Detection of salmonella in swine fecal samples by flow-through immunocapture

Journal of Food Protection

Volumn 73, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 957-959

  Katsuda, Ken ^a   Kohmoto, Mariko ^a   Mikami, Osamu ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL HEALTH   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SALMONELLA; SUIDAE;

BACTERIAL DNA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BACTERIAL COUNT; FECES; FOOD CONTAMINATION; FOOD CONTROL; HUMAN; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; METHODOLOGY; MICROBIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; MICROBIOLOGY; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; SALMONELLA; SWINE;

ANIMALS; BACTERIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; COLONY COUNT, MICROBIAL; DNA, BACTERIAL; FECES; FOOD CONTAMINATION; FOOD MICROBIOLOGY; HUMANS; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; SALMONELLA; SWINE;

EID: 77954039307     PISSN: 0362028X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-73.5.957     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Anonymous. 2006. General guidance on methods for the detection of Salmonella, ISO 6579, 3rd ed. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
2. Borch, E., T. Nesbakken, and H. Christensen. 1996. Hazard identification in swine slaughter with respect to foodborne bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 30: 9-25.
3. Eriksson, E., and A. Aspan. 2007. Comparison of culture, ELISA and PCR techniques for Salmonella detection in faecal samples for cattle, pig and poultry. BMC Vet. Res. 3: 21.
4. Gray, J. T., P. J. Fedorka-Cray, T. J. Stabel, and T. T. Kramer. 1996. Natural transmission of Salmonella choleraesuis in swine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62: 141-146.
5. Korver, H., K. Mooijman, D. Nagelkerke, A. van de Giessen, and A. M. Henken. 2004. Interlaboratory comparison study VII (2003) on bacteriological detection of Salmonella spp. Report no. 330300 004. National Institute for Public Health and Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
6. Love, B. C, and M. H. Rostagno. 2008. Comparison of five culture methods for Salmonella isolation from swine fecal samples of known infection status. J. Vet. Diaqn. Invest. 20: 620-624.
7. Matrix MicroScience Pathatrix Overview. Available at: http: //www, matrixmsci.com/pathatrix.htm
8. Nietfeid, J. C, B. Kelly, S. S. Dritz, I. Feder, and J. C. Galiand. 1998. Comparison of conventional and delayed secondary enrichment for isolation of Salmonella spp. from swine samples.J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 10: 285-287.
9. Rossen, L., P. Norskov, K. Holmstrom, and O. F. Rasmussen. 1992. Inhibition of PCR by components of food samples, microbial diagnostic assays and DNA-extraction solutions. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 17: 37-45.
10. Voogt, N., M. Raes, W. J. Wannet, A. M. Henken, and A. W. van de Giessen. 2001. Comparison of selective enrichment media for the detection of Salmonella in poultry faeces. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 32: 89-92.
11. Wu, V., V. Gill, R. Oberst, R. Phebus, and D. Fung. 2004. Rapid protocol (5.25H) for the detection of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in raw ground beef by an immuno-capture system (Pathatrix) in combination with Colortrix and CT-SMAC. .J. Rapid Methods Autom. Microbiol. 12: 57-67.
12. Zdragas, A., P. Tsakos, and P. Mavrogeni. 2000. Evaluation of two assays, MSRV and RV, for the isolation of Salmonella spp. from wastewater samples and broiler chickens. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 31: 328-331.