4.4 Article

Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of molecular typing methods for major food-borne microbiological hazards and their use for attribution modelling, outbreak investigation and scanning surveillance: Part 1 (evaluation of methods and applications)

Journal

EFSA JOURNAL
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3502

Keywords

genotyping; molecular typing; whole genome sequencing; outbreak; source attribution; epidemic potential

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An evaluation of molecular typing methods that can be applied to the food-borne pathogens Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes is presented. This evaluation is divided in two parts. Firstly, commonly used molecular typing methods are assessed against a set of predefined criteria relating to discriminatory capacity, reproducibility, repeatability and current or potential suitability for international harmonisation. Secondly, the methods are evaluated for their appropriateness for use in different public health-related applications. These applications include outbreak detection and investigation, attribution modelling, the potential for early identification of food-borne strains with epidemic potential and the integration of the resulting data in risk assessment. The results of these evaluations provide updated insights into the use and potential for use of molecular characterisation methods, including whole genome sequencing technologies, in microbial food safety. Recommendations are also made in order to encourage a holistic and structured approach to the use of molecular characterisation methods for food-borne pathogens; in particular, on the importance of structured co-ordination at international level to help overcome current limitations in harmonisation of data analysis and interpretation. (C) European Food Safety Authority, 2013.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available