4.6 Article

RNA-Based Detection Does not Accurately Enumerate Living Escherichia coli O157:H7 Cells on Plants

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00223

关键词

phyllosphere; foodborne pathogen; EHEC; RT-qPCR; PMA-qPCR; detection; fresh produce; viability

资金

  1. University of California, Davis Research Investments in Science and Engineering (RISE) Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The capacity to distinguish between living and dead cells is an important, but often unrealized, attribute of rapid detection methods for foodborne pathogens. In this study, the numbers of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 after inoculation onto Romaine lettuce plants and on plastic (abiotic) surfaces were measured over time by culturing, and quantitative PCR (qPCR), propidium monoazide (PMA)-qPCR, and reverse transcriptase (RT)-qPCR targeting E. coli O157:H7 gapA, rfbE, eae, and IpfA genes and gene transcripts. On Romaine lettuce plants incubated at low relative humidity, E. coli O157:H7 cell numbers declined 10(7)-fold within 96 h according to culture-based assessments. In contrast, there were no reductions in E. coli levels according to qPGR and only 100- and 1000-fold lower numbers per leaf by RT-qPCR and PMA-qPCR, respectively. Similar results were obtained upon exposure of E. coli 0157:H7 to desiccation conditions on a sterile plastic surface. Subsequent investigation of mixtures of living and dead E. coli O157:H7 cells strongly indicated that PMA-qPCR detection was subject to false-positive enumerations of viable targets when in the presence of 100-fold higher numbers of dead cells. RT-qPCR measurements of killed E. coil O157:H7 as well as for RNaseA-treated E coli RNA confirmed that transcripts from dead cells and highly degraded RNA were also amplified by RT-qPCR. These findings show that neither PMA-qPCR nor RT-qPCR provide accurate estimates of bacterial viability in environments where growth and survival is limited.

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

4.6
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