4.3 Article

Quantitative study of viable Vibrio parahaemolyticus cells in raw seafood using propidium monoazide in combination with quantitative PCR

Journal

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 90, Issue 3, Pages 262-266

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2012.05.019

Keywords

Vibrio parahaemolyticus; Viable cells; Seafood; Propidium monoazide; Quantitative PCR

Funding

  1. Youth fund of Liaoning University [2009LDQN21]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study we developed a specific and sensitive quantitative PCR (qPCR) method combined with a propidium monoazide (PMA) sample treatment to quantify tdh-positive viable cells of V. parahaemolyticus in raw seafood (PMA-qPCR). The high selectivity of primers and probes were demonstrated by using purified DNA from 57 strains belonging to 18 species. Using these primers and probes for qPCR and in artificial contamination samples, a good correlation was obtained between Ct values and log CFU/reaction in the range of 12-1.2 x 10(6) CFU/reaction both from qPCR and PMA-qPCR with R-2 values of 0.9973 and 0.9919, respectively. The optimization of PMA concentration showed that 8 mu g/mL was considered optimal to achieve a compromise between minimal impact on intact cells and maximal signal reduction in compromised cells. However, turbidity and cell concentration experiments showed that PMA treatment was not effective in samples where turbidities were >= 10 NTU and OD600nm values were >= 0.8. PMA-qPCR was compared with culture isolation and traditional qPCR in environmental samples (including oyster, scallop, shrimp, and crab). The PMA-qPCR resulted in lower numbers of log CFU g(-1) than qPCR, with values having better agreement with numbers determined by culture isolation. In conclusion, this method is an effective tool for producing reliable quantitative data on viable V. parahaemolyticus in raw seafood. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available