4.6 Review

Culture of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis: challenges, limitations and future prospects

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 134, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jambio/lxac017

关键词

Mycobacterium avium subsp; paratuberculosis (MAP); culture; growth requirements; media constituents; slow growth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review provides an overview of the development of culture methods for Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP), including its growth requirements, the advantages and disadvantages of different culture media, the performance of commonly used MAP culture media, and sample preparation/decontamination protocols for different sample types. The limitations of current MAP culture methods and prospects for improvements are discussed.
Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP) causes paratuberculosis (Johne's disease) in ruminants and is suspected to be involved in the development of Crohn's disease and several autoimmune disorders. As such, sensitive and specific MAP detection methods are required to confirm infection in animals and identify potential sources of animal and human exposure. Despite recent developments in immunological and nucleic acid-based detection methods, culture-based detection of MAP remains the 'gold standard' against which the sensitivity and specificity of other detection methods are measured. However, not all culture-based approaches are equivalent in terms of detection capability, which can lead to errors in the evaluation of other detection methods. This review will provide an overview of the chronological development of culture methods for MAP, and will consider the unique growth requirements of MAP, the merits of solid versus liquid culture media, the relative performance of the commonly used MAP culture media, and sample preparation/decontamination protocols for different sample types. The limitations of current MAP culture methods and prospects for improvements are discussed.

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