Literature DB >> 22533742

Evaluation of four protocols for the detection and isolation of thermophilic Campylobacter from different matrices.

M Ugarte-Ruiz1, S Gómez-Barrero, M C Porrero, J Alvarez, M García, M C Comerón, T M Wassenaar, L Domínguez.   

Abstract

AIMS: To identify the optimal method for detection of thermophilic Campylobacter at various stages in the food chain, three culture-dependent (direct plating, Bolton and Preston enrichment) and one molecular method (qPCR) were compared for three matrices: poultry faeces (n = 38), neck skin (n = 38) and packed fresh meat (n = 38). METHODS AND
RESULTS: Direct plating was compared to enrichment with either Bolton broth (ISO 10272:2006-1) or Preston broth, followed by culture on two selective agars: modified charcoal cefoperazone desoxycholate agar (mCCDA) and Campyfood agar (CFA). Direct plating on CFA provided the highest number of positive samples for faeces and neck skin samples. Enrichment of meat samples in Preston followed by plating on mCCDA gave significantly higher number of positives than the recommended ISO method. Real-time qPCR yielded the highest number of positive samples.
CONCLUSION: Direct plating on CFA is optimal for Campylobacter isolation from highly contaminated samples such as faeces or neck skin. When enrichment is required for less-contaminated samples such as poultry meat, Preston broth is the best choice. The maximum of detectable cells predicted by qPCR is a sensitive and powerful evaluation tool. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The recommended ISO protocol had the least sensitivity, and application of this method could result in underreporting. We detected a high prevalence of Campylobacter on packed meat to be distributed, which suggests this is still a significant risk for consumers.
© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Applied Microbiology © 2012 The Society for Applied Microbiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22533742     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05323.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Microbiol        ISSN: 1364-5072            Impact factor:   3.772


  16 in total

1.  Steak tartare endocarditis.

Authors:  Michael J A Reid; Evan Michael Shannon; Sanjiv M Baxi; Peter Chin-Hong
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2016-02-25

2.  Virulence, MLST analysis, and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter coli isolated from broiler chickens in Tamil Nadu, India.

Authors:  K Gunasekaran; S Vellapandi; M Ananda Chitra; K Kumaragurubaran
Journal:  Iran J Vet Res       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 1.226

3.  Campylobacter shared between free-ranging cattle and sympatric wild ungulates in a natural environment (NE Spain).

Authors:  N Navarro-Gonzalez; M Ugarte-Ruiz; M C Porrero; L Zamora; G Mentaberre; E Serrano; A Mateos; S Lavín; L Domínguez
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 3.184

4.  Free-living turtles are a reservoir for Salmonella but not for Campylobacter.

Authors:  Clara Marin; Sofia Ingresa-Capaccioni; Sara González-Bodi; Francisco Marco-Jiménez; Santiago Vega
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Environmental monitoring of waterborne Campylobacter: evaluation of the Australian standard and a hybrid extraction-free MPN-PCR method.

Authors:  Rebekah Henry; Christelle Schang; Gayani I Chandrasena; Ana Deletic; Mark Edmunds; Dusan Jovanovic; Peter Kolotelo; Jonathan Schmidt; Richard Williamson; David McCarthy
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 5.640

6.  Method comparison for enhanced recovery, isolation and qualitative detection of C. jejuni and C. coli from wastewater effluent samples.

Authors:  María Ugarte-Ruiz; Diego Florez-Cuadrado; Trudy M Wassenaar; María Concepción Porrero; Lucas Domínguez
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Genetic Diversity of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli Isolates from Conventional Broiler Flocks and the Impacts of Sampling Strategy and Laboratory Method.

Authors:  A B Vidal; F M Colles; J D Rodgers; N D McCarthy; R H Davies; M C J Maiden; F A Clifton-Hadley
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 4.792

8.  Genome Comparison of Erythromycin Resistant Campylobacter from Turkeys Identifies Hosts and Pathways for Horizontal Spread of erm(B) Genes.

Authors:  Diego Florez-Cuadrado; María Ugarte-Ruiz; Guillaume Meric; Alberto Quesada; M C Porrero; Ben Pascoe; Jose L Sáez-Llorente; Gema L Orozco; Lucas Domínguez; Samuel K Sheppard
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 9.  A systematic review characterizing on-farm sources of Campylobacter spp. for broiler chickens.

Authors:  Agnes Agunos; Lisa Waddell; David Léger; Eduardo Taboada
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Quantification of Growth of Campylobacter and Extended Spectrum β-Lactamase Producing Bacteria Sheds Light on Black Box of Enrichment Procedures.

Authors:  Wilma C Hazeleger; Wilma F Jacobs-Reitsma; Heidy M W den Besten
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 5.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.