4.4 Article

Detection of Gram-Negative Histamine-Producing Bacteria in Fish: A Comparative Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 72, 期 9, 页码 1987-1991

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-72.9.1987

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Fisheries Institute Fisheries Scholarship Foundation, North Carolina Sea
  2. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poisoning due to ingestion of foods with elevated levels of biogenic amines (histamine, putrescine, cadaverine, and tyramine) is well documented. Histamine fish poisoning largely is due to growth of naturally occurring bacteria associated with scombroid fish species. A rapid and reliable method is needed to screen for the presence of histamine-forming bacteria in fish. This study included a comparison of three methods for the detection of histamine-producing bacteria. A total of 152 histamine-producing and non-histamine-producing bacteria from multiple sources were screened using a modified Niven's agar method, a potentiometric method, and a PCR-based assay targeting a 709-bp fragment of the histidine decarboxylase gene. Histamine production by bacterial isolates was confirmed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Bacterial strains were categorized as producing high amounts of histamine, low amounts of histamine, or no histamine. Of the 152 strains tested, 128 (84%) were positive with the Niven's agar method, 73 (48%) were positive with the potentiometric technique, and 74 (49%) were positive with the PCR assay. Overall, a 38% false-positive rate was observed with the modified Niven's agar method, although this method detected both low-histamine and high-histamine strains. There was a high degree of concordance (>99%) between results of the potentiometric and PCR methods, but neither of these methods detected low-histamine bacteria. These observations support the need for a simple and straightforward yet sensitive method for detecting histamine-producing bacteria in seafood and environmental samples.

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

4.4
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