3.8 Article

Comparison of Culture, Conventional and Real-time PCR Methods for Listeria monocytogenes in Foods

Journal

Publisher

KOREAN SOC FOOD SCIENCE ANIMAL RESOURCES
DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2014.34.5.665

Keywords

Listeria monocytogenes; culture method; profiling of false-positive colonies; conventional PCR; real-time PCR

Funding

  1. Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine and Inspection Agency [201103005]
  2. Export promotion Technology Development Program of iPET - Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries [313010-3]
  3. Brain Korean 21 project from the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We compared standard culture methods as well as conventional PCR and real-time PCR for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes) in milk, cheese, fresh-cut vegetables, and raw beef that have different levels of background microflora. No statistical differences were observed in sensitivity between the two selective media in all foods. In total, real-time PCR assay exhibited statistically excellent detection sensitivity (p<0.05) and was less time consuming and laborious as compared with standard culture methods. Conventional culture methods showed poor performance in detecting L. monocytogenes in food with high levels of background microflora, generating numerous false negative results. While the detection of L. monocytogenes in fresh cut vegetable by culture methods was hindered only by L. innocua, various background microflora, such as L. innocua, L. welshimeri, L. grayi, and Enterococcus faecalis appeared on the two selective media as presumptive positive colonies in raw beef indicating the necessity of improvement of current selective media. It appears that real-time PCR is an effective and sensitive presumptive screening tool for L. monocytogenes in various types of foods, especially foods samples with high levels of background microflora, thus complementing standard culture methodologies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available