| Literature DB >> 33187247 |
Patrick Murigu Kamau Njage1, Pimlapas Leekitcharoenphon1, Lisbeth Truelstrup Hansen2, Rene S Hendriksen1, Christel Faes3, Marc Aerts3, Tine Hald1.
Abstract
The application of high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies (WGS) data remain an increasingly discussed but vastly unexplored resource in the public health domain of quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). This is due to challenges including high dimensionality of WGS data and heterogeneity of microbial growth phenotype data. This study provides an innovative approach for modeling the impact of population heterogeneity in microbial phenotypic stress response and integrates this into predictive models inputting a high-dimensional WGS data for increased precision exposure assessment using an example of Listeria monocytogenes. Finite mixture models were used to distinguish the number of sub-populations for each of the stress phenotypes, acid, cold, salt and desiccation. Machine learning predictive models were selected from six algorithms by inputting WGS data to predict the sub-population membership of new strains with unknown stress response data. An example QMRA was conducted for cultured milk products using the strains of unknown stress phenotype to illustrate the significance of the findings of this study. Increased resistance to stress conditions leads to increased growth, the likelihood of higher exposure and probability of illness. Neglecting within-species genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity in microbial stress response may over or underestimate microbial exposure and eventual risk during QMRA.Entities:
Keywords: Listeria monocytogenes; exposure assessment; finite mixture models; machine learning; predictive modeling; quantitative microbial risk assessment; whole genome sequencing
Year: 2020 PMID: 33187247 PMCID: PMC7698238 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8111772
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Figure 1Food chain exposure assessment. This involves input data consisting of food consumption data and microbial growth data together with associated food inherent, environmental and process induced factors influencing microbial growth or reduction in any of the stages of the food chain including processing, distribution, retail and consumer level. The final concentration at exposure consists of initial contamination plus the total increase , minus total reduction . Use of molecular data will support exposure assessment for strain or microbial population subgroup i.
Figure 2Methodology flow diagram.
Figure 3Histogram of relative maximum growth rates () for acid, cold and salt stress response and relative lag phase duration () of desiccation stress response in 166 L. monocytogenes strains.
Summary of the listeriosis quantitative risk assessment model for consumption of cultured milk at domestic level: variables, equations or distribution of the input parameters and data sources.
| Variable/Parameter | Description | Value/Equation | Distribution | Unit | Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Initial concentration | Uniform | cfu/g | [ | |
|
| Storage time | Minimum 0.5, and | Pert | Days | [ |
| Most likely: 6 to 10 | |||||
| Maximum: 45 | |||||
| Maximum growth rate for | Mean: 0.762 ± 0.047 (1.007 ± 0.047) | Normal | per hour | Calculated | |
| Serving | Portion consumed | Mean: 236.75 ± 170 | Log normal | gram | [ |
| Hold | Increase during storage |
| cfu/g | This study and [ | |
| D | Ingested dose | Serving × ( | cfu/serving | Calculated | |
|
| Dose–response parameter for | − | [ | ||
|
| Dose–response parameter for | − | [ | ||
|
| Dose–response parameter for | − | [ | ||
|
| Probability of illness for | Exponential | − | Exponential dose–response model | |
|
| Probability of illness for | Exponential | − | Exponential dose–response model | |
|
| Probability of illness for | Exponential | − | Exponential dose–response model | |
|
| Number illness per million |
| Binomial | − | Calculated |
|
| Number illness per million |
| Binomial | − | Calculated |
|
| Number illness per million |
| Binomial | − | Calculated |
Figure 4Histogram of relative growth rate parameters and the superimposed mixture model for the data.
Probabilities, averages of categories and interpretations of the stress response categories.
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 0.03 | 0.76 | Susceptible | 1 | 0.04 | 0.41 | Highly Susceptible |
| 2 | 0.97 | 1.01 | Tolerant | 2 | 0.44 | 0.85 | Susceptible |
| 3 | 0.50 | 1.13 | Tolerant | ||||
| 4 | 0.03 | 1.50 | Highly Tolerant | ||||
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 0.16 | 0.83 | Susceptible | 1 | 0.21 | 0.87 | Susceptible |
| 2 | 0.77 | 1.01 | Tolerant | 2 | 0.74 | 1.02 | Tolerant |
| 3 | 0.07 | 1.18 | Highly Tolerant | 3 | 0.04 | 1.26 | Highly Tolerant |
Machine learning model performance for prediction of L. monocytogenes stress response categories.
| Stress Type * | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Acid | Cold | Salt | Desiccation | ||||
| GBM | 0.87 | (0.83–0.89) | 0.97 | (0.96–0.98) | 0.89 | (0.87–0.90) | 0.89 | (0.86–0.90) |
| RF | 0.87 | (0.86–0.88) | 0.97 | (0.95–0.98) | 0.89 | (0.87–0.90) | 0.91 | (0.88–0.92) |
| SVMR | 0.89 | (0.88–0.89) | 0.97 | (0.96–0.98) | 0.83 | (0.81–0.84) | 0.83 | (0.80–0.84) |
| SVML | 0.85 | (0.84–0.87) | 0.96 | (0.94–0.97) | 0.85 | (0.83–0.86) | 0.88 | (0.86–0.90) |
| NN | 0.72 | (0.68–0.78) | 0.96 | (0.93–0.98) | 0.63 | (0.57–0.68) | 0.69 | (0.56–0.76) |
| LB | 0.89 | (0.88–0.90) | 0.97 | (0.97–0.98) | 0.85 | (0.83–0.88) | 0.86 | (0.85–0.88) |
* Mean (range); means within a column with similar lower case superscript letter are not significantly different; random forest (RF), support vector machine (radial (SVMR) and linear (SVML) kernels), gradient boosting (GBM), neural network (NN) and logit boost (LB) models.
Results for quantitative microbial risk assessment of L. monocytogenes at the consumer level in cultured milk products.
| Minimum | 1st Quartile | Median | Mean | 3rd Quartile | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number ill healthy per million | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Number ill susceptible per million | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 33 |
| Number ill transplant per million | 4 | 321 | 585 | 790 | 1019 | 23653 |
| Probability of illness healthy | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.98 |
| Probability of illness susceptible | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.44 |
| Probability of illness transplant | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.24 |
| Increase during storage: all susceptible | 9 | 127 | 215 | 236 | 326 | 803 |
| Increase during storage: 75 % susceptible | 10 | 137 | 232 | 255 | 352 | 867 |
| Increase during storage: 50 % susceptible | 11 | 147 | 250 | 274 | 378 | 933 |
| Increase during storage: 25 % | 11 | 157 | 267 | 293 | 404 | 994 |
Figure 5Overview of conclusions: Heterogeneous pathogen events. Pathogen populations (A–D) with stochastically varying phenotypes enter various biotic and abiotic environments. Extreme environments kill pathogens in environment (A), while favorable conditions support vigorous pathogen growth in the environment (D). Intermediate environments support pathogen survival (B) or moderate growth (C). Various surviving pathogen subsets emerging from the various events result in risk variation in an often heterogeneous host population whose susceptibilities vary leading to stochasticity in disease risk.