
==== Front
BMC Infect DisBMC Infectious Diseases1471-2334BioMed Central London 1471-2334-5-111575242710.1186/1471-2334-5-11DebateCould flies explain the elusive epidemiology of campylobacteriosis? Ekdahl Karl 12karl.ekdahl@smi.ki.seNormann Bengt 3bengt.normann@lio.seAndersson Yvonne 1yvonne.andersson@smi.ki.se1 Department of Epidemiology, Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI), SE-17182 Solna, Sweden2 Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden3 County Medical Office for Communicable Disease Control, SE-581 91 Linköping, Sweden2005 7 3 2005 5 11 11 14 1 2005 7 3 2005 Copyright © 2005 Ekdahl et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.2005Ekdahl et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.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 work is properly cited.

Background
Unlike salmonellosis with well-known routes of transmission, the epidemiology of campylobacteriosis is still largely unclear. Known risk factors such as ingestion of contaminated food and water, direct contact with infected animals and outdoor swimming could at most only explain half the recorded cases.

Discussion
We put forward the hypothesis that flies play a more important role in the transmission of the bacteria, than has previously been recognized. Factors supporting this hypothesis are: 1) the low infective dose of Campylobacter; 2) the ability of flies to function as mechanical vectors; 3) a ubiquitous presence of the bacteria in the environment; 4) a seasonality of the disease with summer peaks in temperate regions and a more evenly distribution over the year in the tropics; 5) an age pattern for campylobacteriosis in western travellers to the tropics suggesting other routes of transmission than food or water; and finally 6) very few family clusters.

Summary
All the evidence in favour of the fly hypothesis is circumstantial and there may be alternative explanations to each of the findings supporting the hypothesis. However, in the absence of alternative explanations that could give better clues to the evasive epidemiology of Campylobacter infection, we believe it would be unwise to rule out flies as important mechanical vectors also of this disease.
==== Body
Background
Campylobacter infection is a zoonotic disease, observed in most parts of the world. The disease is caused by Campylobacter jejuni, or less commonly Campylobacter coli. It is estimated to cause 5–14% of diarrhoea, worldwide [1], and also in the Western world Campylobacter infection has emerged to be the most important bacterial cause of gastrointestinal infection. Animals (variety of fowl, swine, cattle, sheep, dogs, cats, and rodents) are the major reservoir for the bacteria. Campylobacter does not easily grow in food, but the critical infective dose is low [2]. Unlike salmonellosis with well-known routes of transmission, the epidemiology of campylobacteriosis is still largely unclear [3]. Known risk factors for the disease include ingestion of undercooked meat, contaminated food and water or raw milk, direct contact with pets, farm animals and small children, and swimming in lakes, but also travel abroad [2,4-6]. Direct person-to-person transmission between adults appears to be uncommon. In temperate regions, campylobacteriosis has a distinct seasonal pattern, with the peak incidence in the summer months [3,5,7,8]. Identified risk factors for Campylobacter infections, that may coincide with the summer peaks in the temperate regions include direct animal contact, eating barbecued meals, swimming in lakes, and drinking untreated water from streams and other natural sources [4-6,9]. However, all these factors could at most explain 50% of the sporadic cases [3]. Instead we put forward the hypothesis that flies play a more important role in the transmission of the bacteria, than has previously been recognized.

Discussion
The fly hypothesis
The common houseflies (Musca domestica) and other muscid flies thrive in excreta and other filth. They could act as mechanical vectors, by carrying bacteria on the hairs and surface of their bodies or on the glandular hairs on their feet, but they could also act as biological vectors by passage through the alimentary tract, where pathogens have opportunity to multiply [10]. The houseflies are important mechanical vectors in the transmission of many infectious diseases with low infective dose, such as shigellosis, typhoid fever and E. coli infection [11,12]. Fly control has shown to be effective in preventing childhood diarrhoea in Pakistan and The Gambia [13,14], and shigellosis in Israeli Army personnel [15]. Already in 1983, Rosef and Kapperud postulated that flies might play a linking role by transmitting Campylobacter from animals to human food [16]. Since then several researchers have unravelled the role of flies in the epidemiology of avian campylobacteriosis [17-19], but the idea of flies as important vectors for human Campylobacter infection has been largely neglected [20]. Six factors speak in favour of our hypothesis.

1. Infective dose
The infective dose of Campylobacter can be as low as 800 bacteria [21], which is in the same magnitude as that of Shigella spp, Salmonella Typhi, and E. coli, pathogens that are known to be transmitted by flies [11,12,15], and much lower than the infective dose of Vibrio cholerae (108 bacteria), and non typhoidal Salmonella species (105-1010 bacteria). Although less tolerant to desiccation than some other food-borne pathogens [22], Campylobacter can survive on dry surfaces for at least seven days [23], thus enabling the bacteria to survive for several days both on the body of the fly and in desiccated fly faeces.

