4.7 Article

Spoilage potentials and antimicrobial resistance of Pseudomonas spp. isolated from cheeses

期刊

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
卷 94, 期 12, 页码 5851-5856

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2011-4676

关键词

Pseudomonas spp.; cheese; spoilage potential; antimicrobial susceptibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pseudomonas spp. are aerobic, gram-negative bacteria that are recognized as major food spoilage microorganisms. A total of 32 (22.9%) Pseudomonas spp. from 140 homemade white cheese samples collected from the open-air public bazaar were isolated and. characterized. The aim of the present study was to investigate the biochemical characteristics, the production of extracellular enzymes, slime and beta-lactamase, and antimicrobial susceptibility of Pseudomonas spp. isolated from cheeses. The identified isolates including Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes, Pseudomonas alcaligenes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas fluorescens biovar V, and P. pseudoalcaligenes ssp. citrulli were found to produce extracellular enzymes, respectively: protease and lecithinase production (100%), and lipase activity (85.7, 42.9, 100, and 100%, and nonlipolytic, respectively). The isolates did not produce slime and had no detectable beta-lactamase activity. The antimicrobial susceptibility of the isolates was tested using the disk diffusion method. Pseudomonas spp. had the highest resistance to penicillin G (100%), then sulphamethoxazole/trimethoprim (28.1%). However, all Pseudomonas spp. isolates were 100% susceptible to ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, amikacin, gentamicin, and imipenem. Multidrug-resistance patterns were not observed among these isolates. In this study, Pseudomonas spp., exhibiting spoilage features, were isolated mainly from cheeses. Isolation of this organism from processed milk highlights the need to improve the hygienic practices. All of the stages in the milk processing chain during manufacturing have to be under control to achieve the quality and safety of dairy products.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据