scholarly journals Modeling and Predicting the Simultaneous Growth of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Ground Beef Background Microflora for Various Enrichment Protocols

2006 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Vimont ◽  
C. Vernozy-Rozand ◽  
M. P. Montet ◽  
C. Lazizzera ◽  
C. Bavai ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT The simultaneous growth of Escherichia coli O157:H7 (O157) and the ground beef background microflora (BM) was described in order to characterize the effects of enrichment factors on the growth of these organisms. The different enrichment factors studied were basal medium (Trypticase soy broth and E. coli broth), the presence of novobiocin in the broth, and the incubation temperature (37°C or 40°C). BM and O157 kinetics were simultaneously fitted by using a competitive growth model. The simple competition between the two microfloras implied that O157 growth stopped as soon as the maximal bacterial density in the BM was reached. The present study shows that the enrichment protocol factors had little impact on the simultaneous growth of BM and O157. The selective factors (i.e., bile salts and novobiocin) and the higher incubation temperature (40°C) did not inhibit BM growth, and incubation at 40°C only slightly improved O157 growth. The results also emphasize that when the level of O157 contamination in ground beef is low, the 6-h enrichment step recommended in the immunomagnetic separation protocol (ISO EN 16654) is not sufficient to detect O157 by screening methods. In this case, prior enrichment for approximately 10 h appears to be the optimal duration for enrichment. However, more experiments must be carried out with ground beef packaged in different ways in order to confirm the results obtained in the present study for non-vacuum- and non-modified-atmosphere-packed ground beef.

Food Control ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belgin Sarimehmetoglu ◽  
Mihriban Hatun Aksoy ◽  
Naim Deniz Ayaz ◽  
Yildiz Ayaz ◽  
Ozlem Kuplulu ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 66 (9) ◽  
pp. 4149-4151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wan-Ling Tsai ◽  
Cynthia E. Miller ◽  
Edward R. Richter

ABSTRACT Both 25-g single-size ground beef samples and 375-g composite ground beef samples were tested by a method combining an immunomagnetic separation (IMS) technique with a sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) system (IMS-ELISA). The results demonstrated that IMS-ELISA could detect the target, Escherichia coliO157:H7, at the level of 10−1 CFU/g of sample in either the 25- or 375-g sample size.


2007 ◽  
Vol 70 (10) ◽  
pp. 2230-2234 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. W. THOMPSON ◽  
T. P. STEPHENS ◽  
G. H. LONERAGAN ◽  
M. F. MILLER ◽  
M. M. BRASHEARS

Rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are approved for detection of Escherichia coli O157 in beef products. However, these kits have also been used in the industry to detect this pathogen on hides or in feces of cattle, although this use has not been validated. The objective of this study was to compare commercially available ELISAs (E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP) with immunomagnetic separation along with selective media to detect E. coli O157 on hides, in feces, and in medium- and low-level-inoculated ground beef and carcasses (simulated by using briskets) samples. Naturally infected hide and fecal samples were subjected to both the immunomagnetic separation method and ELISAs for the detection of E. coli O157. Additionally, E. coli O157 inoculated and noninoculated ground beef and beef briskets were used to simulate meat and carcass samples. When comparing the detection results from the ELISAs (E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP) to the immunomagnetic separation method, poor agreement was observed for fecal samples (kappa = 0.10, 0.02, and 0.03 for E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP, respectively), and fair-to-moderate agreement was observed for hide samples (kappa = 0.30, 0.51, and 0.29 for E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP, respectively). However, there was near-perfect agreement between the immunomagnetic separation method and ELISAs for ground beef (kappa = 1, 1, and 0.80 for E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP, respectively) and brisket (kappa = 1, 1, and 1 for E. coli Now, Reveal, and VIP, respectively) samples. Assuming immunomagnetic separation is the best available method, these data suggest that the ELISAs are not useful in detecting E. coli O157 from hide or fecal samples. However, when ELISAs are used on ground beef and beef brisket samples they can be used with a high degree of confidence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 83 (7) ◽  
pp. 1149-1154
Author(s):  
GENTRY L. LEWIS ◽  
NATALIA CERNICCHIARO ◽  
RODNEY A. MOXLEY

ABSTRACT The performance of three chromogenic agar media for detection of the “top seven” Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in beef was compared. Samples of retail ground beef were inoculated with STEC O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145, or O157 at geometric mean (±standard error of the mean) levels of 0, 48 (±1), 420 (±1), 4,100 (±1), or 45,000 (±1) CFU/10 g and enriched 1:10 (90 mL) in EC broth (40°C for 6 h). Following enrichment, aliquots of broth culture were treated by immunomagnetic separation with one of three pools of beads against the seven STEC serogroups: pool I, O26, O45, and O121; pool II, O103, O111, and O145; and pool III, O157. After immunomagnetic separation, 50 μL of washed bead suspensions in buffered peptone water were spiral plated onto modified Rainbow Agar O157 (mRBA), CHROMagar STEC (CS), or modified Possé differential medium (mPossé2) and incubated at 37°C for 18 h. Up to six isolated colonies were picked from each spiral plate based on expected colony phenotypes for STEC on the respective media, and isolate identity was confirmed with an 11-plex PCR assay targeting the O serogroups and virulence genes. Overall, mRBA had the highest sensitivity (99.2%), correctly detecting a significantly higher proportion of STEC serogroups than either CS (79.4%; P < 0.05) or mPossé2 (91.7%; P < 0.05). mRBA also had the highest negative predictive value (90.0%), correctly identifying a significantly higher proportion of true-negative samples compared with CS (25.7%; P < 0.05) and mPossé2 (46.2%; P < 0.05). However, mRBA also had the lowest analytical specificity of 83.2% (P < 0.05), yielding the lowest proportion of colonies tested that were STEC positive (3,548 of 4,263) compared with 97.7% (3,607 of 3,693) for mPossé2 and 98.0% (2,875 of 2,935) for CS. Reduced specificity results in more work and higher expense due to the increased number of colonies that must be tested. Further improvements in agar culture media for non-O157 STEC isolation are needed. HIGHLIGHTS


2007 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 1366-1372 ◽  
Author(s):  
LUXIN WANG ◽  
YONG LI ◽  
AZLIN MUSTAPHA

The objective of this study was to establish a multiplex real-time PCR for the simultaneous quantitation of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Shigella. Genomic DNA for the real-time PCR was extracted by the boiling method. Three sets of primers and corresponding TaqMan probes were designed to target these three pathogenic bacteria. Multiplex real-time PCR was performed with TaqMan Universal PCR Master Mix in an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. Final standard curves were calculated for each pathogen by plotting the threshold cycle value against the bacterial number (log CFU per milliliter) via linear regression. With optimized conditions, the quantitative detection range of the real-time multiplex PCR for pure cultures was 102 to 109 CFU/ml for E. coli O157:H7, 103 to 109 CFU/ml for Salmonella, and 101 to 108 CFU/ml for Shigella. When the established multiplex real-time PCR system was applied to artificially contaminated ground beef, the detection limit was 105 CFU/g for E. coli O157:H7, 103 CFU/g for Salmonella, and 104 CFU/g for Shigella. Immunomagnetic separation (IMS) was further used to separate E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella from the beef samples. With the additional use of IMS, the detection limit was 103 CFU/g for both pathogens. Results from this study showed that TaqMan real-time PCR, combined with IMS, is potentially an effective method for the rapid and reliable quantitation of E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Shigella in food.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document