4.3 Article

Faster Detection of Staphylococcus aureus in Milk and Milk Powder by Flow Cytometry

Journal

FOODBORNE PATHOGENS AND DISEASE
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages 346-353

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2020.2894

Keywords

Staphylococcus aureus; flow cytometry; milk; milk powder; detection

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFF0204602]
  2. Science and Technology Program of the State Administration for Market Regulation [2019MK114]
  3. National Institute of Metrology, P. R. China [AKY1958, AKY1818]
  4. Nanjing Customs Project [2018KJ34]
  5. Nantong Customs Project [JC2018094]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A flow cytometry-based method has been developed for the faster detection of Staphylococcus aureus in milk and milk powder, with a 5-hour pre-enrichment period and a limit of detection of 7.50 cells/mL in milk and 8.30 cells/g in milk powder. This method allows effective and faster monitoring of S. aureus contamination in dairy products.
A flow cytometry (FCM)-based method was developed for the faster detection of Staphylococcus aureus in milk and milk powder. Viable S. aureus cells were recognized by highly selective, fluorescently labeled antibodies and Propidium Iodide, and then analyzed by FCM. Using a 5-h pre-enrichment period, the method could detect low numbers of S. aureus cells in 6 h, with a limit of detection of 7.50 cells/mL in milk and 8.30 cells/g in milk powder. The established method was compared with the plate-based method using 75 ultra-high-temperature-treated milk samples, 25 pasteurized milk samples, 66 raw milk samples, and 123 milk powder samples. The two methods yielded similar results for the detection of the pathogen in all sample types. The FCM-based method allows effective and faster monitoring of S. aureus contamination and can be applied to the rapid detection of microorganisms in milk and dairy products.

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