4.7 Article

Influence of serotype on the growth kinetics and the ability to form biofilms of Salmonella isolates from poultry

Journal

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 173-180

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2012.03.012

Keywords

Salmonella serotypes; Poultry; Biofilms; Growth kinetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The influence of the serotype on the growth behaviour and the ability to form biofilms of Salmonella enterica strains was investigated. The relationships between biofilm formation and growth kinetic parameters were also determined. A total of 69 strains (61 isolates from poultry and 8 reference strains from culture collections) belonging to 10 serotypes (S. enterica serotype Typhimurium, S. Newport, S. Paratyphi B, S. Poona, S. Derby, S. Infantis, S. Enteritidis, S. Virchow, S. Agona and S. Typhi) were tested. All Salmonella strains produced biofilms on polystyrene micro-well plates (crystal violet assay). Isolates were classified as weak (35 strains), moderate (22), or strong (12) biofilm producers. S. Agona and S. Typhi produced the most substantial (P < 0.001) biofilms. Growth curves were performed at 37 degrees C in tryptone soy broth by means of optical density (OD420-580) measurements from 0 to 48 h. Growth kinetic parameters (Gompertz model) varied between serotypes. The maximum growth rate (Delta OD420-580/h) ranged from 0.030 +/- 0.002 (S. Typhi) to 0.114 +/- 0.011 (S. Agona). The ability of Salmonella strains to form biofilms was not related to their growth kinetic parameters. The formation of biofilms by Salmonella on polystyrene constitutes an issue of concern because plastic materials are frequently used in food facilities. The findings suggest that special efforts must be made for the effective control of Salmonella in food-processing environments when S. Agona or S. Typhi strains are present. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available