Skip to main content

Examining the role of person-to-person transmission during a verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli outbreak in Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Objective

Person-to-person transmission can occur during outbreaks of verotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC), however the impact of this transmission route is not well understood. This study aimed to examine the role of person-to-person transmission during a VTEC outbreak, and how targeting this route may reduce outbreak size. A deterministic compartmental model describing a VTEC outbreak was constructed and fit to data from a 2008 outbreak in Ontario, Canada. Using the best-fit model, simulations were run to calculate the: reduction in transmission rate after implementing interventions, proportion of cases infected through both transmission routes, and number of cases prevented by interventions. Latin hypercube sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the sensitivity of the outbreak size to the model parameters.

Results

Based on the best-fit model, ~ 14.25% of the cases likely arose due to person-to-person transmission. Interventions reduced this transmission rate by ~ 73%, causing a reduction in outbreak size of ~ 17% (47 cases). Sensitivity analysis showed that the model was highly sensitive to changes in all parameters of the model. The model demonstrates that person-to-person could be an important transmission route during VTEC outbreaks. Targeting this route of transmission through hand hygiene and work exclusions could reduce the final outbreak size.

Introduction

Verotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC) are pathogens that can cause enteric illness in humans (potentially causing lifelong disability and death), and have been implicated in large outbreaks, including a spinach outbreak in 2006 that affected > 200 people [1,2,3,4,5]. During outbreaks, cases arise from a combination of point source (e.g., ingesting contaminated food/water) and secondary (typically person-to-person) transmission [1, 2, 4, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. There are knowledge gaps related to the relative contribution of different transmission routes, particularly person-to-person transmission (ppt) in outbreaks [13, 14]. This may be due to challenges associated with ascertaining the source of infection for every case, and the high rate of under-reporting of enteric infections [13, 14]. Food is a major source of transmission of VTEC infections, and ppt is estimated to cause 10–13% of VTEC infections overall, and approximately 20% of cases within an outbreak [11, 15,16,17]. It is important to better understand the contribution of the different transmission routes to strengthen and target disease prevention and control strategies. Disease modelling has been used to investigate the impact of different transmission routes and interventions on disease dynamics, with one model of a VTEC outbreak estimating that reducing ppt could have reduced the outbreak size by 5–11% [7,8,9, 18, 19].

The objectives of this study were to: (1) examine the role of ppt in a 2007 VTEC outbreak in Ontario, Canada, and (2) estimate the proportion of cases that were likely prevented through public health interventions targeting ppt. Understanding the impact of person to person transmission in food-borne disease outbreaks can better inform our approach to foodborne disease prevention and control.

Main text

Methods

Outbreak data

Data for this project were extracted from a report on a foodborne outbreak of VTEC O157 traced to a restaurant in Ontario, Canada in 2008, that infected 235 people [20]. While there was no confirmed source, the suspected food item was shipped to the restaurant approximately one week prior to the initial outbreak detection. Therefore, only cases with a symptom onset date after shipment of the suspected source were included in the dataset (n = 225, 95.7%). Day 1 of the outbreak was considered the first case occurrence after this shipment (Additional file 1 contains the epidemic curve of the outbreak). The public health unit (PHU) was first notified on day 9 of the outbreak. The suspected outbreak source was closed to customers on the evening of day 10. Following closure, communication was sent to the public within the region, disseminating outbreak information and educational materials for preventing ppt. The PHU also directly provided this education to cases, and recommended isolation from workplaces while clinically ill. Cases that worked in food-service settings or daycares were required to isolate from work.

Model structure

A deterministic compartment model, informed by the structure of Seto et al. (2007), was developed to describe this outbreak of VTEC (Fig. 1). The model was comprised of five states, Susceptible (S), exposed through food but not infectious (Ef), exposed through an infected person but not infectious (Ep), clinically ill and infectious (I), and recovered (R). Susceptible individuals could become exposed to VTEC through contact with contaminated food (βf), or through ppt (βp). Once exposed, individuals became clinically ill at a rate inversely proportional to the incubation period (\(\delta\)). Infected individuals remained infectious for the duration of their clinical symptoms, after which they recovered from infection (at a rate of \(\gamma\), inversely proportional to the duration of infection) and became immune to reinfection. The disease transmission process is represented by the following differential equations:

