Domesle Kelly J, Yang Qianru, Hammack Thomas S, Ge Beilei
Division of Animal and Food Microbiology, Office of Research, Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 8401 Muirkirk Road, Laurel, MD 20708, USA.
Division of Microbiology, Office of Regulatory Science, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
Int J Food Microbiol. 2018 Jan 2;264:63-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.10.020. Epub 2017 Oct 18.
Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) has emerged as a promising alternative to PCR for pathogen detection in food testing and clinical diagnostics. This study aimed to validate a Salmonella LAMP method run on both turbidimetry (LAMP I) and fluorescence (LAMP II) platforms in representative animal food commodities. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s culture-based Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) method was used as the reference method and a real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay was also performed. The method comparison study followed the FDA's microbiological methods validation guidelines, which align well with those from the AOAC International and ISO. Both LAMP assays were 100% specific among 300 strains (247 Salmonella of 185 serovars and 53 non-Salmonella) tested. The detection limits ranged from 1.3 to 28 cells for six Salmonella strains of various serovars. Six commodities consisting of four animal feed items (cattle feed, chicken feed, horse feed, and swine feed) and two pet food items (dry cat food and dry dog food) all yielded satisfactory results. Compared to the BAM method, the relative levels of detection (RLODs) for LAMP I ranged from 0.317 to 1 with a combined value of 0.610, while those for LAMP II ranged from 0.394 to 1.152 with a combined value of 0.783, which all fell within the acceptability limit (2.5) for an unpaired study. This also suggests that LAMP was more sensitive than the BAM method at detecting low-level Salmonella contamination in animal food and results were available 3days sooner. The performance of LAMP on both platforms was comparable to that of qPCR but notably faster, particularly LAMP II. Given the importance of Salmonella in animal food safety, the LAMP assays validated in this study holds great promise as a rapid, reliable, and robust method for routine screening of Salmonella in these commodities.
环介导等温扩增技术(LAMP)已成为食品检测和临床诊断中病原体检测的一种有前景的替代聚合酶链反应(PCR)的方法。本研究旨在验证一种沙门氏菌LAMP方法,该方法可在比浊法(LAMP I)和荧光法(LAMP II)平台上对代表性动物食品进行检测。美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)基于培养的《细菌学分析手册》(BAM)方法用作参考方法,同时还进行了实时定量PCR(qPCR)检测。方法比较研究遵循FDA的微生物方法验证指南,该指南与美国官方分析化学师协会(AOAC International)和国际标准化组织(ISO)的指南高度一致。在测试的300株菌株(185个血清型的247株沙门氏菌和53株非沙门氏菌)中,两种LAMP检测方法的特异性均为100%。六种不同血清型的沙门氏菌菌株的检测限为1.3至28个细胞。由四种动物饲料(牛饲料、鸡饲料、马饲料和猪饲料)和两种宠物食品(干猫粮和干狗粮)组成的六种商品均产生了令人满意的结果。与BAM方法相比,LAMP I的相对检测水平(RLOD)范围为0.317至1,合并值为0.610,而LAMP II的相对检测水平范围为0.394至1.152,合并值为0.783,这些均落在非配对研究的可接受限度(2.5)内。这也表明,LAMP在检测动物食品中低水平沙门氏菌污染方面比BAM方法更敏感,且结果可提前3天获得。两种平台上LAMP的性能与qPCR相当,但明显更快,尤其是LAMP II。鉴于沙门氏菌在动物食品安全中的重要性,本研究中验证的LAMP检测方法有望成为这些商品中沙门氏菌常规筛查的快速、可靠且稳健的方法。