Literature DB >> 15083734

A comparison of three methods for the isolation of Arcobacter spp. from retail raw poultry in Northern Ireland.

Roisin Scullion1, Clare S Harrington, Robert H Madden.   

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that arcobacters, especially Arcobacter butzleri, are potential foodborne pathogens, but standardized detection methods have yet to be established. A study was undertaken to determine which of three isolation methods was the most effective for the isolation of Arcobacter spp. from fresh raw poultry. Methods 1 was microaerobic and involved a membrane filtration step followed by plating onto blood agar. Method 2 was also microaerobic and involved enrichment and plating media containing a five-antibiotic cocktail. Method 3 was aerobic and was based on enrichment in a charcoal-based broth containing two antibiotics. Retail poultry samples (n = 50) were obtained from supermarkets in Northern Ireland; the European Community license number was recorded to ensure sample diversity. Presumptive arcobacters were identified using genus-specific and species-specific primers. Methods 1 resulted in the lowest recovery of arcobacters (28% of samples positive). The detection rate for method 2 (68%) was higher than that for method 3 (50%), but the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). Modification of method 3 by plating the enrichment broth at 24 h, as well as at 48 h, increased recovery to 68%. Use of methods 2 and 3 together increased the number of positive samples detected by approximately 25% compared with use of either method alone. A. butzleri was the most commonly isolated species using all methods. Method 3 detected Arcobacter cryaerophilus in more samples (n = 3) than did method 1 and 2 (n = 1). Arcobacter skirrowii was detected by only method 3 (n = 1). In terms of sensitivity, ease of use, and diversity of species recovered, modified method 3 was the overall method of choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15083734     DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-67.4.799

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Food Prot        ISSN: 0362-028X            Impact factor:   2.077


  6 in total

Review 1.  Taxonomy, epidemiology, and clinical relevance of the genus Arcobacter.

Authors:  Luis Collado; Maria José Figueras
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  NRJ Media as the Gold-Standard Arcobacter-Specific Detection System: Applications in Poultry Testing.

Authors:  Paul T Nguyen; Karina Tuz; Lawrence Restaino; Oscar Juárez
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 6.064

3.  Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Arcobacter species in human stool samples derived from out- and inpatients: the prospective German Arcobacter prevalence study Arcopath.

Authors:  Greta Gölz; Markus M Heimesaat; Vanessa Brückner; Ulrike Fiebiger; Ralf Ignatius; Johannes Friesen; Martin Eisenblätter; Marlies Höck; Thomas Alter; Stefan Bereswill
Journal:  Gut Pathog       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 4.181

4.  Improved culture enrichment broth for isolation of Arcobacter-like species from the marine environment.

Authors:  Faiz Ur Rahman; Karl B Andree; Nuria Salas-Massó; Margarita Fernandez-Tejedor; Anna Sanjuan; Maria J Figueras; M Dolors Furones
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility and virulence gene profiles of Arcobacter species isolated from human stool samples, foods of animal origin, ready-to-eat salad mixes and environmental water.

Authors:  Dainius Uljanovas; Greta Gölz; Vanessa Brückner; Audrone Grineviciene; Egle Tamuleviciene; Thomas Alter; Mindaugas Malakauskas
Journal:  Gut Pathog       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 4.181

6.  Multilocus sequence typing and biocide tolerance of Arcobacter butzleri from Danish broiler carcasses.

Authors:  Louise Hesselbjerg Rasmussen; Jette Kjeldgaard; Jens Peter Christensen; Hanne Ingmer
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2013-08-13
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.