4.7 Article

Isolation, identification and characterization of lytic, wide host range bacteriophages from waste effluents against Salmonella enterica serovars

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 67-74

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.09.064

关键词

Phages; Salmonella; Antimicrobial; Anti-Salmonella phages; Biocontrol; Food safety

资金

  1. USDA's Integrated Organic Program [2007-51300-03796]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of bacteriophages is considered as a viable alternative to chemical antimicrobials against foodborne pathogens. The objective of this study was to develop a collection of lytic bacteriophages which will be able to infect different pathogenic Salmonella enterica serovars. Phages were isolated from animal feces and sewage samples, purified, characterized morphologically and by DNA fingerprinting, and host ranges were determined. Spot test and efficiency of plaguing (EOP) data indicated that two phages, SEA1 and SEA2 had the broadest host range against Salmonella among all isolated phages. SEA2 was highly efficient to infect S. Typhimurium DT104 (0.5-1 EOP value). Only phage SSA1 was able to infect S. Montevideo. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) revealed the phages in the collection were mostly (4 out of 6) Siphoviridae, while SEA1 and SEA2 were Myoviridae T4-like phages. SEA1 and SEA2 had the largest genome sizes in the collection, 190 and 170 kb, respectively. Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis demonstrated distinct digestion profiles with EcoRI for phages SSA1, STD3, STE3 and STF1. However, SEA1 and SEA2 shared a similar restriction enzyme (RE) digestion pattern with same morphotype, but distinct profiles in lysing Salmonella strains. These anti-Salmonella phages were highly host specific with few exceptions of lytic phases that were able to infect a wide variety of Salmonella. These phages have potential for use in applications controlling Salmonella on different matrices. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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