Fig. 1
figure 1

Compartment model for Verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC) transmission in humans. Susceptible people (S) are first exposed to VTEC through food (Ef) at a rate of βf or through infected people (Ep) at a rate of βp. They become clinically infected (I) and infectious to others at a rate inversely proportional to the incubation period (\(\delta\)). Infected individuals become recovered (R) from infection at a rate inversely proportional to the duration of infection (\(\gamma\))

$$\frac{dS}{dt}=-\beta_{\text{f}} \text{S}-\beta_{\text{p}}\text{ SI}$$
$$\frac{d{E}_{f}}{dt}=\beta_{\text{f}} \text{S}-\delta \text{E}{\text{f}}$$
$$\frac{d{E}_{p}}{dt}= \beta_{\text{p}}\text{ SI}-\delta \text{E}{\text{p}}$$
$$\frac{dI}{dt}=\delta \left(\text{E}{\text{f}}+\text{E}{\text{p}}\right)-\text{I}\gamma$$
$$\frac{dR}{dt}=\text{I}\gamma$$

Model parameter values can be found in Table 1. It was assumed that all residents of the PHU during the outbreak were susceptible to infection (with homogenous mixing within this population). Due to the short outbreak duration, population demographics (i.e., births/deaths) were not included in the model. Due to the knowledge gaps around asymptomatic VTEC infections, our model assumes that all cases become symptomatic [2, 12, 21, 22].

Table 1 Model parameters used (with values obtained from the literature) and best-fit parameters from both scenarios

There were multiple interventions implemented during the outbreak response, targeting both the primary source and secondary transmission. The restaurant closure was modelled by assuming that transmission of VTEC through food (βf) decreased to zero after day 10. The public health interventions targeted at reducing ppt (e.g., work exclusion, public health messaging) were modelled as one intervention that reduced ppt after day 10.

Model fitting and outcomes

The model was fit to outbreak incident cases by considering two different scenarios: (1) where ppt rate remained constant for the duration of the outbreak, and (2) where the transmission rates differed prior-to and after the implementation of the intervention (details can be found in Additional file 2). The parameter values estimated for scenario 1 were used in scenario 2 (with the ppt rate from scenario 1 used as the post-intervention transmission rate in scenario 2) to estimate the ppt rate prior to public health interventions. The model was calibrated using the mle2 function in R from the bbmle package to estimate parameters using maximum likelihood estimation [23].

Using the best-fit model scenario, we investigated several outcomes: We calculated the proportion of model-simulated cases that likely arose due to ppt. We compared the ppt rate pre- and post-intervention in scenario 2 to estimate how much the intervention reduced the ppt rate. To calculate the number of cases averted by targeting ppt, we compared the outbreak size from the best-fit model scenario to a simulated scenario where no public health interventions targeting ppt occurred after the closure of the point source.

Sensitivity analysis

A Latin Hypercube sensitivity analysis was performed for all model parameters. Ranges for the analysis can be found in Table 1. Partial rank correlation coefficients were calculated to investigate how changes to the parameters influenced the model projected outbreak size.

Results

Model fit

Table 1 contains the best fit parameters from the proposed model. Based on maximum likelihood estimation, scenario 2 was a better fit to the observed data. However, the model was not able to capture the peak incidence that occurred on day 9 and appeared to fit poorly prior to the intervention start date (Fig. 2). While the scenario 1 simulation estimated the same outbreak size as the observed data, the peak incidence occurred one day later and underestimated the observed peak (specific details can be found in Additional file 3). Similarly, scenario 2 simulated the peak incidence one day later and underestimated the observed outbreak peak. However, this simulation estimated a larger outbreak size. For both scenarios, a greater proportion of outbreak cases were attributed to ppt (scenario 1: 8.00%, scenario 2: 14.25%) compared to the observed data (4.88%).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Simulation of all model scenarios compared to the observed outbreak data. Grey line indicates the start date of all interventions (point source closure, and initiation of public health interventions targeted at reducing person-to-person transmission)

Model intervention

Based on the best-fit model parameters in scenario 2, the ppt rate post-intervention was 73.83% lower than the rate pre-intervention. In the “no intervention” scenario, an outbreak size of 289 cases was simulated. Therefore, the decrease in the ppt rate in the best-fit scenario translated to a reduction in outbreak size by 16.47%.

