4.4 Article

Comparison of Enterotoxin Production and Phenotypic Characteristics between Emetic and Enterotoxic Bacillus cereus

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 73, 期 7, 页码 1219-1224

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-73.7.1219

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Food and Drug Administration [09072KFDA030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacillus cereus was divided into emetic toxin (cereulide)- and enterotoxin-producing strains, but emetic toxin-producing B. cereus is difficult to detect immunochemically. Screening methods for emetic toxin-producing B. cereus are needed. The objectives of this study were to identify and detect emetic toxin-producing B. cereus among 160 B. cereus strains, and to compare enterotoxin production and phenotypic characteristics between the emetic toxin-producing and enterotoxin-producing strains. Forty emetic toxin-producing B. cereus strains were determined with high-pressure liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. Among the emetic toxin-producing strains (n = 40), 31 (77.5%) and 3 (7.5%) strains produced nonhemolytic enterotoxin (NHE) and hemolysin BL (HBL) enterotoxins, respectively. In addition, 107 (89.2%) and 100 (83.3%) strains produced NHE and HBL enterotoxins among the enterotoxin-producing strains (n = 120). The number of strains positive for starch hydrolysis, salicin fermentation, and hemolysis among the emetic toxin-producing strains were 3 (7.5%), 3 (7.5%), and 26 (65.0%), respectively, and among enterotoxin-producing strains, these numbers were 101 (84.2%), 100 (83.3%), and 111 (92.5%). respectively. In particular, the three emetic toxin-producing B. cereus strains (JNHE 6, JNHE 36, and KNIH 28) produced the HBL and NHE enterotoxins and were capable of starch hydrolysis and salicin fermentation. The absence of HBL enterotoxin and certain phenotypic properties, such as starch hydrolysis and salicin fermentation, indicates that these properties were not critical characteristics of the emetic toxin-producing B. cereus tested in this study.

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