4.3 Article

Occurrence of Human Enteric Viruses in Commercial Mussels at Retail Level in Three European Countries

期刊

FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL VIROLOGY
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 73-80

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12560-012-9078-9

关键词

Enteric viruses; Mussels; Hepatitis A; Norovirus; Human adenovirus; Real-Time PCR

资金

  1. European Commission [KBBE 213178]
  2. Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the prevalence of different enteric viruses in commercial mussels was evaluated at the retail level in three European countries (Finland, Greece and Spain). A total of 153 mussel samples from different origins were analysed for human norovirus (NoV) genogroups I and II, hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis E virus (HEV). Human adenovirus (HAdV) was also tested as an indicator of human faecal contamination. A full set of controls (such as sample process control, internal amplification controls, and positive and negative controls) were implemented during the process. The use of a sample process control allowed us to calculate the efficiencies of extraction, which ranged from 79 to 0.5 %, with an average value of 10 %. Samples were positive in 41 % of cases, with HAdV being the most prevalent virus detected (36 %), but no significant correlation was found between the presence of HAdV and human NoV, HAV and HEV. The prevalences of human norovirus genogroup II, HEV and human NoV genogroup I were 16, 3 and 0.7 %, respectively, and HAV was not detected. The estimated number of PCR detectable units varied between 24 and 1.4 x 10(3) g(-1) of digestive tract. Interestingly, there appeared to be a significant association between the type of mussel species (M. galloprovincialis) and the positive result of samples, although a complete overlap between country and species examined required this finding to be confirmed including samples of both species from all possible countries of origin.

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

4.3
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