Sensitivity analysis

Additional file 4 contains the results of the Latin hypercube sensitivity analysis as partial rank correlation coefficients (PRCCs). The model was quite sensitive to changes in all model parameters (PRCC: > 0.5 or < − 0.5). Increasing the values of the pre- and post- intervention ppt rates, the foodborne transmission rate, and the incubation rate parameter translated to an increase in the VTEC outbreak size, while increasing the rate of recovery led to a decrease in the final VTEC outbreak size.

Discussion

We used a mathematical model to estimate the relative contribution of ppt during a VTEC outbreak and quantified the impact public health interventions had on the outbreak size. The results of our study highlight a multi-route transmission chain during this outbreak. We determined that ppt may play a slightly larger role in VTEC outbreaks than previously suggested, and that interventions targeting this route appear to reduce outbreak size [11, 15,16,17].

Despite scenario 2 having a better fit to the observed data, scenario 1 was also similar. Given our understanding of the interventions implemented, it is not realistic to assume that ppt remained constant throughout the outbreak. The overall lack of fit may be due to some cases in the observed outbreak being misclassified as part of the outbreak. It is also likely that the pre-intervention ppt was underestimated due to our model fitting process. As the constant ppt rate is essentially an ‘average’ of the pre- and post-intervention transmission rates, setting that value as the post-intervention transmission rate likely led to an underestimation of the pre-intervention transmission rate.

The proportion of secondary cases estimated in our model was higher than reported in the outbreak data, suggesting that some cases may have been misclassified as primary cases [20]. The proportion of secondary cases estimated by our best-fit model is in line with current estimates derived through expert elicitations and statistical analysis [11, 15,16,17, 24]. These estimates reported ppt contributing 10–13% of VTEC infections overall, and around 20% of infections within an outbreak [11, 15,16,17, 24]. Other mathematical models also found similar proportions of ppt during enteric outbreaks [7, 9]. A similar VTEC model was only able to fit well under the assumption that ppt contributed between 12 and 25% of the outbreak cases in their study [7]. Additionally, outbreaks with a younger median age group were associated with a high proportion of secondary cases [17]. It is possible that the lower estimate in our study could be due to a higher median age; however more information on the demographics of cases was not available.

Our analysis suggests that interventions targeting ppt reduced outbreak size by approximately 16%. This reduction is higher than a similar study, which reported reductions to outbreak size by 7–11%; however, that study examined a theoretical intervention, while we examined a real intervention [7]. Lastly, differences between results may be due to differences in model structure. There is further evidence from studies of other infectious diseases that interventions focused on reducing ppt (e.g., isolation, hand-hygiene) can reduce transmission risk and final outbreak size [7, 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. One study estimated that reducing ppt resulted in a 23% reduction in the cumulative influenza attack rate [27]. Mathematical models have also shown that media campaigns can lead to behavioural change and cause a reduction in secondary transmission [28,29,30,31,32].

Based on the sensitivity analysis, the model was highly sensitive to changes in all of the parameters in the model, indicating that changing parameter values would significantly change outbreak size. Therefore, all parameter values must fall within a narrow range to fit to the observed data.

Conclusion

We found that mathematical modelling could be used to estimate the relative contribution of different transmission parameters in a disease outbreak. Additionally, we found that targeting the ppt route during enteric outbreaks could be an effective method for reducing the outbreak size. Future VTEC outbreak management should include strategies to prevent secondary transmission. Prevention methods can include isolation of infected persons and improved hygiene techniques. Future modelling studies could investigate the impact of asymptomatic infections during outbreaks, estimate transmission of VTEC within-households, and examine the person-food transmission route.

Limitations

  • The model did not consider asymptomatic transmission, age-structure, or person-food transmission after the initial exposure occurred.

  • It was assumed that the population of the PHU was equally at risk of infection. Due to the source of the outbreak, and since VTEC is commonly transmitted within households, it is likely that the true population at risk was smaller [2, 10, 12, 17, 35].

