Chicken litter or chicken litter-based organic fertilizers are usually recycled into the soil to improve the structure and fertility of agricultural land. As an important source of nutrients for crop production, chicken litter may also contain a variety of human pathogens that can threaten humans who consume the contaminated food or water. Composting can inactivate pathogens while creating a soil amendment beneficial for application to arable agricultural land. Some foodborne pathogens may have the potential to survive for long periods of time in raw chicken litter or its composted products after land application, and a small population of pathogenic cells may even regrow to high levels when the conditions are favorable for growth. Thermal processing is a good choice for inactivating pathogens in chicken litter or chicken litter-based organic fertilizers prior to land application. However, some populations may become acclimatized to a hostile environment during build-up or composting and develop heat resistance through cross-protection during subsequent high temperature treatment. Therefore, this paper reviews currently available information on the microbiological safety of chicken litter or chicken litter-based organic fertilizers, and discusses about further research on developing novel and effective disinfection techniques, including physical, chemical, and biological treatments, as an alternative to current methods.

Background: We benchmarked the hybrid assembly approaches of MaSuRCA, SPAdes, and Unicycler for bacterial pathogens using Illumina and Oxford Nanopore sequencing by determining genome completeness and accuracy, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), virulence potential, multilocus sequence typing (MLST), phylogeny, and pan genome. Ten bacterial species (10 strains) were tested for simulated reads of both mediocre- and low-quality, whereas 11 bacterial species (12 strains) were tested for real reads. Results: Unicycler performed the best for achieving contiguous genomes, closely followed by MaSuRCA, while all SPAdes assemblies were incomplete. MaSuRCA was less tolerant of low-quality long reads than SPAdes and Unicycler. The hybrid assemblies of five antimicrobial-resistant strains with simulated reads provided consistent AMR genotypes with the reference genomes. The MaSuRCA assembly of Staphylococcus aureus with real reads contained msr(A) and tet(K), while the reference genome and SPAdes and Unicycler assemblies harbored blaZ. The AMR genotypes of the reference genomes and hybrid assemblies were consistent for the other five antimicrobial-resistant strains with real reads. The numbers of virulence genes in all hybrid assemblies were similar to those of the reference genomes, irrespective of simulated or real reads. Only one exception existed that the reference genome and hybrid assemblies of Pseudomonas aeruginosa with mediocre-quality long reads carried 241 virulence genes, whereas 184 virulence genes were identified in the hybrid assemblies of low-quality long reads. The MaSuRCA assemblies of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium with mediocre-quality long reads contained 126 and 118 virulence genes, respectively, while 110 and 107 virulence genes were detected in their MaSuRCA assemblies of low-quality long reads, respectively. All approaches performed well in our MLST and phylogenetic analyses. The pan genomes of the hybrid assemblies of S. Typhimurium with mediocre-quality long reads were similar to that of the reference genome, while SPAdes and Unicycler were more tolerant of low-quality long reads than MaSuRCA for the pan-genome analysis. All approaches functioned well in the pan-genome analysis of Campylobacter jejuni with real reads. Conclusions: Our research demonstrates the hybrid assembly pipeline of Unicycler as a superior approach for genomic analyses of bacterial pathogens using Illumina and Oxford Nanopore sequencing.

Oxford Nanopore sequencing has been widely used to achieve complete genomes of bacterial pathogens. However, the error rates of Oxford Nanopore long reads are high. Various polishing algorithms using Illumina short reads to correct the errors in Oxford Nanopore long-read assemblies have been developed. The impact of polishing the Oxford Nanopore long-read assemblies of bacterial pathogens with Illumina short reads on improving genomic analyses was evaluated using both simulated and real reads. Ten species (10 strains) were selected for simulated reads, while real reads were tested on 11 species (11 strains). Oxford Nanopore long reads were assembled with Unicycler to produce a draft assembly, followed by three rounds of polishing with Illumina short reads using two polishing tools, Pilon and NextPolish. One round of NextPolish polishing generated genome completeness and accuracy parameters similar to the reference genomes, whereas two or three rounds of Pilon polishing were needed, though contiguity remained unchanged after polishing. The polished assemblies of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, and Cronobacter sakazakii with simulated reads did not provide accurate plasmid identifications. One round of NextPolish polishing was needed for accurately identifying plasmids in Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli O26:H11 with real reads, whereas one and two rounds of Pilon polishing were necessary for these two strains, respectively. Polishing failed to provide an accurate antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genotype for S. aureus with real reads. One round of polishing recovered an accurate AMR genotype for Klebsiella pneumoniae with real reads. The reference genome and draft assembly of Citrobacter braakii with real reads differed, which carried blaCMY-83 and fosA6, respectively, while both genes were present after one round of polishing. However, polishing did not improve the assembly of E. coli O26:H11 with real reads to achieve numbers of virulence genes similar to the reference genome. The draft and polished assemblies showed a phylogenetic tree topology comparable with the reference genomes. For multilocus sequence typing and pan-genome analyses, one round of NextPolish polishing was sufficient to obtain accurate results, while two or three rounds of Pilon polishing were needed. Overall, NextPolish outperformed Pilon for polishing the Oxford Nanopore long-read assemblies of bacterial pathogens, though both polishing strategies improved genomic analyses compared to the draft assemblies.