4.7 Article

Assessment of the virulence of Listeria monocytogenes:: agreement between a plaque-forming assay with HT-29 cells and infection of immunocompetent mice

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 1-2, 页码 33-44

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00460-3

关键词

Listeria monocytogenes; virulence; mouse; HT-29 cells; plaque-forming assay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some Listeria monocytogenes strains not related to clinical cases have been found to exhibit a low virulence level in mice as well as in an in vitro test using Caco-2 cells. The purpose of this study was to validate a new in vitro test of virulence based on a plaque-forming assay (PFA) using a HT-29 cell monolayer with 118 Listeria strains. The use of HT-29 cells in 96-well tissue culture plates allowed the testing of 30 strains per day and providing results in 24 h. In addition, statistical analyses demonstrated the reproducibility and repeatability of the PFA. No quantitative relationship was observed between the virulence of the strains and the hemolytic titer or the cytotoxic effects on HT-29 cells. In contrast, good agreement was observed between virulence assessed after subcutaneous (SC) infection and virulence obtained by PFA. Three groups of L. monocytogenes strains (avirulent, hypovirulent and fully virulent) were established by comparison of the clinical origin of the strains, the number of immunocompetent contaminated mice and the numbers of Listeria strains recovered in the spleen after SC infection. With one exception, i.e. a clinical case of L. seeligeri (sensitivity 0.98), the PFA successfully detected the virulent strains only (specificity 1). Decision-tree algorithms performed by SAS and S-Plus demonstrated that this tissue culture assay discriminated between the avirulent and hypovirulent strains and the virulent strains. This test could therefore be an alternative to in vivo tests, allowing grading of virulence. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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