4.7 Article

Detection of viable but nonculturable Vibrio parahaemolyticus in shrimp samples using improved real-time PCR and real-time LAMP methods

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 145-152

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.04.003

关键词

Improved propidium monoazide (PMAxx); Vibrio parahemolyticus; Viable but nonculturable (VBNC); Real-time PCR (qPCR); Real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (qLAMP); Quantitative detection

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31771940]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province [2017B020207004, 2016A040403103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate and highly sensitive detection of viable but nonculturable (VBNC) Vibrio parahaemolyticus is crucial for preventing seafood-related outbreaks. The VBNC state may occur due to bacterial susceptibility to cold shock during food storage. Propidium monoazide (PMA) has been widely applied to detect VBNC foodborne pathogens. In this study, we developed and compared real-time PCR (qPCR) and real-time LAMP (qLAMP) methods combined with an improved propidium monoazide (PMAxx) to detect pathogenic VBNC V. parahaemolyticus. The designed primers and probes were determined to be highly selective for V. parahaemolyticus strains. The combined PMAxx-qPCR method, requiring 100 min, demonstrated a quantification limit of 10.5 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL in pure culture and 28 CFU/g in raw shrimp respectively, which were 10-fold lower than the PMAxx-qLAMP method (45min). When testing mixtures containing different ratios of VBNC to dead V. parahaemolyticus, PMAxx-based methods were notably superior at distinguishing between VBNC and dead bacteria when VBNC cell concentrations were low. Therefore, PMAxx is an effective means for improving the detection and quantification of VBNC V. parahaemolyticus by qPCR and qLAMP. Pretreatment with PMAxx was shown to be suitable for detection of VBNC V. parahaemolyticus in complex food samples, including raw shrimp.

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