Love Brenda C, Rostagno Marcos H
Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Oklahoma Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2008 Sep;20(5):620-4. doi: 10.1177/104063870802000514.
The current study was conducted to evaluate 5 bacteriologic culture methods (methods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) for recovery of Salmonella enterica from swine feces, both for sensitivity of detection (ability to recover Salmonella from a positive sample) and for specificity (not to inadvertently identify an organism as a Salmonella species in a negative sample). Fifty-six negative samples and 46 positive samples were processed using each of the 5 methods, which differed primarily in the combinations of enrichment media used. All negative samples were negative for Salmonella when cultured by all 5 methods (100% specificity). Two of the methods (methods 1 and 4) resulted in the recovery of significantly less (P < 0.05) Salmonella when compared with the remaining 3 methods (methods 2, 3, and 5). No one method was successful in recovering Salmonella from all positive samples, although recovery with method 2 was statistically similar to the total number of positive samples analyzed (42 vs. 46 Salmonella-positive samples, P > 0.05). This study shows that culture methods differ significantly in their performance regarding the isolation of Salmonella from swine fecal samples.
本研究旨在评估5种细菌培养方法(方法1、2、3、4和5)从猪粪便中分离肠炎沙门氏菌的效果,包括检测敏感性(从阳性样本中分离出沙门氏菌的能力)和特异性(在阴性样本中不会误将一种微生物鉴定为沙门氏菌属)。使用这5种方法对56份阴性样本和46份阳性样本进行处理,这些方法的主要区别在于所使用的增菌培养基组合。当用所有5种方法培养时,所有阴性样本均未检测出沙门氏菌(特异性为100%)。与其余3种方法(方法2、3和5)相比,其中2种方法(方法1和4)分离出的沙门氏菌明显较少(P < 0.05)。尽管方法2的回收率与分析的阳性样本总数在统计学上相似(42份沙门氏菌阳性样本对46份,P > 0.05),但没有一种方法能成功从所有阳性样本中分离出沙门氏菌。本研究表明,在从猪粪便样本中分离沙门氏菌方面,不同培养方法的性能存在显著差异。