Suppr超能文献

小牛肉皮和胴体中肠出血性大肠杆菌计数方法的比较。

Comparison of methods for the enumeration of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli from veal hides and carcasses.

作者信息

Luedtke Brandon E, Bosilevac Joseph M

机构信息

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Roman L. Hruska U. S. Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center, NE, USA.

出版信息

Front Microbiol. 2015 Sep 29;6:1062. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01062. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

The increased association of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) with veal calves has led the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service to report results of veal meat contaminated with the Top 7 serogroups separately from beef cattle. However, detection methods that can also provide concentration for determining the prevalence and abundance of EHEC associated with veal are lacking. Here we compared the ability of qPCR and a molecular based most probable number assay (MPN) to detect and enumerate EHEC from veal hides at the abattoir and the resulting pre-intervention carcasses. In addition, digital PCR (dPCR) was used to analyze select samples. The qPCR assay was able to enumerate total EHEC in 32% of the hide samples with a range of approximately 34 to 91,412 CFUs/100 cm(2) (95% CI 4-113,460 CFUs/100 cm(2)). Using the MPN assay, total EHEC was enumerable in 48% of the hide samples and ranged from approximately 1 to greater than 17,022 CFUs/100 cm(2) (95% CI 0.4-72,000 CFUs/100 cm(2)). The carcass samples had lower amounts of EHEC with a range of approximately 4-275 CFUs/100 cm(2) (95% CI 3-953 CFUs/100 cm(2)) from 17% of samples with an enumerable amount of EHEC by qPCR. For the MPN assay, the carcass samples ranged from 0.1 to 1 CFUs/100 cm(2) (95% CI 0.02-4 CFUs/100 cm(2)) from 29% of the samples. The correlation coefficient between the qPCR and MPN enumeration methods indicated a moderate relation (R (2) = 0.39) for the hide samples while the carcass samples had no relation (R (2) = 0.002), which was likely due to most samples having an amount of total EHEC below the reliable limit of quantification for qPCR. Interestingly, after enrichment, 81% of the hide samples and 94% of the carcass samples had a detectable amount of total EHEC by qPCR. From our analysis, the MPN assay provided a higher percentage of enumerable hide and carcass samples, however determining an appropriate dilution range and the limited throughput offer additional challenges.

摘要

肠出血性大肠杆菌(EHEC)与犊牛的关联增加,导致美国农业部食品安全与检验局单独报告犊牛肉中受前7种血清型污染的结果,与肉牛的情况分开。然而,目前缺乏能够同时提供浓度以确定与犊牛相关的EHEC的流行率和丰度的检测方法。在此,我们比较了定量聚合酶链反应(qPCR)和基于分子的最大可能数分析法(MPN)检测和计数屠宰场犊牛皮以及由此产生的干预前胴体中EHEC的能力。此外,还使用数字PCR(dPCR)分析了选定的样本。qPCR检测能够在32%的牛皮样本中计数总EHEC,范围约为34至91,412 CFU/100 cm²(95%置信区间4 - 113,460 CFU/100 cm²)。使用MPN分析法,48%的牛皮样本中可计数总EHEC,范围约为1至大于17,022 CFU/100 cm²(95%置信区间0.4 - 72,000 CFU/100 cm²)。胴体样本中的EHEC含量较低,通过qPCR在17%的样本中可计数,范围约为4至275 CFU/100 cm²(95%置信区间3 - 953 CFU/100 cm²)。对于MPN分析法,29%的胴体样本范围为0.1至1 CFU/100 cm²(95%置信区间0.02 - 4 CFU/100 cm²)。qPCR和MPN计数方法之间的相关系数表明,牛皮样本之间存在中等关系(R² = 0.39),而胴体样本之间无相关性(R² = 0.002),这可能是因为大多数样本中的总EHEC含量低于qPCR可靠定量限。有趣的是,富集后,81%的牛皮样本和94%的胴体样本通过qPCR可检测到总EHEC。根据我们的分析,MPN分析法可计数的牛皮和胴体样本比例更高,然而确定合适的稀释范围和有限的通量带来了额外的挑战。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/05e8/4586433/1d31ae29a7e5/fmicb-06-01062-g0001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验