Comparative analysis and limitations of ethidium monoazide and propidium monoazide treatments for the differentiation of viable and nonviable Campylobacter cells

Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Volumn 80, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 2186-2192

  Seinige, Diana ^a   Krischek, Carsten ^a   Klein, Günter ^a   Kehrenberg, Corinna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE HANNOVER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BACTERIA; CELLS; CYTOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

CAMPYLOBACTER COLI; CAMPYLOBACTER JEJUNI; COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; CONCENTRATION-DEPENDENT; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC APPLICATIONS; DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH; QUANTITATIVE REAL TIME PCR;

POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION;

BACTERIUM; CHEMICAL COMPOUND; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DYE; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; VIABILITY;

8 AZIDOETHIDIUM; 8-AZIDOETHIDIUM; AZIDE; DRUG DERIVATIVE; ENZYME INHIBITOR; PROPIDIUM IODIDE; PROPIDIUM MONOAZIDE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BACTERIAL LOAD; CAMPYLOBACTER COLI; CAMPYLOBACTER JEJUNI; CELL SURVIVAL; CHICKEN; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION STUDY; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; REAL TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; STAINING;

ANIMALS; AZIDES; BACTERIAL LOAD; CAMPYLOBACTER COLI; CAMPYLOBACTER JEJUNI; CELL SURVIVAL; CHICKENS; ENZYME INHIBITORS; PROPIDIUM; REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; STAINING AND LABELING;

