Noah C W, Ramos N C, Gipson M V
Food and Drug Administration, Dallas, TX 75204.
J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1991 Sep-Oct;74(5):819-21.
The efficiency of 2 commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits (Listeria-Tek and Tecra) for detecting Listeria in naturally contaminated foods was evaluated and compared with that of the culture method described in the Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM). Both ELISAs use modified University of Vermont (UVM-1) medium as a primary enrichment; the BAM method uses Listeria enrichment broth. Secondary enrichments for Listeria-Tek and Tecra, respectively, were Fraser broth and UVM-2, which contains additional acriflavin-HCl. When ELISA test results differed, secondary enrichments were tested against the other ELISA; Fraser broth was used to determine recovery rates because of its superiority over UVM-2. Of the 178 food samples examined, the presence of Listeria was detected and culturally confirmed in 38, 37, and 40 samples by the BAM, Listeria-Tek, and Tecra methods, respectively. Differences in results of the ELISAs compared with those of the BAM method were not statistically significant; however, differences between results of the 2 ELISA methods were significant. It was concluded that as rapid screening methods, the Listeria-Tek and the Tecra kits qualify as alternative methods to the BAM cultural method.
评估了两种商用酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)试剂盒(Listeria-Tek和Tecra)检测天然污染食品中李斯特菌的效率,并与《细菌学分析手册》(BAM)中所述的培养方法进行了比较。两种ELISA均使用改良的佛蒙特大学(UVM-1)培养基作为初次富集培养基;BAM方法使用李斯特菌富集肉汤。Listeria-Tek和Tecra的二次富集培养基分别为弗雷泽肉汤和UVM-2,后者含有额外的盐酸吖啶黄素。当ELISA检测结果不同时,对二次富集培养物进行另一种ELISA检测;由于弗雷泽肉汤优于UVM-2,因此使用弗雷泽肉汤来确定回收率。在所检测的178份食品样本中,通过BAM、Listeria-Tek和Tecra方法分别在38、37和40份样本中检测到李斯特菌并通过培养法确认。与BAM方法相比,ELISA结果的差异无统计学意义;然而,两种ELISA方法的结果之间存在显著差异。得出的结论是,作为快速筛查方法,Listeria-Tek和Tecra试剂盒可作为BAM培养方法的替代方法。