4.4 Article

A rapid molecular-based assay for direct quantification of viable bacteria in slaughterhouses

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 69, 期 6, 页码 1265-1272

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-69.6.1265

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rapid test for microbial quantification in carcass and environmental swabs that does not require enrichment and provides results in less than 4 If is described here. Steps in the assay include the rapid concentration of bacteria on sponge swabs by vacuum filtration followed by real-time PCR detection. The assay has been applied for the detection of coliforms, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp., and Listeria monocytogenes on carcass swabs and environmental samples in a slaughterhouseprocessing line. Comparison of this rapid method with standard culture techniques for coliform counts on beef and pork carcass swabs revealed higher numbers of bacteria (2- to 50-fold) by the rapid test compared with the plate counts. This was due to the detection of all bacteria (live, dead, and non-culturable forms) in the rapid assay. To allow detection of only viable bacteria, concentrated samples were treated with ethidium monoazide (EMA) prior to DNA extraction and real-time PCR detection, thereby preventing the amplification of DNA from bacteria with damaged cell walls and allowing only the DNA from bacteria with intact membranes to be detected. EMA treatment resulted in a significant reduction (P < 0.001) in the number of coliforms detected compared to real-time PCR without EMA treatment. In beef swabs, the counts obtained in EMA real-time PCR were not significantly different (P < 0.08) from the culture counts and the correlation coefficient between the two assays was 0.7385. A lower correlation coefficient (0.402) was obtained with pork swabs. The assay described herein has the potential to be applied on a routine basis to slaughterhouse lines for the detection of indicator organisms or specific pathogens.

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

4.4
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