Literature DB >> 18468021

Comparison of fecal versus rectoanal mucosal swab sampling for detecting Escherichia coli O157:H7 in experimentally inoculated cattle used in assessing bacteriophage as a mitigation strategy.

Y D Niu1, Y Xu, T A McAllister, E A Rozema, T P Stephens, S J Bach, R P Johnson, K Stanford.   

Abstract

This study was conducted to compare fecal grab (FEC) and rectoanal mucosal swab (RAMS) techniques as sampling methods for surveillance of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in conjunction with administration of a mitigation therapy. The study was nested within a larger experiment that investigated bacteriophage as a preharvest strategy for controlling E. coli O157:H7 in feedlot steers. Samples (FEC and RAMS) were collected from 16 of the 32 feedlot steers (control and oral bacteriophage treatment; n = 8) involved in the mitigation study. All steers had been inoculated on day 0 with 10(10) CFU of nalidixic acid-resistant E. coli O157:H7, and samples were collected on 16 occasions over the next 83 days. FEC samples were assessed by direct plating of serial dilutions in PBS, plus a 6-h enrichment and immunomagnetic separation when E. coli O157:H7 concentrations were below limits detectable by direct plating (i.e., <1 log CFU/g). All RAMS samples were assessed by enrichment and immunomagnetic separation. E. coli O157:H7 was detected more frequently (P < 0.01) by FEC than by RAMS. Overall, 213 of 256 samples were positive either by FEC or RAMS. Discrepancies between sampling techniques were observed in 63 of the 213 positive samples; FEC missed 11 samples that were positive by RAMS, and RAMS missed 52 of those positive by FEC (miss rates of 5.16 and 24.41%, respectively). Kappa values (0.36 to 0.45) indicated only fair to moderate agreement between FEC and RAMS results, but this agreement was higher at lower levels of E. coli O157:H7 shedding (later in the experimental period). Selection of sampling procedure could significantly influence the assessed merit during testing of potential strategies for controlling E. coli O157:H7 on the farm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18468021     DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-71.4.691

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


  5 in total

1.  In vivo and ex vivo evaluations of bacteriophages e11/2 and e4/1c for use in the control of Escherichia coli O157:H7.

Authors:  Lucia Rivas; Brid Coffey; Olivia McAuliffe; Mary J McDonnell; Catherine M Burgess; Aidan Coffey; R Paul Ross; Geraldine Duffy
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  T4-Like genome organization of the Escherichia coli O157:H7 lytic phage AR1.

Authors:  Wei-Chao Liao; Wailap Victor Ng; I-Hsuan Lin; Wan-Jr Syu; Tze-Tze Liu; Chuan-Hsiung Chang
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 5.103

3.  Prevalence and impact of bacteriophages on the presence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feedlot cattle and their environment.

Authors:  Y D Niu; T A McAllister; Y Xu; R P Johnson; T P Stephens; K Stanford
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2009-01-09       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Bacteriophages and their role in food safety.

Authors:  Sanna M Sillankorva; Hugo Oliveira; Joana Azeredo
Journal:  Int J Microbiol       Date:  2012-12-18

Review 5.  Prevention of bacterial foodborne disease using nanobiotechnology.

Authors:  Craig Billington; J Andrew Hudson; Elaine D'Sa
Journal:  Nanotechnol Sci Appl       Date:  2014-08-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.