2. Flies as a possible vector
Studies have shown that Campylobacter could easily be transmitted from the environment to flies [17,24], and thus making flies a reservoir for the bacteria. Campylobacter could also be transmitted from flies to chickens [19]. In a recent study, Campylobacter could be isolated from 4 of 49 (8%) of flies caught outside a broiler house in Denmark. Furthermore, Wright showed that Campylobacter could be isolated from five of 210 (2.4%) living flies, isolated from three different locations [25]. From these results the author drew the conclusion that the health hazard from the transmission of Campylobacter from animals to human food is small. On the contrary, giving the numerous contacts between flies and human food, we find it highly likely that if one out of every 40 flies carries Campylobacter the health hazard would be significant.

3. Presence of the pathogen in the environment
Shigella is a strict human pathogen, while the major source of Campylobacter is the faeces of both humans and animals such as chickens, cattle and pigs, which are often kept in close proximity of humans. Stanley and Jones have previously shown the importance of cattle and sheep farms as reservoirs of Campylobacter [26]. Campylobacter is also common in the droppings from wild birds [27,28], and ubiquitous in the environment. Campylobacter spp have been isolated from sewage contaminated water [29], contaminated soil [30] and aquatic sediments [31], and in sand from bathing beaches [32]. There are therefore likely considerably more Campylobacter than Shigella in the close vicinity of humans. Since flies have been shown to be an important mechanical vector of shigellosis, it would be surprising if they could not also be so for campylobacteriosis. Direct transmission from the soil could probably account for some of the cases in children, but less likely for adult cases.

4. Seasonality of the disease
The distinct seasonality in the temperate regions [3,5,7,8,33] fits well with the fly hypothesis. The summer is the only season in temperate countries when people are in close contact with flies – often while having picnics or otherwise eating outdoor in close proximity of cattle and other environmental sources of Campylobacter. Some of the recorded association between barbeque and campylobacteriosis could very well be due to contamination of the food by flies, rather than undercooked meat or cross-contaminations, as has previously been postulated. A recent study from the UK has shown a close temporal association between the incidence of campylobacteriosis and fly density [34]. Although there is a seasonal pattern in the density of flies in the tropics, flies are present year round [13,14]. Therefore, if our hypothesis holds true, there should not be the same distinct seasonal peaks in the tropics. However seasonal data on campylobacteriosis from tropical regions are largely lacking. Instead we have recently compared Swedish notification data on travel-related campylobacteriosis with an extensive database on the travel patterns of Swedish residents (denominator for monthly risks per region). While a distinct seasonal pattern, as previously described, could be discerned in travellers from all temperate regions, the risk of campylobacteriosis in travellers from the tropics were more dispersed over the year [35]. Lack of detailed data on seasonal fly density and quite large geographical regions for our risk estimates of campylobacteriosis, prevented us from making any correlations between risk of campylobacteriosis and the presence of flies in the tropical regions.

5. Age profile
Small children are less able to protect themselves from flies than older children and adults, and are more likely to have their hands on fly-soiled surfaces. In the tropics, the Campylobacter infection is largely confined to children below the age of two years, and the decreasing incidence thereafter has been attributed to a lasting immunity [20]. On the contrary, in Sweden and other Western countries, the highest incidence is seen in young adults, with a smaller peak in pre-school age children [20,36]. Then, how about western travellers going to the tropics? If the major transmission route of Campylobacter was ingestion of contaminated food, one would expect the infection to be relatively evenly distributed among the largely non-immune westerners coming to high prevalence countries. Again we turned to the risk estimates for campylobacteriosis in returning Swedish travellers. While, the incidence pattern in travellers returning from temperate countries closely mimicked the age pattern of indigenous Swedish cases, we noted that among travellers returning from tropical areas of Africa and Asia, the youngest children had twice as high risk as young adults, and more than four times the risk compared to older children [35]. This age pattern thus suggests other major routes of transmission than food or water, e.g. direct or indirect transmission from environmental sources. The flies would fit well in this concept.

6. Dominance of solitary cases
If intake of chicken and undercooked meat (or cross-contamination from these food items) was a major route of transmission, clusters of cases within the same family should be common. Instead a striking feature of indigenous campylobacteriosis in Sweden is that the cases (except for in a few larger outbreaks) are solitary. A survey of notification data in one Swedish county over several years showed that it was exceptionally rare that cases shared the same address [37]. Information on the notification form indicating symptomatic cases around the notified patient was also very rare, even though this is specifically asked for. Solitary cases are instead more compatible with circumstance where an infected fly defecates on the plate of one family member, leaving the rest of the family unexposed.