  • It was assumed that both transmission rates were constant. It is likely that the risk of exposure changed over time; however, details on exact exposures were unknown. Similarly, since interventions targeting ppt rely on human behaviour, the effects of these interventions likely also vary in time [26, 28,29,30,31, 34]. The model could be missing this additional variability.

  • All public health interventions targeting ppt were modelled as one all-encompassing intervention. Therefore, we were not able to examine the impact that each individual intervention had on reducing ppt.

  • The process of estimating the ppt transmission rate may have led to an underestimation of the pre-intervention ppt rate, and an overestimation in the post-intervention transmission rate.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset analysed during the current study was derived from the investigative report published by the local health unit [20]. The report is available at: https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/219086.

Abbreviations

VTEC:

Verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli

ppt:

Person-to-person transmission

PHU:

Public health unit

PRCC:

Partial rank correlation coefficient

References

  1. Byrne L, Jenkins C, Launders N, Elson R, Adak GK. The epidemiology, microbiology and clinical impact of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in England, 2009–2012. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143(16):3475–87.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Karmali MA, Gannon V, Sargeant JM. Verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC). Vet Microbiol. 2010;140(3–4):360–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.04.011.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Karch H, Tarr PI, Bielaszewska M. Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli in human medicine. Int J Med Microbiol. 2005;295:405–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmm.2005.06.009.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Page AV, Liles WC. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli infections and the hemolytic-uremic syndrome. Med Clin North Am. 2013;97(4):681–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Karmali MA, Griffin PM. Emerging public health challenges of shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli related to changes in the pathogen, the population, and the environment. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(3):371–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw708.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Katz DE, Heisey-Grove D, Beach M, Dicker RC, Matyas BT. Prolonged outbreak of giardiasis with two modes of transmission. Epidemiol Infect. 2006;134(5):935–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268805005832.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Seto EYW, Soller JA, Colford JM. Strategies to reduce person-to-person transmission during widespread Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(6):860–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brookhart MA, Hubbard AE, Van Der Laan MJ, Colford JM, Eisenberg JNS. Statistical estimation of parameters in a disease transmission model: analysis of a Cryptosporidium outbreak. Stat Med. 2002;21(23):3627–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eisenberg JNS, Lei X, Hubbard AH, Brookhart MA, Colford JM. The role of disease transmission and conferred immunity in outbreaks: analysis of the 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(1):62–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bach SJ, McAllister TA, Veira DM, Gannon VPJ, Holley RA. Transmission and control of Escherichia coli O157:H7—a review. Can J Anim Sci. 2002;82(4):475–90. https://doi.org/10.4141/A02-021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Butler AJ, Thomas MK, Pintar KDM. Expert elicitation as a means to attribute 28 enteric pathogens to foodborne, waterborne, animal contact, and person-to-person transmission routes in Canada. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2015;12(4):335–44. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2014.1856.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Croxen MA, Law RJ, Scholz R, Keeney KM, Wlodarska M, Finlay BB. Recent advances in understanding enteric pathogenic Escherichia coli. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013;26(4):822–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kowalcyk BB, Pires SM, Scallan E, Lamichhane A, Havelaar AH, Devleesschauwer B. Improving burden of disease and source attribution estimates. In: Roberts T, editor. Food safety economics. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 143–74.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. MacDougall L, Majowicz S, Doré K, Flint J, Thomas K, Kovacs S, et al. Under-reporting of infectious gastrointestinal illness in British Columbia, Canada: who is counted in provincial communicable disease statistics? Epidemiol Infect. 2008;136(2):248–56.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Havelaar AH, Haagsma JA, Mangen M-JJ, Kemmeren JM, Verhoef LPB, Vijgen SMC, et al. Disease burden of foodborne pathogens in the Netherlands, 2009. Int J Food Microbiol. 2012;156(3):231–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vally H, Glass K, Ford L, Hall G, Kirk MD, Shadbolt C, et al. Proportion of illness acquired by foodborne transmission for nine enteric pathogens in Australia: an expert elicitation. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2014;11(9):727–33. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2014.1746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Snedeker KG, Shaw DJ, Locking ME, Prescott RJ. Primary and secondary cases in Escherichia coli O157 outbreaks: a statistical analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2009;9(1):144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mishra S, Fisman DN, Boily MC. The ABC of terms used in mathematical models of infectious diseases. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2011;65(1):87–94. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2009.097113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hethcote HW. The mathematics of infectious diseases. SIAM Rev. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1137/s0036144500371907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit. Investigative summary of the Escherichia coli outbreak associated with a restaurant in North Bay, Ontario: October to November 2008. 2009. https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/219086. Accessed Sept 2018

