Background: Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Tennessee (antigenic formula 6,7,14:z29:[1,2,7]) is a serovar of the O:7 (C1) serogroup. Infections from this serotype are uncommon, representing approximately 0.1% of US Salmonellosis cases between 1994 and 2004 and averaging just 52 per year. At the beginning of 1994 and in the following months, Denmark observed a substantial increase in serovar Tennessee cases among broiler flocks. Unlike typical Salmonella infections limited to the gut, certain serotypes, including serovar Tennessee, show a greater tendency to invade the urinary tract. Notably, urine isolates of serovar Tennessee surged from 15% (1995–2004) to 27% during 2005–2006 in US. 

NCBI PD link for serovar Tennessee: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pathogens/isolates/#(taxgroup_name:%22Salmonella%20enterica%22)%20AND%20computed_types:(%22serotype=Tennessee%22)

Genetic characteristics: Serovar Tennessee has been found to be polyphyletic with two lineages identified. Wilson et al. analyzed 71 serovar Tennessee isolates and identified four clades with a total of 114 SNPs. Additionally, a 110 kb phage was identified, showing similarity to Salmonella phage SSU5 (103,299 bp). A transcriptomic study conducted by Li et al. found that after two hours of air-drying at 11% relative humidity, around 25% of the open reading frames (ORFs) in the serovar Tennessee genome and 20% in serovar Typhimurium LT2 showed differential expression (more than 2-fold change). Among the most significantly affected functional groups (greater than 5-fold change) in both strains, fatty acid metabolism had the highest expression shift, accounting for 51% of the total expression change in serovar Tennessee and 35% in LT2. Compared to LT2, serovar Tennessee exhibited stronger expression changes in stress response and cell envelope modification genes but weaker changes in protein biosynthesis. Flagella gene expression was more suppressed in serovar Tennessee’s stationary-phase cells than in LT2, both before and after drying. Additionally, desiccation triggered a notable increase in the osmolyte trehalose in serovar Tennessee, whereas no detectable rise occurred in LT2—a finding that aligns with the expression trends of trehalose-related biosynthesis and degradation pathways in both strains.

Animal reservoir: Unknown, but chicken may be the potential reservoir for serovar Tennessee. This serovar was also isolated from other animals such as snake, seagull, and turtle.

Geographical distribution: According to the metadata from NCBI PD (accessed on 05/21/2025), serovar Tennessee has been reported occasionally worldwide but is found mainly in US and UK, with 660 and 167 out of a total of 1,174 serovar Tennessee isolates from those regions.

Human outbreaks: 

YearLocationAssociated sourceNumber of cases
2008GermanyBearded dragons 18
2006-2007US: multistatePeanut butter715
2006US: CONot identified110
1992-1993Canada and USMilk products and infant formula48

1 The outbreak occurred in a neonatal intensive care unit. 

Border rejections:

Year

Exporting country

Importing country

Associated source

Product category

2020RussiaFinlandRape seed mealFeed materials
2020ChinaGermanyOrganic soy bean cakeFeed materials

Recalls:

Year

Location

Associated source

Type

2023RomaniaFish flour from LatviaFeed materials
2021Germany, Czech RepublicSesame paste from SyriaNuts, nut products and seeds

Relevant links:

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/referencework/9780123739445/encyclopedia-of-microbiology
  2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18483898/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2870177/
  4. https://web.archive.org/web/20060518011830/http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/phlisdata/salmonella.htm
  5. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1547190/full
  6. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/fpd.2012.1254
  7. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146929#sec008
  8. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/fpd.2012.1254
  9. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vbz.2010.0239
  10. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/53/4/356/446014?redirectedFrom=fulltext
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655308004902
  12. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00021081.htm
  13. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/screen/notification/429707
  14. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/screen/notification/423516
  15. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/screen/notification/638863
  16. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/screen/notification/512501
  • No labels