Testing the hypothesis
The fly hypothesis needs to be backed by further experimental and epidemiological studies. The best evidence would be if controlled intervention studies could show an effect on the incidence of Campylobacter infection by fly control, as has previously been done for shigellosis and diarrhoea [13-15]. Such studies could only be done in high incidence areas, and would require good laboratory support. In temperate regions such intervention studies would be less feasible. Instead, questions focusing on the exposure to flies, and possible nearby environmental Campylobacter sources, e.g. cattle farms, sewage treatment or fowls, should be included in forthcoming case-control studies on campylobacteriosis. This has been a neglected line of questioning so far. More data on the carriage of Campylobacter by flies in different settings where people could be exposed are also needed. An alternative, and more innovative, approach would be to combine information on the likely place/s of infection with data on environmental sources, in analytic studies using geographical information systems (GIS) tools.

Conclusion
All the evidence in favour of the fly hypothesis is circumstantial and there may be alternative explanations to each of the findings supporting the hypothesis. However, in the absence of alternative explanations that could give better clues to the evasive epidemiology of Campylobacter infection, we believe it would be unwise to rule out flies as important mechanical vectors also of this disease.

Summary
We put forward the hypothesis that flies play a more important role in the transmission of the bacteria, than has previously been recognized. Factors supporting this hypothesis are: 1) the low infective dose of Campylobacter; 2) the ability of flies to function as vectors; 3) a ubiquitous presence of the bacteria in the environment; 4) a seasonality of the disease with summer peaks in temperate regions and a more evenly distribution over the year in the tropics; 5) an age pattern for campylobacteriosis in western travellers to the tropics suggesting other routes of transmission than food or water; and finally 6) very few family clusters. The hypothesis should be further tested with experimental and epidemiological studies

Competing interests
The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions
Bengt Normann raised the original idea and has studied the (lack of) family clustering. Yvonne Andersson contributed with in depth knowledge of campylobacteriosis. Karl Ekdahl did the literature search, looked into the seasonality and age distribution of the disease in domestic cases and returning travellers, and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. All authors have participated in revising the draft manuscript.