EID: 84896037708     PISSN: 00992240     EISSN: 10985336     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.03962-13     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. 2012. Scientific report of EFSA and ECDC: the European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2010. EFSA J. 10:2597. http: //www.efsa.europa.eu/de/efsajournal/doc/2597.pdf.
2. Robert Koch-Institut. 2012. Infektionsepidemiologisches Jahrbuch für 2011. http://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Jahrbuch/Jahrbuch_2011 .pdf?_blob-publicationFile.
3. Nielsen EM, Fussing V, Engberg J, Nielsen NL, Neimann J. 2006. Most Campylobacter subtypes from sporadic infections can be found in retail poultry products and food animals. Epidemiol. Infect. 134:758-767. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268805005509.
4. Mayr AM, Lick S, Bauer J, Thärigen D, Busch U, Huber I. 2010. Rapid detection and differentiation of Campylobacter jejuni, Campylobacter coli, and Campylobacter lari in food, using multiplex real-time PCR. J. Food Prot. 73:241-250.
5. Toplak N, Kovač M, Piskernik S, Možina SS, Jeršek B. 2012. Detection and quantification of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli using real-time multiplex PCR. J. Appl. Microbiol. 112:752-764. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05235.x.
6. Leblanc-Maridor M, Beaudeau F, Seegers H, Denis M, Belloc C. 2011. Rapid identification and quantification of Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni by real-time PCR in pure cultures and in complex samples. BMC Microbiol. 11:113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-11-113.
7. Bui XT, Wolff A, Madsen M, Bang DD. 2012. Reverse transcriptase real-time PCR for detection and quantification of viable Campylobacter jejuni directly from poultry faecal samples. Res. Microbiol. 163:64-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2011.10.007.
8. Tissier A, Denis M, Hartemann P, Gassilloud B. 2012. Development of a rapid and sensitive method combining a cellulose ester microfilter and a real-time quantitative PCR assay to detect Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in 20 liters of drinking water or low-turbidity waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78:839-845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128 /AEM.06754-11.
9. Rudi K, Moen B, Drømtorp SM, Holck AL. 2005. Use of ethidium monoazide and PCR in combination for quantification of viable and dead cells in complex samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:1018-1024. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.2.1018-1024.2005.
10. Cenciarini-Borde C, Courtois S, La Scola B. 2009. Nucleic acids as viability markers for bacteria detection using molecular tools. Future Microbiol. 4:45-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/17460913.4.1.45.
11. Nocker A, Camper AK. 2006. Selective removal of DNA from dead cells of mixed bacterial communities by use of ethidium monoazide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72:1997-2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.3.1997 -2004.2006.
12. Flekna G, Stefanic P, Wagner M, Smulders FJ, Mozina SS, Hein I. 2007. Insufficient differentiation of live and dead Campylobacter jejuni and Listeria monocytogenes cells by ethidium monoazide (EMA) compromises EMA/real-time PCR. Res. Microbiol. 158:405-412. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.resmic.2007.02.008.
13. Nocker A, Sossa KE, Camper AK. 2007. Molecular monitoring of disinfection efficacy using propidium monoazide in combination with quantitative PCR. J. Microbiol. Methods 70:252-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016 /j.mimet.2007.04.014.
14. Pan Y, Breidt F, Jr. 2007. Enumeration of viable Listeria monocytogenes cells by real-time PCR with propidium monoazide and ethidium monoazide in the presence of dead cells. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73:8028-8031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01198-07.
15. Josefsen MH, Löfström C, Hansen TB, Christensen LS, Olsen JE, Hoorfar J. 2010. Rapid quantification of viable Campylobacter bacteria on chicken carcasses, using real-time PCR and propidium monoazide treatment, as a tool for quantitative risk assessment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76:5097-5104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00411-10.
16. He Y, Chen CY. 2010. Quantitative analysis of viable, stressed and dead cells of Campylobacter jejuni strain 81-176. Food Microbiol. 27:439-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2009.11.017.
17. Denis M, Refrégier-Petton J, Laisney MJ, Ermel G, Salvat G. 2001. Campylobacter contamination in French chicken production from farm to consumers. Use of a PCR assay for detection and identification of Campylobacter jejuni and Camp. coli. J. Appl. Microbiol. 91:255-267. http://dx .doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01380.x.
18. Agustí G, Codony F, Fittipaldi M, Adrados B, Morató J. 2010. Viability determination of Helicobacter pylori using propidium monoazide quantitative PCR. Helicobacter 15:473-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523 -5378.2010.00794.x.
19. Cawthorn DM, Witthuhn RC. 2008. Selective PCR detection of viable Enterobacter sakazakii cells utilizing propidium monoazide or ethidium bromide monoazide. J. Appl. Microbiol. 105:1178-1185. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03851.x.
20. Wang L, Mustapha A. 2010. EMA-real-time PCR as a reliable method for detection of viable Salmonella in chicken and eggs. J. Food Sci. 75:M134-M139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01525.x.
21. Grouven U, Bender R, Ziegler A, Lange S. 2007. Comparing methods of measurement. Dtsch. Med. Wochenschr. 132(Suppl 1):e69-73. http://dx .doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-959047.
22. Nocker A, Sossa-Fernandez P, Burr MD, Camper AK. 2007. Use of propidium monoazide for live/dead distinction in microbial ecology. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73:5111-5117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM .02987-06.
23. Botteldoorn N, Van Coillie E, Piessens V, Rasschaert G, Debruyne L, Heyndrickx M, Herman L, Messens W. 2008. Quantification of Campylobacter spp. in chicken carcass rinse by real-time PCR. J. Appl. Microbiol. 105:1909-1918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03943.x.
24. Best EL, Powell EJ, Swift C, Grant KA, Frost JA. 2003. Applicability of a rapid duplex real-time PCR assay for speciation of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli directly from culture plates. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 229:237-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1097(03)00845-0.
25. Rodgers JD, Lawes JR, Vidal AB, Ellis-Iversen J, Ridley A, Pleydell EJ, Powell LF, Toszeghy M, Stapleton K, Clifton-Hadley FA. 2012. Characteristics and comparative performance of direct culture, direct PCR and enumeration methods for detection and quantification of Campylobacter spp. in broiler caeca. Vet. Microbiol. 159:390-396. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.vetmic.2012.04.011.
26. Chang B, Taguri T, Sugiyama K, Amemura-Maekawa J, Kura F, Watanabe H. 2010. Comparison of ethidium monoazide and propidium monoazide for the selective detection of viable Legionella cells. Jpn. J. Infect. Dis. 63:119-123.
27. Nocker A, Cheung CY, Camper AK. 2006. Comparison of propidium monoazide with ethidium monoazide for differentiation of live vs. dead bacteria by selective removal of DNA from dead cells. J. Microbiol. Methods 67:310-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2006.04.015.
28. Fittipaldi M, Nocker A, Codony F. 2012. Progress in understanding preferential detection of live cells using viability dyes in combination with DNA amplification. J. Microbiol. Methods 91:276-289. http://dx.doi.org /10.1016/j.mimet.2012.08.007.
29. Nocker A, Camper AK. 2009. Novel approaches toward preferential detection of viable cells using nucleic acid amplification techniques. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 291:137-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008 .01429.x.
30. Bae S, Wuertz S. 2009. Discrimination of viable and dead fecal Bacteroidales bacteria by quantitative PCR with propidium monoazide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75:2940-2944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01333-08.
31. Brescia CC, Griffin SM, Ware MW, Varughese EA, Egorov AI, Villegas EN. 2009. Cryptosporidium propidium monoazide-PCR, a molecular biology-based technique for genotyping of viable Cryptosporidium oocysts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75:6856-6863. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM .00540-09.
32. Pacholewicz E, Swart A, Lipman LJ, Wagenaar JA, Havelaar AH, Duim B. 2013. Propidium monoazide does not fully inhibit the detection of dead Campylobacter on broiler chicken carcasses by qPCR. J. Microbiol. Methods 95:32-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2013.06.003.
33. Banihashemi A, Van Dyke MI, Huck PM. 2012. Long-amplicon propidium monoazide PCR enumeration assay to detect viable Campylobacter and Salmonella. J. Appl. Microbiol. 113:863-873. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05382.x.