Bradford L M, Yao L, Anastasiadis C, Cooper A L, Blais B, Deckert A, Reid-Smith R, Lau C, Diarra M S, Carrillo C, Wong A
Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Research and Development, Ottawa Laboratory (Carling), Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Microbiol Spectr. 2024 Nov 4;12(12):e0102724. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01027-24.
To prevent the spread of foodborne illnesses, the presence of pathogens in the food chain is monitored by government agencies and food producers. The culture-based methods currently employed are sensitive but time- and labor-intensive, leading to increasing interest in exploring culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDTs) for pathogen detection. However, few studies quantify the relative sensitivity and reliability of these CIDTs compared to current approaches. To address this issue, we conducted a comparison of the limit of detection (LOD) for between a culture-based method and three CIDTs: qPCR (targeting and ), metabarcode (16S) sequencing, and shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Samples of chicken feed and chicken caecal contents were spiked with . serovar Enteritidis and subjected to culture- and DNA-based detection methods. To explore the impact of non-selective enrichment on LOD, all samples underwent both immediate DNA extraction and overnight enrichment prior to gDNA extraction. In addition to this spike-in experiment, feed and caecal samples acquired from the field were tested with culturing, qPCR, and metabarcoding. In general, LOD was comparable between qPCR and shotgun sequencing methods. Overnight microbiological enrichment resulted in an improvement in LOD with up to a three-log decrease. However, reads were detected in some unspiked feed samples, suggesting false-positive detection of . In addition, the LOD in feeds was three logs lower than in caecal contents, underscoring the impact of background microbiota on detection using all methods.
The appeal of culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDTs) is increased speed with lowered cost, as well as the potential to detect multiple pathogen species in a single analysis and to monitor other areas of concern such as antimicrobial resistance genes or virulence factors. This study provides quantitative data on the sensitivity of CIDTs relative to current approaches, which is essential for determining the feasibility of implementing these methods in pathogen surveillance programs.
为防止食源性疾病传播,政府机构和食品生产商对食物链中病原体的存在情况进行监测。目前采用的基于培养的方法灵敏度高,但耗时且费力,这使得人们越来越有兴趣探索用于病原体检测的非培养诊断测试(CIDTs)。然而,与当前方法相比,很少有研究对这些CIDTs的相对灵敏度和可靠性进行量化。为解决这一问题,我们对基于培养的方法与三种CIDTs的检测限(LOD)进行了比较:定量聚合酶链反应(qPCR,靶向和)、元条形码(16S)测序和鸟枪法宏基因组测序。将肠炎沙门氏菌血清型菌株添加到鸡饲料和鸡盲肠内容物样本中,并采用基于培养和基于DNA的检测方法。为探究非选择性富集对LOD的影响,所有样本在提取基因组DNA之前都进行了即时DNA提取和过夜富集。除了这个加标实验外,还对从实地采集的饲料和盲肠样本进行了培养、qPCR和元条形码分析。总体而言,qPCR和鸟枪法测序方法的LOD相当。过夜微生物富集使LOD有所改善,最多降低了三个对数。然而,在一些未加标的饲料样本中检测到了reads,表明存在肠炎沙门氏菌的假阳性检测。此外,饲料中的LOD比盲肠内容物中的低三个对数,这突出了背景微生物群对使用所有方法检测肠炎沙门氏菌的影响。
非培养诊断测试(CIDTs)的吸引力在于速度更快、成本更低,以及在单次分析中检测多种病原体物种并监测其他关注领域(如抗菌抗性基因或毒力因子)的潜力。本研究提供了关于CIDTs相对于当前方法灵敏度的定量数据,这对于确定在病原体监测计划中实施这些方法的可行性至关重要。