Wages Jennifer A, Dittoe Dana K, Feye Kristina M, Ricke Steven C
Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
Tyson Foods, Inc., Springdale, AR, United States.
Front Microbiol. 2022 Mar 17;13:813461. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.813461. eCollection 2022.
In 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) established guidelines which modified the Buffered Peptone Water (BPW) rinsate material to include additional compounds that would better neutralize residual processing aids and allow for better recovery of sublethal injured spp. cells. While the added compounds improved the recovery of spp., specific data to understand how the new rinse agent, neutralizing Buffered Peptone Water (nBPW), impacts the recovery of other microorganisms such as spp. and indicator microorganisms are lacking. Therefore, this study evaluated the impact of rinse solutions (BPW or nBPW) used in Whole Bird Carcass rinsate (WBCR) collections on the subsequent microbiome and downstream culturing methodologies. Carcasses exiting a finishing chiller were rinsed in 400 ml of BPW or nBPW. Resulting rinsates were analyzed for Enterobacteriaceae (EB), , and spp. prevalence and total aerobic bacteria (APC) and EB load. The 16S rDNA of the rinsates and the matrices collected from applied microbiological analyses were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq. Log-transformed counts were analyzed in JMP 15 using ANOVA with means separated using Tukey's HSD, and prevalence data were analyzed using Pearson's χ ( ≤ 0.05). Diversity and microbiota compositions (ANCOM) were analyzed in QIIME 2.2019.7 ( ≤ 0.05; ≤ 0.05). There was an effect of rinsate type on the APC load and spp. prevalence ( < 0.05), but not the quantity or prevalence of EB or spp. prevalence. There were differences between the microbial diversity of the two rinsate types and downstream analyses ( < 0.05). Additionally, several taxa, including , , , , , Enterococcaceae, Burkholderiaceae, and Staphylococcaceae, were differentially abundant in paired populations. Therefore, the rinse buffer used in a WBCR collection causes proportional shifts in the microbiota, which can lead to differences in results obtained from cultured microbial populations.
2016年，美国农业部（USDA）食品安全与检验局（FSIS）制定了指导方针，对缓冲蛋白胨水（BPW）冲洗液成分进行了修改，加入了其他化合物，以更好地中和残留加工助剂，并使亚致死损伤的 spp. 细胞得到更好的复苏。虽然添加的化合物提高了 spp. 的复苏率，但缺乏具体数据来了解新型冲洗剂——中和缓冲蛋白胨水（nBPW）对其他微生物（如 spp.）和指示微生物复苏的影响。因此，本研究评估了全禽胴体冲洗液（WBCR）收集过程中使用的冲洗溶液（BPW或nBPW）对后续微生物群落和下游培养方法的影响。从 finishing 冷却器出来的胴体用400毫升BPW或nBPW冲洗。对所得冲洗液进行肠杆菌科（EB）、 spp. 和 spp. 的流行率以及总需氧菌（APC）和EB负荷分析。冲洗液和应用微生物分析收集的基质的16S rDNA在Illumina MiSeq上进行测序。在JMP 15中使用方差分析（ANOVA）对对数转换后的计数进行分析，均值采用Tukey's HSD进行分离，流行率数据采用Pearson's χ（≤0.05）进行分析。在QIIME 2.2019.7中分析多样性和微生物群组成（ANCOM）（≤0.05；≤0.05）。冲洗液类型对APC负荷和 spp. 流行率有影响（<0.05），但对EB的数量或流行率以及 spp. 流行率没有影响。两种冲洗液类型的微生物多样性和下游分析之间存在差异（<0.05）。此外，包括 spp.、 spp.、 spp.,、 spp.、 spp.、肠球菌科、伯克霍尔德菌科和葡萄球菌科在内的几个分类群在配对群体中的丰度存在差异。因此，WBCR收集过程中使用的冲洗缓冲液会导致微生物群的比例变化，这可能导致培养微生物群体获得的结果存在差异。