  21. Croxen MA, Finlay BB. Molecular mechanisms of Escherichia coli pathogenicity. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8(1):26–38.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bryan A, Youngster I, Mcadam AJ. Shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli. Clin Lab Med. 2015;35:247–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2015.02.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bolker B. R development core team. Package "bbmle". 2017. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bbmle/bbmle.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2019.

  24. Locking ME, Pollock KG, Allison LJ, Rae L, Hanson MF, Cowden JM. Escherichia coli O157 infection and secondary spread, Scotland, 1999–2008. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(3):524–7. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1703.100167.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Talaminos A, López-Cerero L, Calvillo J, Pascual A, Roa LM, Rodríguez-Baño J. Modelling the epidemiology of Escherichia coli ST131 and the impact of interventions on the community and healthcare centres. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144(9):1974–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268816000030.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ahmed F, Zviedrite N, Uzicanin A. Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5446-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Werber D, Mason BW, Evans MR, Salmon RL. Preventing household transmission of shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli O157 infection: promptly separating siblings might be the key. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(8):1189–96. https://doi.org/10.1086/587670.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Al Basir F, Ray S, Venturino E. Role of media coverage and delay in controlling infectious diseases: a mathematical model. Appl Math Comput. 2018;337:372–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Collinson S, Heffernan JM. Modelling the effects of media during an influenza epidemic. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Collinson S, Khan K, Heffernan JM. The effects of media reports on disease spread and important public health measurements. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(11):e0141423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sun C, Yang W, Arino J, Khan K. Effect of media-induced social distancing on disease transmission in a two patch setting. Math Biosci. 2011;230(2):87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim L, Fast SM, Markuzon N. Incorporating media data into a model of infectious disease transmission. PLoS ONE. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197646.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Bloomfield SF, Aiello AE, Cookson B, O’Boyle C, Larson EL. The effectiveness of hand hygiene procedures in reducing the risks of infections in home and community settings including handwashing and alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(10):S27-64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Allegranzi B, Pittet D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2009;73(4):305–15.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ludwig K, Sarkim V, Bitzan M, Karmali MA, Bobrowski C, Ruder H, et al. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infection and antibodies against stx2 and stx1 in household contacts of children with enteropathic hemolytic-uremic syndrome. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(5):1773–82. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.40.5.1773-1782.2002.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

RH was supported by the Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) program, and an Ontario Veterinary College graduate scholarship. Additional funding was received from the Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program and the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

RH developed the deterministic compartmental infectious disease model, and performed all mathematical analyses, with input from ALG, JMS, and DNF. The manuscript was written by RH, and reviewed and edited by ALG, JMS, and DNF. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy L. Greer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was not required as the data used in this study was publicly available.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Plot of the Verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC) outbreak in Ontario, Canada. Arrows indicate relevant dates during the outbreak.

Additional file 2.

Table describing the two different scenarios that represent possible explanations for the observed outbreak data.

Additional file 3.

Characteristic of the observed outbreak data, compared to the two simulated model scenarios and the “no intervention” simulation.

Additional file 4.

Results of the Latin hypercube sensitivity analysis for all parameters in the model, represented as partial rank correlation coefficients (PRCCs). The PRCCs represent the effect of varying each parameter on the final outbreak size.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hovdey, R., Sargeant, J.M., Fisman, D.N. et al. Examining the role of person-to-person transmission during a verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli outbreak in Ontario, Canada. BMC Res Notes 15, 187 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06075-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06075-3

Keywords

  • Disease modelling
  • Disease transmission
  • Enteric infections
  • Escherichia coli
  • Modelling
  • Multi-chain transmission
  • Outbreak
  • Public health
  • VTEC