4.3 Review

Molecular techniques for detecting and typing of bacteria, advantages and application to foodborne pathogens isolated from ducks

期刊

3 BIOTECH
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 97-107

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13205-012-0074-4

关键词

Ducks; Foodborne pathogens; Molecular techniques; Surveillance studies

资金

  1. Institute of Postgraduate Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent times, several foodborne pathogens have become important and a threat to public health. Surveillance studies have provided data and a better understanding into the existence and spread of foodborne pathogens. The application of molecular techniques for detecting and typing of foodborne pathogens in surveillance studies provide reliable epidemiological data for tracing the source of human infections. A wide range of molecular techniques (including pulsed field gel electrophoresis, multilocus sequence typing, random amplified polymorphism deoxyribonucleic acid, repetitive extragenic palindromic, deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing, multiplex polymerase chain reaction and many more) have been used for detecting, speciating, typing, classifying and/or characterizing foodborne pathogens of great significance to humans. Farm animals including chickens, cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, and others (such as domestic and wild animals) have been reported to be primary reservoirs for foodborne pathogens. The consumption of contaminated poultry meats or products has been considered to be the leading source of human foodborne infections. Ducks like other farm animals are important source of foodborne pathogens and have been implicated in some human foodborne illnesses and deaths. Nonetheless, few studies have been conducted to explore the potential of ducks in causing foodborne outbreaks, diseases and its consequences. This review highlights some common molecular techniques, their advantages and those that have been applied to pathogens isolated from ducks and their related sources.

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