Pre-publication history
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:
==== Refs
Coker AO Isokpehi RD Thomas BN Amisu KO Obi CL  Human campylobacteriosis in developing countries Emerg Infect Dis 2002 8 237 44 11927019 
Blaser MJ  Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin  Campylobacter and related species Principles and practice of infectious diseases 1995 4 New York: Churchill Livingstone 
Nylen G Dunstan F Palmer SR Andersson Y Bager F Cowden J Feierl G Galloway Y Kapperud G Megraud F Molbak K Petersen LR Ruutu P  The seasonal distribution of campylobacter infection in nine European countries and New Zealand Epidemiol Infect 2002 128 383 90 12113481 10.1017/S0950268802006830 
Kapperud G Skjerve E Bean NH Ostroff SM Lassen J  Risk factors for sporadic Campylobacter infections: resultsof a case-control study in southeastern Norway J Clin Microbiol 1992 30 3117 21 1452694 
Schönberg-Norio D Takkinen J Hänninen ML Katila ML Kaukoranta SS Mattila L Rautelin H  Swimming and Campylobacter infection Emerg Infect Dis 2004 10 1474 7 15496253 
Studahl A Andersson Y  Risk factors for indigenous Campylobacter infection: a Swedish case-control study Epidemiol Infect 2000 125 269 75 11117949 10.1017/S0950268899004562 
Allos BM  Campylobacter jejuni infections: update on emerging issues and trends Clin Infect Dis 2001 32 1201 6 11283810 10.1086/319760 
Samuel MC Vugia DJ Shallow S Marcus R Segler S McGivern T Kassenborg H Reilly K Kennedy M Angulo F Tauxe RV Emerging Infections Program FoodNet Working Group  Epidemiology of sporadic Campylobacter infection in the United States and declining trend in incidence, FoodNet 1996–1999 Clin Infect Dis 2004 38 S165 S174 15095186 10.1086/381583 
Eberhart-Phillips J Walker N Garrett N Bell D Sinclair D Rainger W Bates M  Campylobacteriosis in New Zealand: results of a case-control study J Epidemiol Community Health 1997 51 686 91 9519133 
West LS  The housefly. Its natural history, medical importance and control 1951 New York: Comstock Publishing 
Levine OS Levine MM  Houseflies (Musca domestica) as mechanical vectors of shigellosis Rev Infect Dis 1991 13 688 96 1925289 
Crum NF  Current trends in typhoid fever Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2003 5 279 86 12864957 
Chavasse DC Shier RP Murphy OA Huttly SR Cousens SN Akhtar T  Impact of fly control on childhood diarrhoea in Pakistan: community-randomised trial Lancet 1999 353 22 5 10023946 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03366-2 
Emerson PM Lindsay SW Walraven GE Faal H Bogh C Lowe K Bailey RL  Effect of fly control on trachoma and diarrhoea Lancet 1999 353 1401 3 10227221 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09158-2 
Cohen D Green M Block C Slepon R Ambar R Wasserman SS Levine MM  Reduction of transmission of shigellosis by control of houseflies (Musca domestica) Lancet 1991 337 993 7 1673210 10.1016/0140-6736(91)92657-N 
Rosef O Kapperud G  House flies (Musca domestica) as possible vectors of Campylobacter fetus subsp. jejuni Applied Environment Microbiol 1983 45 381 3 
Hald B Skovgård H Bang DD Pedersen K Dybdahl J Jespersen JB Madsen M  Flies and Campylobacter infection of broiler flocks Emerg Infect Dis 2004 10 1490 2 15496257 
Gregory E Barnhart H Dreesen DW Stern NJ Corn JL  Epidemiological study of Campylobacter spp. in broilers: sources, time of colonization, and prevalence Avian Dis 1997 41 890 8 9454923 
Shane SM Montrose MS Harrington KS  Transmission of Campylobacter jejuni by the housefly (Musca domestica) Avian dis 1985 29 384 91 4026732 
Chin J ed  Control of communicable diseases manual 2000 17 Washington DC: American Public Health Association 
Wallis MR  The pathogenesis of Campylobacter jejuni Br J Biomed Sci 1994 51 57 64 7841837 
Park SF  The physiology of Campylobacter species and its relevance to their role as foodborne pathogens Int J Food Microbiol 2002 74 177 88 11981968 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00678-X 
Ullman U Kischkel S  Survival of Campylobacter species Infection 1981 9 210 
Khalil K Lindblom GB Mazhar K Kaijser B  Flies and water as reservoirs for bacterial enteropathogens in urban and rural areas around Lahore, Pakistan Epidemiol Infect 1994 113 435 44 7995353 
Wright EP  The isolation of Campylobacter jejuni from flies J Hyg (Lond) 1983 91 223 6 6644008 
Stanley K Jones K  Cattle and sheep farms as reservoirs of Campylobacter J Appl Microbiology 2003 94 104S 113S 10.1046/j.1365-2672.94.s1.12.x 
Luechtefeld NAW Blaser MJ Reller LB Wang WLL  Isolation of Campylobacter fetus subsp jejuni from migratory waterfowl J Clin Microbiol 1980 12 406 8 7217334 
Kapperud G Rosef O  Avian wildlife reservoir of Campylobacter fetus subsp jejuni, Yersinia spp, and Salmonella spp in Norway Appl Environ Microbiol 1983 45 375 80 6338824 
Bolton FJ Coates D Hutchinson DN Godfree AF  A study of thermophilic Campylobacters in a river system J Appl Bacteriol 1987 62 167 76 3571039 
Brown PE Christensen OF Clough HE Diggle PJ Hart CA Hazel S Kemp R Leatherbarrow AJ Moore A Sutherst J Turner J Williams NJ Wright EJ French NP  Frequency and spatial distribution of environmental Campylobacter spp Appl Environ Microbiol 2004 70 6501 11 15528512 10.1128/AEM.70.11.6501-6511.2004 
Jones K Betaib M Telford DR  Correlation between environmental monitoring of thermophilic campylobacters in sewage effluent and the incidence of Campylobacter infection in the community J Appl Bacteriol 1990 69 235 40 2272945 
Bolton FJ Surman SB Martin K Wareing DRA Humphrey TJ  Presence of campylobacter and salmonella in sand from bathing beaches Epidemiol Infect 1999 122 7 13 10098779 10.1017/S0950268898001915 
Patrick ME Christiansen LE Waino M Ethelberg S Madsen H Wegener HC  Effects of climate on incidence of Campylobacter spp. in humans and prevalence in broiler flocks in Denmark Appl Environ Microbiol 2005 70 7474 80 15574950 10.1128/AEM.70.12.7474-7480.2004 
Nichols GL  Fly transmission of Campylobacter Emerg Infect Dis 2005 11 361 4 15757548 15757548 
Ekdahl K Andersson Y  Regional risks and seasonality in travel-associated campylobacteriosis BMC Infect Dis 2004 4 54 15569393 10.1186/1471-2334-4-54 
Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI)  Updated statistics covering the notifiable diseases in Sweden 
Normann B  Visst kan flugan sprida Campylobacter [in Swedish] Smittskydd 2004 2 24 5

