During cold storage after milk collection, psychrotrophic bacterial populations dominate the microflora, and their extracellular enzymes, mainly proteases and lipases, contribute to the spoilage of dairy products. The diversity, dynamics, and enzymatic traits of culturable psychrotrophs in raw milk from four farms were investigated over a 10-month period. About 20% of the isolates were found to be novel species, indicating that there is still much to be learned about culturable psychrotrophs in raw milk. The psychrotrophic isolates were identified and classified in seven classes. Three classes were predominant, with high species richness (18 to 21 species per class) in different seasons of the year: Gammaproteobacteria in spring and winter, Bacilli in summer, and Actinobacteria in autumn. The four minor classes were Alphaproteobacteria , Betaproteobacteria , Flavobacteria , and Sphingobacteria . The dominant classes were found in all four dairies, although every dairy had its own unique “bacterial profile.” Most but not all bacterial isolates had either lipolytic or both lipolytic and proteolytic activities. Only a few isolates showed proteolytic activity alone. The dominant genera, Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter ( Gammaproteobacteria ), showed mainly lipolytic activity, Microbacterium ( Actinobacteria ) was highly lipolytic and proteolytic, and the lactic acid bacteria ( Lactococcus and Leuconostoc ) displayed very minor enzymatic ability. Hence, the composition of psychrotrophic bacterial flora in raw milk has an important role in the determination of milk quality. Monitoring the dominant psychrotrophic species responsible for the production of heat-stable proteolytic and lipolytic enzymes offers a sensitive and efficient tool for maintaining better milk quality in the milk industry.

Vibrio cholerae, the etiologic agent of cholera, is autochthonous to various aquatic environments, but despite intensive efforts its ecology remains an enigma. Recently, it was suggested that copepods and chironomids, both considered as natural reservoirs of V. cholerae, are dispersed by migratory waterbirds, thus possibly distributing the bacteria between water bodies within and between continents. Although fish have been implicated in the scientific literature with cholera cases, as far as we know, no study actually surveyed the presence of the bacteria in the fish. Here we show for the first time that fish of various species and habitats contain V. cholerae in their digestive tract. Fish (n = 110) were randomly sampled from freshwater and marine habitats in Israel. Ten different fish species sampled from freshwater habitats (lake, rivers and fish ponds), and one marine species, were found to carry V. cholerae. The fish intestine of Sarotherodon galilaeus harboured ca. 5×10³ V. cholerae cfu per 1 gr intestine content—high rates compared with known V. cholerae cfu numbers in the bacteria's natural reservoirs. Our results, combined with evidence from the literature, suggest that fish are reservoirs of V. cholerae. As fish carrying the bacteria swim from one location to another (some fish species move from rivers to lakes or sea and vice versa), they serve as vectors on a small scale. Nevertheless, fish are consumed by waterbirds, which disseminate the bacteria on a global scale. Moreover, V. cholerae isolates had the ability to degrade chitin, indicating a commensal relationship between V. cholerae and fish. Better understanding of V. cholerae ecology can help reduce the times that human beings come into contact with this pathogen and thus minimize the health risk this poses.

Vibrio cholerae, the causative agent of pandemic cholera, is abundant in marine and freshwater environments. Copepods and chironomids are natural reservoirs of this species. However, the ways V. cholerae is globally disseminated are as yet unknown. Here we review the scientific literature that provides evidence for the possibility that some fish species may be reservoirs and vectors of V. cholerae. So far, V. cholerae has been isolated from 30 fish species (22 freshwater; 9 marine). V. cholerae O1 was reported few cases. In most cases V. cholerae was isolated from fish intestines, but it has also been detected in gills, skin, kidney, liver and brain tissue. In most cases the fish were healthy but in some they were diseased. Nevertheless, Koch postulates were not applied to prove that V. cholerae and not another agent was the cause of the disease in the fish. Evidence from the literature correlates raw fish consumption or fish handling to a few cholera cases or cholera epidemics. Thus, we can conclude that V. cholerae inhabits some marine and freshwater fish species. It is possible that fish may protect the bacteria in unfavorable habitats while the bacteria may assist the fish to digest its food. Also, fish may disseminate the bacteria in the aquatic environment and may transfer it to waterbirds that consume them. Thus, fish are reservoirs of V. cholerae and may play a role in its global dissemination.

Floral nectar is considered the most important reward animal-pollinated plants offer to attract pollinators. Here we explore whether honeybees, which act as pollinators, affect the composition of bacterial communities in the nectar. Nectar and honeybees were sampled from two plant species: Amygdalus communis and Citrus paradisi. To prevent the contact of nectar with pollinators, C. paradisi flowers were covered with net bags before blooming (covered flowers). Comparative analysis of bacterial communities in the nectar and on the honeybees was performed by the 454-pyrosequencing technique. No significant differences were found among bacterial communities in honeybees captured on the two different plant species. This resemblance may be due to the presence of dominant bacterial OTUs, closely related to the Arsenophonus genus. The bacterial communities of the nectar from the covered and uncovered C. paradisi flowers differed significantly; the bacterial communities on the honeybees differed significantly from those in the covered flowers’ nectar, but not from those in the uncovered flowers’ nectar. We conclude that the honeybees may introduce bacteria into the nectar and/or may be contaminated by bacteria introduced into the nectar by other sources such as other pollinators and nectar thieves.