4.3 Article

Application of Whole-Genome Sequencing in the National Molecular Tracing Network for Foodborne Disease Surveillance in China

期刊

FOODBORNE PATHOGENS AND DISEASE
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 538-546

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2020.2908

关键词

surveillance; whole-genome sequencing; foodborne disease; China

资金

  1. Key Research and Development of Food Safety of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2017YFC1601503]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TraNet is the only real-time whole-genome sequencing network for foodborne disease surveillance in China, covering national, provincial, and municipal public health laboratories. It plays a significant role in rapid outbreak investigation, source tracking, and cluster analysis of specific pathogens across the country, by differentiating clusters of geographically diverse foodborne infections.
National Molecular Tracing Network for Foodborne Disease Surveillance (TraNet) was launched in 2013, which is the only real-time whole-genome sequencing (WGS)-based subtyping network in China for effective foodborne disease surveillance. TraNet covers three levels of public health laboratories, national, provincial, and municipal. The TraNet national databases have a total of more than 54,000 entries representing seven common foodborne bacteria from humans, food, and environments. Raw sequence data are uploaded to TraNet by Data Delivery Center. Assembled sequence data, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) profiles, antibiotic resistance patterns, and epidemiological data are submitted to national pathogen-specific databases managed by China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment. PFGE patterns and WGS-based subtyping are compared for rapid differentiation of clusters of geographically diverse foodborne infections. WGS-based TraNet has played significant roles in improving foodborne disease surveillance in China for rapid outbreak investigation, source tracking, and cluster analysis of particular pathogens across the country.

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