Literature DB >> 23687146

Comparison of 3 culture methods and PCR assays for Salmonella gallinarum and Salmonella pullorum detection in poultry feed.

M Cecilia Soria1, Mario A Soria, Dante J Bueno, Horacio R Terzolo.   

Abstract

To detect Salmonella gallinarum or Salmonella pullorum in artificially contaminated poultry feed, 9 culture combinations were compared, including 3 preenrichment/enrichment methods (tryptic soy broth plus ferrous sulfate/tetrathionate Hajna, tryptic soy broth plus ferrous sulfate/selenite cystine broth, and Salmosyst) in combination with 3 selective agars (xylose lysine desoxicholate agar added with tergitol 4, EF-18, and Önöz), respectively. Additionally, a single PCR technique was applied combined with 2 different preenrichment media (tryptic soy broth plus ferrous sulfate and Salmosyst). The specificity and positive predictive value were 1 for all methods. There were some differences among Salmonella strains for sensitivity and accuracy in the culture and Salmosyst-PCR methods. The sensitivity and accuracy values were less than 0.60 and 0.64, respectively, whereas the negative predictive values were between 0.12 and 0.23. Two PCR methods did not show any difference in the parameters of performance evaluated. Kappa coefficients showed good agreement between both methods. None of the culture combinations was able to detect S. gallinarum or S. pullorum when the inoculum was less than 3 × 10² cfu/25 g, except the Salmosyst broth method, which could recover S. gallinarum from 3 × 10¹ cfu/25 g onward. Overall, there were differences in the detection limits among the strains and methods used. In general, the 3 selective plating media did not show any significant difference in the parameters of performance studied for each strain. On the other hand, the agreements were slight to fair when culture methods were compared among them and with both PCR methods. The differences in the detection levels that were obtained using these methods and the difficulty in detecting S. gallinarum or S. pullorum in feed represent a potential problem when a poultry feed sample is considered to be negative. It is highly recommended to use at least 2 methods to increase the chances of detecting S. gallinarum or S. pullorum in poultry feed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23687146     DOI: 10.3382/ps.2012-02926

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Poult Sci        ISSN: 0032-5791            Impact factor:   3.352


  5 in total

1.  Development and Application of an Immunocapture PCR Diagnostic Assay Based on the Monoclonal Antibody for the Detection of Shigella.

Authors:  Liding Zhang; Xuewei Du; Qiujiang Wei; Qinqin Han; Qiang Chen; Mi Zhang; Xueshan Xia; Yuzhu Song; Jinyang Zhang
Journal:  Iran J Biotechnol       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 1.671

Review 2.  Selected Instrumental Techniques Applied in Food and Feed: Quality, Safety and Adulteration Analysis.

Authors:  Graciela Artavia; Carolina Cortés-Herrera; Fabio Granados-Chinchilla
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2021-05-13

3.  Development of a rapid, one-step-visual method to detect Salmonella based on IC-LAMP method.

Authors:  L Zhang; X Du; C Chen; Q Han; Q Chen; M Zhang; X Xia; Y Song; J Zhang
Journal:  Iran J Vet Res       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 1.376

4.  Rapid and Sensitive Detection of Shigella spp. and Salmonella spp. by Multiple Endonuclease Restriction Real-Time Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Technique.

Authors:  Yi Wang; Yan Wang; Lijuan Luo; Dongxin Liu; Xia Luo; Yanmei Xu; Shoukui Hu; Lina Niu; Jianguo Xu; Changyun Ye
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 5.640

5.  Instrument-Free and Visual Detection of Salmonella Based on Magnetic Nanoparticles and an Antibody Probe Immunosensor.

Authors:  Liding Zhang; Xuewei Du; Zhixin Chen; Congjie Chen; Nanxin Gong; Yihao Song; Yuzhu Song; Qinqin Han; Xueshan Xia; Haiming Luo; Jinyang Zhang
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 5.923

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.