin, and resistant to beta lactam group antibiotics and macro
-lides, Vancomycin resistance was determined in S. aureus and S.
cohnii spp. cohnii strains. Gram negative strains were generally
susceptible to Cefepime and Piperacillin; resistant to Trimetho-
prime -Sulphomethoxazole and Amoxicillin-Clavulanic acid. As
a result, it has been shown that multiple antibiotic resistance de-
velops in bacteria causing mastitis in camels.

Our study suggests that subclinical mastitis in camels is more
common than other forms of mastitis and that infected animals
may be a source of contamination as a microorganism reser-
voir; identification of both infectious and environmental masti-
tis pathogens. Since the prevalence of mastitis in camels dif-
fers considerably depending on geographical area and individ-
ual herd management, it is recommended to use antibiotics to
prevent the development of antimicrobial resistance as well as
mastitis control methods; such as elimination of existing infec-
tion, prevention of new infection and monitoring the health sta-
tus of the mammary. Considering that camel milk is used raw
for human consumption without heat treatment in order not to
affect the nutritional and immunological factors it contains, the
pathogens causing subclinical mastitis can easily threaten public
health, and it is essential to inform the farmers and consumers
about the related pathogens.

Acknowledgement
This research was funded by Aydın Adnan Menderes Univer-

sity Scientific Committee by grant number VTF-18017.

References
1. Korhonen H, Pihlanto A. Food-derived bioactive peptides oppor-

tunities for designing future foods. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2001, 9:
1297-1308.

2. Omar RH, Eltinay AH. Microbial quality of camel’s raw milk in
central southern region of United Arab Emirates. Emir. J. Food
Agric. 2008, 20 (1): 76-83.

3. Kappeler SR, Heuberger C, Farah Z, Puhan Z. Expression of the
peptidoglycan recognition protein, PGRP, in the lactating mam-

mary gland, J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87: 2660-2668.

4. Yadav AK, Kumar R, Priyadarshini L, Singh J. Composition and
medicinal properties of camel milk: A Review. Asian J. Dairy
Food Res. 2015, 34(2): 83- 91.

5. Al-Juboori AT, Mohammed M, Rashid J, Kurian J, El-Refaey
S, Brebbia CA, Popov, V, editors. Nutritional and medicinal
value of camel (Camelus dromedarius) milk. Second Interna-
tional Conference on Food and Environment: The Quest for a
Sustainable Future; 2013b; Budapest, Hungary. P. 221-232.

6. Sharma C, Chandan S. Therapeutic Value of Camel Milk–A Re-
view. Adv. J. Pharm. Life Sci. Res. 2014, 2(3): 7-13.

7. Simeneh K. Characterization of Camelus dromedarius in Ethiopia:
production systems, reproductive performances and infertility
problems [dissertation]. 2015.

8. Turk R, Koledić M, Maćešić N, Benić M, Dobranić V, Ðuričić
D, Cvetnić L, Samardžija M. The role of oxidative stress and
inflammatory response in the pathogenesis of mastitis in dairy
cows. Mljekarstvo. 2017, 67: 91-101.

9. Benić M, Maćešić N, Cvetnić L, Habrun B, Cvetnić Ž, Turk R,
Ðuričić D, Lojkić M, Dobranić V, Valpotić H, Grizelj J, Gračner
D, Grbavac J, Samardžija M. Bovine mastitis: a persistent and
evolving problem requiring novel approaches for its control - a
review. Vet. Arhiv. 2018, 88: 535-557.

10. Al-Juboori A, Kamat N, Sindhu J. Prevalence of some mastitis
causes in dromedary camels in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emi-
rates. Iraqi J. Vet. Sci. 2013, 27: 9-14.

11. Al-Majali A, Bani IZ, Al-Hami Y, Nour A. Lactoferrin concen-
tration in milk from camels (camelus dromedarius) with and
without subclinical mastitis. Intern. J. Appl. Res. Vet. Med.
2007, 5(3): 120-124.

12. Al-Majali AM, Al-Qudah KM, Al-Tarazi YH, Al-Rawashdeh
OF. (2008) Risk factors associated with camel brucellosis in Jor-
dan. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2008, 40(3): 193-200.

13. Abdelgadir AE. Mastitis in camels (Camelus dromedarius): Past
and recent research in pastoral production system of both East
Africa and Middle East. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2014, 6(7):
208-216.

14. CLSI National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (M31-
A3). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility
Testing. Vol. 28, No:8, Informational Supplement, Pennsylva-
nia Wayne, 2018.

15. Aljumaah RS, Almutairi FF, Ayadi M, Alshaikh MA, Aljumaah
AM, Hussein MF. Factors influencing the prevalence of subclin-
ical mastitis in lactating dromedary camels in Riyadh Region,
Saudi Arabia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2011, 43(8): 1605–
1610.

