4.6 Article

Detection of Live Salmonella sp Cells in Produce by a TaqMan-Based Quantitative Reverse Transcriptase Real-Time PCR Targeting invA mRNA

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 75, 期 11, 页码 3714-3720

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02686-08

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Salmonella enterica contamination in foods is a significant concern for public health. When DNA detection methods are used for analysis of foods, one of the major concerns is false-positive results from the detection of dead cells. To circumvent this crucial issue, a TaqMan quantitative real-time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) assay with an RNA internal control was developed. invA RNA standards were used to determine the detection limit of this assay as well as to determine invA mRNA levels in mid-exponential-, late-exponential-, and stationary-phase cells. This assay has a detection limit of 40 copies of invA mRNA per reaction. The levels of invA mRNA in mid-exponential-, late-exponential-, and stationary-phase S. enterica cells was approximately 1 copy per 3 CFU, 1 copy per CFU, and 4 copies per 10(3) CFU, respectively. Spinach, tomatoes, jalapeno peppers, and serrano peppers were artificially contaminated with four different Salmonella serovars at levels of 10(5) and less than 10 CFU. These foods were analyzed with qRT-PCR and with the FDA's Bacteriological Analytical Manual Salmonella culture method (W. A. Andrews and T. S. Hammack, in G. J. Jackson et al., ed., Bacteriological analytical manual online, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/similar to ebam/bam-5.html, 2007). Comparable results were obtained by both methods. Only live Salmonella cells could be detected by this qRT-PCR assay, thus avoiding the dangers of false-positive results from nonviable cells. False negatives (inhibition of the PCR) were also ruled out through the use of an RNA internal control. This assay allows for the fast and accurate detection of viable Salmonella spp. in spinach, tomatoes, and in both jalapeno and serrano peppers.

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