16. Ahmad S, Yaqoob M, Bilal MQ, Muhammad G, Yang LG, Khan
MK, Tariq M. Risk factors associated with prevalence and ma-
jor bacterial causes of mastitis in dromedary camels (Camelus
dromedarius) under different production systems. Trop. Anim.
Health Prod. 2012, 44(1): 107-12.

17. Regassa A, Golicha G, Tesfaye D, Abunna F, Megersa B. Preva-
lence, risk factors, and major bacterial causes of camel mastitis
in Borana Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Trop. Anim.
Health Pro. 2013, 45: 1589-1595.

Highlights in BioScience Page 6 of 7 October 2021|Volume 4

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Kirkan et al., 2021 Identification of pathogen bacteria from camel (Camelus dromedarius) mastitis

18. Abdurahman OA, Agab H, Abbas B, Astrom G. Relations be-
tween udder infection and somatic cells in camels (Camelus dromedar-
ius) milk. Acta Vet. Scand. 1995, 36: 423-431.

19. Obeid AI, Bagadi HO, Mukhtar MM. Mastitis in (Camelus dromedar-
ius) and the somatic cell content of camels’ milk. Res. Vet. Sci.
1996, 61(1): 55–58.

20. Younan M, Ali Z, Bornstein S, Muller W. Application of the
California mastitis test in intramammary Streptococcus agala-
tiae and Staphylococcus aureus infections of camels (Camelus
dromedarius) in Kenya. Prev. Vet. Med. 2001, 51: 307-316.

21. Guliye AY, Van Creveld C, Yagil R. Detection of subclinical mas-
titis in dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius) using somatic
cell counts and the N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase test. Trop.
Anim. Health Pro. 2002, 34, 95–104.

22. Nagy P, Faye B, Marko O, Thomas S, Wernery U, Juhasz J.
Microbiological quality and somatic cell count in bulk milk of
dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius): Descriptive statis-
tics, correlations, and factors of variation. J. Dairy Sci. 2013,
96(9): 5625-5640.

23. Quinn PJ, Carter ME, Markey B, Carter GR. Clinical Veterinary
Microbiology. Wolf publishing, London; 1999.

24. Al-Majali AM, Al-Qudah KM, Al-Tarazi YH, Al-Rawashdeh
OF. Risk factors associated with camel brucellosis in Jordan.
Trop. Anim. Health Pro. 2008, 40(3): 193-200.

25. Abdelgadir AE. Cross-sectional study of mastitis in camels (Camelus
dromedarius) in selected sites of Ethiopia[dissertation]. Freie
Universität Berlin and Addis Ababa University; 2001.

26. Alamin MA, Alqurashi AM, Elsheikh AS, Yasin TE. Mastitis
incidence and bacterial causative agents isolated from lactating
she-camel (Camelus dromedarius). J. Agric. Vet. 2013, 2(3):
7-10.

27. Blood DC, Radostits OM. Veterinary Medicine: A Textbook of
disease of cattle, sheep, pigs, Goats and Horses. Baillion Tindall:
London; 2007.

28. Eyassu S, Bekele T. Prevalence and etiology of mastitis in tra-
ditionally managed camels (Camelus dromedarius) in selected
pastoral areas in eastern Ethiopia. Ethiop. Vet. J. 2010, 14(2):
103-113.

29. Al-Tofaily, Y.I., and Alrodhan, M.A.N.: Study on clinical mas-
titis (Bacteriological) in she-camels (Camelus dromedaries) in
some areas of middle Euphrates in Iraq. QJVMS. 2011, 10(2):
66-76.

30. Al-Juboori AA, Kamat NK, Sindhu JI. Prevalence of some masti-
tis causes in dromedary camels in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emi-
rates. Iraqi J. Vet. Sci. 2013a, 27(1): 9-14.

31. Fazlani SA, Khan SA, Farazl S, Awan MS. Antimicrobial sus-
ceptibility of bacterial species indentified from mastitic milk sam-
ples of camel. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10(15): 2959-2964.

32. Alqurashi AM, Alamin MA, Elsheikh AS, Yasin TE. Sensitivity
of bacterial isolates from mastitic she-camel (Camelus dromedaries)
to antibiotics. Am.J. Sci. 2013, 9(4): 47-52.

Highlights in BioScience Page 7 of 7 October 2021|Volume 4

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/

	Abstract
	Introduction
	Materials and Methods
	Sample collection
	Ethics of animal use
	California mastitis test
	Determination of somatic cell count
	Bacterial isolation and identification
	Determination of antibiotic susceptibility

	Results
	California mastitis test and somatic cell count numbers
	Identification
	Antibiotic susceptibility

	Discussion
	Acknowledgement
	References

